Housing for 13 more Jewish families to be built in Nahlat Shimon
The Jerusalem Building and Planning Commission approved on Monday the construction of
13 Jewish housing units in the Nahlat Shimon neighborhood, just east of Route 1 in Jerusalem.
In the past, the US has denounced such projects as hampering peace efforts. The US Embassy had no comment on the latest project.
Jerusalem municipal spokesman Elie Isaacson said the municipal planning committee discussed the project on Monday and it will now seek public comment on the plan.
Isaacson said municipal officials are required to discuss all construction plans for the city but emphasized that the project was being promoted by private developers and not the municipality.
"Discriminating against those who issue zoning requests on the basis of their religion, color or creed would be both illegal and completely immoral," he said.
Palestinian spokesman Ghassan Khatib. said in reaction that "a step of this kind will complicate issues further and negatively affect the prospect of resuming negotiations."
City councilman Meir Margalit accused officials of taking advantage of the turmoil in Egypt to put the approval process in motion.
"My sense is that they know America is busy with Egypt and doesn't have the strength or the interest in dealing with it now," he said.
The property is owned by two American companies.
Labels: Jerusalem construction, Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, Nachlat Shimon
Goldblog and the future of Jerusalem
The problem with Jeffrey Goldberg is that he's one of the most widely read bloggers on Israel, and therefore his opinions are gospel to many. Unfortunately, he has bought into the ideas that there can be peace with the 'Palestinians,' and that Israel is going to have to cut out its guts in order to save itself from an imaginary demographic time bomb. Therefore, despite his convictions that Jews should be able to live anywhere they want in Israel, Goldberg believes that we should restrain Irving Moskowitz from building on the land he bought in Jerusalem's Nachlat Shimon neighborhood 25 years ago. And
Goldberg is wrong.
Let me also stipulate, however, that the settlement of Jews in Sheikh Jarrah -- even if it is what God allegedly wants (I've submitted the question, but haven't heard back) -- is not necessarily in the Jewish self-interest. If a Jewish person's only concern as a Jew is the acquisition of every square inch of biblical Israel on behalf of the Jewish people, then I suppose it is a Jewish interest. But if a Jewish person has other interests as well -- such as in peace, or in the idea that Palestinians, though a much newer people than the Jewish people, deserve a state just as Jews do, or in the continued survival of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state -- than the slow takeover of Sheikh Jarrah is not in the best Jewish interest.
Peace will not come from creating a 'Palestinian state' or from dividing Jerusalem. Peace (in the official sense) will come only from the total military defeat of the Arabs and their grudging acceptance that they will never be able to move us from here. Almost everything we have done since 1993 has set back the day that peace might come, because we have shown weakness and left our security in the hands of others. And so, we are destined to live with the status quo for the foreseeable future, because to change it for something less than real peace would be foolish and suicidal. I will discuss further evidence regarding the truth of those statements when I get to Goldberg's next paragraph.
The 'Palestinians' are a
fiction invented by the Arab world to avoid having to accept Israel's existence. They are not a 'people' who are distinct (ethnically, racially, culturally or in any other sense) from the Arab world generally, and especially given the existence of 22 Arab countries, including one with a 70% 'Palestinian' population on 78% of the land of original mandatory Palestine, they do not deserve
another state 'just as the Jews do.' The Arabs have admitted as much:
In an interview given by Zuhair Mohsen to the Dutch newspaper Trouw in March 1977, Mr. Mohsen explains the origin of the 'Palestinians':- The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism.
- For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan.
Please note that interview took place in 1977 - 13 years after the PLO was founded, and four years after the last time the Arab states made war in a bid to destroy Israel.
Goldberg also alludes to the abominable demographic time bomb when he mentions "the continued survival of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state." But the demographic time bomb is a myth, as I have argued countless times, most recently just last week
here. The real motivation for the creation of the mythological time bomb has nothing to do with real demography or statistics. The real motivation for creating the mythical demographic time bomb is to ensure that the State of Israel will never be taken over by the
revenants and the charedim (ultra-Orthodox).
Goldberg continues:
Peace will not come without the birth of a Palestinian state on the West Bank which has its capital in East Jerusalem. I'm as sure of that as I am of anything in the Middle East. Of course, peace may not come even with the birth of this state -- I'm no longer quite so sure in the possiblity, or at least in the availability, of peace -- but it will surely never happen without it.
