Palestinian "moderates" hail Muslims who attacked Jews

The only extremists we find here are the so called Palestinian aka Arab muslim who will not let non muslim access to this holy site that is definite a Jewish holy site first and foremost, and therefore should allow all Jews to this area without fear of being attacked.

There is no "solution" to the Muslim Arab war on Israel, and the less attention we pay to it, the better. It will go on forever. It can be handled, it can be managed. Leave Israel alone to handle it as it sees fit, make sure that more and more people come to understand the nature of the war being made on, the seige laid against, Israel, and come to realize that this is merely one local example -- admittedly the one that was the first and most obvious of the local Jihads that began after World War II, when the non-Muslim world was blissfully oblivious to Islam (confusing its perceived powerlessness with a lack of desire to conduct Jihad) -- of what is, and always now will be, a world-wide phenomenon.

Certainly the Israelis were fools to ignore the nature of Islam for so long, just as they were fools not to have swiftly declared, just after the Six-Day War, that the "West Bank" would immediately be integrated into Israel (and by now most of thye world would have accepted this, and the whole business of the "Palestinian people" would not have had time to get off the ground). But now they, or many of them, have begun to grasp the nature of Islam and what it means for them, and instead of hiding the fact of permanent war being made on them from view, are being realistic about what counts: peace, or "peace treaties" that will always be akin to that Muhammad made with the Meccans at Hudaibiyya in 628 A.D.

And now that Infidels elsewhere are being so obviously menaced by Islam -- thanks to the deployment, by Muslism, of their newly-acquired (over the past forty years) money weapon, and thank s to the deployment of members of the Army of Islam, who have been allowed to infiltrate into the countries of Western Europe, the historic heart of the West and therefore the ancient foe of Islamic imperialism.

Israel has to hang on, and its leaders have to start dropping into their talks with other leaders, and even publicly, such terms as "Jihad" and "dhimmi" and "the Treaty of Hudaibiyya." What will the Arabs and Muslims do? Deny all that, deny their texts and tenets?

The peoples of Western Europe--the part that thinks -- will see Islam aright, and as they do so, even the influence of forty years of Arab propaganda designed to camouflage the Lesser Jihad against Israel will necessarily come undone.

It's instructive, that Hugh mentioned leaving Israel alone..... something no one has ever done in modern times. They are assaulted on all sides with no respite, and it's also instructive that we never see articles in any major media evaluating and analyzing the muslim rule over the Temple Mount. The Temple Mount- the holiest site in Judaism, and which the demand was made that muslims should be allowed to run the site even after the call to run all the jews into the sea multiple times, and after the jews took it and way too naively gave the rule to the muslims- sharing space.
Something which is nowhere in islamic theology, law nor history, demonstrated, nor exemplified.

And so, here we are- after all the false peace talks and false peace delusions forced upon Israel. And now- the 'moderates' defile common decency once again and the major media pretend that it's a mutual problem.

Mutual problem, indeed. Let them lay out the rules for worship by each site. The muslims only let kaffirs, infidels, or as history should recognize the terminology- less than ni...rs, to use the vulgar vernacular where it should be applied.

If you, a non-muslim go up there on your approved tour, the muslim guides watch to make sure no infidel prayers are uttered- no infidel books taken out nor crosses, stars or anything that would 'defile' the site.

Got that?
Now, go downstairs to the 'western wall'. The basement that the Israeli's should never have accepted humbly as their only site, for which they have been gifted by islam as having no right, nor claim too.
Peace.
Muslim peace.
submission

And there if you a non-jew want to go up to the wall and pray to Jesus or buddha or olatungi, just be polite and don't disturb your neighbor and please don't bring a ham sandwich to the wall.

Good manners is all that is required and even if you don't observe those, you will not be beaten and arrested for your indiscretions.

Let the world shop and compare.
The Torah and Israel: Israel is their only commanded land to rule and Islam commands that muslims are to rule the entire world.

Compare the two modes of acting at those two sites.
But we dare not mention the reality and facts.... so as Churchill said to Chamberlain in 38', 'You had two choices, dishonor, or war.... you chose dishonor and now, we will have war....'

And this of course is what makes us superior to the animals.

