Posted By Daniel Seidemann Share

In recent full page ads in the New York Times, Washington Post and Wall Street Journal, renowned author and Nobel laureate Elie Wiesel argued that Jerusalem is "above politics." But the portrait of the city Wiesel painted is so factually inaccurate and so morally specious as to leave no room for doubt: Wiesel's false innocence and moral posturing over Jerusalem is an example of politics par excellence, with Wiesel willingly becoming a tool of Israel's extreme right in its desperate efforts to block Obama's peace efforts.

A review of the facts is in order.

93 percent of Israel - including most of West Jerusalem and the 35 percent of privately-owned land in East Jerusalem expropriated by Israel since 1967 - is categorized by Israel as "State Land." Only Israeli citizens and those entitled to immigrate under the Law of Return may acquire properties on this land. Palestinians of East Jerusalem, with rare exception, are in neither of these categories. So while Wiesel may purchase a home in anywhere in East or West Jerusalem, a Palestinian cannot.



Since 1967, Israel has built more than 50,000 dwellings for Israelis in East Jerusalem, but has built fewer than 600 for Palestinians (the last was built 35 years ago). And from 1967 until today, as East Jerusalem's Palestinian population increased from 70,000 to 280,000, Israel has issued only 4,000 permits for private Palestinian construction in East Jerusalem. Barred from building legally, the Palestinians built without permits - leaving them subject to Israeli demolition of their "illegal" homes.

Today extreme settler groups have launched a campaign to evict Palestinian families - refugees of Israel's War of Independence - from densely-populated Palestinian neighborhoods in the heart of East Jerusalem. They are doing so based on the "right" of Jews to recover properties lost in the 1948 war. But under Israeli law Palestinians have no such right. So while Israel insists that Palestinians renounce any "right of return" - something understood as necessary for the two-state solution - it is implementing a Jewish right of return to Palestinian neighborhoods in East Jerusalem, and turning 1948 refugees into 2010 refugees.

And then there is the question of Israel's respect for other religions.

In recent years the Israeli Government has transferred virtually all of the most sensitive religious, archeological and cultural sites in East Jerusalem to the de facto control of extreme settler groups. These groups are abusing archeology and public planning to highlight the Jewish past, while marginalizing the Christian, Muslim and Palestinian dimensions of the city, past and present.

Due to Israeli restrictions, today it is easier for a Palestinian Christian living just south of Jerusalem in Bethlehem to worship in Washington's National Cathedral than to pray in Jerusalem's Church of the Holy Sepulcher. Today a Muslim living in Turkey has a better chance of getting to Jerusalem to pray at the Old City's al-Aqsa mosque than a Muslim living a few miles away in Ramallah.

Before our eyes, Jerusalem is becoming the arena where the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is morphing from a resolvable national conflict into a religious war - a transformation that, if it continues, poses an existential threat to Israel. And what starts in Jerusalem does not stay in Jerusalem: conflict in Jerusalem resonates throughout the region and beyond, wind in the sails of every jihadist. 

By asserting the Jewish people's exclusive "ownership" of Jerusalem, Wiesel embraces the policies that are accelerating this metamorphosis.

Wiesel ignores these facts. He ignores the fact that the policies he is defending will soon turn Jerusalem into a city so balkanized, geographically and demographically, that the two-state solution will no longer be possible. And the demise of the two-state solution portends the end of Israel as a Jewish, democratic state, to be replaced by either an apartheid-like reality with a Jewish minority ruling over an Arab majority, or by a bi-national Arab-Jewish state.

Israel is at an existential crossroads with Jerusalem. Current policies cannot be justified - even by Elie Wiesel, even to Israel's staunchest allies. These policies consistently derail the resumption of negotiations towards a conflict-ending agreement between Israel and the Palestinians. The cumulative impact of these policies will be the destruction of the two-state solution, the radicalization of the conflict and the de-legitimization of Israel. With these policies, Jerusalem is becoming the place where Israel slides down the slippery slope into pariah status.

By agreeing to carry the water for Israel's extreme right, Wiesel has not only undermined his own moral authority, but has done so in the service of a political agenda that is a grave threat to Israel's most vital interests. If Wiesel loves Jerusalem as much as he claims, he should indeed put Jerusalem above politics and join President Obama in his insistence that these dangerous policies cease, and support Obama's efforts to achieve a final status agreement that resolves all the issues, not the least of which being Jerusalem.

Daniel Seidemann is a Jerusalem-based lawyer and expert on Jerusalem, and the founder of the Israeli NGO Terrestrial Jerusalem.

AFP/Getty Images

 

LAL QILA

11:57 AM ET

April 27, 2010

Shame on Elie Wiesel

Kindly return the Nobel prize; it doesn't befit the extreme right-wingers agenda that you are pedaling.

 

GUESTYC

3:59 PM ET

April 27, 2010

How many Jews went to the Kotel between 1949 and 1966?

If you did not write with with such a biased pen your essay may have been more effective,

I have seen the archeological rubble piled up by Palestinians from Mt Moriah

You can visit cemetery turned into a hotel still today

You can see the gravestones made into sidewalks and latrines

You say it is hard for local muslims to get to there holy sites. How many Jews went to the Kotel between 1949 and 1966? (to say you the trouble of googling the answer, it is zero.)

When the Palestinians (in the West Bank and Gaza) have a liberal democracy which respects their own citizens' rights Israel will have a lot more to talk to them about.

 

YALEPHD

5:41 PM ET

May 1, 2010

One of the most naive and biased articles I've read

There are so many factual wrong statements made in this article that I'd really question the background of the author. That or this kid decided to just look up the Hamas website and start copy/pasting. The ground truth with regards to Jerusalem is that ONLY under Israeli control has there been free access for all religions to their respective holy places within the city. This is a far cry from before. Not to mention the monthly flare ups after the Friday mosque sermon where Palestinians decide to come out throwing rocks down on the Jews praying below. The security restrictions that have come into place seem to be well deserved. If we are going to talk about the larger issue of democracy or historical democracy, why don't we take a look at Jordan which is 80% Palestinian whoever, they are granted no vote and no representation at all within the Hashemite kingdom. The double standard is and always has been applied to Israel. As the only country in the region where men AND women AND gays AND lesbians AND other minorities are all afforded representation and the general welfare and protection of the state, yes it is our moral obligation to stand with and support the state of Israel. Come back and talk when you stop drinking the Hamas kool-aid. In the meantime, I am embarrassed for FP magazine that they would bother to publish such utter garbage.

 

BETZ55

1:55 PM ET

May 6, 2010

Wrong, wrong, wrong

Come back and talk when you stop drinking the Zionazi kool-aid. Israe, and you, are in the run from the truth.

Don't be embarrassed for FP. This article is right on the money.

Your hasbara is old and no one is buying it. Your "intelligence" comes from facts that are distorted to suit an agenda, everyone knows it’s definetly not “intelligence” but hasbara.

The shift in public opinion is palpable as Israel's own actions transform it into a pariah whose driving forces are not the liberal democratic values with which it claims to identify, but ultra-nationalism, racism, religious fanaticism, illegal settler-colonialism terrorism and a Jewish supremacist order maintained by frequent settler rampages.

You gotta work with what you have. Logically and morally, if one is an Israel supporter, like you, that‘s not much.

 

AVRAM

1:49 PM ET

May 6, 2010

Elie values the lifes of gentiles a little less

The problem with Elie is that he doesn't see or care about the losses suffered by the Iraqis or palestinians. For him their loss of families, structure, stability, loss of livelihood, subjugation etc. doesn't mean much. For all his purported view of civility, if you cannot see all other people's lives as having the same value as that of those you feel kinship, it is not much better than being a racist.

 

The Middle East Channel offers unique analysis and insights on this diverse and vital region of more than 400 million.

Read More

Enter your email address to get twice-weekly updates from the Mideast Channel:

Delivered by Constant Contact