anthony

Trump calls the bluff

Recommended Posts

There has been a contained secret about the Middle East: Palestine does not ~actually~ want a two-state Solution. Everyone who's long followed and studied the conflict knows that - Western leaders, Arab leaders, PLO leaders, commentators and every average Palestinian. If they had wanted, Arafat or Abbas would have officially and permanently recognized the statehood of Israel as the other party to such solution. They've had every chance to. (At one point, a formal partition of Jerusalem was offered for peace terms by a past Prime Minister of Israel. Only imagine the Saudis, and Muslim world, splitting Mecca - with Christians, say - or Jews...). Not to add, every self-interested cause to do so. Nope, what is desired is the overthrow of Israel altogether in revenge for being beaten in several wars by Jews, then to take all the territory; the belief is - we just have to outwait and keep unrelenting pressure on Israel with violence and sympathy, cash and moral support from the West - no matter at what cost and suffering to our lives and future lives, in the interim. The Israeli 'repression' ("Apartheid state", etc.) is a fiction, mostly of the Palestinians' own doing: it's been self-repression, on the whole -- self-sacrifice.

But the pretense that they ~do~ want peace, the facade of peaceful intentions and a sustained imagery of a "repressed" Palestine has never been openly exposed by the gutless liars of the West and its media, many of whom know better. With a purely symbolic gesture by the US, since to Israelis Jerusalem is and always was the de facto - and they will argue, de jure - capital of israel, even a simple proposal to move the Embassy there, is going to set the cat among the pigeons and ruffle many feathers. Great. President Trump is now explicitly recognizing and revealing what nobody else would - that all of this has been a colossal con, with a constantly dishonest party pretending to deal for peace with the honest party, Israel . All previous discussions, appeasing gestures and dollars given to Palestine for a just settlement, have been wasted. They have not won any good will or respect for America, as seen and heard by responses on BBC today from Palestinians. Immediately, Israelis will just have to handle the threatened consequences in coming days and they might be severe, but I think, paradoxically, that calling out the PLO's bluff might well be the opening move to lasting peace, one day. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why Trump Is Right in Recognizing Jerusalem as Israel's Capital

by Alan M. Dershowitz
December 7, 2017 at 4:00 am

 

 

President Trump's decision to recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital is a perfect response to President Obama's benighted decision to change American policy by engineering the United Nations Security Council Resolution declaring Judaism's holiest places in Jerusalem to be occupied territory and a "flagrant violation under international law." It was President Obama who changed the status quo and made peace more difficult, by handing the Palestinians enormous leverage in future negotiations and disincentivizing them from making a compromised peace.

It had long been American foreign policy to veto any one-sided Security Council resolutions that declared Judaism's holiest places to be illegally occupied. Obama's decision to change that policy was not based on American interests or in the interests of peace. It was done out of personal revenge against Prime Minister Netanyahu and an act of pique by the outgoing president.

It was also designed improperly to tie the hands of President-elect Trump. President Trump is doing the right thing by telling the United Nations that the United States now rejects the one-sided U.N. Security Council Resolution.

So if there is any change to the status quo, let the blame lie where it should be: at the hands of President Obama for his cowardly decision to wait until he was a lame-duck president to get even with Prime Minister Netanyahu. President Trump deserves praise for restoring balance in negotiations with Israel and the Palestinians. It was President Obama who made peace more difficult. It was President Trump who made it more feasible again.

The outrageously one-sided Security Council Resolution declared that "any changes to the 4 June 1967 lines, including with regard to Jerusalem," have "no legal validity and constitutes a flagrant violation under international law." This means, among other things, that Israel's decision to build a plaza for prayer at the Western Wall — Judaism's holiest site — constitutes a "flagrant violation of international law." This resolution was, therefore, not limited to settlements in the West Bank, as the Obama administration later claimed in a bait-and-switch. The resolution applied equally to the very heart of Israel.

