For every section of the border, the issues for each community are different, and for each area there are unique concerns. But fundamentally, none seem to be free to move without movement in Jerusalem. We ask the Knesset and we ask the Palestinian Authority: Put aside your disagreements and conference regularly on the fate of Jerusalem. If we can have a simple, meaningful and peaceful focus on the eastern environs of Jerusalem, it can help narrow down points of contention elsewhere. 

The issue of Jerusalem can be solved by looking at it from the perspectives of (1) municipal needs, (2) national needs, whether of one or both nations, and (3) policies that accommodate the needs of the other party. 

We do not see that territorial ownership of any part of Jerusalem by one party necessarily negates the interests of the other party within the city. It is not implausible for the nation-state of Palestine to maintain a national government within the eastern environs of Jerusalem, even if East Jerusalem is not forfeited by Israel. We do not object to Palestine inferring or insisting that East Jerusalem is an occupied area. We do, however, object to either party insisting that any solution for peace must include establishing its ownership over East Jerusalem. The Citizens Proposal offers the eastern areas of Jerusalem as a focus that could be negotiated for joint responsibility of governing in the city. But it does not insist upon it. 

Despite many people’s aspirations, our proposal defaults Jerusalem to the Israeli side. Nevertheless, it does not acknowledge Israeli annexation. In this point, we stick with the United Nations in refusing to negotiate this sort of result. We observe that certain areas in the world have commonwealth status, for example Puerto Rico, and we see no issue with East Jerusalem being a commonwealth of both nations. As Jerusalem is unique, it certainly can be afforded unique status.