Netanyahu's Shameful Words: From Judenrein to Ethnic Cleansing

Just a week ago, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu shared on social media a short video, which on his twitter account was shared under the headline, “No Jews.” In this video, he accuses the Palestinians of supporting ethnic cleansing of the Jews of the West Bank, stating, “...the Palestinian leadership actually demands a Palestinian state with one pre-condition: No Jews. There is a phrase for that, its called ethnic cleansing.”

Palestinian leaders demand a Palestinian state with one precondition: No Jews. There's a phrase for that. https://t.co/u5gfSW1thW

— Benjamin Netanyahu (@netanyahu) September 9, 2016

The timing of the video comes after the United States harshly criticized Israel’s recent decision to add 234 living units to existing settlements, stating that the State Department is “particularly troubled by the policy of retroactively approving unauthorized settlement units and outposts that are themselves illegal under Israeli law,” and that “…significant expansion of the settlement enterprise poses a very serious and growing threat to the viability of the two-state solution.”

In retaliation, Netanyahu struck back by addressing an American audience in his video message asking “Would you accept ethnic cleansing in your state? A territory without Jews, without Hispanics, without blacks? Since when is bigotry a foundation for peace.” This was followed by the State department lashing back, stating, “We obviously strongly disagree with the characterization that those who oppose settlement activity or view it as an obstacle to peace are somehow calling for ethnic cleansing of Jews from the West Bank.”

The US State Department has every right to be angry. Netanyahu’s twisting the truth, making Israeli settlers the victims and Palestinians—who are living for the past 49 years under Israeli occupation with no civil rights—the cruel masters, has proven once again that he is an ace in demagoguery. Not to mention the low level he stooped to by accusing the Palestinians of ethnic cleansing, when it is they who were ethnically cleansed from the territories that become Israel in 1948, with over 700,000 not allowed to return to their homes, upon their fleeing and the forced expulsions they endured during Israel’s War of Independence.      

To get the story straight, the Palestinians do not object to have Jews within their borders, rather they are against Israeli settlers remaining within their future state. This should be of no surprise since the settlers have and continue to occupy their land for the last 49 years. In any case, questions regarding citizenship laws of the future Palestinian state seem less burning when one faces the reality that Palestinians do not seem any closer to getting a state today than they were 20 years ago. 

However, it should not just be Palestinians taking offense to Netanyahu’s harsh words, but also the Jews in Israel and internationally as it belittles the history of the Holocaust by  putting forth the false analogy that Palestinians are no different that Nazi Germany, trying to create a territory free of Jews, otherwise known as Judenrein. In fact, Netanyahu himself used this term back in 2009, shocking the German Foreign Minister, who was on an official state visit in Israel, stating that “Judea and Samaria cannot be Judenrein.” 

This of course would not be the first time that Netanyahu has used the Holocaust to gain ground against the Palestinians. Just last year he made the claim that Hitler had got the idea of committing genocide against the Jews from the Palestinian Mufti Hajj Amin al-Husseini, which even caused the German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, to state that Germany is solely responsible for the Holocaust and that “we don't see any reason to change our view of history…” 

Ironically, the Israeli radical right in the past has accused the Israeli governments of implementing a plan of Judenrein, such as when it evacuated the Jewish settlements of Gaza in 2005 under the premiership of Ariel Sharon, a government that Netanyahu was a part of. The comparing of the Israeli government by the radical right highlights the danger of comparing one to Nazis, in this case clear incitement that brings back memories of the days before Yitzhak Rabin was assassinated.  

This perverse manipulation of history of the Holocaust, be it by Netanyahu, or by the Israeli radical right, in reference to their fellow citizens, needs to be met with strong condemnation. The conflict between Israelis and Palestinians is bad enough and false analogies by either side only makes things worse. True, it might score Netanyahu a few points among the Islamophobic Donald Trump supporters in the United States, but it also chips away at the sanctity of the Holocaust, and leaves it fair game to be used by others for their own petty political gains.  

