Comments on: No, Gilo is not East Jerusalem http://mondoweiss.net/2009/11/no-gilo-is-not-east-jerusalem.html The War of Ideas in the Middle East Mon, 28 May 2012 16:44:59 +0000 hourly 1 By: Shmuel http://mondoweiss.net/2009/11/no-gilo-is-not-east-jerusalem.html/comment-page-1#comment-126980 Shmuel Tue, 24 Nov 2009 07:38:16 +0000 http://mondoweiss.net/?p=11407#comment-126980 Eldar puts his finger on a very important phenomenon, which extends well beyond Jerusalem. Whatever the Israeli Left is willing to "accept" is considered acceptable internationally, and must therefore be accepted by the Palestinians. At first, it was just the Etzion Bloc and the "Allon Plan", but Oslo helped extend that to any settlements "near the Green Line" and anything that would be Israel's in an eventual agreement, as envisioned by Barak or Beilin or Ayalon. Employing the classic "what's mine is mine and what's yours is mine" method, successvie Israeli governments have also built or allowed settlement beyond the areas of "consensus", but at least expected a certain amount of internal and external criticism. They become indignant however, if not downright surprised when construction within the "consensus" is questioned. That seems to be what happened in Gilo, and WJs comment that it should be ok if it's within the parameters of one of Israel's unilateral "peace" plans, is indicative. Eldar puts his finger on a very important phenomenon, which extends well beyond Jerusalem. Whatever the Israeli Left is willing to “accept” is considered acceptable internationally, and must therefore be accepted by the Palestinians. At first, it was just the Etzion Bloc and the “Allon Plan”, but Oslo helped extend that to any settlements “near the Green Line” and anything that would be Israel’s in an eventual agreement, as envisioned by Barak or Beilin or Ayalon. Employing the classic “what’s mine is mine and what’s yours is mine” method, successvie Israeli governments have also built or allowed settlement beyond the areas of “consensus”, but at least expected a certain amount of internal and external criticism. They become indignant however, if not downright surprised when construction within the “consensus” is questioned. That seems to be what happened in Gilo, and WJs comment that it should be ok if it’s within the parameters of one of Israel’s unilateral “peace” plans, is indicative.

]]> By: potsherd http://mondoweiss.net/2009/11/no-gilo-is-not-east-jerusalem.html/comment-page-1#comment-126885 potsherd Mon, 23 Nov 2009 22:35:10 +0000 http://mondoweiss.net/?p=11407#comment-126885 Akiva Eldar on "Jerusalem" http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1130000.html Akiva Eldar on “Jerusalem”

link to haaretz.com

]]> By: marcynewman http://mondoweiss.net/2009/11/no-gilo-is-not-east-jerusalem.html/comment-page-1#comment-126833 marcynewman Mon, 23 Nov 2009 19:13:58 +0000 http://mondoweiss.net/?p=11407#comment-126833 gilo is actually on the land of beit jala and is closer to beit lahem than it is to east jerusalem. ironically the terms "east" and "west" don't really apply geographically to jerusalem. it's more like north/south jerusalem. gilo is actually on the land of beit jala and is closer to beit lahem than it is to east jerusalem. ironically the terms “east” and “west” don’t really apply geographically to jerusalem. it’s more like north/south jerusalem.

]]> By: David http://mondoweiss.net/2009/11/no-gilo-is-not-east-jerusalem.html/comment-page-1#comment-126798 David Mon, 23 Nov 2009 16:57:03 +0000 http://mondoweiss.net/?p=11407#comment-126798 Exactly--in terms of international law, both East Jerusalem and the West Bank are occupied Palestinian territory. Exactly–in terms of international law, both East Jerusalem and the West Bank are occupied Palestinian territory.

]]> By: David http://mondoweiss.net/2009/11/no-gilo-is-not-east-jerusalem.html/comment-page-1#comment-126796 David Mon, 23 Nov 2009 16:55:57 +0000 http://mondoweiss.net/?p=11407#comment-126796 Alright, look. I disagree with most of what Witty posts on here. But frankly, I don't come here to read ad hominem attacks on people. Argue, disagree, advance the discussion, but I'm not very interested in participating in a sight where people think calling other posters "assholes" and talking about their marital status makes for good discussion. Also, Witty is right--Gilo is in East Jerusalem, and East Jerusalem is in the West Bank--it was controlled by Jordan between '49-'67, just like the West Bank. The only difference between E. J'lem and the West Bank is the the urban fabric, which has changed dramatically since '67. Alright, look. I disagree with most of what Witty posts on here. But frankly, I don’t come here to read ad hominem attacks on people. Argue, disagree, advance the discussion, but I’m not very interested in participating in a sight where people think calling other posters “assholes” and talking about their marital status makes for good discussion.

