Thursday, October 29, 2015

The Nazi Roots of Palestinian Nationalism and Islamic Jihad , by David Meir-Levi

The Nazi Roots of Palestinian Nationalism and Islamic Jihad , by David Meir-Levi
copyright ©2007. david horowitz freedom center P.o. Box 61269 los Angeles, cA 900 6-9828 800-752-6562
IsBN 1-886442-55-X Printed in the United states of America

The NAZI Roots of Palestinian Nationalism and Islamic Jihad 


On October 28 2005, President George W. Bush used for the first time the term “Islamic fascist” to describe the muslim terrorist groups currently at war with the West.1 he denounced them as movements that have a “violent and political vision”, and call for “the establishment by terrorism, subversion and insurgency, of a totalitarian empire that denies all political and religious freedom.”

These remarks sparked an outburst of condemnation. some of these very same muslim movements to which the President referred, critics pointed out, are self-defined popular resistance movements; movements that present themselves as seeking just and legitimate national self-determination for their oppressed people. how can such fighters, with all the cachet of rebels leading a just and honorable cause, be compared to the Nazis, who began a war that killed 70 million people and put the word “genocide” in the modern vocabulary?

But the President was right. The muslim groups which today threaten the West with terrorism, subversion and insurgency, and which, in their own words, seek to bring about a global totalitarian empire are not only fascist in the broad sociological sense, but can trace their literal historical origins to Nazism and its genocidal ambitions.

The Muslim Brotherhood and the Nazis

The ideology of the Islamists whose ranks today include not only al-Qaeda but also hamas and hezbollah -- originated with egypt’s muslim Brotherhood (al-Ikhwan al-muslimoon) founded in 1928 by sheikh hassan al-Banna.2 And the muslim Brotherhood finds not just its roots, but much of its symbolism, terminology, and political priorities deep within the heart of Nazi fascism......

See the below link for rest of this excellent read.....

The Islamic claim to the Temple Mount is very recent

The Islamic claim to the Temple Mount is very recent

Jerusalem's role as "The Third Holiest Site in Islam" in mainstream Islamic writings does not precede the 1930s. It was created by the Grand Mufti Haj Amin al Husseini

Most of the problems surrounding Jerusalem can be traced to two areas of dispute. One is the political area that asks Jerusalem to be the capital of both Israel and the nascent Palestine. The other and most contentious problem is the holiness of Temple Mount to both Judaism and Islam.

The role Jerusalem has in the Hebrew holy works is well known and not open to debate; however, there are varying opinions on the holiness of Jerusalem, specifically Temple Mount to Islam.

Many if not most opinions that counter Islam's claim point out the Jerusalem is not mentioned in the Quran and did not occupy any special role in Islam until recent political exigencies transformed Jerusalem into Islam's third holy site.

Jerusalem's role as "The Third Holiest Site in Islam" in mainstream Islamic writings does not precede the 1930s. 

It was created by the Grand Mufti, Haj Amin al Husseini. The Mufti knew that nationalist slogans alone would not succeed in uniting the masses against arriving Jewish refugees.  He therefore turned the struggle into a religious conflict.  He addressed the masses clearly, calling for a holy war.  His battle cry was simple and comprehensive:  "Down with the Infidels!"  From the time Herbert Samuel appointed him to the position of Mufti, Haj Amin worked vigorously to raise Jerusalem's status as an Islamic holy center.  He renovated the mosques on the Temple Mount, while conducting an unceasing campaign regarding the imminent Jewish "threat" to Moslem holy sites. 

Here are some pictures of the Temple Mount taken around 1875.

Where are the Arabs?

Dome of the Rock
Dome of the Rock
Note overall disrepair and lack of use
Dome of the Rock
Dome of the Rock
Missing tiles
Note missing tiles and condition of roof
Dome of the Rock
Dome of the Rock, additional view

Cupolas on Temple Mount
Note overall disrepair and lack of use
Al Aqsa
Al Aqsa Mosque
Note overall disrepair and lack of use
Western Wall
The Western Wall
In constant use since biblical times
Source: CMEP & Israeli & Global News
To subscribe write:

The Moslem Claim to Jerusalem is False

There were no mosques in Jerusalem in 632CE when the Prophet Mohammed died... Jerusalem was [then] a Christian city

by Dr. Manfred R. Lehmann

The Moslem "claim" to Jerusalem is based on what is written in the Koran, which although Jerusalem is not mentioned even once, nevertheless talks (inSura 17:1) of the "Furthest Mosque": "Glory be unto Allah who did take his servant for a journey at night from the Sacred Mosque to the Furthest Mosque." But is there any foundation to the Moslem argument that this "Furthest Mosque" (Al-Masujidi al-Aqtza) refers to what is today called the Aksa Mosque in Jerusalem? The answer is, none whatsoever.

In the days of Mohammed, who died in 632 of the Common Era, Jerusalem was a Christian city within the Byzantine Empire. Jerusalem was captured by Khalif Omar only in 638, six years after Mohammed's death. Throughout all this time there were only churches in Jerusalem, and a church stood on the Temple Mount, called the Church of Saint Mary of Justinian, built in the Byzantine architectural style.

The Aksa Mosque was built 20 years after the Dome of the Rock, which was built in 691-692 by Khalif Abd El Malik. The name "Omar Mosque" is therefore false. In or around 711, or about 80 years after Mohammed died, Malik's son, Abd El-Wahd - who ruled from 705-715 - reconstructed the Christian- Byzantine Church of St. Mary and converted it into a mosque. He left the structure as it was, a typical Byzantine "basilica" structure with a row of pillars on either side of the rectangular "ship" in the center. All he added was an onion-like dome on top of the building to make it look like a mosque. He then named it El-Aksa, so it would sound like the one mentioned in the Koran.

Therefore it is crystal clear that Mohammed could never have had this mosque in mind when he compiled the Koran, since it did not exist for another three generations after his death. Rather, as many scholars long ago established, it is logical that Mohammed intended the mosque in Mecca as the "Sacred Mosque," and the mosque in Medina as the "Furthest Mosque." So much for the Moslem claim based on the Aksa Mosque.

With this understood, it is no wonder that Mohammed issued a strict prohibition against facing Jerusalem in prayer, a practice that had been tolerated only for some months in order to lure Jews to convert to Islam. When that effort failed, Mohammed put an abrupt stop to it on February 12, 624. Jerusalem simply never held any sanctity for the Moslems themselves, but only for the Jews in their domain.

[DR. MANFRED R. LEHMANN is a writer for the Algemeiner Journal. Originally published in the Algemeiner Journal, August 19, 1994.]

