The Arguments over Jerusalem

Posted on May 14, 2015 by First.One.Through

Summary: In considering the arguments that Palestinian Arabs and Israeli Jews each make for Jerusalem as their capital, only one party makes a truly compelling case.

Jerusalem has long been considered the thorniest issue in the Israeli-Palestinians Question. In 1947, when the United Nations put forward a plan to partition the land into two states, it proposed placing Greater Jerusalem and Greater Bethlehem into an international zone called the “Holy Basin.” This Holy Basin would be neither part of Israel nor Palestine, to remove the sensitive region from the conflict.

UN 1947 Partition Plan for the “Holy Basin”
of Greater Jerusalem and Greater Bethlehem

However, as fate would have it, the partition plan was rejected by the Palestinians who then launched a war to destroy Israel in May 1948, together with armies from Transjordan, Lebanon, Syria, Egypt and Iraq. At war’s end, the Holy Basin was divided with the western half of Greater Jerusalem and Hebrew University falling under Israeli control, and Greater Bethlehem and the eastern half of Jerusalem falling under Arab control (Jordan annexed the area and granted the Palestinian Arabs there citizenship).

The Holy Basin remains an outstanding issue. In a two-state resolution, the Israelis propose to split the Holy Basin whereby they control all of Greater Jerusalem and the Palestinians would have Greater Bethlehem; the Palestinians seek to have all of Greater Bethlehem AND the eastern half of Jerusalem as its capital, while Israel would only have the western half of Jerusalem. Which side has a better claim?

The Arguments over Jerusalem

THE HOLY BASIN

RELIGION: The sensitivity over the Holy Basin is due to the fact that it holds many holy sites for the three monotheistic religions. A short list includes:

The Temple Mount/ The Noble Sanctuary (Jerusalem). Jewish and Muslim
Al Aqsa Mosque (Jerusalem). Muslim
Dome of the Rock (Jerusalem). Jewish and Muslim
The Wailing Wall / Kotel (Jerusalem). Jewish
Church of the Holy Sepulchre (Jerusalem). Christian
Dormition Abbey (Jerusalem). Christian
The Old City (Jerusalem). Jewish
Church of the Nativity (Bethlehem). Christian
The Tomb of Rachel (Bethlehem). Jewish

There are many other churches, synagogues and mosques in the Holy Basin, however, these sites are considered sacred as various events are believed to have occurred at these locations. For Christians, the churches were built on the various spots where Jesus and Mary are thought to have had significant life events. For Muslims, the Al Aqsa Mosque is considered to be the place where Mohammed ascended to heaven. For Jews, the Temple Mount is not only considered to be the place of two Temples, but also the spot where Abraham brought Isaac for a sacrifice. Of this entire list, only the Jewish Temple has any archeological evidence supporting the beliefs.

Among the three religions, Jerusalem is considered the holiest spot only for Jews. Muslims consider the Al Aqsa Mosque to be its third holiest spot (after Mecca and Medina), and the Roman Catholic Church considers the Vatican in Rome, Italy to be the holiest location.

Judaism is also unique in considering the entire Old City to be holy. While Christianity and Islam consider certain specific spots to be sacred, only Judaism considers the city as a whole.

Jerusalem: Advantage Israel
Bethlehem: Advantage None

Aerial view of Old City of Jerusalem from the south

ACCESS TO HOLY PLACES: A key concern for the United Nations (UN) is that access is provided to each religion’s holy places. In this regard, the divide between the Palestinian Arabs and Israel is stark.

The Arabs only controlled Bethlehem and the eastern half of Jerusalem from 1949 to 1967, as the cities and entire region were governed by the British and Ottoman Turks (who were NOT Arabs) for hundreds of years before then. During their brief period of control, the Jordanian and Palestinian Arabs evicted all of the Jews from Jerusalem and forbade their reentry, even during religious holidays.

While Israel has controlled all of the Holy Basin since 1967, all religions have had access to all of the holy places. Not only does Israel ensure that people of all religions have access, but the country created laws ensuring their safe keeping and open access, and put their religious organizations in charge of those places – even the Islamic Waqf over the Temple Mount which Jews consider their holiest spot. This same Islamic Waqf prohibits Jews from praying at their holiest location today.

Further, Israel has allowed other denominations to establish themselves in Jerusalem. The government of Israel helped the Mormons build their church overlooking the Old City. This compares to Jordan, which doesn’t even recognize the Baha’i faith today (Israel has a huge Baha’i temple in Haifa).

Advantage Israel

MAINTAINING HOLY PLACES: While access is the primary concern for the UN, maintenance of the holy spaces is important as well. When the Palestinian Arabs controlled areas such as Nablus (Shechem), they almost destroyed the Tomb of Joseph. Archaeological digs occurred on the Temple Mount unsupervised resulting in the destruction of important and sacred sites.

Conversely, Israel has made extensive efforts to maintain all of the religious sites under its control. It performs archeological digs mindful of scientific rigor while balancing religious sensitivities.

Advantage Israel

The Hurva Synagogue in the Old City was destroyed by the Jordanian Arabs in 1949
(photo: FirstOneThrough)

THE CITIES AND THE PEOPLE

HISTORY: The history of the Jewish people in Jerusalem extends back 3700 years when Abraham offered Isaac as a sacrifice. It became the unified capital of Jews under King David 3000 years ago and site of two temples (954BCE-587BCE and 516BCE-70CE). Jews have always continued to live there and move there over the centuries except when they were banned during the Crusades (early 1200s) and under Arab rule (1949-1967).

Arab history in Jerusalem is more recent than for Jews. Arabs came to the region and city of Jerusalem as part of the Muslim invasion in the seventh century, roughly 2300 years after Jews.

Advantage Israel

CAPITAL: Only one people ever made and considered Jerusalem to be its capital: the Jews. Whether in ancient times or modern, Jerusalem is the capital of the Jewish people.

When Muslims ruled the region and controlled Jerusalem, they never made Jerusalem the capital. Whether under the initial Arab invasion of the seventh century, under the Mamelukes or the Ottoman Turks, or even under Jordanian Arab rule 1949-1967, Jerusalem was never the central seat of government.

Jerusalem: Advantage Israel
Bethlehem: None

CENTRALITY: There is only one country in the UN that has a national anthem that is completely about its capital: Israel.

“As long as in the heart within a Jewish soul still yearns And onward, towards the ends of the east, an eye still gazes towards Zion.

Our hope is not lost, the hope of two thousand years, To be a free people in our land, the land of Zion and Jerusalem.”

Jerusalem: Advantage Israel
Bethlehem: None

Beta Israel, Jews from Ethiopia, return to Jerusalem
(photo: FirstOneThrough)

THE PEOPLE

In considering the future of the residents of the Holy Basin, it is important to consider how the people have been treated.

CITIZENSHIP: When Israel declared statehood in 1948, it granted citizenship to 160,000 non-Jews. When it took control of the entire Holy Basin in 1967, it offered citizenship to those who requested it.

This was in stark contrast to the Jordanian and Palestinian Arabs who evicted the Jews in 1949. Today, Palestinian leadership has insisted on a new Palestinian state devoid of Jews, which is why the Palestinian Authority objects so strongly to Jews buying homes in Jerusalem.

Advantage Israel

POPULATION GROWTH: Population growth can be used as a proxy for the freedom for Arabs and Jews in the Holy Basin under the different administrations.

From 1949 to 1967, the Jewish population under Jordanian and Palestinian Arab control went from zero to zero. The Jews were evicted from eastern Jerusalem and were not allowed to return. However, the Jewish population in the western part of Jerusalem nearly doubled (+98%). Over the same time period, the Arab population under both Israeli (the Israelis gave Arabs citizenship in their half of Jerusalem) and Jordanian control grew by 72%. Jewish growth outpaced Arab growth, even though Jews were only able to live in half of the city.

After reunification of the city in 1967 until 2005, the population trends changed. Jewish growth throughout the city grew by 196%, while Arab growth grew by 315%. Overall, the city grew at a compounded growth rate of 3.1% compared to the divided city which only grew at 2.4%.

Under Arab control, Jews were expunged from the area; but under Israeli control, Arab growth rate surpassed Jews’. Arabs performed ethnic cleansing while Jews encouraged diversity.
Under a constrained Jewish situation from 1946-1967 while there was no access to eastern Jerusalem, Jewish growth outpaced an unconstrained Arab dynamic. Jewish demand to live in Jerusalem outpaced Arab interest.
Under Israeli sovereignty, the city grew faster than under Arab control.

Under Israel, the city did better, the Arabs did better and the Jews did better.

Advantage Israel

POPULATION: Jews have been the dominant religious group in Jerusalem since the 1860s. Even at the start of World War I, when Jews accounted for only 8% of Palestine, they accounted for 64% of the population of Jerusalem.

Today, Jews continue to be a majority of Jerusalem, despite the Arab growth accelerating in Jerusalem under Israeli control (up to 3.8% CAGR from 2.6%). Jews account for roughly 69% of the city’s population overall, and 39% in the eastern part of the city. The eastern part contains some of the largest Jewish neighborhoods (Pisgat Ze’ev) and is home to Hebrew University (established in 1925).

Advantage Israel

View from Hebrew University
(photo: FirstOneThrough)

LONG TERM VIABILITY

Any final agreement between the Israelis and Palestinian Arabs must not simply focus on being fair, but be sustainable.

SECURITY: No capital city sits on the border of another country. To have the seat of government sit adjacent to a foreign country risks the viability of the state. In the case of Israel, the situation is even more sensitive than for other countries:

The countries adjacent to Israel have repeatedly attacked it
Those same countries continue to challenge the basic right of Israel to even exist
The main political party (Hamas) of the proposed country has a charter repeatedly calling for Israel’s complete destruction
Jerusalem sits on hills, making it even more vulnerable if the city would be divided, but significantly safer, if all of the hills and access roads remained within Israel

Jerusalem: Advantage Israel
Bethlehem: None

HISTORY OF DIVIDED CITIES: Fewer than 1/1000th of 1% of cities and towns in the world are divided. Those handful of towns that are split between two countries are typically very small and have a natural geological separator like a river dividing the city. None of those factors apply to Jerusalem.

Divided capitals are even more rare, and history shows that they are unsustainable. Recent examples include: Beirut, Lebanon; Berlin, Germany; Jerusalem and Nicosia, Cyprus.

Beirut and Berlin were divided by war for a few decades, and both have been reunified in peace. Nicosia has continued to be split along with the rest of Cyprus, and ongoing peace talks since 1974 have attempted to reunite the city – not divide it.

Advantage Israel

OFFENSIVE-DEFENSIVE PARTIES: In the San Remo Resolution of 1920, the League of Nations (precursor to the UN) recognized the right of Jews to return to their homeland in the holy land. However, the Palestinian Arabs launched major riots against the Jews, most notably in 1929 and 1936-9 which made the British start to move Jews out of their homes in certain cities (such as Hebron).

When the UN developed various proposals over the years 1937-1947 to divide the land, the Israeli Jews said yes while the Arabs consistently said no. The Arab position was to control all of the land including Jerusalem with no land for Jewish control.

As part of their efforts, the Arabs launched a war to destroy all of Israel in 1948, and then again in 1967. The Arabs lost both wars, and the incremental land Israel acquired in each of those wars were from defensive actions.

In total, Israel’s land was acquired initially from the world’s recognition of the historic rights of Jews to the holy land, together with defensive wars.

Conversely, all of the Arab land was acquired through fighting the UN mandate and launching wars.

In regard to the Holy Basin specifically, both Israel and the Jordanian and Palestinian Arabs took sections of the city during the Arab war against Israel in 1948-9, that the UN had proposed to keep under international control. As such, the UN did not recognize either country’s seizure of parts of the city. When Israel took the eastern half of Jerusalem along with Bethlehem in 1967, the UN continued to withhold recognition.

Countries around the world did not recognize Israel’s western Jerusalem in 1949 nor the capture of eastern Jerusalem in 1967, so they have never moved their embassies to the city. Their refusal to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital (or Jordan’s) is from 1949, NOT because of Israel’s reunification of the city in 1967.

Advantage Neither
Slight preference for Israel due to defensive nature of acquisitions

CONCLUSION

By almost every measure, Israel should maintain control of all of Jerusalem as well as additional territory to the east to control the hills and access roads to the capital. The Palestinians could have control of half of the Holy Basin – Bethlehem – which was handed to Palestinian Authority control in 1996 by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

There is one last reason which underscores the complete logic of Israel maintaining complete sovereignty of all of Jerusalem: it is the heart of the home of the Jewish people. While there are 57 Islamic countries and dozens of Arab countries, there is only one Jewish State, and it has always had one capital: Jerusalem.

The Israeli flag at the Kotel
(photo: FirstOneThrough)

Text from first half of Israel’s Basic Law declaring Jerusalem as it’s capital:

1. Jerusalem, complete and united, is the capital of Israel.
2. Jerusalem is the seat of the President of the State, the Knesset, the Government and the Supreme Court.
3. 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 towards those places.

Related First One Through articles:

The United Nations and Holy Sites in the Holy Land

The Waqf and the Temple Mount

The anthem of Israel is JERUSALEM

A Review of Divided Capitals

“East Jerusalem” – the 0.5% Molehill

Israel: Security in a Small Country

A “Viable” Palestinian State

Israel, the Liberal Country of the Middle East

A Disservice to Jewish Community

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

Summary: There is a Jewish community in New York with a long-standing effort to maintain a strong Community: among the various denominations of Judaism within the city, and in staying connected with the Jewish State. For the 67^th birthday of Israel, it opted to destroy all of those efforts.

The Jewish community of White Plains NY is not a typical New York City suburb. The five synagogues of the city (5SWP) – Reform, Reconstructionist, Conservative and two Modern Orthodox – all sit within 1.5 miles of each other and actively seek to maintain a sense of close community. Each temple helped to establish the communal eruv around the residential neighborhood. The rabbis have study groups together. And lastly, the members of the shuls do their Israeli programming together.

In the spring of 2015, a group from the Israel Action Committee of the 5SWP decided that it was time to invite a left-wing speaker to address the group, as past speakers included right-of-center speakers including Bret Stephens and Malcolm Hoenlein. While voices of dissent came from within the committee as they learned about the proposed speaker’s line of work as a lawyer for Palestinian Arabs that sues the government of Israel, the group elected to invite Danny Seidemann to speak anyway – on Israel’s Independence Day, Yom Ha’atzmaut.

Danny Seidemann was presented to the audience as a “Leading Israeli Expert on Contemporary Jerusalem.” He spoke to the group for roughly one and one-half hours, including Q&A. If Danny is an expert, it is in deception. For 90 minutes, the group of 70 attendees heard deliberate misstatements and lies of omission. However, Danny’s views and message were very clear: that Jerusalem has never been united and can never be a united capital of Israel.

Seidemann’s Lies

Here is a selection of some of Danny’s lies to support his position.

Palestinians are deliberately excluded from Jerusalem society. Danny made several remarks early in his talk that he clearly knew to be untrue. He stated that Palestinians in East Jerusalem are “deliberately and permanently disenfranchised” and “are not allowed to be leaders” in Israel. However, in Q&A at the end of the talk, he admitted that Palestinians in East Jerusalem are permitted to ask for Israeli citizenship and thousands have already become citizens. How can the Palestinian Arabs be “permanently disenfranchised” if they can become Israelis, similar to the over 1 million Arabs that are currently citizens of Israel? Those Israeli Arab citizens include members of the Israeli Knesset and the Supreme Court.

A minority of Jerusalem’s residents celebrates Israel Independence Day. Danny asserted that the capital of Israel barely celebrates Yom Ha’azmaut, undermining the claim that the city can truly be the capital of Israel. Along with Palestinian Arabs living in Jerusalem who are not Israeli citizens, are roughly one-quarter of the population that are Ultra-Orthodox Haredi who are not Zionists according to Danny, leaving only a minority of the population in Israel’s capital celebrating the holiday. However, Danny later admitted that the Haredi do actively participate in Israeli elections and actively seek roles in the Israeli Knesset. Does he not like the black hat brand of patriotism? Further, these Haredi Jews predominantly live in the western half of Jerusalem- does Danny question the legitimacy of the western part of the city too?

No Jew enters East Jerusalem. Danny claimed that “80% of East Jerusalem is off-limits to Jews.” First, that is untrue as many Jews go into East Jerusalem all of the time (and not just the Old City). For example, Pisgat Ze’ev, the largest Jewish neighborhood in Jerusalem, lies next to Shu’afat. Further, would a neighborhood being dangerous or consisting of a single ethnic group mean it ceases to be part of a city? If few Jews visit Umm al-Fahm, an Israeli city that is nearly 100% Arab (compared to the eastern part of Jerusalem which is 60% Arab), would that mean that the city is not part of Israel? When few white people entered areas of black Harlem in the 1970s, did Harlem cease to be part of New York City?

No Arab enters West Jerusalem. Danny said that Arabs no longer enter the western part of the city. That is patently false. On most days, there are more Arabs in Independence Park than there are Jews. Danny may claim that these are Israeli Arabs and not Palestinians from East Jerusalem, but how could he make such claim without speaking to the hundreds of Arabs that anyone can see in the streets of western Jerusalem every day without talking to each one?

Countries do not recognize Jerusalem as the Capital of Israel because of East Jerusalem. Danny argued that Jews pretend that Jerusalem is Israel’s capital but that such claim is untrue as no country places its embassy in the city. His point deliberately led the audience to believe that this international action is a direct result of Israel’s annexing the eastern half of the city. That is completely false. No country moved their embassy BEFORE Israel annexed the eastern half of the city because the entirety of Greater Jerusalem and Greater Bethlehem (known as the “Holy Basin” in the 1947 United Nations Partition Plan) was planned to be an international city. World governments are waiting for final status negotiations before moving any embassy, as they viewed the 1949 Jordanian annexation of East Jerusalem and the Israeli annexation of West Jerusalem as contrary to that 1947 Plan. It has NOTHING to do with Israel’s taking East Jerusalem in 1967.

United Nations 1947 proposed map for an international “Holy Basin”

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu does not want Peace. Danny claimed that the four-term Israeli Prime Minister “is a terrible person who preys on Israelis’ fears of security.” Not only did Seidemann ignore Netanyahu’s numerous statements supporting a two-state solution (without any part of Jerusalem for Palestine), but Danny also failed to relay that it was Netanyahu who handed over half of the Holy Basin (Bethlehem) to the Palestinian Authority back in 1995.

The US Democratic Party Considers East Jerusalem too Controversial. Danny relayed how the 2012 Democratic National convention had removed its long-used platform language that Jerusalem would be the capital. He said that Americans were “tired of being bullied” about the contested city. What Danny failed to say was that the 2012 platform also removed the standard language that: Palestinian refugees would be settled into a new state of Palestine, not Israel; that it is unreasonable to expect that the borders of Israel would follow the 1967 “borders”/ the 1949 Armistice Lines; and that Hamas is a terrorist organization. Are Democrats tired of believing all of these platform items too? Are they now welcoming Hamas? Danny made it appear that the status of East Jerusalem was the only reason Democrats were breaking with Israel, while in fact, it was the entire pro-Israel platform that was either intentionally or unintentionally gutted.

Olmert ultimately realized the need to give up East Jerusalem. Danny said that former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert ultimately concluded late in his career that the only way to get to a final status agreement with the Palestinians was to give up East Jerusalem. What Danny failed to say was that Olmert only pitched this approach as he was about to get indicted on bribery charges, and was hoping that he could win over the liberal Israeli press to save him for going off to jail (it was too late and he was ultimately sentenced). Further, Danny failed to mention that acting President of the Palestinian Authority Mahmoud Abbas never responded to Olmert’s plan for Jerusalem.

If Jews move to East Jerusalem, then Arabs will have an added case for the Right of Return. The “expert” on Contemporary Jerusalem has no understanding of the Palestinian claim of the “Right of Return.” Danny spoke about recent “terrible” news of Jews legally (according to Israeli law) buying homes in an East Jerusalem neighborhood called Sheik Jarrah. He described that some of these homes had been owned by Jews before the 1948 Israeli War of Independence, which were then taken over by Arabs at the war’s end.

For starters, it should have been noted at some point in the speech that the Israeli War of Independence started when several Arab armies initiated an attack to destroy Israel when it declared independence at the end of the British Mandate. The land wasn’t “Arab” and Israel’s war was of self-defense.

Secondly, Danny failed to clarify that the Jordanians (and Palestinians who accepted Jordanian citizenship), evicted all Jewish inhabitants from East Jerusalem and all of the West Bank, and then further barred their reentry after the war, counter to the Fourth Geneva Convention. Conversely, after the war, Israel granted citizenship to roughly 160,000 Arabs.

Third, Jews acquiring homes in East Jerusalem is legal according to Israeli law in the same way that Arabs may buy homes in West Jerusalem; there is no discrimination either way. These are private transaction between private people, and the government does not get involved. Danny’s commentary left the exact opposite impression that the Israeli government acted in a discriminatory manner.

Lastly, and perhaps most telling, the private purchases of homes have absolutely NOTHING to do with the Palestinian Arab claim for a Right of Return. A quick review for this “Israeli expert”:

Article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that “[e]veryone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each State. Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his COUNTRY (emphasis added).” The law is about returning to a person’s country, not a particular house where someone’s grandparent may have lived.
In regard to the Israel-Palestinian conflict, UN Resolution 194 Article 11 “Resolves that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and LIVE AT PEACE WITH THEIR NEIGHBOURS (emphasis added) should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible.” Palestinian Arabs are not refugees, but the children and grandchildren of refugees. And as Seidemann makes abundantly clear throughout his talk, they have no intention of living at peace with Israel.

Jews acquiring properties in Silwan or Sheik Jarrah or any other parts of East Jerusalem have absolutely nothing to do with these laws and give Palestinian Arabs no additional rights or claims to any “Right of Return” to any part of Israel or western Jerusalem.

Daniel Seidemann at Yom Ha’atzmaut Discussion

These were just some of the false comments that the speaker made about Jerusalem. Seidemann did say that Jerusalem is holy to Jews and referred to “Jewish Jerusalem,” but he made the comment only about the western part of the city. He gave no historical context that the area called “East Jerusalem” was an artifice of war. That its creation was solely from a war started by Arabs to utterly destroy any Jewish state, and the only reason that there are fewer Jews than Arabs in that part of the city was because of the ethnic cleansing committed by the Palestinian and Jordanian Arabs.

There was no clarification that Jews have been a majority in ALL of Jerusalem since the 1860s.
No mention that the Ottomans never limited where Jews could live in Jerusalem for 400 years.
No mention that the British Mandate of Palestine allowed Jews to live throughout the region, including what some today refer to as the “West Bank.”

Overall, Seidemann’s speech was an attempt to portray Israel as an evil, racist occupier of eastern Jerusalem. To the more informed in the audience, all his speech actually conveyed was that the Palestinian Arabs hate the Jews, hate Israel and will never want to be part of the Jewish State.

That may be true, but it certainly does not make Israel an evil racist occupier and does not mean that Jerusalem isn’t completely part of Israel.

Seidemann’s Call to Action

An hour into the Seidemann story, he became particularly excited.

Call for BDS of the “Settlement Enterprise”. Danny gave a short preamble that what he was about to say was illegal. He then raised his hand and voice and declared that all settlers living in the West Bank should be boycotted. That all businesses in the territory should be boycotted. That he, as a “true Zionist” that paid taxes and served in the army needed to protect his country from “right-wing idealogues” who threatened his vision of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state.

At that point, people in the audience finally began to leave.

Seidemann Refusal to Engage

At the reception after the talk, Seidemann continued to lie (or being more generous, show how uninformed he was):

Palestinians support Abbas. Seidemann claimed that Abbas enjoyed broad support of the Palestinians. When he was confronted that it was not true as shown in every poll conducted by Palestinians themselves, including recent university elections, he refused to back off his claim.
Abbas is in control. When Seidemann was asked how Israel can possibly negotiate with Abbas since he lacked control of the people and territory, he reiterated that Abbas had complete control. After it was pointed out that if Abbas was in control, he was therefore responsible for the Gaza war that fired thousands of rockets into Israel, Seidemann ripped off his yamulke and stormed away.

While the speaker demanded total silence and respect from the audience, he showed the group none.

A community that sought to be educated about Israel was lied to for 90 minutes. A group that wanted to bond with fellow Jews and Israel, heard from a speaker that called for Jews to punish and economically strangle Israeli Jews.

As this self-declared UberZionist drove away, the community was left with bitter feelings. At least it was no longer on the Israeli Independence Day.

Related First One Through articles:

It isn’t “Arab Land”

Legal Israeli Settlements

A “Viable” Palestinian State

The Fault in Our Tent: The Limit of Acceptable Speech

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: FirstOne Through Israel Analysis

The Waqf and the Temple Mount

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

Summary: According to Muslims, the Temple Mount is held in “trusteeship” by the Islamic Waqf, which assures its use and access as a mosque. The role of the Waqf has nothing to do with sovereignty of the land on which it resides.

The most sensitive issue of the Israel-Arab conflict is considered to be the Temple Mount in Jerusalem.

TEMPLE MOUNT

The Temple Mount is a 35 acre platform that held the second Jewish Temple from around 515CE to 70CE. Herod extended the platform on which the Temple sat southward to enable the greater flow of the thousands of Jews that came to the Temple to perform their rituals. The platform extension project ran from 19BCE to 63CE and Jews enjoyed the benefit of his work until the Romans destroyed the Temple in 70CE.

The Old City of Jerusalem, including Jewish Quarter and Temple Mount

The area is considered sacred to Muslims as they believe Mohammed had a night journey from Saudi Arabia on a flying horse to that location before ascending to heaven. When Arabs invaded Jerusalem in 627CE, they built the al Aqsa Mosque on the southern edge of Temple Mount (completed in 705CE and rebuilt in 1033) to commemorate the importance of the location. The other structures on the Temple Mount include the Dome of the Rock, the Dome of the Chain, the Dome of the Prophet and various other structures which are NOT mosques, but shrines.

Jews had access and were able to pray on the Temple Mount until around the year 1550, when Suleiman I began a series of “improvements” to Jerusalem. He ordered the rebuilding of the city walls and moved the Jews off of the mount to an area now referred to as the “Kotel” or “Wailing Wall” or “Western Wall”, a sliver of the western retaining wall built by Herod. Since that time, prayer on the Mount has been restricted only for Muslim use.

MODERN HISTORY

Five Arab armies attacked Israel at its founding in 1948. At the end of the war in 1949, Jerusalem became divided with the western half (almost all completely established since the 1850s) under Israeli sovereignty, and the eastern half (including the Old City dating back 4000 years) under Jordanian sovereignty (which was not recognized by the United Nations). The Jordanians evicted all of the Jews and barred their reentry, even to visit their holy sites, counter to the Fourth Geneva Convention.

In 1967, the Jordanians again attacked Israel. They lost the eastern half of Jerusalem and all of Judea and Samaria, which they had annexed in 1950. Israel reunified the city and made clear that people of all religions – not just Jews – would have access and rights to their holy places. Non-Muslims were once again allowed onto the platform, and Israel gave administrative oversight of the Temple Mount compound to the Jordanian Waqf. Israel annexed the area and the rest of eastern Jerusalem in a move not recognized globally.

In 1988, Jordan gave up all claims to lands it lost to Israel in the 1967 war, and signed a peace treaty with Israel in 1994. In that peace agreement, several key clauses were added to address Jerusalem, Article 9:

Each Party will provide freedom of access to places of religious and historical significance.
In this regard, in accordance with the Washington Declaration, Israel respects the present special role of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan in Muslim Holy shrines in Jerusalem. When negotiations on the permanent status will take place, Israel will give high priority to the Jordanian historic role in these shrines.
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.

Jews Praying at the Kotel, 2015

WAQF

Islam allows Muslims to place property (land or any object) into a “Waqf”. By doing so, the item comes under the trusteeship of the party specified in the declaration. In the case of the al Aqsa Mosque, the building is considered to be for the public use of all Muslims under the administration of the Jordanian Waqf.

When the al Aqsa mosque was taken over by Crusaders in the 12th century, the place did not lose its special status for Muslims. As stated in Issue 2697: ““If the Waqfed property is ruined, its position as Waqf is not affected, except when the Waqf is of a special nature, and that special feature ceases to exist. For example, if a person endows a garden and the garden is ruined, the Waqf becomes void and the garden reverts to the heirs of the person.”

Properties or entities like the Old City of Jerusalem or the Temple Mount itself can be subdivided according to Islam. As written in Issue 2698: “If one part of a property has been waqfed and the other part is not, and the property is undivided, the Mujtahid, or the trustee of the Waqf, or the beneficiaries can divide the property and separate the Waqf part in consultation with the experts.”

As described above, the Jordanian Waqf took control of the Temple Mount in 1949 and Israel has continued to let the Waqf administer the site. The Jordanian Waqf now employs 500 people to run the mosque. It does this, while Israel maintains all security controls and runs it as part and parcel of Israel.

It would appear that the actions of 1967, 1988 and 1994 laid the groundwork for a sharing of the Temple Mount between Jews and Muslims again. However, it has continued to be a struggle.

POLITICS and PROPAGANDA

Over the last few years, the Waqf has become more politicized, anti-Jewish and anti-Israel, as it was decades ago. Public statements from the Waqf:

Deny Jewish history at the Temple Mount
Attempt to deny Jewish rights of access
Deny Jewish rights to prayer (agreed to by the Israeli government)
Deny sovereignty of the Jewish State and Jerusalem municipality (agreed by many countries in the United Nations)

Consider a recent discovery of ancient Judaica near the Temple Mount. The Waqf issued a statement that the findings were “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,”

Discovery of Jewish artifacts at base of Temple Mount
dating to period before creation of Islam

It is interesting that the Waqf would make a claim of “Judaising” the city of Jerusalem which has had a Jewish majority for 150 years. It was also this same Jordanian Waqf that participated in expelling Jews from the Old City of Jerusalem and barring their entry from 1949-1967.

PEACE ON THE TEMPLE MOUNT

Israel’s perspective: Israel has sought a peaceful situation on the Temple Mount from the very beginning of reunifying Jerusalem. In 1967, Moshe Dayan announced: “To our Arab neighbors we extend, especially at this hour, the hand of peace. To members of the other religions, Christians and Muslims, I hereby promise faithfully that their full freedom and all their religious rights will be preserved. We did not come to Jerusalem to conquer the Holy Places of others.”

The declaration was followed by the establishment of the Protection of Holy Places Law which ensured the rights of all religions to pray at their holy sites.

Today, in an effort to appease the extremist views of the Waqf, radical Palestinians and the Jordanian government itself which threated to break its peace treaty with Israel, the Israeli government has continued to enforce a ban on Jewish prayer on the Mount.

Muslims’ Perspective: Suleiman pushed the Jews off of the Temple Mount in 1550 and Jordanian Arabs expelled the Jews from the entire Old City in 1949. Muslims and Arabs would clearly prefer that there be no Jews in Jerusalem.

However, according to Islam, there is no conflict with the Temple Mount being completely under Israeli sovereignty as detailed above.

According to the Peace Treaty between Israel and Jordan, the Temple Mount (outside of al Aqsa Mosque) should permit non-Mulsim prayer, despite Jordan’s recent protests.

Israel has continued to extend its full hand to share the Temple Mount. Meanwhile, the Arab world took initial steps some decades ago to recognize Jewish history and rights which do not conflict with Islamic law. Regrettably, recent history has witnessed a more hostile Arab approach.

Perhaps the future will witness peace on the Temple Mount with full access and rights for Jews at their holiest location.

Sources:

Waqf rules: http://www.al-islam.org/islamic-laws-ayatullah-ali-al-husayni-al-sistani/rules-regarding-waqf

Noble Sanctuary: http://www.noblesanctuary.com/AQSAMosque.html

Palestinian women fight Jews on Temple Mount: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/17/world/middleeast/palestinian-women-join-effort-to-keep-jews-from-contested-holy-site.html

Related First One Through articles:

Tolerance at the Temple Mount

Sharing the Temple Mount like the Cave of Patriarchs

Five holy sites in the holy land

Palestinians are “desperate”… but for what?

Palestinian Arabs control of Jerusalem for 0.5% of its history

Divided Cities and Capitals

Shabbat Hagadol at the Third Hurva Synagogue, 2010

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

Summary: Five years ago, I was fortunate to spend Friday night at the newly re-opened Hurva Synagogue in the Old City of Jerusalem. A reflection on history and change.

On the Friday evening of Shabbat Hagadol before Passover in March 2010, I walked with my father to the Old City of Jerusalem.

I had come to Israel with my family to celebrate my daughter’s bat mitzvah. Several members of the family walked the 1.5 miles in the light rain from our hotel towards the Kotel. As we passed the newly opened Hurva Synagogue in the Jewish Quarter, my father and I opted to pray there, while most of the others continued to the Kotel.

THE HURVA

The very first Hurva Synagogue was built in 1694 but was destroyed a few years later in 1721 due to financial problems. The second Hurva synagogue on that location opened in 1856, as the Ottomans began to ease restrictions on Jewish development in the holy land. However, the Jordanian Arabs blew up the synagogue during their 1948 attack on Israel.

Hurva Synagogue, 1930

In 1967, in response to the Jordanian and Palestinian attack on Israel, Israel counter-attacked and took control of the eastern half of Jerusalem. The Israelis opted to not rebuild the Hurva Synagogue for decades, and instead built a ceremonial arch, similar to the arch that existed in the original shul. However, in 2002, the government began a process of looking at rebuilding the synagogue, which it finally opened in March 2010.

Ceremonial Arch where the Hurva Synagogue stood

The rededication of the Jewish synagogue caused international hysteria. Palestinians and Jordanians called the action a “provocation” that was meant to begin an attack on the Al Aqsa Mosque on the Temple Mount. The main Palestinian political party, the Jihadist group Hamas, declared a “Day of Rage” against Israel.

The Palestinian Center for Human Rights said it “strongly condemns recent measures taken by Israel in East Jerusalem, the latest of which has been the inauguration of a synagogue in the old city. PCHR holds Israel responsible for the escalation of the situation in the occupied Palestinian territory.”

The United States was upset with the reopening of the synagogue in the contested part of the city and the Palestinians’ reaction. As such, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu skipped the rededication ceremony to avoid harming relations with US President Barack Obama.

SHABBAT HAGADOL 2010

I was very happy to go into the new-historic shul. It is not often that one gets to visit a brand new building with so much history.

There was security to enter the building, but nothing extreme or time intensive. The entry area had many siddurim, prayer books, and my father and I each took one and grabbed seats inside. We observed the large inside of the domed building and could see a woman’s section behind us overhead. The tall wooden aron that held the torah scrolls sat against a wall that tried to convey the levels of history in the building – a mix of raw stone, stone with plaster applied and painted finished walls towards the ceiling. The four corners of the synagogue included painted frescos of holy places: the Cave of the Jewish Patriarchs in Hebron; and the Tomb of Rachel in Bethlehem were in the front of the building, and Migdal David; and Tiberias were portrayed towards the back.

Inside front wall of the Hurva Synagogue

After Kabbalat Shabbat, the newly appointed Chief Rabbi of Israel, Yona Metzger, delivered a speech. He spoke clearly and strongly in Hebrew for a while about the story of the Jews leaving Egypt, and the important role that women and all of the Jews played in their own redemption. I was happy both with the content of the speech and my ability to understand it.

FIVE YEARS ON

Five years later, I spent Shabbat Hagadol at a university in Massachusetts as my daughter began to consider her college options.

On Shabbat, my wife and I walked the 1.5 miles in the light snow from our hotel to the college campus. We were lucky enough to hear Rabbi Saul Berman, who was a visiting lecturer from Yeshiva University’s Stern College for Women and Columbia University’s School of Law. He spoke about the role all Jews played in their own redemption 3300 years ago. He also spoke about the significance of temporarily banning a seemingly innocuous item – chametz – during the week of Passover. As opposed to permanent prohibitions to actions that God viewed as improper (such as murder), he argued that a temporary ban was meant to be used as a time of reflection. The change acts as a catalyst to contemplate the separation itself. In the case of chametz, Jews eschewed the characteristics of ancient Egyptians, for example, the use of slave labor. The temporary ban today allows us to reflect on how we treat our workers today. Passover is both a time to remember and relive ancient history (we physically left Egypt centuries ago), as well as a time to consider our own actions (how do we avoid acting like ancient Egyptians in the present).

In Israel, the third Hurva synagogue still stands and welcomes Jews to pray on Shabbat Hagadol, Pesach, and all year. The loud commotion around the rebuilding of the shul has died away and is now part of the din from protests of a large segment of the world that attacks Jews for building and living in their holiest city; a city they have built and lived in for thousands of years.

The chief rabbi who spoke at the Hurva in 2010, Yona Metzger, is no longer the chief rabbi. He just stepped down from his position due to an indictment on bribery charges.

Israeli Prime Minster Netanyahu is still in office, having recently won a fourth term in elections. As he did five years ago, Netanyahu continues to make conciliatory remarks and take actions regarding the Palestinians to endear himself to US President Obama. (But Netanyahu has also ratcheted up his language regarding Iran’s nuclear program which has only strengthened Obama’s dislike for him).

As for me, I have had the chance to visit the Hurva many more times. I have come with my wife and children. Soon, I will come with in-laws, nieces and nephews who could not attend the bat mitzvah five years ago and have never seen the synagogue.

The front wall of the Hurva Synagogue is a plum line of history. The changing materials reflect our movement into the modern with a foundation straight from the ancient. Like the seder on the first night of Passover, the Jewish story builds on the past. Jews relive ancient history, recount how Jews retold the story more recently, and add their own stories today.

Hurva Synagogue 2014

Israel: Security in a Small Country

Posted on March 24, 2015 by First.One.Through

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu described Israel as “a small country, one of the smallest”. That is true, but only part of the story. As Bibi added “Israel is strong, but it’s much more vulnerable [than the US].”

Netanyahu addressing US Congress,
March 2015

Size: Israel is about 20,000 square kilometers, using the 1949 Armistice Lines, or 22,000 including the eastern part of Jerusalem and the Golan Heights. It puts it on par with El Salvador, ranking 153rd in terms of land size.

Shape: Israel is very narrow along a significant stretch of its commercial center – only 15km across. Indeed, the slender, jagged shape of the country yields over 1,000km of borders. The ratio of land size to borders ranks Israel as the 15^th smallest country in the world.

Neighbors: Most of the very small countries have very few neighbors. The smallest countries and territories, the Vatican, Monaco, San Marino, Liechtenstein, St. Martin, Andorra, Gibraltar and St. Maarten only border one or two countries. However, Israel has SIX neighbors: Lebanon; Syria; Jordan; “West Bank”; Egypt; and Gaza. By way of comparison, most countries with six neighbors are much larger (such as Argentina, which is over 130 times as large). Just beyond Israel’s borders, Turkey and Qatar openly support the Jihadist Hamas party in Gaza.

Status: Israel is unique in having a hostile relationship with most of its neighbors. All six of the surrounding countries are part of the Arab world and have launched wars against Israel at various times since the founding of Israel in 1948. Gaza (run by Hamas) openly calls for Israel’s destruction. Syria (and its puppet state Lebanon) have been in an ongoing state of war with Israel for years. Both countries are supported by Iran which has also called for Israel’s destruction and is on the verge of obtaining nuclear weapons. Syria itself was also building a nuclear facility before being stopped by Israel.

Other small countries with six bordering countries, like Oman, have not been repeatedly attacked by its neighbors.

Capital city: Israel is unique in having its capital questioned by the global community. While much of the world recognizes the western part of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, countries have not moved their embassies to the city. No countries recognize Israel’s annexation of the eastern part of Jerusalem.

Israel is also unique (except Nicosia, Cyprus which is also a contested capital city), in having its capital sit on the border of another territory. Compare the small countries of Belize and El Salvador, whose capital cities are 50km and 80km, respectively, from the closest neighboring countries. By way of comparison, the entire width of the land between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea is only 75km.

Israel is small and narrow, surrounded by countries that have repeatedly gone to war against the country and have threatened its existence. Its capital city is besieged by the global community that doesn’t recognize it, wants to divide it and place it on an international border, which all countries in the world avoid for security reasons. Such a vulnerable country needs particular protections.

Security in a Vulnerable Landscape

For a country like Israel to have security and remain a viable country, a number of items would need to be established, if a Palestinian state were to be created:

No military for such Palestinian state, only local police
Israel would maintain full control of air space for its air force
Israel controls the borders
No division of the capital Jerusalem, and Israel further annexes land to the east of the city through to Ma’ale Adumim
Israel annexes land to the security barrier, which has helped maintain security over the past decade
Very limited land given from Israel to Palestine (the 1949 armistice Lines were arbitrary so there is no reason to maintain a quid pro quo in swapping land) as the Israeli landscape and topography are already too vulnerable
Hamas must be expelled from the Palestinian government and banned as a political party
Palestinian Authority must assume control of Gaza and EGL (East of the Green Line)
No negotiations with Syria on the Golan Heights for at least a decade after a Palestinian state is created. No negotiations if Iran obtains a nuclear weapon and/or continues to threaten Israel

While Israel has built an incredible democracy and thriving economy in the midst of a turbulent region, the size, shape and neighborhood require ongoing safeguards.

Related First One Through articles:

A Viable Palestinian State

Israel cannot solely rely on treaties – witness Ukraine in 2015

Obama’s cavalier approach to Israel’s security

Obama does not consider Israel’s security to be time sensitive

Liberals and conservatives on Iran’s WMDs

The Legal Israeli Settlements

Posted on December 11, 2014 by First.One.Through

Many people have argued that it is illegal for Israelis to live beyond the 1949 Armistice Lines (east of the Green Line, EGL/Judea and Samaria/West Bank). The question of “legitimacy” (not legality) has been repeated often by the USA’s Obama Administration. Those comments are more harsh towards Israel than prior American administrations that simply viewed new settlements as “unhelpful” to a peace agreement between Israel and the Arab states. Jimmy Carter was the only US president that actually called the settlements “illegal”. Below is a review of the international laws that apply towards the settlements.

Street sign in Judea and Samaria

Fourth Geneva Convention

Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention deals with the treatment of “occupied territory“. It is unclear whether it applies to territory obtained in both offensive and defensive wars, but this review will assume that the law stands in either case.

The majority of Article 49 is about the treatment of the inhabitants of the occupied territory and not about the “Occupying Power” transferring in its own population. The opening paragraph:

“Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons
from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive.”

This paragraph does not relate to Israelis living in EGL for several reasons:

The language is about people from the occupied territory, not to the occupied territory. It underscores the flagrant illegal eviction of Jews from Judea and Samaria by the Jordanians in 1949.
As the Arabs living in EGL were not forcibly transferred to any country, Israel did nothing counter to this law.

The next paragraphs deal with exceptions to the main directive stated above for military reasons:

“Nevertheless, the Occupying Power may undertake total or partial evacuation of a given area if the security of the population or imperative military reasons so demand. Such evacuations may not involve the displacement of protected persons outside the bounds of the occupied territory except when for material reasons it is impossible to avoid such displacement. Persons thus evacuated shall be transferred back to their homes as soon as hostilities in the area in question have ceased.”

The law permits operations involving security. This clause allows the building of the security barrier inside the West Bank that Israel erected in reaction to the Second Intifada, and relocation of people impacted to construct such barrier.

“The Occupying Power undertaking such transfers or evacuations shall ensure, to the greatest practicable extent, that proper accommodation is provided to receive the protected persons, that the removals are effected in satisfactory conditions of hygiene, health, safety and nutrition, and that members of the same family are not separated. The Protecting Power shall be informed of any transfers and evacuations
as soon as they have taken place. The Occupying Power shall not detain protected persons in an area particularly exposed to the dangers of war unless the security of the population or imperative military reasons so demand.”

These paragraphs seek to protect people, even in the case of a necessary evacuation. The only Arabs that Israel moved out of the West Bank were people who were arrested and therefore not relevant to this clause.

As seen above, almost the entirety of Article 49 of the Geneva Convention has to do with the local population- in this case, a theoretical transfer of Arabs out of EGL/Judea and Samaria/West Bank. Only the last paragraph addresses the civilians of an “Occupying Power”.

“The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own
civilian population into the territory it occupies.”

Israelis moving and living in EGL/J&S do so of their own free will. The government does not “deport or transfer its own civilians” to EGL.
The “territory” in question, Judea and Samaria, was settled by Jews long before the Jordanians occupied the area and evicted the Jews. As such, Jews were part of the indigenous population before being illegally evicted in 1949. Returning to the region is in keeping with Article 49’s goal above stating “Persons thus evacuated shall be transferred back to their homes as soon as hostilities in the area in question have ceased.“
Additionally, this territory was never a distinct country, but part and parcel of the Mandate of Palestine which specifically called for “establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people.” As such, Jews moving to Judea and Samaria is part of the ongoing provision established internationally in 1922.

The Hague Regulations

Another law that people contend relates to Israel’s administration of EGL/West Bank is Article 55 of the Hague Regulations:

“Art. 55. The occupying State shall be regarded only as administrator and usufructuary of public buildings, real estate, forests, and agricultural estates belonging to the hostile State, and situated in the occupied country. It must safeguard the capital of these properties, and administer them in accordance with the rules of usufruct.”

This rule clearly affirms Israel’s role as administrator for public lands. The Hague regulations – and this provision in particular – deal with situations that are temporary in nature, and are impractical for those that last for decades. To wit, the Arab population in the West Bank has grown four times since 1967, in one of the largest population increases on the planet. New infrastructure was established to accommodate the growth in the region, and Israel authorized these new homes, roads and other infrastructure, thereby necessitating a change to public lands.

In terms of minimizing the changes to public lands, it is unclear whether the role of Israel is to maintain a status quo according to the laws of Jordan, which illegally seized and annexed the area, or to administer the region according to British laws which had an international mandate before the Jordanians took control.

The Jordanians took this area in an offensive war against Israel in 1948-9
The Jordanian annexation in 1950 was never recognized by the United Nations
The area in question was part of the internationally approved British Mandate of Palestine (from 1922-1948).

Therefore, to comply with Article 55 above, which rules were appropriate for Israel to maintain: the illegal occupying Jordanian laws of 1949-1967 or those accorded in international law in the British Mandate 1922-1948?

If the British laws regarding property were to be maintained, then those laws state that no person should be forbidden to live in any part of the entirety of the Mandate (including Gaza, Israel and the West Bank) on the basis of religion, per Article 15 of that 1922 Mandate:

“The Mandatory shall see that complete freedom of conscience and the free exercise of all forms of worship, subject only to the maintenance of public order and morals, are ensured to all. No discrimination of any kind shall be made between the inhabitants of Palestine on the ground of race, religion or language. No person shall be excluded from Palestine on the sole ground of his religious belief.”

As it relates to the use of public lands (which is the focus of Article 55 of the Hague Regulations), the British Mandate clearly states that public land is to be used for Jewish settlement:

“The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in co-operation with the Jewish agency referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes.”

Administration under British law encouraged Jews to live throughout Judea and Samaria, including state lands, and it can therefore not be illegal for any Jew to live there.

The only possibility that Jews moving to and living in the West Bank could be considered illegal, was if Jordanian law was to be maintained in the area. However, even if one were to assume that despite the Jordanian’s forcible seizure and illegal annexation of the area, that their laws should still be maintained, could any law possibly suggest that it be a requirement to maintain particular laws that were flagrant violations of the Geneva Convention such as the racist Jordanian laws that evicted and barred Jews from living in the land?

