Cohen, ShaulFrank, David A.2007-12-042007-12-042002Political Geography 21 (2002): 745-760https://hdl.handle.net/1794/530616 p.Many see the city of Jerusalem as an intractable religious political issue, beyond the pale of negotiation and problem solving. This view reflects a set of problematic assumptions, including beliefs that Jerusalem produces a contest between maximalist claims that only power can resolve. In this article, we conduct a conceptual exercise designed to rethink Jerusalem as an issue of political geography open to needs-based bargaining. Drawing from evidence in the Transboundary Freshwater Dispute Database, we suggest that riparian negotiations offer an analogue that might be used to restructure the discourse used in the negotiations about Jerusalem. We propose the use of a riparian simile in which negotiators begin with the assumption that “the conflict over Jerusalem is like international water disputes.” Riparian negotiations encourage movement from sovereign rights to functional needs, the use of time as a flexible variable, a focus on beneficial uses, and the creation of language recognizing local contingencies.107375 bytesapplication/pdfen-USAnalogic thinkingConflictJerusalemMetaphorRiparian simileTerritoryArticle