Christiansen, senior fellow at the Woodstock Theological Center at Georgetown University, said that the Holy See promotes principles rather than specific details of the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations. The key principle can be seen through the Holy See’s position on United Nations Resolution 181 (1947), which called for a corpus separatum, or international governance, over the city. In 1967, the “Holy See altered its position” and no longer supported a corpus separatum as it had earlier. The Holy See “advocated instead a special status for Jerusalem that would guarantee the rights of the religious communities and their people in the city and ensure their future there.” Christiansen emphasized that this is not the same thing as a call for internationalization of Jerusalem, as is often touted in the press and elsewhere.

The details of this special status was discussed in a November 1994 memorandum written by the three patriarchs—the Latin, the Greek, and the Armenian. This memorandum stated that: 1) Jerusalem has a “universal significance” as a “holy city for the three monotheistic religions,” yet it also has a “significance for all of humanity.” Because of this, “no single religion [can] claim Jerusalem as its own;” 2) the believers within these three religious traditions should have equal rights and equal services in Jerusalem; and 3) the institutions of these religious communities should be able to “function fully in the city of Jerusalem,” including educational and charity work, social welfare, and communication which “would include advocacy on behalf of human rights, justice, and peace,” said Christiansen.

Yet one of the “more dramatic” principles of the Church was included in Vatican Foreign Minister Archbishop Jean-Luis Tauran’s address to heads of the Episcopal conferences in 1998. Tauran said that “East Jerusalem was illegally occupied [by Israel] under international law and that that was immoral.” The Holy See’s perspective can be seen through this statement. “A solution that is consistent with international law” is implied, said Christiansen.

Moving from the “heavenly to the mundane,” Jahshan, vice president of the American Committee on Jerusalem, began by criticizing Israel’s systematic policies aimed at controlling Jerusalem. “Since 1967,” he argued, “successive Israeli governments, Labor and Likud alike, embarked on a persistent policy of Judaization of Jerusalem by creating demographic and geographic facts on the ground.” This has included expanding Jerusalem from 6.5 to 73 square kilometers, and later to 108.5 square kilometers. When one includes greater metropolitan Jerusalem, the area now exceeds 840 square kilometers, which encompasses 15 percent of the West Bank. Since 1967, Israel has created 15 illegal Jewish settlements in Jerusalem and demolished more than 2,500 Palestinian homes in the city. In addition, their policy of ID card confiscation has led to 50,000 to 100,000 Palestinians losing their residency in Jerusalem. Due to all of this activity and more, “the Palestinian residents of Jerusalem, who controlled 100 percent of its land in 1967, control less than 21 percent of the city in 2000.”

The Palestinians, for their part, “do not recognize unilateral Israeli measures to change the status of Jerusalem” and argue that there can be no lasting peace without East Jerusalem—in its entirety—as the capital of a Palestinian state. Not surprisingly, the Camp David discussions on Jerusalem were “brutally frank, often heated, and quite detailed,” contended Jahshan. What the Palestinians were offered was some administrative control over areas in East Jerusalem outside the Old City’s walls, civil powers in the Christian and Muslim quarters of the Old City, and “custodial powers” at the holy places, with Israel holding on to sovereignty over the city. With this in mind, it should not be incomprehensible that Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) Chairman Yasser Arafat refused this proposal, particularly considering that, as it turns out, only 6.2 percent of Palestinians support the above solution.

The Palestinian population was surprised by Arafat’s “firm stand” at Camp David, yet Palestinians still fear that Arafat may come to a secret agreement with Israel “that is not deemed in the national Palestinian interest.” Although 71 percent of the Palestinian population supports the peace process, a significant level of mistrust remains. “The general mood in Jerusalem,” said Jahshan, “and throughout Palestine, is one of heightened anxiety, high expectations, strong suspicions, and visible hesitancy to compromise.”

Addressing the U.S. role in negotiations, Jahshan raised serious concerns regarding Clinton’s credibility. “Clinton quickly moved to assign blame by issuing, by any measure, a biased assessment of what took place at Camp David” when he emphasized Barak’s efforts. “It was not Palestinian intransigence that derailed the talks as much as Israeli red lines and U.S. approval of Barak’s diktat to the Palestinians,” Jahshan contended.

In response to Palestinian claims that they will declare a state on September 13 regardless of where negotiations are at that point, Jahshan “doubts” that Arafat will follow through on this declaration by that date. It may happen later, perhaps November or even further down the road “if things are moving” with the peace process. The PLO would be better off if such a declaration came from an agreement, with U.S. and Israeli approval. Yet if the process drags on, Arafat “will declare statehood in the long run.” In short, Jahsan argued, “Palestinian statehood is a function of the will of the Palestinian people.”

The above text is based on remarks delivered on 1 August 2000 by Fr. Drew Christiansen, senior fellow at the Woodstock Theological Center at Georgetown University, and Khalil Jahshan, vice president at the American Committee on Jerusalem. Their views do not necessarily reflect those of the Center for Policy Analysis on Palestine or The Jerusalem Fund. This “For the Record” was written by Wendy Lehman; it may be used without permission but with proper attribution to Palestine Center.

This information first appeared in For The Record No. 47, 4 August 2000.