TheJournal.ie uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Click here to find out more »
Dublin: 16 °C Monday 20 May, 2013

Israel set to approve 4,300 new homes in disputed east Jerusalem area

Today’s announcement has been criticised by Palestinians and Israel’s anti-settlement group Peace Now.

The east Jerusalem neighbourhood of Pisgat Zeev.
The east Jerusalem neighbourhood of Pisgat Zeev.
Image: AP Photo/Bernat Armangue

ISRAEL’S INTERIOR minister gave final authorisation to build 1,600 apartments in disputed east Jerusalem and will approve 2,700 more in days, officials said today, detailing a plan that could complicate diplomatic efforts to dissuade Palestinians from declaring statehood at the UN.

The announcement drew immediate criticism from the Palestinians, and from Israel’s leading anti-settlement group, which accused the government of seizing on mass protests over housing costs to give economic justification to the always explosive issue of building in the holy city.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s office knew the construction plans were moving ahead, Interior Ministry spokesman Roi Lachmanovich said. An earlier approval for the 1,600-apartment project embarrassed Netanyahu and caused a diplomatic rift with the U.S. because it coincided with a visit to Israel by US Vice President Joe Biden.

Palestinians oppose all Israeli construction in east Jerusalem because it chips away at their hopes to establish the capital of a future state in the holy city. The approval for the new apartments also could create new problems for Washington, which is trying to persuade the Palestinians to abandon their statehood bid and enter into negotiations with Israel instead.

Senior Palestinian official Saeb Erekat accused Israel of favouring settlements over peace.

“We call upon the US administration to support our endeavour at the UN because the only way to preserve the two-state solution now is the admittance of the state of Palestine,” he said.

Lachmanovich, the ministry spokesman, said the new apartments were necessary to address a housing shortage in the city. ”There’s always something pending,” he said, when asked about the timing of the approvals.

Actual construction likely will not begin for years because building plans will have to go through multiple approval processes.

The Peace Now anti-settlement group accused the government of “cynically” exploiting a sweeping grassroots uprising sparked by high housing prices to cement its plans to build new apartments in Jerusalem’s contested eastern sector.

It was also unlikely to win much favor with Israel’s closest ally, the United States, which opposes the Palestinians’ statehood bid and, like Israel, says negotiations on Jerusalem and other core issues are the only way forward.

Jerusalem’s fate “needs to be negotiated between the two parties,” said US Embassy spokesman Kurt Hoyer. “Unilateral actions on either side that appear to prejudice the outcome of those negotiations we find counterproductive.”

On Tuesday, Washington rebuked Israel for advancing separate plans to build 930 apartments in another neighbourhood of east Jerusalem.

No negotiation

The Palestinians refuse to negotiate with the Netanyahu government as long as it continues to build in the West Bank and east Jerusalem — territories that would form the core of their future independent state.

Israel rejects that demand, arguing that previous rounds of talks moved ahead in tandem with settlement construction.

Israel annexed east Jerusalem in 1967 after capturing it from Jordan. It does not consider the Jewish neighbourhoods it has built there to be settlements even though the international community makes no such distinction and does not recognise Jerusalem’s annexation.

About 500,000 Jews have made their homes in east Jerusalem and the West Bank since 1967. Adding to the potential for political tension is the Palestinians’ plan for even a symbolic endorsement of statehood by the United Nations.

At home, they are trying to whip up enthusiasm through a series of mass rallies. But after two bloody uprisings against Israel, the Palestinians have little appetite for a third, and officials drafted a plan to keep the rallies peaceful, they said Wednesday.

Under the plan shown to The Associated Press, marches and rallies inside West Bank cities are permitted, but the gatherings will be confined to city limits. Demonstrators will be kept away from flashpoints like Israeli settlements and military checkpoints. Palestinian police would ring West Bank cities to keep protesters far from Israelis.

Hamas

A wild card in the deck is Gaza, which is run by the Islamic militant Hamas group. The group is disdainful of the statehood plan to be implemented at the UN and will likely not organise protests to support it. But if violence erupts in the West Bank, Gaza could be expected to follow.

Israeli officials disagree over what might happen in September.

One government-commissioned study said the rallies will likely be peaceful, but Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman has predicted “unprecedented violence.”

Read next:

Comments (56 Comments)

  • What is good is that many ordinary Israeli people oppose this. I would really like to see cooperation between Israeli and Palestinian people at local level, be it political, industrial, or whatever to show the right-wing in Israel what they are doing is wrong, and also take power away from Hamas which also have little regard for Palestinian people.

