All of Jerusalem Belongs to the State of Israel

Old City from the Mount of the OlivesAmongst the news that Washington told Israel if they move forward with building in Eastern Jerusalem, it would distance Israel from, “even its closest allies.”  This is simply offensive rhetoric.

As Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said, it’s worth learning the information properly before deciding to take a position like that.  “I think they [the Obama administration] should be acquainted with the facts first. You know? First of all, these are not settlements. These are neighborhoods of Jerusalem. We have Arab neighborhoods and we have Jewish neighborhoods.”

Jerusalem is the eternal capital of the Jewish people – some strong quotes to better understand:

•”It is the right of Jews to buy an apartment in Jerusalem – I stand firm by my decision, there will not be a situation where Jews will not be able to buy an apartment in Jerusalem.” — Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu

• “I say this firmly and clearly: building in Jerusalem is not poisonous and harmful – rather, it is essential, important and will continue with full force. I will not freeze construction for anyone in Israel’s capital. Discrimination based on religion, race or gender is illegal in the United States and in any other civilized country.” — Jerusalem Mayor Nir Barkat

•“The oldest and holiest Jewish cemetery on Mount of Olives is in East Jerusalem, (3,000 years old) as is the Western Wall, so to call new Jewish suburbs in East Jerusalem, settlements, is absurd, and designed to undermine Jewish legitimacy there.” — Mervyn Bufton

• “[Jerusalem is the] “unified capital of Israel and the capital of the Jewish people, and sovereignty over it is indisputable.” — Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu

•“We are joyful and honored to commence the construction of our new neighborhood which strengthens the Jewish presence in united Jerusalem and stresses the fact that Jerusalem is the home of every Jew in Israel and throughout the world.” — Rabbi Dani Isaac

• “The Land of Israel without Jerusalem is merely ‘Palestine.’ Down the generations the Jews have been saying not ‘Next year in the Land of Israel’ but ‘Next year in Jerusalem’… One can create Tel-Aviv out of Jaffa but one cannot create a second Jerusalem. Zion lies within the walls, not outside them.” — Menachem Mendel Ussishkin

•“After 2,000 years of sacrifice for the dream of returning to Jerusalem, we cannot allow it to be taken away.” — Irving Moskowitz

•“All countries of the world should understand that attempts to endanger Jerusalem’s unity and Israel’s sovereignty in it, will be rejected immediately.” — MK Ofir Akunis

•“It’s a noise of construction, not of destruction, thank God. And it will always be like this. Development in Jerusalem, it’s a good thing. Not to the studio but for other things.” — Benny Elon

•“The Jewish people are in Jerusalem, not as settlers or invaders, but as of right. These rights are clearly spelt out in International Law and should be respected by the international community.” — Jacques Gauthier

•“A non-broken series of treaties and resolutions, as laid out by the San Remo Resolution, the League of Nations and the United Nations, gives the Jewish People title to the city of Jerusalem.” — Hillel Fendel

•“You ought to let the Jews have Jerusalem; it was they who made it famous.” — Winston Churchill

•“Jerusalem was the focal point for the historical connection of the Jewish people to the land of Israel.” — Dore Gold

•“The Jewish connection to Jerusalem is an ancient and powerful one. Judaism made Jerusalem a holy city over three thousand years ago and through all that time Jews remained steadfast to it.” — Daniel Pipes

•“This means praying and working for a just and lasting peace. Dividing Jerusalem will not lead to peace but will only further fuel the conflict. A lasting peace needs to be based on historical facts and international law and not on unilateral declarations or international pressure.” — Tomas Sandell

•“There is no justice, no law, and no God in heaven, only a single law which decides and supersedes all — [Jewish] settlement [of the land].” – Ze’ev Jabotinsky

•“2,600 apartments in Givat HaMatos that we approved two years ago will enable more young people from all sectors and religions to live in Jerusalem and build their future here, thereby strengthening the capital of Israel. We will not apologize for that.” — Jerusalem Mayor Nir Barkat

•“Jerusalem is not a settlement but the historical capital of Israel. If Jerusalem were to be divided along the armistice demarcation lines of 1967, it would place the Old City under Palestinian rule. This would contradict the legal commitments made to the Jewish people in the San Remo Resolution of 1920, the Mandate for Palestine in 1922, as well as Article 80 in the United Nations Charter.” — Jacques Gauthier