Even further, if Israeli actions of Jews moving to EGL/West Bank were somehow considered illegal (which is not the case), Article 3 of the Hague Resolution states that a “belligerent party which violates the provisions of the said Regulations shall, if the case demands, be liable to pay compensation,” so remedy would be a fine, not eviction of the Jews.

(Also note that Hague Regulation Article 40, specifically gave Israel the right to attack Jordan after Jordan broke the 1949 armistice agreement in 1967.)

United Nations Reinterpretation for Israel

Since 1967, the United Nations crafted various resolutions condemning Israel for a wide variety of perceived “sins” such as the infamous “Zionism is Racism” resolution in 1975. Many resolutions have inverted the meaning of the Geneva Convention such as a UN Security Council Resolution in 1980 which “Deplor[es] the decision of the Government of Israel to officially support Israeli settlement in the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967.” It continued further:

“[A]ll measures taken by Israel to change the physical character, demographic composition, institutional structure or status of the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, or any part thereof, have
no legal validity and that Israel’s policy and practices of settling parts of its population and new immigrants in those territories constitute a flagrant violation of the
Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War and also constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive,
just and lasting peace in the Middle East;”

Arguing that “new immigrants” (many of whom were actually returning residents from 1949) are a threat to the security of the existing population is xenophobia at its most extreme. Arguing that is a “flagrant violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention” is disproved above.

Status of Jerusalem

The inclusion of Jerusalem in the United Nations attacks on Israel is telling. Greater Jerusalem and Greater Bethlehem were planned to be an international “Holy Basin” according to the UN 1947 Partition Plan – neither Arab nor Israeli. After Jordan attacked Israel and seized the eastern half of Jerusalem and annexed it, the United Nations remained silent. The UN issued no declaration against the Jordanian invasion and land grab for the entire period it held the territory through 1967. However, when Israel took control of Jerusalem and later annexed it in 1980, the United Nations went on tirades about the illegal nature of Israel’s authority. The UN’s motions are absurd and duplicitous in granting tacit approval to the Jordanian Arab illegal annexation of Jerusalem and condemning Israel for its annexation. If Jordan’s offensive war to take a planned international city was viewed as permissible, how can Israel’s defensive war be viewed any less so?

The ongoing dynamic in Jerusalem is also different than the rest of EGL/West Bank since the eastern part of the city was annexed by Israel and all of the residents were offered citizenship (almost all of the Arabs declined and took residency papers instead). As such, clauses in international law about offering citizenship to people are not applicable to the eastern half of Jerusalem (while still relevant in the remainder of EGL/West Bank).

As reviewed above, Israel abides by the global rules of international law relating to Jews living in EGL. However, the United Nations reinterpretation of law solely as it relates to Israel – whether for national movements like Zionism, or for allowing Jews to move and live freely like other peoples in lands they lived in for thousands of years – is not law, but anti-Semitism.

Source:

Fourth Geneva Convention: https://www.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/c525816bde96b7fd41256739003e636a/77068f12b8857c4dc12563cd0051bdb0?OpenDocument

Hague Resolution: https://www.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/WebART/195-200065?OpenDocument

Hague Resolution Article 3: https://www.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/ART/195-200004?OpenDocument

Hague Resolution Article 40: “Any serious violation of the armistice by one of the parties gives the other party the right of denouncing it, and even, in cases of urgency, of recommencing hostilities immediately.“

British Mandate of Palestine: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/palmanda.asp

Israel-Jordan Armistice agreement: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/arm03.asp

UN Security Council Resolution 465 (1980): http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/5AA254A1C8F8B1CB852560E50075D7D5

UN Security Council Resolution 476 (1980) attacking Israel on Jerusalem: http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/6DE6DA8A650B4C3B852560DF00663826

UN call that Zionism is racism (1975): http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/761C1063530766A7052566A2005B74D1

FirstOneThrough article on the Green Line: https://firstonethrough.wordpress.com/2014/12/09/the-green-line/

FirstOneThrough article on Judea and Samaria/ West Bank terminology: https://firstonethrough.wordpress.com/2014/12/08/names-and-narrative-the-green-line-west-bank-judea-and-samaria/

Summary of US administrations attitudes towards Israeli settlements: http://www.cmep.org/content/us-statements-israeli-settlements_short#Obama

The United Nations and Holy Sites in the Holy Land

Posted on November 27, 2014 by First.One.Through

A Review of Five Sacred Sites

The United Nations is inconsistent regarding its position on the “character”, “access” and “rights” of holy sites in the Holy Land across the Green Line.

In 2010, UNESCO published a paper highly critical of Israel regarding its treatment of two holy places in Judea and Samaria/the West Bank: the Tomb of the Patriarchs in Hebron and the Tomb of Rachel in Bethlehem. The statements were a complete inversion of the truth:

“Since Israel’s occupation, the Israeli Government has attempted to highlight the Jewish character of archaeological and heritage sites in the occupied Palestinian territory, while erasing or neglecting the universal character of these heritage sites and denying access to all people of faith.”
“As part of the illegal settlement enterprise, the Israeli authorities also exploit Palestinian heritage sites for financial and political gains. Under the Netanyahu administration, 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.” UNESCO PARIS, 19 March 2010

TOMB OF THE PATRIARCHS (HEBRON)

As a point of reference (as detailed in the FirstOneThrough article) almost all of the Jewish forefathers and foremothers are buried at the tomb. As such, it is the second holiest site in Judaism (after the Temple Mount in Jerusalem). Biblical characters Ishmael and Esav (forefathers of the Arabs) are not attributed to this burial site.

The tomb was a destination for Jewish pilgrims since its purchase by Abraham 3700 years ago, and for the following 2900 years. Roughly 800 years ago, Muslims took over Hebron and converted the tomb into a mosque. The Muslims forbade Jews from entering the area, and even approaching beyond the seventh step of the platform. That changed when the Israelis took over the site after the Jordanians and Palestinians attacked Israel and lost the West Bank in 1967.

It was the Muslims that “erased and neglected the universal character” of the site
It was the Muslims that ”denied access to all people of faith”
And It was the Jews that opened the Tomb for both Muslim and Jewish prayer

THE TOMB OF RACHEL (BETHLEHEM)

As the burial site of one of Judaism’s foremothers, the tomb of Rachel is considered the third holiest site in Judaism (similar to Al Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem for Muslims).

The Crusaders built a small covering for the gravesite in the 1200s and around 1517, the Ottomans denied non-Muslim prayer when they took over control of Bethlehem. In 1615, Mohammed, Pasha of Jerusalem transferred exclusive use of the tomb to Jews, but the site fell into disrepair. In 1841, Jewish philanthropist and traveler, Sir Moses Montefiore was given the keys to the tomb and permission to build a larger structure for pilgrims.

Over the years, the area around the tomb became more densely populated. As Bethlehem was only 5 kilometers south of Jerusalem, the growth of both cities created a greater metropolitan area. The United Nations 1947 partition plan recommended that this Greater Jerusalem / Greater Bethlehem area become a single “Holy Basin” under international control, being neither Israeli nor Palestinian. While accepted by the Israelis, the Palestinians rejected the proposal.

In 1948, five Arab armies attacked Israel and Jordan illegally annexed Judea and Samaria, including Bethlehem. In 1954, the Jordanians gave Palestinian Arabs citizenship but specifically excluded citizenship for any Jews. After 333 years, the third holiest site of Judaism became off-limits to all Israelis.

Israelis took control of the area after the defeat of the Jordanians (and Palestinians) in 1967, and opened the tomb to Jewish worship once again.

In 1995, as part of the Oslo Agreements, Israel handed over control of half of the “Holy Basin” – Bethlehem – to the Palestinian Authority, under the condition that Jews be able to freely access and pray at the tomb. With that handover, the Tomb of Rachel fell under Palestinian Authority.

During the Second Intifada in 2002, with almost daily killings of Jews by Arabs, the Israeli government built a security barrier through parts of the West Bank. In 2005, a wall was built around the Tomb of Rachel to protect it from Arab assault.

The site is not even considered sacred to Islam, yet for almost 100 years, Muslims denied the rights of Jews to pray at the tomb
It was Ottomans of centuries ago who gave the Tomb of Rachel back to Jews
Modern Jordanians and Palestinians denied citizenship and access to the tomb for Jews
It was Israel that reopened access and rights for Jews at the tomb
It was Israel that agreed to give control of the “Holy Basin” to the U.N. in 1947
It was Israel that agreed to compromise and divided half of the “Holy Basin”, handing control of the city to the Palestinians in 1995

There are other examples of the United Nations condemning Israel for opening up access to holy sites, while ignoring the denial of access and destruction that Arabs caused to holy places.

JOSEPH’S TOMB (NABLUS/SHECHEM)

The Tomb of Joseph, the biblical son of Jacob and Rachel, is found in Nablus (Shechem). After the 1967 war, Israel gained access to the site once more and built a small seminary nearby in the 1980s.

Israel handed control of Nablus to the Palestinians in 1995, but retained control of Joseph’s Tomb. However, during the Intifada in October 2000, Palestinians ransacked the tomb and killed an Israeli soldier and Rabbi Hillel Lieberman who came to protect the site. His body was found in a ditch riddled with bullets.

Israel agreed to give temporary control of the tomb to the Palestinians to quiet the situation and to allow the Palestinians to repair the tomb. However, the site was set on fire and further ransacked. Later, the Associated Press reported that “the dome of the tomb was painted green and bulldozers were seen clearing the surrounding area,” as the Palestinian Arabs sought to transform the biblical Joseph’s resting place into a Moslem holy site.

Israeli president Shimon Peres remarked that the “Palestinians made a terrible mistake in Joseph’s Tomb. They pulled the rug out from under their feet regarding their demand for control of the holy places, by showing that they don’t know how to preserve and respect them.”