    Reply
  • And the ethnic cleansing of Palestine continues…

    Reply
    • When exactly did Palestine exist? East Jerusalem was created by Jordan .It was not even an important city to the Jordanians.And when the Jordanians created West Bank and East Jerusalem.No one called it occupation.Or ethnic cleansing

      Reply
    • If Ethnic Cleaning is happening it is the least efficient Ethnic Cleaning in the history of mankind. In 1967 immediately after the reconquest of Jerusalem there were 66,000 Palestinian residents (44,000 residing in the area known before the 1967 war as East Jerusalem; and 22,000, in the West Bank area annexed to Jerusalem after the war). By the end of 2008 there were 260,800 Muslims comprising 98% of the Muslim population of Jerusalem. That”s an increase of almost 400%!

      Most Palestinians would sell their grandmothers into slavery if they could somehow legally or illegally move to Israel’s side of the Green Line.

      Reply
    • I love it when people in trying to defend Israel always refer to the year 1967, as if nothing ever happened before then. Gentlemen, I very strongly advise you to read up about the region before Israel was force-ably created by the British Empire and the League of Nations for the Zionists, (a vast Majority who were from U.S and Europe and not from this region). In fact before Israel was created, there were more Christian than Jewish in Palestine. The vast majority of people however where the Palestine Arab (who are now one of the world larges refugee groups).

      Reply
    • Really?? You would want to check your history. The majority of Israeli Jews up until the fall of the Soviet Empire were actually from North Africa and Middle East.
      Even today 50 per cent of Israeli’s are actually decendants of the Jews expelled from North Africa and Middle East. So I’d advise you to go do some research and stop relying on the IPSC for your info

      Up until a few weeks ago.The worlds largest refugee camp was in Pakistan.As Afghans have been for years the worlds largest refugee population.
      Sadly now the Somali refugee camp in Kenya is the largest camp in the world.

      The Palestinians have been the only refugees in the entire world who 3 generations even in Gaza living in a camp have refused to be resettled and still classify themselves as refugees

      As for 67 lines? Which have no legal standing.Nor do the 49 Armistace lines which is what the 67 lines really are. The Armistace lines were created to stop the Arab-Israeli war. But were never meant to be set boarders.

      So yes.I love when Anti Israeli activists.Spew nonsense that they have learnt and recylced from propaganda lobby groups in Ireland.

      Reply
  • Where the UN sanctions for breaking UN laws?

    Reply
    • Exactly what laws ? And since when did we have a UN police force to implement “UN LAWS” ? This being the same UN that allowed North Korea to take control of the UN Nuclear Department last week. The same UN which allowed Bahrain onto its Human Rights Committee while it massacred pro Democracy activists.

      What next the Vatican to lead a childrens right UN Committee.??????

      Nothing more than a cowboy run talking shop

      Reply
    • Can I quote you on that when the UN declares the Gaza blockade as legal under the Palmer report? :-)

      Reply
    • More than welcome Brian.
      Palmer at least I believe is from New Zealand. A very beautiful liberal tolerant nation and a great supporter of human rights.

      Indeed the Palmer report may be a joke.Who knows. But at least people will be forced to stop calling the Gaza blockade Illegal. Wont they??

      Reply
    • What’s going to happen if a Palestinian State is declared? I certainly wouldn’t be too keen about having a house in there and I was an Israeli settler. I know that the settlements are a while away yet but I wouldn’t be rushing out to put a deposit down any time soon!

      Reply
    • Even if the Palestinians agree to recognise Israel. (Thats again an IF,Abbas thinks he is smart saying one thing in English but another in Arabic.)
      Israel including Bibi recognises the need for a Palestinian state.

      IF Jerusalem is redivided again I don’t believe it all would be given to a new Palestinian state.No one would expect the Israeli’s to hand back the Western Wall or Jewish Quarter all in the so called “East Jerusalem”

      Palestinian statehood has been declared numerous times. I wouldn’t be so concerned about the “settlers”.I’d be more concerned that UNRWA will leave and Lebanon and Syria will expell the Palestinian refugees.Who now have a state.And are no longer refugees, Lebanon does not want the Palestinians. Its a certain if Abbas continues with the path he is on.He could have massive social problems at home when the Lebanon Palestinian refugees are kicked out.

      And unlike the last time Jews were expelled from the Eastern half of Jerusalem aka 48/49 ,I’m sure there will be compensation for them.

      Reply
    • Niall,
      Any attempt to sanction Israel is always doomed to failure because of the Veto the US holds. So long as America stays in bed with Israel, the UN will be more or less powerless to enforce any law against them.

      Reply
    • Colin, What law exactly??
      Could you please explain

      Reply
  • I personally think that Israel should stop building in the territories as an act of goodwill and a show of intention to go back to peace talks . However it is not apartheid or Illigal or any other dramatic word chosen , it is on Israeli land de facto they have a right to build there . The only debate is do you think its a good idea or not .

