Tag Archives: East Jerusalem

Jan 13 2013

How big is E-1? The geographic reality of an alleged “impediment to peace”

A guest post by AKUS

There’s been a lot of talk at the Guardian – and in the mainstream media - about the tiny area of land (known as ’E-1′) outside Jerusalem (encompassing a mere 12 square kilometers of land out of more than 5,600 square kilometers of territory in the West Bank), so I thought it might be worth putting it in perspective:

Here’s a map showing E-1 taken from Ha’aretz (Q&A: What is area E-1, anyway?) which has the advantage of showing E-1 in bright red:

1

Here is the same image overlaid on a true map of Jerusalem and surroundings.  The guide in the bottom left hand corner gives a better idea of the distances and area involved – about 2 miles/4km from central Jerusalem, and between Jerusalem and Ma’ale Adumim:

2

For clarity, here is the E-1 area extracted from the map provided by Ha’aretz and overlaid on the same map of Jerusalem and surroundings:

3

By way of comparison, here is the E-1 area overlaid on a map of Manhattan – it is less than 4 times larger than Central Park:

4

To make the scale of E-1 a little more obvious, let’s zoom out to include most of Manhattan and surroundings:

5

And here is E-1 overlaid on a portion of the map of Israel to the same scale:

6

Is the world-wide fuss over an area between Jerusalem and Ma’ale Adumim, less than four times the size of Central Park, and a fraction of the size of Manhattan, that the Palestinians know will be included in the area of Israel if an agreement is ever reached, really worth making?

Related articles
Dec 23 2012

CiF Watch prompts Guardian correction to Ashrawi claim regarding ‘Jews only’ homes

correction pageOn Nov. 29, we published a post titled ‘Hanan Ashrawi lies at ‘Comment is Free’ about homes for Jews only in Jerusalem‘. 

We focused on Ashrawi’s implicit claim, in her ‘Comment is Free’ essay (Supporting Palestine at the UN today is a vote for peace in the Middle East, Nov. 29) that new homes being planned for the eastern section of Jerusalem were being built for Jews only.   

Here are the first two paragraphs from the original, unrevised version of Ashrawi’s piece at CiF:

jewish citizens

After arguing in our post that Ashrawi’s claim (that new Israeli homes in eastern Jerusalem would be reserved for ‘Jews only’) was false, we also contacted the Guardian’s readers editor to point out the error.  

On Dec. 21, the Guardian published this correction.

correction

As we pointed out in our post, the overwhelming majority of land in Israel is owned by the government, and administered  by the Israeli Land Administration (ILA).  The ILA leases the land out to all Israeli citizens (Jews, Arabs, Muslims, Christians, Druze, etc.), legal Israeli residents (including Arabs living in eastern Jerusalem) or foreigners who would qualify for citizenship under the ‘law of return’.

Ashrawi was slyly attempting to con CiF readers into believing that new homes in eastern Jerusalem would be leased to residents based on a discriminatory policy in order to buttress her broader narrative of Israeli racism.

However, as we learn continually from reading the Guardian and ‘Comment is Free’, the mere lack of evidence is not a serious impediment to those wishing to advance preconceived conclusions of Israeli guilt.

Related articles
Dec 10 2012

Guardian’s obsessively critical coverage of E-1 construction proposal, by the numbers

News that Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu announced the start of planning for home construction in the area known as E-1, between Jerusalem and Ma’ale Adumim, received saturation coverage at the Guardian.

Between Dec. 1 and Dec. 4, the Guardian’s coverage included an official editorial, analysis by Middle East editor, Ian Black, reports by Harriet Sherwood, a ‘Live Blog‘ on the announcement and political fallout, a photo story and a video.

The coverage almost exclusively advanced the narrative that plans to eventually build homes in E-1 would represent a death knell to the Two State Solution, would literally cut the West Bank in two, and would deny access to eastern Jerusalem to West Bank Palestinians.

(Most of of these arguments were proven to be demonstrably false.)

westbank-e1

E-1 in (yellow), between Jerusalem (light gray) and Ma’ale Adumim (purple)

Here’s a statistical and narrative summary of the Guardian’s coverage of E-1

  • Total number of words in Guardian reports, analyses and commentaries on E-1 : Nearly 8,000
  • Total number of separate reports or commentaries on E-1: 14 
  • Number of reports or commentaries which were mostly or entirely negative towards Israeli plans: 13*
  • Number of false allegations suggesting that E-1 construction would cut the West Bank in two, or would cut off eastern Jerusalem from the West Bank: 7
  • Number of times the above allegations, suggesting that E-1 would cut the WB in two, and cut eastern Jerusalem from the WB, were refuted by someone sympathetic to E-1: 1
  • Number of times it was argued that E-1 construction would make the creation of a viable and contiguous Palestinian state impossible or undermine the ‘Peace Process’: 30
  • Number of times the above allegations, suggesting that E-1 jeopardizes the ‘Peace Process’, were refuted: 1 
  • Number of times it was noted that E-1 construction represented an Israeli consensus: 1

*Harriet Sherwood’s Dec. 3 report was somewhat balanced.

Related articles
Dec 4 2012

Does the Guardian own a map? Op-Ed falsely claims E-1 would cut West Bank in two

On December 3, we demonstrated that Harriet Sherwood’s allegation that proposed Israeli construction in the area of land (known as E-1) between Jerusalem and Ma’aleh Adumim would cut off eastern Jerusalem from the West Bank is simply untrue.

Sherwood wrote:

“The development of [land east of Jerusalem known as] E1 has been frozen for years under pressure from the US and EU. Western diplomats regard it as a “game-changer” as its development would close off East Jerusalem – the future capital of Palestine – from the West Bank.” [emphasis added]

As CAMERA noted:

[It is not true that] construction [in E-1] would cut off Palestinian areas from Jerusalem. Access to Jerusalem through Abu Dis, Eizariya, Hizma and Anata is not prevented by the proposed neighborhood, nor would it be precluded by a string of neighborhoods connecting Ma’aleh Adumim to Jerusalem.”

In an official editorial today, Dec. 4, ‘Israel-Palestine: Concreting over the solution‘, the Guardian repeats Sherwood’s erroneous claim that the E-1  construction ”would sever the Palestinian state from its capital in East Jerusalem” and takes the false charge even further, arguing thus:

“Having spun the line that European governments had misunderstood Israel‘s plan to create a settlement that would cut the West Bank in two and separate it from East Jerusalem, the prime minister’s office vowed that nothing would alter their decision.” [emphasis added]

The Guardian was under no obligation to consult Israel before making allegations that the proposed construction would cut the West Bank in two, but when making a specific geographical claim it does seem reasonable that (as “journalists”) they consult a map which could empirically prove or disprove their assertion.

So, would construction connecting Jerusalem to  Ma’aleh Adumim cut the West Bank in two:

No.

Here’s a map created by HonestReporting completely disproving the Guardian’s allegation:

westBank-E1

As HR observed:

“The Palestinian waistline — between Ma’ale Adumim and the Dead Sea, is roughly 15 km wide. That’s a corridor no different than the Israeli waistline. Indeed, that has never caused a problem of Israeli territorial contiguity.”

We will be in contact with Guardian readers’ editor Chris Elliott over this egregious error, and we suggest that you consider doing the same.

reader@guardian.co.uk

Related articles
Dec 3 2012

Guardian interrupts ‘live blog’ on Mid-East uprisings with news that Jews might build homes

The Guardian’s ‘Live Blog‘ on the Middle East uprisings took a detour today from its typical updates on civil war, regional conflagrations and revolution to report on Israeli plans to build homes, sometime in the future, in an area between Ma’aleh Adumim and Jerusalem: (Screenshots taken from the Guardian page within the past hour)

top

Here’s the terrifying photo used by the Guardian to illustrate the regional “crisis”:

2

Requisite “death of the two-state solution” quote by a highly politicized NGO.

3

A report by Harriet Sherwood repeating the lie that Israeli construction would cut off eastern Jerusalem from the West Bank.

5

Here’s the dramatic news that isn’t happening:

4

Russia is “alarmed” by the news.

98

More Israeli ambassadors summoned. 

76

And, below the shocking reports from Jerusalem, in other, far less important news:  Lebanon and Syria risk igniting a dangerous military confrontation, and Islamists in Egypt organized a mass rally meant to intimidate the highest court in the country.   

17

Finally, if want to know what else is happening in Israel, here are the top stories on the Guardian’s Israel page:

other news

Related articles
Nov 20 2012

The Guardian’s Seumas Milne defends Palestinians’ right to kill Israelis

Guardian Associate Editor Seumas Milne just published an essay at ‘Comment is Free’ brimming with anger at Israel, and crowing about the glory of Hamas “resistance”.

In ‘Palestinians have the right to defend themselves‘, Nov. 20, Milne lashes out at Western leaders who have dared to proclaim that Israel has every “right to defend itself”, mocks reports by the “western media echo[ing] Israel’s claim that its assault is in retaliation for Hamas rocket attacks”, and condemns Netanyahu for “unleash[ing] a new round of bloodletting” which he attributes, naturally, to the upcoming Israeli elections.

Milne vilifies those who “portray Israel as some kind of victim with every right to ‘defend itself’ from attack from outside its borders” as engaging in “a grotesque inversion of reality”.

Declaring Gaza still “occupied”, Milne defends Hamas “resistance”, thus:

“So Gazans are an occupied people and have the right to resist, including by armed force (though not to target civilians), while Israel is an occupying power that has an obligation to withdraw – not a right to defend territories it controls or is colonising by dint of military power.

