Facing the Future

Over the last decades, since the reunification of the city in 1967, Jerusalem has known many ups and down, largely reflecting the overall political situation, but whatever the overall situation, as a city it has changed immensely.

In many ways, it is totally different from the small, fairly sleepy city with a decidedly provincial lifestyle that was the Jerusalem of 1967.  Jerusalem is very clearly a modern city, with all the amenities that a big city is meant to have.  Largely due to the work of Teddy Kollek, Jerusalem has expanded to the extent where it can more than compete culturally with similar size cities the world over.  Theaters, concert halls and the like abound in the city.  Discotheques and centers of youth culture similarly have sprung up in various neighborhoods.  Restaurants, cafes and bars proliferate, and Jerusalem has a fair share of the outdoors cafe life that used to be the monopoly of Tel Aviv.  Consumer life has been revolutionized by the addition of new shopping malls.

Jerusalem has also grown physically.  The population has increased by hundreds of per cent since 1967.  On the Jewish side of the city, new neighborhoods boast tens of thousands of residents, where thirty years ago there was only mud, rock and sand.

One of the earlier decisions after 1967 was to start planning a series of large suburban communities around the northern, southern and western rim of the city on land that had been in Jordanian hands before 1967.  The decision was aimed at emphasizing the united nature of the city.

Huge new neighborhoods came into existence: Gilo in the south of the city, East Talpiot in the south-east, Neve Yaakov, and later Pisgat Ze’ev to the north-east, with Ramot Eshkol also in then north-east but further in towards the center, and Ramot to the west.  The eastern approach to the city was left open in the hope that Jordan would come to the negotiating table, but as the years went by without that happening, the satellite town of Ma’aleh Adumim was built to the east of the city.

The Arab neighborhoods, too, have greatly expanded, but not to the same extent.  In the years after 1967, there was cautious optimism about the relationships that developed between Jerusalem Arabs and Jews.  On the foundation of the economic contact that was clearly developing between the two sectors, there developed a feeling of co-existence between the two communities.

Since the late 80’s with the outbreak of the Intifada, however, it has become very clear that the reality is one of different communities living in the same city with varying tension between them.  The idea of cooperation has been replaced by the specter of collective fear and suspicion.  Nationalist sentiments, always strong on both sides, have become more extreme and there is little trust today between the communities.  Arab terrorist activities and Jewish reactions to them have created a residue of hatred and tension that have largely dashed the hopes of those who hoped for mutual acceptance and tolerance as the norm for Jerusalem.

 The Arabs never accepted the Jewish claim of sovereign rights over the entire city, and once the peace talks developed with the P.L.O. after the 1992 elections, Jerusalem became more and more an active irritant in the relations between Jews and Arabs.

Many have questions about the future of Jerusalem.

Yehuda Amichai noted,

"The air above Jerusalem is saturated with prayers and dreams like the air over industrial cities.
It’s hard to breathe."

There are many prayers and dreams from all sides concerning the future of Jerusalem.  What we all have are hopes.

 Activity: Debating the Status of Jerusalem

Suitable for older groups

We suggest the following exercise to examine issues of Jerusalem’s future.

 - There should be a presentation on Jerusalem today, concentrating especially on the political questions on the agenda from the point of view of both communities.  We suggest that, if possible, the presentation should be made by an academic who can deal objectively with the issues on both sides and survey the developments in recent years both in Jerusalem itself and in the general world of the Middle East.

The presentation should be clear, with maps that should be handed out to all participants so as to ensure that everyone understands the basic issues.

 - Following this there should be a debate, prepared in advance by the participants on the motion: -

Jerusalem Must Remain United Forever under Israeli Control.

As in all debates there should be two people speaking for the motion and two speaking against.  Subsequently the question should be opened up to the whole group.

 - At the end of the debate, we suggest that there should not be a vote.

Instead, there should be a panel discussion between representatives of the historical personalities from the booklet.  The aim is to provide a number of new perspectives, by figures who have been intimately involved in the development of Jerusalem, but who have a certain distance from the immediacy of the day-to-day reality of our own era.

We suggest that among the personalities that will appear, perhaps the most important are (King David, Yochanan ben Zakai, Bar Kochba,) David Ben Gurion and Teddy Kollek, but you can add Chaim Weizmann and others of your choice.

Each of them should talk of the situation as they see it, from their own particular vantage point, and through their own set of priorities.

The roles in an older group should be played, if possible, by members of the group.  Each individual should prepare his/her role carefully and must do his/her best to interpret the complex present day reality through the eyes of the particular individual.

Each person should go back and reexamine the particular figure’s story before the role-play and ask themselves the following questions:

Each individual will draw his/her own conclusions as to the reactions of their characters. 

Educator's notes:

David Ben Gurion was essentially pragmatic in his approach to political problems, believing very much that “politics is the art of the possible.”  He was the first major personality in post 67 Israel to advocate substantial returns of territories; however, he excluded Jerusalem from this suggestion and seems to have believed that in 1967 -- as opposed to 1948 -- the international community would be prepared to accept Jewish control over all of Jerusalem.  It is difficult to know how he would see the situation now.

Teddy Kollek certainly believes in unification and he has spent a large part of his life working towards it.  He unquestionably would like to see Israel continuing to rule over an undivided Jerusalem, but might be prepared to consider certain concessions, including substantial Arab autonomy in parts of the eastern city which would stop short of a redividing of the city.

 - Each individual should present his or her personality (preferably in role, although it is certainly possible to present the perspective of the personality in the third person).

-  Following the presentations, a review discussion should develop over the dilemmas facing the future of Jerusalem and the program should be closed, with the madrich/a or moderator summing up the complexity of the question of Jerusalem.