Of course it hasn't been non-negotiable for both sides! To quote from the internal EU non-paper summary of the 2001 Taba negotiations (generally acknowledged as accurate by negotiators on both sides):
Territorial compromise in Jerusalem was also discussed in the 2007-08 Annapolis round.Both sides accepted in principle the Clinton suggestion of having a Palestinian sovereignty over Arab neighborhoods and an Israeli sovereignty over Jewish neighborhoods. The Palestinian side affirmed that it was ready to discuss Israeli request to have sovereignty over those Jewish settlements in East Jerusalem that were constructed after 1967, but not Jebal Abu Ghneim and Ras al-Amud. The Palestinian side rejected Israeli sovereignty over settlements in the Jerusalem Metropolitan Area, namely of Ma'ale Adumim and Givat Ze'ev.
The Palestinian side understood that Israel was ready to accept Palestinian sovereignty over the Arab neighborhoods of East Jerusalem, including part of Jerusalem's Old City. The Israeli side understood that the Palestinians were ready to accept Israeli sovereignty over the Jewish Quarter of the Old City and part of the American Quarter.
The Palestinian side understood that the Israeli side accepted to discuss Palestinian property claims in West Jerusalem.
Such compromise, it might be added, involves the Palestinians effectively giving up hopes of including all areas of occupied East Jerusalem in a Palestinian state, and instead trying to maximize those areas which would become part of the state in the face of continued Israeli settlement activity.
Bookmarks