BUILDING A NEW JERUSALEM

CHRISTMAS in the Holy Land is an occasion that strains piety. For one thing, it is not one festival but three --Dec. 25 for Roman Catholics and Protestants, Jan. 7 for the Orthodox churches and Jan. 19 for Armenian Christians. More disconcerting, the details for the rites on these separate feast days that celebrate the birth of Jesus are spelled out in a 75-page, three-language manual whose rules are enforced by Israeli military authorities. That is one of the more delicate tasks undertaken by the new rulers of old Jerusalem, who have essayed the rule making only because the churches, which jealously share jurisdiction over the Christian holy places, are so touchy about privilege and eminence that an impartial arbitrator is required to solve their disputes. So much for the peace that passeth understanding in Jerusalem, the golden city that has witnessed 20 centuries of conflict between the zealots of the Almighty.

Today, though, the primary battle over Jerusalem is political. The city stands at the heart of the bitter dispute about the future of the occupied territories captured by Israel during the Six-Day War of 1967. During that war, Israeli troops seized the Jordanian-held Old City and other Arab sectors. Even before the guns went silent, the Israelis declared that, whatever the fate of the other occupied territories, a reunited Jerusalem had returned to Israel forever. Confirming that view, two weeks after the war Israel's Parliament decreed that Jordanian Jerusalem had been annexed in an "administrative unification." Since then the residents of Jerusalem--who include 216,000 Israelis, 70,000 Arabs and 3,000 Americans, Europeans and Armenians --have lived in uneasy juxtaposition while peace negotiations remain stalled. Their political fate has not been settled to anyone's satisfaction, and neither has the disposition of the holy places, which this year alone have drawn 620,000 pilgrims from round the world. In fact, Israel's unilateral annexation of Jerusalem has been roundly condemned by the United Nations and world opinion. Israel has so far brusquely rejected the criticism, insisting that the city's future is nonnegotiable.

Despite their importance to Israel or the Arabs, the world finds it difficult to excite itself unduly about the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights, the wastes of Sinai or even the fertile lands of the Jordan's West Bank. But Jerusalem, symbol of monotheism to East and West, a city steeped in history and mysticism, renowned in literature and poetry--that is another matter entirely. Nowhere else in the world can be found such a concentration of religious shrines of importance to so many people. The main objective of Israeli troops in June 1967 was the Wailing Wall, a surviving remnant of the rampart that encircled the Second Temple, which was destroyed in A.D. 70 by vengeful Romans. Beyond the Wall stand Al Aqsa Mosque and the Dome of the Rock, which marks the spot where Mohammed, around A.D. 620, is said to have started his remarkable "Night Journey" to the seven heavens in company with the Archangel Gabriel. Near by are the Via Dolorosa, the path that Christians believe was followed by Jesus on the way to his crucifixion, and the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, which stands on the spot where, tradition has it, he was placed in his tomb.

The problem, then, is the future of a city that is not only coveted by the state of Israel but is also sacred to three of the world's great religions. In the search for a solution, four proposals have been put forward: 1) a return to the boundaries and controls that existed before the Six-Day War; 2) internationalization under United Nations control of either all of Jerusalem or its sections with religious significance; 3) formalization of Israel's de facto control over the Old City as well as the new; and 4) acknowledgment of Israel's jurisdiction over the entire city, along with some measure of autonomy for both the shrines and the Arab population.

A return to the situation that existed prior to the Six-Day War is highly unlikely. The city was divided into two armed camps, its natural fabric torn by barricades, barbed wire and a guarded checkpoint at the Mandelbaum Gate, its two sectors closed to each other more effectively than East and West Berlin. Moreover, there is still some question about Jordan's right to the Old City. In 1948, as the 26-year British mandate over Palestine ended, King Abdullah of Trans-Jordan seized the West Bank of the Jordan River and the Old City while the Jews were scrambling for as much territory as possible to form the State of Israel. The Jordanians expelled the Jews from the Old City and denied them access to Jewish holy places there, including the Wailing Wall. Abdullah's action was protested at the time by other members of the Arab League, as well as by many Palestinian Arabs, but only because they did not trust Abdullah's Hashemite ambitions. Today the U.S. and many other nations formally recognize neither Israel's right to control Jerusalem nor the claims to the Old City made by Abdullah's grandson, Jordan's King Hussein. To stress the point, 33 nations maintain embassies 35 miles away in Tel Aviv rather than in Jerusalem, which is now Israel's capital.

International control of all Jerusalem, which has been proposed in the past by both the Vatican and the U.S., is an uncertain remedy at best. The argument is that an international moderator, separating Arabs and Jews, would be to the city's advantage. But both groups are already living under Israeli jurisdiction without serious trouble; besides, a U.N. administration would have to deal with the contentious governments of Israel and Jordan, thereby adding an extra layer of bureaucracy to an already overadministered city.

The most workable solution for Jerusalem--even though now unacceptable to Egypt and its allies--would be to leave it in Israeli hands, but to make allowance for the eventual rights of Palestinian Arabs. Even Arab leaders in occupied Jordan acknowledge that Mayor Teddy Kollek's supervision of the annexed territory has been generally benevolent and progressive. Arab residents have gained new schools, health centers, theaters, sewers, running water and electricity while paying only part of the taxes that Israelis pay. Part of this, obviously, is aimed at softening criticism of the Israeli annexation, yet most Arabs would still prefer to live under an Arab flag. Israel also recognizes the jurisdiction of Moslem religious courts and allows an Arab curriculum in Old City schools. "We have no intention of creating a melting pot or a monoculture here," says Kollek.

