Project start: October 27, 2009
.
- First iteration: November 5, 2009
- 2010 final core text revision: AUGUST 7, 2010
- 2010 print edition: December 13, 2010
- 2010 version @ Feb. 11, 2011 658K .zip of 920K .webarchive file (Public Domain).
.
- 2011 editing phase: February 11 — May 12, 2011
- 2011 final edits published: May 15, 2011.
- 2011 version @ Jan. 2, 2012 705K .zip of 1.1M .webarchive file (Public Domain)
.
- For more info on APoJi (A Peace of Jerusalem initiative) see Editor’s letter 2011.
The 2011-2012 transitional document (below) is now open for public comment.
Confidential submissions may be made using the form provided for that purpose.
Openly-posted comments are subject to moderation at the editor’s discretion.
This document will change incrementally with time. How would you improve it?
-
Be creative but concise, fearless but polite.
-
...~
a peace of jerusalem
.
Preamble:.
THERE’S A famous story about the wisdom of Solomon (Suleiman), builder of the Great Temple of Jerusalem, son of David (Dawoud), King of Israel (Israil):
A newborn was brought before the King during his adjudication of a case between two women, each of whom claimed to be the mother of the infant.
Solomon, though a judge of the rarest quality–and despite having conducted a series of tests–could not determine who was telling the truth; so he called for his swordsman, as if to physically divide the baby between the two.
One woman tearfully begged the King to spare the child’s life and award it to the other. It was by this mercy that he discerned the true mother’s identity.
Jerusalem can easily be imagined in the role of the child. The region and the world are divided over it, with some angling for exclusive possession and others favouring a split. On the path to either conclusion, how many innocents might be brought under shadow of a blade?
Imagination, pragmatism and inspiration will surely be vital tools for mounting a robust argument in support of any plan for enduring peace. But who would have the authority to judge the merits of such a case? Well, the people would, actually.
Each individual is a well of possibility and a reservoir of sacred sovereignty.
United in common purpose, even the impossible seems somehow less so.
-
— Respectfully,
— - the editors
.
..
I. Land of the Covenant
Let us imagine two states, conjoined in peace by their mutual love for Jerusalem (Yerushalayim/Al-Quds), a place so revered by their common patriarch Abraham (Avraham/Ibrahim) in a land profoundly blessed by G-d.
The foundations of the Arabic and Jewish peoples were laid in Jerusalem, for it was there/here that Abraham circumcised his son Ishmael (Yishmael/Ismail) and his son Isaac (Yitzhak/Ishaq).
Ishmael, though a Jew by patrimony and rite, became the father of the twelve desert tribes of the Arabian Peninsula. Isaac’s son Jacob (Ya’acov/Yacoub), also known as Israel, fathered the twelve Jewish tribes (B’nei Yisrael/Bani Israil) and became the namesake of the modern Jewish state.
It was here, in Jerusalem, upon the rock of Mount Moriah, that an angel stayed Abraham’s hand, as G-d dramatically–and forever–repudiated ritual human sacrifice; a stirring decree to guard against the senseless forfeiture of life.
.
II. States in Balance
In order to mitigate potential problems arising from demographic shifts over time, a special permanent residency class should be established in both states, such that:
- an Arab citizen of Israel would have the option to:
• retain Israeli citizenship; or
• claim citizenship in the Arab state, while retaining…
- – special permanent residency rights in Israel; and
- – a future one-time right to reclaim individual Israeli citizenship
- - an Israeli citizen currently residing in the West Bank could:
• retain Israeli citizenship and become a special
- permanent resident of the Arab state; or
• claim citizenship in the Arab state, while retaining…
- – a future one-time right to reclaim individual Israeli citizenship
– - with special permanent residency rights in Ismail
This arrangement would dispense with any requirement for—and upheaval resulting from—mass population dislocations upon execution of a final-status agreement.
In this way, Israel would maintain its unique character as a Jewish state that guarantees free worship and political participation for all its citizens and permanent residents.
The new Arab state, provisionally referred to in this document as Ismail, or as Dawlat Ismail (State of Ishmael), would enshrine in its founding documents of statehood similar guarantees of religious and secular freedom for its citizens and permanent residents.
Each state would be bound to protect the people and the Holy Places within its jurisdiction, regardless of religion, political affiliation or citizenship.
.
III. Mutually-Independent Rights of Return
Each state would be free to set its own policy for the return of its people from the diaspora, with the proviso that such “returnees” (Hebrew: olim; Arabic: ???) must become resident citizens of the state which repatriates them.
Once established in his/her new homeland for two years, a “returning citizen” of either Ismail or Israel would be free to petition for permanent residency in the other state, with the mutual consent of both national governments.
A child born in Israel or Ismail to a permanent resident of that state would inherit citizenship from his/her parent(s), and upon attaining age of majority, may opt to become a citizen of the state in which s/he was born.
A regime for the compensation of displaced persons should be agreed by all regional states under a comprehensive treaty on refugees and human rights.
.
IV. Representation and Taxation
Citizens would vote in the national elections of their respective homelands, but would vote regionally and locally based upon residency.
Income tax paid by individuals who are citizens of one state, but who are permanent residents of the other, would be divided equally between the two states.
Owing to the disparity between average incomes in Israel versus the West Bank and Gaza, this would provide additional economic stimulus for the Arab state which could aid in funding the settlement of those making the Arab “ruqia” (Hebrew: aliyah; English: ascent).
It could also encourage Israel to embrace and contribute to the economic development of Ismail as one strategy for balancing the transfer of payments.
Personal property tax would be paid to the appropriate level of government of the state in which an individual resides, regardless of citizenship.
Taxes on realty holdings outside of an individual’s state of residence would be paid to the state in which the property is located.
Sales tax would be paid to the state in which any particular purchase is made.
.
V. Basic Services, Education and Health Care
The enhanced tax base of the Arab state would be expected to provide significant improvements in the delivery of basic services to its citizens and permanent residents.
State-funded education programs would be required to openly publish their curricula in order to ensure fairness and accuracy in their content.
National health insurance premiums would be paid by individuals and families based upon their residency status, but any citizen of either state would also be free to seek treatment in his/her national homeland.
.
VI. National Borders
The division of territory is defined as generally agreeing with the path of the Green Line with respect to the border between the West Bank and Israel, with any deviations and associated land-swaps to be negotiated by the respective parties to a resulting agreement.
Although the border between the Gaza Strip and Israel is already well-defined, having gained de facto international recognition by means of the Egypt-Israel Armistice Agreement of 1949, this proposal suggests a modest expansion of Gaza by contributions of territory from Israel and Egypt as a gesture of goodwill, which would also provide an added security benefit for those nations by distancing Gaza’s extensive smuggling tunnel network from its newly-enlarged borders with its neighbours.
.
VII. Rights of Passage
Israel would apportion lands for the creation of road and light rail “safe passage” corridors (above- and/or below-ground) to facilitate travel between the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.
Security at both ends of any such corridor would be jointly managed by Ismail and Israel, with security of the intervening distance being controlled by Israel. The efficacy of this regime would be reviewed by the two states on a yearly basis with an eye toward obviating the need for Israeli inspection of rail and light vehicle passengers at the termini.
Commercial goods passing through the corridors, however, would be subject to on-going joint inspection by customs officials of both states.
In recognition of the vital importance of these corridors to the culture and economy of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, Israel would undertake to minimise any delays or closures associated with imminent security threats, health or weather emergencies, natural disasters, etc.
Sovereignty over the apportioned lands would remain with Israel.
.
VIII. The Jerusalem Capital Region
Jerusalem is the national capital of Israel and the direction of prayer for all Jews worldwide.
Jerusalem and the areas surrounding it (on either side of the Israel-West Bank border) would be declared part of a new Jerusalem Capital Region and would share in a metropolitan infrastructure network that would provide common services, such as water, power and waste management; and the development and implementation of appropriate planning, zoning, building and environmental codes.
The infrastructure network would be managed by a proposed Greater Jerusalem Stewardship Board which would be dedicated to ensuring the best possible quality of life for all residents of the city and its environs. The membership of the board would be elected by the residents of the Capital Region.
There would be a city council and mayoralty office for each side of the border.
The official work week throughout the Jerusalem Capital Region will be four days, operating from Monday through Thursday, with all government offices closed Friday through Sunday.
The capital of Ismail would be established in an eastward expansion of Jerusalem, with the capital being contiguous to the Old City area along some measure of its easterly perimeter. The exact determination of this contiguity, and the geographical configuration of the eastern portion of the Capital Region, would be decided in negotiations between the parties, taking into account service delivery requirements; resource availability; geographic constraints; mutual security concerns; and existing demographics.
.
IX. The Old City (less than 1 km² of land)
Jerusalem’s Old City would be part of neither the eastern nor western parts of Greater Jerusalem, but would constitute a separate legal entity managed by a proposed Regency Council comprised of representatives appointed by Israel, Ismail, the Waqf, the Chief Rabbinate of Israel, and the Vatican.
Its activities would be coordinated by a civilian Chief Administrator to be elected by the residents of the Jerusalem Capital Region from a slate of candidates, each pre-approved by at least a four-fifths majority of the five primary Council seats.
Basic services to the Old City would be provided by the Capital Region infrastructure network.
Any changes to the status quo of the Old City would require a unanimous vote of the Council, to be confirmed by twin, national public referenda in both Israel and Ismail.
Interested religious and cultural groups could petition any of the five permanent members to have their concerns represented at Council. Those with current standing (houses of worship, shrines, cemeteries and other related properties) in the Old City could petition the Council directly on a case-by-case basis.
Religious dispute arbitration would be conducted by the Council, but secular disputes (including crimes committed in the Old City, G-d forbid) would devolve to a special Magistrate’s court operating independently of either state’s judiciary but affiliated to both. Appointments to the court would be made by the Council with the assent of the Chief Justice of each state.
.
X. Security, Order & Defense
The proposal recommends a phased transfer of responsibility for the internal security of Areas B & C within the West Bank to the internal security services of the new Arab state, on a flexible timetable, based upon clear goals, to be decided by the negotiating parties. The Palestinian Authority currently exerts general responsibility for internal security in Area A, as provided for in the Oslo Accords.
A permanent, international peacekeeping force (comprised mainly of Canadians) would be charged with maintaining order in the bi-national Capital Region, as well as within the Old City itself. The peacekeepers would work in cooperation with the internal security services of both Israel and Ismail, as well as with the Israeli, Jordanian and Egyptian military commands; and would also guide the new Arab state in its development of a robust, responsible and accountable police force.
The peacekeeping command, reporting to the civilian Chief Administrator, would provide security and protection for the people (residents, workers and visitors alike) of the Old City and the greater region; ensure reasonable freedom of access to designated Holy Places; and maintain security for the Regency Council.
Protection of Ismail from external threats would be undertaken by Israel, Jordan and Egypt, in concert with the new state’s internal security services and the international peacekeeping team.
Security of the Jewish state, in turn, would be greatly enhanced through its formal recognition by the Arab League and the OIC.
.
.
~
..
.
There’s a kind of existential futility–and no small irony–inherent in
man’s claiming of land, for in the end, it’s the land that claims us all.
.
That may nowhere be so true as it is in Jerusalem.
.
.
.
.
.
It is our fondest hope that the boundaries which separate us
will be overgrown in time with trees bearing fruit enriched
by the bloom of tolerance; that we might all derive sustenance
from that bounty; and that, years from now, it will be difficult
to remember why it seemed so incredibly hard to find peace
.
.
.
•
.
May this work be found pleasing
in the eyes of G-d, Blessed be He,
to Whom all glory is due
.
.
.
.
.
2010 print edition: colour, 12 pages, 7.5″x8.7″
.
~
.
.
XI. Suggest an edit (confidential)
To comment publicly, use the Reply window at bottom of page
.
.
.
.
.
project hosting courtesy imahd.ca
Powered by WordPress
and people like you
.
.
.
header adapted from an image by Time-Life photographer Jack Hazut ©
.
This document is open for public comment
Your participation could be invaluable.
For private submissions, use the confidential form provided above.
Note: If a passage seems different on second reading, that’s to be expected. This is a “live” document and is therefore subject to intermittent alterations, without notice, at any time.
– ed.
Given that Jerusalem is the cradle of monotheism, and that the Lord is One, it may well be that the city is therefore existentially indivisible.
Interesting, funny and potentially ironic.
I’m not sure what to say. I’m going to have to read it a few more times before I comment further. It seems provocative in some ways but it’s also a very balanced approach.
If nobody likes it, you’re probably on the right track.