•“In terms of numbers, Jerusalem – not even including Zion – is mentioned directly in the Bible approximately 650 times. By way of comparison, it is not mentioned even once in the Koran – and Muslims actually turn their backs on Jerusalem when they pray.” — Chaim Silberstein

• “Anyone who doesn’t recognize Jerusalem as the capital of the state of Israel does not recognize the State of Israel.” — Jerusalem Mayor Nir Barkat

•“Jerusalem is the eternal, undivided capital of the nation of Israel and the Jewish people.” — Former Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin

•“There are two reasons Jerusalem was chosen the capital of Israel. The first, from David’s perspective, is political. The second, from God’s perspective, and more importantly, is spiritual.” — Gordon Franz

• “Objecting to ‘Judaisation of Jerusalem’, so to speak, is absurd and is equatable to an objection to the Catholic nature of the Vatican or the Islamisation of Mecca, it is naturally unthinkable.” — Foreign Ministry spokesman Yigal Palmor

• “I can imagine what would happen if someone proposed that Jews could not live or buy in certain neighborhoods of London, New York, Paris or Rome. A huge international outcry would surely ensue. It is even more impossible to agree to such an edict in East Jerusalem.” — Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu

•“It is unthinkable that any sovereign nation does not have the right to determine where in its territory its capital will reside. How ludicrous it is for one country to demand of another where it should or should not locate its capital! This is especially true of a city which has had strong emotional and spiritual significance to the Jewish people for many centuries.” — Bob Westbrook

•“Anyone who thinks that Jews buying a few handfuls of homes in areas of Jerusalem in any way contributes to the problems in the Middle East just doesn’t understand the reality of how deep the antagonism is to the nation state of the Jewish people,” — Professor Alan Dershowitz.

Jerusalem will never be divided.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

Subscribe to Frontpage’s TV show, The Glazov Gang, and LIKE it on Facebook.

  • Shein Ariely

    Jerusalem quiz!!
    questions and conclusion.
    Reply to the questions and make your own conclusion.

    1: How many times Jerusalem is mentioned in the Jewish Bible and how many times in the Qur’an?
    -In the Old Testament Jerusalem is mentioned 457 times.
    -In the Qur’an Jerusalem doesn’t exist at all.

    2: Why the Jerusalem story was invented by the Damascus -based Umayyad Caliphs ?
    Damascus rulers were so immoral that the Muslim leaders from Mecca forbidden the access of people under their rule to the Mecca.
    They invented the story about the Muhammad dream and Jerusalem (that doesn’t exist in Quran) as a pilgrim replacement place to Mecca.
    After the access to Mecca was possible, once again Jerusalem didn’t pay any role for Umayyas ruled Arabs.

    3; To which direction of Muslims and Jews are praying worldwide?
    -The Muslims face Mecca.
    -The Jews face Jerusalem.

    4; Do the Muslims and Jews pray for Jerusalem?
    -Muslims ceremonies don’t include Jerusalem.
    -The Israelis, for the last 2700 years pray, celebrate in ceremonies such weddings and bar mitzvah-””next year inJerusalem””
    No other capital worldwide has a parallel tradition.

    5: How Jerusalem is covered by Islamic and Jewish literature?
    “Unfortunately, there is no Islamic literature on the subject””
    * Dr. Ismail Raji al-Faruqi referred to the absence of Jerusalem:
    *Jerusalem, for the last 2700 years is covered in thousands of Jewish books, poems and songs”

    6: Was Jerusalem ever being a capital of a Muslim country?
    1,300 years of Muslim Arab rule, Jerusalem was never the capital of an Arab entity.

    7: Did the Palestinians required Egypt and Jordan to form a Palestinian state in the West bank and Gaza with Jerusalemas the capital while the areas where conquered by them after the 1947 attack on the nesting Israel?
    *No- they didn’t required!
    Palestine Liberation Organization’s start the demand to control Jerusalem Israel regained control of East Jerusalem in 1967.

    7: How Jerusalem was described by visiting Western writers?
    Jerusalem had been so neglected by Islamic rulers that writers who visited Jerusalem were moved to write about it.
    French writer Gustav Flaubertfound “ruins everywhere” during his visit in 1850.
    Mark Twain wrote in 1857 that Jerusalem had “become a pauper village.”

