Capturing East Jerusalem—How Identity Played Its Role
Journalist and historian Tom Segev (1967, Israel, The War And The Year That Transformed the Middle East) played “what if?” this week in the New York Times,when he speculated about a different outcome to the Six Day War. What if Israel had turned back from taking East Jerusalem and the West Bank? After all, recently released documents show that Israeli strategic thinking six months before the war, precluded such capture. If that course had been followed on June 6th, four decades of Israeli oppression and Palestinian terrorism might never have happened.
As a journalist, Segev claims the right to speculate. But as a historian, he knows he cannot.
The fact is that once Jordan had attacked West Jerusalem, the stage was set for retaliation. Once retaliation brought Israeli forces within reach of East Jerusalem and the Old City, deep-seated identity played its role. Segev notes, “Acting under the influence of the age-old dream of return to Zion as well as Israel’s spectacular victory over Egypt’s forces a few hours previously, the ministers decided with their hearts, not their heads, to take East Jerusalem.”And the rest is history.
The above quote is evidence once again of the role that identity plays at such critical moments. Along with ideology, this is the core of my 2006 book about Jerusalem’s future.
