Muslims and Christians too perceive the holy city with a passion that is hardly of less value than the passion held by Jews. In fact, the three monotheistic religions, at times for exclusive factors and other times for inter-related ones, glorify Jerusalem as the greatest of all cities, the dearest and the most beloved.

Yet disputes arise when religion is mingled with and even abused by political and self-serving considerations. While the Jewish connection to the holy city is widely acknowledged, Muslims and Christians appear as if they have far less rights, their religious needs are undermined and their faith symbols are belittled.

The typical Zionist argument regards Jerusalem as the center of the Jewish faith and a symbol for the Jewish people's endurance and "right of return," while on the other hand; it strives to prove the little or complete lack of significance that Jerusalem hold for the Arabs, Muslims and Palestinians.

More alarmingly, the offense of acknowledging Jewish rights in Jerusalem and denying the rights of Palestinians has been a core premise that has influenced American foreign policy for decades.

The true perception of Jerusalem held by the American leadership was largely exposed during the July 2000, Camp David II summit between Israel and the Palestinian Authority (PA) in which the United States was involved almost as a third party.

Former American president, Bill Clinton, was openly angry and frustrated with PA chairman Yasser Arafat, for refusing to accept then Israeli prime minister Ehud Barak's "generous compromise" over Jerusalem.

Surprisingly, Barak's hailed concessions spoke of Palestinian control over a few neighborhoods in Occupied East Jerusalem, while the Jewish settlements built illegally in the city were to be left under Israeli sovereignty, in addition to the Jewish Quarter and the Western Wall.

Moreover, according to Barak's initiative, praised by Clinton as courageous, Haram Al Sharif (the Noble Sanctuary) one of the most endeared religious sites for most Palestinians and the world's Muslims, would remain under Israel's control, although it would be allowed to raise a Palestinian flag.

In a time when Israel's needs and claimed historical and political connection to the city were taken very seriously by the United States, the latter appeared to be only concerned with locating a formula that would pacify Palestinians on symbolic and impractical levels.

Clinton's frustration with Arafat which culminated in an Israeli TV interview following the collapse of the Camp David summit was genuine, as American politicians have almost always embraced Israel's point of view in regards to the issue of Jerusalem.

If Clinton, (and most US politicians, lawmakers and media) would replace their frame of reference on Jerusalem with international law instead of Israel's own reading of religion, faith and history, the Palestinian stance would have been the applaudable one.

Considering Israel's blatant violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, the Hague Regulations of 1907 and its defiance of nearly two dozen relevant Security Council resolutions, what Palestinians were offered at the Camp David summit was far less than the minimum of what could have complied with international law, and Palestinian political and religious aspirations.

Israel's brute force and routine violations of international law in Jerusalem (ending with the provocative "visit" by now Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon to the Muslim Haram Al Sharif compound last September, aided by over 1000 Israeli soldiers and policemen) is an indication that Israel is not to be trusted in East Jerusalem, not as a political or a religious authority.

The current Palestinian Intifada (uprising), rightfully dubbed Al Aqsa Intifada, referring to the Muslim Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem, was a direct message to Israel that Palestinian religious rights in the holy city also matter, and that Palestinians, Christians and Muslims would defend their city, even with rocks and bare chests.

If Zionist discourse has a wealth of Jewish religious content to prove Jewish rights, therefore Israel's rights in the claimed "eternal and united capital," Palestinians have much more than an abundance of religious narration; they have uninterrupted history of thousands of years living in Palestine and Jerusalem; they have their sacrifices that are becoming as sacred as religious text, and equally important they have the rights and legitimacy endorsed by international law year after year.

Palestinians yearn to have political and religious presence in Jerusalem. Their undeniable political, legal, historic and religious rights in the city strengthen that lasting desire.

A Palestinian capital in East Jerusalem, free of Jewish settlements, and open for all faithful to practice their rituals in peace, while monitored by international observers to ensure the upholding of international law, is the most suitable scenario that would guarantee minimum justice for the war-torn city.