With national elections in Israel on the horizon, and various candidates making irresponsible remarks about Jerusalem, it behooves us once again to answer the following questions clearly:
Is it really so terrible to divide Jerusalem? If that’s what’s really holding up a once-and-for-all peace agreement with the Arab world, then why not? And what about all those Arab neighborhoods in the north, east and south – why not just get rid of them, thereby increasing the Jewish population percentage in our holy city?
The answers to these questions are critical to the future of Jerusalem, the state of Israel and the Jewish people. Fortunately, they have been well researched, and we must study them, internalize them, and teach them to others whenever the chance arises.
Let us first clarify: The latest threat to Jerusalem comes from one of the leading candidates to become Israel’s prime minister: Yitzchak Herzog, grandson of the late chief rabbi Isaac HaLevy Herzog, and son of Israel’s late president and ambassador to the United Nations, Chaim Herzog.
Herzog heads the Labor Party’s merger with Tzipi Livni’s HaTnuah party, forming an unlikely combination known as the “Zionist Camp.” He spoke freely about dividing Jerusalem after being chosen Labor chief just over a year ago, saying, “I see Jerusalem as serving as two political capitals: Eastern Jerusalem [is to be the] capital of the Palestinian state, and in the west of the city – the capital of the Jerusalem state…”
Asked if all of Jerusalem would remain Israeli territory, Herzog said he does not want to get into the nitty gritty of negotiations, but “The Western Wall will remain in Israeli hands. Regarding the rest, we must be creative.”
This, in stark contrast with what his father, the former president, said and did. It was Chaim Herzog who famously tore up the “Zionism is Racism” UN resolution, and it was he who told the UN, “Israel does not need to excuse or explain its presence in Jerusalem. Israel is there by rights – rights sanctified by the Bible, by history, by our sacrifices, prayers, and longing.”
OK, so what is the danger in dividing Jerusalem? Some of the most obvious (but not the only) ones are these: concrete security risks and perils; the likelihood that Jews will leave the city at an even steeper rate than the current alarming level; the probability that increasingly more Arabs will flood Jewish neighborhoods; and of course the damage to the Jewish people’s historical and religious bonds with the Holy City.
In addition, the day-to-day difficulties of governing and living in a city divided by a zigzagging wall – concrete, barbed-wire, or even just on paper – separating one side of a street from another and one street of a neighborhood from its brother are more than mind-boggling.
Some suggest simply redrawing the municipal boundaries so that Arab-populated neighborhoods such as Isawiya (adjacent to French Hill), Jabel Mukabber (next to East Talpiot), and Sur Bahir (near Har Homa) are on the “other side.” This appears simple and effective – in theory. On the ground, however, the Jewish residents of these and other neighborhoods will abruptly find themselves guarding the border and will be exposed to close-range shooting attacks, rockets, mortar shell fire – and possibly even worse. The lives of close to a quarter of a million Jews living in eastern Jerusalem would be in daily peril.
Perhaps this sounds incredible. Could Jewish neighborhoods in modern-day Jerusalem actually turn into war-torn border zones, under fire of rocket-launching and light weapons-toting terrorists like those who silenced Sderot and Kiryat Shmona for weeks at a time? Yes – and it has happened very recently. Remember Gilo? Within a two-year period during the Oslo War, hundreds of shooting and other attacks were unleashed on this quiet neighborhood by our enemies in the Bethlehem suburb of Beit Jala. Only after the wounding of dozens, the start of a voluntary evacuation, the provision of concrete barriers and bulletproof glass, and the abating of the Oslo War did the danger pass.