Monday, March 19th | 3 Nisan 5778


Be in the know!

Get our exclusive daily news briefing.

November 14, 2014 1:20 am

Why Jerusalem Really Matters to the Palestinians

avatar by Elder of Ziyon

Email a copy of "Why Jerusalem Really Matters to the Palestinians" to a friend

Temple Mount. Photo: Wikimedia Commons.

Rami G. Khouri is about as moderate a Palestinian commentator as you can find. He is Christian, recognizes that the Temple Mount is holy to Jews, and is willing to blame Arabs for their mistakes.

Even so, he justifies the recent spike in Arab terror:

The absence of PA forces under the control of President Mahmoud Abbas also means that those forces cannot quell Palestinian demonstrations against Israel, as happens in all other parts of the West Bank, where PA forces more often than not act to defend Israel as much as to keep peace among Palestinians, unfortunately. Arab Jerusalemites are essentially ungoverned and unrepresented politically, because they do not fall under Palestinian authority and they are underserved by an Israeli state that also keeps building new settlements on lands surrounding the holy city. Because of this condition of living in a political vacuum, Palestinians in Jerusalem have only themselves to rely on to defend their lands and rights, and in cases of extreme threats and violence used against them, they resort to violence such as we are witnessing these days.

Then he says something interesting:

The intense symbolism of Jerusalem for Palestinians includes two dimensions: the holy sites of the Noble Sanctuary, especially the Dome of the Rock and Al Aqsa Mosque, but also the city as the capital of Palestine, even though a Palestinian state does not exist yet. If Jerusalem is allowed to fall to Zionist colonialism and become fully Judaized, the entire Palestinian national cause would have been dealt a fatal blow. Jerusalem has always been a central battle in the Arab war with Zionism — but for many Palestinians it is now also the last battle.

The PLO covenants of 1964 and 1968 did not mention Jerusalem once. The Palestinian National Charter of 1968 likewise does not mention Jerusalem a single time. (Fatah’s charter does mention Jerusalem once.)

If Jerusalem has always been so central to Palestinian Arab nationalism, then why was it ignored for so long?

The interest that Arabs altogether, and Palestinians in particular, have shown in Jerusalem has been proportional to the interest that Jews have to assert their national and religious rights in their ancient capital. Between 1948 and 1967, Jerusalem was an unimportant Jordanian city, and there were no mass pilgrimages there. Only when Jews started to say that Jerusalem was theirs, and always has been, have the Arabs decided that it is supremely important for them too.

And this spills over even into the writings of a “moderate.”

The fact is that if Palestinian nationalism cannot survive without Jerusalem, then it is an artificial construct to begin with. The nearly exclusive  use of the Dome of the Rock as the constant backdrop for Palestinian press conferences is a relatively recent phenomenon.

They don’t want Jerusalem – they want to ensure that Jews do not have Jerusalem. Because they know that Israel without Jerusalem is just a secular state, and they can deal with a secular state, because such states come and go. They cannot deal with a proud Jewish state that asserts rights that go back to before Islam existed.

Khouri has subconsciously revealed the shallowness of the Palestinian national cause. If it was about rights, or refugees, or land, or even “justice,” then they could have a state. But it isn’t about any of those. It is about the symbolism of controlling Jerusalem. And the only reason that this is so important is because of the Arab honor/shame society that cannot stomach the weak, dhimmi Jews asserting rights on land that everyone knows they have been tied to for thousands of years. The minute they give up on Jerusalem, they give up on the goal of expelling Jews from political power in the Middle East.

Share this Story: Share On Facebook Share On Twitter Email This Article

Let your voice be heard!

Join the Algemeiner
  • Jerusalem, in short, has been the focal point of the idea of Jewish national self-determination. Ernst Frankenstein, a British-based authority on international law in the inter-war period, made the case for arguing the legal rights of the Jewish people to restore their homeland by stating that they never relinquished title to their land after the Roman conquests. For that to have happened, the Romans and their Byzantine successors would have had to be in “continuous and undisturbed possession” of the land with no claims being voiced. Yet Jewish resistance movements continued for centuries, most of which were aimed at liberating Jerusalem.2

    From the standpoint of international law, the fact that the Jewish people never renounced their historic connection to their ancestral homeland provided the basis for their assertion of their historical rights.3 This came to be understood by those who wrote about the Jewish legal claim to the Land of Israel, as a whole. In the Blackstone Memorial, which was signed by Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court Melville Fuller, university presidents, and members of Congress before it was submitted to President Benjamin Harrison in 1891, Palestine is characterized as “an inalienable possession” of the Jewish people “from which they were expelled by force.”4 In short, they did not voluntarily abandon their land or forget their rights. is was most fervently expressed through centuries of lamentation for Jerusalem’s destruction and their constant prayer for its restoration.
    Jerusalem was the focal point for the historical connection of the Jewish people to the Land of Israel.

    That is why it is essential to understand Israel’s rights in Jerusalem, as they were known once before.
    That is also why it is necessary to identify the arguments that have been employed in recent years with the aim of eroding those rights, and the conviction that once underpinned them, in order to protect Jerusalem for future generations. In addition to the historical rights of the Jewish people to Jerusalem that were voiced in the nineteenth century, and were just brie y reviewed, there is a whole new layer of legal rights that Israel acquired in modern times that need to be fully elaborated upon.


    In 1970, three years after the 1967 Six-Day War, an article appearing in the most prestigious international legal periodical, The American Journal of International Law, touched directly on the question of Israel’s rights in Jerusalem.5 It became a critical reference point for Israeli ambassadors speaking at the UN in the immediate decades that followed and also found its way into their speeches. The article was written by an important, but not yet well-known, legal scholar named Stephen Schwebel. In the years that followed, Schwebel’s stature would grow immensely with his appointment as the legal advisor of the U.S. Department of State, and then finally when he became the President of the International Court of Justice in the Hague. In retrospect, his legal opinions mattered and were worth considering very carefully.

    Schwebel wrote his article, which was entitled “What Weight to Conquest,” in response to a statement by then Secretary of State William Rogers that Israel was only entitled to “insubstantial alterations” in the pre-1967 lines. The Nixon administration had also hardened U.S. policy on Jerusalem as reacted in its statements and voting patterns in the UN Security Council. Schwebel strongly disagreed with this approach: he wrote that the pre-war lines were not sacrosanct, for the 1967 lines were not an international border. Formally, they were only armistice lines from 1949. As he noted, the armistice agreement itself did not preclude the territorial claims of the parties beyond those lines. Significantly, he explained that when territories are captured in a war, the circumstances surrounding the outbreak of the conflict directly affect the legal rights of the two sides, upon its termination.

    Two facts from 1967 stood out that influenced his thinking:

    First, Israel had acted in the Six-Day War in the lawful exercise of its right of self-defense. Those familiar with the events that led to its outbreak recall that Egypt was the party responsible for the initiation of hostilities, through a series of steps that included the closure of the Straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping and the proclamation of a blockade on Eilat, an act that Foreign Minister Abba Eban would characterize as the ring of the first shot of the war. Along Israel’s eastern front, Jordan’s artillery had opened fire and re-pounding civilian neighborhoods in Jerusalem, despite repeated warnings issued by Israel.

    Given this background, Israel had not captured territory as a result of aggression, but rather because it had come under armed attack. In fact, the Soviet Union had tried to have Israel labeled as the aggressor in the UN Security Council on June 14, 1967, and then in the UN General Assembly on July 4, 1967. But Moscow completely failed. At the Security Council it was outvoted 11-4. Meanwhile at the General Assembly, 88 states voted against or abstained on the first vote of a proposed Soviet draft (only 32 states supported it). It was patently clear to the majority of UN members that Israel had waged a defensive war.6

    A second element in Schwebel’s thinking was the fact Jordan’s claim to legal title over the territories it had lost to Israel in the Six-Day War was very problematic. The Jordanian invasion of the West Bank – and Jerusalem – nineteen years earlier in 1948 had been unlawful. As a result, Jordan did not gain legal rights in the years that followed, given the legal principle, that Schwebel stressed, according to which no right can be born of an unlawful act (ex injuria jus non oritur). It should not have come as a surprise that Jordan’s claim to sovereignty over the West Bank was not recognized by anyone, except for Pakistan and Britain. Even the British would not recognize the Jordanian claim in Jerusalem itself.

    Thus, by comparing Jordan’s illegal invasion of the West Bank to Israel’s legal exercise of its right of self-defense, Schwebel concluded that “Israel has better title” in the territory of what once was the Palestine Mandate than either of the Arab states with which it had been at war. He specifically stated that Israel had better legal title to “the whole of Jerusalem.”

    Schwebel makes reference to UN Security Council Resolution 242 from November 22, 1967, which over the years would become the main source for all of Israel’s peace e orts, from the 1979 Egyptian Israeli Treaty of Peace to the 1993 Oslo Accords. In its famous withdrawal clause, Resolution 242 did not call for a full withdrawal of Israeli forces from all the territories it captured in the Six-Day War. ere was no e ort to re-establish the status quo ante, which, as noted earlier, was the product of a previous act of aggression by Arab armies in 1948.

    As the U.S. ambassador to the UN in 1967, Arthur Goldberg, pointed out in 1980, Resolution 242 did not even mention Jerusalem “and this omission was deliberate.” Goldberg made the point, reacting the policy of the Johnson administration for whom he served, that he never described Jerusalem as “occupied territory,” though this changed under President Nixon.7 What Goldberg wrote about Resolution 242 had added weight, given the fact that he previously had served as a Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court.

    Indeed, among the leading jurists in international law and diplomacy, Schwebel was clearly not alone. He was joined by Julius Stone, the great Australian legal scholar, who reached the same conclusions. He added that UN General Assembly Resolution 181 from 1947 (also known as the Partition Plan) did not undermine Israel’s subsequent claims in Jerusalem. True, Resolution 181 envisioned that Jerusalem and its environs would become a corpus separatum, or a separate international entity. But Resolution 181 was only a recommendation of the General Assembly. It was rejected by the Arab states forcibly, who invaded the nascent State of Israel in 1948.

    Ultimately, the UN’s corpus separatum never came into being in any case. The UN did not protect the Jewish population of Jerusalem from invading Arab armies. Given this history, it was not surprising that Israel’s first prime minister, David Ben-Gurion, announced on December 3, 1949, that Revolution 181’s references to Jerusalem were “null and void,” thereby anticipating Stone’s legal analysis years later.8

    There was also Prof. Elihu Lauterpacht of Cambridge University, who for a time served as legal advisor of Australia and as a judge ad hoc of the International Court of Justice in The Hague.
    Lauterpacht argued that Israel’s reunification of Jerusalem in 1967 was legally valid. 9 He explained that the last state which had sovereignty over Jerusalem was the Ottoman Empire, which ruled it from 1517 to 1917.

    After the First World War, the Ottoman Empire formally renounced its sovereignty over Jerusalem as well as all its former territories south of what became modern Turkey in the Treaty of Sevres from 1920. is renunciation was confirmed by the Turkish Republic as well in the Treaty of Lausanne of 1923. According to Lauterpacht, the rights of sovereignty in Jerusalem were vested with the Principal Allied and Associated Powers, which transferred them to the League of Nations.

    But with the dissolution of the League of Nations, the British withdrawal from Mandatory Palestine, and the failure of the UN to create a corpus separatum or a special international regime for Jerusalem, as had been intended according to the 1947 Partition Plan, Lauterpacht concluded that sovereignty had been put in suspense or in abeyance. In other words, by 1948 there was what he called “a vacancy of sovereignty” in Jerusalem.

    It might be asked if the acceptance by the pre-state Jewish Agency of Resolution 181 constituted a conscious renunciation of Jewish claims to Jerusalem back in 1947. However, according to the resolution, the duration of the special international regime for Jerusalem would be “in the first instance for a period of ten years.” The resolution envisioned a referendum of the residents of the city at that point in which they would express “their wishes as to possible modifications of the regime of the city.”10 The Jewish leadership interpreted the corpus separatum as an interim arrangement that could be replaced. They believed that Jewish residents could opt for citizenship in the Jewish state in the meantime. Moreover, they hoped that the referendum would lead to the corpus seperatum being joined to the State of Israel after ten years. 11

    Who then could acquire sovereign rights in Jerusalem given the “vacancy of sovereignty” that Lauterpacht described? Certainly, the UN could not assume a role, given what happened to Resolution 181. Lauterpacht’s answer was that Israel filled “the vacancy in sovereignty” in areas where the Israel Defense Forces had to operate in order to save Jerusalem’s Jewish population from destruction or ethnic cleansing. The same principle applied again in 1967, when Jordanian forces opened fire on Israeli neighborhoods and the Israel Defense Forces entered the eastern parts of Jerusalem, including its Old City, in self-defense.

    A fourth legal authority to contribute to this debate over the legal rights of Israel was Prof. Eugene Rostow, the former dean of Yale Law School and Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs in the Johnson administration. Rostow’s point of departure for analyzing the issue of Israel’s rights was that the Mandate for Palestine, which specifically referred to “the historic connection of the Jewish people with Palestine” providing “the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country.”

    These rights applied to Jerusalem as well, for the Mandate did not separate Jerusalem from the other territory that was to become part of the Jewish national home.

