An Opening Statement in Debate

Pressured by an upcoming debate you are to have with an Arab or worse, a Jewish anti-Zionist?

Try this as an opening statement:

"The modern Arab-Israel, or Zionist-Palestinian or Jewish-Islamist conflict, began when Arabs swept out of the Saudi Arabian Peninsula as emissaries of a new religion and in 638 CE or so, conquered Jerusalem, occupied the country and within a short time, despite relative religious tolerance, effectively destroyed Jewish social and economic life in the country and, in turning them into dhimmis, pursued a political policy of dominance, oppression and disempowerment.  In the years leading up to, but not including the 1948 war, Jewish residing in communities in Gaza, Nablus, Hebron and other locations in Judea, Samaria and Gaza where Jews were for centuries, were, during the Mandate period, ethnically cleansed of Jews and this exercise was then carried out during the 1948 war.  Jews became refugees as a result of Arab terror and aggression not only in the Land of Israel but throughout Arabs lands across the Middle East, hundreds and hundreds of miles away."

^

From the Peace Index Opinion Poll

Here:

^

Diab Playing Dumb?

Haaretz has found a Jerusalem-based Egyptian-Belgian journalist and a blogger, Khaled Diab, to be a contributer to their paper's website.

Credit

In a previous article, he seeks to justify, I think, conquest and foreign occupation.  No, not by Israel but of Islam, writing of Spain:

during its seven centuries of presence in the Iberian peninsula, Islam became an indigenous faith, 

Hebron's David Wilder appreciates him, though.

Diab does not have a very positive opinion of the wild BSDers but writes:

a campaign could be launched to force SodaStream to relocate its facilities to areas of the West Bank under the control of the Palestinian Authority.

A while ago, relating to the so-called "right-of-return", he noted the

fixation on return focuses aspirations on a remote, distant and perhaps unattainable goal, while drawing attention and energy away from the very real issues

and moderately assumed that the Naba, the dispossession, should be kept "alive", nevertheless,

...this is likely to become more spiritual and symbolic with the passing of each generation

Today, his op-ed is entitled:

Delaying the apocalypse at Al-Aqsa/Temple Mount

His theme:

Jerusalem's holiest site - once again triggering crises between Muslims and Jews and between regional states - cannot remain hostage to extremists.

He sticks to the Arab propaganda narrative writing

a provocative visit by Ariel Sharon to the site caused simmering tension to overflow into the costly second intifada.

And he cannot liberate his writing from prejudices as here:

...a group of Jewish extremists – led by the messianic rabbi, Yehuda Glick, who is part of the tiny fringe movement which fantasizes about building the Third Temple - stormed the complex...lunatic fringe

Khaled, they visited and toured.  Who is the extremist here?

He does find merit, though:

...for all Israel’s many failings, it is possibly, at least for now, the only conqueror of Jerusalem not to have 'converted' the religious identity of the site, despite the best efforts of extremists.

Laughably, and ironically, he quotes Hanan ("Jesus was a 'Palestinian'") Ashrawi, as saying,

“Using religion as a pretext to impose sovereignty on historical places of worship threatens to plunge the entire region into great conflict and instability,” 

Just a moment, is Sheikh Raed ("Four Fingers for Allah") Salah not using religion?  Was Arafat not using religion?  Nor Mufti Sheikh Muhammad Hussein or his predecessor, Sheikh Akram Sabri? How much of history and politics can Diab alter, twist and misrepresent?


Fairly, he does note that

Omar Ibn al-Khattab, Muhammad’s second successor, or caliph, allowed Jews, who had been expelled by the Christian Byzantines, back into Jerusalem.
“There is strong evidence to suggest that the Jews were not only permitted to return to Jerusalem, but that the Muslims allowed them to worship at their side on the Temple Mount,” wrote Francis E Peters, a professor of Middle Eastern and Islamic Studies at New York University.
...Omar ordered the cleaning of the Temple Mount, which had been used as a rubbish tip by the Byzantines, and permitted Jews to worship there. One convert, Rabbi Kaab al-Ahbar, even located the foundation stone for the Muslim conquerors.
It is even possible that the caliph allowed the Jews to construct a synagogue on the mount and appointed a Jew as the first governor of Jerusalem, according to the 7th century Armenian historian Sebeos.

With all this "permissiveness and interfaith interaction", Diab asks

Is it possible today, in the supposedly more enlightened 21st century, for the Noble Sanctuary/Temple Mount to become a common ground, rather than a battleground, for Muslims and Jews?

but his personal response is skepticism for there is an

...illusion, or misconception, that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a religious one.

Go tell that to the Mufti.

Why cannot there be sharing of time and space?

He warns

it would be a grave, reckless and dangerous error for Israel to think it can unilaterally take action.

and that is after he admits the Muslims unilaterally acted in conquering the city, taking over Mount Moriah, building there a mosque (and twenty years ago adding two more), denying Jews entrance after the fall of the Crusader Kingdom and killing Jews who mistakenly entered (Itzkowitz, April 1947, for example) and who continue to erase all traces of historic Jewish identity in stone, in the ground and above, permit no archaeological digs and corrupt the Jewish narrative, even denying the Temple's existence (  هيكلهم المزعوم  ---  the "alleged Temple") and so much more negativity.  

We can't do what Muslims do, despite the law and despite the previous 'good' history Diab quotes.

He trots out that the

Jews and Muslims were, for many centuries, friends and allies and that they once stood side by side as brothers in faith on Jerusalem’s most hallowed ground.

But, today, no coexistence, no sharing of God, of his holy sites.  No "brothers in faith".  No respect or common decency.  Jews are yelled at.  Muslim men and women are paid to sit in their pathway, to shout and threaten and to attempt to cause violent provocations.  They claim Jews chemically poison trees, dig tunnels where there are none, desecrate and engage in "incursions" and "stormings".  The Islamists extend Al-Aqsa outside its walled precincts, foment hostility with anti-Semitic caricatures and they aren't "extremists" or "fanatics"?  A proper new entrance to replace the collapsed Mughrabi Gate entrance is forbidden as altering the status quo.

Diab 

Credit

is playing dumb?


God forbid.

^

Shiloh in the Distance

Via KB looking at from Eli:-

^

Responsum to Beinart on Sacrifices

Petar Beinart, at his Facebook page, asked

anyone know a pithy, ethically sensitive, way to explain animal sacrifice to a kindergartener?

I replied, offering (sorry about the pun) this formulation:

Son, you know how I get all dressed up in a chef's hat and borrow Mommy's large kitchen apron and I take out the special implements to barbecue that delicious meat we eat on summer Sundays?  Well, our forefathers, when the Temple existed, did it in a much more spiritual manner not to satiate our hunger and appetites or to show off to our neighbors, like I do, to let thwem know how great I am at cooking and roasting or how great a coal fire I can light, but to give thanks to God for what He has bestowed upon us through our labors in the fields and meadows, to show that all we are is because of Him.  It is not a matter of ourselves but who we are because of the values we serve.  It's not about the good food (and most of those sacrifices we didn't even eat, except special ones) but our good fortune. The sacrifices are a symbol, much more that lamb chops and steaks and hamburgers and franks.  Son, we're Jews and we're different.

^

Marty Peretz's Response to NYTimes Criticism

...The American people’s support for the Jewish state has never been stronger. For Israel’s enemies, and in Mr. Judis’s book, “Genesis: Truman, American Jews and the Origins of the Arab/Israeli Conflict,” this can only be explained as a subterfuge, a big lobby’s lie. In fact, an ancestral homeland for the Jewish people has been sympathetically regarded, first as a possibility and later as a reality, by many generations of Americans.
Why is a liberal magazine like The New Republic not to be permitted to consistently make the case that the notion of Israeli statehood needs to be supported, especially in view of the current violence among Israel’s neighbors?
MARTIN PERETZ
New York, March 3, 2014

The writer is working on a book titled “The Book of Grudges and Other Loves: Defending Zion.”