Background: El-Kuds is an abreviation for "The Jewish Temple"

by Rabbi Joseph Katz

The Arabic name for Jerusalem is "el-KuDS" which is abbreviation for another Arabic name used for Jerusalem until the last century, "bet el-maKDeS".  Under the Arab rule, in the 10th century
Jerusalem was always called "bet el maKDeS"

The name "BeT el-MaKDeS" is a translation of the Aramaic and Hebrew "BeiT ha-MiKDaSH", which means Temple.  But Islam has no Temple, only the Jews did.

Thus the Arabic name for Jerusalem makes no reference to Mohammed's trip to Heaven, but rather refers to the Jewish Temple.
 For instance Jordan still lists
     "Beit El Makdes Tourism & Travel"
     Islamic Itineraries offers 1. Night / 2 Days in Beit El Makdes
     with a picture of the Temple Mount
     There is a Turkish description of the conquering of Beyt El-Makes
     by Suleman at

In general it can be seen that significant Islamic interest in the Temple Mount does not precede 1967.

The Greatest Lie Ever Told About Jerusalem

The 13th Century Arab biographer Yakut noted: "Mecca is holy to Muslims; Jerusalem is holy to the Jews."

by Emanuel A. Winston, a Middle East analyst & commentator

Goebbels said that "If the lie is big enough and told often enough, it will be believed."
Yassir Arafat and the Arabs claimed the Holy Jewish Temple Mount and Jerusalem based upon one extraordinarily huge lie told over and over again. Here then is a brief history of the religious war against the Jewish people, the Jewish State of Israel and her 3000 year old Eternal Capital, Jerusalem.

Would be conquerors invariably issue false claims to provide justification for their march to conquest. The more recent call to "Jihad" against the Jews of Israel was first called in 1947 after the U.N. partition in a "Fatwa" (religious ruling) by the Saudis - supposedly to save the Al-Aksa mosque on the Temple Mount from the Jews. Thus, Yassir Arafat, with the full support of the Arab Nations, later claimed the Jewish Temple Mount as the third holiest site for Islam - including all of Jerusalem. Therefore, as in the past, this claim has its root in a classic religious war - in addition to other spurious reasons offered.

Arafat resurrected this false political claim in 1967 with the same excuse that Arafat's uncle, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem Haj Amin Al-Husseini, used to initiate the riots of Hebron and Jerusalem in 1929. The Grand Mufti FALSELY claimed that the Jews were attacking the Al-Aksa mosque and killing Muslims in his virulent war against the Jews. Then the Muslims began massacring the Jews in Jerusalem, Hebron (67 killed) and other Jewish areas. Husseini later became a confidante of Adolph Hitler, begging him to bring his Jew-killing machine to Jerusalem during WWII.

Similarly, Arafat has done everything possible to bring the larger Arab nations into the conflict, using the false claim that the Temple Mount and all of Jerusalem belongs only to Islam. Arafat desperately wants and needs a full scale war as a bloody rite of passage for his miscellaneous Palestinians. Arafat may, however, absorb whatever concessions he has been offered by Barak and delay the big war until a time of his own choosing. (Just as Mohammed did in violating the Hudaibiya Treaty in 628 C.E. - see below)

This myth of Jerusalem as Islam's third holiest city based upon the mythical ascension of Mohammed from Al-Aksa to Heaven has grown exponentially in the recent telling since 1967. When you tell a Big Lie and repeat it often, it achieves credibility and legs of its own. In Islam, telling a lie to infidels for the sake of enlarging your own believers' faith or defeating the infidel is acceptable, even desirable.

Brief History

Site of the Temple Mount in the Future Jewish Capital of Jerusalem

2 Samuel 24:21-25

The choosing of the site came when G-d punished Israel because King David ordered a census of the Jewish people after he defeated of the Philistines in a great battle. The sin was King David's presumption that the salvation of the people came from their sheer numbers and not the Hand of G-d. A pestilence followed which only ceased when the prophet Gad advised King David to erect an altar on the stone threshing floor on Mt. Moriah that belonged to Araunah, the Jebusite. So King David purchased the site for 600 silver shekels, for which he assessed 50 silver shekels from each tribe. (1 Chronicles 21:25)

King David built the altar and the plague ceased. The site was on Mount Moriah where Abraham had prepared to sacrifice his son Isaac in obedience to G-d's Command as this final test of Abraham's faith. This then was the place where the future Jerusalem was to be built and the site of the First and Second Temples. As a man of war, King David was not allowed to build the Temple, so the task fell to his son King Solomon, who built the First Temple on the Temple Mount.1

Revision of History

These facts of recorded history have been obliterated by the recent false claims made in the name of radical Islamic Fundamentalism supported by the silence of scholars unwilling to face a "Fatwa" of assassination as was issued against Salman Rusdie. Moreover, the World Media, with full access to Biblical scholars and historical files, have instead accepted the Great Lie. They carry it forward without question and with a certain perverse enthusiasm, having refused to use the Bible (Torah) as a resource. They also have neglected to publicize the opinions of such experts as the 13th Century Arab biographer Yakut who noted: "Mecca is holy to Muslims; Jerusalem is holy to the Jews."2

The history of Jerusalem and the site of the Jewish Holy Temple, constructed in 956 B.C.E. (2956 years ago) by King Solomon, son of King David according to G-d's specific instructions is fully described with minute detail in the Torah. The First Temple was later destroyed by the Babylonian conqueror, Nebuchadnezzar in 586 B.C.E. (2370 years ago). This was not the first attempt to destroy the Jewish people but was significant in its goal to eliminate what was the repository of Jewish strength and belief.

The Second Temple was rebuilt by order of Cyrus, the King of Persia, who also paid for its reconstruction and ordered the return of the Jews exiled to Babylon in 538 B.C.E. The Second Temple was completed and consecrated in 515 B.C.E.2, 3 & 4

King Herod, a great builder but a cruel, despotic ruler appointed by the Romans rebuilt and added to the Second Temple for 46 years. After the Jews revolted against Roman rule, the Romans under Titus destroyed and burned the Second Temple beginning on the Ninth of Av (Tisha B'Av), 70 C.E. (1930 years ago). You may recall seeing photos of the carvings on the Arch of Titus in Rome, depicting Titus' triumphal march through Rome, parading the sacred Temple vessels, including the great Menorah (Candelabra).

The Romans sent the Jews into exile again for 1,878 years. However, for all that time there was a Jewish presence and those dispersed across the globe prayed daily - "Next Year in Jerusalem!" The City and the Temple have always been central to Jewish thought and identity. (Note! Despite Arafat's claim that there was no Jewish Temple, the Romans memorialized their capture of the Jews and their Temple in 70 C.E. by carving it in stone.)
The streets of Jerusalem and the Holy Jewish Temple were walked upon by Jewish Kings and Prophets long before the 7th century C.E. when a man named Mohammed had a vision that he was the last chosen prophet of G-d, the G-d they called Allah. Mohammed was driven out of Mecca by the Arab community and fled to Medina which had three Jewish tribes. Mohammed offered himself to the Jews as G-d's (Allah) final Prophet.