Even if Israel had genuinely ended its occupation in 2005, Gaza’s people are Palestinians, and their territory part of the 22% of historic Palestine earmarked for a Palestinian state that depends on Israeli withdrawal from the occupied West Bank and east Jerusalem. Across their land, Palestinians have the right to defend and arm themselves, whether they choose to exercise it or not.”

Seumas Milne is arguing that Palestinians in Gaza, the West Bank and ‘East Jerusalem’ have the right to murder Israelis.

And, if you’re wondering about the one qualification in Milne’s essay – that civilians can’t be intentionally targeted – a subsequent passage seems to clarify his meaning.

“Emboldened by the wave of change and growing support across the region, Hamas has also regained credibility as a resistance force, which had faded since 2009, and strengthened its hand against an increasingly discredited Palestinian Authority leadership in Ramallah in Ramallah. The deployment of longer-range rockets that have now been shown to reach Tel Aviv and Jerusalem is also beginning to shift what has been an overwhelmingly one-sided balance of deterrence. [emphasis added]

The Hamas rocket attacks he’s so proud of – ‘operations’ he’s hopeful may change the balance of power in the region – seem to fall outside of his definition of prohibited acts (which target civilians) and thus consistent with the overall Palestinian right of armed “resistance”.

Based on his text it seems the following is definitely justifiable:

  • Suicide bombings and other armed attacks which target the hundreds of thousands of Israelis serving in the IDF

And, the following is most likely justifiable:

  • Rockets launched indiscriminately at Israelis cities

While Milne’s justification, under the Guardian’s imprimatur, for the intentional killing of citizens of the Jewish state is not surprising in light of his history of praising anti-imperialist “resistance movements” across the globe, the mere fact that his latest argument is derivative - consistent with his broader political orientation – doesn’t make it any less repulsive.

 

Oct 15 2012

Did the Guardian just implicitly recognize “East” Jerusalem as part of Israel?

It’s been a tough year for the Guardian’s “research” department.

Earlier in Oct., the Press Complaints Commission concluded that the Guardian’s “unequivocal statement” in their “Style Guide” that “Tel Aviv is the capital of Israel” was incorrect and therefore breached “the Editors’ Code of Practice.”

Here’s what their Style Guide stataed about Jerusalem a few months ago.

Thanks to action by Honest Reporting, in taking the complaint to the PCC, their Style Guide now reads as follows:

Ok, they don’t refer to Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, but this is the Guardian, after all, and we’re always pleased when even a small dose of reality penetrates their ideological bubble. 

However, the small admission that Tel Aviv is not Israel’s capital didn’t prepare us for what follows.

You see, the Guardian typically refers to the section of Jerusalem illegally occupied by Jordan between 1949 and 1967 as “East Jerusalem”, inspired by the belief that a future Palestinian state will inevitably include a capital in that part of the city, and that any Jews who live there are illegal “settlers”.

They even have an East Jerusalem page:

Typical is a report by Harriet Sherwood in 2010, titled Jerusalem “Western Wall Development plan opposed by Palestinians as illegal“, which included this passage:

“Jerusalem’s key Muslim, Jewish and Christian holy sites lie in and around the Old City, just on the eastern side of the “green line” or pre-1967 border. Israel captured and later annexed East Jerusalem in the Six Day War of 1967 in a move not recognised by the international community.”

However, Sherwood left out quite a bit.

In the aftermath of Israel’s War of Independence, Jerusalem was arbitrarily divided, and Jews living on the “east” side were expelled by Jordanian forces, and dozens of synagogues (and other physical traces of Jewish life) were destroyed.

This map of the 1949-1967 boundary between “East” and “West” Jerusalem shows that the line cut off the Old City from Israel, including the Jewish Quarter, as well as Judaism’s holiest site (The Temple Mount).

The misnomer of “historically Arab East Jerusalem” – based on a geographical reality imposed by Arabs for a short 18 years in its long history – has become so part of the official meme that the UK Advertising Authority ruled in 2010 that an Israeli tourism ad featuring the Western Wall, Temple Mount and the Dome of the Rock was a violation of advertising laws.  

The Advertising Authority ruled that the historic Jewish locations were, in fact, located in “East Jerusalem and part of the occupied territories.”

So, given the Guardian’s strict adherence to such absurd narratives about the Israeli capital, I was shocked to find the following caption in an Oct. 3 edition of the Guardian’s series, “Picture Desk Live”.

While the “holiest site” in Judaism is actually the Temple Mount, and not the retaining wall where Jews are seen praying, this is a minor fact compared to the text at the end of the caption. Indeed, I had to look at the caption twice as I truly didn’t believe my eyes the first time.

Amazingly, the Guardian evidently now recognizes “East” Jerusalem as part of Israel!

So, now that they have started “Judaizing” Jerusalem, I think it’s reasonable to wonder what other concessions to Zionism we can now expect?

Will their reporters start referring to the West Bank as Judea and Samaria?

Will “settlers” now be called “Israelis”, and “settlements” now called “Yishuvim”?

Will Harriet Sherwood begin to characterize Palestinians who murder innocent Israeli civilians as “terrorists”, instead of “militants”?

Alright, perhaps I’m over-reacting just a bit!

Related articles
Aug 17 2011

Guardian story characterizes Jerusalem’s Light Rail project as a violation of international law

A group of European immigrants settled in the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem on the 27th of October 1700, and began building a synagogue. On the 27th of October, 1721, marauding Arabs burnt the synagogue and courtyard, destroying both.

In 1816, almost 100 years after the synagogue was first destroyed, Jews managed to obtain a license from the Turkish authorities in Kushta, annulling previous debts and permitting the rebuilding of the synagogue. It was inaugurated a second time in 1864.

The Synagogue was destroyed a second time by Jordanian forces after they attacked and expelled the Jewish population of the Old City in 1948, and erased all presence of Jewish history – a symbolic deed to express their victory in capturing the historically Jewish neighborhoods in Jerusalem.

On March 15, 2010, nearly 43 years after Israel reclaimed Jerusalem following the Six Day War the newly rebuilt Hurva Synagogue was dedicated.

On that date, the Palestinian Center for Human Rights (PCHR) condemned the rededication of the Synagogue in the Jewish Quarter of the Old City of Jerusalem as a “war crime,” and called on EU member states to boycott Israeli goods in protest. 

On March 18th, 2010, my wife and I were married on the rooftop of the home of our rabbi, which stands next to and overlooks the newly restored Hurva Synagogue.

We now joke that our marriage was, arguably, an accessory to a war crime and a violation of international law.

This came to mind upon reading Harriet Sherwood’s latest post for the Guardian, “Jerusalem’s long-awaited light railway splits opinion“, which characterizes Jerusalem’s Light Rail project – which runs through the “East” and West” parts of the city, thus serving Arab neighborhoods, such as Shu’afat, as well as majority Jewish neighborhoods – as a violation of international law.

Phase One of Jerusalem's Light Rail Route

As I noted on July 6th - a post written after my participation in a test run of the Light Rail project – National Public Radio (NPR) and New York Times correspondents who also rode the Light Rail that day, and questioned Jerusalem’s mayor, Nir Barkat, on whether the fact that the route runs though the East part of the city (serving Arab neighborhoods) was an impediment to peace, were parroting the specious argument that any Jewish presence in “East” Jerusalem was inherently illegal.

Of course, the mainstream media myth of “historically Arab” East Jerusalem is predicated upon the fact that “East” Jerusalem was only “Arab” after Jordanian forces ethnically cleansed every Jew from the territory they controlled after the 1948 War – a racist segregation of the city between Jew and non-Jew which only ended  in 1967.

I also noted polls indicating that the overwhelming majority of Palestinians living in East Jerusalem DO NOT want to divide the city as part of any future peace agreement.

Sherwood’s characterization of Jerusalem’s Light Rail project as “illegal” is based on a quote by Omar Barghouti, a BDS activist currently studying at Tel Aviv University, who explicitly calls for the end of the Jewish state within any borders.

For Barghouti, Israel’s mere existence is illegal and the issue of which particular policies the “illegal” state of Israel adopts are of no particular consequence. 

Further, imagine what the reaction would be if the Arab neighborhoods were excluded from the Rail’s route?  Is there any question that the dominant narrative would have been one of racism and discrimination against Jerusalem’s Arabs?

This is how debased the debate about Israel has become.

A Light Rail project that serves Arab neighborhoods is racist, and an instrument of oppression.

As an Israeli, and resident of Jerusalem, I fully intend to use my city’s new Light Rail service and so, once again, by Barghouti’s and Sherwood’s logic, will become an accessory to a violation of international law.

Related articles
Aug 14 2011

Harriet Sherwood’s truncated history of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

Harriet Sherwood’s latest dispatch, “Palestinians to present state bid to UN General Assembly“, wasn’t especially problematic.

Sure, it parroted the tired, worn-out Palestinian narrative that the absence of negotiations between the Israelis and Palestinians was the result of “[Israel's] refusal to extend a temporary freeze on settlement expansion” – ignoring the fact that such a building freeze had never, until 2009, stood as an impediment to direct talks between the two parties – but, all in all, Sherwood’s report wasn’t egregiously biased by Guardian standards.

However, at the end of her piece Sherwood provides readers with a short history, titled, “Road to Statehood”, with some remarkable historical omissions – a timeline suggesting that all relevant history pertaining to the conflict ceased in 1993.

Here’s her brief history:

First, note the difference in terms Sherwood employs when alternately characterizing Jordanian, Egyptian, and Israeli control of territory in the region. Israel “occupied” territory after the Six Day War, whereas Jordan and Egypt merely “governed” the West Bank and Gaza.

Also, as it’s quite peculiar, not to mention highly misleading, to provide an account which abruptly ends in 1993, here’s a brief historical account of the subsequent years – events which would seem rather significant in the overall context of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict:

2000-2001: After intense U.S. brokered negotiations, Palestinian President Yasser Arafat rejected an offer of statehood, by Israeli PM Ehud Barak, which included 100% of Gaza and would have given them a contiguous state which included 97% of the West Bank, as well as a Palestinian Capital in East Jerusalem.

2000-2004: After talks break down, Palestinians launched a deadly intifada which resulted in the deaths of over 1100 Israelis, and injuries to thousands more.

2005: Israel completes withdrawal from Gaza. The following year, Palestinians in Gaza elect Hamas, a terrorist group which rejects negotiations and is committed to Israel’s destruction.

2008: Israeli PM Olmert proposes an offer of statehood to the Palestinians confirmed to have been even more generous than Barak’s in 2000 – an offer which PA President Mahmoud Abbas rejected.

Finally, here’s the map reflecting what specifically Abbas rejected in 2008:

It seems like quite a few historically significant events have indeed occurred since 1993 – information about the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict which Harriet Sherwood, for some reason, decided not to report.

Related articles
Jun 8 2011

Guardian “East Jerusalem” series features quote characterizing Israeli Jews as a “swarm of ants”

The Guardian’s “East Jerusalem” Video Series, in partnership with the NGO, B’Tselem, shows again why merely describing the Guardian’s coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict as “activist journalism” simply doesn’t do justice to their ideologically driven agenda.  

Just as B’Tselem’s radical anti-Israel agenda  should remove any pretense that the group is a “humanitarian” NGO – B’Tselem’s Executive Director, Jessica Montell, has referred to Israel’s policy in the disputed territories as “worse than apartheid in South Africa” - the word “journalism’ should be excised from any mention of the Guardian’s coverage.  

The Guardian represents, quite simply, pro-Palestinian activism – anti-Israel activists who operate under the veneer of “journalism” to advocate for the Palestinian cause and agitate against Israel’s legitimacy.

Here’s a recent headline from one the installments in their new video series:

The video series doesn’t even nominally provide the Israeli view, accepts Palestinian claims at face value, and ignores the fact that the only reason “East” Jerusalem is referred to as “historically Arab” is because, from 1949 to 1967, when Jordan occupied that section of the city, the Jews living there were all expelled – that is, “ethnically cleansed” by the Jordanian authorities. 

The Guardian’s latest series also demonizes Jews who have moved into homes in the previously Jew-free neighborhoods of Jerusalem, ignores altogether the question of legal ownership of the properties in dispute, and, ultimately, represents nothing more than anti-Israel agitprop.

Jews who live in “East Jerusalem” are portrayed in video series as ugly, gun toting, “settlers”:

Palestinians featured in Guardian series are innocent, righteous, victims:

Related articles
Mar 17 2011

Palestinians Condemning Murder

This is cross posted at Yaacov Lozowick’s Ruminations

Yesterday I linked to a Guardian story which encouraged us to believe that Palestinians and Israelis were equally shocked by the murder of the Fogel family. The reporter, Harriet Sherwood, didn’t supply any facts to bolster her claim, not even one, so it’s hard to know what she thought she was referring to, or if – as I understand it – she was simply inventing things from thin air.

A number of readers discussed the matter, and one, Mich, offered a fascinating report by Shlomi Eldar (not to be confused with Akiva Eldar of Haaretz: Shlomi is a reporter who’s primary interest is in facts). You need Hebrew to follow Eldar’s report, which of course Sherwood doesn’t have, and since she gives no inkling she’s aware of Eldar’s report, I stand by my characterization of her as an ideologically-motivated hack. Having said that, Eldar’s report deserves an English summary:

I’ve been reporting in the Palestinian territories for many years, and the responses I recorded today in Shchem (Nablus) really surprised me. They seem to show a substantial distance between the PA leadership and regular people. The leadership (he cites Abbas and others) are muttering a condemnation of the murder, mostly not in Arabic and not in front of their public, and then they’re condemning Israeli settlements. Nothing new here. On the other hand, I went to Shchem today, and was very surprised. People on the street were willing to condemn the murder unequivocally, in Arabic and in Hebrew, with no embarrassment, in front of the camera, and even identify themselves. [He shows some examples]. I’ve been covering the Palestinian territories for years, but this I’ve never seen before. In the middle of town, publicly, people had no compunctions openly to condemn the murder of children.

At this point one of the two anchormen asks if this is real, or perhaps a one-off encounter with unusual townsmen. Eldar insists: the interviews I’ve just shown were representative, and I made lots of them, not only the snippets I just screened. Moreover, I didn’t find anyone saying the usual things about how it’s settlers and Israelis and IDF violence and all that. The atmosphere in Shchem today is that the murder of the Fogel family was a terrible crime.

