Debunking UNESCO’s Dangerous Anti-Semitic Myth That Israel Is Trying to Destroy the Al Aqsa Mosque

(Ahmad Gharabli/AFP/Getty Images)did

(Ahmad Gharabli/AFP/Getty Images)did

Palestinians walk past the Dome of Rock at the Al-Aqsa Mosque compound before the Friday prayer in Jerusalem’s Old City on October 14, 2016. (Ahmad Gharabli/AFP/Getty Images)

The U.N. body was criticized for omitting Jewish ties to the Temple Mount. But what their resolution did affirm is far more troubling.

by Shany Mor

October 21, 2016

Much has already been written on UNESCO’s pitiful resolution last week on Jerusalem and its holy sites, in particular, its implicit denial of any Jewish (or, for that matter, Christian) connection to the Temple Mount. But it is what this resolution on “Occupied Palestine” affirms, rather than what it negates, that should worry us most: a paranoid conspiracy theory that holds that Jews are plotting to harm Islamic holy sites. This has no basis in fact, but it now has the imprimatur of a major international organization.

In the resolution’s long sections on the Mount’s Al-Aqsa Mosque, UNESCO “condemns the escalating Israeli aggressions” perpetrated “against the freedom of worship and Muslims’ access to their holy site Al-Aqsa,” “deplores the continuous storming of Al-Aqsa Mosque/Al-Haram Al-Sharif by Israeli right-wing extremists,” and “deeply decries the continuous Israeli aggressions” committed by “the so-called ‘Israeli antiquities’ officials.”

It is crucial to understand the power that this lie about Al-Aqsa being threatened has both in motivating violence and widening the conflict, which is crucial for the Palestinian cause. There’s a long history to Arab claims that Jews or Zionists or Israelis have threatened Al-Aqsa, dating all the way back past 1930. Such claims are part rallying cry, part conspiracy theory, and part a transparent projection of past actions against Jewish holy sites that fell into Muslim hands, as well as revenge fantasies for a future after such sites have been “liberated” from Zionist control.

The power of this lie, both in inciting violence as well as mobilizing Arab and Muslim public opinion beyond the local theater of conflict, was first understood in the 1920s by the Mufti of Jerusalem (and future Nazi collaborator) Haj Amin al-Husseini. He saw Al-Aqsa as a way of turning a local conflict, where his side might have been at a disadvantage, into a regional, religious, and even global conflict where this disadvantage could be reversed. The claim that Jews were seeking to harm Muslim holy sites in Jerusalem in 1928 was the pretext for a wave of Arab violence against Jews, culminating in the massacre a few months later of 67 Jews in Hebron.

This method served as a model for each of the future eruptions of violence following false claims of Jewish threats to Al Aqsa, which occurred roughly once a decade, particularly after Israel conquered the Old City of Jerusalem in 1967. Even during the peak years of the Oslo process, the opening in 1996 of a second exit to a tourist tunnel that (despite lies to the contrary) ran under no mosque was used as a false pretext for three days of violent rioting that included two deadly attacks on Jewish holy sites in the West Bank. Global opinion universally blamed Israel for the riots.

This too has been the pattern in the violence of the past year in Israel and the West Bank. The attackers themselves—usually in social media posts—aver that their primary motivation is the “threat” to Al Aqsa. But the international media nearly always translates this for its readers as “frustration with the occupation” or, if the Al Aqsa issue is mentioned at all, it is treated as something in dispute (“The Israelis deny harming the Muslim holy sites”). Even if the violent reaction is condemned, the pathological mindset which gave rise to it is presented with understanding.

It would be as if we took Dylann Roof’s claims that black men were raping white women seriously as a motivation for his massacre of African-American worshipers at a Charleston church—or treated that as disputable, or even just condemned Roof but also called on the African-American community to rein in its behavior or some such obnoxious statement. Instead, we rightly see Roof’s paranoid fantasy as being just another manifestation of the same pathological racism which drove him to carry out his infamous rampage.

In the case of Jews and Israel, however, what is clearly a pathology is treated instead as a possible grievance—and, in the case of UNESCO, a genuine one.

This perceived grievance stretches the bounds of irony to the breaking point. Let me list just four ways this is the case. First, immediately after conquering the Old City, Israel handed control of the Temple Mount to the Islamic Trust, or Waqf, and forbade any Jewish religious rite on the entire Mount (not just in the mosques), a status quo it has maintained to this day. Read that carefully: The world’s only Jewish state had just scored an astonishing victory over enemies who only days earlier were promising a war of extermination against it and, in the process, liberated the Jewish people’s holiest site—and then promptly handed it over.

