Iris Voorwerk
10633154
iris_voorwerk@hotmail.com
+31634705344
Date: June 11
th2018
University of Amsterdam,
Master Human Geography, track Political Geography
Supervisor: mw. dr. V. D. Mamadouh
The European Union in Jerusalem
European consular cooperation
and the corpus separatum
Preface
In March 2018, I went to Jerusalem for four weeks to conduct research for this thesis. During the first few days in Jerusalem, I was overwhelmed by all the different religions in the Old City, the different kinds of people on the streets and the huge difference between West- and East-Jerusalem. When visiting Ramallah and Bethlehem, I was intrigued by the separation Wall. It was the first time in my life that I had seen such a phenomenon.
On May 12th 2018, Israel won the Eurovision Song Contest. When the singer was on stage after she gathered the highest amount of points of all the competitors, she proclaimed that next year the Eurovision Song Contest will take place in Jerusalem. Given the contested status of Jerusalem, opposing reactions from all over the world followed. Before writing this thesis, I might not have given any attention to the statement the singer made, but now it was different. My visit to Jerusalem has taught me that the status of Jerusalem is far from determined. Statements like the one the singer made are thus not merely a happy comment on winning the contest. Whether Jerusalem is part of Israel, Palestine or under control of the United Nations, there is no consensus. The precise location of the Eurovision Song Context of 2019 in Israel is not certain yet, but there is a change it will be in Jerusalem.
I would like to thank all the respondents that took the time to talk to me for this thesis. Each of these conversations were very interesting and contributed in a great way to the thesis. I want to thank my supervisor Virginie Mamadouh for supporting and helping me during the process of conducting this study. I also want to thank Joep Kelderman for sharing his GIS skills with me. Last, but not least, I want to thank Leonie Voorwerk and Tim Haverkamp for reviewing this thesis.
Summary
This study is about the network of diplomacy between consulates of Member States of the European Union and the European External Action Service in Jerusalem. The European Union plays a big part in the process of the resolving the conflict between Israel and Palestine and the contested status of Jerusalem. This role is reflected in the presence in Jerusalem and in the aims and actions of the European Union.
The framework for this study is based on literature about the European Foreign Policy, consular diplomacy and an exploration of the concept of contested territory. Together with an exploration of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the evolving status of Jerusalem, the theoretical framework is the foundation of the thesis.
The main research question of this thesis is How is the position of the European Union and its Member States on the contested status of Jerusalem reflected in the consular diplomatic presence and their mutual network? This research question has been addressed with a qualitative approach. Interviews have been conducted and triangulated with policy documents and academic literature. The interviews took place in Jerusalem in March and April 2018. The respondents were representatives of the consulates of Member States of the European Union, somebody at the European External Action Service (EEAS) in Jerusalem, an activist of an NGO in East-Jerusalem, a journalist of the Jerusalem Post and an academic specialized in the connections between the European Union and Palestine.
The combination between the different sources led to an understanding of the multi-layered implications of the location of the consulates and EEAS in Jerusalem. The EU considers Jerusalem still as the corpus separatum of the Partition Plan of 1947 and believes in the two-state solution to be the best solution for a peaceful coexistence of Israel and Palestine. The different interpretations about the status of Jerusalem combined with different law systems create a situation in which the two-state solution is not likely be established in the near future. An intense network of cooperation in Jerusalem between the consulates is caused by and causes at the same time, a common viewpoint in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and Jerusalem.
This viewpoint is expressed on the local scale level and through policy recommendations that are sent to the European Union in Brussels and governments of the Member States.
For future research there are multiple options. For example, an elaborate exploration of the viewpoint of residents in both Israel and Palestine would provide an interesting point of view. Part of the activities of the delegations of the European Union is done to increase the visibility of the European Union in both Israel and Palestine. The way in which the citizens perceive this, could offer interesting insights. Moreover, more respondents outside of the researched network between the representations of the European Union would give an interesting angle to the subject. Both of these options for further research are thus mainly related to how the European Union is regarded outside of the European Union itself.
Table of content
Preface ... 3 Summary ... 5 Table of content ... 7 1. Introduction... 9 2. Theoretical framework ... 112.1 European Foreign Policy ... 11
2.2 Consular Diplomacy ... 14
2.3 Territorial sovereignty ... 17
2.4 Contested cities ... 20
2.5 The European Union and contested territories ... 21
3.1 Research Design ... 27
3.2 Interviews ... 28
3.3 Secondary sources ... 30
4. The evolving status of Jerusalem ... 31
4.1 Before the Ottoman Empire ... 31
4.2 Ottoman Empire ... 31
4.3 British Mandate ... 32
4.4 Partition Plan in 1947 ... 33
4.5 Basic Law: Jerusalem, Capital of Israel ... 36
4.6 Second intifada ... 37
4.7 Present ... 38
5. Why the European Union is involved in the conflict about Jerusalem ... 41
5.1 Geopolitical factors ... 41
5.2 International law ... 43
5.3 Religion ... 44
5.4 Criticism ... 46
6. The aims and actions of the consulates ... 49
6.1 Establishment ... 49
6.2 Corpus separatum ... 51
6.3 Council conclusions ... 54
6.4 State building ... 55
7. How the consulates of Member States of the European Union cooperate in Jerusalem ... 57
7.1 Labelling ... 57
7.2 Financial aid ... 59
7.4 Diplomatic network ... 61 8. Conclusion ... 65 8.1. Conclusion ... 65 8.2 Discussion ... 68 8.3 Further Research ... 70 Bibliography ... 71
Appendix: Topic list for the interviews with representatives of the consulates and the EEAS in Jerusalem ... 83
1. Introduction
On December 6th 2017, Federica Mogherini gave a speech in Strasbourg about the position of the European Union regarding the solution of the conflict between Israel and Palestine. The speech was a reaction to the statement of President Trump of the United States that the embassy of the United States to Israel would be moved from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem (Mogherini, 2017). President Trump also declared in his statement that Jerusalem is the undivided capital of Israel (President Trump, 2017). This declaration was opposed by the European Union. The European Union responded with the above-mentioned speech of Mogherini, that stated that the European Union will keep putting effort in the two-state solution, as it is considered the best solution for Israel and Palestine to live side by side in peace with Jerusalem as their shared capital (Mogherini, 2017).
The discussion about the status of Jerusalem is not new and the involvement of the European Union is not new either. In 1947, the United Nations developed a Partition Plan in which Jerusalem would come under control of the United Nations as a corpus separatum (Latin for separated body). Nowadays, the consulates of Member States of the European Union still see the corpus separatum to be the leading scheme for Jerusalem. They consider themselves to be the protectors of the corpus separatum (Bicchi, 2016).
