Sheikh Jarrah has been in the news a lot lately - settlers taking over houses, weekly protests against the takeovers, harsh action by the police against the protesters, etc.. But it is becoming clear that the settler takeover of the homes in Sheikh Jarrah is just tip of the iceberg.
Recent developments suggest that the settlers and their supporters are working to apply the tactics they have successfully used in the takeover of Silwan (and other areas of the Old City's historic basin) in Sheikh Jarrah. This means expanding the settler presence and settler dominance over the area not just through the takeover of homes, but through seizing control of the public domain (for the benefit of the settlers). It also means working to shift the Israeli (and international Jewish) public perception of the area in order to make this Palestinian neighborhood part of the so-called Jewish "consensus" -- an area viewed as being home to core Jewish religious and historic equities that must never be left under Palestinian control.
What we are seeing here is the Silwan-ization of Sheikh Jarrah.
Recent developments suggest that the settlers and their supporters are working to apply the tactics they have successfully used in the takeover of Silwan (and other areas of the Old City's historic basin) in Sheikh Jarrah. This means expanding the settler presence and settler dominance over the area not just through the takeover of homes, but through seizing control of the public domain (for the benefit of the settlers). It also means working to shift the Israeli (and international Jewish) public perception of the area in order to make this Palestinian neighborhood part of the so-called Jewish "consensus" -- an area viewed as being home to core Jewish religious and historic equities that must never be left under Palestinian control.
What we are seeing here is the Silwan-ization of Sheikh Jarrah.
As has been widely reported, for weeks protesters have been gathering
every Friday in Sheikh Jarrah to demonstrate their opposition to the
settlers' takeover of Palestinian homes and to show solidarity with
Palestinians who have been evicted by the settlers.
Israeli government officials, including Prime Minister Netanyahu, have doggedly insisted that the settlers have the right to move into these homes, since the properties were Jewish-owned before 1948 (the current Palestinian residents were refugees from 1948 - for a generally-accurate history of the area, see here). They have insisted on this Jewish "right of return" to such properties despite the fact that it raises the awkward question: why is there is no parallel right for Palestinians who lost property in West Jerusalem, unless the "right" is simply a pretext to push Palestinians out of East Jerusalem?
In response to these protests, Israeli right-wing forces (led by West Bank settlers) have begun to stage their own counter-protests at the site. The area has also enjoyed a series of high-profile visits from Israeli right-wing politicians and right-wing ideological tour groups.
For example, on February 9th the Knesset's Interior Committee visited the area to visit the settlers and the tomb of Simon the Just. During the visit the Committee Chairman, MK David Azouli (Shas) used the opportunity to publicly insist that "we need to reach a situation that allows every Jew to come here and pray safely." He demanded that the municipality clear space so visitors have a place to park their cars in the area, improve lighting and add more police.
This relatively unprecedented focus on the tomb of Simon the Just - and the argument that there are core Jewish religious/historic equities in the neighborhood - is suggestive of a shift in strategy by the settlers and the supporters in Sheikh Jarrah. With this shift, the focus appears to be moving from house-to-house conquest of the neighborhood by settlers, to wholesale conquest of the neighborhood by taking control of the public domain for the settlers' benefit - just as is taking place in Silwan and other areas of the Old City's historic basin. At the same time, the effort is also to shift the Israeli (and international Jewish) public perception from viewing Sheikh Jarrah as a Palestinian neighborhood of East Jerusalem to viewing the area as part of the vital core of Jewish historic Jerusalem.
Evidence that this strategy shift is indeed occurring came in the form of a February 18th report that the Jerusalem Municipality has taking over a plot of land in Sheikh Jarrah to provide parking for Sheikh Jarrah settlers and Jewish visitors to the area. The Municipality noted that "The lot will be designated as a public space" - demonstrating that like in Silwan, "public space" have become a pretext for taking over new land for the settlers. As if to underscore the similarity between what is happening now in Silwan and what is beginning to happen in Sheikh Jarrah, the municipality noted that it "recently built a parking lot in the neighborhood of Silwan in response to a request from the neighborhood committee."
