In response to President Barack Obama’s criticism of Israel’s most recently announced building plans in East Jerusalem, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s spokesman made the following statements on behalf of the Prime Minister: “Jerusalem is not a settlement.” “Jerusalem is the capital of the State of Israel.” “Israel never agreed to limit its construction in any way in Jerusalem.” “Israel sees no connection at all between the peace process and building plans in Jerusalem.”
Most, if not all, of these views have since been repeated by Netanyahu himself.
Each of these statements is untrue and/or irrelevant. President Obama did not object to construction in Jerusalem, but in East Jerusalem. West Jerusalem is the internationally recognized capital of Israel; East Jerusalem, which was unilaterally annexed by Israel’s government in 1980, is not. Indeed, there is not a single foreign embassy even in West Jerusalem, so complete has been the international rejection of Israel’s unilateral annexation of East Jerusalem, an annexation that not a single previous U.S. administration has recognized.
As the “office” of Prime Minister Netanyahu knows very well, it is not “settlements” per se that are illegal. It is the transfer of an occupier’s population into the occupied territories that violates the Fourth Geneva Convention, to which Israel is a signatory. Such transfers are illegal irrespective of where they take place—whether in settlements in the West Bank countryside or in apartment buildings in East Jerusalem. It was not only the International Court of Justice that confirmed the illegality of Israeli construction beyond the pre-1967 border, but Israel’s legal advisor to its Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Theodore Meron, who informed his own government in 1967, shortly after the Six-Day War, that “civilian settlement in the administered territories contravenes explicit provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention.” East Jerusalem is indisputably beyond the 1967 border, and that is why the transfer of Israel’s population there is illegal. While it is true that “Israel never agreed to limit its construction in any way in Jerusalem,” it is irrelevant. Israel signed the Road Map for Middle East peace, which stipulates that the Government of Israel “immediately dismantles settlement outposts erected since March 2001” and “Consistent with the Mitchell Report...freezes all settlement activity (including natural growth of settlements).” Neither the Road Map nor the Mitchell Report makes a distinction between construction in East Jerusalem and in settlements.
The most egregiously dishonest of Netanyahu’s statements is that there is no connection between construction in Jerusalem and the peace process. Former–Prime Minister of Israel Ehud Olmert, a former “Likud prince” and head of Kadima, said that an Israeli leader who refuses to share Jerusalem with the Palestinians and maintains he is serious about seeking a peace agreement is lying.
That said, it really should not come as a great surprise to President Obama that Netanyahu seems to believe it is Israel’s prime minister, not the White House occupant, who determines U.S.–Middle East peace policy. In the wake of President Obama’s recent proposal to lavish a stunning cornucopia of gifts on Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu—giving away Palestinian rights that were not his to give—reportedly in return for nothing more than Netanyahu’s agreement to talk to President Mahmoud Abbas for another two months (which Netanyahu, in turn, disdainfully rejected because he thought he could obtain even more), it is not an unreasonable conclusion.
How else to understand what Vice President Joe Biden told Netanyahu on November 8 in New Orleans before a gathering of Jewish Federation officials that differences between Israel and the United States on the subject of construction in Jerusalem and in the West Bank are nothing more than “tactical in nature.” Is the continuation of Israel’s military occupation and its denial of all rights to millions of Palestinians for nearly half a century nothing more than a minor tactical issue for the United States? Is that what President Obama told the Arab and Muslim world in his speech in Cairo?
President Obama will have to take his own words about the Middle East peace process and its deep moral and strategic implications for America more seriously than he has so far if he expects Bibi Netanyahu to do so as well.
