Jewish settlements are legal, EU is told
A petition, containing the signatures of over 1,000 respected diplomats and legal experts from around the world, has been delivered to the EU’s foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton.
According to the text of the petition, the EU is wrong to believe that Jewish settlements in Judea and Samaria are illegal, and that the term “1967 lines” does not exist in international law.
Legal scholars from South Africa, the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Taiwan, Singapore, India, Greece, Malta, Holland, Norway, Czechoslovakia, Ireland, Switzerland, Sweden, Italy, Belgium, Bolivia, Chile, Brazil, Mexico and Peru, have signed the petition.
The man responsible for the petition is British-born Alan Baker, director of the Institute for Contemporary Affairs at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs.
It comes as the EU considers whether to introduce separate labeling for products made by Jews in Judea and Samaria, a policy that would apply to all 28 EU member states.
In an interview with Israeli news organization Arutz Sheva, Mr Baker explained why it is incorrect to distinguish between Israel and Judea and Samaria, saying there is “no such thing” as the 1967 lines.
“There never was such a thing. The matter of the borders is on the agenda of the negotiations. The EU cannot dictate a subject that is on the agenda of the negotiations. The pre-1967 lines are [1949] armistice lines. These are not recognized lines or security lines. In the Oslo process, it was agreed between us and the Palestinians that the matter of borders will be negotiated.”
He continued: “The term ‘1967 lines’ does not appear anywhere in our agreement with the Palestinians, therefore it is a legal and factual aberration to determine that these are our lines.”
Mr Baker also told Arutz Sheva that the settlements should be considered legal under international law because Jewish settlers have freely chosen to live in Judea and Samaria; they have not been forcibly transferred to the territory by the Israeli government.
Given the opportunity, I am sure Mr Baker would draw upon several other lines of argument to support the case for the Jewish settlements. In his stead, I shall attempt to outline the main legal underpinning of the Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria.
We have to go back nearly a hundred years to discover the origin of the settlements’ legality. Firstly, there was the 1920 San Remo conference, in which Britain (following the collapse of the Ottoman empire) was instructed to establish a Jewish national home on territory covering what would become Israel, Jordan and part of the Golan Heights.
Then came the British Mandate for Palestine, a legal commission established and confirmed by the League of Nations (an early version of the UN) in 1922, which formalized the creation of two states – a Jewish homeland in “Palestine” and an Arab homeland called Transjordan (now simply Jordan).
Significantly, the Mandate not only legalized the immigration of Jews to Palestine, it encouraged close settlement of all the land, including Judea and Samaria.
Two years after the Second World War, the British handed the Mandate to the UN, which recommended (rather than enforced) a partition of the nascent Jewish homeland. Despite already having Transjordan, the Arabs rejected the offer of partition and declared war on the Palestinian Jews. This resulted in the Jordanian annexation of Judea and Samaria (and renamed the West Bank). At the insistence of the Arabs, the 1949 armistice line was “not to be construed in any sense as a political or territorial boundary.”
In 1967, Israel won control of the West Bank after a war of self-defense. UN Security Council Resolution 242 recommended Israeli withdrawal from territories in return for the right “to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force.” At a conference in Khartoum the Arabs refused to negotiate or make peace with Israel. In fact, they refused to recognize Israel at all.
Israel’s critics sometimes employ the Fourth Geneva Convention to argue that the settlements are illegal. But the Fourth Geneva Convention pertains only to cases of occupation of a sovereign entity. Because of the Arab refusal to reach an agreement in 1948, the West Bank never became the legal territory of any sovereign entity, not even Jordan.
A territory is only occupied if it is captured in war from an established and recognized sovereign. Jordan was never an established or recognized sovereign of the West Bank. Therefore, Israel is not an occupier and the West Bank is not occupied land.
As such, Judea and Samaria is unclaimed Mandate land and should therefore be referred to as “disputed” territory. Israel’s capture of the West Bank in 1967 merely restored the territory to its legal status under the Mandate of 1922, which has never been superseded in law, not even by the 1947 partition plan.
In short, the settlers are simply enacting the Mandate and they should be allowed to continue with this enterprise without interference or condemnation. This legal truth should form a core part of the negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians.
According to the text of the petition, the EU is wrong to believe that Jewish settlements in Judea and Samaria are illegal, and that the term “1967 lines” does not exist in international law.
Legal scholars from South Africa, the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Taiwan, Singapore, India, Greece, Malta, Holland, Norway, Czechoslovakia, Ireland, Switzerland, Sweden, Italy, Belgium, Bolivia, Chile, Brazil, Mexico and Peru, have signed the petition.
The man responsible for the petition is British-born Alan Baker, director of the Institute for Contemporary Affairs at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs.
It comes as the EU considers whether to introduce separate labeling for products made by Jews in Judea and Samaria, a policy that would apply to all 28 EU member states.
In an interview with Israeli news organization Arutz Sheva, Mr Baker explained why it is incorrect to distinguish between Israel and Judea and Samaria, saying there is “no such thing” as the 1967 lines.
“There never was such a thing. The matter of the borders is on the agenda of the negotiations. The EU cannot dictate a subject that is on the agenda of the negotiations. The pre-1967 lines are [1949] armistice lines. These are not recognized lines or security lines. In the Oslo process, it was agreed between us and the Palestinians that the matter of borders will be negotiated.”
He continued: “The term ‘1967 lines’ does not appear anywhere in our agreement with the Palestinians, therefore it is a legal and factual aberration to determine that these are our lines.”
Mr Baker also told Arutz Sheva that the settlements should be considered legal under international law because Jewish settlers have freely chosen to live in Judea and Samaria; they have not been forcibly transferred to the territory by the Israeli government.
Given the opportunity, I am sure Mr Baker would draw upon several other lines of argument to support the case for the Jewish settlements. In his stead, I shall attempt to outline the main legal underpinning of the Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria.
We have to go back nearly a hundred years to discover the origin of the settlements’ legality. Firstly, there was the 1920 San Remo conference, in which Britain (following the collapse of the Ottoman empire) was instructed to establish a Jewish national home on territory covering what would become Israel, Jordan and part of the Golan Heights.
Then came the British Mandate for Palestine, a legal commission established and confirmed by the League of Nations (an early version of the UN) in 1922, which formalized the creation of two states – a Jewish homeland in “Palestine” and an Arab homeland called Transjordan (now simply Jordan).
Significantly, the Mandate not only legalized the immigration of Jews to Palestine, it encouraged close settlement of all the land, including Judea and Samaria.
Two years after the Second World War, the British handed the Mandate to the UN, which recommended (rather than enforced) a partition of the nascent Jewish homeland. Despite already having Transjordan, the Arabs rejected the offer of partition and declared war on the Palestinian Jews. This resulted in the Jordanian annexation of Judea and Samaria (and renamed the West Bank). At the insistence of the Arabs, the 1949 armistice line was “not to be construed in any sense as a political or territorial boundary.”
In 1967, Israel won control of the West Bank after a war of self-defense. UN Security Council Resolution 242 recommended Israeli withdrawal from territories in return for the right “to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force.” At a conference in Khartoum the Arabs refused to negotiate or make peace with Israel. In fact, they refused to recognize Israel at all.
Israel’s critics sometimes employ the Fourth Geneva Convention to argue that the settlements are illegal. But the Fourth Geneva Convention pertains only to cases of occupation of a sovereign entity. Because of the Arab refusal to reach an agreement in 1948, the West Bank never became the legal territory of any sovereign entity, not even Jordan.
A territory is only occupied if it is captured in war from an established and recognized sovereign. Jordan was never an established or recognized sovereign of the West Bank. Therefore, Israel is not an occupier and the West Bank is not occupied land.
As such, Judea and Samaria is unclaimed Mandate land and should therefore be referred to as “disputed” territory. Israel’s capture of the West Bank in 1967 merely restored the territory to its legal status under the Mandate of 1922, which has never been superseded in law, not even by the 1947 partition plan.
In short, the settlers are simply enacting the Mandate and they should be allowed to continue with this enterprise without interference or condemnation. This legal truth should form a core part of the negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians.
William Hague’s mistake over Jewish settlements
British Foreign Secretary William Hague has said Israel is losing support internationally because of the building of Jewish settlements in Judea and Samaria.
“Israel has lost some of its support in Britain and in other European countries over time,” Hague told Sky News. “This is something I’ve often pointed out to Israeli leaders – because of settlement activity, which we condemn.”
He continued: “We strongly disagree with settlements on occupied land [sic]. Israel is a country we work with in many ways but we do disapprove of settlements.”
I’ve written extensively on why the settlements are legal and why Israel has a moral case for holding on to Judea and Samaria, which is also known as the West Bank. So, in response to Hague’s comments, I’ve reposted a piece called “The Rights of Settlers.”
The 1922 Mandate of Palestine formalized the creation of a Jewish homeland, as well as Transjordan for the Arabs. The entire League of Nations unanimously declared that “recognition has been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country.” The Mandate not only legalized the immigration of Jews to Palestine, it encouraged close settlement of the land. Moreover, the notion of internationalizing or dividing Jerusalem was never part of the Mandate.
Two years after the Second World War, the British handed the Mandate to the UN, which recommended (rather than enforced) the partition of Palestine between Jews and Arabs. The Jews accepted the partition but the Arab states rejected it and declared war on the Jewish homeland, which resulted in the Jordanian annexation of the “West Bank.” At the insistence of the Arabs, the 1949 armistice line was “not to be construed in any sense as a political or territorial boundary.”
In 1967, Israel won control of the West Bank after a war of self-defence. To speak of Israeli occupation implies that Israel fought an aggressive war in order capture the West Bank, which was not the case.
UN Security Council Resolution 242 recommended Israeli withdrawal from territories in return for the right “to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force.” At a conference in Khartoum the Arabs refused to negotiate or make peace with Israel. In fact, they refused to recognise Israel at all. (Resolution 242 did not mention the Palestinians, although it did refer to “a just settlement of the refugee problem” in acknowledgment that both sides had their share of refugees.)
It is also worth pointing out that the Fourth Geneva Convention is not applicable to Judea and Samaria because it pertains only to cases of occupation of a sovereign entity. The “West Bank” has never been the legal territory of any sovereign entity. Or to put it in plain English, territories are only “occupied” if they are captured in war from an established and recognized sovereign. Jordan was never an established or recognized sovereign of the West Bank. Therefore, Israel is not an occupier and the “West Bank” is not occupied land.
Technically, Judea and Samaria is unclaimed Mandate land and should therefore be referred to as “disputed” territory. Israel’s capture of the West Bank in 1967 merely restored the territory to its legal status under the Mandate of 1922, which has never been superseded in law, not even by the 1947 partition plan. The settlers are simply enacting the Mandate and they should be allowed to continue with this enterprise.
II
The fact that the Palestinians and the Arab states collaborated with Hitler before and during Second World War, and then proceeded to invade Israel on three occasions between 1948 and 1973, seriously undermines any moral claim to establish a state on the “West Bank.” Even today, most Arabs still refuse to recognize Israel’s right to exist. Professor Julius Stone, a leading authority on such matters, has stated that because of the attacks against Israel in 1948, 1967 and 1973, as well as other belligerent acts, Arab states have “flouted their basic obligations as United Nations members.”
There are also moral and cultural reasons why the Jewish settlements are legitimate. Judea and Samaria is historically and religiously Jewish. The territory formed a major part of ancient Israel and is home to several sacred sites, including Joseph’s Tomb in Shechem and the Cave of the Patriarchs in Hebron. It is only recently that Arabs have expressed an interest in Jerusalem. At no time between 634 CE (when Muslims overran “Palestine”) and 1967 did any Muslim entity ever declare Jerusalem as their capital. During the Jordan occupation, not a single foreign Arab leader came to pray in the al-Aqsa Mosque on the Temple Mount.
Moreover, non-Jewish powers cannot be trusted to protect either Jews or Jewish sites. During the 1920 Jerusalem riots, an Arab mob ransacked the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem, attacking pedestrians and looting shops and homes. On 24th August 1929, 67 Palestinian Jews were massacred in Hebron. Dozens were wounded. Some of the victims were raped, tortured and mutilated. Jewish homes and synagogues, as well as a hospital, were ransacked. During the Jordanian occupation, the Jewish cemetery on the Mount of Olives was desecrated and many synagogues in the Old City were destroyed.
Between 1948 and 1967, there was not a single settlement in Gaza or the “West Bank.” But this did not stop Arab states terrorizing Israel. Nor did the Arab states attempt to establish a Palestinian state. Furthermore, the dismantling of the settlements in Gaza actually destabilized the region because the withdrawal allowed Hamas to take control of the Strip, with devastating consequences.
The Palestinian claim that statehood is an unassailable right should not be taken at face value. Arab hatred of Israel has never been about the settlements or even about land. The primary obstacle is an ideological refusal to recognize the Jewish people’s deep-rooted historic, cultural and legal connections to the land of Israel. Until the Arabs accept that the Jewish people have an inalienable right to Judea and Samaria, there will never be peace.
“Israel has lost some of its support in Britain and in other European countries over time,” Hague told Sky News. “This is something I’ve often pointed out to Israeli leaders – because of settlement activity, which we condemn.”
He continued: “We strongly disagree with settlements on occupied land [sic]. Israel is a country we work with in many ways but we do disapprove of settlements.”
I’ve written extensively on why the settlements are legal and why Israel has a moral case for holding on to Judea and Samaria, which is also known as the West Bank. So, in response to Hague’s comments, I’ve reposted a piece called “The Rights of Settlers.”
*
In 1920, the San Remo Conference instructed Britain to establish a Jewish national home on territory covering what would become Israel, Jordan and part of the Golan Heights. In early 1921, Britain made a distinction between “Palestine” as a national home for the Jewish people, and Transjordan as a home for the Arabs. Already, the Jews had to accept a territorial compromise in order to appease Arab interests.The 1922 Mandate of Palestine formalized the creation of a Jewish homeland, as well as Transjordan for the Arabs. The entire League of Nations unanimously declared that “recognition has been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country.” The Mandate not only legalized the immigration of Jews to Palestine, it encouraged close settlement of the land. Moreover, the notion of internationalizing or dividing Jerusalem was never part of the Mandate.
