Tuesday, November 23, 2010

Ironies in Jerusalem

The Knesset passed a law yesterday that will make it hard to hand over Jerusalem or the Golan in peace negotiations. From now on, an Israeli government striving to reach a peace agreement with Syria or the Palestinians will have to gain the backing of either a super majority of MKs, or a simple majority of voters in a referendum.

I don't think this is a particular dramatic development. Should there ever be a serious Syrian proposal to make real peace with Israel in return for the Golan, it will be greeted by a majority of Israelis, both in the Knesset and the general populace. Just as there was a near-total majority that supported retreating from the entire Sinai and disbanding settlements in return for peace with Egypt, and just like there was a clear majority for getting out of southern Lebanon and then Gaza in the past decade, even for less than peace.

Jerusalem is a harder call. I have been asking myself for decades what would happen if an Israeli government were to reach a real, viable, end-of-conflict arrangement with the Palestinians, in return for giving up parts of Jerusalem we shouldn't be giving up. Would the Israeli electorate chose peace without Jerusalem over war with it? I've never been sure of the answer, and am not now, either. (My own position, as regular readers will know,is that those aren't the options anyway).

Since Ehud Olmert tried to give away the Old City of Jerusalem, in September 2009, far exceeding any democratic mandate he'd ever received from the electorate, however, I'm in favor of a law that will foil any future similar antics. Yesterday's law means that dividing Jerusalem will require a clear case be made to justify it, and the decision will be made, one way or the other, by the electorate.

Almost 20% of that electorate, by the way, are Israeli Arabs, including a growing number of East Jerusalem Palestinians who are acquiring Israeli citizenship. It's anyone's guess how they'd vote in such a referendum.

A reader asked yesterday if the Jewish Quarter of the Old City is occupied territory. The answer is tailor-made to demonstrate the silliness of the entire discussion.

The Jewish Quarter in the Old City of Jerusalem has been so named since it was re-settled in 1267, following the ethnic cleansing of the Crusader kingdoms and subsequent conquests and wars which had largely emptied Jerusalem of its Jews. That's 225 years before Columbus stumbled upon America. Between 1267 and 1948 the Jewish presence there was continuous and uninterrupted. It was then interrupted in May 1948, when the Jordanians did some more ethnic cleansing, sending military-aged Jewish men to POW camps and deporting all the civilians. For the next 19 years the Old City was Judenrein, but in 1967 the Jews came back. So, following a presence of 681 years, then ethnic cleansing, the return of the Jews in 1967-68 is now regarded as illegal according to international law, or at any rate, according to one interpretation of it.

If international law was a true legal system, the sovereign would fix that bit of idiocy through legislation. But it isn't, there is no sovereign, corrective legislation isn't possible, and even the various theoretical courts that might adjudicate the matter have no moral standing: why would we accept their verdict? Have they been chosen by us to be judges? Do they share values with us to the extent we're willing to accept their deliberations?

Anyway, it just so happens that some archeologists recently made an interesting discovery in the Jewish Quarter: After destroying Jerusalem in the first century, and destroying it again in the 2nd, the 10th Roman Legion settled in for the long haul, to make certain the pesky Jews didn't return. Settling in included building a public bath for their pleasure - which was recently discovered by (pesky?) Jews who wish to build a mikve - a ritual bath - at the same spot.

Occupied territory? By whom?

11 comments:

RK said...

The Jewish Quarter in the Old City of Jerusalem has been so named since since it was re-settled in 1267 ...

My understanding was that the quarters of the Old City only got their names in the 19th century. Not true?

NormanF said...

The Arabs want the Jews out of Jerusalem because they find Jewish rule over them intolerable. Let's point out that for most of Islamic history, Jerusalem was never important for Muslim Arabs and the city is not mentioned once by name in the Koran. I am against ever giving it up and if the Jews ever do, they don't deserve to have a country.

Anonymous said...

Occupied by Israel. This is territory we conquered in war and settled against the will of its inhabitants. East Jerusalem might be different than the rest of the West Bank because it was supposed to be a corpus separatum which, as you noted, the Jordanians illegally annexed and made Judenrein.

But despite the many powerful emotions redeeming Jerusalem carry for Jews (myself included), Israel loses when it shifts the argument to terms antedating 1967. Moralizing our return to pre-48 Jewish communities until 1948 rings hallow in the world's ears since we deny such "redemption" of the many more Muslim and Christian communities we destroyed in 1948 and 1967.

This is true even in the Jewish Quarter: If we argue the neighborhood is rightfully Israeli because of the 681 year continuous Jewish presence until 1948, Palestinians can surely say the same of the Moroccan Quarter (Harat al-Maghariba, Shekhunat ha-Mugrabbim) which was continuously Muslim for 774 years until 1967 when Teddy Kollek cleared the whole neighborhood to build the Western Wall Plaza.

In any negotiations toward an agreement, we can only justify retaining the Jewish Quarter and settlements adjacent to the Green Line on the basis of minimizing the displacement of our citizens. With the Jewish Quarter, we can probably argue to keep it on the basis of the holy sites only if we withdraw from all of the Muslim and Christian Quarters. But I have a feeling the end-picture in the Old City will be something resembling international status.

I recommend reading Amjad Atallah and Mickey Bergman's very creative proposal for allowing Jews to continue living in their homes on the West Bank, it may be a wonderful solution for Jerusalem:
http://mideast.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/09/29/forget_the_old_two_state_solution_tackling_the_hard_stuff_in_israeli_palestinian_ne

Anonymous said...

Just a correction, Olmert made the offer in September 2008, not 2009. I was also hoping you could comment on this: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/nov/23/jewish-settlers-arab-area-palestinians-evicted

Paul M said...

In all the demands of the Palestinians, and in all of the discussions by outsiders about peace agreements and final status issues, I have never seen an actual argument made for the re-division of Jerusalem that goes beyond "because we/they want it".

I'm asking out of genuine puzzlement: On what basis do the Palestinian claim title to eastern Jerusalem?

Y. Ben-David said...

Sorry Yaacov, but you're wrong. There was no majority for destroying Gush Katif. The split, as polls at the time showed, was roughly 1/3 for, 1/3 against and 1/3 didn't know (don't forget that includes Israeli Arabs). That is why Sharon refused to carry out a national referendum or call new election...he knew he would lose, just as he lost the Likud members' referendum, even though polls made before that vote showed a "majority" supporting Sharon.
I don't know why you think a clear majority would support giving up the Golan but you doubt this about Jerusalem. If "peace" is so important, why wouldn't the populace also support giving up Jerusalem, too? Is everything up for sale? During the waiting period in 1967 before the Six-Day War, De Gaulle proposed that Israel give up Eilat and the southern Negev "for peace". The government rejected this. Why, if the population is for peace so much? Why did Ben-Gurion declare a state in the first place when the US State Department was telling him not to because doing so would lead to a war? Apparently Ben-Gurion felt land was more important than "peace". They didn't even request a public referendum on the matter. They just went ahead an proclaimed the state, thank G-d.
Regarding the Golan, Assad the father insisted on being given access to the Kinneret during his negotiations with Barak in 2000, even though before 1948 the Kinneret was entirely within the Palestine Mandatory territory and Syria did not have access to it. Why didn't "peace-lover" Barak give it to him, if everyone is so sure that "peace is more important than land"?
If the situation was such that we really faced a situation of "land or peace" MAYBE there would be a majority for giving up the Golan (and I am not even sure about that), but we are not being offered "peace", but rather a partial, temporary cease-fire --this is the way the Arab regimes who have signed 'peace agreement' with Israel explain them to their own people. All the tension, all the antisemitic propaganda, all the delegitimization of Jews and Israel would continue in the countries that we are giving our homeland over to.
WITHOUT LAND THERE IS NO LIFE. Eretz Israel is more important than a phony peace.

Y. Ben-David said...

Sorry Yaacov, but you're wrong. There was no majority for destroying Gush Katif. The split, as polls at the time showed, was roughly 1/3 for, 1/3 against and 1/3 didn't know (don't forget that includes Israeli Arabs). That is why Sharon refused to carry out a national referendum or call new election...he knew he would lose, just as he lost the Likud members' referendum, even though polls made before that vote showed a "majority" supporting Sharon. I believe the same was true about the flight from southern Lebanon.
I don't know why you think a clear majority would support giving up the Golan but you doubt this about Jerusalem. If "peace" is so important, why wouldn't the populace also support giving up Jerusalem, too? Is everything up for sale? During the waiting period in 1967 before the Six-Day War, De Gaulle proposed that Israel give up Eilat and the southern Negev "for peace". The government rejected this. Why, if the population is for peace so much? Why did Ben-Gurion declare a state in the first place when the US State Department was telling him not to because doing so would lead to a war? Apparently Ben-Gurion felt land was more important than "peace". They didn't even request a public referendum on the matter. They just went ahead an proclaimed the state, thank G-d.
Regarding the Golan, Assad the father insisted on being given access to the Kinneret during his negotiations with Barak in 2000, even though before 1948 the Kinneret was entirely within the Palestine Mandatory territory and Syria did not have access to it. Why didn't "peace-lover" Barak give it to him, if everyone is so sure that "peace is more important than land"?
If the situation was such that we really faced a situation of "land or peace" MAYBE there would be a majority for giving up the Golan (and I am not even sure about that), but we are not being offered "peace", but rather a partial, temporary cease-fire --this is the way the Arab regimes who have signed 'peace agreement' with Israel explain them to their own people. All the tension, all the antisemitic propaganda, all the delegitimization of Jews and Israel would continue in the countries that we are giving our homeland over to.
WITHOUT LAND THERE IS NO LIFE. Eretz Israel is more important than a phony peace.

Saul Lieberman said...

Just to clarify:
The supermajority requirement is a 2/3 majority (not unanimous, 90%, etc). In the corporate world, that would not be an unusual requirement for game-changing actions.
Of course, it is not a supermajority plus a referendum (but maybe still worth clarifying).
If you don't find the supermajority requirement offensive (and maybe even if you do), the referendum is a "kula" in that it provides an alternative path to approval.

Anonymous said...

2:04 Anon
here's what your link produces
The requested page could not be found.

Being all for Anonymity on the net I'd be still be grateful, if the proliferating "my name is nobody" Anons in these comments would sign with something making them adressable.

Silke

Anonymous said...

whoever thinks that an entity headed by a man like this (Mr. Abbas) is a viable partner for negotiations let alone peace has a big big problem. He is what Churchill is said to have said about us Germans: either under your boot or at your throat. (being German I think he got that one perfectly right)

"We must also recall the outstanding [early] leadership of the Palestinian people, the Grand Mufti of Palestine-Haj Mohammed Amin al-Husseini, who sponsored the struggle from the beginning, and sponsored the struggle and displacement for the cause and died away from his home."
http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/2010/11/new-abbas-poster.html

Silke

Empress Trudy said...

It's all well and good until of course the Muslims declare Tel Aviv the 134th most holy site in all of Islam.