Jerusalem and the Holy Sites: 636-2008

The seventy-one documents contained in this section represent the key international treaties and laws devised for Jerusalem since the Early Arab Period. They are drawn from a range of sources: Umar ibn al Khattab, the Second Khalifa of Islam; the Turkish Ottoman Empire; the governments of Great Britain, Israel, and the United States; the United Nations; and the Holy See.

The City ofJerusalem is a center offaith for the three major monotheistic religions—Judaism, Christianity, and Islam—with each claiming a timeless connection to the city. Its special significance is reflected in the astonishing number of Jewish, Christian, and Muslim Holy Sites located within the small area of the Old City of Jerusalem, which covers a mere 220 acres (one square kilometer).

The ancient Israelites built two Holy Temples in Jerusalem on Mount Moriah, the purported site of Abraham’s intended sacrifice of his son Isaac: Solomon’s Temple, c. 965-931 B.C.E. to 586 B.C.E., and the Second Temple, 515 B.C.E. to 70 C.E. The Western Wall of the Second Temple (koteV) remains today and is a powerful symbol of Judaism’s living legacy in the modern age. Christians have erected multiple shrines in Jerusalem owing to the city’s important role in Jesus’ life and death. The Church of the Holy Sepulchre in the Old City marks the site ofJesus’ crucifixion

and houses his purported tomb. Perhaps the most prominent edifice in Jerusalem’s skyline is the Dome of the Rock mosque, part of the Haram al Sharif (Noble Sanctuary or Temple Mount), which includes the al-Aqsa mosque, extensive gardens, and several smaller structures. The Dome of the Rock marks the site from which, in tradition, the Prophet Mohamed made his nightjourney to the heavens in 613 C.E. (al-Isra^, wal-me^,rj^,). Millions of religious pilgrims and travelers from around the globe have visited these Holy Sites.

Jerusalem has long held a special status as a holy city and been treated in legal terms as a unique and separate entity. Special legal regimes have been devised for the area’s Holy Sites to ensure free access and free exercise of worship to all religious followers—with sites placed under the control of respective faiths and denominations. This policy, known as the status quo, is based on a law promulgated by the Turkish Ottoman Empire in 1757.

Given the deep attachments thatJews, Christians, and Muslims have for Jerusalem, it is not surprising that disputes and hostilities continue to erupt over control of the city. In the modern period, several solutions have been offered, the most feasible of which are internationalization and partition.

Internationalization is a historically established approach, approved by the United Nations General Assembly in 1947 with Resolution 181. Under the plan, Jerusalem would be established as a Corpus Separatum, an open city, under the control of a council of protection appointed by the United Nations. This was an improvement over proposals in the 1937 Peel Commission Report, which recommended partitioning Palestine into a Jewish and an Arab state and maintaining Jerusalem as part of a “special zone” administered by a British mandate. For a variety of political reasons, internationalization did not succeed. Never­theless, it has remained the United Nations’ overriding vision forJerusalem since the approval of the Statute for the City of Jerusalem on April 4, 1950.

The partition or division of Jerusalem into two distinct parts—one Arab and one Jewish—has been the less-favored though furthest realized of plans. The 1948 war produced a de facto partition of the city, separating Jerusalem into an Israeli-controlled western part of the city and aJordanian- controlled eastern part, with Jordan controlling the Old City and most of the Holy Sites.

Following the 1967 war, the Jerusalem Question again became critical as the State of Israel unilaterally annexed the city. No longer was there partition, but the cultural divide between east and west in Jerusalem persisted. In 1980, Israel named a unitedJerusalem its capital, drawing criticism from the international community. In 2000, following talks at Camp David II, Israeli negotiators again proposed dividing Jerusalem into two cities: a Jewish city to be known as Jerusalem, which would serve as Israel’s capital; and an Arab city to be known as Al-Quds, which would serve as the capital of a new Palestinian Arab state. Palestinian negotiators rejected the proposal, which would have relegated some Arab neighborhoods to Israel, while offering to the Palestinians a formula of only partial sovereignty on the Haram al Sharif. Six months later, however, a more generous peace formula was advanced by President Clinton in his “Peace Parameters” whereby Jerusalem was to be divided between Jewish and Arab neighborhoods and the Haram was to be placed under Palestinian sovereignty.

This section should be read in conjunction with all other section considering Jerusalem’s pivotal role in the conflict.

Document 344: Covenant of Umar (Mu'aliadat Ahi Iliya) (636 or 638 C.E.) [ available at http://www.mideastweb.org/covenantofomar.htm]. Umar ibn al Khattab, the Second Khalifa after Prophet Mohamed’s death, issued this covenant, or sulh, for Jerusalem after taking control of the city from the Romans. Paying tribute to the unique cultural and religious status ofJerusalem, it goes far beyond the protection normally conferred upon conquered cities. The use of the word Ilya in reference to Jerusalem is a shortened version of Aelia Capitolina, the Roman name for the city.

Document 345: Jerusalem Peace Treaty of Jaffa (February 11, 1229) [ reprinted in 9 Encyclopedia Britannica 824 (1969)].