Source

^

More Arab Filth

Yesterday, I brought some recent examples of anti-Semitic themes contained in the Al-Quds UK 'Palestinian' newspaper's caricaturist section.

Crooked noses, ugly and filthy-looking, insect representations, Star of David, Hasidic portrayals, money, etc.

All the filth.

Let's provide you with more.

From Al-Hayat:

From Manar:

Again from Manar:

From Al-Ayyam:

another from Al-Ayyam:

If they are against a Jewish state, why all this "Jewishness"?

^

The Umm el-Jimal Tale

Read this and think to yourselves, what is Medad thinking:

the village of Umm el-Jimal was first established by Nabataean settlers in the first century AD...In Roman times, the settlement*...As the succeeding Byzantine era progressed, the village's economy came to revolve around farming and trade; 15 churches were constructed in the fifth and sixth centuries, testament to the area's growing prosperity.

After the Muslim conquest, however, Umm el-Jimal's fortunes faded. It was gradually abandoned during the ninth century, and for much of the second millennium was only sporadically inhabited. In the mid 20th century, the Msa'eid tribe settled among the archaeological remains and built the village that surrounds them...In 2001, Umm el-Jimal was added to the World Heritage Site programme's tentative list; a final application to Unesco is currently underway.

And the answers are:

a)  where are Saeb Erekat's Natufians?

b)  the Muslims conquered?

c)  where was the robust, thriving indigenous Arab population between the 9th and 20th centuries?

d)  where are the ancient Jordanians?

e)  a "settlement"?

f)  why a Heritage site?

Did you guess correctly?

Any other reasons?

____________

*  Let's be exact:

During the 4th century AD, in response to the rebellion of Queen Zenobia of Palmyra, Roman armies allied with the Arab Tanoukhid Federation restored order in a destructive military campaign. At Umm el-Jimal the civilian settlement was replaced by a military garrison stationed in a purpose built fort, the early castellum

^

Cats Go Where Jews Cannot Tread

At Al-Aqsa.

Source

^

Forthright and Clear US Mideast Policy

A.  Obama:

As we speak, American diplomacy is supporting Israelis and Palestinians as they engage in difficult but necessary talks to end the conflict there; to achieve dignity and an independent state for Palestinians, and lasting peace and security for the State of Israel – a Jewish state that knows America will always be at their side.

More

Obama in 2011 sketched the ultimate diplomatic goal as "two states for two people: Israel as a Jewish state and the homeland for the Jewish people and the State of Palestine as the homeland for the Palestinian people."Then, in his Jerusalem speech last week, Obama suddenly and unexpectedly adopted in full the Israeli demand: "Palestinians must recognize that Israel will be a Jewish state."

B.   Psaki:

The United States believes there is no need for the Palestinian Authority (PA) to recognize Israel as a Jewish state as part of a peace agreement, State Department Spokeswoman Jen Psaki said Saturday.

Psaki, who spoke to the PA-based Arabic-language Al-Quds newspaper, said, “The American position is clear, Israel is a Jewish state. However, we do not see a need that both sides recognize this position as part of the final agreement.”

_________________________________

UPDATE

State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki on Monday said a Palestinian publication recently “distorted” a statement she made last week about Israel’s demand to be recognized as a Jewish state...Psaki dismissed the claims via Twitter, writing, that the publication “distorted/fabricated my quote,” and that  she “did not do an interview with Al Quds.”  She added, “US position (as I stated) Israel is a Jewish state. But we are not in the business of negotiating from the podium…”

According to an official state department transcript of Psaki’s [March 7] briefing, what she really said was the following:

“If you look at the issue of a Jewish state and whether Israel will be called a Jewish state, that’s been our position, as you know, for a long time, but that doesn’t reflect what the parties will agree to, which I know you know, and of course there are many issues like that that are being discussed as part of the framework.”

_________________________________

C.  Arab ministers

Cairo, Mar 9 (Petra) – Arab foreign ministers’ meeting in Cairo on Sunday pledged not to recognise Israel as a Jewish state and reiterated full support to the Palestinian Authority's efforts to end the Israeli occupation.  A statement issued by the Arab League Council said there will be no peace without the establishment of an independent state of Palestine as per June 4, 1967 borders, with East Jerusalem as its capital.  It called for Israel's withdrawal from all Palestinian and Arab territories occupied in 1967...