It was Arabs that vandalized a Jewish site
It was Palestinians that sought to change the character of Joseph’s tomb
It was Israel that handed temporary control of the site to Palestinians to try to quell violence

What was the United Nations response to ransacking of a Jewish holy place? Of attempting to “change the character” of the Jewish site? Silence. No comment nor condemnation.

What was the UN response to a visit to the Temple Mount by Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon two weeks earlier? Condemnation.

“Deplores the provocation carried out at Al-Haram Al-Sharif in Jerusalem on 28 September 2000”

The UN Secretary General condemned the Israeli prime minister for exercising his “right” for “accessing” Judaism’s holiest site during normal visiting hours.

THE HURVA SYNAGOGUE (JERUSALEM)

Jews began construction of a significant synagogue in the Old City of Jerusalem in 1694 called the Hurva Synagogue which was destroyed by Muslims in 1721. Groundbreaking for rebuilding the shul happened in 1855, and it was rededicated on completion in 1864.

In 1949, the Jordanian army attacked the Jews in Jerusalem and blew up the Hurva Synagogue and 57 other synagogues in the Old City. They expelled the 2000 Jewish residents and forbade them from returning.

After the Jordanians (and Palestinians) attacked Israel again in 1967, Jews retook the Old City but did not seek to rebuild the Hurva right away. In 2010, Israel finally rebuilt and reopened the synagogue before the Passover holiday. There was condemnation from around the world.

Fatah official Khatem Abd al-Khader called the reopening a “provocation” and warned that Israel “was playing with fire”. Khaled Meshaal of Hamas said the opening was a “declaration of war” and “a falsification of history and Jerusalem’s religious and historic monuments.” The Jordanian government (that intentionally blew up the synagogue) “categorically rejects the rededication of Hurva Synagogue.”

These reactions were about a synagogue that had absolutely no connection to Islam.

Arabs destroyed the synagogue
The Jordanian and Palestinian Arabs denied access to the Old City and site
Palestinians threatened violence over rebuilding a synagogue they destroyed
Palestinian leadership incited a riot by falsely stating that Jews were attempting to destroy the Al Aqsa mosque

How did the United Nations respond to the reopening of the Hurva Synagogue?

Ban Ki Moon March 2010: “I have spoken out and have been diplomatically active whenever other provocations have taken place – including the decisions on holy sites in Hebron and Bethlehem, actions in places like Silwan and Sheikh Jarrah and tensions surrounding the Al-Aqsa Mosque.”

THE TEMPLE MOUNT (JERUSALEM)

The first Jewish Temple was built by King Solomon around the year 954BCE. At that time, there was no large platform that we know of today. That Temple was destroyed around the year 586BCE. A second Temple was built around 515BCE and destroyed in 70CE.

Before the Second Temple was destroyed, King Herod did major renovations in Jerusalem, including extending and building a large platform on which the Second Temple sat (from 19BCE until 63CE). Today’s “Western Wall” or “Wailing Wall” is the western retaining wall of that platform extension. It is also the area where Muslims built the Al Aqsa mosque in 705CE. That original mosque was destroyed several times, and the silver domed mosque of Al Aqsa that sits on the southern-most edge of the Temple Mount that we see today, was completed in 1033CE.

Christian crusaders came to Jerusalem in 1099, slaughtered the Jewish and Muslim inhabitants and took over the Temple Mount. Crusaders and Muslims fought over control of Jerusalem on-and-off through the year 1260, with the Muslims ultimately prevailing.

With the Muslim victory, Jews began to move back to Jerusalem, and the first new permanent synagogue in Jerusalem was set up by Nachmanides (the Ramban) in 1267. Over the next centuries, several noted rabbis stated that it was the custom of Jews in Jerusalem to ascend the Temple Mount and pray there, including Rabbi Menachem Meiri (1249-1316) and Rabbi David ben Shlomo Ibn Zimra, (known as the Radbaz, 1479–1573), the Chief Rabbi of Jerusalem.

However, in 1550, Ottoman leader Suleiman I set aside the Western Wall area as a designated area for the Jews to pray. It would appear that from this date until 1949, non-Muslims could have access but were effectively barred from praying on the Temple Mount.

After the defeat of the Ottoman Empire in 1918, the local Arab population became very anxious about future control of the land, especially in light of the 1920 San Remo Conference and the 1922 British Mandate which specifically described ensuring a Jewish homeland in Palestine. Every “normal” action of prayer at the Western Wall was viewed by the Arabs as a change to the status quo, and as such, a “provocation” in which “Zionists” were taking over.

In 1925, a new prohibition against bringing chairs or benches to the Western Wall (in response to bringing chairs for the elderly and infirm)
In 1928, a new prohibition of erecting a screen (mechitza) between men and women for prayer (in response to putting one up on Yom Kippur) at the Western Wall

In 1929, Arabs rioted at the Western Wall, first burning prayer books and later calling for Jihad as they rampaged through the city killing dozens of Jews. They felt that Islamic authority at the Western Wall was being called into question as an initial step to the takeover of the Temple Mount.

In 1948, the Arab armies of Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and Iraq attacked Israel. At war’s end the following year, the city of Jerusalem became divided with the Jordanians occupying the Old City including the Temple Mount. After the Jordanians evicted all of the Jewish inhabitants, they banned any Jew from coming into the Old City and visiting the Western Wall and the Temple Mount.

During that war, in December 1948, the United Nations Resolution 194 again called for the “Holy Basin” to be under international jurisdiction and that all holy sites should be given free access, with a carve-out for historical practices of discrimination:

“Resolves that the Holy Places – including Nazareth – religious buildings and sites in Palestine should be protected and free access to them assured, in accordance with existing rights and historical practice”
Resolves that, in view of its association with three world religions, the Jerusalem area, including the present municipality of Jerusalem plus the surrounding villages and towns, the most eastern of which shall be Abu Dis; the most southern, Bethlehem; the most western, Ein Karim (including also the built-up area of Motsa); and the most northern, Shu’fat, should be accorded special and separate treatment from the rest of Palestine and should be placed under effective United Nations control”

In 1967, in response to a preemptive Israeli attack on Egypt and Syria, Jordanian (and Palestinian) forces attacked Israel. The Israelis took the Old City of Jerusalem including the Temple Mount, but handed administrative control of the Mount to the Jordanian Waqf. The plaza in front of the Western Wall was expanded to enable thousands of Jews to pray at the site. Israel enshrined the protections of Holy Places in its Basic Laws in June 1967:

“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 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.”

Israel opened up the Temple Mount for non-Muslim visitors during specified visiting hours. However, non-Muslims were still prohibited from praying on the Mount according to the wishes of the Jordanian Waqf.

Many Israelis were not happy with maintaining the discriminatory policy and lobbied the Israeli government to make changes. One such activist, Yehuda Glick, was shot repeatedly by two Palestinians for those efforts in October 2014.

In response to the shooting of Glick and the killing of the two Palestinian Arabs who shot him, the United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki Moon discussed his displeasure with Israelis on the Temple Mount:

“As you mentioned this holy site in Jerusalem and as I also said this morning, I am deeply concerned by repeated provocations at the holy sites in Jerusalem. These only inflame tensions and must stop.”
On November 24, 2014: “Incitement and provocative acts related to the holy sites are fanning the flames of conflict far beyond the holy city.”

While the United Nations claims to care about keeping the universal access and rights to people of all faiths, it condemns the only party – Israel – which practices those values and even enshrines those values into the Basic Laws of the country. Further, the U.N. ignores the actions of the Arabs which deliberately have erased the Jewish character and rights of Jews to pray at their holiest sites.

For 800 years, from the Arab conquest of Jerusalem and the introduction of Islam to the Holy Land until 1550, Islamic and Jewish prayer both occurred on the Temple Mount.

It is not only time for there to be open access and rights for Jews, but it is time for the United Nations to acknowledge the party that provides access and rights, and the parties that do not.

Sources:

UNESCO claim that Israel is Judaizing the Cave of the Patriarchs and The Tomb of Rachel (2010). http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/8F8CBDCA74D7D20385257721007157CF

FirstOneThrough article on Tomb of Patriarchs: https://firstonethrough.wordpress.com/2014/11/17/joint-prayer-the-cave-of-the-patriarchs-and-the-temple-mount/

History of Rachel’s Tomb: http://www.rachelstomb.org/capsulehistory.html

Bethlehem changing hands: http://www.jpost.com/Features/In-Thespotlight/This-Week-In-History-Bethlehem-changes-hands

Bethlehem history: http://www.zionism-israel.com/dic/Rachels_Tomb.htm

Article on Tomb of Rachel: http://www.timesofisrael.com/on-obamas-path-to-bethlehem-a-harshly-fortified-shrine/

Jordanian Nationality Law barring citizenship to Jews (Article 3): “The following shall be deemed to be Jordanian nationals:… Any person who, not being Jewish,…” http://www.refworld.org/docid/3ae6b4ea13.html

Jordan (and Palestinians attack Israel in 1967):

Tomb of Joseph: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/joetomb.html

Hillel Lieberman: http://www.shechem.org/elon-moreh/enghillel.html

Ascending to the Temple Mount: http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&ved=0CC4QFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.hakirah.org%2FVol%252016%2520Loewenberg.pdf&ei=Ldd1VO_lIO_HsQSxxILoAg&usg=AFQjCNFI6ujLjX2fEw6kPd6QNgTqQoN57A&sig2=JhXKJuu8BPvY_Oint80UKA

1929 riots: http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=8&ved=0CFMQFjAH&url=http%3A%2F%2Fisites.harvard.edu%2Ffs%2Fdocs%2Ficb.topic1232564.files%2FSela_1929.pdf&ei=ud11VL2XLKaMsQS34ILIBw&usg=AFQjCNFrq28tbKf1Uns0HD-GAFYPBo7vQg&sig2=aUGriieF5AxIpKxwTtbApQ

