TNR BLOGS

December 01, 2008 | 2:02 PM
December 01, 2008 | 1:00 PM
December 01, 2008 | 12:42 PM

December 01, 2008 | 11:22 AM
December 01, 2008 | 11:10 AM
December 01, 2008 | 9:57 AM

July 26, 2008 | 2:24 PM
July 23, 2008 | 1:55 PM
July 17, 2008 | 3:56 PM

December 01, 2008 | 4:08 PM
December 01, 2008 | 1:36 PM
December 01, 2008 | 12:00 PM
COLUMNISTS
TODAY'S STORIES
23.07.2008
To the Mandlebaum Gate

It is now 43 years since Muriel Spark wrote The Mandelbaum Gate, a novel of love and intrigue suffused with politics. I wonder how many people can now locate the gate in situ. Actually, it is today a little museum commemorating the the squalid place where designated people crossed from one side of divided Jerusalem to the other, between Israel and Jordanian-occupied Palestine. Some people are reminded of the Mandelbaum gate whenever anyone speaks of dividing the city. But Mandelbaum is finished, and anything like Mandelbaum.

I thought of all this reading about yesterday's second terrorist attack by bulldozer and the third terrorist incident in Jerusalem in about four months. A report by Avi Issacharoff in Ha'aretz this morning LINK points out that that three perpetrators -- two by bulldozer and the other being the massacre of eight students at Yeshivat Mercaz Harav -- lived within a stone's throw of each other: one from Umm Touba, another from Sur Baher, and the yeshiva killer from Jabal Mukkaber. They are all villages, sections of Jerusalem and adjacent to the post-1967 Jewish neighborhood of Talpiot Mizrach, itself abutting the headquarters of the United Nations at the aptly named Hill of Evil Counsel.

Yesterday's terror happened in an area I know very well: just down the street from the King David Hotel and the YMCA and right close to the Liberty Bell Garden where Jewish and Arab youngsters mix routinely at play. The attack occurred just before the arrival of Barack Obama...yes, at the King David.

The first response came from the benighted but not quite ultra-orthodox mayor of Jerusalem, Uri Lupolianski. Arriving at the scene moments after the bloody incident, he commented to Israel's Channel 10 that, "We should consider the employment of these people." This is a toxic threat that might focus the minds of Jerusalem's Arabs. But even this soulblinded city administrator must realize that he can't exclude one designated group in the population from work -- unless, that is, he wanted to prove Jimmy Carter right.

The fact is that a "solution" to the problem of Jerusalem is far off, very far off, indeed. And the reason is that a solution to the problem of Palestine is also far off, not least because the Palestinians themselves have not come to the realization that their country -- when and if it ever becomes a real polity -- will be small and poor and disarmed. It is their intrinsic circumstance because they were deluged and deluded for many decades by the mirage of conquest over Israel. Once they understand and accept this they might be able to put their minds and bodies to the task of making a state. Otherwise, they will live far into the future in intoxicating and self-defeating prologue. Being the most contentious symbolic issue for both Israelis and Palestinians, Jerusalem will have to wait till the end of a long process that has barely begun.

But let's look into the future, tentatively and also by force of political pressure. Among many Israelis and also among Zionists -- which I count myself -- there are many who believe that Jerusalem will need some sorting out. Umm Touba, Sur Baher, Jabal Mukkaber and Abu Dis besides: let them and dozens of other jurisdictions belong to Palestine, when there is a Palestine. They are not of the Jewish nation but think themselves of the Palestinian nation. So be it. But they can't be Israelis and Palestinians at once.

The demographic argument for two independent states -- Israel and Palestine -- extends to the Jerusalem region, as well. That is why I favor the ultimate "restoration" to future Palestine of Umm al Fahm and other Arab towns abutting the West Bank. The rub is that their proto-Palestinian population might just want to remain Israelis.

The same situation obtains in Jerusalem. Yes, the Arabs of Jerusalem are mostly Palestinian nationalists -- some are actually Jordanian nationalists -- but they want the rights and the benefits that go with citizenship in Israel, without the citizenship and the responsibilities.