Document 346: Imperial Firman Concerning the Christian Holy Places (February 1852) [W. Zander, Israel and the Holy Places of Christendom 178 (1971)]. The Ottoman government published multiple imperial firmans (i.e., orders) for Jerusalem in order to regulate the status of the various churches and Holy Sites in the city. The most important was this 1852 firman, which outlines with the powers and rights of the various denominations at specific sites. The arrangement, known generally as the status quo, was later applied to the Church of the Holy Sepulchre and its dependencies—the Convent of Deir al-Sultan, the Sanctuary of the Ascension, the Tomb of the Virgin Mary in Jerusalem, as well as the Church of the Nativity, the Milk Grotto, and the Shepherds’ Field near Bethlehem.

Document 347: Imperial Firman-1311 (July 19, 1893) [U.N. SCOR, Appendix VII, U.N. Doc. S∕8427∕Add.1 (1968)]. Following the death of the Chief Rabbinate of Jerusalem, this firman appoints Yaco Shaoul Elyashar Effendi as his successor. It includes instructions from the Ottoman Government on the proper conduct toward the Jewish community, including a proscription on the oppression and fining of synagogues by officers and officials and a decree against interfering with the repairs and structural improvements of Jewish Holy Sites. It also prevents the confiscation of items from a synagogue in order to satisfy a debt and demands that any items taken from a synagogue be handed over to the authorities so that they can be returned.

Document 348: Decision Passed by the Majles Idarah of the Liwa (November 12, 1909) [United Nations Security Council Archives, February 23, 1968].

Document 349: Proclamation of Martial Law in Jerusalem (Declaration of General Allenby) (December 11, 1917) [available at http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/MFAArchive/1990_ 1999∕1998∕7∕Jerusalem-s%20Municipal%20Archives]. British General Edmund Allenby, commander-in-chief of the Allied Egyptian Expeditionary Force, read this Proclamation of Martial Law outside the Citadel of King David in Jerusalem after occupying the City in December 1917.Jerusalem and Palestine thereby became an extension of the British colonial and military presence in the Middle East. The proclamation was printed in three languages: English, French, and Italian.

Document 350: Decree of the Surrender of Jerusalem into British Control (December 1917) [available at http://www.firstworldwar.com/source/ jerusalemdecree.htm]. In handing Jerusalem to the British, this decree expresses the concern that a continued British artillery attack would damage the city’s Holy Sites.

Document 351: Palestine (Holy Places) Order in Council (July 25, 1924) [available at http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/ c7aae196f41aa 055052565f50054e656? OpenDocument]. This Order in Council determines that no court in Palestine retains the judicial power to decide any matter in connection with the Holy Places in Palestine. The British high commissioner in Palestine is to decide all such issues.

Document 352: Report of the Commission Appointed by His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to Determine the Rights and Claims of Moslems and Jews in Connection with the Western or Wailing Wall at Jerusalem (December 1930) [available at http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/59a92104ed00dc468525 625b00527fea?OpenDocument].

Document 353: Palestine (Western or Wailing Wall) Order in Council (May 19, 1931) [available at http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/a47250072a3dd7950525672 400783bde/c2567d9c6f6ce5d8052565d9006efc72!OpenDocument]. Following a serious outbreak of violence over the Western Wall in August 1929, an international commission was appointed by the British government to determine the rights and claims of Muslims andJews in connection with the Holy Site. The commission— composed of experts from the Netherlands, Sweden, and Switzerland—spent a month in Jerusalem in 1930 interviewing witnesses on both sides. After failing to negotiate a settlement between the parties, the commission determined that Muslims own the Western Wall because it forms part of the Haram al Sharif, but that Jews should have free access to the wall. The commission’s verdict also stipulates what types of objects may be brought to the wall and when.

Document 354: The Historical Connection of the Jewish People to Jerusalem: Memorandum Issued by the Jewish Agency (July 1, 1938) [reprinted in 3 The Arab Israeli Conflict 191-209 (John Morton Moore ed., 1974)]. The Executive Committee of the Jewish Agency submitted this detailed report to the twenty-first Zionist Congress and the sixth session of the Council of the Jewish Agency on the historical connection between Jerusalem and the Jewish people. It traces the Jews’ connection to the city from the Biblical period through the nineteenth-century to the “New Jerusalem.”

Document 355: United Nations Trusteeship Council Resolution 29, Resolving that the Working Committee on Jerusalem May Hear Interested Parties (December 11, 1947) [T.C. Res. 29, reprinted in 1 United Nations Resolutions on Palestine and the Arab-Israeli Conflict 1947-1974 175 (George Tomeh ed., 1975)]. In Resolution 29, the United Nations Trusteeship Council allows the Working Committee on Jerusalem to invite parties with a spiritual and religious interest in Jerusalem to present their views on the United Nations Statute for the City ofJerusalem.

Document 356: United Nations Trusteeship Council Resolution 32, Deciding that the Draft Statute for the City of Jerusalem Is Now in Satisfactory Form (March 10, 1948) [TC Res. 32, U.N. TCOR, U.N. Doc. T/RES/32(II) (1948)]. In Resolution 32, the Trusteeship Council sets the deadline for approval of the completed statute and also determines that on the date of approval they will appoint a governor ofJerusalem.

Document 357: United Nations Trusteeship Council Resolution 33, Requestingthe Secretary­General to Provide Funds in Connection with the Draft Statute for the City of Jerusalem (March 10, 1948) [T.C. Res. 33, reprinted in 1 United Nations Resolutions on Palestine and the Arab-Israeli Conflict 1947-1974 175 (George Tomeh ed., 1975)]. After receiving budget recommendations from the Committee on the Budgetary implications of the Draft statute, the Trusteeship Council in Resolution 33 requests that the Secretary-General provide those funds and prepare expenditure estimates for the United Nations’ responsibilities in Jerusalem.

