On November 17th Danny Seidemann and I
wrote about how Netanyahu had chosen the "nuclear option" when it came to Gilo. We meant that in this instance, when the issue of the approval of new settlement construction in East Jerusalem came up, he and his government opted for a strategy that was guaranteed to cause the biggest possible explosion politically, leaving diplomatic scorched earth in its wake.
Today we have another example of Israeli officialdom "going nuclear" on Jerusalem, this time in response to a leaked EU draft document that (gasp) implies that under a peace agreement the capital of a Palestinian state would be East Jerusalem. As quoted in
Haaretz, the draft EU document notes:
"The Council is deeply concerned about the situation in East Jerusalem. In view of recent incidents, it calls on all parties to refrain from provocative actions. The Council recalls that it has never recognized the annexation of East Jerusalem. If there is to be a genuine peace, a way must be found to resolve the status of Jerusalem as the capital of two states. The Council calls for the reopening of Palestinian institutions in Jerusalem in accordance with the Roadmap. It also calls on the Israeli government to cease all discriminatory treatment of Palestinians in East Jerusalem."
Judging from the Israeli reactions of
shock,
dismay, and
outrage, an ignorant (or forgetful) observer might assume that nobody had ever suggested such a thing in the past.
That observer would of course be grossly mistaken. What we have here is not the case of anything remotely new or shocking being said by the EU (or of the EU trying to prejudge the outcome of final status talks, as opposition leader Tzipi
Livni stated, apparently viewing EU words as more problematic than Israeli settlement activity and home demolitions in Jerusalem -- Tzipi, meet irony. Irony, meet Tzipi. You clearly are not acquainted.). What we have here is a cynical Israel reaction designed, it would seem, to re-set the diplomatic clock back by at least a decade, to a time when politicians and negotiators were still forced to speak in code (not referring explicitly to the fact that a peace agreement would mean the creation of a Palestinian state, let alone the location of its capital).
Below is a compendium of Jerusalem-related data points, drawn mainly from the not-at-all-lefty Jewish Virtual Library, for those who are following this and care about the facts involved.
Special analysis from Lara Friedman (Americans for Peace Now) and Danny Seidemann (Ir Amim).