    8: Population of Jerusalem until 1945
    Year —- %Jews
    1714 —- 70:::
    1844— 45.9:::
    1896 —- 61.9:::
    1931—- 56.6:::
    1945 —- 60.4:::

    9: How Christians, Jews, Muslims of Jerusalem were treated
    under Jordanian government?
    *1948-1967, Jordan sought to alter the demographics and landscape of the city to enhance its Muslim character.
    *All Jewish residents were expelled.
    *Access of Jews to the holy welling wall was forbidden.
    *Jewish holy sites were damaged. 58 synagogues were desecrated or demolished in the Old City.
    * Jerusalem Mount olive cemetery used by Jews continuously
    for the last 3000 years was badly damaged.
    The Jordanians uprooted and damaged 38,000 tombstones some from the First Temple Period and four roads were paved through the cemeteries
    * Jordan’s restrictive laws on Christian institutions led to
    a dramatic decline in the holy city’s Christian population–31,330 in 1945 to 11,000 1967
    (Under Israel government to Christian population grow from 11.000 in 1968 to 15.000 in 2013)

    10:Conclusion:

    Arabs Jerusalem story was born in sin, without any cultural connection to Arab culture, never was a capital of a Muslim state, totally negated and during the history it is used only as a temporary political tool)

    • loulai

      Thank you for your post.

    • herb benty

      Fact: Mohammad’s well established date of death, 632AD, and Mohammad’s date for his “ride” into heaven from Jerusalem, 650 or 670 something, I read the article the other day. The point is BOTH dates are well known to the mullahs, clerics, and MO could not have “flown” from Jerusalem if he was dead! This shows the very human origin of the Koran vs. the God-breathed words that form the Hebrew Holy Scriptures and the Bible. Islam is in direct and intentional opposition to God, Jews and Christians, AND, to anyone who takes God up on His Promise, through His Son, Jesus Christ.

    • canto28

      So why after the ’67 war – the second war the Muslim world tried to annihilate Israel totally – did Israelis give Muslims access and Waqf authority over the Temple Mount? That stupidly gave a measure of credence to the Muslim’s absurd claims. IMO there needs to be research into a genetic suicide disorder in Jews.

  • Ashley Bcloud

    There will be no peace in the Middle East until Israel is brought in front of the Int. court for war crimes
    http://www.sgoal.org/Bring-Israel-in-front-of-the-International-Criminal-Court-for-war-crimes

    • wileyvet

      Are you also calling for Hamas, Hezbollah, Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade ( armed wing of the PA ) et al to also be brought in front of the International Criminal Court? Or do you in your perverted world view have no problem with Muslim terrorist organizations whose intent and desire is actual genocide? You must be perfectly comfortable with a group like Hamas whose charter declares their goal is the destruction of Israel and the death of all Jews. Likewise with Hezbollah. You are grossly ill informed as to the nature of the issues in the Middle East. You are also grossly uneducated in the nature of Islam.

      You evidently have no problem with the fact that 56 Muslim countries are all in direct violation of the UNs Declaration of Human Rights as laid down in 1948 that all members are signatories. You must also not have a problem with the abomination of law know as Sharia, practiced in whole or in part in these same Muslim countries. The law that allows for the stoning of women to death, the hanging of gays, the misogynistic practices that deny women opportunities for work, free assembly and a legitimate equality within society. The same law that forces these women to be covered from head to toe in a canvas sack and prevents them from leaving the home unaccompanied expect by a male relative.

      You are an ignorant twerp whose mind is diseased from years of leftist indoctrination. You are no doubt an empty, angry bitter human being who seeks to find yourself in some cause like all leftists. Being a rabid anti-Semite fits the bill so you rally to support those that wish to exterminate others and would just as easily throw you into a Burka and force you into an arranged marriage with a man that would be authorized to beat you because Allah said so. You are pathetic.

    • marlene

      You go first fool, for crimes against humanity.

    • Giborei1967

      Another Islamo-Nazi anti-Semite jihadi. Imach Shimech, sharamuta.

    • SoCalMike

      Get over the Jew-hatred.
      It belongs on the ash heap on history along with the various ISMs that left piles of dead bodies and vast swaths of economic destruction in their wake.

