There is a certain irony in the fact that it will take the wisdom of Solomon to solve the problem that Jerusalem presents in the quest for an enduring blueprint for the coexistence of the Israeli and Palestinian states. It was Solomon who built his temple in the city and established it as the sacred site of the first of the three monotheistic religions that now hold the city as a holy place.
There is no denying the Jewish claim to the longest historical association with Jerusalem and its enduring religious significance. Early writing associates the Hebrew patriarch Abraham with the area and it was King David, Solomon's father, who established it as the capital of his Jewish kingdom in about 1000BC.
Yet there is equally no denying the place that Jerusalem occupies in the Islamic and Christian faiths. The Dome of the Rock covers the place from which, according to Muslim belief, Muhammad rose to Heaven with the angel Gabriel and spoke to God. The Church of the Holy Sepulchre is believed by Christians to be on the site of Christ's crucifixion and burial.
And, over 3000 turbulent years, Jerusalem has been fought for, sacked, rebuilt and ruled over in the name of either empire or religion. In the course of that history the driving forces of ethnicity, politics and faith have become so fused that one seems incapable of existing without the other. It is little wonder that the people of the Holy City are described in terms that embody all three attributes.
Therein lies the impasse that has faced Palestinian President Yasser Arafat and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, who have been arguing at Camp David over a political solution to a problem which, as both of them are only too well aware, transcends politics. Little wonder that President Clinton (who may have hoped to end his presidency cloaked with the wisdom of a latter-day Solomon) is beginning to show worry lines. How can two leaders, each charged with protecting territorial, historic and religious interests, reach a settlement that is acceptable to their people?
The only answer may be to take Jerusalem out of the equation. As the British brought their troubled administration of Palestine to an end after the Second World War, the recently created United Nations, in establishing the state of Israel, proposed that Jerusalem become an international city. It was a proposal that Jewish and Jordanian opposition, and the 1948 war, brought to an abrupt end. It is time to resurrect it.
The significance of the city for the followers of three great religions, countervailing territorial claims and the demonstrable failure of past "solutions" are all grounds that could be advanced to create a special status under a UN mandate. The concept of an international city would recognise the unique place Jerusalem holds in worldwide faith. It would underline the strategic significance of the city in Middle East affairs and it would also acknowledge that sovereign interests are irreconcilable.
Detractors would doubtless point to the fate of the League of Nations' "free city" of Danzig (Gdansk), which was overrun by Nazi Germany, but the world has moved on since then. The ineffectual league has gone and the United Nations is considerably more sure of itself than it was in 1947. If there were a will to make the status work, the international city of Jerusalem could become a model for similar zones serving other needs.
For example, an international city that would become the permanent home of the Olympic Games is a possibility. It may be too late for the UN itself but an international city that housed its headquarters could have been a better "home" than New York.
All the Camp David negotiators need do is to recognise that Jerusalem is a special problem requiring a special solution - and let the UN do the rest.
AdvertisementAdvertise with NZME.
Latest from New Zealand
Meet NZ's national mullet-growing champion - and he's only 10-years-old
Ted Keen has just been named the winner of Aotearoa’s Next Top Mullet.