Joharah Baker: Oh, Jerusalem

[Englander]

Christian Palestinians from Bethlehem can only hope that one Easter or Christmas they will be allowed to walk the Via Delarosa.

By Joharah Baker

It’s ironic, how for decades Palestinians and Arabs alike have sung the praises of Jerusalem, describing its golden domes, church bells and walled city and its historical alleyways that retrace the footsteps of Jesus and Prophet Mohammed’s ascension to heaven, without ever setting foot inside its borders.

For the Arabs – Muslims and Christians alike – and the Palestinians in particular, Jerusalem symbolizes much more than the aspired future capital of the Palestinian state. It is the crux of their struggle, the apex of their aspirations for liberation and the embodiment of all they hold sacred. No other city in Palestine, or the world, for that matter, can conjure up such passionate sentiments and fierce loyalty as Jerusalem among the Palestinians.

It is without a doubt, one of the most ironic – and tragic – situations of all times. Palestinian ID holders living in the Gaza Strip and West Bank, some just kilometers from Jerusalem’s celebrated walled city, will most likely never reach the Dome of the Rock to perform Friday prayers or the Church of the Holy Sepulcher for the Easter Mass. Banned by Israeli measures, which bar Palestinian ID holders from entering Jerusalem except for those few who carry an Israeli-issued entry permit, the overwhelming majority of Palestinians can only hope beyond hope that one day they might get a glimpse of the city they have so long epitomized.

Irony is a powerful tool and one Israel exploits to a tee. Imagine, a cowboy from Texas, a rocket scientist from the Ukraine or a new Jewish immigrant from Ethiopia can all enter Jerusalem unfettered, walk the aged alleys of its Old City and even visit the Aqsa Mosque compound where the magnificent gold-domed Dome of the Rock is situated. Virtual strangers to the city and its people have full rights to visit here and frolic among the aromatic smells of spices and sweets that make Jerusalem so distinct, while the city is cruelly prohibited to most Palestinians, those people who hold it dearest to their hearts.

For any Muslim, visiting the Aqsa Mosque Compound, considered the third holiest place in Islam and said to be the place where Prophet Mohammed ascended to heaven on his winged horse Buraq, is a pilgrimage of importance only second to the Haj to Mecca. Muslims from around the world make their way to Jerusalem each year to visit the site and pray in its mosques. However, Palestinians living in the West Bank Jerusalem suburb of Abu Dis or Al-Ezarriyeh can only peek at its glistening golden dome from above the gray concrete of the Apartheid Wall built around their towns, severing them from the city.

More at;
Palestine Chronicle

[King Mongo]

1. Israel will annex all of Jerusalem....

...and Palestinians will be blamed because Israel annexing it.

[ShalachEtAmi]

2. All of Jerusalem has already been Annexed by Israel ,long time ago...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Jerusalem

[Tom Joad]

3. Right, that's true. In full violation of International Law.

[Englander]

4. You make it sound like that's a good thing.

East Jerusalem = OT.

http://www.btselem.org/english/Jerusalem/Index.asp

[ShalachEtAmi]

5. Neither good nor bad,if you have ever been to Jerusalem..

You would have instantly seen that this city is not easily divisible any more.Sure maybe some suburbs of East Jerusalem...but where East and West Jerusalem meet as per 1967 lines , unless somebody told you thats the` border` , you would never know...the huge buildings and Hotels etc are there to stay...also even Peretz of the Labor party says the Old City will remain Israel no matter what...

And its all academic anyway , as long as Hamas is in power and wants East Jerusalem,Tel Aviv,Haifa,Eilat,Beer Sheva etc etc ..Israel will just have to do the Unilateral thing....

[Englander]

6. As I said, you make it sound like that's a good thing.

All I can see is justification of the annexation, with an unconvincing attempt at dropping the
name of an actual leftist politician. The attempt to divert the discussion with the sudden
introduction of a previously unmentioned party in yer last paragraph is absolutely blatant,
with a justification of the unilaterialist policy of the GoI, no less.

