¹ Ben-Gurion, David to Wise, Stephen, 23 06 1937, Zikhronot (Memoirs), 4 vols. (Tel Aviv, 1974), 4:237–38Google Scholar; Ben-Gurion, David in conversation with Geula Cohen, Ma'ariv, 12 May 1967.Google Scholar

² Benvenisti, M., Yerushalayim ir ubeliba homa (Jerusalem City with a Wall at Its Heart) (Tel Aviv, 1996).Google Scholar This book, like the others Benvenisti has written on the subject, is an attempt at a serious, comprehensive discussion of divided Jerusalem, though not a historical discussion because its basis is the model rather than the question. See also his Mul hahoma hasgura (Opposite the Closed Wall) (Tel Aviv, 1973); and his Makom shel esh (Place of Fire) (Tel Aviv, 1996).Google Scholar

³ The political discussion of the Jerusalem question was always an element of official Zionist policy, from Herzl to Weizmann. On this, see Livsky, H., ed., Yerushalayim batoda'a uva'asiya hatsiyonit (Jerusalem in Zionist Consciousness and Deed) (Jerusalem, 1989)Google Scholar; Golani, M., Tsion batsiyonut (Zion in Zionism) (Tel Aviv, 1992).Google Scholar

⁴ For an extended discussion of the debate over the partition question in the 1930s, see Avizohar, M. and Friedman, Y., ed., lyunim batokhnit hahaluka (Discussions of the Partition Plan) (Sde Boker, 1984)Google Scholar; Dotan, S., Pulmus hahaluka bitkufat hamandal (The Partition Controversy During the Mandate Period) (Jerusalem, 1980).Google Scholar

⁵ Lecture to the Royal Commission on Palestine, Parliamentary Document no. 5479, official trans. (1937), chap. 22, sec. 2, 278–79.

⁶ Ben-Gurion to Wise. In February 1937, in the light of the initial reports on the partition idea mooted by the Peel Commission, Ben-Gurion said, “it is clear that the city of Jerusalem and Bethlehem have to be removed from the calculation. That [area] has to be an international territory under the supreme rule of the English and a Jewish-Arab local administration [in Jerusalem].” Mapai Central Committee, 5 02 1937, Zikhronot, 4:208.Google Scholar Space limitations preclude a description of the internal soul-searching in the Zionist movement and in the Yishuv over the Jerusalem question in the light of the Peel Commission Report. See Golani, , Tsion batsiyonut, 9–27.Google Scholar

⁷ Ben-Gurion to Shertok, London, 23 July 1937, Zikhronot, 4:230; Golani, M., “Hanhagat hayishuv veshe'elat yerushalayim bemilhemet ha'atzma'ut” (The Yishuv Leadership and the Jerusalem Question in the War of Independence) (M.A. thesis, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1988), 18.Google Scholar

⁸ Ben-Gurion to Wise, n. 6.

⁹ Golani, Tsion batsiyonut, chap. 2.

¹⁰ On the disavowers, see Brecher, M., “Yerushalayim” (Jerusalem), in Diplomatiya betzel imut (Diplomacy in the Shadow of Confrontation), ed. Neuberger, B. (Tel Aviv, 1984), 289–313.Google Scholar

¹¹ This expression and some that are sharper still appear in Yitzhak Ben-Zvi's letter from besieged Jerusalem to the Jewish Agency Executive in Tel Aviv, 5 April 1948, in Yogev, G., ed., Teudot mediniyot vediplomatiyot (Political and Diplomatic Documents) 12 1947-05 1948 (Jerusalem, 1980), 559–61.Google Scholar

¹² A thorough description and analysis of the fighting in Jerusalem can be found in Levy, Y. (Levitze), Tisha kabin (Nine Elements) (Tel Aviv, 1986).Google Scholar

¹³ Yosef, D., Kirya ne'emana (The Faithful City) (Jerusalem and Tel Aviv, 1960), 331–36.Google Scholar