Document358: United Nations Draft Statuteforthe City ofJerusalem (April21, 1948) [ U.N. TCOR, 2d Sess., pt. 3, Annex, at 4-24, U.N. Doc. T/118/Rev. 2 (1948)]. The United Nations Trusteeship Council adopted the statute for Jerusalem in fulfillment of United Nations Resolution 181, which called for Jerusalem to be established as a corpus serparatum (i.e., separate entity/body) under a Special International Regime to be administered by the United Nations. The statute outlines the territories to be included in the City of Jerusalem and defines who would be a resident and citizen. It also determines that the city will be demilitarized, with no paramilitary formations, exercises, or activities allowable within its borders.

Document 359: United Nations Trusteeship Council Resolution 34, Referring the Question of Approval of the Draft Statute for the City of Jerusalem to the General Assembly (April 21, 1948) [T.C. Res. 34, reprinted in 1 United Nations Resolutions on Palestine and the Arab-Israeli Conflict 1947-1974 175 (George Tomeh ed., 1975)]. In Resolution 34, the Trusteeship Council refers the statute for Jerusalem to the General Assembly for further instruction after finding it in satisfactory form.

Document 360: United Nations General Assembly Resolution 185, Asking the Trusteeship Council to Study Measures for the Protection ofJerusalem and Its Inhabitants (April 26, 1948) [G.A. Res. 185, U.N. GAOR, U.N. Doc. A/RES/185 (S-2) (1948)]. In Resolution 185, the General Assembly instructs the United Nations Trusteeship Council to deliberate on suitable measures for the protection of Jerusalem and its populace and to submit those proposals to the General Assembly as quickly as possible.

Document 361: United Nations Security Council Resolution 54, Ordering Parties to Desist from Further Military Action and Instructing the Mediator to Continue His Efforts towards the Demilitarization ofJerusalem (July 15, 1948) [S.C. Res. 54, U.N. SCOR, 3d Sess., Supp. for July 1948, at 76-77, U.N. Doc. S/902 (1948)]. In this resolution, the Security Council determines that the situation in Palestine constitutes a threat to the peace within the meaning of Article 39 of the United Nations Charter. It orders all concerned governments and authorities to desist from further military action and declares that failure to do so would lead to action under Chapter VIII. The Security Council instructs the mediator in Palestine to continue efforts towards the demilitarization ofJerusalem.

Document 362: Cablegram from the United Nations Mediator Addressed to the Secretary­General Concerning Demilitarized Jerusalem (August 18, 1948) [U.N. SCOR, U.N. Doc. S/977 (1948)]. In this cablegram to the Secretary-General, the acting mediator in Palestine, Count Folke Bernadotte, expresses his deep concern over the situation in Jerusalem, noting that a cease-fire has not been implemented and that both parties “have come deliberately to ignore the authority of the United Nations.” Bernadotte warns that the failure to demilitarize Jerusalem may lead to a general resumption of hostilities. He requests that the Security Council take prompt action to effect Security Council Resolution 54.260

Document 363: Cablegram from the Chairman of the Truce Commission Addressed to the President of the Security Council Concerning Violations of the Holy Places by Jewish and Arab Forces in Jerusalem (October 16, 1948) [U.N. Press Release, U.N. Dep’t of Public Info., U.N. Doc. PAL/343 (1948)]. This cablegram from the chairman of the Truce Commission, Rene Neuville, describes the obstruction of free access to the Holy Sites by both Arabs and Jews. The chairman attributes these violations of the status quo to the “deliberate intention” of both parties.

Document 364: United Nations Conciliation Commission for Palestine, Working Paper Regarding the Control of Religious Properties (July 22, 1949) [U.N. GAOR, Conciliation Comm. for Palestine, U.N. Doc. A/AC.25/ComJer/W.28 (1949)]. In this document, the United Nations Conciliation Commission reports that the Arab delegations are generally prepared to accept the principle of an international regime for the Jerusalem area, subject to United Nations guarantees for its stability and permanence. Israel, while recognizing that the commission was bound by General Assembly Resolution 194, declared itself unable to accept the establishment of the international regime for the City of Jerusalem, although it accepted without reservation an international regime for the Holy Places.

Document 365: United Nations General Assembly Resolution 303, Calling for the City of Jerusalem to be Established as a Corpus Separatum (December 9, 1949) [G.A. Res. 303, U.N. GAOR, 4th Sess., at 25, U.N. Doc. A/1251 (1950)]. In Resolution 303, the General Assembly proposes that Jerusalem be administered under United Nations sovereignty as an international city comprised ofJerusalem, Bethlehem, and other environs.

Document 366: Israeli Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion's Statement to the Knesset (December 13, 1949) [available athttp://www.us-israel.org/jsource/Peace/bgjer.html]. In this statement, Israeli Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion announces to the Knesset in Tel Aviv that the City ofJerusalem is an inseparable part of the State of Israel and its eternal capital. This position was subsequently approved by the Knesset, and government agencies were established in the western part of the city.

Document 367: United Nations Trusteeship Council Resolution 426, Asking the President of the Council to Prepare a Working Paper on the Statute of Jerusalem (December 19, 1949) [T.C. Res. 426, U.N. TCOR, U.N. Doc. T/RES/426 (1949)]. In Resolution 426, the United Nations Trusteeship Council proposes that the president of the Trusteeship Council prepare a working paper on the Statute ofJerusalem and that he receive suggestions from all interested parties on the subject.