    • Softly Bob

      What crimes exactly – defending themselves against Hamas?
      You are one sick puppy.

  • Vinegar Hill

    The author complains that the response from the White House regarding construction in east Jerusalem was “offensive rhetoric”. He then quotes Netanyahu for support as he claimed “they should be aquainted with the facts….these are not settlements….these are neighborhoods”.
    I think both the author and Netanyahu need to aquaint themselves with the truth of the matter. The judges of the ICJ and other leading judges have clearly stated that the occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem is illegal according to international law. It really is quite simple because as a result of those dictums Israeli construction is illegal.
    I wonder what parts are not understood by the writer and Natanyahu?

    • loulai

      The ICJ is a corrupt, wholly owned subsidiary of the Organization of Islamic Conference as is the United Nations.

      • marlene

        Absolutely true.

      • retired22

        You have it only partly correct.
        These 2 corrupt organizations are majority owned by the NWO statists based in Brussels,Switzerland (Bank of International Settlement), the Federal Reserve Bank in N.Y.C,the “City of London” financial district in England & the big money players who own Washington’s politicians! The Moslems are merely their thugs, merely cut throats still living in the Dark Ages.They are nothing without the people who finance them,the bankers & oligarchs who own

    • wileyvet

      NO, you need to acquaint yourself with the facts, Vinegar and Water Douche. All peace negotiations are predicated on the idea of a “just and lasting peace”. From San Remo to Oslo to the Road Map. It is predicated likewise of the PLO/PA renunciation of terrorism, which they have only paid lip service to. The 2000 agreements were a sham, and exposed as such when Arafat launched the Second Intifada. Full Israeli withdrawal from Gaza achieved what? The election of Hamas, whose charter call for the annihilation of Israel and death to the Jews, all based on Islamic doctrine.

      Israeli settlements in Judea and Samaria comprise 1.7 percent of the total land. “Palestinians” control 96%, and 98% live in 40% of that, mostly in Urban areas like Nablus and Hebron. The PA has been in de facto control of the West Bank since 1996. There have been no new Israeli settlements, only extensions of those already existing, none of which are against agreements signed by both Israel and the PA.

      There is no obligation under UN Resolution 242 for Israel to withdraw from this land. And it is NOT occupied but disputed land to be resolved through negotiation and a final settlement between Israel and the PA. Again a final resolution is contingent on the PA renouncing their violence, gross vilification of Jews in their schools and media, and incitement to terrorism and glorifying suicide bombers as Martyrs. To date the PA has failed to do so. Like Arafat before him, Abu Mazen speaks with forked tongue. Declaring one thing to a gullible western audience, while in Arabic media and to his cabal, maintaining the goal of the destruction of Israel.

      As for the International Court of Justice you speak of, it is worthless organization, much like the UN a kangaroo court of leftist tools, whose morality is so warped, and world view so distorted by Marxism in their search for “justice”. They and the UN have done, and do nothing to improve the human condition. Filled with rogue dictators, Islamic supremacists that vote as one bloc, and other assorted 3rd world scoundrels, it is as morally bankrupt as you are.

      Sanctimonious radical leftist one world government types, they sit on their hands as member states impose Sharia law in contradiction and violation of their very own vaunted declarations. They sit by while millions are oppressed, persecuted, and outright slaughtered around the world, but only look up to pass yet another resolution condemning Israel. This is what you support. You and your pseudo intellectual half wit leftist friends make yourselves feel better by damning the only democracy in a sea of tyranny. You condemn a nation that actually has an open judiciary and government, including Arabs, yet give a free pass to the despots and mullahs that rule with the barbarity of Islamic Sharia. A nation that has respect for differences including women and homosexuals and allows them opportunity to contribute to their own prosperity. Yet you say nothing about the 22 Arab states that restrict women unequally before the law, and outright kill people for being gay. Your inverted twisted ethics and morality should disturb you. But alas it does not. Just as it never bothered your past ilk, that tacitly or vocally supported and endorsed the tyrannies of Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Castro, Ho Chi Minh, Daniel Ortega et al.

