The Nation of Israel Prevails

Posted on November 27, 2015 by First.One.Through

The weekly Torah portion of Vayishlach, describes a famous story in the life of Jacob. It is a message that Israeli Jews continue to hold dear.

Jacob had left his parent’s home fearing for his life, as his brother Esau had threatened to kill him. After many years away, Jacob prepared to return with his new large family, only to discover that Esau had a welcoming party for him of 400 men, an army.

Assuming a battle, Jacob prepared to meet his brother Esau by separating his family into two groups, hoping that one group could escape while the other fought Esau’s army. Jacob did not anticipate that there would be another fight before he even encountered Esau.

Genesis 32:24-30 relays the story of Jacob being left alone after readying his family. “Then Jacob was left alone, and a man wrestled with him until daybreak. When he saw that he had not prevailed against him, he touched the socket of his thigh; so the socket of Jacob’s thigh was dislocated while he wrestled with him. he said, “Let me go, for the dawn is breaking.” But he said, “I will not let you go unless you bless me.” So he said to him, “What is your name?” And he said, “Jacob.” He said, “Your name shall no longer be Jacob, but Israel; for you have striven with God and with men and have prevailed.” Then Jacob asked him and said, “Please tell me your name.” But he said, “Why is it that you ask my name?” And he blessed him there. So Jacob named the place Peniel, for he said, “I have seen God face to face, yet my life has been preserved.”

Jacob Struggles with an Angel
Gustav Dore (1832-1883)

Sages relayed that the man with whom Jacob wrestled was an angel, both a physical man and divinely creature. This angel was both a symbol and a messenger: Jacob had fought with men such as Esau and his father-in-law Lavan, but also in his relationship with God. The angel let Jacob know that as he had prevailed in the past, he would again prevail when he encounters his brother. As such, the angel renamed Jacob “Yisrael” which is a combination of Hebrew words conveying both the struggle and the success.

Yisrael Today

The Jews of today were originally called “the Sons of Israel” in the bible, not the sons of Jacob. They carried Jacob’s new name and the knowledge that while they continued to struggle with both man and God, they would ultimately prevail.

Jewish history is full of difficult encounters with men, whether in the holy land or around the world. Jews lost many more battles than they won which often led them to question their belief in God. Sages debated whether that cause-and-effect was actually reversed, and considered whether Jews lost so many fights because they failed in their relationship with God.

The Holocaust is an example of the terrible struggle Jews had with man and God. The very government to which Jews remained loyal, turned on them and butchered them. Holocaust Survivors were left to question both the morality of men as well as the role of God. Was “surviving” really prevailing? On a broader basis, was the establishment of the Jewish State of Israel after the slaughter of one-third of the global Jewish population, really “prevailing?” Is the definition of “prevailing” staying alive, a tangible victory of a self-governing homeland, or simply maintaining faith?

Today, Jews continue to grapple with those relationships and questions. In November 2015, an Israeli woman preparing for her wedding was informed that a Palestinian Arab terrorist killed her father and brother. She delayed the wedding so she could bury her family members and sit shiva, seven days of mourning. As she ended her mourning, she invited the entire country to join in the wedding celebration. Her invitation carried a message from the prophet Micah:

אַֽל־תִּשְׂמְחִ֤י אֹיַ֙בְתִּי֙ לִ֔י כִּ֥י נָפַ֖לְתִּי קָ֑מְתִּי כִּֽי־אֵשֵׁ֣ב בַּחֹ֔שֶׁךְ יְהֹוָ֖ה א֥וֹר לִֽי

“Do not rejoice over me, O my enemy. Though I fall, I will rise”

The heavenly promise of overcoming battles was matched by human determination. The bride said “precisely from the pain in the month of courage before Hanukkah we will, together with all the nation of Israel, spread a great light of joy, giving and love that the nation of Israel has inundated upon us.“

Her voice was echoed by thousands of Jews who came to the wedding in Jerusalem waving Israeli flags singing “The Nation of Israel Lives!”

The children of Israel continue to wrestle with God and man, but prevail. They prevail in being alive, in the Jewish State with complete faith in God.

Am Yisrael Chai.

Related First.One.Through article and video:

From Promised Land to Promised Home

The 2011 Massacre of the Fogels in Itamar (Gorecki)

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: FirstOne Through Israel Analysis

Every Picture Tells a Story: Arab Injuries over Jewish Deaths

Posted on November 21, 2015 by First.One.Through

On November 19, 2015, a Palestinian Arab murderer shot up cars in the Gush Etzion district of Judea and Samaria. Among the three Jews that were killed in that incident, was an American citizen who was studying in Israel for the year.

Ezra Schwartz was an 18 year old from Sharon, MA. He went with some friends to bring food and candies to Israeli soldiers who were guarding an intersection where three Israeli boys were abducted and killed in July 2014. On his way back to school, he was shot and killed along with others while sitting in traffic.

The New York Times did not think much of this Jewish American teenager.

The story of the murder was placed at the very bottom of page A6. There was no accompanying picture. No caption. No one saw this American victim of Palestinian Arab barbarity. As a matter of fact, if you wanted to know the name of this American victim, you would have to wait until the tenth paragraph of the article.

NY Times November 20, 2015, page A6

This was in sharp contrast to how the New York Times covered the story of an American Arab who was beaten up while engaged in a riot in Israel.

On July 7, 2014, the New York Times placed a large color picture on the front page of an Arab youth surrounded by policemen. The caption read “Tariq Abu Kheidar, 15, arrested in the unrest, is a cousin of the victim and was shown on a video being beaten by Israeli officers.” Tariq led the world news, on a day when over 100 people were slaughtered in various attacks.

Front page of the New York Times July 7, 2014

The beating of an Arab American who participated in a riot got front page attention, while the murder of a Jewish American who was simply riding in a car got nothing.

The New York Times has a long history of ignoring Israeli deaths and highlighting Palestinian injuries as detailed in the articles below. The New York Times has extended its bias against American Jews as well.

Related First.One.Through articles:

Every Picture Tells a Story: The Invisible Murdered Israelis

Every Picture Tells A Story: Only Palestinians are Victims

Every Picture Tells a Story: Versions of Reality

The New York Times’ Buried Pictures

Every Picture Tells a Story, the Bibi Monster

Every Picture Tells a Story, Don’t It?

The New York Times Picture of the Year, 2014

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: FirstOne Through Israel Analysis

Rick Jacobs’ Particular Reform Judaism

Posted on November 13, 2015 by First.One.Through

The Union for Reform Judaism (URJ) held its biennial in Orlando, FL in November 2015. The head of the URJ, Rabbi Rick Jacobs, gave opening remarks that laid out his personal politics and worldview as the belief system of Reform Judaism.