UN Resolution 194: http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/C758572B78D1CD0085256BCF0077E51A

Israel Law on Protection of Holy Places (1967): http://www.bu.edu/mzank/Jerusalem/tx/lawofholyplaces1967.htm

Yehuda Glick shooting: http://www.jpost.com/Arab-Israeli-Conflict/Report-Suspect-in-right-wing-activist-Yehuda-Glicks-shooting-killed-by-police-380238

UN Security Council Resolution 1322 condemning Sharon visit to the Temple Mount: http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/22F8A95E5C0579AF052569720007921E

UNESCO 2013: http://www.haaretz.com/blogs/diplomania/israel-thwarts-unesco-resolution-condemning-its-temple-mount-activities.premium-1.470609

Ban Ki Moon on Temple Mount: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/oct/13/un-general-secretary-ban-ki-moon-criticises-israel-settlement-building

http://www.un.org/apps/news/infocus/sgspeeches/statments_full.asp?statID=2444#.VHR3U_8tCUk

http://www.un.org/apps/news/infocus/sgspeeches/statments_full.asp?statID=767#.VHR4X_8tCUk

Alternatives for Punishing Dead Terrorists

Posted on November 20, 2014 by First.One.Through

Some media pundits and politicians have questioned the logic of destroying homes of terrorists after those terrorists have been killed. The question as to whether it deters terrorists is impossible to answer as no one knows how many violent actions did not occur because of the home demolition policy that Israel enforced in 2014 against Arab murderers.

As Palestinian Arabs often talk about the importance of “dignity and pride”, perhaps there are some alternative punishments that Israel could administer to the dead murderers. As there is no dignity in intentionally murdering innocent civilians, these evil monsters’ memories should forever be cursed and their names erased. Perhaps attacking their memory broadly and publicly would dissuade others from taking such action.

Here are a few ideas from FirstOneThrough:

Place their image on scented pucks that sit at the bottom of urinals, making for excellent target practice (for men at least)
Make a small sticker with their name that could be put on the bottom of people’s shoes to trample (the bottoms of shoes are considered very degrading and insulting in Arab society)
Name the street where the murderer lives after the victims
The families of the murderers would forever forgo any type of compensation for homes lost/ abandoned in 1948
If a Palestinian official calls a murderer a “shahid” which means “martyr” in Arabic, all official Israeli publications should anoint such person the title of “Shatty” as in “we denounce the actions of Shatty Abdelrahman Shaludi”. Other variations like “Sharmoota baby” are acceptable (Sharmotta means whore).
Any photos used of the suicide killer should have a superimposed camel’s anus for his mouth
A bonfire should be made each year at the Dead Sea, the lowest place on earth, where people can write their curses on pieces of paper with the murderers likeness on it, and then toss the picture and curse into the fire

The expense for these items can be taken from a special surtax on the murderer’s families. The amount of the charge will exactly equal the amount of money that terrorist sympathizers hand the families as “reward” for the disgraceful sick murder of innocents.

I’m sure the Facebook generation can come up with additional ideas. Please share them. Here are some suggestions thus far:

Print the faces of the murderers on toilet paper
Do not return the bodies of the murderers to the families. Instead bury them near garbage dumps or at sea OR do not tell them what was done with the bodies at all
Every murder should be met with a huge fund-raiser for the Friends of the IDF
Every murder is met with a new construction project
All new buildings that are put up in Jerusalem or settlements will be named after victims. Some suggest naming them after the attacker
Deport the murderer’s family to Gaza, Jordan or Syria
Revoke all working papers for the family
Demolish the homes- the family is complicit in the murder. Some suggest demolishing surrounding homes too
Celebrations on behalf of the murderer should be treated as incitement to terror and a jail-able offense for all participants
Every act of terror should be met with the distribution of guns to all Jews in the neighborhood where the crime took place
All Israeli ammunition should be coated in pigs blood to dissuade Arabs from seeking a path to Paradise
Take world funds destined to rebuild Gaza to support the victims’ families

Sources:

Home demolition: http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/israel-demolishes-jerusalem-home-of-palestinian-car-killer.aspx?pageID=517&nID=74523&NewsCatID=352

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2014/11/israeli-forces-destroy-home-palestinian-2014111955011479517.html

Arabic curse words: http://www.youswear.com/index.asp?language=Arabic#.VG1VF_8tCUk

Article 17 of the Palestinian Charter: “The liberation of Palestine, from a human point of view, will restore to the Palestinian individual his dignity, pride, and freedom. Accordingly the Palestinian Arab people look forward to the support of all those who believe in the dignity of man and his freedom in the world.” http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/plocov.asp

Salaries for suicide bombers: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/salaries-for-suicide-bombers/

FirstOneThrough article on Collective Guilt/ Collective Punishment: https://firstonethrough.wordpress.com/2014/10/13/collective-guilt-collective-punishment/

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

Posted on November 17, 2014 by First.One.Through

This weekend, thousands of Jews from around Israel and other parts of the world came to the Cave of the Patriarchs in the city of Hebron. The annual tradition of visiting the city on this weekend goes back many years, as it coincides with the reading in the Torah of Abraham buying land to bury his wife Sarah, the “first mother” of the Jewish people.

The Cave of the Patriarchs is considered the burial place of almost all of the “founding fathers and mothers” of Judaism 3700 years ago: Abraham; Isaac; Jacob; Sarah; Rebecca and Leah. As such, it is considered the second most holy site in Judaism (on par with Medina for Muslims).

Roughly 2,000 years ago, a monumental structure was built on top of the cave, attributed to the Jewish King Herod. Over the following centuries, many people conquered the city of Hebron. About 800 years ago, the Muslim Mamlukes took over the city and declared the Tomb of the Patriarchs to be a mosque and forbade Jews from coming beyond the seventh step of the structure.

The Cave of Jewish Patriarchs in Hebron

When the Ottomans ruled Hebron from 1517 to 1917, there was relative peace between the Arabs and Jews in the city (even though the Jews were forbidden from entering their holy site). However, in 1929, Arabs rioted against their Jewish neighbors after incitement from the Grand Mufti in Jerusalem. During those few days in August, 67 Jews were killed, hundreds were injured, and the British (who then controlled the mandate of Palestine) forced all of the Jews to leave their city.

In 1967, in response to the Jordanian (and Palestinian) attack on Israel, Israel captured Judea and Samaria, including the city of Hebron. When Israel took control of their holy site, it opened the shrine for prayer for both Jews and Muslims. Today, there are discreet times set aside for each religion to use the site for prayer.

In 2014, the discussion about opening the Temple Mount in Jerusalem – Judaism’s holiest site – to non-Muslim prayer has again been raised due to the shooting of Jewish activist Yehuda Glick who fought for that basic right. The acting-President of the Palestinian Authority Mahmoud Abbas was outraged at the suggestion and described such approach as amounting to a “religious war“, as the al-Aqsa Mosque, which sits on the Temple Mount, is Islam’s third holiest site. While Glick and many other activists never suggested praying at or near the mosque, but on other parts of the 35 acre platform, the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu nevertheless agreed to keep the status quo ban on Jewish prayer on the mount.

On the tenth anniversary of Yaser Arafat’s (fungus be upon him) death, Abbas stated: “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.”

In Hebron, Israeli action at the Cave of the Patriarchs opened the way for both Muslims and Jews to share holy sites in the holy land. The Temple Mount could similarly become a place of tolerance and prayer.

Sources:

Pilgrimage to Hebron: http://unitedwithisrael.org/thousands-flocked-to-hebron/

Cave of Patriarchs: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/machpelah.html

1929 Hebron massacre: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/hebron29.html

Jordanian and Palestinian 1967 attack on Israel (from King of Jordan’s site): http://www.kinghussein.gov.jo/his_periods3.html

Abbas claim of religious war: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/nov/11/abbas-israel-jerusalem-holy-site

Palestinian Authority TV on call to “purify” Jerusalem: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T1gIetnpxH0

Abbas against any change in allowing Jews on Temple Mount: http://www.jpost.com/Arab-Israeli-Conflict/Jailed-Barghouti-to-Palestinians-Continue-armed-resistance-against-Israel-381454

FirstOneThrough article on tolerance at the Temple: https://firstonethrough.wordpress.com/2014/11/04/tolerance-at-the-temple/

Reunified Capitals: Berlin @25; Jerusalem @47

Posted on November 8, 2014 by First.One.Through

On the 25^th anniversary of tearing down the Berlin Wall, it is worth putting the reunification of a country capital into perspective.

There are over 1 million cities and towns around the world. Fewer than one in ten thousand are divided cities.

Among that very small number of divided cities, almost every one is a minor city with fewer than 50,000 people. Further, almost every city was divided by a natural border such as a river.

There are four notable exceptions to this, where important capital cities were split due to war: Berlin, Germany; Beirut, Lebanon; Jerusalem, Israel; and Nicosia, Cyprus. The first three cities have been reunified. Nicosia is in negotiations to be reunified currently.

The video below provides a review of divided cities around the world, and the efforts to bring these four important cities back to single, stable country capitals.

First One Through

Israel Analysis. We primaried Bowman!

Tag Archives: Jerusalem

The Arguments over Jerusalem

A Disservice to Jewish Community

The Waqf and the Temple Mount

Shabbat Hagadol at the Third Hurva Synagogue, 2010

Israel: Security in a Small Country

The Legal Israeli Settlements

The United Nations and Holy Sites in the Holy Land

Alternatives for Punishing Dead Terrorists

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

Reunified Capitals: Berlin @25; Jerusalem @47

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: