Should Jerusalem become an international city?

Of all the outstanding issues in the way of an Israeli-Palestinian peace deal, the status of Jerusalem is one of the most complex and sensitive.

It is one which seems to offer little scope for compromise.

The vast majority of Israelis insist that a united Jerusalem will be the eternal capital of the Jewish state.

With equal insistence, the Palestinians say that the Arab eastern part of Jerusalem - where the al-Aqsa Mosque and the Dome of the Rock, sacred Islamic sites, are located - should be the capital of their new state.

Is one solution to make Jerusalem an international city? This could involve administration by the UN, or a shared municipality, or to make it a demilitarised city of all the faiths who worship there.

This Talking Point was suggested by A. Lehan, from New Zealand:
I feel there is an opportunity for debate on the subject of Jerusalem. As it seems to be a major stumbling block to Mid East peace hopes, my question would have to be 'why not make Jerusalem into an international city?' I think this might spark some interesting comment.

If you have any suggestions for Talking Point's, please click here.

---

To work, the city needs to be shared, and the way for that to be just and fair is for an Israeli Mayor and Arab Deputy Mayor to hold office for four years. The next four years to see an Arab Mayor and Israeli Deputy Mayor and so on. If they cannot agree on a simple solution like this, then Jerusalem should be run by the British who alone have the wisdom, experience and knowledge.
Michael, Israel

Neither Israelis nor the Palestinians would give up their sovereignty to the U.N

Peter Vogel, USA

Neither Israelis nor the Palestinians would give up their sovereignty to the U.N. They each want the city completely for themselves, and want the other side gone forever, by any means necessary. In such a climate, there isn't much hope for peace.
Peter Vogel, San Rafael, USA

Jerusalem can only belong to Hebrews who built it. Hence it should belong to Israel. It is a Mecca for Christians
Monsingh, India

Jerusalem was not built by the ancient Jews. David entered a city named Jebus and renamed it Jerusalem, meaning "foundation of peace". Jerusalem should be an open city. There should be no head of state with a seat in Jersualem. It should be treated as the holy city that it is, and be free of politics. No Israeli and no Palastinian capital should be there. No military forces should be there, only a city's police. Jerusalem belongs to all the world's people. Open the city by kicking out all governments.
Scott, USA

The fact of the matter is that Jerusalem is a city divided, with Arabs in the East and Israelis in the West. Untill this reality is appreciated by both parties, any talk of a divided or internationalized Jerusalem is futile and conflict will persist.
Ahsen Khan, USA

This site is important to so many people that no one group should every have control over it

Matt, USA

The Israelis and the Palestinians have shown the world that they cannot co-exist even at the expense of their holy sites, so I say take it away from both of them. This site is important to so many people that no one group should every have control over it, and definitely not two governments so violent and immature.
Matt, USA

It's fascinating to read people's views. As a Jew, I agree with the principle of making Jerusalem an international city, but it cannot be under UN auspices, an organisation which is tainted with its anti-Israeli resolutions, usually put forward by Arab members, and supported by the Muslim world, and most developing countries. So what's the solution? Without agreement between the Israelis and the Palestinians, the proposal would never work -- it cannot be imposed. So, as long as both sides agree, I think they should be able to come to their own arrangement, one which would satisfy both parties and allow all religions the freedom to worship where they wish. But I wouldn't hold my breath!
Elliott, UK

The beauty of this idea is that it dissociates religion from the main issue at hand

S. Madanat, USA

The beauty of this idea (which is not new, as many have noted), is that it dissociates religion from the main issue at hand, which is the end of occupation and the establishment of a free Palestinian state. This weakens the appeal of religious extremists from both sides, and removes a major stumbling block to the achievement of peace with justice.
S. Madanat, USA

In the original plan set forth by the UN in 1948, Jerusalem was to be an international city apart from Israel and Palestine. Neither side will be happy but the rest of the world will more than likely accept and applaud this route. If either wants to have any kind of regular relations with the rest of the world, they would leave over and live with a compromise.
Flipper, USA

Let the Palestinians have their capital there, the Israelis have their capital there, and keep the city open to pilgrims of all faiths

Rob, USA

I think the only realistic solution is to have Jerusalem as an open city. The Arabs seem to insist on UN involvement, and I can think of no better job for UN politicians/peacekeepers then to be gatekeepers at all entrances to Jerusalem. Let the Palestinians have their capital there, the Israelis have their capital there, and keep the city open to pilgrims of all faiths. Allow no weapons of any kind into the city, and have the UN act as the police. Free access for all, with violence not tolerated.
Rob, USA

There is no parallel to this idea present in this world, to the best of my knowledge. Talk is cheap and realities are tough. When all will try to manage, there won't be any management. Security is another issue. Under what law and under whose authority this novel idea will be implemented. If Jerusalem is an international issue, then it should fully be debated in United Nation's security council, first.
Habib Hemani, USA

Neither side will accept this "solution". The UN better be ready for some casualties, because anger with the agreement will be taken out on anyone wearing a blue helmet.
BR, USA

Wading through this collection of opinions, I see the "absolutely yes" and the "absolutely not". There is so much energy in Jerusalem that each group of people wants to absorb it fully. An extremely valuable, yet foreign, notion that we learned when we were kids is sharing. Ironically, most people fail to apply it. The beauty of sharing is felt only when one tries it. So, let us try!
Asser, USA

If Jerusalem is to be internationalized, then so should the Vatican and Mecca

Nathan, USA

No, Jerusalem should not, and will not, become an international city. Jerusalem was built by the ancient Hebrews and should remain the united and undisputed capitol of Israel. If Jerusalem is to be internationalized, then so should the Vatican and Mecca.
Nathan, USA

I don't know how people like Nathan can talk of cities like the Vatican and Mecca becoming internationalized - they are the religious centres of single religions, unlike Jerusalem, which harbours three faiths within it's boundaries. To talk about giving Jerusalem an international status is easy, but what does it really mean and involve? I don't think it is that easy to have capitals of a Jewish and a Palestinian state in the same city. That will never work. There has to be one government and administration for there to be relative law and order.
Ali Ahmed, Canada

I am not sure the United Nations can be trusted to protect the interest of the Israelis as they are the organization that also passed the resolution of equating Zionism as racism. Therefore I believe this idea to be naive under the circumstances.
Paul A., USA

This is a solution that I (and I'm sure many others) have thought about before. It is paramount that Palestinians and Israelis are treated equally and fairly on Jerusalem. Satisfying one party currently would leave the other unsatisfied, so the only equitable solution is to make Jerusalem a UN world city and permanently forbid the Palestinians and Israeli authorities from ever laying claim to the city. It would be a fair price for each authority to pay for sanctioning murderous anti-semitic/anti-arab, racist hooligans for the last fifty years.
Alan L, UK

Any possible international solution which takes into account the ultimate religious character and hopes of the Jewish people must include the rebuilding of the Temple. How this can be accomplished peaceably with the Mosque now covering the Site would be a monumental problem which defies solution. ONE SIDE--Israeli, or Muslim--will not be satisfied with compromise on issues so sacred to both.
Enoch Kaufmann, USA

An international city would send out all the right signals about the peaceful intent of the followers of these three faiths

Ed, UK

If we do eventually end up, as seems likely, with a "two state" solution, Jerusalem will either have to be divided or removed from the equation all together.
An additional benefit to making Jerusalem an international city would be that Christians would finally feel able to journey to this holy city as equals; Jews and Muslims have no monopoly over the special religious significance of Zion. An international city would send out all the right signals about the peaceful intent of the followers of these three faiths.
Ed, UK, in Germany

This is one of the minimum requirements for a just solution. Jerusalem is holy to Islam, Christianity and Judaism. It is utterly abhorrent that any of these groups should seek to exclude any of the others.
Charles Moore, Scotland

Jerusalem must not become an international city. If this was to become the case it would undermine the United Nations and the Geneva Conventions. It would send a message out to all oppressing dictators that if you bully a people enough you can get what you want.
G. King, Scotland

