Solutions for A Lasting Peace In JerusalemSkip to next paragraph
Subscribe Today to the Monitor
Regarding the opinion-page article "Jerusalem: Victim or Conqueror?" April 2: We at the American Committee on Jerusalem (ACJ) believe that the geographic division of Jerusalem is only one aspect of a potential solution. The following three elements are essential to preserve the interests of both the Israelis and Palestinians who live there:
1. There can be no monopoly of sovereignty by either party in Jerusalem to secure peace. Jerusalem should be the capital of both Palestine and Israel, and both the Palestinian and Israeli people should have political representation within the context of their respective national politics.
2. There can be no relation of conqueror and conquered in the Jerusalem of the future. Palestinians and Israelis should have full and equal rights to exercise all aspects of municipal governance in Jerusalem, including control over land use, in their respective areas of the city.
3. No religion or nationality can be privileged or preeminent in Jerusalem if there is to be real peace. The right of open and unimpeded access to and through Jerusalem, as well as the right to worship in the city, must be guaranteed for both Palestinians and Israelis, while the city of Jerusalem should be open to people of all faiths and nationalities.
Jerusalem is not an "open city." While Israelis can come and go as they please, the Palestinian population of the West Bank and Gaza Strip is banned from entering the city, thus excluding them from the region's main religious, commercial, educational, cultural, and medical center and its central communications hub. Palestinians must have the right to worship freely in Jerusalem - a right they are presently denied.
Raafat A. al-Dajani Washington
Coordinator, The American Committee on Jerusalem
The editorial "Now, CEO layoffs," April 1, suggests that chief executive officers are in as much danger of being laid off as their employees.
While it's honorable to look at the pressures that CEOs face, to suggest they would have difficulty finding a job or putting food on the table ignores the real issue: that even as thousands of regular employees fall under the corporate ax, company executives continue to bring in massive salaries and benefits. Instead of trying to defend the actions of one of America's most privileged classes, it would seem more on target to examine issues of imbalance that result from the policies they create.
Ames deMatthew San Francisco