      • Vinegar Hill

        The UN institutions, the ICJ and the ICC are renowned and respected international organisations dealing with conflicts where resolutions are to be found based on international law. I assume your critical comments stem from your fear of what might be concluded if the Israeli Palestinian conflict were to be resolved in this manner.
        Regarding UN Res 242, it is binding and Israel has to withdraw from the territories occupied in the six day war. The occupation is illegal. You need to read what the judges of the ICJ have to say regarding the matter.

        • bklyn farmer

          Looks like someone just cleaned you clock.

          • wileyvet

            Superb rebuttal.

          • bklyn farmer

            Thanks very much, looks like we have a troll from Al Jazeera.

          • Vinegar Hill

            I think you will find that the Right-wing Israeli tnterpretation does not stand as you have tried to argue.
            First, the wording of the Withdrawal Phrase refers to those territories ‘occupied in the recent conflict’. If a withdrawal takes place from some, but not all, then the principle contained in the Withdrawal Phrase has been complied with in full. A partial withdrawal would only be partial compliance with the principle. The absence of the word ‘all’ does not imply that ‘some’ was intended.
            Second, the resolution needs to be considered within the context of the” abolition of the right of conquest in international law”. Any suggestion that Israel could retain some of the territories would have been illegal. Are you trying to argue that the S C would have attempted to overturn this principle?
            Third, if you read (ii) following “territories occupied” it deals with Secure and Recognised Boundaries Phrase. Here it clearly states that ‘all claims or states of belligerency’ should be terminated…”.
            It is clear that the representatives of ten of the fifteen voting members made a point of stating on the record that they considered that the Resolution provided that Israel had no right to acquire any of the territories occupied in the Six Days War, and that it followed from this that the requirement to withdraw extended to all these territories.
            Finally, regarding Goldberg et al the relevant paragraph in the American draft resolution concerning withdrawal does not aid your argument, even though it does not contain ‘all’ or ‘the’ before territories.
            The paragraph runs as follows:
            “The Security Council . . . Affirms that the fulfilment of the above Charter principles requires the achievement of a state of just and lasting peace in the Middle East embracing withdrawal of armed forces from occupied territories, termination of claims or states of belligerence, mutual recognition and respect of the
            right of every state in the area to sovereign existence, territorial integrity political independence, secure and recognised boundaries, and freedom from the threat
            or use of force.”
            Withdrawal of armed forces from occupied territories’ is one of a list of items governed by the participle ‘embracing’. Another item in the same list is ‘secure and recognised boundaries’. Both items have identical places in the grammar and syntax of the sentence, and should be treated equally with every other item on the list.
            In the American wording, if the boundaries are ‘all’ to be secure, then by the same token ‘withdrawal of armed forces from occupied territories’ should apply to ‘all’ occupied territories; and ‘termination of claims or states of belligerence’ should be taken to mean ‘all’ claims or states of belligerence etc. etc……
            The occupation is illegal and Israel is in breach of international law and needs to withdraw from all territories taken in the six day war.

          • bklyn farmer

            In your very first sentence you state “the Right-wing Israeli tnterpretation (sic)”
            So according to you
            1. The British Foreign Secretary from 1966 to 1968, and helped draft Resolution 242, George A. Brown, is a right wing Israeli.
            2. The permanent representative of the United Kingdom to the United Nations from 1964-1970, and was the chief drafter of Resolution 242, Lord Caradon, is a right wing Israeli.
            3. The former dean of Yale Law School who served as U.S. Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs from 1966-1969, and helped draft Resolution 242, Eugene Rostow, is a right wing Israeli.
            4. The U.S. representative to the United Nations from 1965-1968, and before that was a Supreme Court Justice. He too helped draft Resolution 242, Arthur J. Goldberg, is a right wing Israeli.
            If you insist on rewriting history and the law at least make it somewhat believable.

            http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/14068

            Ten Basic Points: Israel’s Rights to Judea and Samaria

            1. Upon Israel’s taking control of the area in 1967, the 1907 Hague Rules on Land Warfare and the Fourth Geneva Convention (1949) were not considered applicable to the West Bank (Judea and Samaria) territory, as the Kingdom of Jordan, prior to 1967, was never the prior legal sovereign, and in any event has since renounced any claim to sovereign rights via-a-vis the territory.

            2. Israel, as administering power pending a negotiated final determination as to the fate of the territory, nevertheless chose to implement the humanitarian provisions of the Geneva convention and other norms of international humanitarian law in order to ensure the basic day-to-day rights of the local population as well as Israel’s own rights to protect its forces and to utilize those parts of land that were not under local private ownership.

            3. Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, prohibiting the mass transfer of population into occupied territory as practiced by Germany during the second world war, was neither relevant nor was ever intended to apply to Israelis choosing to reside in Judea and Samaria.

            4. Accordingly, claims by the UN, European capitals, organizations and individuals that Israeli settlement activity is in violation of international law therefore have no legal basis whatsoever.

            5. Similarly, the oft-used term “occupied Palestinian territories” is totally inaccurate and false. The territories are neither occupied nor Palestinian. No legal instrument has ever determined that the Palestinians have sovereignty or that the territories belong to them.

            6. The territories of Judea and Samaria remain in dispute between Israel and the Palestinians, subject only to the outcome of permanent status negotiations between them.

            7. The legality of the presence of Israel’s communities in the area stems from the historic, indigenous and legal rights of the Jewish people to settle in the area, granted pursuant to valid and binding international legal instruments recognized and accepted by the international community. These rights cannot be denied or placed in question.

            8. The Palestinian leadership, in the still valid 1995 Interim Agreement (Oslo 2), agreed to, and accepted Israel’s continued presence in Judea and Samaria pending the outcome of the permanent status negotiations, without any restriction on either side regarding planning, zoning or construction of homes and communities. Hence, claims that Israel’s presence in the area is illegal have no basis.

            9. The Palestinian leadership undertook in the Oslo Accords, to settle all outstanding issues, including borders, settlements, security, Jerusalem and refugees, by negotiation only and not through unilateral measures. The Palestinian call for a freeze on settlement activity as a precondition for returning to negotiation is a violation of the agreements.

            10. Any attempt, through the UN or otherwise, to unilaterally change the status of the territory would violate Palestinian commitments set out in the Oslo Accords and prejudice the integrity and continued validity of the various agreements with Israel, thereby opening up the situation to possible reciprocal unilateral action by Israel.

          • wileyvet

            Again, nice job. Those with a seemingly irrational and visceral hatred for Israel believe they can hide their actual Jew hatred behind such innocuous phrasing such as justice. They will not accept anything other than “Palestinian” as victim, and thus excuse every despicable act committed against Israel. They need to delegitimize the entire concept of Zionism, to disregard the historical connection of the Jewish people and to condemn all Jews that emigrated to Palestine going as far back as the late 1800s. It is a mystery to me, however, what these people have to personally gain from such vilification, derogation and denigration of both Jews and Israel. Whatever drives them though, it certainly always betrays them as the enemy of the very ideals they say they champion.

          • Vinegar Hill

            The reason why a post these comments is to stop injustices being carried out against the Palestinian people.
            There are too many myths regarding the birth of Israel and what followed, and many of these wrongs need to be righted. The only thing I will gain will be that soon I will see justice for an oppressed people…..the Palestinians.

          • bklyn farmer

            So your problem is with the actual “birth of Israel”, it the existence of this country which offends you and that you hope that your posting will hasten the coming of 2nd holocaust. Is you obsession with the indefensible ’67 armistice line part of the Palestinian Phase Plan adopted at the 12th Session of the Palestinian National Council Cairo, June 9, 1974:

            Phase 1: Through the “armed struggle”, establish an “independent combatant national authority” over any territory that is “liberated” from Israeli rule. (Article 2)

            Phase 2: To continue the struggle against Israel, using the territory of the national authority as a base of operations (Article 4).

            Phase 3: To “liberate all Palestinian territory” by provoking Israel into an all-out war in which its Arab neighbors destroy it entirely (Article 8).

          • wileyvet

            As Israel’s Foreign Minister, Abba Eban, famously said of the Palestinians, ” they never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.”
            You see, no amount of facts or reason persuade people like this. Being hit over the head with them has no effect. Much like the “Palestinians” and their fellow Arabs. Nearly a century of terrorism against Jews has not produced the results, yet they persist.

