A clearer understanding of what the legal status quo regarding Jerusalem really is could make Israeli public opinion less reflexively resistant to contemplating any modification of that status quo, even in return for peace. Expanding the city . There is nothing sacred about the current, artificially imposed municipal boundaries of the city, and the parties appear to have agreed to limited, settler-sensitive exchanges of Palestinian territory for Israeli territory in fixing their final borders. Focusing on administration . In seeking a solution to the status of Jerusalem, it is essential to distinguish between sovereignty and municipal administration.
Sovereignty is an intensely emotional issue.
Municipal administration is not. Negotiators should therefore focus on agreeing upon administrative structures for an open, physically undivided and fully demilitarised city. This would entail delineating a certain number of local districts, both Jewish and Arab, to whose elected district councils as many aspects of municipal governance as possible would be devolved, and reserving for coordination by an umbrella municipal council only those major matters which could only be dealt with efficiently at a city-wide level. The fundamental principle would be that, to the maximum degree possible, Israeli citizens in Jerusalem should be under Israeli administration and Palestinian citizens in Jerusalem should be under Palestinian administration. Since there are currently no integrated neighbourhoods in Jerusalem, delineating the districts should present no practical problems, and apportioning authorities between the district councils and the umbrella municipal council should be relatively non-contentious.