In this thesis, the network between the consulates of Member States of the European Union is analysed in the context of the city of Jerusalem. The declaration of President Trump of the United States that Jerusalem is the undivided capital of Israel foregrounded the debate about the status of Jerusalem once again. The position of the European Union in the contested status of Jerusalem is partly based on the information received from the consulates and the European External Action Service in Jerusalem. The consulates of the Member States of the European Union in Jerusalem interact locally and are a representation of the position of the European Union in the conflict about the status of Jerusalem. This is related to their location and their mere presence in the city. Okano-Heijmans (2013) explains how consular diplomacy has become more politically oriented over the last years. The way the consulates in Jerusalem are politically involved in the policy of the European Union on the conflict between Israel and Palestine and the status of Jerusalem is an example of this.
The main research question of this thesis is:
How is the position of the European Union and its Member States on the contested status of Jerusalem reflected in the consular diplomatic presence and their mutual network? The sub-questions that help answer the main research question are:
- What are the reasons behind the involvement of the European Union and its Member States in the contested status of Jerusalem and Israel-Palestine as a whole?
- What are the main aims of the consulates regarding the contested status of Jerusalem and how does this relate to their location in Jerusalem?
- How is the cooperation of the consulates and EEAS constructed and what are the outcomes?
This study was conducted by a combination of interviews, review of academic literature and review of policy documents, in order to construct a complete analysis of the situation. The interviews have been conducted over a period of four weeks in Jerusalem and have been analysed afterwards. This study is an extreme case-study of European Union diplomacy. An extreme case-study is a case-study to a unique situation. The network that is explored in this thesis, takes place in one of the most contested cities in the world, namely Jerusalem. The downside of an extreme case-study is that it is not well applicable to other cases. The advantage of an extreme case-study is that it is a thorough exploration of this particular case (Bryman, 2012:70). The study has a qualitative approach and creates a thick description, which is a detailed account of behaviour in a specific context, of European consular cooperation in Jerusalem.
This thesis is structured as follows: first the most relevant concepts for this study are explored. After that, the research design and methods are explained. Then, the conflict between Israel and Palestine and the contested status of Jerusalem are described. Next, the sub-questions of the research will be answered in three chapters. The final chapter consists of the conclusion, in which the main research question is addressed, discussion and recommendations for further research.
2. Theoretical framework
In Jerusalem, there are seven consulates of Member States of the European Union. These consulates form a network of cooperation. The cooperation is influenced by the conflict between Israel and Palestine and Jerusalem specifically. In this chapter, other important concepts that influence the European consular diplomacy in Jerusalem will be explained. First, the European Foreign Policy will be discussed, followed by an explanation about consular diplomacy. After that, a part about sovereignty will follow, followed by a paragraph about divided cities and boundaries. Lastly, the concepts will be linked together as well as to the specific case of the European Union and its relation to Jerusalem.
2.1 European Foreign Policy
The European Union is not only concerned with internal politics within its Member States, but also with external politics outside the Union. Part of the external politics is carried out through the European External Action Service which was established in 2009 (EEAS). In 2017, the EEAS had 128 delegations around the world and 4 special offices; namely in Taipei, Hong Kong, Jerusalem and Pristina (Bicchi & Maurer, 2018:12). The European Union is not a state, but it is active in the diplomatic network where states participate in as well. Ever since the European Union came to existence, the Union aimed at having a common external foreign policy (Wessel & van Vooren, 2013).
Before the Lisbon Treaty (see below), the current delegations of the European Union were delegations of the European Commission. The offices that represented the European Commission were founded in the 1950s. These offices were first established in strategically important capitals such as London and Washington (Drieskens, 2012:53). In the 1960s and 1970s the delegations mainly functioned as monitors for development policies of the European Commission in the ACP (African, Caribbean, Pacific) countries.
When the United Kingdom joined the European Commission in 1973, the external policy agenda of the Commission broadened to the former British Colonies and the number of delegations doubled (Drieskens, 2012:54). Moreover, the scope broadened and started to comprise more than just the purpose of monitoring development. The role of diplomatic representation became more important and the delegations of the European Commission
started to function like actual delegations, representing the European Commission in the host countries. This process of an expanding number of delegations around the world continued for decades and diplomatic cooperation got further form (Drieskens, 2012:54).
In 1992 the Maastricht Treaty was signed by twelve Member States. The Maastricht Treaty established the European Union that we know today and increased the political (external) cooperation (Drieskens, 2012:54). The Maastricht Treaty added the dimension of consular diplomacy to the political field in third countries and the way in which the consulates are responsible for (part of) the implementation of the common European foreign policy. This was done through extended information exchange and joint reporting (Drieskens, 2012:54). The following is stated in the treaty about the cooperation:
“The diplomatic and consular missions of the Member States and the Commission Delegations in third countries and international conferences, and their representations to international organizations, shall cooperate in ensuring that the common positions and common measures adopted by the Council are complied with and implemented” (Council of the European Communities, 1992:127).
The common positions and the common measures are mainly based on the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP). The Maastricht Treaty also improved the protection of EU-citizens in third countries. When a Member State does not have diplomatic representation, in the form of a consulate or embassy, in a third country, the representatives of other Member States of the European Union have the obligation to give the citizens of this Member State the same level of protection as they would give their own citizens (Council of the European Communities, 1992:63).
The treaties of Nice and of Amsterdam in 1997 and 2001 respectively, gave further form to the cooperation between Member States and their common voice in foreign politics. The position of ‘High Representative for CFSP’ was introduced with the Amsterdam Treaty (Smith, 2016:309). The growing network of delegations of the European Union remained under jurisdiction of the European Commission and they were mainly focused on commercial and development diplomacy (Smith, 2016:310).
The establishment of the EEAS (the current diplomatic representation of the European Union) took place in 2009, with the signing of the Lisbon Treaty (Drieskens, 2012:53). The Lisbon Treaty changed the way in which the European Union executed diplomacy. With the Lisbon Treaty, representations of the Commission changed to actual delegations of the European Union and became EU-embassies that were called the European External Action Service (Wessel & van Vooren, 2013:1532). This was not merely a name change, but it gave European delegations in third states the ability to speak on behalf of the entire European Union, with the approval of the European Union in Brussels and to coordinate the missions of the separate Member States of the European Union in the host location (Wessel & van Vooren, 2013:1352). Coordination between the Member States increases the credibility and effectiveness of the common foreign policy that the European Union wants to express (Austermann, 2014). Moreover, the Lisbon Treaty created new positions, such as the President of the European Council and the High Representative (HR) of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (Vataman, 2012:720). The position of HR was already partly created in the Amsterdam Treaty, but got further form with the Lisbon Treaty. The HR is also the vice president of the European Commission, linking these two bodies that are responsible for European diplomacy. The European Commission is mainly involved with trade diplomacy of the European Union, whereas the EEAS is responsible for the implementation of the CFSP (Smith, 2016:310).
Since the Lisbon Treaty, the delegations of the European Union started to fulfil roles and functions more similar to regular national embassies (Austermann, 2014). The information coming from the delegations is often going straight to the leaders of the European Union which increases the influence of the European Union on the global political agenda. Member States are encouraged to centralize practical tasks, such as issuing visas (Austermann, 2014:28). With the Lisbon Treaty and the creation of the EEAS a unified foreign voice representing the entire European Union was created. However, the European Commission continues to represent the European Union externally except in terms of the CFSP (Wouters & Duquet, 2012:36). The EEAS is set up as a separate body of the European Commission in order to differentiate between the two European institutions. However, the EEAS as a delegation of the European Union worldwide seems to have created yet another voice in the international political arena speaking on behalf of the European Union (Wouters & Duquet, 2012:36).
Part of the coordination between delegations of Member States in third countries is political reporting about the status of the host state or city (Austermann, 2014:64). The joint reporting is an outcome of the interconnectedness of the delegations of Member States of the European Union and the EEAS. The reports are drafted by the Heads of Missions of the delegations of Member States and supervised by the Head of Mission of the EEAS (Bicchi, 2011). The reports are sent to Brussels, where they are combined with reports from other delegations and used for policy making at the EEAS in Brussels (Bicchi, 2011:90). In contrary to other written documents that are sent to the governments of the Member States, which can be very lengthy and contain many different elements (mainly economic), these reports are shorter and issued at least once a week. The purpose of the reports is to give a complete overview to the EEAS in Brussels of the situation on the ground and the events that are taking place (Bicchi, 2011:90).
Heads of Missions of delegations of Member States of the European Union thus form a diplomatic network (for example through consulates) in the host state. Over recent year consulates have become more involved with political issues, mainly in the form of cooperation. In the next paragraph this development will be highlighted.
2.2 Consular Diplomacy
Diplomacy is an outcome of international relations. The general aim of a diplomatic mission is to improve national security, prosperity and welfare in the home state and the receiving state. Because of globalization, states and people become more dependent on each other. Therefore, diplomatic missions play a big role in providing national security, prosperity and welfare (Rana, 2016). At the same time, new ways of communication and other (supranational, non-governmental etc.) institutions have been added to the diplomatic arena over the last decades. This changes the ‘traditional’ diplomacy between merely nation-states (Rana, 2016:150).
There is an important difference between diplomatic representation in the form of an embassy or a consulate. Embassies are places that express sovereignty, mutual recognition and presence in the international system (Rana, 2016:149). Embassies represent the (bilateral) ties that exist between countries and give a little insight in each other’s culture and ways of organizing important matters. Therefore, embassies are responsible for the state-to-state communication and (bilateral) ties (Rana, 2016:149).
Consulates on the other hand used to be more focused on economic, day-to-day issues and providing ‘on the ground’ services. “Not all consular activities involve a degree of diplomacy or international, high politics” (Okano-Heijmans, 2013:1). The origin of the concept of a consulate goes back to a period in history when European economics were flourishing and the need for negotiations and accords between different areas rose (Fernandez Pasarin, 2016:161). The first evidence for the existence of a consulate has been found in relation to Greek city-states. Consulates used to be mainly economically focused and played important roles in trade between countries and areas, now they are becoming more politically orientated as well (Okano-Heijmans, 2013:3; Fernandez Pasarin, 2016).
The separation between low politics (visas and other consular services) and high politics (diplomacy or international relations) is becoming blurred. Part of consular work is related to visibility of a state. There is a certain marketing value that can boost the image of the sending state. This image is an important part of public diplomacy that creates awareness amongst citizens in the host state. It is an example of the increasing political activities that consulates are involved in (Okano-Heijmans, 2013). Increasing involvement in politics can result in cooperation between different consulates in a certain country or within a city (Okano-Heijmans, 2013:4). Especially catastrophic events, such as the tsunami in Asia in 2004 or the terrorist attacks in the United States in 2001, create situations in which it was necessary for governments, and thus consulates, to work together (Fernandez Pasarin, 2016:166).
Important legal cornerstones of consular diplomacy are the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (VCDR) of 1961 and the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (VCCR) in 1963. These two conventions are the basis of present diplomatic activities and consular law. In total, more than 170 states participated in both conventions (Wouters et al., 2013:2). The VCDR of 1961 set, amongst other aspects, ground rules for the function of diplomats and for diplomatic immunity. Two years after the signing of the VCDR, the VCCR was signed. This convention was mainly about the practices and activities of consulates. With the VCCR, a consensus was reached on consular activities. Before the establishment of the VCCR, consular affairs were mainly decided on a domestic or bilateral level. When the VCCR was established, it became easier to work together for consulates, in for example emergency situations (Fernandez Pasarin, 2016:164).
New ways of communicating and the way information is (electronically) processed greatly influence the way diplomacy is executed nowadays (Rana, 2016:150). Some argue that the VCDR and VCCR are outdated, since they for example do not include anything about these new ways of communication or about public diplomacy. The outlets of public diplomacy have also changed into new types of (social) media (Rana, 2016:150).
Increasing cooperation in the European Union goes hand in hand with the political developments of consular diplomacy. The Member States of the European Union are working together on their common foreign policy, especially since the Maastricht Treaty in 1992 and the Lisbon Treaty in 2009. Some European Union Member States have a very extensive and expensive diplomatic network and are reluctant in creating a formalized cooperation network because they might not get enough in return for the information and means put into the cooperation (Okano-Heijmans, 2013:18). There is also a fear of a decrease in speed and efficiency when cooperation would get more intense (Okano-Heijmans, 2013:4). Moreover, consular agents are not so much concerned with political aims and have a more on-the-ground function and focus on practical matters. The mixture of these practical activities with political aims can be complicated (Okano-Heijmans, 2013:2).
Since different countries have different points of view on certain issues, sharing data and setting common standards is not easily done. Earlier attempts by, for example, the European Union have shown that it is an immense diplomatic challenge to actually achieve a deep going collaboration with regards to consular affairs (Okano-Heijmans, 2013:4). The delegations of the European Union turned into delegations very similar to the consulates and embassies of the nation-states. Delegations of Member States of the European Union are coordinated by delegations of the European Union, in the form of the EEAS, in third states (Okano-Heijmans, 2013).
Some embassies or consulates are serving more than one country, if one of the states does not have a diplomatic in that particular host state (Mamadouh et al., 2015:571). When a state is not recognized by the international community, does not have full sovereignty or is not a democratic state, having a bilateral diplomatic relationship can be a delicate issue. For instance, Taiwan is only recognized by 22 states around the world, creating a diplomatic controversy (Mamadouh et al, 2015:571). Burkina Faso is one of only two
states that remained having formal diplomatic relationships with Taiwan after it split from China. With the rise of China as one of the biggest players in developmental aid in Africa, this relationship can be called extraordinary (Cabestan, 2016). Taiwan is one of Burkina Faso’s biggest development partners, both politically and financially. Taiwan puts a lot of effort into public diplomacy. Their generosity to Burkina Faso can serve as a window and example to other countries in Africa (Cabestan, 2016:496).