Union for Reform Judaism President Rabbi Rick Jacobs
November 2015

Politics

Rabbi Jacobs is not a stranger to politics. In November 2014, Jacobs urged the state of Israel to not go forward with legislation to reaffirm its Jewish character. His position was that Israel needs more pluralism than Judaism; more universalism than particularism. In his opening speech to the Reform Movement one year later, he made clear that Judaism itself needed more of that approach too.

Jacobs spoke about Jewish values that are rooted in the Torah such as loving the stranger in your midst. He said that “thirty-six times the bible reminds us ‘v’ahavtem et ha’ger’ – to love the resident alien and treat the stranger as ourselves.” Indeed, such quotes are throughout the bible such as:

“The stranger who resides with you shall be to you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt; I am the LORD your God.” (Leviticus 19:34)
“You shall not wrong a stranger or oppress him, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt” (Exodus 22:21)
“He executes justice for the orphan and the widow, and shows His love for the alien by giving him food and clothing. So show your love for the alien, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt.” (Deuteronomy 10:18-19)

However, Jacobs opted to then announce his own personal political views as being the official mantra of the Reform Movement: specifically that Jews living east of the Green Line (EGL) in Judea and Samaria is wrong and should be opposed. He stated the “Reform Movement has long opposed Israeli settlement policy in the West Bank. The occupation threatens the very Zionism that we hold dear: the living expression of a Jewish democratic state.”

Ignore for a moment that the global community endorsed Jews living throughout Palestine in the British Mandate of 1922. How does a movement that prides itself on universalism advocate that anyone should be banned from living somewhere? How does a Jewish movement call for Jews being barred from living anywhere? How can a rabbi advocate for an anti-Semitic policy that is also directly against the bible?

Jacobs wants to see peace in holy land; he has no monopoly on that desire.

But why does a policy of welcoming strangers, mean adopting their hateful agenda? While Palestinian Arabs may demand Jews be prevented from buying and living in homes east of the Green Line (EGL), why should Jews endorse the same policy? There are many paths to a two state solution – and actual peace – that would not bar Jews from living in parts of the holy land.

The vast majority of Jews living EGL/ Judea and Samaria, want to live at peace with their Arab neighbors. These are lands that Jews have lived in for thousands of years and without any prohibitions from the League of Nations nor under the Ottomans before them.

While many Reform Jews may agree with Jacobs and his J Street view, does Reform Judaism leave no room for Jews with different views? Is Reform Judaism only open to radical liberals?

A Failure to Educate and Celebrate Israel

Jacobs did passionately defend Israel and spoke clearly of his opposition to the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement (BDS). He continued that many young people “feel that Israel has become too intolerant, not only of Arab citizens, but also of non-Orthodox Jews, Ethiopian Jews, LGBT Jews, asylum seekers and others.” He tacitly agreed to this viewpoint.

Exactly how does Jacobs believe that he defends Israel? Just by saying that he is against BDS?

Why doesn’t he educate people and celebrate the accomplishments of Israel? Why isn’t he and the Reform Movement at the forefront of telling fellow liberal friends that Israel is the most liberal country in the entire Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region, and in much of the world?

Jacobs called for a Reform Judaism that welcomes everyone in something he called “audacious hospitality.” He advocated a universalistic approach to the world over one of particularism.

Yet the leader of the Reform movement put forth a narrow political agenda regarding Israel that only spoke to a slice of its members, and by doing so created a wedge within the community about Israel. He failed to educate the community about Israel’s values that it shares, and thereby left a gap between Reform Judaism and the Jewish State.

There is a lot to love about Israel and much to learn about the different approaches to peace in the Middle East. It would be better – and more consistent – for Rabbi Jacobs to understand that Reform Jews have a range of opinions about Israel that are consistent with Judaism and “loving one’s neighbor as thyself”, not in priority over oneself.

It would also go a long way to healing rifts between the broader Jewish community, and between the diaspora community and Israel.

Related First.One.Through articles:

The Fault in Our Tent: The Limit of Acceptable Speech

A Disservice to Jewish Community

Nicholas Kristof’s “Arab Land”

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: FirstOne Through Israel Analysis

Abraham’s Hospitality: Lessons for Jews and Arabs

Posted on October 30, 2015 by First.One.Through

The biblical portion of Vayera showcases stories of the patriarch Abraham welcoming strangers. The stories of Abraham’s hospitality became incorporated into the ways that the children of Abraham think of themselves today. However, the nature of the hospitality of Arabs (descendants of Abraham’s son Ishmael) and Jews (descendants of Abraham’s son Isaac) diverge in many ways.

Abraham and the Three Angels
by Giovanni Andrea de Ferrari (1598-1669)

Man and God

Jewish perspective: Judaism prides itself in being a religion of actions, not faith. God gave the Jewish people 613 commandments to follow, some of which are active (make the Sabbath holy) and others that are passive (don’t kill). A division could also be made of laws between people (like murder) and those between man and God (like the Sabbath).

A casual observer of religions would imagine that laws about God would take precedence to laws about people. The Jewish organization Limmud, posted an article about Vayera, which argued the opposite.

During the story of Vayera there was an encounter between Abraham and God. In the middle of the conversation, Abraham asked God to wait so he could welcome three strangers that were passing his tent. The author of the Limmud article, Jeremy Rosen argued that Abraham’s action taught Jews a lesson for today, “that however primary God is, there are certain types of human crises or obligations that are so important that one can actually tell God to wait. In the end religion must enhance our relationship with other humans.”

Islamic perspective: The website “OnIslam” is dedicated to educating Muslims on a variety of subjects. An article on hospitality and the “joy of honoring others” made a clear effort to differentiate between the kind of hospitality that Muslims extend, and those of non-Muslims. “The true concept of hospitality is not something that is widely practiced in most non-Muslim countries. For many non-Muslims, the entertainment of guests is of primary importance in many cases for worldly reasons only, not rooted in real hospitality for the sake of God. In Islam, however, hospitality is a great virtue that holds a significant purpose. Being hospitable to neighbors and guests can increase societal ties as well as unite an entire community. Most importantly, God commands Muslims to be hospitable to neighbors and guests. There is a great reward in doing so. Hospitality in Islam is multi-faceted and covers many different areas in addition to the hospitality that we show guests who visit our homes.”

In Islam, hospitality is performed because it is commanded by God. The act of hospitality may have benefits of creating communal harmony, but it is a derivative of the second degree. The primary obligation is to follow God’s command, and He commands all Muslims to be hospitable. God’s command leads man to action, and such action may, in turn, lead to friendship and social cohesion.

