Israel annexing East Jerusalem, says EU

[Lithos]

A confidential EU report accuses the Israeli government of using settlement expansion, house demolitions, discriminatory housing policies and the West Bank barrier as a way of "actively pursuing the illegal annexation" of East Jerusalem.

...

The EU report goes further, saying that the demolitions are "illegal under international law, serve no obvious purpose, have severe humanitarian effects, and fuel bitterness and extremism." The EU raised its concern in a formal diplomatic representation on December 1, it says.

It notes that although Palestinians in the east represent 34% of the city's residents, only 5%-10% of the municipal budget is spent in their areas, leaving them with poor services and infrastructure.

Israel issues fewer than 200 permits a year for Palestinian homes and leaves only 12% of East Jerusalem available for Palestinian residential use. As a result many homes are built without Israeli permits. About 400 houses have been demolished since 2004 and a further 1,000 demolition orders have yet to be carried out, it said.

City officials dismissed criticisms of its housing policy as "a disinformation campaign". "Mayor Nir Barkat continues to promote investments in infrastructure, construction and education in East Jerusalem, while at the same time upholding the law throughout West and East Jerusalem equally without bias," the mayor's office said after Clinton's visit.

However, the EU says the fourth Geneva convention prevents an occupying power extending its jurisdiction to occupied territory. Israel occupied the east of the city in the 1967 six day war and later annexed it. The Palestinians claim East Jerusalem as the capital of their future state.

-- More --

[peacetalksforall]

1. Really sad.

[Lithos]

3. From a pragmatic standpoint

I would expect a fair amount of East Jerusalem to be brought into Israel as part of a negotiated peace. West Jerusalem is a growing city and needing room to grow and is constrained by the current boundaries. However, for this Israel should pay very dear in terms of territory. money, and other items in recompense.

Jerusalem is a different case in some respects than the settler dominated West Bank. Those who are moving into East Jerusalem are completely of a different mind and outlook than the settlers who view the West Bank as Judea and Samaria. However, it appears that the precedences established by the settlers are now being coopted in the growth of Jerusalem. Israel's failure to address the issues of the settlers is now resulting in a bigger contempt - The broken window metaphor.

L-

[iconicgnom]

4. Your pragmatism feels a bit like eating spoon after spoon of thick lead paint.

[Lithos]

5. And what real solution won't be full of bitter pills for all sides?

What are your thoughts to how a solution that might actually play out?

L-

[iconicgnom]

6. A solution has to be sound, in the sense of being grounded.

I believe that new (and old) nations should be judged on how well grounded they are in universal laws of human rights.

To my mind such laws are the basis, the "ground", necessary for successful dialogue.
To my mind Islamism and Zionism are exactly similar. So the ground for dialogue between so-called "Islamists" and "Zionists" has to be the same.

I do NOT see how a two-state solution makes very good sense, "off the shelf" so to speak. Zionists and Islamists don't encompass everyone in the world, or even in the ME. Not by a long shot.

[Lithos]

7. By that standard

Pretty much all of the world is not grounded. Most much worse off than I/P.

Also, sounds like you are for a single state. Any comment about the paucity of examples where two extremely dissimilar and confrontive nationalities would succeed? Most of the 20th Century is scattered with the bones of those who attempted to keep multi-national states together. So much so that the current states of Europe now reflect much more homogeneous countries than the heterogeneous ones at the turn of the Century. The aftermaths of both World Wars and the independence of Colonial states saw the tremendous fractures of populations along national lines. Nationalism, and I'm not talking the more extreme ethno-nationalism that people like Qutb and Kahane espoused, is still one of the most divisive and active forces in shaping the states of the world today. It is much worse when you extreme forms are brought into play.



L-

[iconicgnom]

8. You're dismissing the progressive agenda as being la-la land

Which is bullshit.

Canada is multicultural. Multiculturalism is difficult, in a way, but it's also exhilarating, and liberating for all cultures who live here.

To be sure, we've got a long ways to go. To be sure, the world has a long ways to go. But the world IS progressing, in spite of backward movements like that of e.g. Bush.

You're suggesting that because there is no case of perfection, so work supporting ever more progressive liberalism based on notions of equality of all peoples is a waste of time. War and division, dividing up the spoils with the strongest being the fittest and most suitable to decide, seems to be the way for you. Divide and conquer is the way to go...

You're saying that because you support absolute Zionism, and absolute Islamism (I suppose - as a corollary), and are willing to turn a blind eye to the mess the ME is in now, to the insanity of warfare that these 'isms bring to their unilateral tables, that this status quo is the way it should be. Then you pull a bunch of arguments about "the 20th century" out of your ass.