^ 

On That "Jewish State" Demand

One of [Tzipi] Livni’s catchphrases is, “There is a process of delegitimization of Israel as a Jewish state.” She sees herself in a race against time.

...“Stagnation works against those who believe in a two-state solution,” Livni said in our first conversation. The West, she suggested, needs to tell Hamas, the Islamist movement battling Fatah for control of a Palestinian movement now split between Gaza and the West Bank, that it must not only recognize Israel’s right to exist but also “the right of Israel to exist as a Jewish state, which is not that obvious anymore.”

July 8, 2007

^

Elisheva Goldberg's (Woe Is) Jerusalem

In the latest issue of Sh'ma, there's a contribution of astute thought by a former Beinart bunny (is that misogynist? anti-feminist? or simply satire?) and current Burg babe (oops, did I do it again?).

A section:

She does quote the Gemara but typically castrates the section:

The concluding sentences there in Tractate Ta'anit are:

Is there then a heavenly Jerusalem? - Yes; for it is written, Jerusalem thou art builded as a city that is compact together

"Builded".  And we all know, or should know, what "Jerusalem rebuilt" means in traditional Jewish sources.  Even Sinem knows.

The Temple.

Isaiah 2:2 -

And it shall come to pass in the end of days, that the mountain of the LORD'S house shall be established as the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow unto it.

The city below becomes united with the celestial city in terms of holiness and completeness when the Temple is extant.  That reality, for sure, would be anathema to Ms. Goldberg.  She wants to "end the occupation", a situation in which Mulsims claim the Temple never exited, that the Temple Mount surely does not have any Jewish connection and that the Western Wall had nothing to do as a retaining wall of the Temple platform but was where Muhammed tethered his mythical winged horse.

It's not the "Temple Mount" but Al-Aqsa, Haram E-Sharif.  Is this here "reality"?  Her "earthly Jerusalem"?

At the end of the Pesah seder, we read in the Haggada:

Nirtzah

Afterwards say:

NEXT YEAR IN JERUSALEM!

But Ms. Elisheva hates the "occupation" (what happens to united Jerusalem, the earthly Jerusalem when that status is eliminated?) and writes of "participants" of a "project" that "essentially steals property", people who "deny civil liberties".  She is good at the blame game, especially when Jews are, somehow, involved -- or rather not but that doesn't upset her.

To whom did the original Jerusalem belong?  Of which people was it a capital, a religious center? Whose people fought invading Babylonians, Greeks, Romans, Arabs?  Which fighters for liberation made the Temple Mount precincts their last stand for freedom of worship and national independence?

Ms. Goldberg either doesn't know, forgot, couldn't care or, for sure, doesn't want you to know.

Who killed Jews because of their desire to live and pray in Jerusalem even when the "occupation" did not exist, in the years prior to 1967?

Such a sick ideology.


By the way, at the beginning she quotes Yehuda Amichai:

As opposed to that poem, there is Uri Tzvi Greenberg, who wrote

And I say: There is one truth and not two.

As there is one sun and as there are not two Jerusalems.

The whole poem:

^

Bibi, No Hard Feelings Right?

Reported:

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu acknowledged that some West Bank settlements would not come under Israeli sovereignty should there be a final peace deal with the Palestinians.

“Of course some of the settlements won’t be part of the deal, everyone understands that,” he said when he sat down for his first interviews with the Israeli media in over a year.

“I will make sure that [number] is as limited as possible, if we get there,” the prime minister added to Udi Segal of Israel’s Channel 2 News.

You won't mind, of course, that some of us make sure that your ability to make such decisions will be limited as much as possible?

You understand that, yes?

Even before you get there.

^

Arabs Aren't Anti-Semitic; Just The Cartoonists Are

From AlQuds UK

More found there:

and more

and more

Arabs anti-Semitic?

