The deadly Hamas attack on October 7th and the ensuing devastating war in Gaza have deeply pained and shaken both Israelis and Palestinians, while shattering the myth that 'managing' or unilaterally 'shrinking' the conflict was a sustainable alternative to a negotiated political agreement. Although such a path might seem further than ever before, the past year has confirmed that the only way to achieve peace and security for both peoples is through an agreed political resolution. And there is no resolution without Jerusalem as the capital of both peoples.

Previous peace efforts have relegated discussions over the political future of the city to the final stages of negotiations, fearing they might be derailed by the complexities therein. However, this has only stalled negotiations and led to further deterioration of conditions on the ground. Rather than an obstacle, Ir Amim believes Jerusalem can serve as a key for resolving the conflict. Therefore, we seek to re-center Jerusalem in the political discourse.

In this paper, Ir Amim puts forward an outline for a political resolution for Jerusalem, including steps that should be taken now to advance towards this goal. This outline can bring hope to both peoples living in the city and, under the appropriate political conditions, serve as a lever for resolving the conflict as a whole. Our vision is predicated on the values of equality and self-determination for both Israelis and Palestinians and stems from the recognition of both peoples’ historic, religious, and political attachments to the city.

This paper was written out of a sense of urgency and concern for the city of Jerusalem, the people that live in it, and the region at large. Ir Amim is a non-partisan organization that has a long history of addressing the complexity of life in Jerusalem and its political future, within the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. At the center of our work is an understanding of Jerusalem as the home of both Israelis and Palestinians—a city that should uphold the dignity and welfare of all its residents and protect their holy sites and their historical and cultural assets.

The paper is organized in the following manner: In the first section, we present the context from which this paper sprung; then, in the second section, we put forward the 13 essential principles that should guide an agreement over Jerusalem; lastly, in the third section, we delineate some of the immediate steps that should take place to improve the lives of residents in both sides of the city and prepare the ground for political negotiations.

The events of October 7th and the war in Gaza have generated deep existential turmoil among Israelis and Palestinians alike. Dread has overshadowed all aspects of life, leading to increased fear and demonization. Along with the great collapse of a sense of security after October 7th, all unilateral concepts of ‘managing’, ‘shrinking’ or ‘determining’ the shape of the conflict—including the idea of a one-sided separation propped up by a sophisticated barrier—also collapsed. In contrast, the strength and significance of political agreements with countries that were once considered bitter enemies have proven themselves, even amidst these challenging times. As distant and impossible as a different reality may currently seem, a shift can take place that will lead to a political agreement, even amid the pain and loss of this conflict. This should be facilitated by international support, and based on the mutual right to self-determination and on the principles of equality and justice for both peoples.

There is likely nothing more difficult at present than envisioning a beneficial future of agreement and reciprocity between Palestinians and Israelis. After decades of ongoing delegitimization of political negotiation processes, a renewed discourse on a resolution must be relevant to people’s lives, address their concerns, and ensure a genuine improvement in their living conditions. It must recognize, on the one hand, the injustices of the occupation, and, on the other, the interdependence among both peoples who share this land. In addition to aspects of distinctiveness and self-determination, it must also include elements of sharing, equality, mutual prosperity, and broad civil support. Moreover, any renewed discourse on a political agreement must stem from an unwavering commitment to protecting the human rights of all individuals—including women, minorities, and children—as well as their physical and social environments. It must grant both populations a concrete sense of justice, inclusion, and hope.

This is not a utopian perspective. It will be fraught with challenges and obstacles, and there will be no shortage of actors who will take advantage of every opportunity to derail it. But neither is it naïve or impossible. Traces of it can be found in the mixed cities within Israel where tensions have not escalated during this period despite relentless attempts to ignite them, and, especially, in the city at the heart of the conflict: Jerusalem. Therefore, Ir Amim believes that Jerusalem can and should serve as the starting point from which a different reality can be imagined and promoted based on the principles proposed in this paper. These principles can help improve the city’s current reality and under the appropriate political conditions serve as the foundation for a political solution in Jerusalem and even for the conflict as a whole.

Jerusalem is the heart of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, its litmus test, and, at the same time, it is the city where the largest populations of Israelis and Palestinians live in a shared urban space. Both peoples see Jerusalem as their capital and as the focal point of their national, religious, and historic attachments. This reality of a shared connection to Jerusalem is a source of tension but has also fostered mutual recognition and interdependence.

