Posted on 12/14/2017 4:36:51 PM PST by SJackson
President Trump’s recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel last week was met with a predictably mixed response. There was celebration across the political spectrum in Israel, protests among Palestinians and the rest of the Middle East and reactions ranging from concern to opposition throughout much of the rest of the world.
But far too much significance is being given to the president’s announcement. Jerusalem has been Israel’s capital since before 1967 and all three branches of the Israeli government sit there. And, while Israelis should be happy that they are no longer treated differently than the rest of the world in that their chosen capital city is now recognized by the United States, the Arab world should rest assured that the President never recognized Jerusalem as Israel’s undivided capital. Instead, he was merely acknowledging the facts on the ground.
The President pointed out that the final status of the city should be for the parties to work out, which has many wondering, what is Israel’s ultimate plan for the city?
Most Israeli Jews (and many American Jews for that matter) cannot bear the thought of dividing the city ever again. Indeed, the opposition to dividing Jerusalem is not unique to the Israeli Right. The leaders of Israel’s Centrist parties, Yair Lapid and Moshe Kahlon, have both voiced opposition to the division of Jerusalem and even Avi Gabbay, chairman of the left-wing Labor Party, recently said Jerusalem should remain united under Israel’s sovereignty.
For those opposed to any territorial concessions to the Palestinians, like those on the more extreme Right, it is understandable that dividing Jerusalem would be an emotional issue; it is consistent with their ideology. But many in the mainstream, the moderate Right, and pretty much everyone to their left have accepted the basic premise of land for peace. Indeed, even Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has accepted the concept of a two state solution, at least in theory.
So, it’s strange that despite the willingness to part with the ideal of Greater Israel, almost everyone is adamant that Jerusalem must remain united for some reason. Forget for a moment that such a position will likely never lead to a bilateral peace agreement with the Palestinians. Why is there an added attachment to the majority of Arab East Jerusalem?
The opposition to parting with the portions of Jerusalem which have significance to the Jewish people beyond being part of Greater Israel, such as the Temple Mount and the Mount of Olives, is understandable. But geographically, Jerusalem is a lot more than that. How many of those vehemently opposed to the division of Jerusalem have ever heard of Wadi al-Joz, Jabel Mukaber, Sheikh Jarrakh or Umm Tuba, much less have been there? If the Right is okay with the division of the Land, as it has indeed stated, why should the Arab neighborhoods in East Jerusalem not be included in this division? There is no reason for the vast majority of the Arab neighborhoods in East Jerusalem to have any more significance to Jews than Ramallah or Tulkarem merely because in 1967 someone arbitrarily decided these neighborhoods are part of Jerusalem.
As for the parts of East Jerusalem which have added significance for Jews such as the Temple Mount, the Israelis should absolutely remain steadfast in their connection to the site, and the Palestinians must acknowledge its religious and historical significance to the Jewish People. This obviously presents a significant hurdle in any potential negotiation, but if Israel is willing to concede the vast majority of the Arab neighborhoods in East Jerusalem, the chances of finding common ground or a creative solution for such areas are likelier.
Furthermore, the Arabs living in Jerusalem overwhelmingly identify as Palestinian. Despite having the ability to obtain Israeli citizenship, almost all of them have declined it. Why hold on to these neighborhoods against the will of their inhabitants?
It is also in Israel’s best interest to separate from them. Retaining these neighborhoods does not enhance the Jewish nature of the city and certainly does not contribute to its financial stability. While there have been recent efforts in the Knesset to enlarge Jerusalem’s municipal borders to enhance the Jewish character of the city, doing so merely increases the percentage of Jews in the city and does not help Israel deal with the significant financial and security burden of holding onto the entire eastern portion of the city, nor does it provide any satisfaction for its Palestinian residents.
If, as the majority of Israelis and Palestinians believe, it is best for Israel to separate itself from the Palestinians (preferably through a comprehensive bilateral treaty accepted by all Palestinians), it is best for Israel to re-divide Jerusalem.
Recently, however, there have been cracks in the resistance to dividing Jerusalem on the Right. Yisrael Beiteinu party leader Avigdor Liberman has long expressed support for a plan to redraw the borders of both Israel and the West Bank along ethnic lines.
Likewise, according to a recent report in Al-Monitor, earlier this year Netanyahu tasked Likud Knesset Member Anat Berko (a right-wing stalwart) with drawing up a proposal for dividing Jerusalem. Her plan would place over 90% of the city’s Palestinian residents in a separate municipality which would be transferred over to the Palestinian Authority. This is certainly a good start, but her plan to divide the city created an uproar of opposition among Likud members.
While it will be difficult for the party which made a “united Jerusalem forever” a centerpiece of its policy for so many years to radically change, doing so will benefit all the residents of Jerusalem and the country as a whole.
