Australia says 'east' Jerusalem is not 'occupied'; little rump king seethes
Shavua tov, a good week to everyone.
This should have made a much bigger splash. The government of Australia announced on Thursday that as far as it is concerned,
'east' Jerusalem is not 'occupied.'
“The description of east Jerusalem as ‘Occupied East Jerusalem’ is a
term freighted with pejorative implications, which is neither
appropriate nor useful,” George Brandis said, reading out a statement
written following a conversation with Australia’s foreign minister,
Julie Bishop.
“It should not and will not be the practice of the Australian government
to describe areas of negotiations in such judgmental language,” he
said.
Brandis said the description of areas, which are the subject of negotiations, by reference to historical events was “unhelpful.”
He added that Australia supported a peaceful solution to the
Palestinian- Israeli conflict that “recognizes the right of Israel to
exist peacefully within secure borders and also recognizes the
aspiration to statehood of the Palestinian people.”
The comments came following a heated debate Wednesday evening in the
Senate, where Brandis took issue when a Greens party senator referred to
“occupied east Jerusalem.”
Bishop - and the Australian government in general - is apparently even more sympathetic to the Israeli position.
In January, Bishop – during a short visit to attend Ariel Sharon’s
funeral – took issue with those calling the settlements illegal. Indeed,
Australia now refrains from using the term “illegal” to refer to
settlements. Canberra also does not refer to the West Bank as “occupied”
territory, but rather “disputed” territory.
Although the European Union routinely states the settlements are
“illegal,” the US – which is adamantly opposed to Israel’s settlement
policy – refrains from using that term, now generally calling them
“illegitimate” or “unhelpful.”
Last month, Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat wrote Bishop slamming
Australia’s ambassador to Israel, David Sharma, for meeting Construction
and Housing Minister Uri Ariel in his east Jerusalem office.
Erekat said the meeting had the “effect of attempting to legitimize the
illegal situation on the ground and may be deemed as aiding, abetting or
otherwise assisting illegal Israeli policies.”
Canberra simply ignored the protest.
Meanwhile, the
little rump king in Amman is
fuming.
The report cited Jordanian government spokesman Barbat Amon as stating
that all territory gained by Israel in the "Six Day War" of 1967 is
considered "occupied territory" by international law. Those territories
include east Jerusalem and the Old City, which were wrestled
from Jordanian control in the war.
It's hard for the Arabs to hear the truth, isn't it? What 'international law'?
Labels: Australia, East Jerusalem, Jordan is Palestine, Jordanian occupation, Judea and Samaria, Julie Bishop, occupation
Israel respects eminent domain takings - but only when they're carried out by Jordan
Okay, this is bizarre. The State of Israel regularly expels Jews from 'private Palestinian land' even after houses sit on that land for years because it's 'private Palestinian land.' A much more logical solution would be for Israel to take the land by eminent domain and compensate the 'owners' (as is done in every other country in the West). Instead, the government of Israel insists on
destroying people's homes.
But when the government of 'Jordan' takes land...
that's different.
Israel is pushing ahead with a plan that would legitimize construction on land near the settlement of Ofra in the West Bank.
The Supreme Court ruled as early as 1979 that settlements may not be built on confiscated private Palestinian land. The move's legal foundation appears to hinge on the fact that it was the Jordanians, not the Israelis, who confiscated the land - before Israel took over the West Bank during the Six-Day War in 1967.
Jordan had confiscated land from the villages of Ein Yabrud and Silwad to build a military camp. When the settlement project began after 1967, the first settlers used the military buildings as sleeping quarters for a camp they established there. By 1975, the camp had become Ofra, the first Jewish settlement in the northern West Bank, now home to more than 700 families.
The land in the current plan contains a cluster of dilapidated buildings. In the past two years, amid a housing shortage, the settlers of Ofra began preparing the land for a new neighborhood. The land now lies within Ofra's fence; in effect, the plan would expand the settlement.