Defenders of the parking plot project claim that the area lacks parking and that the new lot will benefit everyone - an argument that rings hollow given the non-interest the municipality has shown in developing infrastructure for Sheikh Jarrah residents for the past 42 years (i.e., before the settlers started to focus on the area).
Commenting on these developments, Jerusalem expert Daniel Seidemann observes: "The fact that Jerusalem is the epicenter of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is by now well-recognized. But that said, on occasion a single event or a limited geographical area come to encapsulate all of the elements of that conflict, illuminating them and resonating well beyond the mundane details of one neighborhood and the plight of a few families. By all indications, Sheikh Jarrah is becoming an arena which informs Israel-Palestine relations and shapes perceptions. Stabilizing events in Sheikh Jarrah is thus both a moral and a political imperative."
Israeli government officials, including Prime Minister Netanyahu, have doggedly insisted that the settlers have the right to move into these homes, since the properties were Jewish-owned before 1948 (the current Palestinian residents were refugees from 1948 - for a generally-accurate history of the area, see here). They have insisted on this Jewish "right of return" to such properties despite the fact that it raises the awkward question: why is there is no parallel right for Palestinians who lost property in West Jerusalem, unless the "right" is simply a pretext to push Palestinians out of East Jerusalem?
In response to these protests, Israeli right-wing forces (led by West Bank settlers) have begun to stage their own counter-protests at the site. The area has also enjoyed a series of high-profile visits from Israeli right-wing politicians and right-wing ideological tour groups.
For example, on February 9th the Knesset's Interior Committee visited the area to visit the settlers and the tomb of Simon the Just. During the visit the Committee Chairman, MK David Azouli (Shas) used the opportunity to publicly insist that "we need to reach a situation that allows every Jew to come here and pray safely." He demanded that the municipality clear space so visitors have a place to park their cars in the area, improve lighting and add more police.
This relatively unprecedented focus on the tomb of Simon the Just - and the argument that there are core Jewish religious/historic equities in the neighborhood - is suggestive of a shift in strategy by the settlers and the supporters in Sheikh Jarrah. With this shift, the focus appears to be moving from house-to-house conquest of the neighborhood by settlers, to wholesale conquest of the neighborhood by taking control of the public domain for the settlers' benefit - just as is taking place in Silwan and other areas of the Old City's historic basin. At the same time, the effort is also to shift the Israeli (and international Jewish) public perception from viewing Sheikh Jarrah as a Palestinian neighborhood of East Jerusalem to viewing the area as part of the vital core of Jewish historic Jerusalem.
Evidence that this strategy shift is indeed occurring came in the form of a February 18th report that the Jerusalem Municipality has taking over a plot of land in Sheikh Jarrah to provide parking for Sheikh Jarrah settlers and Jewish visitors to the area. The Municipality noted that "The lot will be designated as a public space" - demonstrating that like in Silwan, "public space" have become a pretext for taking over new land for the settlers. As if to underscore the similarity between what is happening now in Silwan and what is beginning to happen in Sheikh Jarrah, the municipality noted that it "recently built a parking lot in the neighborhood of Silwan in response to a request from the neighborhood committee."
Defenders of the parking plot project claim that the area lacks parking and that the new lot will benefit everyone - an argument that rings hollow given the non-interest the municipality has shown in developing infrastructure for Sheikh Jarrah residents for the past 42 years (i.e., before the settlers started to focus on the area).
Commenting on these developments, Jerusalem expert Daniel Seidemann observes: "The fact that Jerusalem is the epicenter of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is by now well-recognized. But that said, on occasion a single event or a limited geographical area come to encapsulate all of the elements of that conflict, illuminating them and resonating well beyond the mundane details of one neighborhood and the plight of a few families. By all indications, Sheikh Jarrah is becoming an arena which informs Israel-Palestine relations and shapes perceptions. Stabilizing events in Sheikh Jarrah is thus both a moral and a political imperative."
Email a friend
twitter
facebook
feed
Actually, there is no "hypocrisy" in letting Jews reclaim Jewish owned property in east Jerusalem (not forgetting that the current Arab owners are compensated), and NOT letting Arabs reclaim property inside the Green Line (pre-67 cease fire line). The reason is that THE ARABS STARTED THE WAR in 1947-8 that led to them becoming refugees and losing their property. This is exactly like the situation of the Sudeten Germans and Germans in Pomerania, East Prussia and Silesia. The Germans carried out aggresson against the states of Eastern Europe (USSR, Poland, Czechoslovaka, the Baltic States) with the aid of the local German civilian population and when they lost the war they were expelled (several million, far more than the number of Palestinian refugees). No one claims they have a right to return to claim their lost property, they started the war. Same with the Palestinians....the started the war and said openly it would be a war of genocide. Thank G-d they lost and they have to pay the price. Nothing to feel guilty about.
All of Jerusalem is holy to the Jewish people and to claim that parts aren't because currently there are Arabs living in proximity to the Jewish holy places is a distortion of history, and it is ONLY because of this history that Jews had the right to return to Eretz Israel and establish the Zionist movement in the first place.
Thank you Mr. Ben-David for conveying the vehemence of the Jewish right-wing's zero-sum logic in Jerusalem far better than I could have ever done (and if I have tried to do so, readers would assume I was exaggerating).
For people who want to know more about this ideological position and where (according to its adherents) it will lead, I recommend this remarkable video featuring Ateret Cohanim's Daniel Luria, in which Luria clearly and un-apologetically lays out the view that all of East Jerusalem should be Jewish, opposing the two-state solution, etc.
Although you characterize my position as being extremist, I don't really see how yours is much different. I don't see Peace Now demanding that Arab property lost in the 1948 War and now occupied by Jews within the Green Line be restored. Thus, you do accept my arguments about why the Arabs forfeited any right to these properties by their act of aggression in Israel's War of Independence. You, however, somehow think this stops at the Green Line, and that it is somehow 'immoral' for Jews to reclaim Jewish property that was lost after 1948 in Judea/Samaria (even though Arab residents are given compensation anyway). Who says the Green Line is holy? It was never recognized by anyone as a political boundary...certainly not the Palestinians who show their refusal to recognize it as a border by the insistence on Israel recognizing and implementing the so-called "Palestinian Right of Return" to WITHIN the Green Line. To them, the Jews living within the Green Line are "illegal settlers" no less than those in Sheikh Jarrah or the other settlements in Judea/Samaria. Tel Aviv University is sitting on land that belonged to the Arab village of Sheikh Munis whose former owners are probably in some Palestinian refugee camp today. If you are going to say it is wrong from Jews to live in Sheikh Jarrah, how can you say that TAU has a right to Sheikh Munis. Unless, of course, you agree with my view of Arab culpability in the 1948 War. If Jews have a right to live in Tel Aviv, they have a right to live in Judea/Samaria, and if they DON'T have a right to live in Judea/Samaria then they don't have a right to live in Tel Aviv. You can argue that "yes, Jews do have a theoretical right to live in Judea/Samaria, but for practical reasons, we should reach a compromise and divide the land". But there is no basis to argue, as many in Peace Now do, that the settlers are "immoral". That is simply hypocrisy.
Ah yes, the old settler canard "if you accept Jewish settlement inside the Green Line then you must accept Jewish settlement in the West Bank and East Jerusalem..." Or its more common mirror image "if you oppose Jewish settlement in the West Bank, you are de-legitimizing Israel's right to exist even inside the Green Line."
Sorry, but that feeble logic just doesn’t cut the mustard.
Whether you personally like it or not, the 1967 border –- including in Jerusalem -– is the internationally-recognized basis for what successive Israeli governments and the international community regard as the future border between Israel and a Palestinian state. Is it an arbitrary line? Certainly. But all borders are arbitrary -– reflecting the balance of power and the balance of interests between peoples and states.
There are extremists –- on both sides –- who would prefer to fight, in perpetuity if necessary, for maximalist goals. There are Palestinian extremists who argue that Israel has no right to exist, even inside the Green Line. And there are Jewish extremists who argue that the Jewish people have a God-given right to control every inch of the land between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea (and even far into Syria and Jordan), and who want to exercise that right, even if it means that Israel will cease to be either a Jewish state (since it will lack a Jewish majority) or a democratic state (since such an approach is predicated on the denial of equal rights to non-Jewish residents of the area).
