"Even more than Israel protected Jerusalem, Jerusalem protected Israel." (Menachem Begin) This is of course a paraphrase about Shabbat. Begin tried to insinuate that Jerusalem is no less important than Shabbat to the Jewish people.

If we exam the subject from the perspective of the Zionist movement, it is particularly impressive that despite the numerous streams of Zionism, Jerusalem stood at the heart of each and every one of them. There is no Zion without Jerusalem. Jerusalem above all else. Jerusalem is the rock of our existence. 

Has this theory been translated into practice?

I would start with the very important moment that is etched in all of our memories. In the words of Motah Gur: "The Temple Mount is in our hands." Was this the pinnacle moment? Were there additional advances after this moment, or only withdrawals?

The accompanying image that is etched in our minds no less isn't a picture of paratroopers on the Temple Mount, but a picture of a paratrooper next to the Western Wall. Doesn't this contain an element of withdrawal? If I speak about the Temple Mount today, I come across as strange and dazed. I think that here a process has started around Jerusalem, and we have to ask ourselves a question – since 1967, has there been a process of advancement or of withdrawal? 

I ask myself how come we speak about Jerusalem in every election campaign - Who is still going to invest in the city? Who is going to develop the city? But after every election they are less convincing. I say this for all the generations of Israeli governments. If we examine the basis for these declarations after being awarded a seat in the Knesset, we see that there is a huge gap between our desire to say that Jerusalem is above else and the situation in practice.

The question must be asked: Is Jerusalem above all else? Or, are we witnessing a withdrawal of some sort in the approach of classical Zionism – in values that were more sanctified then than they are now? Is there an overall trend of withdrawal, and Jerusalem is just a part of this larger process? 

The Edelson Institute for Strategic Studies performed a survey that asked – "In your opinion, who should have the right to decide about the future of Jerusalem?" Following is the distribution of the answers:

The prime minister – 5%

The Knesset and the cabinet – 11%

Israeli Jews only – 29%

All citizens of the State of Israel – 31%

All Jews (Jews from the Diaspora) – 14% 

These figures show that we tend to make broad declarations. It seems as though for a large portion of the Israeli public, the concept of Jerusalem remains a basic element of Zionism and Judaism to such an extent that it challenges them. I am familiar with the accepted method of governance in Israel and it worries me that only 16% of the population thinks that the prime minister and the cabinet should decide on the issue.

I direct my question to the honorable members of this panel – Who has the right to decide on the future of this city? How will it look? In whose hands will it be?

In summary, I would like to say that perhaps we should all think about the following combination of words: the problem of Jerusalem. How did it come about that our eternal capital turned into a problem? This will perhaps help us to improve the future of Jerusalem and to be so privileged to see the elderly and infants in the streets of Jerusalem.