October 2000/Cast Lead All Over Again?

It started with the heinous murders of three Israeli teenagers by Hamas-affiliated terrorists and the equally heinous suspected revenge killing of a Palestinian teenager by Israeli extremists. Now it seems to be escalating into a combination of the October 2000 Israeli-Arab riots which took place at the beginning of the Second Intifadah and the December 2008-January 2009 Cast Lead Operation in Gaza, Israel's response to Palestinian missile strikes inside Israel.

Let's start with Gaza. Israel has been very restrained, responding to the barrage of rockets on border communities with a proportional response - attacking missile launchers and a bunch of symbolic, yet empty, buildings. Rockets haven't stopped, though. Today, rockets were fired on Be'er-Sheva, 40 kilometers from Gaza, the largest city attacked so far this round. This is undoubtedly an escalation. I believe it would be hypocritical of anyone in the world to criticize Israel for going on a large scale operation (one which I hope will not be necessary, but might be if attacks continue on Sunday) after giving Hamas the opportunity to stop the missiles it and other groups have launched.

Now, to the other front of this round of the conflict. Palestinians have rioted in East Jerusalem and inside the green line, while barely anything has happened in the West Bank. Anger over the murder of Muhammad Abu Khdeir is understandable, especially in East Jerusalem, where he lived and died. However, violent riots, including the destruction of property and attacking civilians, are beyond the pale. Within Israel, Palestinian citizens of the state have blocked roads, pulled Jews out of their cars and burned the vehicles and laid siege to the village of Mei Ami. This is unacceptable. 

The Palestinians of Israel cannot join their brethren, the Palestinians of the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem, in their war against the state. This will not be tolerated. The police's harsh response in October 2000 resulted in the fact that the rest of the Second Intifadah did not include Palestinian citizens of Israel. Unfortunately, 14 Palestinian rioters (13 citizens, one non-citizen) were killed, as was one Jewish citizen who was killed by rocks thrown at his car. This time around, better riot dispersal equipment should be used so there will not be civilian casualties (Arab or Jewish) while still quickly crushing this insurrection. 

Peace Now and Jerusalem

According to Haaretz, Americans for Peace Now has filed a brief with the United States Supreme Court, arguing against recognition of Jerusalem as part of Israel. They believe Americans born in the city should be listed as having been born in "Jerusalem", without the name of a country, rather than writing Israel as their place of birth. This is the case even if a person was born in the western portion of Jerusalem, the part under Israeli sovereignty since the War of Independence.

It is unclear whether the Israeli Peace Now agrees with the actions of its American sister organization. If it does, it's very troubling. An Israeli organization that not only does not recognize West Jerusalem as Israel's capital, but doesn't even recognize it as being a part of the State, in effect, does not recognize the results of the War of Independence. What is the difference between the the areas gained by Israel in 1948 which were intended for the Arab State in the Partition Plan, and the parts of the Corpus Seperatum of Jerusalem which Israel took over during the same war? Neither the Arab State or the Corpus Seperatum ever came into being, so there should be no difference.

It makes no sense not to recognize Israel's sovereignty over the western portion of Jerusalem while recognizing its sovereignty over Nazareth, Be'er-Sheva, Nahariya, Akko, Jaffa and Ramla - all cities intended to be part of the Arab state. They are now rightly recognized by all the countries of the world as legitimate parts of Israel - except for countries that don't recognize Israel at all.

Jerusalem Day

There is no holiday with a greater disparity between the way the government celebrates it and the way the general population does not. Cabinet ministers, Knesset members and the mayor of the so-called United, Undivided Eternal City love participating in events commemorating the conquest of East Jerusalem, especially the Western (Wailing) Wall. Public schools also hold ceremonies. However, the average Israeli does not celebrate Jerusalem Day in any way, shape or form - accept for some religious people.

That most Israelis don't celebrate the holiday is an interesting fact. It isn't being boycotted. People just aren't that aware of it. I remember that in school, I'd always be surprised when teachers took us to the ceremony. "Oh, Jerusalem Day is today?" my friends and I would wonder. We also didn't understand why, if it is a holiday, we didn't get the day off from school.

