The New York Times reports Israel’s Plans for 2 Sites Stir Unrest in West Bank. The article is illustrated with a young man throwing a Molotov cocktail and begins:
Scores of Palestinians clashed with Israeli forces in the West Bank city of Hebron on Monday, a day after the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, announced plans to include two hotly contested sites — a Hebron shrine and a tomb in another West Bank city — on a list of Israeli national heritage sites.
The other shrine is Rachel’s Tomb. The only reason this is controversial is because the Palestinian Authority denies the historical connection between modern day Israel and Jewish history. As the still operative Palestinian National Charter declares.
Claims of historical or religious ties of Jews with Palestine are incompatible with the facts of history and the true conception of what constitutes statehood. Judaism, being a religion, is not an independent nationality.
Binyamin Netanyah has declared his support for two states and even the moderate Palestinian refuse to acknowledge the historical basis for a Jewish state, as the Times goes on.
But the announcement drew sharp criticism from Palestinian officials and the Fatah party, led by the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas.
Saeb Erekat, the chief Palestinian negotiator, said in a statement on Monday, “The unilateral decision to make Palestinian sites in Hebron and Bethlehem part of Israel shows there is no genuine partner for peace, but an occupying power intent on consolidating Palestinian lands.â€
He added that control over archaeological and tourist sites is “part of the continuing Israeli settlement enterprise.â€
But then there was a centuries old Jewish community in Hebron that lasted until 1929 when the Arabs there massacred and drove them out. So to call Hebron “occupied” by Israel is to legitimize the ethnic cleansing that took place there over 80 years ago.
But the Palestinians have someone else on their side of revisionist history.
In a statement on Monday, Robert H. Serry, the United Nations special coordinator for the Middle East peace process, said: “These sites are in occupied Palestinian territory and are of historical and religious significance not only to Judaism, but also to Islam, and to Christianity as well. I urge Israel not to take any steps on the ground which undermine trust or could prejudice negotiations.â€
By opposing the Jewish Heritage Plan, the UN isn’t merely sniping at Netanyahu. It is signaling its backing of a Palestinian and Muslim approach to the history of the land in which Judaism is systematically erased. If indeed Serry and the UN are actually interested in preserving these sites for members of all faiths to visit, rather than in merely chasing the Jews out of them, the only formula for their preservation lies in continued Israeli control.
But then the UN isn’t really interested in peace or Israel, just in pushing the Palestinian narrative no matter how much evidence is gathered to the contrary. (via memeorandum)
I continue to be amazed that Holocaust deniers, who deny 15 years of history are considered beyond the pale, but that Palestinians who deny 2000 years of Jewish history are partners for peace.
Crossposted on Soccer Dad.
re: Mr. Serry’s comments
I think most Christians would agree with me: we are not afraid of Israel controlling access to the sites. I would think at anyone with half a brain would understand that Christian access to the sites is better protected by the Israeli government than by leaving the sites in Palestinian hands.
Israel has always protected religious sites, whether Jewish or not. By contrast, before 1967, Egypt and Jordan denied Jews access to any Jewish holy sites under their control, while doing their best to desecrate said sites. How easily people forget.
I explained this before, Meryl. You are being unreasonable. When analyzing Israeli behavior anything that happened before breakfast is irrelevant, so killing or forcing out Jews from a place where they weren’t living anyway because they have no historical connection to the land is not pertinent.
As to the Arabs…Jewish tribes fought Mohammed in the seventh century so you can hardly blame them now for hating Jews.
Typical slanted coverage from the NY Times, which presupposses that Israel has no rights to the land.
The title itself implies that Israel’s plans is driving the violence, while denying the Palestinians false claims to the land has nothing to do with the unrest. Israel has bent over backwards in her attempt to bring peace to the area. Mr Tobin is correct that the UN only wants Israel to disappear. Even politicians who truly want peace are attempting to find a political solution to a religious problem.
@Alex Bensky
1. I’m guessing what you’re trying to say that Jews weren’t living in Hebron and had no historical claim to it. Or you could just be referring to Israel as a whole, it’s hard to tell. Either way the Jews were in Israel 2,000 years before Islam was founded.
2. You seem to be forgetting that the Jewish tribes were fighting Mohammed because he was trying to enslave and/or destroy them.
3. As such the only thing that’s irrelevant here is your argument.
Hm, there’s Ezekiel’s tomb in Iraq. Guess that makes Iraq occupied by the Zionists, doesn’t it?
They don’t even understand the dangers that they are putting themselves in when they dance with the like for these people. Money is not going to buy off the utter violence that is their religion. The NYT maybe an American news paper but they have an agenda that they think will make the ARABS and ME like them more, but if you ask the Sudenease, they will tell you, these people can’t be de programmed against violence. Not in one generation, maybe not in 2 or 3, but that could only happen if we admit that THEY have a problem. The NYT is deliberately debilitating US.
its ridiculous that christians and muslims are even given equal claims to jewish historical sites. these are jewish sites. christianity and islam may believe some of them are holy, but that does not make the sites belong to them, not even a little bit. do they have the right to pray there? yes. do they have any legitimate ownership claims over them? no. thats like muslims saying they have an equal claim to the church of the holy sepulchre because they also love jesus. or american neopagans trying to say they have an ownership claim on stonehenge because they practice some new form of druidry. its just beyond stupid. historical sites belong to the people-groups who built them. you can’t claim ownership over something that belongs to somebody else just because you have some attachment to it for whatever reason or other.
Radine, you might want to look into Alex’s other comments. He was being sarcastic. He’s a regular here, and, well, he’s usually sarcastic.
Heh, thanks Meryl. And sorry Alex. I feel pretty silly now.