Document 368: United Nations Trusteeship Council Resolution 427, Removal to Jerusalem of Certain Ministries and Central Departments ofthe Government of Israel (December 21,

1949) [T.C. Res. 427, U.N. TCOR, U.N. Doc. T/RES/427 (1950)]. In Resolution 427, the United Nations Trusteeship Council asks its president to invite Israel to stop relocating its government offices to Jerusalem and asks the Secretary-General to inform all United Nations member states of the resolution. Israel’s policy was incompatible with United Nations General Assembly Resolution 303, which calls for Jerusalem to be established as a corpus separatum?⁶

Document 369: United Nations Trusteeship Council Resolution 118, Inviting Israel and Jordan to Express Their Views on the Revision ofthe Draft Statute ofJerusalem (February 11,

1950) [reprinted in 1 United Nations Resolutions on Palestine and the Arab-Israeli Conflict 1947-1974 177 (George Tomeh ed., 1975)]. The Trusteeship Council, in Resolution 118, decides to invite the State of Israel and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, as the two states occupying the City ofJerusalem, to express their views on the revision of the Draft Statute for the City ofJerusalem and its implementation.

Document 370: Statement of the Committee for the Arab Property Owners in Jerusalem (February 14, 1950) [U.N. TCOR, 16th Sess., Agenda Item 19, U.N. Doc. T/519 (1950)]. This statement from the Arab Property Owners in Jerusalem, a committee consisting of Arab individuals whose property was brought under Jewish control following the 1948 war, demands restitution of properties and compensation for the loss of rent. The statement includes a constitution, a petition to King Abdallah ofJordan for assistance, and a telegram asking the Secretary-General to circulate these demands to all United Nations member states.

Document 371: Memorandum from the Council of the Ashkenasic Jewish Community, Jerusalem (February 21, 1950) [U.N. TCOR, 6th Sess., Agenda Item 19, U.N. Doc. T/520 (1950)]. In this memorandum, the Council of the Ashkenasic Jewish Community requests that the Orthodox community be recognized as religiously and politically independent. It also requests that the city ofJerusalem remain free of any political affiliation and governed by a municipal authority whose powers would be confined to domestic matters. The council advocates free access to the Jewish Holy Sites to all Jews.

Document 372: United Nations Statute for the City of Jerusalem (April 4, 1950) [Question of an International Regime for the Jerusalem Area and Protection of the Holy Places, Special Report ofthe Trusteeship Council, U.N. GAOR, 5th Sess., Supp. No. 9, at 19-27, U.N. Doc. A/1286 (1950)]. This second United Nations Statute for the City ofJerusalem was based on the provisions contained in the original partition plan, United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181 (1947), with the exception of those provisions regarding economic union. The Trusteeship Council requests that the governments of Israel and Jordan cooperate in the implementation of the statute.

Document 373: United Nations Trusteeship Council Resolution 234, Noting the Unwillingness ofJordan and Israel to Collaborate in the Implementation of the Statute of Jerusalem (June 14, 1950) [T.C. Res. 234, U.N. TCOR (1950)]. After submitting the United Nations Statute for the City OfJerusalem to the governments of Israel and Jordan, the Trusteeship Council received no reply from Jordan and a reply from the government of Israel indicating their unwillingness to collaborate in implementing the Statute.

Document 374: Special Report of the Trusteeship Council: Question of an International Regime for the Jerusalem Area and Protection of the Holy Places (June 14, 1950) [T.C. Res. 701, U.N. TCOR, 7th Sess., Agenda Item 10, U.N. Doc. T/RES/701 (1950)]. This special report was submitted to the General Assembly following the approval of the Statute for the City of Jerusalem. The report traces the evolution of the statute, documenting the participation of all interested parties, the role of the Trusteeship Council, and the reservations of the Israeli and Jordanian governments into implementation. The report includes copies of the statute as approved by the council, the president’s reports to the council, and the reply of the government of Israel.

Document 375: United Nations Security Council Resolution 127, Directing the ChiefofStaff of UNTSO to Regulate Activities between the Demarcation Lines in Jerusalem (January 22, 1958) [S.C. Res. 127, U.N. SCOR, U.N. Doc. S/3942 (1958)]. After the government of Jordan complained about Israeli activity in the zone between the armistice demarcation lines in violation of the Israel-Jordan General Armistice Agreement, the Security Council, noting that neither Israel nor Jordan enjoys sovereignty over any part of the zone, directs the chief of staff of the UNTSO to regulate the zone in accordance with the principles of the agreement. The chief of staff is directed to conduct a survey of property records to determine property ownership in the zone, ensuring that Israelis are not using Arab-owned properties and Arabs are not using Israeli-owned properties. The Security Council calls on Israel to suspend its activity in the zone until the survey is completed and for both parties to remove or destroy their respective military facilities and installations in the zone. It also recommends that Israel and Jordan discuss civilian activities within the zone through the Mixed Armistice Commission.

