By currently invoked, politically correct reckoning, when the Palestinians finally achieve statehood, Jerusalem will be lopped in half and become the capital of two nations "living side by side in peace." That's the dream.
But dreams rarely reflect reality. And nocturnal pleasantries inevitably vaporize when exposed to the harsh light of morning. Such will be the case when foreign interlopers, dreamers, and wishful thinkers impose their concepts for the "new Middle East" on the citizens of the State of Israel.
Already the Palestinian Authority and its commissars have staked out police-state-like positions on what they will create and enforce in Jerusalem if they have their way.
For proof, listen to the words of Yasser Arafat's appointed mufti of Jerusalem. In a recent sermon delivered at the Temple Mount's Al-Aksa mosque and broadcast by PA radio, the mufti asserted that 70 years ago, the Committee of the League of Nations issued a statement giving Arabs the rights to the "Burak Wall" (Western Wall). Translation: No reference to the Western, or Wailing, Wall is legitimate because the wall is the exclusive province of the Muslim Wakf.
In a 1997 interview with Aaron Lerner, director of the Independent Media Review & Analysis (IMRA), the late Palestinian minister of wakf and religious affairs, Hassan Tahboob, explained the practical implications of that claim.
Presumably, some sort of barrier would restrict access. Under those circumstances Muslim guards would probably be posted between worshipers (both Jewish and Christian) and the "Al-Burak Wall" to enforce its Islamic sanctity.
What Western masters of appeasement in the name of peace do not choose to consider is the fact that conceding the Old City, Temple Mount, and possibly the Western Wall to absolute Muslim authority literally excises the heart and soul from the anatomy of Judaism and the Jewish people.
IN JUNE of 1967, Moshe Dayan voiced the desire pent up in the hearts of Diaspora Jewry for two millennia when, referring to the Old City, Temple Mount, and Western Wall, he declared that the Jewish people had returned to Jerusalem, "never to part from her again."
By no stretch of the imagination is it incorrect or imperialistic for Jewish people to claim as their heritage the place King David lawfully purchased from Aurunah the Jebusite.
On Mount Moriah the Jewish people built and maintained their magnificent Temples and made sacred pilgrimages from the far reaches of the known world to worship there. And all this transpired many centuries before Islam sprung from the birthing chamber.
To dignify the illegitimate Muslim claims of exclusivity to the places where the Jewish Temples stood and Jesus worshiped and ministered is no less than an act of international thievery of indescribable proportions.
Anyone deluded into thinking the Palestinian Authority would be a respectful and considerate custodian of areas sacred to Jewish people and Christians should think again.
Edward B. Miller, in a January 15, 2003, guest editorial titled "A Constitutional Milestone?" which ran in the National Review Online, aptly commented:
"Furthermore, a constitution that enshrines a right of return to Israel for all Palestinians, claims exclusive sovereignty over Jerusalem's Old City, or codifies the PLO's role... as sole representative of the Palestinian people will hardly create an atmosphere in which talks with Israel over final-status issues can be restarted... For the PA to attempt to legitimize such unreasonable expectations in a constitution will only subject Israel to further suicide bombings and the region to further turmoil."
An old spiritual expresses the desire to be "Walking in Jerusalem, just like John," one glorious day. If these seemingly intransigent Palestinian demands continue to generate a colossal, Western diplomatic cave-in, it is unlikely that either the apostle John or the singers of spirituals will be welcomed or even allowed to set foot on the holy ground confiscated by the sons of Ishmael.
Nor will they be allowed within six feet of the Western Wall. Guess they'll have to wait for a tour of the "New Jerusalem" – the one waiting for us just over the horizon.
The writer is a prominent Christian author and syndicated radio broadcaster in the US.
In the space of two days, the Palestinian leadership threatened Israel first with the pursuit of a binational state, then with that old stalwart, declaring a state in all of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. The first threat at least had the virtue of honesty, since it describes the real Palestinian agenda.
According to Reuters, Palestinian Prime Minister Ahmed Qurei called Israel's security fence " an apartheid solution to put the Palestinians in cantons. We will go for a one-state solution... We will not hesitate to defend the right of our people when we feel the very serious intention [of Israel] to destroy these rights."
Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat put it another way when he accused Israel of "burying the two-state solution by building the wall in the West Bank and confining us to towns that are prisons." We are supposed to understand both statements as threats of last resort, not as what the Palestinians actually want. Most likely a pressure tactic, a report in The New York Times speculates.
By this conventional wisdom, when Israel says it is willing to help create a Palestinian state, it is bluffing. And when Palestinians say they do not want a two-state solution, they are bluffing. The truth is the reverse.
It should be clear by now that Israel believes in a two-state solution more than the Palestinians do. The fence, far from being inconsistent with such a solution, is actually a somewhat desperate attempt to impose one.
For all the talk of "apartheid" and "cantons" one might think that the fence will divide up the Palestinian areas. A glance at the now widely available maps (www.mfa.gov.il) shows that the fence route runs mostly along the Green Line. The route was clearly chosen to maximize the number of Israelis inside and Palestinians outside. As result, only about 6 percent of the West Bank would be on the Israeli side of the fence.
If Prime Minister Ariel Sharon pushes through his unilateral "disengagement" plan, the result would be many fewer roadblocks and the relocation of the settlements that most threaten the contiguity of the Palestinian areas – the exact opposite of "cantonization." What the Palestinian leadership really seems to be afraid of is that the fence and disengagement plan will once again reveal that it, not Israel, is desperately trying to avoid a two-state solution.
If Yasser Arafat really wanted a state, he first of all would not have turned one down at Camp David. But if he thought the fence were blocking a state and wanted to prevent that, he could end his jihad against Israel, implement the road map, and the fence project would quickly be dropped. Though some might want to build the fence in any case, it is inconceivable that the project would continue if there were a real option to negotiate a permanent border as part of a peace agreement.
When the Palestinians complain about the fence, they are arguing that Israel should continue to lay itself open to the terrorism they refuse to lift a finger to prevent. It is a mark of the world's knee-jerk support for the Palestinian cause that such an argument can be advanced with a straight face.
How obvious can it be that the fence is a function of Palestinian terrorism, and that the Palestinians could at any time prevent its construction by halting terrorism?
Qurei's threat, though quickly withdrawn, is the most explicit admission in some years that the true Palestinian goal is not a two-state solution. A "binational" state is a transparent euphemism for the elimination of Israel.
The Palestinians are constantly trying to change the subject away from their unique terrorism-saturated culture and their dream of creating Greater Palestine through the demand of "return." So far, the US and Europe have largely stood by as the Palestinians have detoured from the road map and made Sharon's disengagement plan increasingly inevitable. A decision against Israel's security fence in the International Court of Justice, for example, might be the final nail in the coffin for the road map.
Why should the Palestinians fight terrorism when they are successfully turning Israel into a pariah state just for defending itself?
If the West wants to save the road map, it had better turn the spotlight away from the fence toward the terrorism that built it.
A Palestinian jihadist bomber killed four Israelis and wounded 12 more Wednesday morning at Gaza's Erez Crossing - an entry point into sovereign Israel that is one of the more prominent expressions of the Jewish state's attempts to assist the Palestinian Arabs financially despite the current terrorist war.
Thousands of Palestinians use the crossing ever day to seek, and usually find, employment from the hands of those the majority of them hate as loathsome foes.
Israeli officials and military commanders pointed out that perpetrating the attack at such a location underscored how the Palestinian Arabs were more than willing to sacrifice their own economic wellbeing for the sake of murdering more Jews and being able to claim "military" victory.
Since launching the Oslo War in September 2000, the Palestinians have succeeded in dealing devastating blows to both their own and Israel's economies.
Responsibility for their financial plight thus rests squarely on their own shoulders.
A detriment to themselves"The Erez Crossing allows Palestinians to cross over into Israel for the purpose of work. Here we see how Palestinian terrorism not only strikes at Israelis, but also is a clear detriment to improving the Palestinian economy," Prime Minister's Office spokesman David Baker told Ha'aretz.
A senior IDF source told The Jerusalem Post the attack would only "serve to prevent thousands of Palestinians [from placing] bread on their table."
Israel did its best, amid unrelenting Arab violence, to facilitate the Palestinians' ability to finding work among the Jews, Gaza Division commander Brig.-Gen. Gadi Shamni said. Now, as a result of Wednesday's bombing, the Erez Crossing "will be closed for several days."
Another result of the bombing will be that Arab women will in the future have to endure the more rigorous security checks normally reserved for Arab men.
Nurturing terrorBut perpetuating the rank living conditions of the Palestinians is exactly the point of such attacks, one Palestinian official suggested on Israel Radio.
The official, a member of Yasser Arafat's Fatah movement, said Wednesday's bombing had been carried out precisely to provoke the IDF into sealing off the Gaza Strip, thus cutting thousands of Palestinians off from their sources of income.
This, in turn, would lead to greater support for the terrorist organizations among the populace, he argued.
If the official believes what he says, and is not simply trying to dissuade Israel from closing Erez, that revelation would suggest what many have been saying for years - that nurturing terror is more important to these organizations than improving the lot of their own people.
The fact that most Palestinian Arabs consistently come out in support of the terror groups, and the PA does nothing to dismantle them - implicates the vast bulk of the Palestinian populace and leadership in the destruction of their own economy.
Ignoring God's WordIn Genesis 12:3, God vows that He "will curse him who curses you [Abraham and his descendents through Isaac]."
That the Palestinians' economic plight is recognized as being directly caused by their campaign to murder Jews and drive Israel again from its God-given land demonstrates that the above verse is still enforced by the Almighty.
The same passage also contains God's promise to bless those who bless Israel.
Their own faultWednesday's bombing adds to the argument that Western beliefs about Israel forcing the Palestinians to live in squalor are based on Arab and anti-Israel propaganda.
Earlier in the week, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon pointed out that Israel's new security fence, which will further adversely affect the economic situation of Palestinian in Samaria, would not have to be built but for Palestinian attempts to slaughter Jews en masse.
Palestinian terrorism has itself resulted in Israel having to take security measures that deny the Palestinians several avenues of economic prosperity - measures that were not deemed necessary prior to the PLO takeover in 1993.
Before 1993, there were no plans to build a fence, and Palestinians entered and worked in sovereign Israel virtually at will.
From their 1948 rejection of the UN partition plan to Yasser Arafat's rejection of Ehud Barak's offer at Camp David in 2000 and his decision to launch the Oslo War, the Palestinian Arabs have always been their own worst enemy.
TO OUR NEWSLETTER USING THE BUTTONS BELOW
Subscriptions are processed through the Secure PayPal system.
The European Union’s aid to the Palestinian Authority ends up funding terror attacks against Israelis.
And there’s nothing you can do to get the EU to care about it.
That was the gist of a talk given recently at Israel’s Ben-Gurion University by Ilka Schroeder, a 25-year-old member of the European Parliament and former member of the German Green Party.
Schroeder and French European Parliament member Francois Zimeray—despite pressure from their colleagues and over the strong objection of EU Commissioner for External Affairs Chris Patten—were able to muster 170 members of the 626-member Parliament to demand an inquiry into the problem of EU money going to Palestinian terror. Last February 3, the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) announced that it was opening an investigation into “allegations of misuse of funds donated by the European Union in the context of EU budgetary support to the Palestinian Authority.” OLAF’s most recent statement, in mid-November, was a denial that European funds have gone to finance Yasser Arafat’s Al-Aksa Martyrs Brigades.
Yet Rachel Ehrenfeld, director of the American Center for Democracy and author of Narcoterrorism, Evil Money, and most recently Funding Evil, a study of the financing of international terror, wrote in EUobserver that “volumes of the Palestinian Authority’s own documents, including many graced by Yasser Arafat’s own signature, order the Palestinian Ministry of Finance—recipient of hundreds of millions of dollars in EU budgetary aid . . . to pay members of the al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade for killing Israeli citizens or to pay for the procurement of explosives and illegal weapons.”
Why can’t the EU come clean? “The Europeans,” Ilka Schroeder said at Ben-Gurion University, “supported the Palestinian Authority with the aim of becoming its main sponsor, and through this, challenge the U.S. and present themselves as the future global power. Therefore, the Al-Aksa Intifada should be understood as a proxy war between Europe and the United States.”
In an earlier address in New York, she said it is “an open secret within the European Parliament that EU aid to the Palestinian Authority has not been spent correctly. The European Parliament does not intend to verify whether European taxpayers’ money could have been used to finance anti-Semitic murderous attacks.”
