Without peace talks, Israel must leave East Jerusalem alone
Discussions on Jerusalem were postponed to a later stage of the final-status negotiations, but it was never agreed that this interlude be exploited to create facts on the ground.
Haaretz EditorialAs the diplomatic process has sunk deeper into hibernation, acts whose sole purpose is to tighten Israel's annexation of East Jerusalem have multiplied. Thus even as the Palestinians have given the Quartet a proposal on security arrangements and permanent borders in the West Bank, Israel is advancing proposals to change the master plans of neighborhoods over the Green Line.
On Tuesday, Nir Hasson reported in Haaretz that Jerusalem's regional planning and building committee had submitted a plan to create a national park near Mount Scopus. At the same time, the National Security Council discussed the King's Garden plan for the slopes below the Old City. Moreover, work began recently on a new interchange as part of a project to link Jerusalem's northeastern neighborhoods to the Western part of the city and give them direct access to Route 443.
 |
Works on road to link East Jerusalem neighborhoods to city center, Nov.30, 2011. |
| Photo by: Michal Fattal |
All this activity in East Jerusalem is being accompanied by claims that throw sand in the public's eyes. A good example is the claim that the eastern slope of Mount Scopus "has importance from the standpoint of landscape, archaeology and nature." It's hard to believe that the elected officials who are pushing this plan have overlooked the area's political and demographic significance. Expropriating land in that area would limit the development of the Palestinian neighborhoods of Issawiyeh and A-Tur. And strangling these neighborhoods would encourage illegal construction and increase hostility toward Israel.
The King's Garden plan, which entails demolishing 22 houses to create a new tourist attraction, is similarly wrapped in a veil of innocence. Jerusalem Mayor Nir Barkat claims that the plan benefits Palestinian residents because it includes granting permits to 66 illegal buildings in the neighborhood. But Barkat is presumably aware of the tensions in this neighborhood due to the ongoing effort by right-wing organizations to "Judaize" the Old City and its environs. As for the decision to pave the new road in the city's northeast, it was accompanied by the lame excuse that the road will also serve the area's Palestinian residents.
At the Israeli government's request, discussions on Jerusalem have been postponed to a later stage of the final-status negotiations. But at no point was it ever agreed that this interlude should be exploited to create facts on the ground and exacerbate tensions.
Read this article in Hebrew: הניחו למזרח ירושלים
Why Facebook Connect?
Comment on Haaretz.com articles with your Facebook login, and share your thoughts on your own wall.
- Latest
- Most Viewed
- Most Rated
- Open all
The Bible describes some of the history of Jerusalem before it was conquered by King David around 1000 BCE. Genesis 14 tells of a meeting between Abraham and Melchizedek King of Jerusalem: "And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine: and he was the priest of the most high God. And he blessed him, and said, Blessed be Abram to the most high God, possessor of heaven and earth.. And he [Abraham] gave him tithes of all." Note that Abraham recognized Melchizedek's priestly rank and gave him a tithe. Later in the Bible, with Jerusalem under Jewish rule, the historical figure of Melchizedek was still remembered. In Psalm 110, in what is thought to be a declaration during the coronation of the Israelite King, the MC (Court prophet?) declares "The Lord has sworn, and will not repent, You are a priest for ever after in the manner of Melchizedek." It shows reverence for the pre-Israelite king of Jerusalem. Jerusalem did not start as a Jewish city, and there is no reason why it should end up as exclusively Jewish. Sharing it with the Palestinians who see themselves (justifiably) as descendants of the early residents, and view the Islamic religion (unjustifiably) as the religion of Abraham, will be historically correct and politically smart.