Document 376: United Nations Security Council Resolution 162, Urging Israel to Comply with the Decision of the Mixed Armistice Commission (Concerning Jerusalem) (April 11, 1961) [S.C. Res. 162, U.N. SCOR, U.N. Doc. S/4788 (1961)]. After the Mixed Armistice Commission found that Israel had breached its Armistice Agreement with Jordan by amassing more armaments than allowed for on the Israeli side of the Demarcation Line in Jerusalem, the Security Council in Resolution 162 endorses the commission’s condemnation of the act and urges Israel to comply with the terms of the agreement by refraining from bringing any more equipment than that allowed for under the terms of the agreement.

Document 377: Law of the State of Israel: Extending Jurisdiction to East Jerusalem (June 27, 1967) [21 LSI 75 (1967), available at http://www.mfa.gov.il/ MFA/ Foreign%20Relations∕Israels%20Foreign%20Relations%20since%20194 7/1947-1974/13%20Law%20and%20Administration%20Ordinance%20- Amendment%20No]. This Israeli law amends both the Law and Administration Ordinance and the Municipalities Ordinance. The amending sections stipulate that Israeli law,jurisdiction, and administration shall be extended to any Israeli area designated by the government by order and that the minister of the interior may enlarge by proclamation the area of a particular municipality. Although the law makes no direct mention ofJerusalem, it provides the legal grounds for Israel to extend its jurisdiction into East Jerusalem.

Document 378: Law of the State of Israel: Protection of the Holy Places (June 27, 1967) [21 LSI 75 (1967)]. The Protection of the Holy Places Law ensures the protection of the Holy Places against desecration and guarantees freedom of access. It was passed by the Knesset after Prime Minister Levi Eshkol notified the Muslim leadership of its continued responsibility for the administration of the Temple Mount and mosques. Israeli security forces would be in charge of approaches to the site and the security and the maintenance of public order.

Document 379: United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2253, Requestingthe Secretary­General to Report to the General Assembly on the Status of Jerusalem (July 4, 1967) [G.A. Res. 2253, U.N. GAOR, 5th Emergency Sess., Supp. No. 1, at 4, U.N. Doc. A/6798 (1967)]. In Resolution 2253, the General Assembly expresses its deep concern about Israel’s attempts to change the status of Jerusalem. It requests that the Secretary-General make a report to the General Assembly and the Security Council within the next week.

Document 380: Letterfrom Israel to the Secretary-General of the United Nations Concerning the Status of Jerusalem (July 10, 1967) [U.N. SCOR, 22d Sess., Supp. for July-Sept., at 73, U.N. Doc. S/8052 (1967)]. Following the adoption of multiple resolutions expressing concern about Israel’s extension of its jurisdiction over East Jerusalem, United Nations Secretary-General U Thant requested that Israel give a reply. This letter from the Israeli government repeats earlier disclaimers on the subject and argues that the United Nations’ conception of its new law is based on a fundamental misunderstanding as Israel had not annexed the city, but only integrated Jerusalem into its administrative and municipal spheres and furnished a legal basis for the protection of the Holy Places.

Document 381: Excerpts from the Statement by U.S. Representative to the United Nations Concerning the Status ofJerusalem (July 14, 1967) [57 Dep’t St. Bull.148 (1967)]. On July 14, 1967, U.S. Ambassador Arthur J. Goldberg addressed the United Nations on the topic of U.S. policy on post-war and Israeli-occupied Jerusalem. In his statement, Goldberg insists that the status of Jerusalem cannot be decided unilaterally, but only through negotiations. The United States believes that the solution to the Jerusalem problem can only be found in the context of a larger solution to the war and the Israeli occupation of foreign territories.

Document 382: United Nations Security Council Resolution 250, Calling upon Israel to Refrain from Holding a Military Parade in Jerusalem (April 27, 1968) [S.C. Res. 250, U.N. SCOR, U.N. Doc. S/RES/250 (1968)]. In Resolution 250, the Security Council calls on Israel to refrain from holding a military parade in Jerusalem planned for May 2, 1968.

Document 383: United Nations Security Council Resolution 251, Deploring the Military Parade Held by Israel in Jerusalem in Disregard of the United Nations 'Unanimous Decision (May 2, 1968) [S.C. Res. 251, U.N. SCOR, U.N. Doc. S/RES/251 (1968)]. In Resolution 251, the Security Council deeply deplores Israel’s decision to hold a military parade in Jerusalem despite the unanimous of the Security Council.

Document 384: United Nations Security Council Resolution 252, Calling on Israelto Rescind All Measures to Change the Status of Jerusalem (May 21, 1968) [S.C. Res. 252, U.N. SCOR, 23d Sess., U.N. Doc. S/INF23 Rev.1 (1968)]. In Resolution 252, the Security Council condemns the demographic and physical changes that Israel introduced in Jerusalem. It declares that all legislative and administrative measures taken by Israel to change the status of Jerusalem are invalid. Canada and the United States both abstained from voting on this resolution.

Document 385: United Nations Security Council Resolution 267, Censuring Israeli Measures to Change the Status of Jerusalem (July 3, 1969) [S.C. Res. 267, U.N. SCOR, U.N. Doc. S/RES/267 (1969)]. In Resolution 362, the Security Council reaffirms the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by military conquest and strongly censures all measures taken to change the status of the city of Jerusalem.

Document 386: United Nations Security Council Resolution 271, Condemning the Extensive Damage Caused by Arson to the Holy al-Aqsa Mosque (September 15, 1969) [S.C. Res. 271, U.N. SCOR, U.N. Doc. S/RES/271 (1969)]. In Resolution 271, the Security Council grieves at the extensive damage caused by arson in al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem on August 21, 1969, and recognizes that any act of destruction or profanation of Holy Places in Jerusalem, or any encouragement of such act, would seriously endanger international peace and security. It calls upon Israel to scrupulously observe the provisions of the Geneva Conventions and international law governing military occupation and to refrain from causing any hindrance to the discharge of the established functions of the Supreme Muslim Council ofJerusalem.