¹⁴ On this, see Bialer, U., “Haderekh labira: hafikhata shel yerushalayim lemakom moshava harishmi shel memshelet yisrael bishnat 1949” (The Way to the Capital: Jerusalem's Transformation into the Official Seat of the Government of Israel in 1949), Katedra 35 (04 1985): 163–91.Google Scholar

¹⁵ Bailer, , “Haderekh labira” Golani, M., “Tsiyonut lelo tsiyon?” (Zionism Without Zion) in Yerushalayim hahatsuya (Divided Jerusalem), ed. Bareli, A. (Jerusalem, 1994), 30–52Google Scholar; Lorch, N., “Ben-Gurion ukviyat yerushalayim kebirat yisrael,” in Livsky, Yerushalayim batoda'a, 377–403.Google Scholar

¹⁶ On Ben-Gurion's reaction to the UNSCOP plan, see Yoman Ben-Gurion (Ben Gurion's Dairy), 2 September 1947; Shertok's stand on this question appears in his letter to Ben-Gurion of 24 October 1947, Archives for the Ben-Gurion Heritage Correspondence; meeting of the Jewish Agency Executive, 26 October 1947, Central Zionist Archives (hereafter CZA) 45/1; on Ben-Gurion's stand in 1949, see Golani, “Hanhagat hayishuv” Bialer, “Haderekh labira.”

¹⁷ See Bovis, H. E., The Jerusalem Question 1917–1968 (Stamford, Conn., 1974).Google Scholar

¹⁸ Walter Eytan, director-general of the Foreign Ministry, to Michael Amir, Israeli minister in Brussels, 14 November 1949, State Archives (hereafter S.A.) HZ 2382/13.

¹⁹ D. Yosef at a meeting of the provisional government, 26 October 1948, in the presence of a delegation from Jerusalem headed by Yosef as the city's military governor: 37th Meeting, S.A., Stenography of the Meetings of the Provisional Government, vol. 9. There is a theory in the professional literature holding that Sharett's hesitation was over the basic question of whether to accept the city's partition, and not over whether to cooperate with Abdullah: see Bialer, , “Haderekh labira,” 167; Shalom, Z., “Ma'avaka shel yisrael lesikul hahlatat atseret ha'um al bein'um yerushalayim bishnot hahamishim” (Israel's Struggle to Thwart the UN. Resolution on the Internationalization of Jerusalem in the 1950s), lyunim 3 (1993): 75–97. I do not accept this view.Google Scholar

²⁰ Gelber, Y., “Maga'im diplomatiim terem hitnagshut tzva'it: hamasa umatan bein hasokhnut hayehudit lemitzrayim veyarden (1946–1948)” (Diplomatic Contacts Prior to Military Clash: The Negotiations Between the Jewish Agency and Egypt and Jordan (1946–1948), Katedra 35 (04 1985): 125–62Google Scholar; Sela, A., “Hamalekh Abdullah vememshelet yisrael bemilhemet ha'aztma'ut—behina mehudeshet” (King Abdullah and the Government of Israel in the War of Independence—A Reassessment), Katedra 57 (09 1990): 120–62Google Scholar (first part); ibid. 58 (December 1990): 172–93 (second part).

²¹ See the message conveyed by al-Tall, King Adallah via Abdullah (the Jordanian commander of Jerusalem) to Eliahu Sasson (head of the Foreign Ministry's Arab desk), 13 12 1948, in Teudol me-diniyot vediplomatiyot, vol. 3: Sihot shvitat haneshek 1949 (The Armistice Talks 1949), ed. Rosenthal, Y. (Jerusalem 1983), 332. In the conversation cited here, al-Tall asked Sasson: “Will you agree to the division of the city between you and us? Isn't that the ideal solution?” Sasson did not reply directly, but recalled that UN. policy did not favor the two countries, and they would do better to arrive at an agreed solution. See also the meeting between Reuven Shiloah (the Foreign Ministry's adviser on special affairs) and Moshe Dayan (the Israeli commander of Jerusalem) with al-Tall, 30 December 1948, Teudot mediniyot, 3:337.Google Scholar

²² Shiloah to Ben-Gurion, and Sharett, on his and Dayan's meeting with al-Tall, 6 01 1949, Teudot mediniyot, 3:341–42.Google Scholar

²³ Golani, Tsiyon batsiyonut, chap. 13.