Of course, as with any plan, Israel’s security interests must be paramount in its planning and implementation and, obviously, there is much more that needs to be done, particularly on the Palestinian side if peace is ever to be achieved.
But agreeing to divide Jerusalem will help Israel maintain the Jewish character of the city, satisfy Jerusalem’s Palestinian residents and pave the way for the Palestinians to have a capital city in East Jerusalem should they ever find a way to ensure Israel’s security needs, unite all their factions and actually agree to sign a deal.
Delusional.
Don’t listen to this man. Dividing Jerusalem will merely whet the Islamic appetite for conquest. Any Jewish presence in Jerusalem goes against the Koran.
How can you give half of something to some group that never owned it in the first place?
If you'd like to be on or off, please FR mail me.
..................
A plan is being explored as we speak, at the direction of Bibi, to unilaterly turn over control of the Arab portions of Jerusalem to the palestinian authority. Israel sheds Jerusalem's Arab population, no longer has to support them, and the palestinians have their part of Jerusalem. For a capital or whatever. Needless to say it's not what they want. But perhaps not a bad idea. And no, our President did not recognize particular borders when recognizing Jerusalem as Israel's capital. Like the Russians did eight months ago when they recognized "West" Jerusalem as Israel's capital.
The Forward is a leftwing rag.
Is it surprising the same ideology has produced individuals who, with a straight face, object to acknowledging the reality that when the persons, offices and functions of a government are located in a certain city, then that city must be its capital city?
I recently watched a few videos (Christian) that indicate a verse in the (Hebrew & Christian) bible declares God will punish those who divide Israel.
Rather than post a video, I quickly searched up a link that illustrates this point. Here’s a quote and I’ll put the link below:
“The Bible is crystal clear: the Lord Almighty will judge all nations who divide the Land of Israel.
In Joel 3:2, the Lord says: “I will gather all the nations and bring them down to the valley of Jehoshaphat. Then I will enter into judgment with them there on behalf of My people and My inheritance, Israel, whom they have scattered among the nations; and they have divided up My land.” (3:2)”
So I’m surprised there aren’t more in Israel who feel strongly about this.
Hell, no! Where would we house the refugees of East Jerusalem, just for starters...
“Let” the Muslims go swimming in the sea first.
Jerusalem shall NEVER be divided.
The Palis never concede to such offers.
Correct. They want the whole enchilada.
Ok. So Jerusalem should be divided because Arab/Islamic world will riot, commit Jihad, and generally be pissy otherwise? Islamic countries around the world have undivided cities. But Israel can’t have one undivided city because Muslims, EUros, and other assorted lackeys think it’s a premise for peace. It’s not and will never be for obvious reasons (they want the Jews dead or out).
Jerusalem has been the capital of the Israelis since before David. I have no idea how people can dispute this.
Let’s recall that Islam started around 500 ad. That’s well over 1,500 to 2,000 years too late for the Arabs to claim they own Jerusalem.
As for any other claims, what gods have the Palestinians that they had in the days of Israel?
Jerusalem belongs to Israel.
The division of Berlin was such a success why not repeat it.
Israel should most definitely allow tons of arab muslims to live in Jerusalem. It only makes sense. Let them live there in peace.
In doing so, they should mimic the arab model for jews living peacefully in Riyadh, Damascus, Tripoli, Doha, Beirut, and on and on...
Right where they are, no refugees. My understanding is that the concept is to relocate the wall, leaving 400,000 or so Arabs on the other side. Mostly in East Jerusalem but a few other Arab communities. Israel would retain overall security responsibility, but everything else would be the PA’s responsibility. A unilateral separation. Personally I think it makes some sense. Israeli citizens obviously could relocate to Israel. Seems to me it would require dropping the offer of citizenship to East Jerusalem Arabs who haven’t requested it. Fifty years is enough time to make up ones mind. I believe MK Anat Berko is in charge of developing the plan. Which may go nowhere, but seems like it’s worth considering. Palaestinians aren’t going to agree to anything, so imo any action the next few decades has to be unilateral. The other option, annex it all and deal with a couple million new Arab citizens.
No, they won't. Which is why Israel can only act unilaterally.
Right where they are, no refugees. My understanding is that the concept is to relocate the wall, leaving 400,000 or so Arabs on the other side. Mostly in East Jerusalem but a few other Arab communities. Israel would retain overall security responsibility, but everything else would be the PA’s responsibility. A unilateral separation. Personally I think it makes some sense. Israeli citizens obviously could relocate to Israel. Seems to me it would require dropping the offer of citizenship to East Jerusalem Arabs who haven’t requested it. Fifty years is enough time to make up ones mind.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.