Document 387: United Nations Security Council Resolution 298, Deploring the Failure of Israel to Respect United Nations Resolutions Concerning Measures to Change the Status of Jerusalem (September 25, 1971) [S.C. Res. 298, U.N. SCOR, U.N. Doc. S/ RES/298 (1971)]. In Resolution 298, the Security Council again condemns the demographic and physical changes carried out by Israel in Jerusalem and reiterates the inadmissibility of territory gained by military conquest. It calls upon Israel to rescind all previous measures and to take no further steps in the occupied section of Jerusalem that may purport to change the status of the city or prejudice the rights of the inhabitants, the interests of the international community, or a just and lasting peace.

Document 388: UNESCO General Conference Resolution 3.422, Disapproving of the Continuation by Israel of Archaeological Excavations in Jerusalem (November 17, 1972) [ reprinted in 1 United Nations Resolutions on Palestine and the Arab-Israeli Conflict 1947-1974 182 (George Tomeh ed., 1975)]. Noting that Israel’s archaeological excavations in Jerusalem have made it difficult for the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) to fulfill its mission, UNESCO in Resolution 3.422 calls on Israel to preserve all sites and cultural properties, especially in the Old City ofJerusalem, and to desist from alterations or excavations, particularly with regard to Christian and Islamic religious sites.

Document389: United Nations Security CouncilResolution 452, Deploringthe Establishment of Settlements in Jerusalem (July 20, 1979) [S.C. Res. 452, U.N. SCOR, U.N. Doc. S/ RES/452 (1979)]. In Resolution 452, the Security Council calls upon Israel to cease the establishment, construction, and planning of settlements in the Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem. It notes the specific status of Jerusalem as a holy city and the need to protect and preserve the unique spiritual and religious dimension of the Holy Places in Jerusalem.

Document 390: United Nations Security Council Resolution 476, Deploring Israeli Attempts to Change the Status of the Holy City of Jerusalem (June 30, 1980) [S.C. Res. 476, U.N. SCOR, 2242d mtg., U.N. Doc. S/RES/476 (1980)]. Following steps taken by Israel to make a united Jerusalem its capital, the Security Council adopted Resolution 476, calling on Israel to desist from taking any measures affecting the character and status ofJerusalem.

Document 391: Basic Law of Israel: Jerusalem, Capital of Israel (July 30, 1980) [34 LSI 209 (1979-80)]. This Basic Law states that a complete and united Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. It also states that the Holy Places will be protected and that the government will provide for the development and prosperity of Jerusalem. The law was enacted in defiance of repeated United Nations admonitions against claiming Jerusalem as its official capital.

Document 392: United Nations Security Council Resolution 478, Declaring All Measures Taken by Israel to Alter the Status of Jerusalem Are Null and Void (August 20, 1980) [S.C. Res. 478, U.N. SCOR, U.N. Doc. S/RES/478 (1980)]. In Resolution 478, the Security Council censures Israel’s enactment of the Basic Law: Jerusalem, Capital of Israel, and affirms that its enactment constitutes a violation of international law. The Security Council calls on member states to withdraw their diplomatic missions from Jerusalem. Subsequently, thirteen embassies left the city. In 1982, the Embassy of Costa Rica returned to West Jerusalem and was followed by El Salvador. The United States abstained from voting on this resolution.

Document 393: Statement Regarding Jerusalem by Israeli Foreign Minister Shimon Peres to the Knesset (September 9, 1993) [available at http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/ MFAArchive/1990_1999/1993/9/FM%20PERES%20REMARKS%20IN%20KNE SSET%20ON%20JERUSALEM%20-%2007-Sep-]. This letter from Israeli Foreign Minister Shimon Peres forms part of a three-letter exchange on divisive issues following the Israel-PLO Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements (Oslo Accords). In this letter, Peres confirms the significance of Jerusalem to all the monotheistic faiths and acknowledges Palestinian institutions in East Jerusalem. The letter, conveyed by Norwegian Minister of Foreign Affairs Johann Juergen Holst, was intended to remain secret because it carries certain Israeli commitments on the issue ofJerusalem. The letter was not delivered in due time either before or immediately following the signing of the Oslo Accords in Washington, D.C., on September 13, 1993. Israel’s initial denial of the existence of the letter and then its subsequent late arrival caused some embarrassment to the Israeli government.

Document 394: Fundamental Agreement between the Holy See and the State of Israel (December 30, 1993) [33 I.L.M. 153 (1994)]. The Holy See and the State of Israel produced this Fundamental Agreement to further the efforts of the Bilateral Permanent Working Commission. It details the parties’ commitment to religious freedom as set forth in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, to maintaining the status quo for Christian Holy Sites, to encouraging pilgrimages to those sites, and to combating anti-Semitism. The parties agree to negotiate any property disputes through the Bilateral Permanent Working Commission. The agreement also specifies the Holy See’s commitment to remaining impartial to all territorial and border disputes regarding the State of Israel.

