Yerushalayim and al-Quds: Political catechism and political realities

Journal of Palestine Studies

Volumn 30, Issue 1, 2000, Pages 5-21

  Lustick, Ian S ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CONFLICT MANAGEMENT; NEGOTIATION PROCESS; POLITICAL GEOGRAPHY;

ISRAEL;

EID: 0034541322     PISSN: 0377919X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2307/2676478     Document Type: Article

References (54)

1. The focus of this paper will be on misconceptions and political-mythic realities on the Jewish-Zionist-Israeli side. A comparable paper could and should be written focusing on the Arab-Muslim-Palestinian side.
2. Shalom Yerushalmi, Qol Ha'ir, 31 May 1991.
3. Ma'ariv, 14 March 1980, p. 21.
4. Jerusalem Post, 24 July 1980.
5. For details concerning the Jewish Agency's proposals to partition Jerusalem as its response to the Peel Commission Report, see Yossi Katz, Partner to Partition: The Jewish Agency's Partition Plan in the Mandate Era (London: Frank Cass, 1998), especially chapter 3, "The Proposal for Partitioning Jerusalem," pp. 61-84.
6. See Motti Golani, Zion in Zionism: Zionist Policy and the Question of Jerusalem, 1937-1949 (Tel Aviv: Ministry of Defense Publishers, 1992), pp. 26, 124-25 [in Hebrew].
7. Katz, Partner to Partition, p. 70.
8. Avraham Sela, "Transjordan, Israel and the 1948 War. Myth, Historiography and Reality," Middle Eastern Studies 28, no. 4 (1992), pp. 662, 678-80.
9. Uri Bialer, "The Road to the Capital: The Establishment of Jerusalem as the Official Seat of the Israeli Government in 1949," Studies in Zionism 5, no. 2 (Autumn 1984), p. 293.
10. See Motti Golani, "Zionism Without Zion: The Jerusalem Question, 1947-49," Journal of Israeli History 16, no. 1 (1995), pp. 39-52; and Sela, "Transjordan, Israel and the 1948 War," pp. 662-63, 679. For his part, then Israeli foreign minister Moshe Sharett was perfectly prepared not to incorporate East Jerusalem into the Jewish state, feeling strongly only that it be made the capital of a Palestinian Arab state in the West Bank rather than annexed to Transjordan. Gabriel Sheffer, Moshe Sharett: Biography of a Political Moderate (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996), p. 483.
11. See Motti Golani, "Zionism Without Zion: The Jerusalem Question, 1947-49," Journal of Israeli History 16, no. 1 (1995), pp. 39-52; and Sela, "Transjordan, Israel and the 1948 War," pp. 662-63, 679. For his part, then Israeli foreign minister Moshe Sharett was perfectly prepared not to incorporate East Jerusalem into the Jewish state, feeling strongly only that it be made the capital of a Palestinian Arab state in the West Bank rather than annexed to Transjordan. Gabriel Sheffer, Moshe Sharett: Biography of a Political Moderate (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996), p. 483.
12. See Motti Golani, "Zionism Without Zion: The Jerusalem Question, 1947-49," Journal of Israeli History 16, no. 1 (1995), pp. 39-52; and Sela, "Transjordan, Israel and the 1948 War," pp. 662-63, 679. For his part, then Israeli foreign minister Moshe Sharett was perfectly prepared not to incorporate East Jerusalem into the Jewish state, feeling strongly only that it be made the capital of a Palestinian Arab state in the West Bank rather than annexed to Transjordan. Gabriel Sheffer, Moshe Sharett: Biography of a Political Moderate (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996), p. 483.
13. Sela, "Transjordan, Israel and the 1948 War," p. 666.
14. Shlomit Keren, "The Decision on the Status of Jerusalem as the Capital of Israel," Sekira Chodshit, no. 6 (September 1992), p. 6.
15. Ben-Gurion did refer to the Old City, but to no other portion of "Arab Jerusalem," as a part of "Jerusalem." The full quotation is as follows: "Jerusalem is within the area of the Jewish government-at this time, to my sorrow, without the Old City-exactly as Tel-Aviv." Keren, "The Decision on the Status of Jerusalem," p. 5.
