Politically, Clinton's principle makes sense: Almost 200,000 Jews live in the Jewish neighborhoods of Jerusalem beyond the 1967 lines, and their inclusion within Israel's new borders would make an agreement significantly more likely. Practically, however, the intertwined nature of the city's geography does not easily lend itself to a straightforward East-West division of sovereignty. To deal with this challenge, Clinton (and most negotiators at the time) envisioned a Jerusalem that would remain an "open city" -- with a border through it delineated on a map, but largely absent actual barriers on the ground. Such a system has political and symbolic merit, and seemed feasible at a time when violence was sporadic.

The situation changed significantly with the onset of the second intifada -- which reached its height in 2001-2003, when scores of Palestinian suicide bombers entered Israel with ease and targeted its major cities, most notably West Jerusalem. Under these new circumstances, an "open city" model would require the erection of a security envelope around greater metropolitan Jerusalem. The entrance and exit points would have to serve masses of people and provide diverse services, a logistical challenge that would force Israelis to choose between securing Jerusalem or maintaining its economic viability and links to the rest of Israel. Indeed, it is Israeli security experts -- for many years against the idea of dividing Jerusalem -- who are now leading the charge for a physical barrier along the borderline. (See the Jerusalem chapter of "Is Peace Possible?" for more on the Clinton Parameters and the challenges of an "open city" model.)

Situating the physical border in between the two capitols could address many of these challenges. But even though Jerusalem largely operates today as two separate cities (one Arab, one Jewish), such a border would require a fair amount of "salamandering" -- particularly, drawing narrow corridors through Arab neighborhoods to connect Jewish neighborhoods to West Jerusalem. These corridors would disrupt the contiguity of the new Palestinian capitol. (See image above.)



We have developed, in collaboration with Palestinian planners, numerous proposals to address this problem. We propose creating two independent transportation networks, operating at different elevations, that would enable contiguity under or over the problematic corridors. At the French Hill junction, for example, a corridor connecting central Jerusalem to Jewish neighborhoods of Pisgat Ze'ev and Neve Ya'akov would interrupt the road connecting the Arab neighborhoods of Beit Hanina and Sheikh Jarrah. Our team has designed three possible solutions for the challenge of this junction: an elevated bridge, an underground tunnel, or an over-pass -- each option with its own advantages and shortcomings. (See illustrations of these proposals below. In-depth explanations appear in the Jerusalem annex of the Geneva Initiative.) These solutions can be applied to other points of collision, and can be adjusted to accommodate future transportation volumes and urban routines.

Creating contiguity in the intricate geography -- French Hill Junction, Jerusalem / SAYA