    Rostow contrasts the other League of Nations mandates with the mandate for Palestine. Whereas the mandates for Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon served as trusts for the indigenous populations, the language of the Palestine Mandate was entirely different. It supported the national rights of the Jewish people while protecting only the civil and religious rights of the non-Jewish communities in British Mandatory Palestine.12 It should be added that the Palestine Mandate was a legal instrument in the form of a binding international treaty between the League of Nations, on the one hand, and Britain as the mandatory power, on the other.

    Rostow argued that the mandate was not terminated in 1947. He explained that Jewish legal rights to a national home in this territory, which were embedded in British Mandatory Palestine, survived the dissolution of the League of Nations and were preserved by the United Nations in Article 80 of the UN Charter.13 Clearly, after considering Rostow’s arguments, Israel was well-positioned to assert its rights in Jerusalem and fill “the vacancy of sovereignty” that Lauterpacht had described.

  • As Professor Stephen Schwebel, former judge on the Hague’s International Court of Justice notes:

    The Palestinian claim to sovereignty over east Jerusalem under the principle of self-determination of peoples cannot supersede the Jewish right to self-determination in Jerusalem. While Arabs constituted an ethnic majority only in the artificial entity of “East Jerusalem” created by Jordan’s illegal division of the city, the armistice lines forming this artificial entity were never intended to determine the borders of, or political sovereignty over, the city. Moreover, Jews constituted the majority ethnic group in unified Jerusalem both in the century before Jordan’s invasion, and since 1967 (the exception being during Jordan’s illegal occupation).

    Sir Elihu Lauterpacht, an international legal expert, scholar and director emeritus of the Lauterpacht Centre for International Law at the University of Cambridge, details the legal justification for Israel’s sovereignty in east Jerusalem. According to the scholar, “Jordan’s occupation of the Old City-and indeed of the whole of the area west of the Jordan river entirely lacked legal justification” and was simply a “de facto occupation protected by the Armistice Agreement.” This occupation ended as a result of “legitimate measures” of self defense by Israel, thereby opening the way for Israel as “a lawful occupant” to fill a sovereignty vacuum left by Britain’s withdrawal from the territory in 1948.


    A state acting in lawful exercise of its right of self-defense may seize and occupy foreign territory as long as such seizure and occupation are necessary to its self-defense……Where the prior holder of territory had seized that territory unlawfully, the state which subsequently takes that territory in the lawful exercise of self-defense has, against that prior holder, better title.

    As Schwebel explains, “Jordan’s seizure [in 1948] and subsequent annexation of the West Bank and the old city of Jerusalem were unlawful,” arising as they did from an aggressive act. Jordan therefore had no valid title to east Jerusalem. When Jordanian forces attacked Jerusalem in 1967, Israeli forces, acting in self defense, repelled Jordanian forces from territory Jordan was illegitimately occupying. Schwebel maintains that in comparison to Jordan, “Israeli title in old (east) Jerusalem is superior.” And in comparison to the UN, which never asserted sovereignty over Jerusalem and allowed its recommendation of a corpus separatum to lapse and die, he sees Israel’s claim to Jerusalem as similarly superior.

  • Jennifer Miracle

    I weep daily when I look at Detroit’s youth. I look at the youth from the Holy Navel and the pictures look the same. Violent and stupid.
    Youth’s running things into the ground.
    This will be the undoing, a rock, a rocket. Another
    idle mess without enough natural love for one another. Do Not kill. Love your neighbor.
    The Holy Land should speak peace to the world. The Kingdom of Heaven is inside us…or not. God forgive us, Is there anything we can agree on?

  • Dov meir

    The “Palestinians” nationality has only one narrative – fight Israel. They have no other identity. In other wards the “Palestinian” identity is to be the dark shadow of Jews. Such identity has no chance for continuity. Even more, The Mosques in the Temple mount are a result of blood shade and confiscating religious properties of other religion substitute them with mosques and after that claiming it is a “Waqf” meaning holy Islamic site. From moral point of view the Arabs are in this cases Murderers and robbers. There is a very simple question to the Arabs do you think that murdering and robbing give you any rights?! The only one right you have is the right of aggressive power. But now you are encountering more powerful entity and your case has now no chance. It is sure that an historical process began that will end by removing the Mosques and rebuilding the 3th Temple. The interests of the Jews to rebuild the 3rd Temple is a real religious need except the political one. On the other hand your interest is only political interest of the nationhood to be the dark shadow of the Jews. fighting this process will cause you fatal damages.

  • Mordecai Ben Natan

    When will the world wake up.
    Between 1948 and 1967, parts of Jerusalem. Samaria an Judea were captured by Jordan in a war that the Arabs, Jordan, Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq. Iran started to destroy the re born Jewish Biblical Jerusalem and Israel.

    Israel, with a small, untrained, under equip fighting force, beat the mighty Arab armies, with all the latest weapons including airplanes.

    1967, Egypt tried to destroy Israel, by blockading the straits to all Israeli ships, and forced the UN “Peace keepers” out of the Sinai.
    Israel was forced to create a pre emptive strike.
    In six days, Israel again defeated the might of the Arab armies, as well as re united all of biblical Jerusalem, which included the areas OCCUPIED by Jordan.

    Jordan has never ever asked for the occupied parts of Jerusalem to be returned to them.

    Then there appeared on the stage a vile terrorist leader, who coined the name ‘PALESTINE” AND PALESTINIANS

    Suddenly, the invented people, the Palestinians wanted to create a Palestine state with all of Judea, Samaria, (West bank) parts of Jerusalem, as their state.

    They have no right politically, biblically, to any parts of Israel.
    But the Arabs forming the majority of the UN has convinced the world that it is “their” land, and that the Jews have no right to build on a future Palestinian state on land they WANT as their own.

    Why did they not declare a PA state when they had the opportunity between 1948 and 1957?
    It was only after the arch terrorist Arafat “decided” to create a PA state on Israeli land.

    The present fight between Israel and the invented people, is not for land. It is to destroy the Jewish state, which is a sore thumb in the way of extending the Arab Muslim expansion
    Arafat was offered 95% of all the land they want,, as well as parts of Jerusalem. Instead of accepting that, Arafat created the intifada, which resulted in thousands of Israel and Arab deaths.

    Had that savage accepted the Israeli offer, they would have had their own state, and there would have been peace with Jews and Arabs living side by side.

    Gaza was a good example.
    Gen. Sharon (Prime Minister at the time) offered the Gazans to remove all the Jews from Gaza and give them the entire coastal enclave.

    We know what the result of the grave error was. Then the Arabs have claimed that Gaza is the world’s biggest prison.

    Why does the world only blame Israel for a blockade for preventing weapon smuggling into Gaza for Hamas but never blames Egypt for doing the same.

    Before if ever, the terrorists get their own REAL APARTHEID STATE, we must all pray that Hashem WILL DESTROY ALL OF WHAT THEY WANT.
    THEY will be armed by Iran and Israel will swamped by millions of Muslims who will try to destroy Israel.

    The world is very silent on Abbas decree, that “when”: they have their PA state, no Jew will be allowed to own any land, and any Arab who sells even one inch of land to a Jew, will be executed and hanged from street poles,
    But Israel is called an apartheid state

    • RobiMac

      Great response but, I must disagree with your statement that had Arafat accepted that offer thee would be peace between Israel and the invented people.

      Fact is, not just the Arabs wish to see Israel destroyed, the whole world wants this now due to the spread of anti-Semitism. They don’t even know why they hate. But I do.

      They hate Israel because there is a devil and he has been out to destroy Israel since Abraham.

      Not to worry, Elohim is coming soon to deal with the world in it’s treatment of Israel. He holds the title deed to that land that He has given to the Hebrews as a everlasting possession. And He will squash the squatters on His land.

      • Proud Israeli

        There is no god.

  • David Blacher

    The Arab-Palestinians residents of the municipality of Jerusalem represent about 44% of the total population. While disallowed the vote for National Israeli elections, they are FULLY FRANCHISED to vote in the municipality. Yet, the number of ballots cast by this group represents less than 2% of their eligible voters.

    The municipal government of Jerusalem is, like the national government, a coalition council. If the Palestinian citizens would vote as a block (like the Heridi) in relation to their potential, they could elect enough representatives to block many of the hated intrusions on their community.

    It should also be noted that the the municipality of Jerusalem spends more money in absolute terms for both infrastructure and classroom development and maintenance in the Palestinian sections than in the rest of the city combined.

  • Palestinians suffer from dismal leadership. They know that their only hope comes from antisemetic internanational institutions like the UN and EU.

  • felix


  • Mickey Oberman

    There you have it direct from the mouth of an Arab.

    Destroy Al-Aqsa and The Dome of the Rock and declare all of Jerusalem to be a Jewish city and ” the entire Palestinian national cause would have been dealt a fatal blow.”

    You completely eliminate Muslim aspirations because “for many Palestinians it is now also the last battle.”

    Mickey Oberman

  • spktruth200

    Zionists YOU HAVE NO right to deny Palestinans on their right to the Mosque. YOU do not have a right to STEAL east Jerusalem either. Keep going you are being hated all over the world for your treachery, debauchery, theft of land and to continue this attack will bring Israel to its knees, not the Palestinans. What your doing is being told all over the world. As Kissinger said, “Israel will cease to exist”…your killing yourselves. Iran doesn’t have a bomb…ISRAEL DOES…TIME TO DISCLOSE.

    • RobiMac

      What planet are you on?!

      Clearly, you do not know Elohim.

    • Elana

      the Palestinians know that they were created on a lie and fabricated history – without continuing the lie, THEY would cease to exist and so it is of extreme importance that they keep spinning the lie to prop them up.
      It is a fact that Jerusalem was never a Muslim capital.
      RAMLA WAS PROCLAIMED A CAPITAL OF THE MUSLIM CALIPHATE. It was founded during the 8th century by Caliph Suleiman ibn Abd el-Malk, the second son of Abd el-Malik a Muslim caliph from the Umayyad dynasty who built the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem OVER the ruins of the JEWISH FIRST TEMPLE, built by King Solomon.
      The Muslims know that the Jewish Temple lies under their Dome and are terrified and so, do not allow excavations – they know WHAT WILL BE FOUND…..
      if you can prove Muslim right to the Mount, so be it – and if you can prove that the land of Palestine existed solely for the Palestinian nation and people, so be it…. but you can’t because Palestinians created themselves in 1948 by false history and lies.

  • joe phillips

    “They don’t want Jerusalem – they want to ensure that Jews do not have Jerusalem.” Exactly.

  • James David Tyler

    Jerusalem goes back beyond the modern era as a centre of Jewish life. David, Israel’s second king after Saul, took Jerusalem and made it his capital. It has been that ever since.
    The fact that some nations do not wish to recognize it is a sign that they are ignorant of past history or that they have no concept of what this great city stands for. They may even have a greater hidden agenda for not recognizing the greatest city in the world.
    G-d put His temple there as a lasting monument as long as Israel obeyed His will. when they transgressed He took it away with the covenant that one day it would return to them. This happened in our lifetime when the IDF retrieved it from the Jordanian forces and their allies. the treading down of Jerusalem by the feet of the gentile nation has now passed. Jerusalem now is and forever will remain Jewish.

  • art

    The pa/hamas/islam seek to delegitimize Judaism. They deny Jewish peoplehood and history, even denying the fact that the Temple was on the Temple Mount, as confirmed by Roman, Greek, Assyrian, Babylonian history. If the Temple was NOT in Jerusalem where did Jesus denounce the moneychangers. If Judaism is discredited so is Christianity As the muslims say ” first the Saturday people then the Sunday people. In Syria and iraq we see what is happening to the Sunday people as we saw in Egypt under the muslim brotherhood and in Nigeria

  • Natalie

    I get so tired and offended by the phrase “Jerusalem being Judaized” as if it was ever anything else, even when controlled by other entities. The Muslims have been trying to ISLAMIZE it for as long as they have controlled the area. And that is just as wrong as for ANY group to take over the heritage of any other group by claiming that the indigenous group didn’t own it in the first place. I think that, considering the archaelogical value of the old city, and the fact that the Muslims are trying to destroy the evidence, we need to fight against the Islamization of Jerusalem.

  • EthanP

    The truth is: the only value the “Temple Mount has to Islam is it’s value to Jews and Christians. Pre 1967, 1948, and 19th century photo’s show the “Temple Mount” nearly abandoned and in poor repair, weeds growing between the paving stones. The Mosques were built to deny the site to anyone else. Once a mosque, forever after a mosque.

  • mika

    Excellent analysis.

    The only purpose for the existence of the Jihadistanis now calling themselves “Palestinian” is that of spoilers to Jewish nationalism and sovereignty over Israel. Where the analysis falls short, is that it fails to identify the sponsors of these Jihadistanis.

  • Karla Petermann

    Well said! You hit the nail on the head. True to the point. Jerusalem and the Temple Mount are a core to the Jewish people. The Arabs covet what is key to the Jewish heritage, not because it is theirs nor because they want it for themselves. They just desire to keep what belongs to the Jewish people what is rightfully their heritage, their heart. If the Arabs had it, it would not be held in high regard, if anything they would not have any consideration for it at all.