Second, conspiracy theories aside, Israel has not conducted any excavations, archaeological or otherwise, under the Mount or the mosques on the Mount. The only large-scale excavation in recent times was carried out by the Islamic Waqf on the site formerly known as Solomon’s Stables, now the El-Marwani Mosque.

The construction of the El-Marwani Mosque on the southeast corner of the Mount, directly adjacent to Al-Aqsa, entailed a wanton and unrecoverable destruction of archaeological treasures ranging across three millennia of human patrimony. Unlike the imagined archaeological damage fantasists and fanatics accuse Israel of committing, this was never condemned by UNESCO or any other international body.

Third, Israel does actively restrict the religious rights of worshipers on the Temple Mount—but these are Jews, not Muslims. It forbids any Jewish prayer or religious activity of any kind anywhere on the Mount and limits visits of non-Muslims to a few hours a week. During a particularly tense period from 2000 to 2003, Israel forbade the entry of Jews altogether. No international human rights group has ever protested this entirely prudent denial of religious freedom. It is the visits of Jews in 2014 and 2015—to the Mount, but never inside the mosques—that is preposterously described in the UNESCO resolution as “storming Al Aqsa.” I guess when you deny that Jews have any reason to want to visit a place, their presence must be described as some kind of invasion. In fact, the only worshipers regularly harassed on the Temple Mount are the few Jews have the temerity to silently visit their faith’s holiest site. Meanwhile, the Israeli government has repeatedly affirmed that it will uphold this status quo, including in Arabic.

Fourth, Israeli control of the Old City of Jerusalem in the last half century has meant that Al Aqsa, the third holiest site in Islam, is the rare Islamic holy site not to be a stage for some kind of massacre of Muslim worshipers by one or another rival branch of radical Islam.

The countries voting for this obscene resolution aren’t just denying Jewish history, then, they are condoning an anti-Semitic libel and implicitly licensing the violence it heralds. Being more sensitive to Jewish feelings about holy sites would certainly be a nice step forward, but it alone won’t address the most grievous and dangerous aspect of this resolution.

Previous: U.N. Body Passes Anti-Semitic Resolution Denying Judaism’s Link to Its Holiest Site
Meet the Palestinians Trying to Keep Jews from Their Holiest Site

Watch: How Did King David Conquer Jerusalem

Watch: How Did King David Conquer Jerusalem.

Archaeological research in the Land of Israel has provided fascinating insight into biblical accounts of ancient Jewish history, including King David’s capture of Jerusalem. 

King David, crowned King of Israel almost 3,000 years ago, decided that Jerusalem, which was already positioned at the heart of Israelite territory, will be the capital of the royal kingdom.

But how did he capture the city from the powerful Canaanites? Certainly not through conventional tactics.

In 1867, Captain Charles Warren made an amazing discovery that shed light on the biblical text describing the victory of King David’s army.

Watch this video for some insight into a biblical account of history which became clearer thanks to continued research in the Old City of Jerusalem, the eternal capital of the Jewish People.

Understanding the Current Sheikh Jarrah (Jerusalem) Property Dispute

29 Iyyar 5781 | 11 May 2021

Many of the media accounts of the recent court judgments regarding the properties in Sheikh Jarrah have distorted the facts. Here are the real facts.

I. A call for discrimination
The current dispute in Sheikh Jarrah involves several properties with tenants whose leases have expired, and in a few cases squatters with no tenancy rights at all, against owner-landlords who have successfully won court orders evicting the squatters and overstaying tenants. The litigation has taken several years, and the owners have won at every step. The squatters and overstaying tenants have appealed against the eviction orders to the Supreme Court. The only decision that stands before the Israeli government is whether to honor the courts’ decisions and enforce the eviction orders if affirmed by the Supreme Court, or whether to defy court orders and deny the property owners their legal rights.

Critics claim that the Israeli government should (or even that international law requires the Israeli government to) deny the owners their property rights, but these claims are not based on any credible legal argument. Rather, the critics focus on the fact that the owners in the disputed cases are Jews while the squatters and overstaying tenants are Palestinian Arabs. The critics demand that Israel discriminate against and disregard the property owners’ lawful property rights due to their Jewish ethnicity. It’s obvious that critics of Israel would pay no notice to the dispute if the owners were Palestinian and the squatters and overstaying tenants were Palestinian. Likewise, it’s clear that critics of Israel would demand rather than oppose Israeli enforcement of the courts’ judgments if the owners were Palestinian and the squatters and overstaying tenants Jewish.

Critics of Israel in this case have adopted the bigoted position that property rights should depend on ethnicity and that Jewish ethnicity should be the grounds for denying legal property rights. In doing so they have distorted the facts, perverted international law, and attempted to intimidate Israel’s courts and law enforcement officials into adopting the critics’ bigotry.

II. The legal basis of the parties’ property rights
The legal rights of the parties themselves were resolved decades ago, in favor of the property owners. The owners in these disputes acquired their rights through an uninterrupted chain of transactions from predecessors in title in the 19th century. These legal rights were acquired under Ottoman law, and remained good through all different government regimes since then (British Mandatory, Jordanian occupation and purported annexation, and Israeli). No one seriously disputes the validity of the transactions through which the current owners acquired rights from their predecessors in title.

The tenants in these disputes acquired their leasehold rights through a chain from the Jordanian Custodian of Enemy Property in the 1950’s. Their rights as leaseholders (not owners) were reaffirmed in several court rulings culminating in 1982, when Israel’s civil courts issued rulings adopting settlement agreements between the leaseholders’ predecessors in title and the owners. The rulings and settlement agreements established that the tenants had “protected leaseholds” under Israeli law (a status superior to ordinary leaseholds under Israeli, Jordanian and British law) but that the owners still had good title ownership. The tenants enjoyed and continue to enjoy the benefits of the protected tenancies until today; this is why their leaseholds continued uninterrupted for more than half a century, until the recent expiration of the leases (in some cases due to serious breaches of the terms of the lease, in others due to the natural expiration of the lease rights). The squatters, of course, possess no legal rights at all.

The only break in the owners’ uninterrupted chain is the sequestration of the properties from 1948-1967 by the Jordanian Custodian of Enemy Property. Jordan, which had illegally occupied east Jerusalem and the West Bank during its illegal invasion of Israel in 1948, denied Jews the right to exercise any property rights over land in the Kingdom during the entirety of its 19-year occupation (Jordan has continued this discriminatory practice to date). Having expelled all Jews from the lands it occupied, Jordan transferred custody over all Jewish-owned property to the Jordanian Custodian of Enemy Property. In accordance with the British legislation on enemy property on which the Jordanian law was based, Jordan’s sequestration of enemy property only extinguished owners’ rights completely if the state seized title by eminent domain or if the Custodian transferred title to someone else. Importantly, in the case of the Sheikh Jarrah properties, the Jordanian Custodian did not purport to transfer ownership of the properties to anyone else. Instead, the Custodian leased some of the properties to Palestinian Arabs (the predecessors in title to the current overstaying tenants).

After the Six Day War of 1967 ended Jordan’s occupation of east Jerusalem, Israel adopted legislation that vindicated the private property rights of persons of all ethnicities. The 1970 Law and Administrative Arrangements Law (Consolidated Version) preserved the rights of private parties who received title from the Jordanian Custodian of Enemy Property, notwithstanding the illegality of Jordan’s occupation. (Persons who received rights from the Jordanian Custodian were all Arabs, since Jordanian law denied property rights to Jews.) Where the Jordanian Custodian had held custody over the sequestered properties through 1967, the 1970 law assigned custody to the Israeli Administrator General and Official Receiver with instruction to release custody to the property owners. And where Jordan had seized the property by eminent domain for public use, the 1970 law assigned ownership of the property to the state of Israel for continuation of the public use.

Ironically, if the Jordanian Custodian of Enemy Property had assigned title to the predecessors of the current Palestinian Arab holdover tenants over the lands it seized from Jewish owners, Israeli law would have respected the resulting title. The reason the holdover tenants in Sheikh Jarrah lack ownership today is not because the state of Israel has denied the Palestinian Arabs any rights they acquired, but, rather, because the government of Jordan declined to give the Palestinian Arabs title to the land Jordan had seized.

