Israel/Palestine
Related: About this forumE1 is a mountain…not a statement
It’s all about a mountain that sits between Ma’aleh Adumim and Jerusalem between the city where I work and the home that I have made with my husband and children. YNET incorrectly claims that Israel building on E1 threatens to “bisect” the West Bank. I can’t help but wonder why they never took the three-minute drive out of Jerusalem to realize that was just nonsense.....
No, no, no – what we have is a mountain – not a very tall one, smaller even than the ones next to it on three sides. That’s all E1 is – a mountain. It is barren, but for a road that snakes its way up to a midpoint where a large police station has been built. No one lives there – no one has. Some trees, a lot of rocks, a traffic circle at the base – that’s all......
The history of E1 is very simple. It is but a mountain that lies between Ma’aleh Adumim and Jerusalem. Arabs regularly travel on the highway between Ma’aleh Adumim and the Dead Sea – the highway remains. There is no bisecting, no blocking, no break in the passage. If you took the time to see the land, you would understand nothing because there is nothing there to understand. It is not an obstacle to peace. It is just a mountain, soon to be green and developed.
As for the countries of the world who say Israel threatens the peace – where were you two weeks ago when I ran with my children to our bomb shelter? Why did my son have to leave his wife to protect Israel’s south from a thousand rockets? That is what the world should be screaming about – three million Israelis coming under attack. Instead, they reward the Palestinians with a vote in the United Nations and threaten Israel with sanctions.
http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/e1-is-a-mountain-not-a-statement/
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
shira
(30,109 posts)I picked him up at his hotel but before we drove to Mamilla, I had an idea. “Let’s do a little tour of Jerusalem,” I said. “I want to show you some things so you will understand a little more about my city.”
I drove him to my home in Pisgat Ze’ev. It is a quick drive in the middle of the day, a few minutes down Road Number One. As we drove through the French Hill junction, I showed him the plaques on the wall with the names of the victims killed in terrorist attacks there and shared with him what it was like having to drive through this junction every morning, never knowing if you were going to get through in one piece or not. I shared the story of the border policeman who had been killed protecting the hitchhiking point – stopping the suicide bomber with his body, saving the lives of many.
We drove on in silence for a few minutes until we crossed over the bridge and arrived in Pisgat Ze’ev. I pointed out the archaeological site from the Second Temple period at one end of my road and at the other end; I stopped the car and we got out and looked at the enormous concrete barrier on the other side of the wadi that separates my suburb from the village of Shuafat. I told him how the rates of car theft had gone down nearly 80 percent since it had been built and the feeling of security it gave us. I also explained that the barrier was not yet complete, as there was an appeal against it in Israel’s courts. I showed him the schools and shops and told him about the thriving, mixed community that calls this place its home: ultra-orthodox Jews, new immigrants, national religious Jews, Arabs, people like me…, we have everything here.
We returned to the car and I told him to look at the clock and remember the exact time. I stepped on the gas and headed south. Two minutes later, we passed the Zeitim junction, “We just left Jerusalem,” I informed him, “watch the clock.” Two more minutes passed; we admired the desert landscape; saw a shepherd with his herd of bedraggled goats. I stepped on the gas a little. “And now, we are in Ma’ale Adumim,” I announced as we drove up the hill to the checkpoint and the entrance to the city with its beautiful flower beds and tall palm trees swaying in the cool winter breeze. “We just passed through E1.” I said, somewhat triumphantly. “That’s it!”
He looked frankly shocked. “But we just left Jerusalem a few minutes ago,” he uttered. “Four minutes exactly,” I replied. “And I didn’t even go over the speed limit!” “And that was E1?” he asked incredulously. “Yes,” I answered. “That is E1 and now you are in the biggest ‘settlement’ in the West Bank. Now you know what all the fuss is about and next time they talk about E1 you can say that you have been there and that you saw the goats.” “But it is so close, and this looks just like a normal town,” he continued, “No one ever showed me this before.” “I know,” I replied. “Now let’s go to Mamilla and get a present for your wife, it’s only about 10 minutes away.” And off we went to the other world of luxury shops and good restaurants with the best view of the ancient walls of my beloved city, just a short drive away.
shaayecanaan
(6,068 posts)
The main impact of E1 is that it threatens the contiguity of any Palestinian state that would need to incorporate the main populations of Palestinians in Arab East Jerusalem.
It would be impossible to implement the Geneva Accord in its present state if E1 were to remain in Israeli hands. Geneva calls for a limited annexation of Maale Adumim to Israel, essentially endorsing the balloon and strings approach that the Palestinians advocated at Taba, and which would enable both the north and south of Arab East Jerusalem to remain connected by tunnels and so forth.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)You don't usually see the phrase "Israeli colony" in most sources.
What "Israeli plans" is it referencing?
Can you provide the original source link?
shaayecanaan
(6,068 posts)is the right mouse button. You can right click on any given image and find out exactly from whence it is being linked.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)I don't have a mouse and I only have one button on my track pad.
Could you just identify the name of the site?
I wonder if maybe there isn't a reason why you haven't.
Also, the follow up question: do you know what is meant by "Israeli plans" - how would the folks at that site you haven't identified know what Israel's plans are with respect to the future of Jerusalem?
shira
(30,109 posts)oberliner
(58,724 posts)Not sure why the other poster was so keen on hiding this.
They seem to do a lot of good work.
shaayecanaan
(6,068 posts)merely giving you the tools to find out for yourself.
I am sure that it is possible to find out the url for an image, even on an Apple.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)If you weren't, the exchange might have looked like this:
What website did that first photo come from?
Oh it came from "name of site" website. They do very good work.
Great, thanks, I'll check them out!
But instead you talked about mouses and right-clicking.
shaayecanaan
(6,068 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Plus, it would amount to a formal annexation of East Jerusalem.
At its core, it's a land grab by a colonialist state.
shira
(30,109 posts)Last edited Fri Dec 7, 2012, 04:06 AM - Edit history (1)
They're from people who don't know what the hell they're talking about.
Or from propagandists who know better, choosing to portray all Israelis as racists, warmongers, etc...
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)were sealed off to traffic?
shira
(30,109 posts)...to traffic for one reason or another.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)shira
(30,109 posts)http://www.jpost.com/DiplomacyAndPolitics/Article.aspx?id=294335
Time for some manufactured outrage over something else. There has to be something out there.
But I was going to say there'd have to be a way, in any settlement, for Israelis to get to Maale Adumim and back, and also for Palestinians to be able to go back and forth from Bethlehem to Ramallah. Tunnel, highway, bridge, whatever.
If the Israelis take E1 altogether, Israel would allow for such a commute. If Palestine takes E1, all bets are off. It'd be miraculous if either the PLO, Hamas, or Islamic Jihad allowed any Jews access to holy sites in Jerusalem, let alone safe passage through E1. Better that Israel has it than the other way.
shaayecanaan
(6,068 posts)The Geneva accord calls for E1 to be returned to the Palestinians.
shira
(30,109 posts)In fact, out of all the opposition here (those most hostile to Israel) I'm not aware of any 2 state solution they're supportive of. AFAIK, you're all for the PLO or PFLP version of 1-state, which makes all your criticism of Israel suspect; IOW, it's not that Israel must do better. They can do nothing that will change your opinion of them, short of surrender and national suicide.
========
But back to your question:
Olmert's plan called for Israel taking E1. The Geneva Accord folks thought highly of his plan, saying it was similar to their own. They very publicly applauded Olmert's efforts.
shaayecanaan
(6,068 posts)on the other hand, you have just written a post saying that you believe that E1 should remain in Israeli hands.
Therefore, you do not support a territorial compromise along the lines of the Geneva accord.
The peace plan with the most similarity to Geneva is the one that Mahmoud Abbas offered to Olmert in 2008, and has been offering ever since. The following graphic shows the outstanding differences between Abbas' and Olmert's offer:-
For reference, here is the Geneva Map on the right, with Olmert's map on the left again:-
Abbas map is quite similar to Geneva, with the exception of Maale Adumim and the narrow band of territory extending south from Qalqiliya. Certainly Abbas proposal is more similar than Olmert's.
The Geneva Accord website also contains various endorsements of Abbas' peace offer.
http://www.geneva-accord.org/mainmenu/what-the-document-leaks-reveal-about-the-relevance-of-geneva
oberliner
(58,724 posts)shaayecanaan
(6,068 posts)Funnily enough, when I made my own peace plan it ended up being very similar to the Geneva Accord.
shira
(30,109 posts)Last edited Mon Dec 10, 2012, 08:37 PM - Edit history (1)
Part of the offer was a special road to Palestinians connecting Bethlehem to Ramallah.
http://www.aljazeera.com/palestinepapers/2011/01/2011122114239940577.html
This is also confirmed through Israeli sources, but I thought you'd appreciate that particular link. 
I'll remind you once again that the Geneva folks applauded Olmert's offer and stated quite clearly it was similar to their own offer. What you will NOT find is them stating, as you do, that Abbas' positions were closer.
You're wrong.
shaayecanaan
(6,068 posts)If you consider that E1 must remain in Israeli hands for "security reasons", then you oppose the Geneva Accord, at least as far as E1 is concerned.
As for the differences, Olmert's offer is on the left, and Geneva is on the right.
You don't have to look very closely to realise that there are profound differences between the two.
shira
(30,109 posts)...to not only applaud his efforts but also state quite clearly his proposal was similar to their own. So Olmert offered something similar to Geneva. That's not an outright rejection of it.
And that map you posted doesn't show Olmert's offer. I don't know why you thought it did. It's the separation barrier route vs. the Geneva Accord route:
http://peacenow.org.il/eng/content/west-bank-“settlement-blocs”
Personally speaking, I don't care if it's the Clinton Parameters, Olmert's offer, or Geneva. All 3 are different. I support all 3 for peace. The Palestinians can have their choice between the 3.
shaayecanaan
(6,068 posts)I think the only place that remark appears is in a copy of an email you have produced. In any event, on the comparison of the maps Geneva and Olmert's map are not very similar.
The separation barrier and Olmert's map are almost exactly identical, so the comparison is still valid. They only differ in very minor aspects near Salit, Maale Adumim. In the below map, the separation barrier is the dotted line and Olmert's offer the solid grey line:-
oberliner
(58,724 posts)Caterpillar sheds his skin to find the butterfly within.
shaayecanaan
(6,068 posts)plenty of undeveloped land to the west of Jerusalem:-
http://maps.google.com.au/maps?q=31.778088,35.130787&num=1&t=k&vpsrc=6&ie=UTF8&z=12
you have to wonder why the Israelis are so keen on building in the 22% of historical Palestine thats not theirs, rather than the 78% of Palestine that they already have.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)What might the motivation be?
I would note that large numbers of Israelis are not at all keen on settlements (although what they call settlements and what you call settlements may not be the same thing).
kayecy
(1,417 posts)Could we be clear on your position oberliner......Where exactly in your opinion should the final border between Israel and the putative Palestine state lie?...
How much of the West Bank beyond the Green Line should be allocated to the new Palestine state and how much of Israel west of the Green Line be given in compensation?
oberliner
(58,724 posts)I have repeated this on numerous occasions over the years.
I wish that that proposal would get more traction.
http://www.geneva-accord.org/
kayecy
(1,417 posts)Thank you............That makes things clear.......Not very likely whilst Likud and Netanyahu are in power but I now see where you are coming from.
shaayecanaan
(6,068 posts)I think that that particular poster does in fact support a peace proposal along the lines of Geneva, unlike others who claim to support it, except when they don't.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)Yes, I do support it. Have worked for it over in "the real world" and have, in fact, donated significant time, money, and energy towards promoting it to anyone who will listen. Sadly, those efforts have not been particularly fruitful.
I would encourage anyone reading this to consider making a donation themselves if it is something that sounds worthwhile:
http://www.geneva-accord.org/component/option,com_dtdonate/Itemid,286/index.php?option=com_dtdonate&task=pre_paypal&Itemid=286
If you don't know anything about the initiative, you can start here:
http://www.geneva-accord.org/mainmenu/summary
shaayecanaan
(6,068 posts)It is a pity that the two sides are fighting over such pissy little bits of territory, although for the 7-odd million Palestinian residents and refugees, that pissy little patch of land is all that they have.
I might throw the Geneva people a few bones, although to be perfectly honest, at times like these it does feel like a lost cause.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)They need all the help they can get.
Though I agree, in the current climate, an agreement seems a distant and remote possibility to say the least.
Elections, though, could go a long way to change that.
Let's hope both Israelis and Palestinians go to the polls in 2013 and elect leaders who are willing to compromise in the name of peace.
shira
(30,109 posts)
sabbat hunter
(6,829 posts)almost all of the west bank except for Jerusalem (west jerusalem, old city and immediate environs of old city remain in Israeli hands), go to Palestine.
Why you may ask?
Well under no partition plan was Jerusalem supposed to have been part of Palestine. Let the religious sites have status quo ie controlled by heads of the various religions, but under political and military control of Israel.
You may say "Well Jerusalem wasn't supposed to be part of Israel either" That is true, but the UN long ago failed in its duty to keep Jerusalem an international city open to all and thus its and right to control the city.
So I see no reason why the old city should go to Palestine.
My view of what the city limits of Jerusalem should be are closer to Olmert's plan but not entirely.
Finally any land on the West bank that remains in Israeli hands will be compensated with lands that are part of Israel going to Palestine.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)kind of a clever answer though
kayecy
(1,417 posts)Now here is where we differ..........Any peace deal that is going to stick has to have both sides thinking it is fair.......Forget compensation and East Jerusalem, it will all come out in the wash if the parties start from the Green Line.
At the moment, Israel holds all the cards and thinks it is being generous by occasionally giving the Palestinians one card without demanding an equivalent concession.
That is no recipe for a deal which could stick. The parties should agree at the start of negotiations that the Green line is the default position......No deal and the Green Line becomes the permanent two-state border.
I believe Obama was right in Egypt......The warring parties should start off on the basis of the Green Line. If Israel insists on keeping some of its settlements, it has to offer the Palestinians something they can't refuse......If the Palestinians want a corridor to Gaza they have to offer the Israeli's something the Israelis want.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)No Donovan fans?
Iggy
(1,418 posts)Let's stop the baloney please.
If E1 is settled as projected, it drives a permanent wedge geographically, and thus makes impossible the two state solution.