DP Tool Club 26/CD_ASCQ_26_1295.iso/vrac/peace_me.zip/PEACE.ZIP/THIS_ZIP.5

Text File | 1995-10-29 | 8KB | 155 lines

"They Have Reproached My People and Magnified Themselves Against Their^15
Border"^15

Principle # 3: Jerusalem  holds the key to  the breakdown of the  peace
process.

One of the effects  of the first year  of the "peace process"  has been
to bring Jerusalem into focus as the greatest stumblingblock in  ending
the  hostility  between  the  Arabs  and  the Israelis.  There are many
parties besides the Palestinians and the Israelis that have a stake  in
the outcome  of the  negotiations over  the final  status of Jerusalem.
The Israeli government  has taken the  position that it  is possible to
separate the religious  aspirations of the  Arabs for control  over the
Islamic  holy  sites  in  the  city  from  their political ambitions to
exercise sovereignty  over east  Jerusalem.   This negotiating strategy
fails to take account of the nature of Islam:

Islam  is  not  a  religion  in  the  Western  sense of the term, but a
civilization, making demands on the  faithful in every sphere of  life.
Hence, Islam has never known a  separation of "church" from state.   On
the contrary, everything  Islamic quickly becomes  politically relevant
and politically dominant.

(Gabriel Ben-Dor, The Jerusalem Post International Edition, Islam: More
Than A Religion June 18, 1994, p. 6)

Islam  makes  no  such  distinction  between  religion  and politics as
Jewish and western minds are accustomed to making.  In "fundamentalist"
Islamic  thinking,  there  is  no  separation  of  church  and   state.
Therefore,  Israel's  plan,  that  by  offering  the Arabs control over
Temple Mount,  where the  Islamic holy  buildings are  situate, it will
placate their demands for political  control of the eastern half of the
city, is doomed to failure.

Let's  review  the  sequence  of events concerning Israel's position on
Jerusalem.

(a) October 11, 1993 / June, 1994

Mr.  Peres,  in  his  capacity  as  Foreign  Minister of Israel, sent a
letter to  Jorgen Holst,  the Norwegian  Foreign Minister  who acted as
broker in  the dialogue  between Arafat's  PLO and  Israel.  The letter
was not made public until June, 1994 after Mr. Arafat had made  several
references to its  existence.  The  letter, in its  entirety, said:   I
wish to  confirm that  the Palestinian  institutions of  East Jerusalem
and the interests and well-being of the Palestinians of East  Jerusalem
are of great importance and will be preserved.

Therefore,  all  the  Palestinian   institutions  of  East   Jerusalem,
including  the  economic,  social,  educational,  and cultural, and the
holy Christian and Moslem places, are performing an essential task  for
the Palestinian population.

Needless to say,  we will not  hamper their activity;  on the contrary,
the fulfillment of this important mission is to be encouraged.

When  the  letter  was  made  public,  it  was criticized by opposition
members of  the Knesset  for "severely  impairing Israel's  sovereignty
over its capital."

(b) mid-June, 1994

The present Israeli government is pursuing a policy of playing off  the
parties  against  each  other  that  would  have  a  say in Jerusalem's
future.   As  part  of  this  high-stakes  approach,  Israel  took  the
unprecedented step  of establishing  relations with  the Vatican.   The
quid  pro  quo  which  Israel  offered  the Vatican was an agreement to
participate in efforts  to determine the  future of Jerusalem.   (Steve
Rodan,  The  Jerusalem  Post  International  Edition,  Israel,  Vatican
establish full relations, June 25, 1994, p. 1)

(c) July, 1994

When  Yasser  Arafat  announced  his  intention  in  June  to  come  to
Jerusalem to  pray, there  was an  immediate negative  reaction on  the
part  of  the  right-wing  elements  of  Israeli  society.  While Prime
Minister Rabin defended Mr.   Arafat's right of access to  Islamic holy
places,  the  mayor  of  Jerusalem, Ehud  Olmert,  pledged to block Mr.
Arafat's way  to Jerusalem  with over  half a  million Jews,  including
volunteers from abroad.  In  early July, coincident with Mr.   Arafat's
arrival in Gaza, an antiArafat  rally held in Zion Square  in Jerusalem
drew an estimated 100,000 Jewish demonstrators.

