On Elie Wiesel's Jerusalem Ad

The newspaper Haaretz reported on a recent full page ad, taken by Holocaust survivor and Nobel laureate Elie Wiesel in the Washington Post, in which he seems to argue, strangely, that political pressure would not produce a solution to the issue of Jerusalem.

"For me, the Jew that I am, Jerusalem is above politics," Wiesel wrote. "It is mentioned more than six hundred times in Scripture - and not a single time in the Koran."

Wiesel is an eloquent writer, and his concerns appear genuine. But his approach is ill advised. Jerusalem, of course, is not above politics. Jerusalem is political, in addition to being many other things such as archeological, demographic, religious, symbolic and historic.

What’s more, politics, in its true essence, is not something one should aspire to rise above; it is how we manage what would otherwise be handled by bloodshed.
Wiesel seems to argue for a personal stance regarding Jerusalem. He writes, “…the first song I heard was my mother's lullaby about and for Jerusalem."

But the personal, for that matter, is not above the political. The personal is political. For proof of that, and of the fact that nothing is really above politics, Wiesel need do no more than look at himself, and his own life’s work.

Wiesel’s childhood memories are touching, but they are the Jerusalem memories of one man, a man who is neither above nor below any other man. And other men and women have other memories of Jerusalem. As Debra DeLee, APN's president and CEO, noted in response: "…Jerusalem is not just a Jewish symbol. It is also a holy city to billions of Christians and Muslims worldwide. It is Israel's capital, but it is also a focal point of Palestinian national aspirations."

Wiesel’s recycling of the old argument about the number of times Jerusalem is mentioned in the Bible vs. the Koran is a disappointing, bumper sticker-level argumentation, not a point of serious discussion—be it political, philosophical, religious or historical. Counting biblical mentions implies that the bible should be an authoritative basis upon which to base current resolutions, agreements and laws. But the bible cannot decide contemporary conflict. If anything, in contemporary usage, sacred texts inflame conflicts, not settle them.

Enlisting biblical mentions as moral ammunition is a slippery slope Wiesel cannot wish to start down. The bible has many mentions of stoning and slave holding. What should we make of those? It has no mention of democracy, of technology, of contemporary sensibilities regarding inter-group tolerance, nonviolence, women’s equality, or minority rights. It has no mention of the Holocaust. Should we disregard all these in the effort to shape contemporary personal and national identity, to resolve border, land, and religious disputes with our neighbors? The bible may to some degree inform Jerusalem’s present and future, but it cannot referee or ultimately determine them. Politics will.

Contemporary life is an emergent dynamic construct that uses the past but does not freeze or sanctify it (people who try to freeze and sanctify the past are not, I’d guess, ones with whom Wiesel would want to be aligned). So it is with secular Zionism, and so it is with Palestinian statehood.

The moral and emotional strength of one’s ties to the land are not decided by biblical verse. A Palestinian family living in Jerusalem for several generations has a moral claim on Jerusalem that is at least equal, if not superior to, the claim of an American Jew whose family never lived in Jerusalem.

In the ad, titled "For Jerusalem", Wiesel writes that, "The anguish over Jerusalem is not about real estate but about memory," In this too he is wrong. The anguish about Jerusalem is indeed about real estate, because real estate forms memory. The biblical mentions he leans on are mentions of real estate, which turn to memory, which turn to symbol. (See under: The Wailing Wall).

Wiesel adds that the old city of Jerusalem would still be Arab if Jordan had not joined Egypt and Syria in the 1967 Six-Day War. This is probably true; but it is also true that old city Jerusalem would be Arab today if Israel had withdrawn from the territories after the war.

Wiesel asks: "Why tackle the most complex and sensitive problem prematurely? Why not first take steps which will allow the Israeli and Palestinian communities to find ways to live together in an atmosphere of security. Why not leave the most difficult, the most sensitive issue, for such a time?"

The notion that Jerusalem should be tackled last is not new. Wiesel must know, however, that it is in essence a political notion. It turns out that the facts on the ground—the demographic, real estate facts—point to the need to address Jerusalem now. On the ground, in Jerusalem and in the West Bank as a whole, the reality on the ground is that if a political solution dividing the real estate is not found soon, the window for finding it may close.

Turning Jerusalem political now is not a threat to Israel. The alternative to it is the real threat. Wiesel needs only to read the bible to see what the alternatives to political solution are when it comes to Jerusalem.