²⁴ On the Vatican's stand, see Bialer, “Haderekh labira,” 170–80; on the position of the Arab League, see Avraham Biran (head of the Jerusalem District on behalf of the interior minister) to director-general of the Foreign Ministry, on a conversation with Azami Nashashibi, director-general of the Jordanian Foreign Ministry, 28 October 1951, S.A., HZ 2379/17.

²⁵ Biran to director-general of the Foreign Ministry on a conversation with Ahmad Tuqan (former Jordanian foreign minister), 10 December 1951, S.A., HZ 2379/17.

²⁶ Following Abdullah's assassination, the danger loomed that Jordan would adopt the position of the Arab League, which opposed the city's partition. Biran therefore urged the Foreign Ministry to move quickly to reach agreements on Jerusalem (such as the agreement on traveling on the road to Mount Scopus) with the British before Jordan emulated the Arab League and perhaps expelled the British. I found no such urgency with reference to the Temple Mount, for instance: Biran to director-general of the Foreign Ministry, on a conversation with Azami Nashashibi, 28 October 1951, S.A., HZ 2379/17; see also, for example, conversation of Shiloah and Dayan with Abdullah al-Tall, 5 January 1949, Teudot Mediniyot, 3:342. The Mount Scopus affair requires a separate discussion; it illustrates the continuity of the Zionist approach to the Jerusalem issue from 1937 to 1967: see Golani, Tsiyon batsiyonut, chap. 2, 4, 5, and 13.

²⁷ Sihot shvitat haneshek 1949, xxvii.

²⁸ An example of acceptance of the Israeli act can be found in remarks by the French consul-general in Jerusalem to Biran on the eve of the Foreign Ministry's move to Jerusalem. The French diplomat argued that transferring the ministry would hinder a solution to the Jewish-Arab conflict, to which Biran replied that “the Foreign Ministry would be transferred nonetheless.” The French consul-general responded: “If so, what can we do?” The Italian consul-general, on the other hand, conceded in 1953 that after five years in which the city had been under Israeli-Jordanian rule there was no practical way to uphold the UN. resolution on Jerusalem: Biran to director-general of the Foreign Ministry, 8 August and 28 October 1952, S.A., HZ 2379/17.

²⁹ Benvenisti, Ir ubeliba homa, 99. The foreign minister thanked Guatemala for opening a legation in Jerusalem in a speech to the Knesset, 1 March 1956, S.A., HZ 2380/6. On the distinction between recognition of the place of the seat of the government and recognition of the city as the capital of Israel, see Eytan, W., “Hama'avak al ma'amada hamedini shel yerushalayim” (The Struggle for Jerusalem's Diplomatic Status), Skira Hodshit 10 (10 1984): 18–19; Biran to director-general of the Foreign Ministry, 20 August 1952, S.A., HZ 2379/17; Biran to legal adviser of the Foreign Ministry, 22 December 1952, S.A. HZ 2379/17.Google Scholar

³⁰ The American consul Gibson explicitly supported partition as a solution to the Jerusalem problem, a stand which the United States, being committed to the U.N. position, could not reasonably be expected to put forward officially through the State Department. In 1954, an American consul-general was named to Jerusalem, upgrading the previous rank of consul: Biran to director-general of the Foreign Ministry, 8 March 1954, S.A., HZ 2395/19; file of UN. General Assembly Sessions, September 1965, S.A., HZ 4322/16.