________________

UPDATE


Try this website blog.

^

Eliminate the Hope of Two States for the 'Palestinian People'

From Dror Ben-Yemini:

Destroy the hopes of the Palestinian right of return, before any compromise

Now it seems to me that not only is [Netanyahu's insistence on PA recognition of Israel as the 'Jewish state' a] demand that is not unnecessary, but it's actually the essence of the negotiations. This is not some quirk or a Bibi trick, but this substance. Recognition of the Jewishness of the state defines consciousness in all essential areas - the existence, borders.

The more they oppose recognition, so it seems more necessary...the refusal to recognize a Jewish state is not just a semantic issue, its meaning is that Israel exists for them on probation.

Once the majority is an Arab - Palestinian, it will not be the state of Israel. That is, the Arab position is not an ethnic, not just religious - it is simply a strategy, how to delete a state without a shot, using patience and tolerance.

Palestinians know and believe that only give them time and they will become the majority. Not just by birth, but also through the return of refugees...the Palestinian equation is: non-recognition of Jewish state = return of refugees .

...As long as the Palestinians continue to dream of the return of refugees to "their country", there can be peace...the existence of this hope is basically declaring war on us...Therefore, this hope should be eliminated before giving up land or anything else. We need to know the dream of return is no longer available. Only then can we be "two states for two peoples", and not "two countries for the Palestinian people.

P.S.

That actually would be three states - Jordan is Palestinian, too.

^

Begin Book Review Comment

I left this comment at the book review of Hillel Halkin on Daniel Gordis' new Begin biography:

This assertion regarding Begin--- "a quasi-religious devotion to the land of Israel (which, ironically, enabled him psychologically to surrender all of Sinai, a territory that was not, for Judaism, sacred)" --- is, I suggest, not exact. Begin indeed argued with Rabbi Shlomo Goren on whether Sinai was within the traditional boundaries of Eretz-Yisrael but the definition of the patrimony for him was the League of Nations Mandate decision that, while on the one hand, excluded Sinai (to the frustration Labor members of the Greater Land of Israel movement, for example, had for Begin) but included TransJordan (would he have concluded the 1994 peace treaty?).

^

Rabbi Aviner's Anti-Christian Crusade

Source

^

Promoting a Kurtzer Peace

In a "TAKING NOTE" column from March 7, What an Israeli-Palestinian Peace Framework Might Look Like, Carol Giacomo (who seems to specialize in Middle East matters, a former diplomatic correspondent for Reuters, she's now also Ferris professor of journalism at Princeton University - which means she teaches one of their seminars in journalism on editorials: how they are conceived and constructed and how they aim to shape national debate on important issues, and whose official title is "foreign affairs and defense policy editor"),

promotes Daniel Kurtzer's "6-page model framework" for peace (no, not these six points).  Kurzter, to point out a possible conflict of interest, is Lecturer and S. Daniel Abraham Professor in Middle Eastern Policy Studies Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at ... Princeton.

Kurtzer, we should recall, was angry about "a very bad idea" that "the United States [was] poised to reward Israel for its bad behavior" back in 2010, a "deal [that] will shake the foundation of the U.S.-Israeli strategic partnership".  that was the construction moratorium. Truly an objective commentator on the issue.

She really appreciates his "way to settle [sic] the dispute over Mr. Netanyahu’s demand that the Palestinians recognize Israel not just as a state but as a Jewish state" with this formula:

“Israel will recognize Palestine as the home of the Palestinian people and all its citizens and Palestine will recognize Israel as the national home of the Jewish people and all its citizens.”

More, 

Palestinian refugees should have the right of return to the state of Palestine while Israel should “offer a program of family reunification, including citizenship, for a limited number of refugees.” 

and, as for the issue of the city of Jerusalem, 

Kurtzer proposes that it become “the capital of the two states...undivided...”...[and] envisions an international administrator appointed by the two parties.

Giacomo finishes up writing

Israeli and Palestinian leaders have usually not encouraged an open dialogue on the specifics. Rather, they have spent their time talking to their own communities, reinforcing maximalist demands and the perfidies of the other, not advocating areas of compromise.

