Center Field: When deciding Jerusalem's future, Zionist solidarity is not Israeli citizenship

Despite yielding no agreement yet, the latest round of peace processing has triggered a struggle regarding Diaspora Jews' role in shaping Jerusalem's future. The World Jewish Congress president, Ronald Lauder, recently told Prime Minister Ehud Olmert that no "changes in the status of our Holy City" should be implemented "without giving the Jewish people, as a whole, a voice in the decision." The political scientist Shlomo Avineri objected to world Jewry meddling in Israel's decision-making, as did the head of the World Jewish Congress's Israel branch, Shai Hermesh. Natan Sharanky then countered with a powerful plea in Sunday's Jerusalem Post headlined "Israel Must Not Decide Alone." Yet much as I venerate Natan Sharansky, and much as I believe in the Jewish people's spiritual and political unity, ultimately, the headline is wrong: Israelis must decide Jerusalem's fate. 

In some ways, the gap between the combatants is exaggerated. Lauder only requested a "voice in the decision." Sharansky endorsed some kind of consultative process which would build a constructive consensus on such a key issue as the future of the Jewish people's eternal capital. But underlying this argument is the question whether membership in the Jewish people is sufficient to vote on life and death matters for Israel, or is Israeli citizenship required?

Jewish solidarity is not the same as Jewish sovereignty; national attachment is not the same as state citizenship. Zionists still living in the Diaspora are not Israeli citizens who pay taxes and can be drafted to serve in the army. Israelis' obligations and fears earn them a vote and a full, clear voice in shaping Israel's future. Diaspora Jews can be engaged in many other ways, knowing that the more they contribute to Israel, the more impact they will have. All Jews can shape Jerusalem's future with passionate arguments, intelligent analyses, smart suggestions, deep friendships, lengthy visits, extended volunteering and visionary philanthropy. Moreover, all Jews remain welcome to join the Israeli polity at any time. But as a non-citizen, I would not expect to vote on an Israeli-Palestinian peace plan just as I would not expect an Israeli who did not pay synagogue dues to vote on my rabbi's contract. As adults, we live with the consequences of our choices and the limitations of our self-definition.  

In truth, while Natan Sharansky has devoted decades to uniting the Jewish people, most Israeli partisans rarely want true Diaspora input, they usually just want to import a rubberstamp (or some funding) for their particular position. And it is a tricky proposition. Rightists opposed to dividing Jerusalem should understand that most American Jews are hard-wired to accept split-down-the-middle, try-to-make-both sides-happy kinds of compromises. Leftists, who have sought American Jewish involvement when convenient to them, should also hesitate, noting that often, the most passionately involved on these issues are far to the right of the Israeli left. In 2005, most American Jews supported the Gaza disengagement, but the Diaspora's loudest voices and most influential donors objected vehemently.

Israeli President Shimon Peres identified the deeper issue when he addressed the 2008 Herzliya security conference on Sunday night. In his nationally-televised speech, Peres said Israel's government should seek the Israeli people's approval for any peace agreement negotiated with the Palestinians. This seemingly uncontroversial, democratic statement actually represents a radical break with Israeli history - and with Peres's own past. Decisions to go to war and attempts to make peace were never subjected to a referendum and usually surprised Israel's citizens.

This is a central problem in democratic theory, and gets to the role of representatives as the people's deputies. Governments rarely have the luxury of being able to solicit the people’s opinion before plunging into wars. Leaders often make their most significant decisions on issues about which they never received their constituents' instructions. Peres himself sprang the Oslo peace process on an unsuspecting nation back in 1993, as Menachem Begin did when he came home from Camp David in September 1978. And if the relationship between a citizen in a democracy and a leader is often theoretical, imagine how much blurrier - yet significant -- is the relationship between the Jewish people abroad and the state of Israel's leaders.

In pushing the Gaza disengagement in 2005, Ariel Sharon stretched the democratic leader's prerogative to absurd extremes. Sharon sought approval from Likud party forums - then ignored the votes when he lost. Such my-way-or-the-highway governing, as opposed to the more typical need to improvise under changing circumstances, projected contempt for the democratic process and damaged Israel’s democracy.

Sharon's bad behavior suggests the solution to the problem of both the Israeli citizen and the Diaspora Jew. As Sharansky notes in his article, any lasting peace agreement will require a serious public dialogue and buy-in. In today's globalized world, as we share overlapping media universes and travel between Israel and the Diaspora so easily, a substantive, representative consultative process that drew in Israelis would inevitably involve Diaspora Jews, allowing all Jews a voice while limiting the actual votes to Israelis.

Among the Oslo peace process' many shortcomings, it failed to make peace among the peoples rather than simply among the elbow-rubbing (and sometimes business-deal-making) diplomats. In any future agreements, the negotiators have to think about how they sell the deal to the Israeli people, to Palestinians, and to both the Jewish and Arab worlds. If the process is good and the agreement is sound, we won't need to debate who has a vote, and who does not. But if the process is the kind of top-down sham the old Shimon Peres used to favor and Ehud Olmert seems to prefer, whatever shouts there are from Diaspora Jewry will be drowned out by Israeli citizens' justified cries.  

Gil Troy is Professor of History at McGill University in Montreal. The author of "Why I Am A Zionist: Israel, Jewish Identity, and the Challenges of Today," his next book will be published by Basic Books in the spring, and will be called "Leading from the Center:  Why Moderates Make the Best Presidents."