Why Obama opposes construction in eastern Jerusalem
Why is the Obama administration against Jews living in eastern Jerusalem? asks columnist Jeff Jacoby in the Boston Globe:
Late last week, the Obama administration demanded that the Israeli government pull the plug on a planned housing development near the Sheikh Jarrah neighborhood of Jerusalem. The project, a 20-unit apartment complex, is indisputably legal. The property to be developed - a defunct hotel - was purchased in 1985, and the developer has obtained all the necessary municipal permits.
Why, then, does the administration want the development killed? Because Sheikh Jarrah is in a largely Arab section of Jerusalem, and the developers of the planned apartments are Jews. Think about that for a moment. Six months after Barack Obama became the first black man to move into the previously all-white residential facility at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington, he is fighting to prevent integration in Jerusalem.
It is impossible to imagine the opposite scenario: The administration would never demand that Israel prevent Arabs from moving into a Jewish neighborhood. And the Obama Justice Department would unleash seven kinds of hell on anyone who tried to impose racial, ethnic, or religious redlining in an American city. In the 21st century, segregation is unthinkable - except, it seems, when it comes to housing Jews in Jerusalem.
There is one gaping hole in Jacoby's argument: It's not that Obama is against Jews and Arabs living together, it's that he opposes Israeli construction in eastern Jerusalem because the United States has never recognized eastern Jerusalem as part of Israel. Israel captured the territory from Jordan in the 1967 Six Day War and subsequently annexed it (something Israel did not do with the rest of the West Bank), but that annexation has not been accepted internationally. Therefore, in Obama's view -- as in the view of all previous U.S. administrations -- Israel is building on territory that does not belong to it, and the municipality of Jerusalem has no right to grant construction permits in that territory.
Two weeks ago, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu reportedly used the term "Judenrein" to describe what the Obama administration is pressing for in pushing for a full freeze of Jewish settlement growth in the West Bank. How come Jews can live in Paris, Moscow, Warsaw, Berlin, Toronto, Buenos Aires and New York -- and even Cairo and Amman -- but not in Hebron, the Jordan Valley and other historically Jewish sites in the West Bank? The West Bank appears to be the only place in the world in which Jews are forbidden to live. Israelis -- and many Jews worldwide -- find this unacceptable.
What complicates the matter, however, is that the West Bank is disputed territory with no clear owner and where Jews and Arabs do not have the same rights. The Israelis occupy it, but they have not annexed it. Palestinians live there, but they do not have the same rights as their Jewish neighbors. For example, an Israeli Jew born in the West Bank is an Israeli citizen who gets full voting rights at age 18, but an Arab born in the territory has no such citizenship or rights.
Until the status of the West Bank is resolved these issues will continue to dog Israeli settlement there, even when it's a matter of sites, like this one, legally purchased from Arabs by a Jew.
Share
Facebook
19 Comments
Comments RSS Feed Reader Comments
Contrary to conventional stupidity which seems to be B. Hussein Obama’s guiding principle, except for his anti-Semitism, until 1948 and throughout 400 years of Ottoman rule, Jews were a majority in Jerusalem. Thus the Arabs are the interlopers in Jerusalem. What the anti-Semites in the State department acnowledge or not is not relevant. What is a concern is the abject blindness of our left-wing brethren who, like in the dark days of FDR, place more importance to lick the president’s boots than to defend Israel and their Jewishness. To all these useless idiots and other benighted post-Zionists - answer this question: Who would care a lick about Jews without the existence of Israel?
The Obama position has nothing to do with legal rights and everything to do with political efforts to first ease the tension in the region so the peace process can go forward. While we are discussing Jews being kicked out of Jerusalem by Jordan, let’s not forget what happened to Palestinians in 1949 when Israel kicked hundreds of thousands of Palestinians out of their homes and confiscated their property. I don’t want to get into right or wrong or rehash history. Whether you feel it was justified or not there has been enough pain and suffering felt by all sides. It is time to step back and decide if this should be the path forward from here or if another path is warranted.
There is nothing wrong with Jewish people buying land and building on it in Jerusalem or elsewhere. The problem right now is the perception of Israel’s intentions. The perception by Palestinians is of Israel’s plan to take over and kick out all Palestinians from the occupied territories. The more Israel builds in the occupied regions, the more that perception grows, particularly since Jews and Palestinians are not treated equally by Israel in those territories.
I sincerely doubt Obama cares whether Jews live in Jerusalem or the West Bank, so comments about his apartheid efforts and making East Jerusalem off limits to Jews is way off the mark. What Obama cares about is working toward peace in the region and the more tension created by perceptions of Israel’s intentions, the less chance there is for peace. You can’t reach a peace agreement without trust and you don’t build trust if you feed people’s fears and worst perceptions of your intentions.
Let’s try to be a little more balanced with respect to the issues here instead of simply jumping up and down every time Obama disagrees with Israel leadership on an issue. Obama is interested in peace for the region, not punishing Israel. Once peace is established and there is an understanding about Jerusalem, West Bank and Gaza territories and who controls what and with what authority by all parties it becomes easier to work through land issues, property rights and legal recourse so everyone is treated the same instead of some being treated differently than others. The settlement growth and new building are impediments to the peace process which prevents the ultimate goal of equal justice and fairness for all being realized.
To Mr. Wedlund! If you believe that Obama is interested in anything except his own self-aggrandizement I would like to sell you a nice bridge in Brooklyn. Contrary to your ignorance, most Arabs left Israel in 1948/49 because their friends from Egypt, Jordan, Syria etc. told them to get out of the way, in order that their mighty armies could slaughter the Jewish dhimmis easier. Yehudah and Shomron are no less the heartland of Israel than Tel Aviv or Haifa. The obstacle to peace are not the new Jewish towns and villages there but the unrelenting enmity of the Arabs and their neo-Nazi propaganda, which suffuses the life of millions of Muslims from schoolbooks to weekly sermons in the mosques.
Mr. Wedlund, before you start spouting your pacifist drivel, kindly educate yourself in the facts.
To Alex “Contrary to your ignorance, most Arabs left Israel in 1948/49 because their friends from Egypt, Jordan, Syria etc. told them to get out of the way, in order that their mighty armies could slaughter the Jewish dhimmis easier.” Please let me know where this “history” is to be found. Since there is no documentation that I can find perhaps you can enlighten me. “The obstacle to peace are not the new Jewish towns and villages there but the unrelenting enmity of the Arabs and their neo-Nazi propaganda, which suffuses the life of millions of Muslims from schoolbooks to weekly sermons in the mosques.” Yeah, right.
In any case the issue is can Jews be denied the right to live anywhere just because they are Jews! If Jews can NOT then Arabs should not!
Very simple.
I also am wondering WHEN will ht erallies in support of Israel and Jerusalem BEGIN.
Obama Needs to see US Jews are upset at his repeated public pressures on Israel.
He acts as a devoted member of Rev Wrights church and maybe in line with ‘Nation of Islam’ foreign policy thinking as well, for all we know.
Let’s not talk around the issue—this article just provides an excuse for Obama’s anti-Semitism and alignment with the Muslim world.
Alex, no peace progress can be made when no one wants to make an effort. I actually have read about Middle East history and have lived through a good part of it. You need to get beyond your own rhetoric. It’s your future not mine. It won’t change my life if you continue on the present path, nor will it change the reality on the ground.
Blame liberal thinkers, blame Obama however much you like. Chastise him or myself as anti-Semitic because we hold views different from yours if you wish. No one forces others to listen. You don’t want peace, you want others to bow to your will, so be it. I just will not support it, tell my Congressmen to support it or encourage others to support it. The more I read this type of nonsense by people like you the more convinced I become the US has no business siding with a Jewish state and its culture of Israeli domination over the occupied territories and all people in it.
Peter, the attempts for peace with the Arabs began long before the State of Israel existed - even in the 1920’s the Jews in Eretz Israel restrained their responses to Arab pogroms in Jerusalem, Hebron etc. and followed the path of appeasement and acquiescence to the British restrictions on immigration. If you don’t know the results, let me enlighten you - 6 million murdered and no peace. Whether you support my position or not is irrelevant. The only issue that counts is Israel’s survival. For us, whose parents fought against the Nazis and their British henchmen, i.e. Anthony Eden etc., this is the essence of our struggle. Also, please tell me where the “occupied territories” begin and Israel proper, according to your high- minded definition, ends? If you talk about the pre-1967 borders, you might have found out, if you would have informed yourself on the subject, that these were the lines of the armistice, concluded in 1949, and never a mutually recognized border. But, it is always easier to spout pious platitudes than to confront the facts.
BTW, if the so-called “Palestinians” were sooo desirous to make peace, why wouldn’t they accept Barak’s infamous offer of retreat from 95% of Yehudah and Shomron in 2000? Why don’t you honor the Arab and Muslim websites with your beatiful proposals and see their “civilized” responses?
- 1
- 2
- Next Page »
Leave a Comment
To leave a comment, you must first be logged in to JTA. If you are not registered, please click here.
Already a JTA member?
Need to know? Get JTA's free e-newsletters!
Recent Posts
Recent Comments
- Claude S. on Connecting the dots: Susan G. Komen, J Street and Bill Clinton
- Yaakov Cohn on Connecting the dots: Susan G. Komen, J Street and Bill Clinton
- Herbert Kaine on Times travel writer on Israel: ‘A politically iffy burden’
- Lloyd Trufelman on Netanyahu doth protest too much?
- ASC on Times travel writer on Israel: ‘A politically iffy burden’
Edward Rosenblatt
07/23/09 04:30 PM
Cheryl, I agree with you COMPLETELY.
But even on the assumption that you are wrong, and that East Jerusalem is not lawfully part of Israel, there is only one concept under which Jews should not be allowed to settle there: apartheid. The same kind of apartheid which is the crux of the arab-Israeli conflict - lots of states for arabs, none for Jews. Arabs can live in Israel, Jews cannot live in the “future Palestine.”
Funny how the arab regimes are so guilty of all the evils they accuse Israel of: apartheid, ethnic cleansing, attempting to deprive a people of national determination.
Rarely in history has there been such a clear case of real bad guys versus real good guys.