Home Liberating Our Jerusalem
Home Liberating Our Jerusalem

Liberating Our Jerusalem

When Jordan's Arab Legion seized half of Jerusalem, ethnically cleansed its Jewish population and annexed the city-- the only entity to recognize the annexation was the United Kingdom which had provided the officers and the training that made the conquest possible. Officers like Colonel Bill Newman, Major Geoffrey Lockett and Major Bob Slade, under Glubb Pasha, better known as General John Bagot Glubb, whose son later converted to Islam, invaded Jerusalem and used the Muslim forces under their command to make the partition and ethnic cleansing of Jerusalem possible.

Since then, the annexation and ethnic cleansing has become an international mandate. It would be absolutely inconceivable for the international community to denounce an ethnically cleansed group which survived attempted genocide for moving back into a city where they had lived. It is, however, standard policy at the State Department and the Foreign Office to denounce Jews living in those parts of Jerusalem that had been ethnically cleansed by Muslims, as "settlers" living in "settlements," and describe them as an "obstruction to peace." Peace being the state of affairs that sets in when an ethnic cleansing goes unchallenged.

Describing Jewish homes in Jerusalem, one of the world's oldest cities, a city that all three religions in the region associate with Jews and Jewish history, as "settlements" is a triumph of distorted language that Orwell would have to tip his hat to. How does one have "settlements" in a city older than London or Washington D.C.? To understand that, you would have to ask London and Washington D.C., where the diplomats insist that one more round of Israeli compromises will bring peace to the region.

They say that there are three religions in Jerusalem, but there are actually four. The fourth religion is the true Religion of Peace, the one that demands constant blood sacrifices to make peace possible, that insists that there will be peace when the Jews have been expelled from Judea and Samaria, driven out of their homes in Jerusalem, and made into wanderers and beggars once again. Oddly enough, this religion's name isn't even Islam-- it's diplomacy.

Diplomacy says that the 1948 borders set by Arab countries invading Israel should be the final borders and that, when Israel reunified a sundered city in 1967, it was an act of aggression, while, when seven Arab armies invaded Israel in 1948, it was a legitimate way to set boundaries. When Jordan ethnically cleansed East Jerusalem, it set a standard that Israelis are obligated to follow to this day by staying out of East Jerusalem.  

Vice President Biden was so upset that the Jerusalem municipality had partially approved some buildings in the city during his visit that he threw a legendary hissy fit. Hillary Clinton stopped by MSNBC to tell Andrea Mitchell that, "It was insulting. And it was insulting not just to the Vice President who didn't deserve that." David Axelrod browsed through his thesaurus and emerged on the morning shows calling it an "affront" and an "insult." Two for the price of one.

Editorials in newspapers denounced the Israeli government for this grave insult to the Obama Administration."Israel's Provocation", the Chicago Tribune shrieked in bold type, describing it as a "diplomatic bomb" that went off in Biden's face. The Atlantic, eager to get in on the action metaphors, described Israel slapping Biden in the face. A horde of other columnists jumped in to depict the Israelis kicking and bashing the poor Vice-President, while holding his head in the toilet.

Whether Joe Biden was the victim of the Jews or the Jews were the victims of Joe Biden is all a matter of perspective. The Hitler Administration was quite upset to find that Jewish athletes would be competing in the 1936 Munich Olympics. When you ethnically cleanse people, they are supposed to stay ethnically cleansed. It's in poor taste for them to show up and win gold medals at the Olympics or rebuild their demolished synagogues. It's insulting to the ethnic cleansers and their accomplices.

That sounds like a harsh accusation, but it's completely and undeniably true.

When Muslims move into a Jewish town, poor Joe doesn't come crying that he's been bombed with a diplomatic affront and slapped with a Menorah. When Muslim countries fund Muslim housing in Israel, there are no angry statements from Clinton and no thesaurus bashing from David Axelrod. Muslim housing in Jerusalem or anywhere in Israel is not a problem. Only Jewish housing is. The issue is not Israel. If it were, then Arabs with Israeli citizenship would get Biden to howl as loudly. It's only the Jews who are the problem.

The entire Peace Process is really a prolonged solution to the latest phase of the Jewish Problem. The problem, as stated by so many diplomats, is that there are Jews living in places that Muslims want. There were Jews living in Gaza before 1948, but they were driven out, they came back, and then they were driven out again by their own government in compliance with international demands. Now only Hamas lives in Gaza and it's as peaceful and pleasant without the Jews as Nazi Germany.

But there are still Jews in the West Bank and they have to be gotten rid of. Once enough Jews have been expelled, there will be peace. That's not a paragraph from Mein Kampf, it's not some lunatic sermon from Palestinian Authority television-- it is the consensus of the international community. This consensus states that the only reason there still isn't peace is because enough Jews haven't been expelled from their homes. The ethnic cleansing for peace hasn't gone far enough.

There will be peace when all the Jews are gone. That much is certainly undeniable. Just look at Gaza or Egypt or Iraq or Afghanistan, which has a grand total of two Jews, both of them in their seventies. Or Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Syria where peace reigns now that the Jews are gone. Some might say that violence seems to increase proportionally with the number of Muslims, but we all know that would be a racist thing to say. On the other hand suggesting that violence increases with the number of Jews living on land that Muslims want, that's just diplomacy. A common sense fact that everyone who is anyone in foreign policy knows to be true.

