The 1948 Jericho Conference and Palestinian Self-Determinism –

The 1948 Jericho Conference and Palestinian Self-Determinism –

Why is the Arab “Palestinian” case any different from all other cases of political expression? For instance, is Kurdish Independence entitled to special treatment (a special referendum) or like all other bodies politic do they require a simple “Declaration of Independence” to gain independence?

I posit that because Delegates from “Western” Palestine attended the Jericho Conference in December 1948 and voted for King Abdullah I of the Hejaz as their independent sovereign, they fulfilled the terms of UNGA Res. 181 (Chapter 3, [1]).

Why should Arab refugees from Judea and Samaria be treated any differently than other refugees since all Arabs of “Palestinian extraction” have Jordanian Citizenship based on Jordanian collective naturalization in February 1949?

Collective Naturalization by Annexation

“When territory is transferred to a new sovereign by conquest or cession the inhabitants become nationals of the new government only by their own consent, express or implicit. …. If the inhabitants remain within the territory their allegiance is transferred to the new sovereign.” American Insurance Co. v. 356 Bales of Cotton, I Pet. 511, 542, 7 L. Ed. 242.

The subject of collective naturalization is discussed at length in Boyd v. Thayer, 143 U. S. 135, (1892) and many cases cited and illustrations given.

The case before us, however, is not one of a treaty of cession, but that of collective naturalization before a treaty of cession transpired!

Since All Arabs of Palestinian extraction were “collectively naturalized” as Jordanian Citizens in February 1949 and all West Bank Palestinian hold Jordanian Passports; there is no need for an independent “State of Palestine,” a [Palestinian] right of return under UNGA Resolution 194,  UNRWA or the PLO!!!

The Islamic Kingdom of Jordan is Eastern Palestine.

Should the Arabs of Palestinian extraction be held to their exercise of self-determinism at the 1948 Jericho Conference or are they entitled to a second vote for a new sovereignty as an independent body politic at a new “conference” based on the 1993/95 Oslo Accords?

Was King Hussein entitled in 1988 to cede to the PLO Judea and Samaria; or, what was not his to cede based on his illegal Islamic Occupation could not be ceded to the PLO since by terms King Hussein and the Jordanian Administration relinquished all claims to “the West Bank;” the PLO is not an independent sovereignty and Judea and Samaria (“Western Palestine”) are Treaty Landsin situ by virtue of the 1919 Faisal-Weizzman Agreement, the San Remo Resolution, the Treaty of Sevres and by virtue of the Anglo-American Treaty of 1924!

King Hussein could not cede what was not his to occupy!!!

The right of self – determinism for the Arabs of Palestinian extraction were given under treaty law by the Mandates for Syria, Lebanon and Mesopotamia (Iraq)…, while the right of self-determinism for Jews were given to the Jews by the Mandate for Palestine!

Election of Jordanian Citizenship and Independent Sovereignty by the Arabs of Palestine was the “free expression of the will of the people” and, absent the 1948 Israeli War of Independence; fulfilled the terms of Chapter III (1) of the UNGA Resolution 181 (notice of intention, option of Citizenship and election of an independent sovereign).

Lest we forget, the Jordanian Kingdom’s Civil War of September 1970 (Black September) determined the fate accompli of the PLO; preventing the establishment within the Islamic Kingdom of Jordan of an independent “Eastern [non-Islamic] Palestine”….

Under the terms of Article 25 (postpone or withhold) of the Mandate for Palestine, the Mandatory (the UK) illegally established trans-Jordan in violation of Article 5 of the Mandate since the HaShemites are a foreign Islamic power having their origins in Mecca and Article 25 of the Mandate for Palestine only allowed for the [temporary] administration of Eastern Palestine during the time while the terms of the rest of the Mandate were withheld or postponed within that territory!!!

Moreover, by virtue of Article 80 of the UN Charter, the rights granted to the Jews under the Mandate for Palestine did not terminate merely because the Mandate had expired since no trusteeship was established for Eastern and Western Palestine.

 

OBVIOUSLY if one Palestinian party to UNGA Resolution 181 exercised “the free will of the [Jewish] people” before war broke out, and the other Palestinian party to 181 after the cessation of hostilities exercised “the free will of the [Arab] people” then both parties have expressed their “Political Will” and nothing except recognition of the facts on the ground and within our history books needs to be done.

The fact is when King Hussein abolished the Jordanian Lower House of Deputies in 1988 he sequestered the Palestinian Arabs right to self-rule as a strategem of war in collusion with the PLO and the Arab League!

To answer our question, Why is the Arab “Palestinian” case any different from all other cases of political expression? I think there is no unique difference, the Arab Palestinians have been afforded self-determinism as an expression of the free will of the people at the December 1948 Jericho Conference!

Doesn’t the fact that Jews of “Palestinian extraction” (under the Mandate) when give the opportunity to exercise political will, having exercised those political rights May 1948; lend credence to our answer?

****

The Jericho Conference was held in December 1948 to decide the future of the portion of Palestine that was held by Jordan at the end of the 1948 Arab–Israeli War, led by Sheikh Muhammad Ali Ja’abari.

Pro-Jordanian personalities called for the annexation of the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, to Jordan.

History

In October 1948, King Abdullah began a series of steps in order to effect the annexation of those parts of Palestine that his army and other Arab forces had captured and held during the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. He did this while the cease-fire line was settled or agreed in February 1949.

The first step was a congress session in Amman, convened upon the initiative of the Transjordanian government, in which King Abdullah’s representatives and a large number of Palestinian refugees called for a wider Palestinian congress to declare Palestinian unity and acknowledge King Abdullah as King of Palestine. On 1 December 1948, a conference in Jericho called for the annexation of what was left of Palestine under the Hashemite crown in light of the reality that the remaining Palestinian territory was effectively administered by the Jordanian authority. The Conference was attended by numerous delegations including the mayors of Hebron, Bethlehem, Ramallah, the Arab Legion Military Governor General, military governors of all the districts, and other notables. The audience was estimated at several thousand.

Six resolutions were proposed but only four were adopted. They contained the following provisions:
1. Palestine Arabs desire unity between Transjordan and Arab Palestine and therefore make known their wish that Arab Palestine be annexed immediately to Transjordan. They also recognize Abdullah as their King and request him proclaim himself King of new territory.
2. Palestine Arabs express gratitude to Arab states for their efforts in behalf of liberation of Palestine. (The delegates indicated that the object of this was to hint to the Arab states that their job was done).
3. Expression of thanks to Arab states for their generous assistance and support to Palestine Arab refugees.
4. Resolve that purport of first resolution be conveyed to King at once.

The Transjordanian cabinet and parliament agreed within the following two weeks.

Reactions to the resolution

Support

A Palestinian conference in Ramallah personally attended by King Abdullah on 26 December 1948 declared its support for the Jericho Conference resolution, as did a subsequent Nablus conference, calling for unification of the two banks of the Jordan under the Hashemite crown.

The termination of the Palestine Mandate gave the Arabs of Palestine the opportunity to exercise their right to self-determination. That meant they could determine their own political status and form or dissolve unions among themselves or with other states.

In December 1948 the Secretary of State authorized the US Consul in Amman to advise King Abdullah and the officials of Transjordan that the US accepted the principles contained in the resolutions of the Jericho Conference, and that the US viewed incorporation with Transjordan as the logical disposition of Arab Palestine

The United States subsequently extended de jure recognition to the Government of Transjordan and the Government of Israel on the same day, 31 January 1949.

The 1950 State Department Country Report on Jordan said that King Abdullah had taken successive steps to incorporate the area of Central Palestine into Jordan and described the Jordanian Parliament resolution concerning the union of Central Palestine with Jordan. The report said the US had privately advised the British and French Foreign Ministers that it had approved the action, and that “it represented a logical development of the situation which took place as a result of a free expression of the will of the people.” (Foreign relations of the United States, 1950. The Near East, South Asia, and Africa Volume V, Page 1096)

The major problems of concern to the United States were the establishment of peaceful and friendly relations between Israel and Jordan and the successful absorption into the polity and economy of Jordan of Arab Palestine, its inhabitants, and the bulk of the refugees now located there.

Opposition

The Arab League condemned the Jericho Conference, and the Syrian press considered its resolution a violation of self-determination. Iraqi prime minister Nuri as-Said called upon King Abdullah to hold his moves towards annexation which succeeded in delaying the implementation of the Transjordanian plans of unity for a year and a half. Hajj Amin al-Husseini protested against King Abdullah’s measures, declaring them null and void and calling to boycott them, but his voice was ignored.

