Dividing Jerusalem is not a simple process. the Jewish people have profound ties to Jerusalem, which has been their spiritual and temporal capital for 3,000 years. It has never been the capital of any other people or nation. Furthermore, Jews again became the majority of the city’s population over 150 years ago, and they have lived in eastern Jerusalem for centuries, except between 1948 and 1967, when Jordan illegally controlled the area, expelled all Jews, and desecrated Jewish holy sites. only under Israeli governance has freedom of worship and protection of every religion’s holy sites been ensured. Today, neighborhoods in eastern Jerusalem are intertwined, with 270,000 Arabs and 200,000 Jews, and it would not be easy to separate them. Additionally, over two-thirds of Jerusalem’s Arabs reported in a may 2011 poll that they want to stay under Israeli governance and do not want to become part of a future Palestinian state. These complex issues require creative solutions that can only emerge through direct negotiations.
Israel is a country ruled by law. Neither Jews nor Palestinians are unjustly evicted. If they are, Israel’s court system sees that justice is served. Jerusalem’s Arabs, like Israeli citizens, can rent or buy homes throughout the city. Evictions of Jews and Palestinians occur for the same reasons they do in cities around the world: renters refuse to pay their rent or homes have been built without required permits or on public land designated for urban projects, which has required demolitions of illegally built Jewish and Palestinian structures.
(from Stand With Us)
The Jewish Claim to Jerusalem:
The Case Under International Law with Dr. Jacques Gauthier
September 01, 2014
The Deadly Israeli House Strikes Again
Daniel Greenfield @ the Sultan Knish blog
There are few weapons as deadly as the Israeli house. When its brick and mortar are combined together, the house, whether it is one of those modest one story hilltop affairs or a five floor apartment building complete with hot and cold running water, becomes far more dangerous than anything green and glowing that comes out of the Iranian centrifuges.
Forget the cluster bomb and the mine, the poison gas shell and even tailored viruses. Iran can keep its nuclear bombs. They don’t impress anyone in Europe or in Washington. Genocide is a minor matter when in the presence of the fearsome weapon of terror that is an Israeli family of four moving into a new apartment.
Sudan may have built a small mountain of African corpses, but it can’t expect to command the full and undivided attention of the world until it does something truly outrageous like building a house and filling it with Jews. Since the Sudanese Jews are as gone as the Jews of Egypt, Iraq, Syria and good old Afghanistan, the chances of Bashir the Butcher pulling off that trick are rather slim.
Due to the Muslim world’s shortsightedness in driving out its Jews from Cairo, Aleppo and Baghdad to Jerusalem, the ultimate weapon in international affairs is entirely controlled by the Jewish State. The Jewish State’s stockpile of Jews should worry the international community far more than its hypothetical stockpiles of nuclear weapons. No one besides Israel, and possibly Saudi Arabia, cares much about the Iranian bomb. But when Israel builds a house, then the international community tears its clothes, wails, threatens to recall its ambassadors and boycott Israeli peaches.
Angry British men in red Keffiyahs hold up signs about the Holocaust in front of Jewish cosmetics stores in London. Marginalized French youth, by way of Algeria and Tunisia, hurl stones at synagogues. John Kerry interrupts a speech on the dangers of Global Warming as an aide notifies him of an even bigger threat to the world. David just made a down payment on a two bedroom in Gvaot.
You can spit on the White House carpets and steal all the gold in Greece. You can blow up anything you like and threaten anyone you will, but you had better not lift a drill near the hills from which Balaam tried and failed to curse the Jewish people. Where the old Mesopotamian warlock failed, his successors in the United Nations follow in his footsteps by cursing Israel every day of the week.
Some may think that nuclear weapons are the ultimate weapons, but as we see, time and time again, the ultimate weapon is a hammer and a fistful of nails in a Jewish hand.
Obama has yet to dig up a strategy for ISIS and can’t think of what to do about Putin in the Ukraine, but there’s always a final status solution strategy for Israel which involves destroying as many Jewish houses as possible and driving out the families living inside them.
Everyone has their standards. There are things that we all cannot abide. And for all the Miss America answers about ending war, hunger and people who wear plaid in public, the one thing that everyone will stand up against or sit down in opposition to is the Israeli house.
China announcing that there would be no democracy in Hong Kong, ISIS losing a battle to Iraqi forces and Jihadists occupying the US embassy in Tripoli were all minor stories thoroughly buried by the horrifying report that Israel might “seize” 988 acres of land for housing.
From the amount of media coverage you might have thought that Israel had conquered France or Kuwait instead of allocating some land the size of a farm or a ranch for housing. If Israel had only allocated 2,000 acres, then aliens could have landed in Berkeley and the news would have been buried under coverage of the houses which might be build and on which Jews might one day live.
The land being “seized” had belonged to Israel and had no prior claims against it. If Qatar had decided to finance a Muslim construction project on the site, no one would have been opposed. But there are different rules for the Jews. There have always been different rules about where the Jews can live. International law is the new ghetto. Its enforcers are diplomats and BDS.
The State Department has claimed that building houses is “counterproductive” to peace. On the other hand the Palestinian Authority’s funding of terrorists never seems to be counterproductive. The legal decision about the land was made in accordance with the existing Ottoman law of the Muslim empire. But Muslim laws are only supposed to be applied when they advantage Muslims.
White House officials have in the past claimed that Netanyahu “humiliated” Obama by authorizing the building of houses. While Russia may threaten nuclear war against the United States, and Iran may play Obama for a fool, only Israel has managed to achieve official recognition for “humiliating” Obama, without even trying, proving once again that the Jewish race is so talented that it often achieves things that other peoples may only dream of without even realizing that it is doing it.
Now that Netanyahu has gone to the mattresses, literally, by authorizing new housing, the media will begin braying that Israel has humiliated Obama all over again. They say that every time a bell rings, an angel gets his wings. But every time an Israeli jackhammer roars, Obama stands, like that famous trash-mourning fake Indian, with a tear slowly making its way down one glistening cheek at the sight of another humiliating Israeli house.
According to the New York Times, which is never wrong, building more houses makes peace impossible. Peace, which is not in any way obstructed by rockets, suicide bombers, unilateral statehood bids and declarations of war, comes up against only one obstacle. The stout unyielding wall of the Israeli house.
You can shell Israeli houses, bomb them and break inside to massacre the people living inside, but then after all that, Israel goes and builds more of those damn things.
Hamas shoots thousands of rockets and Israel builds thousands of houses. But Israeli houses generally stay where they’re built, while Hamas rockets are as likely to kill Gazans as they are to put holes in the roofs of those dastardly houses. And in the arms race between houses and rockets, the Israelis appear to be winning. And that’s not good for peace.
If Israelis get the dangerous idea that they can just keep building houses and outlast all the talented rocketeers who spend their time with the Koran in front of one eye and the Anarchist’s Cookbook in front of the other, what hope is there for peace?
That is why no one cares much about Hamas rockets, which mostly kill Israelis, who most reasonable people in London, Paris and Brussels think have it coming anyway, but get into a foaming lather about an Israeli house.
Killing Israelis has never been any obstacle to peace. Twenty years of killing Israelis has not dissuaded a single Israeli government from sitting down at the table to dicker with the terrorists. But an Israeli family living in a house is holding down territory that it will be harder to then cede to terrorists when the angels have blown their horns, the seas have all gone dry and peace is carried in on a golden platter by 72 virgins accompanied by their flying suicide bomber mates.
The problem is an old one. Pharaoh struggled with it. So did Hitler. And so does Hamas. What do you do when there are too many Jews living. The answer is usually obvious.
Israel’s Peace Partners tried to go back to the time-honored Egyptian tradition of throwing all the Jews into the sea. But despite an entire officer corps temporarily “on leave” from the armed forces of the United Kingdom, they only got as far as half of Jerusalem, where they blew up every synagogue, and took the West Bank of Israel, or as the non-indigenous Zionist invaders with no roots in the region call it, Judea and Samaria.
Nineteen years later, Israel’s Peace Partners had traded in their British officer corps for a Soviet officer corps, and lost Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza, proving that when it came to killing Jews, the Communists were better at it when the Jews weren’t shooting back. Ever since then the world, or those portions of it populated entirely by diplomats and the better class of journalists, has been urging Israel to give back the land to an imaginary country to be populated entirely by terrorists.
This peace plan, which has worked as well as fighting fire with gasoline, has not in any way been endangered by two decades of terror, but trembles down to its toes every time an Israeli hammer falls on an Israeli nail. Because that land must go back so that rockets can be shot from it into Israel, so that Israel can invade it and reclaim it, and then sit down for another peace process to return the land from which the rockets will be fired, which will be invaded, which will be given back… for peace.
And Israeli houses endanger this cycle of peace and violence. They endanger it by creating “facts on the ground”, a piquant phrase that only seems to apply to houses with Jews. Muslim houses in no way create facts on the ground, even though they are built out of the same material and filled with people. Or perhaps they create the good kind of facts on the ground. The kind of preemption of negotiations that the professional peacemakers approve of.
But it’s hard to know what exactly the peacemakers approve of, because their arguments and their definitions keep changing all the time. All that we know is that they disapprove of Israeli houses.
The United States repeatedly assured Israel that Jerusalem would in no way be endangered by the peace process. No less a personality than Joseph Robinette Biden Jr. co-sponsored three Senate resolutions urging that Jerusalem should remain Israel’s undivided capital. Then like all good politicians, he was horribly offended when the Israelis actually took him at his word.
Obama gave an election speech where he declared that Jerusalem should be undivided. A day later he explained that he meant “undivided” in some spiritual sense that did not preclude it from actually being physically divided.
UN Chief Ban Ki-moon has declared Israeli houses to be an “almost fatal blow” to the peace process. It is, of course, only an “almost fatal blow” because the peace process, like Dracula, cannot be killed. Israeli houses, fearsome as they may be with their balconies and poor heating in winter, are never quite enough to kill it.
Like the monster of a horror movie, the peace process always comes back and no matter how many blows the Israeli house delivers to it, a year later there’s a sequel where the Israeli house is being stalked by the peace process monster all over again.
The army of lethal Israeli houses, which may not be built for another five years, if ever, seem formidable in the black newsprint of the New York Times and in the fulminations of Guardian columnists, but their actual potency is limited to housing Jewish families and infuriating international diplomats and their media coathangers.
Europe is furious, Obama is seething, the UN is energized, and somewhere in Iraq, the Caliph of ISIS wipes the grease out of his beard and wonders what he could do to get this much attention. He briefly scribbles down some thoughts on a napkin but then dismisses them as being too implausible.
As much as it might get the world’s attention, there is no way ISIS can build houses for Jews in Israel.
June 21, 2011
Not Stealing Palestine, but Purchasing Israel
The real history of Israel’s founding, and why it matters
Zionists stole Palestinian land: That’s the mantra both the Palestinian Authority and Hamas teach their children and propagate in their media. This claim has vast importance, as Palestinian Media Watch explains: “Presenting the creation of the [Israeli] state as an act of theft and its continued existence as a historical injustice serves as the basis for the PA’s non-recognition of Israel’s right to exist.” The accusation of theft also undermines Israel’s position internationally.
But is this accusation true?
No, it is not. Ironically, the building of Israel represents almost the most peaceable in-migration and state creation in history. Understanding why requires seeing Zionism in context. Simply put, conquest is the historical norm. Governments everywhere have been established through invasion and nearly all states came into being at someone else’s expense. No one is permanently in charge; everyone’s roots trace back to somewhere else.
Germanic tribes, Central Asian hordes, Russian tsars, and Spanish and Portuguese conquistadors remade the map. Modern Greeks have only a tenuous connection to the Greeks of antiquity. Who can count the number of times Belgium was overrun? The United States came into existence after the defeat of Native Americans. Kings marauded in Africa, Aryans invaded India. In Japan, Yamato-speakers eliminated all but tiny groups such as the Ainu.
The Middle East, due to its centrality and geography, has experienced more than its share of invasions, including the Greek, Roman, Arabian, Crusader, Seljuk, Timurid, Mongolian, and modern European. Within the region, dynastic froth caused the same territory — Egypt for example — to be conquered and re-conquered.
The land that now makes up Israel was no exception. In Jerusalem Besieged: From Ancient Canaan to Modern Israel, Eric H. Cline writes of Jerusalem: “No other city has been more bitterly fought over throughout its history.” He backs up that claim, counting “at least 118 separate conflicts in and for Jerusalem during the past four millennia.” He calculates Jerusalem to have been destroyed completely at least twice, besieged 23 times, captured 44 times, and attacked 52 times. The PA fantasizes that today’s Palestinians are descended from a tribe of ancient Canaan, the Jebusites; in fact, they are overwhelmingly the offspring of invaders and immigrants seeking economic opportunities.
Against this tableau of unceasing conquest, violence, and overthrow, Zionist efforts to build a presence in the Holy Land until 1948 stand out as astonishingly mild, mercantile rather than military. Two great empires, the Ottomans and the British, ruled Eretz Yisrael. In contrast, Zionists lacked military power. They could not possibly achieve statehood through conquest.
Instead, they purchased land. Acquiring property dunam by dunam, farm by farm, house by house, lay at the heart of the Zionist enterprise until 1948. The Jewish National Fund, founded in 1901 to buy land in Palestine “to assist in the foundation of a new community of free Jews engaged in active and peaceable industry,” was the key institution — and not the Haganah, the clandestine defense organization founded in 1920.
Zionists also focused on the rehabilitation of what was barren and considered unusable. They not only made the desert bloom, but drained swamps, cleared water channels, reclaimed wasteland, forested bare hills, cleared rocks, and removed salt from the soil. Jewish reclamation and sanitation work precipitously reduced the number of disease-related deaths.
Only when the British Mandate of Palestine gave up power in 1948, followed immediately by an all-out attempt by Arab states to crush and expel the Zionists, did the latter take up the sword in self-defense and go on to win land through military conquest. Even then, as the historian Efraim Karsh demonstrates in Palestine Betrayed, most Arabs fled their lands; exceedingly few were forced off.
This history contradicts the Palestinian account that “Zionist gangs stole Palestine and expelled its people” which led to a catastrophe “unprecedented in history” (according to a PA twelfth-grade textbook) or that Zionists “plundered the Palestinian land and national interests, and established their state upon the ruins of the Palestinian Arab people” (writes a columnist in the PA’s daily). International organizations, newspaper editorials, and faculty petitions reiterate this falsehood worldwide.
Israelis should hold their heads high and point out that the building of their country was based on the least violent and most civilized movement of any people in history. Gangs did not steal Palestine. Merchants purchased Israel.
— Daniel Pipes is president of the Middle East Forum and Taube distinguished visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution of Stanford University. © 2011 by Daniel Pipes. All rights reserved
Netanyahu says he will ‘never divide Jerusalem,’ could accept a centrist coalition
In Channel 2 interview, prime minister says he doubts most Israelis would cede partial sovereignty in capital, sets out preconditions for Palestinian state
Jerusalem will not be divided “so long as I’m prime minister,” Benjamin Netanyahu said in a Monday night Channel 2 broadcast. Asked by Yaakov Elon about polls showing two-thirds of Israelis support the division of the city as part of a peace agreement with the Palestinians, the prime minister responded, “I don’t buy it” and stressed that Hamas would be at the walls of Israel’s border if Jerusalem were split.
Netanyahu cited the importance of his late father Benzion’s ideology and its influence on how he thinks, noting the “privilege” of being in the Land of Israel.
Remembering Jerusalem before the 1967 war, with a wall along King George Street and shooting into the city, the prime minister asked, “Is this what we want… an agreement, with Hamas soldiers at the border?”
Israel extended sovereignty throughout the city after capturing East Jerusalem and the Old City from Jordan in 1967. Previous prime minister Ehud Olmert offered the Palestinians sovereignty in East Jerusalem’s Arab neighborhoods, and proposed a multi-nation non-sovereign trusteeship for the Old City, in a 2008 offer to Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas. Abbas did not respond to the offer.
Regarding a Palestinian state, Netanyahu said that three conditions must be met for it to become a reality. First, he said, the Palestinians must recognize Israel as a Jewish state. Secondly, they must declare an end to the conflict. Finally, Netanyahu said, any Palestinian state must be demilitarized, with security arrangements meeting Israeli approval.
Netanyahu refused to respond to questions about former intelligence heads Yuval Diskin and Meir Degan, both of whom have been critical of the prime minister, notably over his handling of the Iranian nuclear threat, referring to the issue as “not serious.”
Discussing the upcoming elections, Netanyahu expressed willingness to form a broad-based coalition with center-left parties, but claimed they had negated the possibility in advance. He also said they would have to follow the government line on certain matters regarding security and finance. When asked by Elon if Labor Party leader Shelly Yachimovich could be finance minister, Netanyahu chuckled.
The prime minister said that Israel had faced 9.5 percent unemployment, the same level as Europe, when he became prime minister, but that, following his open market policies, Israel now has 7% unemployment, compared to social democratic Europe’s 12% figure.
Netanyahu said in the Monday night broadcast that the next budget will be bigger than the current one, and that taxes had already been raised. He would not rule out taxes being raised again, but said he didn’t plan on new taxes. He also addressed the prospect of a growing entitlement state, saying, “I’m not willing to have a never-ending, growing budget.”
Yachimovich last week rejected the possibility of joining a Likud-led government. Yesh Atid party leader Yair Lapid also initially said he would not be the “fifth wheel” in a right-wing/ultra Orthodox coalition, but later called for his and other center-left parties to join Netanyahu’s government to the exclusion of far-right and religious parties.
The prime minister’s talk of a broad coalition came after a failed attempt by Hatnua party leader Tzipi Livni to form a bloc against Netanyahu with Lapid’s Yesh Atid and Labor. Discussion of the idea by the three on Sunday night ended in failure and the trading of recriminations on Monday. Netanyahu said he was “prepared [to form] a broad coalition, but they reject it out of hand.”
Asked whether he would prefer to form a more centrist government or one including religious and far-right wing parties, the prime minister responded: “I have not yet been elected, but I very much hope to be elected. I want a broad government that would be built first and foremost on the large ruling party of Likud-Beytenu.”
Regarding the inclusion of Lapid, Yachimovich, or Livni in a future government, Netanyahu said he did not dismiss the possibility — but, rather, they had dismissed the possibility of joining him. ”Whoever wants to join us will need, of course, to go in the diplomatic and economic direction that I think is responsible and proves itself,” he said.
Netanyahu conceded the possibility of appointing Livni a minister in his potential future government, but said that he alone would dictate the government’s relationship with the Palestinians. As for Yachimovich, he said her appointment to a position in the government would depend entirely on her.