Netanyahu's Blame Game: Forget the Nazis, its the Palestinians

For years, the Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, has compared the Iranian regime to that of the Nazis. Earlier of this year, on the Israeli Memorial day for Holocaust Survivors, he tweeted the below tweets, in reference to the US negotiations with Iran, concerning its nuclear program: 

so too does Iran strive to gain control over the region and then spread further, with the explicit intent of obliterating the Jewish state.

— PM of Israel (@IsraeliPM) April 15, 2015

The same day, Netanyahu stated in a speech at Israeli's Holocaust museum, Yad VaShem, the following: "Democracies cannot turn their eyes away from the dictatorships of the world that seek to spread their influence."; and went on to say, "ahead of World War II, the world attempted to appease the Nazis. They wanted quite at any price, and the terrible price did come."

In that speech, Netanyahu was aiming to undermine US-Iranian progress concerning Iran's nuclear program, which was eventually signed in July, marking a major diplomatic success for Obama; true, even if the Islamic Republic of Iran has threatened to annihilate the Jewish state, Netanyahu's comparing the US to the European powers who appeased Hitler, certainly hit a low. 

Well, if you could not get lower, this morning I awoke to the following headline in Haaretz: 

What, did I read this correctly? Did Netanyahu actually just say that the Palestinian Mufti Hajj al-Amin Al-Husseini is the one who convinced Hitler to embark on the mass genocide of Jews? Unfortunately, I did; and even worse he said this just 24-hours before an official visit to Berlin. The exact quote, which was said in a speech to the World Zionist Congress, started off by explaining that the Mufti had a central role in fomenting the Final Solution. Then, Netanyahu explained:    

"He (the Mufti) flew to Berlin...Hitler didn't want to exterminate the Jews at the time, he wanted to expel the Jews and Hajj Amin al-Husseini went to Hitler and said, 'If you expel them, they'll all come here; so what should I do with them, he (Hitler) asks; he (the Mufti) said Burn them!" 

In Israel, and in Europe, Netanyahu's words have been criticized by historians and politicians alike. Germany's Chancellor  Angela Merkel even issued a statement reconfirming Germany's crime against the Jewish people: 

"All Germans know the history of the murderous race mania of the Nazis that led to the break with civilization that was the Holocaust,”…and continues, “this is taught in German schools for good reason, it must never be forgotten. And I see no reason to change our view of history in any way. We know that responsibility for this crime against humanity is German and very much our own."

These words are wrong on so many levels that it is hard to figure out where to start. Historically this is nothing short of a blatant lie, with the mass killing of Jews happening months before their meeting. True, the Palestinian Mufti took refuge in Berlin, supported the Axis powers, and embarked on propaganda campaigns on their behalf. However, he only met with Hitler once, which at the time was reported that "Hitler was sympathetic, but declined to give al-Husayni (Husseini) the public declaration of support that he sought." In short, there is no record of such a conversation even existing!

According to the United States Holocaust Museum, on its webpage about the Mufti, it states, "even after he realized that the Germans would not give him what he sought and intended to use his Muslim recruits without regard to his advice, al-Husayni continued to work with both Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany until 1945." Clearly, from these words, we see that the Mufti was not ever considered a major card for the Nazi regime.

In addition, it needs to be noted that Netanyahu's twisting of the historical narrative are a disgrace to the memory of all the Jews killed in the Holocaust, whether it were those who were killed even before Hitler had met with al-Husseini, or those after; not to mention, it being highly offensive to the families of the victims.    

For educators, Netanyahu's statement is no less damning. How are educators suppose to combat conspiracy theories concerning the Holocaust, if the Israeli Prime Minister so nonchalantly  manipulates the simplest of narratives for his own political gains? True, politicizing genocide is not new, however, now Netanyahu has offered a prime example of its disgusting nature.     

While Netanyahu has since issued a clarification, stating, "I had absolutely no intention of absolving Hitler of his diabolical responsibility for the extermination of Europe's Jews," it is clear that his comments have once again uncovered how far he is willing to go to incite hatred towards Palestinians-so much so that he inadvertently cleared Hitler, while blaming a Palestinian as devising the plan to kill Jews. 

Sadly, for the Palestinians who are working towards teaching their society about the Holocaust, their work has become all the harder. Further, for the Palestinians who long gave up on the Prime Minister as simply racist (let us not forget his racist comments directed towards Palestinian citizens of Israel during the last elections), this only reconfirms that it is the Palestinians who do not have a partner for peace.

Perhaps, the only good thing that might come out of this is the massive backlash this has had against Netanyahu. Clearly, most Israelis did not buy this cheap shot of his, and both in Israel and in Europe this will prove to be a major embarrassment. 

Perhaps, in place of passing the buck on Palestinians, Netanyahu should leave history behind for now and recognize how his bad policies are continuing to lead Israel on a mode of self-destruct. 

Palestine Now: Mahmoud Abbas, Barack Obama, and the Upcoming Israeli vote (Israeli 2013 Election Coverage, 2)

Over a year ago, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas attempted to have Palestine recognized as a full member state of the United Nations; unfortunately, the Americans vetoed this, causing many to lose hope in US President Barack Obama. A little over a year later, Abbas is planning to go back to the UN to rally up support in the General Assembly for a vote on recognizing Palestine as a non-member state. While many Palestinians have lost faith in Abbas, with time, he has shown that he is dedicated to see a Palestinian state established in the shortest time possible.

For many Palestinians, Mahmoud Abbas has betrayed them; two weeks ago, he appeared on Israeli channel two, and declared in Arabic and English that he believed in the two-state solution, and has no aspiration to return to live in Safad (Tzefat), his birthplace which is located in the northern Israel.  He declared that for him, Palestine is the West Bank and Gaza strip, with Jerusalem as its capital (shared with Israel).  This contradicts the will of many Palestinians who believe in the right of return to historical Palestine, to the lands that they lived on before the 1948 Nakbah. 

Realistically speaking, I think we all know that for now the Right of Return is not on the agenda; and if so, it would be for a limited number of people negotiated under a settlement. In any case, we are so far from a settlement that under the circumstances, those who oppose Abbas should reassess their stance. More than any other Palestinian politician, Abbas has systematically demonstrated that he is dedicated to peace and a struggle which is achieved through diplomacy. I would argue that he has made serious progress at placing Palestine on the agenda. Now that Obama has won a second term, Abbas can safely brush off Israeli claims that he is at fault for not making progress towards a peace agreement.   

Over the last almost four years, Israeli PM Netanyahu and his very undiplomatic Foreign Minister, Avigdor Lieberman, have demonstrated over and over again that they are not interested in peace (for more on Netanyahu/Lieberman and elections, click here).  While the Iranian threat is real, Netanyahu has used it as a way to divert attention from the Israeli occupation and the continued colonization of Palestinian lands. Furthermore, Lieberman has not missed an opportunity to try to delegitimize Abbas and the Palestinian authority. More recently, Israel is threatening the Palestinian authority that if they go to the UN for recognition, Israel will hold back revenues it owes them.    

The real test now begins for Barack Obama to push the Israeli government to either work towards a two-state solution, or accept the consequences: a shared state with Palestinians; in other words, a bi-national state. With the Israeli elections only two months away, a major speech concerning the Middle East is more important than ever, and if Obama does have something in mind, it needs to be stated even before the second inauguration. Let us not forget that concerning foreign policy, Obama has a golden opportunity to make change; not like domestic politics where his hands are tied by the Republican house, with foreign policy he is free to set the agenda on his own.  If he were to do this, the Israeli electorate would have the chance to see that the game of stalling is over and the time has come to take a major step at ending the occupation, or to bear the consequences. By doing this, Obama will place the peace process back on the agenda, breathing debate into the Israeli society concerning its future.  