In  late  July,  as  part  of  its accord with Jordan, Israel committed
itself  to  continued  Jordanian-funded  administration  of Moslem holy
sites in Jerusalem, pledging  to take Jordanian interests  into account
during final status negotiations  over the city. "I  personally drafted
this  part,"  Rabin  declared,  explaining  that  it  is  to   Israel's
advantage that there be more than  one Arab partner when the future  of
Jerusalem is discussed.

(Hillel  Kuttler  and  David  Makovsky,  Jerusalem  Post  International
Edition, Rabin and King Hussein: State of war over, August 6, 1994,  p.
1)

(d) August, 1994

In  discussions  about  improving  the  already  good relations between
Israel and King Hassan of Morocco, the future of Jerusalem was  raised.
The King of Morocco is the  chairman of the Arab League's committee  on
Jerusalem, and claiming  direct descent from  Mohammed, has a  personal
interest in the holy places of Jerusalem.

Mr.  Arafat,  reacting  angrily  to  Israel's  inclusion  of  Jordan in
discussions about Jerusalem's future, demanded that negotiations  about
the  final  status  of  the  city  open immediately, rather than in two
years'  time  as  he  had  originally  agreed.   His  argument was that
Israel's deal  with Jordan,  in which  Jordan's authority,  through the
Wakf, was formally recognized over the Moslem holy places,  represented
de facto opening of negotiations.  Arafat's message was clear:

"For us Jerusalem is one issue, one cause.  It is not only a  political
issue, it is a sovereignty issue, it is an issue of holy sacred  places
for Christians and Moslems," Arafat told a press conference in Gaza.

(Jon  Immanuel,  The  Jerusalem  Post  International  Edition,   Arafat
demands immediate negotiations on Jerusalem, August 13,1994, p. 2)

(e) September, 1994

The  Jerusalem  Post  of  September  3rd  reported further developments
escalating the demand for settlement of Jerusalem on the peace agenda:

The  Israeli  Arab  Islamic  Movement  is  urging  a  "Jerusalem First"
approach in the  peace talks.   The call was  made during a  mass rally
attended by thousands of the  movement's supporters in Kafr Kana,  near
Nazareth, Saturday  night.   Sheikh Abdallah  Mimr Darweesh,  spiritual
head  of  the  fundamentalist  Islamic  Movement,  said  the  issue  of
Jerusalem  should  be  put  at  the  top  of  the  agenda  in the peace
negotiations.

(David  Rudge,  The  Jerusalem  Post  International  Edition,   Islamic
Movement Wants "Jerusalem First" at Talks, September 3, 1994, p. 2)

In the same edition  of the newspaper, an  item appeared in the  Briefs
captioned, "Russians Demands Say In status of Jerusalem."

Russia  deserves  and  demands  a  say  in  the  political  status   of
Jerusalem's  holy  sites,  said  Victor  Posuvaliuk, head of the Middle
East Department in  the Russian Foreign  Ministry.  I'd  like to stress
that Russia possesses the  largest Christian Orthodox community  in the
world."

(Alon  Pinkas,  The  Jerusalem  Post  International  Edition,   Briefs,
September 3, 1994, p. 4)

The intriguing  thing about  both of  these demands  about Jerusalem is
that  they  both  emanated  from  sources  identified  in  Scripture as
adversarial to the  Jewish claim on  Jerusalem and both  were motivated
by religious rather than political principles.  This provides  striking
confirmation that the holy sites  are central in the coming  contest of
wills over Jerusalem - and the  contest is taking on more urgency  each
passing day.