Unification

Notables from Ramallah and Jerusalem in particular were reluctant to give King Abdullah a carte blanche. Although they were prepared to recognize him as monarch, they were unwilling to give up their claim to the whole of Palestine, and refused to endorse his policy of consolidating the partition.

The Transjordanian government gradually assumed the civil functions of the West Bank, paying the salaries of civil servants and absorbing local governors into what was henceforth called the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. In February 1949, the Jordanian Nationality Law was amended to grant every Palestinian Jordanian citizenship.

****

SOURCE: Wikipedia Jericho Conference

Who are the Vathiqin?

The Mishnah Says:

The reference to “sunrise” does not imply that our mishnah follows the view of Rabbi Eliezer that the deadline for reciting the morning Shema is sunrise. (see mishnah 1.2) Rather, our mishnah refers to the practice of the vathiqin (the scrupulous ones), who always time their recitation of the Shema to finish with the rise of the sun. ([…])

The basis for this practice is the verse (Tehillim – Psalms 72.5): […] They will fear You with [the rising of] the sun, which is understood to mean that we should demonstrate our awe of G-D — by accepting His sovereignty with our recitation of the Shema — at sunrise.

The Mishnah Seder Zeraim Vol. I, Yad Avraham 3.5, Page 157 Artscroll Mishnah Series.

  • Yochanan Mauritz Hummasti The steadfast Love of HaShem never ceases, His Mercies are new every morning – Great is Your Faithfulness.Eicha (Lamentations) 3.22-23

Peace doesn’t exist; neither do the Palestinians

Arutz Sheva – Israel National News

Daniel Greenfield, 25/07/19 14:48 | updated: 15:17

Three assumptions are at the root of the senselessly Sisyphean peace process.

 

Salah Abu Miala, a Hevron businessman, traveled to Bahrain to attend the Bahrain peace conference. When he returned home, he was arrested by the Palestinian Authority.

A security official for the Islamic terror group admitted that there was no actual charge.

“It was a warning,” he said. “He must understand the implications of this sort of collaboration.”

Collaboration with the United States. The country that set up the PA and lavished billions in aid on it.

Another businessman managed to evade the crackdown on peace conference attendees.

The Palestinian Authority had not only boycotted the peace conference, but it arrested participants in the peace conference, and warned that participating in the peace conference was collaboration.

Collaboration, under Palestinian Authority law, can be punishable by death.

The message is that the Palestinian Authority really doesn’t want peace. It has sabotaged peace conferences under Clinton, Bush, Obama, and now Trump. Every approach running the same narrow gamut from pressuring Israel to bribing the Palestinian Authority has been tried. They all end the same.

Just ask Salah who was locked up for attending a peace conference.

The pattern here is so obvious that it would take a diplomat or a politician to miss it. That’s why we’ve been mired in it for so long. And the billions of dollars wasted and thousands of lives lost could have been saved if only our leaders had questioned their premises by asking three simple questions.

1. What if the Palestinians don’t want peace?

2. What if there are no Palestinians?

3. What if there’s no such thing as peace?

The three assumptions, that the Palestinians exist, that they want peace, and that enduring peace is an attainable condition in the region, are at the root of the senselessly Sisyphean peace process.

The peace process was launched under the assumption that the PLO really wanted peace. Or at least a deal. Surely, our best and brightest agreed, they couldn’t possibly want an endless war.

And so, the truth was dismissed out of hand. It was too horrible to believe.

Decades of failed negotiations, rafts of Israel concessions, personal involvement by five presidential administrations, billions of dollars, with nothing to show for it, and the truth is still dismissed.

Instead, the official story is that Israel doesn’t want peace. The media echo chamber resounds with a narrative in which Israel has moved sharply to the right and is run by ultra-orthodox religious fanatics.

And Netanyahu, who is hardly anyone’s idea of an ultra-religious fanatic.

Also, the most right-wing party in the last Israeli election ran on a platform of marijuana legalization.

But it’s easier to claim that Israel doesn’t want peace than that the Palestinian Authority doesn’t. If Israel doesn’t want peace, that just goes to show that it’s a bad actor and must forced for its own good. If the Palestinian Authority doesn’t want peace, then the whole political premise of the process dies.

Israeli misbehavior can always be met with economic and political pressure. If the PA doesn’t want peace on any terms, that means it was never really a government, just a front for a terror group.


