| المستخلص: |
This research investigates the question of Jerusalem in the Palestinian-Israeli negotiations since Madrid Conference in 1991. Focusing on the local, regional and international developments that led the Palestine Liberation Organization to enter into peace negotiations with Israel, I explore the repercussions of these negotiations on the geopolitical landscape and the future of Jerusalem. The status of East Jerusalem, a religious and national symbol for Palestinians and allegedly for Israelis, remains a core issue in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. This study is particularly significant as it addresses one of the most complex issues in the Palestinian–Israeli final status negotiations. The study– which consists of five chapters, conclusions and recommendations– argues that postponing negotiations on Jerusalem to the final status negotiations has helped Judaize the city by giving Israel additional time to alter facts on the ground and create a fait accompli, eventually making it impossible to negotiate the future of the city. The author used a three-pronged approach: a descriptive approach to describe the positions on Jerusalem in the negotiations; a critical textual approach to analyze the Palestinian official discourse and the Israeli official discourse and their implications for the Holy City; and a historical approach to depict the Israeli policies towards the city of Jerusalem since its occupation in 1967, and the consequences of these policies on the demographic composition and geopolitical status of the city. These policies are contrasted with Palestinian/Arab indifference (lack of vision, planning and strategies). The study found that: * The negotiations have failed to find a solution to the issue of Jerusalem. First, the parties postponed negotiations on the city. Second, Israel rejected any solution that does not enable it maintain Jerusalem as Israel's eternal capital. Third, Israel worked carefully and systematically to create facts on the ground to blow up any possibility for establishing an independent Palestinian capital in East Jerusalem. * The postponement of the issue of Jerusalem to the final status negotiations was disastrous for Jerusalem. The facts on the ground have enabled Israel to propose „realistic‟ solutions: what is Jewish is for Israel and what is Arab is for the Palestinians, thus denying the Palestinians the right to designing or planning their spaces in East Jerusalem. The author concluded with a set of recommendations, particularly: • It is important for the Palestinian leadership to reconsider the counterproductive negotiation process with Israel. It is time to put the high-flying rhetoric aside and focus on the fact that East Jerusalem is a territory occupied in 1967, part and parcel of the larger Palestinian Cause. Planning for liberation and for Jerusalem as the capital of the future Palestinian state should start as soon as possible. • It is important to consolidate the Palestinian/Arab/Islamic efforts towards practical strategic planning (against the Israeli policies) in order to support the steadfastness of the Arab Jerusalem. This could be possible through allocating adequate funds that meet the needs and challenges facing the city. • It is necessary to develop an institutionalized unified national reference body that can consolidate and coordinate efforts at the official and popular levels against the challenges facing the Holy City.
|
