Posted on 10/19/2005 8:01:41 AM PDT by Alex Marko
Israel has nearly completed its plan to cut off East Jerusalem (Arab Sector) from the West bank, by seizing Palestinian land and property in and around Jerusalem for Jewish settlers, and in the last couple of years building its "security barrier" across the West Bank to seal off the Jewish state and many of its "questionable" settlements in the territory. Thus turning Jerusalem into a unified, and more importantly, jewish dominated municiple area which would prevent the Palestinians from using it as its own capital
Jerusalem - which is holy to all 3 religions - is the 'heart and soul' of Israel, as well as the emotional core of the Middle East conflict. The entire future of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict could rest on this single issue alone. Israel's systematic seizure of Palestinian land within the cresent of its settlements surrounding Jerusalem, has pushed out the Arab inhabitants for years. As East Jerusalem holds Islam's 3rd holiest site, the situation has the potential to be far more explosive than any other past conflict between the two sides.
Redistricting of Jerusalem
The Israelis' intend to link this inner belt of Israeli-held territory with the outer crescent of large settlements, most of which are more like small satellite cities, which have been established over the last four decades along the ridgelines north, east and south of Jerusalem.[1]
"The Israelis' apparent rationale is to create a new geographic definition of Jerusalem," says Ghassan Khatib, the Palestinian labour minister and a prominent political analyst. "If Israel is trying to inflame the conflict by building this wall, then it is making no mistakes."[2]
The 13 settlements in the north of Jerusalem are being intertwined to include it as the city's extended municiple borders by intricate roads that cuts off East Jerusalem from the West Bank, mainly Ramallah to Bethlahem.
The Israelis current plan known as 'E-1', is focused on expansion east of the holy city itself, by linking the massive settlement of Maale Adumim. The Israelis' hope to double its population by additions of land and goverment grants to jewish settlers. The E-1 plan will link a string of settlements along defensive hilltops from Jerusalem to Jericho and eventually overlook the birthplace of Jesus Christ, Bethlehem.
The security 'barrier'
Israel's contentious security barrier is routed around a number of Israeli settlements, creating what is known in Israel as the 'Jerusalem security envelope'. In doing so, it also encloses approximately four per cent of the West Bank, leading to fears amongst Palestinians that the barrier is intended to create a de facto new border far from the 1967 'Green Line' while seriously undercutting Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas' peace negotiation attempts.
Recent developments in the route of the security barrier have been a mixed bag for Palestinians. While, some sections have been re-routed to follow the Green Line more closely, the August 25 decision by the IDF to expropriate yet more Palestinian land in order to build the security barrier to encompass the settlement of Maale Adumin has only deepened Palestinian suspicion of Israel's intentions.
Israel does however have legitimate security concerns, and the barrier has certainly succeeded in its original intent - to prevent suicide bombers from reaching Israel. Since its construction, the rate of suicide bomber attacks has dwindled to nearly zero. The coming year, as the Israelis' Security Barrier nears completion, will be fraught with the danger of a new round of violence if the international community does not make more strenuous efforts to find a compromise on a city whose status has for millennia provoked extreme passions among Jews, Muslims and Christians.
Further evidence of Israeli determination to seal off East Jerusalem came on 30 September when it was announced that Israel would open an archaeological site near the Haram al-Sharif, the site of Al-Aqsa and the Dome of the Rock[3]. Palestinians oppose excavations there, claiming it endangers the foundations of the Muslim shrines. Israel's opening of an underground tunnel near Haram al-Sharif in 1996 touched off several days of violence in which 61 Arabs and 15 Israeli soldiers were killed.
Under international law East Jerusalem is considered to be part of the occupied territories conquered by Israel in 1967. Most governments refuse to recognise Jerusalem as Israel's "eternal and indivisible capital" and oppose Israel's efforts to tighten its hold on the city. The US has criticised the Israeli plan, but has done little to rein in the Israelis on it or the wider issue of the constantly expanding settlements.
Indeed, in December 2002, the US voted against a United Nations General Assembly resolution that called on Israel to repeal the "Jerusalem Law" that declared Jerusalem "complete and united, is the capital of Israel". Until then, the US had abstained on the issue, arguing that the status of the holy city must be negotiated between the contesting parties. The Bush administration has made no evident effort to intervene to any significant degree that might curtail Israel's expansionist programme.
Jerusalem Divided
There is no room for comprimise on this issue. Under the so-called Geneva Accord, Jerusalem is to be divided by an international border, with Jewish districts falling to Israel and Arab neighbourhoods to Palestine. Several crossings would link the two parts of the city. In the walled Old City, Israel would retain control over the Jewish Quarter, with Palestinians having sovereignty over the rest.
