1. Article 2(7):
“Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter Vll.”
President Trump’s decisions to recognise Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and move the US Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem were made in accordance with the Jerusalem Embassy Act passed on 24 October 1995 by the Senate 93:5 and the House 374:37.
Trump’s decisions fell squarely within the framework of America’s domestic jurisdiction.
Other countries wanting to follow America by locating their Embassies in Jerusalem are perfectly entitled to do so free of UN condemnation or interference.
2. Article 12(1):
“While the Security Council is exercising in respect of any dispute or situation the functions assigned to it in the present Charter, the General Assembly shall not make any recommendation with regard to that dispute or situation unless the Security Council so requests.”
The Security Council had considered the situation brought about by President Trump’s decisions three days prior to the General Assembly meeting – when a draft UN Security Council resolution rejecting US policy shift on Jerusalem was vetoed by the United States.
The General Assembly was not empowered to make any recommendations whilst the Security Council remained seized of the issue - unless the Security Council requested the General Assembly to so act – which was not the case.
The General Assembly’s Resolution was passed in breach of Article 12(1).
3. Article 80(1):
“… nothing in this Chapter shall be construed in or of itself to alter in any manner the rights whatsoever of any states or any peoples or the terms of existing international instruments to which Members of the United Nations may respectively be parties."
This article preserves the legal right of the Jewish people to reconstitute the Jewish National Home in Jerusalem in accordance with the Mandate for Palestine – unanimously endorsed by all 51 member States of the League of Nations in 1922.
50 of those League of Nations member States are members of the United Nations and voted on the Resolution as follows:
(i) 11 abstained:
Argentina, Australia, Canada, Colombia, Czech Republic, Haiti, Latvia, Panama, Paraguay, Poland and Romania
(ii) 1 did not vote:
El Salvador
(iii) 2 Voted against the Resolution:
Guatemala and Honduras
(iv) 36 voted for the Resolution:
Albania, Austria, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Bulgaria, Chile, China, Costa Rica, Cuba, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Greece, India, Iran, Italy, Japan, Liberia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Peru, Portugal, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, Uruguay, United Kingdom, Venezuela
The votes of these 36 States delimited the legal rights of the Jewish people that their very own respective countries had been instrumental in creating in 1922.
The other 92 member states who voted for the Resolution also apparently had no qualms in ignoring article 80(1).Trump was clearly not happy with the UN’s intrusion into America’s domestic affairs - immediately cutting $285 million from America’s proposed 2018 UN Budget with more financial cuts likely to occur.
'Mawlid (or Milad) is the Islamic festival commemorating the birthday of Mohammed. The only thing it has in common with Christmas is that it isn’t actually the day the celebrated baby was born. Yet All Saints Church in Kingtson upon Thames thinks there’s an interfaith syncretised opportunity to be found in holding a joint birthday celebration for both Mohammed and Jesus – so they put the flags out for both, rejoicing in both, eulogising both, solemnising both, glorifying both, honouring both.
[N]ote how this event is “Marking the birthday of Prophet Mohammed”, but not looking forward to the birthday of the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God. Mohammed gets his prophethood, while Jesus gets neither his prophethood nor his priesthood; neither his kingship nor his messiahship. It’s the exalted Prophet Mohammed along with plain old Jesus, because to have added any of his claims to divinity would, of course, have alienated many Muslims (if they hadn’t already been alienated by the haram celebration), which wouldn’t have been very interfaith or sensitively missional, would it?
We have been here before: when Westminster Abbey hosted a service in which Mohammed was named in the succession of prophets, they effectively proclaimed to the world that Mohammed is greater than Jesus:
In Islamic theology, Mohammed was ‘The Prophet’ who came to fulfil and complete the partial revelations of all preceding prophets. Muslims believe that his coming was prophesied by Jesus: ‘But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father..‘ (Jn 15:26). The ‘Comforter’ or ‘Advocate’ (NIV) whom Christians believe to be the Holy Spirit is, for Muslims, Mohammed. So when he is declared in Westminster Abbey to be ‘The Chosen One’, it is not simply a benign multifaith expression of ecumenical respect in a commemorative service of reconciliation: it is a dogmatic affirmation of a perfected prophethood to which Jesus is subordinate, and His divinity thereby denied.
And then, of course, there was the act of divine worship in St Mary’s Cathedral, Glasgow, in which it was declared publicly from the Qur’an that God can have no sons, and so the Gospel writers were engaged in a blasphemous deceit. Every time a church accords Mohammed the epithet ‘Prophet’, they are rejecting the crucifixion, denying the resurrection of Christ, and refuting that the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us, for Mohammed denied all of these foundational tenets of the Christian faith. The Jesus he espoused is the plain old one – no more than a prophet, and certainly an inferior one to him....'And as the Gatestone Institute recently reminded us,
'This year's Christmas season has been marked by Islam-related controversies in nearly every European country. Most of the conflicts have been generated by Europe's multicultural political and religious elites, who are bending over backwards to secularize Christmas, ostensibly to ensure that Muslims will not be offended by the Christian festival.
Many traditional Christmas markets have been renamed — Amsterdam Winter Parade, Brussels Winter Pleasures, Kreuzberger Wintermarkt, London Winterville, Munich Winter Festival — to project a multicultural veneer of secular tolerance.
More troubling are the growing efforts to Islamize Christmas. The re-theologizing of Christmas is based on the false premise that the Jesus of the Bible is the Jesus (Isa) of the Koran. This religious fusion, sometimes referred to as "Chrislam," is gaining ground in a West that has become biblically illiterate....'It is indeed that ignorance of the Bible on the part of European populations that has led to the diminution in support for Israel. As I have pointed out many times, the dilution of religious teaching in schools, the wilful ignorance of our shared Judeo-Christian cultural heritage in societies that have become "multicultural" and "secular" means that fewer people identify with the People of Israel against latter day Hamans and Pharoahs than was once thecase. I have pointed this out to Jewish groups; for the most part I get blank looks, and shrugs. It is as if Jews expect Christians to be hostile to them. But as students of philosemitism are aware, this has not not been inevitably so.
'The Qur'an in Chapter 5: 20-21 states quite clearly: Moses said to his people: O my people! Remember the bounty of God upon you when He bestowed prophets upon you , and made you kings and gave you that which had not been given to anyone before you amongst the nations. O my people! Enter the Holy Land which God has written for you, and do not turn tail, otherwise you will be losers."
The Quran goes on to say why the Israelites were not allowed to enter the land for forty years...but the thrust of my analysis is where Moses says that the Holy Land is that which God has "written" for the Israelites. In both Jewish and Islamic understandings of the term "written", there is the meaning of finality, decisiveness and immutability. And so we have the Written Torah (unchangeable) and the Oral Torah (which represents change to suit times). And in the Qur'an we have "Written upon you is the fast"--to show that this is something that is decreed, and which none can change. So the simple fact is then, from a faith-based point of view: If God has "written" Israel for the people of Moses, who can change this?
The Qur'an refers to the exiles, but leaves it open for return...saying to the Jews that if they keep their promise to God, then God will keep the divine promise to them. WE may argue that the present state of Israel was not created in the most peaceful means, and that many were displaced--for me, this is not the issue. The issue is that when the Muslims entered that land in the seventh century, they were well aware of its rightful owners, and when they failed to act according to divine mandate (at least as perceived by followers of all Abrahamic faiths), they aided and abetted in a crime. And the present situation shows the fruits of that action--wherein innocent Palestinians and Israelis are being killed on a daily basis.
I also draw your attention to the fact that the medieval exegetes of Qur'an--without any exception known to me--recognized Israel as belonging to the Jews, their birthright given to them. Indeed, two of Islam's most famous exegetes explained "written" from Quran 5:21 thus:
Ibn Kathir (d. 774/1373) said: “That which God has written for you” i.e. That which God has promised to you by the words of your father Israel that it is the inheritance of those among you who believe” . Muhammad al-Shawkani (d. 1250/1834) interprets Kataba to mean “that which God has allotted and predestined for you in His primordial knowledge, deeming it as a place of residence for you” (1992, 2:41).
