Has Israel annexed east Jerusalem?

Middle East Policy

Volumn 5, Issue 1, 1997, Pages 34-45

  Lustick, Ian S ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0031538676     PISSN: 10611924     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1475-4967.1997.tb00247.x     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Dore Gold, Jerusalem (Tel-Aviv: Jafee Center for Strategic Studies, 1995), Final Status Issues Series, No, 7, pp. 27-28 and 36-43.
2. On this point see Ian S. Lustick, "The Fetish of Jerusalem: A Hegemonic Analysis," in Israel in Comparative Perspective: Challenging the Conventional Wisdom, Michael N. Barnett, ed. (Albany: SUNY Press, 1996), pp. 143-172.
3. Gold, Jerusalem, op. cit.pp. 5-7.
4. On June 27, 1967, the Knesset also passed the "Protection of Holy Places Law." Like the other two laws, this law does not mention Jerusalem. Its main purpose was to make desecration of a holy place or interference with free access to a holy place (anywhere where Israeli law was in force) punishable by substantial prison terms.
5. Three more paragraphs dealt with protection of the Holy Places.
6. Again, it is worth noting that the wording of both the laws passed and the explanation offered says nothing about the citizenship status of the inhabitants of the affected area.
7. Haaretz, August 1, 1991. (emphasis added)
8. Uri Stendal, The Arabs in Israel: Between Hammer and Anvil (Hebrew) (Jerusalem: Academon, 1992), p. 331-32.
9. Cited by Nathan Krystall in "Urgent Issues of Palestinian Residency in Jerusalem," Alternative Information Center, Jerusalem, October 1993, p. 3.
10. Letter of Israel's foreign minister, Abba Eban, to the U.N. secretary-general concerning General Assembly Resolution 2253 (ES-V), July 10, 1967, GAOR, 5th Emergency Special Session, 1967, 1(A/6753 or S/8052); reprinted in The Jerusalem Question and its Resolution: Selected Documents (Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1994) Ruth Lapidoth and Moshe Hirsch, eds., p. 172. See also Abba Eban, Abba Eban: An Autobiography (New York: Random House, 1977), p. 442; and Ruth Lapidoth, "Jerusalem-Legal and Political Background," Israel Government Internet Gopher Information Client, vol. 2.0 16 (September 1994). Lapidoth's characterization of the argument in Eban's letter is that the measures taken in June 1967 "did not constitute annexation, but only administrative and municipal integration."
11. Letter of Israel's foreign minister, Abba Eban, to the U.N. secretary-general concerning General Assembly Resolution 2253 (ES-V), July 10, 1967, GAOR, 5th Emergency Special Session, 1967, 1(A/6753 or S/8052); reprinted in The Jerusalem Question and its Resolution: Selected Documents (Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1994) Ruth Lapidoth and Moshe Hirsch, eds., p. 172. See also Abba Eban, Abba Eban: An Autobiography (New York: Random House, 1977), p. 442; and Ruth Lapidoth, "Jerusalem-Legal and Political Background," Israel Government Internet Gopher Information Client, vol. 2.0 16 (September 1994). Lapidoth's characterization of the argument in Eban's letter is that the measures taken in June 1967 "did not constitute annexation, but only administrative and municipal integration."
12. Letter of Israel's foreign minister, Abba Eban, to the U.N. secretary-general concerning General Assembly Resolution 2253 (ES-V), July 10, 1967, GAOR, 5th Emergency Special Session, 1967, 1(A/6753 or S/8052); reprinted in The Jerusalem Question and its Resolution: Selected Documents (Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1994) Ruth Lapidoth and Moshe Hirsch, eds., p. 172. See also Abba Eban, Abba Eban: An Autobiography (New York: Random House, 1977), p. 442; and Ruth Lapidoth, "Jerusalem-Legal and Political Background," Israel Government Internet Gopher Information Client, vol. 2.0 16 (September 1994). Lapidoth's characterization of the argument in Eban's letter is that the measures taken in June 1967 "did not constitute annexation, but only administrative and municipal integration."