Peace will not come until Israel totally defeats the Arabs militarily or until - God forbid - it is totally defeated militarily. The 'Palestinian' struggle is not about creating a state. It's about destroying the Jewish state. If what the 'Palestinians' really wanted was a "Palestinian state on the West Bank which has its capital in East Jerusalem," they could have had that in 2000 at Camp David, in 2001 at Taba, in 2008 during the Annapolis process, and - if the Arabs had wanted it - they could have had it at any time between 1948-67 when Jordan controlled the area and no one mentioned a 'Palestinian state.'
But the 'Palestinians' don't want a 'Palestinian state' and even Goldberg himself realizes that is possible - saying that he no longer is quite sure of the possibility or the availability of peace. For Israel to pretend that peace is around the corner and therefore not allow Jerusalem (or Judea and Samaria for that matter) to continue to grow and develop is to encourage the Arab recidivism that has led to the state of limbo in which we currently find ourselves. It ensures that there will
never be peace. So why continue the state of limbo?
And why is Goldberg assuming that it is Israel that is preventing the birth of a 'Palestinian state' when it is the 'Palestinians' who have found one excuse after another to avoid coming to the table for the last two years?
Given that peace won't come from dividing Jerusalem, that there is no separate, distinct 'Palestinian people' that is as worthy of having a state as is the Jewish people (who have no other state), and given that the demography time bomb is a myth, why is Goldberg going against his own stated beliefs and arguing not to let Jews live in Nachlat Shimon?
Goldberg concludes:
Israel will survive without the Arab neighborhoods of East Jerusalem. It will not survive if it becomes a pariah state, and, in this unfortunate world in which we must exist, Israel is in danger of becoming an outcast among nations.
Israel may be destined to be a pariah state regardless of what it does. The Europeans hate us no matter what we do. The Arabs and Muslims hate us no matter what we do. The Obama administration's being in power means that the US is unlikely to do anything to prevent our becoming pariahs despite our overwhelming popularity among the American people. And when friends like Goldberg lay the blame for the lack of peace in our region at our doorstep, it only hastens the day when that pariah status will come.
Labels: Jeffrey Goldberg, Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, Nachlat Shimon
'Palestinian landmark' gone
I mentioned in an earlier post that one of the things that really bothers me about the coverage of the Shepherd's Hotel renovation and reconstruction are all the references to it being '
historic' and a 'landmark' when it has sat vacant and rundown for years. I'm not the only one who is bothered by that. Here's
Jonathan Tobin.
When the New York Times reported the fact that ground was being broken for the new housing in Sheikh Jarrah in a story published on Sunday, what it did was to focus on the destruction of what it claimed was a Palestinian “landmark.” What landmark, you ask? Was it a medieval structure that in some way represents the longstanding Arab presence in the city or its culture? No. The building that was toppled to make way for some new apartment houses was just a large home that was built in the 1930s as a villa for one of the most notorious figures in 20th-century history: Haj Amin al-Husseini, the mufti of Jerusalem. Husseini may never have spent much time in what eventually was renamed the Shepherd Hotel, but he did make his mark on the region by inspiring bloody pogroms against the Jews then living in the country. After the outbreak of World War II, he joined forces with the Nazis, meeting with Hitler and then spending the war making Arabic propaganda broadcasts for the Axis and successfully recruiting Muslims (mostly Bosnians) to serve in a special SS brigade. He was promised that, in the event of a German victory, he would be made the puppet ruler of what is now Israel, where he would assist the Nazis in the massacre of the several hundred thousand Jews who lived there.
That a home that was in any way connected to Husseini or any other Nazi would be considered a landmark whose demolition inspired statements of sadness from contemporary Palestinian leaders like Saeb Erekat speaks volumes about the nature of Palestinian politics. That the intended home of the man who dreamed of wiping out every last Jew in Jerusalem is coming down to make room for Jewish homes is certainly ironic. One needn’t necessarily agree with the politics of Daniel Luria, a representative of Ateret Cohanim, the group that promotes Jewish building throughout Jerusalem, to appreciate what he termed the “beautiful poetic justice” of this event.
Indeed.