            You would think they would have had enough. But one would be wrong. As your post indicates, there are two sides of the same coin when seeking Israel’s destruction. The veneer of respectable diplomats that the PA has adopted, is just the sheep’s clothing necessary for their duping of gullible western leaders. Underneath of course are the same rabid wolves they have always been with the same goal of devouring Israel.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            There is Justice for oppressive Pal-e-SWINE.

            Nakba.

            Eternal Nakba.

            Like the Nakba that the nazis experienced on May 7, 1945.

          • bklyn farmer

            http://markhumphrys.com/why.palestine.html

            I think Mark Humphry got it right in his blog:

            Why do people support the Palestinians?

            If it is clear to me that every liberal believer in democracy and human rights should broadly support Israel – and be broadly hostile to the Palestinians – why does the world not see it that way? Why does the world support violent, intolerant, racist, Islamic religious fanatics who are fighting to set up a tribal Islamic state in which there will be no democracy and no human rights?

            It seems the Palestinians have hit all the right buttons:

            1. They are (allegedly) the “third world” fighting “imperialists” – a cause many people will support no matter what kind of “imperialism” is being attacked, and with no thought to what kind of state the “third world” rebels are fighting to establish.

            2. They are (allegedly) “non-whites” fighting “whites”. The modern left, which is still in the racist world, cares primarily about crimes by “whites” or “people like us”. It cares little about crimes by “non-whites”. As I have argued elsewhere, this looks like anti-white racism, but is in fact just another form of anti-non-white racism, treating non-whites as if they are not adults responsible for their actions. Not criticising Palestinians or other “third world” or “non-white” peoples does not show how enlightened you are. It shows how racist you are.

            Of course, to think of this conflict as “non-whites” versus “whites” is actually nonsense. Israelis comes from all over the world, including all over the Middle East (from which they were expelled), and including places like Ethiopia. But for racists the world over (which includes most of the western left), all Israelis are honorary “whites”.

            3. They are (allegedly) the “poor” fighting the “rich”. The fact that it is their own fault that they are poor, and the fact that the Israelis deserve all of their wealth because they have worked hard to create it, is neither here nor there.

            4. They are fighting against Jews – always a popular target throughout history. The world has not changed that much. Prejudices don’t die overnight. After Auschwitz, the world should have changed forever. But it didn’t.

            If a second Holocaust ever happened, the world’s reaction would be similar to the first one. If its Islamic enemies ever defeated Israel, and the Jews were being rounded up to be gassed in concentration camps, the entire Muslim world would cheer. The western left would explain how the Jews were responsible, for having generated such hatred. The EU and UN would hem and haw and do nothing. Only America and Britain and a few others would try to stop it. How can anyone doubt the above would be the case.

            5. They are Muslim, giving them a sympathetic constituency of 1 billion people. Muslims tend to sympathise with Muslims engaged in conflict with non-Muslims worldwide. Christians aren’t like this. For example, the genocide of Christians in the Sudan is generally a matter of indifference to western Christians, who are interested in other issues. See the silence of the Archbishop of Canterbury on the topic of the persecution of third world Christians.

            If the Palestinians were Christian, nobody would support them. Certainly the Islamic world wouldn’t. And if they were fundamentalist Christian, the western left would despise them – and probably even support the Israelis. But, for some reason, fundamentalist Islam is alright with the western left.

            6. They are incredibly violent and barbaric, with savage attacks against the most defenceless of civilians, such as children. Due to the strange nature of humans, this gets them more support, not less. If they engaged in peaceful protest, nobody in the world would pay them much attention. But no one can ignore young people who suicide bomb restaurants and shoot toddlers.

            The Palestinians are not the most oppressed people on the planet. Far from it. There are dozens of far more oppressed peoples and hundreds of more worthwhile causes in the world. What is special about the Palestinians is that they are the most violent and barbaric of all (allegedly) “oppressed” peoples on the planet. Hence – due to the strange nature of humans – they get more attention and more support worldwide.

            7. They are fighting a democracy. A democracy gives open access to journalists and is a nice comfortable place for them to report from (good hotels, shops, restaurants, Internet access, etc.). Also, the journalist can attack the democracy in print as much as he likes without fear. By contrast, non-democracies allow little or no access, facilities are primitive and unpleasant, and journalists live in fear of arrest or even death. Hence, lots of journalists in Israel. Hardly any in the Sudan or North Korea. Hence, a war against a democracy will be covered in a lot more detail than a war against a non-democracy. Hence, the democracy will be criticised for its (minor) crimes a lot more than non-democracies committing really serious crimes. Israel gets more criticism than even countries that commit large-scale genocide.