Throughout all previous rounds of negotiations, discussions on Jerusalem were postponed indefinitely, on grounds that the issue was so charged that it would hinder the negotiations’ progress {1}. Yet, to date, putting off the question of Jerusalem has only served to normalize the occupation and to encourage a unilateral discourse that has increased mistrust among the parties. The approach presented in this paper, which is even more vital in the wake of October 7th and the subsequent outbreak of the war, proposes to reverse this paradigm. Rather than being considered an obstacle to peace, Jerusalem should be seen as its starting point and as the key to a sustainable agreement, parts of which can start being implemented immediately.
In both parts of the city, Israeli and Palestinian, there is a vibrant and diverse civil society which is vastly knowledgeable on the intricacies of living in an environment of conflict, and many of whose members are involved in activities to prevent violence and advance dialogue. This is an important social force which can and should be harnessed towards envisioning and implementing a political resolution. Jerusalem can serve as a concrete model on how to grant proper expression to the national aspirations of both peoples through an equitable approach based on a commitment to individual and collective rights, self-determination, and interdependence.

To date, life in Jerusalem has been based on an impossible anomaly: nearly 40% of its population is composed of Palestinian residents who live under occupation, lacking civil and political equality. Palestinian residents of East Jerusalem endure deep discrimination in the provision of public services, resource allocation, and the quality of infrastructure in their neighborhoods; they are subject to severe discrimination in housing and planning; live under the constant threat of having their residency status revoked; and face incessant attempts to push them from the city’s physical and symbolic space.

Since the construction of the separation barrier in the early 2000s, East Jerusalem has been effectively cut off from the rest of the West Bank. Therefore, even while experiencing deep discrimination, Palestinian residents have come to increasingly depend on Israeli systems. Meanwhile, access to the city and its holy sites for Palestinian residents of the West Bank has been heavily restricted.

In addition to cutting off East Jerusalem from the rest of the West Bank, the construction of the separation barrier also physically disconnected several East Jerusalem neighborhoods from the rest of the city. Today, around one third of Jerusalem’s Palestinian residents live in neighborhoods located beyond the separation barrier. They are cut off from most municipal services due to severe neglect by Israeli authorities and suffer from restrictions on their freedom of movement despite being residents of the city.

This inequality and the harmful consequences of the decades-long occupation have resulted in the deterioration of the social fabric and the escalation of violence and tensions in Jerusalem. Nevertheless, Jerusalem remains a city where Israelis and Palestinians live side by side, and where cooperation and mutual dependence are present in many aspects of daily life. For example, over one third of East Jerusalem residents work in the Israeli labor market, in roles that range from entry-level to senior management, in fields as varied as transportation, construction, trade, tourism, and health services. Likewise, many of the city’s public spaces are used by both populations.

Since the construction of the separation barrier, the number of Palestinian students in Israeli higher education institutions has steadily increased. In both parts of the city, the demand for language studies—both Israelis studying Arabic and Palestinians studying Hebrew—is steadily increasing. Cooperation among civil society activists on both sides is also growing.

Freedom of movement and spatial contiguity are shared needs for most Israelis and Palestinians in the city, and both share a local identity as Jerusalemites, in addition to, or as a complement to, their national identity. Interdependence has strengthened the routine of life in the city and has been one of the positive factors in helping to restore a partial sense of security even amidst a reality of regional conflict. Despite the incessant incitement and repression from various actors, including Israeli government ministers, an active civil society has prevented an uncontrolled deterioration from taking place. Concerned residents on both sides have cooperated in addressing the population’s needs, and, in most cases, succeeded in protecting their communities and routines.

Ir Amim’s outline is based on the basic principles of a two-state solution: self-determination, democracy, equality, and human rights. Yet, it offers a flexible implementation adapted to the existing reality and incorporates lessons learned from prior negotiations. The permanent political framework (i.e. two independent states, a confederation, etc.) must be determined through an agreement by both parties, taking into consideration each side’s collective needs. From this, the status of Jerusalem as the capital of both peoples will also be derived.

This paper establishes 13 essential principles that should guide any political agreement on Jerusalem. These principles address the core issues—including borders; authority and governance; citizenship status; and holy sites—as well as the necessity of maintaining the continuity of life and fostering mutual dependency and ties. Furthermore, the paper points to concrete actions that must be taken to create a reality amenable to negotiations, some of which can already be implemented. Addressing these core issues from the start is essential considering ongoing attempts to create facts on the ground that thwart a political solution.

We believe the proposed arrangement will create a more beneficial and equitable reality for both peoples. Having said that, any agreement will entail pain, uncertainty, and significant concerns, whereby each side is likely to perceive its own concessions as greater than those of the other. It is even more challenging to compromise on places of great symbolic and religious significance. Extremist entities on both sides will do everything in their power to sabotage the agreement and set the region ablaze.

In addition, any discussion on Jerusalem should take into consideration the fact that a significant percentage of its population, both Palestinian and Israeli, live under the poverty line and face economic and other hardships. These factors raise additional considerations and requirements for the feasibility and sustainability of an agreement in Jerusalem that were taken into account in the formulation of this outline. We are convinced that the question of Jerusalem should no longer be delayed and believe that the outline proposed below can help promote a political solution and serve as a basis for discussions on the matter.