Jerusalem Is Jewish – It’s Non Negotiable

 

As many Arabs and Muslims try to obscure the link between Jerusalem and the Jews, the EU seems only too happy to support their revision of history.

 

And crucially, nobody ever seems to refer to Jordan’s illegal occupation of the city.

 

 

So just to remind people, and via David Hornik at Front Page Magazine:

 

Jerusalem was unified under Israeli sovereignty in 1967, after nineteen years in which Jordan illegally occupied the city and finally used it to attack Israel despite being implored by Israel to keep out of the fighting.

Under Israeli rule, Muslims and all other groups (except Jews—on the Temple Mount itself) have enjoyed full freedom of worship—a stark contrast to the nineteen years of Jordanian rule when Jews and Christians were denied access to Jerusalem’s holy places and Jewish synagogues and gravestones were destroyed and desecrated.

Muslims already have full control over Mecca, Medina, and countless sacred locales and shrines throughout the vast Muslim world, and their demand for Palestinian sovereignty in Jerusalem and the redivision of Israel’s capital can reasonably be regarded as excessive – especially when, as noted, Israel gives Muslims full access to their Jerusalem shrines and full rights in the city.

Indeed, Jerusalem is full of minarets, and any visitor to its Old City or its Arab neighborhoods can attest to the vibrancy of Muslim religious life there. The EU should be more concerned with Islamization on the continent than with taking harsh stances against Israel as it struggles to survive and to find the right mix of accommodation and steadfastness in an Arab/Muslim environment hostile its very existence.

But for the EU, after decades of forsaking its Judeo-Christian roots for pro-Arabism, that may be too much to expect. Even if European populations are starting to grasp the consequences of this civilizational self-abnegation, Europe’s Brussels-based bureaucracy remains willfully ignorant of the stakes.

This Lethal Myth

 

I was nine, the first time someone accused me of being a ‘christ killer’.

 

It happened at school, and I had no idea who ‘christ’ was, but was fairly confident that whoever it was, I hadn’t murdered them…

 

Later that day, when I asked my mother about it, she paled. After all, it’s pretty tough having to explain to a young child that millions of Christians worldwide still hold you accountable for the death of a man who lived over 2000 years ago…

 

And it is this one myth about Jews which, above all others, has induced hatred and violence down through the ages. The weary, terrible old charge of ‘deicide’.

 

I can personally testify to the fact that *some* Christians still harbour hatred towards Jews because of this belief. I’ve received emails accusing me of being a ‘christ killer’ on several occasions. And in numerous online forums, I’ve responded to that same accusation.

 

Happily, two Popes and many contemporary Christian leaders and theologians have publicly acknowledged that the Jews had no hand in the death of Jesus. But that still leaves many Christians being taught that the Jews ‘killed god’.

 

Hardly going to induce warm fuzzy feelings towards Jews, is it…?

 

Joseph C. Hough, Jr., a Christian theologian, writing in the June 2002 issue of Bible Review, states:

“By the end of the second century, anti-Judaism and the Christ-killer myth had become prominent in the teachings of church leaders. The early church fathers perpetuated this with even greater vehemence than John did in his gospel.

By the fourth century, Augustine and John Chrysostom were among those who gave credence to the awful depiction of Jews as the enemies of G-d who crucified Christ. The power of the ‘Christ-killer’ myth created a cultural climate in which hatred and killing of Jews occurred with impunity. What emerged was a relentless and continuing persecution of Jews . . .”

Before we go on to consider the details of the ‘deicide’ charge against Jews, there are two vital points to note:

 

1 – Christian accounts of the trial were all written decades **after** the event. They are **not** eyewitness accounts.

2 – One of the main criticisms voiced by early Christianity of Judaism was that it was ‘legalistic’ and that the Jewish authorities were ‘obsessive’ about adhering to the Jewish religious laws. Yet at the same time, the Christian scriptures portray the Jews as *violating* those very same laws with regard to Jesus. So which was it?!

 

 

The Jews & Jesus

 

Contrary to what some of the Christian scriptures say, there was no particular enmity between Jesus and his fellow Jews. Why would there be?

Jesus taught basic Judaism. Sure, he sought to reform certain aspects of the faith, but that was nothing new. There already, at that time, existed several different sects within Judaism – all of whom bitterly disagreed with each other. The Pharisees and Sadducees didn’t find consensus on much, while the Essenes disagreed with both of them. And the Zealots disliked all of them.

Debate and disagreement between Jews was common then – as indeed it is now. In fact the debates between Jesus and the Pharisees can easily be seen as standard Jewish practice.

The only people who actually viewed Jesus as a threat were the Romans. Jesus apparently sauntered around claiming to be ‘the most powerful man in Rome’. He was one of many young Jewish preachers who posed a threat to Roman rule over the unhappy and ‘rebellious’ Jews.

Many Jewish men proclaimed themselves ‘maschiach’. Yet other than in the Christian Gospels, no one in the entire history of the Jews was ever accused of ‘blasphemy’ for declaring to be the Maschiach.

 

Crucifixion

 

 

Judaism always outlawed this manner of killing. Although in theory there was a death penalty under Jewish law, it was stoning, and it was rarely if ever used. In fact it’s said that if one person in every seventy years was killed for violating the Jewish laws, this was ‘excessive’.

The Romans, on the other hand, had a real passion for crucifying anyone who irritated them. Some 250,000 Jews met their death in that way.

Is it not logical to suppose that Jesus was simply one of them…?

For anyone who can’t quite absorb how many Jews were crucified by the Romans, here are some figures that should leave you in no doubt.

Josephus, the historian during this era reports many incidents of crucifixion: Antiochus IV crucified Jews in Jerusalem who would not relinquish their faith (Ant., 12:256).

Two thousand rebels were crucified by Quintilius Varus (Ant., 17:295). Seven years later (about 52 C.E.) there was another wholesale crucifixion of zealots at the hand of Quadratus (Wars, 2:241)

Felix crucified not only zealots and rebels, but also citizens suspected of collaborating with them (Wars, 2:253).

Think about that – 500 Jews a day were crucified.

Florus had Jewish judges tortured and crucified before his eyes (Wars, 2:306–8). When Jerusalem was besieged, ***Titus ordered all Jewish prisoners of war to be crucified on the walls of the city and there were as many as 500 crucifixions a day ***(Wars, 5:449–51)

According to Frank K. Flinn, Ph.D., professor of religious studies at Washington University in St. Louis, the Jews had nothing to do with killing Jesus – the Romans are actually to blame:

 

“Had the Jewish authorities been directly involved, Jesus would have been stoned, as Stephen was in Acts 7. Only Roman authorities could authorize crucifixions and they often did so on a gruesome, massive scale.”

Jesus just happened to be one of the many, many Jews who were murdered in this way by the Romans.

 

Pontius Pilate

 

Some Christians argue that the Jews ‘pressured’ the Pilate into killing Jesus. This has to be the most absurd of all the arguments.

Pilate held his position for over a decade; he was brought in precisely because he had a reputation as a brutal and uncaring individual!

 He was eventually removed for excessive cruelty.

Pilate was the one signing the death orders for the thousands of Jews who were crucified. ***To suggest that he was simultaneously cowed by the same minority he was busy killing is devoid of all logic and common sense!***

 

The major Jewish historians of the period, Josephus and Philo, discuss Pilate at length. Philo, who was Pilate’s contemporary, wrote an appeal to the emperor Caligula that included a description of Pilate.

Philo wrote of “the briberies, the insults, the robberies, the outrages and wanton injustices, the executions without trial constantly repeated, the **endless and supremely grievous cruelty“** of Pilate’s rule.

To reiterate: Pilate was eventually dismissed from office because of complaints of his widespread and injudicious executions.

Yet according to the Christian scenario, the oppressed Jews, the ones *being* crucified left, right and centre, were somehow able to ‘make’ Pilate kill Jesus?

It’s truly absurd.

 

Jesus & The Romans

 

Jesus was one in a series of Jewish religious-political rebels bent on destroying the Roman empire and the status quo at Jerusalem in the name of the kingdom of G-d.

 

These Jewish messiah-figures described by the Jewish historian Josephus in his Jewish Antiquities (especially in Books 17, 18 and 20) often used religious symbols and traditions to gain a popular following and to begin an uprising. The Roman governors dealt with them swiftly and brutally.

I want to reiterate this key point: **Jesus was one of several messianic figures who were crucified by the Romans.**

 

Others included:

* Theudas: claimed to be a prophet and a would-be maschiach. He is mentioned in Josephus (Antiquities, 20:97).

In 44 C.E. he was crucified by the Romans.

* Judas of Galilee: led Jewish uprising against Rome, 6.C.E. Mentioned in Josephus (Wars, 2:118). He tried to liberate the Jews from Roman rule – his followers called him the Saviour, and the Messiah.

He was crucified by the Romans.

* Benjamin the Egyptian: Mentioned in Josephus (War 2.261263). He claimed to be the Maschiach, and he inspired rebellion against Rome.

He too was crucified by the Romans.

* Menachem: grandson of Judas the Galilean, 67.C.E. Outspoken, zealot, leader, claimed to be the Maschiach.

He was crucified by the Romans.

