Next Year In Jerusalem: לשנה הבאה בירושלים

Question: Is giving in to the enemies of Israel the concession that Jerusalem shall not be again the capital of Israel a concession made to whom are, effectively, Nazis? I discuss, without weasel words:

L’Shana Haba’ah B’Yerushalayim (Hebrew: לשנה הבאה בירושלים‎‎, lit. “Next year in Jerusalem“) is a phrase Jews living in the Diaspora utter each year at the end of Passover and Yom Kippur. After the destruction of the great Jewish temple in Jerusalem, by the Romans in 73 CE, the hope of seeing it rebuilt became a central component of Jewish religious and secular consciousness.

Many are upset by this attitude of the Jews, in the last 1950 years, or so. They called it “Zionism”. And many identify Zionism with racism. How, why, do the Jews want to go home, generation after generation? How dare they?

Isn’t good enough, say the Jewish skeptics, that Jews are tolerated back on the so-called Holy Land? Why do they want everything back, like the owned the place in the past? Why do they want their capital back? Don’t they have it already?

Before last year presidential election, opponents of Trump claimed he was a Jew hater. They were, they are that dumb, and, or disingenuous. Even Paul Krugman, Nobel laureate and New York Time pillar claimed that, two days before the election. The fact that of Trump’s several closest family members several were Jews didn’t mean anything to them. Such a level of idiocy means that arguing intelligently is as easily done with the Commons as with common cockroaches.

We had to build our mosques on top of your temple, to show you who is the boss, and so that you could never return. Beautiful Gold Al Aqsa Mosque Crushes Foundations Of Jewish Temple in Jerusalem. God is a terrorist, or is not.

Now Trump has recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, and the cockroaches are roaring to high heavens. Jerusalem was the capital of Israel for more than a millennium. Say from 1200 BCE (king David) until 136 CE.  Rome had two terrible wars with Israel, one in 66-73 CE, starting under Nero, and the other in 132-136 CE. In 73 CE, the victorious Romans demolished the great temple. In 136 CE the Romans ordered the dispersion of the Jews out of Israel,  and took to calling Israel “Palestina”. (from “Philistia, land of the Philistines”, something justified by old Assyrian inscription). In 360 CE, Roman emperor Julian ordered the Jewish temple rebuilt, but the work was interrupted by a quake and Julian’s death. During the Sassanian occupation of the area, in the Seventh Century, the Jews were again given autonomy. But then the Christians regained control, and the Jews lost the autonomy, and the Muslims followed suit, even forcing Jews to wear marks on their clothing. Jews regained autonomy, shortly after demolishing the British government’s headquarters in the King David hotel in Jerusalem.

The international consensus at the united nations was that Jerusalem was an international city. Right, a treaty was signed to this effect between Richard the Lion Hearted (representing Philippe Auguste of france, his suzerain) and Saladin. (Treaty of Jaffa, 1192 CE!)

The reason being that Jerusalem is sacred to Jews, Christians, and Muslims. In the case of the Muslims, it’s because Mohammed flew there on top of a winged horse after his death (don’t make fun of the Prophet, or Allah may make you drink melted lead, one of his prefered punishment, says the Qur’an). Another reason is that the tiny territories given by the UN at the creation of Israel, don’t have much of the city.

However, Jerusalem is not just the religious capital of the superstition known as Judaism. As I said, it was the capital of the STATE of Israel for 1,300 years. Not as long as the 1,600+ years of Paris as capital, but close. And about as long as Memphis was capital of Egypt. Memphis was capital of Egypt three times between 2950 BCE and 664 CE.

The question is this: what is the justification for the existence of Israel? Conventional wisdom says it’s just a place for the Jews to be, otherwise they end up in ovens, and related situations. This is a silly reason: Jews shouldn’t end in ovens, because if they do, everybody will (as the top Nazis recognized, sotto voce, among themselves: the treatment they gave to the Jews, extermination, was going to be extended to others).

No, the real reason for Israel is Israel: bringing back the state by that name, made greatly, but not exclusively, of Jews. That state had Jerusalem as capital.

But what of the reasoning that this compromises peace?  Jacques Attali‏, one of France’s deepest thinkers, and close to president Macron, wrote on his twitter account (we follow each other): @jattali: “The United States’ unilateral recognition of a reunified Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, and of no other state, is against the long-term interests of Israel and the Middle East peace process.”

I recognize that the “of no other state” part is uselessly aggravating. However Trump said:  “We are not taking a position of any final status issues, including the specific boundaries of the Israeli sovereignty in Jerusalem, or the resolution of contested borders. Those questions are up to the parties involved,” That does not seem to exclude that East Jerusalem couldn’t be the capital of a Palestinian state (having a double capital was close to a situation found in Berlin for decades).

So my grain of wisdom? The Hamas charter wants all Jews killed. Hamas rules Gaza. I have quoted this saying of Prophet Muhammad in Hadith (41; 6985)  many times.

