Thursday, March 11, 2010

Joe Biden and Improper Construction in the Capital

1.  So old "Zionist Joe" was upset that Israel is building housing in the center of its own capital.  Well, the ink is not dry on my earlier comment when Obama people got testy over Israel building in Gilo, and so I am re-posting it here.  Gilo, after all is out in the boondocks, but the Simon the Righteous neighborhood, referred to as "Sheikh Jarrah" by the moonbatocracy, is inches from Mount Scopus and the Old City.

A Draft of the Letter to President Obama and Vice President Biden that Bibi Netanyahu should Send

By Steven Plaut

Dear Mister President and Vice President:

In recent days you have called for a freeze on all construction activities in the southern Jerusalem neighborhood of Gilo. It has been your opinion that this is "occupied territory," because it lies outside the 1949 ceasefire lines that separated Israel from the Kingdom of Jordan while the latter illegally held East Jerusalem until 1967. Gilo of course has also been the target of numerous terrorist attacks from the very same savages that your State Department would like to see seize control of Gilo and of Jerusalem's Holy sites in the Old City.

Well, Mister President, I have taken your words under careful consideration. I have reached the conclusion that you are correct. It is indeed time to put a stop to construction in the capital city in the area of disputed ownership beyond the Green Line. The disputed area must remain as it is, with no new building at all, until a new state is erected that can take it over and perhaps even establish its national capital there.

I am of course referring to Alexandria, Virginia. Alexandria, and all the Virginia territories seized by the United States using force of arms that lie across the Potomac, are outside the legitimate boundaries of Washington, DC. They lie across the Green Line, by which I mean the Potomac River, which turns green in the summer. Obviously Alexandria is part of the sovereign state of Virginia.

Now it is true that no Confederacy exists today, just like no Palestinian state exists. But who is to say that none will ever arise within the framework of diplomatic free exchange? And if the Confederacy does achieve statehood and independence, its leaders will naturally wish its capital to be in Alexandria. Richmond is a little too far away.

Since the ultimate status of Alexandria is a subject of contention, the only fair thing to do is to halt all American construction activity there at once. Ditto for Arlington. To continue to build there is a provocation and an obstacle to peace. And we really do think the time has come to remove that military outpost and illegal settlement out of Arlington that you people maintain in the Pentagon.

I realize that some people reject the idea of an independent Confederacy as inherently racist, and that various anti-democratic pro-violence extremist groups are leading the campaign for such an independent state. But those groups are light years more progressive, peaceful and tolerant of ethnic differences than are the Islamofascists to whom you are trying to grant statehood in the Palestinian-occupied Jewish homelands.

Respectfully yours,

Benjamin Netanyahu

Prime Minister, Jerusalem – Capital of Israel


See also


2.  The Huffington Post blog is ordinarily a cesspool of leftist nonsense.  But this week, an unusually bright piece was run there, and reprinted here:

David Harris

How Not to Advance Arab-Israeli Peace

Throughout his life, one of Yasser Arafat's favorite themes was that there was no historical Jewish connection to Israel.

He would assert that there never was a Jewish Temple in Jerusalem, that the Western Wall has no Jewish significance, and even that Abraham himself wasn't a Jew.

Indeed, he went so far as to reject the Jewish link to Jerusalem in the presence of President Bill Clinton during the Camp David talks, evoking outrage from the American leader and offering insight into why the negotiations were doomed to fail.

Arafat's views, unsurprisingly, were echoed relentlessly by Palestinian media outlets and textbooks, not to mention Muslim clergy. Generations of Palestinians were "educated" to believe that the Jews were interlopers, not a people indigenous to the Middle East.

This had nothing to do with history, since there was abundant evidence of the intimate Jewish tie to the land dating back well over 3500 years, not to mention the spiritual and metaphysical meaning of Jerusalem as the heart and soul of the Jewish narrative.

And, needless to say, Arafat never chose to explain why Jerusalem is mentioned in the Hebrew Bible nearly 700 times, while not once in the Koran. Or why, when Jerusalem was in Jordanian hands from 1948 to 1967, not a single Arab leader besides Jordan's king chose to visit what was then considered a backwater city. Only when all of Jerusalem fell into Israel's hands in 1967 did the city suddenly seem to take on a magical, magnetic meaning for the Arab and larger Muslim world.

Instead, at the risk of stating the obvious, Arafat's revisionism had everything to do with politics and propaganda.

If Palestinian leaders could cut the link between Jews and the region, then they would undermine the very legitimacy of Israel.

Moreover, there was something else at work. It wasn't just that the Jews allegedly had no ties to any of these sites, but also that the Muslims did. In other words, what was at work was a usurpation of Jewish history and its replacement with Islamic history - a kind of across-the-board supersessionism by a religion that began more than 2000 years after Judaism.

Arafat died in 2004, but his beliefs most assuredly didn't.

Typical of this ongoing mindset is the Palestinian Authority's chief Islamic judge, Sheikh Tayseer Rajab Tamimi, who recently denied that Jews had ever lived in Jerusalem or that the Jewish Temple ever existed.

And now, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan joins the fray, continuing his recent policy of never missing an opportunity to castigate Israel and proclaim pan-Islamic solidarity. In a Saudi newspaper, he states that the al-Aqsa Mosque, the Cave of the Patriarchs, and Rachel's Tomb "were not and never will be Jewish sites, but Islamic sites."

For the record, the Cave of the Patriarchs, in Hebron, is revered as Judaism's second holiest site, after the Western Wall in Jerusalem. Rachel's Tomb, in Bethlehem, is Judaism's third holiest site. As for the al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem, Israel has gone out of its way since 1967 to respect Muslim religious authority there, even as the land underneath the mosque, the Temple Mount, is central to Jewish religion and history.

Indeed, this troubling pattern of trying to deny or extinguish a Jewish presence extends deeper into the region.

The other evening, my wife and I met a distinguished American journalist with over three decades' experience covering major news stories around the world.

Hearing an accent, she asked my wife where she was from. On learning that my wife was originally from Libya, she inquired as to when and why she had left. My wife replied that, as a Jew, she and her family were compelled to flee their ancestral homeland in 1967, just after the Six-Day War triggered a paroxysm of violence that resulted in the murder of many Libyan Jews.

The journalist said that she hadn't realized Jews ever lived there, much less that Jews, together with native Berbers, predated the Arab conquest and occupation of Libya by centuries. She couldn't conceive that every last trace of the Jewish presence in Libya, including synagogues and cemeteries, had been wiped out, as if the Jews had never existed.

When my wife added that the story was more or less repeated across much of the Arab world, with hundreds of thousands of Jews forced to leave because of persecution, violence, and intimidation, our interlocutor voiced embarrassment that all of this was new to her. Why hadn't she known, she asked rhetorically?

Well, the answer may be threefold.

First, the Arab countries themselves have sought to avoid any discussion of the subject, much less acknowledge the presence of Jews on their soil for centuries or, in the case of nations like Libya, millennia. For their own reasons, they would rather whitewash history.

Second, the Western media barely focused on the mass exodus or its implications. It just wasn't deemed a newsworthy story. As one striking illustration, the New York Times devoted exactly two tiny news briefs in 1967 to the end of the Libyan Jewish community.

Third, the Jewish refugees, until quite recently, were too busy establishing new lives to dwell on their kidnapped histories - or, more precisely, their erased histories, as if they had never existed in lands they once called home.

And even when they tried, who was listening? The UN? No. The media? No. Arab leaders like Assad of Syria and Qadhafi of Libya? No. Even Western officials largely yawned when presented with the facts, perhaps because it only made a complicated Middle East puzzle still more so, even if it was an essential piece of that puzzle.

But all is not entirely bleak. There are a few bright spots.

Morocco and Tunisia have always been exceptions to the rule. While the bulk of Jews from both countries did leave for fear of their future, those who stayed behind have been respected as an integral part of the nations' fabric and fiber.

And this week in Cairo, history is being made. A synagogue and a yeshiva, both associated with the legacy of the towering 12th-century Jewish rabbi, scholar, and physician Maimonides, have been carefully restored and will be open to the public, marking a step forward in finally acknowledging the Jewish role in Egypt's history.

The quest for coexistence is achieved not by treaties alone, but by a spirit of mutual acceptance, understanding, and respect.

Those who would cavalierly deny the Jewish people their history and religious sensitivities, whether in Jerusalem, Hebron, or Tripoli, while demanding full recognition of all their own claims, are doing the cause of peace no service.


<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?