Jerusalem as an international city would probably be as nice as Berlin was while the Wall was up. I think the Jews should have it. It is their holiest city, and only the third holiest in Islam.
P, UK

Of course Jerusalem should be internationalised. This was the intent of the UN from the very beginning

Blu Topie, US

Of course Jerusalem should be internationalised. This was the intent of the UN from the very beginning. Israel should be forced to comply with ALL UN Resolutions, including Rights of Return, including the Right of Return for Jerusalemites. The Palestinians need international protection and security from fanatical Zionism. The UN has shirked its duties for years in this regard.
Blu Topie, US

It would be a great idea to make Jerusalem, an international town. It can also house United Nations Headquarters to show the commitment of all the nations of the world towards peace and prosperity.
Sundar, USA

I must say that making Jerusalem an international city is a wonderful idea. The city is sacred to so many different faiths that no single one should control it.
Also, Israel should not be "rewarded" for its aggression and ignoring of international law by allowing it control of the eastern sections of the city.
The best way to run it would be run it along secular lines with an advisory panel made up of senior clergy from the major faith represented in the city.
Charles, London, UK

I have always advocated a "Vatican solution" for the holy places in Jerusalem. Let the sits be looked after by a council of guardians drawn from all faiths, and let them demonstrate that faith is above politics, by allowing freedom of access to worshippers, and let them declare a commitment to peace, tolerance, and respect for one another's beliefs.
Cynewulf, UK

Jerusalem is too important to leave it in the hands of one nation or one religious group

Gert, Netherlands

Jerusalem is too important to leave it in the hands of one nation or one religious group. It should either be an international city or a united city under the sovereignty of Israel/Palestine where border checks are held at the edges of the city, as the Israeli peace group Gush Shalom has suggested.
Gert, Netherlands

I disagree. Internationalisation will make all sides unhappy, and nobody happy. Nor will it solve the Middle East problem. Only full statehood for the Palestinians, the right of return for the long suffering Palestinian refugees and the dismantling of settlements can ensure peace.
Manju, India

Absolutely not. There is no religion here - it is pure and simple military occupation, and it should be liberated and handed over to the Palestinians at once. Internationalisation of Jerusalem is nothing short of rewarding thuggery.
Arif Syed, India

To Arif Syed - what nonsense you talk. In 1947, the UN proposed creating Jerusalem as an international city, which I fully agree with. However, in 1948, Transjordan annexed part of the West Bank, including East Jerusalem and, against the UN's will, prohibited Jews from worshipping at the Western Wall (note that the Israelis have never stopped the Palestinians from worshipping where they want). In 1967, Israel "won" the Old City from Jordan, and I agree it should now be given back to the world community. But it is totally slanted and incorrect to accuse Israel of thuggery and of snatching something from the Palestinians (who were never granted ownership over Jerusalem, not by the UN or anyone else).
Paul, UK

In reply to Arif Syed: Before putting blame on any community exclusively based on prejudiced feelings, one must look at the history of Jerusalem and recent developments in Israel. Since peoples of different faiths live in Jerusalem, they must have equal rights to practice their religions, irrespective of the community they belong to. Every citizen must think of living in harmony with peoples from other faiths and should respect their religious sentiments. Jerusalem should have a secular character and in my opinion, by putting efforts to internationalise this holy city, a permanent solution to the peace process can be found in the Middle East. Unreasonable violence and fanaticism can never result in any solution to this long-pending issue.
Mahesh Chandra Somani, Finland

Either we start to give the UN some real political power or we relegate it to a humanitarian and environmental organisation

Victor D., Amsterdam,

The role of the UN in administering some sort of rule over the political hotspots of the world is an issue where the people of the world seem to vote in favour of, but which the governments involved invariably veto. Either we start to give the UN some real political power or we relegate it to a humanitarian and environmental organisation. Right now it's neither.
Victor D., Amsterdam, Netherlands

Absolutely ... and all the Christian, Muslim and Jewish religions should move their "headquarters" there.
Mark M. Newdick, US/UK