Two years after the Second World War, the British handed the Mandate to the UN, which recommended (rather than enforced) the partition of Palestine between Jews and Arabs. The Jews accepted the partition but the Arab states rejected it and declared war on the Jewish homeland, which resulted in the Jordanian annexation of the “West Bank.” At the insistence of the Arabs, the 1949 armistice line was “not to be construed in any sense as a political or territorial boundary.”
In 1967, Israel won control of the West Bank after a war of self-defence. To speak of Israeli occupation implies that Israel fought an aggressive war in order capture the West Bank, which was not the case.
UN Security Council Resolution 242 recommended Israeli withdrawal from territories in return for the right “to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force.” At a conference in Khartoum the Arabs refused to negotiate or make peace with Israel. In fact, they refused to recognise Israel at all. (Resolution 242 did not mention the Palestinians, although it did refer to “a just settlement of the refugee problem” in acknowledgment that both sides had their share of refugees.)
It is also worth pointing out that the Fourth Geneva Convention is not applicable to Judea and Samaria because it pertains only to cases of occupation of a sovereign entity. The “West Bank” has never been the legal territory of any sovereign entity. Or to put it in plain English, territories are only “occupied” if they are captured in war from an established and recognized sovereign. Jordan was never an established or recognized sovereign of the West Bank. Therefore, Israel is not an occupier and the “West Bank” is not occupied land.
Technically, Judea and Samaria is unclaimed Mandate land and should therefore be referred to as “disputed” territory. Israel’s capture of the West Bank in 1967 merely restored the territory to its legal status under the Mandate of 1922, which has never been superseded in law, not even by the 1947 partition plan. The settlers are simply enacting the Mandate and they should be allowed to continue with this enterprise.
II
The fact that the Palestinians and the Arab states collaborated with Hitler before and during Second World War, and then proceeded to invade Israel on three occasions between 1948 and 1973, seriously undermines any moral claim to establish a state on the “West Bank.” Even today, most Arabs still refuse to recognize Israel’s right to exist. Professor Julius Stone, a leading authority on such matters, has stated that because of the attacks against Israel in 1948, 1967 and 1973, as well as other belligerent acts, Arab states have “flouted their basic obligations as United Nations members.”
There are also moral and cultural reasons why the Jewish settlements are legitimate. Judea and Samaria is historically and religiously Jewish. The territory formed a major part of ancient Israel and is home to several sacred sites, including Joseph’s Tomb in Shechem and the Cave of the Patriarchs in Hebron. It is only recently that Arabs have expressed an interest in Jerusalem. At no time between 634 CE (when Muslims overran “Palestine”) and 1967 did any Muslim entity ever declare Jerusalem as their capital. During the Jordan occupation, not a single foreign Arab leader came to pray in the al-Aqsa Mosque on the Temple Mount.
Moreover, non-Jewish powers cannot be trusted to protect either Jews or Jewish sites. During the 1920 Jerusalem riots, an Arab mob ransacked the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem, attacking pedestrians and looting shops and homes. On 24th August 1929, 67 Palestinian Jews were massacred in Hebron. Dozens were wounded. Some of the victims were raped, tortured and mutilated. Jewish homes and synagogues, as well as a hospital, were ransacked. During the Jordanian occupation, the Jewish cemetery on the Mount of Olives was desecrated and many synagogues in the Old City were destroyed.
Between 1948 and 1967, there was not a single settlement in Gaza or the “West Bank.” But this did not stop Arab states terrorizing Israel. Nor did the Arab states attempt to establish a Palestinian state. Furthermore, the dismantling of the settlements in Gaza actually destabilized the region because the withdrawal allowed Hamas to take control of the Strip, with devastating consequences.
The Palestinian claim that statehood is an unassailable right should not be taken at face value. Arab hatred of Israel has never been about the settlements or even about land. The primary obstacle is an ideological refusal to recognize the Jewish people’s deep-rooted historic, cultural and legal connections to the land of Israel. Until the Arabs accept that the Jewish people have an inalienable right to Judea and Samaria, there will never be peace.
The Rights of Settlers _update
PA chief negotiator Saeb Erekat has said that a Palestinian bid for non-member status at the United Nations is the only way to stop the expansion of Israeli settlements in Judea and Samaria. But anyone with a basic grasp of international law can see that Israel is perfectly entitled to build settlements on the “West Bank.”
In 1920, the San Remo Conference instructed Britain to establish a Jewish national home on territory covering what would become Israel, Jordan and part of the Golan Heights. In early 1921, Britain made a distinction between “Palestine” as a national home for the Jewish people, and Transjordan as a home for the Arabs. Already, the Jews had to accept a territorial compromise in order to appease Arab interests.
The 1922 Mandate of Palestine formalized the creation of a Jewish homeland, as well as Transjordan for the Arabs. The entire League of Nations unanimously declared that “recognition has been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country.” The Mandate not only legalized the immigration of Jews to Palestine, it encouraged close settlement of the land. Moreover, the notion of internationalizing or dividing Jerusalem was never part of the Mandate.
Two years after the Second World War, the British handed the Mandate to the UN, which recommended (rather than enforced) the partition of Palestine between Jews and Arabs. The Jews accepted the partition but the Arab states rejected it and declared war on the Jewish homeland, which resulted in the Jordanian annexation of the “West Bank.” At the insistence of the Arabs, the 1949 armistice line was “not to be construed in any sense as a political or territorial boundary.”
In 1967, Israel won control of the West Bank after a war of self-defence. To speak of Israeli occupation implies that Israel fought an aggressive war in order capture the West Bank, which was not the case.
UN Security Council Resolution 242 recommended Israeli withdrawal from territories in return for the right “to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force.” At a conference in Khartoum the Arabs refused to negotiate or make peace with Israel. In fact, they refused to recognise Israel at all. (Resolution 242 did not mention the Palestinians, although it did refer to “a just settlement of the refugee problem” in acknowledgment that both sides had their share of refugees.)
It is also worth pointing out that the Fourth Geneva Convention is not applicable to Judea and Samaria because it pertains only to cases of occupation of a sovereign entity. The “West Bank” has never been the legal territory of any sovereign entity. Or to put it in plain English, territories are only “occupied” if they are captured in war from an established and recognized sovereign. Jordan was never an established or recognized sovereign of the West Bank. Therefore, Israel is not an occupier and the “West Bank” is not occupied land.
Technically, Judea and Samaria is unclaimed Mandate land and should therefore be referred to as “disputed” territory. Israel’s capture of the West Bank in 1967 merely restored the territory to its legal status under the Mandate of 1922, which has never been superseded in law, not even by the 1947 partition plan. The settlers are simply enacting the Mandate and they should be allowed to continue with this enterprise.
II
The fact that the Palestinians and the Arab states collaborated with Hitler before and during Second World War, and then proceeded to invade Israel on three occasions between 1948 and 1973, seriously undermines any moral claim to establish a state on the “West Bank.” Even today, most Arabs still refuse to recognize Israel’s right to exist. Professor Julius Stone, a leading authority on such matters, has stated that because of the attacks against Israel in 1948, 1967 and 1973, as well as other belligerent acts, Arab states have “flouted their basic obligations as United Nations members.”
There are also moral and cultural reasons why the Jewish settlements are legitimate. Judea and Samaria is historically and religiously Jewish. The territory formed a major part of ancient Israel and is home to several sacred sites, including Joseph’s Tomb in Shechem and the Cave of the Patriarchs in Hebron. It is only recently that Arabs have expressed an interest in Jerusalem. At no time between 634 CE (when Muslims overran “Palestine”) and 1967 did any Muslim entity ever declare Jerusalem as their capital. During the Jordan occupation, not a single foreign Arab leader came to pray in the al-Aqsa Mosque on the Temple Mount.
Moreover, non-Jewish powers cannot be trusted to protect either Jews or Jewish sites. During the 1920 Jerusalem riots, an Arab mob ransacked the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem, attacking pedestrians and looting shops and homes. On 24th August 1929, 67 Palestinian Jews were massacred in Hebron. Dozens were wounded. Some of the victims were raped, tortured and mutilated. Jewish homes and synagogues, as well as a hospital, were ransacked. During the Jordanian occupation, the Jewish cemetery on the Mount of Olives was desecrated and many synagogues in the Old City were destroyed.
Between 1948 and 1967, there was not a single settlement in Gaza or the “West Bank.” But this did not stop Arab states terrorizing Israel. Nor did the Arab states attempt to establish a Palestinian state. Furthermore, the dismantling of the settlements in Gaza actually destabilized the region because the withdrawal allowed Hamas to take control of the Strip, with devastating consequences.
The Palestinian claim that statehood is an unassailable right should not be taken at face value. Arab hatred of Israel has never been about the settlements or even about land. The primary obstacle is an ideological refusal to recognize the Jewish people’s deep-rooted historic, cultural and legal connections to the land of Israel. Until the Arabs accept that the Jewish people have an inalienable right to Judea and Samaria, there will never be peace.
In 1920, the San Remo Conference instructed Britain to establish a Jewish national home on territory covering what would become Israel, Jordan and part of the Golan Heights. In early 1921, Britain made a distinction between “Palestine” as a national home for the Jewish people, and Transjordan as a home for the Arabs. Already, the Jews had to accept a territorial compromise in order to appease Arab interests.
The 1922 Mandate of Palestine formalized the creation of a Jewish homeland, as well as Transjordan for the Arabs. The entire League of Nations unanimously declared that “recognition has been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country.” The Mandate not only legalized the immigration of Jews to Palestine, it encouraged close settlement of the land. Moreover, the notion of internationalizing or dividing Jerusalem was never part of the Mandate.
Two years after the Second World War, the British handed the Mandate to the UN, which recommended (rather than enforced) the partition of Palestine between Jews and Arabs. The Jews accepted the partition but the Arab states rejected it and declared war on the Jewish homeland, which resulted in the Jordanian annexation of the “West Bank.” At the insistence of the Arabs, the 1949 armistice line was “not to be construed in any sense as a political or territorial boundary.”
In 1967, Israel won control of the West Bank after a war of self-defence. To speak of Israeli occupation implies that Israel fought an aggressive war in order capture the West Bank, which was not the case.
UN Security Council Resolution 242 recommended Israeli withdrawal from territories in return for the right “to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force.” At a conference in Khartoum the Arabs refused to negotiate or make peace with Israel. In fact, they refused to recognise Israel at all. (Resolution 242 did not mention the Palestinians, although it did refer to “a just settlement of the refugee problem” in acknowledgment that both sides had their share of refugees.)
It is also worth pointing out that the Fourth Geneva Convention is not applicable to Judea and Samaria because it pertains only to cases of occupation of a sovereign entity. The “West Bank” has never been the legal territory of any sovereign entity. Or to put it in plain English, territories are only “occupied” if they are captured in war from an established and recognized sovereign. Jordan was never an established or recognized sovereign of the West Bank. Therefore, Israel is not an occupier and the “West Bank” is not occupied land.
Technically, Judea and Samaria is unclaimed Mandate land and should therefore be referred to as “disputed” territory. Israel’s capture of the West Bank in 1967 merely restored the territory to its legal status under the Mandate of 1922, which has never been superseded in law, not even by the 1947 partition plan. The settlers are simply enacting the Mandate and they should be allowed to continue with this enterprise.
II
The fact that the Palestinians and the Arab states collaborated with Hitler before and during Second World War, and then proceeded to invade Israel on three occasions between 1948 and 1973, seriously undermines any moral claim to establish a state on the “West Bank.” Even today, most Arabs still refuse to recognize Israel’s right to exist. Professor Julius Stone, a leading authority on such matters, has stated that because of the attacks against Israel in 1948, 1967 and 1973, as well as other belligerent acts, Arab states have “flouted their basic obligations as United Nations members.”
There are also moral and cultural reasons why the Jewish settlements are legitimate. Judea and Samaria is historically and religiously Jewish. The territory formed a major part of ancient Israel and is home to several sacred sites, including Joseph’s Tomb in Shechem and the Cave of the Patriarchs in Hebron. It is only recently that Arabs have expressed an interest in Jerusalem. At no time between 634 CE (when Muslims overran “Palestine”) and 1967 did any Muslim entity ever declare Jerusalem as their capital. During the Jordan occupation, not a single foreign Arab leader came to pray in the al-Aqsa Mosque on the Temple Mount.
Moreover, non-Jewish powers cannot be trusted to protect either Jews or Jewish sites. During the 1920 Jerusalem riots, an Arab mob ransacked the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem, attacking pedestrians and looting shops and homes. On 24th August 1929, 67 Palestinian Jews were massacred in Hebron. Dozens were wounded. Some of the victims were raped, tortured and mutilated. Jewish homes and synagogues, as well as a hospital, were ransacked. During the Jordanian occupation, the Jewish cemetery on the Mount of Olives was desecrated and many synagogues in the Old City were destroyed.
Between 1948 and 1967, there was not a single settlement in Gaza or the “West Bank.” But this did not stop Arab states terrorizing Israel. Nor did the Arab states attempt to establish a Palestinian state. Furthermore, the dismantling of the settlements in Gaza actually destabilized the region because the withdrawal allowed Hamas to take control of the Strip, with devastating consequences.
The Palestinian claim that statehood is an unassailable right should not be taken at face value. Arab hatred of Israel has never been about the settlements or even about land. The primary obstacle is an ideological refusal to recognize the Jewish people’s deep-rooted historic, cultural and legal connections to the land of Israel. Until the Arabs accept that the Jewish people have an inalienable right to Judea and Samaria, there will never be peace.
State of Judea
Israel’s defence minister has just revealed that he favours a unilateral withdrawal of Israeli troops from the West Bank. It is unlikely to happen in the near future, but if and when it does happen, what will happen to the Jewish settlements?
A withdrawal of troops would probably result in the forced evacuation of some settlements, especially if they are nowhere near the Green Line.
The Israeli government will be reluctant to leave any settlers in the West Bank if they are not protected by troops. But following the unpleasant Gaza disengagement in 2005, any attempt to dismantle or abandon the settlements is likely to stimulate a wave of violence.
But if the settlers were to remain in the West Bank, how would they fare under a Palestinian government? PA president Mahmoud Abbas has already said that not a single Israeli (i.e. Jew) would be allowed to live in an independent Palestine.
