Category Archives: Jerusalem

Thinking Jerusalem

by Gerald A. Honigman

On the campaign trail, Arafat’s former chief marionette, Holocaust-denying Mahmud Abbas, offered Arab terrorists, who specialize in deliberately disemboweling Jewish babes and other innocents, protection and integration into his own forces; demanded that Israel consent to its own destruction by agreeing to be inundated by millions of allegedly “returning” real and fudged Arab refugees (one half of Israel’s Jews were refugees from “Arab” /Muslim lands); and continues to insist that Israel not be recognized as a Jewish state.

The current darling of the West was quite open about all of this and has repeatedly stated that destroying Israel “democratically” is his goal since it would be better accepted and bring about less bad press than blowing up buses, restaurants, and such.

While expecting Israel to cave in to all of their demands, Abbas & his fellow Arafatian moderates offer Israel a temporary hudna–ceasefire–not peace and call all such dealings with the Jews a “Trojan Horse.”

Good thing they’re moderates.

So, if you thought the fence and Gaza were hot potatoes, just wait…

While it keeps getting shoved onto the back burner for fear of the intense heat that it will generate, there’s no doubt that Jerusalem will be one of the most difficult issues to resolve in any so-called peace process.

Indeed, as Gaza’s Jews were recently being ethnically cleansed, they could hear Arabs chanting in the background, “first Gaza, next Jerusalem.”

A bit earlier, Yossi Beilin and some other fellow delusional Israelis brought the subject up in their Geneva fiasco with some of Arafat’s conscious and unconscious manipulatives. As with the rest of that initiative, Jews would give up concrete tangibles–in this case sacred ones–in return for vague Arab promises a la Oslo.

Given all of this, it’s time to take a look at some blunt facts regarding Jerusalem, despite the risk of ruffling even some friendly feathers.

While Christians, Muslims, and Jews all have ties to Jerusalem, these ties are in no way “equal”- despite Arafat’s apparently wanting to have a quasi shrine erected for himself upon his passing on the Temple Mount.

In religious Jewish sources, for instance, Jerusalem is mentioned over 600 times, but it is never mentioned even once in the Koran. It is alluded to in the latter in passages about the Hebrew Kings, David and Solomon, and the destruction of the Temples of the Jews. Arafat and Co. deny a Jewish Temple ever existed there.

They call the Temple Mount “Buraq’s Mount,” after Muhammad’s supposedly winged horse. But a mention of Jerusalem itself is no where to be found in the Muslim holy book…interesting, since it was recorded in many other places besides the writings of the Jews themselves for over 1,500 years before the rise of Islam.

Religious claims of both Christians and Muslims to Jerusalem exist primarily because of those religions’ links to the Jews. Political claims – based upon facts on the ground – are, admittedly, more complicated. Even so, throughout over three millennia since King David conquered it from the Jebusites, renamed it, and gave it its Jewish character, no other people except the Jews has ever made Jerusalem their capital, despite its conquest by many imperial powers, including that of the Arab caliphal successors to Muhammad as they burst out of the Arabian Peninsula in the 7th century C.E. and spread in all directions. Damascus and Baghdad were the capital seats of Arab caliphal imperial power, and Mecca and Medina the holy cities. This is not to say that Jerusalem was ignored by its Muslim conquerors (i.e. the Umayyads built the Dome of the Rock/Mosque of ‘Umar on the Temple Mount making it Islam’s allegedly third holiest city), but it is to say that Jerusalem was and is in no way the focus for Islam that it is for Jews and Judaism.

Since David made Jerusalem his capital and it became the site of his son Solomon’s Temple, Zion became the heart and soul of Jewish national and religious existence. Jews from all over the early diaspora made their pilgrimages and sent offerings to its Temple. “By the Rivers of Babylon we wept…” and “If I forget thee O Jerusalem, may my right hand forget its cunning…” were just a few of the many Biblical expressions of the Jews for Zion. Such yearning persisted throughout subsequent millennia in the Diaspora as well. “Next Year in Jerusalem” sustained the Jew throughout countless degradations and humiliations culminating in the Holocaust.

There is no Muslim parallel to these claims, despite efforts to portray Palestinian Arabs (many of whom were new arrivals – settlers – in the land themselves), as the “new Jews.”

Jews, coming from a hundred different lands (including those native to Israel itself), didn’t have twenty-two other states to potentially choose from and suffered dearly for this statelessness. Most Muslim Arabs want sole rights over Jerusalem today, the same way they want sole rights over Tel Aviv. In their eyes, only they have legitimate political rights anywhere in what they regard as the Dar al-Islam.

Regardless of whatever theology one clings to, Jesus’ historical experiences in Roman-occupied Judaea and Jerusalem were those of a Jew living under extremely precarious conditions. Thousands of his countrymen had already been killed, crucified, and the like in the subjugation/pacification process. The contemporary Roman and Roman-sponsored historians themselves–Tacitus, Josephus, Dio Cassius, and others as well–had much to say about all of this. Consider, for example, these few of many telling quotes from Tacitus:

” Vespasian succeeded to the throne…it infuriated his resentment that the Jews were the only nation who had not yet submitted…Titus was appointed by his father to complete the subjugation of Judaea… he commanded three legions in Judaea itself… To these he added the twelfth from Syria and the third and twenty-second from Alexandria… amongst his allies were a band of Arabs, formidable in themselves and harboring towards the Jews the bitter animosity usually subsisting between neighboring nations…”

These oppressive conditions led to open revolts and guerilla warfare to rid the land of its mighty pagan conqueror – wars which would eventually lead the Roman Emperor, Hadrian, to rename the land itself from Judaea to Syria Palaestina in 135 C.E. in an attempt to stamp out any remaining hopes for Jewish independence and national existence. Judaea was thus renamed after the Jews’ historic enemies, the Philistines, a non-Semitic sea people from the eastern Mediterranean or Aegean region, to drive home the point.

For a modern analogy, imagine Lithuania as it was engulfed by the Soviet Union in the latter’s heyday of power. Or a Hungarian freedom fighter or Greek partisan taking on the Soviets or the Nazis. Think of the sympathy and admiration normally given to such situations… Now think about the treatment the Jews have received over the ages for longing for this same freedom and dignity. Whatever Jesus did or did not mean in his alleged statement, “render unto Caesar…,” this passage and others in the New Testament have been used to belittle this same desire for freedom and independence among the Jews.

Judaea Capta (not “Palaestina” Capta) coins were issued, and the towering Arch of Titus was erected after the first major revolt in 70 C.E. and shows, among other things, the Romans carrying away the giant Menorah and other objects from the Jewish Temple that at least many if not most Arabs and other Muslims claim never existed. It stands in Rome to this very day to commemorate Rome’s victory over the Jews and Jewish Jerusalem.

When Muhammad, the Prophet of Islam, fled Mecca to Medina in 622 C.E. (the Hijrah), the inhabitants welcomed him. Medina had been developed centuries earlier as a thriving date palm oasis by Jews fleeing the Roman assault (the banu-Qurayzah and banu-al-Nadir tribes, etc.), and its mixed population of Jews and pagan Arabs had thus become conditioned for a native prophet speaking the word of G-d.

Muhammad learned much from the Jews. While the actual timing of his decision on the direction of prayer may never be known, during his long sojourn with the Jews of Medina, his followers were instructed to pray towards Jerusalem. Early prominent Arab historians such as Jalaluddin came right out and stated that this was done primarily as an attempt to win support among the influential Jewish tribes (the “People of the Book”) for Muhammad’s religio-politcal claims.

It is from the Temple Mount in Jerusalem that Muslims believe Muhammad ascended to Heaven on his winged horse. A mosque, the Dome of the Rock, would later be erected on this Jewish holy site after the Arab imperial conquest of the land in the 7th century C.E.

There is no doubt among objective scholars that Jews had an enormous impact on both Muhammad and the religion that he founded. The holy sites for Muslims in Jerusalem (i.e. the mosques erected on the Temple Mount of the Jews) are now deemed “holy” precisely because of the critical years Muhammad spent after the Hijrah with the Jews.

The Temple Mount had no prior meaning to pagan Arabs. While there was some early Christian influence as well, intense scholarship has shown that the Holy Law (Halakha) and Holy Scriptures of the Jews had a tremendous influence on the Koran, Islamic Holy Law (Shari’a), etc. Muhammad’s “Jerusalem connection” was most likely not established until after his extended stay with his Jewish hosts. This was no mere coincidence…Muslim religious beliefs regarding Muhammad’s conversations with the Angel Gabriel, etc. notwithstanding.

When the Jews refused to recognize Muhammad as the “Seal of the Prophets,” he turned on them with a vengeance. Before long, with the exception of Yemen, there were virtually no Jews left on the Arabian Peninsula. And the direction of prayer was changed away from Jerusalem and towards the Kaaba in Mecca instead…
To say that Jerusalem has the same meaning for Muslims as it has for Jews is to simply tell a lie.

In modern times, Jews constituted the majority of Jerusalem’s population from 1840 onwards. When Jordanian Arabs – whose nation itself was formed from 80% of the original mandate for Palestine issued to Britain on April 25, 1920 – seized East Jerusalem after their invasion of reborn Israel in 1948, they destroyed dozens of synagogues and thousands of Jewish graves, using tombstones to pave roads, build latrines, etc.

When the Jews were denied access to their holy sites for almost two decades, the whole world remained silent. After Israel was forced to fight a defensive war in 1967 due to its being blockaded by Egypt’s Nasser at the Straits of Tiran (a casus belli) and other hostile acts, Jerusalem became reunited. Access to all peoples and faiths subsequently became unhindered. It was at this moment that much of the world chose to rediscover Jerusalem…demanding its redivision, internationalization, etc. Now there’s justice for you! Sickening…but, unfortunately, not really shocking or unexpected in the Jewish experience.

For centuries, Jews were forcibly converted and/or expelled, massacred, humiliated, demonized, inquisitioned, ghettoized, declared the “deicide people,” and such–to one extent or another–in both the Muslim East (where they were also known as kilab yahud… Jew dogs) as well as the Christian West. They are determined that their rights in the sole capital of the sole, microscopic, reborn state that they possess will not be sacrificed on behalf of any 22nd state created for Arabs–especially since the latter show, in poll after poll, that regardless of how much more Jews will bare their necks for peace, Arabs will not accept the legitimacy of a viable Jewish Israel anyway.

How the Foreign Office sees Israel

A leaked document from the British Foreign Office shows clearly the pro-Arab leanings and anti-Israeli stance that we have come to expect from that particular branch of Her Majesty’s Government. Appropriately enough, it was leaked to The Guardian:

A confidential Foreign Office document accuses Israel of rushing to annex the Arab area of Jerusalem, using illegal Jewish settlement construction and the vast West Bank barrier, in a move to prevent it becoming a Palestinian capital.

In an unusually frank insight into British assessments of Israeli intentions, the document says that Ariel Sharon’s government is jeopardising the prospect of a peace agreement by trying to put the future of Arab East Jerusalem beyond negotiation and risks driving Palestinians living in the city into radical groups. The document, obtained by the Guardian, was presented to an EU council of ministers meeting chaired by the foreign secretary, Jack Straw, on Monday with recommendations to counter the Israeli policy, including recognition of Palestinian political activities in East Jerusalem.

But the council put the issue on hold until next month under pressure from Italy, according to sources, which Israel considers its most reliable EU ally.

International law is in the eye of the beholder, of course, and it is no surprise that the Foreign Office buys every argument of the Arab world on this issue. The document also exposes the world view of the Foreign Office that anything other than appeasement and surrender risks “driving Palestinians… into radical groups”. Such assumptions have been at the heart of Britain’s foreign policy failures for much of the past century.

As for the “frank insight” claimed by the Guardian, the site Democracy for the Middle East comments:

Excuse us, but Britain’s foreign office hasn’t had a “frank insight” about the Arabs since the first World War.

Quite.

Where do you want the casualties?

Under the topic of “Introducing the Old Testament”, a video is being promoted by the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) purporting to help congregations to “understand the conflict in the Holy Land from the perspective of Lutheran Palestinians”. The video, Forbidden Family (details available here), highlights one Christian family and how they are affected by the conditions of life in Jerusalem and the surrounding area.

“The social, political, economic, and religious situation in the Holy Land is complex,” we are are told, yet the video misses an extremely important aspect of this “complexity”. David Meir-Levi points this out in his letter below to Ann Hafften, Coordinator for Middle East Networking at ELCA:

Dear Ms. Hafften,

The 8-minute video captures in exquisite and gut-wrenching detail the trials and tribulations of one, probably very characteristic, victim of the current conflict in Israel.

But the absence of the context within which Rimaz’s problems are created gives the video a deeply skewed and misleading message. The de-contextualization of Rimaz’s situation from the context of the conflict gives the viewer the impression that she is a victim of some random, almost whimsically evil anti-Christian or anti-Arab Israeli legislation.

Rimaz is indeed a victim. But not of any Israeli desires or prejudices against Arabs or Christians.

As you must know (since I wrote this to you in a previous email, which you never acknowledged and to which you never replied) that prior to changes in legislation two years ago, Israel placed no such restrictions on people in Rimaz’s situation.

Two years ago, after several horrific terror attacks inside of pre-67 Israel, which were perpetrated or facilitated by Israeli Arabs, Israel found that non-Israeli Arabs (mostly from the West Bank or Gaza Strip) were marrying Israeli Arabs in order to get Israeli ID papers so that their anti-Israel terror activities would be facilitated. With an Israeli ID card and license plates, Israeli Arabs drive unhindered through most check-points and during curfew periods.

Prior to the change in legislation, non-Israeli Arabs could marry Israeli Arabs and receive Israeli citizenship pretty much automatically. This was part of Isael’s humanitarian family reunification plan which had been in effect since 1949. More than 100,000 non-Israeli Arabs entered Israel and became Israeli citizens by means of this plan.

But….when Israel discovered that this plan was being exploited by Arab terrorists to acquire the ID cards needed to move freely through Israel, and at least a dozen or so non-Israeli Arabs had married Israeli local Arabs in order to perpetrate acts of terror, the legislation was revised.

