October 1992, Page 33

Why Didn't We Think of That?

U.N. Envoy Offers a Pragmatic Solution to the Problem of Jerusalem

By Ian Williams

Jordan's new ambassador to the U.N. has arrived in New York at an interesting time-and with an interesting idea to accommodate conflicting claims to the Holy City of Jerusalem. It came to him 10 years ago, on an official visit to London.

One day his driver told him they were entering the "City of London." He told the driver he was pretty certain that he had been in London for several days by then. The driver explained, however, that he was referring to an area of one square mile in the heart of the ancient city where the Lord Mayor reigns supreme, and even the queen has to ask permission to enter.

"It made me think of an even more ancient city, the one square mile of Al Quds, the home of the Holy Places," Ambassador Adnan Abu Odeh told the Washington Report. "It struck me then that it was illogical that the holiness of an ancient place should be determined by its modern municipal boundaries. When city limits are extended, does what was once not holy suddenly become holy? Now the Israelis have extended the boundary of Jerusalem as far as the town of Ramallah! Is Ramallah holy?"

His views, aired this year in Foreign Affairs, caused a considerable stir in Jordan. In his article he drew a distinction between Jerusalem's walled city, housing the shrines of the three Abrahamic religions, and the rest of the city. He pointed out that Jerusalem's municipal limits had been extended by the British in 1933, the Arabs in 1955, and the Israelis in 1980.

He suggests, therefore, that the walled city should have no flags flying over it. Instead, it should be open to all, and governed by a council representing all of the concerned religious authorities.

The inhabitants of the walled city would hold Palestinian passports if they are Arabs, and Israeli passports if they are Jews, and would vote accordingly in their respective elections. East Jerusalem would be Al-Quds, capital of the new Palestine, and West Jerusalem would be Yerushalayim, capital of Israel.

"The whole idea of the article was to refute those who insist that the issue of Jerusalem should be deferred or postponed in the peace negotiations," Ambassador Abu Odeh explains. "Why should it be?

"They say it's a complicated problem. My answer is that the only complication is finding the political will to solve it. And now, only a few days ago, the Palestinians asked at the Washington peace talks, 'Why defer Jerusalem?' They are absolutely right."

Asked the difference between his solution and U.N. resolutions on the issue, he responds: "It is not internationalization! Arab intellectuals cite U.N. resolution 194, because it talks about the repatriation and compensation of refugees, as one of the most important resolutions for the legitmacy of the Palestine question. But in 194 there is only one article on the refugee question, while there are two on the internationalization of Jerusalem.

"But I'm talking not about internationalization of the whole city, but sanctification of the holy city inside the walls and partition of the rest, outside the walls." He says opponents of his proposal in Jordan fall into two categories. Some are against the peace settlement. Others "fall into the category of my political opponents, and so they took part in condemning the article" without ever reading it.

The Jordanian envoy, a former minister of information and seasoned government official, is mildly optimistic about the new Israeli government: "I welcome Rabin because he gives more hope. But on the subject of Jerusalem, even he talks about it as untouchable, part of the 'security' settlements. Rabin excluded Jerusalem, the Jordan Valley and the Golan from the areas where new settlements are being stopped."

Abu Odeh agrees with diplomats of many nationalities that there is a narrow window of opportunity between last June's Israeli elections and the U.S. elections in November. "Rabin wants to give a good impression, and Bush wants a foreign policy coup," Abu Odeh points out. "The challenge that is facing the Israelis now is whether they are prepared to accept any meaningful self-rule for the Palestinians.

"In my opinion that means, among other things, a complete freeze on settlements, including so-called security settlements around Jerusalem. Only with that will there be hope for a real peace settlement.

Gulf War Legacies

"The Arab side, however, still is handicapped by the divisions of the Gulf war," Abu Odeh laments. "You can still feel it. It has not been dissipated. Here in the U.N., at the level of the ambassadors and representatives, the lines are blurred, but not erased completely. I am afraid now that with confrontations between Iraq and its opponents the lines may become clearer, not just here but also in the Arab League and the Islamic Conference."

The Jordanian representative attributes to U.S. domestic politics the recent accusations in Washington that Jordan is ignoring sanctions against Iraq: "I think it has to do with the elections here," he speculates. "In fact, we have been complying with the sanctions from the beginning, and now the extra patrols on Jordan's border are costing a lot of money."

Abu Odeh discounts any suggestions that Arab nations are getting a better deal at the United Nations since Egypt's Boutros Boutros-Ghali was elected secretary-general this year. "He has a global view rather than an Arab view, and he is trying to do his best to ensure a more balanced United Nations," Abu Odeh said. "He is a man of the world, not of a particular region."

In answer to the Washington Report's comment that the British press has been particularly critical of the secretary-general's reluctance to undertake new U.N. peacekeeping operations until the countries who call for them express a willingness to shoulder the increased expenses, Abuh Odeh concluded firmly. "He is the secretary-general. He has to assert himself. In the final analysis, he was right."

Ian Williams is a British journalist based at the United Nations.

Next >