Israel suspends EU role in peace process with Palestinians

[Linky]

They won't solve their differences. Remember, one main sticking point is that Temple Mount in the Old City of Jerusalem which contained the Biblical temple. That temple had The Holy of Holies which contained the Ark of the Covenant, showcased in the movie "Raiders of the lost Ark."

The Romans tore the Jewish Temple down about 2,000 years ago and later the Muslims built the current mosque on that Temple Mount.

The so-called "Palestinians" want all of Old Jerusalem including that Temple Mount and many other historical Jewish (and Christian) sites including the Mount of Olives and many more.

The Jews aren't about to give up the Old City in E. Jerusalem and that's what all of this issue is about. The MSM likes to refer to the area as "The West Bank" but the issue is the part of The West Bank that extends into and includes E. Jerusalem and The Old City of Jerusalem.

That temple that is chronicled in the Old and New Testaments of the Bible and which has great historical significance to Jews from the Old Testament, and the life of Jesus in the New Testament has been crushed and is underneath that Muslim Mosque. The Jews aren't going to give that land to some newcomers who didn't even show up until the 1960's without an all-out fight.

Cheers.

For some reason, people assume all or most Israeli Jews are religiously devout to the extent that the Temple Mount is the cornerstone of their existence. Figures regarding annual visits to the Temple Mount do not see, to support these notions. Making it into a singular core issue misses the complexity of the conflict and reduces both sides into fanatical zealots.

As a reminder, the Temple Mount was not placed under Israeli (or Jewish) control within the various partition plans, but designated, along with Jerusalem in general, as joined-rule or international mandate area. Didn't seem to be a red line at the time. Same goes for the 1949 talks - which saw the site under Jordanian rule. Furthermore, even after 1967, and even after annexing East Jerusalem, Israel chose to not fully apply its sovereignty over the Temple Mount.

Israel does not need a change of Temple Mount management and surely not a third Temple, in order to thrive.

It does not need it to thrive but as usual with israel it will steal whatever it can and hope only a little is given back in the illusion of a peace process.

Standard procedure. Take everything and offer minimal back and pretend it is being nice.

[Morch]

They won't solve their differences. Remember, one main sticking point is that Temple Mount in the Old City of Jerusalem which contained the Biblical temple. That temple had The Holy of Holies which contained the Ark of the Covenant, showcased in the movie "Raiders of the lost Ark."

The Romans tore the Jewish Temple down about 2,000 years ago and later the Muslims built the current mosque on that Temple Mount.

The so-called "Palestinians" want all of Old Jerusalem including that Temple Mount and many other historical Jewish (and Christian) sites including the Mount of Olives and many more.

The Jews aren't about to give up the Old City in E. Jerusalem and that's what all of this issue is about. The MSM likes to refer to the area as "The West Bank" but the issue is the part of The West Bank that extends into and includes E. Jerusalem and The Old City of Jerusalem.

That temple that is chronicled in the Old and New Testaments of the Bible and which has great historical significance to Jews from the Old Testament, and the life of Jesus in the New Testament has been crushed and is underneath that Muslim Mosque. The Jews aren't going to give that land to some newcomers who didn't even show up until the 1960's without an all-out fight.

Cheers.

Rubbish. The Temple Mount is under international care, governed by Jordan, and will always be so....unless the radical right-wing Jews have their way. THEY are the ones hoping to grab it for sole possession.

Claims that the Temple Mount is for "Muslims only" are rather common. Some of the Palestinians feel it belongs to the future Palestine. Saying that only radical right wing Jews are wish for sole possession does not reflect reality.

How is the Temple Mount "under international care"? As for "governed by Jordan" - another over-simplified opinion which ignores complex realities. Jordan was not accorded a special position with regard to the Temple Mount, but rather assumed it through its annexation of the West Bank. The site was managed by the Jerusalem Islamic Waqf, which traditionally included representatives of local influential families and religious leaders. The main issue was always who gets to run the Waqf, through effecting membership and leadership. After 1967, the Waqf went on, only to be somewhat curbed post 2003 (the Second Intifada).

