I think that the proposed segregation is the only thing Israel has not yet backed down on and this is why so many governments are angry.

Of course, it wouldn't even occur to any western nation to demand from the PLO (or Hamas) that Arabs must not build houses in disputed territory.

When exactly did the peace process end and it was decided that "East-Jerusalem" was "Arab"?

Possibly without any input from Israel?

Yes, they are.

Israel annexed East-Jerusalem in 1981 (I think) and granted citizenship to the population, regardless of nationality (Arab or Jewish).

Both Arabs and Jews can build or buy houses in all of the city (except, presumably, in those Jewish religious neighbourhoods like Mea Sharim).

My answer is also 1. So is Netanyahu's.

The US (and Germany) are trying to force segregation on Israel while NASPAs are supporting such demands to fight Israeli "apartheid".

Note that the current "settlements" (i.e. apartment blocks) are for Jews and Arabs (or whoever wants to live there).

The German foreign minister, a total twit*, travelled to Israel and his first words were the demand not to build new houses in East-Jerusalem. No Israeli foreign minister (not even the "extremist", Lieberman) would ever dare to come to Germany and make such demands.

Perhaps it is time, like so many liberals said, to show the US some limits.

*Although the German foreign minister, Mr Westerwelle is from a more conservative party than his Social Democratic predecessor, I think his predecessor was ultimately more competent. In fact his predecessor was competent, Mr Westerwelle is not.

I have nothing against Mrs Clinton. She is a lot more competent than Westerwelle.

I am sure she believes in what she says.

I know that anti-Semitism is so deeply entrenched in parts of the populations, particularly liberals, that they don't spot it even when they call for segregation as long as it affects Jews. I am sure she means well.

There is no point in listening to a willful anti-Semite, but with Clinton I know that she is merely a product of her environment and she has managed to distance herself more from it than most.

For you this is difficult to understand because you are a Christian and despite what some people say anti-Semitism is simply not a feature of your environment. So when you think of Israelis building houses, you are not wondering if those are Jewish Israelis or whether some terrorist group would take such construction as an excuse to fight or continue a war. You are only wondering whether what Israel does affects anybody's ability to worship in Jerusalem, and it clearly doesn't (whereas Arab rule clearly would).

But Clinton comes from an environment where it is considered racism to extend to Jews the same rights and privileges as to non-Jews. Considering that she is a very good person and competent foreign minister indeed.

Yes. But for some reason many people (excluding Clinton!) a military alliance and having a say in internal matters are not distinct things. Of course every American would be angry if Israel demanded that you stop building apartment blocks in Hawaii, and rightly so. It would be none of Israel's business.

The excuse that Israel's annexation of all Jerusalem is "illegal" is a sham, of course. If there were some sort of international law that forbids annexation of land, the country of Vietnam would not exist and neither would most other states. Obviously in that case East-Jerusalem could also not be "Arab" because making it officially Arab would also be one of those "illegal" annexations.

So what's left is that Israel's annexation of all Jerusalem was _considered_ illegal by the UN because of a popular vote (among governments many of whom are dictatorships). But that doesn't prove illegality, it just proves that popular opinion is anti-Israel. There was no vote in the UN about whether the Soviet-Union could annex Lithuania or whether North-Vietnam could annex South-Vietnam.

This UN vote against Israel's annexation of Jerusalem is just a symptom of anti-Semitism. But it's not a basis for judging the country.

What do you mean "each other"?

If Jews really killed Arabs just like that we wouldn't have the "problem" that Jews and Arabs both live in Jerusalem. The Arabs would have been dead or would have left a long time ago, like the Jews in all those Arab cities like Baghdad and Cairo. No Arab in Jerusalem fears visiting Jewish areas or even rioting in them. But try finding a Jew in an Arab-only neighbourhood.

But the real issue is not as easy. Contrary to common opinion Jews and Arabs in Jerusalem don't really kill each other and Arabs killing Jews is also fairly rare. Jerusalem is a much more peaceful city than most in the Middle-East. And it's not like the Arabs of East-Jerusalem even want the Jews to leave. It's more of a PLO and international community thing than something locals demand. Representatives of Jerusalem Arabs have not demanded segregated neighbourhoods, the PLO and the US have.

I wrote about that here:

http://citizenleauki.joeuser.com/article/367718/East-Jerusalem_and_the_Palestinian_Authority_-_An_Interview

(It's a interview with an Arab journalist from Jerusalem published in a German newspaper. I translated it. Summary is that Arab citizens of Jerusalem do not necessarily want segregation.)