    Reply
  • It’s a shame these ridiculous uiltra-zionist settlers are completely destroying any chance of a peace process, and unfortunately instead of the israeli government doing anything to put and end to this, they encourage it, despite the language of wanting to have peace, and return the west-bank to Palestine. Of course, typically enough i’m sure the US won’t do anything to object to this…we’ll see who’s on the right and wrong side of history when one day this apartheid will end.

    Reply
    • Really so Fatah’s and Hamas refusal to recognise Israel is not actually the main obsticle to Peace??

      Could Evan please give an actual example of Apartheid? A state which has minorities as Supreme Court Judges.In its police and army and diplomatic Corp . Which has no laws seperating beaches,benches and buses and cinemas like South Africa.Is not apartheid.

      Reply
    • If there is a real Apartheid it comes exclusively from the Palestinian side. You would think Ireland would be more concerned about Muslim harassment and persecution of Christians in Palestine and the rest of the Arab-by-conquest Middle East.. As far back as 1997, the London Times observed: “Life in Bethlehem has become insufferable for many members of the dwindling Christian minorities. Increasing Muslim-Christian tensions have left some Christians reluctant to celebrate Christmas in the town at the heart of the story of Christ’s birth.”

      Christians in the Palestinian areas have dropped from 15% of the Arab population in 1950, to just 2% today. At the rate that Christians are are abandoning their homes, their churches and their businesses in the traditional birthplace of their religion it is estimated the only place in the region where any Christians will be living by 2050 will be ‘apartheid’ Israel.

      Reply
    • It’s funny David but according to the recent history section of this Wikipedia entry http://tiny.cc/7f4jj it aint the Palestinians fault. “In a 2007 letter from Congressman Henry Hyde to President George W. Bush, Hyde stated that “the Christian community is being crushed in the mill of the bitter Israeli-Palestinian conflict” and that expanding Jewish settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem were “irreversibly damaging the dwindling Christian community” Have a read of the whole section it seems to contradict everything that you are saying.

      Reply
    • Evan,

      Nearly one million Jews were expelled from Islamic countries during the middle decades of the 20th century. They had their lands and properties seized. They had to go somewhere.

      Maybe you’d have liked them all to conveniently vanish into thin air but they didn’t. They and their descendants are now a sizeable percentage of Israel’s population and they have a right to living space just like you and me.

      I’m not in any way denying that Palestinians have rights too but surely you can see that the issue is not as one-sided as you’re portraying it to be.

      Reply
    • I think it is fair to say Hamas are a major obstacle to peace in this conflict. The Israeli government need to show restraint and a willingness to stand up to the Ultra-Zionism that does exist in the country. I heard one Israeli quote the old testament to justify settlement expansion, how do you negotiate with that? At this stage blaming either side is counter-productive, both sides have committed atrocities. But blaming and blaming will just lead to more atrocities and war. Efforts need to be made to marginalize and neutralize extremists on both sides and encourage moderation that appeals to most Israeli and Palestinian people. PEACE IS THE ONLY OPTION.

      Reply
    • Anon. but its not just Hamas. Check out Palestinian Media Watch and look how Abbas says in English one thing.While in Arabic he glorifies martyrs and jihadists. Says Fatah will never recognise Israel etc.

      In one sense at least Hamas is honest. Fatah is two faced and its about time that fact was pulled and they were forced to stop.

      Reply
    • I don’t know anymore who sent this video, David?
      At any rate this is not Hamas here speaking but Nabil Shaath:
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-CkImOGcHcw&feature=player_embedded

      Reply
    • To Brian Ward. Name even one Jewish settlement that has pushed out a Christian one.

      Reply
    • To Brian Ward. Quoting Wikipedia can leave you with mud on your face. Where are the Israeli settlements responsible for the decline of Christian populations in Egypt, Iraq and elsewhere in the Middle East?

      Reply
    • To David Guy. Where in this article is Egypt, Iraq and elsewhere in the Middle East mentioned. Those areas are for a different debate. This is about the West Bank, lets just focus at the topic on hand and if Israel starts to build settlements in those areas mentioned then we can look at that when it happens.

