Correction Note
(Wednesday, February 26, 1997)
by Enrico Molinari

In the article The Jerusalem Question (TJT, Nov. 8), Article 14 of the Oslo Declaration of Principles was mistakenly referred to, instead of Article 14 of the Palestine Mandate (July 24, 1922), which together with Article 13 of the same document governed the responsibility of the Mandate vis-à-vis the League of Nations "in connection with the Holy Places and religious buildings and sites and the free exercise of worship, while ensuring the requirements of public order and decorum."

The Oslo Declaration of Principles of September 13, 1993 (DOP), by contrast, does not embody any provision governing the subject matter in question. One may notice that, unlike the DOP, the Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip of September 28, 1995, deals with the traditional principles applying to the Holy Places referred to in the article, embodying explicit provisions which reaffirm the duty to "respect and protect...religious rights - i.e. protection of and free access to the Holy Sites, freedom of worship and practice, including respect for the ways of worship - of Jews, Christians, Muslims and Samaritans (See Article 32 - "Religious Sites" - of Annex III of the Interim Agreement).

The recent proposal to establish an interfaith commission to deal with questions related to archaelogical sites, fornlulated by King Hussein of Jordan in the wake of the tragic events which followed the opening of a new exit from the Hasmonean tunnel in the Old City of Jerusalem, represents an opportunity to clarify some legal issues about the status of the Holy Places and the rights of the religious communities therein.

The topic was discussed in an international conference held at El Escorial (Spain) from 5-9 August, 1996, organised by the Complutense University of Madrid where I was invited to give two lecture on the subject-matter of my research, the Holy Places of Jerusalem in international law.

The participants, senior Palestinian, Israeli as well as Spanish political and academic figures, discussed on "Jerusalem: Past, Present and Future" paying special attention to the "religious" dimension of the Jerusalem question.

The debate between the Palestinian and the Israeli participants was at times tense, which was not surprising, given the present diplomatic impasse on the final status negotiations Which include, among other issues, Jerusalem.

Nevertheless, a general agreement seemed to emerge on some loose principles such as respect for "existing rights" in the Holy Places, freedom of access and worship partial immunity from jurisdiction, and fiscal exemption to be granted to the religious communities present in Jerusalem.

In my first presentation I formulated the idea, which is emerging as a result of my research on the topic, that such principles are already internationally binding not only on Israel, but on whatever entity will be responsible, after the final status negotiations, for the any area of the city where the Holy Places are located.

On this idea the Israeli and the Palestinian participants expressed similar views. In particular, the two Palestinian speakers went even further: according to Prof. Riad Malki there may be a difference between considering Jerusalem as a political capital as distinguished from a religious capital for the Palestinians and the Israelis. The latter to be established in the city center (probably in the Old City), should be therefore the common religious capital for Judaism, Islam and Christianity, whose representatives already agree on the religious "status quo".

According to the Director of Panorama (Center for the Dissemination of Alternative Information), the two political capitals, on the other side, may be located in the vicinity of the existing Israeli Knesset, while the latter may be established in an area near Abu Dis or El-Eizariya.

Another Palestinian speaker, Dr. Mohammed Jadallah, suggested that a Supreme Council representing the three monotheistic religions (including a representative from the Holy See) should be set up, in order to secure the long established religious "status quo"

Indeed, as I recalled in my second lecture this principle dates back to article 14 of the Palestine Mandate, according to which "A special Commission shall be appointed to study, define and determine the rights and claims in connection with the Holy Places and the rights and claims relating to the different religious communities in Palestine" (including, we would say today, the Tunnel and the alleged threat to the phisical stability of the Al Aksa Mosque).

As the Commission was never set up, its powers vested, according to the wording of the aforementioned article 14, with the Council of the League of Nations, which represented at that time the values and the positions of the most representative countries of the world. The successor of this body may be considered today the General Assembly of the United Nations, which gave the international community an opportunity to express the universal consensus on the aforementioned principles by its Resolution 181 of 29 November 1947, where they were defined as "special objectives" of the whole Part (III) of the Resolution devoted to the City of Jerusalem, namely "To protect and to presence the unique spiritual and religious interests located in the city of the three great monotheistic faiths throughout the world, Christian Jewish and Moslem".

Thus, in my opinion, once all the interested parties show their willingness to abide by to the aforementioned established principles, the "religious" dimension of the Jerusalem question may be considered already settled. In this perspective the proposal suggested by the King of Jordan, too, may be seen in this legal framework, opening the way for accelerated and successful peace negotiations on the main issues, related to the "territorial" (or political) aspect of the Jerusalem question.