Now, if you read the above carefully you will have noticed that I said that Jews do not visit Arab-only neighbourhoods. There is a reason for that. Contrary to common belief (and I don't know where that belief comes from) segregation does not result in peace. It simply results in people developing hatred for the "other". Mixed neighbourhoods in Jerusalem are peaceful and people get along. It's Arab-only neigbourhoods where the locals can be as extremist as they want without having to justify it to their Jewish neighbours they had tea with yesterday. (There is a similar problem in Jewish-religious neighbourhoods where people are similarly isolated from the people they despise.)

Did segregation in the US do a lot to heal the rift between blacks and whites? Why would it work with Jews and Arabs? And why even apply an American solution to a Middle-Eastern problem just because some terrorist group demands it as a prerequisite to "peace talks"? That's the same group that violated the last peace treaty. So why buy their approval?

They can get along and do get along. Despite what sensational journalism suggests Israel is pretty much the quietest place in the Middle-East. The "international community" is trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist by demanding a solution that causes the problem they believe exists because the group that causes the problem wherever it can demands it. It's illogical and it's racist and I don't see why Israeli Arabs or Jews should have to do anything just because the rest of the world cannot stay the feck out of Israel.

Yes.

leauki posts 3

The immediate problem is more than just Netanyahu's government building 600 houses. He's included the Tomb of the Patriarchs and Rachels Tomb both in Hebron, the West Bank on the national heritage list of Isreal. The Muslims see this as "Judaizing" the entire city.

IMO, this latest move of Isreal is an incremental step to making the 2-State solution impossible.

Most Arabs in 'East' Jerusalem really don't want to be a part of the PA.  They want to be a part of Israel because they KNOW THEY HAVE IT BETTER.  I lived on the Mt. of Olives and spoken to many people in 'East' Jerusalem.

Thing is getting them to speak up. Most of them want to stay silent because they want to appear as if they support the PA due to the fact that they see them as brothers and sisters.  What they know and see is that in the PA is chaos.  Someone can take your house/land if their family is bigger/more powerful and yours is smaller/weak (especially if you are not a follower of Islam) in the PA.

the Arabs are not going to be happy until the Jews are gone.  I'm sure the rest of the world isn't too far behind that sentiment either. 

Well one thing's for sure.  It's Israel front and center in the news almost all the time.  Not Russia.  Not Japan.  Not China.  Israel. Oh sure, some get their 15 minutes of fame every once in a while but then it's always back to Israel.  It's been like this pretty much since 1948. 

 Everyone wants a piece of Israel.  It's the hottest piece of Real Estate in the whole world.  It's also what I consider to be the center of the earth and the apple of God's eye.  Jerusalem is His city.  It's not the Jews nor the Arabs.  It's God's.  Somehow people seem to forget that. 

You can say a lot of good things about Hillary, but that is not one of them.  Sheis the consumate politician who only believes what will get her the next promotion.  In that she is a good mouthpiece for Obama.

When confronted with bigotry and ignorance, the solution is not to excuse if because of a lack of exposure to the truth, but to educate.  You are excusing it because of a lack of exposure to the reality of the insidious nature of her prejudice.  That is your right, but is wrong.  It only promotes that point of view.

Dr.Guy,

Post 19 is right on. Even before Obama, Hillary though has been consistent about speaking up for a Palestinian state.  

leauki posts:

Here we go again.....the victimhood of Jews.  Nowadays, that's a hard sell.

Of some things, yes, of course. I think it's wise to segregate girls from boys in college dormitories, in public restrooms, criminals from the general public, etc.  

But in the case of your original article question, I answered #1.

Why frame what Natanyahu's government did/is planning to do in terms of segregation? Building 600 houses and including the Tomb of the Patriarchs and Rachels Tomb, both in the West Bank, on the national heritage list of Isreal is either morally right or wrong. After all, Almighty God gave Moses the Ten Commandments for Jews to follow and observe. 

I'm not going to indulge you here in this specious argument other than to say we would not have been able to buy the house on the land had not both have a clear title.

Which is why I was surprised when I read the rest of your comment.

I am not framing what Netanyahu does in terms of segregation. I am framing the demand that Jews must not build or buy houses in East-Jerusalem as segregation.

Netanyahu's government simply builds houses like any government should. And if those houses weren't for Jews the world wouldn't care about it either.

What's morally wrong about including two ancient artifacts of the Jewish people on the national heritage list of the state of Israel?

Wouldn't any nation do that sort of thing? Why is it wrong when Jews do it?

(And G-d gave Moses 613 commandments. If I remember correctly at least four of them demand that the people of Israel live in the land of Israel and two require control of Jerusalem.)

Yes, that was my point.

You consider the title valid because the country that took the land and granted the title was not Israel.

And the Indians did _not_ attack you. Your country just took their land when there was no need to fight a war to defend yourself. If you were as consistent as you are convinced that you are right, you wouldn't live in that house.

I have no doubt that you think that.