Jerusalem Must Never Be Split For Benefit Of Israelis And Arabs Alike

Jerusalem is Not Up for Grabs

Posted by: Dr. Efraim Inbar April 17, 2014 , 10:37 am

85 7

2 0Email 114Share

US Secretary of State John Kerry has blamed the sudden deadlock in peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority on Israel’s plans to build additional apartments in Gilo, a southern Jerusalem neighborhood beyond the Green Line. This indicates America’s profound misunderstanding of the situation. With over 40,000 residents, Gilo is to be part of Israel under any agreement. More importantly, the peace negotiations have little chance of succeeding as long as the Palestinians demand the partition of Jerusalem.

The Palestinians and most of the international community fail to understand that the past offers made to divide Jerusalem – by Ehud Barak at the Camp David summit in 2000, and repeated by Ehud Olmert in 2007 – were divorced from the strong attachment a majority of Israelis feel towards the eternal city. The willingness of Barak and Olmert to divide the city completely lacks domestic political support. Furthermore, strategic considerations also dictate that Israel hold onto greater Jerusalem as a united city.

Israeli public opinion is committed to maintaining the status quo in Jerusalem. All polls show that over two thirds of Israelis feel that Jerusalem should remain the united capital of Israel, while only 20 percent favor dividing the capital between the Jewish state and a future Palestinian state. The group of Israelis expressing the strongest support in favor of Jerusalem remaining the undivided capital of Israel (almost 80 percent) is between the ages of 18 and 24. Of this group, even stronger support was expressed by Ultra-Orthodox and religious Israelis who are the fastest growing segments in the Jewish population. When asked whether Israel should relinquish control over the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, the holiest place in the world for Jews, over 70 percent of Israelis disagreed.

After Barak’s offer in 2000, over 250,000 people demonstrated in opposition to Barak’s violation of the Jerusalem taboo – the largest rally ever held in the city. The electrifying hold of Jerusalem on the Jewish psyche is not sufficiently appreciated. Moreover, an Orthodox injunction against visiting the Temple Mount has eroded, allowing a growing number of Israelis the spiritual experience of ascending the Mount and conjoining the metaphysical past and future. Such feelings are politically potent, foreclosing the possibility that Israelis will sit idly by and abide a transfer of sovereignty in Jerusalem.

In 2000, the division of Jerusalem lacked the necessary majority in the Knesset and Barak’s coalition subsequently disintegrated (for this and other reasons). Similarly, in 2008, Prime Minister Olmert experienced coalition difficulties because he placed Jerusalem on the negotiators’ agenda. No Israeli government is likely to survive concessions regarding Jerusalem. If elections are held in the near future, the strength of the opposition to any concessions in Jerusalem is only likely to grow.

Jerusalem’s importance to Jews is not only historical and religious. The city also holds strategic importance in controlling the only highway from the coast of the Mediterranean Sea to the Jordan River Valley, along which military forces can move with little interference from Arab communities. Jerusalem is the linchpin for erecting a security zone along the Jordan Rift that Israel insists on. If Israel wants to maintain a defensible border in the East, it needs to secure the east-west axis from the coast to the Jordan Valley, via an undivided Jerusalem. Keeping Greater Jerusalem, which includes the settlement blocs that President Bush recognized as realities that must be accommodated in a future settlement, is a strategic imperative. The military importance of Jerusalem and Jerusalem’s central role in the eastern line of defense for Israel cannot be ignored, especially given the immense potential for political upheaval east of the Jordan River. Designing stable defensible borders in accordance with current, but transient, state-of-the-art technological and political circumstances is strategically foolish. The turmoil of the past few years in the Arab world suggests the need for great caution.

The partition of Jerusalem is also a bad idea given the history of cities such as Berlin, Belfast or Nicosia. Why should Jerusalem be different?! Jews have held a majority in the city for the past 150 years, while Jerusalem has never been the capital of any Arab or Muslim political entity.

Moreover, the Arab minority in the city has clearly shown its preference for living under Israeli rule. Many Arabs have moved to the Israeli side of the security barrier being built around Jerusalem. Polls show that a large majority of Jerusalem’s Arabs oppose being subject to Palestinian rule. Their choice is understandable, since Jerusalem offers the quality of life of a modern Western city; while only a few kilometers away, a Third World standard of living and religious intolerance are the norm. An undivided Jerusalem is the best guarantee for a better life for all Jerusalemites.