The difference in the approach of the religions is both subtle and significant. Judaism has a value system of helping others. Welcoming a stranger takes precedence to a direct conversation with God. In contrast, Islam focuses on obedience to God’s commands. Hospitality happens to be one of those commands and is therefore performed – within the bounds of religion.

Hospitality Today on a National Level

It is interesting to look at the nature of hospitality on a national level and how the one Jewish State handles hospitality compared to various Muslim countries (note that there are many Muslim countries, like Turkey, Malaysia and Indonesia, that are NOT Arab and descendants of Abraham).

Welcoming Refugees
Israel: Israel has an incredible record when it comes to welcoming Jews from around the world. Whether in bringing Jews that were persecuted in the Arab world in the 1950s, or Russian and Ethiopian Jews in the 1990s, Israel took in so many Jews from around the world, that they dwarf the number of European Jews who came to the country due to persecution in Europe during the 1930s and 1940s.

Those Moroccan, Yemenite, Ethiopian and Russian refugees received Israeli citizenship immediately. They got housing and job training. They had teachers to teach them a new language (Hebrew) and lessons about incorporating into a society that was completely foreign to their old way of living.

Arab/ Muslim Countries: The Middle East has witnessed a large number of wars and corresponding waves of refugees fleeing the battles. Many Arab countries did not welcome their fellow Arabs.

When Arabs left the British Mandate of Palestine to Lebanon and Syria in 1948-9, they were forced to live in refugee camps. They were not offered citizenship nor given an opportunity to have white color jobs. Those conditions continue for their children and grandchildren almost 70 years later.
When the PLO sided with Iraq when Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1991, Kuwait expelled roughly 360,000 Palestinians that were living there. Fellow Arabs that were neighbors for 75 years were evicted en masse because of the actions of people hundreds of miles away.
Most recently, the millions of Arabs fleeing the civil war in Syria, and ISIS in Iraq have been shut out of the wealthy countries of Saudi Arabia; Qatar; Bahrain; United Arab Emirates and Kuwait. Westerners may wonder how these oil rich countries are not embarrassed to refuse to welcome fellow Arabs, especially as Europe and America open its doors. Only Lebanon, Jordan and Turkey (Muslim, but not Arab) have shown these refugees Islamic hospitality.

Welcoming “Others”
Israel: The phrase in the bible “love thy neighbor as thyself” (Leviticus 19:18) has been interpreted by various scholars as both a model for treating fellow Jews and for interactions with all of mankind.

When Israel declared independence in 1948, it granted 160,000 non-Jews citizenship. When Israel reunited Jerusalem after Jordanian and Palestinian Arabs attacked it in 1967, it offered citizenship to all non-Jews.
When Menahem Begin became prime minister of Israel in 1977, he brought in and gave citizenship to roughly 300 Vietnamese people fleeing their country.
Today the country is grappling with how to deal with Eritrean and Sudanese asylum seekers as many Israeli Jews believe in the principal of hospitality, even while the government considers issues of safety.

Arab/ Muslim Countries: The Arab countries do very poorly in regards to their hospitality with non-Muslims.

When Jordan seized Judea and Samaria in 1949, it expelled all of the Jews in the area and forbade them from even visiting their holy sites in Jerusalem.
Today, Mahmoud Abbas has laws preventing the sale of any land by Arabs to Jews and has demanded a new country to be established devoid of Jews.
After Israel was founded, the Arab countries forced over 850,000 Jews to flee their homes where they had lived for generations.

Helping Others
Israel: Israel has a reputation of rushing to assist countries around the world suffering from natural disasters. Whether from earthquakes in Turkey or Haiti or tsunamis in the Pacific Ocean, Israel is on the scene with disproportionate numbers with life-saving assistance.

Arab/ Muslim Countries: The Arab world typically does not send much assistance to countries in need. That fact is surprising since it is a core tenant of Islam. OnIslam states: “In Islam, hospitality extends well beyond the walls of the home. Being hospitable also means having good manners and treating others with dignity and respect. Hospitality can be applied to the greater community and Muslims must strive to help out whenever there is a time of need. Natural disasters, for example, often result in community turmoil as residents grapple with the aftermath. This provides Muslims with an excellent opportunity to pitch in, whether delivering hot meals to those affected or donating gently used items to someone who has lost everything.”

However, the Charities Aid Foundation did rank some Islamic nations among the most generous in the world, including: Malaysia; Indonesia; and Iran in the top 20. However, none of those three countries is Arab. Israel, the Jewish State, ranked number 32.

Abraham taught Jews and Arabs about the importance of hospitality. Each group interpreted his acts of kindness through their respective prophets and teachers over the centuries, with Jews extracting a primary value of the kinship of men, while Muslims placed hospitality as just one of God’s commands to be observed. Jews learned a life-lesson from Abraham; Arabs stifled that more human example and took the message of hospitality from the Quran.

The children of Abraham – the Jewish State and the Arab states – should all be mindful of the importance of hospitality in their dealings today.

Related First.One.Through artices:

The End of Together

Joint Prayer: The Cave of the Patriarchs and the Temple Mount

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: FirstOne Through Israel Analysis

Active and Reactive Provocations: Charlie Hebdo and the Temple Mount

Posted on October 13, 2015 by First.One.Through

Leaders of the Western World came to the defense of the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo in early 2015, after radical Islamists gunned down the staff in their offices. Those leaders stood in solidarity with the French in the name of freedom of speech. Yet those same leaders have not rallied to the side of Israel while Islamic radicals murder and attempt to murder Israelis for an even more basic principle.

Empty Street in Jerusalem

Active Provocation

An act of active provocation is one in which the action itself is specifically designed to provoke and upset an individual or group. The person taking the action does not have any benefit from the activity, other than the enjoyment of upsetting someone.

For example, when Pamela Geller held a “Draw Mohammed” contest in Texas in May 2015, the event was designed to upset Muslims. The action of portraying the Islamic prophet in physical form is considered highly insulting to many Muslims, and several people came to the event with the goal of killing participants for the sacrilegious act.

While people came out in defense of Geller for exercising her right of free speech, few would argue that Geller had any personal benefit from her actions other than getting satisfaction in hurting the feelings of Muslims.

Reactive Provocation

Reactive provocation is significantly different from active provocation. Such activity has personal benefit and there is no intention of malice. For example, a person may eat a turkey sandwich which they truly enjoy, even though another person may be a vegetarian and find the action upsetting.

Everyone has sensitivities. How far could a society extend itself to ban certain “normal” activities because some people may be offended by the actions?

Would a government ban gay people from holding hands in public if it upsets the values of some religious people? Would it ban all meat because it upsets vegetarians? It would be impossible to navigate such a world in which anyone could object and block any action.

