Jerusalem is ours, warns Likud
Whenever there are any proposed peace talks concerning the Middle East, one can always rely on Benjamin Netanyahu's Likud party to step up to the plate and say that it is opposed to what is currently on the table.
Olmert dropped hints recently that he was prepared to consider conceding parts of East Jerusalem to the Palestinians as part of any new deal which might come out of the Annapolis Conference. I have already pointed out that this deal isn't as great as it sounds as Olmert is actually proposing cutting East Jerusalem off from the rest of the West Bank and seizing the land in the E1 district which even the Americans have traditionally opposed Israel doing.
It's also worth bearing in mind that Olmert is only talking about those areas of East Jerusalem which the Israelis have not, so far, managed to wrench from Arab hands. They are under no circumstances talking about handing over the old city and the religious areas of East Jerusalem, which are the parts of East Jerusalem in which the Palestinians want to establish their capital.
Cabinet minister Avigdor Lieberman, head of the hawkish Yisrael Beitenu, made clear just how shitty the deal that Olmert is proposing is:
"Within this framework, we are willing to exchange refugee camps that are in the Jerusalem municipal boundaries," Lieberman told Israel Radio.So, despite the headlines applauding Olmert's unique act of generosity, the truth is that Olmert's offer is actually much less generous than we are being led to believe. Indeed, it is almost an insult.
He appears to be offering the Palestinians refugee camps as their new capital.
But even this calculated insult is too generous for Netenyahu and the Likud party.
Zalman Shoval, head of the foreign affairs department of Likud, said yesterday that the issue of Jerusalem should "not be on the table in any way" at the planned international conference in Annapolis, Maryland later in the year — the basis of which he sharply criticized.
Mr Shoval was speaking after a report in Haaretz that the party was pressing two right wing parties Shas and Yisrael Beiteinu to leave the governing coalition in response to Wednesday's remarks by Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert - interpreted as implying the city could be divided in any final deal with the Palestinians.
Shoval thinks it's far too generous even to offer the Palestinians the chance to establish their capital in refugee camps.
Mr Shoval, who was Israeli ambassador to the US at the time of the Madrid Middle East conference in 1991, said he had negotiated at the time an assurance from the then President George Bush senior that Jerusalem would not be on the conference's agenda. The same should apply to what he yesterday described to foreign reporters as the "Annapolis charade."
Mr Shoval—who quoted a Military Intelligence report claiming that the Palestinians would fail to carry out their commitments at the conference said that on Jerusalem Israeli sovereignty –including over the Temple Mount—known to Muslims as Haram al Sharif - were "non negotiable."
He said that could be achieved without Israel "taking charge" of Muslim holy sites. But he added: "Our approach today is that Jerusalem should not be on the table in Annapolis and that therefore we don’t want to go into details."
Now watch how this charade plays out. Olmert will go to Annapolis offering to give the Palestinians "East Jerusalem" as their capital, leading most observers to believe that he is talking about what we regard as East Jerusalem, meaning the old city. The noises emanating from Netanyahu and the other Likud nutcases will be held up as proof of how generous Olmert is being and how he has put his neck on the line in the pursuit of peace.
When the Palestinians inevitably, and completely understandably, refuse to accept that their new capital should be set up in refugee camps, this will be hailed as a further example of Palestinian obstinance and Israeli generosity.
The fact that the Israelis were merely offering refugee camps will be swept from the table and pro-Israelis supporters will say that the Palestinians were offered "East Jerusalem" and that they refused, choosing conflict over resolution and that, once again, poor little Israel is searching for "a partner in peace."
The Israelis have been playing this game for decades. It's simply tiresome.
Click title for full article.
No comments:
Post a Comment