Did you look at the B'Tselem site? I'm guessing you didn't, since it's been completely ignored...

[ShalachEtAmi]

7. Yes the next Minister of Defense..

Member of the GOI (as you call the Government) ,will be senior member of the cabinet when all the Unilateral decisions are made..

As for the B`Tselm site.. an organization that is an essential part of any Healthy Democracy that helps keep all the checks and balances in society...

[Englander]

8. Ah, so it is a good thing. Got it.

B'Tselem are certainly essential in Isreal, glad to see yer support for the ngo, I'll
try & reconcile that claim of support with the claim that the annexation of E. Jerusalem
should continue...

[ShalachEtAmi]

9. I notice a very combative..

..curt aggressive style to your replies to myself and many of the posters on DU that I recognize as being pro Israel..

...almost as if we anger you?


:hide:


edit for spelling...

[Englander]

11. Please define 'pro Israel'.

I imagine that yer definition of the phrase is different from mine, I'd say that was most likely
the case. If you think there's a 'very combative curt aggressive style' present, then use the alert
function, or ignore, even. Clearly, I don't agree with that description of my repiles, I could show
you some *actual* very combative curt aggressive replies that were posted yesterday, to myself, if
you like...

[Violet_Crumble]

19. I'd like to hear their definition too...

I notice that yr question hasn't been answered yet, and seeing I'd like to see the reply, I thought I'd just pop in and see what they have to say....

Violet...

[Englander]

20. Yes, I'd like to see a definition.

I hope that a whole raft of definitions are being prepared as we speak, I'd like to see these
definitions.

[ShalachEtAmi]

21. I think its self evident what `Pro Israel ` means...

I see no need for a definition...



Most of us just recognize what is and what is not...no definition needed....

[Englander]

22. I don't, which is why I asked for a definition.

What is self-evident, is that unsubstantiated claims are thick on the ground...

[ShalachEtAmi]

10. It was so `blatant `that even I missed it..

Must of been subconsciously trying `to divert` the discussion? For what reason?

I am not sure so please explain it to me...


.......anybody?


:shrug:

[Englander]

12. btw, if all of Jerusalem should 'remain Israel no matter what'...

..then what, in your opinion, should happen to the non-Israeli population, or the non-Jewish
religious sites, such as Al-Haram al-Sharif, what should happen in those instances?

[ShalachEtAmi]

13. There should not ,nor will be any transfer or evacuation of any group..

Israeli`s are not insisting on transferring out any Arabs as a lot of folk are insisting Jews be transferred and will be transferred out of the West Bank as they were from Gaza.

Holy sites will be completely protected always,just as they always have been .(and not like Jewish holy sites that were defiled during Jordanian rule)

[King Mongo]

14. The reason why the Israeli government wants to transfer Jews...

... out of the West Bank is because it doesn't want to them to live there if it cannot annex the territory. Many people, including myself, argue that civilians shouldn't be transferred, even if they are extremists. On the contrary, these illegal settlers will make splendid Palestinian citizens and there is no need to annex occupied territory.

[Englander]

15. Who said anything about transfer?

I didn't, yer answer doesn't really address the *actual* questions I asked, the (less than
convincing, imo) responses aren't really answers to the questions I asked, but some other
questions. They were most revealing, in a different manner, but they weren't the answers I
was expecting, at all.

Since you mention Gaza, do you think that the settlements should have remained there, or that
Gaza is part of Isreal, as the language used suggests that pov? Describing the 'disengagement'
as 'transfer' suggests that, imo.

[King Mongo]

16. The settlements should have remained in Gaza as a part of Palestine...

...with the Settlers exchanging their Israeli citizenship for Palestinian citizenship. Of course, there's nothing wrong with dual citizenship as long as it has nothing to do with race or religion. Israel was wrong for removing the settlers and Palestinians should made a greater effort to welcome the settlers as Palestinian citizens.

[Englander]

17. Those are good ideas, King.

The practicality might be another issue, but I think they're defintely good ideas.

[Englander]

18. ~~