Document 395: The Washington Agreement between Israel and Jordan (July 26, 1994).^m, [reprinted in The Israel-Arab Reader: A Documentary History of the Middle East Conflict (Walter Laqueur & Barry Rubin eds., 2001)]. At the invitation of President Clinton, the leaders ofJordan and Israel met in Washington, D.C., to establish a new plan to develop peace negotiations between the two states. The agreement addressed issues regarding Jerusalem, state sovereignty, and plans to maintain communications between the two states.

Document 396: Agreement between the Holy See and the PLO (October 26, 1994) [ available at http://www.jqf-jerusalem.org/2000/jqf8/pope.html#agreement]. The Holy See and the PLo having established official relations, issued this agreement, calling for an internationally guaranteed statute for Jerusalem and declaring that unilateral decisions that alter the character of Jerusalem are “morally and legally unacceptable.” Drawing on the mission of the Bilateral Permanent Working Commission, this agreement reaffirms the parties’ dedication to religious freedom as stated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, ensures the maintenance of the status quo for Christian Holy Places, and grants full effect in Palestinian Law to the legal personality of the Catholic Church.

Document 397: Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995, Providing for the Relocation of the U.S. Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem (November 8, 1995) [Pub. L. No. 104-45, 109 Stat. 398 (1995)]. The Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995 was a bipartisan legislative initiative passed by the U.S. Congress in a ninety-three to five decision. It expresses U.S. support of Jerusalem as the undivided capital of Israel. It also states that the United States should relocate its embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem by May 31, 1999. Several presidential determinations have suspended this act as it was passed in the promising years after the Oslo Accords with the expectation that a peaceful resolution to the Jerusalem issue was imminent.

Document 398: United Nations Security Council Resolution 1073, Concerning the Israeli Plan to Open a Tunnel in the Vicinity of al-Aqsa Mosque (September 28, 1996) [S.C. Res. 1073, U.N. SCOR, U.N. Doc. S/RES/1073 (1996)]. Having received a letter from the League of Arab States that referred to the action by Israel to open an entrance to a tunnel in the vicinity of al-Aqsa Mosque and expressing concern about events in Jerusalem that resulted in a high number of deaths and injuries among Palestinian civilians, the Security Council passed Resolution 1073, calling for the immediate cessation and reversal of all acts that have resulted in the aggravation of the situation and that have negative implications for the Middle East peace process. The Security Council calls for the safety and protection of Palestinian civilians to be ensured.

Document 399: United States House of Representatives Concurrent Resolution 60: Jerusalem Must Remain the Undivided Capital of the State of Israel (June 10, 1997) [H.R. Con. Res. 60, 105th Cong. (1997)]. On the thirtieth anniversary of the 1967 war, the U.S. Congress passed this resolution, calling upon the president and the secretary of state to publicly affirm as U.S. policy that Jerusalem remains the undivided capital of Israel. The resolution traces the history ofJewish presence in Jerusalem and the city’s change of status after the 1948 and 1967 wars.

Document 400: Status of Jerusalem, United Nations (1997) [U.N. Doc. 97-24262 (1997)]. This United Nations paper on the status of Jerusalem recounts the history of Jerusalem since the United Nations Partition Plan of 1947. It gives special treatment to Israel’s occupation of East Jerusalem in 1967 and Israel’s construction of settlements in East Jerusalem.

Document 401: United Nations Security Council Presidential Statement on Jerusalem (July 13, 1998) [U.N. Press Release, Dep’t of Public Info., U.N. SCOR, 3904th mtg., U.N. Doc. SC/6546 (1998)]. Realizing that the United States would veto any United Nations resolution that might jeopardize the peace process between Israel and the PLO, the president of the Security Council, Danilo Turk, issued this statement on behalf of the Security Council, criticizing Israel’s decision to broaden the jurisdiction of Jerusalem. It calls upon Israel not to proceed with its plan, nor to take any steps that would prejudice the outcome of peace negotiations.

Document 402: Holy See Non-Paper on Jerusalem (July 20, 1998) [available at http:// www.christusrex.org/www1/ pope/non-paper.html]. The Holy See’s Observer Mission to the United Nations published this single-page non-paper on Jerusalem, which criticizes Israel for its decision to broaden Jerusalem’s jurisdiction. The Holy See calls for a peace settlement that would ensure a status quo policy for religious followers and the Holy Sites.

Document 403: Final Communiqueand Recommendations of the 17th Session of the Al-Quds Committee (July 30, 1998) [Al-Quds Comm., U.N. Doc. A/53/212 (1998)]. The 17th Session of the Al-Quds Committee took place in Morocco under the chairmanship of King Hassan II. The session was called to discuss Israel’s attempts to change the demographic and geographic status of Jerusalem. In its Final Communique, the Al-Quds Committee makes sixteen recommendations, among them, asking the international community to stand against Israel’s siege ofJerusalem, not to extend economic assistance to Israel that may be used for expansionist policies, and not to purchase goods from Jerusalem or any Jewish settlements.

Document 404: Rome Declaration on Bethlehem 2000 (February 19, 1999) [available at http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/0/da47f51cdf111a6c0525674c0077da82?Ope nDocument]. The Bethlehem 2000 International Conference in Rome—organized by the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People—issued this declaration in support of the Palestinian Authority’s plan to celebrate the year 2000 in Bethlehem. The project was aimed at restoring historical, archaeological, and religious sites of unique significance.