The Al-Aqsa compound, built on the ruins of King Solomon's biblical temple, Judaism's holiest site, would be under Palestinian control, while the Western (or Wailing) Wall, the only remnant of Solomon's temple, would be in Israeli hands. The Israeli government totally rejects the accord and with good reason taking into consideration past occurances when Jordan controlled the area.
Since Arab East Jerusalem was captured from Jordan in the June 1967 war and later annexed, Israeli governments have sought to curb the growth of the Palestinian population through municipal zoning. To maintain the "Jewish character" of the city at the population ratios existing in 1967 - 71 per cent Jewish, 29 per cent Palestinian - Palestinians have been blocked from expanding outside Israeli-imposed boundaries. More than 200,000 Jews now live in East Jerusalem in areas that were not part of Israel before June 1967. Much of the construction has been privately financed by wealthy Jewish Americans and carried out by right-wing extremists, but Israeli authorities have done thing to impede the encroachment.
At the same time, Palestinian land in the Jerusalem area, owned by Muslims and Christians, has been seized by the occupying power, often under questionable circumstances. Palestinians who could not prove that Jerusalem was their "centre of life" have had their residency permits withdrawn, further culling the Palestinian population of the city. Building permits have been denied in Palestinian areas and Palestinian houses built without Israeli permits have been demolished. Jews are not subject to such punitive measures.
Thousands of Palestinian families built homes outside the new city limits, and were encouraged to by the issuance of bargain mortgages authorised by Israel's ministry of housing and assurances that their privileges as Jerusalem residents would be maintained.
For the large part, the Israelis kept their word, although they continued to make every effort to limit the Arab population of Jerusalem. With Sharon's unilateral withdrawl from Gaza sparking massive protest from the right wing of Israeli politics, there is no cause for alarm on the issue of Jerusalem within Israel. Despite a moderate vs. idealogical battle within Israeli politics, both sides decisively agree on a unified Jerusalem for Israel, however, concerning Israeli-Palestinian turmoil, US analyst Jonathan Lincoln says, "there is no territorial issue as likely to sabotage hopes for peace between Israelis and Palestinians as the final status of Jerusalem".
Sources:
1. Jane's Information Group
2. Reuters News Service
3. Haaretz Newspaper
It's within Israel, it SHOULD be Israeli.
Ping
The Islamic claim to the Temple Mount is very recent
Jerusalem's role as "The Third Holiest Site in Islam" in mainstream Islamic writings does not precede the 1930s. It was created by the Grand Mufti Haj Amin al Husseini
Most of the problems surrounding Jerusalem can be traced to two areas of dispute. One is the political area that asks Jerusalem to be the capital of both Israel and the nascent Palestine. The other and most contentious problem is the holiness of Temple Mount to both Judaism and Islam.
The role Jerusalem has in the Hebrew holy works is well known and not open to debate; however, there are varying opinions on the holiness of Jerusalem, specifically Temple Mount to Islam.
Many if not most opinions that counter Islam's claim point out the Jerusalem is not mentioned in the Quran and did not occupy any special role in Islam until recent political exigencies transformed Jerusalem into Islam's third holy site.
Jerusalem's role as "The Third Holiest Site in Islam" in mainstream Islamic writings does not precede the 1930s.
It was created by the Grand Mufti, Hajj Amin al Husseini. The Mufti knew that nationalist slogans alone would not succeed in uniting the masses against arriving Jewish refugees. He therefore turned the struggle into a religious conflict. He addressed the masses clearly, calling for a holy war. His battle cry was simple and comprehensive: "Down with the Infidels!" From the time Herbert Samuel appointed him to the position of Mufti, Haj Amin worked vigorously to raise Jerusalem's status as an Islamic holy center. He renovated the mosques on the Temple Mount, while conducting an unceasing campaign regarding the imminent Jewish "threat" to Moslem holy sites.
"The entire future of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict could rest on this single issue alone.",
I stopped reading.
Anyone who believes that there is anything other than the destruction of the "Zionist entity" that will bring about "peace" in the Middle East, is either off his meds or needs to go back onto them.
Besides, I believe that we have already established, that the prevailing culture within the Arab world is one of violence and repression. And this writer actually believes that the Arabs are committed to "peace"? This guy is either a leftist idealogue in the mold of Noam Chomsky or he's just plain stupid. Either way, his premise is flawed.
You make the noose, then you pull it tight, Knot behind the left ear.........