Ironically, such Arab and Jewish extremists have a lot in common: they agree that there can be no middle ground, no gray area – for them it is a zero-sum game where only one side can be right and only one side can win. They believe in the absolutist pursuit of some nebulous idea of "rights" at the expense of all else.
Peace Now rejects these extremists. We believe, unapologetically, that Israel has a right to exist inside secure and recognized borders. We also believe, unapologetically, that Israel’s right to exist does not imply a concomitant "right" to the West Bank and East Jerusalem.
Happily enough, most Israelis (and Palestinians) agree – as demonstrated by polling that consistently shows majority support for the two-state solution (and by the fact that after 42 years of Israeli occupation, only a very small number of Israelis have elected to move into Palestinian neighborhoods of East Jerusalem, like Sheikh Jarrah, or into settlements in the West Bank heartland).
The fact is that the mainstream of both peoples is pragmatic – men and women who are less interested in ideological, "rights"-based absolutism, and more interested in living their lives, raising their families, and ensuring a better future for their children. Most Israelis, like all of us associated with Peace Now, recognize that a peace agreement based on the 1967 border – an agreement that meets the minimal requirements of each side – is preferable to perpetual battle to achieve maximalist, absolutist ambitions.
There are IIRC something like 100,000 Jews living in what was east Jerusalem, i.e. across the Green Line. This is not a "few". If you mean that there aren't so many Jews in the middle of the so-called Arab neighborhoods of east Jerusalem, that is because of governmental restrictions. I am sure thousands of Jews would live in Shiloah-Silwan if there was enough housing. Same with Shimon HaTzadik-Sheikh Jarrah.
Regarding the claim that only a "few" Israelis moved into the heartland of Judea/Samaria, well, if by this you mean outside what is now the security fence, there are more than 80,000 Jews living there now. There are 300,000 Jews living in total in Judea/Samaria.
The Zionist movement recognized a "G-d given right to settle and control all the land between the Mediterranean and the Jordan River" and the world in turn recognized this with the Balfour Declaration and subsequent League of Nations Mandate given to Great Britain in 1922. The Zionist movement had plans and began to implement settlement throughout the whole country, including Gaza, Hevron, the Jordan Valley and other areas in Judea/Samaria and what is now the Gaza Strip. Yes, as a result of the War of Independence, Israel lost Judea/Samaria/Gaza, but why should this mean our RIGHTS to settle these areas be abrogated when they were recognized by the world before 1948? As I said, many Israeli would agree to give up these areas for peace, but the Palestinians have repeatedly rejected a compromise peace which would have given them almost all their territorial demands, offers made both by Barak at Taba in 2001 and Olmert in 2008. IT IS THE ARABS WHO HAVE MADE THE ARAB-ISRAELI CONFLICT A 'ZERO-SUM GAME'. I am sorry you don't like this, but this is the reality and I am glad to see that in the wake of the terrorist war that followed the Oslo Agreements, most Israelis now understand this. PEACE CAN ONLY COME BY ISRAEL BUILDING AND STRENGTHENING THE JUDEA/SAMARIA SETTLEMENTS because territorial withdrawals broadcast weakness to the Arabs and encourages the most extreme elements, as happened with HIZBULLAH in southern Lebanon after Barak's precipitous flight from there in 2000 and HAMAS taking control of Gaza after Sharon's destruction of Gush Katif and expulsion of the Jews from there. Building and strengthening the settlements shows Israel is serious and here to stay and will not be pushed out of the Middle East. Once a modus-vivendi and peaceful relations are established, then things like the political situation of the Palestinians can be dealt with in a spirit of good will without the Jews giving up their rights in all of Eretz Israel. Until that day comes, Jews must stand firm. There is no alternative. The 'peace process' as advocated by the Left has been a disaster for Israel AND the Arabs.
Mr. Ben-David -- I have no doubt that you care deeply about Israel - just as I do. And while I believe your views are deeply misguided and conflict directly with the best interests of Israel - and it is clear you feel the same about mine -- I do not expect to convince you that you are wrong.
I do thank you for engaging in this debate -- it is one that all people who care about Israel deserve to hear, so that they can make their own judgment.
For people who want to know more about APN's views when it comes to such arguments, please check out the "They Say, We Say" section of this website, and feel free to submit questions that we can respond to in that section.