OK. So what does all this mean? Shlomi Eldar says he doesn’t know, so I certainly know even less. Still, being a blogger means you’ve got to have theories about everything all the time, right? So here are some conjectures.

1. Netanyahu’s economic peace is working. Look at the store fronts of Shchem: the economy is obviously booming, people are beginning to live normal lives, and this allows them to think normal thoughts. The fact that the IDF has largely moved out of the West Bank and has dismantled most of the roadblocks, even as the settlements aren’t growing, no matter what the international media reports, is creating a new breathing space for the Palestinians, and they’re beginning to breathe normally.

2. Exhaustion. The economic peace of 2009-2011 is succeeding where the boom of the late 1990s didn’t, because the Palestinians have lost their illusions. In their suicide-bomber war of 2001-2003 they tried to break Israeli society, but the attempt backfired disastrously. Now they’re eager to pick up where they could have been in 1999, this time wiser and more realistic about what can and can’t be achieved.

3. The Arab Spring of 2011 really does mean something. Over the past few months we’ve seen masses of Arabs all over the region wishing for the same kind of world the rest of us live in, and bravely trying to get there. It’s not even remotely clear they’re going to end up with liberal open societies, but then again, it’s not certain they won’t – and even if they don’t, some of them really do seem to be striving for it.

4. Settlements aren’t as aggravating as we’ve endlessly been told. If there really is a sea change underway in the West Bank, it has started even though the Jewish settlements are still there. This doesn’t necessarily mean the Palestinian populace is willing to have them stay there, but it may mean they’re open to a process where reconciliation happens in the minds before the reality is foolishly and irrevocably changed.

5. Most important of all, were it to be true: After a full century of miscalculating, the Palestinians are beginning to understand that the only way they’ll get peace with Israel is by mutual recognition of our common humanity. The first man interviewed says, repeatedly: “Tell the Israelis Muslims aren’t allowed to murder”, and the teenager, brandishing the picture of Ehud Fogel says “Why should he have died? Isn’t it a waste?”

This is all speculative, and possibly wishful thinking. Yet I’m not certain. Over the past few months, perhaps a year, I’ve been wandering a lot through East Jerusalem, and occasionally through parts of the West Bank, and the calm and normality have been striking. I’ve also had more simply normal human interactions with Palestinians than in many years. Something may be happening – unreported in the media, in a dynamic which contradicts the endless chatter of the diplomats – but potentially very important.

If so, it needs to be carefully and warily nurtured. Carefully, warily, and nurtured. And patiently. Not words that are easily compatible with the instincts of the people who’ve got it wrong so far, who need to see their pet solutions applied NOW, and are intoxicated with their certainties.

Mar 13 2011

A view from across the green line: A Yishuv resident’s urgent plea

This is an email sent by Yochanan Visser, founder and director of the group, Missing Peace, which I am posting with his permission. Visser made Aliyah from the Netherlands in 2000.

When I saw my daughter (who was in Hebron at the time Shalhevet Pass was murdered) crying last night when we watched [the news], I decided I have had enough.

Enough of the barbarity of those who would slaughter a three-month old baby, but also enough of the relentless campaign that caused the death of three Jewish children and their parents.

I am not only talking here about the incitement in Palestinian society but about the national and international demonization campaign against Jews like me. Those living in Yehuda, Shomron or East Jerusalem.

“Settlers” are being treated only in one way; we are less than human beings. Our villages our branded” illegal” and in the end WE ourselves have become “illegal”.

Last year, during the launch of the Missing Peace project in Amsterdam, the first question asked by a journalist (Ha’aretz’s Cnaan Lipshitz) was how an information desk run by a director living in the West Bank could be reliable.

Get it?  By living in the West Bank one is automatically an unreliable outcast. Do not think this is only the opinion of a leftist Israeli journalist, I know of European officials who think the same.

Now yesterday we saw government officials as usual calling for international condemnation of this barbaric act.

But last week we saw that the same government contributed to this campaign by using plastic bullets against Jews for the first time , during the evacuation of an outpost.

The demonization campaign against Jews living across the green line has to be stopped – vilification which has, tragically, spilled over to Israel as a whole.

Regards Yochanan

 

Feb 11 2011

“Palestine Papers” the Guardian buried: Palestinians refused to characterize Israel as the homeland of the Jewish people

This is cross posted by Elder of Ziyon

In the preparation for Annapolis, the Israeli and Palestinian Arab negotiators discussed what a joint statement might look like. Tzipi Livni wanted to say that the end-game is two states for two peoples – and the Palestinian Arabs objected, for reasons that they themselves detailed.

Here are some sections of the discussion:

Tzipi Livni: Two states is the ultimate goal of the process. But also part of the TOR [Terms of Reference document they are drafting.] Each state is the answer to the natural aspirations of its people.