So why hasn't Jerusalem Day taken root with the Israeli public? Maybe there's an Israeli sociologist or political scientist out there who knows the answer.

Jerusalem, City of... Love?

Yesterday was Valentine's Day, a perfect day for romantic movies. I'm sure many couples went out to see "New York, I Love You", the second installment in the "Cities of Love" series, or rented a DVD of the first installment, 2006's "Paris, je t'aime". Each film is an anthology of several love stories from different neighborhoods of the city in the title.

I have not seen either film, nor do I intend to do so. The only reason I'm interested in this series is the odd news that one of the next films will be "Jerusalem, I Love You", with segments directed by American, Israeli and international directors. Jerusalem? Really?

Paris made sense as the first city in the series. After all, it is the City of Love, and considered the most romantic city in the world. New York is also the location of many a love story. Rio, one of the future installments is quite exotic. But Jerusalem?

I do not associate Jerusalem with romance. The only famous Jerusalem love story I can think of is David and Bathsheba - you know, the one with the cheating, the murder of the cheated husband and the death of the bastard baby. Israel has much more romantic cities, like Tel-Aviv, Eilat or even Haifa. These are cities with beaches and quite a night life. In Haifa, there's also romantic natural scenery.

The only love I associate with Jerusalem is the love of God. The excessive love of God, that is. Fanatics spilling the blood of those who are of different religions or are their co-religionists but not devout enough in their own minds.

Oh, well. The creators of the short films about Jerusalemite romance will find something to write about. Romance happens in Jerusalem all the time, just like in any other city. And the movie has one good thing going for it: I'm sure Natalie Portman will appear in it, and maybe even direct a segment. After all, she directed a segment of "New York, I Love You", appeared in both the New York and Paris installments and was born in Jerusalem.

Oh, and one more thing in Jerusalem's defense: Another future installment in the series will be about Shanghai, a city I associate with romance even less than Jerusalem.

Jerusalem's Sad Mayoral Elections

Most of Israel's municipalities are holding elections tomorrow. Jerusalem is one of them, and boy am I glad not to be a Jerusalemite. Three men are running for mayor: Meir Porush, Nir Barkat and Arcadi Gaydamak. To say that they're all unworthy would be an understatement. Every single one of them would be a horrible mayor.

Meir Porush, a member of the Knesset representing the ulta-Orthodox Agudat Israel Party, has been quoted as saying that within 15 years there will be no secular mayor anywhere in Israel. He has a right wing political agenda and would like to impose a "medinat halacha", a state run according to religious law. The outgoing mayor, Uri Lupolianski, who is not running for re-election, was the first ultra-Orthodox mayor of Jerusalem, and he tried not to anger what is left of the secular population of the city. Porush doesn't seem as conciliatory.

Nir Barkat is known as "the secular candidate". He is a millionaire businessman and a right wing hawk who wants to build Jewish neighborhoods in East Jerusalem. While the mayor has nothing to do with peace negotiations, he can make things very difficult by creating facts on the ground. Maybe the fact that he is a successful businessman at least means he's a good administrator, but that isn't good enough for a city like Jerusalem.

Trailing in third place, according to the polls, is Arcadi Gaydamak, an eccentric Russian-born billionaire who is wanted in France for illegal arms dealing with Angola. He doesn't speak Hebrew, other than a few words here and there, so he communicates with Israelis in English. I don't really know what his platform is, if he has one at all, but the man himself is the problem. He uses his money to gain political power and does not like dissent. He calls anyone who disagrees with him stupid and worse curses. He even asked "who is Tzipi Livni to decide not to join forces with me in the municipal elections". That's quite a nerve!

Oh, Jerusalemites, don't you deserve better?

Kicking Out East Jerusalemites

Ann El-Khoury of People's Geography referred me to a blog post in The Magnes Zionist about a policy I did not know existed. For Palestinians from East Jerusalem, who as Jerusalemites have Israeli residency permits but not citizenship, moving abroad, even temporarily, makes them lose their residency permits, and so they cannot go back to their families in East Jerusalem. I assume Palestinians in the rest of the occupied territories also lose the right to live in the territories if they move abroad.