 

Whitewashing The Romans

 

Flinn, an expert on Catholicism, notes that our earliest accounts of the crucifixion, such as the Gospel of Mark written circa 60-70 C.E., make clear that it was Pilate who had Jesus crucified:

It was the Gospels written much later, such as those of Matthew and Luke, which reflect different interests and viewpoints, and each places more and more blame on the Jews.

Matthew puts the ultimate blame squarely on the shoulders of the Jewish authorities. In Luke, the ‘whitewash’ of the Romans becomes nearly complete.

By the Middle Ages, the epithet ‘Christ-killers’ became the verbal club to justify the ghettoization, persecution, and murder of Jews. We all know the end-term of this lamentable history.”

The Gospel of John, as most scholars maintain, stands by itself but one of the signs of its lateness in its present form (ca. 100-110 CE) is that John does not lay Jesus’ death so much on Pilate, or Pilate Jewish authorities, or even the Jewish authorities alone, but “Jews” as a whole (John 19:12).

The break with Judaism is nigh complete. The stereotype is set for the later, fateful charge that “the Jews killed Jesus”.

 

 

The Trial Of Jesus

 

Oh, where to begin…?

 

The contradictions within the New Testament itself on the ‘trial’ are numerous. And again, note that all the accounts were written decades *after* Jesus died. These are *NOT* eyewitness accounts!

 

The entire description of Jesus’ death is in fact odd – why would the Romans have allowed a convicted felon to be almost immediately removed from his cross and put in a tomb?

 

Crucifixion was chosen precisely to make a public point that the most cruel and humiliating form of punishment awaits those who oppose Rome’s will. Roman disposition on this point was perhaps best summed up by Quintilian (AD 35-95, Decl 274) when he wrote that:

“Whenever we crucify the guilty, the most crowded roads are chosen, where most people can see and be moved by this fear. For penalties relate not so much to retribution as to their exemplary effect.”

 

Reverend Kenny Nailimup has made the following points:

The real, the historical Pontius Pilate was arrogant and despotic. He hated the Jews and never delegated any authority to them.

However, in Christian mythology, he is portrayed as a concerned ruler who distanced himself from the accusations against Jesus and who was coerced into obeying the demands of the Jews. Pontius Pilate was singularly crass in his treatment of the Jews, offending them repeatedly. He was spiteful, unjust, greedy and indiscreet.

As soon as he was appointed, he carried Roman standards bearing the image of Caesar into Jerusalem, and possibly into the temple, knowing the Jews would have been incensed.

He strongly favored the Priestly Party of the Sadducees—disliked by the masses—and its leaders, the Annas family.

According to Christianity, every Passover, the Jews would ask Pilate to free any one criminal they chose. *This is of course a blatant lie.*

Jews never had a custom of freeing guilty criminals at Passover or any other time of the year.

According the myth, Pilate gave the Jews the choice of freeing Jesus the Christ or a murderer named Jesus Barabbas. The Jews are alleged to have enthusiastically chosen Jesus Barabbas.

This story is a vicious anti-Semitic lie, one of many such lies found in the New Testament (largely written by anti-Semites). What is particularly disgusting about this rubbish story is that it is apparently a distortion of an earlier story which claimed that the Jews demanded that Jesus Christ be set free!

The name “Barabbas” is simply the Greek form of the Aramaic “bar Abba” which means “son of the Father.” Thus “Jesus Barabbas” originally meant “Jesus the son of the Father” – *in other words, the usual Christian Jesus.*

When the earlier story claimed that the Jews wanted Jesus Barabbas to be set free it was referring to the usual Jesus.

Somebody distorted the story by claiming that Jesus Barabbas was a different person to Jesus Christ and this fooled the Roman and Greek Christians who did not know the meaning of the name “Barabbas.”

Luke tells us in chapter 26 that Jesus was taken in the middle of the night to the home of Caiaphas for questioning. There are several problems with this gospel account:

Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem was probably during the Feast of the Tabernacles, not Passover. (the palm leaves strewn in front of Jesus as he entered Jerusalem would not have been in bloom during Passover) The Sanhedrin would not have met during the eight-day festival for any reason.

The Elders of the Sanhedrin would no more strike or spit on an accused person, than would the Supreme Court of the U.S. hearing a case! Luke’s account is completely out-of-context and shows *remarkable ignorance* as to the machinations of Jewish Law.

If the gospel of John is to be the authority, this account disagrees with the synopticists since the High Priest Caiaphas interrogates Jesus alone and charges him with sedition, not blasphemy, as the synoptic Gospels allege.

Clearly, the pseudipigraphical author of John is not as ignorant of Jewish Law as are the synopticists because his account is in context with the findings thus far revealed. If Jesus were charged with sedition, then a gathering of the Sanhedrin would not be necessary; the affair would be preliminarily investigated by the High Priest before turning the matter over to the Roman authorities. Caiaphas would not wish to involve the Sanhedrin if Jesus really was seditious.

The authors of the world’s greatest fairy tale go to great lengths to defame the Jews and falsely accuse the Sanhedrin of condemning the fictional Jesus to death.

*This just proves their ignorance of all things Jewish*.

Let us look at the laws of a Jewish Sanhedrin which judged capital cases. The sources are Talmud tractate Sanhedrin and Miamonides Laws of Judges:

No capital cases were allowed to be tried outside the court chamber in the Temple, certainly not in a private home. Forty years before the destruction of the Temple the Sanhedrin was exiled from the chamber of hewn Stone and from that point on ceased ruling on capital cases as well as on monetary cases involving fines;

No capital cases were tried at night; nor on the festival; nor the eve of a festival, as the guilty party had to be put to death the following day and executions were not allowed on Sabbath or festivals.. Anyone arrested on the eve of Sabbath or a festival was held in custody till after the Sabbath or holiday and then tried.

No defendant could be convicted on his own testimony or confession No defendant could be convicted unless he was warned by two qualified witnesses and then within seconds of the warning he ignored the warning and committed that sin which he was warned not to commit.

Then we have the question of what sin was Jesus accused. Was he a blasphemer or was he a Maysit U Maydeeach ― one who persuades a Jew to worship idols? To be a blasphemer one must curse god using the ineffable name, which Jesus did not do. Thus one more flaw in the fairy tale.

We also must discuss the issue of a Jew who turns over another Jew to gentile authorities to be killed. One who does this is called a mosair ― an informer and is punished by death. So any Sanhedrin that turned a Jew over to the Romans was signing their own death warrant.

Last but not least one must know that Sanhedrin had only four prescribed methods of execution:

Stoning

Burning

Beheading,

Strangulation.

Crucifixion was not one of them! Regarding crucifixion, most historians agree that that the Romans tied their victims to the cross and did not use nails.

Once an accused was convicted, Sanhedrin then sent out messengers for 40 days to announce that so-and-so was convicted of such-and-such crime and sentenced to be executed. During that time witnesses who had proof of the accused’s innocence were allowed to come testify.

According to Jewish law, convicting someone of a capital crime requires a Sanhedrin of 23 judges. After hearing testimony from eye-witnesses, the judges vote. If at least thirteen of the judges vote “guilty” the defendant is executed.

There is a surprising exception to this; however if ALL the judges vote guilty, then the defendant is acquitted. Here is why:

There are two ways to look at everything. There is no situation in this world without some merit or positive side. If not one judge was able to see the good side and declare the defendant innocent, something is wrong. The positive side of the case must have been missing during the presentation of the evidence. Therefore, he is acquitted.

It is blatantly obvious that the Christian accounts of the ‘trial’ are inaccurate. Jewish trials did not occur in the dead of night, in a private home, with no witnesses. Nor did they ever take place during Passover!

 

 

Why Were The Jews Blamed For The Death Of Jesus, Then?

 

In a word: Politics.

 

 The Christian authors of the Gospels knew they would be living under Roman rule for quite some time. They could hardly demonise the Romans in their literature. Far easier and far safer to switch the blame onto the Jews.

 

This also meshed very nicely with the Christian notion that – having stated that Jesus was not their maschiach – the Jews were ‘guilty’ of ‘disappointing’ G-d. Killing ‘the son of god’ fit perfectly.

 

We must also remember that Pagans were quite often drawn to Judaism, and the early Christians saw the Jews as competition. It was politically convenient, for the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John to thus malign the Jews and scapegoat them for the crucifixion of Jesus.

 

And never mind that the accusation went against all historical and theological *fact*!

 

Let’s leave the last word to Historian William Nicholls, who ends his detailed examination of the Christian scriptures with this statement and appeal to all Christians:

The time has come, and came long ago, for Christians to drop all accusations against the Jewish people in the death of Christ. … There can be no doubt that the Romans bear the responsibility for Jesus’ death, which they and not the Jews brought about.

If any person is to blame for Jesus’ death, it is Pontius Pilate, so implausibly represented in the Gospels as his defender. In any scholarly inquiry, many conclusions remain uncertain. This is not one of them. The Jews are innocent of Jesus’ death.

From Mecca To Jerusalem: Muslims And Their Feelings

 Next time someone tries to hoodwink you into believing that Islam ‘respects all faiths’, ask them about Mecca and Medina. Specifically, ask them why the two holiest Muslim cities are off limits to all non Muslims.

Yep, that’s right. Mecca and Medina are no go areas unless you’re a Quran-brandishing member of the ‘religion of peace’. And there are no exceptions, no apologies and certainly no concern over whether this might be a tad hypocritical.

In fact, just to make it clear to any naughty infidels who may try and sneak into Mecca, the Saudi authorities have put up these helpful signs:

 and

 

Now let’s compare what happens in Jerusalem, the capital of Israel. This is the holiest Jewish city. And where the second temple once stood, there now remains a solitary wall; the Kotel, or ‘Wailing Wall’, where Jews come to pray. Non Jews are also welcome there, and perfectly at liberty to visit the Kotel and pray there, should they desire.

And then there is the Al Aqsa Mosque – slapbang where the Jewish temple used to stand.

From what you read in the international media, you’d never know that Israel – being democratic to a fault – has given control of this vital area to the Muslims. So even as Muslims across the globe support, sponsor and carry out terrorism against  the Jewish state, it is the Muslim Waqf, part of the Palestinian Authority, which has jurisdiction over the Temple Mount area.

And what happens when any non Muslim dares to go there…?

Ask Israeli cabinet Minister Yitzhak Aharonovitch. Today he paid a visit to the Temple Mount.  Result? Total hysteria and threats of violence from Palestinian Muslims. Aharonovitch spent a mere ninety minutes in the area, and was there purely to check police deployments in this volatile area of Jerusalem.

 “The intention of the visit was to see how the police would deploy in case of an emergency,” Aharonovitch’s spokesman Tal Harel said. And he added: “We went everywhere. We were accompanied by the Waqf, who were fully aware of our presence, and this was planned in coordination with them well ahead of the visit.”

Nine years ago, of course, a similar visit by Ariel Sharon triggered a bloody and protracted ‘intifada’ by the Palestinians. I mean, just think about it: a  Jewish Israeli has the sheer chutzpah to visit a holy Jewish area in Israel, the Jewish homeland! Whatever next?!

And these are far from being isolated events. Back in 2005, on Yom Yerushalayim (Jerusalem Day), a small Jewish group ascended the Temple Mount only to be attacked by a mob of Palestinian Muslims, who emerged from  the Al Aqsa Mosque. The police had to be called, so intense was the violence directed at the Jews.

But Jerusalem was a holy place for Jews before Islam even existed, I hear the historians among you cry indignantly!

Yet here is the Palestinian-appointed Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Mohammed Hussein, insisting that today’s visit by Israeli Minister Yitzhak Aharonovitch was not coordinated in advance and, wait for it:

“He does not have the right to visit al-Aqsa because it is an Islamic site and not a Jewish site, and it could ignite violence because the visit provokes the feelings of Muslims. It is an assault on an Islamic place,” Hussein said.

And there, in that one line, you have it. The sheer hypocrisy of the demands made by Muslims in non Muslim nations. Let’s read it again, just to marvel at the utter arrogance involved:

‘…it could ignite violence because the visit provokes the feelings of Muslims…’

Ah yes,  Muslim feelings…

The same Muslim feelings that are ‘provoked’ by cartoons and teddy bears and piggy banks and democracy and Geert Wilders and books about Mohammed and freedom for women and alcohol and Jews and Christians and Hindus and Buddhists and Sikhs and Atheists and Gays and every single thing on the planet that does not comply with Islam!

It is these Muslim feelings that Barack Obama, the great Dhimmi in the White House, is busy bending over backwards to appease.

It is these Muslim feelings that got Dutch Politician Geert Wilders banned from Britain and also have him living in fear, under 24/7 police guard.

It is these Muslim feelings that ensure women throughout the Islamic world have about the same rights as a house plant; none, in other words.

It is these Muslim feelings that enable Muslim men in Saudi Arabia to rape women with impunity; women who are then publicly flogged and imprisoned as ‘punishment’.

It is these Muslim feelings that ensured the novel ‘The Jewel Of Medina’ was dropped by two publishers,  after angry Muslims threatened the first one, and then firebombed the London home of the second who took it on.

It is Muslim feelings that result in Muslim terrorists stealing the lives of innocent civilians in Israel on a regular basis.

It is Muslim feelings that in 2005 brought horror to the heart of London and left corpses buried underground on burning tube trains.

It is Muslim feelings that brought down the Twin Towers in New York and that have caused another 13,459 deaths since.

 

Frankly, I don’t give a damn about Muslim sensibilities any more,  given that in order to keep Muslims happy, the rest of us have to sacrifice every  value we hold dear.

I recommend that next time the followers of Islam start burning flags, rioting, issuing fatwas, and banging on about their feelings, we tell them where to shove’em!

 

What All Sane People Would Like To Tell Obama:

If like me you had to reach for a bucket after reading the transcript of Obama’s Love Letter to Islam, then you’ll appreciate this. It originally appeared at the superb Townhall.Com.

Enjoy!

Let’s All Accept Islam

by Bruce Bialosky

“Mr. Obama, your speech in Cairo encouraged me to reconsider my thoughts on how I view Islam as a religion in today’s society. I have really thought it over and decided to fully accept Islam … with just a few caveats.

First, they have to stop treating women as second class citizens. Don’t tell me those head covers are worn by choice. They are forced on them just like honor killings. It is sad the French have it right and we don’t on this issue. This is a country where we have worked for a hundred years to bring equality to women. Allowing any woman to be subservient is disgraceful. And come to think of it, tell your Secretary of State and Speaker of the House to stop covering their heads on visits. They are supposed to be beacons of the women’s movement. By covering their heads, they are not being respectful to their hosts– they are disgracing every woman who ever fought for equal rights.

Next, tell the Islamists to stop killing gays. Maybe gays are not totally accepted in this society, but we have made great progress in the last 50 years. We may not agree on gay marriage, but we certainly agree on equal rights for gays. We don’t allow them to be killed just for being gay.

How about the issue of freely elected democratic governments in the Muslim world? Not too many of those around, are there Mr. Obama? When the Islamic world stops being run like feudal societies given up by the rest of the world half a millennium ago, I think it would then be a grand time to accept the Muslims. I know it is sometimes politically expedient to deal with dictators. We even had to make a deal with a mass murderer named Stalin to try and fight another mass murderer named Hitler. But please explain to me why in today’s world, where the great majority of people live in democracies, that we need to make nice-nice with dictators. This country is all about not accepting autocracies, Mr. Obama.

Next, the Muslims should stop trying to tell us they really care about the Palestinians and that the trouble in the Middle East is because of their problems. The Arabs have done nothing — I repeat nothing — to help them for 60 years, and we all know that. The Palestinian problem did not start in 1967. It started in 1948 when the Arabs attacked Israel and got their butts kicked. These people willingly relocated out of the Israeli territory, and their Arabs friends did nothing to help them. So please be honest and stop lying to us because we both know it is a lie. Once you do that, we can all move forward.

Mr. Obama, we also want an apology for all those Christians and Jews kicked out of the Arab countries. While they have been really good on creating a lie about the Palestinians being kicked out of their land, they have done an excellent job of covering up all those people they kicked out. Well, they did not really kick them out. They offered them to convert or die. Moving was a much better option. If anyone wonders where all those Jews in Israel came from they should check it out. Not just Europe or Russia, but from all those neighboring Arab states where they were no longer welcome. That may answer why it is such a big deal that Jews are building settlements in the West Bank. It is not that they are Israelis – it is that they are Jews and if Israel gives back the West Bank, Jews and Christians will no longer be welcome.

Last, when Muslims start protesting the murders and indecencies performed in the name of Islam then I will accept them. We are told that the people who do these acts are a small minority of Muslims. So where are the protests, where are the books, where are the articles, where is the Islamic Pete Seeger? If Islam is really a religion of peace, then start showing it. We have been waiting for it and the memories I have are of Muslims out partying after the Twin Towers went down.

Mr. Obama, it is nice that you want us to accept Islam, but would you have asked us to accept Nazism or Communism with their mass murders and mistreatment of people? I suggest you remember we did not elect you to be Brown-Noser-in-Chief or Apologist-in-Chief; we elected you as Commander-in-Chief. I respectfully suggest you start acting like it because these apologies to mass murderers and intolerant sons-of-bitches are really getting tiresome

Bibi’s Speech – It Beat Obama Hands Down For Integrity

Here’s the transcript of Bibi Netanyahu’s speech. As you’ll see, he made the vital and perfectly reasonable demand that any Palestinian state be fully demilitiarised, so as to ensure Israel’s security.

 

“Honored guests, citizens of Israel.

Peace has always been our people’s most ardent desire. Our prophets gave the world the vision of peace, we greet one another with wishes of peace, and our prayers conclude with the word peace.

We are gathered this evening in an institution named for two pioneers of peace, Menachem Begin and Anwar Sadat, and we share in their vision.

Two and half months ago, I took the oath of office as the Prime Minister of Israel. I pledged to establish a national unity government – and I did. I believed and I still believe that unity was essential for us now more than ever as we face three immense challenges – the Iranian threat, the economic crisis, and the advancement of peace.

The Iranian threat looms large before us, as was further demonstrated yesterday. The greatest danger confronting Israel, the Middle East, the entire world and human race, is the nexus between radical Islam and nuclear weapons. I discussed this issue with President Obama during my recent visit to Washington, and I will raise it again in my meetings next week with European leaders. For years, I have been working tirelessly to forge an international alliance to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.

