Jerusalem After Oslo: When Final Status Issues Were Closed and the Occupation Focused on Deciding the City's Fate

What are the final status issues?
Defining the concept of (final status issues) as stated in the Oslo Accords shows that they were not deferred negotiating details, but rather the core of the political and legal conflict. They explicitly include (Jerusalem, refugees, settlements, borders, security arrangements, water, and relations with neighbors, in addition to any issues of mutual concern). Oslo assumed that these issues would be resolved through subsequent negotiations, suggesting the possibility of producing a balanced historical settlement. However, the practical course, especially in Jerusalem, proved that field and legal realities preceded negotiations, indeed emptying them of their content and transforming them into a formal path separate from reality.

From the logic of negotiation to the logic of consolidation

Describing the central transformation in conflict management shows the occupation's shift from the logic of managing negotiations to the logic of consolidating outcomes. Instead of waiting for a comprehensive political settlement, permanent facts were imposed on the ground, then managed legally and administratively as an (existing status quo) that is not open to discussion. In Jerusalem, this transformation took the form of comprehensive control over land, planning, resources, and institutions, in exchange for managing Palestinian society as a demographic body subject to conditions of residency, service, and control. In this sense, final status issues were not closed through an announced agreement, but rather by replacing politics with administration, and rights with permit and regulation systems.

Targeting UNRWA: Dismantling the Refugee File from Within

An analysis of the refugee situation in Jerusalem shows that the liquidation of this file did not occur through a direct political declaration, but rather by dismantling the structure that legally and politically embodies the refugee status. UNRWA stands out as the international organization that embodies this right, through daily services in the fields of education, health, and relief.
Dismantling the targeting mechanisms reveals a gradual and deliberate path based on closure, prohibition, and criminalization. The shift occurred from indirect financial tightening to direct measures that included preventing the agency's work within East Jerusalem, closing schools and health centers, issuing eviction orders for its headquarters, and demolishing some of its headquarters and confiscating some of its properties under the pretext of sovereignty. This was accompanied by a legislative path aimed at delegitimizing UNRWA's presence, and a rhetorical path that redefines it as a security or political problem.
The danger of this path lies not only in reducing services, but in re-engineering the refugee file within Jerusalem, as the refugee status is being emptied of its political content and transformed into a temporary social condition, managed through municipal or civil alternatives subject to the conditions of the occupation. In this sense, UNRWA is targeted because it keeps the refugee file open, and because its existence contradicts the idea of a (united Jerusalem) devoid of any legal recognition of the Nakba and its repercussions.

Harsh and Soft Policies
Distinguishing the nature of the policies applied to Jerusalem clarifies the existence of two integrated levels working in parallel. The first is harsh, relying on tools of force, law, and police to immediately control the place and population, through demolition, closure, and withdrawal of IDs. The second is soft, implemented through urban plans, budgets, and (development and gap reduction) programs. This latter level is the most dangerous, because it operates in a technical language that appears neutral, while actually reshaping geography, demography, and local governance, and producing a model of forced integration without political rights.

Dismantling Colonial Plans
Dismantling the concept of (Greater Jerusalem) shows that it is not urban expansion, but rather an extended local governance vision aimed at increasing the demographic weight of settlements, and redefining the city's borders politically and administratively, thereby moving Jerusalem from being a disputed city to a unilaterally redrawn sovereign space. An analysis of the Jerusalem management phase following October 7, 2023, reveals a shift to a framework where policies are measured by results, by redirecting investment and planning and linking Palestinian neighborhoods to colonial conditions, accompanied by tightening security restrictions and expanding closure and prohibition as daily management tools. The E1 area also stands out as a geographical lock isolating East Jerusalem from its Palestinian surroundings. As for the two versions of the five-year plan, they practically deepen the model of (conditional integration) and transform rights into services subject to control and compliance.
What does this path mean?
Forecasting the risks arising from this path reveals four central outcomes: (dismantling of space by isolating Palestinian neighborhoods and turning them into separate islands, dismantling of institutions as a result of systematic pressure on schools, clinics, and associations, transforming rights into privileges managed by permission and prohibition, and closing politics within technology so that the engineering of sovereignty is marketed as a neutral urban development project).

The Impact on the Daily Lives of Jerusalemites

Measuring the real impact appears in the details of daily life: housing turns into a long legal and financial drain, schools into crowded spaces under constant psychological pressure, and health services into a longer and more fragile journey, especially in areas historically dependent on UNRWA services. These are not side or temporary effects, but direct results of the logic of managing Jerusalem as a security-service file, measured by control, not justice.

Towards a Multi-Level Resilience Program
Deepening the proposed solution requires moving from circumstantial reactions to an integrated resilience program. Legally, the necessity of unifying efforts and building support networks that reduce litigation costs and accumulate legal precedents in cases of closure, demolition, and residency stands out. Institutionally, reality dictates the establishment of permanent coordination mechanisms between institutions to identify critical services and ensure their continuity when targeted. In terms of media and knowledge, dismantling plans in precise language becomes a necessity to counter their marketing as neutral development. Socially and in terms of services, priorities include stabilizing housing, addressing educational loss, and supporting the basic operation of threatened institutions, because the battle for Jerusalem is won by continuity, not just by condemnation.

The City as an Open File for Resilience
Rereading the Jerusalem scene shows that the occupation has practically closed the final status issues with the logic of facts, then focused on deciding the fate of Jerusalem through a deliberate mix of harsh control and soft policies. The targeting of UNRWA comes as a direct step to weaken the refugee file within the city. In the face of this path, statements or circumstantial reactions are not enough; reality dictates building a resilience program that protects the daily lives of Jerusalemites and keeps Jerusalem a living political file, not just an administrative issue.