The truth was that Palestine, as an Arab cultural minority as opposed to a defunct Roman colony, was as much of a mythical invention as the Islamic State with its Caliph.
And that terror group became vastly more powerful and dangerous because of the peace process.

Before the peace process, the idea that the PLO might not want peace seemed implausible. In the post-peace process, the idea is an explosive scandal whose culpability extends through the political establishments of dozens of countries, including America and Israel. And so, it can’t be talked about.

Why did so many experts come to believe, against all evidence, that the PLO wanted peace? The error came about because the establishment had accepted the PLO’s propaganda that it was leading a national struggle to set up a state on behalf of a population of displaced and oppressed people.

The truth was that Palestine, as an Arab cultural minority as opposed to a defunct Roman colony, was as much of a mythical invention as the Islamic State with its Caliph. Like ISIS, Hezbollah and countless Islamic terror groups around the region, the terror group tapped into grievances among a local minority, invented an identity for them, and, backed by foreign donors, launched a campaign to “liberate” them.

There are dozens of similar enterprises going on in the region at any given time. They don’t enjoy the same level of support and recognition as the PLO does. None of them can actually run a state. Or want to. But neither does anyone else in the region. That’s why it’s always on the verge of exploding.

That brings us to the third assumption.

Peace as the natural state of the world is an exciting European delusion from just after one war and then another war that devastated the continent. There is as little evidence for this idea in human history as there is for the existence of a Palestinian kingdom, empire or anthill. And even less evidence for either the existence of peace or the Palestinians in its own region which has never experienced either one.

Even in Europe, the inevitability of peace keeps being interrupted by wars every generation. There are soldiers in the streets of Paris, where the first League of Nations meeting was held, fighting the war that France failed to fight in Algeria. After reviling the Pied-Noirs, the French are two generations away from becoming a nation of Pied-Noirs themselves, fleeing to Montreal to escape the Battle of Paris.

Peace is not the natural condition of mankind. It is a lovely thing that sometimes happens.

Generations of western diplomats keep stumbling into disasters because they believe that peace is inevitable. Therefore, the other side is bound to want it, because it wants the same things they do.

They never ask the terrible question, what if the other side wants something else?

Our foreign policy keeps falling apart because we never ask that question. We take the other side’s claims at face value and view them through the flawed lens of our own wants and needs. We want peace; therefore, they must want it too. We want the killing to stop, how could they not?


What made anyone think that a terror group could create a state? Or that it even wanted to.
No matter how many times peace fails, the fundamental assumptions are never questioned.

What if instead of negotiating with a national minority that wants land for its own state, we’ve been funding an Islamic terror group that was set up by the USSR to destabilize the region?

Which of these two possibilities better explains the history of failures in the peace process?

If the Palestinian Authority were a terror group set up by the USSR to destabilize the region, undermine Israel’s existence, and drag America into a messy conflict, what would it be doing differently?

Nothing.

There’s no solution here. There never was. The region is never at peace for longer than a week. When peace can’t even hold between Sunnis and Shiites, how was it supposed to hold between either Muslim group and the Jews? The Arab Spring reminded us that every state in the region is just one crackup away from splitting apart into a civil war. What made anyone think that a terror group could create a state?

Or that it even wanted to.

We can solve the problem that five administrations have struggled with if we reevaluate our flawed assumptions about the world, the Palestinian Authority and the fictional people it represents.

All we have to do is ask the right three questions.

Daniel Greenfield is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center. This article previously appeared at the Center’s Front Page Magazine.

One word is holding up House resolution on two-state solution

World Israel News (WIN)

Israel supporters in the House of Representatives are taking issue with a single word in a resolution supporting the two-state solution.

By Batya Jerenberg, World Israel News

Several of Israel’s supporters in the House of Representatives are holding up a proposed resolution that reaffirms support for the two-state solution because it is presented as the “only” solution to the conflict.

House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Eliot Engel (D-NY) is leading a group of Democrats in refusing to sign on to their own Caucus’ non-binding resolution because it limits support of a peace deal to a single option, Politico reports.

Their position echoes a statement made by President Donald Trump during a meeting with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at last year’s opening of the U.N. General Assembly.

While saying he thought the two-state solution “works best,” Trump hedged by adding, “Now bottom line, if the Israelis and the Palestinians want one state — that’s OK with me. If they want two states, that’s OK with me. I’m happy if they’re happy.”

