The U.N. Openly Declares Opposition To Jews in Jerusalem

The United Nations has summarized its thoughts about Jews in Jerusalem, and it’s appalling.

On February 12, 2023, UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres sent a message to a conference held in Cairo, Egypt called “Supporting the City of Jerusalem and its Population.” By the term “its Population,” the leader of the UN made clear he only supports the Arab Muslim population, not the Jewish one. He admitted as much in his opening statement about the “challenges faced by the Palestinian population in Jerusalem.” Presumably, the term Palestinian population refers to those Arabs who have not opted to take Israeli citizenship which has been offered to all law-abiding Arabs in the city.

It clearly didn’t mean Jews.

Guterres continued:

“Jerusalem — Al-Quds is not only a treasured home for so many — it also holds a unique place in the hearts of millions of Muslims, Jews and Christians the world over.“

Jerusalem is ONLY the holiest city for Jews. Minimizing the Jewish connection to the city after an opening comment showing unique concern for the challenges of non-Jews, reveals the jaundiced mindset of the global leader.

“As we have seen time and again, what happens in Jerusalem reverberates globally — and tensions, incitement and violence often spill into wider instability.“

Jews have been a majority in Jerusalem since the 1860s. However, the Jordanian Army ethnically cleansed the Jews out of the eastern portion of Jerusalem including the entirety of the the Old City, and forbade Jews from even visiting their holy sites from 1949 to 1967. The world remained completely silent about the abuse to Jewish human rights, even in the shadow of the European genocide of Jews.

Now, Jews once again control the eastern portion of Jerusalem after Israel defended itself from the attacking Jordanian army in 1967. The current Jewish presence sickens the anti-Semitic Arab Muslims who shout that “al Aqsa is in danger.” Outrageously, the United Nations echoes their sentiments, further inflaming the region.

“It is therefore imperative that all parties exercise restraint and refrain from provocations, inflammatory actions and rhetoric. I am very concerned by the unilateral initiatives that we have seen in recent weeks.“

Refraining “from provocations, inflammatory actions and rhetoric” makes perfect sense. Unfortunately, the head of the U.N. has a perverse idea of what that constitutes, as can be seen in his next comment.

“The position of the United Nations is clear: The status of Jerusalem cannot be altered by unilateral actions, including settlement activities in occupied East Jerusalem; it can only be resolved through negotiations between the parties.“

Perhaps the U.N. does not accept Israel’s annexation of the eastern portion of Jerusalem, as the global body had sought that Greater Jerusalem and Greater Bethlehem be held under an international regime in the 1947 Partition Plan. But the Jordanians drastically altered the character of the city when it expelled every Jew, destroyed every synagogue, banned Jews from entering the city, illegally annexed it and granted any non-Jew citizenship. Reversing the anti-Semitic Jordanian actions is not altering the city with “unilateral actions, including settlement activities”, but reestablishing the Jewish presence in the Jewish holy city that had been unilaterally destroyed by the anti-Semitic Jordanian regime.

While Israel tries to establish a final resolution to the Arab-Israel conflict, it is absurd to demand that the city be frozen in time – only as it relates to Jews and to that period when Jews were ethnically cleansed. It is the capital city of Israel with an enormous demand for housing. How can the U.N. advocate for Arab housing in the city but not for Jewish homes?

“Jerusalem’s demographic and historical character must be preserved — and the status quo at the Holy Sites must be upheld, in line with the special role of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan.“

If Jerusalem has been 75% Jewish in 2020, 2000, 1980, 1960 or 1940, is that the fixed percentage of the demographic character of the city that must be preserved? No city in the world has a fixed demographic character. To suggest that the demographic and historical character should relate to the eighteen years that Jordan banned the presence of Jews would be an endorsement of ethnic cleansing.

Which is what Guterres seems to have done, in calling for the anti-Semitic Jordanians to have a special role “at the Holy Sites.” The Jordanian Waqf ONLY has a special role in regards to Muslim holy sites such as the al Aqsa Mosque. It has no special role on the overall Temple Mount which is a Jewish holy site. In falsely giving the Waqf a greater role than was agreed upon in the 1994 Peace Agreement between Israel and Jordan, the U.N. chief is inflaming the situation and going directly against his own words: ignoring an agreement reached between the parties.

“The United Nations remains committed to help Israelis and Palestinians chart a credible path forward: Towards an end of the occupation; towards two States living side by side with Jerusalem as the capital of both; towards lasting security, peace and dignity for all. Thank you. Shukran.“

All of Guterres’ comments show a disregard for Jewish Israelis, so the call out of helping Israelis is a polite lie thinly spread on a mountain of scorn.

There is no “occupation” in Jerusalem. It was never Palestinian nor was it ever intended to be part of an Arab state, but part of an international “corpus separatum.”
The Arabs have flatly rejected a two State solution in every poll and every peace negotiation.
If the parties are to negotiate a solution between themselves, then declaring the outcome of Jerusalem being a shared capital undermines the very principle of negotiation. The parties themselves will determine what they find acceptable.
Note that Israel has already advanced the sharing of Corpus Separatum, when it handed Bethlehem to the Palestinian Authority in 1996. The sharing of the holy basin has already been accomplished.
If the U.N. cared about security, it would support Israel in fighting terror, which it does for every country in the world other than Israel.
If the U.N. cared about Jewish dignity, it would INSIST upon Jewish prayer rights on the Jewish Temple Mount, not calling for banning Jews.

The head of the United Nations called for banning Jews from the Old City of Jerusalem and denying them basic human rights and dignity to pray at their holiest location. He has sadly become an ugly tool of radical jihadists, and an enemy of Jews.

The U.N.’s desire to impose sharia law in Jerusalem offers no justice nor dignity for Jews. The agency has broken its social contract with the Jewish State, and its heartless shell is but a conduit for overt anti-Semitism.