The premise of this article is simple. If Israelis and Palestinians can ever agree on the creation of a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza, and if they can further agree on the division of Jerusalem between the two states, it would still be a bad idea for Jerusalem to be the seat of two different governments. For the last sixty years, Jerusalem has been the capital of Israel. The Knesset meets there. With the exception of the Ministry of Defense, all of Israel's government ministries are located there, as are the official residences of the president and the prime minister. Embassies in Israel, however, are all located in the Tel Aviv area, since no other country, not even the United States, recognizes Jerusalem as Israel's capital. Ramallah currently functions as the capital for the Palestinian Authority headed by Mahmoud Abbas and Salam Fayyad. A rival Palestinian government, under the leadership of Hamas's Ismail Haniyeh, is based in Gaza City. Jerusalem is not the Palestinian capital today. It has never been the capital of any Palestinian, Arab, Turkish, or other Muslim government in the past, though it may become the Palestinian capital in the future. Jerusalem served as the capital of the ancient kingdom of Israel and then of Judea. More than a thousand years later, the Crusaders' Jerusalem-based kingdom lasted close to a hundred and fifty years. In modern times, the British made Jerusalem the administrative capital first of their military government and then of the Palestine mandatory government, from the end of World War I until May 1948. In December 1949, Israel declared Jerusalem to be its capital, which it has been ever since. The UN partition plan adopted by the General Assembly in 1947 called for the creation of two new states in Palestine, referred to in Resolution 181 as “the Jewish state” and “the Arab state”. According to the plan, the expanded city of Jerusalem (including Bethlehem) was to be established as a “corpus separatum under a special international regime” to be administered by the UN. As it turned out, no UN-administered Jerusalem enclave was ever established. Instead, Jordan occupied east Jerusalem (and Bethlehem) while Israel kept all of west Jerusalem. But the clear intention of the UN plan was that Jerusalem would not be part of either state for at least ten years and that it would therefore not become the capital of either or both new states. Even today, one can find advocates for a unified and internationalized Jerusalem run by a multinational body or by a joint Israeli-Palestinian body with international participation and support. This idea is not inconsistent with the idea of splitting the rest of the country between a Jewish and an Arab state. By far the most popular two-state model promoted nowadays calls for dividing Jerusalem between Israel and Palestine, with west Jerusalem as the Israeli capital and east Jerusalem as the Palestinian capital. This is the politically correct solution supported by the Obama administration, the European Union, the Palestinian Authority in Ramallah, and the Israeli left. On the surface, there is nothing wrong with the idea that one city should house the capitals of two sovereign states. In the search for examples of a similar phenomenon, one could point to Rome, the capital of Italy as well as the home of Vatican City, a sovereign city-state ruled by the Pope. But Vatican City's one hundred acres in which fewer than a thousand souls reside is in no way comparable to Italy, a country of sixty million people. In northern India, the city of Chandigarh serves as the capital of two states, Punjab and Haryana, but these are both states within India, states that have never been at war. So that situation is also far from analogous to Jerusalem. The idea of two capitals of two nation-states in one city should not be ruled out simply because there is no historical precedent for such an arrangement. But the wisdom of this configuration should raise questions even on an abstract level, and when the capitals are identified as those of Israel and Palestine and the city is named Jerusalem, alarm bells should go off as serious downsides to the scheme begin to emerge. Even if theoretically it makes sense and seems fair to designate Al-Quds as the Palestinian capital and Yerushalayim as Israel's capital, we have to ask, as a practical matter, whether it is a good idea. Will the co-location in one city of two capitals for two peoples promote peace and reconciliation or provide a constant source of friction leading to recurring violent conflict? In other words, will it work? Since it has never been tried, the accurate answer to the question is that no one knows, including those who promote it and those who oppose it. So we must assess the risks in advance. Once the deal is done, it's done. If it then turns out that placing two capitals in one city exacerbates tensions, it will be too late to undo the damage. In re-opening the question of Jerusalem as a capital city, we should be aware of the variety of ways a country can relate to its capital and the significance attached to that designation. A country's most important city – culturally, economically, or spiritually – is not always its capital. The king of Saudi Arabia proudly proclaims his title as “The Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques”. In spite of that, the Saudi capital is neither Mecca nor Medina, the most important cities not only in Saudi Arabia but in the entire Muslim world. Riyadh is the Saudi capital. Other cities around the globe are pilgrimage destinations, spiritual centers or religious centers without being national capitals. What do the U.S., Canada, Brazil, Pakistan, and Australia all have in common? Their largest cities – their greatest artistic, financial, and commercial centers – are not their capitals. Several countries have more than one capital, dividing functions between different cities. Amsterdam is the capital of the Netherlands, but the seat of government is The Hague. Chile's capital is Santiago, but the legislature convenes in Valparaiso. South Africa's legislative capital is Cape Town. Pretoria is its administrative capital, and its high court sits in Bloemfontein. All of these examples offer precedents for Palestine and Israel. Each could grant Jerusalem a special status without the city necessarily serving as the capital of either or both states. We should assume that, even after the signing of a final peace treaty, serious political disagreements between Israel and Palestine will continue to arise for years to come, about “holy sites”, border crossings, family reunification, terror attacks, the rights of Palestinian citizens of Israel, Palestine's foreign policy, Israeli security concerns, etc. The more intense these political battles are, especially