Annapolis and the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

[Rex Brynen]

Jerusalem is the 900 lbm gorilla in the room, and it will prevent anything substantive from coming from this effort. Condi wants to give it away, and Olmert is willing to do whatever it takes to make for an appearance of good process...

I think it will be very difficult for Annapolis (or, more accurately, the negotiation process that follows it) to make any forward progress. Although both leaders would like to move towards a deal (as they understand it), both are in politically weak positions. Moreover, as the ICG report notes, it will be absolutely essential that the US take an active role in advancing language, formulations, principles, and bridging positions. One of the problems of the 2000-01 negotiations era was that Washington was often reluctant to do so--I often wonder what might have been had the Clinton Parameters been advanced at Camp David, or a month or two later, instead of being left until the very last moment (December 2000).

On Jerusalem, I'm not sure what you mean by "giving it away." Israel's annexation of occupied East Jerusalem is not, of course, recognized by the US or the rest of the international community, and was formally rejected by the UN Security Council in UNSCR 478 (1980).

In accepting the Clinton Parameters in December 2000, Israel accepted the return of those areas of East Jerusalem that still had a Palestinian majority:

The general principle is that Arab areas are Palestinian and Jewish ones are Israeli. This would apply to the Old City as well. I urge the two sides to work on maps to create maximum contiguity for both sides.

Regarding the Haram/Temple Mount, I believe that the gaps are not related to practical administration but to the symbolic issues of sovereignty and to finding a way to accord respect to the religious beliefs of both sides.

I know you have been discussing a number of formulations, and you can agree on any of these. I add to these two additional formulations guaranteeing Palestinian effective control over Haram while respecting the conviction of the Jewish people. Regarding either one of these two formulations will be international monitoring to provide mutual confidence.

1. Palestinian sovereignty over the Haram and Israeli sovereignty over [the Western Wall and the space sacred to Judaism of which it is a part][the Western Wall and the Holy of Holies of which it is a part]. There will be a firm commitment by both not to excavate beneath the Haram or behind the Wall.
   
2. Palestinian shared sovereignty over the Haram and Israeli sovereignty over the Western Wall and shared functional sovereignty over the issue of excavation under the Haram and behind the Wall as mutual consent would be requested before any excavation can take place.

If there is ever a deal, I suspect it will be along these lines. Of course, there are an enormous number of details that would have to be negotiated--a couple of friends and colleagues (former ambassadors Michael Bell and Mike Molloy) have been running a major project on this which attempts to show how such issues might be addressed in the Old City.