The idea that Israel does not belong to the Jews is a modern one, probably based on the Mideast rejection of European colonialism etc, but certainly not having anything to do with the Qur'an. The unfortunate fact is that most Muslims do NOT read the Qur’an and interpret it on the basis of its own words; rather they let imams and preachers do that for them.
How did the Jews lose their right to live in the Holy Land? All reliable reports show that it was by the looting and burning that followed from 70-135 C.E. When the Muslims entered the place in 638, liberating it from the Byzantines, they knew full well to whom it rightfully belonged. But we find that Muslim chroniclers state that the Muslim caliph accepting the surrender of the Byzantine Christian representative, Sophronius, on certain terms, one of them being that the Jews would not be permitted to enter the city. I personally have a hard time accepting this story, and aspects of its historicity because as modern scholarship has shown, Muslim reports about that time were recorded long after the fact and are not as reliable as once thought. And we know too that when the first Crusaders took possession of the place in 1096-1099, they slaughtered Jews and Muslims....
When the Muslims conquered Jerusalem, it should have been left open for the rightful owners to return. It is possible that Jewish beliefs of the time only allowed such return under a Messiah--but that should not have influenced Muslim action. And in contrast to the report of Sophronius above, there are also reports showing that Umar in fact opened the city to the Jews. If this be the case, then the later Muslim occupation and building a mosque on the site of the Temple was something that was not sanctioned by The Qur’an. How honest is contemporary Islam with this? Given the situation in the Middle East, politicking etc stands in the way of honesty....
I admit that the Qur'an has verses that are polemic, but my view is that the Qur'an in fact respects the Jews (which explains Moses being so often mentioned)...but that it is the oral traditions of Islam (the hadith) that demonizes the Jews. For many Muslims, this is a hard pill to swallow because for almost 12 centuries, they have been taught that acceptance of oral traditions are a creedal element of Islam....
What is the interpretation of the final two verses of the first chapter of the Quran? "Guide us to the straight path--the path of those upon whom you have bestowed your bounty, not those who have incurred your wrath, nor those who are astray.
This verse has nothing about Jews or Christians...yet, almost every person learns that those who have incurred divine wrath are the Jews, and those who are astray are Christians. What is more problematic is that the average person learns this chapter and its interpretation between the ages of 5-8. And we know that things learned at this stage of life become ingrained, almost to the point of being in one's DNA, if I may put it that way....
The reformation will come from Muslims based in the West, and the voices of women will be loud and pivotal in that reformation. Let us look at some names that are as yet unknown to many, but names that have done so much for changing Islamic thought...names of people who may disagree vehemently with each other, but names of people who, for all their difference have done much to purge Islam of the male chauvinism that has afflicted it for centuries ...: Note that they are, with one exception, all now in the West, and that they have all had a western education.
....The Qur'an states at the very beginning of the second chapter "this is a book wherein there is no doubt, a guide for the God-conscious." Its contents are therefore to be seen by every Muslim as being divinely ordained, and to be followed. The verses on Israel as in 5:20-21 are not there just to be read; they are there to be followed. In Islam also, there is the elemental maxim "Calamity must be removed" (al darar yuzal). Muslms must face up to reality--in the years since Israel has been established, the focus of the region has been to seek to have it removed. And they have been unsuccessful, and there seems to be no hope for success. The pragmatic, proactive thing to do would be to come to grips with reality: Israel is there to stay, and it can exist in a state of peaceful coexistence, or in a stage of bellicosity. The Qur'an tells Muslims that God will not change their position until they change it themselves--and this is a classic example for putting that edict into effect. Only when MUSLIMS themselves accept Israel will they be following their Qur'an. Israel will negotiate from a position of guaranteed security, and while there may be tension from time to time, at least peace will be the norm.'See also here and here
1. OIC members pledged to take joint action on the basis of international law against the statement of President Trump recognising Jerusalem as Israel’s capital.
