President Obama vs. Israel - Ramat Shlomo
Posted by Chris McKinny | Posted in Google Earth , Modern Israel | Posted on 3:09 AM
6
Normally I steer clear of political discussion on this blog. Main reason being I don't find typical political discussion to be all that interesting (many long hours listening to talk radio on the tractor attributed to my apathy on the matter), which means I rarely follow the debates because I try to form my opinion and then just stay out of it. However, the recent Obama vs. Netanyahu debate over Jerusalem "settlements" has tickled my interest in a great way.
In short the Biden and Clinton chiding of Israel on the matter is utterly pathetic all you have to do is look at a map. Their arguments against Israel's building project in Ramat Shlomo in no way reflects the facts on the ground. Ramat Shlomo was founded after the 1967 6-Day War in which Israel re-unified West Jerusalem (Israel) with East Jerusalem (Jordan) and laid claim. The "settlement" was built in an attempt to protect Israeli control of the land they had just conquered (by the way they conquered it after they were attacked). Since 1967 Ramat Shlomo has grown substantially along with a number of suburbs along both in Jerusalem's municipality and along its periphery. More than that Ramat Shlomo is directly connected to Jerusalem proper there is no division between it and the rest of Jerusalem, no boundary, no dividing marker, no Arab village dividing it - the "wall of separation" runs well north of the site of Ramat Shlomo. Perhaps most ludicrous of all is the building projects themselves - Ramat Shlomo sits on a hill all by itself - no building within Ramat Shlomo will affect the nearby Arab village there is a clear distinction in land between the two.
Posts
with respect, you should follow your instincts and stay away from politics. Clearly, you either have an incomplete knowledge of history, or are unable to look past your own nationalism and prejudice.
Richard,
Thanks for the comment. I don't mind being criticized I want to be balanced and historically accurate especially regarding this hot-topic issue - so could you please show me how I am wrong? Like I said I don't mind being corrected, but I do mind correction without basis. In other words why is opposing the "settlement" of Ramat Shlomo wrong?
Thanks,
Chris
Chris,
I would like to elaborate on what I said. I'm sorry for not providing reasons in my first post, I thought you would not be interested in different points of view. You have shown me to be wrong there.
I think where we differ in opinion is that you believe that Israel are fully justified in laying claim to land since "they were attacked first". Others would argue that Israeli response to attack is completely out of proportion, and targets the wrong people. If several people attack your country, is it right to destroy several hundred random homes? Much of Israel's territory is annexed in this way.
Also, you seem to suggest that peace talks are historically one-sided. It's not very clear what you mean, do you mean one-sided in favour of Palestine?
Although I disagree with you on these issues I value your opinion and hope we can help each other understand this situation better.
Thanks
Rich
Rich,
I am always open to discuss any issue I post on this blog - hopefully in a reasonable way. On this issue in particular there are so many people on both sides of the issue who are unreasonable in their discussion of the facts. So thank you for your candor and openness in discussing this complicated, heated issue.
Personally, this is a major issue that I wrestle with. On the one hand there are nut-job Left-Behinders who want to justify everything that Israel does in a warped attempt to somehow bring about Israel's eschatological fulfillment. On the other hand there are left-wing Israel-bashers (i.e. NY Times, the European Union, and some rabid Covenant Theology types) who refuse to actually study the events themselves and come up with a logical judgment of right and wrong regarding Israel vs. Palestine. It is my deep desire to be balanced on this issue.
In my estimation Israel's morality or culpability should be judged not through the lens of future eschatological fulfillment (i.e. they get a free pass because pre-millenialists believe that they will redeemed on the last day - a truth that I hold to by the way), but through the lens and mechanism of Biblical justice and historical rule of law (i.e. proper wartime etiquette as recognized by a historical understanding of what is within the moral parameters of conquering armies).
In all actuality the "territories" debate - as in displaced Palestinians (i.e. refugees)or Israeli held West Bank territories - does not really begin until the early 1970s with the rise of the PLO. Up until then the Palestinian people (an anachronistic term - since they were not called this until the 1970s - up until then it was quite possible and politically correct to refer to a "Palestinian Jew" or a "Palestinian Arab" - it was a locative term not an ethnic one.) Of course this is due to the fact that Palestinian refugees lived completely outside of the borders of pre-1967 Israel - living in Jordan (Jericho predominantly) and in Egypt (Gaza Strip). No one spoke of Palestinian sovereignty and rights and Jordanian or Egyptian immorality before the 1970s.
So then a short recounting of the events of the 6-Day War are in order.
Egypt closes the straits of Tiran (Israel's only Indian Ocean access point) and starts accumulating troops along the Sinai border.
Israel sees this as an act of war - and attacks Israel which prompts Syria to attack in the North.
As Israel is taking care of Egypt and Syria - taking all of the Sinai Peninsula and Golan Heights (would these be disproportionate?) Jordan, after the expressed warning of Israel not to attack (basically saying you leave us alone and we will leave you alone), attacks from the West Bank in turn Jordan also loses the entire West Bank and Jerusalem. From the end of the war onward Israel begins to build border settlements around Jerusalem in order to re-unify and protect its capital. Sites like Gilo and Ramat Shlomo all around the periphery of Jerusalem - in full expectation that another war was looming (they were right it happened in 1973). Since then Egypt and Jordan have made peace with Israel - in the case of Egypt they received the Sinai back (but not the Gaza Strip) and in the case of Jordan they received nothing back - thus creating a territory of land (the West Bank) without a prior owner and under control of its conquerors Israel. This then becomes the beginning of the conflict between a newly "self-aware" people, the Palestinians, and Israel - a new problem all together.
My questions to you then are - how was Israel's attack completely out of proportion? They were attacked they conquered - new problems arose. I am really not certain what you mean by Israel's out of proportion attacks if you are talking about the major wars (1948, 1967, or 1973) none of these wars were directed at the local Arabs save perhaps the first one which was instigated by the local Arabs after rejecting the U.N. partition that gave them all of the West Bank.
As far as peace talks being one-sided I am referring to the complete and utter unreasonableness on the part of the Palestinians to make concessions. It has characterized their policy for the last 80 years. As far back as the 1930s they rejected Israel's right to have a homeland in Israel, in 1948 they along with all the Arab nations rejected and voted against partition, continual almost complete Arab rejection of Israel's right to exist (save Egypt in the 1970s and Jordan in 1994), and most of all the fact that the agreements that have been agreed upon by both sides have been completely ignored by the Palestinian side (OSLO Accords - ceasefire of terrorist activities).
Now I am not saying that I give Israel a blanket pass - certainly they have missed the mark on a number of issues - the Deir Yassin massacre being the most egregious. And there are a number of isolated events in which they have acted immorally with regards to the Palestinian refugees. However, based on my study of the issues I can say that Israel for the most part has been in the right despite almost universal criticism against them.
Sorry for the length - although much, much more can be said regarding the issue.
Blessings,
Chris
Just came across this post. Kudo's to Chris. Very reasonable, educated points. Long on common sense and short on politics. It is interesting, that the people who today push post nationalism, open boarders, open marriages and open minds can't seem to bring themselves to apply the same ideas to the Palestinians. They were offered 95% or what they wanted. Take it and move on. All this blood over 5% of the land? Most of the land being argued about is totally desolate and isolated. Also, there sould be a cost to murdering people and starting wars. Germany and Japan lost territory as a result of WWII. It is not unreasonable for the Arabs to suffer a loss of land as a result of the blood and bombings. Additionaly, what is interesting is apparently most Arabs in the Jerusalem area want to move to the Israel side of the wall.