America was founded on the principle of the “pursuit of happiness” and has defended such right in cases of active provocation such as Pamela Geller in the US and Charlie Hebdo abroad. How could it do less for situations of reactive provocations?

Western Values versus Personal Interest

Various western societies offer a wide spectrum of freedoms including, speech, assembly and religion meant to cover elements of “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” Western culture is designed to offer space for different people to live and interact, even if various belief systems are in conflict. The expectation is for tolerance of different and possibly offending views.

The raison d’etre of Charlie Hebdo is to offend. It’s cartoons are examples of active provocation whereby people deliberately upset others. While the comedic value of some of the pieces could be debated, the principle of freedom of speech is core to western society and fiercely protected. While writing a magazine is not a common activity, free speech is a daily activity of everyone, so the leaders of western countries stood together to defend active provocation and all forms of free speech.

World Leaders come out in solidarity with France
January 2015

In Israel, people also attempt to live with ordinary freedoms. Like other democracies, they include freedom of speech, press, religion and assembly. But such freedoms sometimes offend radical Muslims.

The Temple Mount has maintained established visiting hours for Jews and non-Jews alike for any decades. People of all faiths visit the site. They do so as a natural act of visiting an incredible tourist site or because of religious conviction. They do not visit as a pretext of causing offense to anyone. If there are some Islamic extremists who are upset that Jews visit, that is a reaction based on that person’s anti-Semitic biases, an example of reactive provocation.

Muslims have become more worried about Jewish visitation to the Temple Mount which they consider holy as well. The number of Jews visiting the Temple Mount doubled over the past five years to about 11,000 in 2014. It is still a paltry sum compared to the estimated 4 million Muslims who come to the site each year. However, fears of the growing Jewish presence has made Muslims begin to attack Jews throughout Israel.

So why is the western world so cavalier about the carnage in Israel from Islamic radicals, while shaken to its core for the Hebdo killings? Is freedom of religion and access a lesser democratic value than speech? Is France considered more western than Israel? Perhaps some believe that to be true.

It is also a fact that Europe and America do not have shrines holy to Islam, so the situation of the al Aqsa mosque is really a narrow problem for Israel to handle. Western ambivalence may not be so much a function of values as it is proximity.

How embarrassing that the narrow scope of the champions of democracy shows that they are less interested with values than personal interests. The world should loudly condemn Islamic terrorism and support freedoms which are enshrined in Israeli law and democratic ideals.

New York Times: “Throw the Jew Down the Well”

Posted on October 11, 2015 by First.One.Through

Sacha Baron Cohen, a comedian from the United Kingdom, developed some fascinating characters as part of his comedic routine. One of them was Borat, a tall, awkward man who hailed from Kazakhstan.

Sacha Baron Cohen as Borat

Cohen used Borat as a tool on unsuspecting Americans to elicit responses which may be funny or frightful in his movie, “Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan.” Cohen counter-balanced Borat’s large 6’3″ frame with a friendly, simple and naïve demeanor, such that ordinary people responded to him in a more open manner than they would have for another large adult male stranger. Once within their sphere of hospitality, he engaged people in various outrageous actions. Cohen captured those bizarre interactions for the public to witness.

Borat was introduced as a foreigner, unfamiliar with the social norms of the USA. As people interacted with him, they quickly saw evidence of his primitive, racist, homophobic, misogynistic and anti-Semitic side. For example, when he attended a dinner party in the South, his lack of etiquette was so extreme he did not know how to use the bathroom. As the American hosts viewed themselves as extremely enlightened, they excused his outrageous behavior. The comedy of Baron Cohen/Borat was specifically about revealing people in such awkward and “dark” moments.

“Throw the Jew down the Well“

Another scene from the movie placed Borat in a cowboy bar in Tucson, Arizona. Borat was invited to sing a song from his home country to the crowd. The audience of men and women were at first unsure of this foreigner in a cowboy hat, as he started his song “In my Country there is a Problem.” It was clear from the first verse that Borat could not really sing, play the guitar or rhyme. But the crowd wanted to be hospitable and welcomed this stranger who was trying to fit in.

By the second verse, the song became rabidly anti-Semitic. Jews were blamed for taking everyone’s money and causing problems in his country. Imagery of Jews being wild animals with claws, gnashing teeth and horns were sung aloud, and the crowd joined in louder with each verse. The women – much more than the men – loudly clapped and sung along to the anti-Semitic verses with free abandon. One would imagine a scene from the Hofbrahaus in Munich 1920 more than Tucson 2006.

Sacha Baron Cohen is himself a Jew who is likely not an anti-Semite nor a racist nor a homophobe. He used the Borat character to force people to confront their own biases in unconventional ways. His use of a big fish-out-of-water persona made people want to embrace this gentle giant. The American-way of hospitality placed people in a situation where they were closely engaged with little room to maneuver. They were left with a choice of either being astonished and sickened (as were the southerners at the dinner party) or engaged, as were the anti-Semites in the Tucson cowboy bar. However, the Southerners took the effort to correct Borat, while the cowboys embraced his foul behavior and language.

The New York Times embrace of the Primitive

The New York Times has long looked on the Arab world with sympathetic eyes. Whether in advocacy for Arabs in urging the Obama administration to welcome thousands of Arab refugees, and pushing for building of a mosque at ground zero, or in ignoring Arab crimes through the use of double standards for people from a “primitive” culture, the NYT embraced the Arab world.

Like Borat, Arabs are from a different culture and unfamiliar with America’s progressive ways. As enlightened people, the writers for the Times have sought to engage and embrace these people. For example, Saudi Arabia is rarely called out as one of the most repressive regime in the world which decapitates minors in the streets; it is just an American ally.

No where is the treatment more apparent than in the warmth shown to the acting President of the Palestinian Authority, Mahmoud Abbas. The soft-faced nearly 80 year old man is repeatedly described as a “moderate,” who seeks “non-violent” means to achieve “independence” for Palestinian Arabs. In the Times desire to see Abbas succeed, they turned deaf to his various statements and actions:

Abbas’s inability to govern the Palestinian Authority territories is never blamed on his ineffectual leadership.
The Times rarely mentions that Abbas is so unpopular among Palestinians that he would have lost any election since 2007 according to every poll (if he ever had the ability to have an election).
Abbas’s phd paper on Holocaust denial is almost never discussed. When it is, the Times makes an effort to say that he now respects the history of the Holocaust, even though he explicitly said the opposite
When polls show that the Palestinians are the most anti-Semitic people on the planet, the Times just brushed over the fact as “not particularly surprising“
The Hamas Charter call for the destruction of Israel and death of Jews is rarely mentioned, and Hamas is almost never labeled a terrorist group
Palestinians engaged in the most honor killings per capita is ignored and blame assigned to Israel
Abbas’s calls to “defend al Aqsa by all means possible” is never described as an incitement to violence

The Times opted to not take a constructive approach like the Southern lady who taught Borat how to use the bathroom. It never sought to educate its readers about the misstatements and outright lies of the Palestinian Arabs. Instead, the Times just ignored that Abbas or the Palestinians were incompetent or said and did anything wrong.

However, on October 8, 2015, the Times decided to move past being deaf and joined the Palestinians’ anti-Semitic chants.

“Throw the Jew from the Temple Mount“

In an article entitled “Historical Certainty Proves Elusive at Jerusalem’s Holiest Place” Rick Gladstone wrote that there is little evidence that Jewish Temples existed on the Temple Mount.

20151009_065901 New York Times article Refuting the Existence of the Jewish Temples
October 8, 2015

As if echoing the Palestinian Arab and Jordanian Arab narrative that Jews have no history in Israel or Jerusalem, that they are trying to “Judaize” the city and “falsify history,” the Times wrote a piece that completely misrepresented archaeological findings. Indeed, the only religion that has archaeological proof of being on the Temple Mount is Judaism (there are no structures to show where Jesus walked or Mohammed’s night journey).

The Times’ echoed the calls of anti-Semites who seek to deny Jews of their history and basic rights. The Times effectively moved from the back of the Tucson cowboy bar to the front row singing and clapping along with Abbas:

“Throw the Jew from the Temple Mount
so my country can be free!
You must grab him by his horns
and we will have a big party!”

Now that the Times has more openly embraced its anti-Semitic Borat persona, perhaps we will soon see articles that Jews are really from Khazar and have no connection to the bible at all.

Related First.One.Through articles:

Visitor Rights on the Temple Mount

Educating the New York Times: Hamas is the Muslim Brotherhood

New York Times Finds Racism When it Wants

The New York Times wants the military to defeat terrorists (but not Hamas)

Every Picture Tells a Story- Whitewashing the World (except Israel)

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: FirstOne Through Israel Analysis

The Relationship of Man and Beast

Posted on October 9, 2015 by First.One.Through

^“18The Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone.
I will make a helper suitable for him.”

¹⁹Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. ²⁰So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds in the sky and all the wild animals.

But for Adam no suitable helper was found.” (Genesis 2:18-20)

Biblical Review:
Man’s Superiority over Animals

Humans believe they are the smartest animals on Earth. While our three pound brain is not the largest in the animal kingdom (sperm whales have 17 pound brains), we humans tend to commend ourselves for our ability to walk upright, develop sophisticated machines, consider things beyond our senses and create the selfie stick.

Religion has cemented this bias. The Old Testament unveiled the story of the creation of the world with plants and animals arriving first and then man – Adam – being the final ultimate act of creation. Man’s creation was preceded with a statement:

“²⁶Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.” (Genesis 1:26)

Man was the only creature “made in God’s image” and the only creation which was specifically tasked with “ruling” over other species. The superiority of Man over animals could not be more clearly laid out.

The Quran similarly detailed man’s dominion over beasts: “And the cattle, He has created them for you. You have in them warm clothing and (other) advantages, and of them you eat. And therein is beauty for you, when you drive them back (home) and when you send them out (to pasture). And they carry your heavy loads to regions which you could not reach but with great distress to yourselves. Surely your Lord is Compassionate, Merciful. And (He made) horses and mules and asses that you might ride upon them and as an ornament. And He creates what you know not.” (Quran 16:5-8)

Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, by Wenzel Peter

Man’s Relationship with Animals

Interestingly, the story in the Old Testament quickly moved past man’s supremacy over beasts. We soon read about a lonely man needing companionship so God brings the animals to man to ease the pain of solitude. While the Quran relayed some benefits of ruling over animals (food, clothing, beasts of burden), the Old Testament relayed that animals could be a source of company and intimacy.

The bible pivots from man’s dominant position quickly. When a snake tricked man into eating the forbidden fruit in the Garden of Eden (maybe it was mad at being passed over by Adam?), man lost his place in paradise. Suddenly, man understood that he was not only naked, but had reason to fear animals as well.

Despite this more complicated relationship between man and beast, during the story of Noah and the flood, man was given the responsibility for saving all of the animals. God could have instructed Noah to build a small boat to save only himself and his family, but instead tasked man with helping animals as well. Superiority and fear yielded to responsibility and care.

Later generations in the bible would principally treat animals as inferior life forms for man to enjoy, whether by eating them, dressing with their skin, using them to work the fields, and offering them for sacrifices. The bible principally describes helping animals only to keep the animals alive for future service; there was no discussion of them as companions.

Overall, the Pentateuch discussed plant life in a much more gentle fashion than animals. Consider Deuteronomy 20 which discussed going to war: All living things – including animals – were to be killed when fighting people with detestable belief systems. The animals belonging to those people were considered corrupted by the actions of the people and therefore worthy of annihilation. However, the fruit trees that belonged to those same people were spared.

All items from the ground are kosher and permissible to eat, but animals are more complicated: they are innately kosher or non-kosher. But even kosher animals can become corrupted.

Pets Today:
Companions Again

Americans have grown very close to their pets and have begun to “humanize” them. People are now more inclined to give their pets human names (Bo) versus “pet names” like “Rover” a generation ago. Approximately 76% of pet owners consider their pets to be full members of the family and they treat their pets accordingly.

Pet ownership in the United States rises every year. There are an estimated 78 million dogs and 86 million cats in the US in 2015 (APPA). That figure compares to 74 million children under the age of 18 in the country. Yes, there are more cats and dogs than kids. Consider further that the US pet industry is about $60 billion. That is more than the entire planet spends on babies.

Entirely new industries have sprung up around pets over the past several years: pet insurance; pet day care, pet-friendly hotels and restaurants. There is even a special TV channel, DogTV, just for dogs to watch.

We have taken animals from the fields into our homes and call them members of the family.

The biblical story of superiority over animals evolved over time. The power of creation imbued man with power over animals. Stories of destruction were coupled with man’s responsibilities. But the biblical discussion of animal companionship was very fleeting. Man rejected animals right at the beginning of history, so God created woman to be his partner. Thereafter, the role of animals became utilitarian.

Today, animals give us comfort. We have added pets to our families in even greater numbers than children. We read stories of the flood to our children and skim the vileness of man and their annihilation, and celebrate the many animals in the world’s first zoo.

Darwin’s Theory of Evolution is that all living things had a common ancestor. Beyond considering man’s physical evolution, it is worth noting mankind’s emotional evolution in its relationship with his fellow creations.

