reply to post by bodrul
it wasnt just a nice little stroll with body guards but a show
by the man to the palestinians that they would lose it to the Israelis.
and the Israel controls it
But Israel does control it. I know that a lot of people do not like, however it is the fact. Since 1967 Israel controls the area. Administration is in
the hands of Wakf. Control is Israeli.
And the "stroll" was there purely for inner Israeli political reasons. Barak just offered in camp David almost all Eastern Jerusalem to Arafat (that
said no). So as head of opposition Sharon was hoping to gain points in Israeli public that saw it as dangerous development.
Since Barak's suggestion is clouded by "secrecy" and people involved do not mention the details, it is hard for me to know what was about East
Jerusalem as capital. But from what i understand (Barak was heavily criticized by left wing politicians too for his "too generous" suggestion) he
offered max Israel could give. For a peace of paper by the way.
And to people who would jump out and say that it was all Palestinian before 1948 - it was not. There was no Palestinian nation then. There were people
living here, majority of them lost their property and became refugees which is awful. But they did not loose indepandance since they did not have it
in the first place, they did not loose capital city - because they did not have it too. So if Arafat was really working on creating an independent
Palestinian state - refusal because he could not make East Jerusalem a capital (even if it was condition) is simply ridiculous. Since it prevented
creation of state that he supposedly fought for. Unless it is all just part of "throw jews in the sea take 4".
As for my take on settlements - first it depends what you call settlements. There are a lot of definitions.
If it is 1967 war-end lines - then building behind those lines is problematic and creates serious issues for future generations. Should not be done,
is not positive and waste of money since at least some will have to be evicted in the final deal (if there will ever be one) and what will remain will
be turned into fortified enclaves that would draw violence.
If it is 1948 war-end lines - then i see no problem building there. There are millions of Israelis living behind those lines.
If it is UN partition plan lines - then there is surely no problem with it.
And since i feel that your question would be about me not protesting about government actions and 1967 settlements - i just want to tell you that i
also have my priorities. People who are pro-building there are not trying to execute "take 4". So i am more worried about other issues.
Thus i am not a member of "Peace Now" or similar organizations. Settlements are obstacle for a peace , but by far not the main ones. I live in
Jerusalem and more worried about getting Kassam'd if East Jerusalem would be in Palestinian hands then about what my own right wing nuts do.
Hope that my self-analising helped.