White House Wrong to Criticize Israel for Building Apartments
The municipal government of Jerusalem this week approved the construction of 900 new apartments in the Jewish neighborhood of Gilo. After the 1967 war in which Arab states tried again to eliminate Israel, Israel was left in control of all of Jerusalem, including the area where Gilo now sits. (Note: The Washington Post misleadingly called the apartments “homes,” which conjures up an image of a huge swath of land dotted with 900 single-family houses and white picket fences when, in fact, the Gilo construction is much more limited in its footprint.)
Unfortunate for the Arabs, they tried to defeat Israel by war and lost. Usually, to the victor go the spoils, but not, it seems, when it comes to Israel and the Middle East. Instead, Israel is expected to give away its hard-won assets for empty promises and, if it’s lucky, cold peace.
Also unfortunate for the Arabs, the Israelis now have a government that understands the illogic of this approach and has no intention of yielding, to them or to the White House, the Jewish state’s right to build homes for Jews on land on which Jewish blood was lost while defending the state.
In the history of time, no authority over Jerusalem has ever guaranteed religious access as much as Israel has – a fact that objective observers cannot deny. Sure, once in a while, intelligence of planned unrest forces security closures. But there is no doubting that Arab authorities enjoy and exercise wide latitude in managing sites important to the Muslim faith. (In fact, unchecked Arab construction on the Temple Mount which threatens sensitive antiquities there suggests Arab authorities enjoy too much autonomy, but that’s a subject for a future article.)
The point is: sharing control over Jerusalem with the Arabs is unnecessary. They have 22 of their own Arab countries, including control of religious sites Mecca and Medina. Mentioned only as the “remote place” in their Koran, Jerusalem is of low religious significance, and Arab demands to control at least part of the city are baseless and unreasonable. The United States should join Israel in continuing to resist such demands in perpetuity.
Instead, Barak Obama’s White House has it all wrong. Spokesman Robert Gibbs said of the Jerusalem municipality’s decision to build in Gilo: “At a time when we are working to relaunch negotiations [between Israel and the Palestinians], these actions make it more difficult for our efforts to succeed.”
Israel’s actions make it “more difficult” because the White House allows them to, by giving Palestinians cover for refusing to negotiate.
Instead, Gibbs ought to have said: “Israel has announced plans to build new housing for Jews in Gilo in order to accommodate the natural growth of families who, understandably, need more space to live. Israel won the land in Gilo in a defensive war and, obviously, as a consequence, has an absolute right to build there….”
Gibbs would continue: “If the Arabs aspire to control parts of Jerusalem, they had better get their act together soon before their hoped-for piece of the pie shrinks any further. The Palestinians ought to come to the table, in good faith, ready to make substantive concessions to Israel in order to forge a lasting peace. Maybe then, Israel will voluntarily curtail construction. The Palestinians shouldn’t miss another opportunity.”
Israeli settlement and other housing construction for Jews is only a “problem” for the so-called “peace process” because the Arabs and the U.S. Government make it so. The fact of the matter is that robust Israeli construction, 1) demonstrates to the Palestinians that time is not on their side and 2) would hasten the pace of, and not obstruct, negotiations toward a final peace settlement if that really were the Palestinians’ ultimate goal.
Jess Sadick is Vice President of Operations and Policy at EMET.