Before June 4, 1967, Jews were forbidden from praying at the Western Wall. They were forbidden to attend classes at the Hebrew University at Mt. Scopus, which had been opened in 1925 and was supported by Albert Einstein. Jews could not seek medical care at the Hadassah Hospital on Mt. Scopus, which had treated Jews and Arabs alike since 1918. Jews could not live in the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem, where their forebears had built homes and synagogues for thousands of years. These Judenrein prohibitions were enacted by Jordan, which had captured by military force these Jewish areas during Israel's War of Independence, in 1948, and had illegally occupied the entire West Bank, which the United Nations had set aside for an Arab state. When the Jordanian government occupied these historic Jewish sites, they destroyed all the remnants of Judaism, including synagogues, schools and cemeteries, whose headstones they used for urinals. Between 1948 and 1967, the United Nations did not offer a single resolution condemning this Jordanian occupation and cultural devastation.

When Israel retook these areas in a defensive war that Jordan started by shelling civilian homes in West Jerusalem, and opened them up as places where Jews could pray, study, receive medical treatment and live, the United States took the official position that it would not recognize Israel's legitimate claims to Jewish Jerusalem.

It stated that the status of Jerusalem, including these newly liberated areas, would be left open to final negotiations and that the status quo would remain in place. That is the official rationale for why the United States refused to recognize any part of Jerusalem, including West Jerusalem, as part of Israel. That is why the United States refused to allow an American citizen born in any part of Jerusalem to put the words "Jerusalem, Israel" on his or her passport as their place of birth.

But even that historic status quo was changed with President Obama's unjustified decision not to veto the Security Council Resolution from last December. The United Nations all of a sudden determined that, subject to any further negotiations and agreements, the Jewish areas of Jerusalem recaptured from Jordan in 1967 are not part of Israel. Instead, they were territories being illegally occupied by Israel, and any building in these areas — including places for prayer at the Western Wall, access roads to Mt. Scopus, and synagogues in the historic Jewish Quarter — "constitutes a flagrant violation under international law." If that indeed is the new status quo, then what incentives do the Palestinians have to enter negotiations? And if they were to do so, they could use these Jewish areas to extort unreasonable concessions from Israel, for which these now "illegally occupied" areas are sacred and nonnegotiable.

President Obama's refusal to veto this one-sided resolution was a deliberate ploy to tie the hands of his successors, the consequence of which was to make it far more difficult for his successors to encourage the Palestinians to accept Israel's offer to negotiate with no preconditions. No future president can undo this pernicious agreement, since a veto not cast can never be retroactively cast. And a resolution once enacted cannot be rescinded unless there is a majority vote against it, with no veto by any of its permanent members, which include Russia and China, who would be sure to veto any attempt to undo this resolution.

President Trump's decision to officially recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital helps to restore the appropriate balance. It demonstrates that the United States does not accept the Judenrein effects of this bigoted resolution on historic Jewish areas of Jerusalem, which were forbidden to Jews. The prior refusal of the United States to recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital was based explicitly on the notion that nothing should be done to change the status quo of that city, holy to three religions. But the Security Council Resolution did exactly that: It changed the status quo by declaring Israel's de facto presence on these Jewish holy sites to be a "flagrant violation under international law" that "the U.N. will not recognize."

President Donald Trump displays the signed "Presidential Proclamation Recognizing Jerusalem as the Capital of the State of Israel and Relocating the United States Embassy to Israel to Jerusalem," on December 6, 2017, in Washington, D.C. (Image source: White House video screenshot)

Since virtually everyone in the international community acknowledges that any reasonable peace would recognize Israel's legitimate claims to these and other areas in Jerusalem, there is no reason for allowing the U.N. Resolution to make criminals out of every Jew or Israeli who sets foot on these historically Jewish areas. (Ironically, President Obama prayed at what he regarded as the illegally occupied Western Wall.)

