Not sure if it’s officially a crisis, but it is pretty darn stupid. Cutting off high-level diplomatic contact just when it’s most necessary is absurd. Aid would have been a perfectly valid lever, but freezing diplomacy at high levels is just retarded. To say nothing of the fact that a settlement freeze in the West Bank is fine, but acting as if East Jerusalem itself already functionally off the table is nonsense. Obama campaigned on a promise that EJ would be decided by negotiations between the two parties. Now his administration is essentially saying “don’t touch EJ, so the Palestinians can have a maximum amount of territory with as little fuss as possible when you turn it over.”
Well, that’s fair enough if there can be some agreed upon standards of justice and such. Being a Jew caught by Hamas, at all, with or without a crime, is a far different matter than if you get caught by the right group of Fatah. But sure, enforcement of the law is a good thing.
Wait, I don’t get this. If the status/division/whatever of EJ is to be decided by future negotiations, isn’t that a valid reason for saying that it should remain unchanged in the meantime? How is an expansion freeze in EJ tantamount to prematurely deciding that EJ will go to the Palestinians?
I’m picturing the living-room floor of my childhood with my brother’s train sets and my craft projects both encroaching on the remaining available space, and both of us complaining bitterly that the other one was taking up more than his/her fair share of room, and my dad saying “When your mother gets home she will help you decide who gets what part of the space, but until then NOBODY IS TO PUT ONE MORE SINGLE SOLITARY THING DOWN ON THIS FLOOR!!”
Neither my brother nor I interpreted that “expansion freeze” as a premature awarding of the disputed territory to the other party. If it had struck us that way, I’m sure we would have complained about it.
Likewise, I don’t see how the Administration’s current demand for an EJ expansion freeze counts as automatically biased toward a decision in the Palestinians’ favor. What am I missing here? Are the Palestinians being allowed to go on building in EJ while the Israelis are required to stop, or something?
I don’t know that I agree with you there. I mean, I agree that cutting off high level diplomacy is stupid, but I think what the administration is trying to say is, “Don’t touch EJ until everybody’s sure that EJ will stay part of Israel.”
I will say that a total building freeze in East Jerusalem hurts the EJ Arabs more than it hurts the Israelis, because there’s a lot more crowding of Arab neighborhoods than Jewish ones.
Well, as I see it, EJ is already part of Israel. It’s not like Israel can expand into Palestinian claimed territory like it can in the West Bank. And I see no real reason why any future Palestinian state couldn’t annex the territory and give citizenship to anybody living there, Jew or Arab. I think that’s pretty much the point of a two state solution, two states, respecting the rights of both Jews and Arabs. After all, if Jews won’t be safe in a Palestinian East Jerusalem, what about the Temple Mount or the Church of the Holy Sepulcher?
If it’s to be safe for Arabs to live in Israel (as it should be and all discrimination should be punished to the fullest extent of the law) then it should be safe for Jews to live in Palestine as well and the housing situation shouldn’t have anything to do with how EJ shakes out.
That’s the reason that the Palestinians objected, because they viewed more Jewish housing as encroaching upon their future ownership rights.
There’s also the fact that we kept high level diplomatic contacts even while Arafat was in charge, and even after he deliberately started the second Intifada as an alternative to negotiating. But we’ll cut off all high level diplomatic contact due to a political insult to Biden?
Yes, but remember, EJ has been an annexed part of Israel, subject to its laws, governed as a part of its territory and with its citizens eligible for full Israeli citizenship for decades now. Demanding that they not expand housing in it does signal a change to its status that’s being pre-assumed.
It’s territory that was never past of a sovereign state of Palestine, that mostly isn’t privately owned, that’s part of Israel in fact whether or not it’s been internationally recognized and we’re saying that they can’t build housing for Arabs or Jews because the Palestinians want a certain amount of turf.
Put it this way, would you feel the same about a housing freeze in, say, Tel Aviv? After all, with its history from Jaffa on, it’s bee quite complicated. If the PA said that they wanted a slice of Tel Aviv, would you be fine with us demanding that no new apartments be built in Tel Aviv or we’d cut off all diplomatic contact?
Right, but you know as well as I do that if the Palestinians get a state, it won’t be safe for Jews to live there, and that if they get EJ, Jews won’t get access to the Temple Mount.
(Last message in a rush before leaving, sorry if hasty or unclear: )
But in that case, what does it mean to say that the status of EJ will “be decided by negotiations between the two parties”?
Either the control and/or division of East Jerusalem is a negotiable issue, or it is not, right? If it is negotiable, that means that EJ might end up being part of Israel or part of Palestinian territory or some combination thereof.
And if that outcome is yet to be negotiated, then I can see how it makes sense to say “TWEEEEET!!! Leave the ball where it is right now until the ref makes the call. Don’t make any more changes to the demographics of EJ until it’s been decided who gets control over what parts of it.”
If the status of EJ is not negotiable, on the other hand, I can see why Israel would consider itself entitled to build whatever it wants wherever it wants in its own territory and would consider an expansion freeze to be an unjustifiable imposition.
However, if Obama campaigned on the assumption that the status of EJ is negotiable, I don’t see how it’s inconsistent with that position to call for an expansion freeze.
ETA: Oops, forgot this part:
That would depend on whether our position was that the status/control of Tel Aviv was a negotiable issue. I can’t imagine us arguing for that in the case of Tel Aviv, of course, but if we did hold that position, then I don’t see how demanding an expansion freeze in Tel Aviv would be inconsistent with it, or would count as prematurely deciding in favor of one side or the other.
But remember, as well, that it’s Final Status negotiations. As are refugees, for example. So, once everything else is worked out, those issues would be worked out. And it doesn’t mean, for instance, that Israel must institute Zero Population Growth and stop all expansion everywhere so that all refugees and their grandchildren will come back, even if they didn’t own property… but that once all the other issues are worked out, something will be negotiated on that issue. So, for instance, Jerusalem might stay Israeli but a certain dollar value or land swap will be made in exchange for EJ.
Let me put it another way. Borders and settlements are also for Final Status talks. Does that mean that the US should refuse to talk to the Palestinians and demand that they freeze all their building since the borders are going to be negotiated?
I guess I have two ways to look at this:
Any future Palestinian state has to be safe for Jews to live in and has to allow equal access to holy sites, or else they cannot possibly have EJ.
And if any possible Palestinian state isn’t safe for Jews to live in, then they’re probably not ready for statehood.
There’s no way that the Palestinians will get EJ in negotiations anyway. It’s non-negotiable on the Israeli side. But if, short term, the Israelis have to agree to a freeze on Jerusalem growth to keep America happy, it would be smart to do that.
Until at least 2 or 3 generations after the Palestinians get a state, it won’t be safe for Jews to live in. Any Palestinian state that’s formed is going to be anti-Semitic and dedicated to Israel’s destruction. It’s going to take a while for the Palestinians who are living now to die and a new generation to come to power that doesn’t remember the Israeli occupation. It’s possible that Palestine then might be able to not hate Israel and Jews. It might not happen. But any peace settlement that’s dependent on Palestinian good will is doomed to failure, I think. Israel can’t trust the Palestinians.
Well, on the first point I mostly agree. I don’t see Israel ever negotiating that away but I do see it as some kind of compensated swap in Final Status talks, just like there was a figure of something like 30 billion floated for compensation for refugees.
On the second point I think you’re probably right but hope that you’re not.
First of all, Israel has a free press, so I don’t know how the government can prevent them from using whatever terms they want to. Regardless, whatever the policy was in 1971, here are some article titles from 2010. From the Jerusalem Post:
First of all, there’s nthing unusual about warring terminologies for political issues - pro-life/pro-choice, Derry/Londonderry and many more.
Second of all, there’s been an interesting reversal regarding the term *hitnachlut *- originally coined by the right, it is now used by the left and center to describe settlements in the Territories (or Judea and Samaria, as the right would have it); the right now prefer to use the more neutral term yishuv, claiming that there is no difference between settlements in the West Bank and Israel proper. It’s a pretty good Shibboleth, these days - whether someone refers to a settlement as a “yishuv” or a “hitnachlut”.
I think the important thing to remember is that memetics is an ancient, secret, evil Zionst art based on gematria.
Also Israel’s free press is, and always has been, totally controlled by the government.
When did the word “Occupied” get dropped from “Territories”, and the terms “Palestine” referring to that land, entirely, and the addition of “proper”? Or is that your own terminology, not in general use in Israel? The implication of that choice of words is clear enough.
