Last updated on: 12/14/2017 | Author:

Should Jerusalem Be the Undivided Capital of Israel?

General Reference (not clearly pro or con)


This site was archived on Aug. 3, 2021. The two-state solution is no longer the most popular solution among the jurisdictions involved. A reconsideration of the topic is possible in the future.

Encyclopedia Britannica, in a Sep. 20, 2017 entry titled “Jerusalem,” available from, wrote:

“Jerusalem, Hebrew Yerushalayim, Arabic Bayt al-Muqaddas or Al-Quds, ancient city of the Middle East that since 1967 has been wholly under the rule of the State of Israel…

In the early 20th century the city, along with all of historic Palestine, became the focus of the competing national aspirations of Zionists and Palestinian Arabs. This struggle often erupted in violence. The United Nations (UN) attempted to declare the city a corpus separatum (Latin: ‘separate entity’) – and, thus, avert further conflict – but the first Arab-Israeli war, in 1948, left Jerusalem divided into Israeli (west Jerusalem) and Jordanian (east Jerusalem) sectors. The following year Israel declared the city its capital.

During the Six-Day War of 1967, the Jewish state occupied the Jordanian sector and shortly thereafter expanded the city boundaries – thereby annexing some areas of the West Bank previously held by the Jordanians – and extended its jurisdiction over the unified city. Although Israel’s actions were repeatedly condemned by the UN and other bodies, Israel reaffirmed Jerusalem’s standing as its capital by promulgating a special law in 1980. The status of the city remained a central issue in the dispute between Israel and the Palestinian Arabs, who claim east Jerusalem as the capital of a future Palestinian state.”

Sep. 20, 2017

PRO (yes)


One Jerusalem, a US-based charitable fund, in the “Jerusalem’s Modern History” section of its website, (accessed Dec. 8, 2017), wrote:

“In the wake of the 1967 Six Day War, Jerusalem was reunified under Israeli sovereignty. Since then, Christians, Muslims and Jews have all been granted full religious and cultural freedom in the holy city, and Arabs living within Jerusalem’s municipal boundaries are offered Israeli citizenship.

Israel has upheld its moral and ethical obligations to the people of the world and has earned the right to retain sovereignty over all of Jerusalem, according to the present boundaries. Israel’s decision, as a free and democratic nation, to designate a united and undivided Jerusalem as its capital, should be respected and recognized by the entire international community.”

Dec. 8, 2017


Paul Ryan, Speaker of the US House of Representatives (R-WI), in a Dec. 6, 2017 “Statement on Recognition of Jerusalem as the Capital of Israel,” available from, said:

“Jerusalem has been, and always will be, the eternal, undivided capital of the State of Israel. The city’s status as the religious epicenter of Judaism is an historical fact – not a matter of debate.”

Dec. 6, 2017


David M. Weinberg, MA, Founding Vice President of Jerusalem Institute for Strategic Studies (JISS), in a June 16, 2017 article for his website titled “Why Jerusalem Can’t Be Divided,” wrote:

“A united Jerusalem under exclusive Israeli sovereignty is the key, not an obstacle, to peace and security in the city. The violent bisection of Jerusalem would be patently unwise, exceedingly unfair to Jewish history, and an undue insult to Israel’s fine stewardship of the city…

The belligerent cleaving of Jerusalem into Arab and Jewish sovereignties would plunge the city into battle. Jerusalem would become the bull’s eye of radical Islamic fantasies; a city that would make Belfast at its worst look like paradise.

The main reason for this is that any section of Jerusalem under Arab rule without an Israeli security presence will immediately become Ground Zero for the fierce wars being waged within the Arab world over Islamic lifestyle, ideology and legitimacy…

A partitioned Jerusalem will die, and lead to violence that will suck the lifeblood from the city in every way – culturally, religiously, economically and more.”

June 16, 2017


The Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA), in its “Jerusalem” website section in a Mar. 14, 1999 presentation titled “The Status of Jerusalem,” offered the following:

“There has always been a national consensus in Israel on the status of Jerusalem. Since the reunification of the city in 1967, all Israeli Governments have declared their policy that united Jerusalem, Israel’s eternal capital is one indivisible city under Israeli sovereignty… Jerusalem is and has always been an undivided city, except for this 19 year period [1948-1967]. There is no justification for this short period to be viewed as a factor in determining the future of the city, and to negate 3,000 years of unity… [A]ccording to the Israel-Palestinian Declaration of Principles of 1993 – the basis of the present negotiations – political institutions of the Palestinian self-governing authority are not to operate in the city… the Israeli government has consistently reiterated its position that while religious and cultural rights of all the city’s communities must be guaranteed — Jerusalem is and will remain the capital of the State of Israel, undivided, under exclusive Israeli sovereignty.”

