Kollekism

The long-time mayor of Jerusalem Teddy Kollek died this week, and by all accounts he was a very decent, and thoroughly authentic leader of the most complicated city on earth. Only good words have been uttered about him, and I wouldn’t presume to say anything negative. And yet, something’s been eating at me reading the encomiums in the local and Israeli press, though it isn’t anything about Kollek himself. In general, the tributes have been to the effect that Kollek represented an aspirational brand of Zionism that has been lost. In that mythic version of Jerusalem, Jew and Arab would live together in cultural symbiosis, each enriching the other by his presence. The problem is that it’s never been anything like that in Jerusalem and probably never will. I wonder how the Arabs felt about Kollek, or more to the point Kollekism? How much did his rich vision of a united city mean to them? It’s a lot easier to think grand thoughts about the oneness of man when you’re in charge. To be sure, history would have treated the Arabs a lot better had they accepted the two state concept about fifty years earlier than they did. But since they had the land first (at least in modern times), they weren’t obligated to. Until we as Zionists accept that reality, I don’t think we’re ever going to reach a meeting of minds with our adversaries. This isn’t a knock on Teddy Kollek personally, but a recognition that he meant a lot more to our side than the other side, which means he really didn’t achieve very much. Of course, I’ll take Kollekism any time over Olmertism, a concept of governance that should bear an empty suit as its emblem.