By Warren Clark and Julie Schumacher Cohen

It is common for the issue of Jerusalem to become a political football on the presidential campaign trail.  The latest iteration was Sen. Barack Obama's remarks June 4^th to an American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) conference when he said, "Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided."  This episode evoked controversy, clarifications and responses that show the evolving nature of how Jerusalem is viewed and debated by the American public and in the political arena.    

Churches for Middle East Peace has long supported the U.S. policy that Jerusalem is a “final status issue” to be negotiated and calls for the city to be shared by Israelis and Palestinians, Jews, Christians and Muslims.   As the church leaders in the Holy Land said in a September 2006 statement, "In God's own design, two peoples and three religions have been living together in this city. Our vision is that they should continue to live together in harmony, respect, mutual acceptance and cooperation."  

Obama and McCain on Jerusalem: In Their Own Words 

In an interview with CNN on June 5^th Sen. Obama clarified his comments on Jerusalem, saying, "it's going to be up to the parties to negotiate a range of these issues. And Jerusalem will be part of those negotiations…As a practical matter, it [division] would be very difficult to execute. And I think that it is smart for us to -- to work through a system in which everybody has access to the extraordinary religious sites in Old Jerusalem but that Israel has a legitimate claim on that city."  Speaking to The Jerusalem Post an anonymous Obama campaign advisor reiterated that "Jerusalem is a final status issue", clarifying that the "undivided" term meant that the city is "not going to be divided by barbed wire and checkpoints as it was in 1948-1967."   

Senator McCain has also weighed in on the status of Jerusalem.  In March of this year, McCain said, "I support Jerusalem as the capital of Israel."  He went further last week.  Responding to Obama's comments, McCain said on June 6^th, "Jerusalem is undivided. Jerusalem is the capitol. And we should move our embassy to Jerusalem before anything else happens. The subject of Jerusalem itself will be addressed in negotiations by the Israeli government and people."   

Words Do Matter

As with any Israeli-Palestinian issue, words are understood differently in different places and there are many ways to parse even a few syllables.  Middle East advocates and policymakers are particularly aware of key concepts, and what words and phrases are, and are not, used to express them.

First, statements articulating support for "Jerusalem as the capital of Israel" do not, in and of themselves, rule out the possibility of Jerusalem also serving, in part, as the future Palestinian capital.  Jerusalem of course is and will be Israel's capital.  In this case, what’s not said is as important as what is.  Obama's and McCain's evolving comments both helpfully include mention of negotiations.  This reflects some recognition that expressing support for Israel's capital alone can be unhelpful and that negotiation, not unilateral solutions, are the final determinant.     

Second, what is meant by the term "undivided"?  Some argue, and indeed the Obama campaign has indicated, that in committing to an "undivided" Jerusalem, Sen. Obama rejects any physical re-division of the city.  This position is commendable in its own right – clearly the Jerusalem configuration of pre-1967 when Jews did not have access to their holy sites must not be repeated.  However, in Israel, where Jerusalem is now debated vigorously the word "divide" generally implies support for some kind of shared sovereignty and the term "undivided" can often signify exclusive Israeli control.  As an example, in the fall of 2007 The Jerusalem Post reported that a majority of Knesset members had signed a petition "calling for Jerusalem to remain undivided in a move that could tie the hands of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert in his negotiations with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas" [emphasis added].  And most current policy formulations have ruled out the notion of putting up a wall in the middle of the Old City.   

Illustrating the deep and conflicting sentiments around Jerusalem, Sen. Obama's initial comments were welcomed by those that support exclusive Israeli control of the city and met with skepticism, or rejected outright, by those who see the status of Jerusalem as yet to be negotiated and expect it to also serve as the capital of a Palestinian state.  Senator Obama's subsequent clarification demonstrates the political minefield of Israeli-Palestinian peacemaking.   

All of Sen. Obama's and Sen. McCain's comments included above can be interpreted by people of goodwill in a way that leaves open the hope and possibility for a "shared" Jerusalem – capital to Israel and a future Palestinian state.  "Undivided" can mean geographically "open" and Israel's capital can also be Palestine's.  Even McCain's latest comment on moving the embassy to Jerusalem, taken in context, can be understood to mean that while he might consider moving the U.S. embassy, which would be inflammatory and deeply problematic, he would not close the door on a joint capital.  However, words do matter and this latest episode doesn't make any easier the job of Annapolis negotiators tasked with actually working out a solution that is palatable to both sides.   

