Armistice in Jerusalem: Once Again?
Whenever there seems to be a real opportunity for settling the Israeli-Palestinian problem, Jerusalem is put on the negotiations table. While the Arabs in general wish to restore the status quo ante-bellum of 1967, whereby Jerusalem was divided, the mainstream in Israeli politics strives to maintain...
Saved in:
Published in | Israel affairs Vol. 10; no. 3; pp. 74 - 89 |
---|---|
Main Author | |
Format | Journal Article |
Language | English |
Published |
Taylor & Francis GroupAbingdon, UK
01.09.2004
|
Subjects | |
Online Access | Get full text |
Cover
Loading…
Summary: | Whenever there seems to be a real opportunity for settling the Israeli-Palestinian problem, Jerusalem is put on the negotiations table. While the Arabs in general wish to restore the status quo ante-bellum of 1967, whereby Jerusalem was divided, the mainstream in Israeli politics strives to maintain a united Jerusalem under Israeli rule, with some concessions for East Jerusalem Arabs. If the Arabs had their way, one would return to the unhappy period of the armistice (1947-67), where barbed wire partitioned the city, Jews were prohibited from free access to their humanitarian and cultural institutions, in contravention of the Israeli-Jordan Armistice Agreement, and hundreds of people lost their lives in occasional outbursts of firing. The experience of the armistice regime should, therefore, serve as both a warning against reverting to that anomaly which ended in the 1967 war and as a negative guideline to the sort of accommodation to be sought under any future arrangement. Reprinted by permission of Frank Cass & Co. Ltd. |
---|---|
Bibliography: | ObjectType-Article-2 SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1 ObjectType-Feature-1 content type line 23 ObjectType-Article-1 ObjectType-Feature-2 |
ISSN: | 1353-7121 1743-9086 |
DOI: | 10.1080/1353712042000242581 |