How will we know when the Muslims have gotten all the land that they want? When the violence stops. Everyone knows that agreements mean nothing. No matter how many pieces of paper are signed, the bombs and rockets still keep bursting; real ones that kill people, not fake ones that upset Vice Presidents. The only way to reach an agreement is by groping blindly in the dark, handing over parcel after parcel of land, until the explosions stop or the Muslims fulfill their original goal of pushing the Jews into the sea.

That's the wonderful thing about diplomacy if you're a diplomat and the terrible thing about it if you are anyone else without a secure way out of the country when diplomacy fails. And diplomacy in the region always fails. Camp David and every single agreement Israel has signed with Muslim countries aren't worth the paper they're written on. The only peace treaty that counts is the one made by tanks and rifles. It's the one made by Israeli planes in Egyptian skies and Israeli soldiers walking the border. It's the one made by Jewish farmers and ranchers, tending their sheep and their fields, with rifles strung over their backs. The only peace that's worth anything is the peace of the soldiers and settlers.

In 1966, Jerusalem was a city sundered in two, divided by barbed wire and the bullets of Muslim snipers. Diplomacy did not reunite it. Israel pursued diplomacy nearly to its bitter end until it understood that it had no choice at all but to fight. Israel did not swoop into the fight, its leaders did their best to avoid the conflict, asking the international community to intervene and stop Egypt from going to war. Read back the headlines for the last five years on Israel and Iran, and you will get a sense of the courage and determination of the Israeli leaders of the day.

When Israel went to war, its leaders did not want to liberate Jerusalem, they wanted Jordan to stay out of the war. Even when Jordan entered the war, they did not want to liberate the city. Divine Providence and Muslim hostility forced them to liberate Jerusalem and forced them to keep it. Now some of them would like to give it back, another sacrifice to the bloody deity of diplomacy whose altar flows with blood and burnt sacrifices.

As we remember Yom Yerushalayim, Jerusalem Day, it is important to remember that the city is united and free because diplomacy failed. The greatest triumph of the modern state happened only because diplomacy proved hopeless and useless in deterring Muslim genocidal ambitions. Had Israel succumbed to international pressure and had Nasser been as subtle as Sadat, then the Six-Day War would have looked like the Yom Kippur War fought with 1948 borders-- and Israel very likely would not exist today.

Even as Jews remember the great triumph of Jerusalem Day, the ethnic cleansers and their accomplices are busy searching for ways to drive Jews out of Jerusalem, out of towns, villages and cities. This isn't about the Arab residents of Jerusalem, who have repeatedly asserted that they want to remain part of Israel. It's not about peace, which did not come from any previous round of concessions, and will not come from this one either. It's about solving the Jewish problem.

As long as Jews allow themselves to be defined as the problem, there will be plenty of those offering solutions. And the solutions invariably involve doing something about the Jews. It only stands to reason that if Jews are the problem, then moving them or getting rid of them is the solution. The bloody god of diplomacy always assumes that they are the problem. There is less friction in defining Jews as the problem, than in defining Muslims as the problem. The numbers alone mean that is so.

Jerusalem Day is a reminder of what the real problem is and what the real solution is. Muslim occupation of Israel is the problem. The Islamization of Jerusalem is the problem. Muslim violence in support of the Muslim occupation of Israel and of everywhere else is the problem. Israel is the solution. Only when we liberate ourselves from the lies, when we stop believing that we are the problem and recognize that we are the solution. Only then will we be free of the Joe Bidens and the Peter Beinarts, the Jimmy Carters and Barack Obamas, the Gilad Atzmons and Jeremy Ben Amis. Only then will the liberation that began in 1967 be complete.

Only then will we have liberated our Jerusalem. The Jerusalem of the soul. It is incumbent on all of us to liberate that little Jerusalem within. The holy city that lives in all of us. To clean the dross off its golden gates, wash the filth from its stones and expel the invaders gnawing away at our hearts until we look proudly upon a shining city. Then to help others liberate their own Jerusalems. Only then will we truly be free.


  1. The Jewish neighborhoods are not the settlements no, but the others are.
    Other religions have far too much to say on the subject of Israel and Jerusalem.

  2. It surely must have been in the divine plan that Moshe Dayan was a left-winged agnostic who saw no harm in having the Wafq rule the Temple Mount, how different would every thing have looked without the mosque on the Mount.
    The Ehud Barak and Olmerts and such ilk should also be kept at bay to prevent re-devision.

  3. Anonymous21/5/12

    Britain historically favored Muslims over non-Muslims in the Middle East and Asia. You've shown British support for Muslims over Jews and Christians in the Middle East. They did the same in India. Britain supported partition of India in favor of Muslims: "[Turkey] had lost her leadership of Islam and Islam might now look to leadership to the Muslims of Russia. This would be a most dangerous attraction. There was therefore much to be said for the introduction of a new Muslim power supported by the science of Britain ... It seemed to some of us very necessary to place Islam between Russian communism and Hindustan."
    - Sir Francis Tucker, General Officer-Commanding of the British Indian Eastern Command.