Although China is one of the biggest investors and trade partners with most states in Africa, Burkina Faso attempts to remain independent from their neighbouring countries such as Mali and Côte d’Ivoire and from China (Cabestan, 2016:512). Mali and Côte d’Ivoire are two of many African countries that are part of China’s intensive development and trade policy (Cabestan, 2016). However, the business community in Burkina Faso has strong ties with Côte d’Ivoire and is putting pressure on the government of Burkina Faso for a switch to development cooperation with China since the Chinese economy has more to offer than the economy of Taiwan to the pour country of Burkina Faso. If China will indeed become a development partner of Burkina Faso, the Chinese government might demand that the diplomatic ties between Taiwan and Burkina Faso would have to be ended (Cabestan, 2016). The external sovereignty of Taiwan is limited, since only 22 states recognized Taiwan since it split from China. Diplomatic relations are related to the external sovereignty of a state. In the next paragraph, the concept of territorial sovereignty will be discussed.
2.3 Territorial sovereignty
The basis for the engagement in international relations is territory (Flint & Taylor, 2011:123). Sovereignty over this territory provides the legitimization for the international relations of the territory. Sovereignty can only exist when there is a mutual recognition of territories within the framework of the inter-state system (Flint & Taylor, 2011:123). There is a difference between external and internal sovereignty. Internal sovereignty has to do with effective state structures and a legitimate authority over the territory, whereas external sovereignty has to do with recognition by other states (Bouris & Kyris, 2017:758).
Since the end of the second world war in 1945, the main attribute for international recognition of sovereignty has been a membership to the United Nations (Flint & Taylor, 2011:123). Post-colonial states in Africa and Asia, as well as states that formerly belonged to the Soviet Union thus immediately applied for a membership to the United Nations to legitimize their new statehood (Flint & Taylor, 2011:123). Bouris and Kyris (2017) use the following quantitative way of determining the external sovereignty of a state:
“We suggest that there is high external sovereignty where there is recognition by more than two-thirds of United Nations (UN) member states and low external sovereignty where less than one-third of UN members recognize, with the rest of contested states enjoying medium external sovereignty” (Bouris & Kyris, 2017:758).
The foundations of claims on territories can differ per case and time. Claims on territory can have a geographical basis, a historical basis or a cultural basis. Geographical claims are related to the location of a certain territory and the incorporation of this geographic entity into the territory of a possible sovereign state. Historical claims are related to past possession of the land whereas cultural claims are based on national claims about national self-determination (Flint & Taylor, 2011:124). State borders can only exist when there is mutual recognition between the representatives of the states and possibly of the international community about the claims that are being made. A conflict is likely to arise when this mutual recognition is not present (Paasi, 1996:3).
Boundaries and capital cities are the two major manifestations of territorial sovereignty (Flint & Taylor, 2011:123). Boundaries are representations of the border between territories with different jurisdictions. Border landscapes are distinguished locations with custom services and controls. Capital cities are (symbolic) representations that might show the grandeur that a state wants to express to the rest of the world (Flint & Taylor, 2011:125). A border landscape is different than other types of landscapes. It creates a separating line between different groups of people (culturally, societally, politically or religiously). “It is simultaneously a crucially important manifestation between us and them, as well as of the state’s power and authority that extends directly to all individuals within its boundaries” (Paasi, 1996: 268).
A complicated issue of sovereignty is created when a border goes straight through a (capital) city. Examples of this are Berlin in the time of the Wall between East- and West-Germany and Jerusalem (Kliot & Mansfield, 1999:169).
In the era of globalization, the meaning of state borders decreases while the influence of the global community on a state and a city increases. This creates a situation in which a city is not only divided into different parts within the city itself, but a more complicated situation arises under the influence of other parties (Alfasi & Fenster, 2009). Borders used to be the most researched aspect of political geography, especially in the first half of the twentieth century. In the 1960s this interest started to decline (Flint & Taylor, 2011:125). This was mainly caused by the decreasing meaning of state borders in Europe and North-America, where political geography was practiced mostly (Flint & Taylor, 2011: 125).
With the decreasing meaning of state borders, there came a restructuring of the meaning of nation states and the differences that exist between territories. State borders still have meaning and are still representations of the division between different territories, but the way in which territories are divided (economically, religiously, politically) is not as clear as it might have been before (Paasi, 1996). Especially after the creation of the United Nations, the need for militarized and strict border security decreased. The chance of being invaded by a neighbouring state became smaller and mutual recognition between states in terms of international visa and passport policies was introduced. Despite the generally decreasing meaning of state borders, the beginning of the 21st century marked an increase of worldwide terrorism and the consequential war on terror (Jones, 2012). In the first decade of the 21st century the global war on terror caused an increasing need to defend territories with strict borders secured with walls and fences in order to keep terrorism out of the territory (Jones, 2012). Twenty years after the fall of the Berlin Wall, there is a growing need to physically protect territory again. Jones (2012) showed this is the case in, for example, the United States and the border with Mexico, Israel and the border with the Palestinian territories and India and the border with Pakistan. Sometimes, these borders go straight through a city, which can create complicated situations.
2.4 Contested cities
Cities consist of different neighbourhoods and different parts with a specific composition of people. A city can be divided in different parts related to wealth, ethnicity, age or religion (Kliot & Mansfield, 1999). This kind of segregation takes place in every city around the world. Nevertheless, there is a difference between segregation and partition within a city. Partition is usually used as a term to explain a situation in which an existing geographic entity, such as a city, is divided into two or more divided entities. This goes further than ‘soft’ segregation. Generally, the outcome of these types of division and exclusive sovereignty over certain parts of a city is a territorial dispute (Kliot & Mansfield, 1999:169). Especially in border zones, there is a risk of assessing people on the other side of the border as ‘the other’ and in some cases as being uncivilized people that need to be kept out of the protected territory, also on the relatively small surface of a city (Jones, 2012).
Many cities are divided along the lines of different political orientations, different economic statuses, different ethnicities or different religions (Kliot & Mansfield, 1999). These divisions of territory might be under control of different jurisdictions. Absolute sovereignty over such a division in territory has produced and still produces huge wealth inequalities in the entire world. These inequalities can cause the migration of people from one area to another in order to find wealth in another place (Jones, 2012). To be able to fully experience citizenship and fulfil civil rights, it is necessary for every citizen to experience full inclusion in society and not to be excluded from certain physical or non-physical parts of the city (Harris, 2013). The conflicts that arise between different groups effect the well-being of residents and the functioning of that particular urban environment. “The process of partition/division (…) represents the unfortunate final form of group conflict” (Kliot & Mansfield, 1999:196). Different types of backgrounds in terms of economics, religion, ethnicity or language can cause groups to only exist next to each other in conflict. In society, people with different characteristics are sometimes treated differently (Kliot & Mansfield, 1999). Especially this last issue can cause conflict and dissatisfaction.