In contrast to the Jordanian government, which violated an 1852 agreement on the status quo of the holy places when it barred Jewish pilgrims from the Wailing Wall, Israel allows access to the Dome of the Rock and Al Aqsa Mosque to all Moslems, even those from nations with which it is technically at war. In fact, Israel's occupation has been altogether benevolent--with one exception. Earlier this year, Israel's housing minister mounted "a Zionist exhibition" by confiscating Arab land for high-rise apartments to be occupied by Jewish families. The proposal, since scaled down in response to foreign protest, was aesthetically bad, politically maladroit, and detracted from what was otherwise a reasonable argument for Israeli control of the city.

From a theological viewpoint, at least, a Jerusalem under Israeli jurisdiction makes certain sense. More than for Christianity or Islam, the city has special meaning for Judaism. For Moslems, Jerusalem invokes deep feelings, and the Dome of the Rock makes the city the third holiest for Moslems after Mecca and Medina. Still, there is no imperative for the devout to visit the Dome as there is for them to make a hadj to Mecca. For Christians, the city will always be a unique place of pilgrimage because of its role in Jesus' life, death and resurrection. But in the churches today spiritual guidance and administration flow from elsewhere; Roman Catholics, for instance, look to Rome and the Pope rather than to Jerusalem.

For the Jews, however, Jerusalem is their hearts' desire as pious individuals, their goal and fulfillment as the chosen people. The city is specifically mentioned 750 times in Hebrew Scripture, and referred to euphemistically as the "City of David," "Holy City" or "Temple Mount" a thousand times more. Some Talmudic scholars conceive of it divinities, earthly and divine--"and so you find the Jerusalem above directly opposite the Jerusalem below," says the midrash. Jerusalem was the talisman on which Judaism in exile survived; on every Passover, Jews of the Diaspora promised one another: "Next year in Jerusalem." Even for unreligious Israelis, of whom there are many, Jerusalem possesses a certain mystique because, in Israeli hands, it represents the continuity and justification of Jewish history. "I never go to the Wailing Wall to pray," admits one young secular Jerusalemite. "But I go often to the Wall." "

Thus Judaism and its heir, Israel, have a commanding moral claim to Jerusalem. Even so, what is really needed is a declaration that this claim can be implemented democratically rather than in Old Testament theocratic fashion, that Palestinians who have lived there for centuries have political rights too. For justice to be served, their rights must be considered even if Jerusalem, in a final settlement, remains under overall Israeli control. In spite of the material benefits brought by unification, the Arabs in Jerusalem still have second-class rank. They carry both Jordanian passports and Israeli I.D. cards, vote in municipal but not in national elections, and have little effective voice in city operations, partly because many refuse to cooperate with Kollek. They live in wary coexistence not only with Israel but also with Hussein, who alienated them last year by turning his Bedouin army against the Palestinian guerrillas operating in Jordan.

Aware of their enmity, Hussein has promised the 680,000 Palestinian Arabs in Jerusalem and the West Bank the right of self-determination. Their likely course, as the King well knows, is to side with him. But if they were to decide on independence or, less likely, some kind of a confederation with Israel, the establishment of a part of Jerusalem as the capital of a new Palestinian nation might be justified. Mayor Kollek is considering the idea of a five-borough system for the city, under which the Arabs would gain more autonomy. Such a system could be developed to accommodate two governments in Jerusalem without resorting to new walls or barbed wire. If an Arab Palestine were created--a Utopian proposal that most Israelis reject as implausible--territorial control of monuments sacred to Islam should then pass to the new nation.

Even without such a joint settlement, however, the disposition of the holy places must be part of any broader agreement on Jerusalem. Jewish and Moslem shrines will not present much difficulty. Israel is not anxious to continue unilateral responsibility for non-Jewish holy places; soon after the '67 war, Defense Minister Moshe Dayan offered to let any designated Arab flag fly over the Dome of the Rock and other Moslem shrines. The offer still holds. Since Moslems already administer the shrines and support them as well, Arab flags above the minarets would be largely a matter of symbolism. What national flags they ought to be, however, is a problem for Arabs to thresh out.

More difficult is the question of Christian shrines. The ancient jealousies of the various churches remain as strong as ever. When Pope Paul originally suggested that all of Jerusalem be internationalized, he did so not merely for the sake of peace, but also, presumably, to enhance the Vatican's role in administering the shrines. The momentum for citywide extraterritoriality has ebbed, however; currently Israel is negotiating with the churches involved to seek a consensus on a more narrow and functional form of extraterritoriality for the shrines. Greek Orthodox and Armenian prelates would probably settle for simple diplomatic status. Rome is seeking "special status" for the holy places but has not yet defined the term.

Mostly, what is needed all around is the spirit of the law instead of its letter. Mayor Kollek's government last month provided an example of what that could be in announcing winners of an architectural competition to rebuild a section of the Jewish quarter of the Old City. Abandoned and vandalized under Jordanian occupation, the Jewish quarter could have become a chauvinist example of Israeli nationalism, much like that gratuitous housing project in the Arab sector. Instead, Mayor Kollek chose a plan in which existing stones will be used to build a new section of shops, apartments, plazas and landscaped, traffic-free streets. In effect, the plan highlights the flavor of old Jerusalem while emphasizing the practicalities of the modern city. Even with all good will, it will be difficult for such plans to defuse the deep passions felt by Arabs under Israeli rule. But if something as logical could be worked out on a broader scale, Jerusalem could become at last the golden city it was meant to be.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.