Mar. 14, 1999


Nathan Diament, JD, Director of Public Policy at the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America, in a July 23, 2008 Jerusalem Post article titled “Don’t Blame Jerusalem for Being Multi-cultural,” wrote:

“Jerusalem is different. It is, and will remain, the capital of Israel… Those prepared to cede parts of Jerusalem… argue that Jerusalem, with its Arab residents, is Israel’s soft underbelly… While Palestinians may never be happy with Israeli sovereignty over the city, they clearly prefer it to the Palestinian Authority, generally regarded as corrupt, feckless, and riddled by violence.

That speaks to the character of Jerusalem itself – a character which stands as a powerful argument against its re-division. No argument for Jerusalem’s status as Israel’s eternal and undivided capital is as compelling as its unique nature as a multi-ethnic, multi-faith hub. Muslims, Christians and Jews enjoy full religious freedom in Jerusalem… Those who wish to see Jerusalem remain an open city – never again divided by barbed wire and checkpoints – must recognize that will be the case only so long as Jerusalem remains governed by Israel.”

July 23, 2008


Barack H. Obama, JD, US Senator (D-IL) at the time of the quote, in an American Jewish Committee website section titled “Barack Obama Responses to AJC Questionnaire,” accessed Oct. 29, 2008, stated:

“The United States cannot dictate the terms of a final status agreement. We should support the parties as they negotiate these difficult issues, but they will have to reach agreements that they can live with. In general terms, clearly Israel must emerge in a final status agreement with secure borders. Jerusalem will remain Israel’s capital, and no one should want or expect it to be re-divided.”

[Editor’s note: In a  July 21, 2008 CNN interview with Fareed Zakaria, Mr. Obama was asked: “One area where you’re outside the international consensus — and certainly, perhaps, some others — is the statement you made in a recent speech supporting Jerusalem as the undivided capital of Israel. Now, why not support the Clinton plan, which envisions a divided Jerusalem the Arab half being the capital of a Palestinian state, the Jewish half being the capital of the Jewish state?”

Obama replied: “You know, the truth is that this was an example where we had some poor phrasing in the speech (June 4, 2008 Annual AIPAC Policy Conference, Arlington, VA). And we immediately tried to correct the interpretation that was given… The point we were simply making was, is that we don’t want barbed wire running through Jerusalem, similar to the way it was prior to the ’67 war, that it is possible for us to create a Jerusalem that is cohesive and coherent… I was not trying to predetermine what are essentially final status issues. I think the Clinton formulation provides a starting point for discussions between the parties.”] Oct. 29, 2008


Matania Ginosar, PhD, former Lechi [Stern Gang] member, in an Aug. 2008 Jewish Magazine article titled “Divide Jerusalem?,” wrote:

“[T]he US Administration is pushing to divide Jerusalem, the Palestinians claim Jerusalem as their Capital, and some Israelis and Jews do not care if the Arab part of the city will be ‘given’ to the Palestinians. After all, they claim, Israel will have one quarter of a million less Arabs inside its borders…

Let’s assume Jerusalem is divided, and the number of Israeli Arabs is thus reduced. Let’s assume a new fence will separate them from the rest of Jerusalem. What about the remaining one million Israeli-Arabs? Since they are full citizens they can travel freely. Can this stop internal terrorism? I don’t think so. It will remove an integral part of Jerusalem from Israeli control and allow terrorists free movement within this areas… Jerusalem should not be divided. Israel should not repeat the bad mistakes it made by vacating Lebanon and Gaza unilaterally.”

Aug. 2008


Yossi Klein Halevi, MA, Senior Fellow of the Shalem Center in Jerusalem, in a Summer 2002 The National Interest book review titled “Wasserstein’s Jerusalem,” wrote:

“The problem, of course, is that most of us no longer believe that partitioning Jerusalem with Arafat’s Palestinian Authority would lead to peace, only to dismemberment of the city. The one tangible achievement of Arafat’s war for Jerusalem has been to convince the pragmatic Israeli center that under no circumstances should the Palestinian Authority be entrusted with governing any part of Israel’s capital.

Even many on the Left… concede that, for now at least, there is no possibility of dividing Jerusalem, which would only further entwine Israelis and Palestinians… For the first time since the Oslo process began, the old Israeli consensus on united Jerusalem has re-emerged this time based not on historical or religious sentiment but on a combination of experience and fear…”

Summer 2002


Debra Moore, blogger for “Exposing Liberal Lies,” in her Nov. 16, 2008 blog entry titled “Obama’s Plan to Divide Jerusalem,” wrote the following:

“What many people do not recognize is that Israel is the apple of God’s eye, and it belongs to His people, the Jews… To Him, Jerusalem is the center of the universe. Any nation or any individual who messes with God’s city will have to deal with the Almighty God. He will not sit by idly while His holy city is given over to Muslims… I believe that it was God’s judgment for dividing Israel that caused Sharon to have a stroke… which led to his comatose state from which he has never recovered. The Bible says in Joel 3:2 that God will judge those who divide the land of Israel.”

Nov. 16, 2008

CON (no)


Ir Amim, a Jerusalem-based nonprofit, in a Jan. 20, 2017 policy paper titled “American Embassy in Jerusalem – Only as the Capital of Two States,” available from, wrote:

“Ir Amim yearns for the day in which the American flag flies over two embassies in Jerusalem – the American embassy to Israel in West Jerusalem and the American embassy to Palestine in East Jerusalem. The only framework in which this vision will be realized, however, is a comprehensive political agreement resulting in a two-state solution.

Jerusalem, the capital of two peoples, will be an open, diverse, and vibrant city, administered by separate institutions of the two peoples but open to all its residents and visitors, hosting numerous embassies, and enjoying physical, economic and cultural prosperity.”

Jan. 20, 2017


The European Union (EU), in a Dec. 7, 2017 news conference, reported on by under the title “EU Vows Push to Make Jerusalem Capital for Palestinians Too,” stated:

is”The European Union has a clear and united position. We believe the only realistic solution to the conflict between Israel and Palestine is based on two states and with Jerusalem as the capital of both.”

Dec. 7, 2017


J Street, an American “pro-Israel pro-peace” non-profit organization, in a Dec. 6, 2017 press release titled “Trump’s Change of US Policy on Jerusalem Undermines Peace Efforts, Could Lead to Violence,” available from, wrote:

“President Trump’s announcement today that the United States recognizes Jerusalem as the capital of Israel is an unhelpful step with no tangible benefits, only serious risks.

Contradicting decades of bipartisan presidential policy, it does nothing to advance, and could seriously undermine, the administration’s stated commitment to resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict while potentially threatening Israel’s security and alienating Arab regional partners…

Israel’s capital is in Jerusalem and it should be internationally recognized as such in the context of an agreed two-state solution that also establishes a Palestinian capital in East Jerusalem. In the absence of that final agreement between the parties on the city’s status, blanket recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital is premature and divisive. That is why, since 1967, all administrations have maintained that the final status of the entirety of Jerusalem is to be decided by negotiations, and have avoided any actions that could be interpreted as prejudging their outcome.”

Dec. 6, 2017


The Palestinian Liberation Organization Negotiations Affairs Department (PLONAD), in a document titled “The Status of Jerusalem in International Law” (accessed Jan. 13, 2009), offered the following:

“The Palestinian position is that Jerusalem should be the capital of the State of Palestine. The Declaration of Independence adopted by the Palestine National Council in 1988 declared ‘the establishment of the State of Palestine in the land of Palestine with its capital at Jerusalem.’ In the Palestinian view, that claim necessarily involved an assertion of sovereignty over the City…

The claim of the Palestinians for Jerusalem to be the capital of the State of Palestine does not necessarily mean that Palestine has to have sovereignty over the whole of the City. It would be possible legally for the solutions that have been canvassed to resolve the Jerusalem problem, such as the internationalisation proposal in [UN] Resolution 181, a condominium, or a divided city with Israel and Palestine having sovereignty over their respective halves, to be implemented with Jerusalem as the capital of the Palestinian State…

The fact that the Palestinian side has in the past been, and may in the future be, willing to accept a solution for the future of the City that does not involve full sovereignty, such as internationalisation, condominium, or a divided City, does not mean that the claim as such is weakened.”