Some of the issues cropping up every now and then between Jordan and the PA relate to Jordanian efforts aimed at changing things back to pre-2003 and to control over the Waqf's membership. Since Jordan renounced its annexation and claims to the West Bank, Jordanian involvement in matters relating to the Temple mount is also a political minefield as far as relationship with the Palestinians go.

Asserting that "it will always be so" (regardless of the "so" being...complicated), assumes political conditions will remain fixes. Not the most solid proposition when it comes to the Middle East.

[Morch]

They won't solve their differences. Remember, one main sticking point is that Temple Mount in the Old City of Jerusalem which contained the Biblical temple. That temple had The Holy of Holies which contained the Ark of the Covenant, showcased in the movie "Raiders of the lost Ark."

The Romans tore the Jewish Temple down about 2,000 years ago and later the Muslims built the current mosque on that Temple Mount.

The so-called "Palestinians" want all of Old Jerusalem including that Temple Mount and many other historical Jewish (and Christian) sites including the Mount of Olives and many more.

The Jews aren't about to give up the Old City in E. Jerusalem and that's what all of this issue is about. The MSM likes to refer to the area as "The West Bank" but the issue is the part of The West Bank that extends into and includes E. Jerusalem and The Old City of Jerusalem.

That temple that is chronicled in the Old and New Testaments of the Bible and which has great historical significance to Jews from the Old Testament, and the life of Jesus in the New Testament has been crushed and is underneath that Muslim Mosque. The Jews aren't going to give that land to some newcomers who didn't even show up until the 1960's without an all-out fight.

Cheers.

For some reason, people assume all or most Israeli Jews are religiously devout to the extent that the Temple Mount is the cornerstone of their existence. Figures regarding annual visits to the Temple Mount do not see, to support these notions. Making it into a singular core issue misses the complexity of the conflict and reduces both sides into fanatical zealots.

As a reminder, the Temple Mount was not placed under Israeli (or Jewish) control within the various partition plans, but designated, along with Jerusalem in general, as joined-rule or international mandate area. Didn't seem to be a red line at the time. Same goes for the 1949 talks - which saw the site under Jordanian rule. Furthermore, even after 1967, and even after annexing East Jerusalem, Israel chose to not fully apply its sovereignty over the Temple Mount.

Israel does not need a change of Temple Mount management and surely not a third Temple, in order to thrive.

It does not need it to thrive but as usual with israel it will steal whatever it can and hope only a little is given back in the illusion of a peace process.

Standard procedure. Take everything and offer minimal back and pretend it is being nice.

Israel did not fully exert its sovereignty over the Temple Mount, although it could have.

Restrictions on Jewish prayers and visitations to the Temple Mount are in place.

How does "take everything" apply here?

[Morch]

I'm all in favour of labeling things correctly. I have bought nothing (knowingly) that comes from Israel for over 20 years. I think that the treatment of Palestinians is shameful. They should have their own state using the 1967 borders.

As a private person, one may apply whatever boycotting he fancies. There is no imperative for such choices to be rational, even-handed or consistent (hard to avoid consuming everything that comes out of all countries engaged in obvious human rights violations).

[Morch]

Maybe the EU, Israel's largest trading partner, is aware that unless they visit the problem of 4.5 million Palestinians under occupation, the problem may visit them in the form of more refugees.

European and US indifference to Palestiniian suffering and Israel's disregard for international law, has caused the problem in the first place.

Arab countries involvement and Palestinian leadership failures had nothing to do with the Palestinian predicament, then?

[Morch]

Good, to the OP.

I hope it escalates as that will help the BDS.

OP...

Israel suspends EU role in peace process with Palestinians

Let's hope the EU, Israel's largest trading partner, in return suspends its role in Israel's economy, since Israel clearly demonstrates that it is not seriously interested in peace..

Ah, the voices of moderation.

Hoping for escalation, which will lead to further boycotting and animosity. Thought the BDS was a means rather than a goal?

Hoping for trade suspension over diplomatic tough talk. But hey, proportional response is something required only from one party, right?