After the UN, at the urging of President Obama, made it a continuing international crime for there to be any Israeli presence in disputed areas of Jerusalem, including areas whose Jewish provenance is beyond dispute, President Trump was right to untie his own hands and to undo the damage wrought by his predecessor. Some have argued that the United States should not recognize Jerusalem because it will stimulate violence by Arab terrorists. No American decision should ever be influenced by the threat of violence. Terrorists should not have a veto over American policy. If the United States were to give in to threats of violence, it would only incentivize others to threaten violence in response to any peace plan.

So let's praise President Trump for doing the right thing by undoing the wrong thing President Obama did at the end of his presidency.

Alan M. Dershowitz is the Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law, Emeritus, at Harvard Law School and author of "Trumped Up: How Criminalizing Politics is Dangerous to Democracy."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

dershFatwa.png

 

gatestoneFatwa.png

 

Edited by william.scherk
Excerpts of copyrighted material ... are fair use. Full texts without links ... are not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not so much "fake" news, as 'arranged' news - posed, staged and co-ordinated by agreement between the activists and journalists. It was this way in '70's South Africa, with the illegal strikes, demonstrations and marches against the apartheid state. These would seldom take place nor become violent, when the photographers didn't get there. It usually started with a tip-off to a reporter friendly with some activists. Then: "Go down to x place at y time -- something will happen" the news editor would tell the photographer. Sure enough, you'd get there before the police and it was all peaceable until they arrived. With the cameras on them, the stone throwing and bloody clashes began and you'd get a six-column front page picture (if you weren't arrested and had the film confiscated) with a byline. It's like a causal reversal - the camera orchestrates the 'news'. Raise the camera, and "something" happened. I observed that. Tawil's article of the long history of Palestinian collusion with Western journalists reminds me of how common and more sophisticated this artificial form of news gathering still is; now the line between "covering" the news - and "creating" the 'news' - has been so blurred by repetition, that few outsiders are even disturbed to know about this cynical practice. "Sensationalism", attention seeking by activists and the promoting of a specific political, ideological agenda of the biased media, he indicates, is the final purpose. It seems, here in Palestine today, and increasingly in recent times, that the whipped-up, "enraged" mob is supposed to represent "the will of the people" and their suffering. No one will admit, but it's all the better for both parties when there are casualties. This symbolism is everything, at cost to truth and lives. But, a thought experiment. Magically, permanently remove from the equation all camera crews and reporters (just conjecturing) - and you know what? Nobody gets hurt and killed, any longer. The Palestinians would lose their adoring world audience, have to face reality, and soon be at the negotiating table. There would finally come peace (if not love and fellowship) - but that's absolutely not the goal for Palestinian/Arab leaders and most anti-Israel Leftists - is it? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/8/2017 at 6:36 PM, william.scherk said:

dershFatwa.png

 

gatestoneFatwa.png

 

No comment, William, has the cat got your tongue of late? Ha! I can't guess what your re-quote is meant to show.

I will remark about these three, Dershowitz is one of the few objective and principled left- liberals I know of, Tawil a moderate Muslim, has shown himself to be a truthful, courageous writer, and Shapiro, conservative Jew, is consistently more logical than many a Lefty - secular left Jews, particularly. It's good to see the accord of such dissimilar individuals. And how is it that many on the conservative, religious are turning out to have a greater command of reason, rationality (and especially causality) than many secularists? Odd, hey?

I think Shapiro, quite crudely, is pointing to a major differential between the cultures of one 'group' and another who live in close proximity. Away from the collectivist notion, it's a theme you know in Objectivism. One, has more highly upheld rational values and free will in their own lives, and by extension, in others' life - the other traditionally and presently has placed, shall I say,  not so much value (or volitionality).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As an added thought, it's high time the USA asserted its independence to recognize who and what it will according to its own criteria.

Up to now, it's recognition of Jerusalem as capital of Israel has been hijacked by a weird kind of emotional blackmail (and I betcha gobs and gobs of moolah behind it).

The recognition of Jerusalem as capital of Israel has far more importance in proclaiming the sovereignty of the USA than for any relations between Israel and the Palestinians.

