Sergey Kadinsky
Written Works
Dividing Jerusalem Is No Solution
This op-ed piece was published in the
Jewish Press on June 6, 2007.
It appeared on the fourth page, during the week commemorating the fortieth
anniversary since the Six Day War between Israel and its neighbors, during
which the city of Jerusalem was reunited and annexed by Israel.
It was shocking to see the writer
Hillel Halkin marking the 40th anniversary of the reunification of
Jerusalem by calling for its division. In a May 15 op-ed in the New
York Sun (“Mounting Figures”),
Halkin wrote about the concern of Israeli political leaders with demographics.
As a solution, he extended their call for territorial concessions even beyond
Judea and Samaria, applying it to the capital city of Israel.
Halkin noted that local Arabs are
drawn to Jerusalem because of its status as a hub of economic activity. This
is largely a result of construction-related jobs created by the building of
new Jewish neighborhoods. At the same time, Halkin claimed that many young
Jews have left the city due to a lack of economic expansion.
Among the neighborhoods included
in the post-1967 municipal borders were 28 Arab villages. Seeing no value in
these neighborhoods, Halkin proposes surrendering them to a future Palestinian
state. Not only does this proposal mean giving up strategic hilltops, valleys,
holy sites and transportation corridors, it would set a terrible precedent for
Israel.
Because these neighborhoods are
located within Israel proper, it could inspire concessions on other largely
Arab-populated areas, such as Nazareth, Umm El-Fahm, Abu Ghosh, and Sakhnin,
all in the name of maintaining a Jewish majority in Israel. Dividing Jerusalem
along ethnic lines could also inspire division of other ethnically mixed
cities in the country such as Akko, Jaffa, and Lod.
In his call for concessions,
Halkin failed to address the true problem: illegal immigration. Many of those
aforementioned Arab construction workers living in Jerusalem came illegally
and ended up staying. If their neighborhoods were severed from Israel proper,
they would simply cross the line, following their jobs. They would also be
attracted to the relative peace and freedom of Israeli society, in contrast to
the strict theocracy of Hamas.
The obvious solution is to enforce
the law by cracking down on illegal labor and restricting construction jobs to
Israeli citizens.
Then there’s the matter of land
ownership, the best example being the unused Jerusalem Airport in Atarot. Not
only has illegal construction there caused the airport to close for security
reasons, it also compromised the mission of the Jewish National Fund, which
purchased 720 acres in Kalandia and Kfar Akev almost a century ago for the
purpose of promoting Jewish settlement.
Instead of confronting the illegal
construction, the government has turned a blind eye to it by building a
security barrier to separate these neighborhoods from the rest of Jerusalem.
As a result, Jerusalem is a national capital without its own airport. Israeli
leaders demand that the world recognize its capital city, but are unwilling to
act as true owners of the city’s land.
Dividing Jerusalem into two
ethnically homogenous cities would not be easy, which is why attempts by Jews
to settle in non-Jewish neighborhoods are met with stiff resistance by the
government. And a truncated city would force the Jewish community to look
westward, ultimately destroying the picturesque forests planted in the earlier
years of the Jewish state. Land within the city will become even more scarce
and expensive, restricting the city to the poorest and wealthiest members of
the community.
Affordable housing should be
included in any attempted resolution of Jerusalem’s demographic problem.
Throughout the city, half-empty luxury developments provide a false vision of
prosperity – many of their owners do not live in Israel full-time. In other
neighborhoods, several generations of the same families live in the same home,
unable to afford a place of their own.
Halkin concluded his op-ed with a
bold call on Israel to relinquish the Temple Mount, claiming its retention is
an imperative “felt more strongly by religious Muslims than by religious
Jews.” A few lines later, Halkin suddenly turned Orthodox by recalling the
rabbinic prohibition of treading on the Holy of Holies. Halkin conveniently
ignored the ongoing Islamic desecration of the site, which includes mosque
expansion on archeologically sensitive areas.
The most effective and lasting
solution to the demographic problem is not capitulation or retreat but rather
enforcement of the law. The status of Jerusalem should never be negotiated. It
is more than a national capital; it is the holiest city for Jews, reunited
through a six-day miracle in 1967. May it always be remembered.