      Reply
  • Thank-you for the interest you have shown in our country. Have you had time to notice that in the past few weeks over 500,000 Israeli’s (peoples of all faiths have been protesting together to serve notice to our leaders saying: We demand affordable housing, for all Israeli’s. Many Israeli’s today are working 2 full time jobs, in a 2 parent family, and yet these people are drowning in debt. Just last week we were served with notice that the electricity company here wants (another) 9% increase in it’s fees? Well guess what? Salaries and wages have NOT gone up 9%. An average full time teacher earns on average of $1,000. per month or NIS 4,000. Now deduct: taxes, more taxes, and even more taxes,… How many Israeli’s have millions of shekels for a house, or 180,000 NIS for a car? And what about the cost of raising children? Care for the elderly? Our leaders need to acknowledge these problems and make the appropriate changes: NOW.

    Reply
    • If there’s one thing that emerges from these protests it’s the portrayal of Israel as a normal, modern state whose citizens face precisely the same sort of frustrations in this economic crisis as the Irish, Greeks, Americans, British, Belgians etc.

      Seeing Israeli Jews, Israeli Muslims and Israeli Christians all protesting together makes a mockery of those who would have us believe that Israel is an apartheid state. It’s not, folks, It never was and never will be and honestly, the claim is so ridiculous, it’s exposing the underlying agenda of some self-professed pro-Palestinian people.

      Reply
  • Thanks, it makes a refreshing change to hear from moderate pro-Israeli’s, to be honest I have always had a zero-tolerance attitude to Israel but on reading information from moderate elements on the Israeli side it has totally changed my opinion. Its fairly clear the majority of Israeli people just want peace, as do Palestinians. I genuinely hope moderate forces on both sides prevail.

    Reply
  • Firstly,may I say,it is a refreshing change to see an unbiased article here,that is a huge progress.
    Then may I say,Israel is the only country in the world that is questioned for building in its own capital city? Israel has every right to build,of course.They knew for tactical reasons Jordan,being a sovereign state,with defined borders,could not claim land in Israel.BUT the creation of a “palestinian” state could demand areas of Jewish importance,Jerusalem being one of them. If the terrorist groups of Hamas and Fatah’s main problem is the recognition of the State of Israel,then why are they not being questioned and harassed? These are terrorist organisations,why is the world evening listening to these people?????

    Reply
    • “Then may I say,Israel is the only country in the world that is questioned for building in its own capital city?”
      Actually Israel is the only country in the world that continuously needs to justify its exsistance alltogether! Crazy!

      Lets imagine for a moment that Israel never exsisted in the past as a country. Lets even imagine that, in the past, Palestine DID exsist as a country. But in that region, that the world calls ‘Palestine’, there have ALWAYS lived also Jews – not only Arabs. From many reasons its convenient for people to forget that fact. So in the worse case senario we can say that ‘Palestine’ does not ‘belong’ SOLELY to the Arabs but also to the Jews that always lived there. In reality, looking at historical facts, the picture is quite different: So we can say that ‘Palestine’ does not ‘belong’ solely to the Jews but also to the Arabs that lived there for many centuries.

      Reply
    • I think Dani that people are informed enough to know that Palestine and the whole region does not belong solely to either Jew or Arab alone. What people object to is the forcing of people off their land where the may have lived for generations to make way for people who have just stepped off a plane. People from the US, Russia, E Europe etc are settling on land that they claim is theirs because they are Jewish. When people see houses getting bulldozed to make way for new settlements then people naturally get annoyed with that. Building settlements on land that is disputed is only going to stoke tensions so why do it. If a Palestinian State was declared then what will happen to the Jewish settlers? It is obvious to all and sundry that Israel will pull out, wait for the first sign of a settler getting a slap of a stone and then it’s back to occupying the area to “safeguard” the settlers. The Israeli Government will say that they tried but had to go back in to protect it’s citizens and will set up camp there for another 60 or 70 years.

      Reply
    • @Brian You are bringing so many issues together, mixing them together as if they are one… I wouldn’t know where to start. You might be surprised but I even agree with you on one point. However:
      You write: “People from the US, Russia, E Europe etc are settling on land that they claim is theirs because they are Jewish.” Brian, as much as I want to, unfortunately and sad, I really cannot make more from this than to say that somwhere this sentence is a discriminatory one! – you can think different, I’m not going to argue with you about it.
      You write: ” The Israeli Government …had to go back in to protect it’s citizens” – well let’s really hope so – do YOU find it crazy that a government tries to protect it’s citizens (or perhaps you only question that when it come to a specific government, the Israeli one?).
      “The Israeli Government will say that they tried” – yes the Israeli government actually did try (not only said to..), and in different occasions, tried to get to a final peace agreement with the Palestinians. You may not want to see that (I don’t know if that’s the case or not?) but it is just like that. In January 2001 (as an example, there are others) in Taba Israel offered the Palestinians 97% of the west bank, 100% Gaza and another 3% of the Israel (proper) Negev area to compensate for the 3% in the west bank. Arafat got up and left the talks. He claimed “what the Israelis offered me were Palestinian enclaves in the west bank, separated with Israeli army.” (I don’t have the exact words in front of me). Arafat lied. The Clinton administration confirmed the issue with a map – there were actually 2 maps. The one map what Arafat claimed to receive from Barak (Palestinian enclaves). The second map (confirmed by Clinton) is what he really would get – what I wrote above – with no enclaves.
      Last but not least, when there is a conflict, there are 2 sides/parties (or more). No matter how hard one party can try to achieve peace (in this case Israel), you still need the other party to talk to. Don’t you think so Brian?