The partition of cities is something that likely occurs after a war or a conflict. When a new border is established after a war, local communities and citizens have to accept and adjust to the new situation (Paasi, 1996:269). For example, the city of Sarajevo was
partitioned after the war in the 1990s. The city lost its status as a socialist city and came into a new era of radical changes in the political and economic system (Aquilué & Roca, 2016). Besides the demolished physical environment that remained after the conflict, Sarajevo had to cope with the renewed status of a divided city and the radical societal changes that took place (Aquilué & Roca, 2016:153).
Sometimes, when a city is in a conflict that cannot be solved internally, the city is placed under the jurisdiction of the international community. An example of a city placed under international control is the Free City of Danzig in current Poland. The Treaty of Versailles established the Free City of Danzig in 1919. In this Treaty the League of Nations (predecessor of the United Nations) placed the city of Danzig under international control because of rising tensions between the Polish Republic and residents of the Free City of Danzig (Lemay-Hébert, 2017:475). The main role of the League of Nations was to assure the establishment of the constitution of the Free City of Danzig and other aspects of their rights to self-determination (Lemay-Hébert, 2017:475). In practice, the League of Nations served as an umpire in conflicts between the population of the Free City of Danzig and the Polish Republic. The effective authority of the High Commissioner that was appointed by the League of Nations to settle disputes between Danzig and Poland remained relatively low. Moreover because he did not have any administrative authority (Lemay-Hébert, 2017:475). This makes the control of the League of Nations of the Free City of Danzig more similar to a peace operation than to an actual international administration. The supervision of the League of Nations over the Free City of Danzig ended with the invasion of German Troops in 1939 (Lemay-Hébert, 2017:476).
Part of the common foreign policy of the European Union (as discussed in paragraph 2.1) is to create a common viewpoint in situations of territorial disputes, such as the above described case of Danzig. In the next paragraph, the common foreign policy of the European Union will be related to the concept of contested territories.
2.5 The European Union and contested territories
Bouris and Kyris (2017) wrote an article about the common European policy and how policy can be under pressure when sovereignty of a state is not recognized by (part of) the international community. The examples used by Bouris and Kyris (2017) are Northern Cyprus and Palestine. Statuses of contested territories can have different consequences
for European influence. On the one hand it creates difficulties in the cooperation between the territory and the European Union and on the other hand it creates circumstances in which the European Union has more room to support the creation of a sovereign territory, as is the case with Palestine (Bouris & Kyris, 2017). Part of the policy of the European Union in promoting statehood and state-building processes is the support and promotion of local civil society. The policy has created small positive steps in terms of the establishment of the voice of local people in the wider context, but the long-term sustainable effect of this strategy remains to be seen (Bouris & Kyris, 2017:762).
The current European Union is not the same as it was before. The European Coal and Steel Community (the earliest predecessor of the European Union) started with six members. Nowadays the European Union is comprised of 28 Member States (European Commission, 2016a (Webpage)). Because the EEAS represents the entire European Union in host locations, the delegations of Member States of the European Union loose part of their own sovereignty in decision-making processes. Moreover, the need for unanimous decision-making in European Union foreign policy requires a certain amount of compromising, which is more complicated when more parties are involved (Austermann, 2014:2). For example, in the case of creating consular international cooperation, larger Member States are sometimes wary because of a fear of a decreasing speed and efficiency if the consular activities were to be centralized (Okano-Heijmans, 2013:7).
To what extent the European Union represents a unified voice when all the different Member States still have their own political agendas and voices, remains an important issue (Ciceo, 2012). The further (political) integration of the European Union transfers the national sovereignty of the Member States to the supranational level of the European Union (Austermann, 2014:15). The creation of the international representative body of the European Union, the EEAS, was subject to internal negotiations between the Member States (Murdoch, 2012). Murdoch (2012) states that internal forces and negotiations within the European Union always influence external behaviour and policies, which is a reflection of the power relations and the key actors. The ability to overcome internal differences influences the ability to do deal with external debates (Murdoch, 2012). Both the internal and external sovereignty of the European Union are under debate. The ability to overcome the internal division within the European Union increases their external
validity in their foreign policy. The common foreign policy imposes extra challenges on this internal division, because the common foreign policy of the European Union might be conflicting with the foreign policy of Member States (Murdoch, 2012).
The European diplomacy and the coordination between representations of the Member States of the European Union takes place everywhere, but Jerusalem is a unique situation. This is due to the contested value of its territory, its legal status, the shifting location of borders, the international involvement and the religious significance for multiple religions (Bicchi, 2016). There is not much literature about diplomacy in a divided country, let alone in a contested city. The case of Jerusalem is complicated further by the difficult issue of the (non) recognition of Jerusalem as the capital for either Israel or Palestine or both (Emmett, 1996).
How the diplomatic relations between de European Union as a whole and Jerusalem cope with these issues will be studied in this thesis. Table 1 provides an overview of the 28 Member States of the European Union and their (non)recognition of Palestine and diplomatic representation in the Palestinian territories. Table 1 shows that Belgium, France, Greece, Italy, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom have a consulate general in Jerusalem. These consulates are the subject of this research. The Member States of the European Union that recognized Palestine in 1988 did so after the declaration of independence of Palestine. This declaration is considered to be a unilateral declaration of independence that would give the Palestinian state more leverage to end the occupation of Israel. It is a demonstration of their right to self-determination and was only recognized by part of the European Union Member States (Tilley, 2010).
Table 1: Current Member States of the European Union and their recognition of Palestine
Member State Date of recognition of Palestine
Diplomatic location in Palestinian Territories
1. Austria No recognition Representative office in Ramallah
2. Belgium No recognition Consulate General in Jerusalem
3. Bulgaria 25 November 1988 Representative office in Ramallah 4. Croatia No recognition No representation
5. Cyprus 18 November 1988 Representative office in Ramallah 6. Czech Republic 18 November 1988 Representative office in Ramallah
7. Denmark No recognition Representative office in Ramallah 8. Estonia No recognition No representation
9. Finland No recognition Representative office in Ramallah 10. France No recognition Consulate General in Jerusalem 11. Germany No recognition Representative office in Ramallah 12. Greece No recognition Consulate General in Jerusalem
13. Hungary 23 November 1988 Representative office in Ramallah
14. Ireland No recognition Representative office in Ramallah
15. Italy No recognition Consulate General in Jerusalem
16. Latvia No recognition Cooperates with Representative Office of Switzerland in Ramallah 17. Lithuania No recognition Representative office in Ramallah
18. Luxembourg No recognition No representation
19. Malta 16 November 1988 Representative office in Ramallah
20. Netherlands No recognition Representative office in Ramallah 21. Poland 14 December 1988 Representative office in Ramallah 22. Portugal No recognition Representative office in Ramallah 23. Romania 24 November 1988 Representative office in Ramallah 24. Slovakia 18 November 1988 Representative office in Ramallah 25. Slovenia No recognition Representative office in Ramallah 26. Spain No recognition Consulate General in Jerusalem
27. Sweden 30 October 2014 Consulate General in Jerusalem 28. United Kingdom No recognition Consulate General in Jerusalem
Source: https://europa.eu/european-union/about-eu/countries_en (For the Member States) http://palestineun.org/about-palestine/diplomatic-relations/ (Recognition dates) Ministries of Foreign Affairs (Diplomatic representation locations)
The highlighted Member states are the nine states that were part of singing the Venice Declaration, which put the Israeli-Palestinian conflict on the European foreign policy agenda for the first time. The Venice Declaration will be explained further in chapter 5. The highlighted diplomatic offices are the consulates in Jerusalem that this study is about.