The Moslem Claim to Jerusalem is False
There were no mosques in Jerusalem in 632CE when the Prophet Mohammed died... Jerusalem was [then] a Christian city
by Dr. Manfred R. Lehmann
The Moslem "claim" to Jerusalem is based on what is written in the Koran, which although Jerusalem is not mentioned even once, nevertheless talks (in Sura 17:1) of the "Furthest Mosque": "Glory be unto Allah who did take his servant for a journey at night from the Sacred Mosque to the Furthest Mosque." But is there any foundation to the Moslem argument that this "Furthest Mosque" (Al-Masujidi al-Aqtza) refers to what is today called the Aksa Mosque in Jerusalem? The answer is, none whatsoever.
In the days of Mohammed, who died in 632 of the Common Era, Jerusalem was a Christian city within the Byzantine Empire. Jerusalem was captured by Khalif Omar only in 638, six years after Mohammed's death. Throughout all this time there were only churches in Jerusalem, and a church stood on the Temple Mount, called the Church of Saint Mary of Justinian, built in the Byzantine architectural style.
The Aksa Mosque was built 20 years after the Dome of the Rock, which was built in 691-692 by Khalif Abd El Malik. The name "Omar Mosque" is therefore false. In or around 711, or about 80 years after Mohammed died, Malik's son, Abd El-Wahd - who ruled from 705-715 - reconstructed the Christian- Byzantine Church of St. Mary and converted it into a mosque. He left the structure as it was, a typical Byzantine "basilica" structure with a row of pillars on either side of the rectangular "ship" in the center. All he added was an onion-like dome on top of the building to make it look like a mosque. He then named it El-Aksa, so it would sound like the one mentioned in the Koran.
Therefore it is crystal clear that Mohammed could never have had this mosque in mind when he compiled the Koran, since it did not exist for another three generations after his death. Rather, as many scholars long ago established, it is logical that Mohammed intended the mosque in Mecca as the "Sacred Mosque," and the mosque in Medina as the "Furthest Mosque." So much for the Moslem claim based on the Aksa Mosque.
With this understood, it is no wonder that Mohammed issued a strict prohibition against facing Jerusalem in prayer, a practice that had been tolerated only for some months in order to lure Jews to convert to Islam. When that effort failed, Mohammed put an abrupt stop to it on February 12, 624. Jerusalem simply never held any sanctity for the Moslems themselves, but only for the Jews in their domain.
If you actually read on, you would see that they noted suicide bombings and israel justification for security concerns. Its actually an impartial article.
Anyone who believes the Arabs have any claim on Jerusalem should read Nehemiah 2 v.19-20.
Islam - taking other religion's holy sites and converting them into mosques for 1400 years...
Firstly, there is no earthly reason to assume by any logic that Israel will relinquish one centimeter of East Jerusalem for several reasons, the most important of which is religious significance. Security comes a very close 2nd. Under Jordanian rule (not Palestinian rule, a discussion all of it's own), Jews could not go to The Western Wall and pray there. There lies the rub. Israel has made it clear that they will not yield on Jerusalem. So the Arabs have their wedge issue. Note too, please, that when the Israelis unilaterally withdrew from Gaza, Abbas himself, said that the struggle will continue until statehood with Jerusalem as it's capital. You will notice that he did not say East Jerusalem, he said Jerusalem.
Secondly,by referring to the "so-called Geneva Accord", the writer tips his hand. The Geneva Accord was a Yossi Beilin inspired pipe dream, with no official standing. It is the far left's idea of a Middle Eastern Utopia. It means diddly as far as Arab/ Israeli negotiations are concerned.
Simply put, the simplest way for there to be peace in the Middle East, is for Hamas to be dismantled, the Saudis to stop providing resources (financial and otherwise)in aiding, abetting and promoting terror in Israel, and for Syria to be spanked. Without the removal of all three of those protagonists, there will never be peace.
Dont get me wrong, i support a unified jerusalem for an israeli capital, and by no means do i blame israel for any action it takes in doing so. I'm simply stating that Jerusaelems' status is the the biggest factor in the conflict. Of course you would not think its impartial, you side heavily on Israel's side.
Even more simply put, an even simpler way for there to be peace in the Middle East is for all Israeli's to leave and relocate to Columbus, Ohio.
Now, if you're going for realistic, I'm afraid neither of our plans will work.
BTTT
Sounds good to me. Let the only civilized nation in the region control its own capitol.
Israel capital will be a united Jerusalem, it is the "heart and soul" of israel. Moving is NOT an option. Tell the Palestinians to move.
Jerusalem is not even mentioned in the Koran. Any and all Palestinian claims are false.
Well, I thought you were looking for the simplest option. Weren't you?
They've already got two holy cities - why do they need a 3rd?
Yes, I support Israel unreservedly. From your comment, apparently so do you. But it's because I am a strong supporter of Israel (as you are) that I can't see that the article is impartial? Color me confused.
The fact that the author uses a false premise and quotes an agreement that isn't worth the paper is written on, shouldn't question the impartiality of the article? C'mon.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.