Israel's top diplomat scorns EU rebuke on Jerusalem settlement

JERUSALEM Sat Oct 20, 2012 10:08am EDT

JERUSALEM (Reuters) - Israel's foreign minister on Saturday dismissed criticism by the European Union of Jewish settlement on occupied land the Palestinians seek for a state, advising the 27-nation bloc to attend to its own problems instead.

The comments by Avigdor Lieberman, a hardliner who serves as Israel's top diplomat by dint of his clout in Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's coalition government, suggested an appeal to right-wing voters ahead of the January 22 national election.

In a statement reflecting long-standing EU policy, the bloc's high representative for foreign affairs, Catherine Ashton, said on Friday she "deeply regrets" Israel's announcement of plans to expand Gilo settlement between East Jerusalem and the West Bank, lands it seized in a 1967 war.

"Settlements are illegal under international law and threaten to make a two-state solution impossible," she said, referring to more than two decades of efforts to negotiate the creation of a Palestinian state alongside the Jewish state.

Lieberman said in a statement such censures "attest to a fundamental lack of ability to understand regional reality" and "merely encourage the Palestinian side to continue to refuse to sit and negotiate, and to pursue anti-Israel activity in the international sphere".

Israel is preoccupied by the Palestinians' plan to sidestep the deadlocked talks by asking the United Nations next month to upgrade their member status, and has lobbied the Europeans and others to oppose the move.

Israel considers all of Jerusalem - including the annexed eastern sector and nearby settlements like Gilo - its capital, a position not accepted internationally. Most world powers deem the settlements illegal.

Lieberman concluded his statement by suggesting the European Union "focus, for now, on the problems arising among the various peoples and national groups on Europe's territory, and once there is a successful solution we would be happy to hear recommendations for solving the problems with the Palestinians".

(Writing by Dan Williams; editing by Andrew Roche)

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
Comments (4)
DeanMJackson wrote:
The caption reads, “Israel’s foreign minister on Saturday dismissed criticism by the European Union of Jewish settlement on occupied land the Palestinians seek for a state, advising the 27-nation bloc to attend to its own problems instead.”

In fact,the West Bank (and Gaza) is Jewish territory according to the still legal Palestine Mandate (1922), and Arab residents of the West Bank will shortly turn the tables on Israel and renounce their “claim” for an independent state.

Clarification:

Firstly, the term “Palestinian” was a national designation given to the inhabitants of the Jewish Homeland in 1922. Other than that, it had no ethnic/intrinsic nationalist* value, which is why the territory was re-named Israel on May 14, 1948 when the Jews declared independence.

Secondly, Arab governments resurrected the defunct “Palestinian” name in 1964 (at the first Arab League summit in Cairo, Egypt, where the PLO was officially created and launched) when they were forced to alter their strategy towards Israel, because Israel in 1963 had either tested their first nuclear bomb or actually acquired their first nuclear bomb.**

This brings us to the Six-Day War, which was planned (with the cooperation of the USSR) to be lost by Arab governments, so as to operationalize the Arab governments’ proxy strategy, using the newly-minted “Palestinians”.

Note that Arab governments never did create an “Arab” state for West Bank/Gaza inhabitants between 1948 – 1963, nor a “Palestinian” state (when “Arabs” was changed to “Palestinians”) between 1964 – May 1967.

The next phase of the Arab governments’ Long-Range Strategy will be to have Arabs in the West Bank and Gaza renounce their claim for an independent state and opt to become Israeli citizens instead, which is what they are according to the Palestine Mandate of 1922. When one throws in Arabs living in the refugee camps, the Jewish inhabitants of Israel will be electorally out-voted, leading to the reincorporation of the territory that is now Israel back into the Arab fold.

There is, however, one tactic that Israel will use to thwart the “new” Arab governments’ Long-Range Strategy:

Israel’s counter-strategy to offset the looming Arab electoral majority will be to offer Jews living all over the world automatic Israeli citizenship, thereby conferring the right to vote in Israeli elections, swinging the electoral balance back overwhelmingly to the Jewish side.

Contemporaneous with events described above, watch for the fake “collapse” of the Chinese Communist government, when soon after that “collapse” Mexico will request the “assistance” of Chinese troops in combating the then spreading Mexico City-manufactured “drug wars” there. America, however, will be stymied from preventing the presence of Chinese troops in Mexico due to emergencies that will “suddenly” crop up in the Korean peninsula, the Balkans, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.
————————–
*”The First Congress of Muslim-Christian Associations (in Jerusalem, February 1919), which met for the purpose of selecting a Palestinian Arab representative for the Paris Peace Conference, adopted the following resolution: “We consider Palestine as part of Arab Syria, as it has never been separated from it at any time. We are connected with it by national, religious, linguistic, natural, economic and geographical bonds.”[60]” – Wikipedia, “Palestinian People”.

and

“An all-Palestine Congress was held in Jerusalem between January 27 and February 10, 1919, to formulate a common policy, called “program”, on Palestine to advise Faisal while attending the Paris Peace Conference on behalf of the Arabs. The Jerusalem Congress was presided over by ‘Aref Pasha al-Dajani who was, at the time, the president of the Jerusalem branch of the Muslim-Christian Association mentioned earlier. (Representatives of the Association also attended the General Syrian Congress in Damascus.)(8)

The Jerusalem Congress, resolved to reject political Zionism and to accept British assistance on condition such assistance would not impinge upon Sovereignty in Palestine.(9) Basically, the Congress wanted Palestine to be part of an independent Syrian State to be governed by Faisal of the Hashemite family. It also preferred U.S. political tutelage, should this be necessary, or British tutelage, as a second choice, but under no circumstances would the Congress accept French political guardianship.” – PALESTINE:
FACTIONALISM IN THE NATIONAL MOVEMENT (1919 – 1939), DR. MANUEL HASSASSIAN.

In these consultations between Arab elites of Palestine circa 1919-1920, there was NO mention of the “distinct ethnic Palestinian people”. They referred to themselves as Syrian, Arab.

** Note: Arab governments held their first Arab League summit the very year after Israel’s reputed first test (or acquisition) of a nuclear bomb. The summit was necessary in order to implement a new Pan Arab government “Long-Range Strategy” towards Israel.

Oct 20, 2012 10:41am EDT  --  Report as abuse
Arye wrote:
Without regard to the merits of Avigdor Lieberman’s advice to the EU, it’s past time that Reuters got its terminology corrected. Regarding the caption “Jewish settlement on occupied land the Palestinians seek for a state:”

First, the area in question is not “occupied land”; legally, at most it may be considered “disputed territory.” Just because the Palestinians seek it for a state does not make it so, any more than, say, the Falkland Islands are “occupied Argentinian land” or Kashmir is “occupied Indian / Pakistani (take your pick) land.”

Second, newly-built apartments in Jerusalem are not “Jewish settlements,” and Israel (or any other country) does not require the world’s approval in designating its own capital: It is the city which serves as the seat of the country’s government, and has been that for many years even before the Six-Days War of 1967. Building homes for the capital city’s population is not “settlement.”

And last, the reason that the Palestinian-Israeli dispute has not been resolved has nothing to do with “settlements” (why hadn’t it been resolved for the many decades before there were any “settlements” or any “disputed territories”?). It has everything to do with the Arab world’s refusal to accept a Jewish state within ANY borders. Only when that genocidal attitude changes will there be a chance for peace in the region.

Oct 20, 2012 1:11pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
rgbviews wrote:
No amount of spin will overshadow international law and UN resolutions. No amount of spin will sweep injustice under the rug. The spin will tumble, it’s just a matter of time.

Jewish SETTLEMENTS on OCCUPIED territory are exactly that, period. They are ILLEGAL under international law, period.

Why doesn’t Avigdor and Bibi give us a clear statement on the State of Israel’s acceptance or rejection international law and it’s acceptance or rejection of UN charter? And while their at it, why don’t they give us a clear definition of Israel’s borders? …………………………….. because they want to extend their illegal activities as long as possible, protected by their US partner in crime.

Oct 20, 2012 10:24pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.