those focused on Jerusalem, the more like a pressure-cooker the political atmosphere in the city will become. Jerusalem is no stranger to ethnic, religious, and political strife. Over the last century, the city has been the scene of sometimes deadly political battles and military confrontations: Jew vs. Jew, Arab vs. Arab, Arab vs. Jew. Jerusalem is unlikely to shed this past and transform into the city of peace any time soon. Indeed, re-dividing the city between two sovereign states (as it was divided between Israel and Jordan from '48 to '67) and designating it as the capital of two countries will inevitably concentrate the passions of both sides onto that single location. A country's capital city becomes the national focus of political activity. If the political order is fractured, as it is today among Palestinians and as it is likely to remain for years to come, the capital city can itself become a turbulent environment. Moreover, Fatah and Hamas have a history of clashing in the streets and, when in power, of imprisoning one another's politicians and political activists. These practices might not end with the establishment of a Palestinian state. The possibility is disconcerting but real that two different political systems – Israel's and Palestine's – with very different standards for civil liberties, will have to co-exist within the same city. One can imagine a Palestinian dissident fleeing across town in search of political asylum in Israeli Jerusalem! Israeli politics have always been raucous and occasionally violent. The new phenomenon of a Palestinian government ruling over east Jerusalem and most of the West Bank is likely to spark inflammatory speeches in the Knesset, aimed at opposition Israeli parties and at the Palestinian parliamentarians located nearby. In a best-case scenario, the physical proximity of the two governments could lead to rapprochement and better understanding, but in inter-state politics, the best-case scenario rarely becomes reality. Disagreements between the two governments could easily escalate into crisis proportions, with ministerial charges and rebuttals, with demonstrations and counter-demonstrations. A two-state solution will inevitably leave some groups on both sides resentful and bitterly disappointed, in particular about the disposition of Jerusalem. Disgruntled Israelis or Palestinians, in taking their dissatisfaction to the streets, will naturally march towards the object of their anger, the dividing line between the two sides of town. Concentrating the political power of two states with two competing capitals within one city – a city upon which both sides have long focused their nationalist aspirations – exponentially increases the potential for bellicose rhetoric and violent clashes. Jerusalem may be divided as part of a two-state solution, but it should not become the capital of two states. It should either be the capital of one state or not a capital at all. Important to remember in this discussion is the fact that Israeli and Palestinian claims for sovereignty and control over all or part of Jerusalem are not diminished if either or both parties are willing to name another city as their nation's capital. The controversy over Jerusalem, like every other issue in the Middle East, is asymmetrical – the asymmetries of history and of power. Certainly Israel, as the dominant power, will refuse to remove its capital from Jerusalem in order to allow the city to become Palestine's capital. Therefore, any one-capital solution arrived at will be in Israel's favor, allowing Jerusalem to remain the capital of the Jewish state. Yet this outcome is highly unlikely to result from negotiations. To ask Palestinians to give up their demand that Al-Quds finally become their capital is to deflate a profound and long-unfulfilled hope. But to locate their seat of government so close to Israel's would likely escalate tensions and diminish prospects for genuine long-lasting peace between the two peoples. If there is to be a Palestinian state, let its capital remain in Ramallah. That is already the Palestinian city with the most vibrant economy, exhibiting considerable growth in both the private and public sectors. One must admit that it completely lacks the emotional and religious pull of Al-Quds, but as previously shown, the spiritual heart of a country need not be its political capital. For Palestinians to give up the dream of Jerusalem as their capital would be an immense, almost inconceivable loss. In order to obtain the agreement of the Palestinians for the proposition that Ramallah rather than Jerusalem should be their new state's capital, Israel will have to pay a heavy price. That price could require changing Israel's capital from Jerusalem to Tel Aviv. For decades, Israeli prime ministers have proclaimed, without offering specifics, that Israel is willing to make painful concessions for peace. Losing Jerusalem as its capital is one of the most painful concessions that Israel could ever make. One can easily dismiss the possibility of Palestinians giving up Jerusalem as their capital. One can also readily reject the idea that Israelis would ever seriously consider relinquishing their commitment to Jerusalem as their capital. But that's the nature of Israeli-Palestinian conflict. An unconventional idea is rejected out of hand. Pollsters are hired to show how incredibly unpopular the idea is. Politicians laugh it off. Diplomats refuse to discuss it. As a result, the field of possibilities remains narrow and small. The notion of Jerusalem without capitals is worth considering, however, since it could seriously increase the odds both of successfully negotiating a two-state solution and of making the resulting peace last. For Israelis to give up Jerusalem as the only capital most of them have ever known would be a huge sacrifice. But to move a capital is not to forget a city. Jerusalem is the site of the First and Second Temple. Every Passover, Jews proclaim “Next year in Jerusalem.” When a Jewish man marries, he recites a portion of Psalm 137: “If I forget thee, O Jerusalem, let my right hand forget her cunning.” The Jewish people's bond with Jerusalem is unbreakable, whether the city serves as the capital of the state of Israel or not. As a practical matter, it would be enormously difficult, though not impossible, for Israel to find suitable real estate in Tel Aviv for the various agencies and branches of government relocated from Jerusalem. Yet that is one massive building project that the US and the EU would love to fund! This article is not intended as the last word on the subject of Jerusalem's future status, but hopefully it will encourage rethinking the proposal to place two capitals in one city. It is not the only option. ** Read more from Michael Lame on his rethinkme.org blog BM