      Reply
    • I think perhaps Dani that you misunderstood me on some points. When I referred to people from foreign countries coming in a settling on land because they are Jewish I meant people who have absolutely no connection with Israel whatsoever except their religion. Their ancestors might have colonised the US or emigrated to Russia two or three hundred years ago for whatever reason and now they claim the Law of Return to gain Israeli citizenship. They then proceed to boot people off “their” land because they have a Divine right to it and the fact that the family already living there might have lived on the land for generations doesn’t matter. I don’t care what religion a person is (and I try to stay away from religion in any conflict or debate) you can not arrive in any country and just kick people off the land and build where you want.

      As for Governments protecting it’s citizens that is perfectly reasonable and any Government has a responsibility to do that. I think you actually know what I was getting at but tried to divert the argument away from my point. so I will put it another way.

      The Irish Government seeks to control Northern Ireland but can’t because the UN and the rest of the world will be up in arms if they invaded. They start building settlements (flats, apartments, towns etc ) in Northern Ireland and flood them with Irish Catholics. That’s all very fine around the Border areas because there is already a good Catholic presence there but the Irish Government goes one further and starts building in Belfast right on the peace line and encroaching on Protestant homes. I myself decide that because my ancestors were thrown off their land 400 years ago I have the right to go up to Derry and tell the Protestant family living there ( anywhere will do I’ll just pick a spot after all I’m an Irish catholic I own the land) to piss off, they have 1 day to get out and then I’m coming in with my bulldozer. The Prods get well and truly pissed off and decide to declare their own state. the Irish Government says fine, off you go we are a peace loving people but our settlers are staying. the State is declared, the Government look all pious and democratic and wait. A couple of months down the road with a little help from the Government the Prods attack the settlers who they feel have stolen the land. The Irish Government immediately goes in “to protect it’s citizens” occupies the area and says to the International community, look we did our best but we are going to have to occupy the area for a really long time to protect our people despite the fact that the settlements are illegal and we foisted them on the Prods and that this was our intention all the time.

      It’s a long term play but then again it’s a lot easier than starting and all out war over.

      Reply
    • Hi Brian, Yes I knew what you were getting at and I was not trying to divert the argument: as I said already earlier – I agree with you on a point and you know it too what that point was (you can read more about it further down). I still think you are bringing issues together, mixing them as if they were one. I really don’t think that many people, even in this forum!, approve or support ‘booting off people from their homes’!!! (though I don’t know what you mean by saying from ‘their lands’??). I am not at any rate!
      Just that it’s coming from your saying: “When I referred to people from foreign countries coming in a settling on land because they are Jewish I meant people who have absolutely no connection with Israel whatsoever except their religion.”?? – wa wa wait Brian. So according to you those people have the ‘Jewish connection’ with the land Israel (at least one connection ;-) What connection did, (for instance!) Europeans have with America – north and south? what connection did Europeans have with Australia? and so you can refer perhaps to 80% of world’s people migration.
      And should there even be a connection alltogether?? As you know many young Irish are leaving to Australia lately and they don’t have any connection with that land but there is work there, so?
      Then you went to describe NI (which is fair enough and ok to bring up as a very simplified example – I agree with your general point of what you wrote there ) and though there are some similarities between NI and the ME, nevertheless there are also many (and considerable) differences in facts and situations between the 2, now and in the past. You spoke about the similarities in the 2 situations. Do you also know the many differences?
      Now I have a question for you Brian: Can you define me what are illegal settlements?

      Reply
    • OK Dani I’ll have to refer to this Wiki http://tiny.cc/qzwhf which gives a fairly good run down also saves me a lot of typing :-). Seeing as David Guy has also criticised my using Wikipedia I’ve also looked into the references given. one for the UK FCO http://tiny.cc/i1ot5 states ” Settlements are ….. illegal under international law” I presume that they were referring to UN resolution 465 http://tiny.cc/b3yva which David Miliband http://tiny.cc/omuud and Ban Ki-moon http://tiny.cc/fhb82 also echo. Haaretz even tells us how some of it is done http://tiny.cc/41w2x . The EU not to be out done also get in on the act http://tiny.cc/0mqoo .

      Now straight away the cry will go up that the world is ganging up on israel but even Israel admits that some of it’s settlements are illegal. the Sasson report http://tiny.cc/zbyog says ” that Israeli state bodies had been discreetly diverting millions of shekels to build West Bank settlements and outposts that were illegal under Israeli law” No disputing that I’m afraid. The Fourth Geneva Convention states “The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies” fairly clear cut I would say. Pity that wasn’t around when the Plantations occured in Ireland!

      There is much there to digest but I am caught for time as I have a second year project to research but I will leave you with the final words to the INTERNATIONAL COURT O F JUSTICE http://tiny.cc/95gzv “Recalling in particular relevant United Nations resolutions affirming that Israeli settleiments in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem are illegal” and the International Committee of the Red Cross http://tiny.cc/5uuhi ” reaffirm the illegality of the settlements in the said territories and of the extension thereof.” (Annexe 1:12) I will leave Annexe 2 section 5 for you to read as it is too long to quote from.

      I do hope that this answers your question and I am sorry about all the links but i just wanted David to know if he is reading this that I do try to research topics before I comment on them and not rely on the first Wiki page that I find.

      PS How accurate is Google translate when it comes to Hebrew? I have a word that I need translating from Hebrew to English and I want to be sure that it is correct, so if you or anyone you know could point me in the right direction of a good translator I would appreciate it.

      Reply
    • Hi Brian. To answer your comment very briefly for the moment – the legality situation is not at all ‘black-and-white’ as you describe in your comment (again, that of course being separate to the issue if settlements should take place or not, ie if it is good that they are/were created or not). I will reply to this later.
      For now I should say that it is a positive thing that you are taking your time with this issue and it is good that you make deeper research before you reply and that you don’t relay only on Wikipedia, for instance…
      Google is not bad but not always accurate in Hebrew translation – what word do you want to translate?

      Reply
    • Hi Brian, now finally to answer your message (and sorry for the delay). It is a very good thing from your part that you are doing research as much as possible into a subject, in this case regarding the Israeli settlements. I must however mention again (and not in an irritated way :-), that you still seem to be mixing issues. However I do have the patience with you because you seem open and interested to listen and learn more which is very good and positive :-)

      I say ‘mixing the issues’ because of things you mentioned in earlier correspondences and also now you sent a link ‘EU’s Ashton SAYS Israeli settlement plans hurt peace moves’.
      Again, are we discussing here about a moral issue – if it is right morally (or not) to have settlements (and can they hurt the peace process)? – OR – Are we discussing here about the legal point of view?
      I thought/think that you want to address the legal point of view: your answer is to my question about ‘illegal settlements’. Therefore my reply here is ONLY around the legalities aspect.

      The essence of all this lies in the San Remo agreements of 1920 and 1922. According to San Remo, Israel and its territorial lands, was and is a place for the Jews to live in. Just like Sweden is for the Swedes and not for the Chinese. San Remo also said that local Arabs can live in that area (Palestine) as well and that those local Arabs will have their civil and religious rights protected. However, San Remo does NOT speak about political rights, autonomy or independence for those local (Palestinian) Arabs within that area then called Palestine. This is a fact that many people nowadays want to ignore.
      So I mentioned the rights of the Jews. But another decision was made also for the rights of the Arabs, during the same San Remo agreements, to establish many Arab countries where Arabs can have their own autonomy and independence as well. That was promised to the Arabs during those agreements and that was also executed. Just like what was promised to the Jews back then, something that was also executed.

      Many years later, in 1945, the United Nations was founded. However, the UN did NOT develop a trusteeship system for the British Mandate of Palestine. As a result, the provisions and purposes of San Remo cannot be overruled – nobody has the actual legal authority to do so!

      Also, what many people do not realise (or do not know) is that the United Nations General Assembly and – in most cases – the International Court of Justice have advisory powers ONLY. These bodies CANNOT take away the right of individual countries to exercise their sovereignty and their free will. This is very fundamental. Many people think that the UN is some kind of a powerful world government but that is not true at all. It is mainly an administrative organization.

      Another thing is the FACT that the Palestinian Authority did not exist prior to the Oslo accords of 1993. It therefore CANNOT claim that its territories are ‘occupied’ by Israel. The same is true for the PLO: it exists since 1964 but it was never the legal owner of any lands. Starting from 1948, when the British left the area they called Palestine, the ONLY LEGAL OWNER of all the lands of Israel including Judea and Samaria (or what the Jordanians called the West Bank) is the State of Israel.

      I hope that this now clarifies the issue for you.
      Regards, Dani

      Reply
  • Would the Journal.ie please write an article each time a house is built in Western Sahara, West Papua New Guinea and each time a new home is built in Tibet by a Chinese family. (But of course it wont or can’t)

    “East Jerusalem” is not occupied it is technically disputed territory.Unlike the above.

    Reply
    • Hi Barry, just to clarify: East Jerusalem is not referred to anywhere in the piece as an ‘occupied’ territory.

      Reply
    • I understand that Susan.The piece is alot more impartial than much of the rubbish I read in the Irish media here. Which seems unable to do any background research and uses the IPSC terms .The IPSC have a political lobbying agenda.

      This is my point exactly though. Its disputed territory yet we here about every single house building project.While real OCCUPATION in Tibet by China and Western Sahara by Morocco we never here of anything that goes on there. The media and the left in this country have been hijacked to only focus solely on Palestine.

      Another example of this hypocracy ,More people have died in Syria than in Cast Lead,Yet when Israel went to war with Hamas we had constant up to date and often hearsay reports . We had Prime Time shows and huge widescale protests in Dublin. None of that about Syria. Its an awful hypocracy and I am getting tired of it.

      Reply
  • What is the problem? Can you imagine the world going doolally if any government in any other country in the world wanted to construct homes for their populace… They need lots more built than this…good affordable homes for Jewish People. I would think Ireland has enough to worry about, to concern themselves about housing in Israel.

    Reply
  • I don’t understand the issue of building Israeli homes, on Israeli soil and in the Capital of the Israeli people.?

    Reply
  • This issue is entirely separate from that of Palestinian statehood. Jerusalem holds a sacred and impossibly ancient significance for Jews. Would Moslems give up Mecca? Would Catholics give up Rome? Jews built Jerusalem 1600 years before Mecca came to have any significance for Islam.

    The Palestinians could have any number of towns and cities as their new capital. Why do their leaders insist on east Jerusalem?

    Reply
    • I think you meant to say the Vatican instead of Rome. Isn’t Jerusalem the third most sacred site in Islam and also very significant to Christians. I don’t think that any one group can claim to have sole rights to it to the exclusion of others. There will have to be some way of preserving the religious and historical areas for all maybe like a municipal authority for a defined area surrounding all the Holy sites. They can fight it out between themselves about the suburbs as I don’t think any of those are mentioned in the Torah, Bible or Koran,

      Reply
    • Brian,

      I’m not at all suggesting that people should be prevented from visiting sites that sacred to them! It would be perfectly possible to guarantee that with Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. If anything, it might be more problematic were the city to be divided with an international border running right down through it.

      Reply
    • Evan O'Q 12/08/11 #

      I never meant to say that only the Israeli’s are at fault, of course they aren’t. I don’t agree with the extremists on the other side either that deny Israel’s right to exist, I do believe Israel as every right to exist, but not to put more settlements in the West Bank which is predominantly Palestinian. Until the extremists on both sides learn to compromise there won’t be peace.

      Reply
    • @Brian – you write:” There will have to be some way of preserving the religious and historical areas for all maybe like a municipal authority for a defined area surrounding all the Holy sites.” Indeed the UN 1947 Palestine partition resolution (181) called for Jerusalem to be under international control. Not Arab contol NOT Israeli control. The Jews agreed and accepted that. The Arabs disagreed and began with their war on the Jews.

      Reply
    • Yeah Dani, I thought that was the case alright but I just couldn’t remember where I read it.

      Reply
    • Brian Ward wrote, “Isn’t Jerusalem the third most sacred site in Islam”? The only honest answer is no. Jerusalem is not mentioned even once in the Koran. it is connected to no mundane events in Muhammad’s life. The city never served as capital of a sovereign Muslim state, and it never became a cultural or scholarly center. Little of political import by Muslims was initiated there. It was never a pilgrimage site. There are religious obligations towards Mecca and undisputed historical connections with Medina but nothing at all but a traditional interpretation giving Jerusalem significance. Even that stature rises and falls with the political significance.

      During the 19 years the city was under Jordanian armed occupation (and the Jews were expelled) not one Arab leader thought it important enough to visit. Even today when Israel has relations with several Muslim countries (Egypt, Turkey, Morocco) and there is no problem visiting essentially no foreign Muslim bothers.

      You could argue judging by the number of visitors that Najaf in Iraq is the third holiest site or Konya in Turkey.

      Try a quick quiz. What is the third holiest city in Christendom? Absurd isn’t it?

      Reply
    • Davis i am not a religious scholar so there is no point in me even trying to debate the who did what, when and where in the Koran, the Torah or the Bible for that matter. An article in Time magazine http://tiny.cc/0gqtq would seem to give the lay man a quick overview of the city’s significance to Islam. You said in an earlier post that quoting Wikipedia “can leave you with mud on your face.” which is a fair point as Wikipedia can not always be relied upon as a definitive source of unbiased information and should always be verified where possible. I would suggest however that using religious text to justify ones beliefs or arguments is a bigger mistake as once you go sown that road you leave yourself open to extremist and fundamentalist misinterpretation of scripture.

      For instance (and I’m not going to start into a long winded debate over this ) if you are going to use religious text to justify your beliefs or claims then I can also use religious text to come up with interesting points that could be distorted and used out of context. In Talmud – Mas. Kethuboth 11b http://tiny.cc/w5v1k (Page 40) it says “When a grown-up man has intercourse with a little girl it is nothing, for when the girl is less than this,(6) it is as if one puts the finger into the eye” (6) Lit ‘here’, that is, less than three years old.

      So there you are.As I already said I am not a religious scholar and I can’t find Jerusalem mentioned in the Koran, I concede the point. I did however find a reference in the Talmud to men having sex with 3 year old girls. Which by the way is OK with with the Rabbis’s who were handing down the law. The fact that I have never read any part of the Talmud until now, have probably taken it out of context and used it to justify a totally biased viewpoint just goes to show that with a little bit of manipulation and selective interpretation you can use any religious text to your own ends.

      Reply
    • Here are some facts for Jerusalem, written a bit different than David’s reply, with some additions :-)
      This is a response I gave to someone a while back:
      I suddenly had to think about Jerusalem as the “holy Muslim city” (or rather a city that was suddenly and very recently made to be a holy Muslim city). A city which has no religious links (in the Qur’an) to Muslims other than a vague dream of Muhammad (where he PERHAPS dreams about Jerusalem). He (Muhammad) has never even visited Jerusalem, nor do Muslims even pray towards Jerusalem. A city that was never ever a capital of an Arab or Muslim entity and when the Arabs did rule Palestine, they made Ramla their capital, not Jerusalem. Even when Jordan occupied east Jerusalem they haven’t made it their capital. Not only that but all governmental offices that were present in Jordanian Jerusalen (from the British Mandate days) were shut down and transferred to Amman. Jerusalem no longer had authority even over other parts of the West Bank. Arab Jerusalem became an isolated provincial town, less important than Nablus. To take out a bank loan meant traveling to Amman. Jordanian radio broadcast the Friday prayers in Jerusalem not from Al-Aqsa Mosque but from an upstart mosque in Amman (Ironically, Radio Israel began broadcasting services from Al-Aqsa immediately after the Israel victory in 1967). No foreign Arab leaders even visited Jerusalem during all those years it was under Jordanian rule. King Faysal of Saudi Arabia spoke often after 1967 of his yearning to pray in Jerusalem, yet he appears never to have bothered to pray there when he had the chance. The PLO’s founding document, the Palestinian National Covenant of 1964, does not once mention Jerusalem or even allude to it. A city that, until recently (just 100 years ago), was basically very neglected. If the city was so holy to Muslims through so many centuries you would think they would have at lease made it a bit desent, wouldn’t you?
      At any rate, this neglection of Jerusalem came to an abrupt end after June 1967, when the Old City came under Israeli control. At that point, Palestinians suddenly made Jerusalem the centerpiece of their political program. The Dome of the Rock turned up in pictures everywhere, from Yasir Arafat’s office to the corner grocery. Slogans about Jerusalem proliferated and the city quickly became the single most emotional issue of the Arab-Israeli conflict. The PLO made up for its 1964 oversight by specifically mentioning Jerusalem in its 1968 constitution as “the seat of the Palestine Liberation Organization.”
      On the other hand, by 1840, the Jewish community constituted the largest single religious group in Jerusalem. From the 1880s onward, the Jews constituted the majority within the city. However, it was only in 1937, under the British Mandate, that the first Jewish mayor was appointed…

      Reply
  • They are building on their territory in country that hosts over 7 mln people (20% of them Arabs) on a territory 1/4 of Ireland (and half of it desert). Somehow I don’t see building house on countries own territory with its own money as a criminal act

    Reply
  • I ask this question from ignorance rather than incitement. Is the disputed area in east Jerusalem of any importance in terms of resources such as water, or is it purely a matter of religious importance?

    Reply
    • Its of religious importance. To those who speak about the West Bank a term Jordan called the area. Could they please tell us all.Whats the so called native Palestinian term for it? The Jewish term is Judea and Samaria.
      No one is ever able to give me that name. Surely if its so important to them.They’d have a name for the area.And not call it the name which Jordan gave it.

      Reply

Add New Comment