While I oppose the right of return, this is not the issue. This isn't about refugees from 1948 returning to Israel and flooding the country. It is about Palestinians in the territories arbitrarily being barred from returning to where they actually still live. This is a disgrace and should stop immediately. The Magnes Zionist calls this ethnic cleansing. I'd say it is a semi-passive form of ethnic cleansing; passive because Israel isn't actively yanking people from their homes in East Jerusalem and kicking them out, but only semi-passive, because it is, after all, actively cancelling their residency permits when they leave.

It would be one thing to deny residency from people active in terrorist activity against Israel. This is something else completely. The Palestinians of East Jerusalem aren't residents like other people who have residency status. They aren't foreign workers. They've been there since before Israel captured the area. They deserve to have irrevocable residency status, unless convicted of terrorism. The Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza, too, should not be denied re-entry into the territories only because they move abroad temporarily or marry a foreigner.

A Depressing Peace Index

Most Palestinians wouldn't think that what I am willing to give up in exchange for peace with them is enough, and most Israelis aren't willing to give the Palestinians as much as I am. I was reminded of that sobering reality when I read the latest results of the Tami Steinmetz Center for Peace Research's latest Peace Index, a monthly survey of Israeli opinion regarding the peace process.

While most Israelis generally favor peace talks and don't think either side can continue on like this much longer, there is a huge gap between Israelis and Palestinians regarding the two most important issues, the ones that will make or break a future peace treaty.

54% of Israelis (59% of Jews) are opposed to giving the Arab neighborhoods of East Jerusalem to the Palestinians to be their capital. I'd do this in a heartbeat. Even ultra-right winger Avigdor Lieberman has no problem with this. Maybe some respondents took this to mean giving up all of East Jerusalem, including the Western Wall, which might explain the resistance.

On the question of refugees 76% of all Israelis (87% among Jews) aren't willing to allow even one refugee into Israel. 7% are willing to let up to 100,000 refugees return, and 11% are willing to let them all return. Most of the support for a full right of return comes from Israeli Arabs, since only 3% of Jews support it. Here I'm in agreement with the vast majority of Israelis.

Here's a question I'd like the next surveys to include: would you agree to accept responsibility for the Naqbah and the refugee problem, at least partial responsibility, and to compensate the refugees in exchange for peace? I'd agree to that if the Palestinians gave up on the right of return, but I don't know if most Israelis would.

You can read the report here in pdf or Word (doc) format.

All Wrong in Jerusalem

The whole fiasco over the construction of a bridge near the Mughrabim gate in the Old City of Jerusalem is one of those rare cases where everybody is wrong and nobody is right. The government should have never started the project, because it should have predicted it would be used by extremist Muslims as an excuse for anti-Israel protests. They could have put a different kind of bridge, which can be constructed quickly and without need for any digging in sensitive places.

The extremist Muslims, and others who have played along, are now saying Israel is digging beneath Al-Aqsa with the intention to topple it and construct the third Jewish temple. That's bullshit and they probably know it. Now Sheikh Raad Salakh, an Israeli citizen who is the head of the Northern wing of the Islamic Movement in Israel, has called for an Intifada against Israel. The man should be put in jail for the rest of his life for treason and incitement of violence against the state.

Now Jewish religious leaders, including the ultra-Orthodox mayor of Jerusalem, are trying to stop the construction of the bridge. Their main concern isn't safety or Muslim sensitivities. Their problem with the bridge is the fact that it will be used by Jews to enter the Temple Mount, an area where Jews are not allowed to enter according to Halacha (Jewish religious law).

I think the construction should never have started, but now it is too late. We should not give in to religious extremists. The only acceptable way out would be to declare that we accept the requests of Egypt, Jordan and Turkey, and therefore have decided to stop all construction at the Mughrabim Gate. But I don't see Olmert doing that any time soon.