Jerusalem Must Remain Undivided

by Nathan J. Diament
Special To The Jewish Week

Imagine the scene centuries ago, as the prophet Isaiah mounts a platform to exhort the people. But instead of trying to rally the listeners to mend their ways to deserve God’s aid, as well as prepare for battle against those who would sack Jerusalem and send them into exile, the prophet instead suggests it is all inevitable.
In recent weeks, political leaders and other prominent members of the Jewish community have suggested that re-dividing Jerusalem is inevitable and that we modern Jews should begin adjusting to that reality. No suggestion could be a greater betrayal of Jewish history or a more wrongheaded notion of how to conduct diplomacy.
The central role Jerusalem has played in the historic and religious narrative of our people is

well known. Jerusalem is at the heart of Jewish religious identity. We pray each day toward Jerusalem and for her welfare, and we conclude our holiest days with the prayer that next year we will celebrate in Jerusalem.
Historically, King David made Jerusalem his capital 3,000 years ago and since then Jerusalem has been the national capital of the Jewish people; only brute force has kept us out. In 1948, when the Old City and eastern parts of Jerusalem fell under Jordanian rule, Jews were barred entry to the Old City, denied worship at the Western Wall and access to the ancient cemeteries on the Mount of Olives. Israel reunified the city in 1967 and opened the holy sites of all faiths to all people.
Despite these truths, there are those who believe that for the sake of restarting an Israeli-Arab peace process, we must consider re-dividing the city. After all, some say, it is necessary for a peace deal since the Palestinians demand a capital in East Jerusalem. Some say the city is already divided, with Arab neighborhoods where no Jew ever ventures. Others say the Arabs already have de facto control over the Temple Mount — for the sake of a deal, why not make it official and concede their sovereignty?
All of these arguments fly in the face of logic, facts and Jewish belief.
It is curiously difficult to determine what those who have suggested a re-division of Jerusalem believe themselves. Prime Minister Ehud Olmert recently stated flatly that the Temple Mount is not open for negotiation, and this publication’s editor also recently suggested that Israel is considering giving up control of Arab neighborhoods, but “not the Temple Mount.” Do they believe that the Palestinians will be satisfied with the Shuafat refugee camp as their “capital in East Jerusalem,” or do they believe that the Palestinians will adamantly insist upon retaining control of the holy mount? And if the latter, then what happened to their logic about conceding other parts of the holy city in order to reach a deal?
As to the already divided nature of the city — yes, there are neighborhoods, especially those east of the security barrier, where Jews seldom venture. But modern Jerusalem is far more an interwoven checkerboard of Jewish and Palestinian neighborhoods than starkly segregated enclaves. Beit Safafa lies between Talpiot and Gilo, Sheik Jarrah lies between the Old City and French Hill, and there are many Palestinian living in and around the ancient Jewish City of David in the valley between the Jewish Quarter and the Mount of Olives. It is no more feasible to extricate the Palestinian and Jewish neighborhoods of Jerusalem from one another than to ethnically divide the neighborhoods of Manhattan.
Yes, in the wake of the Six-Day War, Israel turned the daily administration of the Temple Mount over to the Muslim Waqf. This was a generous gesture indeed, and it may even be an arrangement that will continue under a final settlement agreement that ends the conflict. But that is a far different matter than ceding the sovereignty for which Jews have prayed, toiled and bled for generations. To willingly do so, even for a much-longed-for peace, is to relinquish the narrative of our nation to a degree our ancestors could not comprehend.
Other arguments have been advanced against the pro-Jerusalem advocacy effort mounted by the Orthodox Union and its allies. We in the diaspora are told that we must either conform our views on this matter to those who live in Israel or, more fundamentally, that we do not have a say in the first place.
It’s far from obvious that Israelis favor concessions on Jerusalem. A few weeks ago, the Israel-based Maagar Mohot Research Institute released a survey showing an overwhelming majority (78 percent) of Israelis opposes making a commitment now to turn sovereignty on the Temple Mount over to the Palestinians. A large majority (69 percent) also opposes Israel making a commitment now to turn part of Jerusalem over to the Palestinians.
Moreover, with regard to Jerusalem — the cradle and heart of the entire Jewish people — diaspora Jews do not dictate Israeli policy, but it is our “obligation” — Prime Minister Olmert’s own word — and our right to speak up. After all, we are family.
Our goal is and must remain a shared one — to be faithful to the prayers and sacrifices of our ancestors who longed for, prayed for and fought for Jerusalem — the eternal capital of the Jewish people. n
Nathan Diament is director of public policy of the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America.