III. Media distortions of the dispute
Many of the media accounts of the recent court judgments regarding the properties in Sheikh Jarrah have distorted the facts. Contrary to claims in some media accounts, Israel did not grant anyone ownership to any of the affected properties on the basis of ethnicity. Israeli law respects and upholds the property rights of persons of all ethnicities. Israel has even respected the property rights created by prior regimes that explicitly discriminated against Jews in their property laws—the Ottoman Empire, the British Mandate of Palestine, and the Jordanian occupation regime.
Contrary to claims in some media accounts, Israel has not created different rules for “enemy property” based on ethnicity. The ethnic dimension to the current-day property disputes is historic discrimination against Jews by a country other than Israel: Jordan denied Jews all ability to exercise property rights during its illegal occupation of east Jerusalem 1948-1967. Israel has declined to continue Jordan’s discriminatory practice, but it has respected the legal results of Jordan’s actions. Ironically, Israel has been so respectful of the private property rights of Palestinian Arabs that it continues to uphold private Palestinian Arab property rights that are based on Jordanian discrimination against Jews.

Contrary to claims in some media accounts, the Israeli government has not decided to evict anyone in the current disputes. It is private parties, rather than the government of Israel, that have brought their claims to court. Landowners have done what they do throughout the civilized world—they have exercised their private rights to evict holdover tenants by going to court and winning an eviction order. The landowners rightly expect that Israeli police and enforcement authorities will respect the law and carry out eviction orders. Contrary to claims by pro-Palestinian advocates, the state of Israel has not issued any eviction orders against Palestinians in these disputes.
Contrary to the impression created by some media accounts, there has been no recent adjustment of the parties’ property rights in favor of Jews or to the disadvantage of Palestinian Arabs. The parties’ rights were established by voluntary transactions over many years and reaffirmed in a legal compromise and court rulings many decades ago. The Palestinian Arab litigants in these cases are now attempting to overturn more than a century of property transactions and overturn long-settled law in order to prevent the Jewish owners exercising their lawful rights. The only involuntary transaction in the chain is the Jordanian 1948-1967 sequestration of Jewish property which is the source of the Palestinian Arab lease rights that have been upheld by the courts.

Contrary to the impression created by some media accounts, the property disputes do not involve any exotic or unusual Israeli laws. The leasehold and trespass legal issues at stake are similar to those found throughout the world, other than the unusually strong rent control and tenant protections given to the protected tenants (Palestinian Arabs in this dispute). The ownership laws at issue are likewise similar to those found throughout the world, and simply follow the chain of voluntary transactions. The only exotic element in the case is Jordan’s 19-year sequestration of all Jewish-owned properties as “enemy property,” which has been respected to the detriment of the Jewish property owners.
Contrary to the statements in some media accounts, none of the properties in the current dispute has been seized by the state of Israel. None of the property disputes turns on Israeli laws of land use or land planning or absentee property.
Contrary to the statements in some media accounts, the question in the land disputes is not whether “Jews owned the property prior to 1948.” The ethnicity of the owners is not legally relevant to the dispute, and does not serve as the basis of any legal rights in this case. The historical ownership is relevant only because it is part of the chain of title leading to the current owners’ title. What has been litigated is the current rights of current property owners.

IV. Official distortions of international law
Likewise, many critics of Israel have fabricated provisions of international law to insist that Israel is required to discriminate against Jews in east Jerusalem because, in the critics’ view, east Jerusalem is territory belligerently occupied by Israel. These claims are not only without foundation in international law, they also undermine international legal authority by creating a fake international law intended to be used in bigoted fashion.
Contrary to the claims of the critics, nothing in the law of belligerent occupation, or any other provision of international law, requires Israel to adopt and enforce the racial and ethnic land discrimination that is part of Jordanian law. In fact, Israel would violate international law (such as provisions in the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights) were it to continue the Jordanian ethnic discrimination, or adopt the distorted views of international law proposed by critics of Israel.

Contrary to the claims of the critics, there is nothing in the Geneva Conventions or any other part of the laws of belligerent occupation that forbids Israel to carry out court orders enforcing private property rights of landlords to evict their overstaying tenants. The claim that property rights of Jews must be disregarded while other property rights must be upheld or even enhanced has no basis in the law and is morally offensive.
Contrary to the claims of critics, international law does not require, or even permit ethnically-based denials of the legal rights of property owners due to alleged flaws in other Israeli laws. Some critics have claimed that Israel’s land planning laws, land use regulations and 1950 Absentee Property Law are problematic or biased. Whatever the merits of such claims, the claims of the parties in the current Sheikh Jarrah disputes have nothing to do with Israel’s land planning laws, land use regulations or the 1950 Absentee Property Law. Nothing in international law permits Israel to deny individual Jewish landowners their legal rights as punishment for the alleged guilt of their polity in adopting other, unrelated laws.