...
Two months ago, the original Palestinian owners petitioned the High Court of Justice to demolish the buildings and give them back the land. Until 1979, construction of settlements on Palestinian land seized for "military needs" was the norm. The Supreme Court ruled this practice illegal in 1979, and the state stopped confiscating private Palestinian land for settlements. But settlements have since been built on private land expropriated before 1979.
Responding to the recent petition, the state said it has no intention to carry out the Civil Administration's demolition orders, and that it plans to prepare the site for construction.
The affidavit, submitted by an adviser to Defense Minister Ehud Barak, Eitan Broshi, noted that the decision to legalize the construction was made after it was found that the land had been expropriated by the Jordanians.
The move is legally complex: While the land was originally confiscated by the Jordanians, Israel has since reaffirmed the Jordanians' confiscation order and stated that the land would be used for public needs such as infrastructure. This also contradicts the use intended for the land in the new plan.
Hmmm.
Labels: eminent domain, Jordanian occupation, land use, Supreme Court
The real obstacle to peace
Mudar Zahran is a 'Palestinian' Jordanian who fled Jordan, and currently resides in England, where he has been granted asylum. A former political insider, he is very critical of the Hashemite regime in Jordan, both vis-à-vis its treatment of its majority 'Palestinian' population and in its belligerent attitude towards Israel. He is convinced that the Hashemites are an impediment to a resolution of the 'Palestinian' issue and hence to regional security. He backs
everything I have ever
said about
Jordan on this
blog. Here are some
excerpts (Hat Tip:
David H).
YM: What would you suggest vis-à-vis the Israeli-Palestinian issue? What should Jordan do?
MZ: Why is there a Palestinian issue now? Why do most Palestinians who live in Jordan have to feel like refugees and actually be asked to go back "home"? Jordan has been excluding its Palestinian majority from jobs, government positions and even from joining the police force and now practices serious apartheid policies against them in education, medical treatment, etc. The results are the Palestinians are constantly feeling as outsiders in their country thus bringing up the so-called right of return issue, which just complicates the peace process as it is not feasible or legally acceptable. Jordan has been blackmailing everyone with the right of return threat and even in 1993, according to Yacub Beri's book (in Arabic) My Mission as an Intelligence Officer, demanded 40 billion dollars in exchange for "hosting" the Palestinians.
Furthermore, Jordan should stop its ties and communications with Hamas. A senior Jordanian official, a military field marshal, went into Gaza just six weeks ago and met with Haniyeh. What does this say? Even more, the Jordanian king held talks with Hamas in 2008. This was orchestrated by his intelligence chief Muhammad Dahabi. When Muhammad Dahabi retired, he was quoted in a Lebanese newspaper as saying "Arab countries should revive resistance against Israel, and support Hamas and Hezbollah". This man was the chief coordinator for counter-terrorism efforts with US and Israel...what does this tell you?
YM: So you're saying that the King is encouraging Palestinian Jordanians to leave Jordan and move to the other side of the Jordan River in order to "flood" Israel. Do I understand correctly?
MZ: Yes. Deputy Prime Minister and Interior Minister Nayef al-Qadi defended an official policy of stripping Jordanians of Palestinian heritage of their citizenship, a policy that has resulted in the denaturalization of more than 2,700 so far according to a recent report by Human Rights Watch. In an interview with a London-based Arabic newspaper, Qadi said that "Jordan should be thanked for standing up against Israeli ambitions of clearing the Palestinian land of its people" which he described as "the secret Israeli aim to impose a solution of Palestinian refugees at the expense of Jordan."
YM: So where exactly is "Palestine"? Is it west of the Jordan River or is Jordan also Palestine?