Mark

Oh, how I wish the last remaining pagan temples in the holy land--those to the moon-god El'Lah--were torn down! Although I am not presently a practicing Christian, I for one know that Christian holy sites would be far better off under the control of the Jews. I would love for some unfortunate accident to occur at the Al Aqsa Mosque, and for the Third Temple to then be constructed in its place.

A moderate muslim is a muslim who is not armed. Moderate is temporary in other words and so moderate should not be used in their case..you either are or are not..muslim.

"A moderate muslim is a muslim who is not armed."
-- from a poster above

And those arms include money and numbers as well as military weaopnry. So let's modify the remark: Not armed, and not numerous, and not economically powerful. In other words, a "moderate" may be one as long as he is in a position of self-perceived weakness, and when he senses that the tide has shifted, watch out.

With U.S. President Barack Obama's peace envoy due to hold more talks this week to push for..............etc..........

Many have accused Obama of dithering in the past week with the revelations of sitting on General Stanley A. McChrystal's report on Afghanistan and sitting on the information of a second nuclear weapon material processing plant in Iran. Setting up talks with Iran to negotiate..., talks in the UN with Russia and China over Iran, or else he is on the golf course. The guy is in constant election mode and seems to have learned nothing from his predecessors, starting with Carter, re: the futility of negotiating with terrorists and leaders of rogue nations.

See Obama as "Bold King Cole" @ 3:40 in the lyrical "Talk Talk Talk, you talk too much, you never shut up, you talk too much... Talk Talk Talk..."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=isbzfRh4za8
See also 0:10 for his tribute to "Global Warming" errr Climate Change in "Nature and Me"

Hugh's formulation 'fast jihadists' (Hamas and other openly aggressive and ultraviolent gangs) and 'slow jihadists' (Fatah and other such supposedly 'moderate' Arab Muslim gangs), should be used over and over by all of us at every possible opportunity.

Here is one of his essays, posted in New English Review in January 2009, on the subject:

http://www.newenglishreview.org/blog_display.cfm/blog_id/18727

And since the current news story is about the Muslim squatters' claim (lately manifest in an act of gross aggression against a small party of Jewish visitors), to exclusive possession of the pre-eminent Jewish Sacred Site (as we Aussies would call it), and indeed, the 'Palestinian' Arab Muslim lust for exclusive control over the whole of Jerusalem, to be the Jew-spiting trophy capital for their projected Arab Islamic state of 'Palestine', I commend to all new non-Muslim readers here James Parkes' little book, brief but trenchant, 'The Story of Jerusalem'.

Below I shall post, in French and in my own rough English translation, the full text of that chapter of Jacques Ellul's moving and powerful Un Chretien Pour Israel, which is called simply 'Jerusalem'. Those who can read French, and have not yet encountered this book (published in 1983, editions du cerf, just after the first Lebanon war), are urged to obtain it, and read.

From Jacques Ellul, 'Un Chretien Pour Israel', chapter IV, 'Jerusalem'. French text alternating with English translation (my apologies for my high-school French):

Dans toute cette histoire, il faut faire une place a part a Jerusalem. On sait que, dans la periode turque, Jerusalem etait divisee en quatre quartiers: deux cinquiemes de la ville formaient le quartier musulman, un cinquieme le quartier juif, un cinquieme le quartier armenien et un cinquieme le quartier chretien, calcule grosso modo. Elle comportait soixante mille habitants, avec une majorite de Juifs. Apres 1948, il y eut division de la ville en deux, la Vieille Ville etant sous le controle de la Jordanie; seule la ville nouvelle (entierment construite et habitee par des Juifs) restait juive. L’ancien quartier chretien etait sous domination jordanienne.

- In all this history it is necessary to keep a separate place for Jerusalem. People know that during the Turkish period Jerusalem was divided into four “quarters”: two-fifths of the town formed the Muslim quarter, a fifth formed the Jewish quarter, a fifth the Armenian quarter, and a fifth the Christian quarter, roughly calculated. It comprised 60 000 inhabitants, with a majority of Jews. After 1948, the town was divided into two: the Old City was under the control of Jordan; only the New Town (entirely built and inhabited by the Jews) remained Jewish. The old Christian Quarter was under Jordanian rule.

Apres 1967, tout Jerusalem est entre les mains d’Israel et est devenue capitale de l’Etat d’Israel par une declaration de 1980. (je comprends mal le scandale que l’on a fait, cette annee 1980, a cette declaration, etant donne qu’en 1950 la partie juive de Jerusalem avait deja ete declaree capitale d’Israel et que le siege du gouvernement israelien y avait ete transfere.
- After 1967 all Jerusalem was in Israel’s hands and became the capital of the State of Israel by a declaration [made] in 1980 (I do not properly understand the fuss that people made about this declaration in 1980, given that in 1950 the Jewish part of Jerusalem had already been declared [the] capital of Israel, and that the seat of Israeli government had been transferred there).

Mais, actuellement, Jerusalem, la Vieille Ville, anciennement jordanienne, est contestee a Israel, comme les autres territoires dits occupes, Cisjordanie, Gaza, etc. C’est alors que commencent toutes les attaques contre la presence des Juifs a Jerusalem. Les arguments deployes sont les suivants: historiquement et culturellement, Jerusalem est une ville arabe que l’on n’a pas le droit de dissocier de l’ensemble de la Palestine. Les habitants de Palestine (i.e. les Arabes) sont les seuls a avoir le droit d’habiter cette ville qui ne peut etre monopolisee par les Juifs.
- But at present the Old City of Jerusalem, previously under Jordanian control, is disputed with Israel - like the other so-called ‘occupied territories’, West Bank, Gaza, etc. It is then that all the attacks begin against the presence of the Jews in Jerusalem. The arguments used are the following: historically and culturally Jerusalem is an Arab city; people have no right to detach it from the rest of Palestine. The inhabitants of Palestine (that is, the Arabs) are the only ones with the right to live in this city, which ought not to be monopolised by the Jews.

Par ailleurs, l’acte qui institue Jerusalem capitale est une veritable annexion, c’est un acte unilateral, illegitime, et qui a ete condamne en tant que tel par le Conseil de Securite de l’ONU (proclamant que ce choix de cette capitale est une violation du droit international). Le troisieme argument, c’est que Jerusalem est un “patrimoine sacre” commun aux trois religions monotheists et ne saurait etre accaparee par l’une d’elles. Jerusalem contient les lieux saints veneres par l’Islam, le christianisme et le Judaisme.
- Secondly, the act which declared Jerusalem [to be the Jewish] capital is a veritable annexation, that is, a unilateral, illegitimate act, which was condemned as such by the Security Council of the UN (proclaiming that the choice of this capital is a violation of international law).
-The third argument is that Jerusalem is a “sacred patrimony” common to the three monotheistic religions and ought not to be monopolised by one of them. Jerusalem contains the holy places revered by Islam, Christendom and Judaism.

Et ceci s’appuie sur un argument d’evidence: Jerusalem, comme Ville Sainte, concerne huit cent millions de musulmans, un milliard deux cent millions de chretiens et seulement six ou sept millions de Juifs. Comment, devant ces chiffres ecrasants, ne pas comprendre que Jerusalem ne peut pas etre une capitale d’Israel! (En bonne logique, alors, elle devrait appartenir aux ‘chretiens’). Et il faut, dans ces conditions, qu’elle appartienne a tous, et pas seulement a Israel.
- And this rests on an obvious argument: Jerusalem, as Holy City, concerns 800 million Moslems, 1.2 billion Christians, and only 6 or 7 million Jews. How, given these figures, can one not understand that Jerusalem cannot be a capital city of Israel? (Logically, then, it ought to belong to the ‘Christians’). And under these conditions it ought to belong to all, not just to Israel.

Cependant, souligne-t-on souvent, le probleme de Jerusalem, s’il a de fortes implications religieuses, est d’abord un probleme politique. “Jerusalem et son peuple sont un”. Enfin, on attaque durement Israel en ce qui concerne la pratique qui serait suivie de remplacement de la population arabe par une population exclusivement juive, au moyen d’expulsions individuelles ou massives, par le dynamitage de maisons et l’edification de grands ensembles reserves aux seuls Juifs. Cette politique defigure Jerusalem et reflete la nature discriminatoire de cette politique. Tels sont les principaux arguments.
- However, people often stress that the problem of Jerusalem, although it has strong religious implications, is first of all a political problem. “Jerusalem and her people are one”.
Finally, people attack Israel harshly with regards to the practice that has been followed of replacing the Arab population by an exclusively Jewish population, by the means of individual and group expulsions, the demolition of houses and the building of large apartment blocks reserved for Jews alone. This policy disfigures Jerusalem and reflects the discriminatory nature of this policy. Such are the main arguments.

