A letter to Ambassador Indyk
By Moshe Zak

(September 22) - Dear Mr. Ambassador, I apologize for
addressing you publicly. I am trying to prevent the
entrenchment of an inaccurate opinion, which you voiced
in your speech at the Hebrew Union College in
Jerusalem, that the existence of sites holy to three
religions in Jerusalem necessitates a partnership of the
three religions in ruling the city. 

I gather you are now busy in Washington drafting
ambiguous formulas for the president to solve the
Jerusalem impasse in the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations.
I would suggest you reexamine your Jerusalem file and
remove the historical errors. 

You tried to soothe the Israelis who were concerned at
the prospect of a U-turn in American policy on
Jerusalem, by explaining that partnership isn't a synonym
for partition. But you didn't notice that your remarks
were inconsistent with the spirit of the agreement on
Jerusalem included in the Washington Declaration signed
by Yitzhak Rabin and King Hussein on July 25, 1994. 

President Clinton added his signature as witness to the
declaration, which includes the following: "Israel respects
the present, special role of the Hashemite kingdom of
Jordan in Moslem Holy shrines in Jerusalem. When
negotiations on the permanent status will take place,
Israel will give high priority to the Jordanian historical
role in these shrines. In addition, the two sides have
agreed to act together to promote interfaith relations
among the three monotheistic religions." 

Not partnership in ruling Jerusalem, but promotion of
interfaith relations. Not sharing sovereignty, but Israel
granting high priority to the Jordanian historical role in the
shrines. 

In his speech at the ceremony, President Clinton defined
exactly the competence of the Moslem monarch, King
Hussein, as guardian in the holy sites such as Al-Aksa.
He did not say "the Temple Mount," but "sites like
Al-Aksa," and he did not mention Moslem partnership,
sovereignty, or even custodianship, just "a guardian
within the Temple." 

In the peace treaty that Israel and Jordan signed on
October 26, 1994, again in President Clinton's presence,
Israel and Jordan made a commitment to preserve
freedom of access to sites of religious or historical
significance, and in fact the Israeli government had
upheld this commitment even before the agreement with
Jordan. Throughout the years of Israeli sovereign
jurisdiction in Jerusalem, it ensured free access by
Moslems to Al-Aksa Mosque on the Temple Mount. 

The only restrictions that Israel makes in the Temple
Mount are concerning access by Jews. Israel has proved
that even under Israeli jurisdiction on the Temple Mount,
Moslems can practice their religion undisturbed at the
mosques there. 

The past can teach us that Israeli rule in Jerusalem has
only had positive implications for Christians and
Moslems. The reverse was the case under British rule. A
Jew couldn't be elected as mayor of Jerusalem, even
though the Jews were an actual majority of the
population. There were Moslem Arab mayors, and a
British Christian mayor, but until the establishment of the
state of Israel no Jew was elected. 

Furthermore, under Moslem pressure, the British
forbade the setting up of tables for Torah readings at the
Western Wall, placing chairs for worshippers or blowing
the Shofar. A British inquiry commission set up these
restrictions on Jewish worship because the Arabs saw it
as an infringement of the status quo. 

Today it is embarrassing to remind our allies that during
the 19 years of Arab rule in the old city of Jerusalem,
Jews couldn't pray at the Western Wall. The armistice of
1949 recognized the Jews' right of praying at the Wall,
but it was never implemented by Jordanian rule in the
Old City. 

Mr. Ambassador, the partnership between the three
religions that you are proposing in Jerusalem will do
nothing to assist the Israeli-Palestinian agreement; in fact,
it will make it more difficult. I am not among those urging
the US government to recall you to Washington, since
your mistaken proposal won't be detrimental to Israel as
long as the Israeli government is capable of standing firm
against you and your colleagues' constructive ambiguity
concerning Jerusalem. 

Playing with words like religious partnership can't
conceal the latent desire to change America's position on
united Jerusalem. 

Playing with words doesn't contribute to peace either. 

Such proposals, which have no historical roots and are
alien to the interests of the Jewish majority (which dates
back more than 100 years), are liable to damage the
broad national consensus that now exists concerning
united Jerusalem under Israeli sovereignty. In a
heterogeneous nation like ours, national consensus is an
essential element in social cohesion and stability.