Table 2: Overview of combinations of recognition and representations in the Palestinian territory
Jerusalem Ramallah No representation Recognition 1 Member States
(Sweden)
8 Member States No recogntion 6 Member States
(Spain, United Kingdom, Italy, France, Greece, Belgium) 10 Member States 3 Member States
Table 2 is an analysis of the in table 1 portrayed information. What is shows is that there are multiple options regarding the interrelation between the recognition of the Palestinian state and the location of diplomatic representation in the Palestinian territory. Sweden is the only Member State of the European Union that has diplomatic representation in the city of Jerusalem and recognized the Palestinian state. There are eight diplomatic representations of Member States of the European Union in Ramallah that recognized the state of Palestine. Moreover, Belgium and Italy are the only two out of nine states that were part of signing the Venice Declaration that have their diplomatic representation to the Palestinian territories in Jerusalem. The EEAS only has a representative office in Jerusalem, and not in Ramallah (EEAS, n.y. (Webpage)). The division within the European Union about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and contested status of Jerusalem is thus not only related to the issue of recognizing the Palestinian state. The choice for the location of representation is also internally divided. The study in this thesis is only about the consulates and the EEAS in Jerusalem, not the representative offices in Ramallah. In the next chapter the methods for the study will be discussed.
3. Research methods
In this chapter the research design and the conducted methods will be discussed. The study was performed in Jerusalem, where in a time frame of four weeks interviews were conducted with relevant actors, the national library of Israel was visited and entities involved in the territorial dispute between Israel and Palestine were observed, such as the Old City of Jerusalem and the Wall between the territories.
3.1 Research Design
This research is a case-study about the European diplomatic network in Jerusalem. It is regarded as an extreme case study of European Union diplomacy, in the form of the EEAS and delegations of Member States of the European Union. The situation of Jerusalem is unique and influences the status of European diplomacy, more than in other cities or countries. This study is thus a unique case, which is why it is regarded as an extreme case-study (Bryman, 2012:70). The advantage of this is that it creates a complete and thorough exploration of the units of analysis, which are the delegations of the European Union in Jerusalem. The disadvantage of this type of research is that the external validity of the findings is limited, since it is a study to only one particular case.
I studied the way in which the consulates of the Member States of the European Union handle the contested and unique status of Jerusalem and how their mere presence represents their position. Because of this, I limited my studies to the consulates that are present in Jerusalem and not the ones that chose to locate their diplomatic representation in for example Ramallah. Bicchi (2016:467) explains that the present consulates in Jerusalem are considered the protectors of the corpus separatum (more about the corpus separatum will be explained in chapter 4). The choice for a specific location has political implications, which will be studied in this thesis.
The study has a qualitative approach. A thick description of the situation in Jerusalem is created (Bryman, 2012). A thick description is a detailed account of behaviour in a particular context. This behavioural account might be transferrable to another context (Bryman, 2012:392). Different views are combined through the conduction of interviews, the analyses of documents and the use of academic literature about the subject. Especially by taking different views into account a clear understanding is created, using the
technique of triangulation in which different viewpoints are combined to create a clear understanding. The main research question is as follows: How is the position of the European Union and its Member States on the contested status of Jerusalem reflected in the consular diplomatic presence and their mutual network?
The sub-questions that help answer the main research question are:
- What are the reasons behind the involvement of the European Union and its Member States in the contested status of Jerusalem and Israel-Palestine as a whole?
- What are the main aims of the consulates regarding the contested status of Jerusalem and how does this relate to their location in Jerusalem?
- How is the cooperation of the consulates and EEAS constructed and what are the outcomes?
3.2 Interviews
The seven consulates of the European Union Member Status Spain, Sweden, Belgium, Italy, France, Greece and the United Kingdom in Jerusalem have been contacted beforehand in order to make an appointment for an interview. Since the consulates are relatively small, I sent an mail with the explanation about the study to the general e-mail addresses with the request to talk to somebody with relevant knowledge about the subject. The same sort of e-mail was sent to the European External Action Service in Jerusalem. In case I received no reply, I sent follow-up e-mails. In case there would still be no reaction, I either called or paid a visit to the consulates upon arrival in Jerusalem. I also sent e-mails to journalists, academics and activists, after which conversations followed in Jerusalem. A full overview of the eventual interviewees can be found in table 3.
Table 3: Overview of the interviewees
Interviews
1. Representative of the European External Action Service 2. Representative of the Belgian Consulate
3. Representative of the Swedish Consulate 4. Representative of the Italian Consulate 5. Representative of the Greek Consulate 6. Representative of the French Consulate
7. Interview with Fayrouz of NGO Grassroots Jerusalem
8. Interview with journalist Benjamin Weinthal of the Jerusalem Post 9. Conversation with Dimitris Bouris of the University of Amsterdam
The sub-questions together with the theoretical framework are the basis for the questions of the interviews. During the interviews, questions with a practical basis that would provide insight into the network between the consulates of the European Union in Jerusalem were asked. The role of the consulate in the joint reporting was discussed, but also the choices for the location of the consulate and how the location represents the political viewpoint of the consulate and Member State. Moreover, the declaration of president Trump of the United States was discussed in order to get an insight into the process of the statement building for the entire European Union. The questions were thus constructed in a way that would demonstrate the position of that particular consulate in the consular network in Jerusalem. Also, possible contact with the municipality, diplomatic representations in Tel Aviv, Ministries of Foreign Affairs of the Member States and the EEAS in Brussels was discussed, in order to understand the position of the consulate in the wider context, outside of Jerusalem itself. An overview of the topic list for the interviews can be found in the appendix. Since the questions of the interviews were derived from the sub-questions of the study, the answers to the questions could also be transferred back to the sub-questions. The answers of the interviewees have been linked to policy documents and academic literature to construct answers to the research questions. Other sources such as newspaper articles were occasionally used to fill gaps in the analysis of policy documents, literature and the answers of the respondents.
