In this post, I will deal with some of the elements in the text of the document (in italics), which can be found here. And I will do so as they appear in the document. What follows are my comments and reflections marked by Page and Paragraph.
* * *
Page 1: "Considering the developments in East Jerusalem and in particular the progressive separation of East Jerusalem from the rest of the West Bank" (Cover Note)
Given that Jerusalem's Old City was separated from Israel's citizens and essentially all Jews from across the world for 19 years with a presence of European diplomats there all that time, there's no small measure of chutzpah in this statement. Moreover, the city will not be separated from any religious pilgrim, Muslim or Christian, and has been open more than at any other time in history. Even if the Arabs of the former Mandate of Palestine territory will achieve some sort of political framework, will then Jerusalem be separated from Israel? Of course, my outlook will assure that Jerusalem will not be separated from Judea and Samaria in that all the area between the sea and the river will be under Israeli sovereignty.
Page 1: "in accordance with international law, that the acquisition of territory by force or the threat of the use of force is inadmissible". (Cover Note)
Well, if that really is an inadmissable action, there are many other places where it would be much more pressing to deal with the issues. Like the Karabakh conflict. As explained, that phrase only applies to an offensive war, not a defensive one as the 1967 war was. Further to that, "territorial change cannot properly take place as a result of the unlawful use of force. But to omit the word “unlawful” is to change the substantive content of the rule and to turn an important safeguard of legal principle into an aggressor’s charter. For if force can never be used to effect lawful territory change, then, if territory has once changed hands as a result of the unlawful use of force, the illegitimacy of the position thus established is sterilized by the prohibition upon the use of force to restore the lawful sovereign."
Page 1: "Israel has left Palestinian neighbourhoods ever more isolated". (1)
They are not isolated. There is freedom of movement. If there is isolation, it is the lot of the Jewish families who require 24-hour protection from terror attacks and armed guards to take children to school due to threats of violence. Do the HoMs protect the rights of Jewish children?
Page 2: "The interest of safeguarding the religious, historical and symbolic values of Jerusalem goes beyond the Israeli-Palestinian conflict." (2)
It surely does. There are Jewish concerns and interests. Are they on the agenda of the HoMs? Do they talk to Jews? Or are they discriminatory? Do they negate the Jews simply by rewferring to them throughout the document as "settlers"?
Page 2: "UNSC Resolution 478 in which the Security Council decided not to recognise this Basic Law and other actions that “seek to alter the character and status of Jerusalem”. The resolution also calls upon all UN Members that had established diplomatic missions in Jerusalem “to withdraw such missions from the Holy city”. (3)
Well, have they withdrawn? Or have they stayed in the eastern section only as if there are two cities? As if it is another city somehow that doesn't belong to its other half?
Page 2: "the EU will not recognise any changes to the pre-1967 borders including with regard to Jerusalem, other than those agreed by the parties" (6)
To repeat, for 19 years they did. And when Israel in 1949 declared its full sovereignty over the western section, that part not conquered and occupied illegally by the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan which then illegally annexed it, not a peep was heard.
Page 2: "In East Jerusalem 35 percent of the land has been expropriated for “state land”. Only citizens of Israel or those legally entitled to claim Israeli citizenship (i.e. Jewish) can buy property built on state land." (7)
"For state land"? It is state land. Land that does not belong to private individuals or institutions. And Arabs are Israeli citizens as well, by the way.
Page 3: "the Palestinian neighbourhoods of Silwan, Ras al-Amud, At-Tur, Wadi al-Joz and Sheikh Jarrah and contains the majority of the historical and holy sites of Jerusalem. These are Palestinian residential areas" (10)
They also were Jewish residential areas until Jews were expelled and refused their own right of return. And those Arab neighborhoods are all situated in historical Jewish neighborhoods before Romans, Crusaders, Muslims and Turks conquered them. Learn history dear diplomats.
Page 3: "cut off the territorial contiguity between the Palestinian neighbourhoods of East Jerusalem and the Old City and separate the Muslim and Christian holy places from the rest of East Jerusalem." (11)
Again, repeating worthless unfactual claims and ignoring Jewish holy places.
Page 3: "under Israeli law Palestinians are precluded from reclaiming pre-1948 property in Israel or in West Jerusalem" (12)
Those who started the war in 1947 in violation of a UN recommendation, and who for the previous three decades attempted to prevent the League of Nations decision from being realised, surely can have no claim for what they lost due to their aggression.
Page 4: "In 2008, the police headquarters of “Judea and Samaria” moved to E1" (19)
Neat that, placing the genuine historic and geographical names in quotations marks. So, for me, it will be "West Bank".
Page 4: "The use of archaeology as a politico-ideological tool in the Wadi Hilweh area just south of the Temple Mount/Haram Al-Sharif (often referred to as the “City of David” area) is a source of increasing concern." (20)
If there is any exploitation of tools, this is a prime example. A "Wadi Hilweh" supplants the true historical geography! And "referred to" as regards the City of David?
Page 5: "effectively disenfranchising Arab/Muslim claims of historic-archaeological ties to the very same place." (22)
See above. The same twisted narrative.
Page 9: "Developments at the Haram al-Sharif, or Temple Mount, are significant in several respects" (57)
In the three paragraphs dealing with the Temple Mount (the term Haram Al-Sharif always precedes the Jewish name, its original name), there is no mention of the damage and injury caused by Arabs and Muslim bodies to Jewish historical artifacts and archaelogical remains, done with the full intent of erasing any Jewish identification with the site, obliterately Jewish heritage claims. Moreover, the esteemed diplomats do not mention the restrictions the Israel governments have applied on Jewish prayer or any other specific Jewish display towards the Temple Mount. The Jewish side doesn't exist and merits no concern by these representatives of foreign governments.
This is not a comprehensive point-by-point refutation but represents the veil of ignorance, the willingness to blindly accept Arab/Muslim deceits and prevarications and the self-dissemblance they permit themselves while they degrade Jewish nationalism and historical rights.
Woe to European civilization.
^
Posts
1 comment:
YM, I would add to your very good fisking of the EU hate document, that Jews have been the absolute majority of the Jerusalem population since 1853 at least, if not earlier. At that time, the whole city was the Old City which was Jordanian-occupied between 1948 and 1967. That is, Jews were long the majority from 1853 [or earlier] up to 1948 in what became "east Jerusalem" only in 1948.
Post a Comment