For 19 months Mohammed offered his "quibla" (direction of his prayers) toward Jerusalem as a "confidence-building gesture", until the Jews refused to believe his claims and totally rejected him. Then Mohammed gathered the pagan desert tribes under his visionary image.
Mohammed used the trick of a temporary truce (permitted in Islam) to make a treaty called the Hudaibiya Treaty with the Jewish Koraish tribe. But, in 628 C.E. at the Khaidar Oasis, Mohammed killed them. Arafat often claims that the Oslo Treaty is similar to the Hudaibiya Treaty which Mohammed violated with impunity when he was militarily stronger.4

Mohammed never again mentioned the word Jerusalem in his compilation of Islam's holy book, the Koran and directed his "quibla" (prayers) to Mecca. If a Muslim happened to visit or pass through Jerusalem, it was called a "ziyara" unlike the holy pilgrimage to Mecca which was called by the honorific "Haj". A mandated visit to Mecca allowed the Muslim pilgrim to add Haj to his name.

For Mohammed, Jerusalem was a despised place of the Jews and had no place in his vision for his Islamic religion. It was as if he could not excise the Jewish essence from holy Jewish City of Jerusalem, although it is said that he believed that the Last Judgement of man would issue from Jerusalem.

Mohammed spent his early years among the Jewish tribes particularly in and around Yathrib (Medina). It was, therefore, not unusual for Mohammed to include a pilgrimage to Mecca since the Jewish Torah called for the Jews to make three pilgrimages to Jerusalem each year on Sukkot, Pesach, and Shavuot. There is much in the Koran that finds its source in the Torah (Jewish Bible).

Before the days of Mohammed, Christian conquerors had occupied Jerusalem (within the Byzantine Empire). Bringing one's religion into battle demonstrated that both their armies and their religion were superior to those of their victims when they won. So, they usually built their holy places on top of their victims' holy places, which they did on the Temple Mount, to absorb the strength of their conquered adversaries and to convert them to their religion. Even under the threat of the sword, the Jews refused to convert and allow their lineage to be absorbed, which would in effect, transfer G-d's Covenant.

Mohammed died in 632 C.E. Jerusalem was subsequently captured from the Christians by Khaliph Omar, six years after Mohammed's death, accompanied by the apostate Yemenite Jew, Ka'ab al Akhbar (the same syndrome as today). There was a struggle over who would assume Mohammed's role as leader of the new religion of Islam which he had envisioned.
So, another conqueror (the Muslims) had superceded the Christian invaders and their Mosque was proof of their superiority in battle and religion. But, it was much more. It was also to be a mighty symbol in the struggle for leadership of the growing movement of Islam. Since Mecca was already the location of Mohammed's power with its own priest cult, if a claimant wanted to redirect that power to himself as the new leader of Islam, he would also need an uncontested and new base of religious power. He could not make war on Mecca and expect to be accepted as Mohammed's rightful heir.

Jerusalem, despite Mohammed's rejection, was still looked upon in the then Arab world as a powerful symbol where the ancient Jews had placed their faith. The Jews considered Jerusalem the center of the world and the earthly dwelling place of HaShem... the one G-d. It was not surprising that the Arabs and other nations wanted to own and control this source of power.

Approximately 60 years after Mohammed's death, the Dome of the Rock was built by Khaliph Abd El Malik of Syria in a first effort to turn Muslim prayers toward his edifice. He wanted to demonstrate Islam's superiority over the Christians and Jews they had driven from Jerusalem. This was primarily for political purposes, not necessarily religious. El Malik failed in his bid to become the replacement for Mohammed and the Muslims continued to direct their "quibla" (direction of prayers) toward Mecca and the revered Kaba"a stone monolith. The El-Aksa Mosque was built 20 years after the Dome of the Rock or 80 years after Mohammed died.4 & 5

The Church, Saint Mary of Justinian, constructed on the Jewish Temple Mount, later became the foundation for the Dome of the Rock built by Khaliph Abd El Malik over and around the Church in 691-692. Approximately in 711 C.E., Malik's son Abd El Wahd, who ruled from 705 to 715 - reconstructed the Christian-Byzantine Church of St. Mary and converted it into a mosque. He left the Christian structure as it was, a typical Byzantine "basilica" structure with a row of pillars on either side of the rectangular "ship" in the center. All he added was an onion-like dome on top of the building to make it look like a mosque. He named it El-Aksa, so it would sound like the one mentioned in the Koran.5

El-Buraq Myth

Early Islamic scholars, with no particular political agenda, interpreted Mohammed's dream flight to El-Aksa * (lit. the furthest place) was to a Islamic heavenly place where the purest and most holy mosque which would be in the courtyard of Allah. That, indeed, would be the "furthest place" or "El Aksa". The revised myth of today names the earthly Al-Aksa Mosque built by Khaliph El Malik on the site of the Jewish Temple as the basis of the Muslim claim to the Temple Mount. This is substantially different than that of the early non-political scholars of Islam. Serious Islamic scholars viewed the tale as merely a folk story. The mythical story of Mohammed's night flight, which evolved from unidentified sources after Mohammed's death went something like this: (Note! Keep in mind that there was no El-Aksa Mosque on the Temple Mount until 80 years after Mohammed's death.)

"In the time it takes for a drop of water to spill from a tipped over jug, Mohammed flew, in a dream, to El-Aksa (the furthest place). He flew on a winged horse named El-Buraq which had the face and breasts of a woman and the tail of a peacock. El-Buraq landed on the rock upon which it was believed Abraham prepared to sacrifice his son Isaac as G-d's ultimate test of Abraham's faithfulness. (The Muslims maintain that it was Ishmael, son of the Abraham's Egyptian concubine Hagar who was to sacrificed.) This giant horse was tethered for a period of time on the Rock or foundation stone of the Holy Jewish Temple, leaving a hoofprint on the Rock. Then Buraq leapt to the 7th Heaven where Mohammed purportedly met all the ancient Jewish prophets (including J...s) and received their blessings as the last Prophet of Allah. Then (in the dream) he returned to Mecca as the last authorized prophet of Allah.(6 Koran Sura 17:1)

This is the basis of Yassir Arafat's present claim to the Jewish Temple Mount (and, by extension, all of Jerusalem) as the third holiest place for Islam after Mecca and Medina. He has called his recent terrorism against Israeli Jews, the Aksa "intifada" and renamed the Western Wall: the "El-Buraq Wall". The Muslim "Wakf" (caretakers) are presently excavating and destroying all evidence of Jewish artifacts under the Temple Mount, and Arafat has claimed there is nothing in, on or under the Temple Mount to prove its Jewish history. The Arabs" massive excavation under the Temple Mount is more than removing the traces of the Jew, but is a virtual displacement of the Jewish religion by Arafat for Islam.7

Tragically, Ehud Barak has not objected to this de-Judaizing of the Jewish Temple - even to stop these grossly illegal excavations.

