The response to Israel's announcement is disproportionate

The most enthusiastic critics of both Israel and the US, have been invigorated recently by what they gleefully describe as one of the worst ever crises in our excellent relations.
By Ron Prosor, Israel's Ambassador to the UK

The cause, they tell us, was the announcement during Vice-President Biden's recent visit to Israel, that 1,600 flats would be built in the existing North Jerusalem suburb of Ramat Shlomo.

The suburb is home to some 16,000 strictly orthodox Jews, who represent the fastest growing section of Israeli society Prime Minister Netanyahu apologised for the timing of the announcement, which he acknowledged was unhelpful. He also took steps to prevent a recurrence. Usually, such an apology would draw the episode to a close.

Instead, on this occasion, the incident has triggered a disproportionate response.

Let's get the facts straight. Ramat Shlomo is not in "east" Jerusalem as often reported, but in the north of Jerusalem. It is not a new settlement, but an existing, established neighbourhood. The planning application has already taken years and will take at least another three for the first brick to be laid.

Most cool-headed analysts agree that Jerusalem suburbs such as Ramat Shlomo will be considered part of Israel under any negotiated two-state solution.

For Israel, Jerusalem is the heart of the Jewish people, established as our eternal capital by King David, some 3,500 years ago. Jews have lived, worked and prayed in the city from time immemorial.

Throughout the generations, Jews have been the largest community in Jerusalem. This was confirmed in 1845 when the Prussian consul conducted the first census in the city. By 1905, out of a population of less than 60,000, at least 40,000 were Jewish. In modern times, the only period when Jews were restricted from living throughout Jerusalem was between 1948 and 1967. Under Arab Jordanian control, Jewish communities were ruthlessly and violently driven out of areas where they had lived for centuries. It would be virtually unimaginable for an Israeli government to restrict the rights of Jews to live in Jerusalem. Israelis disagree on nearly everything, but on the sovereignty of our capital city we are overwhelmingly united.

This has sometimes led to a difference of opinion between Israel and the US over construction. But that difference has never altered the basic reality of our friendship. Israel and the US are and remain close friends and strategic allies, united by shared values and common interests.

When PM Netanyahu last year agreed to an extensive freeze on West Bank settlement construction, Hillary Clinton hailed the move as an "unprecedented concession". Yet it was clear even then that the freeze did not apply to Jerusalem, the indivisible sovereign capital of the State of Israel.

For over a year, the Netanyahu government has offered direct negotiations with the Palestinian Authority without preconditions. By making talks conditional on a total freeze on construction in Jerusalem, the Palestinian Authority has been given a golden get out clause. The Palestinian refusal to enter direct talks is ironic, given that the PA is itself a product of direct negotiations with Israel.

As the media spotlight last week glared on Jerusalem, Fatah officials renamed the main square in Ramallah after Dalal Mughrabi, the leader of a PLO terror attack in 1978 which killed 38 Israeli civilians, including 13 children. There was no coverage, let alone criticism, of this symbolic embrace of terrorist atrocity, despite its timing. There rarely is.

Anyone casually observing the disproportionate recent media coverage might assume that a handful of apartment blocks in Israel's capital is the most pressing issue in the world today, let alone the Middle East. If they are ever built, they will need exceptionally strong foundations. After all, they are being used as a peg on which to hang the world's political baggage from Washington to Waziristan and from Jerusalem to Jakarta.

President Obama's hope to engage the Muslim world is commendable but, as some analysts have observed, not without risk. In some instances, positions have hardened. Certainly, the strategy of rewarding the refusal of the Palestinian Authority to come to the table with stronger criticism of Israel seems an unlikely recipe for success.

The media has long cast PM Netanyahu in the role of villain but he has refused to act the part. He embraced the two-state solution in his policy speech last June. He agreed to a West Bank settlement freeze of greater scope than any previous Israeli government. He has removed West Bank roadblocks and restrictions, easing access and helping to boost unprecedented growth in the Palestinian economy.

Frustrated, critics have elevated Ramat Shlomo to a position of disproportionate prominence. It is, apparently, more important than Iran's imperial nuclear ambitions, the Taliban's tightening grip on Pakistan's border and the evolution of Iraqi democracy. Such thinking is an Achilles' heel in conflict resolution. At one point I wondered whether this small Jerusalem suburb would be held accountable for causing undue tension to David Beckham's Achilles tendon.

Israel is committed to peace. As we search for a comprehensive agreement, calm and sober voices are needed to acknowledge sensitivities and diffuse tensions. Describing Jerusalem as a "settlement" is unhelpful, historically flawed and undermines negotiations. We cannot portray a host of global policy concerns as at the mercy of the Israeli equivalent of the council house waiting list.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/israel/7474344/Commentary-The-response-to-Israels-announcement-is-disproportionate.html