16. Ian S. Lustick, "Has Israel Annexed East Jerusalem?" Middle East Policy 5, no. 1 (January 1997), pp. 34-45.
17. The locutions used by the Israeli government in 1967 to distinguish between Israeli administration over expanded East Jerusalem and annexation were, instructively, virtually identical to those used by Israeli foreign minister Moshe Sharett in 1948. Explaining the government's Jerusalem policy to the Mapai Central Committee in July 1948, Sharett noted that the government would "announce that those sections of the city held by Israel constitute a conquered area, that is, that we will not proclaim their annexation . . . it should be clear that we are not declaring Israeli sovereignty over Jerusalem, only Israeli authority over these parts of the city." Quoted in Sheffer, Moshe Sharett, pp. 379-80.
18. According to Ruth Lapidoth and Moshe Hirsch, "the Basic Law: Jerusalem, Capital of Israel, does not actually contain any innovation but merely repeats matters previously laid down." (The Jerusalem Question and Its Resolution: Selected Documents, ed Ruth Lapidoth and Moshe Hirsch [AD Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Martinus-Nijhoff Publishers, 1994], p. xxvi.) It is precisely in response to the exposure of how thin has been the status of Yerushalayim's boundaries in Israeli law, and how malleable they may be in the context of negotiations, that right-wing parliamentarians have recently been pushing to legislate those boundaries.
19. Peskei Din (Judgments of the Court), vol. 24, part 2 (1970), p. 421.
20. Ibid, 423.
21. Ibid., 424.
22. Yoram Dinstein, comment in Hapraklit 27 1971, pp. 5-11.
23. Dinstein, Hapraklit, pp. 519-22. The source of a good deal of the obfuscation recommended by Dinstein is a series of transliteration and citation errors that Israeli lawyers, scholars, and judges have produced from the Ruidi and other cases. For details on other Israeli Supreme Court cases dealing with the legal status of expanded East Jerusalem, see Lustick, "Has Israel Annexed East Jerusalem?"
24. Dinstein, Hapraklit, pp. 519-22. The source of a good deal of the obfuscation recommended by Dinstein is a series of transliteration and citation errors that Israeli lawyers, scholars, and judges have produced from the Ruidi and other cases. For details on other Israeli Supreme Court cases dealing with the legal status of expanded East Jerusalem, see Lustick, "Has Israel Annexed East Jerusalem?"
25. Mark A. Heller, A Palestinian State: The Implications for Israel (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1983), p. 116.
26. IDF Radio, 3 July 1988, trans. Foreign Broadcast Information Service (FBIS), 8 July 1988, p. 32.
27. For a detailed analysis of the Central Bureau of Statistics's difficulties in trying accurately to depict the map of Jerusalem without contradicting official policies regarding lines in and around Jerusalem, see Ian S. Lustick, "The Fetish of Jerusalem: A Hegemonic Analysis," in Israel in Comparative Perspective, ed Michael N. Bamet (Albany: SUNY Press, 1996), pp. 152-53.
28. See, for example, interview with Defense Minister Yitzhak Rabin, IDF Radio, 14 April 1987, trans. FBIS, 15 April 1987, p. 12; and Israel Television, 30 March 1993, trans. FBIS, 31 March 1993, pp. 21-22.
29. See also interview with Yitzhak Shamir, Jerusalem Post, 23 February 1990; Ariel Sharon, Israel Radio, 6 March 1993, trans. FBIS, 7 March 1990, p. 14; Sharon, IDF Radio, 12 February 1990, trans. FBIS, 12 February 1990, p. 14; and Shamir before the Knesset, IDF Radio, 14 March 1990, trans. FBIS, 14 March 1990, p. 16.