In sum, the unreasonable Palestinian demand to divide Jerusalem is an obstacle towards a better future.

First published by the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies. Reprinted with the author’s permission.

Read more at http://www.breakingisraelnews.com/13801/jerusalem-grabs/#4uEf9s5I5PBSobhF.99

Kerry Unintentionally Teaches Israelis Several Lessons And They Learn Them Well.

The Dangerfield of Diplomacy

Posted by: Michael Freund April 13, 2014 , 2:59 pm

22 2

0 0Email 31Share

This coming October will mark the 10th anniversary of the passing of American comedic icon Rodney Dangerfield, a man who left his mark on our collective consciousness and provided us all with some priceless moments of side-splitting laughter.

Born Jacob Rodney Cohen to Hungarian Jewish immigrants on Long Island, Dangerfield worked as a door-to-door aluminum siding salesman before hitting it big in comedy. In his act, he adopted the image of a hapless ne’erdo- well for whom nothing ever goes right, peppering his routine with what quickly became known as his signature line: “I get no respect.”

“I’m telling you,” he once said, “I get no respect. The way my luck is running, if I was a politician, I would be honest.”

While Dangerfield may have passed away a decade ago, there is one man who seems intent on continuing his legacy, albeit in a far more serious and important line of work: John Kerry, the US Secretary of State.

For months on end, Kerry methodically accumulated thousands of frequent flyer miles, visiting the Middle East more than any other part of the world in an increasingly desperate attempt to breathe new life into the Israel-Palestinian negotiations. He was mocked and ridiculed, called “messianic” and “obsessive,” but he soldiered on, intent on defying all those who said that he was wasting his time on a fool’s errand, even though he was.

Russia may have occupied the Crimea, and North Korea may have resumed threatening to carry out further nuclear tests, but John Kerry would not be deterred.

He kept banging his head against the Middle Eastern wall, certain that it would break, even as the rest of us were sure that it was all headed nowhere.

Sure enough, as the “Dangerfield of diplomacy,” Kerry’s luck ran out even before it began.

And while he now may face a barrage of criticism for leaving the region empty-handed, I would beg to differ.

Appearances aside, I think Kerry can take pride in three important, though entirely unintended, achievements.

First, the US Secretary of State has unwittingly pulled the mask off of Palestinian Authority chairman Mahmoud Abbas, reminding the Israeli public once again that there is no partner on the Palestinian side.

By dragging Israel and the Palestinians into the protracted exercise of meaningless talks that went nowhere, Kerry accomplished more in nine months than years of right-wing columns, advertisements and interviews could possibly have achieved.

Abbas came away looking just as uncooperative and obstructive as ever, making outlandish demands while offering nothing in return. Indeed, a poll conducted for the Knesset TV station and released on March 27 found that 70 percent of Israelis do not view Abbas as a possible partner for peace. And for that, Kerry deserves at least some of the thanks.

His second feat was to inadvertently reinforce the Israeli public’s opposition to handing over territory to our foes. By making an issue out of the future status of the Jordan Valley, which is widely viewed as Israel’s buffer against threats from the east, Kerry focused the minds of the public on the dangers inherent in territorial concessions.

He forced Israelis to ponder the frightening possibility of exposing the country’s eastern flank, and you don’t need to be a four-star general to understand just how perilous that would be. Not surprisingly, the Knesset TV survey mentioned above also revealed that 61% of Israelis are now opposed to giving up parts of Judea and Samaria in exchange for a peace agreement versus 39% in favor. The failure of Kerry’s efforts will surely increase that sizeable majority even more.

Finally, Kerry’s third and ultimate triumph was to strip away any pretense of justice or legitimacy in America’s continuing imprisonment of Jonathan Pollard.

By cynically offering to set him free to entice Israel to release Palestinian terrorists, Kerry demonstrated clearly and unequivocally that Pollard’s ongoing incarceration is political, not judicial.

He has thereby bolstered the already compelling case in favor of clemency for Pollard by clumsily attempting to use him as a bargaining chip. This will further increase the pressure on Washington to do what it should have done long ago and set Pollard free. Not bad for a rookie Secretary of State.

