Danny Seidman's Twitter account informs me that the Jerusalem municipality is expected to authorize the construction of more than 900 apartments in Gilo tomorrow. This can be expected to be portrayed as a Very Bad Thing, a new blow to the defunct peace process and so on. If past experience is a reliable guide Hillary Clinton will bemoan the decision, and her boss will ponitifacte that it's not helpful.
Danny himself is against such construction projects, and has helpfully posted a map showing where it is. Now compare his map, if you will, with the map of the same area as portrayed by the Geneva Initiative, in their series which suggests how to divide Jerusalem. Will it surprise anyone to learn that the construction project is within the area Israel is expected to retain in any case? I.e an area the Palestinians already ceded, according to the Palestine Papers? So what's the fuss about?
As for the project itself: it will create apartments for something like 5,000 people. Not enough to lower the rapidly rising prices of apartments in Jerusalem, but better than nothing. Ah, and if similar projects in other parts of town are anything to go by, some of the apartments will be bought by Palestinians from East Jerusalem.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
The liink to Danny's map doesn't seem to be working
T34
Fixed now?
Yes, thank you!
T34
" some of the apartments will be bought by Palestinians from East Jerusalem"
Mr Lozowik ,
They should be labelled Israelis and not "fakestinians"
Thanks
trumpeldor
Jews are not allowed to build and live in their own capital for reasons no intelligent person can fathom.
Let's call them anti-Semitism.
Of course they'll come up with plausible justifications for opposing new apartment construction in Jerusalem but the reality is its still bigotry.
And, as we've both pointed out before, the neighbourhood is inside the 1947 Partition Plan's "Corpus Separatum" and cannot be considered "Occupied Territory" in any sense, as not one square centimeter was ever allocated to a Palestinian state. It was, at best, disputed property whose ownership was to be determined by Jerusalem's residents. They've done that.
Morey
http://moreyaltman.blogspot.com/2009/12/jerusalem-jerusalem.html
NormanF,
The reasons are because those objecting are bigoted and hypocritical while reneging on international accords from the League of Nations through to UN's 242.
Is it possible that both Obama and the UN's Ban are ignorant of UNSC resolutions with regard to Israel?
Post a Comment