Saeb Erekat: [Raises roadmap language regarding unequivocal duty to accept each state as is. Reads from the roadmap.]

TL: To say the idea that two nation states contradicts the roadmap..…

SE: [But we’ve never denied Israel’s right to define itself.]
If you want to call your state the Jewish State of Israel you can call it what you want. [Notes examples of Iran and Saudi Arabia.]

TL: I said basically that our position is a reference to the fact thateach state is an answer to the national aspirations of their people.

Akram Haniyeh: There was an article in Haaretz saying that Palestinians would be stupid if they accept this [i.e. the Jewish state].

TL: Someone wrote the Palestinians?

Ahmed Querei [AA]: I want to say two state solution living side by side in peace security stability and prosperity, Palestinian democratic state independent with sovereignty, viable with East Jerusalem as its capital.

Tal Becker: That’s all? [Sarcastically.]

AA: Yes that’s our position. Two state solution living side by side in peace security stability and prosperity, Palestinian democratic state independent with sovereignty, viable with East Jerusalem as its capital. This is what we want to have. This small sentence.

TL: I just want to say something. …Our idea is to refer to two states for two peoples. Or two nation states, Palestine and Israel living side by side in peace and security with each state constituting the homeland for its people and the fulfillment of their national aspirations and self determination…

AH: This refers to the Israeli people?

TL: [Visibly angered.] I think that we can use another session – about what it means to be a Jew and that it is more than just a religion. But if you want to take us back to 1947 — it won’t help. Each state constituting the homeland for its people and the fulfillment of their national aspirations and self determination in their own territory. Israel the state of the Jewish people – and I would like to emphasize the meaning of “its people” is the Jewish people — with Jerusalem the united and undivided capital of Israel and of the Jewish people for 3007 years… [The Palestinian team protests.] You asked for it. [AA: We said East Jerusalem!] …and Palestine for the Palestinian people. We did not want to say that there is a “Palestinian people” but we’ve accepted your right to self determination.

AA: Why is it different?

TL: I didn’t ask for something that relates to my own self. I didn’t ask for recognizing something that is the internal decision of Israel. Israel can do so, it is a sovereign state. [We want you to recognize it.] The whole idea of the conflict is … the entire point is the establishment of the Jewish state. And yet we still have a conflict between us. We used to think it is because the Jews and the Arabs… but now the Palestinians… we used to say that we have no right to define the Palestinian people as a people. They can define it themselves. In 1947 it was between Jews and Arabs, and then [at that point the purpose] from the Israeli side to [was] say that the Palestinians are Arabs and not [Palestinians – it was an excuse not to create a Palestinian state. We'’ve passed that point in time and I'’m not going to raise it. The whole conflict between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea is not the idea of creating a democratic state that is viable etc. It is to divide it into two.] For each state to create its own problem. Then we can ask ourselves is it viable, what is the nature of the two states. In order to end the conflict we have to say that this is the basis. I know that your problem is saying this is problematic because of the refugees. During the final status negotiations we will have an answer to the refugees. You know my position. Even having a Jewish state — it doesn’t say anything about your demands. …. Without it, why should we create a Palestinian state?

…There is something that is shorter. I can read something with different wording:
That the ultimate goal is constituting the homeland for the Jewish people and the Palestinian people respectively, and the fulfillment of their national aspirations and self determination in their own territory.

The joint declaration at Annapolis did not include any wording about the Jewish people, but afterwards President Bush said “The [final peace] settlement will establish Palestine as a homeland for the Palestinian people just as Israel is the homeland for the Jewish people…The United States will keep its strong commitment to the security of the State of Israel and its existence as a homeland for the Jewish people.”

By the way, the Guardian definitely saw this memo, because it was the one that they and Al Jazeera misquoted as saying that Livni said against international law.she was (She didn’t.)

Feb 8 2011

Israel’s Never Looked So Good

This is cross posted by David Suissa, and first appeared in The Huffington Post.

They warned us. The geniuses at Peace Now warned us. The brilliant diplomats warned us. The think tanks warned us. Even the Arab dictators warned us. For decades now, they have been warning us that if you want “peace in the Middle East,” just fix the Palestinian problem. A recent variation on this theme has been: Just get the Jews to stop building apartments in East Jerusalem and Efrat. Yes, if all those Jews in the West Bank and East Jerusalem would only “freeze” their construction, then, finally, Palestinian leaders might come to the table and peace might break out.

And what would happen if peace would break out between Jews and Palestinians? Would all those furious Arabs now demonstrating on streets across the Middle East feel any better?

What bloody nonsense.

Has there ever been a greater abuse of the English language in international diplomacy than calling the Israeli-Palestinian conflict the “Middle East peace process?” As if there were only two countries in the Middle East.

