Thread

Jews settle in Palestinian Jerusalem

Jews settle in Palestinian Jerusalem Troubleshooting 50 posts Apr 7, 2003 — Apr 9, 2003

#1 Mon, 7 Apr 2003 - 04:29

http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/St...,931141,00.html

Quote:

Jews settle in Palestinian Jerusalem

Sharon tests Bush, Blair and the road map by letting families occupy contested district

Chris McGreal in Jerusalem
Monday April 7, 2003
The Guardian

Ariel Sharon has brushed aside an appeal by the White House to stop an unprecedented move by Jewish settlers into a Palestinian district of Jersualem which his critics say will further hinder a political settlement.

After more than two years of legal and political wrangling, Mr Sharon's office approved the plan last week and the first Jewish families have moved into new flats in the Ma'aleh Ha'zeitim settlement, beside the densely populated Arab district of Ras al-Amoud.

It is the first time a Jewish settlement has been built in a Palestinian area of Jerusalem since Israel seized control of the entire city in 1967.

The first settlers at the apartment complex, just a few hundred metres from the Wailing Wall, include a millionaire, Irving Moskowitz, and his son-in-law Ariel King, a far-right political activist.

More than 100 more families are expected to move in during the coming months.

Condoleezza Rice, the White House national security adviser, telephoned Mr Sharon's office and warned that letting Jews move into the settlement might raise tension during the war on Iraq and further undermine the prospect of a political settlement.

Danny Seidemann, an adviser to previous Israeli leaders on how to divide Jerusalem, said Mr Sharon's approval for the settlers' move into Ma'aleh Ha'zeitim was a test for George Bush and Tony Blair, who meet in Belfast today to discuss, among other things, the "road map" to a Middle East peace deal which envisages a Palestinian state within three years.

"This is not something Sharon turned a blind eye to. This is something he gave the go ahead for even after Condoleezza Rice asked him not to," he said.

"The Jewish settlement in Ras al-Amoud makes a resolution more difficult and undermines the stability of the city. If the US is serious about the road map it will not countenance unilateral action on the settlements that predetermine an outcome to negotiations.

"If Mr Blair accepts this, it undermines his credibility when he says he is serious about the road map."

At the weekend Mr Sharon's chief aide, Dov Weisglass, said Israel was not prepared to make any concessions on "security issues"and would walk out of negotiations on the road map if forced to do so.

The prime minister's critics say that Ma'aleh Ha'zeitim is a political tactic to block the possibility of dividing Jerusalem as part of a peace deal.

It also undermines plans under the Camp David accords for a corridor to give Palestinians access to Muslim sites in Jerusalem's old city without having to pass through Israeli territory.

The flats at Ma'aleh Ha'zeitim are built on land bought in the 19th century by religious groups to expand a Jewish cemetery.

The property fell into Jordanian hands after Palestine was divided in 1948.

Jewish groups argue that they are entitled to live on the land, and to remove the Palestinian "squatters", under the Jews' right of return.

The courts agree, even though no similar right is extended to Palestinians driven from their homes in West Jerusalem.

Moreover, the supreme court has ruled that Palestinians cannot buy property in the Jewish quarter of the city, even if they once lived there.

Moni Mordecai, director of the pressure group Peace Now, accused the government of using the war in Iraq as a cover for the decision.

"The timing of this action raises the suspicion that the government intends to enable this underhanded opportunism that they hope will go unnoticed in the international community, to exploit a situation that holds disastrous implications for the area," he said.

Eyal Hareuveni, director of the Jerusalem branch of Peace Now, said: "This is a settler group, extremists who want to transfer the Arabs [out of their homeland].

"This is only a recipe for friction and violence."

An Israeli spokesman said the government had followed legal procedures in permitting the settlers to move in, and denied that it had a political motive.

And peace activists are accidentally shot.

And the moon is made from cheese.

#2 Mon, 7 Apr 2003 - 04:37

Mmmmm, cheesy moon. *drool*

#3 Mon, 7 Apr 2003 - 05:50

Face, maybe you should rather have said Israelis.

But this is yet another example of how immune Israel has become when it comes to international laws and conventions. What will be done about this. Probably nothing.

#4 Mon, 7 Apr 2003 - 06:10

Ariel Sharon a "man of peace"

#5 Mon, 7 Apr 2003 - 06:32

Arafat is no longer a terrorist.

#6 Mon, 7 Apr 2003 - 06:46

Quote:

Originally posted by BasketofPuppies:
Arafat is no longer a terrorist.

What does anything in this thread have to do with Arafat? And by pointing out the hypocrisy of calling Sharon a man of peace does that in some way imply my views of Arafat?

What is with you guys? Somebody bashes bush you say something about Clinton somebody says Sharon you say Arafat. A conversation about the actions of one doesn't mean we have to automatically talk about the other.

Hypothetical example:

me: Sharon is a bad golfer
you: Ya well Arafat can't hit the green to save his life, he sucks!

Please.

#7 Mon, 7 Apr 2003 - 07:42

Quote:

Originally posted by Logic:
Face, maybe you should rather have said Israelis.