[hack89]

12. How can you say the world is progressing

in the face of the rise of religious fundamentalism? There are places on this planet that are taking huge steps backwards as far as human rights - how can progressive liberalism ever reconcile itself with such a movement.

[iconicgnom]

18. These notions were barely known a couple hundred years ago.

Now they're cemented in declarations at foundation of several countries and in UN documents signed by many many more.
Naturally it's a slow and shaky progress (or seems slow from the perspective of a human lifetime) but to dismiss it outright is to succumb to the forces behind what GW Bush nearly did to the US. On the contrary, two world wars and the years of Hitler, followed by the partition of Berlin etc., still leaves Europe with an EU united and active enough to call for and then make public such a report as the OP forwards.

I don't think it's well to look at the blackest days of war and depravity for inspiration (or expiration?) on how to move forward, "as a people" or "as a country". As if battle lines between factions are drawn eternally - or genetically.

South Africa may be having problems but how compelling is it to yearn for the past epoch of apartheid? During the apartheid years and esp. toward the end of it mutual hatred and sheer obstinacy was as intense as it gets, and the notion of these warring peoples living together as equals in one state seemed absurd to many. I'm sure pockets of intense hatred still exist. I'm sure there are wreckers of all kinds, yet in the end there was a transition from an unviable, wrongheaded system to a system which HAS benefitted from past experiences of people in many situations who've bit the bullet and sought methods for achieving workable systems of equals dealing with equals. These things can't happen without people of all persuasions believing it can happen and making it happen.

Do you think some list of atrocities and crimes and blunders that've been committed in post-apartheid SA, however long and open-ended the list is and how vehemently expressed, could provide sufficient reason for SA returning to an apartheid system? I can't. More than that, I know the reason why I can't. The reason is that apartheid is systemically wrong, it contradicts the noble aspirations of humankind (the ideals that the US often cites when it calls itself "the leader of the free world"), and the general thrust of these nobler aspirations has more real social force than any amount of anger and rage that might be concentrated in invoked by reciting such lists. After all, these are simply lists of reasons to hate, to despair, and they're drawn up in an attempt to counter the larger progressive social movement that looks to broad ideals of equality and freedom for all.

In another era, before reason and the progressive movement (I obviously use the term "progressive" very broadly, and not just as an adjunct as in "progressive Dem") had been brought to bear on the issue of drawing up things like magna cartas and constitutions and bills of rights, etc., apartheid SA would've been viable. There would not have been an overarching narrative, based in reason and focussed on principles like equality and human and social rights, etc., for it to contradict. But those days are over and there's no going back.

[Lithos]

13. Progressive agenda?

You speak for the progressive agenda? Wow.

I know Jimmy Carter is promoting a two-state solution, I am impressed that you can call him on it and tell him he is not progressive. Wow.

And once again with the assumptions about what I believe and don't believe. I RECOGNIZE the existence of the various types of Nationalism in play and that no amount of pipe-dreaming will make them magically go away. I also recognize that their influence is increasing, not decreasing due to the conflict. Any attempts to try and force a single state solution is either going to result in an extremely sharp rise in bloodshed which makes anything which happened in Gaza look like childs play and/or the resulting dislocation of one group of people which is most likely to be the Palestinians. The only other option which is potentially viable and which seems to be on the table more and more, but which I do not support as I think it is a loss for the Palestinian people, is the three state solution where Gaza goes back to Egypt and the West Bank to Jordan. I also think that the likes of Lieberman are angling towards this last solution as they then do not have to worry about keeping enough of the West Bank around to form a viable country.

As for my thoughts to the various -ism's, I have always stated a pox on both their houses. I side with the people and have sought the best way to minimize the conflict is to avoid the agendas from those with higher purposes.

L-

[iconicgnom]

15. Get real, you're advocating the ethnic cleansing of Jerusalem.

In response to my reaction to your own op you say:
"I would expect a fair amount of East Jerusalem to be brought into Israel as part of a negotiated peace. West Jerusalem is a growing city and needing room to grow and is constrained by the current boundaries."

Spoon after spoon of sick making lead paint!

A person doesn't have to "speak for the progressive agenda" to say that your reasoning is dismissive of it.

Gotta go now to places with no internet access - will check back in a couple days to see what if any response. Maybe you can begin by explaining your use of the term "negotiated peace", when the EU report is speaking of the pursuit of a fait accompli while Abbas spins in the wind and Gaza is bombed to rubble.

[Lithos]

26. Your definition of words seems rather shaky and loose

I await your definition of a progressive agenda and the steps with how that will be accomplished.