The Same Political Game? 

Observations of this year's campaign are better understood by looking back on what has come before.  George W. Bush, speaking to an AIPAC audience in 2000 said, "As soon as I take office, I will begin the process of moving the United States ambassador to the city Israel has chosen as its capital." In March 1992, Bill Clinton said, "I recognize Jerusalem as an undivided city, the eternal capital of Israel, and I believe in the principle of moving our embassy to Jerusalem."   

Interestingly, both the Bush and Clinton campaign sound bites came along with some other more constructive ones.  As Clinton made those comments, he also cautioned that "we should [not] do anything to interfere with the peace process."  In July 1999, several months before the AIPAC speech, Bush responded to a question about moving the embassy to Jerusalem by saying, "I'm afraid that might screw up the peace process.  I don't want to screw up the peace process."   

There's nothing new about politicians trying to have it both ways.  Promises on Jerusalem, like many made along the road to the White House, are often forgotten.  As president, Bill Clinton maintained the long-standing U.S. policy that Jerusalem is a final status issue to be negotiated by the two-parties and so has President Bush.  Clinton offered his "parameters" on how to resolve the conflict, including Jerusalem.  President Bush has not put forward any proposals on Jerusalem, but has recognized that a solution is necessary and that "both sides have deeply felt political and religious concerns."  Both Clinton and Bush have waived the "Jerusalem Embassy Act", a law passed by Congress in 1995 demanding that the U.S. embassy currently in Tel Aviv be immediately moved to Jerusalem.  While Sen. Obama and Sen. McCain were exchanging campaign barbs, on June 4^th President Bush quietly issued a "Memorandum for the Secretary of State", waiving the Jerusalem Embassy Act yet again "in order to protect the national security interests of the United States."   

Or A Broadening Debate?   

The political game is evolving and the discussion that has been activated on the future of Jerusalem has broadened an important and necessary debate.  That Sen. Obama felt it necessary to clarify his original remarks on Jerusalem is a positive sign.  That both Sen. Obama and McCain are now mentioning negotiations when talking about Jerusalem is an improvement.  

Under the headlines and rhetoric, this exchange also provides what an educator would call a “teachable moment”.  Why does Jerusalem engender such passion?  Are there any solutions to this seemingly intractable issue?   

Despite the competing claims to and the emotional nature of Jerusalem, there are in fact many practical solutions that chart a way forward.  Key negotiations and peace proposals to date, including the Clinton Parameters, Taba negotiations, Geneva Accords and People's Voice Initiative, have proposed that Jerusalem be the "capital for two states".  All of these peace plans invoke the general principle that Arab areas would come under Palestinian sovereignty and Jewish areas under Israeli sovereignty, with the Geneva Accord detailing the two capitals and providing contiguity for both.   

Even the difficult question of security has been examined.  A team of experts taking part in the "Jerusalem Old City Initiative" housed at the University of Windsor, Canada concluded in November, 2007 that "an effective, fair-minded and sustainable security system for the Old City is achievable."  This same group will come out with reports later this year examining critical questions of governance and access to holy sites in the Old City.   

The work of Israeli and Palestinian negotiators can benefit from an unprecedented amount of scholarship and ingenuity on the question of Jerusalem.  The critical issue for the current diplomatic process and the future is one of political will.  Will Jerusalem be left for the end or will it end up as part of one comprehensive package together with other contentious issues?   

Looking Ahead: A Shared Future

As the campaign season heats up, advocates should hold their candidates accountable on issues that matter to them.  CMEP will be communicating with both presidential candidates over the summer and into the fall and providing advocacy guidance, building on our August 2007 Board and Leadership Council letter to presidential campaigns.  As we know, once the lights dim from the inaugural balls in January 2009, the problem of Middle East peace will sit squarely on the President's desk.  

On the ground in the Holy Land, Israelis and Palestinians long for a resolution of their decades-long conflict.  Any solution must include a shared future in Jerusalem.  The next U.S. President and Congress, with the support of American Jews, Christians and Muslims, have a responsibility to help them get there. 

“Insofar as she is the homeland of the hearts of all the spiritual descendants of Abraham, who hold her very dear, and the place where, according to faith, the created things of earth encounter the infinite transcendence of God, Jerusalem stands out as a symbol of coming together, of union, and of peace for the human family.”

– Pope John Paul II (April, 1984)

*For more information on Jerusalem, go to CMEP's Shared Jerusalem Resource Center.