All the rest of this listing of what is nonnegotiable, by so many of you, makes any real negotiations impossible, as you know. That also makes the oft-stated desire for a peaceful resolution dubious.
Probably when some folks realized that not all of the territory was privately owned, that UNSC 242 called for a negotiated compromise for some but not all of the territories, and therefore a non-zero portion will be part of a future Palestinian state and a non-zero portion will be part of Israel, so calling them all “occupied” implies that they’re all Palestinian property. Which is the same problem with:
There was never a sovereign state of Palestine. There land in question was never completely or even mostly owned by the Palestinians. The term “Palestine” was originally coined by the Romans as an insult to ancient Israel. The region of Palestine under the Ottoman Empire was not a separate province but was under the control of Damascus. The term “Palestine” in the early 20th century included Transjordan, which we certainly don’t call “Palestine” anymore, either. Etc…
It’s just basic English vocabulary.
The word “proper” when used as an adjective for a geographic body refers to the area within its bounds and nothing more. Like “Manhattan proper” as opposed to Manhattan and the five boroughs. It denotes the strict limitation of a geographic area much like one might talk about “The Unites States proper”, thereby indicating that they weren’t talking about Puerto Rico.
Way to miss the point. Or evade it, whichever. :dubious:
Same comment.
Words have connotations, as the person I was addressing had just pointed out. In this case, adding “proper” connotes that the other land in question is not foreign soil.
Nope, missed nothing. I actually explicitly pointed out to you, and explained at great length, why calling them “the Occupied Territories” or simply “Palestine” implies that they are all Palestinian territory, or ever were in the past, or must be in the future. How about, instead of alleging I missed the point, you explain why land that was never Palestinian land in the first place should be called part of “Palestine” and land that was never Palestinian in the first place should be called “occupied”? Certainly some of the territories in question are Palestinian, and those are certainly under occupation, but not all of them are. Why, do you believe, we should obfuscate that difference by, as you point out, using a connotation that implies that all the territory under discussion is Palestinian property?
You are also not using the word “proper” correctly. I will try to explain it again. “Proper” denotes the boundary between an explicitly contained geographic area, and other geographic areas. The person you were addressing specifically said “settlements in the West Bank and Israel proper.” That, clearly, delineates between Israel proper and the settlements, which (again, clearly) denotes and connotes the fact that the settlements are not part of Israel proper. In fact, the person you were addressing rather clearly made his position obvious as he used the word “claiming” to refer to the right-wing position that there is no difference between West Bank settlements and Israel proper. Surely you recognize the connotation of the word “claiming”, yes?
Then you will have war. And your children, and theirs. Your only other option is to reduce your enemy to nothing, so that when he swears vengeance for his brother’s death at your hands, his oath is empty, he has no power to attack, he has no power to defend himself, he is yours to do with as you choose. Of course, thats a perfectly good option for him seeing as the Israelis are pure and perfect, their hands utterly unstained by innocent blood. Not like the evil Palestinians, who cannot be trusted.
Your opposite numer is posting precisely the same thing on another message board, about how the Israelis cannot be trusted, there can be no peace with such wretched and hateful people. Has he a point? You’ve already said he cannot be trusted, so you have to kill him, yes? Or neutralize him to the point where he is totally impotent to harm you.
If you choose the road to peace, it will be hard, slow, and heart breaking. Someone will have to accept a blow and not strike back, or the eyes and the teeth are righteously taken forever. And each and every one will be perfectly justified, you will be wholly in the right, as will he.
You will work for peace, you will struggle for peace, you will suffer for peace. Or you will have war. And you will have that peace only when you will accept nothing else.
Your platitudes aside, Captain Amazing has a point that it may take several generations to undo the indoctrination that’s gone on. Palestinian official media is currently set up to teach racism and violence as virtues, especially to children. Palestinians themselves refer to the recent generation as The Lost Generation. Schools teach suicide bombing and rejection of Israel’s right to exist as part of the curriculum. It’s a scary situation that will end, at best, with a cultural revolution and aggressive public education that peace is desirable and anti-Semitism isn’t okay. It may not take multiple generations, it may only take one. Hell, the current generation may rise to power and grow tired of racism, but I have my doubts.
You’ll also note that Captain Amazing did not say that endless, brutal was was the only option. You did. He explicitly said that there could be a Palestinian state but that it was likely to be highly racist against Jews for several generations.