Confronting a global economic crisis, the government acted swiftly to stabilize Israel’s economy. We passed a two year budget in the government – and the Knesset will soon approve it.

And the third challenge, so exceedingly important, is the advancement of peace. I also spoke about this with President Obama, and I fully support the idea of a regional peace that he is leading.

I share the President’s desire to bring about a new era of reconciliation in our region. To this end, I met with President Mubarak in Egypt, and King Abdullah in Jordan, to elicit the support of these leaders in expanding the circle of peace in our region.

I turn to all Arab leaders tonight and I say: “Let us meet. Let us speak of peace and let us make peace. I am ready to meet with you at any time. I am willing to go to Damascus, to Riyadh, to Beirut, to any place- including Jerusalem.

I call on the Arab countries to cooperate with the Palestinians and with us to advance an economic peace. An economic peace is not a substitute for a political peace, but an important element to achieving it. Together, we can undertake projects to overcome the scarcities of our region, like water desalination or to maximize its advantages, like developing solar energy, or laying gas and petroleum lines, and transportation links between Asia, Africa and Europe.

The economic success of the Gulf States has impressed us all and it has impressed me. I call on the talented entrepreneurs of the Arab world to come and invest here and to assist the Palestinians – and us – in spurring the economy.

Together, we can develop industrial areas that will generate thousands of jobs and create tourist sites that will attract millions of visitors eager to walk in the footsteps of history – in Nazareth and in Bethlehem, around the walls of Jericho and the walls of Jerusalem, on the banks of the Sea of Galilee and the baptismal site of the Jordan.

There is an enormous potential for archeological tourism, if we can only learn to cooperate and to develop it.

I turn to you, our Palestinian neighbors, led by the Palestinian Authority, and I say: Let’s begin negotiations immediately without preconditions.

Israel is obligated by its international commitments and expects all parties to keep their commitments.

We want to live with you in peace, as good neighbors. We want our children and your children to never again experience war: that parents, brothers and sisters will never again know the agony of losing loved ones in battle; that our children will be able to dream of a better future and realize that dream; and that together we will invest our energies in plowshares and pruning hooks, not swords and spears.

I know the face of war. I have experienced battle. I lost close friends, I lost a brother. I have seen the pain of bereaved families. I do not want war. No one in Israel wants war.

If we join hands and work together for peace, there is no limit to the development and prosperity we can achieve for our two peoples – in the economy, agriculture, trade, tourism and education – most importantly, in providing our youth a better world in which to live, a life full of tranquility, creativity, opportunity and hope.

If the advantages of peace are so evident, we must ask ourselves why peace remains so remote, even as our hand remains outstretched to peace? Why has this conflict continued for more than sixty years?

In order to bring an end to the conflict, we must give an honest and forthright answer to the question: What is the root of the conflict?

In his speech to the first Zionist Conference in Basel, the founder of the Zionist movement, Theodore Herzl, said about the Jewish national home “This idea is so big that we must speak of it only in the simplest terms.” Today, I will speak about the immense challenge of peace in the simplest words possible.

Even as we look toward the horizon, we must be firmly connected to reality, to the truth. And the simple truth is that the root of the conflict was, and remains, the refusal to recognize the right of the Jewish people to a state of their own, in their historic homeland.

In 1947, when the United Nations proposed the partition plan of a Jewish state and an Arab state, the entire Arab world rejected the resolution. The Jewish community, by contrast, welcomed it by dancing and rejoicing.

The Arabs rejected any Jewish state, in any borders.

Those who think that the continued enmity toward Israel is a product of our presence in Judea, Samaria and Gaza, is confusing cause and consequence.

The attacks against us began in the 1920s, escalated into a comprehensive attack in 1948 with the declaration of Israel’s independence, continued with the fedayeen attacks in the 1950s, and climaxed in 1967, on the eve of the six-day war, in an attempt to tighten a noose around the neck of the State of Israel.

All this occurred during the fifty years before a single Israeli soldier ever set foot in Judea and Samaria.

Fortunately, Egypt and Jordan left this circle of enmity. The signing of peace treaties have brought about an end to their claims against Israel, an end to the conflict. But to our regret, this is not the case with the Palestinians. The closer we get to an agreement with them, the further they retreat and raise demands that are inconsistent with a true desire to end the conflict.

Many good people have told us that withdrawal from territories is the key to peace with the Palestinians. Well, we withdrew. But the fact is that every withdrawal was met with massive waves of terror, by suicide bombers and thousands of missiles.

We tried to withdraw with an agreement and without an agreement. We tried a partial withdrawal and a full withdrawal. In 2000 and again last year, Israel proposed an almost total withdrawal in exchange for an end to the conflict, and twice our offers were rejected.

We evacuated every last inch of the Gaza strip, we uprooted tens of settlements and evicted thousands of Israelis from their homes, and in response, we received a hail of missiles on our cities, towns and children.

The claim that territorial withdrawals will bring peace with the Palestinians, or at least advance peace, has up till now not stood the test of reality.

In addition to this, Hamas in the south, like Hezbollah in the north, repeatedly proclaims their commitment to “liberate” the Israeli cities of Ashkelon, Beersheba, Acre and Haifa.

Territorial withdrawals have not lessened the hatred, and to our regret, Palestinian moderates are not yet ready to say the simple words: Israel is the nation-state of the Jewish people, and it will stay that way.

Achieving peace will require courage and candor from both sides, and not only from the Israeli side.

The Palestinian leadership must arise and say: “Enough of this conflict. We recognize the right of the Jewish people to a state of their own in this land, and we are prepared to live beside you in true peace.”

I am yearning for that moment, for when Palestinian leaders say those words to our people and to their people, then a path will be opened to resolving all the problems between our peoples, no matter how complex they may be.

Therefore, a fundamental prerequisite for ending the conflict is a public, binding and unequivocal Palestinian recognition of Israel as the nation state of the Jewish people.

To vest this declaration with practical meaning, there must also be a clear understanding that the Palestinian refugee problem will be resolved outside Israel’s borders. For it is clear that any demand for resettling Palestinian refugees within Israel undermines Israel’s continued existence as the state of the Jewish people.

The Palestinian refugee problem must be solved, and it can be solved, as we ourselves proved in a similar situation. Tiny Israel successfully absorbed tens of thousands of Jewish refugees who left their homes and belongings in Arab countries.

Therefore, justice and logic demand that the Palestinian refugee problem be solved outside Israel’s borders. On this point, there is a broad national consensus. I believe that with goodwill and international investment, this humanitarian problem can be permanently resolved.

So far I have spoken about the need for Palestinians to recognize our rights. In a moment, I will speak openly about our need to recognize their rights.

But let me first say that the connection between the Jewish people and the Land of Israel has lasted for more than 3500 years. Judea and Samaria, the places where Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, David and Solomon, and Isaiah and Jeremiah lived, are not alien to us. This is the land of our forefathers.

The right of the Jewish people to a state in the land of Israel does not derive from the catastrophes that have plagued our people. True, for 2000 years the Jewish people suffered expulsions, pogroms, blood libels, and massacres which culminated in a Holocaust – a suffering which has no parallel in human history.

There are those who say that if the Holocaust had not occurred, the state of Israel would never have been established. But I say that if the state of Israel would have been established earlier, the Holocaust would not have occured.

This tragic history of powerlessness explains why the Jewish people need a sovereign power of self-defense. But our right to build our sovereign state here, in the land of Israel, arises from one simple fact: this is the homeland of the Jewish people, this is where our identity was forged.

As Israel’s first Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion proclaimed in Israel’s Declaration of Independence: “The Jewish people arose in the land of Israel and it was here that its spiritual, religious and political character was shaped. Here they attained their sovereignty, and here they bequeathed to the world their national and cultural treasures, and the most eternal of books.”

But we must also tell the truth in its entirety: within this homeland lives a large Palestinian community. We do not want to rule over them, we do not want to govern their lives, we do not want to impose either our flag or our culture on them.

In my vision of peace, in this small land of ours, two peoples live freely, side-by-side, in amity and mutual respect. Each will have its own flag, its own national anthem, its own government. Neither will threaten the security or survival of the other.

These two realities – our connection to the land of Israel, and the Palestinian population living within it – have created deep divisions in Israeli society. But the truth is that we have much more that unites us than divides us.

I have come tonight to give expression to that unity, and to the principles of peace and security on which there is broad agreement within Israeli society. These are the principles that guide our policy.

This policy must take into account the international situation that has recently developed. We must recognize this reality and at the same time stand firmly on those principles essential for Israel.

I have already stressed the first principle – recognition. Palestinians must clearly and unambiguously recognize Israel as the state of the Jewish people. The second principle is: demilitarization. The territory under Palestinian control must be demilitarized with ironclad security provisions for Israel.

Without these two conditions, there is a real danger that an armed Palestinian state would emerge that would become another terrorist base against the Jewish state, such as the one in Gaza.

We don’t want Kassam rockets on Petach Tikva, Grad rockets on Tel Aviv, or missiles on Ben-Gurion airport. We want peace.

In order to achieve peace, we must ensure that Palestinians will not be able to import missiles into their territory, to field an army, to close their airspace to us, or to make pacts with the likes of Hezbollah and Iran. On this point as well, there is wide consensus within Israel.

It is impossible to expect us to agree in advance to the principle of a Palestinian state without assurances that this state will be demilitarized.

On a matter so critical to the existence of Israel, we must first have our security needs addressed.

Therefore, today we ask our friends in the international community, led by the United States, for what is critical to the security of Israel: Clear commitments that in a future peace agreement, the territory controlled by the Palestinians will be demilitarized: namely, without an army, without control of its airspace, and with effective security measures to prevent weapons smuggling into the territory – real monitoring, and not what occurs in Gaza today. And obviously, the Palestinians will not be able to forge military pacts.

Without this, sooner or later, these territories will become another Hamastan. And that we cannot accept.

I told President Obama when I was in Washington that if we could agree on the substance, then the terminology would not pose a problem.

And here is the substance that I now state clearly:

If we receive this guarantee regarding demilitirization and Israel’s security needs, and if the Palestinians recognize Israel as the State of the Jewish people, then we will be ready in a future peace agreement to reach a solution where a demilitarized Palestinian state exists alongside the Jewish state.

Regarding the remaining important issues that will be discussed as part of the final settlement, my positions are known: Israel needs defensible borders, and Jerusalem must remain the united capital of Israel with continued religious freedom for all faiths.

The territorial question will be discussed as part of the final peace agreement. In the meantime, we have no intention of building new settlements or of expropriating additional land for existing settlements.

But there is a need to enable the residents to live normal lives, to allow mothers and fathers to raise their children like families elsewhere. The settlers are neither the enemies of the people nor the enemies of peace. Rather, they are an integral part of our people, a principled, pioneering and Zionist public.

Unity among us is essential and will help us achieve reconciliation with our neighbors. That reconciliation must already begin by altering existing realities. I believe that a strong Palestinian economy will strengthen peace.

If the Palestinians turn toward peace – in fighting terror, in strengthening governance and the rule of law, in educating their children for peace and in stopping incitement against Israel – we will do our part in making every effort to facilitate freedom of movement and access, and to enable them to develop their economy. All of this will help us advance a peace treaty between us.

Above all else, the Palestinians must decide between the path of peace and the path of Hamas. The Palestinian Authority will have to establish the rule of law in Gaza and overcome Hamas. Israel will not sit at the negotiating table with terrorists who seek their destruction.

Hamas will not even allow the Red Cross to visit our kidnapped soldier Gilad Shalit, who has spent three years in captivity, cut off from his parents, his family and his people. We are committed to bringing him home, healthy and safe.

With a Palestinian leadership committed to peace, with the active participation of the Arab world, and the support of the United States and the international community, there is no reason why we cannot achieve a breakthrough to peace.

Our people have already proven that we can do the impossible. Over the past 61 years, while constantly defending our existence, we have performed wonders.

Our microchips are powering the world’s computers. Our medicines are treating diseases once considered incurable. Our drip irrigation is bringing arid lands back to life across the globe. And Israeli scientists are expanding the boundaries of human knowledge.

If only our neighbors would respond to our call – peace too will be in our reach.

I call on the leaders of the Arab world and on the Palestinian leadership, let us continue together on the path of Menahem Begin and Anwar Sadat, Yitzhak Rabin and King Hussein. Let us realize the vision of the prophet Isaiah, who in Jerusalem 2700 years ago said: “nations shall not lift up sword against nation, and they shall learn war no more.”

With G-d’s help, we will know no more war. We will know peace.

Obama Wooing Islam – By Promising To Hand Over Jerusalem

More on Obama’s apparent promises to deliver Israel to the Muslim world. Claims are now appearing that Obama has shown support for an end to Jerusalem as the undivided capital of Israel.

This just in, from World Net Daily

President Obama and his administration told Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas during a meeting last week the U.S. foresees the creation of a Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital, according to a top PA official speaking to WND.

“The American administration was very friendly to the position of the PA,” said Nimer Hamad, Abbas’ senior political adviser.

“Abu Mazen (Abbas) heard from Obama and his administration in a very categorical way that a Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital is in the American national and security interest,” Hamad said.

Another PA official, speaking on condition of anonymity, told WND today that Obama informed Abbas he would not let Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu “get in the way” of ‘normalizing’ U.S. relations with the Arab and greater Muslim world.

Also in Cairo today, Abbas met with Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, where the Palestinian leader briefed Egypt’s president on his recent trip to Washington, saying the U.S. was committed to bringing about an end to Israeli construction in the West Bank.

Hamad’s comments about Jerusalem today come as controversy abounded regarding the U.S. position on Israel’s capital city.

Last week, the State Department refuted a speech in which Netanyahu said Jerusalem never will be divided.

“Jerusalem is Israel’s capital,” Netanyahu said at an event marking Jerusalem’s reunification. “Jerusalem was always ours and will always be ours. It will never again be partitioned and divided.”

In response, the State Department released a statement that Jerusalem “is a final status issue.”

“Israel and the Palestinians have agreed to resolve its status during negotiations. We will support their efforts to reach agreements on all final status issues,” the statement said.

Also last week, a top Palestinian Authority official claimed in a WND interview that the Obama administration told the PA that Jerusalem will never be united under Israeli sovereignty.

“Americans said an open Jerusalem – yes. But a united Jerusalem under Israeli sovereignty – no,” Hatem Abdel Khader, the PA’s minister for Jerusalem affairs, said in comments to both WND and Israel’s Ynetnews website.

“(The Obama administration) has made clear that Jerusalem must be accessible to everyone – but not united under Israel’s rule,” Khader said.

Khader told WND, “The Americans are very present on the ground, and they are making pressure over Israeli authorities and even municipalities.”

“They are acting according to the concept that the failure to establish a Palestinian state would jeopardize U.S. national security interests – and without Jerusalem there is no Palestinian state,” he said.

Khader’s claim the U.S. is helping the Palestinians gain a foothold in Jerusalem is accurate. In April, WND reported that under intense American pressure and following a nearly unprecedented behind-the-scenes U.S. campaign, the Netanyahu government has decided not to bulldoze Palestinian homes built illegally on Jewish-owned property in Jerusalem.

The issue is critical since the 80 homes in question are located in Silwan, an eastern Jerusalem neighborhood close to the Temple Mount and Jerusalem’s Old City that the Palestinians claim as a future capital. Jewish groups have been working to fortify the community’s Jewish presence. Silwan is adjacent to the City of David, a massive archeological dig just outside the Temple Mount that is constantly turning up Temple artifacts.

Like tens of thousands of other Arab housing projects throughout eastern Jerusalem, the Palestinian homes in Silwan were illegally constructed on property long ago purchased by Jews. The Israeli government ordered the structures’ legal demolition.

But during a visit here in early March, Secretary of State Hilary Clinton strongly protested the planned bulldozing.

“Clearly this kind of activity is unhelpful and not in keeping with the obligations entered into under the Road Map,” she said. “It is an issue that we intend to raise with the government of Israel and the government at the municipal level in Jerusalem.”

The Road Map calls for Israel to freeze Jewish settlement expansion in the West Bank but does not bar Israel from dismantling illegally constructed Palestinian homes in Jerusalem.

WND learned that in the weeks since Clinton’s visit here, the U.S. mounted an intensive campaign lobbying the Israeli government against tearing down the illegal Palestinian homes in Silwan. The campaign included letters from the Middle East section of the State Department addressed to various Jerusalem municipalities, with copies of the letters sent to the offices of Israel’s prime minister and foreign minister. The letters called on Israel to allow the illegal Palestinian homes in Silwan to remain and stated any demolitions would not foster an atmosphere of peace.

Also, in a follow-up visit here, State Department officials made it clear to their Israeli counterparts the U.S. opposes the Silwan bulldozing.

According to sources in the Israeli government, including in Netanyahu’s administration, a decision has been made not to bulldoze the illegal Palestinian homes. The sources said the issue of the homes may be raised again in the future, but for the time being the houses will remain intact.

The sources attributed the decision against the bulldozing – which has not yet been announced – to the intense American campaign against the house demolitions.

Said one source in Netanyahu’s administration, “This was very frustrating to us. Can you imagine if a foreign government came in and told a city office in the U.S. not to tear down a house that was illegally constructed on someone else’s property?”

While Clinton opposed the Palestinian house demolitions, informed Israeli officials said the Obama administration is carefully monitoring Jewish construction in eastern Jerusalem and has already protested to the highest levels of Israeli government about evidence of housing expansion in those areas.

The officials, who spoke on condition that their names be withheld, said that last month Obama’s Mideast envoy, George Mitchell, oversaw the establishment of an apparatus based in the U.S. consulate in Jerusalem that closely monitors eastern Jerusalem neighborhoods, incorporating regular tours on a daily basis.

The officials said that in recent meetings Mitchell strongly protested Jewish construction in eastern Jerusalem. Mitchell also condemned the work of nationalist Jewish groups to purchase property in Jerusalem’s Old City, including in areas intimately tied to Judaism.

Israel recaptured eastern Jerusalem, including the Temple Mount – Judaism’s holiest site – during the 1967 Six Day War.

The Palestinians, however, have claimed eastern Jerusalem as a future capital. About 244,000 Arabs live in Jerusalem, mostly in eastern neighborhoods, out of a total population of 724,000, the majority Jewish.