³¹ On the attempts by the State Department to foment organized opposition to the transfer of the Foreign Ministry to Jerusalem, see Rosenthal, Y., ed., Teudot leminiyut hahutz shel yizrael (Documents of Israeli Foreign Policy), vol. 8 (Jerusalem, 1996), docs. 112, 280, 323, 363; statement by the spokesman of the Foreign Ministry, S.A., HZ 2385/1; director-general to the foreign minister, 28 November 1952; foreign minister to director-general, 1 December 1952, S.A. HZ 2385/1.Google Scholar

³² See, on this, Sharett, M., Personal Diary (Tel Aviv, 1978), 1:27, 162, 215; on the conclusion of the affair and a proposal for a policy of continuation, see Moshe Tov (a senior official of the Foreign Ministry) to foreign minister (and Prime Minister Sharett), 12 June 1955, S.A., HZ 2385/1.Google Scholar

³³ Biran to director-general of the Foreign Ministry, 8 March 1954, S.A., HZ 2395/19.

³⁴ The change in the character of the relations between Britain and Jordan was seen strikingly in the ouster of the founder and commander of the Arab Legion, General John Glubb, in March 1956, and, concomitantly, the growing strength of Nasserists in Jordan. On the place of Britain in Israel-Jordan relations at the time, see, for example, conversation of Shiloah and Dayan with al-Tall, 5 January 1949, Sihot shvitat haneshek, 342; and Sasson to Sharett, 1 February 1949, ibid., 345. On British-Jordanian relations after the 1948 war and in the 1950s, see Louis, Wm. R., The British Empire in the Middle East 1914–1951 (Oxford, 1984)Google Scholar; Monroe, E., Britain's Moment in the Middle East 1914–1956 (Baltimore, 1963).Google Scholar

³⁵ The text of the British government's statement of recognition of Israel, of Jordan's annexation of the West Bank, and of the de facto rule by Israel and Jordan in Jerusalem is found in the documents of the Foreign Ministry proximate to Sharett's response to the announcement: S.A., HZ 2391/222b; Sharett's response, 2 May 1950, ibid. On the affair of the menora, see Sir John Nicholls (British ambassador to Israel) to Sir Selwyn Lloyd (British foreign secretary), 24 April 1956, PRO F0371/121852.

³⁶ Y. Herzog to Foreign Minister (Sharett), 22 November 1953, S.A., HZ 2395/16.

³⁷ The decision to develop the broad area between Rehavia and Beit Hakerem as the Government Compound was made already in 1949,” “Pituha ubinyana shel yerushalayim bimei haknesset harishona 1949–1951” (The Development and Building of Jerusalem During the Period of the First Knesset 1949–1951), Mordechai Shetner, the official in charge of the development of Jerusalem, Ministry of Finance and Ministry of Commerce and Industry, 24 July 1951, S.A., HZ 2395/16. Ministry of Commerce and Industry, which was established in April 1949, was effectively the ministry of Jerusalem affairs.

³⁸ See, on this, Ilan, A., Bernadotte in Palestine, 1948 (London, 1989), 223–24; author's interview with Yitzhak Shamir, 25 December 1996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

³⁹ Ha'aretz, 18 August 1949; Y. Ben-Arye and A. Wagner, “Shlavim bivniyata uvehitpathuta shel yerushalayim hayisra'elit bein hashanim 1948–1967” (Stages in the Building and Development of Israeli Jerusalem Between 1948 and 1967), in Yerushalayim hahatsuya, 91–114.

⁴⁰ Shetner, , “Pituha ubinyana” Azaryahu, M., Pulhanei medina (State Rituals) (Sde Boker, 1995), 55–56.Google Scholar

⁴¹ Ben-Arye and Wagner, “Shlavim bivniyata.”