30. See also interview with Yitzhak Shamir, Jerusalem Post, 23 February 1990; Ariel Sharon, Israel Radio, 6 March 1993, trans. FBIS, 7 March 1990, p. 14; Sharon, IDF Radio, 12 February 1990, trans. FBIS, 12 February 1990, p. 14; and Shamir before the Knesset, IDF Radio, 14 March 1990, trans. FBIS, 14 March 1990, p. 16.
31. See also interview with Yitzhak Shamir, Jerusalem Post, 23 February 1990; Ariel Sharon, Israel Radio, 6 March 1993, trans. FBIS, 7 March 1990, p. 14; Sharon, IDF Radio, 12 February 1990, trans. FBIS, 12 February 1990, p. 14; and Shamir before the Knesset, IDF Radio, 14 March 1990, trans. FBIS, 14 March 1990, p. 16.
32. See also interview with Yitzhak Shamir, Jerusalem Post, 23 February 1990; Ariel Sharon, Israel Radio, 6 March 1993, trans. FBIS, 7 March 1990, p. 14; Sharon, IDF Radio, 12 February 1990, trans. FBIS, 12 February 1990, p. 14; and Shamir before the Knesset, IDF Radio, 14 March 1990, trans. FBIS, 14 March 1990, p. 16.
33. Divrei HaKnesset, 15 March 1990, trans. FBIS 15, March 1990, p. 32 (emphasis added). The long-term trend toward willingness of Labor party leaders publicly to consider adjustments in the status of expanded East Jerusalem and/or its residents is also apparent from the contrast between Labor's agreement to the participation of East Jerusalemites in the proposed negotiations and elections of 1990 and its opposition to comparable proposals during the autonomy negotiations in 1980-82. See Abba Eban, "Autonomy-The Hour of Truth," al-Hamishmar, 15 January 1982. See also details about the Amirav-Siniora plan for the expansion and political division of the city, in Jerusalem Post, 4 February 1990; and Ha'Aretz, 23 May 1990.
34. Divrei HaKnesset, 15 March 1990, trans. FBIS 15, March 1990, p. 32 (emphasis added). The long-term trend toward willingness of Labor party leaders publicly to consider adjustments in the status of expanded East Jerusalem and/or its residents is also apparent from the contrast between Labor's agreement to the participation of East Jerusalemites in the proposed negotiations and elections of 1990 and its opposition to comparable proposals during the autonomy negotiations in 1980-82. See Abba Eban, "Autonomy-The Hour of Truth," al-Hamishmar, 15 January 1982. See also details about the Amirav-Siniora plan for the expansion and political division of the city, in Jerusalem Post, 4 February 1990; and Ha'Aretz, 23 May 1990.
35. Divrei HaKnesset, 15 March 1990, trans. FBIS 15, March 1990, p. 32 (emphasis added). The long-term trend toward willingness of Labor party leaders publicly to consider adjustments in the status of expanded East Jerusalem and/or its residents is also apparent from the contrast between Labor's agreement to the participation of East Jerusalemites in the proposed negotiations and elections of 1990 and its opposition to comparable proposals during the autonomy negotiations in 1980-82. See Abba Eban, "Autonomy-The Hour of Truth," al-Hamishmar, 15 January 1982. See also details about the Amirav-Siniora plan for the expansion and political division of the city, in Jerusalem Post, 4 February 1990; and Ha'Aretz, 23 May 1990.
36. Divrei HaKnesset, 15 March 1990, trans. FBIS 15, March 1990, p. 32 (emphasis added). The long-term trend toward willingness of Labor party leaders publicly to consider adjustments in the status of expanded East Jerusalem and/or its residents is also apparent from the contrast between Labor's agreement to the participation of East Jerusalemites in the proposed negotiations and elections of 1990 and its opposition to comparable proposals during the autonomy negotiations in 1980-82. See Abba Eban, "Autonomy-The Hour of Truth," al-Hamishmar, 15 January 1982. See also details about the Amirav-Siniora plan for the expansion and political division of the city, in Jerusalem Post, 4 February 1990; and Ha'Aretz, 23 May 1990.
