[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 10]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 14625-14626]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                        PALESTINIAN PEACE TALKS

                                 ______
                                 

                         HON. NICK J. RAHALL II

                            of west virginia

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, July 13, 2000

  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, President Clinton, Prime Minister Barak, and 
President Arafat are meeting at Camp David in an attempt to resolve the 
most difficult issues preventing peace between Israelis and 
Palestinians. The pundits on both sides have been pessimistic about 
their chance for success. Each side claims that the other is unwilling 
to compromise. We are told the issues are too difficult and few new 
ideas are available. Each side has supposedly drawn red lines which 
reportedly will not be crossed.
  I, for one, am more hopeful. The task confronting these three men is 
great and the odds are clearly against them. Nevertheless, if one takes 
the time and effort, one can see examples of flexibility on all sides 
and willingness to rethink difficult issues. The most controversial of 
all outstanding issues is the future of Jerusalem. Even on this 
emotion-filled issue, parties are clearly willing to compromise and 
approach the problem creatively. An example of this is an opinion 
article which appeared in the Sunday Los Angeles Times. Faisal 
Husseini, the author, is the senior Palestine Liberation Organization 
official in Jerusalem. I would like to draw my colleagues' attention to 
the article not necessarily to endorse every idea presented in it, but 
in order to emphasize the level of creative thinking and flexibility 
being displayed by officials involved in finding solutions.
  Mr. Speaker, this flexibility gives hope if not optimism that the 
three men gathered at Camp David can find a peaceful resolution to the 
Israeli/Palestinian conflict.

               [From the Los Angeles Times, July 9, 2000]

                   The Holy City Must Be Ruled Fairly

                          (By Faisal Husseini)

       Jerusalem--No city in the world evokes as much passion and 
     controversy as Jerusalem. And for good reason: Jerusalem is 
     spiritually important to three great religions--Judaism, 
     Christianity and Islam. And it is politically important to 
     two peoples--Palestinian and Israeli.
       If we are to reach a peaceful resolution to the Jerusalem 
     quandary, it only will be through devising a way to ensure 
     that all five of these constituencies have a role in the 
     administration of Jerusalem and its holy sites. No single 
     group should be able to claim either religious or political 
     exclusivity in Jerusalem.
       One of the many myths that have flourished since 1967 is 
     that Israel wants to keep Jerusalem unified while the 
     Palestinians wish to redivide it. Nothing could be further 
     from the truth. Neither I nor others want to see Jerusalem as 
     a divided city. The real question is whether a unified 
     Jerusalem will be under the exclusive control of Israel or 
     under shared control.
       Palestinians believe that Jerusalem should be a shared, 
     open city; two capitals for two states. sIn our vision, East 
     Jerusalem, as defined by the 1948-1967 borders,
       To a large degree, this arrangement would simply be 
     recognition of reality. For the past 33 years, Israelis have 
     treated East Jerusalem as a separate entity. The Israeli 
     government has channeled only minimal resources to the 
     Palestinians of East Jerusalem and has denied its majority 
     Palestinian population many basic rights. These Palestinians, 
     many of whose families have lived in Jerusalem for centuries, 
     have had no voice in their city's administration and have 
     faced severe impediments imposed by Israel in housing, land 
     use and economic development. This is the Israeli version of 
     ``unified'' Jerusalem.
       Under our plan, all of the city's residents, not just 
     Jewish Israelis, would have a say in how Jerusalem is run. 
     Moreover, the rights of both Palestinians and Israelis should 
     be equal: If Israelis are to live in East Jerusalem, then 
     Palestinians should be allowed to live in West Jerusalem.
       Creating shared administrative arrangements is especially 
     important in the Old City of Jerusalem, as this concentrated 
     area evokes the most passion among Jews, Christians and 
     Muslims. Many residents of the Old City are Palestinian. Yet 
     for the past 33 years, all decisions about land use, housing 
     and development have been made by Israelis. Palestinian 
     Christians and Muslims have had no say and have suffered as a 
     result.
       For example, soon after Israeli forces captured Jerusalem 
     in 1967, Israel greatly expanded the Old City's Jewish 
     Quarter and ruled that Palestinians could not purchase houses 
     there, even though extremist Jewish groups--often with 
     Israeli government encouragement--have seized properties in 
     the Old City's Christian and Muslim quarters. And since 1993, 
     Israel has imposed a military closure that systematically 
     prevents Palestinian Christians and Muslims from entering 
     Jerusalem.
       In our vision of Jerusalem, such actions could not occur 
     because administration of

[[Page 14626]]

     the Old City would be shared and followers of all three 
     religions would enjoy unimpeded access to thier holy sites.
       As Jerusalem is the spiritual center for all three 
     monothelistic religions, no one should have a monopoly over 
     the Old City, and no one should act there unilaterally. 
     Israelis say they want to keep Jerusalem unified and not 
     divided. What they really mean is that they want to maintain 
     100% control over Jerusalem.
       Palestinians want a Jerusalem that is shared, not divided. 
     Ours is the only realistic alternative for a city that is so 
     important to so many people. There is no reason why Jerusalem 
     cannot become the symbol of reconciliation in the Middle East 
     instead of continuing to be an obstacle to peace.

     

                          ____________________