World opinion is shifting - even Fox news reports that Palestinians are prevented from buying 80% of land in Jerusalem


By ibrows
July 15, 2010
Share

COMMENTS

Akiva

Thu, 07/15/2010 - 20:09

Rate this:

0 points

B"H

Thank you ibrows, this is very good news indeed.

By the way, I'm sure you felt that by posting this well-known leftists blog that you would somehow make people here panic that "world opinion" (from a nation where 80% support Israel) is changing against us. Unfortunately, people are smart enough to see that while 80% of our land may not be available to "palestinian" arabs, that the 100% Judenrein Judea, Samaria and Gush Katif they themselves envisage is far worse.


ibrows

Thu, 07/15/2010 - 21:32

Rate this:

-1 points

Not quite sure when Fox news became leftist (I love the way that is seen as an insult on JC!)... only in your mind me things

Fox is usually totally pro-republican and pro-Israel, so in fact this is a shift in Fox's coverage of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict by all accounts


Akiva

Thu, 07/15/2010 - 21:41

Rate this:

0 points

Fox News isn't leftist, but the opinions of the blogger were not the opinions of Fox News.

Oh and looky here, support for Israel at record high in America:

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/138627


ibrows

Thu, 07/15/2010 - 21:52

Rate this:

-1 points

Akiv
great sources your producing to support your argument.
Is that the best you can do. hilarious. Its called 'Israel national news' and its says there's lots of support for Israel hardly surprising. Its a bit like if i read an Italian paper and it was pro-Berlusconi, hardly conclusive of public sentiment


Akiva

Thu, 07/15/2010 - 22:07

Rate this:

0 points

1. The "source" relates to several independent AMERICAN polls.

2. This news story can be found on Jpost, Ynet and Haaretz. Just so happens, INN was the easiest for me to link to.

3. Whether the source was pro-Israel or pro-Hula dancing, is completely irrelevant, as the results of the polls show record levels of support for Israel in America.

4. From all of the above, I can only but assume you either didn't click the link or are feigning ignorance as you don't have a leg to stand on.

Back to the Drawing Board (Guardian)?


jose (not verified)

Thu, 07/15/2010 - 22:31

Rate this:

0 points

great sources your producing to support your argument.
Say, didn't you use a blog to support your bigotry? (Your opinions do not deserve the name "argument")


jose (not verified)

Thu, 07/15/2010 - 22:35

Rate this:

0 points

Not only 'palestinians' control today more than 75% of Mandatory Palestine land, this part is also totally forbidden to Jews. This is a racist, "Judenrein" land.
Personally, I hope 'palestinian' land to be limited to today's 75%, even forbidden to Jews. Israelis will be satisfied with 25% remaining, including Jerusalem of course, a city that has been a Jewish city for the 150 last years.


Jon_i_Cohen

Fri, 07/16/2010 - 08:28

Rate this:

0 points

Here we go again
The Guardian blog poster pops up again on the Jewish Chronicle.
Do you read those words? The Jewish Chronicle.
This is a web site for people that support Israel, not for it's enemies to blog leftist trivia.
80% ? that is soon to be 100%.
Jerusalem is the Capital Of Israel and will always be so, this is not up for negotiaion, this is clear policy of the Government of Israel, not just my opinion.

http://en.netanyahu.org.il/news/309/243/PM-Netanyahu-%ef%bf%bds-Speech-a...

ibrows- if you want to rubbish Israel, go back to the Guardian, as I have said, the Jewish Chronicle is not the web site for your leftist propoganda.


happygoldfish

Fri, 07/16/2010 - 11:34

Rate this:

2 points

ibrows, what make you think that this shows that fox is being anti-israel rather than simply anti-netanyahu?

this fox news report is based on "Jerusalem: An Open City?", an ir amim report of june 2010 viewable at http://www.ir-amim.org.il/Eng/_Uploads/dbsAttachedFiles/openCity.pdf

(btw, the video in http://liveshots.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/07/12/why-palestinians-cant-buy-land/ isn't working for me)

it seems reasonably even-handed, concluding …

Jerusalem's urban reality reflects the two populations' desire to segregate themselves from each other, and neither community welcomes, to put it mildly, the entrance of the other into its boundaries. In this context, the declarations about an "open city" sound detached from reality at best, and misleading at worst.

it has no agenda other than (page 2) …

This brief report sets out to examine the declarations about a policy of an "open city" that supposedly exists in Jerusalem, and the possibility for Palestinian residents of the city to buy homes anywhere in Jerusalem, including West Jerusalem, and to ask: is that so?

… that of criticising the lack of implementaton of prime minister netanyahu's policy on jerusalem, stated at the start of the weekly cabinet meeting of July 19, 2009 (see http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Peace/Netanyahu071909.html) …

… residents of Jerusalem may purchase apartments in all parts of the city.
This has been the policy of all Israeli governments and I would like to say that it is indeed being implemented because in recent years hundreds of apartments in Jewish neighborhoods and in the western part of the city have been purchased by – or rented to – Arab residents and we did not interfere. 
This {policy} says that there is no ban on Arabs buying apartments in the western part of the city and there is no ban on Jews buying or building apartments in the eastern part of the city.
This is the policy of an open city, an undivided city that has no separation according to religion or national affiliation.

netanyahu, instead of referring to residency rights in israel/palestine as a whole, or the middle east as a whole, for some reason made a selective statement about jerusalem which simply appears to be contradicted by the facts

like any politician, he puts forward a intended policy which opponents are entitled to challenge as not being implemented

i like to think that tzipi livni would not have made such an ambitious statement of policy whose lack of implementation could be so easily criticised

i haven't seen the original fox report, but a prime ministerial policy statement on a matter of general interest is obviously a legitimate subject for fox comment, especially for an audience interested in israeli party politics … if it reflects any fox opinon (which i doubt), that is probably anti-netanyahu rather than anti-israel

Jon_i_Cohen: This is a web site for people that support Israel …

uhh? i thought it was a web site for people that read the jc ?


Jon_i_Cohen

Fri, 07/16/2010 - 11:38

Rate this:

-2 points

Jon_i_Cohen: This is a web site for people that support Israel …

uhh? i thought it was a web site for people that read the jc ?

Shouldn't that be one and the same thing?


happygoldfish

Sun, 07/18/2010 - 10:52

Rate this:

2 points

happygoldfish: i thought it was a web site for people that read the jc ?

Jon_i_Cohen: Shouldn't that be one and the same thing?

now how did i know you were going to say that?!

so basically you're saying that people who "rubbish israel" or are "leftist" shouldn't blog here because it offends the sensibilities of the jc's monolithic closed-minded readership?

POST A COMMENT

You must be logged in to post a comment.