Anyone who believes that the influence of the Arab parties on the formation of Israel’s government is where the story ends would do well to turn their attention to Jerusalem. What currently appears to be a political move concerning only the composition of the government could open the door to far-reaching changes in local centers of decision-making as well.
Jerusalem—Israel’s capital and the city that symbolizes Jewish sovereignty more than any other—could find itself at the center of a new kind of political struggle. Such a development could set a political precedent with implications extending far beyond the Knesset.
If the Arab parties discover that they have the power to make and break governments in Israel, why would they not seek to translate that power into influence over the centers of government in Jerusalem as well? Once political participation at the national level becomes accepted practice, the question may arise as to why they should not also demand participation and influence in the municipal arena.
In Jerusalem, the demographic potential for political influence is particularly significant. Arabs make up nearly 40% of the city’s population, a proportion that cannot be ignored when considering the future of the capital. Until now, most of the Arab population of eastern Jerusalem has refrained from participating in municipal elections, partly because of Palestinian political opposition to participation in Israeli governing institutions.
But will this boycott last forever? Does the current political reality guarantee that Jerusalem’s Arab population will continue to refrain from participating in municipal elections in the future?
In light of the changes taking place in the national political arena, one cannot ignore the possibility that the policy regarding elections in Jerusalem may also change. If the Arab parties become partners in forming a government in Israel, the Palestinian Authority may also reconsider its opposition to participation in Jerusalem’s elections.
Why settle for a political struggle from the outside when it is possible to try to exert influence from within, through the institutions of local government? From the perspective of these actors, participation in elections could become yet another tool in the struggle over the character of the city and control of its institutions.
It is precisely this reality that makes it necessary to place the need for Greater Jerusalem back on the national agenda. And no longer Jerusalem within its limited, tiny boundaries, but rather a broad Jerusalem metropolitan area that would include Gush Etzion, Ma’ale Adumim, Givat Ze’ev and additional parts of Binyamin.
Expanding the city’s boundaries would add hundreds of thousands of Jewish residents; strengthen the Jewish majority; and create a large, contiguous metropolitan area with significant demographic and national importance.
So this is our warning: Jerusalem is not just another city in Israel. It is Israel’s capital, its heart and the symbol of Israeli sovereignty.
A coalition dependent on the Arab parties could have political consequences that would not stop at the Knesset. A precedent of political partnership at the national level could also have repercussions for Jerusalem, turning it into a new arena of political struggle.
The question is not only who will sit around the government table in Jerusalem, but who will seek to influence the city’s leadership and its future.
Anyone seeking to form a government with the support of the Arab parties, which reject the very definition of the State of Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people, must take into account not only the majority required for a vote of confidence. They must also consider the precedent they are setting and its possible implications for Jerusalem’s status.
