Jerusalem, the Divided Undivided Capital of Israel (1)

April 14, 2009

The English media (and most likely the other media) in Israel are awash with political, religious, socio-economical, and historical analyses of the relationship between Israel and Palestinians, Jews and Muslims, Israel and her Muslim neighbors in the Middle East, take your pick. As mind-numbingly and emotionally complicated as these relationships are in general, the conflicts and/or dilemmas come into sharp focus, and therefore intensify, around the subject of Jerusalem, especially, around the subject of divided or undivided Jerusalem as the capital(s) for Israel and a Palestinian state. No amount of reading, viewing of videos, attendance at lectures or rallies, or participation in discussion of this complex situation can take the place of being on the ground in Jerusalem, of observing the entanglements, of standing in a neighborhood with a guide who can convincingly argue, “one the one hand…” and then take a deep breath and just as convincingly argue, “on the other hand…”

Ir Amim (City of Peoples or Nations)
“is an Israeli non-profit, non-partisan organization founded in order to actively engage in those issues impacting on Israeli-Palestinian relations in Jerusalem and on the political future of the city. Ir Amim seeks to render Jerusalem a more viable and equitable city, while generating and promoting a more politically sustainable future.” Among its activities are tours of Jerusalem and its environs. Our guide, a strikingly handsome, blue-eyed, 35 year old Israeli, with a few days of beard growth, was articulate and passionate, without being tendentious, as he encouraged the 20 or so participants to, “see the facts for yourself. Whatever you decide is for you to decide.”

Before describing our 4 hour exploration, I’ll present three ideas, not yet developed enough to be considered conclusions. First, two groups of people, Jews and non-Jews (Palestinian-Arabs, Arabs, even names have political implications) inhabit Jerusalem and three groups, Jews, Muslims, and Christians have profound connections to holy sites. Haaretz has a predictable perspective on this issue, but a recent article is worth reading, nevertheless.

Even the term “inhabit” is complicated, however, because after the Six Day War in 1967, Israel effectively annexed 70 square kilometers (Chapel Hill is about 50 square kilometers), including East Jerusalem, although most of the world considers it not an annexation, but an administrative area. What was once a small city in terms of area, has become, by administrative decision, a large metropolitan area. Putting aside Biblical, religious, archeological, historical, legal or any other lens that one might use to analyze this situation in order to draw conclusions, it seems indisputable that two groups reside in Jerusalem. For Jerusalem to be the capital of Israel, the Jewish state, there are many reasons for Jews to be the majority population in the city. What seems fundamental, then, is that short of physically removing Arabs/Palestinians from areas that they inhabit or Jews from areas that they inhabit in order to create a separation, all inhabitants must be treated with respect, with access to the same privileges and benefits. To be very concrete, for the sake of argument, let’s use a legal/historical lens. The Arabs lost the Six Day War, fair and square, so Israel has won or earned this territory. Accepting this assumption or line of argument, there are still tens of thousands of Arabs who reside in this area called Jerusalem. A fraction of political or religious leaders would advocate expelling these inhabitants, so even though Israel won the war, the Arab people remain and a democratic government and society dictate that they be treated fairly. To underscore the point, the issue here is Jewish Arab relations in Jerusalem. The issue of Israel’s role in the disputed/occupied territories of the West Bank is for another discussion.

Second, should it be possible to create a separation into two states, there are fanatics who not only advocate the use of violence, but act violently against Jews. For these, the goal seems to be not to remove Israeli authority from the West Bank, but from the current State of Israel as well. Hamas launches rockets from Gaza that can have no other effect than to harm and terrorize innocent people. The security risks of violent neighbors across the street must be acknowledged. Absent the acceptance of non-violent approaches to disagreements, the security needs are not only legitimate, but seminal.

Third, it is puzzling that the leadership of the Palestinian population seems to be monolithic. Prior to the recent fundamental split and war between the Fatah party and Hamas, Palestinian people seemed to have one voice. Current strategies do not appear to be advancing the well-being of the Palestinians of East Jerusalem, so where are the diverse opinions about testing new approaches?