The Silly Idea of DM Barak for Jerusalem

Dr. Aaron Lerner
IMRA-Weekly Commentary
16 December '10

Jerusalem will be discussed at the end of the negotiations, with reference to the Clinton parameters, namely: Western Jerusalem and the Jewish suburbs for us, the heavily populated Arab neighborhoods for them, and an agreed upon solution in the "Holy Basin".

Defense Minister Ehud Barak’s Speech at the Saban Forum December 10, 2010


Take a close look at the wording of Mr. Barak’s remarks and the package begins to unravel.

Ehud Barak doesn’t even try to claim that there is some nice clean geographical division between areas that he proposes be part of a Palestinian state and those remaining inside Israel.

Instead it is the western part of Jerusalem and a patchwork of Jewish neighborhoods that are physically interwoven with and/or adjacent to Arab neighborhood remaining inside Israel with the rest being part of a Palestinian state.

The rest, that is, except for the “Holy Basin”, whose disposition won’t actually be resolved.

Now in fairness to Ehud Barak, he isn’t the only adult pitching the silly notion that such an arrangement could contribute to a robust and sustained peace.

But that doesn’t make it any less silly.

Presidents of the United States can say it.

Rich people who bankroll forums and initiatives can say it.

And academics in their ivory towers can most certainly say it.

But it doesn’t make it any less silly.

It is silly because, first and foremost, the success of the arrangement relies on an absolute best case scenario.

In a best case scenario there are no Arab elements seeking to exploit arrangements in Jerusalem to launch attacks against Israelis or otherwise create situations that ultimately engulf the area in conflict.

In a best case scenario, the actors administering a carefully balanced arrangement in the “Holy Basin” do so without any consideration of their own interests.

But the world, unfortunately, is anything but a best case scenario world.

Why then does Ehud Barak say what he says?

Is he a blind ideologue or does he think that he can get points for “talking the talk”, confident that it remain just that: talk?

Either way, it is a silly idea.

If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.