Visitor Rights on the Temple Mount

Posted on October 8, 2015 by First.One.Through

The cries coming from the acting-President of the Palestinian Authority and his rival political party, the terrorist group Hamas, to “defend al-Aqsa” stem from their claim that they are concerned that Jews are coming to destroy and/or defile the al Aqsa mosque, the third holiest site in Islam. To generate such fear, one would imagine that Jews are coming to the Temple Mount (on which al Aqsa sits on the southeastern most tip) illegally, and are bringing with them weapons and shouting threats against the mosque.

All of those assumptions would be completely false.

To placate the outrageous claims from the PA, Hamas and the king of Jordan, on October 7, 2015, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced a ban on Israeli members of Knesset from visiting the Temple Mount.

Here is a review of the completely legal, internationally approved and natural rights associated with Jews visiting the Temple Mount and today’s sad reality that none of it seems to matter.

Visiting Hours

Facts: The Temple Mount has regular visiting hours for people of all faiths. As mentioned by the popular tourist guidebook, Frommers:

“There is no charge to enter the Temple Mount compound. You must not, however, wear shorts or immodest dress in the compound. (If your outfit is too revealing, guards may be willing to provide you with long cotton wraps, or they may ask you to return another time with more modest clothing.) Visitors are allowed on the Temple Mount
by permission of the Islamic religious authorities, and are asked
to obey instructions given by the guards.

There is an admission fee of NIS 38 ($9.50/£4.75) to go inside the two mosques and the Islamic Museum. If the buildings are again open to foreign visitors, I highly recommend that you invest in the combined admission ticket, which may be purchased from a stone kiosk between Al Aqsa and the Dome of the Rock. If visiting hours
are lengthened, you may usually remain on the Temple Mount, but cannot enter
the Dome of the Rock or the Al Aqsa Mosque during the midday prayers.”

The World Travel Guide site lists the specific visiting hours and ways of accessing the Mount:

“Only one of the 10 gates to the complex, Al-Mughradi Gate, allows entry for non-worshippers. This is located to the right of the Western Wall and is accessed from
the Western Wall Plaza.

Opening Times: Closed during all prayer times (variable); otherwise Sun-Thurs 0730-1130 and 1330-1430 (summer); Sun-Thurs 0730-1030 and 1330-1430 (winter); Sun-Thurs 0730-1030 (during Ramadan); closed to non-Muslims Fri and Muslim holidays. During periods of tension, the site may be closed.

Admission Fees: No (for Temple Mount; charge for Dome of the Rock, Al Aqsa Mosque and Islamic Museum combined ticket).

Disabled Access: No

Unesco: Yes“

Reality today: Despite the publicized openness of the site, visiting this holy site and famous tourist location can be anything but pleasant. Hamas pays for Murabitun, Islamic extremists who shout and taunt Jewish visitors on the Temple Mount. Arabs have also hurled rocks at non-Muslim visitors.

Due to the various attacks, Israeli police escorts typically accompany non-Muslim visitors. The military has also occasionally restricted access to the Temple Mount for Muslims under 50 years old due to security concerns.

International Treaty

Facts: In 1994, Israel and Jordan signed a Peace Treaty. In that treaty was language that specifically gave special recognition of Jordan’s historic role at the Temple Mount site, while also cementing Israel’s responsibility for security.

The 1994 treaty discussed the Temple Mount, because Jordan had secured custodian rights to the site. Jordan attacked Israel and illegally seized the entire Old City of Jerusalem (and Judea and Samaria) in 1948 and thereupon occupied the Old City. The Jordanians then expelled all of the Jews from the city and granted Jordanian citizenship to the Palestinians in the city. When Jordan attacked Israel again in 1967, it lost the Old City, but Israel allowed the Islamic Waqf controlled by Jordan to continue to administer the Temple Mount.

The Jordan-Israel treaty clearly gave rights to all people to visit holy sites in Jerusalem. Article 9.1: “Each Party will provide freedom of access to places of religious and historical significance.”

And Article 9.3: “The Parties will act together to promote interfaith relations among the three monotheistic religions, with the aim of working towards religious understanding, moral commitment, freedom of religious worship, and tolerance and peace.”

Reality today: The kingdom of Jordan signed a treaty with Israel that assured the “freedom of access to places of religious and historical significance,” and to “promote interfaith relations… with the aim of working towards religious understanding.” The words in that agreement seem empty today as the Jordanian king claims the Temple Mount only has an “Arab character,” as he threatens to destroy the relationship with Israel because Jews are visiting the Temple Mount.

Israeli Law

Facts: When Israel reunified the city of Jerusalem in 1967, the Israeli Prime Minister Levi Eshkol handed administrative control of the Temple Mount back to Jordan, the country that had just attacked his country for the second time in 20 years. He then enshrined “The Protection of Holy Places” law that all people would have access to the holy sites in Jerusalem.

” 1. The Holy Places shall be protected from desecration and any other violation and from anything likely to violate the freedom of access of the members of the different religions to the places sacred to them or their feelings with regard to those places.

Whosoever desecrates or otherwise violates a Holy Place shall be liable to imprisonment for a term of seven years.
Whosoever does anything likely to violate the freedom of access of the members of the different religions to the places sacred to them or their feelings with regard to those places shall be liable to imprisonment for a term of five years.”

The 1967 Israeli Law was complemented by the 1994 Jordanian-Israeli Treaty which not only promised Israeli support for universal access to the holy sites, but Jordan’s support as well.

Reality today: However, the current Prime Minister of Israel Benjamin Netanyahu is trampling on Jewish rights of access and “feelings with regard to those places” as he bans their visitation rights even though they bring no weapons and threaten no one.

United Nations on Access

Facts: The United Nations often claims that it is concerned with providing access to people of all faiths to their holy sites and that it would prefer to see a “universal” approach to sites that are holy to many religions. For example, UNESCO on March 19, 2010 published a piece about Palestinian rights to the Cave of the Patriarchs in Hebron and the Tomb of Rachel in Bethlehem, among the holiest sites in Judaism. UNESCO wrote:

that Israel was “endangering Palestinian cultural heritage and denying Palestinians their cultural patrimony, as well as denying development and access to heritage sites and historic places of worship.”
“Israel has publicly begun to use these sacred and universal sites to provoke unnecessary religious conflict by promoting control and access on the exclusive basis of one faith while denying the rights and views of other faiths.”

By these statement, it would appear that the UN is very concerned:

that people of all faiths be allowed access its holy places;
that such holy places not be under the exclusive control of a single faith; and
that people should not be cut-off from their “cultural patrimony.”

A person would naturally assume from these UN comments about Hebron and Bethlehem, that the UN must strongly endorse Jewish rights of access to their holiest site in the world, and it must strongly condemn any group or country that sought to deny Jews those rights.