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/8/2017 at 8:36 AM, william.scherk said:

Edited by william.scherk
Excerpts of copyrighted material ... are fair use. Full texts without links ... are not.

 

Edited by william.scherk
Answering Tony's "I can't guess what your re-quote is meant to show." It shows a clickable image, with embedded link. Not full-text copy-paste without URLs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/9/2017 at 2:39 AM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

As an added thought, it's high time the USA asserted its independence to recognize who and what it will according to its own criteria.

Up to now, it's recognition of Jerusalem as capital of Israel has been hijacked by a weird kind of emotional blackmail (and I betcha gobs and gobs of moolah behind it).

The recognition of Jerusalem as capital of Israel has far more importance in proclaiming the sovereignty of the USA than for any relations between Israel and the Palestinians.

Michael

I think an important insight, about America and President Trump as well as Israel, Michael. As we know, taking one's own destiny in hand is the assertion of one's independence (of mind, actions and status). What Trump is effectively saying to Palestinians and the Arab world (and other nations) is: Learn to look after yourselves. The US is not babysitting you any longer. We will no more play your games of fake-peace-proposals. You must work for what you want and deserve it, if you value your lives, peace and prosperity badly enough. (And that's no certainty).

Israel's entire reason to be, its credo, began and continues to rest upon self-determination, with the existential realization that the world was and won't be, forever perfectly safe for Jews. Before Israel, Americans well knew and still know a similar credo and prize self-determinism, at root, but many have come to degrade and even deride the idea. Trump's single purpose (as best as I have seen) is to return the US to sovereign and moral independence - in its standing within the world, and for individual Americans. Stunning for me is that ARI Objectivists will not/cannot notice and applaud his overriding intent, over and above whatever mistakes he may have made, lesser flaws, etc., in respect to what they know of the high O'ist virtue: independence, of both individuals and the country, and the sole gauge of freedom.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, william.scherk said:

 

"Fair use"? Is that your No.1 concern? If there is an argument buried here, let's hear it, I can't be bothered with innuendo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/9/2017 at 10:09 AM, william.scherk said:
On 12/8/2017 at 8:36 AM, william.scherk said:

Edited by william.scherk
Excerpts of copyrighted material ... are fair use. Full texts without links ... are not.

Edited by william.scherk
Answering Tony's "I can't guess what your re-quote is meant to show." It shows a clickable image, with embedded link. Not full-text copy-paste without URLs.

Next time, please don't copy-paste full text copyrighted material without attribution.

On 12/5/2013 at 4:39 AM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

We do not ... copy/paste whole articles. Sometimes something gets through and it's no biggy, but in general, we give an excerpt from the original article (usually a teaser or a section that makes our point) and link to the original for people who want to read the whole thing. This creates a backlink to source's site, they feel a little luv from the Google monster, and that keeps complaints way down. (Backlinking to the source also applies to video and other media when copyright is involved, and even when it's not.)

As a moral issue, it's a good idea to source where things come from. [...]

So, without the drama and merely as information, I personally would appreciate it if you would adopt attribution as your default habit when posting quotes on OL. 

 

Edited by william.scherk
billike gebruik, kopiereg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.palwatch.org/

One for the newshounds.

Palestine Media Watch concentrates on what's been written in the Palestine media: "fake", deceitful, divisive, incendiary - etc. - news, propaganda and belligerent public statements by leaders, and parental/classroom indoctrination, with a single aim you can't avoid seeing. These articles were unlikely to ever be picked up by foreign media. They don't fit "the narrative". What you wish to destroy, 'vanish' out of existence - whom you wish to have murdered, dehuman-ize.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

37-1. The opposition among nations to President Trump's Jerusalem move. (Rand pointed out that a single man can be unpopularly right and everyone else wrong. Goes for a country too). For certain, leaders of Western countries are scared to make a principled stand, and too, not all Arab nations are unhappy about it and are just going along with the usual anti-Israel/US rhetoric. It serves to show up what is one definitive aspect of the leftist philosophy. Screwed up cause and effect. The West's thinking: "We will upset Jihadis by not voicing our opposition to Trump's Jerusalem agenda. It could 'cause' them - or give them 'cause' - to react against us". In evasion of the fact that it is the hatred of Western freedoms that causes Islamist terror attacks, and trying to appease them is more likely, not less, to draw attacks. 