I left this comment (with additions):

"Maximalist demands"? First of all, permitting an unchecked 'return' of refugees into Judea & Samaria will only exacerbate the security danger facing Israel if the retention of the hills of that region is not a part of a peace arrangement.   Second, any so-called internationalization of Jerusalem ("a special regime to administer the Old City under an international administrator appointed by them"), even if limited to the "holy sites" will not procure for Jews adequate freedom of religion (despite his belief that "The parties will agree to act in accordance with the dignity and sanctity of the city.") because the rocks will come down on worshippers at the Western Wall if Israeli police are not stationed on the Temple Mount, not to mention the demand that Jews be allowed to respect in a spiritual fashion the Temple Mount.

Those are actually "minimal" requirements. But Kurtzer's suggestion - and he is a former ambassador in Israel and should know better - that the Pals. must refrain from threats is laughable given the conflict's history. If, until now, they cannot even recognize Jewish national ethos, can we trust any such pledge?

I wonder if Ms. Giacomo would permit an opposing view to grace the Opinion pages of her newspaper?

Or would she provide a curt negative?

----------------

UPDATE

My comment is up.

^

Abbas on Jewish Communities, Jewish State and Jerusalem

Here are the words of the PA's Mahmoud Abbas:


فقلنا لهم إن وجهة نظرنا وقرارنا وموقفنا هي أن الاستيطان كله من بدايته لنهايته غير شرعي، وبالتالي تتحدثون عن كتل هنا أو مستوطنات هناك، ونحن نقول إن كل بيت وكل حجر وضع في الضفة بعد 1967 هو غير شرعي ولا نعترف به.


In translation:

We told them that our point of view and our decision and our position is that the entire settlement project from beginning to end is illegal, and therefore talking about blocks here or settlements there, and we say that every house and every stone placed in the West Bank after 1967 is illegal and  we do not acknowledge it.

and

 نحن مواقفنا كما يلي: عندما نتحدث عن عاصمة فلسطين فإننا لا نتحدث عن أبو ديس، ولا نتكلم عن بيت حنينا ولا نتكلم عن أي من القرى المحيطة بالقدس، بل نتكلم عن القدس الشرقية عاصمة دولة فلسطين، لأننا سمعنا كلاما منمقا يقول إن عاصمتكم في القدس، يعني في أبو ديس أو بيت حنينا، بل عاصمتنا القدس الشرقية التي احتلت عام 1967

Our positions are as follows: When we talk about the capital of Palestine, we are not talking about Abu Dis, and do not talk about the Beit Hanina nor about any of the villages surrounding Jerusalem, but we talk about East Jerusalem as the capital of the State of Palestine...which was occupied in 1967...

and

هذه القضايا الثلاث التي وضعناها على الطاولة وقلنا هذه مواقفنا، ماذا نريد القانون الدولي، الدولة اليهودية، لن نقبل الاعتراف بالدولة اليهودية، 

These three issues which we put on the table and we said this is our position, what we want international law, the Jewish state, will not accept the recognition of the Jewish state,

That's clear, nop?


^ 

The Demonology of Demography

As reported:-

Israel's settler The population figures of Israelis in the occupied West Bank Land of Israel regions of Judea and Samaria increased by 4.2 percent in 2013, interior ministry figures show, as US-backed peace talks with the Palestinians falter over the settlement issue.

The number of settlers Israeli living in the West Bank rose to 375,000 in January 2014 from 360,000 at the same time the year before, according to statistics AFP obtained on Thursday from the ministry.

The figure excluded the nearly 200,000 settlers Israelis living in annexed Arab east the new post-1967 neighnorhoods in Jerusalem.

Well, as reported and redacted by me.

Have you seen the demography demon/threat lately?  The one Obama pushes, Kerry pushes, the NYTimes pushes, J Street pushes?  That Ian Lustick pushes?

They're such push-overs for false information that portrays Israel negatively.

Don't be influenced by them.

Oh, and that "nearly 200,000"?  It should be "just over 200,000".

