THE QUESTION OF JERUSALEMIN THE POST -COLD WAR ERA

TÜRKKAYA ATAÖV

The old global bipolarity has eome to an end. The former EastemBloc joined the West. together forming the "Global North". assertingpreponderance over the "Global South". otherwise known as the Third Worldduring the Cold War era) The demise of the Eastem Bloc has made theNorth-South eontradietion even sharper. The future of world politics mayweıı be determined by the NoM-South paradigm. Three-quarters of humanitylive in the developing nations of the South. The laııer may differ in thedegree of achievement, size or strueture or same 'may even faıı in the grayarea in the North-South division. but they have eommon traits such as facingmuch more powerful centers in the world arena. The Global North. whichmay have some pockets of weakness and poverty as well, is generaııyindifferent as to the rights, views, aspirations and interests of the GlobalSouth. While the old East-West Cold War axis is being replaced by thedichotomy between the North and the South. the freedom of movement of thelaııer is now restrieted. The countervailing weight of the Eastem Bloc nolonger existing, the United States, the strongest among the Northemcountries, is now engaged, mueh more than ever. in setting the agenda ofinternational politics both within and outside of the United Nations. Thatworld organization now has a new role mostly in the service of the North.The present imbalaneed distribution of power is a long way from what theglobal situation was only a few years ago.

1For an impressive eollection of chapters on the so-cal1ed "new world order":Phyllis Bennis and Michel Moushabeek, eds., Altered States. New York.Olive Braneh Press. 1993.

154 llIE TIJRKlSH YEARBOOK (VOL XXI

This radical change is also felt in parts of the Middle East. Thisregion has long endured the painful legacy of imperial fragmentation, neo-colonialism, the Mandate system, the policy of divide and rule, politicalsubjugation, economic inequalities, discords exacerbated by the Co Id War,exorbitant militarism, favoritism, double standards, repetitive Israeliaggressions, intervention and military occupation. While Russia is reduced,from being a chief player, to a minor appendage, the United States is left asthe unrivalled power in the globe, including the Middle East. Likewise, theUnited States was the initiator and the molder of the recent peace processregarding Palestine.

What should be emphasized is that, in spite of radical changesglobaılyand regionally, the historical and legal features of the Holy City ofJerusalem (AI-Quds) continue to persist. The city's threefold religiousvocation and its fonner sovereignty are incompatible with its presentsituation as an occupied and annexed land. No matter how the distribution ofpower is affected elsewhere as a consequence of the "new world order", thefollowing facts remain true: Jerusalcm has been wrested away from itslegitimate sovereign and endowed with an international status (1947), defaetadivided between two neighbours (1948), the Westem part proclaimed as thecapital of the Jewish state (1950), the Eastcm parttoo occupicd and annexedby Israel (1967), and proclaimed a united "eternal capital" (1980) for a peopleother than the previous owners. Conscquently, the status of the Holy Cityremains the stiffest bone of contention bctween the two main intcrestedparties, the Israelis and the Palesunians.

There should be wide consensus over the international law principlethat occupation and annexation cannot impair the legal status of Jerusalem,the metropolis of three great monotheistic religions. In many languages,even the name of the city reflects "holiness" or "sanctuary". Few ciues havesuch emotive force. The religious fervour of the adherents of alI threereligions is alike. Some interested parties with religious C1aims also haveexclusive poliucal assertions. For instance, a number of Jewish statesmen arequoted as considering Jerusalem as Israel's "etemal capital". The folIowers ofNature; Karta, an orthodox Jewish group, on the other hand, believed statesovereignty to be incompatible with Judaism. For Muslims, Jerusalem, nowoccupied and annexed, where IsIamic states ruled, with shon exceptionaIperiods, for almost thirteen centuries from 638 until 1917, was alwayssecond in holiness only to Mecca and Medina. A spirit of tolerance andrespeet for alI communities had prevailcd under the fonner long Muslim era,whether during the Arab or Turkish centuries.

WhiIe the Mandate system, folIowing the end of the First World War,was set up without any refercnce to the wishes of the indigenous population,Jerusalem, which constituted a large part of the whole West Bank, served asthe center of a very broad economic and demographic hinterJand. Bcing the

1982.1991) mE QUESTION OF IERUSALEM IN mE POST-COLD WAR ERA 155

center of most of the financial institutions, it had the greatest concentrationof the who1esale trade and the independent professions.

* *lt was these Peculiarities that must have forced the formulators of the

United Nations partition resolution 181 (29 November 1947) to include astatement regarding a separate international status for Jerusalem. It declared,as is well-known, that this city, including the municipalities plus thesurrounding villages and towns, should be establishcd as a "corpusseparatum" under a special international rcgime, to be administered by theTrusteeship Council on behalf of the United Nations.

While a number of nonoArabs who surveyed various aspects of theproblem recommendcd some form of inıernationalization,2 the Arabs did notaccept such an altcrnative as a jusı solution. For instance, a seminar of Arabjurists in AIgicrs (1967) concludcd that the regimes of internationalizationpresuppose the consent of the slate terriıorially competent, surrendering itssovereignty in a treaty.3 Nothing of the sort happened, the seminar recorded,in the case of the internationalization of Jerusalem, where the preference ofthe territorial sovereign was not asked. The world organization could notdecide, the seminar asserted, without the compHance of the people concemed,that a part of territory be subjected to a different regime. Internationalizationwould have been meaningful ifthere had been discrimination before 1948.

it is also well-known that the proposcd international regime never sawthe light, however. War broke between Israel and Jordan, ending with a truce(1948), and an arınistice agreement (1949), and creating in the process the defacto partition of Jerusalem. Annexing West (New) Jerusalem, Israel obtainedmore territory than the United Nations had granted it two years before. It istrue that the truce and the arınistice agrcements were approved by the U.N.Security Council, but they were provisional measures which could notprejudice the rights of the interested parties.

it is important to remember thaı lhe U.N. General Assembly. fullyinformed of the military operations, adopted resolution 185-S/II (26 April

2An article by the former Mandatory Chief Justice of Palestine: Sir WilliamFitzgerald, "An International Regime for Jerusalem:' Royal CentralAslan Journal, XXXVII (July-October 1950), pp. 273.283. Also: S.Shcpard Jones, 'The Status of Jerusalem: Same National and InternationalAspects," Lawand Contemporary Problems, XXXIIlll (Winter1968), pp. 169-182.

3The Palestlne Questlon. Beirut, Institute for Palestine Studies, 1969.p. 114. Also: Walid Khalidi,. Jerusalem: The Arab Case, Amman.Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. 1967.

156 TI-lE TURKISH YEARBOOK [VOL XXi

1948), which requested the Trusleeship Council to study measures for theprotection of the city and its inhabitants and submit proposals. The U.N.Mediator for Palestine Count Folke Bernadoue's progress report also statedthat Jerusalem ought to be accorded speeial and separate treatment.4 TheGeneral Assembly resolution 194 (ll December 1948), which form ed theConciHation Commission for Palestine on the basis of Count Bernadone'srecommendation, stated as well that Jerusalem ought to be dealt withdifferently.

Israel, which acquired West Jerusalem at the end of its first war withthe Arabs, gave public assurances, prior toits membership in the UnitedNations, that it would respeet the peeuliar status of the city. In fact, it wasadmitted to that international body following pledges that it would honour allits resolutions. Apart from promises to observe resoluLİons pertaining toboundaries, rights of the Palestinians and the return of the refugees, Israelwas also bound to revere the status of Jerusalem. Abba Eban's promise, onbehalf of his government, is in the official records of the ad hoc politicalcommitlee. He said: "I do not think that Artiele 2, paragraph 7, of theCharter, which relates to domestic jurisdiction, could possibly affect theJerusalem problem since the legal status of Jerusalem is different from that ofthe territoey in which Israel is sovereign."5

lt may be asserted that, apart from the fact that Artiele 25 of the U.N.Charter states that the members agree to accept and carry out the dccisions ofthe Security Council, Israel itself is the creation of a U.N. General Assemblyresolution and cannot act in breach of the resolution to which it owes its ownbeingo

* * *It is well-known that both the General Assembly and the Security

Council, two principal organ s of the U.N., passed since the PartitionResolution (1947), several decisions on Palestine, including Jerusalem.6 Inrelation to the latter, the General Assembly confirmed, up until 1967, the

4Folke Bernadone, To Jerusalem, London, Hoddcr and Stoughton, 195ı.SU.N., General Assembly, Official Records. Scssion 3, Part II, Ad HocPolitica! Commiııee, pp. 286-287.

6Jerusalem: A Collectlon or United Nations Documents, Beirut,Institute for Pa1estine Studies, 1970; U.N., The Questlon orPalestlne: 1979.1990, New York, 1991.

1982. ı99\ 1 11lE QUESTION OF JERUSALEM IN 11lE POST -COLD WAR ERA 157

basic provisions of the partition recommendation.7 In the meantime. Israelmoved its ministerlal offices to lerusalem and proclaimed it (23 lanuary1950) as the capital of the state. Although the General Assembly resolutions.made before and afler 1967. are recommendations and therefore are not legallybindingo frequent decisions adopted by overwhelming majorities may createcustomary law.8

The Israeli auack of 5 lune 1967. on its three neighbours shifted thefocus of auention on lerusalem from the General Assembly to the SecurityCounciL. The attaek. accompanied by the ludaization of the city.9 violatedthe r~gime in the most flagrant manner. The U.N. Security Councilresolution 242 (22 December 1967) does not specifically mention lerusalem.but it emphasizes "the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war".General Moshe Dayan's order to remove the Israeli flag which an overzealoussoldier had hoisted on the Dome of the Rock (Al-Masjid al-Haram al-Shareef)could not affect the profound change in the military. political and religiousbalance of power. 1O

As Israel failed to comply with the terms of the Security Councilresolutions. they were generally progressively formulaled in stricter language.All resolutions deplored Israel's failure to respect the previous ones.confırmed that alllegislative and administratiye actions laken by that countryto change the status of Jerusalem were totally invalid and called on Israel torescind previous measures and to lake no further steps which might purportto change the status of the city or prejudice the rights of the inhabitants andthe interests of the international community. or ajust and lasting peace.

Most Security Council resolutions were repetitive. and some werelaken on the occasion of new developments. For instance, resolution 271 (15Septembcr 1969) was passed in response LO the damage caused to the AI-AqsaMosque (21 August 1969). Or resoluıion 446 (22 March 1979) established acommission to examine the situation relating to the seıılemenLS in the Arabterritories occupied since 1967.

7Henry Cauan. Palestlne and International Law, London. Longman.1973. pp. 136-141.

8W. Thomas Mallison and Sally V. Ma11ison. The Palestlne Problem iDInternational Lawand World Order, London. Longman, 1986.pp. 219-220.

9Rouhi AI-Khatib, The Judalzatlon or Jerusalem, Beirut. P.L.O.Research Center, 1970.

10David Hirst. "Rush to Annexation: Israe! in Jcrusa!em," Journal orPalestlne Studies. 12 (1974), pp. 3-31.

158 mE TURKISH YEARBOOK [VOL XXI

In the meantime, the Camp David accords, realized outside the UnitedNations, wiU be remembered for their deference of crucial issues such as thefulUre of Jerusalem, no less than the division of the Palestinian people imaseparate categories and the assignment to each of these groups distinctpermanent fate. ı ı LLSmost important characteristics was that all the basicdecisions had been made in the absence of Palestinian representatives andwithout regard for the well-known righlS of the people directly concemed. Asit had occurred in the past, in the cases of the Balfour Declaralion, the Leagueof Nations Mandate and the U.N. partition recommendation, the Palcstinianpeople were once again confronted with fundamental decisions about theirown destioy without ilS participation.

There were no General Assembly resolutions related to Jerusalembetween 1967 and 1980. But when the Knesset declared (30 July 1980) in a.so-called "Basic Law" that "united Jerusalem" was to be Israel's capital, theGeneral Assembly responded by adopting resolution 35/169E (lS December1980), with only Israel voting against it, which reaffirmed that "theacquisition of territory by force is inadmissible". The General Assemblyresolutions, more representative of the international community, haverepeatedly rejected the Israeli actions that undermined the status of Jerusalem.The Security Council also dealt with the situation brought about by theenactrnent of the "Basic Law" conceming East Jerusalem. In every case, itreconCirmed that Israeli actions had no lega! validity, and constitutedviolations of the Fourth Geneva Conventian (1949).

* * *I stated above that the question of Jerusalem was colonial rather than

religious. Israel, a militaey occupier, acted there as if it was a sovereignpower. That country's action run counter to the Geneva Convenlions, signedand ratiCied by all the Middle Eastem countries. lt may be noted in passingthat the uncritical support by Christian fundamentalists for the mostexpansionist actions of the Israeli Government reveals a theologicalfoundation as welL. For them, it was done (like the Crusades, the religiouswars of the Reformation, the spread of colonialism, the extermination of theoriginal inhabitants of America and slavery therc) "all in the name of theBible".12

The Israeli view that it has always acted in defence. and acquiredJerusa1em in the meantime lawfully cannot be accepted as true in the light of

ı ı Fayez A. Sayegh. Camp David and Palest1ne, New York, Americansfor Middle East Understanding, 1978.

12Hassan Haddad and Donald Wayner, eds., All In the Name or theBlble, Vermont, Amana Books, 1986.

1982.19911 THE QUESTION OF JERUSALEM IN THE POST.COLD WAR ERA 159

ample evidence of systematic auacks on the indigenous Palestinian peopleeven. hefore the creation of Isracı' lt is now common knowledge that theIrgun (Etzel), Haganah and LEVI used the massacres, for instance the one atDeir Yassin, to frighten Arabs into leaving Palestine. None other thanMenachem Begin, the Irgun leader and later Israel's Prime Minister, tookpride in Jewish offensives. He wrote: "We auacked again and again ..."13 Tothe Arabs it was "a prolonged and tragically successful invasion" by "an alienpeople ...ending in the expulsion of most of the people whose countrY itwas" .14 Historian Toynbee called the killings "comparable to crimescommiued against the Jews by the Nazis" .15

Since "defence" connotes only the preservationof existing values, allpost- 1967 U.N. resolutions, including the Security Council resolution 242,reject the Israeli claim to the eastem part of the city. The surprise attack in1967 rules out the Israeli allegation that Jordan was the aggressor then.Therefore, when Jordan was pushed out of East Jerusalem, Israel did not stepinto a vacuum of sovereignty. Further, inıernational supervision of the HolyPlaces, without affecting Israeli dominaıion of the city, cannot he aceepted asa satisfaetory eorreetion of a past wrong. There, certainly, must be full accessof all to every Holy site, butjustice and international law demand much morethan that

Moreover, although Israel maintains that Jordan has never acquired thestatus of a legitimate sovereign over the West Bank and that Israel istherefore not an oceupying power, the purpose of the Geneva Convenıions isnot to aseertain the C1aims of sovereignıy but to check the violations ofhuman rights. The principal U.N. organs have repeaıedly reaffırmed that theGeneva Conventions were applicable to the Arab ıerrilOries occupied in 1967.They noted that, not only the displacement of Palestinians, but also the newsetüements were iIIegal.

* *The starting point of the recent debate on AI-Quds centers on the

DecIaration of Principles (1993), agreed upon by Isracı and Palestine. The1993 agreement postpones unul 1996 the discussion of three crucial issues,namely, the status of the Holy Cily, Jewish selüemenıs and the return of therefugees. The agreement did not solve the future status of the city but merelydeferred it. The negotiations for its status will he ıaken up in 1996.

13Menachem Begin. The Revolt. Tel Aviv. Hadar, 1964, pp. 337.338.Also: H.M.G., Command Paper No. 6873 (24 July 1946). •

14Rupert Emerson, From Emplre to Jl'atlon, Massachuselts, HarvardCollege, 1962, p. 314.

15Arnold Toynbee. A Study of History, Vol. VIII, London, OxfordUniversity Press, 1954, p. 290.

160 THE TIJRKISH YEARBOOK [VOL XXI

Thal year wiIl offer three opportunities for Israel: (1) 1996 happens Lobe the election year both in the United States and in IsraeI. (2) Israeli policyLo setlle the Jewish population, especially the new immigrants from thefonner Soviet Union (and fonner Yugoslavia) in the Occupied Territoriesaims to create such a situation that no future government would be able toundo. (3) Israel is also preparing to commemorate the year 1996 as the"3000th anniversary" of Jerusalem as the Jewish capital. .

Elections approaching in both the United States and Israel, nostatesman or politician in either country can overlook the conneetion bctweenthe status of Jerusalem and electoral support. The pro-Israeli pressure groupsin theUnited States have speeded up their activities to change Americanpolicy on the Jerusalem issue. With a view Lo attract Jewish vote and Zionistbacking, several U.S. presidential candidates are expected to pledge supportfor the removal of the American Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. Manymembers of the U.S. Congress, under pressure from pro-Israeli lobbies. havestarted urging for the shifting of the diplomatic mission. The electioncampaigns in the United States and in Israel will accelerate more thecompetition for finner controlover all parts of the city.

The U.S. Government had signed, on 9 January 1989, a Land Leaseand Purchase Agreement with Israe[, connccted with the acquisition of sitesfor the construction of two diplomatic facilities wiıhin the prc- 1947boundaries of Jerusalem. In accordance with U.N. dccisions. endorsed by theUnited States as well, this land is occupied territory. The U.S.-Israeliagreement is considered a follow-up of the Helms Amendment (1988), whichcalls for the acquisition of sites in or outside of the Oceupied Territories fordiplomatic facilities. The 1989 agreement seems to aııow the obtainment of!and from an occupying power which has no right, according to internationallaw, to seıı or rent property. Moreover, the site in question is elaimed by theIslamic waqf (trust). Not only Israel does not have the right to dispose ofproperty on conquered and oceupied land, but sueh property. according LoIslamie law, can only be utilized for a charitable purpose. The new faeilitiesare supposed to be occupied by the United States by mid- i996. The timingconvenienlly coincides with the elcctions. There is need to counter thesemoves before waiting for 1996 because significant changes are planned Lolake place before that date.

The founding of new colonies in the Occupied Territories, now evenmore widened by the immigration of Jews mainly from the fonner SovietUnion, defies the U.N. Charter, the resolutions of the same body and theGeneva Conventions, to which both the United States and Israel aresignatories. As a resull of the Soviet, and later Russian, desire Lo qualify forfull membership in the so-cal1ed "free world", the Jcws from Russia and theformer Soviet repubIies, massively migrated to Israel and were direeted

1982-1991) THE QUES1l0N OF IERUSALEM IN THE POST-COLD WAR ERA 161

mainly to the Occupied Territories. These settlements are ilIegal within themeaning of the Geneva Conventions.

The fact that they continue to be established is a telling example ofthe inadequacy of internationallaw in tenns of enforcement.16 They keepextanding while the talks of the peace process continue. Under thecircumstances, al-intifadah (the uprising) was not an "event", but aninevitable sequence to the pasl. 17 The experiences of the past engendered alevel of defiance, especially among the "occupation generation". Settlementswhich were militaey and paramilitaey outposts in i967 have gradually turnedinto civilian residenees. Those around Jerusalem have had. from the verybeginning, a civilian character. The unusual rush creates additional problem ssuch as the water crisis.18 Israel has given priority to its own needs at theexpense of the rights of the Palestinians. Its controlaf the water resources inthe Occupied Territories is avialatian of the Geneva Conventions.