The creation of a Judean state
Another alternative to either Israeli or Palestinian rule in the West Bank is the creation of an independent State of Judea.
In January 1989, several hundred activists announced their intention to create an halachic State of Judea if Israel withdrew. The most prominent activist was Michael Ben-Horin, a member of the New York-based Kach movement, headed by Rabbi Mei Kahane.
Ben-Horin, declared: “We will not allow the heart to be torn from the body of the Land of Israel.” Judea and Samaria, he said, “will always remain Jewish,” before adding: “No Israeli state will ever be permitted to expel Jews from their homes or their land.”
And in 2007, Rabbi Shalom Dov Wolpo called on his supporters to make preparations to secede from the State of Israel in the event of Israeli withdrawal. Speaking to the Jerusalem Post, Rabbi Wolpo said: “Why should we wait until soldiers come to people’s homes.”
Of course, the threat to create a State of Judea may just be a way of frightening the Israeli government into annexing the West Bank and creating a unified country. But there is evidence that some settlers believe the State of Judea is already a political reality.
In 2011, Israel Today reported that some of the younger settlers do not see themselves as Israeli. An unnamed source told the magazine: “More and more [settlers] understand that they are here despite the Israeli establishment, and they see more and more differences between themselves and the Israelis.”
The Palestinians, too, see the creation of a Judean state as a burgeoning reality. Earlier this year, PLO Secretary-General Yasser Abed Rabbo opined that Israel is seeking to create a “settler state” in Judea and Samaria.
He claimed that Israel was continuing to build in settlements “so that it could establish a state for settlers, and not for Palestinians, in the West Bank and Jerusalem.”
Is an independent State of Judea viable?
For a start, separating Israel and Judea would enable secular Jews to enjoy life in Israel, while those who want to live according to halachic law would have the option of moving to Judea.
Indeed, the two states would provide very different types of experience. According to a 2008 survey by Ariel University Center, 92.3 per cent of Jewish settlers are satisfied with their lives, compared with 83 per cent in the State of Israel. The standard of living and quality of life was also reported to be better in the settlements.
The survey also revealed that the income of a family living in the settlements is about 10 per cent higher than the national average. At the time of the study, unemployment was less of an issue in Judea than it was in Israel.
On the downside, the crime rate in Judea was 22 per cent higher than in Israel proper. This may be explained by hostilities between Jews and Arabs.
Establishing a viable Jewish state in Judea and Samaria has precedent. Ancient Israel comprised two kingdoms, also called Israel and Judea.
Most religious Jews will agree that Judea is the biblical and spiritual heartland of Eretz Israel. Hebron, home to the Cave of the Patriarchs, is the second holiest Jewish city. It would be a travesty if there was a repeat of the ethnic cleansing that took place in 1929. Rachel’s Tomb on the outskirts of Bethlehem is the third most important Jewish holy site. Jericho, the place of the Israelites’ return from slavery in Egypt, is also a crucial location and is home to some historic synagogues.
To give up Hebron, Bethlehem, Jericho and the Jordan Valley would be an absurd act of cultural suicide. If the State of Israel is not prepared to annex the West Bank, then perhaps the settlers should declare independence.
Under Jordanian rule, the Arabs went to great efforts to erase Jewish history. Despite the fact that Jews had lived in Judea and Samaria for centuries, Jordan pursued a Judenrein policy by changing the name of the territory from Judea and Samaria to the “West Bank.” After 1948, Jews were not allowed to pray at the Western Wall. The Jewish graveyard on the Mount of Olives was desecrated and all but one of the thirty five synagogues in the Old City were destroyed.
It is clear that abandoning Judea and Samaria to the Arabs is not an option.
But would a Judean state be able to live alongside an Israeli state? After all, the Hebrew scriptures are full of stories about the love-hate relationship between the two kingdoms. To prevent a repeat of biblical hostilities, some kind of Davidic federation would have to be established to loosely unite the two nations. After all, both Israel and Judea would have the same enemies and would need to cooperate in terms of security. Trade and labour agreements would have to be worked out, too.
The downside
There is one major flaw in the concept of a Judean state and that is the Jewish settlers form a minority. There are two million Palestinian Arabs in the West Bank (about 80 per cent of the population). Only half a million Jewish live in the West Bank, nearly half of whom live in East Jerusalem. Although East Jerusalem forms an important of the Judean geography, it is unlikely that the State of Israel would relinquish the East Jerusalem settlements, as this would divide the city.
As things stand, much of the area of the West Bank closest to Jerusalem has already been incorporated into the Jerusalem District and is under Israeli civilian rule. It is excluded from the administrative structure that is the Judea and Samaria Area.
By subtracting East Jerusalem from the equation, there would be a mere 300,000 Jews left to face the wrath of two million Palestinian Arabs. But the numbers could be even worse if Israel withdraws from the West Bank but annexes small amounts of territory around the Green Line. This would dramatically reduce the number of disenfranchised settlers to around 80,000.
Would the State of Israel leave the Judeans and the Palestinians to fight a civil war, or would it provide arms and/or troops to the settlers? Would neighbouring Arab states come to the assistance of the Palestinians? One thing’s for sure, even if the settlers did win a civil war, they would receive no international recognition, possibly not even from Israel itself. And how would 80,00 (or 300,000) Jews rule over two million Palestinians? You would end up with a South African scenario and accusations of apartheid would be substantial.
So, are there other options?
It is possible that PA president Abbas changes his mind and agrees to a single binational state in which Palestinians and Israelis share full political rights. At the very least, settlers might be able stay on the West Bank at the discretion of the Palestinian government but without any citizenship rights.
One possibility that might work is the establishment of “parallel states,” within the West Bank in which Arabs and Jews share the territory but owe their allegiance to separate parliaments. But it is unlikely the Palestinians would agree to a further division of territory.
The truth is, the creation of a Judean or Palestinian state next to Israel is not realistic or feasible. The only credible option is for Israel to annex the West Bank and recognise Jordan as the de facto Palestinian state.
Jordan is Palestine
The main obstacle to solving the Israeli-Arab conflict is the persistent claim that the Palestinians are a nation without a land. The Palestinian Arabs were actually given their own state decades ago. In 1922, Transjordan (Jordan) was carved out of land earmarked for the Jewish state.
Once this has been achieved, Israel can formally annex the West Bank and give the Palestinian Arabs living there the option of either swearing an oath of allegiance to the Jewish state or giving them Jordanian citizenship. Those Palestinians that wish to leave the West Bank would be free to move to Jordan. Those who want to stay in their homes on the West Bank but nevertheless wish to hold Jordanian citizenship should be allowed to do so. Once Israel is in full control of the West Bank, non-Jewish immigration must be halted in order to prevent the return of Arabs who claim refugee status.
Developing democratic institutions in Jordan and uniting the land of Israel under Jerusalem would not only ensure Israel’s security and demographic advantage, it would enable the Palestinians to establish sovereignty in the heart of the Middle East and put an end to this decades-old conflict over the status of the so-called occupied territories.
A withdrawal of troops would probably result in the forced evacuation of some settlements, especially if they are nowhere near the Green Line.
The Israeli government will be reluctant to leave any settlers in the West Bank if they are not protected by troops. But following the unpleasant Gaza disengagement in 2005, any attempt to dismantle or abandon the settlements is likely to stimulate a wave of violence.
But if the settlers were to remain in the West Bank, how would they fare under a Palestinian government? PA president Mahmoud Abbas has already said that not a single Israeli (i.e. Jew) would be allowed to live in an independent Palestine.
The creation of a Judean state
Another alternative to either Israeli or Palestinian rule in the West Bank is the creation of an independent State of Judea.
In January 1989, several hundred activists announced their intention to create an halachic State of Judea if Israel withdrew. The most prominent activist was Michael Ben-Horin, a member of the New York-based Kach movement, headed by Rabbi Mei Kahane.
Ben-Horin, declared: “We will not allow the heart to be torn from the body of the Land of Israel.” Judea and Samaria, he said, “will always remain Jewish,” before adding: “No Israeli state will ever be permitted to expel Jews from their homes or their land.”
Above: two competing designs for a State of Judea flag
The idea of a Judean state was revived following the unilateral disengagement from Gaza in 2005, which resulted in the forcible withdrawal of Jewish settlers.And in 2007, Rabbi Shalom Dov Wolpo called on his supporters to make preparations to secede from the State of Israel in the event of Israeli withdrawal. Speaking to the Jerusalem Post, Rabbi Wolpo said: “Why should we wait until soldiers come to people’s homes.”
Of course, the threat to create a State of Judea may just be a way of frightening the Israeli government into annexing the West Bank and creating a unified country. But there is evidence that some settlers believe the State of Judea is already a political reality.
In 2011, Israel Today reported that some of the younger settlers do not see themselves as Israeli. An unnamed source told the magazine: “More and more [settlers] understand that they are here despite the Israeli establishment, and they see more and more differences between themselves and the Israelis.”
The Palestinians, too, see the creation of a Judean state as a burgeoning reality. Earlier this year, PLO Secretary-General Yasser Abed Rabbo opined that Israel is seeking to create a “settler state” in Judea and Samaria.
He claimed that Israel was continuing to build in settlements “so that it could establish a state for settlers, and not for Palestinians, in the West Bank and Jerusalem.”
Is an independent State of Judea viable?
For a start, separating Israel and Judea would enable secular Jews to enjoy life in Israel, while those who want to live according to halachic law would have the option of moving to Judea.
Indeed, the two states would provide very different types of experience. According to a 2008 survey by Ariel University Center, 92.3 per cent of Jewish settlers are satisfied with their lives, compared with 83 per cent in the State of Israel. The standard of living and quality of life was also reported to be better in the settlements.
The survey also revealed that the income of a family living in the settlements is about 10 per cent higher than the national average. At the time of the study, unemployment was less of an issue in Judea than it was in Israel.
On the downside, the crime rate in Judea was 22 per cent higher than in Israel proper. This may be explained by hostilities between Jews and Arabs.
Establishing a viable Jewish state in Judea and Samaria has precedent. Ancient Israel comprised two kingdoms, also called Israel and Judea.
Most religious Jews will agree that Judea is the biblical and spiritual heartland of Eretz Israel. Hebron, home to the Cave of the Patriarchs, is the second holiest Jewish city. It would be a travesty if there was a repeat of the ethnic cleansing that took place in 1929. Rachel’s Tomb on the outskirts of Bethlehem is the third most important Jewish holy site. Jericho, the place of the Israelites’ return from slavery in Egypt, is also a crucial location and is home to some historic synagogues.
To give up Hebron, Bethlehem, Jericho and the Jordan Valley would be an absurd act of cultural suicide. If the State of Israel is not prepared to annex the West Bank, then perhaps the settlers should declare independence.
Under Jordanian rule, the Arabs went to great efforts to erase Jewish history. Despite the fact that Jews had lived in Judea and Samaria for centuries, Jordan pursued a Judenrein policy by changing the name of the territory from Judea and Samaria to the “West Bank.” After 1948, Jews were not allowed to pray at the Western Wall. The Jewish graveyard on the Mount of Olives was desecrated and all but one of the thirty five synagogues in the Old City were destroyed.
It is clear that abandoning Judea and Samaria to the Arabs is not an option.
But would a Judean state be able to live alongside an Israeli state? After all, the Hebrew scriptures are full of stories about the love-hate relationship between the two kingdoms. To prevent a repeat of biblical hostilities, some kind of Davidic federation would have to be established to loosely unite the two nations. After all, both Israel and Judea would have the same enemies and would need to cooperate in terms of security. Trade and labour agreements would have to be worked out, too.
The downside
There is one major flaw in the concept of a Judean state and that is the Jewish settlers form a minority. There are two million Palestinian Arabs in the West Bank (about 80 per cent of the population). Only half a million Jewish live in the West Bank, nearly half of whom live in East Jerusalem. Although East Jerusalem forms an important of the Judean geography, it is unlikely that the State of Israel would relinquish the East Jerusalem settlements, as this would divide the city.
As things stand, much of the area of the West Bank closest to Jerusalem has already been incorporated into the Jerusalem District and is under Israeli civilian rule. It is excluded from the administrative structure that is the Judea and Samaria Area.
By subtracting East Jerusalem from the equation, there would be a mere 300,000 Jews left to face the wrath of two million Palestinian Arabs. But the numbers could be even worse if Israel withdraws from the West Bank but annexes small amounts of territory around the Green Line. This would dramatically reduce the number of disenfranchised settlers to around 80,000.
Would the State of Israel leave the Judeans and the Palestinians to fight a civil war, or would it provide arms and/or troops to the settlers? Would neighbouring Arab states come to the assistance of the Palestinians? One thing’s for sure, even if the settlers did win a civil war, they would receive no international recognition, possibly not even from Israel itself. And how would 80,00 (or 300,000) Jews rule over two million Palestinians? You would end up with a South African scenario and accusations of apartheid would be substantial.
So, are there other options?
It is possible that PA president Abbas changes his mind and agrees to a single binational state in which Palestinians and Israelis share full political rights. At the very least, settlers might be able stay on the West Bank at the discretion of the Palestinian government but without any citizenship rights.
One possibility that might work is the establishment of “parallel states,” within the West Bank in which Arabs and Jews share the territory but owe their allegiance to separate parliaments. But it is unlikely the Palestinians would agree to a further division of territory.
The truth is, the creation of a Judean or Palestinian state next to Israel is not realistic or feasible. The only credible option is for Israel to annex the West Bank and recognise Jordan as the de facto Palestinian state.
Jordan is Palestine
The main obstacle to solving the Israeli-Arab conflict is the persistent claim that the Palestinians are a nation without a land. The Palestinian Arabs were actually given their own state decades ago. In 1922, Transjordan (Jordan) was carved out of land earmarked for the Jewish state.
Above: division of Eretz Israel in 1922
Israel, the US and the EU must press for the recognition of Jordan as the Palestinian state. After all, Jordan’s population is already 70 per cent Palestinian. Removing the ruling Hashemite dynasty and developing democratic institutions in Jordan would greatly benefit the majority. Once the groundwork for democracy is laid down, the Palestinians would, by right, have the greatest say in how the country is governed. No longer would be they be discriminated against by the Bedouin minority.Once this has been achieved, Israel can formally annex the West Bank and give the Palestinian Arabs living there the option of either swearing an oath of allegiance to the Jewish state or giving them Jordanian citizenship. Those Palestinians that wish to leave the West Bank would be free to move to Jordan. Those who want to stay in their homes on the West Bank but nevertheless wish to hold Jordanian citizenship should be allowed to do so. Once Israel is in full control of the West Bank, non-Jewish immigration must be halted in order to prevent the return of Arabs who claim refugee status.