And so it begins. The slow but sure dismantling of the Jewish homeland. Note the false premise that has clearly been accepted by Obama: namely, that it is Israel which is ‘getting in the way’ of American-Arab and American-Muslim relations.

Just as Hitler convinced the German people that it was ‘only the jews’ that were preventing Germany from being great again, so now Obama is suggesting that it is ‘only Israel’ that is stopping America from having a good relationship with the Muslim world.

I mean, it’s not as though the Muslim world consists of barbaric theocracies that view America as ‘the great satan’ or anything like that, is it…?

If G-d forbid Israel vanished tomorrow, the Muslim world would still loathe America and all it stands for. Obama’s treachery would all have been for nothing. And the sole democracy in the Middle East, Israel, would have paid the ultimate price for appeasing the vile creed that is Islam, the ‘religion of peace’.

Answering The Apologists For Islam

Those who seek to justify Islamic terrorism, often do so by stating that both Judaism and Christianity also have violent histories. Islam, they insist, is being ‘unfairly’ singled out, even though the other Abrahamic faiths are also inherently violent.

The two favourite and increasingly weary examples offered are the slaying by the Hebrews of the Canaanites (Judaism) and the bloody crimes of the Crusades (Christianity).

And this tactic by apologists for Islamic terrorism often works. It helps shore up the pervasive yet false premise that Islam is ‘just like other religions’.  Or, to put it another way: it is not Islam that causes Islamic terrorism, but rather human nature.

One of the best responses I’ve read to this apologist tactic, comes courtesy of writer and expert on radical Islam, Raymond Ibrahim. Here is what he says on the issue of whether Judaism and Christianity also promote violence in the same manner as Islam (emphasis is mine):

“Such questions reveal a great deal of confusion between history and theology, between the temporal actions of men and the immutable words of G-d. The fundamental error being that Jewish andChristian history—which is violent—is being conflated with Islamic theology—which commands violence.

Of course all religions have had their fair share of violence and intolerance towards the “other.” Whether this violence is ordained by G-d or whether warlike man merely wished it thus is the all-important question.

The Israelites’ violence is an interesting case in point. G-d clearly ordered the Hebrews to annihilate the Canaanites and surrounding peoples. Such violence is therefore an expression of G-d’s will, for good or ill. Regardless, all the historic violence committed by the Hebrews and recorded in the Tanakh is just that—history. It happened; G-d commanded it.

But it revolved around a specific time and place and was directed against a specific people. At no time did such violence go on to become standardized or codified into Jewish law (i.e. the Halakha).

This is where Islamic violence is unique. Though similar to the violence of the Tanakh —commanded by G-d and manifested in history—certain aspects of Islamic violence have become standardized in Islamic law (i.e. the Sharia) and apply at all times. Thus while the violence found in the Koran is in fact historical, its ultimate significance is theological. Consider the following Koranic verses:

Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the pagans wherever you find them—take them [captive], besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due [i.e. submit to Islam], then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful (9:5).

Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger [i.e. Islamic law], nor acknowledge the religion of Truth [i.e. Islam], from the people of the book [i.e. Jews and Christians], until they pay tribute with willing submission, and feel themselves utterly subdued (9:29).

As with Tanakh  verses where G-d  commanded the Hebrews to attack and slay their neighbors, these Koranic verses also have a historical context. Allah (through Muhammad) first issued these commandments after the Arab tribes had finally unified under the banner of Islam and were preparing to invade their Christian and pagan neighbors.

But unlike the bellicose verses and anecdotes of the Tanakh  these so-called “sword-verses” subsequently became fundamental to Islam’s relationship to both the “people of the book” (i.e. Christians and Jews) and the “pagans” (i.e. Hindus, Buddhists, animists, etc).

In fact, based on the sword-verses (as well as countless other Koranic verses and oral traditions attributed to Muhammad), Islam’s scholars, sheikhs, muftis, imams, and qadis throughout the ages have all reached the consensus—binding on the entire Muslim community—that Islam is to be at perpetual war with the non-Muslim world, until the former subsumes the latter. (It is widely held that the sword-verses alone have abrogated some 200 of the Koran’s more tolerant verses.)

Famous Muslim scholar and “father of modern history” Ibn Khaldun articulates the dichotomy between jihad and defensive warfare thus:

In the Muslim community, the holy war [i.e. jihad] is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the Muslim mission and the obligation to convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force...

The other religious groups did not have a universal mission, and the holy war was not a religious duty for them, save only for purposes of defense... They are merely required to establish their religion among their own people.

That is why the Israeilites after Moses and Joshua remained unconcerned with royal authority [e.g. a “caliphate”]. Their only concern was to establish their religion [not spread it to the nations]…

But Islam is under obligation to gain power over other nations (The Muqudimmah, vol. 1 pg. 473, emphasis added).

Even when juxtaposed to their Jewish and Christian counterparts, the Islamic sword-verses are distinctive for using language that transcends time and space, inciting believers to attack and slay non-believers today no less than yesterday.

G-d commanded the Hebrews to kill Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites—all specific peoples rooted to a specific time and place. At no time did G-d  give an open-ended command for the Hebrews, and by extension their descendants the Jews, to fight and kill gentiles.

On the other hand, though Islam’s original enemies were, like Judaism’s, historical (e.g. Christian Byzantines and pagan Persians), the Koran rarely singles them out by their proper names. Instead, Muslims were (and are) commanded to fight the people of the book—“until they pay tribute with willing submission and feel themselves utterly subdued” (9:29) and to “slay the pagans wherever you find them” (9:5).

The two conjunctions “until” and “wherever” demonstrate the perpetual nature of these commandments: there are still “people of the book” who have yet to be “utterly subdued” (especially in the Americas, Europe, and Israel) and “pagans” to be slain “wherever” one looks (especially Asia and sub-Saharan Africa).

Aside from the divine words of the Koran, Muhammad’s pattern of behavior—his “Sunna” or “example”—is an extremely important source of legislation in Islam. Muslims are exhorted to emulate Muhammad in all walks of life: “You have indeed in the Messenger of Allah a beautiful pattern [of conduct]” (33:21).

And Muhammad’s pattern of conduct vis-à-vis non-Muslims is quite explicit. Sarcastically arguing against the concept of “moderate” Islam, terrorist Osama bin Laden, who enjoys half the Arab-Islamic world’s support per a recent al-Jazeera poll, portrays the prophet’s Sunna thus:

“Moderation” is demonstrated by our prophet who did not remain more than three months in Medina without raiding or sending a raiding party into the lands of the infidels to beat down their strongholds and seize their possessions, their lives, and their women” (from The Al-Qaeda Reader).

In fact, based on both the Koran and Muhammad’s Sunna, pillaging and plundering infidels, enslaving their children, and placing their women in concubinage is well founded (e.g. 4:24, 4:92, 8:69, 24:33, 33:50, etc.).

While law-centric and legalistic, Judaism has no such equivalent to the Sunna; the words and deeds of the patriarchs, though recorded in the Tanakh  never went on to be part of Jewish law. Neither Abraham’s “white-lies,” nor Jacob’s perfidy, nor Moses’ short-fuse, nor David’s adultery, nor Solomon’s philandering ever went on to instruct Jews. They were merely understood to be historical actions perpetrated by fallible men who were often punished by G-d for their less than ideal behavior.“

And regarding the Crusades, Raymond Ibrahim points out:

“In fact, far from suggesting anything intrinsic to Christianity, the Crusades ironically help better explain Islam. For what the Crusades demonstrated once and for all is that irrespective of religious teachings—indeed, in the case of these so-called “Christian” Crusades, despite them—man is truly predisposed to violence and intolerance. But this begs the question: If this is how Christians behaved—who are commanded to love, bless, and do good to their enemies who hate, curse, and persecute them—how much more can be expected of Muslims who, while sharing the same violent tendencies, are further commanded by the Deity to attack, kill, and plunder non-believers?“

Read more of Raymond Ibrahim’s excellent articles here

Obama – Selling Out Israel

Both Jews and non Jews alike are expressing alarm over Obama’s willingness to sacrifice Israel in order to placate the Arab world.

Atlas Shrugs has been monitoring this situation closely; here is a recent post which spells out precisely what is going on:

Obama committed to Expelling Jews from Jewish Homeland

The increasingly creepy President’s latest act of anti-semitism. From Israel Today:

‘Obama committed to ejecting Jews from Judea-Samaria,’ says Abbas

Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas on Saturday told reporters in Cairo that he is convinced that US President Barack Obama is firmly committed to finally ejecting the Jews from Judea and Samaria.

Abbas spoke to the press after briefing Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak on his visit to the White House late last week, during which Obama apparently agreed with his guest that existing Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria must not even be allowed to experience “natural growth.”

“When the American administration talks about Israel’s duty to stop the settlements – including natural growth – it is a very important step,” noted Abbas.

Following their meeting last Thursday, Obama said that he also told Abbas to make a bit more of an effort to halt what he described as isolated and sporadic anti-Jewish incitement in Palestinian schools, mosques and media. Documentation by Israeli and international watchdog groups shows that the incitement is far from isolated or sporadic.

