Israeli forces storm and fire on Al Aqsa mosque

[Libertas Vel Mors]

https://twitter.com/ShMMor/status/1391812731074928645

Here is a description of the Israeli state's position in the Sheikh Jarrah dispute. Basically, a large amount of land which was owned by Jews before 1948 in what became Jordanian territory from 1948-1967 was seized by the Jordanian state, which then rented it out to tenants.

After 1967, property owned by the Jordanian state in the West Bank was seized by the Israeli state (except for religious properties like mosques, which Jordan was allowed to retain ownership of, but not sovereignty over, even in East Jerusalem itself¹ -- note that the Al-Aqsa mosque at the heart of this is maintained and run by a Jordanian, not Israeli or Palestinian, organization). Israel had, and maintains, a policy of returning property to pre-1948 owners who are now Israeli citizens or their heirs², but also a policy of respecting leases and tenant agreements entered into by the Jordanian state between 1948-1967.

This creates a weird ticking time bomb, though, where certain buildings, usually in neighborhoods which are heavily Arab today, theoretically eventually belong to the descendants of Jews who owned them before 1948 (99-year leases, as I understand it, are common in this area and it might be logical for some of them to date to the 1960s, so this may be a very slow-moving problem that continues as late as the 2060s). What happened in this specific case was that a hypothetical landowning organization sued over rent nonpayment and achieved eviction, but it looks like the terms of the agreement itself were probably disputed (since the tenant is thought to have a strong case on appeal) and also the hypothetical landowning organization's motive for wanting this property specifically is blatantly religious, which worries some because it would probably be possible on some level to find a Jewish religious motive for wanting almost any particular plot in the West Bank.

¹A remarkably friendly arrangement between two countries that had just been in such a consequential war.
²I don't know if a place like this even exists -- it's a few hundred buildings in Jerusalem that this law covers -- but it'd be interesting to determine if Jordan ever eminent-domain seized some property between 1948-1967 of someone whose heirs are now Arab Israeli citizens. In principle, they could sue.

~~~~

At this point keeping the fiction of a "Israel-Palestine conflict", or sham "two-state solutions", is an insult to intelligence. This is not a matter of self-determination, but a constant abuse of the basic human rights of 1/2 of the population under Israeli control. The state of Israel rules everything between the Jordan and the Sea and will never withdraw from the West Bank, let alone East Jerusalem. The only way to ensure the Jewish character of the existing state is through the disenfranchisement of most Palestinians. This political regime, based on on the privileged status and the supremacy of one ethnic or religious group over another, is not a democracy. Israel-Palestine will never be a democratic state until everyone living in that country has the same legal status and is protected from abuse by the same set of laws.

It is usually right-wing parties in Israel who favor extending an offer of citizenship to Palestinians in the West Bank (Bennett -- still probably Israel's next PM in the near future -- wants to do it specifically for residents of Area C, it was the Likud that extended an offer of citizenship to East Jerusalem Arabs in 1981). Left-wing parties are uniformly opposed. The thing that stops this from happening -- besides international pressure -- is the existence of the Palestinian Authority and the Palestinian independence declaration of 1988, and the Israeli government's agreement to cede some control within the West Bank to the Palestinian Authority.

Given 21st-century demographic trends it would not be especially threatening today to the Jewish character of the state to annex the West Bank and give citizenship to every Arab who lives there. It will be even less threatening in 20 years.

What would be threatening is incorporating Gaza: Gaza is a huge Arab city with a sky-high fertility rate and if you include it in "between the Jordan and the Sea" then a Jewish demographic majority is impossible. But there is no reason for Gaza to be part of that state (and as the June 2007 civil conflict showed, Gaza does not even really seem that interested in being part of a state with the West Bank); its history, political preferences, and economy are completely different. Nor is there any particular reason for Israeli ultranationalists to want it, which is why it was easier to withdraw from 2004 than the religiously significant West Bank. There is no reason that, when a government arises there that chooses peace, Gaza couldn't be a prosperous independent port (with extensive natural gas reserves) separate from both Israel and Egypt. Some argument might exist that Israel would have to pay Gaza reparations to apologize for bombing it repeatedly instead of just unilaterally ending the terror of the al-Qassam Brigades.

This is probably the only form of the two-state solution that would work; anything based on modern ethnic borders in the West Bank really does start to look like a bantustan. Ultimately, the first step on the road to peace will be when the Palestinian Authority (and the Israeli state) acknowledge that people in Yatta and Tulkarm, not just al-Quds, deserve the option to have Israeli citizenship.

This is a good thought, and an interesting POV I hadn't considered before. Thank you.

[Libertas Vel Mors]

¹A remarkably friendly arrangement between two countries that had just been in such a consequential war.

Not really remarkable since King Abdullah and Israel cut a deal to partition Arab Palestine between the two in 1947. Jordan more or less sat out the war.

Uh, what? Israel and Jordan fought pretty actively in 1967.

This is probably the only form of the two-state solution that would work; anything based on modern ethnic borders in the West Bank really does start to look like a bantustan.

A two-state solution will include the dismantling of illegal Israeli settlements plus land swaps to ensure a contiguous Palestinian state. Of course Israeli government policy has been to bantustan Palestinian territory with illegal settlements to make a peace deal more difficult, yes.

No realistic two state solution involves the mass dismantling of settlements.

[Libertas Vel Mors]

Wrong war sorry

No realistic two state solution involves the mass dismantling of settlements.

And no realistic two state solution does not involve the dismantling of Israeli settlements to ensure a contiguous independent Palestinian state. *shrug*

The idea that a solution could be annexation of some areas of Palestine with offers of citizenship and not others is equally fanciful. East Jerusalem was annexed in 1980 and after 40 years of Israeli domestic administration something like 6% of Palestinians in East Jerusalem have taken up Israeli citizenship.

No, actually. Plenty do.

The idea that a solution could be annexation of some areas of Palestine with offers of citizenship and not others is equally fanciful. East Jerusalem was annexed in 1980 and after 40 years of Israeli domestic administration something like 6% of Palestinians in East Jerusalem have taken up Israeli citizenship.

Sure. But the city's population is also 1/2 Jewish. East Jerusalem and the settlements are Israeli, and that isn't changing any time soon.

[Libertas Vel Mors]

Can we please stop discussing on "peace talks" the "two-state solution"? The latter is completely impractical not going to happen. The more you discuss endlessly about that nonsense, the longer the situation of the Palestinian people under the apartheid regime remains ignored. It's time for a change in your conceptual frameworks regarding Israel-Palestine

The issue concerning the military-industrial complex, alongside the huge influence of the Zionist lobbies in US politics, are of course key questions. It's not possible to put an end to the Israeli versión of apartheid as long as these factors determine US policy towards Israel

lol

[Libertas Vel Mors]

The IDF could massacre people in the open a la Bloody Sunday and people would still make excuses.

Good thing they don't.