(June 5) - Varying political perspectives on the future of Jerusalem.

The shape of Jerusalem in the year 2000 depends to a large extent on the agreement reached between the Israeli and Palestinian negotiators. But discussions with four politicians active in determining Jerusalem's future - Deputy Housing Minister Meir Porush (United Torah Judaism Party), MK Benny Elon (Moledet), MK Yossi Beilin (Labor) and Palestinian Council representative Ziad Abu Zayyad - make it obvious that no final settlement can satisfy all of them.

Sitting behind his desk on the third floor of the Housing Ministry complex in eastern Jerusalem, Porush did not wait for questions before recounting the following story.

"Two years ago, I met with Teddy Kollek after reading an article in [the Tel Aviv local weekly] Ha'ir which adopted a mocking tone about Jerusalem to the effect of 'who needs the Old City anyway, who goes there any more?' The Jerusalem City Council proposed a resolution condemning the newspaper but [Kollek's party] One Jerusalem did not vote for it.

"I told Teddy: 'It doesn't look good when One Jerusalem does not vote for a pro-Jerusalem resolution.' Teddy agreed."

The incident, said Porush, helped him realize that "in the coming years, the haredim and the national religious population will have to provide the secular community with the proper motivation regarding Jerusalem.

"Jerusalem isn't just another city. It isn't Ramle or Jaffa, which also have mixed populations. This is Jerusalem and if we don't stand up for our rights, all will be lost. Jerusalem is ours and we have to do whatever we want, whenever we want."

According to Porush, the difference between the Orthodox and the secular communities is that the former "make the connection between the holiness of the city and the fact that we control it."

Asked how he would like the city to look three years from now, he says without a second's hesitation: "The same as it does today."

Porush has no doubt about Israel's right to rule the city exclusively.

"I say this, perhaps, as one who has been in Jerusalem for seven generations. My grandfather's grandfather's father immigrated to Jerusalem and I want to see to it that my grandchildren will live here, too. There must be enough housing to accommodate them. So Jerusalem must expand in all directions, and that includes Har Homa."

Porush is not taken aback by the international furor over Har Homa. As far as the United States is concerned, he says, "I remember the all-out war they declared when we built Pisgat Ze'ev. The Americans have not changed their position that Jerusalem should be internationalized."

He gives even less credence to the protests of the Palestinians.

"Har Homa is not important to Arafat," he said. "He is just exploiting the issue to achieve other aims, like opening the airport at Dahaniye or getting Israel to open the safe passage roads. It's true that we are involved in a peace process with the Palestinians, but we know how Arafat thinks, we know he isn't straight."

Does Porush favor building at Har Homa even if it brings about the collapse of the peace process?

The question seemed to verify his lack of confidence in the secular population. "Ten years ago, you would not have asked this question," he replied. "Today, there are breaches in the commitment to Jerusalem. I would not give Palestinians any control in the city because their leaders cannot guarantee that the Palestinian rank-and-file will not be violent."

As far as Porush is concerned, Israel has proven over the past 30 years that it deserves to rule over the city.

"It wasn't pleasant living here before 1967," he said. "I remember as a child being taken to Abu Tor to gaze at the Western Wall. Today, a Palestinian child can go anywhere in the city and visit any Moslem or Christian holy site. I am pained by the obtuseness of the world which does not understand this."

He dismisses Palestinian claims that the city is as holy to them as it is to the Jews.

"They [as Jordanian subjects] were in control of the city for 19 years," he asked. "Why didn't they do anything? When have the Arabs ever talked about Jerusalem as a capital city? We have, for thousands of years."

If Porush expects to find allies in the battle for Jerusalem, he can certainly count on MK Elon.

ELON IS a classic product of the modern national religious movement, which blends Messianic fervor with carefully considered ideology, and values action above both.

What does Elon want to see in Jerusalem three years from now? He has a very concrete answer. From his Knesset office, where he displays a photomontage of the Third Temple in place of Al-Aksa Mosque and the Dome of the Rock on the Temple Mount, he takes out a large folder including seven large cardboard leaves. On each leaf, there is a photo of an empty plot of land in the inner core of the city on the Palestinian side. Along the side of each photo, Elon has recorded the size of the empty plot and the number of housing units for Jews that can be built on it. According to Elon, these are the plots of land which will guarantee that Jerusalem will be united under Jewish sovereignty forever.

"We have wonderful conditions in Jerusalem," he said. There are 150,000 Jews and 150,000 Arabs in east Jerusalem. The problem is that the Jews all live on the periphery. There are [almost] no Jews in the true, historic core of Jerusalem - the Old City and the adjacent neighborhoods, including A-Tur, Silwan and Wadi Joz. There is a danger that what the Arabs call Al-Kuds will become a Palestinian city because of the distribution of the population."

"The Arabs have learned that cliches like 'one united Jerusalem' are empty words, just like the babble about the need to preserve the Whole Land of Israel."

Elon charged that both Labor and the Likud were deceiving the Israeli population by saying that Jerusalem will never be divided by a wall again.

"No Palestinian wants to re-divide the city that way," said Elon. "For them, the issue is sovereignty. And they will get their way because there is no Jewish consensus. There is a consensus against rebuilding the wall or giving the Western Wall back to the Arabs, but not against having an Arab mayor who will collect garbage from the Arab neighborhoods. The matter of flag and sovereignty is important to the Arabs. We take such things for granted. Even today, a PLO flag flies over Orient House and Israelis don't care.

