For forty years, longer than I have been alive (yes, still shy of the 40 mark, but closing in on it!), Jerusalem has been the blessing and the curse of the Jewish people. My God, you say, how could I,of all people, say Jerusalem is at all a curse for the Jewish people!Well, sometimes even the best things have their dark side. And perhaps 40 years ago we were given a test by the cosmic forces of this world, a test that I believe we have failed.
First, a step back. In 1948 the modern state of Israel declared independence, with borders that were more or less recognized around the world (outside of the then "head in the sand" Arab nation-states). Even then, however, Jerusalem was an unsettled issue. Many argued for it to be under international rule, a UN protectorate, if you will. Both the new Israeli state and Jordan (who, when the dust settled in 1948 controlled roughly half of Jerusalem, including the old city) were not interested, and for 19 years each ruled over "their half" of Jerusalem.
In 1967, as you know, Israel took control of all of Jerusalem, and immediately annexed the "Jordanian half" to Israel. No other country, including the United States, recognized that annexation...to this day almost all diplomatic delegations to Israel are based in Tel Aviv area, probably the only UN member state with almost no embassies in its capital!
As I said, there is a blessing and a curse to Jerusalem. The blessings are too many to list...but come visit us for a sabbath dinner, breath the air of Jerusalem, and you will get a hint of what I am talking about.
The curse...well, the name of Jerusalem has been used for so much violence over the past 40 years, also too much to list. Chances for peace rise and fall over the fate of Jerusalem. And all too often have fallen.
For Israel, a "unified" Jerusalem has been much more important as symbol than as a real place...just look around at neighborhoods in East Jerusalem, which Israel has controlled for over 40 years, and one realizes it is unity in slogans only. From garbage collection to schools, from [lack of ] police presence to crumbling infrastructure, from [lack of] parks to [lack of] sewage system. East Jerusalem (outide of the Jewish quarter of the Old City) is NOT part of modern West Jerusalem, or the thriving State of Israel.
Unfortunately, for forty years we have lived by slogans alone, with little connection to reality. This was especially true for the Diaspora Jewish community, who have rallied around the cause of a unified Jerusalem, with little first hand knowledge of facts on the ground.
It takes a lot courage to break with 40 years of slogans--and to call a curse for what it is. Last week, a friend from long ago, Rabbi Yosef Kanefsky (spiritual leader of Bnai David Judea in Los Angeles), broke the dam of dishonesty concerning Jerusalem. In his now famous article, first printed in the LA Jewish Journal (see here), the false unity of Jerusalem was exposed just a bit. From Jerusalem I applaud Rabbi Kanefsky for speaking truth in the world. I urge you to read his thoughts, which I have pasted below. React to them, agree with them, argue with him--but do not ignore his call to be honest about the reality of Jerusalem, and the necessity of putting aside slogans.
|
2007-10-26
|
|
An Orthodox rabbi's plea: consider a divided Jerusalem
|
|
|
By Rabbi Yosef Kanefsky
|
|
|
|
|
The question of whether we could bear a redivision of Jerusalem is a
searing and painful one. The Orthodox Union, National Council of Young
Israel and a variety of other organizations, including Christian
Evangelical ones, are calling upon their constituencies to join them in
urging the Israeli government to refrain from any negotiation
concerning the status of Jerusalem at all, when and if the Annapolis
conference occurs. And last week, as I read one e-mail dispatch after
another from these organizations, I became more and more convinced that
I could not join their call.
It's not that I would want to see Jerusalem divided. It's rather that
the time has come for honesty. Their call to handcuff the government of
Israel in this way, their call to deprive it of this negotiating
option, reveals that these organizations are not being honest about the
situation that we are in, and how it came about. And I cannot support
them in this.
These are extremely difficult thoughts for me to share, both because
they concern an issue that is emotionally charged, and because people
whose friendship I treasure will disagree strongly with me. And also
because I am breaking a taboo within my community, the Orthodox Zionist
community. "Jerusalem: Israel's Eternally Undivided Capital" is a
40-year old slogan that my community treats with biblical reverence. It
is an article of faith, a corollary of the belief in the coming of the
Messiah. It is not questioned. But this final reason why it is
difficult for me to share these thoughts is also the very reason that I
have decided to do so. This is a conversation that desperately needs to
begin.