Schroeder, in other words, is not optimistic. She feels her efforts to expose Europe’s complicity in the murder of Israelis have come to naught—and that the biggest obstacle is on the Left. Asked by the Jerusalem Post last week how the European Left greeted her role in initiating the OLAF inquiry, she replied: “They thought I was absolutely crazy and they couldn’t understand why anybody would stand up for Israel. It has been hardest to make my point among the Left because they are the most into anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism. For me it’s disappointing, because I believe the more left-wing people are the more they should be interested in some kind of liberation and emancipation. For me, the vast majority of Palestine is very much against those aims and is very much regressive. I can’t understand why [the Left] is blind to this, and why they are so blind to the history of Israel and the Jews and anti-Semitism.”
It sounds as if Schroeder, a 25-year-old who has already shed her Green illusions, is in the grip of a laudable idealism that’s still mixed with baffled naivete. She needs to ask herself why the same Left that couldn’t care less about concentration camps in North Korea or mass murder and torture in Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, that sees no human rights problem in Cuba and instead swoons before its bearded despot, the same Left that sees all evil as emanating from the Free World and primarily the United States and Israel, would do anything but applaud the murder of “imperialist” Israelis by “oppressed” heroes like the Palestinians.
As for her notion of the Al-Aksa Intifada as a proxy war between Europe and the United States, it’s both compelling and questionable—more compelling in regard to countries like France and Germany, less so in regard to countries like Britain and Spain. It’s easy to adduce other reasons for the EU’s overall willingness to fund anti-Israeli terror, from traditional anti-Semitism (which Schroeder acknowledges as a factor), to the desire to deflect terror from Europe itself and keep it safely to the south, to the desire to appease local European Muslim voting blocs, to the desire to stay in the good graces of oil-rich Arab regimes. What’s clear is that, one way or another, Europe is addicted to Jew-killing; if today, amid its high-flown human rights rhetoric, it no longer engages in it directly, it’s able to do so by proxy, and it’s not about to stop.
Europeans like Ilka Schroeder and Francois Zimeray, who swim against the current and refuse to accept their status as underwriters of murder, have their work cut out for them. It’s good to know that there’s any light at all coming from a Dark Continent that spawned Nazism and communism and now not only grovels at the feet of Islamofascism, but aids and abets it.
P. David Hornik is a freelance writer and translator living in Jerusalem whose work has appeared in many Israeli, Jewish, and political publications. Reach him at email@example.com.
Suicide MotherBy Steven Plaut - FrontPageMagazine.com - January 15, 2004
You all recall the world famous court ruling by our King Solomon? The one about the two mothers each claiming the live baby was hers? As you recall, Solomon said he would chop the babe in half. The true mother said, "No, give him to her, just save his life." You see, she preferred he be raised by some other strange woman, not his mother, rather than die. All of which brings us to the Palestinian analogue of that momentous ruling. Yesterday a Palestinian mother of two young children, Rim al-Riashi, blew herself to bits as the seventh Palestinian suicide bomber woman, in the Gaza Strip. She murdered four Israelis, and wounded 9, two of them quite seriously.
You see, she preferred that her two young children be raised by a stranger rather than forego the pleasure of murdering Jews through her bombing them via herself. She had set off the metal detector, claimed she had a metal implant in her leg, wept that she really needed to pass through the checkpoint, showed her ID proving she was mother of two youngsters, and the compassionate guards let her pass through. She then set off the detonator. Murdering the guards that had showed her pity.
NOTICE: We make EVERY effort to insure our newsletter is not received unsolicited. If you don't wish to receive this newsletter, please send an email to firstname.lastname@example.org with "REMOVE" in either the subject or body of your message. Please ensure the email is sent from the address receiving the newsletter! Thank you.We depend ENTIRELY on viewer/reader donations. PLEASE HELP US get the truth out about Israel and God's chosen people. All needed info at: http://christianactionforisrael.org/donations.html
PLEASE DO NOT REPLY TO THIS NEWSLETTER !
Send Comments/Suggestions to email@example.com
TO SUBSCRIBE/UNSUBSCRIBE visit http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/cafi-list