Editorial (April 2, 2010)

Next year in all of Jerusalem?

WITH just hours to go until Jews worldwide settled down for their seders on Monday night, it seemed many were considering recasting the haggadah.

The villain of the piece this year, according to certain emails and blogs, was not so much Pharaoh as the American President. Perhaps fearful that it might actually be true, some joked that the phrase “Next year in Jerusalem” would be dropped from the now traditional White House seder; others, meanwhile, suggested that when we reached that line in the haggadah, the word “East” should be added to preface “Jerusalem”, as a snub to Barack Obama and a demonstration of solidarity with the Israeli government.

The status of Jerusalem — the question of sovereignty and division — has, of course, been one of the key issues at the heart of the dispute between the Israeli and the Palestinians for many years, with both groups claiming it as their capital.

But rather than allow it to present a stumbling block on the road to peace, or indeed simply on the road to negotiations, discussions regarding the holy city have been put on the backburner — something to talk about at a later date, when progress is at least being made in other areas.

That, though, has changed in recent weeks, prompted by the ill-timed announcement of construction in Ramat Shlomo and the unprecedented rebuke dealt out by the US Administration.

Jerusalem has now been thrust to the fore, and in the wake of this episode, in the eyes of the international community — if not the country’s own leaders — Israel is on the back foot. While we may often blame anti-Semitism or anti-Zionism for the Jewish State’s global standing, sadly, on this occasion, it seems Israel has placed itself in this position.

That is not to deny Israel’s claim to Jerusalem and its right to build there. Central to Judaism and Jewish identity for thousands of years — its significance encapsulated in liturgy, in prayer and in yearning — the public pronouncements of prime minister after prime minister regarding the city’s indivisibility resonate with us as a people.

And yet, as unpalatable and as unconscionable as giving up parts of our ancient and current capital may be, ultimately, it may prove inevitable. For all the facts on the ground created through construction and for all the tough talking, one can’t help but think that the price of peace will eventually include some form of demarcation between Israeli Jerusalem and Palestinian Jerusalem.

Where that line may be drawn and how hard it may be to swallow, time will tell. But as recent history has shown, successive Israeli governments are prepared to incur the wrath of substantial swathes of their own population by taking such drastic steps, in a bid to normalise relations with the state’s neighbours.

One thing can be said for sure: regardless of any shared capital arrangement that might eventually be agreed upon, it is extremely unlikely that any Israeli government would consent to the evacuation of Jewish neighbourhoods anywhere in Jerusalem.

The patchwork tapestry of Jewish and Arab neighbourhoods that exist in Jerusalem today will almost certainly be destined to remain so.

It may take the wisdom of Solomon to find a practicable solution, but somehow the sons of Isaac and Ishmael will have to find a way to live together in a way befitting of the city’s name and birthright as the “city of peace”.

In the meantime, certain individuals and factions within the country would be well advised to step aside from rabble-rousing rhetoric and provocative planning policies that may prejudice peace and diplomatic brinkmanship. True, the US President may sometimes be misguided or heavy-handed in his approach to the Middle East, and true, the rest of the world need not always kowtow to his every whim. But while Barack Obama may not be the best friend Israel has ever had, when you have so few to choose from, you’d do well to keep those you do have on side.