Even if you absolutely believe in the imperative of creating a Palestinian state, you can’t tell me that the single-minded and global obsession with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict at the expense of the enormous ills in the rest of the Middle East hasn’t been idiotic, if not criminally negligent.

While tens of millions of Arabs have been suffering for decades from brutal oppression, while gays have been tortured and writers jailed and women humiliated and dissidents killed, the world — yes, the world — has obsessed with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

As if Palestinians — the same coddled victims on whom the world has spent billions and who have rejected one peace offer after another — were the only victims in the Middle East.

As if the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has anything to do with the 1,000-year-old bloody conflict between Sunni and Shiite Muslims, or the desire of brutal Arab dictators to stay in power, or the desire of Islamist radicals to bring back the Caliphate, or the economic despair of millions, or simply the absence of free speech or basic human rights throughout the Arab world.

While self-righteous Israel bashers have scrutinized every flaw in Israel’s democracy — some waxing hysterical that the Jewish democratic experiment in the world’s nastiest neighborhood had turned into an embarrassment — they kept their big mouths shut about the oppression of millions of Arabs throughout the Middle East.

They cried foul if Israeli Arabs — who have infinitely more rights and freedoms than any Arabs in the Middle East — had their rights compromised in any way. But if a poet were jailed in Jordan or a gay man were tortured in Egypt or a woman were stoned in Syria, all we heard was screaming silence.

Think of the ridiculous amount of media ink and diplomatic attention that has been poured onto the Israel-Palestinian conflict over the years, while much of the Arab world was suffering and smoldering, and tell me this is not criminal negligence. Do you ever recall seeing a UN resolution or an international conference in support of Middle Eastern Arabs not named Palestinians?

Of course, now that the Arab volcano has finally erupted, all those chronic Israel bashers have suddenly discovered a new cause: Freedom for the poor oppressed Arabs of the Middle East!

Imagine if, instead of putting Israel under their critical and hypocritical microscope, the world’s Israel bashers had taken Israel’s imperfect democratic experiment and said to the Arab world: Why don’t you try to emulate the Jews?

Why don’t you give equal rights to your women and gays, just like Israel does?

Why don’t you give your people the same freedom of speech and freedom to vote that Israel does? And offer them the economic opportunities they would get in Israel? Why don’t you treat your Jewish and Christian citizens the same way Israel treats its Arab and Christian citizens?

Why don’t you study how Israel has struggled to balance religion with democracy — a very difficult but not insurmountable task?

Why don’t you teach your people that Jews are not the sons of dogs but a noble, ancient people with a 3,000-year connection to the land of Israel?

Yes, imagine if Israel bashers had spent a fraction of their energy fighting the lies of Arab dictators and defending the rights of millions of oppressed Arabs. Imagine if President Obama had taken one percent of the time he has harped on Jewish settlements to defend the democratic rights of Egyptian Arabs — which he is suddenly doing now that the volcano has erupted.

Maybe it’s just easier to beat up on a free and open society like Israel.

Well, now that the cesspool of human oppression in the Arab world has been opened for all to see, how bad is Israel’s democracy looking? Don’t you wish the Arab world had a modicum of Israel’s civil society? Would you still be worrying about “stability in the Middle East?”

You can preach to me all you want about the great Jewish tradition of self-criticism — which I believe in — but right now, when I see poor Arab souls being murdered for the simple act of protesting on the street, I’ve never felt more proud of being a supporter of the Jewish state.

Jan 23 2011

Palestine Papers: Guardian’s own documents demonstrate veracity of Israeli version of 2008 offer (A contiguous Palestinian state with captial in Jerusalem)

Standing in stark contrast to the Guardian’s Palestine Papers narrative – of Israeli intransigence and Palestinian weakness and humiliation – their own documents corroborate the widely reported Israeli offer, during the 2008 negotiations, which Mahmoud Abbas rejected: a contiguous Palestinian state representing roughly 94% of the West Bank with land swaps (part of Israel which would become part of the new Palestinian state) making up for the remaining 6%.  The offer also included a Palestinian capital in East Jerusalem.

Here’s the map on the Guardian’s site:

Click to Enlarge

 

Further, additional Guardian documents show that former Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni was prepared to give the Golan Heights back to Syria in the context of an overall peace agreement.

In other words, the screaming Guardian headlines, and accompanying stories, which suggest that the documents reveal a bullying, intransigent Jewish state – a nation which their lead editorial likened to a “Moldovan Nightclub Bouncer” – are fictitious.

Regardless of the particular rhetorical contours of the discourse, at the behind-the-scenes negotiations, revealed by the “Palestine Papers”, nothing thus far suggests a version of events in 2008 in any way different than what was already known.

If Palestinian citizens have just cause to view their leaders as illegitimate as the result of the “Palestine Papers” it’s not because – as the Guardian editorial suggested – they were shown to be “craven” and servile, but, rather, because they turned down, for the second time in 8 years, an offer of a sovereign Palestinian state.