Israel Suggests Shared Control of Holy Sites

In hope of holding on to this spot as its “eternal and undivided capital,” Israel is exploring establishment of an “interfaith administration” for the Old City and other holy places, diplomats said Tuesday.

This would give Christians and Muslims a share in control of those parts of the 5,000-year-old city that are sacred to them--and effectively remove the question of Jerusalem’s future from the international agenda.

So far, Israel has aroused the interest of the Vatican on the Christian side and of Jordan and Morocco on the Muslim, the diplomats said. Israel is talking through intermediaries with Saudi Arabia because of its leading position in Islam.

Jerusalem’s future is “closed politically but open religiously,” Israeli Foreign Minister Shimon Peres asserts these days, adding that he finds “interesting” the saying of King Hussein of Jordan that “sovereignty of the holy places belongs to the Almighty in Heaven.”

Hussein’s strong interest in Jerusalem, where his family has had the role of protector of Islamic shrines, could well make its future a major issue when he meets Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin on Monday in Washington.

But Palestinians, who want East Jerusalem as capital of an independent Palestine, are alarmed at Israel’s approach, fearing it will deprive them of one of their strongest arguments for a share of Jerusalem and scatter international allies they now have on the issue.

“Why is Israel raising the Jerusalem issue, and in a pressing way, at this moment, although it was the party that insisted on postponing the discussion about it until the final-status talks?” the East Jerusalem newspaper Al Quds asked in an editorial reflecting the mounting Palestinian concern. “The object might be to close the (topic) of the city before the time for negotiations about it comes.”

Under the accord on Palestinian self-government signed in September, Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization must open negotiations within two years on Jerusalem’s future and other issues that must be resolved for final settlement of the Palestinian question. Although the other issues, including statehood, borders and Jewish settlers, will be very difficult, Jerusalem’s fate has already emerged as the most emotional.

PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat in ringing tones and in virtually every speech promises Palestinians they again will be able to travel to Jerusalem to pray at its Islamic and Christian shrines. And Israeli rightists opposed to the accord with the PLO use that image and the possible division of Jerusalem into two capitals, one Israeli and the other Palestinian, to bring tens of thousands of demonstrators to the city.

The Israeli maneuver became dramatically clear when Israel extended an invitation to Hussein to visit Jerusalem and pray at Al Aqsa mosque, whose golden dome he had re-gilded this year; the invitation was offered after Israel put off requests by Arafat and senior PLO officials to make the same pilgrimage.

“Should (Hussein) come, he can expect a very nice reception as the head of a country that wants to make peace with Israel and as one whose family traditionally and historically has been in charge of maintaining the Islamic holy places,” Jerusalem Mayor Ehud Olmert said of the invitation to the king.

The concept that Peres and other Israeli officials have been exploring, diplomats here said, would place the shrines and perhaps the whole of the walled Old City under an interfaith committee made up of Christian, Jewish and Muslim representatives, removing the religious sites from all Israeli administration.

“The Israelis believe that, if they can get an agreement on ‘Holy Jerusalem,’ then dealing with municipal Jerusalem will be easier,” a senior Western diplomat said, assessing multiple off-the-record conversations he has recently had on the subject.

“First, much of the emotion will be drained away, and all sides will be reassured about their shrines,” the diplomat said. “Secondly, the remaining Arab portions of Jerusalem might even be sliced into another, adjacent municipality--call it East Jerusalem, call it Al Quds as the Arabs do--and that could become the Palestinian capital without dividing the present urban area.”

In suggesting an interfaith administration, Israelis have stressed that none of the religions would have primacy, diplomats said, and the question of sovereignty, a major issue not only for Israelis and Palestinians but for all Arabs, would be left open. They distinguish between this concept and past proposals to “internationalize” the city.

The Israelis emphasize that full control of the holy places--particularly the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, the traditional burial place of Jesus, the Al Aqsa mosque and the Dome of the Rock, from which the Prophet Mohammed is believed to have ascended to heaven--would be with the Christians and Muslims respectively.

Jewish representatives would be responsible for the Western Wall, Judaism’s holiest site as the remains of the ancient temple.

As envisioned, Christian representatives would come from the denominations long active in Jerusalem, particularly Catholics, Greek and Russian Orthodox, Anglicans and Lutherans. The Muslim representatives would come from those countries--Jordan, Morocco and Saudi Arabia--that have exercised custodianship over Islamic holy places and from Palestinians. Jewish representatives would probably be Israeli but could include Jews from other countries.

In a visit to Jordan this month, Archbishop Jean-Louis Tauran, who serves as the Vatican’s foreign minister, urged that discussions about Jerusalem’s future be brought forward--and not restricted to Israel and the PLO.

“Before territorial problems are solved, we have to find international guarantees to safeguard the uniqueness of the city . . . as assurance that, never again, one party would claim Jerusalem as their possession,” Tauran said.