MZ: What we should apply here is the law. The international law under the League of Nations identified Palestine as the area between the Mediterranean and the desert of Iraq. Maps say so and that is where all things started with international law. Jews were promised all of this under international law, and then the Arabs were given two thirds of it. Then the Hashemites occupied the land and changed its name and now they are claiming the Palestinians who moved there from Israel are not Jordanians. Let me put it this way. Peace can never be achieved without democratizing Jordan where the Palestinians can have full rights and their own government. Unless that happens there shall always be issues like the so called right of return. Now what is not Palestinian in Jordan? Amman is more Palestinian than Ramallah. The only un-Palestinian thing in Jordan is the king and his family, a group of 50 people.
YM: Let's assume tomorrow you or someone like you is running Jordan. What would you suggest regarding the Palestinians living in Judea and Samaria?
MZ: Jordanians are overtaxed to finance the king's lavish style. Thus the minute he leaves Jordan, the country will be better off economically which will enable Jordanians to enjoy a thriving economy. Presently the king of Jordan spends 40 percent of the budget on the army for an unknown reason. Once that changes and Jordan is reduced to an army of machine guns and humvees the economy will light up and then the Palestinians in Judea and Samaria would be given the chance to move to Jordan if they wish. Last year alone thirty thousand Palestinians moved to Jordan even though the Jordanian government does not allow them to do so.
YM: Truth is the region would probably have more stability if Israel had sovereignty from the Sea to the River and Jordan was to become Palestine. No?
MZ: I cannot comment on that yet I can tell you this much. A democratized Jordan where the Palestinian majority gets their rights and where money is spent on economy rather than a big army and where the Jordan River is a good fence - good fences make good neighbors - that alone can establish peace in the Middle East.
Also, some argue that a Palestinian state in Jordan or democracy in Jordan would bring Palestinians to power that would fight Israel. My answer is look at the group trained by General Dayton. That was clear proof that there are Palestinians willing to seriously fight terrorism. There is also evidence on the ground of Palestinians in power willing to promote cooperation with Israel. The old theory that the Palestinians, if empowered in Jordan, will just fight Israel...that theory is outdated. Also, what is safer, a Palestinian state in Judea and Samaria or in Jordan?
Read the whole thing.
Labels: Jordan is Palestine, Jordanian King Abdullah, Jordanian occupation
The true realists
In my previous post, I blogged Jonah Goldberg's exposure of the 'realists' as being fantasizers. Jonah is not the only one visiting us this week. Jennifer Rubin is here as well. A trip to Jerusalem inspired Jennifer to write that the true realists are...
the people of faith.
With regard to the Torah and Jerusalem, it turns out that, as with so many self-described realists, the realists turn out to reality deniers. Legions of "scholars" told us for decades that the Bible, don't you see, is allegory. Oh, David? Yes, a lovely tale but you must think of him as a King Arthur-type figure. No, that's all wrong. The realists turned out to be the people of faith. Now the Torah provides the guide for modern scientists to confirm that the Torah, at least in this regard, is history, written with precision -- a sort of message in the bottle to the future to tell us that yes, the Jews, were here in this spot, at this time.
And mind you all of the City of David is in what the Palestinians would claim as their capital. And at the time of the First Intifada this was a war zone. Recall also that the track record of preservation of sites is not a good one. The Mount of Olives, the original Mount of Olives (not the "new" replacement in operations a scant 500 years) is now built over by slums, the opening to family tombs barely visible around the garbage and beneath the decrepit buildings. The original headstones were sold off during the Jordanian occupation.
Why do I relate all of this? It's more than a religious and historical site of immense meaning. It is the answer to the non-realists who would have us believe Jews lack a verifiable claim to land dating back 3000 years and beyond. At some point, the naysayers become the equivalent of flat-earthers. You see, in contrast to what Obama lectured us from Cairo at the beginning of his term (when the fantasy of "Muslim Outreach" assumed that Hosni Mubarak was an island of stability), Israel is not merely recompense for the Holocaust. It is the ancestral home of the Jewish people. And if you doubt it, spend a morning in the City of David.
Read it all.
Labels: City of David, Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, Jordanian occupation