Meanwhile, Israeli officials cited by Ha’aretz decried the Obama Administration’s stiff demands that no more houses be built for Jews beyond the pre-1967 borders.

They noted that under former President George W. Bush, Israel reached understandings that the natural growth of existing towns would not subject to Israel’s commitments to halt settlement activity (commitments many Israelis see as null and void anyway since the Palestinians have failed to honor their reciprocal obligations).

But one official said those understandings are now “worth nothing,” and that the US is taking an unfair position by completely siding with Palestinian demands that go far beyond the original peace agreements.

Other officials attributed Obama’s hard line positions against Israel to his efforts to reconcile with the Arab and Muslim worlds, which will be the focus of a much anticipated speech he will give in Cairo this Thursday.

Israel to U.S.: ‘Stop favoring Palestinians’

UPDATE: The Lid compares Obama to Pharaoh: “This week the President of the United States declared that the Jews living in the West Bank cannot have children, and if they do those kids cannot live with their parents. Oh, that’s not what he said, but the result is the same. What he said is that there cannot be natural growth in the West Bank settlements:”

‘Obama’s decrees are like Pharaoh’s’

JPost.com Staff , THE JERUSALEM POST

“The American demand to prevent natural growth is unreasonable, and brings to mind Pharaoh who said: Every son that is born ye shall cast into the river,” Science Minister and Habayit Hayehudi head Daniel Herschkowitz said Sunday, referring to US President Barack Obama’s demand to freeze all settlement activity, even that ensuing from natural growth.

Speaking ahead of the weekly cabinet meeting, mathematician Herschkowitz furthered his point with a simple equation. “If there is a family that expands from one child to four or five, what should we tell them – to ship the children off to Petah Tikva? This is an unacceptable demand, even if it comes from the Americans, and Israel should reject it decisively,” he affirmed.

Interior Minister Eli Yishai said, “The American demand to freeze construction means expulsion for young people living in large locales. I hope the US administration understands that. If not, I don’t want to be an apocalyptic prophet saying we’re facing struggle and confrontation. The concessions they’re demanding of us are a security impediment we cannot withstand.”

Information and Diaspora Minister Yuli Edelstein chose a positive perspective on the dispute threatening an Israeli-American rift.

“The recent days prove what luck we have that it is [Prime Minister Binyamin] Netanyahu’s government conducting talks on West Bank natural growth and construction in Jerusalem,” he said. “Just imagine someone else, he would have led us to an entanglement lasting generations.”

“We aren’t headed for a confrontation with the White House, but rather for understandings, and Netanyahu’s visit there proved it. President Obama is a friend of Israel, and I’m sure we can resolve the disagreements,” Edelstein added.

Welfare and Social Services Minister Isaac Herzog of the Labor party stressed the importance in preventing a head-on collision with Obama.

“The current American administration sees things differently than the last two presidents did. Construction is being undertaken around Jerusalem according to understandings with previous administrations. Israel wants very much to reach understandings, and Defense Minister Ehud Barak’s upcoming trip to Washington proves it,” Herzog said.

Facts That The World Ignores

There is so much nonsense in the media about Israel. Much of it revolves around the absurd idea that Jews just rocked up to the Middle East in 1948, kicked out the ‘native palestinians’, and declared a Jewish nation in a part of the  world that they had no link to and no rights to.

Of course, the reality is far, far different. The very term ‘Palestinian’ always referred to the Palestinian Jews that had already been living there for the past 3500 years – continuously.

And the ‘palestinians’ as we know them today, are the descendants of Arabs. There is no ancient ‘palestinian’ people that have been stripped of their ‘home’. On the contrary, they are Arabs whose parents and grandparents moved to the region only after the Jews irrigated the land, drained the swamps, and began transforming the land into a flourishing and viable place to live. Not to mention creating numerous work opportunities.

These are verifiable facts. Yet try and present them and I guarantee from personal experience, you will stand accused of ‘spreading zionist propaganda’. It seems that offering objective historical fact is not acceptable when it supports Israel’s right to exist, and the Jews’ right to live in peace, in safety, in Israel.

Do keep on reiterating these facts. And here are some more, most eloquently put, courtesy of Think Israel:

;“What is ironic is that Israel belongs exclusively to the Jews by International Law.  So why do the Arabs insist the land is theirs? Because the Jews have been so crazy for peace, they have been willing to share, to give up pieces of their tiny country, for a piece of paper.

The Arabs created a phony people in 1964, called the “Palestinians” and blanketed the world with the mantra that they were the Palestinians and Palestine was theirs.

There has not ever been a country or a state called Palestine. There have been Palestinians. During the British Mandate from 1922 to 1948 the Jews called where they lived Palestine. They played music in the Palestine Philharmonic. They read the Palestine Post (now the Jerusalem Post.) As the Palestine Brigade, they fought in the British Army in World War 2. The Arabs also fought hard – for Hitler

(Eliezar Edwards, December, 2008.

************************************************************************************

A Palestinian State? You want that? OK. BUT not in Israel. No way. Not now. Not ever. Put this Arab state in Dubai or Kuwait or Saudi Arabia or Libya or Syria. Make it big. Fill it with the Po’ Arab “refugees”. And with the Arabs of Gaza and Samaria and Judea (AKA West Bank). And treasonous Arabs who have Israeli citizenship. Build a big fence around it. Let them learn to develop the infrastructure of a state. Or let them destroy themselves, if that’s what they prefer. If they ever become civilized, then it’s time to consider letting them join the human race. (Eliezar Edwards, August, 2008)

The Myth Of The ‘Occupied Territories’

If you repeat a lie often enough, does it become the ‘truth’ in as much as being accepted as fact by the majority of the population?

Certainly, the Nazis believed in this premise and proved it can happen. Now, several decades later, it’s happening again. I refer specifically to the myth of the ‘occupied territories’. People use this phrase confidently when condemning Israel – either not knowing or not caring that they are talking rubbish.

Here’s an excellent piece which bursts this myth. Please read it and then share it with others.

The Myth of “Occupied” Territories
– Boris Shusteff

One of the most misused, misapplied, and misunderstood definitions in the dictionary of the Arab-Israeli conflict is the term “occupied territories.” The vast majority of people simply do not know the facts or misinterpret them, thus completely distorting the real picture of the land distribution between the Arabs and the Jews.

The truth of the matter is that, according to international law, the Jews have the complete and unquestionable right to settle the territories of Judea, Samaria and Gaza (collectively known as Yesha). Not a single enforceable international document exists that forbids them from settling the lands of Yesha.

On the contrary, the only existing enforceable document actually encourages Jewish settlement.

This document was created on April 24, 1920 at the San Remo Conference when the Principal Allied Powers agreed to assign the Mandate for the territory of Palestine to Great Britain.

By doing so the League of Nations “recognized the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine” and established “grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country.” Article 6 of the Mandate “encouraged … close settlement by Jews on the land,” including the lands of Judea, Samaria and Gaza (Yesha).

There is nothing whatsoever in the Mandate that separates Yesha from the rest of the mandated territory. That means that the right of the Jews to settle the land spreads to the whole of Palestine.

As a side note it is worth mentioning that the 76% of the territory of Mandated Palestine known today as Jordan, was not permanently exempt from settlement by the Jews either. Article 25 only allowed to “postpone or withhold application of [this] provision.”

With the disbanding of the League of Nations, the rights of the Jews to settle the territories of Palestine, including Yesha, were not hurt. When in 1946 the United Nations was created in place of the League of Nations, its Charter included Article 80 specifically to allow the continuation of existing Mandates (including the British Mandate).

Article 80 stated that “nothing … shall be construed in or of itself to alter in any manner the rights whatsoever … of any peoples or the terms of existing international instruments to which Members of the United Nations may respectively be parties.”

Then in November 1947 came time for Resolution 181, which recommended the Partition of Palestine. Like all UN Resolutions pertaining to the Jewish-Arab conflict it was not enforceable. It was simply a recommendation, and the Arab countries rejected it. As the Syrian representative in the General Assembly stated:

“In the first place the recommendations of the General Asembly are not imperative on those to whom they are addressed… . The General Assembly only gives advice and the parties to whom advice is addressed accept it when it is rightful and just and when it does not impair their fundamental rights.”

If the resolution had been implemented maybe it would be possible to argue that it replaced the San Remo Conference resolution, which had legitimized the rights of the Jews to settle in any place in Palestine.

However, it was not only rejected by the Arabs, but in violation of the UN Charter they launched a military aggression against the newly reborn Jewish state thus invalidating the resolution.

By the time of the cease-fire at the end of the War of Independence there was still no other enforceable document pertaining to the rights of the Jews to settle Eretz Yisrael – they remained intact.

Now we approach the most misunderstood aspect of the scope and application of international documents. In order to resolve the puzzle of the “occupied” territories, one must clearly distinguish between the different types of resolutions passed by the United Nations.

Misconceptions about the issue led to the question of a double standard that was constantly raised by the Arabs after the Persian Gulf War. The Arabs were unable to understand why from Iraq the UN demanded compliance with the decisions of the international body, while Israel was not forced to comply with UN resolutions.

On April 3, 1998 Swedish Foreign Minister Lena Hjelm-Wallen, well known for championing the Arabs’ position, in an interview with the London al-Quds al-‘Arabi, gave an explanation of this “paradox.” She was asked, “What about the double standards that the United States and Europe adopt when it comes to Arab issues?”