Jan. 13, 2009


United Nations Resolution A/RES/63/30 adopted Nov. 26, 2008 by the UN General Assembly with 163 votes in favor to six against with six abstentions, stated the following:

“The General Assembly… determined that all legislative and administrative measures and actions taken by Israel, the occupying power, which have altered or purported to alter the character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem, in particular the so-called ‘Basic Law’ on Jerusalem and the proclamation of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, were null and void and must be rescinded forthwith… [The General Assembly] reiterates its determination that any actions taken by Israel, the occupying power, to impose its laws, jurisdiction and administration on the Holy City of Jerusalem are illegal and therefore null and void and have no validity whatsoever, and calls upon Israel to cease all such illegal and unilateral measures”

Nov. 26, 2008 - UN Resolution (A/36/L.36)


Ha’aretz, Israel’s largest daily newspaper, in a Sep. 12, 2008 Ha’aretz editorial titled “Everyone Will Divide Jerusalem,” offered the following:

“Anyone who engages in real peace negotiations with the Palestinians will have to accept a division of Jerusalem; anyone who preaches its integrity and unity is simply deceiving the public. The separation fence, which snakes in and around some 170 kilometers of the ‘united’ city… reveals the stark truth: Jerusalem, regardless of the politicians’ denials, is a divided city. When Israel agreed at the Madrid Conference, at Camp David, in the road map and at Annapolis to discuss all the core issues, it also agreed to discuss dividing Jerusalem…

The public consensus on dividing Jerusalem is greater than meets the eye. Some want to divide the city to preserve a Jewish majority in the capital, others so that it would be a better place to live. Some believe that without this partition, the conflict will never end… [W]hat everyone must understand is that core issues like the right of return and Jerusalem are inseparable elements of the negotiations, and no matter who is prime minister, Israel has already committed to discussing them. Jerusalem will in the end be the capital of two states… Even if years go by before a final accord is signed, it will look no different.”

Sep. 12, 2008


The Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), an inter-governmental group of fifty-six Islamic states, in its Third Extraordinary Session of the Islamic Summit held in Mecca on Dec. 7-8, 2005, presented a communique titled “Meeting the Challenges of the 21st Century, Solidarity in Action,” with the following statement:

“Efforts should be made to regain the city of Al-Quds [Jerusalem], safeguard its Islamic and historical character, preserve and protect Al-Aqsa Mosque and other sacred sites, counter the judaization of the Holy City, support the Palestinian institutions in the city, and establish Al-Aqsa University in the city of Al-Quds… [S]afeguard the sacred city’s cultural and historic landmarks and Arab-Islamic identity, and strengthen the steadfastness of its population so that it may regain its character as a city of coexistence and tolerance and the capital of the State of Palestine.”

Dec. 7-8, 2005


Haig Khatchadourian, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Philosophy at the University of Wisconsin at Milwaukee, in his 2000 book titled The Quest for Peace Between Israel and the Palestinians, wrote:

“From the Palestinian and my own personal point of view, East Jerusalem ought to become part – indeed, the capital- of the Palestinian state… However, recognizing Israel’s insistence that East Jerusalem is ‘nonnegotiable,’ I endorsed in 1970 the 1947 UN General Assembly’s resolution to internationalize it. That – and Israel’s insistence that Jerusalem is eternally Israeli – remains the Israelis’ unshakable position. Nevertheless, it is my hope that Israel may eventually agree to relinquishing East Jerusalem to Palestinian rule, provided that (a) a political and administrative formula can be worked out whereby Jerusalem would remain undivided; so that, among other things, the city would remain open to all religions, but (b) also allow East Jerusalem to become the capital of the Palestinian state; in the same way that West Jerusalem is Israel’s capital”

[Editor’s note: In a Jan. 27, 2009 email response to, Dr. Khatchadourian elaborated his views on the control of Jerusalem as follows: “In an article [‘Der Status von Ost-Jerusalem,’ in the book Deutschland, Israel, Palastina (2005)] I reiterated and expanded on the dual sovereignty plan I proposed in my book, The Quest for Peace Between Israel and the Palestinians. On that plan (1) Israel would have sovereignty over the Jewish part of East Jerusalem; (2) The Palestinian state would have sovereignty over the remaining Christian and Muslim Quarters–and if the Jerusalem community opts for it, the Armenian Quarter as well. (3) For this arrangement to work, which would include free movement of Palestinians and Israelis in East Jerusalem, it would be necessary to have, among other things, certain arrangements (discussed in the article) to establish ‘an effective border control between Israel and the West-Bank Palestinian entity.'”] 2000


Nicolas Sarkozy, President of the Republic of France, in a June 23, 2008 speech to the Knesset, available in English at, stated:

“There can’t be peace, even though I know how painful this is, without recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of two States and guaranteed freedom of access to the Holy Places for all the religions. There can’t be peace without a border negotiated on the basis of the 1967 agreement and exchanges of territory making it possible to build two viable States”

June 23, 2008