Les solutions sont claires: ou bien Jerusalem doit etre integralement remise aux Palestiniens arabes, ou bien on revient au statut d’avant 1967, ou bien, et c’est ce qui a la faveur en general, Jerusalem devient une ville sous mandat international, “hors territoire”, avec un statut special et une administration geree par l’ONU. Et, implicitement, c’est a cette solution que se rallierait le Pape Jean-Paul. Quant au president Moubarak, il est tres categorique, Israel doit restituer Jerusalem, comme il l’a fait pour le Sinai, et il note que par deux fois le president Sadate avait demande la revision du statut de Jerusalem sans obtenir de reponse.
- The solutions are clear: either all Jerusalem should be given back to the Palestinian Arabs, or we return to the status it had before 1967, or (and it is this which is generally favoured) Jerusalem becomes a city under [an] international mandate, ‘without territory’, with a special status and an administration conducted by the UN {tr note: the UN, which has a powerful Muslim voting bloc…}. And, implicitly, this is the solution favoured by Pope John Paul II. As for President Mubarak of Egypt, he is very categorical: Israel must give back Jerusalem just as they did the Sinai, and he notes that twice President Sadat demanded a revision of the status of Jerusalem without getting a response. {tr note – Sinai and Jerusalem, for the Jews, are two entirely different things…}.

Or, en face de ces arguments, on reste un peu stupefait, surtout dans la mesure ou ils semblent acceptes sans hesitation par des gens de fort bonne foi. Le premier fait a relever, c’est que jamais Jerusalem n’a ete une capitale arabe. Et quant a dire que c’est historiquement et culturellement une ville arabe, c’est faux, a moins d’assimiler les Turcs a des Arabes, erreur que les Francais font souvent, Jerusalem ayant ete ville turque et sous administration turque. Quant au peuplement de Jerusalem, il a toujours ete (sauf pendant la breve periode jordanienne ou les Arabes ont expulse les Juifs) a dominante juive.
- Now, faced with these arguments one remains a little astonished, above all insofar as they seem to have been accepted without hesitation by people of very good faith.

The first fact to be noted is that Jerusalem has never been an Arab capital. And as for saying that it is historically and culturally an Arab city - this is false, at least in assimilating the Turks to the Arabs, an error which the French often make – Jerusalem having been a Turkish city and under Turkish administration. As for the population of Jerusalem, it has always been mostly Jewish (except during the brief Jordanian period, when the Arabs expelled the Jews). {tr note: from the mid-19th century the Jews were the largest single group in the city}.

(Remainder of this chapter of Ellul's book, to be provided in successive postings -dda).

Jacques Ellul, 'Jerusalem', chapter IV of 'Un Chretien Pour Israel' (1983) - part two. French text and rough English translation.

Parfois il y avait seulement une faible majorite, mais les Juifs, quoique entasses dans un seul quartier, etaient majoritaires. Faut-il redire ce qu’a ete l’occupation arabe de 1948 a 1967? Outre ce que j’ai indique plus haut, il faut rappeler, ce qui est essentiel, que contrairement aux promesses solennelles repetees ces dernieres annees – a savoir que si on restitue la Vieille Ville aux Palestiniens ceux-ci assureront un libre acces aux “lieux saints” des trois religions -, pendant leur domination jordanienne, les lieux saints juifs etaient interdits aux Juifs, les lieux saints de l’Islam etaient interdits aux citoyens musulmans qui habitaient en Israel, et par ailleurs la population chretienne de Jerusalem a ete brimee en permanence par les autorites jordaniennes, si bien que son nombre etait descendu de dix-neuf mille en 1948 a onze mille en 1967, et que depuis cette date, sous autorite juive, il a presque double!

- At times the Jews had only a slight majority; but although confined to a single quarter they were in the majority.

Must we say again what the Arab occupation was like, between 1948 and 1967?

Apart from what I have mentioned above, it is necessary to recall the essential thing, that – contrary to solemn promises repeated in recent years, that if the Old City is given back to the Palestinians they will guarantee free access to the ‘holy places’ of the three religions – during Jordanian rule the Jewish holy places were forbidden to the Jews, the Islamic holy places were forbidden to Muslim citizens of Israel and, moreover, the Christian population of Jerusalem was bullied continually by the Jordanian authorities, so much so that their number diminished from 19 000 in 1948 to 11 000 in 1967, and that after that date, under Jewish authority, it almost doubled!