    These British actually thought they could control their Islamic creation of Pakistan with their "science" to serve their ends to weaken other non-Muslims. But they were wrong. And they let millions of their creation the Pakistani Muslims into Britain and they are treating the British like infidels no better than the Jews and Christians of the Middle East and the Hindus of India. And the Brits are shocked at their creation's, Pakistani Muslims, ungratefulness. The British worked to undermine other non-Muslims with Muslims because they thought Britian would come out the strategic winner. But any non-Muslim who helps Muslims take over land of non-Muslims does not win. All it is is a loss for the non-Muslim side that includes Britain. Unfortunately British policy still favors Muslims over non-Muslims even though now their country is a Muslim jihad zone just like the Middle East and India.

  4. Yes and the United States eventually took up the worst of British policy and began doing the same thing. Most notably with Carter and his Green Belt.

  5. Anonymous21/5/12

    Yes, but even Reagan used fundamentalist Muslims against the Soviets. The Soviets are gone but the 1400 year Islamic jihad is still here. Both the left and right in the Western world in one way or another supported Muslims in geopolitical strategies vis a vis other non-Muslims over decades. The Muslim world still divides the world into just two - the House of Islam (Muslims) and the House of War (infidels) as they have to 1400 years. The problem is not enough non-Muslims have waken up to this reality, that having Muslims as a tool to undermine other non-Muslims only in the end strategically weakens them too in the ultimate 1400 year old game of Islam.

  6. Brilliant piece. Just when I thought you wrote your best piece, you trumped it...again! You're one of my favorite writers - keep up the good work!!

  7. Anonymous21/5/12

    I'm truly embarrassed by the British government. The last PM who understood was Sir Winston Churchill, it's been all down hill since then.

    There are a lot of us complaining: I have received a letter from the PM's office informing my letter meant for the P.M has been transferred to the very unreliable F.O. The only others who are just as impenetrable as our govt. are churches, especially the methodist and c of e - there are a few of us who try to explain the legal side of the original mandates, because going from scripture doesn't work as they just switch off, they've been told it's done away with (even tho this is not written in the New testament); it's hard to get - some individuals do look at the evidence tho, but they don't tell others. The only consolation is we know the futue.

    kate b

  8. Anonymous21/5/12

    thank you knish, you've done it again.

    do not wait by the phone for haaretz to call and name you its new editor.

    -- spanky

  9. Anonymous21/5/12

    No Churchill did not understand. He partitioned the Palestine region in 1922 giving the Arabs 77% of the region and the Jews 23% when initially the Jews were allowed to move in to the whole Palestine region. He did it to placate the Arabs. Churchill also supported the partition of India to create their British science project of the Indian Islamic state of Pakistan at the great suffering of so many Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, and Jains who had to flee during partition and those who stayed behind in Pakistan suffered tremendously under sustained religious cleansing. No Churchill did not understand. He supported Muslims over non-Muslims in the Middle East and India just like the rest.

  10. One of your best Daniel, and that's saying sumthin'!
    Thank you

  11. Anonymous22/5/12

    True, true and true. Please also write about the daily attacks on Jews IN Jerusalem and the missing police defense of these Jews. It's unbearable to see school children attack Jewish cars to destroy and kill and limp response by Israeli government. This is the way to the Mount of Olives cemetery we are talking about, or Ir David, its really really bad.
    Reffering to India and the Brits, has anyone read or seen the series Jewel in the crown? The bad guys who rape are Hindus, the good guy who is wronged is Muslim.

  12. Linda Cohn22/5/12

    According to a Hindu man I know, Muslims have killed 70 million Hindus.

  13. Anonymous23/5/12

    Linda I would suggest googling "Hindu Holocaust" and read what is out there. Remember these words below in quotes, and these are the people the British horrifically and wrongly preferred over the Hindus:

    "Ahmed only told the story of initial attack of Arabs on India. The ruthlessness of muslim invaders continued for a thousand years.

    Will Durant, the famous historian summed it up like this:
    "The Islamic conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history. It is a discouraging tale, for its evident moral is that civilization is a precious good, whose delicate complex of order and freedom, culture and peace, can at any moment be overthrown by barbarians invading from without or multiplying within."

    Koenraad Elst , the german historian writes in "Negation in India"

    The Muslim conquests, down to the 16th century, were for the Hindus a pure struggle of life and death. Entire cities were burnt down and the populations massacred, with hundreds of thousands killed in every campaign, and similar numbers deported as slaves. ..." http://www.danielpipes.org/comments/32812

  14. Anonymous23/5/12

    Your closing sentence is beautiful:) truly beautiful.


    G-d gave ten measures of beauty to the world--9 to Jerusalem and 1 to all the rest.

    (I found that online a while back but can't cite the source.)


  15. angie, Israel26/5/12

    it is from the Babylonian Talmud, Kidushin 48:2

  16. Outstanding. Thank you, Daniel.


Post a Comment

You May Also Like