| Summary: | This thesis covers the issue of Jerusalem in the Arab-Israeli conflict since the British occupation of the city in 1917. The main argument is that, contrary to assertions that the Jerusalem question is, and always has been, non-negotiable, the parties to the conflict have defined and redefined their positions regarding the city on different occasions. The construction of nation-states and national identities has been the primary reason for the changes in the definitions. By drawing on the theory of conflict resolution and the literature on nationalism and the construction of national identity, the thesis validates the core argument by close scrutiny of the positions held by the parties to the conflict over the period under examination. The thesis comprises an Introduction, five chapters and Conclusion. The introduction discusses the theory behind the centrality of defining conflict as a method of conflict resolution. It also mentions some key concepts and ideas of the construction of nationalism and national identity. Notes on the sources and the research methodology are included as well. Chapter One - “Jerusalem and the Palestinian Politics of State” - describes how the Palestinian leaders did not reject the idea of an international regime in Jerusalem during the pre- 1948 era, even though they insisted on establishing sovereignty over the whole of Palestine. After the 1948 war, however, they demanded that sovereignty include Jerusalem, and so rejected the internationalisation of the city. The chapter argues that Jerusalem did not play a vital role in the Palestinian political movement since 1948 and the 1980s. It was revived mostly as part of the programme to build a Palestinian state. Chapter Two - “Israel and Jerusalem: the Zionist Movement and the Jewish State” - argues that Zionist thought at the beginning of the twentieth century did not assign special status to Jerusalem in the plan to construct a Jewish state. Until 1967 both Zionist and Israelis leaders accepted a Jewish state without East Jerusalem. Even after that date, there were figures that did not reject a compromise on the city. Chapter Three - “Jordan and Jerusalem: Second Capital or Arab Solidarity” - explains that Jordan did not object to the internationalisation of Jerusalem during the pre- 1948 period. The state’s priority at the time was to annex areas allocated to the Arabs according to the Partition Plan proposed by the United Nations.
|
|---|