What I have heard you state is a one-state solution with the implications that Israel/Palestine is somehow a Middle Eastern version of South Africa. This yields the implication of one nationalism triumphant even though unlike South Africa where all parties never considered themselves anything other than South African, Israelis (both Israeli Jews, Israel Arabs) and Palestinians (West Bank and Gaza) consider themselves completely different nationalities. To try and impose a political merger them is an advocation to repeat the disastrous events of 1947/48 once again except on a much larger scale. I do not consider that particularly respectful or progressive.

I have also heard you dismiss the agendas of people such as Obama, Carter and Clinton who all support a two state solution. All of these have stated support for the return of Israel to pre-1967 borders with the only compromises to take place based on mutually acceptable land-swaps. The Geneva Accord is also a similar proposal. I take it you do not feel an affinity towards the works of the last three US Democratic Presidents? Lest you consider their views out of touch, there is currently also NO Democratic member of Congress who is currently endorsing anything other than a two state solution.

L-

[iconicgnom]

28. How could I ever guess that you'd attempt to devolve the issue into one of def's and semantics.

I've explained that "I believe that new (and old) nations should be judged on how well grounded they are in universal laws of human rights." Most generally speaking this means that such a nation holds all peoples, of all races, creeds, sexes and so on, equal before the law. A nation that doesn't hold all people of all races and creeds equal before the law is not, and by definition cannot be, just. Bite me if you disagree, or even if you say that such a thing is impossible.

True, fascists like GW Bush are prone to play with def's and semantics to e.g. define prisoners of the (phony) "war on terror" as "enemy combatants" rather than as prisoners of war, so as falling outside the jurisdiction of any system of law, national or international. This was done for one purpose and one purpose only, so that it could be and was claimed that anything done to such people would not be "illegal", since outside the law. We're all familiar with the games with def's and semantics that still continue regarding GWB's fascist actions. Nevertheless, the Bush admin was not *just*, since at its own whim it denied every recognized system of justice, then invented kangaroo (through and through contradictory) systems of rules and courts after the fact and on the fly to deal with what they had done and had planned to do all along. Plenty of room for games with def's and semantics there, that's for certain, and they hired the best wordsmiths to play the game. But then, that's what fascists do.

It isn't my job to play your word game, as if I had said or implied that there was only one progressive agenda, when nothing I have said or implied even remotely suggested such an absurd thing. However, I repeat that a nation that doesn't hold all people of all races and creeds equal before the law is not, and by definition cannot be, *just*. The nobrainer that follows from this is that neither can such a nation be considered either liberal or progressive, at least not in an unpejorative common usage of the terms. It isn't my job to convince you of this or to define "liberal" and "progressive" to your satisfaction. Google some discussions about this, e.g.
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/02/07/in-defense-of-progressive/

I have never proposed a one-state or two-state or fifteen- state or any number of state "solution". That claim is purely product of your imagination (ask LeftishBrit - I recently said the same to him in earlier conversations unrelated to this one) I did, however, answer your question re. what general characteristics any such state or states must have, if it is to be just in its dealings, and therefore even possibly be part of a resolution to current problems.

[rockymountaindem]

14. Right, because after all these years of killing each other

a single Jewish/Arab state will be able to function exactly like Canada :crazy:

[iconicgnom]

16. It could do better.

[rockymountaindem]

17. What's the weather like on your planet?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

9. I don't think the Palestinians will ever accept that.

So if Israel insists on it - as I think it will - I don't think we will see peace.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

10. How is this not simply legalizing a land grab?

So where is the rest of the "solution" that this is part of?

Your statement that Israelis need room to grow is one to savor. Are you unfamiliar with the geography around Jerusalem? Plenty of room to west. Bunch of empty hills. Why can't the Jewish Israelis spread in that direction? They don't want to, that's why. Please don't sugar-coat their national-religious-colonial drive with demographic pragmatism.

[Violet_Crumble]

20. What's the broken window metaphor?

I haven't heard of that one before....

When it comes to pragmatism, I think the term *negotiated settlement* is currently as pragmatic as a one-state solution. A negotiated settlement just isn't realistic given the current leadership of Israel and the current leadership of the Palestinians, where you have Hamas in Gaza, and a weakened and powerless Fatah in the West Bank.

I've got no sympathy for a growing city argument, especially when their growth means taking land that doesn't belong to the country in question. There's quite a few cities around the world where urban sprawl isn't possible, and instead innovative and practical use is made of what space they already have. There's a city in the UK where because of planning restrictions, they're not allowed to build new residential areas on the outskirts of the city, so they recycle disused buildings in the city and turn them into apartments and deal with growth that way....

[Lithos]

22. It is a metaphor

That in areas which tolerate a broken windows suggests that no one is in charge and that there are little to no consequences for further vandalism. By allowing settlers to enter into the West Bank, Israel has created a policy which is going to be very hard to back down on.

It is a simplistic metaphor and one which can be over-extended.

The rise of the one state solution is, imho, is like the three state solution a rise to the frustration to the two state solution. However, I would argue that the majority of those who prefer a one state solution do so not because they are tired or reject nationalism, but rather that they endorse a single nationalism triumphant. Kahane and Qutb being the archetype ideologues.

You yourself argue that a negotiated settlement is not possible. Given that statement, how could a one state solution exist that is not one nationalism dominant over another that would not result in an extremely violent civil war that is makes what happen in Gaza look small in comparison?

There is a leadership vacuum in the Palestinians. I think Palestinians recognize that both Hamas and Fatah as they exist today seem to answer more to outside agencies than to the Palestinians themselves. So until you see the rise of a truly organic leadership inside the Palestinians, then you will likely not see anyone with the authority to negotiate. The only one who I see possible in the short term is Barghouti. If he were to be released, I think you would find a revived Fatah lead by his young guards which would have the necessary credibility. Course I also see an immediate collision with Hamas as Dahlan is one of Barghouti's associates and I've no idea how that would play out.

L-

[Violet_Crumble]

32. Thanks, I get it now...

You yourself argue that a negotiated settlement is not possible. Given that statement, how could a one state solution exist that is not one nationalism dominant over another that would not result in an extremely violent civil war that is makes what happen in Gaza look small in comparison?

Under the current leadership and circumstances, it's not possible at all. The reality is pretty grim right now when it comes to negotiated settlements, one binational, democratic state, or even a two-state solution. Not being particularly pragmatic, I think the best people can do is hope that one day things improve and a two-state solution happens where there's two viable and independent states living at peace. I have some hope that while it may take many years or even generations after that to happen, that eventually there will be some sort of confederation between Israel and Palestine and a true binational state will emerge. Kind of a bit of going off on a tangent here, but I was up late last night channel-surfing and stumbled across a documentary called 'bridge over the wadi' about a project called 'Hand in Hand' that fosters mutual understanding between Arab and Jewish kids in Israel. That sort of program aimed at the kids is a really positive thing and maybe some of those kids will grow up to be part of the future leadership and then things won't be so bleak. It was a really good documentary, and I think you'd enjoy it if you haven't already seen it...

http://www.flagstaffmountainfilms.com/movie.php?id=29

[Idealism]

2. "A disinformation campaign" by the EU?

Just because it calls Israel out on their violations of international law does now mean the world is out to get you. The EU, UN, HumanRights Watch, Amnesty International, et al publish reports on every conflict. Funny thing that everyone thinks these organizations are biased against them, perhaps that says they are doing their jobs right.

[Sezu]

11. Yeah, you always hear these organizations complaining about

the destruction of ILLEGAL buildings in municipalities all over the world don't you? Get a freaking clue.

[Violet_Crumble]

21. Get a freaking clue? That was funny....

Considering the EU has criticised China for the demolition of homes.

18. Is strongly concerned at the recent increase of political persecution related to the Olympics of human rights defenders, journalists, lawyers, petitioners, civil society activists, ethnic groups such as the Uighurs, and religious people of all beliefs, especially Falun Gong practitioners; calls on the Chinese authorities to release these people immediately and to put an end to these human rights violations, as well as to the demolition of substantial numbers of houses without compensation to make way for the Olympic infrastructures;

http://www.savetibet.org/policy-center/european-international-actions/resolution-european-parliament-eu-china-summit-and-euchina-human-rights-dia

Trying to pretend that what Israel does in East Jerusalem when it comes to home demolitions is in any way the same as a country like mine where an illegal structure might be demolished (and in most cases not because in most cases approval is given afterwards rather than demolish) is missing some critical facts. Like that East Jerusalem is occupied by Israel; that the system is set up so that there are very few building approvals given to Arab residents of Jerusalem while there appears to be little problems with Jewish residents getting approvals; that people build because they are refused building approvals and have no other choice, but unlike many other places, there's no retrospective building approval option, and demolition is the preferred option for the city.