Reality today: But this is the United Nations that specializes in inversion when it comes to Israel. Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon described the basic Jewish desire and action of accessing its Temple Mount as a “provocation.”

Access is Not a Provocation

As detailed above, people of all faiths visiting the Temple Mount is legal by Israeli law, enshrined in an international treaty with Jordan, and follows a blueprint for co-existence as stated by the United Nations. Indeed, visiting hours exist for everyone.

For Jews, visiting their holiest spot in the world is a natural desire. They seek to do so in peace and quiet. They do not seek to instigate a fight with anyone on the Mount. Even Rabbi Yehuda Glick who was shot by Palestinian Arabs for advocating for Jewish prayer rights on the Temple Mount, did not seek to harm al Aqsa Mosque in any way.

No Temple = No Rights

If Jewish access to their holy sites is guaranteed and no one urged harming the site in any way, on what basis have Palestinian Arabs and Jordanians sought to deny Jews those basic rights of access?

The Palestinian Arabs have put forth a narrative that the Jewish Temple never existed on the Temple Mount. Their rationale is that if the Temple never existed there, Jews can claim no special visitation rights.

Consider that in addition to Mahmoud Abbas never mentioning Judaism in any of his speeches at the United Nations, there have been these quotes:

Mahmoud Abbas: “The leaders of Israel are making a grave mistake by thinking that history can move backward and that they could impose facts on the ground by dividing the Aksa Mosque in time and space, as they did with the Ibrahimi Mosque [Cave of the Patriarchs] in Hebron.”
The Islamic Waqf on the discovery of ancient Jewish artifacts near the Temple Mount: “an attempt to support Israeli claims about Jewish rights in the holy city and to impose Israeli sovereignty on the occupied holy compound through the use of fake evidence….An immediate Arab and Muslim campaign is needed to stop the Israeli attempts to Judaise the holy city of Jerusalem,”
Israeli Arab MK Masoud Ganaim said the Temple never existed. “The site has always been holy to Islam, never to any other religion.”
Hamas’ Khaled Mashaal on the opening of the Hurva synagogue in the Old City: “It is part of a project to destroy the al-Aqsa Mosque” and replace it with Israel’s so-called “Solomon’s Temple.” It is a “falsification of history and Jerusalem’s religious and historic monuments.“

Never mind that even Atheists have rights of access.

Never mind that denying a core belief of Judaism spits in the face of a treaty that sought to promote interfaith relationships.

The argument itself is nonsensical by the Arabs’ own beliefs. The Christian story of Jesus is specifically placed at Jerusalem’s Jewish Temple. How can Abbas or Jordanian king Abdullah claim special rights over the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, if they deny the story of Jesus in Jerusalem?

The Insanity of Today

Regardless, logic and rights fall flat in the face of Islamic fundamentalism: The UN condemns Israel for managing security, for which it has responsibility. It attacks Israel for the “provocation” of enabling Jews to have access to its holy sites. And the United States urges Israel to maintain the status quo, even though Netanyahu has stated over-and-again that he has and will.

So to appeal to the crazies, Netanyahu is banning members of the Knesset from access to Judaism’s holiest site.

It would appear that the left-wing radicals and racists are slowly winning the battle against human decency.

Shlomi Eldar, Columnist “close the Temple Mount to Jews.”
Israeli MK Taleb Abu Arar, ban Jews from the Temple Mount.

Jordan’s Deceit and Hunger for Control of Jerusalem

Posted on October 1, 2015 by First.One.Through

Jordan’s King Abdullah gave a flowery speech to the United Nations General Assembly in September 2015. To the casual listener, his words sounded progressive in his call for “loving our neighbour, showing respect to those different from us,” and to “amplify the voice of moderation,” especially from a region so caught up in violent Islamic extremism.

Jordanian King Abdullah addressed the 70th session of the United Nations
General Assembly on September 28, 2015. (Photo: Richard Drew/AP)

To a listener who was more familiar with Jordan’s history in the region, some of the king’s comments appeared as a welcome change from the actions of his late father. Others could question whether Abdullah harkens to his own voice. Consider Abdullah’s call:

“let us recognise deceit. When we examine the motives of these outlaws, the khawarej – and indeed, the motives of extremists on all sides – we find hunger for power and control: of people, of money, of land. They use religion as a mask. Is there a worse crime than twisting God’s word to promote your own interests?”

“nothing can be more important and can have more impact in framing this respect and coexistence than Jerusalem. The Hashemite Custodianship of Jerusalem’s Islamic and Christian Holy Sites is a sacred duty, and we join Muslims and Christians everywhere in rejecting threats to the Holy Places
and the Arab character of this Holy City.”

When it comes to “respect and coexistence in Jerusalem,” let’s remind the Jordanian king of some plain facts:

Jordan attacked Israel in 1948, together with four Arab armies in an attempt to completely destroy the new Jewish State, and then Jordan illegally seized the eastern half of Jerusalem.
Jordan evicted all Jews from the Old City of Jerusalem and Judea and Samaria in 1949, counter to the Fourth Geneva Convention.
Jordan explicitly denied Jews citizenship when it granted Arabs in its conquered territory citizenship in 1954.
Jordan barred any Jews from even visiting their holy sites when they controlled Jerusalem from 1949-1967.
Jordan attacked Israel again in 1967 and lost the area it had illegally annexed.
Jordan condemned the 2010 rebuilding of a prominent synagogue in Jerusalem that Jordan itself had destroyed in 1949.

Despite Jordan’s complete lack of religious tolerance for Jews and hostility towards Israel, Israel has always sought to maintain religious freedom and coexistence in the holy city:

Israel granted the Jordanian Islamic Waqf custodian rights to the Temple Mount when it reunified Jerusalem in 1967.
Israel enshrined the religious protections of all religions in its laws and safeguarded access to holy sites for all religions.
Israel reiterated the special role that Jordan plays on the Temple Mount in the Israel-Jordan Peace Treaty in 1994.
Today, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu repeatedly reiterates that Israel will maintain the “status quo” of the Jordanian Waqf’s anti-Semitic edict of barring Jewish prayer at the Temple Mount.

When the Jordanian king spoke of “rejecting threats to the Holy Places and the Arab character of this Holy City [Jerusalem]” in a speech that was theoretically about tolerance, did he once mention Judaism? Did he make a passing reference to the Jerusalem being the holiest city to only one religion – Judaism? Did he mention that Jerusalem has had a Jewish majority since the 1860s? A passing comment about the Jewish Temples or Western Wall? Or did he define the holy city as solely having an “Arab character”?

