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"?

On January 20, 2009.

And 1 - anywhere.  Are not arabs already citizens of Israel?

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).

Do you really think there would be a shouting match now if there had been any kind of bi-lateral discussions?  It has all been "You DO" coming from the US.  I am surprised Israel has not started a shouting match before now.  Shows a lot of self control.

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.

yes, same in the US (discounting the bumbling boob biden).  Clinton is showing everyone how lucky the US was even with Albright.

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

REally?  Even after her blistering rebuke of Israel recently?  She blasted out Netenyahu for about 40 minutes giving him her say so after Obama became livid over the whole East Jerusalem building project.

My question is why does the U.S. care?  What business is it of ours if Israel builds homes in East Jerusalem or not?  I think the U.S. needs to butt out of Israel's business. 

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.

My personal position is that as long as the Arabs and Jews can live together without killing each other then they should be allowed to build houses wherever.  If they can't live together, then the best solution (IMO) would be to keep both the Arabs and the Jews out of Jerusalem entirely.

It's a solution which would obviously create a whole lot of outrage, but hey, they can't get along - why should they be allowed to kill people over it?

These are excellent questions indeed.

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.

I choose # 1.

How can the rest of the world stay out of Isreal?

Isreal wouldn't be were it not for "the rest of the world" (that is the "international community" called the UN).  For Isreal to be those Arabs who were there had to move and this caused war.

How can the rest of the world stay out of Isreal when Isreal has been warring over the land and water ever since?

KFC posts:

The US with all its blessings should be leading the world to peace. It's our business becasue the Arab-Isreali conflict has the potential of nuclear world war.

As long as the US is giving financial aid to Isreal and wants to avert nuclear war, it stands to reason that she is going to stay closely tuned in to what Isreal is doing.

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.

No, the Arabs didn't have to be "moved" and they wouldn't have moved if their "brothers" had not attacked and asked them to flee.

Israel didn't need the world to exist, it just needed the world to be recognised. The Jews ran Israel just fine when she became independent from Britain and survived the Arab attacks as well. The "international community" didn't help Israel at that time (although a few individual countries did).

I don't know. But the Kurds and Sudanese Africans have been under Arab attack for at least as long as Israel and the world somehow managed to stay out of it.

Maybe the world should stick its nose into the Arab countries, not the country they attack?

And they will have to live with it. The Jewish community of Hevron is older than the Arab community.

There are few things that are more Jewish than Rachel's tomb and the cave of the patriarchs. They ARE national heritage of Israel. Just because the Arabs expelled the Jewish population of Hevron in 1948 doesn't make the sites Arab.

Otherwise Israel could have made the mosque in the Temple Mount Jewish in 1967 too.

I think the two-state solution has been impossible ever since the Arabs first screamed that the Jews must be thrown into the sea.

The only thing made impossible by Jews living in East-Jerusalem is vor Jerusalem to become Arab. But why would Jerusalem have to be Arab?

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.