13. On one important aspect of this question, regarding the boundaries of Jerusalem, see Ian S. Lustick, "Reinventing Jerusalem," Foreign Policy, No. 93 (Winter 1993/94), pp. 41-59 . On the pervasiveness of Arab-Jewish segregation in the Jerusalem municipality see Michael Romann and Alex Weingrod, Living Together Separately: Arabs and Jews in Contemporary Jerusalem (Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press, 1991)
14. On one important aspect of this question, regarding the boundaries of Jerusalem, see Ian S. Lustick, "Reinventing Jerusalem," Foreign Policy, No. 93 (Winter 1993/94), pp. 41-59 . On the pervasiveness of Arab-Jewish segregation in the Jerusalem municipality see Michael Romann and Alex Weingrod, Living Together Separately: Arabs and Jews in Contemporary Jerusalem (Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press, 1991)
15. According to Lapidoth, the Basic Law "contains no innovation but merely repeats matters previously laid down." "Jerusalem - Legal and Political Background," op. cit.
16. Maariv, October 20, 1980.
17. For an example of how this decision has been cited incorrectly, to the effect that Ruidi did establish that enlarged East Jerusalem had been annexed to the State of Israel, see Devorah Housen-Couriel and Moshe Hirsch, East Jerusalem and the Elections to Be held in Judea, Samaria, and Gaza, in Accordance with the Israeli Peace Initiative of May 1989, Background Paper #8 (Jerusalem: Jerusalem Institute for Israel Studies, 1992), p. 2 (Hebrew).
18. The appellant had argued that since the military government had been charged with enforcing the laws operative in the West Bank on June 7, 1967, and since that date preceded Israel's decrees regarding expanded East Jerusalem, that for that reason, the antiquities dealer had not transferred the antiquities "out of the country." In his comment in the case, Justice Y. Kahan notes that the measures taken by the government of Israel in June 1967 were not annexation, although they were "not inconsistent with the conlcusion that the legislative intent...was to authorize the government to annex...." Thus Kahan makes it clear that in order to annex enlarged East Jerusalem another legal action by the State of Israel would be required.
19. Hapraklit, 1971, Vol. 27, 5-11.
20. Hapraklit, 1971, Vol. 27, 519-522.
21. Mubarak Awad vs. Yitzchak Shamir, H.C. 282/88, translated in The Jerusalem Question and its Resolution: Selected Documents Ruth Lapidoth, and Moshe Hirsch, eds. (Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1994), p. 532. "Kazidi" is an erroneously transliterated reference to the "Ruidi" case, a mistransliteration which built upon an error the Court itself made by referring, in its 1988 ruling, to "Kauidi" instead of "Ruidi"(see above). A more important error, as I have shown, is the citation of this case, here by the Court itself, as a basis for claiming that the actions taken in 1967 had effected the annexation of enlarged East Jerusalem to the State of Israel.
22. Ibid., p. 533 (emphasis added).
23. Attorney General vs. Davis, District Court of Jerusalem, October 10, 1988, The Jerusalem Question and its Resolution: Selected Documents, op. cit. p. 537. It is somewhat humerous to note that the Ruidi case is referred to, again inaccurately, as "Bravidi" in this judgment. The transliteration and citation errors I have noted, by producing mythical precedents such as "Bravidi" and "Kazidi," in addition to the flagrant misconstruction of the substance of the Ruidi decision in the Awad ruling, may have helped strengthen illusions that the High Court has ruled repeatedly and on separate occasions regarding the supposedly settled nature of Israel's legal regime in expanded East Jerusalem.
24. Live Radio Broadcast, December 14, 1981, Jerusalem Domestic Service, transcribed by the Foreign Broadcast Information Service, Daily Report: Near East and Africa, December 15, 1981, p. 110.
25. Indeed precisely this kind of order was issued, without much fanfare, in 1993, changing Jerusalem's municipal border in the west and the south (regarding Kibbutz Ramat Rachel).
26. For recent polls showing many and even most Israeli Jews ready to accept Palestinian rule over various portions of enlarged east Jerusalem see Elihu Katz, Shlomit Levy, and Jerome M. Seigal, The Status of Jerusalem in the Eyes of Israeli Jews (College Park, Maryland: Center for International and Security Studies at the University of Maryland, 1997)