37. Jerusalem Domestic Service Radio, 28 March 1990, trans. FBIS, 28 March 1990, p. 18.
38. Ian S. Lustick, "Reinventing Jerusalem," Foreign Policy, no. 93 (Winter 1993-94), pp. 41-59.
39. Information provided by David Pollack, at the State Department, who conducted the poll.
40. The study of Israeli Jewish attitudes toward Jerusalem was complemented by a parallel study of Palestinian views on the subject conducted in 1996 by Nader Izzat Sa'id and Jerome Segal. Both polls have now been published in one volume in Jerome M. Segal et al., Negotiating Jerusalem (Albany: State University of New York Press, 2000).
41. Ibid., 240.
42. Ibid., 241.
43. Ibid., 245.
44. Ibid.
45. Jerusalem Report, 13 March 2000, p. 21.
46. Nadav Shragai, "Palestinian Authority to Get Civilian Control in Jerusalem Neighborhoods," Ha'Aretz, 28 December 1999; and Ha'Aretz, 31 December 1999.
47. Nadav Shragai, "Palestinian Authority to Get Civilian Control in Jerusalem Neighborhoods," Ha'Aretz, 28 December 1999; and Ha'Aretz, 31 December 1999.
48. Shlomo Gazit, "Divide Jerusalem," Jerusalem Post, 1 February 2000.
49. Elisha Efrat, "Why Should We Provide for Them?" Hatzofe, 28 January 2000.
50. Yedi'ot Aharonot, 25 June 2000.
51. See for example, David Landau's report distributed by the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, "Once 'Non-Negotiable,' Jerusalem Is on the Table," Jewish Exponent, 8 June 2000, p. 26. Previously this kind of proposal had been advanced by Adnan Abu Odeh ("Two Capitals in an Undivided Jerusalem," Foreign Affairs 71 [Spring 1992], pp. 183-88) and is similar to ideas discussed by the Palestinian delegation to the Washington peace talks in 1993. See Ha'Aretz, 25 June 1993; and Gershon Baskin, Jerusalem of Peace: Sovereignty and Territory in Jerusalem's Future (Jerusalem: Israel/Palestine Center for Research and Information, 1994).
52. See for example, David Landau's report distributed by the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, "Once 'Non-Negotiable,' Jerusalem Is on the Table," Jewish Exponent, 8 June 2000, p. 26. Previously this kind of proposal had been advanced by Adnan Abu Odeh ("Two Capitals in an Undivided Jerusalem," Foreign Affairs 71 [Spring 1992], pp. 183-88) and is similar to ideas discussed by the Palestinian delegation to the Washington peace talks in 1993. See Ha'Aretz, 25 June 1993; and Gershon Baskin, Jerusalem of Peace: Sovereignty and Territory in Jerusalem's Future (Jerusalem: Israel/Palestine Center for Research and Information, 1994).
53. See for example, David Landau's report distributed by the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, "Once 'Non-Negotiable,' Jerusalem Is on the Table," Jewish Exponent, 8 June 2000, p. 26. Previously this kind of proposal had been advanced by Adnan Abu Odeh ("Two Capitals in an Undivided Jerusalem," Foreign Affairs 71 [Spring 1992], pp. 183-88) and is similar to ideas discussed by the Palestinian delegation to the Washington peace talks in 1993. See Ha'Aretz, 25 June 1993; and Gershon Baskin, Jerusalem of Peace: Sovereignty and Territory in Jerusalem's Future (Jerusalem: Israel/Palestine Center for Research and Information, 1994).
54. See for example, David Landau's report distributed by the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, "Once 'Non-Negotiable,' Jerusalem Is on the Table," Jewish Exponent, 8 June 2000, p. 26. Previously this kind of proposal had been advanced by Adnan Abu Odeh ("Two Capitals in an Undivided Jerusalem," Foreign Affairs 71 [Spring 1992], pp. 183-88) and is similar to ideas discussed by the Palestinian delegation to the Washington peace talks in 1993. See Ha'Aretz, 25 June 1993; and Gershon Baskin, Jerusalem of Peace: Sovereignty and Territory in Jerusalem's Future (Jerusalem: Israel/Palestine Center for Research and Information, 1994).