For Peace Sake, No Jews Allowed


MIKE REPORT OPINION: Today’s edition of the New York Times offered up an article titled New Apartments Will Complicate Jerusalem Issue” .  The premise of the article, that Jews living in or near Arab neighborhoods somehow threatens the peace, is pure and concentrated old fashioned bigotry. The notion that neighborhoods should be segregated by race or ethnicity is usually considered a throwback to the stone age, except when the excluded group is Jewish.

The writer goes on to present as undisputed  fact that Israel has no legal or moral claim to Jerusalem. The facts, stubborn things as they are, do not support this fallacy.

In the waning days of the British mandate, Jerusalem was never (under any of the  proposed configurations) designated to be part of a Palestinian entity.  Even the United Nations did not award Jerusalem to the Arabs as part of the storied partition plan that the Palestinian Arabs famously rejected.  The UN plan for Jerusalem called for  the internationalization of the city followed by a referendum of Jerusalem’s residents to determine sovereignty.  As Jerusalem in 1948 (as now) had a sizable Jewish majority, the city would ultimately have found itself in Israeli hands in any case. 

As it happened, Jerusalem was simply abandoned by Great Britain in the Spring of 1948 without establishing any transitional plan of government, international or otherwise.  The power vacuum left by Britan resulted in an inevitable scramble for custody of the holy city. By the time a cease fire was declared Israel had liberated the Western portions of the city while the Eastern portion was  occupied by the Kingdom of  Jordan. And so it would have remained had Jordan not decided to  open up hostilities on Israel from her side of the split city in 1967.  Israel responded by removing the threat to her civilian population and evicting the Jordanian forces back  to their side of the Jordan River.

While The Mike Report does not see a correlation between a stable Middle East and the splitting of Jerusalem, conjecture on the matter is a moot point. The Palestinian leadership has demonstrated by words and deed that their goal is not the creation of a Palestinian state but rather the destruction of the Jewish State. Bret Stephens articulates this point exceedingly well in his seminal piece, “Toilets in the Sand“, a must read.

But for entertainment purposes only let us explore the premise  that dividing Jerusalem up by ethnicity and religion is a prerequisite to building a Palestinian state. The New York Times’ asserts that Jews residing in Eastern neighborhoods of Jerusalem prevents the creation of  a Palestinian state, this  is absurd on at least two points.  

Firstly it presumes  that  (unlike  in Israel where a sizable minority are not Jewish) a Palestinian state cannot and should not absorb any citizens of the Jewish faith. While the Palestinian track record vis a vis Jews entering their area of control is not a good one, the idea that Jews could not or should not reside in a Palestinian state is  bigotry pure and simple.  

The Times article then presents as fact that growing Israeli communities in Jerusalem will impede the contiguity and thus the viability of a future Palestinian state.  The proposition that a nation’s territories  must be contiguous as a condition for viability is belied by the many thriving countries whose territories are not connected (can you say Alaska and Hawaii?). I again refer you to Bret Stephens’ excellent piece on the subject HERE.

English: Jerusalem, Dome of the rock, in the b...

We  can’t help but wonder what fuels the giddy delight of  some at the proposition of  ripping into pieces  an active, thriving and beautiful city. One can reasonably presume that to these “humanitarians” the benefits of wresting the Jewish people from their spiritual center far outweigh the potential consequences of putting the most sacred parts of the city in the hands of what would inevitably become just another brutal Islamic theocracy.