In his choice of the phrase “threats to the Holy Places,” was Abdullah suggesting that Jews should no longer be permitted to visit the Temple Mount, or that Israeli police should be prevented from protecting Jewish visitors from Arab harassment and stone throwers, even though the Jordanian peace treaty with Israel specifically gave Jews and Israel both of those rights?

To Abdullah’s comment of gathering “Muslims and Christians everywhere,” was he suggesting gathering 2 billion people against Israel on a trumped up non-existent threat to Islamic holy places? Was Abdullah calling for a global jihad in “twisting” facts to create a religious battle to promote a greater role for himself? Was that his idea of “amplify[ing] the voice of moderation”?

It is Abdullah that must “recognize his own deceit” and “hunger for power and control” of Judaism’s holiest spot in the capital of Israel. His opening line taken from the Jewish bible of “love thy neighbor as thyself” and “showing respect to those different” was a red herring in his call to cast himself as a loving moderate while calling for a global jihad against Israel on a non-existent cause.

The “progressive” voices attacking Jews and the Jewish State are becoming more numerous and growing louder. Beware of the velvet tongue as much as the iron fist.

The UN’s Disinterest in Jewish Rights at Jewish Holy Places

Posted on September 19, 2015 by First.One.Through

On September 17, 2015, acting-President of the Palestinian Authority Mahmoud Abbas called out to Arabs who were fighting against Jews visiting the Temple Mount, the holiest place for Judaism, on Rosh Hashanah, one of the holiest days in the Jewish calendar:

“We bless you, we bless the Murabitin (those who carry out religious war for land declared to be Islamic), we bless every drop of blood that has been spilled for Jerusalem, which is clean and pure blood, blood spilled for Allah. Allah willing, every martyr will reach paradise, and everyone wounded will be rewarded by Allah.

The Al Aqsa is ours, the Church of the Holy Sepulchre is ours, and they have no right to defile them with their filthy feet. We will not allow them to, and we will do everything in our power to protect Jerusalem.”

Acting PA President Abbas called for Arabs to defend Jerusalem
September 17, 2015

These Arabs that Abbas was referring to, had brought stones to protest Jews visiting the Temple Mount and the ban on religious extremist who taunted and prevented Jews from visiting their holy sites.

The United Nations Response

The UN Security Council (UNSC) issued the following statement about the situation:

“The members of the Security Council expressed their grave concern regarding escalating tensions in Jerusalem, especially surrounding the Haram al-Sharif compound, including recent clashes in and around the site.

The members of the Security Council called for the exercise of restraint, refraining from provocative actions and rhetoric and upholding unchanged the historic status quo at the Haram al-Sharif — in word and in practice. The members of the Security Council called for full respect for international law, including international human rights law and international humanitarian law, as may be applicable in Jerusalem.

The members of the Security Council urged all sides to work cooperatively together to lower tensions and discourage violence at holy sites in Jerusalem.

The members of the Security Council appealed for the restoration of calm and called for full respect for the sanctity of the Haram al-Sharif, noting the importance of the special role of Jordan, as confirmed in the 1994 peace treaty between Jordan and Israel, and encouraged increased coordination between Israel and Jordan’s Awqaf department. The members of the Security Council underscored that Muslim worshippers at the Haram al-Sharif must be allowed to worship in peace, free from violence, threats and provocations. The members of the Security Council further underscored that visitors and worshippers must demonstrate restraint and respect for the sanctity of the area and for maintaining the historic status quo at the holy sites. The members of the Security Council urged that the status quo of the Haram al-Sharif should be maintained and visitors should be without fear of violence or intimidation.

The members of the Security Council called for the immediate cessation of violence and for all appropriate steps to be taken to ensure that violence ceases, that provocative actions are avoided and that the situation returns to normality in a way which promotes the prospects for Middle East peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians.”

The response is outrageous and emblematic of Israel’s treatment at the United Nations:

“Haram al-Sharif”, not Temple Mount. The UNSC claims that it cares about the sanctity of the “holy sites in Jerusalem”, but it does not even mention the name of the platform, built 2000 years ago to ease access to Jews at the Temple. The platform is the “Temple Mount”- not mentioned once – while the Muslim name for the location is mentioned four times.
Ignoring Arab incitement and Israel’s calls for peace. As noted above, PA’s Abbas called for Arabs to fight for Al Aqsa, while Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called for maintained the status quo of banning Jewish prayer on the Mount. Yet no specific UNSC rebuke of Abbas’s rhetoric was made in their call for calm, nor appreciation for Netanyahu’s call for calm.
“Special role of Jordan” mentioned, but what of the role of Israel? The 1994 Peace Treaty between Israel and Jordan called for the Jordanian Waqf to be the trustee of the Temple Mount, but security remained with Israel. Why did the UNSC deliberately omit that Israel is in control of the security of the site and was deploying troops to stop Muslim extremists from attacking visiting Jews?
“Muslim worshippers”, but not Jews. In case any of the language was not clear, the UNSC is solely concerned with Muslims on the Temple Mount. The constant attack on Jewish visitors gets no mention at all, even after mentioning the Jordanian-Israel 1994 Peace Treaty which specifically states that “Each party (Jordan and Israel) will provide freedom of access to places of religious and historical significance.”

The UNSC voice of concern for: only Muslims and not Jews; using the Islamic name for the holy site, not Jewish; and referring to Jordan’s role at the site and not Israel’s, was clearly and specifically meant as a rebuke and warning to Israel and Jews. The most powerful global body told Israel on the Jewish New Year: do not mess with this Islamic site. Judaism is foreign. Jews are intruders.

Jews may protest that: the Temple Mount is its holiest site; that international law and treaties state that Jews have complete access to the site; and that Israel controls security on the site. Those facts are irrelevant to the UNSC.

The inversion of history past and present; provocation and reaction; rights and absence of rights has always been rife at the United Nations when it comes to Israel. These days, as the world watches extremist Islam rampage throughout the Middle East, the UN will seemingly further prioritize placating Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia and other Islamic extremists over the fundamental rights of Jews in Israel.

One can expect to see much more in the coming weeks when the UN circus comes to town.

First One Through

Israel Analysis. We primaried Bowman!

Category Archives: Jews

The Nation of Israel Prevails

Every Picture Tells a Story: Arab Injuries over Jewish Deaths

Rick Jacobs’ Particular Reform Judaism

Abraham’s Hospitality: Lessons for Jews and Arabs

Active and Reactive Provocations: Charlie Hebdo and the Temple Mount

New York Times: “Throw the Jew Down the Well”

The Relationship of Man and Beast

Visitor Rights on the Temple Mount

Jordan’s Deceit and Hunger for Control of Jerusalem

The UN’s Disinterest in Jewish Rights at Jewish Holy Places

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: