Jerusalem has just completed a light rail line which runs through the center or the city and connects it to Arab neighborhoods.
However, Jerusalem is finding it difficult to get all necessary approvals to a Master Plan for the development of a united Jerusalem. This plan allocates additional acreage for Arab housing to accommodate the expected increase of Arab residents for the next twenty years. Development is proceeding in the absence of the Master Plan.
Accordingly, Seidemann is totally wrong to write that “Israel displays little, if any, interest in genuinely incorporating the Palestinians into Israeli Jerusalem, while the Palestinians determinedly reject the legitimacy of Israeli governance over their lives.” On the first issue, that’s exactly what Israel wants and in the second issue, the Palestinians bowing to Palestinian Authority demands, don’t vote in municipal elections and thus have no say in the operation of the City. In fact much of the problem is that the PA has a policy of confrontation rather than cooperation. But that doesn’t stop them complaining about all the problems they have created.
Seidemann doesn’t really want Israel to “genuinely incorporate the Palestinians into Israeli Jerusalem” because that would ensure that Jerusalem remain the undivided capital of Israel -- just the opposite of what he wants.
He thinks that the opinion of the international community matters. Why so, if the solution is to be negotiated between Israel and the PA? The international community has no right to interfere in these negotiations. There is no obligation to compromise in the interest of making a deal. Both parties can accept the status quo rather than make painful compromises. In fact, it would appear that they have both chosen to do just that.
By and large, in Jerusalem, Arabs and Jews “lead separate lives,” as Seidemann notes. The Arabs in France, the U.K., Sweden, etc. also live separate lives. So what? That’s what they want. And in Israel, that’s what Jews want, too. Segregation, rather than integration, is the rule in the Middle East. The West shouldn’t be imposing its values on the people of the ME as if one size fits all.
Having said that, it is important to note that many areas of Jerusalem, both east and west of the ’67 lines, comprise integrated neighborhoods. And the rest of the areas east of the ’67 lines constitute a checkerboard, or communities that cannot be separated with a line. Jerusalem Arabs shop, work and go to school in Jerusalem. It is too late to redivide Jerusalem, and a re-division would not be in the best interests of the residents.
The Jerusalem Centre for Public Affairs (JCPA) published a report entitled “Jerusalem: The dangers of division, An alternate to Separation from Arab Neighbourhoods.” The dangers and complications in doing so are too numerous to paraphrase. Suffice it to say that separation is nonsensical.
Yes, Israel is isolated, but only because the world wants to impose its will on Israel. In Seidemann’s view, Israel should be governed by world opinion and not by its Knesset.
Leaving aside the nitty-gritty, Seidemann’s greatest concern is that Israel’s policies will make it impossible to divide Jerusalem, and that “means the end of the two-state solution, since Palestinians will never agree to a solution that does not include a capital in East Jerusalem.” Israel never agreed to divide Jerusalem, and the Arabs have no right to demand that it be divided. So if the two-state solution fails because of Arab insistence on having what’s not theirs, let it be on their heads.
No loss; the two-state solution was a bad idea to begin with. The land is far too small to accommodate two states. They would be in perpetual conflict. The status quo is one preferred alternative.
Seidemann ignores the fact that the Arabs are also insisting on their so-called right of return and ’67 borders, subject to swaps, and are refusing to acknowledge Israel as the state of the Jewish people -- all of which signals the end of the two-state solution. Not to mention that the Palestinians are refusing to negotiate anyway.
The truth of the matter is that the two-state solution was never to be. The Arabs never wanted a two-state solution. They did not want a state if that meant recognizing Israel as legitimate and as the state of the Jewish people. Neither the Oslo Accords nor the Roadmap promised them a state. At best, Israel was, and is, prepared to offer them limited sovereignty on part of Judea and Samaria, the details of which are to be negotiated.
Not only does Seidemann argue that Israeli policies prevent a two-state solution, but he asserts that “Israeli policies in East Jerusalem today threaten to transform the Israeli-Palestinian conflict from a bitter national conflict that can be resolved by means of territorial compromise, into the potential for a bloody, unsolvable religious war.” Where exactly has Seidemann been? For the last hundred years, this conflict has been “an unsolvable religious war.” There is nothing to suggest otherwise. Unfortunately, the left continues to cling to the idea that it is a territorial dispute.
Seidemann is detached from reality. The man argues that Israel “is also putting itself on a collision course with the forces of moderation in the Muslim and Christian worlds, who sense, with reason, that their equities are being marginalized in Jerusalem.”
What forces of moderation? He’s got to be kidding. What equities are being marginalized? Beats me.
The PA knows that time is running against them. If they want an independent state with parts of Jerusalem as its capital, they must return to the negotiating table immediately and make major concessions. This they will not do.
Meanwhile, Israel is planning for a united city with equal rights to Jews and Arabs. Now that’s something to encourage.