Also, Witty is right–Gilo is in East Jerusalem, and East Jerusalem is in the West Bank–it was controlled by Jordan between ’49-’67, just like the West Bank. The only difference between E. J’lem and the West Bank is the the urban fabric, which has changed dramatically since ’67.

]]> By: Shmuel http://mondoweiss.net/2009/11/no-gilo-is-not-east-jerusalem.html/comment-page-1#comment-126700 Shmuel Mon, 23 Nov 2009 07:20:46 +0000 http://mondoweiss.net/?p=11407#comment-126700 Why does it matter what side of a fantasy border in two non-signed "agreements" the new construction would be on? Israel has violated these "borders" so many times already, constructing just about everywhere in the West Bank and Jerusalem, that they cannot possibly be cited now, in Israel's defence. Either Israel accepts these paramaters or not. If it doesn't (as it has demonstrated repeatedly, with "facts on the ground"), they are meaningless, and must bring all honest two-staters back to the original principle of the Green Line and pre-'67 borders. Furthermore, zoning, municipal boundaries and construction in Jerusalem (including roads, light rail, etc.) have been so politicised by Israel, in order to maintain "maximum territory with minimum Arab population" and preclude any territorial compromise in the greater Jerusalem area, that all claims of "normal urban growth" (that's what they always say) are extremely suspect. Why does it matter what side of a fantasy border in two non-signed “agreements” the new construction would be on? Israel has violated these “borders” so many times already, constructing just about everywhere in the West Bank and Jerusalem, that they cannot possibly be cited now, in Israel’s defence. Either Israel accepts these paramaters or not. If it doesn’t (as it has demonstrated repeatedly, with “facts on the ground”), they are meaningless, and must bring all honest two-staters back to the original principle of the Green Line and pre-’67 borders.

Furthermore, zoning, municipal boundaries and construction in Jerusalem (including roads, light rail, etc.) have been so politicised by Israel, in order to maintain “maximum territory with minimum Arab population” and preclude any territorial compromise in the greater Jerusalem area, that all claims of “normal urban growth” (that’s what they always say) are extremely suspect.

]]> By: wondering jew http://mondoweiss.net/2009/11/no-gilo-is-not-east-jerusalem.html/comment-page-1#comment-126686 wondering jew Mon, 23 Nov 2009 03:06:26 +0000 http://mondoweiss.net/?p=11407#comment-126686 There have been two "agreements" between Israeli and Palestinian negotiators. The Clinton parameters which were accepted by both negotiating teams (but with comments indicating where they did not actually accept the parameters) and the Geneva "accords" negotiated by Yasser Abed Rabo and Yossi Beilin. Question: is the current construction scheduled for Gilo on the Israeli side of the border that was negotiated in those (unofficial) negotiations? There have been two “agreements” between Israeli and Palestinian negotiators. The Clinton parameters which were accepted by both negotiating teams (but with comments indicating where they did not actually accept the parameters) and the Geneva “accords” negotiated by Yasser Abed Rabo and Yossi Beilin. Question: is the current construction scheduled for Gilo on the Israeli side of the border that was negotiated in those (unofficial) negotiations?

]]> By: Chaos4700 http://mondoweiss.net/2009/11/no-gilo-is-not-east-jerusalem.html/comment-page-1#comment-126677 Chaos4700 Mon, 23 Nov 2009 01:07:20 +0000 http://mondoweiss.net/?p=11407#comment-126677 I think we should come up with a special term for situations like this: Wittypocrisy. I think we should come up with a special term for situations like this: Wittypocrisy.

]]> By: James Bradley http://mondoweiss.net/2009/11/no-gilo-is-not-east-jerusalem.html/comment-page-1#comment-126676 James Bradley Mon, 23 Nov 2009 01:04:45 +0000 http://mondoweiss.net/?p=11407#comment-126676 And here I thought Gilo meant neighborhood =P And here I thought Gilo meant neighborhood =P

]]> By: potsherd http://mondoweiss.net/2009/11/no-gilo-is-not-east-jerusalem.html/comment-page-1#comment-126673 potsherd Mon, 23 Nov 2009 00:42:43 +0000 http://mondoweiss.net/?p=11407#comment-126673 R Witty: "Gilo is Gilo, not Jerusalem." R Witty: "Gilo IS in East Jerusalem." Contradiction anyone? R Witty: “Gilo is Gilo, not Jerusalem.”

R Witty: “Gilo IS in East Jerusalem.”

Contradiction anyone?

]]>