Rabbi Yosef Kanefsky argues that Jerusalem should be re-divided if it would further the cause of peace between Israel and her neighbors. We admire the rabbi as a spiritual leader and a colleague, but on this point, his argument is not only wrong but dangerously na?ve.
First, when Jerusalem was last divided, from 1948 to 1967, the city was a living hell for its Jewish residents. Jews were forced from Jewish neighborhoods in the Old City and were banned from Jewish holy sites, which were vandalized and destroyed. Access to Christian sites was also restricted.
The rest of the city was subject to routine sniper fire, mortar fire and other attacks. Jerusalem was hardly at peace; it was, in fact, on the front lines of a war of attrition.
There may be competing Jewish and Arab historical claims to Jerusalem, but on one point, there is no disagreement: Jerusalem has never been more prosperous, more welcoming to pilgrims of all religions and more free than it is today as a unified city under Israeli control. That is why so many Israeli Arabs choose to live there, rather than in Palestinian-controlled areas elsewhere.
Second, all available evidence suggests that Palestinian control over even a handful of Arab neighborhoods will result in those neighborhoods falling into economic and social anarchy, as was the case in Gaza after Israel's voluntary pullout, and will become a staging ground for terror attacks on the rest of the city. In the aftermath of Gaza, in which Israel faces continued terror and newly violent rocket attacks, anyone supporting shared sovereignty of any kind in Jerusalem is ignoring the facts.
Third, this is not a matter solely for the Israeli government to decide. Jerusalem is the physical heart of Judaism, we pray in its direction every day, we send our children there to study and we return there throughout our lives for spiritual sustenance.
Even if the Israeli government were to consider a re-division of the city, we would oppose such a move. And we would hardly be alone: Jews and Christians of every religious denomination and political stripe oppose such a re-division. So does the U.S. Congress.
Fourth, on the issue of "honesty" on Jerusalem's history: No one denies that Israel's annexation of East Jerusalem has been legally questioned from day one. There have always been two distinct ways, the Arab way and the Israeli way, to interpret a whole litany of historical events and documents.
To date, Israel and much of the international community have deemed the annexation legal. To suggest that Israel should sacrifice its security and real lives because of dubious questions of "honesty" is at best false piety.
Finally, Rabbi Kanefsky believes that "there will be peace the day after there is truth." We disagree. There will be peace the day after everyone wants peace.
Only when both sides are truly committed to living peacefully, instead of destroying the "enemy," will there be peace. We look forward to such a day and are eager to be a part of that peace.