Quant au libre acces aux lieux saints des trois confessions, je puis attester que, depuis 1967, il est totalement libre et qu’il n’y a aucune restriction d’aucune sorte pour personne. Il n’est nul besoin d’avoir un statut international, de mettre Jerusalem sous l’autorite de l’ONU pour assurer cette liberte et cette independence. Par ailleurs, faut-il souligner que, en fait de Ville Sainte, c’est vrai que Jerusalem l’est pour les trois religions dit monotheistes. Mais il y a une difference. Pour l’Islam, la ville sainte, c’est La Mecque, en second lieu Medine, et seulement en troisieme ligne Jerusalem. Celle-ci est importante, elle est bien appellee ‘la Sainte’, Al Qods. Il est vrai que la priere islamique fut anciennement orientee vers Jeruslem avant de l’etre vers La Mecque. Mais elle est la troisieme.
- As for free access to the holy places of [the] three faiths, I can attest that after 1967 it was totally free and that there was no restriction of any sort for anyone. There is no need to have an international status, to put Jerusalem under the authority of the UN, to assure this liberty and independence.

Moreover it must be stressed that, as for being a Holy City, it is true that yes, Jerusalem is sacred to the three so-called monotheist religions.

But there is one difference. For Islam the holy city is Mecca, then in the second place Medina and - in the third rank only - Jerusalem. It is important, it is even called ‘the Holy’, Al Quds. It is true that Islamic prayer was originally directed toward Jerusalem, before being turned toward Mecca. But it ranks third [after Mecca and Medina].

Pour les catholiques, elle est bien sainte parce qu’elle est le memorial de la crucifixion et de la resurrection de Jesus, mais enfin, la Ville Sainte, c’est Rome. Et quand on celebre l’Annee Sainte, c’est a Rome et pas a Jerusalem. Elle est donc la deuxieme. Alors que, pour les Juifs, elle est la seule, l’unique, l’incomparable; il n’y a pas d’autre ville sainte pour Israel. Pendant mille neuf cents ans exactement, Israel a prie “l’an prochain a Jerusalem”. Il n’y avait pas d’autre lieu possible pour le rassemblement d’Israel. Et l’on voudrait contester cette fidelite? L’Islam prive de Jerusalem a sa capitale religieuse a La Mecque, les catholiques ont leur capitale religieuse a Rome. Les Juifs prives de Jerusalem n’ont rien: voila toute la difference.
- For Catholics Jerusalem is indeed holy because it is the memorial of the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus, but in the end, Rome is the Holy City. And when people celebrate the Holy Year it is at Rome not at Jerusalem. Jerusalem is, then, second [after Rome].

Whereas for the Jews it is the one and only, the unique, the incomparable; there is no other holy city for Israel. For 1900 years Israel has prayed, “next year in Jerusalem”. There was no other possible place for the gathering of Israel. And people want to challenge this loyalty?

Islam, without Jerusalem, has its religious capital at Mecca; the Catholics have their religious capital in Rome.

The Jews, without Jerusalem, have nothing; that’s the difference.

Voila pourquoi, une fois de plus, on ne peut pas mettre les “trois religions” sur un pied d’egalite pour cette Ville Sainte.

Spirituellement, elle est juive. Elle a ete donnee par Dieu a Israel et pas seulement a David.

En tant que chretien, je ne puis pas savoir autre chose. Et si mon Seigneur est monte a Jerusalem pour y souffrir et mourir, il l’a doublement ainsi consacree comme la ville juive. Il n’a pas cherche un autre lieu pour rencontrer la Passion et manifester la victoire du Vivant sur la Mort. C’est le Juif Jesus qui est venu dans cette capitale de la foi juive. Et les sanctuaries chretiens eleves a sa memoire ne sont pas d’abord ‘chretiens’, ils sont d’abord juifs, a cause de la judeite de Jesus et son acceptation de Jerusalem sur qui il a pleure.
- See why, yet again, we cannot place the “three religions” on an equal footing for this Holy City.

Spiritually she is Jewish. She was given by God to Israel, not just to David.

As a Christian I cannot know anything else. And if my Lord went up to Jerusalem to suffer and die, he has thus doubly consecrated her as the Jewish city. He sought no other place to endure the Passion and to demonstrate the victory of the Living over Death. It is the Jew Jesus who came to this capital of the Jewish faith. And the Christian sanctuaries raised in his memory are not, first of all, Christian; primarily they are Jewish, because of Jesus’ Jewishness and his acceptance of Jerusalem, over which he wept.

Pour le reste, je me reporterai principalement aux articles et aux livres de Jacques Madaule. Si on laisse de cote le probleme religieux, les droits les plus anciens et les plus solides sont ceux du peuple juif a l’egard de Jerusalem. Certes, elle a ete fondee par d’autres et connue au xe siecle avant J.C. sous le nom de Jebus, mais elle est devenue la cite de David, ou l’ensemble du peuple juif s’est retrouve et par rapport a quoi il s’est organise. Elle a ete la capitale de l’Etat juif jusqu’a la prise par les Babyloniens, et elle l’est redevenue peu après jusqu’a la conquete romaine. Les Arabes l’ont conquise et, a partir de ce moment, Jerusalem n’a plus joue aucun role politique dans la vie des partenaires (Arabes, Byzantins, Turcs) des conflits de cette region (sauf le bref siecle ou elle est redevenue capitale du royaume chretien au xiie siecle.) Elle n’a meme pas ete capitale de province dans l’Empire turc.
- For the rest, I will refer principally to the articles and books of Jacques Madaule. If one sets to one side the religious problem, the oldest and firmest rights with regard to Jerusalem are those of the Jewish people.

Yes, it was founded by others and known under the name of Jebus in the 10th century BC; but it became the city of David, where the whole of the Jewish people gathered and around which they were organised. It was the capital of the Jewish state until it was taken by the Babylonians, and not long afterward it became so once again, until the Roman conquest. The Arabs conquered it and, from that moment, Jerusalem played no political role in the life of those (Arabs, Byzantines, Turks) who took part in the conflicts of that region (except for a brief century when it was the capital of the Christian kingdom in the 12th century). It was never a provincial capital in the Turkish empire.

Il n’y a donc aucune raison historique, ni demographique, ni religieuse, d’attribuer Jerusalem aux Arabes.

Or, note Madaule, il est tres remarquable de constater que beaucoup de gens en Occident sont persuades que Jerusalem devrait leur revenir. En realite, nous rejoignons ici la propagande (et, dans toute cette recherche politique, il est tres difficile de demeler politique et propagande, celle-ci s’est infiltree partout). “Une tres habile et insidieuse propagande a reussi a faire passer pour historiques des pretentions purement religieuses. L’Islam la troisieme en date des religions abrahamiques, se considere comme la plus parfaite parce qu’elle est l’ultime. D’ou l’attitude hautaine qu’elle a toujours eue a l’egard des deux autres; l’aprete de sa revendication sur Jerusaleme, du roi du Maroc au roi d’Arabie, vient de cette pretention dont la possession de Jerusalem serait le sceau” (Madaule).
- There is then no reason – historic, demographic or religious – to assign Jerusalem to the Arabs. Now, Madaule notes, it is very remarkable to observe that most people in the West are convinced that Jerusalem should go back to the Arabs.

In fact, here we come back to propaganda (and in all this political investigation it is very difficult to disentangle politics from propaganda, the propaganda has gotten in everywhere). “A very clever and insidious propaganda has succeeded in causing some purely religious claims to pass as history. Islam – the third in order of the Abrahamic religions – regards itself as the most perfect because it is the most recent [in time]. Hence its arrogant attitude toward the two others; the lateness of its demand for Jerusalem, from the king of Morocco to the King of Arabia, comes from this claim, which would be sealed by the possession of Jerusalem.”

(rest of chapter to follow).

Final paragraph of Ellul's chapter on 'Jerusalem', in Un Chretien Pour Israel:

Je crois que, raisonablement, il est tres difficilement discutable que Jerusalem est juive avant tout et compte avant tout, de facon existentielle, pour le peuple et l’ame juive. Mais il faut, en terminant, et en dehors des arguments historiques et politiques, bien mesurer l’importance de Jerusalem au point de vue spirituel. Parler de “Ville Sainte pour les trois religions” est une superficialite desarmante. “En ne tolerant pas que les Juifs soient les maitres de Jerusalem, chretiens et musulmans profondement d’accord les excluent par la meme de toute egalite avec eux et les vouent a l’errance dont la possession de Jerusalem avait precisement pour but de les delivrer a jamais” (J. Madaule). En realite, refuser Jerusalem a Israel, c’est nier dans sa totalite la vocation et l’etre d’Israel. Pas moins que cela. Ce qu’aucun chretien en tout cas ne devrait pouvoir tolerer.

- I believe that, speaking reasonably, it is disputable (with great difficulty) that Jerusalem is Jewish before all and taking everything into account, in an existential fashion, for the Jewish people and the Jewish soul.

But in the end, aside from historical and political arguments, one must assess the importance of Jerusalem from the spiritual point of view.

To talk about the “Holy City for the three religions” is a disarming superficiality.

“By not enduring that the Jews should be masters of Jerusalem, Christians and Moslems are profoundly in agreement, excluding them (by that same fact) from all equality with themselves, and condemning them to that exile from which the possession of Jerusalem had precisely as its aim to deliver them forever” (J Madaule).

In fact, to deny Jerusalem to Israel is to negate in its totality the vocation and the existence of Israel. Nothing less than that. A thing that any Christian ought not to be able to countenance."
END OF ELLUL'S CHAPTER ON 'JERUSALEM'.

I agree with Ellul completely.

I am revolted by the arrogant supremacism and vicious mean-spiritedness of the Arab/Muslim attempt to deny the Jews' claim to Jerusalem, a mean-spiritedness manifest so spectacularly in the Muslims' continual attempts to deny Jews access to the Temple Mount, and in their current successful ban on any visible Jewish or Christian prayer there. I find it utterly incomprehensible that any Westerner - in particular any Western Christian - should be trying to force the Jews to hand over Jerusalem - in particular, the Old City, the ancient Jewish cemetery, the rebuilt synagogues, and the Temple Mount and Kotel - to be crowed over and trampled upon by Arab Muslim supremacists.

Who will be the first Western majority-Christian nation to spit in the eye of the Ummah, defy Arab/ Muslim blackmail, threats, bribes, etc, move its embassy in Israel to Jerusalem and publicly declare that it regards Jerusalem - ALL of historic and contemporary Jerusalem - as *the* rightful territory and capital city of the Jewish state of Israel? Come on, Canada - perhaps under Stephen Harper you can do it. Lead the way! See if you can't shame the rest of us - Australia, Netherlands, Italy, etc. - into doing what is right.

Dumbledore: Your translation is excellent. Thank you for taking the time to do so.

dumbledoresarmy asked me:

Mark

you're in Israel? I have a kind of idea that you are. If so - would you care to hazard a guess at what percentage, by now, of Jews in Israel may have begun to read the conflict the way that Hugh does?

No... I'm not. I'm an American guy. But I went five times starting after the Jenin bs, to see for myself. And what an eyeopener it is each and every time one goes. It doesn't require one being Jewish either.

So as far as your questions... I'm not qualified, but the people to contact about getting essays of Hugh's and Roberts into Hebrew and or arabic, would I think, be such as Caroline Glick- a superb political analyst- read her articles at jewishworldreview.com or directly at carolineglick.com

By the way- she was born and raised in Chicago and knows obama's roots there all too well and has written very substantively about all that too. Her articles are first rate politically. And she has a site now, where she and some others I think put together some scathing reviews of jew hating and israel hating propaganda and articles.

So she may be someone to inquire about such things. The others might be Prof Steven Plaut who's own site, http://www.zioncon.blogspot.com/ is well worth anyone's taking a look at. He may know or be able to facilitate such as this. Those two are in Israel, fluent English and Hebrew, and with outreach. You might address your questions to such as either of them. They both are employed so they aren't just scrapping by. Their are others who are merely scrapping by, and magnificently so. They might not be able to help and their are some who like Prof Paul Eidelberg, who's book on the american constitution and some of the Torah's deeper influences there, was read by Ronald Reagan.

He's one of those magnificently getting by but not likely to be able to outreach like the two previously mentioned.

I have stories from Israel that are as good or better than that old one of the monk's advice on Islam.

Mark