T. Belman. This plan was actually agreed to by Ramon and a Palestinian negotiator in 2008 as part of the Annapolis process. Haim Ramon recently wrote “How to save Jewish Jerusalem. In my preface to the article I wrote:
I see no benefit to Israel retaining these lands as part of Jerusalem. Of course these people work in Jerusalem and will have to be allowed in through check points to work. A barrier must be constructed separating the parts we don’t want from the parts we do want.
All sides slam a new plan calling to erect a fence and transfer civil control over the capital’s Arab neighborhoods to the Palestinian Authority.
Former minister Haim Ramon and the Peace and Security Association intend to present a new and unilateral plan for the division of Jerusalem this week. The plan is scheduled to be launched in a festive ceremony that includes the laying of what is supposed to be the symbolic cornerstone for the new fence that will divide Jerusalem and transfer most of its Arab neighborhoods to the Palestinian Authority.
Even before the plan’s official launch, it has drawn heavy criticism from both the Israeli right and left – and the Palestinians too.
The plan, which was written by Col. (res.) Shaul Arieli, is based on the principles of a one-sided separation of most of the Arab neighborhoods of the city and transferring them to the PA with the status of “Area B,” territory where the PA has full civil control and shares security responsibility with Israel.
The new border under the proposal wold leave the Old City and the “historic basin” – which includes large parts of the neighborhoods of Silwan, the Mount of Olives and other Arab neighborhoods – inside Israeli territory. The plan does not include removing settlers living inside Palestinian neighborhoods.
The sponsors of the plan speak of the need to protect “Jewish Jerusalem,” both demographically and also in security terms. The plan would gradually eliminate the residency rights inside Israel of the Palestinians from East Jerusalem, but they would still be allowed to continue to pass through the border fence and work in western Jerusalem. The crossing points and checkpoints that divide East and western Jerusalem today would remain open permanently, too.
The plan would require the Knesset changing the Basic Law on Jerusalem, which would require a special majority of 61 Knesset members to pass.
Even before the plan’s official launch later this week, it has become a target for serious attacks.
Adnan Ghaith, secretary of the Jerusalem branch of the Palestinian Fatah party and the head Tanzim in the city, said the plan will not receive the agreement of any official Palestinian body. If the agreement has “a state next to a state in the 1967 borders, then that is something different. But if it is in such a fashion, without al-Aqsa [mosque] and without Silwan, what does it give?” said Ghaith.
“The fact that the left offers it is even worse, it tells you there is no hope and when there is no hope we have seen what happens. No one can agree to such a thing, whoever agrees will be a collaborator,” he added.
Marik Shtern, a researcher at the Jerusalem Institute for Israel Studies, who recently wrote a study on Palestinian employment in the city, also rejects the proposal: “The Palestinians in the eastern part of the city view themselves as Jerusalemites and they are part of the urban framework, like Gilo and French Hill. The city of Jerusalem cannot exist today without the Arab population, and the ties woven here over the past 50 years are very hard to sever,” said Shtern.
Shtern estimates that at least half of the workforce in East Jerusalem, over 30,000 workers, are employed in the western half of the capital, or elsewhere in Israel. If the new fence makes it difficult for them to get to work, it will create a severe humanitarian crisis in East Jerusalem and a serious shortage of workers in entire industries in the city, such as hotels, industry, transportation, medicine and others, he said.
Ramon rejects the criticism. “To correct historic mistakes is always difficult,” he says. “The right objects to it because it wants a [unified] Jerusalem. The left objects because it worries about the Palestinians, and we will worry about what is good for Israel. It was a historic mistake to annex these neighborhoods of the city and we must correct this. The Palestinians who live there are not meant to be Israeli residents. They do not recognize our occupation, and it is also impossible not to recognize and to benefit from it. The basic law will be amended, the map will change and they will return to where they belong – and Jerusalem will be more logical, more Jewish and safer,” said Ramon.
The Commanders for Israel’s Security organization, a non-partisan group of former senior officials in Mossad, IDF, police and Shin Bet security service, denied it had any involvement in the initiative.
b’tzelem Elokim means to be creative, but it seems creativity is not something leaders of Israel possess these days.
A non-violent/forceful solution to removing Arabs from the Land of Israel is available which would remove all refugees within a decade, but, someone has to listen.
@ Underzog:
Some good points there!
I already said what to do. Don’t give the Arabs any and — kick them out along the lines promulgated by Rabbi Meir Kahane, zt”L. Also, Israel will have to kick the Arabs out of Judea and Samaria before they annex the West Bank. Look at France and the rest of the world! One cannot have very many Muslims in any area.
Anyone agreeing to divide Jerusalem as described above in the article is also welcoming Palestinian State. This was part of the Olmert offer to Abbas. The next thing some other lefty idiot like Ramon will propose is internationalizing the old city and holy sites.
After that laundry will be hanging on the Kotel (western wall or wailing wall) just like it was when the troops captured it in 1967.
Ted, we need a less dangerous way for Israel to get rid of the Arab residents who are a danger to Israel. This is a totally bad idea!
The worst enemies of Am Yisrael have always come from within, starting with Korakh.
I think the first solution to the Arab problem is to send the ‘leadership’ of the Labour Party to fight ISIS in Syria on the ground, armed with some stern words. They can lead a combined “Left” regiment.
Ted Belman
If you give an inch, they will want a mile.
The argument is stupid, because IMMEDIATELLY the EU and USA will scream SEEEE they CAN part with THIS, so they can part with THAT (name a piece of E”HK) also. It means some parts of E”HK are not as kodesh as other parts?
Finish the UN’s job by resettling Arabs to other Arab countries as should have been done in 1947.
Ted, this is a horrible idea. It is a bad precedent. Jews live in some of these neighborhoods granted very few. Do not expand PA area.
The PA should be destroyed. Violent Arabs and terrorists must be removed.
What is next the old razor wire between East Jerusalem and West Jerusalem. These neighborhoods are dangerous I understand. So that means make them safer.
I also do not think Israel is giving back any land.
…then Israel will be exhibiting insanity. Such a deal will only embolden those who seek the destruction of Israel. You can give 99.9999% of Israel to the Muzzies and it will not suffice. The remaining .0001% will represent an intolerable provocation that necessitates jihad.
The Jews of Europe surrendered 100% of their property. It was not nearly enough.
Let me explain. These lands are suburbs only. they add nothing to Jerusalem except problems. Besides we don’t exercise sovereignty there. Municipal services hardly exist there. Better that we un-annex these territories from Jerusalem and designate them as Area B over which we have security control. But we will keep what is of historical interest.
I see this as a temporary measure only. It would remove at least 200,000 Arabs from Israel.
This plan talks about a municipal boundary. It doesn’t end our legal claim to them . They will be dealt with as all J&S is dealt with in a final settlement.
If the government of Israel is going to make a deal where we keep very little of J&S, why do we need these lands and the Arabs they contain. We would be better off without them. On the other hand if we get a government prepared to annex a large part of J&S, we can re-annex these lands. along with much of C and some other B lands.
I see no downside. No concessions are given to the Arabs. It is a unilateral move.
Originally when the land was annexed, a truly unified city was intended. We thought that the Arabs would accept citizenship and then we could claim that most residents of Jerusalem are Israeli citizens and therefore the world will accept it. It didn’t work out that way. Now these lands are just a headache.
Sounds like a defeatist plan.
Ted, I am confused by your stance you are a strong advocate of sovereignty why would you be for removing this part of the city from Jerusalem?
It seems inconsistent. This would be removing this part of the city from Israeli law.
Israel needs something along the lines of the Logan Act to deal with those self appointed statesmen
How about we keep Jerusalem and divide these Quislings?
Chainsaw, anyone?
The plan is ridiculous and obscene. Jerusalem belongs to the Jews. Kick the Arabs out — period. Then Jews take full control of all the LIBERATED territories. Judea Samaria — whatever. Why should Islamic terrorism be rewarded with territory when there is another solution? As for the world, you saw what happened in Paris. Europe will become Islamic anyway whatever action Israel takes. They will always hate the Jews and Jews should get used to that fact.