Developing democratic institutions in Jordan and uniting the land of Israel under Jerusalem would not only ensure Israel’s security and demographic advantage, it would enable the Palestinians to establish sovereignty in the heart of the Middle East and put an end to this decades-old conflict over the status of the so-called occupied territories.
ISLAM AND THE THEFT OF JEWISH HISTORY
There is nothing legitimate about Islam’s claim to be the original faith. Similarly, there is nothing legitimate about the Palestinian aspiration for nationhood. The desire to eradicate Israel can be explained by Islam’s anxiety of influence.
By JMA editor Richard Mather
The Islamic desire to eradicate the Jewish people can perhaps be explained by the following proposition: Muslims subconsciously recognise that Islam is an inferior imitation of Judaism.
On one level, examples of imitation abound. Islamic dietary laws mimic Kashrut. Muslims circumcise their children, just like Jews do. The Temple Mount, revered by Jews as the place where God chose to rest the Divine Presence, is now home to the Dome of the Rock, a caricature of the Jewish temple.
Muslims claim the Quran is the word of God recited by an angel to Mohammed, despite the fact that it is quite clearly a mishmash of stories from the Hebrew Bible, the Christian New Testament and quasi-gnostic stories circulating in Arabia in the seventh century. Adam, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Moses, Aaron and David were all appropriated by the first Muslims and transformed into Islamic prophets. This was done for three reasons: to rewrite the past, to delegitimise Judaism and to justify Arab imperialist ambitions of reshaping the world under the banner of Allah. So it is hardly surprising that Muslims today seek to delegitimise the State of Israel by claiming the land is part of the Islamic caliphate.
More significant is the Islamic inversion of Judaism’s moral system. In Judaism, unethical or immoral behaviour is seen as a desecration of the Divine Name. In Islam, the art of deception is promoted in the Quran and Islamic literature. Taqiyya (saying something that isn’t true) and kitman (lying by omission) are acceptable methods of undermining the morale and security of non-Muslims. Mohammad himself would trick his enemies by pretending to seek peace. Once his opponents had let their guard down, he would attack them. After all, said the prophet, “war is deceit.”
II
Appropriation, delegitimisation, falsification, deceit and war are the five pillars of Islam. They are also the five pillars of the Palestinian movement, a blatantly anti-Semitic ideology scripted in the 1960s and acted out by Yasser Arafat, the Palestinian Authority and Hamas.
The Palestinian desire to appropriate land “from the river to the sea” is simply the latest manifestation of the ongoing attempt to eradicate Judaism by destroying the cultural and historical centre of Jewish identity, which is Israel.
The Palestinian Arabs did not seek to establish a homeland until after the formation of the State of Israel – another example of cheap imitation. Palestinian nationalism only came into being because the Jews got there first. What else is Palestinianism but a parody of Zionism?
Likewise with Jerusalem. Jerusalem is not mentioned once in the Koran and it is unlikely that Muhammad ever visited the city. It was only in the 1960s, nearly twenty years after the creation of Israel, that Jerusalem became the symbolic capital of Palestinianism.
In other words, Palestinian nationalism and the appropriation of Jerusalem as the capital, is the fulfilment of the seventh century Arab colonialist project, which is to dominate and/or destroy the Jews. So instead of blaming Israel for the current crisis in Jerusalem, the Western world needs to see that Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian Authority and Hamas are only interested in one thing – a Jew-free Greater Palestine ruled by Islamic fundamentalists.
By JMA editor Richard Mather The Islamic desire to eradicate the Jewish people can perhaps be explained by the following proposition: Muslims subconsciously recognise that Islam is an inferior imitation of Judaism.
On one level, examples of imitation abound. Islamic dietary laws mimic Kashrut. Muslims circumcise their children, just like Jews do. The Temple Mount, revered by Jews as the place where God chose to rest the Divine Presence, is now home to the Dome of the Rock, a caricature of the Jewish temple.
Muslims claim the Quran is the word of God recited by an angel to Mohammed, despite the fact that it is quite clearly a mishmash of stories from the Hebrew Bible, the Christian New Testament and quasi-gnostic stories circulating in Arabia in the seventh century. Adam, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Moses, Aaron and David were all appropriated by the first Muslims and transformed into Islamic prophets. This was done for three reasons: to rewrite the past, to delegitimise Judaism and to justify Arab imperialist ambitions of reshaping the world under the banner of Allah. So it is hardly surprising that Muslims today seek to delegitimise the State of Israel by claiming the land is part of the Islamic caliphate.
More significant is the Islamic inversion of Judaism’s moral system. In Judaism, unethical or immoral behaviour is seen as a desecration of the Divine Name. In Islam, the art of deception is promoted in the Quran and Islamic literature. Taqiyya (saying something that isn’t true) and kitman (lying by omission) are acceptable methods of undermining the morale and security of non-Muslims. Mohammad himself would trick his enemies by pretending to seek peace. Once his opponents had let their guard down, he would attack them. After all, said the prophet, “war is deceit.”
II
Appropriation, delegitimisation, falsification, deceit and war are the five pillars of Islam. They are also the five pillars of the Palestinian movement, a blatantly anti-Semitic ideology scripted in the 1960s and acted out by Yasser Arafat, the Palestinian Authority and Hamas.
The Palestinian desire to appropriate land “from the river to the sea” is simply the latest manifestation of the ongoing attempt to eradicate Judaism by destroying the cultural and historical centre of Jewish identity, which is Israel.
The Palestinian Arabs did not seek to establish a homeland until after the formation of the State of Israel – another example of cheap imitation. Palestinian nationalism only came into being because the Jews got there first. What else is Palestinianism but a parody of Zionism?
Likewise with Jerusalem. Jerusalem is not mentioned once in the Koran and it is unlikely that Muhammad ever visited the city. It was only in the 1960s, nearly twenty years after the creation of Israel, that Jerusalem became the symbolic capital of Palestinianism.
In other words, Palestinian nationalism and the appropriation of Jerusalem as the capital, is the fulfilment of the seventh century Arab colonialist project, which is to dominate and/or destroy the Jews. So instead of blaming Israel for the current crisis in Jerusalem, the Western world needs to see that Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian Authority and Hamas are only interested in one thing – a Jew-free Greater Palestine ruled by Islamic fundamentalists.
Time to recapture the Temple Mount
Recent reports of Arabs throwing stones on Temple Mount and the ongoing harassment of Jewish worshippers during Sukkot tells me that liberating Judaism’s holiest site from Muslim occupation is long overdue.
The government’s appeasement of the Jerusalem Islamic Waqf, which controls the Temple Mount, is an affront to the Jewish people. After all, the Temple Mount is where HaShem chose to rest the Divine Presence.
It is a disgrace that Jews are abused and pelted with stones. It is a scandal that Jews are subject to expulsion by the police if they are caught openly praying on the Temple Mount.
Earlier this year, a young British Jewish student was accosted by Waqf officials, who demanded that he remove his yarmulke, which they said they found to be “offensive.” The student later told reporters that while he has experienced anti-Semitism in England, he “never thought that in Judaism’s holiest site I would be subjugated to such discrimination.”
Meanwhile, the Waqf allows illegal digging to take place. In the process, valuable artifacts and important historical remnants from the two Jewish temples are being thrown away. It is clear that this is an attempt to disconnect the people of Israel from their inheritance.
UNESCO, the UN’s cultural agency, has done nothing to prevent such blatant cultural and historical vandalism. Not only is this shameful, it is a violation of its promise to “create the conditions for dialogue among civilizations, cultures and peoples, based upon respect for commonly shared values.”
It is patently clear that non-Jews cannot be trusted to protect Jewish sites. Following Jordan’s occupation of Judea and Samaria, the Arabs went to great efforts to erase Jewish history. The graveyard on the Mount of Olives was desecrated and all but one of the thirty five synagogues in the Old City were destroyed.
It is obvious that Islamic control of the Temple Mount is motivated by politics, not religion. During the Jordanian occupation, no foreign Arab leader came to pray in the al-Aqsa Mosque. The fact that Muslims continue to pray with their backsides toward the Temple Mount is an affront to HaShem and the Jewish people.
While it is still forbidden for Jews to set foot upon the actual location of the Holy Temple, the rabbinic prohibition against visiting the Tempe Mount is giving way to a heartfelt desire to reincorporate the site into Jewish religious life. It is significant that a number of rabbis have visited the complex, as well as schoolchildren.
Therefore, it is time for Israel to once again make history and recapture the Temple Mount. Whether this can be achieved without causing another intifada remains to be seen. But the symbolic importance of taking control should not be underestimated. It would send a clear message to the Palestinians (and to the world) that Jerusalem is a Jewish city and will never be divided.
The government’s appeasement of the Jerusalem Islamic Waqf, which controls the Temple Mount, is an affront to the Jewish people. After all, the Temple Mount is where HaShem chose to rest the Divine Presence.
It is a disgrace that Jews are abused and pelted with stones. It is a scandal that Jews are subject to expulsion by the police if they are caught openly praying on the Temple Mount.
Earlier this year, a young British Jewish student was accosted by Waqf officials, who demanded that he remove his yarmulke, which they said they found to be “offensive.” The student later told reporters that while he has experienced anti-Semitism in England, he “never thought that in Judaism’s holiest site I would be subjugated to such discrimination.”
Meanwhile, the Waqf allows illegal digging to take place. In the process, valuable artifacts and important historical remnants from the two Jewish temples are being thrown away. It is clear that this is an attempt to disconnect the people of Israel from their inheritance.
UNESCO, the UN’s cultural agency, has done nothing to prevent such blatant cultural and historical vandalism. Not only is this shameful, it is a violation of its promise to “create the conditions for dialogue among civilizations, cultures and peoples, based upon respect for commonly shared values.”
It is patently clear that non-Jews cannot be trusted to protect Jewish sites. Following Jordan’s occupation of Judea and Samaria, the Arabs went to great efforts to erase Jewish history. The graveyard on the Mount of Olives was desecrated and all but one of the thirty five synagogues in the Old City were destroyed.
It is obvious that Islamic control of the Temple Mount is motivated by politics, not religion. During the Jordanian occupation, no foreign Arab leader came to pray in the al-Aqsa Mosque. The fact that Muslims continue to pray with their backsides toward the Temple Mount is an affront to HaShem and the Jewish people.
While it is still forbidden for Jews to set foot upon the actual location of the Holy Temple, the rabbinic prohibition against visiting the Tempe Mount is giving way to a heartfelt desire to reincorporate the site into Jewish religious life. It is significant that a number of rabbis have visited the complex, as well as schoolchildren.
Therefore, it is time for Israel to once again make history and recapture the Temple Mount. Whether this can be achieved without causing another intifada remains to be seen. But the symbolic importance of taking control should not be underestimated. It would send a clear message to the Palestinians (and to the world) that Jerusalem is a Jewish city and will never be divided.
Temple Mount belongs to the Jewish people
The traditional Tisha B’Av walk around the Temple Mount will be held next week on the 9th of the Hebrew month of Av to commemorate the destruction of the two Jewish Temples in Jerusalem. This year, the walk will depart later than usual (11:30pm) so that Muslims worshippers can complete their Ramadan celebrations on the Temple Mount.
The decision has been made by police who cite security concerns. But organizers of the walk have described it as a “disgrace.” Nadia Mataro, co-director of grassroots Zionist organization Women in Green, told Arutz Sheva that “the Arabs ascend the Temple Mount but the Jews can only pray at the Western Wall. In a sovereign state, the Jews’ events will only be held after the Arabs’ events are finished. Why? Why can’t they start their events later, so that we can march earlier?”
Israel should never have relinquished control of the Temple Mount. During the Six-Day War, the Jewish state captured the Temple Mount and East Jerusalem from Jordan. Israeli Prime Minister Levi Eshkol assured that “no harm whatsoever shall come to the places sacred to all religions.” Israel passed the Preservation of the Holy Places Law and agreed to leave administration of the site in the hands of the Jerusalem Islamic Waqf, an Islamic trust that has controlled the area since the 12th century.
This was a massive mistake. Yes, it was a magnanimous gesture designed to demonstrate Israel’s goodwill and religious tolerance. But it has allowed the Muslim authorities to rob the Jewish people of their cultural inheritance and delegitimize Israel’s historic right to Jerusalem.
As well as turning a blind eye to vandalism, the Waqf allows illegal digging to take place. Palestinian excavations of Temple Mount have damaged its structural integrity, and valuable artifacts and important historical remnants have literally been thrown away into rubbish dumps.
Among finds uncovered in rubble removed from the Temple Mount are: the imprint of a seal belonging to a priestly Jewish family mentioned in the Tanakh; more than 4,300 coins from various periods, many of which are from the Jewish revolt that preceded the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 CE; and arrowheads shot by Babylonian invaders 2,500 years ago.
The throwing away of evidence is a central tenet of Palestinian nationalism, which denies there was ever a Jewish temple in Jerusalem. The phenomenon known as “Temple denial” started when Yasser Arafat used the Camp David Summit in 2000 to insist that a Jewish Temple had never existed in Jerusalem. The idea immediately caught on and has become a mainstay of anti-Zionist discourse.
Meanwhile, back in the real world, Jews who visit the Temple Mount are pelted with rocks and hassled by hostile Muslims. At other times, Israeli police have clashed with Arabs rioters after being attacked with stones and firebombs. There is also institutional harassment of Jews. In 2012, a young British Jewish student was accosted by the Waqf who demanded that he remove his “offensive” yarmulke. The student later told reporters that while he has experienced anti-Semitism in England, he “never thought that in Judaism’s holiest site I would be subjugated to such discrimination.”
It is plain to see that Islamic control of the Temple Mount is motivated by politics, not religion. If the site is so important to Muslims, why didn’t a single foreign Arab leader come to pray in the al-Aqsa Mosque during the two decades of Jordanian occupation? And why do Muslims pray with their backsides towards the Temple Mount? And why is Jerusalem not mentioned once in the Koran?