Their way of 'logic' 1. reverses causality. So, e.g., the always-touted "Israeli occupation" of the West bank(won from Jordan's  real "occupation" of it first, after the earlier '48 war) has been inverted to be *the cause* of conflict - when anyone who knows the facts and is honest may see that it's almost completely *the effect* of conflict - i.e., the threat/actuality of previous and ongoing conflicts induces the IDF to keep a military presence there. If it were a continuously peaceful Palestinian populace, why would they bother? Additionally and importantly, the West Bank would have been self-ruling by now. And -- sharing with Israel Jerusalem as their capital. Shrewdly understanding and playing on the West's stupidity, victim-worship and Israel-prejudices, Fatah and Hamas are free to keep the conflicts coming, muddling the Left's minds with who caused what first, and why. And why the blockade on the Gaza Strip? Repression of Gazans, or defense of Israelis? Obvious to NGO's, the UN, Europe and the media, it must be hateful repression. Witness the cessation of Israeli "occupation" of Gaza (again, taken in a defensive war) and the visible results: attacks right up til this moment. A template for Palestine to follow, if it had statehood now. Could Israel ever accept a *second* enemy front bordering on it - very probably dominated by Hamas as well, soon - which also instantly declares hostility and attacks it when it pleases? Which self-protecting state would?

2. and for the Left, known anywhere is their emotionalist-determinism, their perception that angry feelings (their own, and a select, other "victims") are a just and valid cause for violent retaliation. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because it ~seems~ to the world, that the creation of a Jewish state (flying in the face of the fact Jews were there originally) was one more instance of "Western imperialism", in a time when the very thought of past (or present) cultural ~superiority~ has to be driven under, and any mention, all but outlawed by the righteously moral Left - is the core of the Leftist's highly irrational, singled-out condemnation of Israel. Since just about every western nation has colonized and/or settled ( important difference) uncivilised or undeveloped lands, for that we now should all feel collective guilt (they say) and atone for our 'original sin'. (The secular version;))The Jews, despite their post-War circumstances, their historical precedence, individuals buying up of land to farm from the Ottoman Turks, and the eventual United Nations concession legalizing their State, building it - and then constantly defending it -- iow, entrenching themselves there (mostly) by acceptable and legal means, "by the book"  - have to catch the world's full anger because their existence, by vague association, reminds the West of its own Empire building, colonization, settlements, etc. of not so long ago. In one respect they're right. It must be said bluntly, the Jews brought with them a much superior civilisation/laws/education/technology to a backward (and then, quite sparsely-populated) region and people. Instead of the local Arabs and Arab countries partnering themselves with this new initiative and growing with it, they chose their ancient arrogant prejudices (of their innate superiority over Jews), resisted and attacked. For generally being rationally good and continuing to be so, Israel's inhabitants won't be forgiven by the descendants of those living there, nor by our Western cultural-relativists/apologists. I often sense neo-mystic premises from the latter secular-left, in that they see Israel-Palestine as a concentrated microcosm of the world's "inequality", "oppression", "racism", etc., and if peace can be achieved there, or even better, Israel driven out of existence, their belief has it that peace and love will spread to all over. Only Israel's nasty selfish interest blocks the path. (Quite, there is "inequality" between Palestinian and Israeli - an imbalance of individual self-value - and whose fault is that?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Writings by Philip Carl Saltzman || Middle East Forum

writingsBySaltzman.png

Edited by william.scherk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some good scholarly material by the M.E. forum, thanks to William. A snip from "Long History of Hypocrisy about Jerusalem":

"The fact that Turkey has now taken the lead to speak for the Palestinians is rich with irony, considering the Ottoman Turks colonized the Arabs and Jerusalem was kept a backwater city of no significance. As the Pakistani historian, Mobarak Haidar, recently wrote, "Muslims of the world have no religious basis to rule Jerusalem"."

