Printer Friendly

Email to A Friend

Thursday December 13, 2007

All Jews have a right to protect the Holy Land

by jeff ballabon

The justification for the modern State of Israel is Jewish history both glorious and grim, and there has long been a compact between the Jews in Israel and the diaspora.

Israeli Jews are on the front lines while the diaspora has been a vital source of economic and political strength. The Jews of Israel bear the lion’s share of the pain, but also reap the bulk of the benefits. There have been rifts — many times in Israel’s history when Jews of one stripe or another took issue with a government’s policies. And at times, vulnerable diaspora communities became frontline victims of terror or violence from Israel’s enemies.

But our bond withstood all because Israel’s leaders ensured it remained a Jewish state. And perhaps nothing embodied this commitment more than the dedication to preserving Israeli sovereignty over Jerusalem, the 3,000-year-old capital of the Jewish people reunified in 1967.

In recent months, however, there have been rumblings from Israeli government ministers about negotiations with the Palestinians on the potential redivision of Jerusalem. On the eve of the Annapolis conference, in response to objections from U.S. Jewish groups about this alarming trend, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert bluntly declared: “The government of Israel has a sovereign right to negotiate anything on behalf of Israel.”

In that he wasn’t wrong, but his formulation missed a corollary truth that no Israeli government has the unilateral or unfettered right to negotiate anything on behalf of the Jews when it comes to the eternal Jewish verities or heritage, such as our capital. As such, Olmert’s statements were not merely disappointing to Jewish sensibilities, they were dangerous to Jewish interests.

As Israeli prime minister of the moment, Olmert can try to negotiate anything he wants with Palestinians — including whether Jerusalem is a redivided war zone, and even whether Israel itself remains a Jewish state or is transformed into a “democratic state of all its citizens.” He just has no right to expect or demand that Jews acquiesce.

Nor do Jews in America — the country whose influence is most strongly felt in Israel and which also holds the largest and most powerful Jewish diaspora community — require Olmert’s permission to exercise our political clout in accordance with our best moral, religious and political assessments.

Jerusalem unites Jews across religious and ideological lines as well as across geographical ones. This is not a struggle of the diaspora Jewry versus Israeli Jewry; it is a struggle that unites Jewry.

Jerusalem’s mayor is opposed to dividing the city and is working with American Jews. A majority of the Knesset opposes negotiating Jerusalem, and they also are working with American Jews. Dozens of Israeli organizations are working with American Jews.

Contrary to those who characterize this as a right-wing religious coalition or an anti-peace bloc, the groups in the United States and in Israel range all along the religious and secular spectrum, and are fully committed to peace and security. They simply are mindful of the deadly consequences of previous “peace processes” and current realities, like the unending barrage of rockets from Palestinian-controlled Gaza Strip.

Jerusalem’s mayor reports that the talk of ceding control of parts of the city has already begun to stir unrest within the city’s Arab population.

In short, as Olmert has himself done many times and is doing even now, Israeli citizens and leaders are working together with the diaspora for that which affects us all.

It surely is awkward for Olmert to be on the other side of an issue that so

unites Jews, and to find such tepid support for his position, but it is important that he not let his frustration erode core principles on which Israel’s existence always hinges. We recall Olmert’s own adjuration that every Jew is obligated to speak out regarding Jerusalem’s fate because “Jerusalem is not only the city of those who live in Jerusalem. It’s not only the city of those who live in the state of Israel. It is the city of every Jewish person no matter where he lives.”

In uttering those words, Olmert ratified personally what every Israeli prime minister has declared and what Jews have believed since long before the modern state of Israel came into being.

By floating a division of Jerusalem, Olmert started down the path of severing the link between his government and the core principle that the land of Israel is by right the Jewish homeland. It should serve as a red flag to him that as an immediate consequence, he found himself undermining the relationship between Jews everywhere and the state of Israel.

Our right to work with our brethren in Israel for the preservation of our eternal and indivisible Jewish capital is one that no one, not even the prime minister of any party, can ever deny.

Jeff Ballabon, a political consultant, directs the Coordinating Council on Jerusalem, www.ccjer.org. This piece was written for JTA.

The Jerusalem divide: Two views

Did you find this article interesting? Subscribe to our FREE newsletter and you'll be notified each week when "J." goes online. We'll tell you about the most important stories of the week and give you a link to each one.

This page contains a BETA version of Amazon contextual links. They are marked by the dashed underline.  Your purchases support our site. At times they point to items which are not related to the actual link. Please alert us by email if you discover objectionable links.