⁴² Ibid.; Ha'aretz, December 1949-January 1950; Y. Schweid, “Hitpathuta ha'urbanit veha'adikhalit shel yerushalayim bashanim 1948–1967” (The Urban and Architectural Development of Jerusalem from 1948 to 1967), in Yerushalayim hahatsuya, 115–32; Kroyanker, D., Yerushalayim: hama'avak al mivne ha'ir vehazuta (Jerusalem: The Struggle for the Structure and Appearance of the City) (Jerusalem, 1988).Google Scholar

⁴³ For background on the Zionist approach to the establishment of the Hebrew University on Mount Scopus, see, for example, Golani, Tsiyon batsiyonut, 14–16; Y. Katz, “Hamifne beyahasam shel ussishkin vehovevei tsion lepituah yerushalayim ulehakamat ha'universita ha'ivrit lifnei milhemt ha'olam harishona” (The Shift in the Attitude of Ussishkin and Hovevei Zion Toward the Development of Jerusalem and the Establishment of the Hebrew University Prior to World War I), in Yerushalayim batoda'a, 107–36.

⁴⁴ Foreign minister to defense minister (Ben-Gurion), 20 July 1951 (the day of Abdullah's assassination on the Temple Mount) S.A., HZ 2389/21b; Yoman Ben-Gurion, 21 July 1951.

⁴⁵ The location of the hospital was approved in 1951; building began in 1956 and was completed in 1960: Ben-Arye and Wagner, “Shlavim bivniyata.”

⁴⁶ Y. Shuchman, “Vikuah al makom ha'universita” (Debate over the Location of the University), Davar, 29 February 1952. On the distinctive contribution of the Hebrew University to the social and cultural life of the divided Jerusalem in the 1950s and 1960s, see Tishler, Y., “Yifrehu meah prahim: ha'intelligentsia hayerushalmit bishnot hahamishim vehashishim” (Let a Hundred Flowers Blossom: The Jerusalem Intelligentsia in the 1950s and 1960s), Yerushalayim hahatsuya, 266–81.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ Shalom, Z., “Hametihut saviv mitsadei tsahal be-1958 uve-1961” (The Tension Surrounding the IDF Parades in 1958 and in 1961), in Yerushalayim hahatsuya, 61–68; Azaryahu, Pulhanei medina, 55–59. Heichal Shlomo, the seat of the chief rabbinate, was established, and not by accident, at a distance from the government compound and the Knesset, and within the line of vision of the Old City wall and the Temple Mount. Building was not completed until 1959: Schweid, “Hitpathuta ha'urbanit” Ben-Arye and Wagner, “Shlavim behitpathuta.”Google Scholar

⁴⁸ Extensive background on the development of Jerusalem since the 19th century is found in Ben-Arye, Y., Ir bere'i tkufa: yerushalayim hahadasha bereishita (Jerusalem, 1979).Google Scholar

⁴⁹ Ha'aretz, 15 February 1967; the city's appearance is attested to, for example, in an article by Emanuel Porath, illustrated with highly unflattering photographs, in Ha'aretz Weekly Magazine, 4 June 1965; and letter from Y. Tekoa, the Foreign Ministry official in charge of armistice affairs, to Jerusalem Mayor G. Agron, in which Tekoa noted that to the city's shame the main path leading to the armistice headquarters served as a garbage dump (apparently improvised) for the residents of the nearby neighborhood. “Taking into account the fact that this place serves, in addition to a meeting place for the officials of the [armistice] commission and for UN. personnel, also as an area of transit for many foreigners and tourists to the [nearby] Mandelbaum Gate, efforts should definitely be made to clean up the path,” 14 October 1955, S.A., HZ 2395/14b. Jerusalem Mayor Teddy Kollek stated shortly before the 1967 war that “the existing generation of Israel's leaders is not sufficiently aware of issues of the landscape and the aesthetic [aspect] of Jerusalem,” Ha'aretz, 15 February 1967.

⁵⁰ On the approach of Ben-Gurion and Dayan to the Jordan issue overall, see General Staff Meeting, 19 July 1956, Weekly Meetings, IDF Archives (hereafter IDF) 1322; on the attitude toward Jordan on the eve of the Sinai War, see Yoman Ben-Gurion, 19 and 22 October 1956; and on the operational planning in Jerusalem, see “Mivtza kadesh: pekudat tikhnun mispar 3” (Sinai Campaign: Planning Order no. 3), Operations Branch, 19 October 1956: History Department Archive of the IDF 10/04/01/08. See also M. Dayan, Ma'arekhet sinai (The Sinai Campaign) (Tel Aviv, 1966), 55–57.

