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
19 Comments
Comments RSS Feed Reader Comments
I notice a lack of civility, adolescent name-calling, and--most importantly and troubling--lashon hara. Those exhibiting lashon hara drape themselves in the clothes of champions of Israel and Zionism that ill-fit them. Advocates do not best state their case by insulting others.
“Past nicht” referred to actions and activities that were supposed to be beneath Jews who would qualify as “Ohr la Goyim.” Perhaps they who would be defenders of the Jewish People never learned, “ayn boor yirai chayt--” an ignorant person does not fear sinning.
Better our energetic name-callers should devote their powers to support those of integrity, compassion and openness within Israel who struggle against dishonesty and immorality among government and religious leaders, and the intolerance of those who riot and wound in the name of sanctifying Ha Shem.
Why does Obama oppose Jewish construction in East Jerusalem?
Not because he is anti-Semitic, but because he knows that the motivation for the building of the hotel in the Sheikh Jarrah neighborhood by right-wing casino magnate Irving Moscowitz, and the attempts by the Elad settler group to expand their enclave in the Silwan neighborhood are motivated by a desire to create “facts on the ground” that will prevent a reasonable solution to the future of Jerusalem, and will derail any possiblity for a peace process based upon a two state solution.
As a Tel Avivian who spends three days a week in Jerusalem, I personally regret that the original 1947 UN Partition Plan, which called for Jerusalem to be an international city, wasn’t carried out. It would have prevented a lot of problems that we are dealing with today. Unfortunately the Israeli and Jordanian governments didn’t allow the UN resolution to be realized.
What Obama is trying to do today is to salvage the possibility for a peaceful future for both the Israeli and Palestinian younger generations. The end goal should be Jerusalem as an open city, with West Jerusalem being the capital of Israel and East Jerusalem being the capital of a future Palestinian state. Perhaps together with some type of international regime over the Old City, the shared home of three great monotheistic religions.
To ensure that solution remains possible, it’s essential that Jewish settlement activity be frozen in East Jerusalem.
Obama’s policy is in the best interest of both Israel and America.
The claim that it’s about RELIGION rather than SOVEREIGNTY is one of the more deceitful narratives in the press at the moments, and is designed to muddy the waters on the issue of disputed territories.
Jeff Jacoby (and others) clearly know that this is not the case - it’s one of the more blatant and shameful cases of outright deceit and manipulation.
What’s frightening is that there’s a minority of people who lack the intelligence to see the difference between THEIR OPINION being that Jerusalem should be united, and Jerusalem NOT BEING DISPUTED TERRITORY.
Hillel - I agree completely...ideally that would have been the best possible outcome for all involved, and the security of the city of Jerusalem. However, all chances of such an agreement have I think declined...no political leaders on any side would have the political capital (or the bravery) to agree to such a deal now.
Alex Golan - your position is extremely one-sided to the point of historical revisionism.
I have no idea how you’ve linked the actions of Jews in Eretz Israel prior to WWII to the outcome of the holocaust, but I find that massively distasteful and disrespectful to their memory.
“Those who fought against the Nazis and their British henchmen (i.e. Anthony Eden etc.)” again shows a truly massive lack of basic knowledge of history - which I wouldn’t mind were it not for the fact that your post was about chiding somebody else for not knowing their history!
I can only assume you mean Chamberlain, but even then your representation of the situation is massively historically inaccurate. If you were talking of ‘Nazi henchmen’ it would be the Axis powers...I would suggest your representation of this period of history is based on who you want to attack, rather than what actually happened.
Finally the position of “if they want peace why didn’t they accept what we offered them” is clearly an extremely weak argument trotted out by both sides...why didn’t we accept any deals offered? BECAUSE THEY WEREN’T SATISFACTORY TO US!
This is a particularly glaring case of partisanship coming ahead of the actualite of the situation.
Ari, before chiding me about historical ignorance, go and check the facts! When Hitler expanded his grip over Europe and some 9 million Jews fell under his rule, the British under the leadership of, among others, Anthony Eden issued their infamous White Papers in 1938/39 which closed Mandate Palestine for Jewish immigration. This effectively condemned the European Jews to a death trap where 6 million perished. In my book, the British and, to a lesser degree, the FDR administration with its anti-Jewish immigration policy should be viewed as unindicted co-conspirators to the Nazis. This evolution marked the beginning of the illegal immigration ships, Aliyah Bet, and the armed struggle against Britain.
Read “The Abandonment of the Jews” by David Wyman - ignorance can be remedied by literacy.
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
- Jonathan on Is Tel Aviv or Jerusalem the real Israel?
- Don on Time cover mashup: Suckling Bibi
- Terry N. Gardner on Israeli para-Athlete Moran Samuel wins gold, saves the day with her own rendition of 'Hatikvah'
- Michael Poppers on Israeli para-Athlete Moran Samuel wins gold, saves the day with her own rendition of 'Hatikvah'
- Ed Greenberg on Israeli para-Athlete Moran Samuel wins gold, saves the day with her own rendition of 'Hatikvah'
Howard Cohn
07/24/09 03:55 AM
To start with Peter you should read the Charters of the PLO, Fatah and Hamas. A charade was committed many years ago to give the impression the the Palestine National Council removed parts of their charter stating that Israel should cease to exist. Read the current statements of members of Fatah and Hamas regarding Israel and negotiations with her. Look at their maps showing Arab Palestine.
Areas in east Jreusalem where Israel wants to allow building for Jews, are owned by Jews or Israelis. The U.S. and others do not even recognize Jerusalem as being the capital of Israel. The U.S. does not even accept Birth Certificates of those born in Jerusalem if they state as the place of birth, Jerusalem, Israel. Israel should tell Obama that he governs the U.S. and not Israel.
Peter, you and others should try reading the history of this area from all sources, not just those you agree with.