I have read Ir Amim's “Hope from Jerusalem” policy paper with great interest and anticipation. Undoubtedly, the issue of Jerusalem is not merely important but central to any future political arrangements, peace treaties, or processes pursued in the name of “peace.” Ir Amim describes the document as “an outline for a political resolution for Jerusalem” while also identifying a number of practical steps—some of them urgent—that must be undertaken without delay.

The paper is structured in three main sections. The first sets out the context in which the initiative was conceived. The second outlines 13 essential principles that should guide any serious discussion—or eventual agreement—on the future of the city. The final section highlights several immediate measures needed to constructively improve the daily lives of Jerusalem’s residents.

 Overall, the policy paper offers an excellent and holistic outlook. It is candid in its categorization of the policies imposed on the city and its population—policies of marginalization, discrimination, and injustice. At its core, the 13 principles are almost comprehensive: clear, insightful, and revealing of the deeper reasons why Jerusalem in particular, and the country as a whole, continue to suffer. The paper is evidently the product of knowledge, consultation, and serious study. I hope it can bring renewed hope to the people living in the city. Moreover, I trust that the discussions it generates may contribute to shifting the prevailing political conditions, enabling the document to serve as a lever for advancing conflict resolution on a broader scale.

 Perhaps intentionally, the paper refrains from endorsing any of the commonly proposed “solutions.” While it advocates for an open city with free movement of people, it also insists on clear borders along the armistice Green Line. It upholds principles of shared society and interdependence, yet simultaneously calls for flexible arrangements that enable self-determination. The real challenge, however, lies in transforming these conceptual ideas into workable political reality. An even greater challenge will be promoting such concepts within societies that have grown increasingly entrenched in ethno-nationalist narratives.

Furthermore, the paper has serious drawbacks. While it seemingly adopts a rights-based approach—frequently invoking democratic language and liberal values when discussing citizenship, individual rights, civil society, social protection, and medical care—it falls short of grounding itself in international law or UN resolutions when addressing historical injustices. In particular, it sidesteps the question of Palestinian refugees’ right of return and the restitution of their properties. Two large refugee camps, Shu’fat and Qalandia, are within the municipal jurisdiction of the city of Jerusalem, and together, they house tens of thousands of Palestinian Jerusalemite, thousands more refugees live outside their city of Jerusalem as they lost their home in the consecutive wars. The confiscated and looted properties of the Palestinian Jerusalemite numbers in thousands, and they value in billions. Their right of return, and the fate of their properties is central to any future peace settlement.

Equally, the paper fails to address one of the most harmful physical barriers in the lives of the city’s residents: the separation wall. In its 2004 Advisory Opinion, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) declared the Israeli separation wall—including its route around East Jerusalem—illegal, finding that its construction and associated regime violate international humanitarian law and human rights law. Several Jerusalem neighbourhoods lie behind the wall, and the daily experiences of many Palestinians in these areas are profoundly and negatively affected. Socially, politically, and economically, any genuine improvement in the lives of people in Jerusalem requires a radical reassessment of the existence of this illegal wall.

The paper provides an excellent sequencing of steps necessary to foster a shared, fair, and cooperative society in Jerusalem. Yet it falls short in addressing the growing ideology of Jewish supremacy that has become widespread within Israeli-Jerusalemite society. Given the city’s unique character, a deeper examination is required to chart the path from a society rooted in denial—of famine, starvation and plausible genocide—to one genuinely committed to sharing and coexistence.

Jerusalem is the centre piece of both the Palestinian national liberation narrative and the Jewish-Zionist movement. While the paper acknowledges the hope that a paradigm shift in Jerusalem could generate broader political change, it must be underscored that any sustainable solution for the city cannot stand alone. Rather, it must be situated within a comprehensive resolution of the wider Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

This policy paper must not be underestimated. It marks a genuine breakthrough—a departure from dominant, conventional approaches—and should serve as a tool to spark broader and more honest discussions, not only about the city’s future but also about the moral and ethical principles necessary to achieve it. Civil society, cultural centers, and educational institutions must play a leading role in fostering these conversations and providing guidance to shape the direction of such efforts. Ir Amim team has taken a bold initiative in this regard, and their work deserves recognition and appreciation.