Document 405: United Nations General Assembly Resolution 55/50, Deploring Transfer of Diplomatic Missions to Jerusalem (December 1, 2000) [G.A. Res. 55/50, U.N. GAOR, 55th Sess., Agenda Item 40, U.N. Doc. A/RES/55/50 (2000)]. The General Assembly in Resolution 55/50 deplores the transfer of some member states’ diplomatic missions to Jerusalem.

Document 406: Council of the League of Arab States Resolution 115/6057, Attempts by Israel to Have a Number of Archaeological Sites in East Jerusalem Inscribed on the World Heritage List (March 12, 2001) [available at http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL. NSF/0/623676cf22954e5985256a56004e549c?OpenDocument]. The League of Arab States passed Resolution 115/6057 after receiving a report from the Permanent Mission of the State of Palestine detailing Israel’s attempts to have a number of archaeological sites in East Jerusalem inscribed on the World Heritage List. The League decides to have member states establish connections with the World Heritage Committee to convey the Arab position. It also requests that the Secretary-General establish a special committee of legal experts to consider the question of Israel’s action.

Document 407: United Nations General Assembly Resolution 55/254, Protection of Religious Sites (June 11, 2001) [G.A. Res. 55/254, U.N. GAOR, 55th Sess., Agenda Item 32, U.N. Doc. A/RES/55/254 (2001)]. In Resolution 55/254, the General Assembly calls for the protection of religious sites in conformity with international standards, recalling United Nations resolutions, declarations, and other international conventions that protect religious expression. This resolution encourages all states to promote a culture of tolerance and respect for the diversity of religion and for religious sites and requests the Secretary-General to devote attention to the protection of religious sites in the report on the United Nations Year of Dialogue among Civilizations.

Document 408: Law of the Palestinian Authority: Law of the Capital (October 5, 2002) [available at http://www.jmcc.org/documents/capitallaw.htm]. This law, ratified by the president of the State of Palestine, Yasser Arafat, declares Al-Quds Al-Shareef the capital of the Palestinian state. It also names Al-Quds Al-Shareef the permanent headquarters of Palestine’s legislative, executive, and judicial authorities.

Document 409: HR1646Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Maintainingthe Commitment to Relocate the U.S. Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem (Fiscal Year 2003) [Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Year 2003, § 214, Pub. L. No. 107-228, 116 Stat. 1365 (2002)]. The Foreign Relations Authorization Act establishes three provisions with respect to U.S. policy on Jerusalem as the capital of Israel: (1) it calls for the United States to immediately relocate its Embassy to Jerusalem; (2) it determines that no federal money will go to the U.S. consulate in Jerusalem unless it is under the supervision of the U.S. ambassador to Israel; and (3) it determines that U.S. citizens born in the city ofJerusalem will record their place of birth as Israel.

Document 410: United Nations General Assembly Resolution 60/107, Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights ofthe Palestinian People in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Including East Jerusalem (January 18, 2006) [G.A. Res. 60/107, U.N. GAOR, U.N. Doc. A/RES/60/107 (2006)]. Noting reports by the U.N. Commission on Human Rights and the Special Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights in Palestine, the General Assembly expresses concern regarding Israel’s treatment of Palestinians in the Occupied Territories. Specifically, the General Assembly condemns use of excessive force, collective punishment, confiscation of land, and expansion of Israeli settlements.

Document 411: United Nations General Assembly Resolution 60/41, Jerusalem (February 10, 2006) [G.A. Res. 60/41, U.N. GAOR, U.N. Doc. A/RES/60/41 (2006)]. The General Assembly condemns Israel’s continuation of illegal settlements and continued construction of a wall surrounding in East Jerusalem. The General Assembly then stresses the need for both Israeli and Palestinian concerns are addressed while also guaranteeing the freedom of movement and religion for Jerusalem’s occupants.

Document 412: United Nations Report on the Mission to Israel IncludingVisit to Occupied Palestinian Territory, Submitted by Martin Scheinin, Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms while Countering Terrorism (November 16, 2007) [U.N. Doc. A/HRC/6/17/Add.4(2007)]. Scheinin’s report addresses the challenges facing Israel in legislating security measures while providing for humanitarian needs and civil rights of Palestinians in the Occupied Territorries. The report also highlights the issues of security walls, terrorism, and counterterrorism.

Document 413: United Nations General Assembly Resolution 62/108, Israeli Settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Including East Jerusalem, and the Occupied Syrian Golan (January 10, 2008) [G.A. Res. 62/108, U.N. GAOR, U.N. Doc. A/RES/62/108 (2008)]. In Resolution 62/108, the General Assembly notes Israel’s work in withdrawing from Gaza and the West Bank as well as dismantling settlements in those regions. However, the General Assembly continues to demand the same for East Jerusalem and Syrian Golan in which Israeli settlements continue to develop.

Document 414: United Nations General Assembly Resolution 62/109, Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights ofthe Palestinian People in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, IncludingEastJerusalem (January 10, 2008) [G.A. Res. 62/109, U.N. GAOR, U.N. Doc. A/RES/62/109 (2008)]. Citing reports by the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Palestinian People and Other Arabs of the Occupied Territories as well as the special rapporteur of the Human Rights Council, the General Assembly provides a veritable laundry list of concerns regarding the status of Palestinians in the Occupied Territories.

The General Assembly again expresses concern for the violation of human rights by Israel, such as collective punishment, closure of areas, construction of the wall inside the Occupied Territories, and destruction of property. In response, the General Assembly is convinced of the need for an international presence to monitor the situation.

1.