(by Tarek Fatah, a founder of the Muslim Canadian Congress, Toronto Sun columnist - etc.)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In particular should Israel not be financially aided by the USA's taxpayers. I've maintained for several years. Friendship and alliances should not be dependent on gifts. For completely different reasons, for the other opposing countries, South Africa included, defund them especially.    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fatah vs. Hamas: another "bluff" exposed. At least Hamas is an 'honest' broker w.r.t. Israel - they continue to call for Israel's eradication, and no pretenses about it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Turkish Twitter Explodes with Genocidal Jew-Hatred

by Uzay Bulut
December 31, 2017 at 4:30 am

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/11619/turkey-twitter-jew-hatred

Share22

The statements of Turkey's President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan -- and those of Turks who share his worldview – are further evidence that fundamentalist Muslims oppose Israel's very existence as a sovereign Jewish state. Their ire over Trump's Jerusalem declaration has nothing to do with U.S. or Israeli policies.

Their fury stems from Jews existing in Israel as a powerful nation – not as dhimmis (second-class and persecuted people). Fanatic Muslims cannot get over the fact that Jews still live in, and are in charge of, supposedly their Muslim holy land.

To justify their rage, these radicals rewrite history. Their claims that Jerusalem is a Muslim holy city, for example, are false. While Jerusalem is mentioned 850 times in the Old Testament, it is not mentioned once in the Koran.

Although U.S. President Donald Trump's December 6 recognition of Jerusalemas Israel's capital drew condemnation from much of the Muslim world, one reaction stood out -- that of Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan.

"Those who think they are the owners of Jerusalem today will not even be able to find trees to hide behind tomorrow," he said, during a Human Rights Day event in Ankara on December 10.

Erdoğan was referring to a hadith (a reported saying by Islam's prophet, Mohammed) about Judgement Day:

"Abu Huraira reported Allaah's Messenger (sall Allaahua layhiwa sallam) as saying: The last hour would not come unless the Muslims will fight against the Jews and the Muslims would kill them until the Jews would hide themselves behind a stone or a tree and a stone or a tree would say: Muslim, or the servant of Allaah, there is a Jew behind me; come and kill him; but the tree Gharqad would not say, for it is the tree of the Jews."

Although U.S. President Donald Trump's December 6 recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital drew condemnation from much of the Muslim world, one reaction stood out -- that of Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan. (Photo by Elif Sogut/Getty Images)

Radical Turks echoed Erdoğan's sentiment on social media. Under the hashtag#KudüseSahipÇık ("Safeguard Jerusalem"), which quickly became a trending topic, Turkish Twitter-users expressed a seething Jew-hatred -- not hatred of Israelis, but Jews. Here are some examples:

"I hope this will be a cause of war for us. I will spit on the blood of Jews."

"[With each] Jew massacred, the world will get more relaxed, and say 'I have got rid of those filths'."

"The ummah [Islamic community] is ready for an intifada. They can exterminate the Jew."

"To declare Jerusalem the capital [of Israel] means to start a new war in the Middle East. We have no fear of war. [The question is] Where will we bury millions of Jewish bodies? To touch Jerusalem means an end to Jews."

"The Jew is cowardly. He cannot fight. He trusts his money, and recruits soldiers. But what we need is unity and livelihood."

"For Jerusalem to belong to Muslims, not a single Jew should be left alive in Palestinian lands. It is either victory or victory."

"Oh Allah! Do not take my soul before you grant me the privilege to engage in jihad against Israeli Jewish dogs."

"There is only one thing to be said about Jews: There has never been a more cowardly, dishonorable, and peasant nation like them. The victory will definitely be ours."

