So many people have tried finding a way to have their cake while eating it, too – and here, in Jerusalem of all places, the solution has purportedly been found. A fancy pamphlet that found its way to my desk recently detailed how to get rid of the "perilous" vote of east Jerusalem Arabs in municipal elections, while still keeping them under Israeli sovereignty.
The Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs published the proposal put forth by Nadav Shragai (who writes for this very newspaper) to remove the Palestinian neighborhoods in the city's northeast from our capital's municipal boundaries and establish two new regional councils for them. The author of the proposal is one of the most knowledgeable people on matters pertaining to Jerusalem and has written important articles and books on the city.
The problem is a familiar one. In the euphoric period following the Six-Day War in 1967, the national unity government decided to annex east Jerusalem. The government did not suffice with annexing the tiny part of the city formerly under Jordanian control, which spanned an area of 6.4 square kilometers (2.7 square miles), and additionally annexed 28 Arab villages in the city's environs (totaling 70 square kilometers). The decision-makers at the time felt they were adopting a "longsighted view."
The tens of thousands of Palestinians who lived in greater Jerusalem were granted full Israeli residency and the option of becoming citizens (which few accepted). Consequently, they were given the privilege of voting in municipal elections for the mayor and city council members, but they rarely took advantage of this privilege so as not to express acceptance of the occupation and annexation. If in 1967 the Palestinians represented just 26% of Jerusalem's residents, today they comprise 41% of the unified city.
What will happen on October 30 if the Palestinians decide to partake in the municipal elections? It's reasonable to assume that the Palestinian faction in city hall will grow and demand rights for residents of the city's eastern neighborhoods, which are in a state of dereliction after being ignored regularly by the city's treasurers.
Those who want to prevent a binational state or binational capital favor a partition plan between Israel and the future Palestinian state, whose capital would be east Jerusalem. However, anyone who adheres to the principle of not ceding any captured territory and is not willing to grant the Palestinians rights – fantasizes about a Palestinian autonomy under Israeli control, or about Palestinians who live in Jerusalem under Israeli sovereignty, in neighborhoods that fall under a separate municipal framework. Thus the new proposal was born: The Palestinian residents of east Jerusalem will remain in their homes, but instead of living in the "city brought together," they will henceforth live in two new towns and, if they wish, vote for their own municipal representatives.
Shragai praises the idea (which was adopted by Jerusalem Affairs and Heritage Minister Zeev Elkin) because it will allow Palestinians (who will still enjoy Israeli residency benefits) to manage their own affairs without depending on the generosity of the city's Jewish majority. The Jewish side, meanwhile, could assuage its anxieties about the city becoming Arab. And what if the Palestinians won't accept the proposal? Well then, Shragai writes, the interior minister will appoint a special oversight committee for them – and all's well that ends well.
Do you understand all this? By employing the "as-if" method, the people living in northeastern Jerusalem will remain Israeli residents; they won't have voting rights in Jerusalem; and if they prefer not to exercise these voting rights in the new regional councils to be established for them, Interior Minister Aryeh Deri will appoint random technocrats to run their lives for them.
Shragai has not offered anything new. Back in 1959, the white minority in South Africa – less than 20% of the total population – established 10 autonomies, which they called "states," for the black majority. The black majority was restricted to voting in these autonomies, which were pitiful, and the blacks continued living on the outskirts of the large cities – bereft of rights. In 1994, the 10 "states" were abolished and South Africa became a united country under black majority rule. I would advise Shragai and Elkin not to take us down this path. When you eat your cake, it disappears from the plate.