⁵¹ Yoman Ben-Gurion, 17 October 1956; Yoman lishkat haramatkal” (Diary of the Chief of Staff's bureau, hereafter DCSB), IDF 17–18 October 1956.

⁵² ”Mivtza kadesh” DCSB, 18–21 October 1956.

⁵³ Ramon, A., Yerushalayim hahatsuya: hakav ha'ironi 1948–1967 (Divided Jerusalem: The Municipal Line 1948–1967) (Jerusalem, 1987).Google Scholar

⁵⁴ MMa'ariv, 12 May 1967.

⁵⁵ The element of choice in Israel's activity in divided Jerusalem was addressed by an external observer who visited the city immediately after the 1967 War, although he did not consider the physical manifestations of Israeli policy: Pfaff, R. H., Jerusalem: Keystone of an Arab-Israeli Settlement (Washington, D.C., 1969), 33–34.Google Scholar

⁵⁶ Shalom, “Ma'avaka shel yisrael” Lorch, “Ben-Gurion vekviyat yerushalayim” Y. Gorni, “Yerushalayim shel maala viyerushalayim shel mata bamediniyut haleumit” (Heavenly Jerusalem and Earthly Jerusalem in National Policy), in Yerushalayim hahatsuya, 11–15.

⁵⁷ On Herzl's vision of Jerusalem, see H. Harel, “Yahaso shel herzl liyerushalayim” (Herzl's Attitude Toward Jerusalem), in Yerushalayim batoda'a, 75–90.

⁵⁸ Ma'ariv, 12 May 1967; Ben-Gurion on the Old City and the Etzion Bloc of settlements, Ha'aretz, 9 June 1967.

⁵⁹ As Cohen put it in Ma'ariv, “In Judaism, messiah is not an abstract concept,” 12 May 1967. Naomi Shemer's song was commissioned by Jerusalem Mayor Teddy Kollek for the artistic program during the intermission of the radio broadcast of the Israeli Song Festival. The song “Jerusalem of Gold” was an immediate popular hit, and became even more popular in the wake of the Six-Day War. On 27 June 1967, the Knesset adopted legislation empowering the government to annex territories that had been captured in the war. The intention, clearly, was the unification of Jerusalem. The move had wall-to-wall support, including Maki (communists) and the leftist Ha'olam Hazeh group. Only Rakah (another communist party) objected: Ha'aretz, 28 June 1967.

⁶⁰ Illustrating his remarks, he noted that “already last Saturday discussions were held concerning the problem of getting the biweekly supply convoy to Mount Scopus,” Ha'aretz, 7 June 1967; Dayan and Aranne are quoted in A. Baron, Hotam ishi (Personal Seal) (Tel Aviv, 1997), 64–65.

⁶¹ See Lustick, I. S., “Hegemonic Beliefs and Territorial Rights,” International Journal of Intercultural Relations 20, no. 3/4 (1996): 479–492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁶² Lustick likens the status of the captured territories that Israel annexed in 1949, in the wake of the armistice accords (e.g., Western Galilee), to the status of East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights. However, the difference is that the two latter areas, in contrast to the former, are open to negotiations. See Lustick, Ian S., “The Fetish of Jerusalem: A Hegemonic Analysis,” in Israel in Comparative Perspective, ed. Barnett, M. N. (New York, 1996), 143–72Google Scholar; and idem, “Has Israel Annexed East Jerusalem?” Middle East Policy (January 1997): 34–45.

⁶³ Katz, E., Levy, S., and Seigal, J. M., The Status of Jerusalem in the Eyes of Israeli Jews (College Park, MD., 1997).Google Scholar