Some Twitter-users praised Hitler for killing Jews, while others condemned him for not doing a sufficient job. Then there are those who suggested persecuting Turkish Jews. Tagging Turkish Interior Minister Süleyman Soylu, one user tweeted:

"Synagogues, the Israeli consulate and Jews... If we burn down, destroy and kill all of these things, will we be considered criminals now?"

Other Tweets in the same vein included:

"Close all synagogues in Turkey. Either arrest or deport all Jewish citizens. Close all the water lines to Israel. Then they will croak automatically."

"What if we shut down synagogues and churches? And open Hagia Sophia [Christian Basilica in Istanbul] to [Muslim] worship?"

"Chain all the synagogues in Istanbul. Tolerance has limits. Jerusalem is the capital of Muslim believers."

Erdoğan's statements -- and those of Turks who share his worldview -- are further evidence that fundamentalist Muslims oppose Israel's very existence as a sovereign Jewish state. Their fury over Trump's Jerusalem declaration has nothing to do with U.S. or Israeli policies. Their fury stems from Jews existing in Israel as a powerful nation – not as dhimmis (second-class and persecuted people). Fanatic Muslims cannot get over the fact that Jews still live in, and are in charge of, supposedly their Muslim holy land.

These reactions are also the most observable examples of Islamist genocidal hatred of Jews and extreme Islamist intolerance of a non-Islamic faith's religious sensibilities and its national history.

To justify their rage, these radicals rewrite history. Their claims that Jerusalem is a Muslim holy city, for example, are false. While Jerusalem is mentioned 850 times in the Old Testament, it is not mentioned once in the Koran. Ever since King David made Jerusalem the capital of Israel some 3,000 years ago, the cityhas played a central role in Jewish existence. It only became a focus of Muslim agitation in 1980, when Israel adopted a Basic Law -- equivalent to a constitutional provision -- declaring united Jerusalem as its capital.

Muslims never declared Jerusalem their capital, even when they controlled the area later called "Palestine," after their invasion in the seventh century. Instead, in the beginning of the eighth century, they built the city of Ramla and named it their local capital. Jordan also did not declare Jerusalem a Muslim capital when it controlled the city from 1948 to 1967. Moreover, during those 19 years, the only Arab leader who even visited Jerusalem was King Abdullah I of Jordan-- who was assassinated there in 1951 by an Arab nationalist associated with the former mufti of the city.

It is true that Al-Aqsa Mosque is located in Jerusalem; the first reference to the mosque appeared in the 12th century. Yet, the common perception that the Temple Mount, where Al-Aqsa is situated, is the "third-holiest site in Islam" is based on a rhetorical ploy: Mecca is Islam's holiest place; Medina is its second-holiest. For Jews, Jerusalem is the holiest city and the Temple Mount the holiest site; Judaism's second-holiest site is the Cave of the Patriarchs in Hebron, which Muslims usurped when they conquered the city in the 7th century and re-named it the Ibrahimi Mosque. If Muslims are entitled to have control over the city that hosts their so-called "third-holiest site," why do they oppose Jewish control over the city that contains Judaism's first- and second-holiest sites?

Many Muslims also often purposely muddy that Jerusalem's status as the capital of Israel does not compromise the religious freedom of Muslims and Christians. In fact, the city has never in its history been as open to pilgrims from all religions as it has been under Israeli rule. By contrast, during the 19 years when the Old City and its holy sites were under Jordanian occupation, Jews -- regardless of the origin of their passports -- were prohibited to visit and pray there. Still today, Jews visiting the Temple Mount are prohibited from prayingthere.

Since the advent of Islam, Muslim regimes have destroyed -- or converted into mosques -- synagogues, churches, Buddhist and Hindu temples, and other non-Muslim places of worship. Accusing Israel of engaging in such behavior is both a projection and a propaganda device.

The false narrative about Jerusalem is part of what Moshe Sharon, Professor Emeritus of Islamic and Middle Eastern Studies at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, calls the "Islamization of History." The basic attitude, he says,

"is that ... all major figures of history basically are Muslim -- from Adam down to our own time. So, if the Jews or Christians are demanding something and basing it on the fact that there was a king called Solomon or a king called David, or a prophet called Moses or Jesus, they say something which is not true or, in fact, they don't know that all these figures were basically Muslim figures."