Yet international law unreservedly recognises the sovereign right of each State to designate its capital and the sovereign right of other States to decide whether to recognise that State and to locate their Embassies in such capital.
The Jerusalem Embassy Act 1995 passed overwhelmingly by the United States Congress recognized and affirmed these long-established legal principles:
“Each sovereign nation, under international law and custom, may designate its own capital…
… Since 1950, the city of Jerusalem has been the capital of the State of Israel.
… The United States maintains its embassy in the functioning capital of every country except in the case of our democratic friend and strategic ally, the State of Israel.”
2. The OIC condemned the illegal settlement activities by Israel in the occupied Palestinian territories.
The “occupied Palestinian territories” are in fact “disputed territories” in international law where competing Jewish and Arab claims to sovereignty remain to be resolved.
No binding legal ruling exists to substantiate the OIC’s mendacious claim.
There is however territory-specific legislation that negates this OIC claim – namely article 6 of the Mandate for Palestine and article 80 of the United Nations Charter.
3. The OIC declared President Trump’s statement to be “null and void”.
The OIC acting as judge, jury and Lord High Executioner has deigned to tell an American President he cannot act in accordance with international law.Dismissing international law by claiming it to be “null and void” has also been adopted by the Palestine Liberation Organization - whose Charter proclaimed that two cardinal planks in international law – the Balfour Declaration and the Mandate for Palestine and all that had been based on them were:
· “considered fraud” in 1964 (article 18) and
· “deemed null and void” in 1968 (article 20)The fictitious “State of Palestine” is among the 22 Arab States that are OIC members.
Albania, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, British India, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, El Salvador, Estonia, Finland, France, Greece, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Italy, Japan, Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes, Latvia, Liberia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Persia, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Republic of China, Romania, Siam, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Union of South Africa, United Kingdom, Uruguay, and Venezuela.Many of these countries have chosen in 2017 to disregard their own decisions in 1922 which established the framework for two States – one Jewish, one Arab – being eventually created in Palestine.
1. affirms that the Mandate for Palestine is legally binding in international law and
2. recognizes the State of IsraelCherry-picking bits and pieces of International law or even worse – making it up and refusing to acknowledge its falsity – is a recipe for continuing chaos and disorder.
“President Trump on Wednesday formally recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, reversing nearly seven decades of American foreign policy …”
“Donald Trump recognises Jerusalem as Israel's capital, in reversal of decades of policy”News outlets including Reuters, Financial Times, Iraqinews, Gulfnews, and Today parroted this false claim.
“In 1995, Congress adopted the Jerusalem Embassy Act, urging the federal government to relocate the American embassy to Jerusalem and to recognize that that city -- and so importantly -- is Israel’s capital. This act passed Congress by an overwhelming bipartisan majority and was reaffirmed by a unanimous vote of the Senate only six months ago.”The Act unequivocally states:
“SEC. 3. TIMETABLE.
(a) Statement of the Policy of the United States.
(1) Jerusalem should remain an undivided city in which the rights of every ethnic and religious group are protected. (2) Jerusalem should be recognized as the capital of the State of Israel; and (3) the United States Embassy in Israel should be established in Jerusalem no later than May 31, 1999.”The Act’s preamble details the following facts critical to Congress’s overwhelming vote:
1. Each sovereign nation, under international law and custom, may designate its own capital.
2. Since 1950, the city of Jerusalem has been the capital of the State of Israel.
3. The city of Jerusalem is the seat of Israel´s President, Parliament, and Supreme Court, and the site of numerous government ministries and social and cultural institutions.
4. The city of Jerusalem is the spiritual center of Judaism, and is also considered a holy city by the members of other religious faiths.
5. From 1948-1967, Jerusalem was a divided city and Israeli citizens of all faiths as well as Jewish citizens of all states were denied access to holy sites in the area controlled by Jordan.
6. In 1967, the city of Jerusalem was reunited during the conflict known as the Six Day War.
7. Since 1967, Jerusalem has been a united city administered by Israel, and persons of all religious faiths have been guaranteed full access to holy sites within the city.
8. The United States maintains its embassy in the functioning capital of every country except in the case of our democratic friend and strategic ally, the State of Israel.
9. In 1996, the State of Israel will celebrate the 3,000th anniversary of the Jewish presence in Jerusalem since King David´s entry.
As we approach the centenary of the Balfour Declaration, although it is five months away, it seems to me that it is important to start talking about it and what it does say and what it doesn’t say, as well as trying to make clear its status and impact.
The actual Declaration itself is but one sentence in a letter sent to Baron Rothschild: brief to the point of being easy to miss. As Wikipedia notes:
'The Balfour Declaration was a single paragraph in a letter dated 2 November 1917 from the United Kingdom’s Foreign Secretary Arthur James Balfour to Walter Rothschild, 2nd Baron Rothschild, a leader of the British Jewish community, for transmission to the Zionist Federation of Great Britain and Ireland. It read:
"His Majesty’s government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country."
The text of the letter was published in the press one week later, on 9 November 1917. The “Balfour Declaration” was later incorporated into both the Sèvres peace treaty with the Ottoman Empire, and the Mandate for Palestine.
The Balfour Declaration was, of course, the culmination of a long campaign by the Zionist Federation (ZF) (and by Chaim Weizmann in particular). Weizmann was especially influential in this, largely because of his scientific work, as a research chemist, and especially his development of the extraction of acetone (vital for the munitions industry) from maize during the First World War on behalf of the Allies. This meant that the British Government of the day was particularly beholden to him, and Weizmann used this influence wholeheartedly on behalf of the Zionist Federation.
(The Encyclopaedia Britannica entry on Weizmann is particularly informative on this period of his life.) It is important to note developments such as the San Remo Conference of Allied Powers (1920), which confirmed the Balfour Declaration and awarded the Palestine Mandate to Great Britain (Britannica, ibid).
It is as important, at this point, to remember that phrase from the Declaration that “nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.” This will be returned to below.
To move on, it is possible to argue that the Peel Commission recommendations of 1936 come close to allocating much the same territory to each side as did the 1947 UN Resolution on the ending of the British Mandate. Remember: I said “much the same” not exactly the the same, though it’s a moot point, as the Arab side rejected the Commission’s recommendations outright, despite earlier agreements between at least some Arab leaders and the Jewish Agency.
All that said, the British Government failed, consistently, to live up to the wording of the Declaration. From the San Remo Conference onwards, despite that Conference’s agreement that
"Britain was charged with establishing a ‘national home for the Jewish people’ in Palestine [although] Terroritorial boundaries were not decided until four years after"
Britain did nothing to establish any boundaries, then or later, including after World War II and, indeed, after the 1947 UN Resolution ending the Mandate. The British didn’t even take steps to establish Transjordan, although they much favoured its creation. As a result, it is hardly surprising that the Arabs, both those in the Mandate territory and the independent nations outside it, utterly rejected the 1947 Resolution.
This background is important because of what happened next. We know that, as Weizmann later said, (paraphrasing his words) the Jews would accept any state, even if it was only the size of a tablecloth, whereas the Arabs (Palestinians weren’t invented until the early 1960s) rejected the whole idea of an Israel of any size at all.
What happened next has been well written about by Benny Morris in “1948: The First Arab-Israeli War”: the Arab militias, from the passing of the ’47 resolution until May 1948 attempted to throw the Jews into the sea, and failed miserably, losing land and men. Then the armies of five surrounding Arab states (Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and Iraq), from the Declaration of Independence on, attempted the same and also failed (except for the Jordanians, who took the land the Resolution assigned to them, more or less.
Morris notes, more than once, that it was never policy, official or unofficial, of the Jewish Agency (the Sochnut), effectively the government of Israel in waiting, to deliberately displace the Arab population of what became Israel. The most public “expulsion”, that of Deir Yassin, was carried out by Irgun, never an official part of the Israeli state.
It is only the anti-Zionists who wish us (and themselves) to believe otherwise.
However, for the Israelis, the cost was horribly high, despite the cost to the world-wide Jewish population of the Holocaust:
4,000 Israeli soldiers and 2,000 Israeli civilians lost their lives fighting for Israeli independence. That number amounted to one percent of the Israeli population at the time. Considering the size of the Israeli population back then, this number amounted to triple the percentage of American causalities during World War II. (See here )
Note that this quote says “casualties” for the USA, not deaths.
All this history is, for many, and, I’m sure, the vast majority of visitors to this site, well known, so why visit it again? For a very simple reason: with the approach of the centenary of the Declaration, many of those who oppose the very existence of Israel are demanding an apology from Britain for the Declaration, as though, were this to be provided, all would, in their eyes, be put right.
In their dreams.
It’s not going to happen, probably ever, because even if Labour under Corbyn were to win the British General Election on June 8 ( a remote possibility), a majority of the MPs in the House of Commons would reject such an apology being delivered.
As it already has. Just note the following, from Honest Reporting’s Israel Daily News Service (IDNS) of 26/4/17:
'After Britain refused to apologize for the Balfour declaration, the Palestinian Authority threatens legal action.
Manuel Hassassian, the Palestinian Authority ambassador to the UK, said on Tuesday that unless Britain apologized, canceled planned celebrations and recognized a Palestinian state, the Palestinians would go ahead with plans for a lawsuit against the British government for issuing the Balfour Declaration.'
The British government are in fact proud of their role in the Balfour Declaration (as seen here):
“The Balfour Declaration is an historic statement for which HMG (Her Majesty’s Government) does not intend to apologise,” the response began. “We are proud of our role in creating the State of Israel. The task now is to encourage moves towards peace.”
Honest Reporting notes:
"But why stop with Balfour? The PA should also sue Britain and France (for the the 1916 Sykes-Picot agreement), Britain and the Husseini family (for the 1922 Cairo Conference, which created an independent Transjordan), and the UN (for the 1948 Partition Plan). The Palestinians can even sue themselves for signing the 1993 Oslo accords . . .
The UK government’s announcement was made on a petition page where Palestinian activists seeking an apology are collecting signatures.”
The British Government, under the leadership of Theresa May, is, of course, quaking in its collective boots at this threat.Meanwhile:
"Israel is not facing a dilemma about how much, if any, land to give up from the West Bank, because the Palestinians will not agree to take land and cannot be forced to do so. The Palestinian community sees peace with Israel as defeat in their 100-year struggle. Continued Israeli occupation is one of the Palestinians’ best weapons against Israel, and they will not give it up while their war to eliminate Israel continues. Israelis should recognize that since the Palestinians are forcing Israel to continue the temporary but long-term occupation, Israelis need to a) cooperate in reducing the moral and other costs of that occupation; and b) stop telling the world that Israel could choose to end the occupation. The occupation, like the need for military strength and to absorb casualties, is part of the price Israel has to pay to live here. Maturity means being able to go forward with no solution in sight."That, in a nutshell, is the view of Dr Max Singer, a founder and senior fellow of the Hudson Institute, is a senior fellow at the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies at Bar-Ilan University in Israel.
'It says a great deal that the international community is outraged when Jews build homes in Jerusalem, but doesn’t say a word when Jews are murdered for living in Jerusalem. Throughout history, Jerusalem has been the capital for one people and only one people – the Jewish People.
• I am here to convey one simple truth. The people of Israel are not occupiers and we are not settlers. Israel is our home and Jerusalem is the eternal capital of our sovereign state.
• There are many threats in the Middle East, but the presence of Jewish homes in the Jewish homeland has never been one of them.
• It says a great deal that the international community is outraged when Jews build homes in Jerusalem, but doesn’t say a word when Jews are murdered for living in Jerusalem. The hypocrisy is appalling.
• Throughout history, Jerusalem has been the capital for one people and only one people – the Jewish People.
• Jerusalem is central to our identity and our tradition. The holy city is named more than 900 times in the Bible. On holidays we sing לשנה הבאה בירושלים – "Next year in Jerusalem."
For thousands of years, through persecution and massacres, expulsions and crusades, blood libels and pogroms, Jews turned their hearts in prayer towards Jerusalem. The connection between the Jewish People and our capital cannot be denied.
• The Palestinians and others have had the audacity to accuse us of trying to alter the historic Jewish character of our ancient city. Really? The truth of the matter is that Jerusalem had a Jewish character long before most cities in the world had any character. It was the capital of the Jewish People long before Homer composed the Iliad, before Romulus and Remus founded Rome, and before the armies of Alexander the Great swept across the Middle East. Jerusalem is steeped in Jewish history.
• Earlier this month, he [Palestinian President Abbas] called on Palestinians to prevent Jews from visiting the Temple Mount using (quote) “all means” necessary. Are these the words of a leader committed to making peace?
• The video of his hateful remarks was broadcast on official Palestinian Authority television 19 times in three days – 19 times in three days. The results of these inflammatory remarks were almost immediate. Hundreds of Arabs rioted in Jerusalem damaging the light rail system and a Hamas terrorist deliberately drove full speed onto a Jerusalem train platform and killed two people. Did President Abbas express outrage or remorse over the senseless killings? Of course not. He couldn’t even muster the courage to denounce an attack that left a three-month-old baby dead.
Rather than trying to extinguish the flames of conflict, the Palestinian leadership is adding fuel to the fire. First they incite violence on the Temple Mount and then they run to the Security Council to complain about the consequences. If this isn't manufacturing a crisis, I don't know what is.
• Following Israel’s victory in 1967, Israel reunited Jerusalem. Since then, all people - and I mean all people – regardless of religion and nationality can visit the city’s holy sites.
And while we were victorious and assumed control over all of Jerusalem, Israel extended a hand in peace to the Muslim world. According to the status quo brokered between Israel and the Waqf [the Islamic religious authority], Muslims would enjoy access to pray at their holy sites, while all other religions would be allowed access to the Temple Mount.
Israel went one step further and decided that Jews would not be allowed to pray on the site. I want to make sure you understand this. The Temple Mount is Judaism’s holiest place, but we were willing to restrict our own freedoms for the sake of peace. Can you think of another nation that would make this compromise? Can you think of another religion that would make this sacrifice?
Today, Jerusalem under Israeli authority is united for Muslims, united for Christians, and united for Jews. As Prime Minister Netanyahu reiterated this week (and I quote), "We are maintaining the status quo and allowing everyone access to the holy places, and we will continue to do so."
Israel is doing everything in its power to minimize tensions. Even when riots break out, Israeli security forces, acting in coordination with the Jordanian government, refrain from entering the mosque and its courtyard unless there is an imminent threat to the site and its visitors.
The Palestinians, on the other hand, are doing everything in their power to inflame tensions. The Waqf has violated the status quo agreement by restricting access to Judaism’s holiest place – the place where we believe that God began the act of creation, where Abraham brought his son Isaac, and where Jacob fell asleep and dreamed of angels.
Today a Jew who wishes to visit this sacred site is threatened with violence. But you don't have to take my word for it. Earlier this month, Hanan Ashrawi, a prominent member of the PLO Executive Committee, said that allowing Jews to visit the Temple Mount is a "declaration of war against Islam."
There are the irresponsible words of a person trying to ignite a religious war. You don’t have to be a Catholic to visit the Vatican. You don’t have to be a Jew to visit the Western Wall. But the Palestinians would like to see the day when the Temple Mount is only open to Muslims – and that will not take place.
• It is time for the Palestinians to realize that the children of Abraham - all the children of Abraham – Jews, Christians and Muslims alike
– are not doomed to live together in war, but rather destined to live together in peace.
• And so today I issue this promise from the people of the Promised Land - under our watch, Jerusalem, the eternal capital of the Jewish people, will remain a free and open city for all people and for all time.'