Why?

#8 Mon, 7 Apr 2003 - 07:44

Quote:

Originally posted by shmerek:
What does anything in this thread have to do with Arafat? And by pointing out the hypocrisy of calling Sharon a man of peace does that in some way imply my views of Arafat?

What is with you guys? Somebody bashes bush you say something about Clinton somebody says Sharon you say Arafat. A conversation about the actions of one doesn't mean we have to automatically talk about the other.

Hypothetical example:

me: Sharon is a bad golfer
you: Ya well Arafat can't hit the green to save his life, he sucks!

Please.

Because a lot of what Sharon does, is related to the actions of Arafat.

Oh, and there is a difference between "non-binding" and "binding" resolutions

#9 Mon, 7 Apr 2003 - 07:48

Hey, heeeey. C'mon you two! New Shimmer is a floor wax... AND a dessert topping!

-Mmmmm. Tastes great on ice cream!
-And just look at that shine!

#10 Mon, 7 Apr 2003 - 08:01

Quote:

Originally posted by Face Ache:
Why?

First, because you will most likelly be called a anti-semite by some here.

Second, because it isn't correct IMHO to always bring up the religion of people. It isn't important to know that Jews did this and that, or that muslims did this and that. It is the nation and/or people who do this, not the religion. Understand what I mean?

ps. I saw that the article said that so it wasn't your fault, sorry.

#11 Mon, 7 Apr 2003 - 08:06

Interesting possibility: If the U.S. gets a friendly regime going in Iraq, there's no longer a geostrategic reason to support Israel, so we can make credible threats of cutting off their foreign aid.

Then we let them live with the neighbors they have earned for themselves.

BlackGriffen

#12 Mon, 7 Apr 2003 - 08:11

Quote:

Originally posted by Logic:
ps. I saw that the article said that so it wasn't your fault, sorry.

Damnit I was going to toy with you a bit longer.

#13 Mon, 7 Apr 2003 - 08:16

Quote:

Originally posted by Face Ache:
Damnit I was going to toy with you a bit longer.

Here is an interesting link for all of you.

Oh, how great it is that Sharon&co can hide behind the fact that they are "government" and not only military or civilian thugs, terrorists or massmurderers.

Flame on

#14 Mon, 7 Apr 2003 - 08:30

Well now.

My take on this is,

This is about legacy-building for Bush and Blair, who would like to be remembered for things other than Iraq once they are out of office.

Bush and Blair are aiming to tackle Middle East Peace and Ireland-English peace after Iraq.

Now, the involvement in Iraq is ostensibly because Iraq has violated binding resolutions calling for disarmament and proof of disarmament, and in the absence of abiding by those resolutions, Iraq poses a threat to the world. Iraq also is a blatant violator of human rights by employing torture, rape, and chemical weapons upon it's own people.

Israel/Palestine and Ireland are very different from Iraq. None of them pose a threat to the rest of the world. None of them employ chemical weapons, rape, or torture.

(Sure, that's avoiding the issues of homes bulldozed, military checkpoints, suicide bombers, Catholic/Protestant violence and deaths - these are parts of this conflict, -- but let's agree that these things are not the same as a single government imposing them on his own citizens.)

FaceAche, you and I agreed in the past when Sharon didn't blindly follow Bush's 'advice.' We both agreed that Israel is its own country, free to not take orders from Bush.

Here, it seems to me that this is Sharon simply making sure that peace comes on terms agreeable to Israel, not because Bush and Blair want a legacy. We may not like the action taken by Sharon, but the reasoning is sound-

After all, a peace imposed by Bush or Blair, not reached by Israel and Palestinians will not be a sincere peace. If it isn't sincere, how can it be sustainable?

#15 Mon, 7 Apr 2003 - 08:35

...And is this move NOT a sure fire guarantee that increased reprisals WILL take place? Is it not guaranteeing that the cycle will continue? And please... PLEASE do not answer with, "well, they'd be doing it anyway..."

#16 Mon, 7 Apr 2003 - 08:58

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003...9567564039.html

Quote:

Israel wants more than a dozen changes to a Middle East peace initiative, and will walk away from negotiations if the amendments are rejected, an aide to the Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon, says.

Another DOA peace initiative.

It's almost as if they don't want it...

#17 Mon, 7 Apr 2003 - 09:05

Quote:

Originally posted by vmarks:

Israel/Palestine and Ireland are very different from Iraq. None of them pose a threat to the rest of the world. None of them employ chemical weapons, rape, or torture.

(Sure, that's avoiding the issues of homes bulldozed, military checkpoints, suicide bombers, Catholic/Protestant violence and deaths - these are parts of this conflict, -- but let's agree that these things are not the same as a single government imposing them on his own citizens.)

Well they do have an indirect impact on the rest of the world.. and it could be considered a danger... the tensions developed through these wars have created a threat worldwide, including instability in the middle east. Palestine it self is a rallying point for Al-Queda. That classifies as a worldwide threat.... just not as big as say Iraq, or N. Korea (though Korea won't dare do anything... they know they do they are wiped off the face of the planet)

Ireland looks like it will end within the next several years (formally) and in the next generation (reality). I just wish this was higher on the list of priorities. They keep it so low... and eventually, like other conflicts that are kept on the dl... eventually they errups into a huge problem.

Quote:

After all, a peace imposed by Bush or Blair, not reached by Israel and Palestinians will not be a sincere peace. If it isn't sincere, how can it be sustainable?

Very true. Very true.

Now what's needed is to get both sides to agree that peace is needed.

#18 Mon, 7 Apr 2003 - 09:06

They are both fighting over the Temple Mount.

That is what this is mainly about.

#19 Mon, 7 Apr 2003 - 09:16

Quote:

Originally posted by Zimphire:
They are both fighting over the Temple Mount.

That is what this is mainly about.

If you're going to say that, be careful what you mean by "this" -

The conflict is about far more than the Temple Mount.

Whether settling in East Jerusalem is only about the Temple Mount or about the whole conflict is your interpretation- I believe it is about the whole conflict.

#20 Mon, 7 Apr 2003 - 09:21

Quote:

Originally posted by Face Ache:
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003...9567564039.html

Another DOA peace initiative.

It's almost as if they don't want it...

Well, they want it. They don't want to give up everything in the process for it.

Peace without security is no peace. Peace without sincerity, peace made on terms that either side didn't want to compromise cannot be a sustainable peace.

An agreement has to be one that is acceptable both parties. Would you prefer that Sharon wasn't honest about this, and would say he'd compromise publicly and then refuse at the table? Better that he be open and public so that when the time comes to meet at the table for peace again, everyone knows what the score is.

#21 Mon, 7 Apr 2003 - 09:49

Quote:

Originally posted by shmerek:
What does anything in this thread have to do with Arafat?

Any thread with the words: Israel, Palestine, Jerusalem, Jews is a ligit place to mention Arafat.

After all, he is the leader of the Palestinians...

#22 Mon, 7 Apr 2003 - 12:36

Quote:

Originally posted by vmarks:
If you're going to say that, be careful what you mean by "this" -

The conflict is about far more than the Temple Mount.

Whether settling in East Jerusalem is only about the Temple Mount or about the whole conflict is your interpretation- I believe it is about the whole conflict.

Sorry, let me rephrase that. I think to SOME of the Jewish people in Israel, it is about constructing a 3rd temple, on the Temple Mount.

I mean the red heffer is here, they are being impatient.

#23 Mon, 7 Apr 2003 - 17:29

Quote:

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Because a lot of what Sharon does, is related to the actions of Arafat.

Oh, and there is a difference between "non-binding" and "binding" resolutions

Not in this instance and I said nothing about resolutions.

#24 Mon, 7 Apr 2003 - 17:58

Interesting that no one of the pro-Israeli crowd mentions that the settlements are illegal, break the Geneva convention and a couple of UN resolutions. Oh, yeah I forgot they are non-binding. Who ****ing cares?? UN resolutions is something we demand that is followed, even if the threat of using force isn't there. But nooooo, the might is right crowd always seem to forget that!

#25 Mon, 7 Apr 2003 - 19:12

Quote:

Originally posted by Logic:
Interesting that no one of the pro-Israeli crowd mentions that the settlements are illegal, break the Geneva convention and a couple of UN resolutions. Oh, yeah I forgot they are non-binding. Who ****ing cares?? UN resolutions is something we demand that is followed, even if the threat of using force isn't there. But nooooo, the might is right crowd always seem to forget that!

Your comments are anti-semetic, and immoral. You are a Nazi.

Good points, but remember Israel's leaders have stated at several times in the past they will not comply/enforce with UN Resolutions unless they are favorable....

Hence they are meaningless.

As the UN is meaningless.

#26 Mon, 7 Apr 2003 - 19:16

Quote:

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
Your comments are anti-semetic, and immoral. You are a Nazi.

Good points, but remember Israel's leaders have stated at several times in the past they will not comply/enforce with UN Resolutions unless they are favorable....

Hence they are meaningless.

As the UN is meaningless.

Exactly, how is there going to be peace in the area when the stronger bully is never going to follow any resolutions put forth by an organization that their biggest supporter has already deamed meaningless........

#27 Mon, 7 Apr 2003 - 19:35

I would be interested to see how the US media is covering this story.

#28 Mon, 7 Apr 2003 - 19:46

#29 Mon, 7 Apr 2003 - 20:00

Quote:

Originally posted by daimoni:
Actually, I'd like to see coverage of this story in any other media source.

I'm looking... but I'm not finding. Lend a hand?

I'll try

Read Icelandic?

#30 Mon, 7 Apr 2003 - 20:07

Quote:

Originally posted by daimoni:
Actually, I'd like to see coverage of this story in any other media source.

I'm looking... but I'm not finding. Lend a hand?

Try http://news.google.com/ I can save you time, though: not many, and certainly no major ones. At least when I searched, anyway.

BlackGriffen