That is why Rimaz lacks the freedom of movement that would otherwise be her natural right as a citizen of Israel.

And the same is true of the defensive barrier that makes it almost impossible for her to see her friends and family in East Jerusalem. Recall (as I have explained to you in previous emails which you have not acknowledged or answered) that the barrier was built in 2002-3 ONLY as a defensive mechanism against endless, relentless, brutal, lethal terror attacks. The fence works. Attacks were reduced by c.90%.

So Rimaz is indeed a victim, and a hapless helpless one at that. But she is not a victim of Israel. She is a victim of the Palestinian terror war.

In presenting her as a victim of Israeli machinations, you delude your audience, you stigmatize Israel, and you leave unmentioned the heinous terror crimes perpetrated daily against Israelis of all religions.

When considering Rimaz’s predicament, one must ask the question that I have several times asked you (and to which you have never replied: “Where do you want the casualties?”

With the barrier and the legislation prohibiting Rimaz freedom of movement, Rimaz and people like her are indeed the casualties of the terror war that Arafat began and his terrorist heirs are continuing.

Without the barrier and that legislation, the victims would be the dozens or scores or hundreds of Israelis who would be killed by the terror attacks that would succeed in the absence of these defensive restrictions.

So…where do you want the casualties?

David Meir-Levi

The truth about Arab building in Jerusalem

Our previous post looked at the issue of Jewish building in Jerusalem.  To add to this, we might look at some of the facts about Arab building in Jerusalem too.  For example, here is the text of a 1998 press release by the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (CAMERA).  See also this article.

PRESS RELEASE: CAMERA Study Challenges Media "Groupthink" on Arab Building in Jerusalem

BOSTON—Citing pervasive misinformation in the media as well as in US policymaking circles about Arab building in Jerusalem, CAMERA today released a study documenting extensive housing construction in Arab neighborhoods of the city. Authored by former Jerusalem city planner Israel Kimhi, Arab Building in Jerusalem: 1967-1997 finds that Arab home construction has actually outpaced Jewish building since Israel unified the city in 1967. Aerial photographs comparing neighborhoods in 1968 and 1995 dramatically underscore the statistical evidence.

"The reality that Jewish building has actually proceeded more slowly than Arab construction is contrary to the near universal claims of reporters," said CAMERA Associate Director Alex Safian. "Unfortunately, such mistaken reports may influence policymakers. When, for example, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and other administration officials call on Israel to observe a ‘time-out in building’ do they know there’s an Arab building boom underway? Do they expect only the Jews to desist from constructing homes? This is a perfect example of the way distorted media coverage can have a distorting impact on policy."

Safian noted that reporters are often unwilling to deviate from an established story line and tend to ignore any conflicting information. "In this case," he said, "the story line claims Israel has seized Arab land, built Jewish neighborhoods on it and prevented Arabs from constructing their own residences. Wherever Arabs attempt to build, Israeli authorities demolish the structures." None of this, Safian declared, is true.

He said that while Israel has, indeed, built numerous Jewish neighborhoods in Jerusalem since 1967, Arab residents have been more effective in their campaign to create facts on the ground. The number of flats in the Arab sector has grown by 122%, while the number for the Jewish population has grown by just 113.5%.

Safian also challenged the claim that Arabs are not awarded enough building permits. He pointed out that the Arab sector has actually received permits for more square meters of residential construction than a demographically similar group—in terms of family size and total proportion of the city’s population—the ultra-Orthodox Jewish community.

Continue reading The truth about Arab building in Jerusalem

The truth behind Jewish building in Jerusalem

Yedidya Atlas
August 25, 1999

Imagine the following: A Jewish businessman buys a parcel of land in an American city, pays for it with his own funds, and then applies to the local municipality for a permit to build a residential neighborhood of middle class apartments for young Jewish families. To make life easier for his prospective clients, he plans to build a synagogue, a mikveh (ritual bath), a kindergarten and a day-care center, as well as a few small shops. He then meets all legal, zoning, environmental and even archeological requirements established by city, state and federal agencies. Armed with every license and permit known to man, he is openly vilified in the press, and politicians try by executive fiat to block this Jewish businessman from building these homes on his own private property simply because he is a Jew building for Jews.

Imagine. In America it would be called racism, anti-Semitism. In Israel its called Ras el-Amud.

In our true story, the businessman is Dr. Irving Moskowitz, a well-known philanthropist who lives in Florida, although he also has a home in Jerusalem. The liberal-left press doesn’t like him, perhaps because most recipients of his largesse are not sufficiently politically-correct, or approved by the proponents of left-wing advocacy journalism.

But, you ask, what and where is Ras el-Amud, and why can’t Dr. Moskowitz build on his own land after meeting all legal and technical requirements?

Continue reading The truth behind Jewish building in Jerusalem