by SHLOMO GAZIT

The stormy disputes between MK Benny Begin and Binyamin Netanyahu, and between Labor and Likud, have interfered with our real appreciation of the diplomatic struggle that will eventually decide the fate of Jerusalem.

There are actually four separate orbits of dispute around the city, and of these the internal Israeli controversy is only one - in fact, it is the least important.

The other three orbits are the Israeli-Palestinian, the Jewish-Moslem, and the Jewish-Christian.

Half the human race - about 2.5 billion people - look to Jerusalem. To members of the three monotheistic faiths, it is the place where religious mysticism and physical existence converge. We tend to forget that only 14 million of these 2.5 billion - about half a percent - are Jews.

No one trying for a diplomatic solution to the problem of Jerusalem can afford to shrug off this demographic reality. It is significant because no solution for Jerusalem can survive unless it is acceptable to the vast majority of members of other religions, to those who also focus on this splendid city.

For 30 years, ever since the paratroop brigade commanded by Mordechai Gur conquered East Jerusalem and gained control of the Temple Mount, Israel has adopted a policy of creating facts in the city. A mere three weeks after hostilities ceased, the Knesset decided to impose Israeli law on both parts.

We created an unambiguous fact: The city became one. But 30 years have gone by, and no country has yet accepted the fact of Israeli annexation.

Some adopt the strict line that Jerusalem is no different from all the territories occupied by the IDF, that UN Security Council Resolution 242 applies to East Jerusalem as well, and that Israel must withdraw to the Green Line even in Jerusalem.

Others are less exacting, indicating that they will go along with whatever Israel and the Palestinians work out.

Israel didn't stop with the fact of annexation. For 30 years we have striven to create facts proceeding in two directions that, seemingly, do not contradict one another.

Concurrent with the June 1967 Knesset decision came the first direction: our unequivocal commitment to freedom of worship in Jerusalem for all religions.

Now freedom of worship didn't mean Israeli noninterference in the content of that worship. Its overriding aspect was the invitation to members of all religions to come to Jerusalem whenever they chose, and the guarantee to all of free access to the holy sites.

Long before the opening of traffic across the Jordan bridges, Israel announced that any Arab resident in the West Bank or Gaza Strip could have unrestricted access to Jerusalem in order to fulfill the obligation of praying there. Parallel to this, we invited Arabs and Moslems worldwide to come and receive special entry permits for visiting Jerusalem.

Our other direction was a wave of construction and massive settlement of Jews in East Jerusalem. The object was clear - to break down the monolithic partition of the city along sharp ethnic and religious lines. This, indeed, has been Israel's greatest and most important settlement drive in the post-'67 period.

But intentions are one thing, facts another. We have not allowed freedom of worship in its true and complete sense for a long time.

Security considerations have forced us to impose all the various closures and prevent free movement of Arabs (Moslems and Christians) in and out of Jerusalem.

There has also certainly been the fear that Arabs would exploit the freedom of movement granted them to migrate into the city. We were, in other words, afraid of the Palestinian side creating their own facts.

The settlement project in the eastern part of the city has gone as far as it can. Israel has used up most of the free space there, whether it was originally government property or land Israel acquired through expropriation.

From now on, Jewish construction in East Jerusalem will mostly involve penetrating into totally Arab neighborhoods, entailing diplomatic and media conflict, and occasionally actual violence.

Pope John Paul II's possible visit to Jerusalem and the controversy surrounding the construction at Har Homa have served to bring into focus the two orbits of controversy we tend to ignore.

Jerusalem as Israel's capital will not become acceptable in the eyes of world opinion unless we remember that any diplomatic and practical solution must answer the expectations of the 2.5 billion people for whom the city is sacred, even though they are not Jews.

So much for the facts; the choice is ours.

We can either continue laying emphasis on strengthening the foundations of physical Jewish presence in the city - and thereby weaken the force of our demand that the world recognize Israel's sovereignty and its right to sovereignty over it - or we can persuade the world that only during Israeli sovereignty in Jerusalem, and only if it continues, can freedom of worship in Jerusalem to all faiths truly be guaranteed.

It won't be easy for 2.5 billion believers to hand over the keys of the city to a religion which constitutes only half a percent of all those who look to Jerusalem.

We must not make it harder for them by not truly and totally protecting other religions' rights in it.

The writer is a former head of military intelligence.