Revision of the Myth

During the military campaign of Saladin in 1187 against the Christian Crusaders, the myth of Mohammed's flight to a heavenly mystical Al-Aksa was revised to state that his dream flight was to an earthly Al-Aksa on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. Here we find a political revision of a myth by Saladin (a Muslim and a Kurd) to attack the Christian infidel Crusaders who had previously conquered and occupied Jerusalem and the Temple Mount. To seal their earlier conquest, the Christians Crusaders converted the Dome of the Rock to a Church called Templum Domeni. They made Al-Aksa a Church called Templum Solomonis (Solomon's Temple). Both were reconverted to Muslim shrines by Saladin after his victory in 1187. Both Christians and Muslims, each in own their time, claimed supercedence over the Jews, demonstrating their superiority by conquest.

Strangely, the succession of conquerors demonstrated the universal belief that the Jewish Temple did indeed house the invisible G-d of the Jews and whoever held this mystical Temple also controlled vast powers. A succession of conquerors found to their disappointment that they could not tap or unlock those powers and were left holding only the bricks and mortar.

Arafat proclaims almost daily since the signing of Oslo that "With the children of the stones, I will fight until all of Israel is the new State of Palestine and its flag flies over the churches and mosques of Jerusalem, the capital of that State and only that State, and whoever doesn't like it can go drink Gaza (or Dead Sea) water - or go to Hell."

It seems clear that Arafat and the Arab nations have taken the liberty of distorting a mythical folk tale into the substance of a false religious claim on the Jewish Temple Mount and the environs of all Jerusalem. I believe it was Goebbels who developed the concept that, if a lie is big enough, it will be believed. Although the World Media and the Nations hostile to Israel as a Jewish State, know better, they have accepted this El-Buraq myth and its attendant lies which support Arafat's claims, justifying their displacement of the Jews.

Arafat has undertaken the task to literally erase the past of the Jews. In doing so, he simultaneously erases the present which includes their future. In essence, by giving up the Temple Mount (among the many other concessions by Ehud Barak) he delegitimates the reasons for having a Jewish State. This erasure of history is moving swiftly with Barak, Clinton and Arafat in total agreement. The radical Jewish Left, both in Israel and in America is hastening this erasure by not only denying the past but has carried it into the children's classrooms...

Photos of the Dome of the Rock & AL-Aksa Mosque

The photos which can be downloaded from the above website were taken in 1875 by the family Bonfils of Lebanon. It seems amply clear that for centuries the Dome of the Rock and the Al-Aksa Mosque were left unattended, without the flood of Muslim worshipers who would have come IF this was indeed the third holiest site in all Islam. The buildings show decay and lack of repair. The weeds and grass grew up between the stone flooring, proving that few Muslim feet trod the Temple Mount. (Recall that Jews were prohibited by their rabbis from walking across the surface of the Jewish Temple Mount since, without intent, they might tread on the place where the Holy of Holies stood with the Ark of the Covenant.)

The Temple Mount was held by the Muslim Turks for several hundred years. Nothing was done to repair the walls or the roof tiles on the Dome of the Rock and the El-Aksa Mosque. There are no records of high Muslim clerics or kings paying homage to Jerusalem by visiting El-Aksa or the Dome of the Rock nor is there evidence of caretakers or clerics to greet or preach to Muslims coming to worship during those hundreds of years. Granted the Temple Mount was a magnet for conquerors seeking its power but, once in hand did not give up her secrets. Only the Jews seemed to want to stay and bask in its spiritual glow.

It wasn't until the Jews recaptured the Temple when they reunified Jerusalem in the 1967 Six Days War that the Arabs paid any attention to the area. King Hussein of Jordan previously held the area for 19 years and did nothing to reclaim it. His only interest was to destroy the 58 Jewish synagogues, desecrate the ancient Mt. of Olives Jewish cemetery and drive the Jews out of what is now called East Jerusalem by the Arabs. King Hussein (along with the Arab nations who lost the wars they started to wipe out the Jewish State) vented his fury by destroying everything Jewish.

The Muslims claim that either the Temple Mount or Jerusalem is holy to Islam is false based upon irrefutable historical evidence. Arafat, however, has found it quite easy to tell the Big Lie since he received such positive support from the Nations and the Media. Strangely, he also received support from the Catholic Church who were willing to cut off the branch upon which their own religion rested. If, as Arafat claims, there was no Jewish Temple, then J...s, the Jew, could never have thrown out the money changers from the Temple, not studied there or even existed.

Regrettably, he has also received support from Leftist Jews who despise their heritage and have no honor for their national memory. Their willingness to give up what constitutes the foundation and core of Judaism did not bring them the affection and acceptance they sought but rather they have earned undisguised contempt from the Arab world who do honor their religion.

While their Koranic teachings (fervently passed on to their children) mandate them to despise the infidel (Jews and Christians), nevertheless they have a certain respect for People of the Book (the Torah). However, Jews who give up their religion, land, water and Holy sites are viewed as beneath contempt deserving conquest and serving Muslims as "Dhimmis" (low people). Provoking the uneducated Muslim masses with myths and religious fantasies is not a new method to be used in a war. The political or religious demagogue can stir up their followers into a frenzy of riots, wars, suicide bombings, road ambush with automatic weapons - simply by proclamation - as Arafat is doing now.

As for Arafat's twisting of Koranic law and customs by claiming what Mohammed had rejected, that is, Jerusalem is holy to Islam, Arafat would likely be condemned by a "Fatwa" in Mohammed's time. In our time, his leaders will discard any agreements he may have made with the Jews as inconsistent with Koranic law and declare the agreements null and void. Arafat's likely replacements have already stated this loud and clear.

The claiming of Jewish Holy Sites, like Joseph's Tomb, has been a successful gambit by Arafat. His efforts are consistent with the goals of many nations to remove the thought and presence of the Jews from the Land of Israel. Separating the Jews from our historical touchstones of religious sites (especially, the Tombs of the Patriarchs, Rachel and Joseph) and the memory of our glorious past is intended to weaken our resolve to stay. Sadly, this has been assisted by the Jewish Left in the mistaken assumption that a Jewish nation unattached to an old religion would be more acceptable to Islam and even to the Christian Nations of Europe and America.

Many observant Jews and Christians who believe in the destiny of the Jewish Nation as ordained by G-d to be a light unto the nations, feel that we will experience G-d's wrath for challenging His Laws. The Arab Nations' challenge to western civilization, with their accumulation of catastrophic weapons of mass destruction, including NBC (Nuclear, Biological and Chemical) missiles, then the Biblical prophecies of the War of Gog and Magog could soon prove true. (Read: Ezekiel: Chapters 36-39)

I have drawn the above facts from various scholarly sources, including Dr. Manfred Lehman, z"l, a scholar and writer for the ALGEMEINER JOURNAL and Encyclopedia Judaica. The photos (which can be downloaded from the Internet) were called to my attention by Dr. Murray Kahl, a dedicated research scholar whose clear reporting makes it difficult for the Media to take too many liberties in their efforts to distort and spin the news.8

It must be understood that the history of Jerusalem and the Temple Mount fills hundreds of volumes which cannot be offered in this brief review. However, it is all there if you wish to look for it. 
1. II Samuel 24:10-25; 1 Chronicles 21:25 The Stone Edition of THE TORAH - PROPHETS - WRITINGS - 24 BOOKS OF THE BIBLE Edited by Rabbi Nosson Scherman, ArtScroll Series Mesorah Publications December 1996
2. "The Jews of Islam" by Prof. Bernard Lewis Princeton University Press 1987 &
3. "Whose Jerusalem" by Eliyahu Tal International Forum for a United Jerusalem 1994
5. "The Moslem Claim to Jerusalem is False" by Dr. Manfred R. Lehmann ALGEMEINER JOURNAL Aug. 19, 1994
6. Koran Sura 17:1
7. "Protect the Temple Mount: The world's patrimony is being carried off in trucks" by Hershel Shanks WASHINGTON POST 7/17/00
8. "The Islamic Claim to the Temple Mount" by Dr. Murray Kahl Emanuel A. Winston is a contributing writer for THE JEWISH PRESS/NY & ISRAEL.
* "El" and "Al" are phonetic English for the same Arabic word meaning "the". We used various forms of Arabic spelling as they appeared in each source.
**There is no law on earth that requires the Jewish people to accept the revision of their history nor their own demise merely because the outgoing American president wants a footnote in history and wishes to befriend a terrorist.
This page was produced by Joseph E. Katz
Middle Eastern Political and Religious History Analyst 
Brooklyn, New York  

12 Questions That Prove Palestine Never Existed

12 Questions That Prove Palestine Never Existed

If you are so sure that “Palestine , the country, goes back through most of recorded history,” I expect you to be able to answer a few basic questions about that country of Palestine :

1) When was it founded and by whom?
2) What were its borders?
3) What was its capital?
4) What were its major cities?
5) What constituted the basis of its economy?
6) What was its form of government?
7) Can you name at least one Palestinian leader before Arafat?
8) Was Palestine ever recognized by a country whose existence, at that time or now, leaves no room for interpretation?
9) What was the language of the country of Palestine ?
10) What was the prevalent religion of the country of Palestine ?
11) What was the name of its currency? Choose any date in history and tell what was the approximate exchange rate of the Palestinian monetary unit against the US dollar, German mark, GB pound, Japanese yen, or Chinese yuan on that date.

And, finally, since there is no such country today, what caused its demise and when did it occur?
You are lamenting the “low sinking” of a “once proud” nation. Please tell me, when exactly was that “nation” proud and what was it so proud of?

And here is the least sarcastic question of all: If the people you mistakenly call “Palestinians” are anything but generic Arabs collected from all over — or thrown out of — the Arab world, if they really have a genuine ethnic identity that gives them right for self-determination, why did they never try to become independent until Arabs suffered their devastating defeat in the Six Day War?

I hope you avoid the temptation to trace the modern day “Palestinians” to the Biblical Philistines: substituting etymology for history won’t work here.

The truth should be obvious to everyone who wants to know it. Arab countries have never abandoned the dream of destroying Israel ; they still cherish it today. Having time and again failed to achieve their evil goal with military means, they decided to fight Israel by proxy. For that purpose, they created a terrorist organization, cynically called it “the Palestinian people” and installed it in Gaza , Judea, and Samaria . How else can you explain the refusal by Jordan and Egypt to unconditionally accept back the “West Bank” and Gaza , respectively?

The fact is, Arabs populating Gaza, Judea, and Samaria have much less claim to nationhood than that Indian tribe that successfully emerged in Connecticut with the purpose of starting a tax-exempt casino: at least that tribe had a constructive goal that motivated them. The so-called “Palestinians” have only one motivation: the destruction of Israel , and in my book that is not sufficient to consider them a nation” — or anything else except what they really are: a terrorist organization that will one day be dismantled.

In fact, there is only one way to achieve peace in the Middle East . Arab countries must acknowledge and accept their defeat in their war against Israel and, as the losing side should, pay Israel reparations for the more than 50 years of devastation they have visited on it. The most appropriate form of such reparations would be the removal of their terrorist organization from the land of Israel and accepting Israel ‘s ancient sovereignty over Gaza , Judea, and Samaria.

That will mark the end of the Palestinian people. What are you saying again was its beginning?

Tuesday, October 27, 2015



Israel has a right to claim ancient lands 

by Matthew Hausman

The following is the text of a keynote address delivered at Israel Truth Week in Hamilton, Ontario, on March 6, 2013.  Israel Truth Week, now in its second year, was conceived and coordinated as a response to Israel Apartheid Week, an annual hatefest that has swept across North American college campuses over the last decade.  This year’s Israel Truth Week included more than 20 speakers from Canada, the United States and Israel, and the program seems poised to spread internationally.  A discussion of ITW can be found in an article entitled, “The Shame of Israel Apartheid Week,” which appeared originally in Israpundit, and was republished in Arutz Sheva at

In discussing the legal foundations for the modern state of Israel, we’re often hampered by two nagging obstacles.  The first is classic anti-Semitism – haters will never accept the Jews’ right to live in the land of their ancestors regardless of the historical veracity of their claims.  The second is ignorance.  Many people simply don’t know Jewish history, or for that matter the history of Islam, the Arab conquests or the Mideast in general.

For some people the history of Israel only began in 1948, after the Arab-Muslim world had rejected the UN partition vote and attacked the Jewish State in the first of several wars of attempted extermination.

For others it began with Theodor Herzl’s publication of “Der Judenstaat” in 1895.

And for still others it began thousands of years ago with the covenant between G-d and Abraham.

However, we must understand the history leading up to Israel’s independence in its organic context.  Regarding the Jewish scriptural view, we need to recognize that not everyone believes in Tanach and that many who claim to may not actually read the same Bible or have the same understanding of Jewish tradition.

This is not to discount the significance of the Torah’s account; but Jews lived in the Land of Israel for thousands of years regardless of how their national identity was formed.  Before the British, before the Ottomans, before the Arabs and before the Romans, the land belonged to and was inhabited by the Jews.  Indeed, the word “Jew” comes from the name Judea, the only sovereign nation to exist on that land between the time of the Roman conquest and Israel’s independence.

Whereas Israel’s detractors often belittle Jewish nationality by saying that Judaism is “just a religion,” the Jews are in fact an ancient people connected by religion, blood, shared history, and common language preserved in prayer and daily speech.  Jewish religion encompasses a belief system that is imposed largely by descent.  One does not become Jewish by the willy-nilly observance of certain rituals.  Rather, one is obligated to observe precisely because he or she is Jewish.

There is no conflict within Judaism between religious and national identity, each of which is essential and reinforces the other.  Indeed, the Covenant is viewed as both a religious and national inheritance that has validated the Jews’ presence in their homeland since time immemorial.  Although the Romans dispersed much of the population after quashing the Bar Kochba Rebellion in the year 136 CE, a tenacious remnant remained in their homeland, where their descendants continued to live until the establishment of the modern state.  The Jews are the only people with a continuous connection to the land from ancient to modern times.

Though many people today believe that creating an independent Palestinian state where none ever existed will resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict, the two-state paradigm is based on three fictional assumptions, namely: (a) that an ancient Palestinian people occupied the land for generations until its displacement by Israel; (b) that the conflict is driven by this displacement; and (c) that Israel usurped ancestral Arab soil.

These false premises are used to obscure the true nature of the conflict, which is not really a dispute over real estate, but rather a war of total annihilation being waged against the Jewish state by the entire Arab-Muslim world.  Establishing a Palestinian state will not facilitate peace because the goal of this war is not peaceful coexistence but the extermination of Israel and her people.  The creation of Palestine is intended only as the first step for achieving this goal.

Lost in all the propaganda is any acknowledgment of the Jews’ historical, legal and demographic claims to their homeland, which traditionally included all of Judea and Samaria.  These lands were integral parts of the ancient Jewish commonwealth.  Palestinian claims do not have the same historical antecedents – or any for that matter – but are a modern political contrivance.

The western media denigrates any discussion of the possible annexation of Judea and Samaria, but the concept is neither new nor radical.  Indeed, the San Remo Conference of 1920 and the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine of 1922 contemplated Jewish settlement throughout the entire homeland, long before the term “Palestinian” entered common usage in the late 1960s as a semantic weapon in the propaganda war against Israel.  In addition to Judea and Samaria, this homeland included territory on both sides of the Jordan River, including all of what is now Jordan.

Although the Diaspora began with the Romans, the Jews always maintained a National Presence

In order to debunk those who disparage Jewish national rights, it’s useful to start with the most common myth used to delegitimize Israel.  Specifically, the claim that Israeli “settlements” are illegal is based on the big lie that Jews are strangers to Judea, Samaria, and the entire Mideast.  And it’s simply not true.

Arguing that the settlements are illegal requires one to ignore the provenance of the area that came to be designated the “West Bank.”  This territory was never part of a sovereign nation called “Palestine” because no such country ever existed.  Rather, it was part of the Ottoman Empire for 600 years or so, before which it was non-sovereign territory that had passed from one conquering empire to the next starting with Rome.

These lands, and indeed the entire area that would be reborn as modern Israel, passed directly from the Kingdom of Judea to Rome after the Bar Kochba Rebellion.  Upon the disintegration of the unified Roman Empire, the land came under Byzantine rule, which was followed by Arab-Muslim conquest and then Ottoman control until the Turks were defeated in World War I.  The former Ottoman provinces were then divided into mandatory protectorates, with the British assigned the territory that would later become Israel and Jordan.

After Transjordan was created in 1921 on most of the territory under British control, the remainder was designated for unrestricted Jewish habitation west of the Jordan River.  This objective was recognized long before the dialogue was hijacked by the canard that Judea and Samaria were historically Arab lands.

Only the Jews have Ancestral Claims to Judea and Samaria

Israel has historical claims to Judea and Samaria because they were part of the Second Jewish Commonwealth.  Jews lived there from ancient times through successive conquests until 1948, when the area became Judenrein after combined Arab-Muslim forces invaded from east of the Jordan River.

Transjordan (now Jordan) occupied Judea and Samaria and dubbed them the “West Bank,” just as the Romans had renamed the Kingdom of Judea “Philistia” (Palestine) after the long-gone Philistines in an effort to obscure the Jews’ connection to their homeland.  Jordan’s annexation was illegal under international law and was recognized only by Great Britain and Pakistan.

In contrast, Israel’s acquisition of Judea and Samaria during the Six-Day War was perfectly lawful, despite Arab claims to the contrary.  In fact, it is Palestinian land claims that are dubious, based as they are on Jordan’s transfer of negotiating “rights” over these territories to the Palestinian Authority as part of the Oslo process.  Because Jordan seized these lands in violation of international law, it never possessed lawful title and thus had no legal rights to convey.

During its nearly 20-year occupation of Judea and Samaria, Jordan attempted to erase all memory of the Jewish connection to the land.  Nevertheless, the Jewish character of the land is evidenced by the plethora of holy sites it contains, including, Joseph’s Tomb in Nablus, the Cave of the Patriarchs in Hevron, and Ramat Rachel near Bethlehem.

The pedigree of the land is also reflected by the abundance of Hebrew place names that evidence Jewish habitation from Biblical times.  These towns include, among many others: Batir, which corresponds to Beitar, the seat of Bar Kochba’s rebellion against Rome; Beit-Hur, a derivation of Beit Horon, where the Maccabees defeated the Assyrian Greeks; Beitin, an Arabic corruption of the name Beit El, where the Prophet Shmuel held court and the Ark of the Covenant was kept before the Temple was built in Jerusalem; and Tequa, the site of ancient Tekoa, where the Prophet Amos was born and received his prophesy.

There is no doubt that Judea and Samaria had a long history of Jewish habitation.  Nevertheless, the Arab-Muslim world – aided and abetted by the political left – continues to promote the lie that the Jews were strangers to these lands before 1967 and that all “settlements” are colonial enterprises.   This simply is not true.

Israel has Superior Legal Claims to Judea and Samaria

In addition to the Jews’ long history in Judea and Samaria, Israel’s land rights are consistent with established legal precedents that were incorporated into the San Remo Convention shortly after the First World War.

Regarding the lands liberated from Ottoman rule, the San Remo Resolution resolved:

The High Contracting Parties agree to entrust, by application of the provisions of Article 22, the administration of Palestine, within such boundaries as may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers, to a Mandatory, to be selected by the said Powers. The Mandatory will be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 8, 1917, by the British Government, and adopted by the other Allied Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, 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.

(San Remo Convention Resolution, Paragraph (b).)

Underlying San Remo’s affirmation of the Balfour Declaration was the recognition that the Jews are (a) an indigenous people who are (b) defined by descent as well as religion and who are (c) possessed of the inalienable right to national ascendancy in their homeland.  The San Remo program was ratified by the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine in 1922, the preamble of which included the following passages:

Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might 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; and

Whereas recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country…

Consistent with this language, Article 2 of the Mandate clearly set forth the British obligation to effectuate these goals in accordance with the San Remo Resolution.  (League of Nations Mandate for Palestine, Article 2.)

Regarding the intended geographical scope of Jewish habitation and settlement, the Mandate specifically provided that:

The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in cooperation with the Jewish agency referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes.

(League of Nations Mandate for Palestine, Article 6.)

The Mandate did not call for a Jewish state with indefensible borders.  Rather, it recognized the Jews’ right to live anywhere within their homeland in safety and security.

Pursuant to Article 6 of the Mandate, “close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands not required for public use” was to be encouraged.  Article 80 of the U.N. Charter preserved the Jews’ right to close settlement by specifying that: “nothing in the [United Nations] Charter shall be construed … to alter in any manner the rights whatsoever of any states or peoples or the terms of existing international instruments.”

The Mandate contemplated a Jewish state that would incorporate some or all of Judea, Samaria, and Gaza.  Indeed, it recognized the Jews’ connection to a homeland that historically included these territories.

This recognition of Jewish national rights was ratified by the United States on June 30, 1922, when both Houses of Congress issued a joint resolution unanimously endorsing the Mandate’s goal of reestablishing the Jewish national home.  The Congressional resolution stated in relevant part:

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled. That the United States of America favors the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which should prejudice the civil and religious rights of Christian and all other non-Jewish communities in Palestine, and that the holy places and religious buildings and sites in Palestine shall be adequately protected.

(Joint Congressional Resolution No. 360, the Lodge-Fish Resolution.)   Israel always honored these obligations and protected the rights of minorities.  In contrast, Jordan persecuted non-Muslims and desecrated their holy sites during its illegal occupation.

It’s worth noting that Jewish rights under the Palestine Mandate were not recognized in a vacuum, and that Arab self-determination was addressed by the establishment of the French Mandate in Lebanon and Syria and the British Mandate in Mesopotamia (Iraq) and Transjordan. There was no separate mandate for the “Palestinians” because they had no independent national existence.  In contrast, San Remo and the Mandate evidenced an international recognition of the Jews’ historical rights in their homeland.

Despite the Jews’ willingness to accept a state comprising less than their traditional homeland, the Arab world refused to accept any expression of Jewish sovereignty and scorned all proposals providing for Jewish independence.

The UN Partition Plan of 1947 was rejected by the Arab-Muslim world because it provided for Jewish autonomy.  Palestinian claims were not considered at the time because Palestinian nationality had not yet been invented.  In fact, the Arabs rejected the term “Palestine” because, as stated by Auni Bey Abdul-Hadi to the Peel Commission in 1937: “There is no such country [as Palestine]. ‘Palestine’ is a term the Zionists invented. There is no Palestine in the Bible. Our country was for centuries part of Syria.” This was the prevailing Arab view at the time.

Israel’s Liberation of Judea and Samaria was Consistent with the Laws of War

In light of the resounding Arab-Muslim rejection of the 1947 partition plan, it cannot be cited as legal precedent to validate Palestinian claims to Judea and Samaria – or for that matter to Jerusalem or Gaza.  Likewise, Israeli sovereignty cannot be impugned because she came into modern possession of these lands during wartime.  Pursuant to the laws of war, the seizure of land from belligerent nations during wartime gives rise to lawful claims of ownership.

The laws of war cannot be ignored when weighing the legality of Israeli control of Judea and Samaria.  International law has long recognized the right of a country to seize territory while defending itself from the unprovoked aggression of belligerent nations, and that the country defending itself can legitimately retain lands captured from its aggressors.

There is no dispute that the wars of 1948, 1967 and 1973 were started by the Arab nations with the goal of destroying Israel and her people.  There is likewise no dispute that in attacking Israel, these nations violated Article 2, Section 4 of the U.N. Charter, which provides:

All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

Consequently, Israel was acting within her legal rights when she captured Judea, Samaria, Jerusalem, Golan, Sinai, and Gaza during the Six-Day War.

It is equally relevant that Judea and Samaria were never lawfully part of any sovereign Arab or Muslim nation at any time after the Roman conquest, but rather constituted unincorporated territories that were illegally occupied by Jordan in 1948.

Why is this history so important?  Because when Israel wrested control of these lands from Jordan, she in fact liberated them from foreign occupation; and in doing so she was enforcing national rights that had been recognized by San Remo and the Mandate.

Security Council Resolution 242 does not Require Israel to Surrender Judea and Samaria
Although U.N. Security Council Resolution 242 is often invoked to demand that Israel withdraw to the 1949 armistice lines, it actually says nothing of the kind.

Resolution 242 recognizes that Israel was attacked by Jordan, Egypt and Syria in 1967, and calls on the parties to that conflict to negotiate a “just and lasting peace” based on “secure and recognized borders.”  This language implicitly recognizes that Israel’s capture of Judea and Samaria, and also Golan, Gaza and Sinai, was legal under international law.  If it were not, Resolution 242 would simply have demanded that Israel return all lands captured from her attackers. There would be nothing to negotiate and no need to deviate from the 1949 armistice boundaries known as the “Green Line.”  Significantly, however, Resolution 242 does not characterize the Green Line as permanent.

Nowhere does Resolution 242 require Israel to withdraw from “all” of “the” territories captured from Jordan, Egypt and Syria.  Moreover, the importance of the grammar and syntax used by the drafters cannot be overstated.

As explained by the late Eugene Rostow, the U.S. Undersecretary of State who participated in drafting Resolution 242, the exclusion of the adjective “all” and the definite article “the” was intentional and indicative of the essential meaning.

Resolution 242 … calls on the parties to make peace and allows Israel to administer the territories it occupied in 1967 until ‘a just and lasting peace in the Middle East’ is achieved. When such a peace is made, Israel is required to withdraw its armed forces ‘from territories’ it occupied during the Six-Day War – not from ‘the’ territories nor from ‘all’ the territories, but from some of the territories, which included the Sinai Desert, the West Bank, the Golan Heights, East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip.
. . .

Five-and-a-half months of vehement public diplomacy in 1967 made it perfectly clear what the missing definite article in Resolution 242 means. Ingeniously drafted resolutions calling for withdrawals from ‘all’ the territories were defeated in the Security Council and the General Assembly. Speaker after speaker made it explicit that Israel was not to be forced back to the ‘fragile’ and ‘vulnerable’ Armistice Demarcation Lines [‘Green Line’], but should retire once peace was made to what Resolution 242 called ‘secure and recognized’ boundaries …

(“The Future of Palestine,” Rostow, Eugene V., Institute for National Strategic Studies, November 1993.)

Furthermore, the black letter of Resolution 242 applies to incorporated states.  It does not mention the Palestinians because they did not constitute a sovereign state involved in the conflict.

Whereas Resolution 242 does mention “refugees,” the term as used refers equally to Jews and Arabs who lost their homes during the war in 1948.  It does not apply to a displaced Palestinian people whose national existence is more political than historical.

In light of the foregoing, Israel’s acquisition of Judea and Samaria was lawful and appropriate.  Despite the UN’s attempts to delegitimize Israeli actions by promulgating ridiculous resolutions ex post facto, her claim to Judea and Samaria is supported by established legal principles.

So what about the Refugees?

The United Nations Relief and Works Agency (“UNRWA”) defines the term “refugee” in a historically disingenuous manner.  Unlike relief organizations that seek to ameliorate the condition of wartime refugees through resettlement, UNRWA’s sole purpose is to maintain the statelessness of Arabs who became refugees in 1948 and their descendants, regardless of whether they now live in Judea, Samaria, Gaza, Jordan, Lebanon or Syria and whether they or their forebears came from Egypt, Syria, Algeria or elsewhere.

According to UNRWA, “Palestinian” refugees are those Arabs who: (a) established residency within Mandate territory between June 1946 and May 1948; (b) lost their homes and livelihoods during the 1948 War; and (c) reside in areas where UNRWA services are available.  Unlike any other prior refugee group, their status is passed on to their descendants.

No similar agency was created to serve the needs of the nearly 800,000 Jews who were expelled from Arab-Muslim lands in 1948 and dispossessed of their assets without compensation.  Most of these Jews were taken in by Israel with no assistance from the UN, and they ceased to be refugees.

UNRWA’s novel definition begs the question of how refugee status could be based on a mere two-year minimum residency requirement if the Palestinians are truly descended from people who inhabited the land for hundreds of generations.  These people were not required to be native born or even descended from indigenous forebears to be considered refugees; and in fact most were immigrants themselves or the progeny of immigrants.

Moreover, they were not expelled from an existing country that exhibited any trappings of sovereignty or national character.  Indeed, no country existed between the Jordan and the Mediterranean from the time of the Roman conquest until Israel’s independence.  In contrast, there was continuous Jewish habituation in Judea and Samaria since antiquity, as well as in Gaza and Jerusalem, where Jews constituted the majority for generations.

Where does the Levy Report Fit in?

The Levy Report was intended to address the legality of so-called “outposts” in the territories; and though it was critical of government action in establishing some of these outposts, it nonetheless found them to be legal under international law.

As discussed by Kenneth Levin in a Jerusalem Post op-ed:

The Levy Report’s findings should hardly have been surprising. The right of Jews to settle in Judea and Samaria is founded on grounds much firmer than simply arguments that the Fourth Geneva Convention does not apply to settlements because these communities do not entail forced transfer of populations. Such arguments, while entirely sound, merely offer a generic basis for maintaining that settlements are not contrary to international law.

(“The Levy Report: A Vital Beginning,” Kenneth Levin, Jerusalem Post, 11/01/12, at

Most significantly, the Levy Report concluded that Jewish towns in Judea and Samaria do not constitute “occupation.” It also found that these communities do not violate the Fourth Geneva Convention because they did not involve forced population transfers or territory that had been seized from a lawful, sovereign owner.

The report also took note of the legal precedent set forth in San Remo and the League of Nations Mandate.  In their day, San Remo and the Mandate echoed prevailing international recognition of the Jews’ connection to their homeland. Because the provisions of San Remo and the Mandate were preserved in Article 80 of the United Nations Charter, this consensus became UN policy.

Demography Favors Annexation or the Assertion of Israeli Sovereignty

Though the Oslo Process is moribund, it established three administrative divisions (Areas A, B and C) that may actually be useful in making Israel’s case for sovereignty. In particular, Area C comprises approximately 60% of Judea and Samaria and has a Jewish population exceeding 350,000, compared to an Arab population calculated only in the tens of thousands. It is under Israeli control and buttresses the greater Jerusalem neighborhoods that contain 250,000 or more Jewish residents.

Despite propaganda warnings of a Palestinian demographic time bomb, Jews comprise the majority in the territories under Israeli control and are not likely to be dispossessed. There is no doubt that these territories were historically Jewish or that the Arab-Muslim population accrued largely through immigration during the late nineteenth to mid-twentieth centuries.

Today Jews outnumber Arabs two-to-one when Israel and the territories she controls are combined; and because birthrates are increasing among Jews and declining among Arabs, the Jewish majority will only increase in the future.  The Jewish population in Israel proper is also growing, and Jews constitute the majority in Jerusalem – as they have for generations.  The supposed demographic threat to Jewish hegemony is propaganda, particularly as it relies on doubtful census statistics that overstate the Arab population by as much as half.

Based on demographics and legal precedent, a growing number of Israelis favor some form of annexation or extension of sovereignty in Judea and Samaria.  Indeed, incorporating lands that were part of ancient Israel would coincide with the vision articulated by San Remo and the Mandate.

Perhaps most important – and as duly noted in the Levy Report – Jewish habitation in Judea and Samaria does not constitute “occupation” under any definition.  Rather, it is consistent with the law recognized by San Remo and the Mandate and adopted by the United Nations through Article 80 of the UN Charter.

Can Israel Act Unilaterally?

Whether Israel continues with a farcical peace process or decides to act unilaterally, she will likely suffer international repercussions if she offers anything less than a Palestinian state based on the 1949 Armistice Line and a divided Jerusalem.  Such a state, however, would compromise her sovereignty and security.  If Israel is to assure her national integrity, she must be prepared to put her interests first and formulate strategies for dealing with the international fallout.  For example, she should work towards energy self-sufficiency and expand her economic and strategic relationships with nations that are interested in her high-tech industry.

Why History Really Matters

Now, you may be asking why all this information is even relevant.  After all, for those who believe in Jewish Scripture, Israel’s raison d’etre begins and ends with the Covenant.  Nevertheless, objective history, legal precedent and demography are essential for making Israel’s case to a world that may not share the same theological outlook.  And though these justifications are derived from secular sources, they do not detract from the religious integrity of those who believe in the Jews’ unbroken covenant with the Almighty.

For nearly 2,000 years, Jews yearned for the reestablishment of their ancestral nation, and this yearning was expressed affectingly by the following words from Psalm 137:

If I forget thee Oh Jerusalem, let my right hand wither, let my tongue cleave to my palate if I do not remember you, if I do not set Jerusalem above my greatest joy.

As is turns out, there are also historical antecedents, legal precedents and demographic realities that validate this yearning and legitimize Israel’s incarnation as a modern, political state.