Contrary to the claims of the critics, permitting private Jewish landowners to exercise their rights in court does not constitute “illegal settlement activity.” No reasonable interpretation of the various provision of the Geneva Conventions and other treaties cited with respect to the legal dispute on “settlements” could possibly lead to the conclusion that international law requires stripping Jews of all private property rights in land in areas that critics of Israel call “Occupied Palestinian Territories.” While critics of Israel like to pretend that international law forbids Jews to reside in any lands claimed as part of the “Occupied Palestinian Territories,” that claim has no foundation in international law.

Erdan to Security Council: Hamas’ attack on Israel was premeditated

Israel’s Ambassador to the US and the UN says Hamas’ massive attack on Israel was premeditated, sparked by internal Palestinian political unrest.

Tags: Guardian Of The Walls UNSC Gilad Erdan Arutz Sheva North America Staff , May 16 , 2021 10:01 PM Share
Gilad Erdan

Gilad Erdan Flash 90

Israel’s Ambassador to the United States and the United Nations Gilad Erdan said Sunday that Hamas’ massive attack on Israel was premeditated, sparked by internal Palestinian political unrest and that Israel had a legitimate right to defend itself.

Ambassador Erdan spoke at a special meeting of the United Nations Security Council that was called to discuss Israel’s military operation, “Guardian of the Wall”, in Gaza.

UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres opened the discussion, which was attended by the foreign ministers of China, Norway, Egypt, Jordan, and the Palestinian Authority, as well the United States Ambassador to the United Nations Linda Thomas Greenfield.

Ambassador Erdan opened his speech with the story of 16-year-old Nadine Awad, an Arab citizen of Israel, who was murdered along with her father by a Hamas missile that landed on their home in the central Israeli town of Lod last Wednesday.

Holding up a photo of the young woman, Ambassador Erdan went on to describe, “Over the last week, millions of Israeli children, women and men, have been huddling in bomb shelters, while thousands of Hamas rockets landed all around them.”

“How would you respond, if an organization with a similar fanatic jihadist ideology as ISIS, was bombing Beijing or Moscow or Dublin and shutting down the airports of Paris or Oslo or London?” Ambassador Erdan asked the members of the council, calling on them to support Israel’s legitimate right to defend itself.

Ambassador Erdan told the council that the current assault on Israel “was completely premeditated by Hamas in order to gain political power. It was all a part of their vicious plan. While Hamas seeks the destruction of the State of Israel, it’s also vying to take power in the West Bank, and to replace the Palestinian Authority.”

“Hamas was frustrated last month when President Abbas postponed Palestinian elections, after not holding them for 15 years,” Ambassador Erdan continued. “It looked for another way to seize power. So, unfortunately, it chose to escalate tensions in Jerusalem as a pretext to start this war. Buying into Hamas’s political propaganda ploy to portray the massive, unprovoked rocket attacks as a result of the dispute in Sheikh Jarrah is not only wrong, it is dangerous.”

“There is never an excuse to indiscriminately fire rockets at civilians,” said Ambassador Erdan. “There is never a justification for terror. Do you really believe that this property dispute is what caused Hamas to launch this large-scale attack on the people of Israel?”

Ambassador Erdan also shared photographs of Palestinian extremists who used the Al-Aqsa Mosque to stockpile rocks and firebombs subsequently used in violent attacks against Jewish worshipers and against the Israeli police in Jerusalem.

“Using non-lethal means, our police were able to disperse the violent riots without a single fatality. I doubt whether there are many police forces anywhere in the world that could have achieved such an outcome. I want to emphasize: Israel deeply cherishes freedom of religion,” he continued, holding another photograph showing thousands of Muslims praying at the mosque last week during the holiday of Eid al-Fitr.

The ambassador concluded his words by calling on members of the UN Security Council to make a choice: “You can create false moral equivalence – immoral equivalence – between the actions of a democracy that sanctifies life, and those of a terrorist organization that glorifies death, by calling for restraint on all sides, and failing to unequivocally condemn Hamas.”

Or, he said, “you can unequivocally condemn Hamas’s indiscriminate and unprovoked attacks, which threaten Israelis and Palestinians alike. You can choose to support Israel’s heroic efforts to defend itself and dismantle Hamas’s infrastructure of terror while doing everything to minimize the number of casualties on both sides.”

“Israel has already made its choice,” said Ambassador Erdan. “We will take all steps necessary to defend our people. Now the choice is yours. The world is watching.”Ambassador Erdan with photo of Nadine Awad No credit

(Arutz Sheva’s North American desk is keeping you updated until the start of Shavuot in New York. The time posted automatically on all Arutz Sheva articles, however, is Israeli time.)

Watch: Rashida Tlaib Lies About Jerusalem Riots

Watch: Rashida Tlaib Lies About Jerusalem Riots

Once again, Israel-hating congresswoman Rashida Tlaib provides cover for terrorists and straight-up lies, this time regarding the recent riots in Jerusalem.

In the past couple of weeks, there have been violent riots and anti-Semitic attacks against Jews in the Israeli capital.

Israel-hating congresswoman Rashida Tlaib took this as an opportunity, once again, to twist the facts and demonize Israel in a tweet replete with ludicrous lies.

Israel Advocacy Movement, responds to her tweet and provides the truth about what is happening in Jerusalem and who the real victims are.

Activists urge world leaders to combat pandemic of anti-Semitism

With surge in anti-Semitic incidents around the world during Israel’s counter-terror operation in Gaza, NGO urges leaders to take action.

Tags:Antisemitism Arutz Sheva Staff , May 16 , 2021 4:20 PM Share
Definition of anti-Semitism and anti-Semite

Definition of anti-Semitism and anti-Semite iStock

The Combat Antisemitism Movement (CAM) today called on leaders around the world to take action against the alarming spike in antisemitic incidents in which Jews have been targeted both online and on the streets in multiple countries over the past several days.

Since last week’s outbreak of violence in Israel and the Gaza Strip, which has seen Israeli citizens targeted relentlessly and indiscriminately by Hamas terrorists with more than 2,000 rockets fired from the Gaza Strip, there has been an enormous increase in antisemitic incidents in many countries, including a 250 percent rise in the UK alone.

Synagogues in Europe have been vandalized, while Jews have been verbally abused and targeted online, fuelled by hateful social media rhetoric from popular influencers and celebrities. It has amounted to a worrying outpouring of blatant hate, supposedly in opposition to Israel’s actions. During a pro-Palestinian protest in Brussels, crowds chanted “Death to the Jews,” while at a similar protest in Germany, crowds shouted anti-Jewish slurs.

Incidents have also included calls for the destruction of Israel, in direct contravention of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) working definition of antisemitism. The internationally-recognized definition clearly states that “Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination” is an antisemitic act. The events of the past week have underscored that anti-Zionism is a contemporary form of antisemitism in disguise.

This depressing surge of antisemitism masquerading as criticism of Israel must not go unanswered. CAM calls on international, national, and local leaders to speak out forcefully against this phenomenon and empower law enforcement authorities to apprehend the perpetrators, while municipal officials must take practical steps to ensure the streets of their cities do not become safe havens for antisemitism.

CAM applauds the principled stands taken by leaders and authorities in Germany and France, where in recent days measures have been implemented to prevent antisemitic protests in major cities.

Sacha Roytman-Dratwa, Combat Antisemitism Movement Director: “We are witnessing an appaling explosion of antisemitism, which has left Jews alarmed and distressed across the world. Yet again, antisemites are attacking Jewish buildings, abusing Jews both verbally and online and stoking fear among Jewish communities, under the pretense of criticizing Israel. There is simply no place for this type of Jew hatred in any civilized city or society. Leaders of good conscience across the world must urgently take action to prevent the dreadful prospect of local Jews living in fear.”

Why are Democratic members of Congress parroting terrorist talking points?

The Washington Examiner

Opinion

by Kaylee McGhee White, Commentary Writer |  | May 14, 2021

00:02 04:32

People who do not understand the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the nature of the Middle East should not attempt to weigh in on these issues. That includes members of Congress.

It is very clear that several elected Democrats, many of whom just so happen to be among the loudest voices on this issue, have no idea what they’re talking about when it comes to the present conflict between Israel and Gaza. It’s either that, or they are intentionally parroting terrorist talking points.

Take, for example, Minnesota Democrat Rep. Ilhan Omar:

Omar is more or less shilling for Hamas, the terrorist organization that began the current conflagration by launching rockets indiscriminately at Israeli cities from Gaza. When the rockets started pouring over the border, Israel defended itself with the Iron Dome missile defense system, which protects thousands of Israeli and Palestinian lives. Omar would like to see that defense system defunded — and so would Hamas. It would make it a lot easier to reach their goal of killing as many Jews as possible and using terror and violence to achieve their political ends. Recommended Video

Unlike Hamas, Israel does not target civilians, Omar’s ignorant comments notwithstanding. But Hamas is well known for intentionally putting civilians inside buildings and on the site of military targets that they expect the Israeli military to bomb. That way, they can blame Israel for civilian deaths. On top of that, 30% of the rockets Hamas fires at Israel end up landing on Palestinians instead. Does Omar not care about those Palestinian lives?

Then there’s Michigan Democratic Rep. Rashida Tlaib, who came out in support of Hamas’s ultimate goal: the extinction of Israel.

Tlaib is referring here to the creation of Israel in 1948, when Britain withdrew from the region and gave land to the first Jewish state. Tlaib’s proposed solution would be to take all of that land back from Israel and give it to a new state of Palestine. In other words, she, like Hamas, would like to see Israel wiped off the map.

One might be inclined to give Omar and Tlaib the benefit of the doubt and assume that they are ignorant of what’s really happening in Israel and Gaza. After all, it’s a complicated and long-running conflict. But these are the congresswomen who openly support the boycott, divest, and sanctions movement and regularly peddle in anti-Semitic tropes. And now they’re acting like the public relations firm for a terrorist organization that would love nothing more than a second Holocaust.

Smotrich On Temple Mount Closure: “You Choose Disgrace, You Get War!”

Religious Zionism party chairman demands PM reverse decision to close holiest site in Judaism to Jews.

Tags:Bezalel SmotrichTemple Mount Arutz Sheva Staff , May 16 , 2021 10:49 AM Share
Bezalel Smotrich

Bezalel Smotrich צילום: Sraya Diamant/Flash90

Bezalel Smotrich responded Sunday morning to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s decision to close the Temple Mount to Jews.

“Hello, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, what else needs to happen for you to understand that when you choose disgrace, you get a war ?!” MK Smotrich wrote on his Twitter account.

“I call on you to change your decision immediately and refuse to succumb to terrorism and violence,” he added.

The closure of the Temple Mount to Jews follows the decision of the political echelon and Prime Minister Netanyahu, and was made without prior notice. The Jewish visitors, who thought that the end of the Muslim holiday that caused the mountain to close to the Jews last week would mean the site would reopen, were surprised this morning to discover the gate at the entrance to the Temple Mount closed to them.

Journalist and Temple Mount activist Arnon Segal wrote on his Twitter account: “Without any advance notice, without any explanation or even a tiny sign at the entrance, when even the Muslim holiday is over – the Temple Mount remains closed to Jews. The national humiliation begins here.”

‘Why is Temple Mount closed to Jews?’

Temple Mount organizations ask why holiest site in Judaism remains closed to Jews while fully open to Muslims.

Tags:Temple Mount Arutz Sheva Staff , May 16 , 2021 9:01 AM Share
Hamas flags on Temple Mount

Hamas flags on Temple Mount Jamal Awad/Flash90

The leadership of the Temple Mount organizations criticized the conduct of the authorities, which continue to bar Jews from the Temple Mount as Operation Guardian of the Walls rages.

“At the headquarters of the Temple Mount Organizations, the organizations received with great sorrow and severe shock the announcement of the continued closure of the Temple Mount to Jews and its opening to Muslims. The closure of the Temple Mount to Jews is a serious blow to the Jewish connection of the people of Israel to our temple, and closes the possibility of prayer for the success of the fighting and recovery of the wounded precisely where G-d chose as the place of closeness and prayer to Him. And it is even interpreted as weakness towards the enemy and surrender to terrorism,” they said.

“It is precisely during the fighting we must put before our eyes the words of the sages of Israel that were said of King David when he conquered the territories containing the Temple Mount,,'” the headquarters said.

They called on the Prime Minister to open the Temple Mount to Jews on all days of the week, and at all hours of the day. “”To move the mosques to Saudi Arabia or any other Islamic country, and remove from our sanctuary the Waqf and any Muslim symbol that has been causing more than a hundred years of terror and wars and this will end the bloodshed.”

“Opening the Temple Mount to Jews indefinitely around the clock, and moving the Temple Mount mosques will forever neutralize the focus of terror on the Temple Mount, and harm the enemy more than any downing of towers in Gaza,” the headquarters said.