Comments
Jerusalem has been associated with the Jews for most of recorded history. Jesus, a Jewish rabbi from Nazareth, prayed in the Jerusalem temple whose ground had been legally acquired by King David a thousand years earlier. There is nothing inherently "Palestinian" about Jerusalem. When the British Mandate ended in 1948, the eastern part of the city, including the sacred Temple Mount and its adjacent Western or Wailing Wall, was conquered and occupied by the Kingdom of Jordan, who expelled all the Jews and destroyed their synagogues in the process. However, the Jordanians gave up their claims to Jerusalem upon signing a peace agreement with Israel in 1994. Thus, it can no longer be considered "occupied". But what about the "Palestinians"? Unknown to many people, they are a jihadist movement, founded in 1928, who only wish to arabize and islamize the region. Being part of the worldwide Muslim Brotherhood, they resist secular nationhood and democracy, Israeli or other. For this reason, the Palestinian movement is regarded with healthy suspicion not just by Israel, but by all Arab governments as well. One can assume that Mr. Siegman is aware of these matters, so his silence about them must be seen as journalistic dishonesty.
Michael Jacobs: you seem to have a knack for making up "facts" as fits your political inclinations.Let's set a few things straight:1- Jerusalem has been associated with the Christians for most of recorded history. Jerusalem has been associated with the Muslims for most of recorded history.2- Jesus was not a Jewish rabbi - maybe you are; but not the Jesus Christians believe in and pray to.3- You say king David "legally" acquired land in Jerusalem thousands of years ago. Are you serious? Are we in first grade? Can you prove it? Can you show the "legal" proof? The fact is you can hardly prove that he himself even existed, let alone that he had acquired land - and much less "legally".We all know, however, that Palestinians have existed and they are still around. Palestinians continue to exist, and many of them still hold legal deed and title to a lot of land and property usurped by Zionists. It is banally self-evident that this carries more legal, moral and human wait then some supposedly biblical (but heavily disputed) narrative.4- You say there's nothing inherently Palestinian about Jerusalem. Here's what’s inherently Palestinian about Jerusalem: It is in (and part of) Palestine. Now perhaps you'd like to argue that Palestine is not Palestinian.If you don't agree, read #5.5- You yourself say that eastern Jerusalem was conquered and occupied by Jordan (we should also note that western Jerusalem was conquered and occupied by Zionists who made it part of the newly formed entity called Israel). But your statement automatically means that Jordan has no inherent or legal claim to East Jerusalem and therefore cannot transfer such claim to anybody as they don't have it - in the first place - to give.And the most laughable6- You call Israel a "secular nationhood and democracy". How can it be considered secular if it wants to be Jewish? That's an oxymoron. Read a book sometimes! It's a theocracy, to say the least, and an apartheid regime of the worst kind.Newsflash: The tide is turning. Your lies are no longer fooling us. The world is becoming increasingly aware of your crimes and of the fact that killing innocent children is your daily business.Have shame!The inquisition and the holocaust were dark chapters in history. They were unspeakable. But they were NOT the fault of the Palestinians; so don’t take it out on them.The holocaust happened in Europe and it will persist as a unique blemish on European history. The holocaust should never be repeated, ever, by anyone… not even you!
@ dadspicture: I disagree with you. The Gospel makes no secret of the fact that Jesus was a Thora abiding Jew. Jerusalem's association with Christianity is related to the fact that Jesus visited the Jewish Temple there and celebrated the Jewish festival of Passover, before being arrested and crucified. In the same way, Jerusalem's only importance to Muslims is that it is the most famous Jewish city in the world. And yes, there is a biblical account of David buying the threshing floor where the Temple would later be built. It seems silly that you agree with the Gospel's claim that Jesus was from "the house of David" - and therefore qualifies as the Messiah - but do not accept that David himself ever existed. Moreover, Israel was not founded by "zionist conquest", as you erroneously claim, but as a result of a UN vote on the matter. Israel has made peace agreements with both Jordan and Egypt. On the other hand, I do not believe that peace with the Palestinian movement will happen, since it is officially and publicly bent on the downfall not only of Israel but of all the other secular states such as Jordan, Egypt, Lebanon and Syria. For the most part, Palestinians still live in refugee camps in those countries. They do not enjoy civil rights, since the Arab goverments regard them as dangerous and subversive. The only exception to this is Israel. There, the last Palestinian refugee camp was closed in 1952. In Israel, all former Palestinians, Arabs and Jews, have become full and loyal citizens of the state.