Labels: Ateret Cohanim, Mufti Haj Amin al-Husseini, Nachlat Shimon, Shepherd's Hotel
'Pro-Israel, pro-peace'?
They're not very interested in condemning 'Palestinian' instances of Pallywood, but the demolition of a privately-owned obsolete hotel by its elderly Jewish owner is enough to get J Street
excited.
The demolition of the Shepherd’s Hotel in East Jerusalem is a deeply provocative action, and we urge the Israeli government to find a way to stop such provocations and refrain from unilateral actions that undermine peace efforts.
We applaud Secretary of State Clinton’s strong words on the matter, emphasizing that “this move contradicts the logic of a reasonable and necessary agreement between the parties on the status of Jerusalem.”
The viability of a two-state solution hangs by a thread. Actions such as this make the prospects of peace – and therefore Israel’s security and survival as the democratic homeland of the Jewish people - all the more unlikely.
We renew our call on the Obama Administration to step forward with its own “Borders and Security” approach that urgently and assertively works to achieve a two-state resolution of the conflict before it is too late.
Still waiting to hear them object to 'Palestinians' living in 'west' Jerusalem.
Labels: J Street, Nachlat Shimon, pro-Israel pro-peace, Shepherd's Hotel
Bibi: The government has nothing to do with this
Prime Minister Netanyahu's office has issued a statement regarding the
demolition of the Shepherd's Hotel (now suddenly being called the 'historic' Shepherd's Hotel in much of the mainstream media) in Jerusalem's Nachlat Shimon neighborhood:
Actions undertaken yesterday at the Shepherd Hotel were conducted by private individuals in accordance with Israeli law. The Israeli government was not involved.
There should be no expectation that the State of Israel will impose a ban on Jews purchasing private property in Jerusalem. No democratic government would impose such a ban on Jews and Israel will certainly not do so.
Just as Arab residents of Jerusalem can buy or rent property in predominantly Jewish neighborhoods in Jerusalem, Jews can buy or rent property in predominantly Arab neighborhoods in Jerusalem.
Ben Smith complains that the demolition is '
inflammatory,' while
Didi Remez comments
Netanyahu's new statement that he has no control over Shepherd's Hotel fiasco is BS. He has full authority to stop it.
and REMINDER Netanyahu has full legal authority to expropriate Shepherd's Hotel settlement in the interest of public safety
But Remez's link accompanying that second post is irrelevant.
Suppose Remez is right and it's so easy. Why hasn't the government just expropriated all that land in Silwan that's supposed to be a public garden?
Maybe it isn't so easy after all....
Labels: Ben Smith, Binyamin Netanyahu, Didi Remez, Irving Moskowitz, Nachlat Shimon
Construction gets underway on Shepherd's Hotel site
I'm sure that many of you recall the
Shepherd's Hotel in the Nachlat Shimon (Sheikh Jarrah) neighborhood) of Jerusalem. The hotel was formerly owned by the Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini. The site was purchased by investor Irving Moskowitz in 1985.
On Sunday, bulldozers began to knock down the building to prepare for its replacement: A group of 20 apartments to be
populated by Jews.
The Shepherd Hotel is to be replaced by 20 apartments for Israelis. Workmen and earth-moving equipment were knocking down the structure at the site in the neighborhood of Sheikh Jarrah on Sunday.
Chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat condemned the demolition of the hotel. "As long as this government continues with settlement and acts like the demolition of the Shepherd Hotel there will no negotiations," he said.
MK Dov Henin (Hadash) also harshly criticized the demolition of the hotel, saying the move "exterminates the chance of a Palestinian capital in east Jerusalem existing side-by-side with an Israeli capital in the west."
Henin said that the building of the new Jewish neighborhood in Sheikh Jarrah was a calculated political move meant to prevent the Palestinians from making their capital in the eastern part of the city.
"Without two capitals in Jerusalem, there can be no two-state solution and we will be sentenced to eternal war," Henin added.
The land is owned by a Jew and there is no reason he should not be able to build on it for Jews.
There's a
march against the construction (it actually says that it's against the 'Judaization of east Jerusalem) scheduled for 4:00 pm on Sunday (link in Hebrew followed by English). I wonder if any Abu Rahma's will show up.
Labels: Irving Moskowitz, Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, Nachlat Shimon, Sheikh Jarrah, Shepherd's Hotel
