Ian Kelly explained the State Dept. view on Jerusalem. He said, “We believe that the - that Jerusalem is a permanent status issue that must be resolved through negotiations between the two parties.” What Israel does, in building, demolishing, evicting from houses in eastern Jerusalem is “unilateral action.” It is “dismaying.”
[I find it dismaying that people think that Arab squatting on other people’s property is proper, and that evicting them so the property-owners can move in, is improper. I find it strange to object to demolition of houses built contrary to law, as those Arabs’ houses were. Is there supposed to be no law enforcement until a final status agreement?]
A reporter demanded that the State Dept. strongly condemn Israel, not just call their decision “dismaying.” One called for U.S. action, because, he said, Israel “blatantly” “ignored” the “wishes” of the U.S. envoy.
[Is the envoy’s wish Israel’s command? How arrogant! But you will see that the reporters who commented side with the Arabs.]
A reporter commented, “…soon it's not even going to be possible - there's not going to be any land left for the Palestinians to establish an independent state.”
[Doesn’t that reporter know that the Jewish communities in the Territories take up only about 5% of the land? They are not “expanding,” they are building only within existing municipal boundaries. PM Netanyahu has not approved any new building in the Territories. The reporter should acknowledge that. I think that simply gives Arab builders an advantage and it honors Abbas’ unreasonable demand for concessions in advance of negotiation..]
On the U.S. first asking for a complete freeze, then accepting Netanyahu’s 90% freeze, a reporter asked, wasn’t “the President turning his back on the promises he's made to the Palestinians?” Mr. Kelly said the President had not put it that way. [Again, arrogance in supposing that the elected President of the U.S. has the right to promise to a third party what Israel, who did not elect Obama, would do.]
A reported challenged the spokesman to cite any Arab unilateral actions. Mr. Kelly cited the move for statehood now. A reporter thought that is not as grievous as Jewish building (http://www.israelnationalnews.com/ Arutz-7, 11/17).
Fact is, Jewish building is permitted by Oslo, to which the PLO/P.A. agreed. If it were illegal, why didn’t the P.A. say so then? Does anyone ever hold the P.A. to its agreements? Fact is, Jewish building does not change the legal status of territory being negotiated. If it did, then what about the more extensive Arab building? Fact is, moving for statehood is exactly the kind of change in status that Oslo bars. Again, the reporter’s bias hindered his judgment.
(For more on Jerusalem, click here )
Comments