^

Creeping Annexation

I was at Menachem Begin's grave this afternoon for the yahrtzeit memorial ceremony with son Benny and family and admirers including Knesset Speaker Yuli Edelstein, aspiring future President MK Ruby Rivlin, Professor Aryeh Naor and fellow employees of the Menachem Begin Heritage Center.

Prior to the ceremony, looking out at the Temple Mount,

I spotted something I had not seen previously:

a new cemetery section, on the opposite, to the west, slope of the Mount of Olives.

^

Me and a NYTimes Editorial

The New York Times and yet another editorial on Israel.  Doesn't Tom, Friedman and Co. ever give up?

Israel’s Choice

Excerpts:

In Washington this week, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel sounded two different notes about peace negotiations...he enthusiastically advocated a peace agreement as a means to improve Israel’s ties with its Arab neighbors...But at other moments, a more familiar skepticism was apparent. He demanded that Palestinians recognize Israel as a Jewish state with “no excuses, no delays.”...

...In remarkably blunt comments, Mr. Obama said that he had not heard a persuasive case for how Israel survives both as a democracy and a Jewish state absent a negotiated two-state solution...

...In his Aipac speech, Mr. Netanyahu declared, “I’m prepared to make a historic peace with our Palestinian neighbors.” But, really, what other just and durable choice does he have? What is his long-term answer for Israel, if not a two-state solution?

My off-the-cuff comment:

Why jump to a state?  Even the Zionists had to suffer 30 years of Mandate regime.
Let's try autonomy.
Then we do a Jordanian confederation.
Then a joint Israel-Jordan condominium.
Then, well, then maybe a Pal. state but probably the one-state solution.  So why draw this all out?

^

Eleven Years Ago

PM Sharon tells Haaretz that Israel would have to remove some settlements to get peace with Palestinians...

Sharon, long a right-wing champion of Jewish settlement on land occupied by Israel in the 1967 war, says he is ready to take steps "that are painful for every Jew and for me personally". He says: 


"Our whole history is bound up with these places: Bethlehem, Shiloh, Beit El. I know that we will have to part with some of these places. There will be a parting from places that are connected to the whole course of our history... As a Jew, this agonises me. But I have decided to make every effort to reach a [peace] settlement".


Sharon spokesman Raanan Gissin said the prime minister was not singling out specific settlements in his remarks to Haaretz. 

April 13, 2003

And, in the meantime...


^

No, My Cheek Stays Where It Is

My comment left at this site:

Let me be brief.  Disappointing.  No Jew living in the communities of Judea and Samaria, the New Testament term for these regions, are interviewed.  Only a pro-Pal. voice is heard.  You mention my home town, Shiloh, but my voice is missing.

Your last words are "Christians globally can and should advocate for a sustainable solution that recognizes and honors each person in the Holy Land as an equal child of God."  But if Islam (and we won't go into its persecution of local Christians) declares Abraham a Muslim and robs Judaism of its basis, how is that equal?

You quote Hana Ashrawi lying: "“Palestinians are the descendants of the early Christians,” says Palestinian legislator Dr. Hanan Ashrawi. “We are probably the straightest line to original Christianity. The Christian presence in Palestine is important. Christianity is part and parcel of the Palestinian identity.”  That should be first, Christains are the descendents of Jews who chose a different Biblical/Prophetic interpretation regarding the identity of the Messiah.  Second, the so-called "Palestinians" are descendents of those Arabs who conquered the Land of Israel in 638 CE, subjugated its local Christian and Jewish population and then occupied the land, off and on, until 1948, usually denying Jews any religious rights (no entry to the Temple Mount; no ascent past the 7th step of Hebron's Cave of the Patriarchs; etc.).

In the New Testament there is no "Palestine".  Jesus was born in Bethlehem "of Judea" (Mark).  The Apostles walked through "Judea and Samaria" (Acts).  You adopt their narrative, religiously.

But we are no longer a "community" but a State and negative Christian perspectives do not peace make.

^

A Pallywood Pic

Note - who are they looking at?

