A view of the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. Photo: Berthold Werner.

Those who are privy to the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations appear to be more optimistic than ever before about the prospect of reaching an agreement. But there are also those who believe that, regardless of American prodding, no agreement is likely to emerge because neither Prime Minister Netanyahu nor President Mahmoud Abbas are in a position to make the necessary concessions to make peace and politically survive.

That said, the future of Jerusalem remains the epicenter of a negotiated settlement, now or at any time in the future, and could make or break any deal. The respective populations, especially the radicals among them, cannot accept an agreement that runs contrary to their deep beliefs.

For these reasons, there is an urgent need to seriously engage in public discussions about the future of Jerusalem because sooner or later the Israelis and Palestinians must be prepared to accept the inevitable—a united Jerusalem, yet a capital of two states.

In a recent interview with the Associated Press, Jerusalem’s Mayor Nir Barkat (who is running for re-election) insisted that, “There is only one way this city can function – it is a united city (where) all residents and visitors are treated honestly and equally. It is the only model.”

This unique attachment and affinity to the holy city, which has for millennia symbolized the Jewish sense of redemption, created a powerful motivation to capture the city when it came within Israel’s grasp during the Six Day War in 1967. The fall of Jerusalem in the wake of the war remains an unmatched event and came to symbolize Jewish absolution.

This historic development created a renewed awakening that vindicated the religious premise that was embedded in the Jewish psyche for centuries. The realization of what was believed to be a far-fetched dream under the most difficult of circumstances was now seen as the work of the Almighty, which no force can alter.

Muslims around the world believe that Muhammad made his Journey from Mecca to Masjid Al-Aqsa (literally, “furthest mosque”) in Jerusalem before he ascended to heaven. Although the Al-Aqsa Mosque was built long after the death of the prophet, Surah 17:1 states that Muhammad visited the site where the Al-Aqsa Mosque was subsequently erected.

The religious, demographic, physical, psychological, and political realities facing the Israelis and Palestinians in Jerusalem today require that it be an undivided — yet shared — city, exemplifying Israeli-Palestinian coexistence.

The demographic reality in East and West Jerusalem makes a division of the city impossible. While Palestinian residents are largely concentrated in East Jerusalem, more than forty percent of East Jerusalem’s residents today are Jews who live east of the so-called “seam line” that once divided Jerusalem prior to the 1967 war.

In addition to this demographic mix, having annexed the city immediately following the 1967 war, Israel has developed the east and west of the city as a single city with a network of roads, transportation systems, and various municipal services such as gas lines and electricity.

Palestinians who end up on the Israeli side (unless they are Israeli citizens) would enjoy permanent residency in Israel, but vote or be elected in Palestine; similarly, Israelis within the Palestinian jurisdiction of the city would be permanent residents of Palestine and exercise the right to vote and be elected in Israeli elections.

Whereas each state has their own internal security forces, joint units will coordinate and cooperate on all security issues that may occur to prevent violence from either side against the other and reach an agreement on how to treat criminals should they commit a crime and flee to the other side.

Ideally, current and former public officials should publicly support the “one city, two capitals” solution. Prime Minister Netanyahu (if he really believes in a two-state solution) should reiterate and further expand on what he has stated to the U.S. Congress: “…with creativity and with good will, a solution can be found.”

Third, the absence of political will and leadership requires civil society to take the lead. NGOs, including think tanks, student organizations, women’s groups, and labor unions should begin a concerted dialogue about the future of the city.

Finally, public forums should be created to discuss the pros and cons of Jerusalem’s future as a capital of two states. Although this solution may well be inevitable, still debating other possibilities is critical if for no other reason but to demonstrate why other options are not likely to work. Such dialogues could have, over time, a significant impact on Israeli and Palestinian public opinion.

The participants (in small groups of 15-20) should especially include religious scholars, imams, rabbis, and priests representing all three monotheistic religions, and historians with a focus on the Middle East. They must be independent thinkers, holding no formal position in their respective governments, and committed to finding a peaceful solution in the context of coexistence.

It is important to note that regardless of how urgent a solution to Jerusalem may be, any agreement between the two sides should be implemented over a period of no less than three years to allow for the development of new structural, political, and especially security regimes.