UDK 323(569 44) COBISS: 1.08 The Jerusalem issue in international politics Maurizio Scaini University of Trieste, Faculty for Political Science, Piazzale Europa, 1, 34100 Tneste, Italy Abstract The dispute over Jerusalem appears to be more and more controversial and contradictory. Besides the histoncal events which have tormented the Middle East over a long period of time, the diplomatic stalemate has its origin largely in the persisting difficulty of defining a criterion on which the discussions about the status of the city can be based. In this sense, the pledges made at an international level by the various parties involved, despite having been made at different times, still indicate the least traumatic and least ideologized solution. The recent agreement reached between the Holy See and the PLO on the subject proposes nothing new, but rather, emphases the need to recognize the interests of the international community in Jerusalem. Keywords Jerusalem. Holy See. PLO, Israel, International Status, United Nations Introduction These pages do not claim to exhaust any discussion about the complicated question of Jerusalem. More simply, they pose the question on basis to be used for the debate over the status of the city'. The approaches used in talks, in an attempt to give some sense to the whole question, have been vaned As regards the argument of historical legitimacy, it is difficult to defend when we take into consideration the exceptional events experienced by and within the urban territory of Jerusalem, which, during its history has been repeatedly conquered, destroyed and rebuilt. The criterion of prevalence or ethnic continuity in the course of centuries is equally difficult to sustain, considering that the primary and most important function of any city should be to make it possible for different cultures to live side by side^ Obviously all that has happened up to now to gain control of Jerusalem cannot be ignored or treated lightly. The starting point which, in our opinion, is most likely to offer an opening is this sense and which most suitably sums up the geographical elements which characterize the whole problem, should be in those agreements which contribute towards a definition on international law. The limits of this operation are. in the whole, well known; the situation in Jerusalem is not the same as it was forty years ago and the international resolutions made were of no use as they were not. in the end, applied. The necessity of reducing the influence of the ideological dimension to a minimum and of emphasizing instead the political responsibility and coherence of the parties involved is still pertinent. Within this context, the overall inherent weakness of an instrument such as international law could become a point of strength in order to resume and continue negotiations and to reduce some of the emotional tensions surrounding the city, by starting out from more flexible, neutral positions. The document which was recently stipulated between the Holy See and the PLO in February 2000 can be seen as innovative because it moves in this direction. See Pieraccioni P.. IW7. ■'SeeCoheiiS.. IWX.pp. 9-H The agreement between The Holy See and the PLO On 15th February 2000. the Holy See and the PLO. in the introduction to their "Basic Agreement" asked for a "Guaranteed International Statute" which would also take into account the situation in Jerusalem, and be based on certain points which are disputed but recognized in International Law3. The points in question are the following: • Freedom of conscience and religion for everyone. • Juridical equality of the three monotheistic religion, of their institutions and of the status of their followers. • The individual identity of Jerusalem's sacred character and its religious and cultural heritage. • Freedom of access to the Holy Places and other places of worship. • A juridical regime of the "Status Quo" in the Holy Places to which it applies. The text attracted a great deal of attention from the media and international politics and there was no lack of superficial interpretations. In reality, the document contains nothing new and only confirms the well-known position held by the Christian world on the issue of Jerusalem4. The innovation lies in the fact that, for the first time, one of the two nations which vindicate sovereignty over the city has officially taken up the position typical of the Holy See. From this point of view, the Palestinian political initiative must be read as an urgent invitation to the other to do likewise. To hope for a quick, negotiated agreement, in this direction, might appear naive However, it must be born in mind that the idea of stationing international forces in Jerusalem was officially proposed by the State of Israel in the declaration to the United Nations' Assembly on 5 May 1949. On that occasion the renowned Abba Eban, spoke about "...the desire of the Israeli government to see the juridical constitution of Jerusalem defined by international agreement..." and that "...Israel would submit to the decision of the General Assembly... He put forward his government's viewpoint, which, fully recognizing the principle of protecting the legitimate interests of the international community in Jerusalem on an international level intended to "encourage and accept....the fullest international safeguards," for these interests especially by instituting an ' See Basic Agreement. Full Text. 15/2 2000. ' See O'muhony A.. Gunner G. A Hinlilian AT.. 1995 international regime for the Holy Places5. The Israeli proposal was formalized and specified in the "Memorandum on the Future of Jerusalem," presented to the General Assembly by the Israeli delegation on 15 November 1949. In this document, among the principles towards an agreement which were proposed by Israel can be found, "...the commitment of the United Nations to safeguard the Holy Places and to obtain guarantees for religious rights..." drawing upon, for this purpose, agreements between the United Nations and Israel relating to the application of the guarantees.6 Israel's full recognition of the "principle of international interest" and the relative proposals were confirmed in the Declaration made to the General Assembly on 25 November 1949, by Sharett, the Foreign Minister at the time. He appealed for an international regime which should be "functional" in character rather than "territonal".7 The head of the government, Ben Gurion, then officially declared to his parliament on 13 December 1949 that "...the State of Israel freely accepts the principle of international supervision over the existing rights, (of the religious communities) these to be agreed between the UN and the State of Israel...".8 It would therefore appear that Israel, the other political faction directly involved in the Jerusalem issue, had already preannounced, at the time of its constitution and admission to the representative organ of the international community, its agreement to an internationally guaranteed special statute for Jerusalem. It would then seem reasonable to expect the Israeli government to remain true to commitments formally shared by the neighboring nation. Recognition due to the two nations of their right to self-determination and the characteristic of locus of the legitimate rights and interests common to the whole of humanity which was attached to mandatory Palestine, raised the question of how they were to be adequately protected. The question was extremely delicate, bearing in mind that the territory would be divided between two ethno- ' "..The Government of Israel advocated the establishment hv the United Nations of an international regime tor Jerusalem concerned exclusively with the control and protection of Holy Places, and would co-operate with such a regime. It would also agree to place under international control Holy Places in parts of this territory outside Jerusalem, and supported the suggestion the guarantees should he given for free access there to It m