No peace conference between Israel and the Palestinians will ever
produce anything positive until both sides have decided to read the
story of the last 40 years honestly. On our side, this means being
honest about the story of how Israel came to settle civilians in the
territories it conquered in 1967, and about the outcomes that this
story has generated.
An honest reading of this story reveals that there were voices in the
inner circle of the Israeli government in 1967-1968 who warned that
settling civilians in conquered territories was probably illegal under
international law. But for very understandable reasons --
among them security needs, Zionist ideologies of both the both secular
and religious varieties, memories that were 20 years old, and memories
that were 3,000 years old -- these voices were overruled.
We can identify with many of the ideas that carried the settlement
project forward. But the fact remains that it is simply not honest on
our part to pretend that the government of Israel didn't know that
there was likely a legal problem, or that the government was confident
that international conventions did not apply to this situation. That
just wouldn't be an honest telling.
An honest reading of the story reveals that the heroes of Israel's wars
who became the ministers in its government, who were most responsible
for the initial decision to settle, were quite aware that by doing so
they were risking conflict with the Arab population that was living
there. They were aware that these Arabs would never be invited to
become citizens of Israel, and would never have the rights of citizens.
Nonetheless, they decided to go forward. Some believed that the
economic benefit that would accrue to these Arabs as a result of their
interactions with Israelis and Israel would be so great that they
wouldn't mind our military and civilian presence among them. Others
projected that some sort of diplomatic arrangement would soon be
reached with Jordan that would soften the face of what would otherwise
be full-blown military occupation. These may have been reasonable
projections at the time. But as it turned out, both of them were wrong.
And it's not honest to tell the story without acknowledging that we
made these mistakes.
The Religious Zionist leadership (similar to today's Evangelical
supporters of Israel) made a different judgment, namely that settling
the Biblical heartland would further hasten the unfolding of the
messianic age. Thus, the Arab population already there was not our
problem. God would deal with it. This belief too -- reasonable though it may have seemed at the time -- has also turned out to be wrong. To tell the story honestly, this mistake too must be acknowledged.
And the difference that honest storytelling makes is enormous. When we
tell our story honestly, our position at the negotiating table is one
that is informed not only by our own needs and desires, but also by our
obligations and responsibilities. The latter include the responsibility
to -- in some way, in some measure --
fix that which we have done. Also included is the need to recognize
that we have some kind of obligation toward the people who have been
harmed by our decisions. Honesty in our telling of the story reveals
the stark and candid reality that we also need to speak the language of
compromise and conciliation. Not only the language of entitlement and
demands.
To be sure, I would be horrified and sick if the worst-case
division-of-Jerusalem scenario were to materialize. The possibility
that the Kotel, the Jewish Quarter or the Temple Mount would return to
their former states of Arab sovereignty is unfathomable to me, and I
suspect to nearly everyone inside the Israeli government. At the same
time though, to insist that the government not talk about Jerusalem at
all (including the possibility, for example, of Palestinian sovereignty
over Arab neighborhoods) is to insist that Israel come to the
negotiating table telling a dishonest story --
a story in which our side has made no mistakes and no miscalculations,
a story in which there is no moral ambiguity in the way we have chosen
to rule the people we conquered, a story in which we don't owe anything
to anyone. Cries of protest, in particular from organizations that
oppose Israel's relinquishing anything at all between the Mediterranean
and the Jordan, and which have never offered any alternative solutions
to the ones they are protesting against, are rooted in the refusal to
read history honestly. And I -- for one -- cannot lend my support to that.
Without a doubt, the Palestinians aren't telling an honest story
either. They are not being honest about their record of violence
against Jews in the pre-State era, or about the obscene immorality with
which they attacked Israeli civilians during the second intifada. They
are not being honest about the ways in which their fellow Arabs are
responsible for so much of the misery that they -- the Palestinians --
have endured, and they certainly are not being honest about the deep
and real historical connection that the Jewish people has to this land
and to this holy city. And there will not be peace (and perhaps there
should be no peace conference) until they tell an honest story as well.
But for us to take the approach that in order to defend and protect
ourselves from their dishonest story, we must continue telling our own
dishonest story, is to travel a road of unending and unendable
conflict. Peace will come only when and if everyone at the table has
the courage, the strength, and enough fear of God to tell the story as
it really is.
For many decades we have sighed and asked, "When will peace come?" The
answer is starkly simple. There will be peace the day after there is
truth.
Yosef Kanfesky is rabbi of B'nai David Judea in Los Angeles. |