U.S. aid to Israel to facilitate these illegal activities makes theassistance itself ilIegal and also weakens the prospects for peace. Althoughmost of the newcomers prefer the Mediterranean coast, and althoughinternational law does not allow the occupying power to alter the occupiedterritory, the Israeli Govemment encourages them to settle in the OccupiedTerritories, including Jerusalem, through material incentives. Internationallaw expects the occupied territory to be preserved the way it is until thewithdrawal of the occupier.

Both Israel's occupation and new Jewish senlements are illega!. Thedirect aid, grants and loan guarantees of the United States assist Israel in thatunlawful acl. Stating that American aid basicaııy helps immigrants. Israel didnot hesitate to deseribe the loan guarantees as humanitarian, but the U.N.Commission on Human Rights found them unlawful on the basis of theGeneva Conventions. Apart from the early (1991) initia! aid of 45 milliondollars and a further guarantee for a loan of 400 million dallars. the UnitedStates granted another guarantee for a 10 billion dollar loan. In the meantime,Israel continued with the Jewish scnlements, deprived its rightful ownersfrom the use of their Iands, expelled some of the Palestinians to foreigncountries. and mistreated many of them as evidenced in the breaking of arms.A number of new seniers alsa physically atlacked the Pa!estinians.

16Towards • Strategy ror the Enrorcement or Human RIghts Inthe Israell Occupled West Bank and Gaza. London. The LabourMiddle East Council and The Conservative Middle East Council. 1986.

17 Joseph Schechla. "The Past as Prologue to the Intifadah." W IthoutPrejudlce. ın. (1988). pp. 68-99.

18Torkkaya Ataöv. The Use or PalesUnlan Waters andInternational Law. London. EAFORD. 1982.

••162 nlE TURKISH YEARBOOK [VOL XXI

All of these acts are violations of the Geneva Conventions. TheUnited States has been aware of these iIIegalities. Theyare summarized in theU.S. State Department human rights reports submilted to the Congress. Thechanncıing of such large sums to Israel is assistance in violation ofinternationallaw.

Isracı is a1so preparing to commemorate the so-called "3000thanniversary" of Jerusalem as the capitaL. The year 1996 is not necessarily the3000th anniversary of Al-Quds as the capital of the ancient Jewish state. Butthe occasion, apparently pre-planned with a particular purpose, once moreconveniently coincides with the date of final negotiations to decide the futureof this city, Holy for all three religions, and not only for one. In addilion to14 million Jews, the future of Jerusalem concerns the wholc of the Muslimand the Christian world, the two adding up more than two billion people.Both Muslims and Christians share the same victimhood under militaeyoccupation.

In summary, electioils scheduled to be held both in the United Statesand in Israel in 1996, the year bilateral negotiations for the future status ofthe city are going to be held, is already actiyating the powerful pro-Israelilobby in the United States and the contending politicians in Israel tosuccumb to demands contrary to legality and the rights of the Palestinianpeople. The seulement of the new Jewish immigrants is illegal, and ought tobe stopped. There should be international action against states that shift theirembassies to a territory defined as "occupied" by internationallaw. The driveto celebrate the "anniversary" needs to be countered as well because it scemsLO be connected with the political motive to legitimise an occupation.

To rectify the illegal situation in Jerusalem is the obligation of theinternational community.19 The negotiations which started the peace processin the Middle East, however, were totally outside the context of the UnitedNations, A token U,N. representative was a silent observer. The UnitedStates, which acted in the Gulf crisis (1991) with Security Council backing,prevented the same world organization from playing an active role in thepeace process concerning Palestine. The Soviet Union was only a formal co-sponsor. The United Swtes, which set up the swge as it had done at CampDavid, accepted this time direct Palestinian represenwtives. So did Isracı. Theelimination of the Eastem Bloc (1989-91) and Iraq's invasion of Kuwait

19Türkkaya Ataöv, "The International Peace Conference on the Middle East is8 legal obligation and a political necessity," Question of I)alestine:Legal Aspects, New York, United Nations, 1992, pp. 456-460. Also:Türkkaya Ataöv, 'The Status of Jerusalem as a Question of InternationalLaw," The Legal Aspects of the Palestine Problem wlthSpeclal Regard to the Question of Jerusalem, cd., Hans Koechler,Vienna, I.P.O., 1981, pp. 133-143.

1982-19911 THE QUESTION OF lERUSAlEM IN THE POST-eoıo WAR ERA 163

(1990) gaye the United States the opportunity to have virtually the last sayin the Middle East. Russia is transformed into a quiet supporter of Americaninitiatives, and Iraq reduced to a power eager to preserve its territorialintegrity. Under the circumstances, Israel, which is friendly to the UnitedStates but which can no longer enjoy the same degree of freedom ofmovement, aims to pursuc policies. not only to legitimize permanent Israelisettlements, but also to tolerate the appalling massacre against Palestinianworshippers in the Mosque of ıbrahim in Hebron (25 February 1994).20

* * *The turbulent part of Jerusalem's history must come to an end. Its

present status, deeided through the use of force, violates internationallaw, theresolutions of the world community and Israel's own pledge before itsadmissian to U.N. membership. The international community neverrecognized Israel's unilateral daims. The majority of the countries stili keeptheir embassies in Tel Aviv. Both the General Assembly and the SeeurityCouncil have repeatedly emphasized the illegality of the Israeli attempt toanne x the Holy City, an enforced alternative denying the legitimate interestsof others as well as the consensus in the authorized organs of the worldcommunity.

Sovereignty over Jerusalem was always vested in the people ofPalestine. It cannot be lost as a resuh of occupation or annexation.21Moreover, peace in the area will depend on the faıe of the Holy City. Its finalstatus should be decidcd in negoıiations, lO be conducıcd in accordance withthe requirements of inıernational law. The delaying of the question,ostensibly on account of complexities, makes it even more difficult toresolve.

Jerusalem may become the capital of both the states of Israel andPalestine. The Jewish seclor may be recognized as the clipital of the former,and the Arab seetar that of the latter. Then, neither the Israelis nor thePalestinians will be deprived of considering the Holy Ciıy their capitaı.22While Jerusalem may be divided into Jewish and Arab municipal sectors, in away reminiscent of the report of the "Fitzgerald Commission" (1946),23 the

20The Massacre In AI.Haram al.lbrahlm al.Sharlf, Jerusalem,Palestine Human Rights Information Center. 1994.

21Henry Cattan. 'The Slalus of Jerusalem Under International Lawand UnitedNations Resolutions," Journal of Palestlne Studies, 39 (1981),pp. 3-15.

22Sami Hadawi, Dltter Harvest: PalesUne, 1914.1979, Delmar, NewYork, The Caravan Books, 1979, pp. 296-297.

23Sir William Fitzgerald, "The Holy Places of Palesline in History and inPolitics," Internationııl Affalrs, XXVI (January 1950). pp. 1-10.

164 TIm TURKISH YEARBOOK (VOL XXI

metropoles, permanenlIy but equitably united, should be "opcn city" for theadherents of all the great faiths, making it once more, and this time hopcfullyetemally. "The City of the Prince of Peacc".

The fırst major step to increase the Palestinian potcmial is unifiedArab suppon. The GuIf War erodcd Arab solidarity. There is now a nced forfırm and undivided conscnsus on the question of Jerusalem. The end of theCold War and the conscqucnces of the Kuwaiti crisis should not be pcrmiuedto remove the rights of the Palestinians in rcspect to Jerusalcm from theagenda of the world communiLy. foremosL that of the Arab countries.