Edging towards War: Netanyahu takes on Obama

Last spring in my Palestinian-Israeli conflict class, we periodically dealt with current events. Our class discussions reflected much of what the students followed in the mainstream media, and during those months it seemed as though Israel was preparing to attack Iran at any moment.  In fact, I commented that it almost seemed as if there was a concerted effort to notify Iran of the eventual attack.  However, by the end of the semester, the tension eased and a full-out Israeli-Iranian war was put on the back burner, while the US continued to work through diplomatic means to force the Iranians to rethink their race towards becoming a nuclear-armed state.

Well as the summer is now coming to a close, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his Defense Minister, Ehud Barak, have succeeded in putting Iran back on the agenda. However, now the level of speech concerning an Israeli strike has surpassed that of last spring and has left all the actors in the region on edge. Literally for the past two weeks, the Israeli media has been discussing the possibility of an Israeli strike on Iran’s nuclear program on a daily basis, presenting multiple scenarios and timelines.  What has emerged is worrying, since it is tangled up with an outright duel between Netanyahu and Barak on one side and President Barack Obama on the other.

The scenario is simple: Israel will unilaterally strike Iran before the US elections, which will in essence force Obama to support the Israeli move and Israel’s “right to defend itself,” even though the Obama administration is convinced that a military strike is premature.  Of course, with Mitt Romney courting Israel at all costs, Obama will need to appear defiant in his support for Israel. Clearly, this tactic does not need to lead to an actual Israeli strike, since even the threat of one before the elections is enough for Netanyahu to reap fruits, such as Obama committing to an American airstrike after the elections (which some pundits have been discussing). Let us remember that Netanyahu is no stranger to meddling in US politics.  Back in 1998, President Clinton pressured Netanyahu (during his first term) to negotiate with the Palestinians. Upon arriving to meet with Clinton and Yasser Arafat, Netanyahu chose to meet first with a Clinton adversary, US Evangelical leader Jerry Falwell, along with a thousand supporters, to send a strong message to Clinton that he also could play the pressure game.    

The Obama administration thus far has not caved to this pressure,  and has even warned Israel that the time is not right. US Defense Minister Panetta has stated that the use of force should be a last resort, and General Martin Dempsey, US Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staffs, maintains that an Israeli strike will only “delay but not destroy Iran's nuclear capabilities.” On Israel’s Channel Two, Michael Oren, the Israeli ambassador to the US and a staunch supporter of Netanyahu, rebuffed the American “advice” and reiterated Israel’s right to self-defense. He argued that even a unilateral strike that would only “delay” the Iranian nuclear program might be sufficient for the time being.  

For now, the Netanyahu-Barak coalition is shunning the chorus of opposition in Israel to a unilateral Israeli strike, which has been voiced among members of the military establishment and most recently by Israeli President Shimon Peres.  This voice of reason was not welcomed among the Netanyahu administration, which reminded Peres that the Israeli presidency is merely ceremonial and is supposed to remain above (and out of) politics. 

While I have not focused on the regional implications of a unilateral Israeli strike, it is clear that, with Syria in disarray and the Middle East fresh from the downfall of dictatorships, many scenarios can play out.  However, unlike past Israeli wars, this one could actually place the majority of the Israeli population under a major assault. It is therefore safe to say that Netanyahu is playing with fire.

For now, we will need to wait to see how Netanyahu plays his cards. With Israel appointing Avi Dichter last week as Home Front Defense Minister, it appears that they will need some time to prepare their citizens for war, leaving the possibility for a strike within the next the few weeks highly unlikely. Also, it would make sense that the next event to wait for is an Obama-Netanyahu meeting in mid-September at the opening of the United Nations General Assembly. The question remains whether such a meeting will defuse the tension between the two leaders. When Netanyahu arrives in the US, it will be interesting to see if he will first meet with Romney in order to embarrass Obama, as in the above mentioned 1998 case.  What is certain is that Netanyahu’s tactics prove once again how detrimental he can be to Israel’s world standing. Clearly, more than any other leader in Israeli history, Netanyahu has completely isolated Israel, and it seems that he will continue to choose this option.   