Compared with political pressure which can be applied by the EU through maintaining economic and political ties with Israel, the BDS is dust in the wind. Those wishing to play the BDS card over EU influence care more about bashing, and less with regard to conflict resolution. Those advocating cutting playing one of the major means of leverage the EU wields, and over a trifle, are similarly interested more in scoring points.

Even assuming cutting off trade was a simple matter (it ain't), what effect would this have on the Palestinian economy? How would it effect the EU's ability to play a role (any role) concerning the conflict? What would the consequences be for the EU's economy?

One liners and slogans. Keep'm coming, they're all you got.

[Morch]

The EU is displaying hypocrisy of the first order, there are scores of other places on earth which are 'disputed' where there is no labeling of goods. The discriminatory labeling is quite possibly illegal too under <deleted> rules. Little wonder Israel has correctly concluded the EU is no longer an honest broker in any peace talks.

P.S I think Israel should go further and forbid access to all the EU funded NGO's who work in cahoots with Palestinian terrorists.

Scores of disputed places? And they export goods to the EU? And they have an occupying army oppressing the native people? And have dragged the occupation on for 50 years? And continue to break international law by settling in the disputed areas?

"Scores" means 40. Name just one that also fits the criteria above, and you may be right that there is hypocrisy.

Here's a list.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_territorial_disputes

It doesn't at first glance cover Tibet, which was an autonomous Country, with its own Ruler, currency, defined borders, recognized by the UN. Now it's a province of China with Han Chinese settlers diluting the native Tibetans out of existence. Care to show me a made in Tibet label? Thought not. And what of Northern Cyprus, has Turkey's illegal invasion led to product labelling?

P.s As for wet dreams about BDS, Israel has rapidly increasing ties with India, Japan and China. It is negotiating to sell Iron dome to the Saudis and gulf states. Israel is also awash with oil and gas resources. Good luck with any campaigns run by European leftists, these will collapse too as European nations wake up to the fact they have been themselves occupied by a hostile culture.

So you are comparing the brutal occupation of Tibet by Han Chinese to the brutal occupation of Palestine by Zionists.

I agree.

Thanks for clarifying that

And yet, you do not pop on every topic remotely relating to China in order to push forward your version of the Tibetan agenda and narrative.

If these two are the same, shouldn't the EU apply its labeling regulations to Chinese products? Does it?

[Morch]

I think the EU have got it wrong. They should be banning all goods produced in Israel not just the illegal colonies.

That would be a far more effective form of resistance than violence and may bring Israel to its senses to negotiate a just peace agreement with its neighbors.

Or it would further enhance the religious right-wing's prominence in Israel, and encourage Israel to adopt an even more hardliner policies.

Nice twist there - the violence is not carried out by the EU, but by the Palestinians. The EU is not "resisting" anything. violently or otherwise. No mention of the Palestinians in the post, obviously they play a passive role again, with everything to be affected by the EU and Israel. Not a very pro-Palestinian position there.

Israel got standing peace agreements with two of its five neighbors. As for the other three, might be irritating for some to recall, but they are all currently deeply divided or in complete disarray. May want to sort that out first, before having the faction of the day sign a treaty on behalf of the whole.

[arjunadawn]

They won't solve their differences. Remember, one main sticking point is that Temple Mount in the Old City of Jerusalem which contained the Biblical temple. That temple had The Holy of Holies which contained the Ark of the Covenant, showcased in the movie "Raiders of the lost Ark."

The Romans tore the Jewish Temple down about 2,000 years ago and later the Muslims built the current mosque on that Temple Mount.

The so-called "Palestinians" want all of Old Jerusalem including that Temple Mount and many other historical Jewish (and Christian) sites including the Mount of Olives and many more.

The Jews aren't about to give up the Old City in E. Jerusalem and that's what all of this issue is about. The MSM likes to refer to the area as "The West Bank" but the issue is the part of The West Bank that extends into and includes E. Jerusalem and The Old City of Jerusalem.

That temple that is chronicled in the Old and New Testaments of the Bible and which has great historical significance to Jews from the Old Testament, and the life of Jesus in the New Testament has been crushed and is underneath that Muslim Mosque. The Jews aren't going to give that land to some newcomers who didn't even show up until the 1960's without an all-out fight.

Cheers.

Corrections, the first temple was burned and demolished by King Nebuchadnezzar II (634-562 BCE) king of ancient Babylon, succeeding his father, Nabopolassar. in the year of 585 BC, and all the Jews have been exiled to Babylon,

than, 70 years later the Persian has defeated the Babylonian and allowed the Jews to rebuild the temple aging and it stood there for 420 year before the Romans came and gutted the place and the whole country and again exiled many of the land to four corners of the world.

You are both correct, but he was not addressing the first temple period. Clearly he was starting with the last viable standing temple 69CE.

[arjunadawn]

It is only a matter of time before EU pressures on Israel multiply. As the EU increases its islamic voting blocs, and not necessarily Palestinian, the world will finally see this has little to do with land and everything to do with Jews. Regrettably, this isolation will only further isolate Israel and corner it. Perhaps a valid tool to force diplomacy, but equally a dangerous trigger. Unfortunately, this will likely happen in most of our lifetimes to witness it.

[NeverSure]

They won't solve their differences. Remember, one main sticking point is that Temple Mount in the Old City of Jerusalem which contained the Biblical temple. That temple had The Holy of Holies which contained the Ark of the Covenant, showcased in the movie "Raiders of the lost Ark."

The Romans tore the Jewish Temple down about 2,000 years ago and later the Muslims built the current mosque on that Temple Mount.

The so-called "Palestinians" want all of Old Jerusalem including that Temple Mount and many other historical Jewish (and Christian) sites including the Mount of Olives and many more.

The Jews aren't about to give up the Old City in E. Jerusalem and that's what all of this issue is about. The MSM likes to refer to the area as "The West Bank" but the issue is the part of The West Bank that extends into and includes E. Jerusalem and The Old City of Jerusalem.

That temple that is chronicled in the Old and New Testaments of the Bible and which has great historical significance to Jews from the Old Testament, and the life of Jesus in the New Testament has been crushed and is underneath that Muslim Mosque. The Jews aren't going to give that land to some newcomers who didn't even show up until the 1960's without an all-out fight.

Cheers.

Corrections, the first temple was burned and demolished by King Nebuchadnezzar II (634-562 BCE) king of ancient Babylon, succeeding his father, Nabopolassar. in the year of 585 BC, and all the Jews have been exiled to Babylon,

than, 70 years later the Persian has defeated the Babylonian and allowed the Jews to rebuild the temple aging and it stood there for 420 year before the Romans came and gutted the place and the whole country and again exiled many of the land to four corners of the world.

Perhaps you're not a native English speaker and can't really read what I wrote? That's not "corrections" but rather additional and correct information. The Romans tore down the temple where Jesus was mentioned many times including when "the veil" (to the Holy of Holies) was torn down to open it up to everyone and not just the Jewish priests.

That Temple Mount is sacred to Jews, and less so but important to Christians due to the acts of Jesus mentioned in the New Testament, and there is now a Muslim Mosque on the site.

Under the current Israeli leadership Muslims use that temple and Jews aren't allowed to. That's Jewish rule. But the Jews including the non religious but patriotic ones aren't going to give up the Old City in East Jerusalem including The Temple Mount in The West Bank ever. There are simply too many historical religious and non-religious Jewish sites in E. Jerusalem.

There never was and still isn't a nation called Palestine. There was a region encompassing several countries called Palestine. The current usurpers began to call themselves "Palestinians" under Yassar Arafat in the 1960's, but that doesn't make them so. People have been referred to as "Palestinians" only since the 1960's, but this ancient Old City of Jerusalem is in the record as Israeli for thousands of years.

Israel isn't going to give up it's historical Old City and people should just stop dreaming.

Cheers.

[Chicog]

Benny will find any excuse to scupper proceedings.

That's what he does.