Jerusalem in America's Foreign Policy, 1947-1997

Abstract

In summer 2000, a jarring “new” element was suddenly injected into the long-stalled diplomacy among Israelis, Palestinians, and the wider world of Arabs and Islam: the final status of Jerusalem, in a political accord between Israel and a Palestinian state. The Jerusalem issue was hardly new, of course; it dated from the first breath of plans to partition the Holy Land in 1947. But in all the tortuous diplomacy that ensued over half a century, just about the only point that all sides seemed agreed upon was that the future political status of Jerusalem be put to one side. It seemed too difficult to unravel, too emotional, too weighted down with symbolism that defied evident realities. In what, in retrospect, seems a desperate act to enliven an ossified deadlock, President Bill Clinton of the United States and Prime Minister Ehud Barak of Israel slapped onto the table a bold plan to share power in Jersu-alem, leaving it the capital of both Israel and Palestine, with international religious interests internationally secured. Submitted without preparation of concerned publics, the plan suffered immediate rejection by the Palestinian leader, Yasir Arafat, backed by a broad spectrum of other Arabs who seemed unable to confront the possibility (probability?) that Jerusalem will ultimately have to be shared among competing religions and jurisdictions.