The Death of Moshe Silman: An Israeli Tragedy

A weekly protest for social justice taken July 7 2012

This last week a lot happened in Israel. From the tragic terrorist attack on Israelis in Bourgas Bulgaria, to Kadima’s pulling out of the government, the news channels have been filled with plenty of “headlines." These headlines also included the death of Moshe Silman, a protestor who was became known among the protesters in Haifa as someone dedicated the cause.  On July 14, at the weekly protests set at reigniting last year’s massive protests Moshe Silman set himself on fire as a last attempt to have the government recognize and address his difficult social situation.  The video itself of him setting himself was shocking to say the least, with ninety percent of his body receiving burns.  Once set on fire, the shocked crowds around him did everything possible to put out the flames, dowsing him with what little bottle water they had and hitting with any materials they had to extinguish the fire.  Once put out, Moshe managed to prop himself up and shout a few slogans calling for tsedek hevreti-social justice, then ate a popsicle which a policeman gave him, and finally was whisked away by an ambulance. On Friday, July 20, he died.  Since his case, other desperate people have set themselves on fire. 

I could go into details about Moshe’s story; however, I choose not to. For those who wish to read more about him (see link for one I suggest), there is plenty of news articles dedicated to his life and the daily struggles he faced to stay afloat, to work with pride, and to live in decent housing.  Moshe is the story of so many struggling Israelis.  On my last trip to Israel, and with every passing trip, I am always shocked at the deterioration of the Israel society. The gap between rich and poor is striking and the injustices can be seen with little effort. The Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu had the nerve to say that Moshe Silman’s story was one of a personal tragedy.  What hutzpah! We should not and will not forget Moshe Silman, the one who dared to challenge the Israeli injustices, to stand face-to-face with the bureaucratic machine which even if it ends up providing social services does so only after a humiliating journey.   

                                  

Below is the translated letter left by Moshe Silman (published on the following blog entry which also provides a detailed and eyewitness account of the event including pictures, which I have chosen not to reproduce). It says it all; I will not comment:

The State of Israel has stolen from me and robbed me, left me with nothing,
and the Tel Aviv District Court blocked me from getting justice.
The registrar at the Tel Aviv District court, broke the law, disrupted legal proceedings, out of condescension.
It won’t even assist me with my rental fees
Two committees from the Ministry of Housing have rejected me, despite the fact that I have undergone a stroke and was granted 100 percent work disability
Ask the manager of [state-owned housing company] Amidar, in Hafia, on Hanevi’im Street.
I blame the State of Israel
I blame Bibi Netanyahu
and [Minister of Finance] Yuval Steinitz
both scum
for the humiliation that disenfranchised citizens go through day in and day out, that take from the poor and give to the rich, and to public servants
those that serve the State of Israel
The National Health Insurance, especially the manager of their operations, and the manager of their claims department, on Lincoln Street in Tel Aviv, who illegally seized my work equipment for my truck.
The Haifa National Insurance Institute branch, who abused me for a year until I was granted disability
That I pay NIS 2300 per month in Health Insurance taxes and even more for my medicine
I have no money for medicine or rent. I can’t make the money after I have paid my millions in taxes I did the army, and until age 46 I did reserve duty
I refuse to be homeless, this is why I am protesting
Against all the injustices done to me by the State, me and others like me..."

A Demonstration for Democracy and Ehud Barak's Secret Operation

The demonstration last Saturday night to save Israeli democracy from the latest moves in the Knesset to investigate leftist organizations and from the likes of anti-democratic leaders such as Avigidor Liebermann was a huge success. During the last few years, I have participated in quite a few mass demonstrations (the Gaza War, the second Lebanon war, among others) and what made this one different than those was the sheer number of participants. Where the days of 50,000 plus people coming out to demonstrate have long gone perhaps, this one succeeded in bringing about 15-20,000 people, from a multitude of left political parties, with Jews and Palestinians (Israeli citizens) marching together waving Israeli and Palestinian flags, shouting in unison “Jews and Arabs refuse to be enemies.” It was a true sign of force and it should be a sign to Prime Minister Netanyahu that even if the left has been weakened in the parliament one cannot simply ignore them.


"It is still possible to save Democracy"


I guess what united everyone was the sheer disgust over the fact that the Labor party still remained a part of the government giving credibility to Netanyahu's far right governement and to Liebermann's racist policies(if we only knew what was going to happen the next morning). Speaker after speaker challenged and publicly humiliated the once strong but now quite weak Labor party leader Ehud Barak. A nice welcome to the demonstration was Meir Shetrit of Kadima, who as a moderate right wing politician showed the level of frustration by right wing politicians who are not fooled by the new Liebermann legislation and who also see that Israeli democracy is in danger (see previous blog entry).

Well, even if this move was not the catalyst for the political earthquake which Israel would experience the next morning, it certainly provided a nice introduction to the mornings’ news. Ehud Barak,along with four of his party members defected from their own party and set up a new party, Atzmaut (Independence). This move led to the immediate resignation of the Labor ministers, who now are left with only 8 seats in the Knesset, and an even more internally divided party. Of course, this plan by Ehud Barak was masterminded along with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who was thrilled that his internal opposition has now dissipated away into the back seats of the Knesset. In record time, a coalition agreement was signed allowing Ehud Barak to remain as Minister of Defense and giving 4 more portfolios to his unimportant Atzmaut posse.

Sadly, the outcome is clear: with Labor no longer a power broker, Avigdor Liebermann’s Israel Beitunu party is now stronger than ever and Ehud Barak has shown his true colors for the umpteenth time. He not only betrayed his party but also the Israeli electorate who voted for him. Yes, not much to say other than this was Israeli politics at its best; meaning its worst.

Missing Yitzhak Rabin: 15 years since His Assassination

November 5, 2010

This week marks the fifteenth anniversary of the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin. Israel has changed a great deal since then and I cannot help long for those times. The first years of Oslo were filled with excitement, optimism, and overall change. There clearly was an alternative to war and there was partner to speak with. In fact, the partner had always been there. I am not talking about Yasser Arafat but rather the Palestinian people. They were always there even if Israel did not want to see them.

A long 15 years have passed and when I watch the nightly Israeli news I am overcome by a feeling of déjà-vu. The stumbling blocks of the years before Rabin, then under Prime Minister Shamir, are back in place. Is the peace process today once again falling victim to the question of freezing the building of settlements? Is the Israeli government once again blocking the entrance of moderate Palestinian politicians into Jerusalem’s city limits? 20 years ago the controversy was over the Orient House and Faisal Husseini; today, it is over whether Prime Minister Fayyad can enter and be present at Palestinian ceremonial events.

A few months ago, in late August I wrote about why I was avoiding writing on the peace process, which once again was about to convene. Why waste my ink! Well, two months have passed and I am happy that I did not waste both my ink and my thoughts. What we see is that it is just more games and more stealing time. It is really hard to make sense out of the current Israeli government. How does a Prime Minister not punish a Foreign Minister that does and says as he wishes? How does a Prime Minister cave into a minority settlement movement? How does a whole generation of Israelis let petty politics of miniscule politicians ruin their future?

Now, the Palestinians have time on their side and let us hope that they will also be able to overcome their differences. The divide between the PLO and Hamas seems irreconcilable. While the West Bank culturally and economically is on the upbeat, Gaza remains under an Israeli blockade and culturally blockaded by Hamas. Of course, the former is much more critical; however, the latter also needs to be mentioned. If they are able to overcome these differences, the time would be right for a serious attempt at unilaterally declaring statehood. This has been done in the past however it seems that the world is more than ever ready to accept such a move. This move might even awaken the Israeli left who lays dormant somewhere in the beautiful upper class neighborhoods of Tel Aviv.

Lastly, the huge loss to the Democratic Party in the mid-term elections has left Barack Obama weaker than ever leaving even less hope for change. What more needs to said. So, once again I have painted a bleak picture. While I did not vote for the Labor party in 1992, it seems like no Israeli leader since Yitzhak Rabin has been willing to take the future in his/hers hands and set an ambitious agenda. As long as there is no real peace, with every passing year the memories of this period will become more painful. In other words, only when there really is peace will me and many others be able to leave Rabin’s memory to the past.

Home to Israelis and Palestinians: Jerusalem, a Shared City

Through his “slick” politics, Benjamin Netanyahu is doing more to ensure that Jerusalem will become the shared capital of Israel and Palestine than his “leftist” predecessors. I should make it clear that I made the transition to accepting the fate of Jerusalem years ago, while a student at Haifa University. Back then, in 1992, we, a group of Jews and Palestinians, declared this in unison. However, 18 years later there are still those who believe that it will remain in the sole hands of Israel--something no Palestinian in his right mind would accept.

During the last week or so, the issue of Jerusalem has been brought to the world’s attention due to the political maneuvering of the Israeli Prime Minister, who was “completely unaware” of the fact that just hours after his meeting with US Vice President Joe Biden, Shas party member Eli Yishai would publicly undermine his attempts to restart negotiations by announcing that Israel was planning the immediate construction of 1,600 housing units in East Jerusalem. What a blunder! What happened to the shock-and-awe politics of building settlements “quietly” and creating “facts on the ground,” before the US and others could get involved?

Well, Netanyahu has succeeded in creating a crisis between the US and Israel, and it looks like, for once, the US will draw the line: any expansion of settlements in the West Bank --including within the Jerusalem municipalities’ borders--is detrimental to the peace process and cannot be tolerated.

However, whether it is the Israeli government or the Jerusalem municipality, there are two other cases I would like to highlight that only exacerbate the problems of Palestinian-Israeli daily coexistence in Jerusalem. One is the ousting of 1948 Palestinians refugees from the neighborhood of Sheikh Jarrah. These residents have lived in their homes since 1948. Recently, after Jews produced pre-1948 ownership records showing that the property actually belongs to them, eviction proceedings began against the Palestinian residents. Putting the legal issues aside, clearly the motivating factor behind the attempt to evict Palestinians is to strengthen the “Jewish” character of the city in the heart of Arab neighborhoods. Numerous other administrative and social initiatives are in place aimed at cleansing Jerusalem of its Palestinian population. Israeli pro-democratic movements should give priority to these issues and join forces with Palestinians.

The second case has to do with the controversy over the building of the Simon Wiesenthal Museum of Tolerance on the site of an ancient Muslim cemetery. This is a case where one finds oneself gasping at the shock of a museum that teaches tolerance and the history of the Holocaust setting out to erase the past of the “other.” While the Simon Wiesenthal Center denies that this is the case, the overwhelming evidence does not support their claims. Perhaps the Israeli government should start showing goodwill by intervening--first, to block the continued building of the museum, and second, to declare the cemetery a heritage site where Israeli and Palestinian children can learn about the history of those who graves date back perhaps even to the time of Saladin.

No one can deny Israel and the Jewish people’s connection to Jerusalem; however, the Palestinians also have a historical connection to the Holy City and are entitled to live in respect and dignity, and to self-rule in Jerusalem. Ironically, it is the Netanyahu government that is doing the most to help the world understand that Israel will one day have to relinquish parts of the city if there is ever to be peace. Without peace, Israel will face a continued uphill battle, not only to convince its children that this is the land in which they should remain, but also to convince the world that Israel is the state it portrays itself to be: one that longs for peace and promises a land where Jews can live in dignity and pride.