In contrast, the Temple Mount is Judaism’s most holy and revered site. Judaism regards the Temple Mount as the place where God chose the Divine Presence to rest. According to the Talmud, it was from the Temple Mount that God gathered the dust used to create Adam. The site is also the location of Abraham’s binding of Isaac, and of two Jewish Temples, both of which were destroyed by foreign invaders. Many Israelis believe there should be a third Jewish Temple. In 2010, a public opinion poll conducted by Channel 99 showed that 50 per cent of Israelis want the Temple to be rebuilt.
This is the aim of The Temple Institute, a Jerusalem-based religious organization that has started to restore and construct the sacred vessels for the service of the Holy Temple. According to the institute, “Jewish history has a trajectory, which began when the patriarch Abraham smashed his father’s idols. That trajectory has spanned the millennia, and it is obvious that we are rapidly approaching climactic times, in which the Holy Temple will once again become the focal point for mankind’s spiritual focus.”
It is time for Israel to once again make history and recapture the Temple Mount, thereby rescinding the authority of the Waqf. The symbolic importance of taking control should not be underestimated. It would send a clear message to the Palestinians and to the world that Jerusalem is a Jewish city and will never be divided. Reclaiming the Temple Mount will also make it abundantly clear that the State of Israel is an eternal fact on the ground.
The decision has been made by police who cite security concerns. But organizers of the walk have described it as a “disgrace.” Nadia Mataro, co-director of grassroots Zionist organization Women in Green, told Arutz Sheva that “the Arabs ascend the Temple Mount but the Jews can only pray at the Western Wall. In a sovereign state, the Jews’ events will only be held after the Arabs’ events are finished. Why? Why can’t they start their events later, so that we can march earlier?”
Israel should never have relinquished control of the Temple Mount. During the Six-Day War, the Jewish state captured the Temple Mount and East Jerusalem from Jordan. Israeli Prime Minister Levi Eshkol assured that “no harm whatsoever shall come to the places sacred to all religions.” Israel passed the Preservation of the Holy Places Law and agreed to leave administration of the site in the hands of the Jerusalem Islamic Waqf, an Islamic trust that has controlled the area since the 12th century.
This was a massive mistake. Yes, it was a magnanimous gesture designed to demonstrate Israel’s goodwill and religious tolerance. But it has allowed the Muslim authorities to rob the Jewish people of their cultural inheritance and delegitimize Israel’s historic right to Jerusalem.
As well as turning a blind eye to vandalism, the Waqf allows illegal digging to take place. Palestinian excavations of Temple Mount have damaged its structural integrity, and valuable artifacts and important historical remnants have literally been thrown away into rubbish dumps.
Among finds uncovered in rubble removed from the Temple Mount are: the imprint of a seal belonging to a priestly Jewish family mentioned in the Tanakh; more than 4,300 coins from various periods, many of which are from the Jewish revolt that preceded the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 CE; and arrowheads shot by Babylonian invaders 2,500 years ago.
The throwing away of evidence is a central tenet of Palestinian nationalism, which denies there was ever a Jewish temple in Jerusalem. The phenomenon known as “Temple denial” started when Yasser Arafat used the Camp David Summit in 2000 to insist that a Jewish Temple had never existed in Jerusalem. The idea immediately caught on and has become a mainstay of anti-Zionist discourse.
Meanwhile, back in the real world, Jews who visit the Temple Mount are pelted with rocks and hassled by hostile Muslims. At other times, Israeli police have clashed with Arabs rioters after being attacked with stones and firebombs. There is also institutional harassment of Jews. In 2012, a young British Jewish student was accosted by the Waqf who demanded that he remove his “offensive” yarmulke. The student later told reporters that while he has experienced anti-Semitism in England, he “never thought that in Judaism’s holiest site I would be subjugated to such discrimination.”
It is plain to see that Islamic control of the Temple Mount is motivated by politics, not religion. If the site is so important to Muslims, why didn’t a single foreign Arab leader come to pray in the al-Aqsa Mosque during the two decades of Jordanian occupation? And why do Muslims pray with their backsides towards the Temple Mount? And why is Jerusalem not mentioned once in the Koran?
In contrast, the Temple Mount is Judaism’s most holy and revered site. Judaism regards the Temple Mount as the place where God chose the Divine Presence to rest. According to the Talmud, it was from the Temple Mount that God gathered the dust used to create Adam. The site is also the location of Abraham’s binding of Isaac, and of two Jewish Temples, both of which were destroyed by foreign invaders. Many Israelis believe there should be a third Jewish Temple. In 2010, a public opinion poll conducted by Channel 99 showed that 50 per cent of Israelis want the Temple to be rebuilt.
This is the aim of The Temple Institute, a Jerusalem-based religious organization that has started to restore and construct the sacred vessels for the service of the Holy Temple. According to the institute, “Jewish history has a trajectory, which began when the patriarch Abraham smashed his father’s idols. That trajectory has spanned the millennia, and it is obvious that we are rapidly approaching climactic times, in which the Holy Temple will once again become the focal point for mankind’s spiritual focus.”
It is time for Israel to once again make history and recapture the Temple Mount, thereby rescinding the authority of the Waqf. The symbolic importance of taking control should not be underestimated. It would send a clear message to the Palestinians and to the world that Jerusalem is a Jewish city and will never be divided. Reclaiming the Temple Mount will also make it abundantly clear that the State of Israel is an eternal fact on the ground.
Protect the Temple Mount
Friends of Israel are being urged to support a campaign that aims to stop the desecration of the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. Among the groups campaigning to end the vandalism are the British Israel Coalition, British Muslims for Israel and Anglican Friends of Israel.
The Jerusalem Islamic Waqf, the trust that controls and manages the Temple Mount, is accused of desecrating Judaism’s holiest site. Illegal digging has destroyed historical remnants of Jerusalem’s Jewish history. Since the mid-1990s, the Waqf has carried out excavation work, drilled into ancient stones and painted over rare Jewish works at the site.
The Waqf has allowed illegal digging through the use of tractors, and thrown away valuable artifacts from the two Jewish Temples. Archaeologists have sifted through Waqf-sanctioned rubbish heaps and found decorated utensils from the King Solomon era, as well as coins and clay dating back to the second Temple.
Other Jewish religious sites under attack include Joseph’s Tomb in Shechem (Nablus) and the 3,000 year-old Jewish cemetery on the Mount of Olives in Jerusalem.
The Waqf also denies Jewish and other non-Muslim visitors to visit and worship freely on the Temple Mount. Jewish worshipers are discriminated against and harassed on a regular basis by the Waqf. The threat of anti-Jewish violence has left the Israeli authorities with little choice but to prevent Jewish worship on the Temple Mount.
Earlier this year, a young British Jewish student was accosted by Waqf officials, who demanded that he remove his yarmulke, which they said they found to be “offensive.” The student later told reporters that while he has experienced anti-Semitism in England, he “never thought that in Judaism’s holiest site I would be subjugated to such discrimination.”
It is clear that the Waqf is attempting to disconnect the people of Israel from its inheritance by either denying the presence of Solomon’s temple in Jerusalem or destroying evidence of its existence. This attempt to de-Judaize the Temple Mount cannot be allowed to continue.
Meanwhile UNESCO has done nothing to prevent such blatant cultural and historical vandalism. Not only is this shameful, it is a violation of its promise to “create the conditions for dialogue among civilizations, cultures and peoples, based upon respect for commonly shared values.”
Historical treasures such as the Temple Mount must be protected regardless of politics and religious identification. The inaction of UNESCO in the face of this concerted vandalism of Jewish holy sites is utterly unjustifiable.
Hundreds of Gazans have been allowed to pray on the Temple Mount for Eid al-Adha, a Muslim holiday celebrating Abraham’s “sacrifice of Ishmael.” In a statement the IDF said it had given permits to 500 Gaza residents over the age of sixty to celebrate the three-day holiday.
It comes days after Palestinian youths hurled rocks, fire crackers and cinder-blocks at police officers who were guarding the Temple Mount. The officers were treated at the scene by medical personnel and the rioters proceeded to lock themselves inside the al-Aksa Mosque.
Meanwhile, Israel’s tourism ministry is considering opening a second gate to the Temple Mount for Jewish visitors and tourists. As things stand, there are eleven entrances to the Temple Mount, ten of them open to Muslims. The Mughrabi Gate is the only entrance for Jews and even this point of access is regularly targeted by Arab rioters.
But the requirements and safety of Jewish visitors is not the only problem. For many years the Jerusalem Islamic Waqf – the trust that controls and manages the Temple Mount – has carried out excavation work, drilled into ancient stones and painted over rare Jewish art works.
The Waqf has allowed illegal digging through the use of tractors and thrown away valuable artefacts from the two temples. Luckily, archaeologists have managed to rescue some these artefacts by sifting through the rubbish heaps. Among other things, they have found decorated utensils from the King Solomon era, as well as coins and clay dating back to the second temple.
The actions of the Waqf not only display a disdain for history, they represent a blatant attempt to disconnect the people of Israel from their inheritance by either denying the presence of Solomon’s temple in Jerusalem or destroying evidence of its existence.
Indeed, the throwing away of evidence is a central tenet of Palestinian nationalism, which denies there was ever a Jewish temple in Jerusalem. The phenomenon known as “temple denial” started when Yasser Arafat used the Camp David Summit in 2000 to insist that a Jewish Temple had never existed in Jerusalem. The idea immediately caught on and has become a mainstay of anti-Zionist discourse.
The UN’s cultural agency, UNESCO, has done little to prevent such blatant cultural and historical vandalism. Not only is this shameful, it is a clear violation of its promise to “create the conditions for dialogue among civilizations, cultures and peoples, based upon respect for commonly shared values.”
Judaism regards the Temple Mount as the place where God chose the divine presence to rest. According to the Talmud, it was from the Temple Mount that God gathered the dust used to create Adam.
The tossing of precious Jewish artefacts into a rubbish dump, and the hurling of stones and firecrackers at police, are not signs of respect or reverence. They are signs of contempt. The Temple Mount and the Jewish people who yearn for a truly united Jerusalem deserve better.
The Jerusalem Islamic Waqf, the trust that controls and manages the Temple Mount, is accused of desecrating Judaism’s holiest site. Illegal digging has destroyed historical remnants of Jerusalem’s Jewish history. Since the mid-1990s, the Waqf has carried out excavation work, drilled into ancient stones and painted over rare Jewish works at the site.
The Waqf has allowed illegal digging through the use of tractors, and thrown away valuable artifacts from the two Jewish Temples. Archaeologists have sifted through Waqf-sanctioned rubbish heaps and found decorated utensils from the King Solomon era, as well as coins and clay dating back to the second Temple.
Other Jewish religious sites under attack include Joseph’s Tomb in Shechem (Nablus) and the 3,000 year-old Jewish cemetery on the Mount of Olives in Jerusalem.
The Waqf also denies Jewish and other non-Muslim visitors to visit and worship freely on the Temple Mount. Jewish worshipers are discriminated against and harassed on a regular basis by the Waqf. The threat of anti-Jewish violence has left the Israeli authorities with little choice but to prevent Jewish worship on the Temple Mount.
Earlier this year, a young British Jewish student was accosted by Waqf officials, who demanded that he remove his yarmulke, which they said they found to be “offensive.” The student later told reporters that while he has experienced anti-Semitism in England, he “never thought that in Judaism’s holiest site I would be subjugated to such discrimination.”
It is clear that the Waqf is attempting to disconnect the people of Israel from its inheritance by either denying the presence of Solomon’s temple in Jerusalem or destroying evidence of its existence. This attempt to de-Judaize the Temple Mount cannot be allowed to continue.
Meanwhile UNESCO has done nothing to prevent such blatant cultural and historical vandalism. Not only is this shameful, it is a violation of its promise to “create the conditions for dialogue among civilizations, cultures and peoples, based upon respect for commonly shared values.”
Historical treasures such as the Temple Mount must be protected regardless of politics and religious identification. The inaction of UNESCO in the face of this concerted vandalism of Jewish holy sites is utterly unjustifiable.
The Temple Mount deserves better
Hundreds of Gazans have been allowed to pray on the Temple Mount for Eid al-Adha, a Muslim holiday celebrating Abraham’s “sacrifice of Ishmael.” In a statement the IDF said it had given permits to 500 Gaza residents over the age of sixty to celebrate the three-day holiday.
It comes days after Palestinian youths hurled rocks, fire crackers and cinder-blocks at police officers who were guarding the Temple Mount. The officers were treated at the scene by medical personnel and the rioters proceeded to lock themselves inside the al-Aksa Mosque.
Meanwhile, Israel’s tourism ministry is considering opening a second gate to the Temple Mount for Jewish visitors and tourists. As things stand, there are eleven entrances to the Temple Mount, ten of them open to Muslims. The Mughrabi Gate is the only entrance for Jews and even this point of access is regularly targeted by Arab rioters.
But the requirements and safety of Jewish visitors is not the only problem. For many years the Jerusalem Islamic Waqf – the trust that controls and manages the Temple Mount – has carried out excavation work, drilled into ancient stones and painted over rare Jewish art works.
The Waqf has allowed illegal digging through the use of tractors and thrown away valuable artefacts from the two temples. Luckily, archaeologists have managed to rescue some these artefacts by sifting through the rubbish heaps. Among other things, they have found decorated utensils from the King Solomon era, as well as coins and clay dating back to the second temple.
The actions of the Waqf not only display a disdain for history, they represent a blatant attempt to disconnect the people of Israel from their inheritance by either denying the presence of Solomon’s temple in Jerusalem or destroying evidence of its existence.
Indeed, the throwing away of evidence is a central tenet of Palestinian nationalism, which denies there was ever a Jewish temple in Jerusalem. The phenomenon known as “temple denial” started when Yasser Arafat used the Camp David Summit in 2000 to insist that a Jewish Temple had never existed in Jerusalem. The idea immediately caught on and has become a mainstay of anti-Zionist discourse.
The UN’s cultural agency, UNESCO, has done little to prevent such blatant cultural and historical vandalism. Not only is this shameful, it is a clear violation of its promise to “create the conditions for dialogue among civilizations, cultures and peoples, based upon respect for commonly shared values.”
