(Published in the Jerusalem Times)

Would you like to elaborate on the idea proposed at the El Escorial Conference of proclaiming the Old City of Jerusalem religious capital of the three monotheistic faiths, while at the same time establishing in other areas of the city political capitals for the Palestinians and the Israelis?
The idea came as a result of a collective effort aimed at finding ways of solving the difficult problem of Jerusalem. My suggestion also was based on the parallel Jewish and Palestinian (both Christian and Muslim) claims of considering Jerusalem as an important religious center.

Since Christians, Muslims and Jews have their own religious sites, it would be very easy for both the Palestinians (who represent Christians and Muslims) and the Israelis (who represent the Jews) to consider Jerusalem as their religious capital. As a result, the city could be an open capital, allowing the worshippers from Palestinian, Israeli as well as any other territory to come to Jerusalem to pray, as part of their basic right to worship.

If we clearly differentiate between the religious and political aspects, this above all would make daily life easier. Secondly, if we make a distinction between the religious capital (the Old City within the walls, where the main holy sites of the three religions are concentrated) and the political capital, the former could remain forever a united city. As for the political capital, it may be established in any other area of the city, and since we are talking about Jerusalem as a metropolitan area, the Israelis and the Palestinians could select a territory within this metropolitan Jerusalem where they could concentrate their government offices, and this would be recognized as their capital area. As a result, the political capital for the Palestinian side would be different from the Israeli political capital, both being part of metropolitan Jerusalem. In this way, I believe that we will solve the problem of interpretation, of names, of definitions and also the problematic relation between the political and the religious dimensions. The most complicated aspect is the religious, but at the same time it is the easiest to be solved. So, as a result of such a distinction, it would be much easier to find an agreement also on the political aspect of the Jerusalem question.

When you say that the religious dimension is the easiest to solve, do you imply that the principles to be applied in the area where most of the Holy Places are concentrated, such as freedom of access and worship (confirmed by UN General Assembly resolution 181 as well as by more recent documents, like the 'Memorandum on the Significance of Jerusalem for Christians'), are already internationally binding on all the parties?

The second question is: what about the Holy Places located outside this area, like the Caenaculum, for instance, which lies just a few meters outside the walls of the Old City, or the Holy Places in the Territories, like the Machpela Cave in Hebron or Rachel's Tomb, located few kilometers south of Jerusalem?
I'll answer the second question first. Since we are going to have a special status for the religious sites, then a religious site, wherever located, will enjoy such a special status. But only the religious sites of Jerusalem, within the walls, would be recognized by everybody as part of the religious capital. This does not mean that we are not recognizing the importance of the religious sites outside Jerusalem, but to the extent that we are considering the Jerusalem question per se, we propose to solve the problem by separating the religious from the political aspects.

On the first question, I believe that what prevailed for so many years, creating a sort of status quo which really maintained an equilibrium and a respect for religious tradition, should be considered as a valid instrument and a basic introduction for any agreement to be reached between the three religions.

What authority should be responsible for the settlement of sensitive religious disputes? Dr. Jadallah proposed a Supreme Council, King Hussein of Jordan an interfaith commission - what is your point of view?
There's not a big difference between either suggestion. We will have separated the spiritual from the temporal, and will expect religious leaders to solve any religious problem, without political interference. This means that we have to consider both suggestions and see which is more practical and more able to achieve solutions for any forthcoming disputes. I believe that both suggestions could be accepted.

When you started asking the question, the idea of a 'religious commission' sprang to my mind. It does not matter whether it is called Supreme Council or Interfaith Commission, but it should be an interfaith religious committee, with very specific responsibilities. And whenever a dispute arises, this committee should meet in order to solve it, and its decisions should be final and accepted by everybody. I believe that, in doing so, we will start to solve the problem.

Everybody will know that there is one authority to which one could address any religious claim, that this authority will issue the final decision in order to solve the dispute, and that every party has to co-operate with this committee and to participate in it in order to present its case in the best way.

Both the Israeli and Palestinian participants at the El Escorial Conference seemed to agree on the idea that a distinction between the religious and the political aspects of the Jerusalem question might ease the negotiations on the main political and territorial aspects.

Now, on this latter point, would you clarify the concept of 'Metropolitan Jerusalem'? You said that it should be 'open', but even an open border is still an international border between two states. And where should the border lie? Who should govern the area of the 'religious capital', one of the two states or another entity?
As to the Old City, where the religious capital should be established, the religious interfaith committee would have the ultimate authority over the area, supported by a civil administrative body that would run the basic services. This body would be answerable to the interfaith committee.

As to the Metropolitan Area, special elections should be held for the residents of Metropolitan Jerusalem in order to select the members of three different bodies: one, elected directly by all the residents, will deal with services for the whole area, so that a Metropolitan Council, instead of an ordinary municipality, will be established; then, the Palestinians and the Israelis will separately elect their own political body, a sort omini-parliament of the two sections of Metropolitan Jerusalem, which would have the political authority.

Who will be responsible for foreign affairs and defense?
There will be no foreign affairs or defense matters.