In antiquity, the Israelites came and took over the Land of Canaan. Some of the local peoples (Canaanites, Philistines, etc.) were assimilated into Israel and some remained non-Israelites. During the Hellenistic and Roman periods, many more non-Jews settled on the Land. Due to oppression by the Roman government in particular, many of the Jews left the Land into exile. They were able to maintain their Jewish identity and culture through the ages. The peoples who remained on the land were Arabized during the Islamic conquest of the 7th century, most adopting Islam. These Arabs are today's Palestinians. In the Zionist era, the Jews returned to Palestine/Land of Israel, but refused to accept the local Palestinians as their relatives. Likewise, the Palestinians did not agree to share their homeland with the returning Jews. Wars ensued, and finally settled by the division of the land into two countries, Israel and Palestine. And they lived happily ever after./// Such a narrative should not be problematic for either Jews or Arabs. Jews might initially be a bit unhappy, because they are also blamed for refusing to recognize the Palestinians as a related people. However, this is exactly what the Jews did following the Return from Babylonian Exile. As described in the Book of Ezra, the Jews refused to let local people join them in building the Temple and worshiping the same God. (Apparently, the reference is to the Samaritans, a mixture of Israelites and foreign people brought into the Land.) Behaving in the same way again and again is a mark of authenticity, so will be acceptable to the Jews. End of conflict. Amen.
and it was alsosaid: “...a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country...” http://unispal.un.org/unispal.nsf/3d14c9e5cdaa296d85256cbf005aa3eb/2fca2c68106f11ab05256bcf007bf3cb?OpenDocument And on the other hand – Everyone should know. Either the Government nor “His Britannic Majesty” were rightful to make out of the land of the Palestinians a gift for any other people, not even a little piece of it. You can´t give away, what you do not rightful possess, whereas a person who receives and disposes stolen goods is as bad as those who take it. Even people with a religious morality would accept this!
Since when did Israel wait for agreement before laying down facts on the ground? The whole point of this facts-on-the-ground strategy, as its name suggests, is to pre-empt agreement and then point to the facts as a done deal.
without Peace talks...... full steam ahead....build as much and as fast as you can. Either sit and talk ....or its gone. next stop West Bank
is the reunited capital of Israel. It is not subject to negotiation. Peace talks may broach the subject of cultural autonomy provided it doesn't impinge upon Israeli sovereignty.
I can’t help but wonder if the people of Israel have ever contemplated what all this expanding is going to cost them in the end. The Arab community is maturing as a people. Collectively the Arabs are very rich, and as they move toward reconciliation with each other, they are going to become stronger as a united people. As time marches on their political movement is going to unite them in a way that will become a major force in the world. At this point in time the people are rejecting dictators, and are moving toward an Islamic version of democracy. At that time they are going to demand justice as they interpret justice. In the mind of Arabs, this fight didn’t start sixty years ago, it started millennia ago when the ancestors of present day Jews invaded their land with orders to kill every man, woman, and child. In the mind of the Arabs, that fight is not over. If the Jews want to settle with the Arabs they are going to have to eat a large piece of humble pie, become much more conciliatory, and become much more honest with themselves and the Arab community. It dose not matter how many immigrants Israel imports they will never have enough population to compete with a united Arab community. The only way Israel can survive is to admit the Arabs have a legitimate complaint and deal with it in a fair, reasonable, and intelligent way.
zio. Salaam/Shalom
Check any textbook on international law.
Am I wrong, Haaretz. Do you have the courage to publish this post?
That is an unfair and unlikely demand in a democratic country, since Jerusalem is unique, important and precious to Jews, Christians and Muslims. Each of the great monotheistic religions has a legitimate claim on Jerusalem.
in the New Testament. Does that mean you have to turn it over to the Christians?
Your logic is really bad. There was no agreement. These are unilateral steps. The idea that Israel needs some kind of agreement to pursue unilateral steps is pretty silly. It should be pointed out that Israel is not in fact breaking any agreements by pursuing settlements in East Jerusalem. If the Palestinians want any piece of Jerusalem they should strongly consider coming back to the negotiations table. Otherwise there will be no going back and all of Jerusalem will remain Israeli.
who don';t seem to be aware that the "Arabs" of Jerusalem are descended, like Ashkenazi Jews, from the original inhabitants of the land; they're the ones who didn't run away or leave to set up prosperous trading concerns round the Mediterranean. Most ancestrors of Ashkenazi Jews left of their own free will; by the time of Jesus there were more Jews living outside Palestine than in it. None of us can leave a home and expect to take it back should our descendants choose to return 2000 years later.
Nearly the entirety of the Jewish population of Israel was wiped out by the Romans during the destruction of the temple in 70AD and in the following Jewish revolts. The Samaritans were nearly wiped out by the Byzantines. The vast majority of the Arabs in Israel are recent immigrants from various Arab countries and would be just as home in Beirut as in Jerusalem.
That is precisely how it is.
haven't yet shaken off that stone age mentality on both sides
wrote the "Jerusalem" Talmud if there were no more Jews in Palestine?
Your statement is incorrect. First of all, the Romans never wiped out the Jewish population in 70. They only targeted the minority of Jews that rose up against them. Many of those Jews in the uprisings were Sabateans and are usually considered proto-christians or jewish-christians. Secondly; the mulsim population of this area is of mixed origin; Arab immigrants, Frankish crusaders and converted original inhabitants make up their DNA.
And I advise the works of Eisenberg for the starting readers.
I have heard, they say that Jerusalem was invented and created by a certain David and by a guy named Salomon, Not by Mustafah , am i wrong ?
What used to be a sanctuary for all people, is fast becoming a charedi stronghold...
Please stop your bigoted comments.
As opposed to the snipers alley get had before with half the city was illegally occupied by the East Palestinians a k a Jordanians?
The Jewish people were promised a home not a state, and the only dimensions laid out for it were those passed by the UN in 1947.
surely you must remember what the papers said at the time http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/1917/nov/07/israel
And one thing for sure--Qatzrin in occupied Syrian heights was not aprt of said conference.
The problem with idiots discussing legal matters is that they can't comprehend details. Here is an example: "The precise boundaries of all territories were left unspecified [in San Remo], to 'be determined by the Principal Allied Powers' and were not finalized until four years later." What does this make of the Bin-Israel argument? Hogwash. A clue to a legal idiot: The UN is full of countries who are meticulous about law. If the UN could plan on Jerusalem to be an international city and not part of the Jewish state, this should at least get you to re-examine your ignorant argument, no?
Therefore, Qatzrin is not part of Syria.
Haaretz, you sound like Nazi propaganda. Do you mean to Judaize the Jewish cemetery on the Mount of Olives? Or do you know that there was a Yemenite Jewish neighbourhood where Arab-populated Silwan is now and Jews were forcefully driven out from there? Mount of Zion is also Judaized? Or Kedron(Josepath Valley) where the son of King David is buried? Can you get any lower I always wonder? As much as I respect the right to be critical of Israel and her policies - you seem to favour only one-side of the conflict, but I'm shocked - totally shocked when I see this - Judaization of Jerusalem. Dig a little deeper and you'll see that from their point of you the whole land of Israel, incl Tel-Aviv and Haifa is Judaized Arab land. Isn't it where you and your children live?
"judaisation" is an arab propaganda term. the arabs always want to deny jewish historical connection to the city. this connection goes back four thousand years. jews have lived in jerusalem for four thousand years.
and when it was under musim sovereignety from 1948-67 no jew were allowed to visit. Now everyone is wellcome, if jew, christian or muslim. As long as they have no violent intentions!
it would have been mentioned in the koran...it's not their city, it never was and it never will be, and only the whiny left still claims it to be. Jews will build where they want and when they want in Jerusalem, and if you don't like it well that's too bad.
it is mentioned in there, that if you understand a word of it.
Chapter 17:1
Also if you mean that misgad al-aksa - it's not Jerusalem. Later , much later Muslim tradition associated Al-Aksa with Jerusalem.