Part of the interviews have been recorded and transcribed afterwards. Some conversations were not allowed to be recorded and thus notes were written down during the interviews. The respondents at the consulates and EEAS did not want to be mentioned by name and only through the consulate they worked at. The conversation at the EEAS and at the Belgian consulate were held in Dutch, the other interviews in English.
3.3 Secondary sources
The answers of the interviews were combined with other sources. The websites of the consulates and the EEAS in Jerusalem themselves were consulted mostly for practical information about the consulate and EEAS and (extra) information about their viewpoint. Different websites of the European Union have been consulted, e.g. the website of the European Commission and of the EEAS. The website of the European Commission has mainly been used for information about trade and international partnerships with for example Palestine and Israel and important documents such as the 2017 Annual Action Program in favour of Palestine. The website of the EEAS in Jerusalem has been explored for information about the delegation and local statements. The website of the EEAS in Brussels has been used to find general statements of the entire EEAS. The website of the United Nations has been explored to obtain the Partition Plan and documents of the UNRWA. Important documents that were discussed during the interviews such as the joint reports of the EEAS and Member States and latest Council Conclusions were looked up afterwards on the internet. The same method has been used for retrieving important treaties such as the Venice Declaration (see below) or the Maastricht Treaty.
In order to understand in which context this research is taking place, the next chapter will give an overview about the contested status of Jerusalem and about the wider context of the conflict between Israel and Palestine. This overview is mostly based on academic literature. After that, the three sub-questions will be addressed in three separate chapters. Each chapter consists of four paragraphs. The first chapter is rather general in scope. It explains the reasons for the European Union to be involved in the contested status of Jerusalem. The second chapter is more specific in that it explains the aims and actions of the European Union in Jerusalem. The third and last chapter consists of examples and outcomes of the cooperation between the consulates of Member States of the European Union and EEAS in Jerusalem.
4. The evolving status of Jerusalem
Jerusalem is one of the thorniest issues in the conflict between Israel and Palestine. Israel declared the city as the eternal capital of the state of Israel and Palestinian people see (part of) the city as the possible capital of the future Palestinian state (Shoshan, 2010). This is due to the fact that the Old City of Jerusalem is home to different religious important sites for Judaism, Islam and Christianity (Shoshan, 2010). This is not the place nor time to go very deeply into all the aspects concerning the complicated status of Jerusalem, but a background will be provided.
4.1 Before the Ottoman Empire
The status of Jerusalem has had many different forms throughout history. For Judaism it has been the spiritual centre since the 10th century BCE (Emmett, 1996:234). According to the (Jewish) Bible, King David conquered the strategic hilltop of Jebus or Jerusalem several years before 1000 BCE. It was not yet conquered by any of the tribes in the area and therefore did not belong to anybody yet. Jerusalem was a neutral place at that time and could thus serve as the capital of a new political entity (Emmett, 1996:234). Jerusalem became the royal capital under the rule of King David and Solomon. (Emmett, 1996). The Western Wall is a remainder of a temple that used to be the second temple for the Jewish faith (Emmett, 1996:252). Interestingly, according to Christianity it is the place where Jesus Christ was supposedly crucified and buried (O’Mahony, 2005). The Church of the Holy Sepulchre is built on the place where Jesus Christ was crucified and buried and is home to different Christian patriarchates (O’Mahony, 2005:86). For Islamic people Jerusalem is the third most important place in the world because it is the place where Muhammad went to heaven. Nowadays the Dome of the Rock is constructed at the place where Muhammad supposedly ascended to heaven (Emmett, 1996:236). Over a period of centuries, Jerusalem was shifting between the status of royal capital and provincial or regional capital under the rule of different peoples such as the Crusades and Ottomans (Emmett, 1996).
4.2 Ottoman Empire
During the Ottoman period, from 1517 till 1917 Jerusalem was mainly a provincial capital (Wasserstein, 2001:14). Especially during the beginning of the Ottoman period, Jerusalem was an inward-looking city. The Wall around the Old City that still exists
nowadays was built in order to keep invaders out and to protect the city from outside forces. The population of Jerusalem was living inside these walls, living closely to the important Holy sites of their religion (Wasserstein, 2001). In the final phases of the Ottoman Empire, the city started to grow, especially due to the increasing amount of Jewish and Christian immigrants (Wasserstein, 2001:45). The Old City became too crowded and started to expand outside of the city walls. Muslims mainly moved to the North and South of Jerusalem and Jews to the West. This spatial pattern is still visible today (Wasserstein, 2001:48). Together with the growth, Jerusalem started to change into an outward-looking, internationally involved city. Since 1880 early Zionists started to settle in Palestine. Zionism is the nationalistic Jewish movement that formed the foundation of a Jewish state (Wasserstein, 2001:49).
4.3 British Mandate
During the First World War, in 1916, France and Great-Britain negotiated a division plan to divide among themselves the Middle-East. This plan came to be known as the ‘Sykes-Picot’ agreement (Wasserstein, 2001:72). The Sykes-Picot agreement marked the end of the Ottoman empire in Jerusalem. The Ottoman empire ended with the British occupation in the First World War in 1917. The Old City with the religious sites was an impoverished entity that was too full and the New City became a patchwork of different (ethnic) neighbourhoods (Wasserstein, 2001:49). In 1917 the British minister of foreign affairs Arthur James Balfour send a letter to the leader of a Jewish community in Great-Britain in which the willingness and British efforts to establish a Jewish state in Palestine was expressed (Balfour Declaration, 1917). This letter came to be known as the Balfour declaration and also stated that “it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country” (Balfour Declaration, 1917). Years later, in 1948, according to David Ben-Gurion (the Israeli prime-minister of that time) the Balfour declaration formed the international recognition of the connection between Israel and the Jewish people (Ben-Gurion, 1948). In 1922 the Council of the League of Nations approved the establishment of the Jewish state by the British mandate. Both the Balfour Declaration and establishment of the Mandate did not mention the status of Jerusalem (Harpaz, 2012:453).
In 1924 the British mandate established Jerusalem to be the capital of the mandate, because of the religious value. Because of the strong links of Jerusalem with the Bible Jerusalem was chosen to be the capital over the more practical located cities such as Jaffa or Haifa (Emmett, 1996:236). Both the Jewish and Palestinian people considered other cities to be more crucial due to their location. It was in the 1930s when nationalism on both sides became more intense that the city gained importance to both groups (Emmett, 1996:237; Wasserstein, 2001). In the aftermath of the Second World War Jewish immigration to the Palestinian territory of the British mandate rose further. Survivors of the Holocaust sought safety in the developing Jewish state of Israel (Wasserstein, 2001). The influx of more Jewish people to the Palestinian territory of the British mandate sharpened the tension between Palestinians and immigrants. In the hope of resolving the issue between the revolting parties, the British government turned to the United Nations. In 1947 the British mandate over Palestine ended and the entire Palestinian territory together with Jerusalem came under jurisdiction of the United Nations (Shoshan, 2010).
