There is a rich tradition in these parts of clandestine documents written by British officials that have eventually determined, in some way or the other, the course of history in the Middle East. It is not yet obvious if the latest such “highly confidential” document, penned by unnamed British Foreign Office officials and presented last week to the EU Council of Ministers (currently presided over by British foreign secretary Jack Straw), will one day enjoy the sort of prominence accorded in the annals to the various White Papers, the Balfour Declaration and the Sykes-Picot Agreement, but it would be an eminently good thing if it did. For such inclusion would imply that the document, which contains surprisingly sternly-worded censure of Israeli policies in Jerusalem, will have had some effect on the history of the ancient city which stands today in imminent danger of being cleansed by the government of Israel of all traces of the Palestinians who have inhabited it for centuries.

This bleak eventuality is clearly emphasized in the document, which was leaked yesterday by unknown sources to various newspapers (among them, the Guardian, The Independent, and the New York Times). Apart from employing urgent language to inform the EU ministers that the Government of Israel has “a clear intention to turn the annexation of east Jerusalem into a concrete fact,” the document also suggests that the ultimate goal of Israel is to “reduce the possibility of reaching a final status agreement on Jerusalem that any Palestinian could accept.” More impressively, the document undertakes a grimly factual accounting of the various policies used by Israel to achieve this goal: “the near-completion of the barrier around east Jerusalem, far from the Green Line;” “the construction and expansion of illegal settlements” (most prominently, the E1 plan, which aims to expand the settlement of Ma’aleh Adumim into the so-called E1 area east of Jerusalem); “the demolition of Palestinian homes built without permits (which are all but unobtainable);” stricter enforcement of rules separating Palestinians resident in East Jerusalem from those resident in the West Bank, including a reduction of working permits;” and “discriminatory taxation, expenditure and building permit policy by the Jerusalem municipality.” (All quotes from a copy of the document obtained by MIFTAH sources; while it is impossible to verify the authenticity of this version, it appears to be identical to the one quoted extensively in various newspapers around the world today).

While there is no clear indication as to how the EU might go about achieving the ultimate goal of preventing Israel from what it quaintly summarizes as “getting away with it,” the document contains a good many recommendations, some practical and specific – provide aid and support to the beleaguered institutions of Palestinian civil society in east Jerusalem; hold more meetings with PNA officials in east Jerusalem (rather than Ramallah, which is the usual destination); some vague – “pressure Israel to desist from all measures designed to pre-empt (bilateral negotiations on Jerusalem);” and some hopelessly idealistic – pressure Israel to “re-open Palestinian institutions in East Jerusalem, in particular the Chamber of Commerce” and to “halt discriminatory treatment of Palestinians in East Jerusalem, especially concerning working permits, building permits, house demolitions, taxation and expenditure.”

While this is all quite remarkable and even courageous, it is unclear what will be achieved by the document in even the best of cases. European foreign ministers have already begun to distance themselves from it, and, reportedly vetoed an open publication last week, fearing a likely Israeli backlash and jeopardizing of Europe’s new role – beginning yesterday – as international monitor of the Rafah crossing between Gaza and Egypt.

Moreover, the document provides no timetable for implementation, and the EU has publicly stalled for time by announcing the publication of a (presumably more) “detailed EU analysis on East Jerusalem” in December. Marc Otte, the EU’s Special Representative to the Middle East peace process, has himself played down the report, and remarked disparagingly to an American journalist yesterday that “there is nothing exceptional or extraordinary about it.”

Indeed, Mr. Otte is right: there is nothing exceptional about the report; it merely records in plain English certain facts that appear salient to even the least observant of visitors to the city: Palestinian Jerusalem is dying by the day; its people squeezed out, its houses demolished, its once-vibrant institutions crippled. It is that which is extraordinary, and Mr. Otte’s statement notwithstanding, it is hoped that the report produced by his anonymous colleagues will lead Europe to do something about it.

If it does, the report will be examined closely by students years later alongside the various other seminal documents that are required reading for anyone interested in the history of the Arab-Israeli conflict. If it does not, it will be consigned to the special sorry irrelevance that is reserved for all such documents that aim to do much but achieve nothing.