More recently, in May, presidential adviser Jared Kushner said that there is a good reason why the peace deal he has been crafting with Jason Greenblatt for over two years does not use the phrase “two-state solution.”

“I realize that means different things to different people,” he said. “If you say ‘two states’ to the Israelis it means one thing, and if you say ‘two states’ to the Palestinians it means another thing. So we said, ‘let’s just not say it’. Let’s just work on the details of what this means.”

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer of Maryland, who is also considered a friend of Israel, wants the resolution as a sign of his party’s support for the Jewish state. This has recently been thrown into doubt due to the vocal criticism aired against Israel by Democrats such as freshman congresswomen Rashida Tlaib, Ilhan Omar and Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez.

“I’m trying to get language that I think will be acceptable to the broadest number of people, and Republicans as well…. One word here, one word there is not what you’re going to — you’re not going to report on the word,” Hoyer said in downplaying the importance of the resolution’s exact language.

He also noted to reporters that the House has successfully passed many resolutions that formally back the two-state proposal. This includes one that just passed overwhelmingly on Tuesday whose main focus was a clear condemnation of the anti-Israel BDS Movement.

Inserted among its clauses was a reaffirmation “for a negotiated solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict resulting in two states — a democratic Jewish State of Israel and a viable, democratic Palestinian state – living side by side in peace, security and mutual recognition.”

One Jewish organization recognized the danger of that insertion and tried to sound a warning.

The Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) called it “unnecessary and harmful” in a statement it put out. Among the many arguments the organization made for not putting such language in an otherwise good resolution, it pointed out that such an entity would not be peaceful.

“A Palestinian-Arab state would be another rocket-launching, Hamas-run, Iranian-satellite terror regime dedicated to Israel’s destruction,” the statement said.

It also added that the idea of putting in such language in an effort to get the vote of “Congresspersons who are not particularly friendly to Israel” is “misguided,” comparing it to inserting a call for a KKK state in a resolution opposing boycotts of Black Americans.

 

The real al Aqsa Mosque is not in Jerusalem

Arutz Sheva – Israel National News

Dr. Mordechai Kedar, 11/08/16 06:30

Expose: Muslim canards about Jerusalem and the al Aqsa Mosque revealed and proven to be lies through the publicizing of original sources.

 

No photo description available.

 

A well known proverb says “liars need to have good memories.” The reasoning is clear: a liar needs to remember his own lies and whom he told them to in order to avoid contradicting himself and revealing his mendacity. This rule applies to important issues as well. Jerusalem, for instance, whose holiness to Sunni Muslims is based on a late and political interpretation of a Koranic verse, while to Shiite Muslims it is only the third holiest city, ranked below Mecca and Medina (today the city of Najaf in southern Iraq).

Early Islamic sources state that the “al Aqsa Mosque” (literal meaning: ‘the farther mosque’), mentioned only once in the Koran, was one of two mosques located near Ji’irrana, a village located between Mecca and Taaf in the Arabian Peninsula (now Saudi Arabia.) One of the mosques was called “al-Masjid al-Adna,” meaning the “closer mosque” and the other ” al-Masjid al-Aqsa”, the “farther mosque.” When the Koran refers to the al Aqsa mosque while telling the myth of the Prophet Muhammad’s night time journey from the “holy mosque” of Mecca to al Aqsa, that is, the “farther mosque,” it is referring to the mosque in Ji’irrana.

In 682 C.E., fifty years after Mohammed’s death, Abd allah Ibn al-Zubayr, the tough man of Mecca, rebelled against the Umayyads who ruled Damascus and would not allow them to fulfill the Haj in Mecca. Since the Haj pilgrimage is one of the five basic Islamic commandments, they were forced to choose Jerusalem as their alternative for a pilgrimage site. In order to justify choosing Jerusalem, the Umayyads rewrote the story told in the Koran, moving the al Aqsa mosque to Jerusalem, and adding, for good measure, the myth of the night time journey of Mohammed to al Aqsa. This is the reason the Sunnis now consider Jerusalem their third holiest city.

Shia Islam, mercilessly persecuted by the Umayya Caliphate, did not accept the holy Jerusalem canard, which is the reason the second holiest city to Shiites is Najif in Iraq, the burial place of Shiite founder Ali bin Abi Talib. Many of the Shiite elders – Iranian and Hezbollah – only began to call Jerusalem holy after the Khomeni rebellion in 1979 so as to keep the Sunnis from accusing them of being soft on Zionism.

The first lie, in that case, is the spurious claim that the “farther mosque” is in Jerusalem.

More lies were piled on to the first one, the main prevarication being the exact location of this so-called al Aqsa mosque, which until not very long ago, was the silver-domed building on the southern end of the Temple Mount.

The entire area of the Temple Mount is known as al-Haram al-Sharif – “the holy and noble site”- but a change came about after the Six Day War, when Jewish voices could be heard, particularly that of the Chief Rabbi of Haifa, Rav She’er Yashuv HaCohen, calling for the establishment of a synagogue on the Mount.  Immediately after the war, Chief IDF Rabbi Shlomo Goren also said that he wanted to celebrate religious events on the Temple Mount. It was felt that the Muslims would not object, since al Aqsa was on the southern edge of the compound and the synagogue would not be nearby.

As a result, however, the Muslims decided to announce that the al Aqsa mentioned in the Koran refers not only to the mosque on the southern end of the compound, but is the name for the entire Temple Mount  area, abandoning the original name, al-Haram al-Sharif. My colleague, Professor Yitzchak Reiter, discusses this issue at length in his book “From Mecca to Jerusalem and Back,” 2005. The renaming of the Temple Mount is clearly a canard, with two documents, one known and one less known, revealing the truth.

The source that is more widely known is a booklet prepared in 1924 by none other than the openly anti-Semitic (and later on good friend of Hitler) Mufti Haj Amin el Husayni and reprinted many times in the years following its first publication. Dr. Daniel Tassel of Lexington, Massachusetts, gave me an original copy printed in 1930, for which generosity I am most grateful. The booklet’s title is “A Brief Guide to al-Haram al-Sharif – Jerusalem.” Note that the area is not called al Aqsa.  The al Aqsa Mosque appears as a chapter in the booklet, after the chapter on the Dome of the Rock, the golden-domed structure in the middle of the compound. It is clear that to Haj Amin al- Husayni, the Mufti of Jerusalem, the al Aqsa Mosque is simply the building on the southern end of the compound, because that is what it is.

Booklet by Mufti of Jerusalem INN:MK

The lesser known of the two documents is one I photocopied recently at my friend Chaim Steinberger’s home in New York. Chaim has a large collection of maps of the Land of Israel and he showed me an ordinary Jordanian tourist map of Jerusalem that was executed in 1965, two years before the 1967 Six Day War. At that time,East Jerusalem was still illegally occupied by the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, while the entire world kept silent and uttered not a word against this totally illegal occupation. The map was drawn by a Jordanian named Abd al-Rahman Rassas who worked as an official surveyor and was authorized by the Hashemite Tourism Authority of Jordan. The map bears the words: “recommended and approved by the official Jordanian Tourist Authority.” (see photo at end of article)

A perusal of the map shows that in 1965 the Temple Mount compound was still called ” al-Haram al-Sharif”, that it was on “Mount Moriah”, and that the “al Aqsa Mosque” was simply a building on the southern end of  al-Haram al-Sharif. In other words, thirty years before the peace agreement between Israel and the Kingdom of Jordan, the Jordanians identified al Aqsa as no more than an edifice on the southern end of al-Haram al-Sharif, which in turn is built on Mount Moriah.

Islam’s liars decided to “expand” al Aqsa – whose real location is actually in the Arabian desert – to encompass the entire Temple Mount area only after the Jews liberated the site of their Temples in the June 1967 Six Day War. After all, the Jews might want to build a synagogue on the Temple Mount under the direction of Rabbis Goren and She’er Yashuv Hacohen.

For example, Sheikh Ikrima Sabr, Mufti of Jerusalem 1994-2006, in a speech given on Friday, January 4th, 2002, said the following (my additions in parentheses, M.K.): ” O ye Muslims (all over the world), when we talk about the blessed al Aqsa Mosque, we mean a mosque whose area is 144 dunam (the size of al-Haram al-Sharif in its entirety) including the walls, the al-Buraq Wall (the Western Wall), the passages, hallways, entrances and squares, in addition to the part that is roofed (the building in the southern end),the part that is ancient (under the roofed part) and the Foundation Stone (under the Dome of the  Rock), the Marwani prayer site (Solomon’s Stables), all are al Aqsa….”