So, yes, Jerusalem is the united and eternal capital of Israel, whatever that means. But parts of Jerusalem will -- I hope, before the end of days -- be in Palestine. Inshallah. Baruch Ha'shem.

 

Posted: Wednesday, July 23, 2008 3:04 PM with 19 comment(s)

Comments

You must be logged-in to comment.

Not a subscriber? Click here to get a digital or print and digital subscription to The New Republic!

jacobt1 said:

I'm sure you would like the latest Obama  clarification  about his long held views about future of Jerusalem.

He doesn't  want  Jerusalem to be the united and eternal capital of Israel,

He doesn't want Jerusalem to be divided between Israel and a future Palestinian state with Israel be allowed  control it's border .

Instead he suggest a back door to a one state solution; no borders between Israel and a future Palestinian state in Jerusalem, with unrestricted access to Israel to anybody who enters Palestinian Jerusalem.

July 23, 2008 4:28 PM

ginzy said:

Marty, you don't mean "Baruch Hashem", you mean 'Im Yirtzeh Hashem which translates to Inshala or If Gd wills it.  Time to brush up on your Hebrew.

Another interesting (and some would argue, telling) tidbit from yesterday's bulldozer (actually, backhoe) attack:

The civilian who first shot the bulldozer terrorist and neutralized him (the MaGaVnik then finished him off) was 56 year old Yaki Asa-el, father of 9, grandfather of 10, an IDF reserve company commander, from Sussiya (a "settlement" (gasp!) in the far southern Hebron Hills area).  Asa-el is an agronomist who raises cherries and grapes but also teaches agronomy in the Kiryat Arba Yeshiva High School.  There, he taught "M", the off-duty soldier jumped on the backhoe during the first such terror attack 3 weeks ago and killed that terrorist.  "M" is the brother-in-law of the off duty army officer who stormed the terrorist in the Yeshivat Mercaz HaRav attack, killing him and thereby stopping the massacre.

Hershel Ginsburg

Efrata / Jerusalem

July 23, 2008 5:11 PM

rozenson said:

Jacob, Jacob, Jacob . . . I know a one state solution when I see it, and Barack Obama has not proposed this at all. Please, I beg you -- show me a shred of evidence to support your contention.

July 23, 2008 7:06 PM

jacobt1 said:

rozenson,

If you don't agree with my interpretation of his latest clarification, tell me how do you understand his position?

Asked by an Israeli reporter about the matter, Obama said, "I continued to say that Jerusalem will be the capital of Israel. And I have said that before and I will say it again. And I also have said that it is important that we don't simply slice the city in half. But I've also said that that's a final status issue."

"Two principles should apply to any outcome," which the adviser gave as: "Jerusalem remains Israel's capital and it's not going to be divided by barbed wire and checkpoints as it was in 1948-1967."

Can you explain me if Israel will be allowed to control it's border according to Obama's proposed outcome?

July 23, 2008 7:36 PM

rozenson said:

Under Obama's vision, Jerusalem

1. Will not be controlled 100% by Israel

2. Will not be divided the way it was before the Six Day War

How do you arrive at the conclusion that the only alternative to those options is a binational state? You gave Obama's answer to the problem in the quote you provided: "I've also said that that's a final status issue." In other words, the final borders of Jerusalem/Al Quds will be subject to negotiations between the PA and Israel.

July 23, 2008 8:06 PM

jacobt1 said:

If the final borders of Jerusalem/Al Quds will be subject to negotiations between the PA and Israel why is Obama blabbing anything if he has nothing to say?

My logic is the following:

Under Obama's vision, Jerusalem, will not be controlled 100% by Israel and Israel will not be allowed to have checkpoints on it's border in Jerusalem.

If Israel is  not allowed to control 100 % of it's border with the future Palestinian state the eventual result will be one state solution.

July 23, 2008 8:45 PM

AlanSP said:

"My logic is the following:

Under Obama's vision, Jerusalem, will not be controlled 100% by Israel and Israel will not be allowed to have checkpoints on it's border in Jerusalem.

If Israel is  not allowed to control 100 % of it's border with the future Palestinian state the eventual result will be one state solution."

This is stunningly poor logic.  The vast majority of national borders are not characterized by barbed wire and check points, yet the nations sharing these borders do not just become a single state.  We do not, for instance, control 100% of our border with Canada or with Mexico, yet we are clearly a distinct country from our neighbors

July 23, 2008 9:28 PM

jacobt1 said:

AlanSP said:

"We do not, for instance, control 100% of our border with Canada or with Mexico, yet we are clearly a distinct country from our neighbors"

We  are trying  to. We are allowed to control our borders. We do have checkpoints and barbed wire  in border urban areas. .

Obama voted for a fence to go up at the border with Mexico. Why does he opose the right of Israel to control it's border?

July 23, 2008 10:01 PM

AlanSP said:

"We  are trying  to. We are allowed to control our borders. We do have checkpoints and barbed wire  in border urban areas. .

Obama voted for a fence to go up at the border with Mexico. Why does he opose the right of Israel to control it's border? "

Huh? Honestly, point to one statement from Obama (Obama as in the guy running for President) in which he said he opposes the right of Israel to control its border.  Saying that having barbed wire running through the city would be a bad thing is not tantamount to saying that Israel doesn't have the right to control its borders.  As an analogy, many people in the U.S. oppose building a fence along the Mexican border, yet virtually all of these people recognize that the U.S. has a right to do this.

Also, the point was that your original argument, that less than complete border control inevitably leads to a single state, is demonstrably false based on numerous real world examples.

July 23, 2008 10:46 PM

rozenson said:

"Why does he opose the right of Israel to control it's border?"

Who said he does?

July 23, 2008 10:48 PM

jacobt1 said:

rozenson said

"Who said he does?"

Obama said this:

"Jerusalem remains Israel's capital and it's not going to be divided by barbed wire and checkpoints as it was in 1948-1967"

It's exactly how many urban centers are divided between US and Mexico.

So, Obama is for  barbed wire and checkpoints  on the US-Mexican border but against

barbed wire and checkpoints   on Israel-Palestinian border.

Why?

July 23, 2008 11:20 PM

jacobt1 said:

AlanSP said,

"As an analogy, many people in the U.S. oppose building a fence along the Mexican border, yet virtually all of these people recognize that the U.S. has a right to do this."

OK. I stand corrected. Obama recognizes that the Israel . has a right to control its borders but he opposes  the fence, while he voted for the fence on US-Mexican border. Why?

July 23, 2008 11:39 PM

rozenson said:

Jacob, any final-status deal on Jerusalem is going to be very complicated and possibly messy beyond all hell. If you saw the maps of the proposals Ehud Barak gave to Arafat in 2000, it was a very patchwork system of neighborhoods, some of which were under Israeli control, some under Israeli "sovereignty", some under Palestinian control, etc. You can't build border fences through a city like that. Even a simpler plan would present logistical difficulties to having a Berlin wall of sorts running through the city.

(I am not comparing the West Bank barrier to the Berlin Wall, full disclosure.)

July 24, 2008 12:49 AM

jacobt1 said:

"You can't build border fences through a city like that"

Yes you must. Israel can't have unlimited illegal immigration and survive as a Jewish state.

July 24, 2008 1:19 AM

rozenson said:

"Israel can't have unlimited illegal immigration and survive as a Jewish state."

Illegal immigration from the territories presents no problem to Israel's identity as a Jewish state in the sense that illegals can't vote for Arab parties in the Knesset. Nor will they have access to IDF infrastructure which might be turned on Israeli Jews. The mere presence of Arab illegals in Israel is not a threat.

If you are worried about more incidents like the one we saw earlier this week, of Jerusalem Arabs committing terrorist acts, then this is an issue that will not be created by the founding of a Palestinian state; it is an existing problem. By ceding some of the Arab areas of Jerusalem to the Palestinians, however, this problem is mitigated. Any proposals to prevent Jerusalem Arabs from presenting threats to Israeli Jews are being considered independent of Jerusalem's future plans.

July 24, 2008 1:58 AM

jacobt1 said:

"By ceding some of the Arab areas of Jerusalem to the Palestinians, however, this problem is mitigated"

Not at all if Obama proposals prevail. Without checkpoints and barbed wire  on its borders, Israel would not be able to prevent terrorist attacks.

July 24, 2008 2:23 AM

ginzy said:

Folks, do not delude yourselves, if and when some sort of agreement is reached between Israel and the Pals, it will be long long time, if at all, that relations between Israel and the Palestinians will even approach that between the USA & Mexico, let alone the USA & Canada.  Israel's relationship with Egypt will be viewed as very warm by comparison.  So a barrier with border patrols will be a sine qua non for any sort of agreement, and that is optimistic (for those who still think that an "International Force" will magically keep the peace and prevent attacks on Israel, please see UNIFIL).

To understand the futility of expecting any sort of agreement to normalize relations between Israel and the Palestinians, please go visit the web site of the indispensable Palestinian Media Watch (http://www.pmw.org.il/) to read how the "Official" and "moderate" P.A. media, to say nothing of their textbooks, portray Israel, Jews, etc. etc.  And then there are the Hamas media outlets.  This is what is being inculcated into the Palestinians on a daily basis from day 1.

This is the core of Israel's conundrum:  From a standpoint of demographics, it's in Israel's interest to part company from the Palestinians.  From the standpoint of security, parting company from the Palestinians is suicidal.  Most Israelis recognize (to varying degrees) the truth of both of these statements and hence the dilemma.  And I haven't even touched on the historic / national / legal ties to the disputed territories,

The only ones who think that "peace" is possible are the remnants of the delusional Israeli left and their Amen corner in the USA, especially among "progressive" Jews.  Unfortunately Obama has surrounded himself with the stars of this group (Danny Kurtzer, Dennis Ross, Martin Indyk,  the J Street Jesters, etc.) and as a consequence, Obama's views on Israel & the Palestinians is entirely shaped by their delusions.

Hershel Ginsburg

Jerusalem / Efrata

July 24, 2008 2:29 AM

slhubert said:

I comment on your 4th paragraph above, and quoted here for convenience:

"The first response came from the benighted but not quite ultra-orthodox mayor of Jerusalem, Uri Lupolianski. Arriving at the scene moments after the bloody incident, he commented to Israel's Channel 10 that, "We should consider the employment of these people." This is a toxic threat that might focus the minds of Jerusalem's Arabs. But even this soulblinded city administrator must realize that he can't exclude one designated group in the population from work -- unless, that is, he wanted to prove Jimmy Carter right."

Mayor Lupolianski has it right in that he wants to save Jewish lives in the near and far future.  It is that simple.  The issue is not whether we focus the minds of the Jerusalem Arabs on that "threat". The issue is whether we have sufficiently allowed the Jerusalem Arab threat to focus our minds. I am not sure what "soulblinded" means in this context, however, I do think Mayor Lupolianski's soul is quite awake to the needs of his fellow Jewish Israeli citizens.

Do the Jews really have to care what Jimmy Carter thinks or what people think of Jimmy Carter?  Really. In the final analysis, Jimmy Carter can never be proven "right" because he begins with presumptions categorically opposed to a healthy Jewish political future in that territory also known as the Land of Israel.  

If it has become too dangerous to employ these people, a Jewish employer has every right, and likely the moral obligation, to hire others.  

July 24, 2008 10:20 AM

rozenson said:

Mr. Ginsburg -- you're not seriously equating Dennis Ross and Martin Indyk with J Street, are you? How can you look at people who seek peace and try to facilitate it and call them delusional? Dennis Ross is not oblivious to the threats that seek to undermine Israel's existence; his approaches to problem-solving take them into account. Ross will tell you now, as Obama would, that EXPECTING peace and trying to facilitate it are two different things. Expectations are very low that a peace deal will be reached soon, but that doesn't mean Israel should invest everything it reasonably can in trying to achieve one.

July 24, 2008 3:28 PM

Double click this space to insert your ad.