[Idealism]

25. Way to do your research before posting nonsense.

http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G07/142/48/PDF/G0714248.pdf?OpenElement

Destruction of Azerbaijani cultural heritage by Armenia.

http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N07/392/63/PDF/N0739263.pdf?OpenElement

Refers to the Secretary-General's report on the UN operation in Cyprus of 4 June 2007 (S/2007/328) and, in particular, to para. 28, concerning the demolition of Greek Cypriot houses allegedly by Turkish forces in the town of Rizokarpaso; reports that 80 houses have been demolished so far and many others were marked for oncoming demolition; strongly protest these development that violate international humanitarian law; includes list of owners of demolished properties.

http://constructireland.ie/news/conservation/eu-commission-probes-tara-monument-demolition.html

EU Commission probes Tara monument demolition

http://www.novinite.com/view_news.php?id=66152

EU Deputies Halt Demolition of Sofia's Roma Quarter




It doesn't take but a minute to look into your claims before posting something that makes you look completely clueless.

[Violet_Crumble]

19. I thought Israel had annexed East Jerusalem years ago...

I did like this little bit of disinformation when they accused the EU of disinformation: 'City officials dismissed criticisms of its housing policy as "a disinformation campaign". "Mayor Nir Barkat continues to promote investments in infrastructure, construction and education in East Jerusalem, while at the same time upholding the law throughout West and East Jerusalem equally without bias," the mayor's office said after Clinton's visit.'

No-one would have any doubts that they're promoting investments in infrastructure, construction and education in East Jerusalem when it comes to settlers, but that's not what the EU's criticism is. The EU pointed out that while the Arab population makes up 34% of the population, only 5-10% of the budget is spent in the areas they live in....

[Sezu]

23. And you think that is because of some kind of

deliberate attempt to deprive them of something they rightly deserve? What proof do you have if that's the case?

[Idealism]

24. Glad to see that you don't think Arab Israeli's deserve the same comforts as Jewish Israelis.

You might want to rethink that. Or "Get a freaking clue"

[Sezu]

29. Why you jump to THAT conclusion is anyboy's guess.

But it's NOT what I said. So it looks like it's still you who needs to get some clues.

[Idealism]

31. "they rightly deserve" to be subjected to inequality?

Thats telling.

[Violet_Crumble]

33. Arabs don't deserve the same services as others?

You need to read the article about the EU report again. When Arab residents of East Jerusalem make up 34% of the population and is only having 5-10% of the municipal budget spent in their areas, there's a problem. And when the distinction is being made on ethnicity, as is the case here, then it's a highly discriminatory practice. I'm not sure if you merely disagree with the EU's findings, in which case you might like to provide some evidence to the contrary, or you believe that being Arabs, they don't have a right to a similar level of municipal services as other residents do...

[Lithos]

27. Yes, same here

And that is the main reason I posted this.

The EU pointed out that while the Arab population makes up 34% of the population, only 5-10% of the budget is spent in the areas they live in....

They are either Palestinians which means that Israel has not really annexed it, or they are Israeli-Arabs which means the city of Jerusalem is engaging inappropriately.

Would love to see that case go into the Israeli legal system.

L-

[Sezu]

30. How so? Lots of municipalities in the world spend their tax dollars

in questionable ways to some segment of their citizenship. The fashionable north end of my city which generates a huge amount of taxes always seems to fare better than the poorer parts where taxes are minimal. This is NOT unique to Jerusalem or ethnic groupings.

[Violet_Crumble]

34. I didn't realise you lived in a city that was occupied...

Oh, that's right. You don't. So, what cities are occupied and have the same issues with discriminatory budget decisions that disadvantage the occupied people, usually of a particular ethnic group? When you've named them, we can sit there and add Jerusalem to the mix, and I'm not sure where we go from there. I'd be arguing they're just as bad, and I'd be hoping you wouldn't be trying to argue that Jerusalem's not as bad, coz, hey, LOOK OVER THERE!!!! SOMEONE ELSE IS DOING IT TOO!!!!!

[Violet_Crumble]

35. That raises a question I haven't found the answer to yet...

They are either Palestinians which means that Israel has not really annexed it, or they are Israeli-Arabs which means the city of Jerusalem is engaging inappropriately.

When Isreal annexed East Jerusalem, it offered citizenship to the Palestinian population, many of who refused to apply for it, given that the annexation of the city was illegal, and many were given residency status. I've seen people argue that Israel isn't obligated to supply services to them, and it's their problem as they didn't apply for citizenship, but that seems a bit strange to me, as it doesn't seem right that people living in territory and in most cases born and lived there all their lives that's annexed to another country can be put into nationality limbo like that. I tried looking into it, and I did read something about a bit of international law on nationality, but wasn't able to find anything that answered my question, which is when a country annexes territory, and that annexation is a long-term one like with East Jerusalem, is there some sort of obligation on the annexing country to bestow citizenship on the population rather than make an offer that people can apply for citizenship if they want it...