Judaism regards the Temple Mount as the place where God chose the divine presence to rest. According to the Talmud, it was from the Temple Mount that God gathered the dust used to create Adam.
The tossing of precious Jewish artefacts into a rubbish dump, and the hurling of stones and firecrackers at police, are not signs of respect or reverence. They are signs of contempt. The Temple Mount and the Jewish people who yearn for a truly united Jerusalem deserve better.
Islam: a fraudulent ideology
[This is a piece I wrote a few years ago but it is still relevant, especially in today's climate of Islamist supremacism and anti-Semitism]
There is nothing legitimate about Islam’s claim to be the original faith. Similarly, there is nothing legitimate about the Palestinian aspiration for nationhood.
The Islamic desire to eradicate the Jewish people can perhaps be explained by the following proposition: Muslims subconsciously recognize that Islam is an inferior and destructive imitation of Judaism.
Rather than seeking to emulate the goodness of the Torah, Muslims have instead subverted and sabotaged the Jewish faith, and this has had dire consequences for Jews.
The towering figures of the Tanakh, which include Adam, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Moses, Aaron and David, have all been claimed by Muslims to suit their own agenda. Indeed, Muslims downplay the importance of Isaac by claiming it was Ishmael who was taken up to Mount Moriah. Ishmael, of course, is considered to be the ancestor of the Arabs.
Examples of imitation abound. Islamic dietary laws mimic Kashrut. Muslims circumcise their children, just like Jews do. The Temple Mount, revered by Jews as the place where God chose to rest the Divine Presence, is now home to the Dome of the Rock, a caricature of the Jewish temple. And it is because of the Dome of the Rock that Jews are unable to build the Third Temple.
Muslims claim the Quran is the word of God recited by an angel to Mohammed, despite the fact that it is merely a mishmash of stories from both the Hebrew Bible and the Christian New Testament. The Torah, however, is revered by Jews because it was/is the ultimate manifestation of God’s will. And unlike the Quran, the Torah is the bedrock of Judeo-Christian civilisation.
Although the Christian New Testament does contain some anti-Judaic statements, the Quran is far worse. Islam is mired in anti-Semitism because of its ambiguous relationship with Judaism. Several verses in the Quran describe the transformation of Jews into apes and pigs as punishment for breaking the Sabbath or “worshipping evil.” Before ordering that every adult male of a particular Jewish tribe be killed, Mohammed referred to the Jews as “brothers of monkeys.” So it is no surprise that today’s Islamists refer to Jews as the “descendants of apes and swine,” or why Hamas says that Jews are sub-human.
What’s also pernicious about Islam is its claim to be the original faith of Adam and Abraham, and that the Jews (and Christians) perverted God’s true intentions for mankind. All the major figures in the Tanakh (e.g. Noah, David, Solomon etc) are appropriated by Islam and turned into Muslim prophets. From the very beginning, Islam was an ideology designed to delegitimize Judaism. So it is hardly surprising that Muslims today seek to delegitimize the State of Israel by claiming the land is part of the Islamic caliphate.
This habit of appropriating Jewish identity and then seeking to destroy it perhaps explains why Palestinian nationalism is so unstable. The Palestinian Arabs did not seek to establish a homeland until after the formation of the State of Israel, and even then they were more concerned with destroying the Jewish state than actually focusing on how to build their own democratic institutions.
Once it was clear that the Arab states could not defeat Israel, the Palestinians had no choice but to invent their own nationalism, which is quite obviously a parody of Zionism. Palestinian nationalism came into being because the Jews did it first.
Indeed, some Palestinians go further by claiming they are descendants of the biblical Jebusites and Canaanites. According to this narrative, the Palestinians have been occupied and usurped twice – first, by the Israelites and then by the Zionists.
But this is wishful thinking. Arabs are not indigenous to Eretz Israel. They are ethnically and culturally identical to Arabs living in Jordan, Syria, Egypt etc.
Arabs occupied Eretz Israel in the 7th century during the Muslim conquests. In contrast, Jews have lived on the land for the past 3,300 years. Jerusalem has always been considered the focus of Judaism and Jewish identity. Jerusalem has never been the capital of any Arab or Muslim entity.
Likewise, Jerusalem is mentioned at least 700 times in the Jewish scriptures. Jerusalem is not mentioned once in the Koran. It is unlikely that Muhammad ever went to Jerusalem. Moreover, Jews pray facing Jerusalem, while Muslims pray with their backsides toward Jerusalem. This is surely a tasteless caricature of Judaism.
The Palestinian desire to appropriate the land of Israel is simply the latest manifestation of the ongoing attempt to emulate Judaism by subverting and ultimately destroying Jewish identity. Therefore, it is important to keep reminding the world that the Jewish people have a much stronger claim to Judea and Samaria. There are many political and legal reasons why the State of Israel is entitled to the “West Bank.” But at the heart of the matter is the Jewish right to fulfil Israel’s destiny as keeper of the land, which was, after all, promised in the Torah.
There is nothing legitimate about Islam’s claim to be the original faith. Similarly, there is nothing legitimate about the Palestinian aspiration for nationhood.
The Islamic desire to eradicate the Jewish people can perhaps be explained by the following proposition: Muslims subconsciously recognize that Islam is an inferior and destructive imitation of Judaism.
Rather than seeking to emulate the goodness of the Torah, Muslims have instead subverted and sabotaged the Jewish faith, and this has had dire consequences for Jews.
The towering figures of the Tanakh, which include Adam, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Moses, Aaron and David, have all been claimed by Muslims to suit their own agenda. Indeed, Muslims downplay the importance of Isaac by claiming it was Ishmael who was taken up to Mount Moriah. Ishmael, of course, is considered to be the ancestor of the Arabs.
Examples of imitation abound. Islamic dietary laws mimic Kashrut. Muslims circumcise their children, just like Jews do. The Temple Mount, revered by Jews as the place where God chose to rest the Divine Presence, is now home to the Dome of the Rock, a caricature of the Jewish temple. And it is because of the Dome of the Rock that Jews are unable to build the Third Temple.
Muslims claim the Quran is the word of God recited by an angel to Mohammed, despite the fact that it is merely a mishmash of stories from both the Hebrew Bible and the Christian New Testament. The Torah, however, is revered by Jews because it was/is the ultimate manifestation of God’s will. And unlike the Quran, the Torah is the bedrock of Judeo-Christian civilisation.
Although the Christian New Testament does contain some anti-Judaic statements, the Quran is far worse. Islam is mired in anti-Semitism because of its ambiguous relationship with Judaism. Several verses in the Quran describe the transformation of Jews into apes and pigs as punishment for breaking the Sabbath or “worshipping evil.” Before ordering that every adult male of a particular Jewish tribe be killed, Mohammed referred to the Jews as “brothers of monkeys.” So it is no surprise that today’s Islamists refer to Jews as the “descendants of apes and swine,” or why Hamas says that Jews are sub-human.
What’s also pernicious about Islam is its claim to be the original faith of Adam and Abraham, and that the Jews (and Christians) perverted God’s true intentions for mankind. All the major figures in the Tanakh (e.g. Noah, David, Solomon etc) are appropriated by Islam and turned into Muslim prophets. From the very beginning, Islam was an ideology designed to delegitimize Judaism. So it is hardly surprising that Muslims today seek to delegitimize the State of Israel by claiming the land is part of the Islamic caliphate.
This habit of appropriating Jewish identity and then seeking to destroy it perhaps explains why Palestinian nationalism is so unstable. The Palestinian Arabs did not seek to establish a homeland until after the formation of the State of Israel, and even then they were more concerned with destroying the Jewish state than actually focusing on how to build their own democratic institutions.
Once it was clear that the Arab states could not defeat Israel, the Palestinians had no choice but to invent their own nationalism, which is quite obviously a parody of Zionism. Palestinian nationalism came into being because the Jews did it first.
Indeed, some Palestinians go further by claiming they are descendants of the biblical Jebusites and Canaanites. According to this narrative, the Palestinians have been occupied and usurped twice – first, by the Israelites and then by the Zionists.
But this is wishful thinking. Arabs are not indigenous to Eretz Israel. They are ethnically and culturally identical to Arabs living in Jordan, Syria, Egypt etc.
Arabs occupied Eretz Israel in the 7th century during the Muslim conquests. In contrast, Jews have lived on the land for the past 3,300 years. Jerusalem has always been considered the focus of Judaism and Jewish identity. Jerusalem has never been the capital of any Arab or Muslim entity.
Likewise, Jerusalem is mentioned at least 700 times in the Jewish scriptures. Jerusalem is not mentioned once in the Koran. It is unlikely that Muhammad ever went to Jerusalem. Moreover, Jews pray facing Jerusalem, while Muslims pray with their backsides toward Jerusalem. This is surely a tasteless caricature of Judaism.
The Palestinian desire to appropriate the land of Israel is simply the latest manifestation of the ongoing attempt to emulate Judaism by subverting and ultimately destroying Jewish identity. Therefore, it is important to keep reminding the world that the Jewish people have a much stronger claim to Judea and Samaria. There are many political and legal reasons why the State of Israel is entitled to the “West Bank.” But at the heart of the matter is the Jewish right to fulfil Israel’s destiny as keeper of the land, which was, after all, promised in the Torah.
Palestine – it’s not worth it
One of the most alarming experiences as a European is to see how our politicians and the media continue to criticize Israel but not the Palestinians, whose pseudo-national aspirations garner more attention than Syrian war casualties, Chinese human rights abuses and the plight of women and girls enslaved by Islamic terrorists.
It is strange that the Palestinians – who have no historical, cultural or legal rights to the land of Israel – are endowed with international and economic patronage by the US, the EU and the UN. How did the Palestinians and their Arabist-Islamist backers manage to achieve such a feat?
Firstly, the Palestinians have learnt that violence is rewarded. Acts of terror against Israelis have only strengthened the West’s belief that a Palestinian state is of paramount importance. The latest round of fighting in Gaza confirms this.
Secondly, the Palestinians have managed to convince most of the world that they are a landless and suffering people, whose plight is equal to that of the Jews in the 1930s and 1940s. This is has to be one of history’s biggest hoaxes. And it is a very dangerous hoax indeed. Why? Because the “Palestinian issue” has enabled Europe to reconnect with its Jew-hating past by blurring the line between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism.
The fact that Jewish businesses across the world are being boycotted is testament to the perverse success of the Palestinian movement. Jews in France have been murdered. Synagogues in Belfast and London have been vandalized. Anti-Semitic chants and references to the Holocaust are commonplace in Europe’s cities. Countries that pride themselves on their enlightened and liberal societies – such as Sweden, Germany and Norway – are all places where Jews no longer feel safe.
At last, the shocking rise in anti-Semitism in Europe is garnering some media attention. But the issue is still not taken seriously by the liberal-left, the police and most politicians. This is because much of the anti-Semitic abuse is carried out by Muslims who claim it is retribution for their “brothers” in Gaza. And the liberal elite either agrees or looks the other way.
The situation cannot continue. It is incomprehensible that Jews are suffering the same hatred as they did during the 1930s and 1940s. The curse of anti-Semitism is once again strangling Europe’s hard-won freedoms. The post-1945 consensus that Jews will never again be made to suffer at the hands of fascists is falling apart.
Perhaps Europe’s leaders should be asking themselves one simple question: is the creation of a Palestinian state really worth the aggravation? After all, the people who call themselves Palestinians have had at least seven opportunities since 1937 to establish a state alongside Israel and each time they have refused. Since it is clear that the Palestinians are not interested in peaceful co-existence, it is surely incumbent on the international community to focus on more important matters (such as the liberation of the Kurds from Islamist imperialism).
Will Europe listen? Or will it continue to advance the Palestinian issue until not a single Jew is left in Europe? Only time will tell. But in the meantime don’t be surprised if the number of Jews making Aliyah continues to rise.
It is strange that the Palestinians – who have no historical, cultural or legal rights to the land of Israel – are endowed with international and economic patronage by the US, the EU and the UN. How did the Palestinians and their Arabist-Islamist backers manage to achieve such a feat?
Firstly, the Palestinians have learnt that violence is rewarded. Acts of terror against Israelis have only strengthened the West’s belief that a Palestinian state is of paramount importance. The latest round of fighting in Gaza confirms this.
Secondly, the Palestinians have managed to convince most of the world that they are a landless and suffering people, whose plight is equal to that of the Jews in the 1930s and 1940s. This is has to be one of history’s biggest hoaxes. And it is a very dangerous hoax indeed. Why? Because the “Palestinian issue” has enabled Europe to reconnect with its Jew-hating past by blurring the line between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism.
The fact that Jewish businesses across the world are being boycotted is testament to the perverse success of the Palestinian movement. Jews in France have been murdered. Synagogues in Belfast and London have been vandalized. Anti-Semitic chants and references to the Holocaust are commonplace in Europe’s cities. Countries that pride themselves on their enlightened and liberal societies – such as Sweden, Germany and Norway – are all places where Jews no longer feel safe.
At last, the shocking rise in anti-Semitism in Europe is garnering some media attention. But the issue is still not taken seriously by the liberal-left, the police and most politicians. This is because much of the anti-Semitic abuse is carried out by Muslims who claim it is retribution for their “brothers” in Gaza. And the liberal elite either agrees or looks the other way.
The situation cannot continue. It is incomprehensible that Jews are suffering the same hatred as they did during the 1930s and 1940s. The curse of anti-Semitism is once again strangling Europe’s hard-won freedoms. The post-1945 consensus that Jews will never again be made to suffer at the hands of fascists is falling apart.
Perhaps Europe’s leaders should be asking themselves one simple question: is the creation of a Palestinian state really worth the aggravation? After all, the people who call themselves Palestinians have had at least seven opportunities since 1937 to establish a state alongside Israel and each time they have refused. Since it is clear that the Palestinians are not interested in peaceful co-existence, it is surely incumbent on the international community to focus on more important matters (such as the liberation of the Kurds from Islamist imperialism).
Will Europe listen? Or will it continue to advance the Palestinian issue until not a single Jew is left in Europe? Only time will tell. But in the meantime don’t be surprised if the number of Jews making Aliyah continues to rise.
The Palestinianization of European political discourse
News that the European Union’s foreign policy representative, Catherine Ashton, joined an Arab olive harvest in the town of Ras Karkar, should be a cause for concern for all those who are worried about the EU’s inability to stay impartial in the Israel-Palestinian conflict.