She answered,

“I understand this view, which is common in many Arab countries. Nevertheless, the UN resolutions passed on Iraq are different, because they are binding for all nations according to Article 7 of the UN Charter. Meanwhile, the resolutions passed against Israel are not subject to Article 7 of the Charter.”

To better understand the way UN resolutions work, it is worth reading an open letter by Uri Lubrani, coordinator of Israeli activities in Lebanon, addressed to Lebanon’s Foreign Minister Faris Buwayz and published on February 27, 1998 in the Paris newspaper al Watan al-‘Arabi. Although the letter was written regarding Resolution 425, it talks about all resolutions pertaining to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Uri Lubrani wrote the following:

“…There are two types of resolutions in the Security Council. The first type are resolutions passed on the basis of Chapter Six of the UN charter that relates to the settlement of disputes through peaceful means. Such resolutions are considered recommendations. They are not binding, and they do not require immediate implementation… . The second type of resolutions are based on Chapter Seven of the UN charter… . This chapter grants the UN Security Council resolutions an implementative authority and commits the international community to use force if necessary to implement these resolutions. …None of the UN Security Council resolutions pertaining to the Arab Israeli conflict, including Resolution 425, were passed on the basis of Chapter Seven. They were passed on the basis of Chapter Six of the UN charter, which is the basis also of UNSC Resolutions 242 and 338.”

Since no mandatory UN Resolution exists pertaining to the Arab-Israeli conflict, we are left with the San Remo Conference decision that governs land ownership in Palestine. That means that not a single enforceable internationally valid document exists that prevents or prohibits the Jews from settling anywhere in Judea, Samaria, Gaza and all the rest of Eretz Yisrael.

Or, to put it differently, from the standpoint of international law FOR THE JEWS IT IS NOT AN OCCUPIED LAND.

This conclusion was confirmed not long ago by an unexpected (for Israel) source. It is hard to argue with the fact that James Baker, former US Secretary of State, was not the best friend of the Jewish state. However, he categorically rejected the mislabeling of the lands of Yesha.

This happened at the Middle East Insight Symposium in Washington on May 4, 1998. Hoda Tawfik, from the newspaper Al Ahram asked him, “What do you think is right? That these are occupied Arab territories and not disputed territories?” Baker replied, “They’re clearly disputed territories. That’s what Resolutions 242 and 338 are all about. They are clearly disputed territories.”

All of this means that when the Jews build settlements in Yesha, they are not building them on “occupied” territories. If one wants, one may call them “disputed” territories, as Baker did. However, this will still not change the fact that from the standpoint of international law it is the very land where the Jews were encouraged to settle.

And as a final note, it should not be surprising that the San Remo Conference plays such an important role in this particular case. The majority of the other players in the conflict: Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, Jordan, etc. gained sovereignty over their territories based on the decisions of exactly the same conference. The Jews finally deserve to settle freely on their territories as well. It is time to stop labeling them “occupied”.

How the Palestinian Authority Looks After Holy Sites

Yet again, Joseph’s Tomb, in Nablus, has been vandalised. Covered in swastikas and other anti semitic emblems, to be specific. Visitors expressed their concern on Wedesday upon discovering the desecration:

“We saw a drawing of a Star of David with a boot stamping on it on one wall,” said David Ha’ivri, a spokesman for Samaria Regional Council chairman Gershon Masika, who was one of the visitors. “Putting your foot on something is the ultimate insult in the Arab world,” added Ha’ivri. “It is sad that is the way they treat a holy site. But nobody was particularly surprised.”

The Jerusalem Post reports:

Ha’ivri said that in the past year, since Masika was elected head of the regional council, there had been regular monthly visits to the tomb coinciding with the new Jewish month. “Every time, we bring white paint to cover up the graffiti,” said Ha’ivri.

The tomb  is surrounded by territory controlled by the Palestinian Authority. In October 2000  Palestinians attacked a small Border Police contingent stationed next to the gravesite. Yusuf Madhat, one of the policemen, was killed after the IDF relied on the PA to evacuate Madhat, in keeping with the Oslo Accords.

A yeshiva called Od Yosef Hai (Joseph is Still Alive) was ransacked, and holy books were burned. Hillel Lieberman, a yeshiva student who tried to reach the site on Rosh Hashana by foot, was also killed.

The yeshiva was then moved to the neighboring settlement of Yitzhar. Until recently visits to the tomb were made clandestinely by Breslav Hassidim, against IDF orders.

Now, the Yitzhar-based organization Shechem Ehad (shoulder to shoulder) organizes monthly visits to the tomb. On Wednesday night, over 500 visitors were transported into the area in bullet-proof vehicles and under heavy IDF protection.

Nathan J. Diament, director of public policy at the Orthodox Union, issued a statement decrying the vandalism and calling on “all people of good will to join us in condemning such acts of desecration of holy sites.” “We also call upon all people of good will, especially those in positions of responsibility in the American, Israeli and other governments who, in their sincere desire to pursue a peaceful resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, consider plans which would have Israel relinquish sovereignty over other Jewish holy sites – most notably in Jerusalem – to view this as not the first, but another warning that this is what happens when such holy sites are not secured by Israel,” the statement said.

Interesting Archaeological Find In Israel

This rather nice piece appeared in Arutz Sheva today.

Enjoy!

Ancient Foot Provides Insight Into Israelite Pilgrimages

As the modern Israeli family readies itself for the annual Passover Seder on Wednesday, a new archeological discovery sheds light on how ancient the tradition actually is.

Researchers from the University of Haifa today revealed an exceptional archaeological discovery of “foot-shaped” enclosures for assemblies and rituals in the Jordan Valley, dating back to the time when the Jews first settled in Israel.

The enclosures are significant because this is the first time that enclosed sites identified with the biblical sites termed in Hebrew “gilgal” – closed spaces used to assemble people perhaps for battle or worship – have been revealed in the Jordan Valley. To this day, no archaeological site has been proposed to be identified with the gilgal.

Gilgal is mentioned 39 times in the Bible, most notably in the Book of Joshua as the site where the Israelites first encamped after crossing the Jordan River. Joshua ordered the Children of Israel to take 12 stones, symbolizing the 12 tribes, and place them in formation. According to the Bible, a mass circumcision for the Israelite males was also held there.

Yesterday it was revealed that the researchers, headed by Prof. Adam Zertal, had found and excavated five structures, each in the shape of an enormous human foot, apparently to mark territorial ownership.

Created for human assembly

The stone enclosures were located in the Jordan valley and the hill country west of it. The date for the sites was established as the outset of the Iron Age I (the 13th-12th centuries BCE). Based on their size and shape, the researchers say, it is clear that they were used for human assembly and not for animals.

Two of the sites (in Bedhat esh-Sha’ab and Yafit 3) were excavated between 2002 and 2005. The findings, mostly of clay vessels and animal bones, date their foundation to the end of the 13th century BCE, and one of them endured undisturbed up to the 9th or 8th century BCE.

In at least two cases, paved circuits, some two meters wide, were found around the structures. The archeologists theorize that these were probably used to encircle the sites in a ceremony.

Ceremonial encirclement of an area in procession is an important element in the ancient Near East,” Zertal said, adding that the origins of the Hebrew term hag (festival) in Semitic languages comes from the verb “hug”, which means “encircle”. The discovery can therefore also shed new light on the religious processions and the meaning of the Hebrew word for festival, chag.

But at this time of year, it is the word regel or “foot” which holds much significance. There are three major pilgrimage festivals in Judaism, known as the Shlosha Regalim: Pesach or Passover, Shavuot (The Festival of Weeks), and Sukkot (The Feast of Tabernacles).

At these times, in ancient Israel, Jews would make a pilgrimage to make sacrifices and worship at the Temple in Jerusalem. Therefore, “regel” also came to mean “festival” or “holiday” in Hebrew.

A symbol of ownership

And there may be even deeper meanings, Zertal said at a press conference yesterday, emphasizing that in the ancient world, “foot” also held significance as a symbol of ownership of territory, control over an enemy, connection between people and land, and presence of the Deity.

“The ‘foot’ structures that we found in the Jordan valley are the first sites that the People of Israel built upon entering Canaan and they testify to the biblical concept of ownership of the land with the foot,” said Zertal.

“The discovery of these ‘foot’ structures opens an entirely new system of linguistic and historical perceptions,” Zertal said, adding that the source of the Hebrew term aliya la-regel (or pilgrimage), literally translated as “ascending to the foot” could be attributed to the “foot” sites in the Jordan valley.

According to Zertal, the “foot” constructions were used for ceremonial assemblies during Iron Age I and probably afterwards. When the religious center for Jews moved to Jerusalem the command of aliya la-regel became associated with Jerusalem. However, says Zertal, the source of the term is in the sites discovered in the Jordan valley and the altar on Mt. Ebal.

“Now, following these discoveries, the meanings of the terms become clear. Identifying the ‘foot’ enclosures as ancient Israeli ceremonial sites leads us to a series of new possibilities to explain the beginnings of Israel, of the People of Israel’s festivals and holidays,” he stated.

Reprinted with the permission of ISRAEL2.