Whither Jerusalem?: Proposals and Positions Concerning the Future of Jerusalem

Front Cover
Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Jun 28, 1995 - Political Science - 182 pages
1 Review
The future of Jerusalem is the most difficult issue facing negotiators, political and legal experts. In the current peace talks between Israel and its neighbours, it has been agreed to postpone discussion on Jerusalem to the latest stage of the peace process. But the Jerusalem question continues to come to the fore at every turn, always charged with intensely emotional and uncompromising statements: not only from those parties who are directly involved, but also by eminent personalities, organizations and states elsewhere. The Jerusalem Institute for Israel Studies has collected 55 proposals: 12 were written between 1916-1950 and 43 between 1967-1993. Their authors, coming from various countries, present various approaches to the three main issues at stake: sovereignty, holy places, and municipal governance. "Whither Jerusalem?" summarizes each of the 55 proposals, gives brief information about their authors, and analyzes the similarities and divergences between them. The official position of five states and organizations is included, as well as a lexicon of terms used by the authors of the proposals.
 

What people are saying - Write a review

User Review - Flag as inappropriate

Professor Rostow, examining the claim for Palestinian's self-determination on the bases of International law, concluded:
"The 1920 mandate[for Palestine] implicitly denies Arab claims to national
political rights in the area in favour of the Jews; the mandated territory was in effect reserved to the Jewish people for their self-determination and political development, in acknowledgment of the historic connection of the Jewish people to the land. There remains simply the theory that the Arab inhabitants of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip have an inherent "natural law" claim to the area. Neither custom ary international law nor the United Nations Charter acknowledges that every group of people claiming to be a nation has the right to a state of its own." Eugene Rostow, The Future of Palestine, Institute for Streategic Studies, November 1993
See: Brand, Roots of Israel's Sovereignty In International Law: In Defense of the Levy Report http://www.think-israel.org.allegedoccupation.html
The so called "Palestinian People" were invented by the Soviet dezinformatsiya in 1964 and appear for the first time in the preamble to the PLO Charter, drafted in Moscow in 1964. The claim that the Arabs living in Palestine constituted a unique people and wanted political self-determination had no basis in fact and was corroborated only by the first 422 members of the Palestinian National Council, each handpicked by the KGB.
The Jewish People have the right of sovereignty over all of Palestine west of the Jordan River. The Jewish People and the Arab People submitted competing claims to Palestine at the Paris Peace Talks. When the talks were reconvened the next year at San Remoi, the Principal Allied War Powers recognized the claim of the Jewish People by adopting, word-for-word the policy of the Balfour Declaration. That policy was to recognize the Jews as equitable owners of the political rights to Palestine but to defer the right vesting until two standards were met: 1. Attainment of a population majority in the area in which they were to rule, and 2. Capability of exercising sovereignty. Those standards were met in 1950 within the territory defined by the Armistice Agreement, and in 1967 in all Palestine West of the Jordan. The Jews had been recognized as owning those political rights by 53 states in 1922. The survived the demise of the League of Nations in Article 80 of the UN Charter and under the legal doctrine of acquired rights, now codified.
 

Contents

Chapter One THE LEGAL STATUS OF JERUSALEM
1
B Opinions on the Legal Status of Jerusalem According to International Law
15
2 East Jerusalem
18
The Legal Status of Jerusalem According to Israeli Law
22
Chapter Two PROPOSALS AND POSITIONS CONCERNING THE FUTURE OF JERUSALEM
25
The British Mandate for Palestine 1922
26
Proposal of Dr Chaim Arlosoroff 1932
27
The Peel Commission Report 1937
28
Proposal by Dr Walid Khalidi 1978 1988
98
Proposal by David IshShalom 1987
99
Proposal by Dr Grant Littke 1988
100
Proposal by John V Whitbeck 19891994
101
Proposal by Raphael Cidor 1989
103
Proposal by Professor Gidon Gottlieb 1989
105
Proposal by Shmuel Toledano 1991
106
Proposal by Professor Daniel Elazar 1991
107

Proposal of the Jewish Agency 1938
29
Report of Sir William Fitzgerald 1945
30
The MorrisonGrady Committee Report 1946
32
Proposal of the Minority of UNSCOP 1947
34
The Resolution on the Future Government of Palestine The Partition Resolution of the U N General Assembly Resolution 181 II 1947
36
Proposal of the Archbishop of Canterbury 1949
39
A Draft Statute for Jerusalem 1950
40
Proposal by the Government of Israel 1950
43
Proposal Submitted by Sweden 1950
45
Proposal by Professor Benjamin Akzin 1967
47
Proposal by Professor Avigdor Levontin 1967
48
Proposal by the Government of Israel after the SixDay War 19671969
50
Proposal by Dr Meron Benvenisti 1968
52
Proposal by Professor Elihu Lauterpacht CBE Q C 1968
59
The Rogers Plan U S Secretary of State William Rogers 1969
60
Proposal by Evan M Wilson 1969
61
Proposal by Professor W Michael Reisman 1970
63
Proposal by Dr Raphael Benkler 1972
65
Proposals of Sen Richard Nixon and Sen J William Fulbright 1967 and 1974
67
Report of the Aspen Institute 1975
69
Report of the Brookings Institution 1975
71
The Allon Plan 1976
72
Proposal by Ambassador James George 1978
73
Proposal by Dr Shmuel Berkovitz 1978
74
Proposal by Dr Joelle Le Morzellec 1979
79
Proposal by Lord Caradon 1980
81
Proposal by Yaakov Hazan 1980
82
Proposal by Mark Gruhin 1980
84
Peace Plan by Crown Prince Fahd of Saudi Arabia 1981
86
Proposal by the Honourable Terence Prittie 1981
87
Proposal by Professor Saul Cohen 1981
88
Proposal by Dr Henry Cattan 1981
90
Proposal by Professor Gerald I A D Draper OBE 1981
91
Resolution of the Arab Summit Conference at Fez 1982
92
Proposal by Justice HaimCohn 1982
93
Proposal by Ambassador Gideon Rafael 1983
95
Proposal by Professor Antonio Cassese 1986
96
Proposal by Professor Thomas and Ms Sally Mallison 1981 1986
97
Proposal by Palestinian and Israeli Peace Activists 1991
109
Proposal by Dr Sari Nusseibeh and Dr Mark Heller 1991
111
Proposal by Professor Francis A Boyle 1992
113
Proposal by H E Ambassador Adnan Abu Odeh 1992
115
Proposal by Dr Cecilia Albin Moshe Amirav and Hanna Siniora 1992
117
Proposal by the IsraelPalestine Center for Research and Information IPCRI 1994
121
Position of the Palestine Liberation Organization
126
Position of the Vatican
127
Position of Egypt
129
Position of the Hamas
131
Position of the United States
132
Position of Jordan
135
Chapter Three COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF PROPOSALS AND POSITIONS ACCORDING TO SPECIFIC SUBJECTS
137
B National Aspirations
138
Holy Places
140
Municipal Administration
143
Chapter FourLEXICON OF TERMS
145
Autonomy
146
Buffer Zone
149
Capitulations
150
Condominium
151
Corpus separatum
152
Diplomatic Privileges and Immunities
153
Enclave
156
The Holy Places
157
Internationalization
160
Mandate
161
Neutrality and Neutralization
162
Sovereignty
163
Status quoin Religious Matters
165
The Supreme Muslim Council and the Supreme Islamic Authority
166
The Temple Mount
167
The U N Trusteeship Council
168
The Vatican
169
Waqf
170
The Western Wall
172
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY
174
Copyright

Other editions - View all

Common terms and phrases

References to this book

All Book Search results »

Bibliographic information