The fact that Ras Karkar is in Area C, which is under Israeli military and administrative control, is something of a propaganda coup for the Palestinians, who claim Ms Ashton’s visit is proof that that “this territory is not contested as Israel claims” and will “help us move to full Palestinian sovereignty.”
Ms Ashton’s visit to the Middle East comes a week after she described Israeli construction activity in a Jerusalem neighborhood as threatening “to make a two-state solution impossible.” Moreover, she made no mention of the Palestinian refusal to resume direct negotiations with Israel without preconditions.
One of the most alarming experiences as a European is to see how our politicians continue to criticize Israel but not the Palestinians, whose national aspirations seem to be the most pressing issue in the corridors of EU power. In fact, you would be forgiven for thinking that the creation of a Palestinian state will inaugurate a period of world peace and utopian brotherhood.
It is ironic that the EU is so fixated on Palestinian nationalism at a time when Europe is undermining the sovereignty of individual nation states within its own borders. Indeed, Europe haughtily dismisses concepts such as a statehood and nationalism. So why is Palestinian statehood so important?
This obsession with the Palestinians requires an explanation. Ever since Israel’s astounding military victory in 1967, it is clear that the Jewish state does not require the benefaction of condescending Europeans. This means that Europe needs a “new Jew” to patronize But instead of protecting its own Jewish remnant who had survived the horrors of the Shoah, the European elite latched on to the concept of Palestinian nationalism.
Why? Because Palestinian nationalism was – and still is – packaged as a revolutionary (albeit invented) ethnocentric liberation movement which challenges the hegemony of the US, which has long supported Israel. Moreover, the Palestinians managed to convince just about everyone that they are a landless and suffering people, whose plight is equal to that of the Jews in the 1930s and 1940s.
During the 1960s and 1970s, when the Palestinians used terrorism to advertise their message, some European politicians and activists must have thought that assisting the Palestinians was simply the right thing to do. Anyway, supporting the PLO at a time when it was widely considered to be a terrorist organization, was a good way of upsetting the Americans. At the same time, the Palestinian issue has enabled Europe to reconnect with its Jew-hating past by blurring the line between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism.
II
The fact that for the first time since the Nazis ruled Europe, Jews are being boycotted and sanctioned on a massive scale, is testament to the perverse success of the Palestinianization of Europe.
A growing number of European universities, trade unions and businesses have decided to boycott Israeli products and individual Israelis (usually academics), as well as Israeli orchestras and theatre groups. At state level, Denmark and Ireland are proposing the banning of Israeli goods. The European Parliament’s second biggest voting bloc, the Socialists and Democrats Group, also supports a boycott of Israeli settlement goods.
At street level, Jews are assaulted and their sacred spaces vandalized. Countries that pride themselves on their enlightened and liberal societies, such as Sweden, France, Britain and Norway, are all places where to be Jewish is to be at risk.
The rise in anti-Semitism in Europe has received little attention, partly because much of the abuse is carried out by Muslims who are sheltered by the liberal elite, who accuse critics of Islamophobia or racism. Muslims who attack diaspora Jews claim it is retribution on behalf of their “brothers” in Gaza and the “West Bank.” And the liberal elite agrees.
In the European media, Israel is disproportionately blamed for all the ills of the Middle East. It is amazing how many column inches are devoted to Israel/Palestine. Far too often, the Guardian newspaper gives a platform to radical Muslims who espouse hatred of Israel and Jews. And on so many occasions, media outlets across Europe print or broadcast anti-Israel stories that are based on manipulated images, staged events and unsubstantiated rumors, the most notable example being the massacre that never happened in Jenin.
What is also vexing is Europe’s economic support for projects in Gaza and the “West Bank.” Over the past two decades, the EU has committed around 5 billion euros in development aid to the Palestinians. The EU makes no secret of the fact that it is deliberately helping the Palestinians prepare for statehood, which the EU says is being hampered by Israeli settlements. At the start of 2012, the EU contributed another 1.1 million euros to the PA’s so-called “Private Sector Reconstruction in Gaza” program, which provides financial support to businesses destroyed or damaged by “Operation Cast Lead”. Never mind the fact that Gaza has a has a five-star hotel and a luxury shopping mall, or that its real GDP grow by more than 25% in the first three quarters of 2011.
III
In contemporary European political discourse, the Palestinian issue is totemic. The European fixation with Gaza and the “West Bank” has propagated the outrageous but popular belief that Israel is the world’s worst human rights abuser since the Nazis. But casting Israel in this role is no different from accusing Jews of killing Christian children for their blood or blaming Jews for Germany’s military defeat in 1918. The level of abuse leveled at Israel today is just another manifestation of an age-old disease. And it is a disease which always makes Europe very sick.
Ms Ashton, who is also vice-president of the European Commission, would do well to turn her attention to finding a solution to domestic anti-Semitism, which is at its highest level in sixty years. Europe has no business funding Gaza or castigating Israel when it cannot even look after its own persecuted minority of Jews, some of whom are fleeing France and Sweden in order to find shelter in Israel. The fact that the Holocaust is still within living memory should send a shudder down the spine of Europe.
The one-sided criticism of Israel and the culture of hatred in Europe needs to be addressed before more Jews are attacked or synagogues firebombed by pro-Palestinian activists. For the sake of a healthy body politic, EU politicians must resist the urge to automatically side with the Palestinians and say “no” to anti-Semitism in all its forms. They should point out the duplicity of left-wing peace demonstrators who side with Hamas and Hezbollah, and highlight the hypocrisy of European anti-Zionists who send flotillas to Gaza but do nothing about Syria, which is currently falling apart.
This is not about being anti-Muslim (or even anti-Left) but about getting things into proportion and realizing that there are more important issues in the world than “Palestine.” Eradicating European anti-Semitism is, in my view, far more important. After all, Europe has a moral and historic duty to protect what remains of its Jewish communities.
The fact that Ras Karkar is in Area C, which is under Israeli military and administrative control, is something of a propaganda coup for the Palestinians, who claim Ms Ashton’s visit is proof that that “this territory is not contested as Israel claims” and will “help us move to full Palestinian sovereignty.”
Ms Ashton’s visit to the Middle East comes a week after she described Israeli construction activity in a Jerusalem neighborhood as threatening “to make a two-state solution impossible.” Moreover, she made no mention of the Palestinian refusal to resume direct negotiations with Israel without preconditions.
One of the most alarming experiences as a European is to see how our politicians continue to criticize Israel but not the Palestinians, whose national aspirations seem to be the most pressing issue in the corridors of EU power. In fact, you would be forgiven for thinking that the creation of a Palestinian state will inaugurate a period of world peace and utopian brotherhood.
It is ironic that the EU is so fixated on Palestinian nationalism at a time when Europe is undermining the sovereignty of individual nation states within its own borders. Indeed, Europe haughtily dismisses concepts such as a statehood and nationalism. So why is Palestinian statehood so important?
This obsession with the Palestinians requires an explanation. Ever since Israel’s astounding military victory in 1967, it is clear that the Jewish state does not require the benefaction of condescending Europeans. This means that Europe needs a “new Jew” to patronize But instead of protecting its own Jewish remnant who had survived the horrors of the Shoah, the European elite latched on to the concept of Palestinian nationalism.
Why? Because Palestinian nationalism was – and still is – packaged as a revolutionary (albeit invented) ethnocentric liberation movement which challenges the hegemony of the US, which has long supported Israel. Moreover, the Palestinians managed to convince just about everyone that they are a landless and suffering people, whose plight is equal to that of the Jews in the 1930s and 1940s.
During the 1960s and 1970s, when the Palestinians used terrorism to advertise their message, some European politicians and activists must have thought that assisting the Palestinians was simply the right thing to do. Anyway, supporting the PLO at a time when it was widely considered to be a terrorist organization, was a good way of upsetting the Americans. At the same time, the Palestinian issue has enabled Europe to reconnect with its Jew-hating past by blurring the line between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism.
II
The fact that for the first time since the Nazis ruled Europe, Jews are being boycotted and sanctioned on a massive scale, is testament to the perverse success of the Palestinianization of Europe.
A growing number of European universities, trade unions and businesses have decided to boycott Israeli products and individual Israelis (usually academics), as well as Israeli orchestras and theatre groups. At state level, Denmark and Ireland are proposing the banning of Israeli goods. The European Parliament’s second biggest voting bloc, the Socialists and Democrats Group, also supports a boycott of Israeli settlement goods.
At street level, Jews are assaulted and their sacred spaces vandalized. Countries that pride themselves on their enlightened and liberal societies, such as Sweden, France, Britain and Norway, are all places where to be Jewish is to be at risk.
The rise in anti-Semitism in Europe has received little attention, partly because much of the abuse is carried out by Muslims who are sheltered by the liberal elite, who accuse critics of Islamophobia or racism. Muslims who attack diaspora Jews claim it is retribution on behalf of their “brothers” in Gaza and the “West Bank.” And the liberal elite agrees.
In the European media, Israel is disproportionately blamed for all the ills of the Middle East. It is amazing how many column inches are devoted to Israel/Palestine. Far too often, the Guardian newspaper gives a platform to radical Muslims who espouse hatred of Israel and Jews. And on so many occasions, media outlets across Europe print or broadcast anti-Israel stories that are based on manipulated images, staged events and unsubstantiated rumors, the most notable example being the massacre that never happened in Jenin.
What is also vexing is Europe’s economic support for projects in Gaza and the “West Bank.” Over the past two decades, the EU has committed around 5 billion euros in development aid to the Palestinians. The EU makes no secret of the fact that it is deliberately helping the Palestinians prepare for statehood, which the EU says is being hampered by Israeli settlements. At the start of 2012, the EU contributed another 1.1 million euros to the PA’s so-called “Private Sector Reconstruction in Gaza” program, which provides financial support to businesses destroyed or damaged by “Operation Cast Lead”. Never mind the fact that Gaza has a has a five-star hotel and a luxury shopping mall, or that its real GDP grow by more than 25% in the first three quarters of 2011.
III
In contemporary European political discourse, the Palestinian issue is totemic. The European fixation with Gaza and the “West Bank” has propagated the outrageous but popular belief that Israel is the world’s worst human rights abuser since the Nazis. But casting Israel in this role is no different from accusing Jews of killing Christian children for their blood or blaming Jews for Germany’s military defeat in 1918. The level of abuse leveled at Israel today is just another manifestation of an age-old disease. And it is a disease which always makes Europe very sick.
Ms Ashton, who is also vice-president of the European Commission, would do well to turn her attention to finding a solution to domestic anti-Semitism, which is at its highest level in sixty years. Europe has no business funding Gaza or castigating Israel when it cannot even look after its own persecuted minority of Jews, some of whom are fleeing France and Sweden in order to find shelter in Israel. The fact that the Holocaust is still within living memory should send a shudder down the spine of Europe.
The one-sided criticism of Israel and the culture of hatred in Europe needs to be addressed before more Jews are attacked or synagogues firebombed by pro-Palestinian activists. For the sake of a healthy body politic, EU politicians must resist the urge to automatically side with the Palestinians and say “no” to anti-Semitism in all its forms. They should point out the duplicity of left-wing peace demonstrators who side with Hamas and Hezbollah, and highlight the hypocrisy of European anti-Zionists who send flotillas to Gaza but do nothing about Syria, which is currently falling apart.
This is not about being anti-Muslim (or even anti-Left) but about getting things into proportion and realizing that there are more important issues in the world than “Palestine.” Eradicating European anti-Semitism is, in my view, far more important. After all, Europe has a moral and historic duty to protect what remains of its Jewish communities.
Europe’s Jews and the Palestinian obsession
In the past few days, two very high-profile figures have spoken out about the dangers of anti-Semitism. Both Prince Charles and Pope Francis have expressed concern that Judeophobia is a growing problem in Britain and Europe.
In a speech praising the outgoing British chief rabbi, Lord Sacks, the Prince of Wales warned that Britain was suffering from an “apparent rise in anti-Semitism, along with other poisonous and debilitating forms of intolerance.”
Meanwhile, Pope Francis has condemned anti-Semitism, calling it unchristian. “Because of our commons roots, a true Christian cannot be anti-Semitic,” he said at a meeting with representatives of the international Jewish community at the Vatican.
These comments come at a time when anti-Semitism is running high in Britain and Europe. A new report, conducted on behalf of the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, found that 26% of Jews in Europe have suffered anti-Semitic harassment at least once in the past year, while 34% experienced harassment in the past five years.
According to the study, around half of all Jews living in France, Belgium and Hungary are considering emigrating because they no longer feel safe in their respective countries. And it seems a safe bet that many of these frightened people will seek sanctuary in Israel.
Making Aliyah is a testament to the success of Zionism but it is also a sad indication that Europe has still not learnt to cherish its Jewish communities, even after the horrors of the Holocaust. But the decimation of European Jewish life will continue as long as the security situation remains precarious.
Over the past decade and a half, Europe’s Jews have witnessed a disturbing rise in the number of anti-Semitic attacks, often by Arabs who use their irrational hatred of Israel to justify their attacks. Assaults, murders, death threats, cemetery desecrations, firebombings, graffiti and even the bullying of Jewish children by their Muslim peers are all too frequent in contemporary Europe.
The rise in anti-Semitism in Europe has received little attention or sympathy because much of the abuse is carried out by Muslims under the protection of liberals who accuse critics of Islamophobia or racism. Far too often, universities, political institutions, charities, churches and media outlets provide a platform for radical Muslims and other anti-Semites to disseminate their hatred of Israel and Jews.
And there are many people – politicians among them – who are simply afraid to condemn Islamic violence because of fear of retribution. Left-wing officials in Bulgaria, for instance, have been reluctant to blacklist Hezbollah following the infamous bus bombing because of concerns that condemning the Shia militants will lead to a terrorist backlash.
II
The driving force behind contemporary anti-Semitism is the unhealthy obsession with the Palestinians. This fixation usually involves prejudicial, stupid and sometimes vitriolic condemnation of the Jewish state, with absurd characterizations of Israel as an apartheid nation that tortures Palestinian children. This is little different from accusing Jews of poisoning wells or using the blood of Christian children to make Passover bread.