            8. They are fighting a democracy. A non-democracy would simply exterminate or ethnically cleanse them, and the conflict would soon come to an end and be forgotten by everyone except historians. Who in the world talks about the Armenians now? Or even Bangladesh or Biafra? Most young people have never even heard of these – just as Rwanda will soon be forgotten. But a democracy like Israel cannot simply exterminate its enemy and end the conflict. It has to be far more restrained, and so the conflict goes on and on for years.

          • Vinegar Hill

            Your first 4 points are totally out of context! The view that you presented is the Israeli Right-wing view and it uses the references that you referred to. You have the cart before the horse!
            I notice that you did not answer any of the points I made and I assume you can’t.
            Regarding you attempt to distract from your inability to reply I will, however, respond to some of your tangents.
            In particular your interpretation of the 4th GC:
            This is erroneous. It has been incorrectly argued by Israel that the West Bank did not come within the compass of the phrase ‘territory of a High Contracting Party’ appearing in the second paragraph of Article 2. The Israeli argument along these lines is sterile. The second paragraph of Article 2, hinging on the words ‘shall also apply’, comes immediately after the opening paragraph. The general rule is stated in the first paragraph, which does not include the words ‘territory of a High Contracting Party’, and the second paragraph, which does, relates only to the exceptional scenario of an occupation that meets with no armed resistance.
            The IDF Judge M. Shamgar, along with the ICJ pronouncement on the “Wall”, recognised that the settlements were in violation of Article 49 (6) of the 4th GC. The Court declared that this provision prohibits not only forcible transfers, ‘but also any measures taken by an occupying Power in order to organize or encourage transfers of parts of its own population into the occupied territory’.
            This dictum of the Court is unassailable
            The judges of the ICJ have “Confirmed the illegality of settlements under 49 (6) of the 4th Geneva Convention… where it covers forced transfers and measures by the occupying power to organise or encourage its civilian population to move to occupied territories.”
            The IDF Judge M. Shamgar, along with the ICJ pronouncement on the “Wall”, recognised that
            the settlements were in violation of Article 49.

            I use as my sources the ICJ, Judge M.Shamgar and Yoram Dinstein…..and you?

          • bklyn farmer

            “Out of context” what BS, it addressed the very first line in your bloviated post now you want to act like you never stated the ridiculous comment. If the first comment you made is such a falsehood why bother with the rest of your convoluted mental gymnastics you go through to falsely vilify Israel.

    • marlene

      DUH! The West Bank and Jerusalem are NOT occupied by Jewish Israel. They are occupied by the “palestinian” terrorists. What part of the evidence of truth do YOU not understand? Apparently, God has given you over to your reprobate mind and the only thing that comes from it is B.S. hate, troll.

    • SoCalMike

      The O word you clowns like to use was never used until the Israelis won in 1967,
      The West Bank wasn’t occupied by Jordan and Gaza wasn’t occupied by Egypt.
      Only the Jew-haters began using this phrase after 1967 and the mentally conformed masses began repeating in uncritical stupor ever since.
      What does International Law have to say about the enslavement of the North Korean people in the largest concentration camp in the world?
      What does International Law have to say about the mass slaughter of the Sudanese, the Congo and Rwanda?

      • wileyvet

        Precisely!

  • marlene

    Every bit of verbalized nonsense coming out of American leaders’ mouths comes from their reprobate minds and lack of conscience. There exists a chorus of cognitive dissonance and sociapathic manipulation disguised as foreign policy towards Israel. Our president lies in the face of documented proof and spins a fool’s tale. He’s out to lie, steal and destroy. Hmm – who does that remind us of?

    • AgntOrngVctm

      His “father”.

  • Crazycatkid

    Great article but it has attracted anti-Semtiic trolls. Interesting that they read here (and can read!). Friends, don’t feed the trolls. Maybe their comments should be vetted….before posting as they make no sense.

  • bklyn farmer

    The only times the Arabs are interested in Jerusalem is when Israel liberated from Jordan’s illegal occupation.