4.4 Partition Plan in 1947
The United Nations developed a partition plan that would divide the Palestinian territory into different parts, namely a Palestinian, Israeli and an international part. Jerusalem was in the partition plan of 1947 supposed to come under international control of the United Nations as a corpus separatum (Wasserstein, 2001). The idea behind placing Jerusalem under international control was that the government of the city would be rather neutral and not involved in local politics in order to provide protection to the different religious sites in Jerusalem and its outskirts (Wasserstein, 2001:127). The original map of the Partition Plan for the entire territory of Israel and Palestine is shown in figure 1. In figure 2, the area dedicated to the corpus separatum is shown. The Partition Plan was rejected by the Arab-Palestinians and led to the eventual withdrawal of the British (Harpaz, 2012:453). Later, a plan was developed to make Jerusalem a corpus separatum under divided control of Israel, Palestine and the international community in the form of the United Nations (Emmett, 1996:247).
Figure 1: Original map of the Partition Plan of the United Nations
What followed on the different attempts to make Jerusalem into an international city was the Israeli war of independence between Israel and multiple Arab states. The outcome of this war were the armistice agreements (Shoshan, 2010). These were signed in 1949 and were aimed at creating a sustainable peace. However, they appeared to miss many features such as diplomatic ties and economic treaties to create an actual sustainable peace (Shoshan, 2010). The armistice agreements were based on the so-called ‘Green Line’. The Green Line divided the Palestinian territory into an Israeli part and a Palestinian part and Jerusalem was divided into an Eastern and a Western part (Bicchi, 2016:467). Until 1967, Jerusalem was divided into two parts by walls, wires and fences. There were hardly any Arabs in Jerusalem anymore and no Jews were living in East-Jerusalem. West-Jerusalem under Israeli grew in the period till 1967, both geographically and economically, whereas East-Jerusalem under Jordan rule did not grow that much. After 19 years of separation, following upon the Six Day War, on 7 June 1967 Israeli forces occupied East Jerusalem (Shoshan, 2010). This war again took place between Israel and
Figure 2: Original map of the greater area of Jerusalem as the corpus separatum
different Arab states. By the end of the Six Day War Israel occupied the entire West Bank (including East-Jerusalem), the Gaza Strip and other areas in the territory. For Jerusalem, a complicated legal situation was created. According to Israeli law, East-Jerusalem was part of Israel whereas according to the international community East-Jerusalem was still part of the corpus separatum (Bicchi, 2016:467). After the Six-Day war the planning of the Wall that would divide Israeli and Palestinian territory started to be developed and later to be approved (Shoshan, 2010). However, the location of this Wall was not based on the Green Line, causing different territorial borders (Bicchi, 2016:467). In 1978 another phase of negotiations took place, namely the Camp David Talks between Egyptian and Israeli officials. The Egyptians had a strong position towards Jerusalem and called for restoration of Arab sovereignty in East-Jerusalem and especially the Dome of the Rock. Prime minister Menahem Begin of Israel rejected to acknowledge Arab sovereignty, but the talks ended with a (being it limited) consensus in the peace process. The consensus did not include Jerusalem (Wasserstein, 2001:238).
4.5 Basic Law: Jerusalem, Capital of Israel
The legal situation of Jerusalem was further complicated in 1980, when Israel’s ‘Basic Law: Jerusalem, Capital of Israel’ declared Jerusalem entirely as the capital of Israel (Knesset, 1980). This declaration was the ‘legal’ basis for the annexation of the entire city of Jerusalem that took place in 1967 as part of the Six Day War (Naor, 2016). Legal is put between quotation marks because for Israel it was the legal basis, but the international community did not endorse the Basic Law. In the Camp David Accords the status of Jerusalem was not agreed upon, therefore the ‘Basic Law: Jerusalem, Capital of Israel’ was not in opposition with the Oslo Accords (Naor, 2016:39). Nevertheless, the international community did not acknowledge this unilateral decision from the Israeli side. The United Nations Security Council argued that the Basic Law was at odds with international law and thus East-Jerusalem was ‘conquered territory’ (Naor, 2016:46). When in 1980 Israel declared Jerusalem as their undivided capital many Israeli government offices moved to Jerusalem. Some of these moved to East-Jerusalem by means of implementing the law to make the entire city of Jerusalem the capital of Israel (Bicchi, 2016:467). The United Nations urged the countries that still had a diplomatic office in Jerusalem to move these to Tel Aviv (Naor, 2016:46). The Israeli government responded with a statement, that the countries that would want to open a diplomatic office in Jerusalem after the implementation of the Basic Law would have to make this an
embassy to the state of Israel (Bicchi, 2016:467). Only the consulates of Belgium, France, Italy, Spain, Sweden, the United Kingdom, Turkey, the United States and the Vatican remained in Jerusalem targeting Palestinian Territories by means of political protest (Bicchi, 2016:467).
What should be mentioned in relation to the different statuses of Jerusalem is that the Palestinians never claimed the entire city of Jerusalem, because Palestine mainly has historical ties to East-Jerusalem (Emmett, 1996:246). In 1987 the first intifada or uprising of Palestinians against the Israeli occupation took place. Since the Palestinians did not have a formal army, there were mainly young boys and man with rocks and stones that they threw at the Israeli army (Shoshan, 2010). In 1991 peace negotiations started in Madrid, but Jerusalem was not on the agenda of these negotiations (Wasserstein, 2001). At the same time, secret negotiations started in Oslo between Israeli and Palestinian representatives. Based on these negotiations the Oslo agreements were signed, again not solving the issue of Jerusalem (Shoshan, 2010). The Oslo agreements were signed by the Israeli prime minister and the leader of the Palestinian Liberation Organization and were based on mutual recognition. The Oslo agreements included a five-year transition phase during which Israeli troops would withdraw from Palestinian territory. This withdrawal did not take place (Shoshan, 2010).
4.6 Second intifada
The Camp David talks that took place in 1978 had a follow-up in 2000 but these were less successful. Disagreement about Jerusalem caused the eventual failure of the talks. The negotiations took place between President Clinton of the United States, Palestinian opposition leader Arafat and prime minister Barak of Israel (Wasserstein, 2001:315). Different options for the status of Jerusalem were discussed but none of them was satisfactory to all parties, especially about the Old City of Jerusalem. One of the most pressing issues was the control over the Temple Mount (for Jews) and Dome of the Rock (for Muslims) that both comprise the same location (Wasserstein, 2001:317). In the same year Israeli opposition leader Ariel Sharon visited the Temple Mount. He called this a ‘message of peace’, but Palestinians saw it as a provocation. The visit of Ariel Sharon started the second intifada. Since the second intifada in 2000 a change took place in negotiations about Jerusalem due to the possible compromise that was discussed in the second Camp David talks (Lehrs, 2016). Negotiation rounds that took place after the