I suspect that Prince Charles and Pope Francis are both aware of the link between anti-Semitism and Israel-bashing but are reluctant to become entangled in a political row concerning Israel and the Palestinians. But perhaps they ought to say something because it is an inescapable fact that Palestinianism, which seeks to divorce the Jewish people from the land of Israel, is the driving force behind contemporary anti-Semitism.
Indeed, it is Europe’s Jews who are bearing the brunt of the disproportionate focus on the Palestinian issue. The majority of Jews identity with the State of Israel, so they must be horrified when the Church of Scotland denies the biblical injunction that Israel was promised to the Hebrews, or when university campuses hold their annual hatefest known as Apartheid Week, or when The Sunday Times prints a cartoon depicting Binyamin Netanyahu building a wall using what appears to be the blood of Palestinians.
What is essentially a dispute over a tiny piece of land in the Middle East has become a huge issue at the top of the global agenda. I suspect that Israelophobes – whether they are jihadists, far-right conspiracy theorists or Presbyterians – have deliberately turned the Israeli-Palestinian impasse into a universal problem in order to justify their conflict with Jews. In any other circumstance you would be hard pressed to find a situation in which Islamists, neo-Nazis, socialists, liberals, radical Islamists and Quakers agree on anything. But when it comes to Israel and “the Jews,” all these factions share the same demented prejudice. And it is this prejudice which is harming Jewish communities in Manchester, Malmo, Toulouse and elsewhere.
And isn’t it amazing how many people say the most outrageous things about Israel and the Jews but deny they are anti-Semitic. This was a behavior something observed by British writer George Orwell, who noted that anti-Semites rebuff the accusation of anti-Semitism because deep down they know that it is “an irrational thing.”
Orwell also observed that anti-Semites are completely immune to facts and statistics. I could mention the fact that the 1920 San Remo Conference and the 1922 Mandate of Palestine endorse the creation of a Jewish homeland in Judea and Samaria (the West Bank). I could point out that Israeli Arabs have the vote and represent their constituents in the Knesset. I could present a dazzling assortment of photographs of Gaza’s five-star hotel, bustling markets, luxury shopping mall and beautiful beaches, as well as jeeps and refrigerators supplied by Israel. But anti-Semites would still insist that Gaza is a prison camp.
But as Orwell said, “If you dislike somebody, you dislike him and there is an end of it: your feelings are not made any better by a recital of his virtues.”
I think Orwell makes an interesting point. Anti-Semitism and the hatred of Israel is an emotional or neurotic condition in which the anti-Semite loses contact with reality and cannot be swayed by logic or facts. Their emotional attachment to hating Jews and Israel must be maintained at all costs, otherwise their worldview will collapse. As the Swiss psychotherapist Carl Jung noted, “I have frequently seen people become neurotic when they content themselves with inadequate or wrong answers to the questions of life.”
That is why I am starting to believe that the most vocal critics of Israel do not want an end to the Israeli-Palestinian struggle. Demonizing Israel and focusing obsessively on the Palestinian issue (without ever solving it) is politically and emotionally useful to anti-Semites who need the conflict to endure in order to maintain their own irrational hatred of Jews, Judaism and all things Israeli.
And as long as sensible people in the corridors of power in Westminster and Brussels continue to play into the hands of these obsessional and irrational anti-Semites, the security of Jews will become increasingly perilous and many will leave Europe for the safety of Israel or the US.
It would be unforgivable if Hitler’s dream of a Judenfrei Europe belatedly comes true because of the hysterical actions of Palestinianists and the weakness of politicians.
In a speech praising the outgoing British chief rabbi, Lord Sacks, the Prince of Wales warned that Britain was suffering from an “apparent rise in anti-Semitism, along with other poisonous and debilitating forms of intolerance.”
Meanwhile, Pope Francis has condemned anti-Semitism, calling it unchristian. “Because of our commons roots, a true Christian cannot be anti-Semitic,” he said at a meeting with representatives of the international Jewish community at the Vatican.
These comments come at a time when anti-Semitism is running high in Britain and Europe. A new report, conducted on behalf of the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, found that 26% of Jews in Europe have suffered anti-Semitic harassment at least once in the past year, while 34% experienced harassment in the past five years.
According to the study, around half of all Jews living in France, Belgium and Hungary are considering emigrating because they no longer feel safe in their respective countries. And it seems a safe bet that many of these frightened people will seek sanctuary in Israel.
Making Aliyah is a testament to the success of Zionism but it is also a sad indication that Europe has still not learnt to cherish its Jewish communities, even after the horrors of the Holocaust. But the decimation of European Jewish life will continue as long as the security situation remains precarious.
Over the past decade and a half, Europe’s Jews have witnessed a disturbing rise in the number of anti-Semitic attacks, often by Arabs who use their irrational hatred of Israel to justify their attacks. Assaults, murders, death threats, cemetery desecrations, firebombings, graffiti and even the bullying of Jewish children by their Muslim peers are all too frequent in contemporary Europe.
The rise in anti-Semitism in Europe has received little attention or sympathy because much of the abuse is carried out by Muslims under the protection of liberals who accuse critics of Islamophobia or racism. Far too often, universities, political institutions, charities, churches and media outlets provide a platform for radical Muslims and other anti-Semites to disseminate their hatred of Israel and Jews.
And there are many people – politicians among them – who are simply afraid to condemn Islamic violence because of fear of retribution. Left-wing officials in Bulgaria, for instance, have been reluctant to blacklist Hezbollah following the infamous bus bombing because of concerns that condemning the Shia militants will lead to a terrorist backlash.
II
The driving force behind contemporary anti-Semitism is the unhealthy obsession with the Palestinians. This fixation usually involves prejudicial, stupid and sometimes vitriolic condemnation of the Jewish state, with absurd characterizations of Israel as an apartheid nation that tortures Palestinian children. This is little different from accusing Jews of poisoning wells or using the blood of Christian children to make Passover bread.
I suspect that Prince Charles and Pope Francis are both aware of the link between anti-Semitism and Israel-bashing but are reluctant to become entangled in a political row concerning Israel and the Palestinians. But perhaps they ought to say something because it is an inescapable fact that Palestinianism, which seeks to divorce the Jewish people from the land of Israel, is the driving force behind contemporary anti-Semitism.
Indeed, it is Europe’s Jews who are bearing the brunt of the disproportionate focus on the Palestinian issue. The majority of Jews identity with the State of Israel, so they must be horrified when the Church of Scotland denies the biblical injunction that Israel was promised to the Hebrews, or when university campuses hold their annual hatefest known as Apartheid Week, or when The Sunday Times prints a cartoon depicting Binyamin Netanyahu building a wall using what appears to be the blood of Palestinians.
What is essentially a dispute over a tiny piece of land in the Middle East has become a huge issue at the top of the global agenda. I suspect that Israelophobes – whether they are jihadists, far-right conspiracy theorists or Presbyterians – have deliberately turned the Israeli-Palestinian impasse into a universal problem in order to justify their conflict with Jews. In any other circumstance you would be hard pressed to find a situation in which Islamists, neo-Nazis, socialists, liberals, radical Islamists and Quakers agree on anything. But when it comes to Israel and “the Jews,” all these factions share the same demented prejudice. And it is this prejudice which is harming Jewish communities in Manchester, Malmo, Toulouse and elsewhere.
And isn’t it amazing how many people say the most outrageous things about Israel and the Jews but deny they are anti-Semitic. This was a behavior something observed by British writer George Orwell, who noted that anti-Semites rebuff the accusation of anti-Semitism because deep down they know that it is “an irrational thing.”
Orwell also observed that anti-Semites are completely immune to facts and statistics. I could mention the fact that the 1920 San Remo Conference and the 1922 Mandate of Palestine endorse the creation of a Jewish homeland in Judea and Samaria (the West Bank). I could point out that Israeli Arabs have the vote and represent their constituents in the Knesset. I could present a dazzling assortment of photographs of Gaza’s five-star hotel, bustling markets, luxury shopping mall and beautiful beaches, as well as jeeps and refrigerators supplied by Israel. But anti-Semites would still insist that Gaza is a prison camp.
But as Orwell said, “If you dislike somebody, you dislike him and there is an end of it: your feelings are not made any better by a recital of his virtues.”
I think Orwell makes an interesting point. Anti-Semitism and the hatred of Israel is an emotional or neurotic condition in which the anti-Semite loses contact with reality and cannot be swayed by logic or facts. Their emotional attachment to hating Jews and Israel must be maintained at all costs, otherwise their worldview will collapse. As the Swiss psychotherapist Carl Jung noted, “I have frequently seen people become neurotic when they content themselves with inadequate or wrong answers to the questions of life.”
That is why I am starting to believe that the most vocal critics of Israel do not want an end to the Israeli-Palestinian struggle. Demonizing Israel and focusing obsessively on the Palestinian issue (without ever solving it) is politically and emotionally useful to anti-Semites who need the conflict to endure in order to maintain their own irrational hatred of Jews, Judaism and all things Israeli.
And as long as sensible people in the corridors of power in Westminster and Brussels continue to play into the hands of these obsessional and irrational anti-Semites, the security of Jews will become increasingly perilous and many will leave Europe for the safety of Israel or the US.
It would be unforgivable if Hitler’s dream of a Judenfrei Europe belatedly comes true because of the hysterical actions of Palestinianists and the weakness of politicians.
Palestine – it’s not worth it
One of the most alarming experiences as a European is to see how our politicians and the media continue to criticize Israel but not the Palestinians, whose pseudo-national aspirations garner more attention than Syrian war casualties, Chinese human rights abuses and the plight of women and girls enslaved by Islamic terrorists.
It is strange that the Palestinians – who have no historical, cultural or legal rights to the land of Israel – are endowed with international and economic patronage by the US, the EU and the UN. How did the Palestinians and their Arabist-Islamist backers manage to achieve such a feat?
Firstly, the Palestinians have learnt that violence is rewarded. Acts of terror against Israelis have only strengthened the West’s belief that a Palestinian state is of paramount importance. The latest round of fighting in Gaza confirms this.
Secondly, the Palestinians have managed to convince most of the world that they are a landless and suffering people, whose plight is equal to that of the Jews in the 1930s and 1940s. This is has to be one of history’s biggest hoaxes. And it is a very dangerous hoax indeed. Why? Because the “Palestinian issue” has enabled Europe to reconnect with its Jew-hating past by blurring the line between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism.
The fact that Jewish businesses across the world are being boycotted is testament to the perverse success of the Palestinian movement. Jews in France have been murdered. Synagogues in Belfast and London have been vandalized. Anti-Semitic chants and references to the Holocaust are commonplace in Europe’s cities. Countries that pride themselves on their enlightened and liberal societies – such as Sweden, Germany and Norway – are all places where Jews no longer feel safe.
At last, the shocking rise in anti-Semitism in Europe is garnering some media attention. But the issue is still not taken seriously by the liberal-left, the police and most politicians. This is because much of the anti-Semitic abuse is carried out by Muslims who claim it is retribution for their “brothers” in Gaza. And the liberal elite either agrees or looks the other way.
The situation cannot continue. It is incomprehensible that Jews are suffering the same hatred as they did during the 1930s and 1940s. The curse of anti-Semitism is once again strangling Europe’s hard-won freedoms. The post-1945 consensus that Jews will never again be made to suffer at the hands of fascists is falling apart.
Perhaps Europe’s leaders should be asking themselves one simple question: is the creation of a Palestinian state really worth the aggravation? After all, the people who call themselves Palestinians have had at least seven opportunities since 1937 to establish a state alongside Israel and each time they have refused. Since it is clear that the Palestinians are not interested in peaceful co-existence, it is surely incumbent on the international community to focus on more important matters (such as the liberation of the Kurds from Islamist imperialism).
Will Europe listen? Or will it continue to advance the Palestinian issue until not a single Jew is left in Europe? Only time will tell. But in the meantime don’t be surprised if the number of Jews making Aliyah continues to rise.
It is strange that the Palestinians – who have no historical, cultural or legal rights to the land of Israel – are endowed with international and economic patronage by the US, the EU and the UN. How did the Palestinians and their Arabist-Islamist backers manage to achieve such a feat?
Firstly, the Palestinians have learnt that violence is rewarded. Acts of terror against Israelis have only strengthened the West’s belief that a Palestinian state is of paramount importance. The latest round of fighting in Gaza confirms this.
Secondly, the Palestinians have managed to convince most of the world that they are a landless and suffering people, whose plight is equal to that of the Jews in the 1930s and 1940s. This is has to be one of history’s biggest hoaxes. And it is a very dangerous hoax indeed. Why? Because the “Palestinian issue” has enabled Europe to reconnect with its Jew-hating past by blurring the line between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism.
The fact that Jewish businesses across the world are being boycotted is testament to the perverse success of the Palestinian movement. Jews in France have been murdered. Synagogues in Belfast and London have been vandalized. Anti-Semitic chants and references to the Holocaust are commonplace in Europe’s cities. Countries that pride themselves on their enlightened and liberal societies – such as Sweden, Germany and Norway – are all places where Jews no longer feel safe.
At last, the shocking rise in anti-Semitism in Europe is garnering some media attention. But the issue is still not taken seriously by the liberal-left, the police and most politicians. This is because much of the anti-Semitic abuse is carried out by Muslims who claim it is retribution for their “brothers” in Gaza. And the liberal elite either agrees or looks the other way.
The situation cannot continue. It is incomprehensible that Jews are suffering the same hatred as they did during the 1930s and 1940s. The curse of anti-Semitism is once again strangling Europe’s hard-won freedoms. The post-1945 consensus that Jews will never again be made to suffer at the hands of fascists is falling apart.
Perhaps Europe’s leaders should be asking themselves one simple question: is the creation of a Palestinian state really worth the aggravation? After all, the people who call themselves Palestinians have had at least seven opportunities since 1937 to establish a state alongside Israel and each time they have refused. Since it is clear that the Palestinians are not interested in peaceful co-existence, it is surely incumbent on the international community to focus on more important matters (such as the liberation of the Kurds from Islamist imperialism).
Will Europe listen? Or will it continue to advance the Palestinian issue until not a single Jew is left in Europe? Only time will tell. But in the meantime don’t be surprised if the number of Jews making Aliyah continues to rise.
No comments:
Post a Comment