New UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres caused offence to the Palestinian Liberation Organisation earlier this week when he declared that it was “completely clear that the Temple destroyed by the Romans in Jerusalem was a Jewish temple”.  This was in reference to the UNESCO resolution that was passed in October last year, which – amongst others – criticized Israeli handling of holy sites in the Old City. The resolution was taken by Israelis to deny Jewish links to the Temple Mount complex since it did not reference any Jewish names to the features on the site.

Having read the UNESCO resolution yesterday my conclusion is that it:

1. Doesn’t explicitly deny any Jewish links to the Temple Mount complex, as has been claimed by some commentators
2. Is confused as to what constitutes occupied territory: Jerusalem and Palestine
3. Alludes to a narrative about East Jerusalem under the previous Jordanian occupation, which provides a counterbalance to discussions about the Israeli occupation
4. Carries a legitimate argument regarding Israeli construction on or around holy sites

Someone would do well to clarify with UNESCO that under Resolution 181 – accepted by both Palestinians and Israelis as the basis of their statehood – Jerusalem (with specific boundaries) falls under a regime that does not automatically make it the territory of either state, current or future. This area may be occupied and administered by Israel now, but it was previously occupied and administered by Jordan. This is the historical reason why no embassy has yet moved to Jerusalem, it is basis of foreign policy positions of organisations such as the EU. It is an important point.

Israel’s occupation of this area, within the boundaries defined by 181 (excluding the areas of Jerusalem occupied by Israel in 1948) therefore cannot default to being illegal under international law in the same manner that occupation of state, or even a proto-state would be. To be specific: this is because this is not another country’s territory; it is not any country’s territory.

This same argument does not apply to other areas of the West Bank occupied in 1967, e.g. Hebron, where Israel is an occupying power in the de jure state of Palestine. Incidentally, Hebron is referred to by its Jewish name in the resolution, being Al-Khalil in Arabic.

There is, of course, a legitimate basis for grievance that could be pursued by Palestine under international law regarding the Holy City. Even though Jerusalem occupies special status under 181, the holy sites within this area are not to be interfered with.

Established practice prior-to and including 1947, when Resolution 181 was passed, was that no religious area or site should be interfered with, without the tacit agreement of all relevant religious authorities. The argument that the Jordanians destroyed Jewish heritage during their occupation cannot be deployed here in defence, since that was also illegal under 181. This is the only part of the UNESCO resolution which really holds water. The inconsistencies and inaccuracies elsewhere in the document do not do this component of the resolution justice.

Generally speaking, all sides would do well to get to grips with UN Resolution 181 as it is clear on most major aspects of the various claims.