At this point, one can only hope that Kerry has at last learned his lesson and will now stop ignoring the growing threats to American hegemony around the world.

Instead of spending his time coaxing Israel to make dangerous concessions, he should be trying to cajole countries such as Iran and Syria to concede.

In Kerry’s defense, he surely meant well, and the intractability of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has outfoxed men far wiser than he. But the truth of the matter is that Kerry could have avoided this current predicament altogether. For when Abbas surely encouraged him to come to Ramallah, promising he would find there a man of peace, Kerry should have taken to heart one of Rodney Dangerfield’s old routines.

As the comedian liked to tell it, “A girl phoned me the other day and said, ‘Come on over, there’s nobody home.’ So I went over. Nobody was home.”

And that, dear Mr. Kerry, is why there is no peace.

Read more at http://www.breakingisraelnews.com/13796/dangerfield-diplomacy/#OqXp2LPmPcL0WoFz.99

Will Israel Accept 1967 Borders? If So, What Then?

 Deputy foreign minister: 1967 borders are Auschwitz borders

Barak Ravid and Reuters - Jan 02, 2014 
Haaretz

Deputy Foreign Minister Zeev Elkin said Thursday that “the 1967 borders are Auschwitz borders” and therefore Likud has to reject any proposal to withdraw from the West Bank.

Elkin, of the Likud party himself, spoke during a morning tour of settlements in the Jordan Valley attended by parliamentarians and ministers that are members the Land of Israel lobby.

The tour, in which Interior Minister Gideon Sa’ar (Likud) participated, took place a few hours before U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry landed in Israel. Kerry is expected to meet Thursday evening with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to discuss the “framework agreement” for peace that the United States is interested in presenting to Israel and the Palestinians by the end of January.

“The Jordan Valley must be under Israeli sovereignty forever,” said Elkin at a dedication ceremony for a new neighborhood in the settlement of Gitit in the Jordan Valley. “Now of all times, in a government headed by Likud, in a settlement built by Likud, we can say loud and clear: You will remain here forever and there will be Israeli sovereignty here.”

Elkin added: “To all those who are now making proposals for Israeli withdrawal to the 1967 borders, there is only one reply, which was already given in 1969 by then- foreign minister Abba Eban: The 1967 borders are Auschwitz borders! The only reply that Likud government should give to such proposals is: No! It’s right to talk to our neighbors, but it’s illogical for them to ask us to give up the security of Israel’s inhabitants and Israel’s vital interests. Anyone who gives up the Jordan Valley will turn Kfar Sava into Sderot.” 

Kerry's Middle East Proposals Shot Down By The PLO. We Will Now See The Pressure Being Placed On Israel To Accept The Palestinian Program Including Jerusalem Being Its Capital. Will Israel Cave? Will Kerry Drop The "Total Isolation" Option On Israel. We Should Know By January 15, 2014.

PLO: Palestinians won't accept current proposals from Israel

Khaled Abu Toameh - The Jerusalem Post,  December 9th, 2013

Dome of the Rock on the Temple Mount
(Photo: Ilan Evyatar)
The Palestinians can’t accept any proposals or plans like the ones that are being suggested today; that solidify occupation and legalize the division of the Palestinian territories, the PLO Executive Committee announced Sunday.
The announcement, which was issued to mark the 26th anniversary of the first intifada that began in 1987, was referring to recent security arrangements between Israel and the Palestinians, as proposed by US Secretary of State John Kerry.
The PLO warned that there could be no deal with Israel that excludes the Jordan Valley, and Jerusalem as the capital of a Palestinian state.
The PLO also expressed opposition to the presence of any settlement blocs in the West Bank in the context of a future deal with Israel. “We can’t accept that the airspace, borders and border crossings remain under the control of the occupiers,” the PLO said. [And Israel can't accept indefensible borders.]
Meanwhile, the ruling Fatah faction – the PLO’s largest group – vowed to pursue “popular resistance” against Israel until Palestinians fulfill their rights.
Saying that it had created the term intifada, Fatah referred to the first uprising as the “stone intifada.”
“Fatah has consolidated the popular uprising as a program for struggling against occupation and settlements,” the faction said in a statement. “Popular resistance is a natural extension to the struggle of our people.”
It said that while it would pursue the path of “popular resistance,” Fatah would continue to work politically in the international arena to achieve the goals of the Palestinians.