Superficially, the division of Jerusalem may seem justified, on practical as well as moral grounds. After all, good fences make good neighbors, etc.; but, to reconcile conflicting claims, why not perform a Solomon-like division of what is in dispute.

The proponents of division mostly argue practicality: since the two communities cannot live together, they should separate. In real life, however, cutting a city in half is easier said than done, and having two sovereigns govern different parts may prove not only an impossible task, but also a dangerous one, leading to total chaos.

Minister Shlomo Ben-Ami, involved in the Camp David negotiations over Jerusalem, has warned Israelis that unless we permit Arab sovereignty in east Jerusalem, the whole Islamic world will turn against us, and that the situation in Jerusalem will become as dangerous as in Belfast. But as Ben-Ami can hear from any Hamas devotee, some Arabs consider not only East Jerusalem sacred territory but also all the land which Israel occupies. Should we offer shared sovereignty there too?

Fortunately, Islam is not really as monolithic as Ben-Ami implies. There are many Islamic countries, with varied, even conflicting interests. While Saudi Arabia holds Mecca and Medina so sacred that foreigners are prohibited from entering those sites, elsewhere, and in different periods, Islamic shrines were less exclusionary.

The Mosque of Omar, for example, is open to visitors, and even in fundamentalist Hebron, where, in the past, Jews could not set foot in the Cave of the Machpela, Moslems eventually accepted their presence rather than explode in rage. Religions zeal is often simply an instrument of political expediency.

Ben-Ami further threatens Jerusalem with Belfast-like violence unless we accept Yasser Arafat’s demands. But a higher probability is that should Ehud Barak do so, and an irredentist Palestinian Authority be allowed to openly place its “policemen” within Jerusalem, hostilities in Belfast will look like child’s play compared to the havoc they can wreak in Jerusalem.

Some of our politicians have developed the nasty habit of using Arafat’s (real enough) threats to scare Israelis and to force them to swallow their political concoctions. At the same time, they tell us with the same breath that Israel is powerful enough to take very serious risks for peace.

What makes Ben-Ami think that the hostility he now fears from the Arabs of Jerusalem ג€“ and who he thinks Israel is powerless to control ג€“ will abate once Arafat gets what he wants at this stage? Did Arafat stop inciting the Palestinians after Oslo, as he undertook?

And if Ben-Ami believes that the hostility of Arab civilians may become so dangerous in Jerusalem that they must be forcibly “separated” from Israel (a form of transfer, really, is it not?), why only in Jerusalem? Why not also in the Galilee? Is such a plan considered too racist, except when proposed by a Labor government?

Ben-Ami may wish to contemplate. how wise it is for an Israeli minister to amplify Arafat’s threats. Arafat may not need Ben Ami to give him any ideas, but making Israelis feel more profoundly threatened by Arab agression cannot serve the cause of coexistence or peace.

As for the Arab residents of Jerusalem, many probably feel that as long as their mosques are respected, they do not have to mount a Jihad to have Arafat ride as Saladin into Jeru’salem, or to have Feisal Husseinin replace Ehud Olmert as their mayor. They may even be reluctant to trade the many benefits Israel offers them, economically and socially, for a corrupt Arafat regime that denies them even the very imperfect civil rights they now enjoy under Israeli rule.

And indeed, despite their obvious unhappiness with not being independent, despite being discriminated against and despite the wld incitement by Arafat’s henchmen, Jerusalem Arabs have not really acted with hostility against Israel. As the drop in real estate prices in quarters that are to be transferred indicates, most would probably vote with their feet against an enforced annexation of their quarters to the Palestinian Authority.

But then, since when did Israeli politicians ever care about what people want, especially humble residents?

Permalink: