A Beggar in Jerusalem
While eyes are on Denver, Secretary Rice has slipped into Jerusalem for the seventh time since November, in an apparent effort to advance an Israeli-Palestinian peace. The goal is a so-called "shelf agreement," which would sketch out the broad lines of a comprehensive treaty (something diplomats and lawyers could presumably finish up).
Rice, writes Haaretz's Aluf Benn, "will have to pave the way between the contradictory viewpoints of her hosts in Jerusalem." It would be truer to say that she has to choose between her hosts' contradictory viewpoints about Jerusalem. For--make no mistake--Jerusalem is the problem, and no amount of patient mediation can advance what an arbitrator's power must. Other core issues, like refugees and territory, are not simple, but they are actually more or less dependent on a larger conundrum, which "Jerusalem" subsumes. Saying that the only problem left for the diplomats is Jerusalem is like saying that the only problem left for a divorcing couple is custody of the children.
The Palestinians view Arab Jerusalem--its history and charisma--as the organizing symbol (or, at least, the indispensable differentiator) of Palestinian nationalism. They see the ancient mosques, which sit on the Noble Sanctuary, as the focus of their religious piety; many educated Palestinians are secular, but most still look to the local mosque for consolation and pride. As important, Palestinians view the city as the economic hub of West Bank towns--Ramallah, Nablus, and Jenin to the north, and Bethlehem and Hebron to the south--which are really Jerusalem exurbs. Since Palestinians see future economic development as largely depending on tourism, the claim to Jerusalem is also pragmatic. Palestine without return of (read, return to) Jerusalem is unimaginable.
Most Israeli Jews living in and around Jerusalem see their city in almost precisely mirrored ways. About 65% of Jewish first-graders in Jerusalem are ultraOrthodox, and 20% are National Orthodox. They link organically to new Jewish suburbs, where 250,000 Jews live, and to the nearly 175,000 West Bank settlers, about half of whom are either National Orthodox or sympathetic to their rightist parties.
Most of these Israeli Jews see Jewish nationalism as threading back through ancient texts to the birthplace of Jewish law and rites (they see the mosques as a kind of tromp d'oeil for the ancient temple). Like the Arabs, they regard Jerusalem as the hub of a state-within-a-state--many now call it Judea--whose own West Bank towns--Ariel to the north, Kiryat Arba to the south--will wither quickly if the Israeli government stops throwing money at "settlements," and while the Arab city and its exurbs become the places to which 2-3 million Palestinian refugees return.
There is no compromise possible here. Either Palestine will rise, and Judea will be thwarted, or Judea will continue, and Palestine will be still-born. Orthodox Jewish Jerusalemites feel much like traditional Palestinian Arabs on the coastal plain in 1947, when they saw Zionist towns and villages rising around them and heard leaders preparing the ground for a couple of million or more Jewish refugees.
The difference between now and 1947 is the State of Israel, however. The vast majority of educated Israelis do live on the coastal plain, thanks to the Zionist pioneers, the heroics of the 1948 War, and to the Naqba, what Palestinians call the post-1948 period when hundreds of Arab towns were effaced. Most Israelis, however much they value solidarity, do not really share the aspirations of, well, Judeans. Most are secular. They see their nationalism in terms of a Hebrew revival, not the Orthodox religion. They work, increasingly, in businesses that have global reach, and cultural institutions that absorb Western values. Most of my friends in Tel-Aviv and Haifa find Jerusalem suffocating and don't much visit anymore; they have no desire to see their kids patrolling the settlements for the sake of countrymen they regard as fanatic.
And yet they certainly do not want to fight Judeans for the sake of Palestinians--certainly not without strong international backing, even pressure, to do so; not without the commitment of international forces and investment to help make the lines of division in Jerusalem permeable and the unemployed of Jerusalem hopeful. They know terrorism will continue whatever happens. They have to see peace as something that means an inspiring, over-arching gain worth fighting for, a way of joining the with the world--or of not being shunned by it--not some temporary respite they get by "giving up" territory or, worse, fighting other Jews to force them to give up territory. Arguably, they tried this in Gaza--anyway, they can't go it alone anymore.
So Rice can put away her copy of Getting To Yes, and take out her copy of The Prince. We need more Dr. Kissinger, less Dr. Phil. Of course, we can also wait until we have a new prime minister and a new president. But it won't be any different for them.














Bottom line, since the advent of Israel, Jerusalem is the Gordon Knot for peace in the Middle East with without Alexander ever to cutting through each religion's intransigences. Since fanatics will always bred fanatics, were there a caring god, all the temples, synagogues,churches and relics would be turned to ash and scattered in the wind.
August 25, 2008 5:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
I love it... the relics of religion as proof of atheism.
But both these states have the right to exist and they need to share Jerusalem. It's the only way.
August 25, 2008 6:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
@ Bushie
And the mosques? I can hardly believe their omission was an oversight.
August 25, 2008 7:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jerusalem?
Oh, from the Palestinian POV, there are other Israeli demands that could rival that issue:
"Israel asks US to adopt Olmert team's proposal for security arrangements in Israel-PLO agreement
Dr. Aaron Lerner Date: 17 August 2008
Ma'ariv correspondent Ben Caspit reports in today's edition that after two rounds of cabinet discussions, Israel presented to the United States a document detailing Israel's security requirements for a permanent agreement.PM Olmert has also discussed the document prepared by the IDF with US presidential candidates Obama and McCain.
Major features of the proposal:
1. Demilitarized Palestinian state not to have tanks, cannons, rockets or air force.
2. Security pacts prohibited between the Palestinian state and other nations.
3. Israeli warning stations on the mountain ridge.
4. IDF presence on the Jordan River.
5. Israeli control of airspace.
6. Israeli access to routes going deep into Judea and Samaria"
http://www.imra.org.il/story.php3?id=40348
What joke of a Palestinian "state" does the above resemble?
Fallujah?
But by all means, let's fret about Jerusalem, ignore the rest of the nonsense the Israelis propose and oh yes, be sure to blame the Palestinians for not accepting this Israeli horsepucky.
Dennis Ross and Steven Hadley can tell us all about the noble efforts of the Israelis and no doubt, some will actually believe them because details such as the above "demands" will be waved away.
But, from the Haaretz article, the Israelis prefer to keep things a secret:
"On one issue, all three agree: They reject the idea put forth by Rice, to publish a document of partial agreements detailing the positions of each side on different issues. In their view, such a document would only harm Israel and would serve as a basis for pressure in the future."
With the example of the positions as exposed by Ma'ariv's Ben Caspit, who could blame them? Even they, Olmert, Livni and Barak, realize that the reactions of the international community would be snorts of disbelief. It would be impossible to once again blame the Palestinians for their failure to accept Israel's "generosity".
I'm beginning to think that the "one staters" may be more realistic on the resolution of this conflict.
August 25, 2008 7:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Uri Avnery (http://www.counterpunch.org/avnery08252008.html) has a good argument for why the Palestinians should not accept this "shelf" agreement. Basically, if adopted, the Palestinians will have for all practical purposes given up 7% of the West Bank immediately, while the Israelis will have simply promised, at some poorly defined future date, to full fill its part.
August 25, 2008 8:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mr Avishai, you obviously have a better understanding of Israeli politics than I do, but it seems that you underestimate the political support the West Bank settlements.
Besides the settlers themselves, there are the new Russian immigrants and it appears that majorities of the career officers in the IDF and security agencies. Also those who say they support the two state solution is less than 60% and as you seem to allude do not really feel that strongly about the issue. The settlers, on the other hand, are fanatics. It does seem a dedicated 40% of the population will win out over an apathetic majority.
You do mention that strong outside pressure will be needed, but certainly that cannot be the US. For sure, the lobby is much to strong to allow that to happen.
August 25, 2008 9:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are absolutely right. My friends and I will not allow that to happen--THANK G-D! Barack Obama understands that. Why don't people around here understand that too?
August 25, 2008 10:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mister. please go settle in Ramallah and get the hell out of our country.
August 25, 2008 10:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lets put the First Graders in charge!
August 25, 2008 11:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
End partition and stop with the bullshit. Enough already with Jewish secessionism, Arab nationalism, and ethno-religious exceptionalism. An unholy-land for all. Divided you fall.
August 26, 2008 10:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh hell, the two state solution is dead and everyone knows it.
Look, here's the bottom line: Israel has all the power, the Palestinians have no power.
Israel's version of a two state solution is basically Israel and a Palestinian ghetto under its control. It's already got that. So the only reason to negotiate is to get even more rights, more power, more control over the ghetto. There's really not a lot more to win, so they're not heavily motivated to make concessions or negotiate.
For the Palestinians, what they're being offered is an apple covered in shit, and they're fairly suspicious that the real situation is that there is no apple, just more shit. They have no incentive to accept what is being offered. And they have no leverage to push a better deal.
End of the day, nothing happens. Rice, the utter incompetent that she is, isn't going to do more than wander around talking to people too polite to throw her out of their offices.
Eventually, it'll come down to a one state solution.
August 26, 2008 2:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
@ DbValdron
Nope. Eventually it comes down to a no state solution. One people gets it all, the other gets nothing.
That's been the situation right from the beginning, when Hertzl said so privately in his diary, and the Arabs said so not privately but repeatedly and beligerently right up to their loss in the '67 war.
Then they changed their tactics and began actively enlisting the support of the usual useless idiots...who were more than happy to provide it. That's the current situation.
August 26, 2008 3:47 PM | Reply | Permalink