After five years under an ultra-orthodox mayor, secular Jerusalemites finally got their act together, turned out in number at the polling stations, and elected the secular candidate, young businessmen Nir Barkat.

With the final results in, Barkat gained 50% of the votes, and ultra-orthodox candidate Meir Porush got 42%. Barkat's achievement is impressive, bearing in mind that many Jerusalemites and Israelis believed that the demographic balance in favour of the orthodox Jews doomed the ever-holiest city to be ruled by religious mayors from here till kingdom come. It is even more remarkable for a politician who can hardly be called a charismatic or attractive leader. Barkat's prospects were clouded further by the famous tendency of the orthodox to vote as a unanimous bloc, as instructed by their rabbis: a bloc, moreover, with turnout rates typically in excess of 100%, (sometimes including dead grandmothers whose identity cards were left lying around after their unfortunate departure, hence enabling them to cast their posthumous votes by proxy).

The organisational achievement of the secularists in Jerusalem notwithstanding, this time it was the ultra-orthodox who managed to snatch defeat from the hands of victory. An internal orthodox political dispute over the candidacy of Porush led a few rabbis, notably the Hassidic rabbi of Gur, to instruct their followers to vote for Barkat. When asked by reporters if their hands did not shake when casting a vote for a secular candidate, Hassidic voters replied simply that their hands never shake when they follow their rabbi's orders. Other orthodox voters, followers of other rabbis, just stayed at home and refrained from voting at all.

Foreign observers tend to confuse Israeli secularism with general liberalism, and to assume that all religious leaders propagate rightwing nationalistic policies. In the case of the last elections in Jerusalem, they couldn't be more wrong. Barkat, in his effort to gather the large National-Religious electorate under his flag, has already committed to building a new Jewish settlement in occupied Palestinian Anata in East Jerusalem, and voiced some radical anti-Palestinian views. His opinions deterred not only the tiny number of radical lefties in Jerusalem; liberal Zionists too have expressed concern over his political statements. Yossy Sarid, the previous leader of the liberal Meretz party, called on the secular Jews of Jerusalem to refrain from supporting Barkat in an article in Ha'aretz. But it seems that even the liberal Jerusalemites, with few exceptions, were so adamant to deflect the orthodox threat that they were willing to sacrifice their Palestinian neighbours to Barkat's bulldozers, and join the settlers in securing his election.

The ultra-orthodox are, naturally, no lefties, and their religious affiliation often dictates a segregationist and racist view of all non-Jews. At the same time, as they represent the poorest strata of Jerusalemites, alongside the Palestinians, they often share more interests with them than with Barkat's middle-class supporters. Helping the poor, assisting large families and investing in welfare are all mutual interests of the orthodox community, as well as the Palestinian one. Added to the fact that he ultra-orthodox and the National-Religious voters are not joined at the hip, and the latter's support for Barkat, Porush would have possibly served the interest of peace in Jerusalem much better, or in the very least would have harmed it less, than Barkat.

The fact that the Palestinian residents of Jerusalem traditionally boycott the municipal elections is nothing less than a tragedy. Their position – not recognising the Israeli occupation in East Jerusalem – is highly understandable. However, considering their large number, and the fact that many of them "recognise" the occupying forces anyway by accepting welfare payments, choosing a more political and less symbolic form of protest could have enabled them to play kingmaker and determine the identity of Jerusalem's mayor. The Palestinian leadership may do well to re-consider its policies in that respect.

In the meantime, Jerusalem has elected a mayor who would no doubt join in solidarity with the next gay parade, and may prevent the closing of a pub or two on Friday nights. These are no small things. But his bulldozers will keep demolishing Palestinian houses in East Jerusalem, and digging the foundations for new settlements, hence carrying on with the "silent transfer" of Palestinians from the city. Only a joint force of Palestinians and liberal Jews stands a chance of stopping this from happening again. The next window for that will open in 5 years time.