Another lie, revealed as such by the very same map, follows on the heels of this one.  It concerns the site of the Jewish Holy Temples. I have listened to a good many Friday sermons in Arabic, which I unfortunately did not record,  including some in which the preacher claimed that al-Haykal al-Maz’oum –” the supposed (Jewish) Temple”- was never in Jerusalem. One preacher claimed it was on Mount Sinai and in another instance,  the preacher said it was on Mount Gerizim near Nablus, where “the Samaritans preserve the authentic Jewish traditions.” The Jordanian map puts paid to the lies of every one of these Islamic orators.

One wonders why the al Aqsa Mosque is of such importance to the Muslims and why they have accorded it such prominence that it is becoming accepted as one of the basic principles of their faith. The answer lies in the fact that Islam defines itself as a religion that did not enter the world to live in peace with Judaism and Christianity, the religions that preceded it, but as a universal religion that is meant to obliterate them and take over the world. Islam sees itself as “Din al-Haqq,” the true religion, and  Judaism and Christianity as “Din al-Batil,” the false religions. The Muslims fear that the Jewish people’s return to their land, cities and the site of their Temples will grant Judaism the status of a vibrant, active and true religion, posing a theological threat to the very existence and raison d’etre of Islam.

That is the reason that all Jewish activity on the Temple Mount, especially Jewish prayer, infuriates them, and they will do everything, including  spreading prevarications and outright lies, to prevent the Jews from returning to the places from which they were exiled almost 2000 years ago.  That is what makes the conflict over Jerusalem the basis of a theological struggle whose source is the Muslim world’s inability to recognize the history and religious rights of non-Muslim believers, all of whom are slated to disappear, according to Islam.

All the other aspects of the conflict, nationalistic, political or legal, are layers of camouflage hiding the real dispute, the theological one, between Israel and its neighbors.

Today, now that we have been blessed with the beginnings of a return to Zion, we bring to mind the destruction of the Temples and our people’s dispersion among the nations of the world. We can see with our own eyes that the return of the Jewish people to their land, to its capital city and the site of the Holy Temples,is anathema to many and especially to our Muslim neighbors.  The question that arises is whether we still have to live with the Muslim falsehoods concerning the Temple Mount –after we succeeded in liberating our land and capital city from Islamic occupation – or whether we should inform them of what they know full well, but  attempt to repress: that it is our forefathers who were here 3000 years ago and worshipped  the one God, while their forefathers were pagan tribes in the Saudi desert, who drank wine, buried their daughters alive and worshipped idols.

When we respect ourselves and our heritage enough to stand up for our rights, they will respect us and leave us in peace.

May the Jewish People soon be blessed with the complete Redemption.

Jordanian Tourism Map 1965 INN:MK (From the Chaim Steinberger Collection)

Translated from the Hebrew by Rochel Sylvetsky, Arutz Sheva Op-ed and Judaism editor.

Most religious Zionists support freedom of religion on Temple Mount

World Israel News (WIN)

81.9 percent of those asked favored handing over the Waqf from Jordanian control to Israeli authority.

By World Israel News Staff 

Against the backdrop of the ongoing prohibition against Jewish prayer at Judaism’s holiest shrine, the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, a new survey published Sunday shows that an overwhelming majority of Israelis who consider themselves Religious Zionists believe that the ban should be lifted.

Among the respondents, 77.6 percent said that Jews should have the right to pray on the Mount, says the Makor Rishon newspaper, which reports that the poll was conducted by the Direct Polls Institute.

Only 9.7 percent of the 569 people asked voiced objection to Jewish prayer at the site.

Among Religious Zionists, 58.9 percent of those questioned believed that Jews should be allowed to pray anywhere on the Mount, while 29.1 percent supported allocating an area where Jewish prayer would be permitted.

Despite capturing the Temple Mount in the 1967 war from Jordan, Israel gave the Jordanian Waqf, or Islamic Trust, control of the site. The move was boosted by opposition among various rabbis to having Jews ascend the Mount for fear they would not sufficiently purify themselves and might enter areas forbidden according to Jewish law.

In the years since, the number of Jews ascending the Mount has grown with rabbis providing guidelines of how to visit without violating the sanctity of the holy site, though other rabbinic authorities still oppose the practice.

The Waqf still keeps a watchful eye, trying to prevent Jews from praying on Judaism’s holiest site. The area also houses Islam’s third-holiest shrine.

As part of the Israel-Jordan peace treaty signed in 1994, Jordan was given official status as custodian of the Muslim holy sites.

U.S. President Donald Trump’s political plan for Israelis and Palestinians reportedly refers to the establishment of a joint inter-Arab religious administration that would include other states, in addition to Jordan. This administration would work in tandem with Israel, according to the reported plan, and the area would remain under Israeli sovereignty.

The Direct Polls survey published Sunday showed that 81.9 percent of those in the Religious Zionist sector who were asked favored handing over the Waqf from Jordanian control to Israeli authority.

The survey was released as Jews were beginning a three-week mourning period commemorating the destruction of the Temple twice, first in 586 BCE and then, after it had been rebuilt, in 70 CE.

 

Time to bury the PLO

It’s not just about burying the PLO, but also resurrecting Jordan in the ‘West Bank’.

President Trump’s “deal of the century” – aimed at ending 100 years of conflict between Jews and Arabs over the territory once called “Palestine” – continues to flounder in the face of

  • The PLO’s outright rejection of Trump’s deal – even before its details have been published
  • Jordan’s continuing refusal to agree to negotiate with Israel when the deal is released

Jordan comprises 78% of former Palestine and is the only sovereign Arab state to have ever occupied (albeit illegally) the Judea and Samaria aka ‘West Bank’ – 4% of former Palestine – between 1948 and 1967.

Former Israeli Prime Minister – Ariel Sharon – proposed his own deal in 1992.

Sharon warned against granting autonomy to ‘West Bank’ Arabs – something that occurred in 1993 after the Oslo Accord I was signed and 95% of those Arabs came under PLO administrative control:

“We must face a simple fact. Autonomy will inevitably lead to Palestinian statehood. The self-governing Authority will enjoy international recognition and command universal attention. Every self-respecting state will open a mission there.

“Journalists will coo over keffiyeh-wrapped PLO murderers glowing with a romantic halo. The chairman of the Authority will sit in his office adorned with a wall to wall picture of another chairman, arch-murderer Yasser Arafat. And there will be a PLO flag in the front of the building.”

27 years later – autonomy has not translated into statehood – due to the PLO’s racist policy of refusing to accept the right of Jews to live in Judea and Samaria – the ancient biblical, historic and legally-designated heartland of the Jewish people.

Sharon posited instead:

“… The true solution is to recognize that Jordan is the Palestinian state. Only with Jordan should we discuss the future of the Arab inhabitants of Judea and Samaria, all of whom are Jordanian citizens. And it is with Jordan that we should discuss granting this kind of citizenship to Gaza residents.

“We must also talk about how they will vote for and get elected to the Palestinian parliament in Amman, how they will pay taxes, and how they will be able to use Haifa and Ashkelon harbors and reciprocally, how we can use Akaba.

“And we should talk of a common market in the Middle East, and about water projects and the mutual development of the Dead Sea resources and of a common front against Arab terrorism. Whether King Hussein or anyone else heads the Palestinian State, Jordan, is their decision.”

Sharon continued:

“What I suggested in the past and I suggest again, is that there be autonomic regions without territorial contiguity. Their local police will act strictly within these regions. Non-Jews, after all, have no problem traveling on roads under Jewish control: the problem exists only for Jews under non-Jewish control.

“Israeli sovereignty will then begin in all the zones in which Jews are settled. This will affect contiguity of Jewish areas from the Mediterranean to the Jordan River in Judea and Samaria, and from the Sea to the Western Negev in the Gaza district.

“Thus all Jewish communities will be under Israeli sovereignty, while most of the Arab population will live in autonomous districts.”

Trump’s US$28 billion economic plan for the ‘West Bank’ and Gaza has been rejected by the PLO and received with little enthusiasm by Jordan.

Jewish ethics provides sage advice to Trump to present his political plan without further delay – irrespective of how the PLO and Jordan might receive it:

“It is not your responsibility to finish the work, but you are not free to desist from it either.”

Will Trump’s proposals – like Sharon’s – also bury the PLO and resurrect Jordan in the ‘West Bank’?

Dry Bones: Burying the PLO

INN:HK

Author’s note: The cartoon — commissioned exclusively for this article — is by Yaakov Kirschen aka “Dry Bones”- one of Israel’s foremost political and social commentators — whose cartoons have graced the columns of Israeli and international media publications for decades. His cartoons can be viewed at Drybonesblog