Jerusalem: The forgotten fort
By Efraim Inbar

(January 8) - The heated debates over the fate of Jerusalem 
revolve around the religious and historic importance of the 
city for the Jewish people and the symbolic significance of 
dividing it and of relinquishing sovereignty over the Temple 
Mount. Surprisingly, the security implications of Prime 
Minister Ehud Barak's concessions to the Palestinians 
regarding Jerusalem, as reported in the press, have gone 
almost unnoticed. 

In Israeli strategic parlance, security problems are usually 
divided into two distinct categories: basic and current 
security. Basic security refers to challenges to Israel's 
existence and/or to its territorial integrity. Current security 
threats refer to issues affecting the routine life of Israelis 
inside Israel and/or along its borders. On both accounts, the 
current government's positions on Jerusalem pose grave security 
problems. 

One important basic security challenge is defending Israel from 
a large-scale conventional attack from the east. Jerusalem is an 
exceptionally important component in such a defensive posture, 
which requires an ability for a rapid movement of troops from 
the coast - the location of the main concentrations of Israel's 
population and reserve units - eastward to the Jordan valley. 
For this precise reason Israel has built the Trans-Samaria 
Highway, in addition to the highways to Jerusalem that continue 
via Ma'aleh Adumim to the Jordan Valley. 

Even if Israel holds on to the right of access to the Jordan 
Valley through Palestinian territory, in times of emergency, 
the exercise of this right might be hindered by violent 
Palestinian opposition. The only lateral axis from the coast to 
the Jordan Valley which is populated by Jews in great numbers and 
therefore more defensible is via Jerusalem. The only area along 
the crest of the mountains at the center of the Land of Israel, 
which is heavily populated by Jews, is Jerusalem and its 
surroundings. These facts increase the strategic importance of 
the city, as well as the need to control its environs. 

Jerusalem is the most important junction for moving forces along 
the west-east or north-south axis. By allowing Palestinian control 
over parts of Jerusalem and areas in its vicinity, Israel loses 
the ability to move forces freely in an emergency. That gives the 
Palestinians the capacity to hinder movements of forces when speed 
is vital for successfully repelling an attack from the east. 
Therefore, holding on to Greater Jerusalem, particularly when 
other areas of importance for moving troops to the eastern front 
are planned to be handed over to the Palestinians, is a strategic 
imperative for maintaining the basic security for Israel. 

In terms of current security, the division of security control 
along ethnic lines in Jerusalem amounts to turning the holy city 
into a Belfast. It will enable snipers to shoot into Jewish 
neighborhoods, in the heart of Jerusalem. It would be sheer 
folly to believe that a Palestinian policeman would put much 
effort into preventing such an act and hunting down the 
perpetrator. 

We already had a taste of the proximity of Palestinian sovereignty 
to Jerusalem in the neighborhood of Gilo. The government was 
reluctant to respond forcefully to terrorists acting in areas 
which are fully under Palestinian control in order not to bring 
about an escalation. The same rationale could apply to attacks on 
the Jewish Quarter from a Moslem Quarter under Palestinian 
sovereignty. The fact that Jerusalem attracts much media attention 
could become an additional restraining factor in the Israeli 
decision-making process. 

Moreover, the existence of Palestinian safe havens within the 
city of Jerusalem would only increase the likelihood of 
ethnically motivated crime against Jews. The Palestinian 
Authority has a clear record of turning a blind eye to 
Palestinian criminals living within its territory while 
perpetrating criminal acts within Israel. In a divided city, 
life for Jews could become unbearable and encourage emigration. 
This definitely sits well with the Palestinian goal of making 
it an Arab city. 

Finally, relinquishing sovereignty in any part of historic 
Jerusalem erodes the legitimacy of the Zionist claims to build 
a Jewish state in the Land of Israel. The erosion of Israel's 
legitimacy has for years been a strategic goal of the 
Palestinian national movement. Such an erosion has a clear 
impact on the staying power of Israeli society in future 
conflicts of various magnitude. After all, even Barak admits 
that an agreement with the Palestinians would not eliminate 
the risks of armed conflict in the future. 

The perception that Israelis fight for a legitimate cause is a 
vital element in Israel's security equation. Dividing Jerusalem 
would probably further dilute the links of certain secular 
sectors to Jewish history. On the other hand, it would 
demoralize large segments of the traditional and religious 
elements within the Israeli population and would make them 
question their readiness to continue to bear the burden of 
fighting for the Jewish state. Therefore, social cohesion 
requires making good on the words of the national anthem, 
which ends with the hope of the return to Zion and Jerusalem. 

(The writer is the director of the Begin-Sadat Center for 
Strategic Studies at Bar-Ilan University.)