"Since I am skeptical about the steadfastness of Israeli politicians, the dynamic must begin on the ground. If Jews don't settle in all parts of the city core, the city will end up being divided along Road No. 1. One day, when they feel like it, the Palestinians will cut off their side of the city. I can't let them do that."

IF PORUSH and Elon want all of eastern Jerusalem, Ziad Abu Zayyad wants to include west Jerusalem in negotiations on the final status of the city.

"Of course I have claims on all of Jerusalem," he said. "The only internationally approved document regarding Jerusalem is the 1947 partition plan, which calls for the internationalization of the city. The status of all of Jerusalem has yet to be determined and no country has yet recognized west Jerusalem as under Israeli control."

In fact, however, Abu Zayyad makes it clear that a compromise is possible with regard to the Jewish neighborhoods in eastern Jerusalem. But not in Arab east Jerusalem.

"I'm against the re-division of Jerusalem," he said. "I am fully in favor of keeping Jerusalem physically one city. But we may have to divide it politically. We must divide the sovereignty so that the Palestinians can have their national institutions in east Jerusalem and Israel, their national institutions in West Jerusalem."

The operative word in Abu Zayyad's statement is not "divided sovereignty" - which comes as no surprise - but the word "may" with regard to the political division of the city. For Abu Zayyad has an idea - chilling for most Israelis - that could eventually lead to one sovereignty in Jerusalem, but not the one most Israelis envisage.

"I think the country which we call Palestine and they call the Land of Israel is too small to become two states," said Abu Zayyad. "We have to develop a process of cooperation between the two states which may lead to a sort of

confederation or even unity between these two states through democratic, peaceful means. Now, Jerusalem could represent a small example of such a process because if we want to keep the physical unity of Jerusalem and divide it politically, then we have to understand that even with the presence of two municipalities - one Jewish and the other Arab - there will be a need for joint services. The two municipalities will have to cooperate in a joint water system, electricity system, sewage system - even internal, civil security such as a joint municipal police force.

"Because we need that in Jerusalem, it could be the beginning of future cooperation between Israel and Palestine."

Abu Zayyad rejects Porush's claims that Jerusalem does not mean as much to the Palestinians as it does to the Jews.

"Jerusalem is not only a territory," he said. "It is the symbol of national dignity of the Palestinian people, and the religious attachment of the Islamic people, of which, of course, the Palestinians are a part. Did Israel exist at the time of the Crusaders? Nevertheless, Jerusalem was an issue for the Islamic world at the time of the Crusader invasion.

"There is a simple way to look at it. When you have something in your pocket, you don't talk about it. Maybe that is why the Jews yearned and talked about Jerusalem for all those centuries, whereas the Palestinians did not. They felt they did not have to, since it was theirs and no one disputed that fact."

Abu Zayyad said Jerusalem is at the heart of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict "because people become emotional about it, and where emotions are concerned, issues become bigger than they really are."

PERHAPS that is why Yossi Beilin, a Tel Avivian, can detach himself enough from the passions of the city to seek a compromise over this seemingly intractable issue.

At any rate, Beilin is well aware of what Abu Zayyad has pointed out: the world does not recognize Israel's presence in any part of Jerusalem, let alone all of it. This fact was foremost in his mind during the secret negotiations which led to his discussions with Palestinian negotiator Mahmoud Abbas, known as Abu Mazen. They hammered out a possible solution for the final status settlement, including the resolution of the Jerusalem issue.

"My aim is that towards the year 2000, Jerusalem will be united and recognized as the capital of Israel by the entire world," he said. "Neither the Labor Party nor the Likud has considered this all-important matter. Maybe they have given up on it. But it is not a marginal thing. If you are not prepared to reach a negotiated settlement with the other side, you are giving up on the most important thing. I want something from the Palestinians and that is international recognition. It is vital."

According to the Beilin-Abu Mazen understanding, Israel and the Palestinians are talking about two different geographic entities when they refer, respectively, to the municipality of Jerusalem and Al-Kuds. Al Kuds is larger than the municipality of Jerusalem. Therefore, the Palestinians can establish their capital in part of Al-Kuds which is not part of Jerusalem.

The site proposed for the capital of the Palestinian state was Abu Dis, just beyond the municipal border. Israel will continue to rule united Jerusalem.

The other points in the understanding:

The area of the Temple Mount will be extra-territorial, just like the area of an embassy. The Palestinians will administer the area just as they do today. The only difference is that the new arrangement will be official.

Palestinians living in eastern Jerusalem who are not Israeli citizens will be allowed to vote in Palestinian elections.

The entire area of Jerusalem annexed by Israel in 1967 will be defined as a disputed area and Israel and the Palestinians will discuss the future of the city without a time limit. Until such time as the committee may decide to change current arrangements, the status quo, whereby Israel governs the united city, will remain intact.

Given the polarized views expressed by the other leaders, how can Beilin imagine his plan will ever be adopted?

"Abu Mazen and I went through a time tunnel to the future to see whether at the end of all the negotiations, a solution was indeed possible. We returned from the time tunnel to face the conflicting demands of each side. In the meantime, however, we reached the conclusion that a solution is indeed possible. We know that, now."