He further explains:

"Anywhere which was connected with these people or with these prophets who were all Muslims becomes a Muslim territory. And therefore, when Islam was not in ...the Middle East or other parts outside of the Middle East which are now Muslim... any place like this had to be freed, not to be conquered. ... Islam appeared in history in the time of Mohammed -- or reappeared in history from their point of view -- as a liberator..."

...presumably of an Islamic religion that existed since forever and was distorted by religions which came along later: Judaism and Christianity.

That is why the struggle of Israel is also the struggle of the West against sharia-imposed historic revisionism and the slavery of dhimmitude, the second-class, "tolerated" status assigned by Islamists to Jews and other non-Muslims. It is a struggle for freedom in which the Jewish people take back their history and freedom from Islamist and other dictators and preserve them in their own ancient homeland.

The Islamist understanding of history and geography, however, is completely different from scientific and historical facts.

According to Islamists, all prominent figures beginning from Adam and Eve were Muslim, therefore all the lands where they lived were Muslim lands. Judaism, Christianity, Zoroastrianism, Yazidism, and others are not belief systems which could also be respected. The believers of all those religions are occupiers in Muslim lands. They are not natives or honorable residents. They are not even communities whose rights and religious liberty should be respected as much as that of Muslims. They have, in fact, according to this view, abandoned the only true religion; they have therefore been cursed and will be punished by Allah unless they convert to Islam. If they are allowed to live despite that, it is all because of the "mercy" of Islamists -- but they are always to remain inferior to Muslims.

This is what Islamists assert and have acted on in the lands they rule. But science -- including real history, archeology, and objective theological studies, among others -- would disagree with the Islamists' revisionist understanding of history.

It is natural that a religion claims that it is the only true one. But most do so by still recognizing and respecting other faiths and their histories. What is destructive and intolerant is if one religion denies the authenticity of other religions and dehumanizes and demonizes their believers. This distorted and misleading understanding of world history has also helped to create extremely oppressive and violent Muslim regimes that have never treated non-Muslims as equals.

An ideology that asserts that all of human history is actually its own history, and other faiths are just inventions created by frauds that led their believers astray, and that misled people who will burn in hell forever because they do not believe in the only eternal, true, and perfect religion, is not fit to create a tolerant culture that is respectful to, and accepting of, other faiths. That is why this denialist, supremacist, and totalitarian ideology has not been able to promote religious, cultural, or intellectual diversity at any time in history in the lands that it took over.

This denialist view on history, which recognizes nothing but Islam, is what mainly creates the enormous differences in understanding between the Islamists who falsely claim ownership of Jerusalem and the Jews of Israel who rebuilt their homeland and wish to live there in dignity.

The Islamists attempt falsely to Islamize history, by combining it with the hate-filled teachings in Islamic scripture openly claiming that Jews and other non-Muslims are "cursed by Allah" and "shall be killed off." This revisionist history is how and why fundamentalists such as Erdoğan -- and the Turkish Twitter-users who follow his lead -- have no compunction about disseminating genocidal vitriol.

Their lies need to be exposed for what they are: anti-Semitism and falsehoods disguised as legitimate criticism of U.S. and Israeli policy.

Uzay Bulut, a Turkish journalist born and raised a Muslim, is currently based in Washington D.C.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there such a thing as a Muslim comedian or comedienne?

Howdie folks. I'm Sally Aslam and to open my act I will take off my burka to the theme from "The Stripper."   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Peter said:

Is there such a thing as a Muslim comedian or comedienne?

Howdie folks. I'm Sally Aslam and to open my act I will take off my burka to the theme from "The Stripper."   

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/9/2018 at 4:45 PM, Peter said:

Is there such a thing as a Muslim comedian or comedienne?

I’ve seen one. The only joke of hers I recall was: does this bomb make me look fat?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now