"Glory to He (God) Who did take His servant for a Journey by night from the Sacred Mosque to the farthest Mosque (al- masjid al-aqsa), whose precincts We did bless" - Sura 17:1 This is the famous reference to "al-aqsa". That the reference was to the Jerusalem open space place of prayer ("mosque" in Arabic of the time) is clear, because in the Hadith (Islamic early traditions) Muhammad's widow tells of his night journey and refers to the destination place as Ilia (Capitolina, Jerusalem's name at the time). Also, already in the 7th century, not many years after, the al-Aqsa mosque was built in commemoration of the dream-event. Why would Muhammad refer to the place as the "farthest north"? Let us take a look at Psalm 48:2, "Mount Zion, in the far north, the city of the great King". Everybody knows, and knew, that Jerusalem is not in the far north. In fact, it was in the middle of the country! But Canaanite mythology had their gods living in Mount Zaphon (= North) near Turkey. The reverence towards the north was inherited by the Israelites and so applied to Jerusalem. Muhammad picked it up, and the rest is history.
Israel's word and it's signature on a treaty are completely worthless. Tell me, -what good are new negotiations if Israel has not honored the obligations of the agreements it already signed?
There is only Jerusalem. Undividable, Eternal Capital ot Israel. Period.
If Jerusalem is the eternal capital of Israel, then where the 'Period' is coming from?
go back inside the walls of the Old City. The rest isn't Jerusalem and never was.
'Jerusalem Mayor Nir Barkat claims that the plan benefits Palestinian residents because it includes granting permits to 66 illegal buildings in the neighborhood. But Barkat is presumably aware of the tensions in this neighborhood due to the ongoing effort by right-wing organizations to "Judaize" the Old City and its environs. As for the decision to pave the new road in the city's northeast, it was accompanied by the lame excuse that the road will also serve the area's Palestinian residents.' we should continue along this editorial lines- stop issuing building permits or authorize illegal construction of 66 houses, cancel light train stops in east jerusalem since it was the lame excuse to build the tracks, stop prividing any services to the area- bituach leumi, education, transportation, etc. after all, we do not know what will be the status of this area after peace comes here. however, if this was not the intent of this article and the city should continue providing e.jerusalem with services then we should also accept the city's authority to build.
this has always been the reason for postponement of talks on everything...create more facts on the ground..irreversable facts. in the end we'll find there's really not much left to talk about.
The most important thing for the PA is to stop the settlement activity so that Israel will have no reason to drag peace talks on indefinitely. When this happens, peace talks will start in good faith. To achieve the goal of stopping settlement activity, the PA must become member state of the ICC. Either do it after asking the UNGA to recognize you as a non-member state and then go the the ICC with an internationally recognized status of a state (the best option, and sure to be realized), or go directly to the ICC as was done with UNESCO. Good luck, but you must take action in order to survive, not just complain.
It liberated itself from the Soviets, incl half Poland, a piece of Rumania, Slovakia and the Crimea which historically is a part of Russia.....just you wait...
The GA can do for the Palestinians what it did for Israel in 1947, just say that they are to be a state in the 1967 borders. If the state was thus created or merely imagined is left for you to discuss to meaninglessness. What is important is that a vast majority of nations around the world will recognize that Palestine is a state. (Over 100 did it already without a UN resolution.) What is even more important is that the ICC would accept Palestine as a member state. This will give you a wonderful opportunity to climb to some tree top and proclaim your beliefs. But please do it while I am away.
Here is the effect of ICC membership. A member state can complain about war crimes committed within its territory. I(n the case of Israel, an investigation by ICC will surely result in indictment of Israli leaders, at least for the crime of settling Israeli citizens in the occupied territory. Such indictees will not be able to travel freely, because lending in a state member of the ICC may result in arrest and transfer to the Hague. Occupation itself is not a crime. Violating the rules of occupation is. Incidentally, Syria and Lebanon are not members of the ICC. Unlike the Soviet Union, invented facts are not admissible in the West.