Not the Israelis.

The photographer.

Posed.  Found here.

Pallwood.

^

The UN Doesn't Recognize the Temple Mount

INN is today reporting:

PA’s observer in the UN calls on the UN Security Council to prevent Israel’s “illegal activities” at the Temple Mount.
The Palestinian Authority (PA) complained to the United Nations on Wednesday over Israel’s actions at the Temple Mount.

Seems there's a statement posted on the website of the PA’s mission to the United Nations.

I went there, and found this from February 25, relating to:-

escalating acts of Israeli aggression, provocation and incitement in Occupied East Jerusalem and particularly at Al-Haram Al-Sharif, which houses the Holy Al-Aqsa Mosque...
...Israeli extremists, including right-wing government officials, continue to incite and to attempt to breach the sanctity of Al-Haram Al-Sharif...[including] threats by Jewish extremists to breach the compound and raise Israeli flags there and in the context of a provocative debate launched in the Israeli Knesset aimed at passing legislation to impose Israeli sovereignty over Al-Haram Al-Sharif...the Deputy Speaker of the Israeli Knesset, Moshe Feiglin...recently entered Al-Haram Al-Sharif under Israeli military escort and made provocative declarations regarding Al-Aqsa Mosque, a serious matter that we drew attention to in our letter of 20 February.

The official UN document.

Back in October, Mahmoud Abbas was contemplating doing this, saying:

“Israel has no right to split up the Al-Aqsa Mosque, neither physically nor in terms of prayer times,” Abbas said, and stressed that “all East Jerusalem is Palestinian.”

And in October three years ago, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon

...voiced concern at recent episodes of tension at the Haram Ash-Sharif/Temple Mount compound in East Jerusalem, sacred to both Muslims and Jews, and the potential for further clashes, also citing the “sensitive excavations” by Israel in reconstructing a ramp to the site.

“We all share a responsibility to promote calm,” he declared...At a news conference in New York, Mr. Ban reiterated his warning that disturbances at the Haram Al-Sharif/Temple Mount compound and other events in Jerusalem can undermine trust throughout the region. “I call upon all to avoid provocative acts,” he said.

But more importantly, the UN met yesterday already on the issue.

Here is the General Assembly GA/PAL/1287

STATEMENT BY BUREAU OF COMMITTEE ON THE EXERCISE OF THE INALIENABLE RIGHTS OF THE PALESTINIAN PEOPLE, ON THE SITUATION IN JERUSALEM

The Bureau...is alarmed by recent developments and increased tensions in Occupied East Jerusalem.
We are particularly concerned by the increasing incursions by Israeli extremists and political leaders, including Government officials, on the Al‑Aqsa Mosque compound.  These incidents provoke Palestinian and other Muslim worshippers and often lead to clashes, in which Palestinian civilians are injured, tear-gassed and detained.  In another worrying development, the Knesset recently began a debate on a bill to impose “Israeli sovereignty” over Al-Haram Al-Sharif.  Such actions with regard to this highly sensitive area provoke the Palestinians and may also be perceived as serious acts of incitement in the wider region.  Moreover, these actions undermine the current negotiations process, threatening the prospects for peace...

...The Bureau of the Committee wishes to reaffirm that East Jerusalem remains an integral part of the Occupied Palestinian Territory and is subject to the provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention, as affirmed by numerous Security Council and General Assembly resolutions.  Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention clearly states: “The occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.”

The question of East Jerusalem is a crucial permanent status issue.  A sovereign, contiguous and viable State of Palestine, with East Jerusalem as its capital and with arrangements for the holy sites acceptable to all, is a core requirement for the achievement of a just and lasting peace.

The Bureau of the Committee calls on the Security Council to act without delay to address these alarming developments...The Committee will revisit this important issue at its upcoming Joint Meeting with the League of Arab States on 10 March 2014.

Shmoom me an Oom/Moon*.  They don't even use the term "Temple Mount".

Worthless ditherings.


*

David Ben-Gurion was reported to have said in Hebrew, "Oom Shmoom", the United Nations is nothing.

^