Washington issued another diplomatic protest over Israeli conduct in East Jerusalem on Monday, its second in as many weeks.
U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs Jeffrey Feltman summoned Michael Oren, Israel’s ambassador to Washington, to tell him that the United States views Sunday’s eviction of two Palestinian families from homes in East Jerusalem’s Sheikh Jarrah neighborhood as a “provocative” and “unacceptable” act that violates Israel’s obligations under the road map peace plan.
Oren responded by saying that the buildings in question have been Jewish-owned since before Israel’s founding, and that a court ordered the families’ evictions because they had violated the terms of their leases.
U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton also denounced the evictions publicly on Monday, terming them “deeply regrettable” during a joint press conference in Washington with Jordanian Foreign Minister Nasser Judeh. She said the evictions violated Israel’s commitments under the road map and would impede progress toward peace, adding that the United States would not recognize any unilateral changes to the status quo in Jerusalem.
Two weeks ago, Oren received a similar American protest over a plan to build 20 apartments for Jews in the Shepherd Hotel compound in Sheikh Jarrah. That protest prompted Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to retort that Israel would never accept Jews being denied the right to live anywhere in Jerusalem.
Shortly before Oren was summoned by Feltman on Monday, Israeli Ambassador to Sweden Benny Dagan was summoned to that country’s foreign ministry for a similar rebuke. Swedish officials told Dagan that they did not understand the timing of the evictions, nor do they accept the legal arguments behind the move. Sweden currently holds the European Union’s rotating presidency.
Dagan counterattacked, saying that Israel was “extremely frustrated with Sweden’s conduct” as president of the EU. Israel, he said, has taken steps to make life easier for West Bank Palestinians, while the Palestinians have merely entrenched themselves in their hard-line positions, and the EU has done nothing to help.
The Swedes rejected these claims, noting there is “no difference” between Sweden’s positions on the peace process and Washington’s.
Foreign Ministry Director General Rafi Barak responded by summoning the Swedish ambassador for talks, during which he told her that Jerusalem considers Stockholm’s criticisms of Israel, since assuming the EU presidency, to be excessive.
The Forward welcomes reader comments in order to promote thoughtful discussion on issues of importance to the Jewish community. In the interest of maintaining a civil forum, the Forward requires that all commenters be appropriately respectful toward our writers, other commenters and the subjects of the articles. Vigorous debate and reasoned critique are welcome; name-calling and personal invective are not. While we generally do not seek to edit or actively moderate comments, the Forward reserves the right to remove comments for any reason.
Copyright © 2013, Forward Association, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Cleveland Kidnapping, Elizabeth Smart and Us
Ethical Kosher Seal Stalls Amid Orthodox Opposition
Rama Burshtein Offers Rare Glimpse of Orthodox World
'War' With Ultra-Orthodox at Kotel? Bring It On
What We Can Learn From Mel Brooks About Racism
You've successfully signed up!
Does any (non-Jew-hating) American Jew have any remaining doubt that the Obama is the most virulently anti-Israel president in history? Obama is intent on attacking Israel by continuing to outrageously claim that Jerusalem is a "settlement".
By the way: These were legal evictions adjudicated by the (leftist) Israeli Supreme Court, which ruled in favor of the Jewish families who claimed ownership. The families had maintained that the homes were owned by Jews dating back to the late 19th century, and were evicted during a spate of Arab attacks in the area in the 1920s and '30s. The (Obama/Clinton) State Department did not reply to Oren’s statement that the homes are in fact owned by Jews.
Obama's extending his attacks on Israel by attacking Israel's judiciary appears to be part of his administration's broad based diplomatic and political war against Israel. Jews are understandably alarmed by the outlandish attacks. They realistically fear for the safety of Israel, particularly since Obama seems intent on not preventing Iran from getting nukes. When he ran for president Obama lied to American Jews. American Jews need to wake up, and stand up for Israel.
(The barrage of Obama's attacks on Israel continue: Now he is honoring with the "Presidential Medal of Freedom" (America's highest civilian honor) two despicable characters, Mary Robinson and Desmond Tutu, both virulent Israel-bashing anti-Semites. The ADL and the ZOA have spoken up, and we shall see who else "pushes-back" on this new assault. But I'd bet dollars to donuts you won't hear a peep of protest against it from J Street and the Forward; if anything, they will defend it.)
What is your first loyalty, Frank -- to America, or to the Netanyahu government of Israel?
If your first loyalty is to Israel, why don't you move to Israel?
Obama is our President, and I support him on this.
P.S. This silly and irrelevant comment by "Rabbi Tony Jutner" is a hoax by somebody posting under a false name. The Forward staff should delete it.
President Obama is Israel’s best hope for peace with the Palestinians and with the rest of Israel’s neighboring states and for growing prosperity and strengthened democratic institutions.
Israel has agreed to and signed the U.N. charter and the Geneva Conventions. In both documents, the signers: forswear acquiring territory by force of arms, agree to protect the welfare of civilians in foreign territories under their control, and promise to provide equal rights to all of their citizens. Israel has systematically violated every one of these solemn undertakings and most of Israel’s own laws.
The community of nations has lost patience with Israel, and, if Israel doesn’t soon enter into forthright peace negotiations, the international community will set the terms of a peace and enforce them.
Everyone who is genuinely concerned with the fate of Israel and of the Israelis will do whatever they can to curb Israel’s persecution of the Palestinians and to bring Israel to the negotiating table without preconditions.
What happened on Sunday in East Jerusalem, as well as the shooting at the Gay Center the night before, is a symptom of the national spiritual sickness of the Jewish Nation. Let's hope we all use the opportuinities presented by the upcoming Yamim Noraim wisely and get back on track.
Joel, if the Arab families were tenants of apartment buildings they did not own, as this article suggests, then there is no basis for rejecting the right of the landowner to evict them. Your invocation of the "community of nations" and what it will do is so much grandstanding. The "community of nations" sought to outlaw war after World War One (the Kellogg-Briand pact), and that didn't work. The idea that "the international community" can dictate a peace in the region is absurd; no one would be willing to commit the troops. Moreover, it would itself be a move contrary to international law, since the sovereign right of states to conduct their own policy is to be respected. Finally, to oppose "the international community" to Israel is to set up a false opposition, because the nation of Israel is one among the international community, a part of it, rather than a nation set apart. Finally, I wonder who persecutes whom: the nation that sets up roadblocks to check Palestinians, or the nation that blows up Tel Aviv buses to kill Israelis? The Jews have a right to live in Israel.
Israel, led by that yahoo, have no desire for peace in the entire middle east region, since stabilization would interfere with their plans for a "greater Israel."
It's not clear who owns the land. Both the Jews and the Arabs have Turkish papers which they claim gives them ownership http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0804/p06s12-wome.html
Brad said that international law gives states the right to conduct their own policy, which should apply in this case. This is wrong for many reasons.
First of all, under international law, East Jerusalem is occupied territory, and the Geneva Convention, which Israel signed, prohibits a state from sending its own citizens to settle occupied territory.
Furthermore, the Geneva Convention prohibits the local courts from making ownership decisions, as the CSM article points out.
Finally, even if it were legal, evicting Palestinians who have lived there for 50 years is a deliberate effort to destroy the peace process, which is the real issue.
The Geneva Conventions were written after World War II, with the example in mind of the Nazi confiscations of Jewish and other property, for the specific purpose of preventing it from happening again.
We can't ignore laws that were written to protect Jews, in order to allow settlers to conduct ethnic cleansing of Palestinians.
When I first heard about this, I immediately thought of Sophiatown, a black suburb of Johannesburg whose residents were cleared out in mass by the government of South African PM J.G. Strijdom in the 1950's. The defenders of this action should think very carefully about the implications of what are essentially forced removals of population groups.
Turkish documents prove Arabs own E. Jerusalem building Haaretz 19/03/2009 By Nir Hasson, Haaretz Correspondent
A document recently uncovered in Ottoman archives in Ankara confirms that Palestinians are the owners of disputed land and houses in East Jerusalem.
If an Israeli court accepts the document's validity, Palestinian families' could be saved from eviction from their homes.
Turkish officials recently helped to trace the document which could end a 30-year-old dispute over the ownership of around 30 buildings in the Sheikh Jarrah neighborhood.
(continued) http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1072208.html
It's not clear who owns the land. Both the Jews and the Arabs have Turkish papers which they claim gives them ownership http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0804/p06s12-wome.html
Brad said that international law gives states the right to conduct their own policy, which should apply in this case. This is wrong for many reasons.
First of all, under international law, East Jerusalem is occupied territory, and the Geneva Convention, which Israel signed, prohibits a state from sending its own citizens to settle occupied territory.
Furthermore, the Geneva Convention prohibits the local courts from making ownership decisions, as the CSM article points out.
Finally, even if it were legal, evicting Palestinians who have lived there for 50 years is a deliberate effort to destroy the peace process, which is the real issue.
The Geneva Conventions were written after World War II, with the example in mind of the Nazi confiscations of Jewish and other property, for the specific purpose of preventing it from happening again.
We can't ignore laws that were written to protect Jews, in order to allow settlers to conduct ethnic cleansing of Palestinians.