According to the Hamas charter, Jewish people “have only negative traits and are presented as planning to take over the world.”[39] The charter claims that the Jews deserve God’s/Allah’s enmity and wrath because they received the Scriptures but violated its sacred texts, disbelieved the signs of Allah, and slew their own prophets.”[40] (This mentality is straight from the Qur’an, which insults the jews, page after page, even asserting all pigs, monkeys and dogs we see are, truly, Jews…) ).

Here is a piece of the Hamas Charter, halfway through Article Seven:

The Islamic Resistance Movement is one of the links in the chain of the struggle against the Zionist invaders. It goes back to 1939, to the emergence of the martyr Izz al-Din al Kissam and his brethren the fighters, members of Moslem Brotherhood. It goes on to reach out and become one with another chain that includes the struggle of the Palestinians and Moslem Brotherhood in the 1948 war and the Jihad operations of the Moslem Brotherhood in 1968 and after.

Moreover, if the links have been distant from each other and if obstacles, placed by those who are the lackeys of Zionism in the way of the fighters obstructed the continuation of the struggle, the Islamic Resistance Movement aspires to the realisation of Allah’s promise, no matter how long that should take. The Prophet, Allah bless him and grant him salvation, has said:

The Day of Judgement will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Moslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree, (evidently a certain kind of tree) would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews.” (related by al-Bukhari and Moslem).

The Slogan of the Islamic Resistance Movement:

Article Eight:

Allah is its target, the Prophet is its model, the Koran its constitution: Jihad is its path and death for the sake of Allah is the loftiest of its wishes.]

An essay in the Huffington post disingenuously claims the preceding Hadith does not really say what it says. Yet it’s repeated in at least 2 other places; moreover the Qur’an is extremely insulting to the Jews (although it quotes the Bible favorably to justify a “rain of stones” on homosexuals). The constantly repeated idea in the Qur’an is that Jews disobeyed “god”. Their “god”: the prophet of Islam knew better than the Jews what the Jewish “god” wanted, and he wanted them punished for it. 

In other words, the Palestinians are in denial. The Qur’ an and its murderous threats is their main problem, not the jews. The Jews have the right to come back where they were from. Recognizing this is recognizing the reason for Israel. Anything short of that tries to refute history… and justice.

here are many times more Muslims in Egypt than there are Jews in the world. The Middle Earth has space for the Jews to return.  It will enrich the place force tolerance, hence intelligence.

Meanwhile, negotiating with the most determined enemies of Israel is like negotiating with the Nazis, and literally so. One couldn’t negotiate with the Nazis, for a number of reasons. One does not negotiate with rattlesnakes. This is what the French Republic thought. France declared war to the Nazis, as soon as Great Britain changed its mind and agreed to help France militarily, if France got into a war with the Nazis.  The result is that the Nazis were forced into war 6 years early, and lost said war.

The case of Hamas is typical: read the text above. It’s straight out of Nazi central casting, the sort of declarations even the top Nazis (say Hitler, Heydrich, Himmler) didn’t dare to utter. Respecting this, and giving Hamas the concession that Jerusalem shouldn’t be again the capital of Israel is making to Nazis the concession that Jerusalem shouldn’t be again the capital of Israel. How wise is that/ How moral is that? How prudent is that? How cowardly is that?

If we want truth and reconciliation, we need truth first. The truth is that Jerusalem is the capital of the state of Israel. It was the case for more than 1300 years, roughly as long as the superstitious ideology known as Islam. I am not a Jew, I am more than that, I am a historian. Or, at least someone cognizant with the basics of common history. It’s where the facts are.

Patrice Ayme’

Tags: , ,

20 Responses to “Next Year In Jerusalem: לשנה הבאה בירושלים”

  1. benign Says:

    Possibly a sop to Bibi in return for Bibi not starting a war.

    Like

    • Gmax Says:

      Bibi was not going to start a war. Why would he? The Arabs are busy killing each other all around

      Like

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Everybody says recognizing Jerusalem as capital is to please Evangelicals. However this neglects the fact some of the closest family members of Trump are practicing Jews. One may therefore suspect that they themselves recognize Jerusalem as capital. Why would the Israeli PM start a war? They are all started up, by others, and he can pretty do what he wants.

      Like

  2. EugenR Says:

    To my opinion, the right of any nation for any piece of land is derived from the capacity of a group of people to identify themselves as belonging to unique mythology that defines them and their connection to certain piece of land. If the connection of these people to this particular piece of land is 

    strong enough, to make them to be ready to sacrifice their life, in sake of saving this particular piece of land for people, who belong to the same myth, then these people have the full right to own this land. But then what happens when two or more people have claime for the same land? They will try to delegitimise the other by different claims like, who was first, or trying to claim of falsehood of the others identity. They will use ancient texts,  believes, fables, fairy tales,  myths they believe as if it was a massage from the All Mighty directly to their brains. They adore the ancient texts, and try to uncover mystery in those texts, interpret them with strong bias to prove their myth being right, and the other’s being a lie. But there is no exit from this conflict by explaining the rightness of the claim.  It only brings claims against claim, not standing any standard of objective measurement. It can take hundreds or thousand years and still the same claim will be there. After almost one thousand years the Arabs still accuse the Europeans being crusaders. After more than half century the Africans accuse the White people being colonialists. Only complete change of collective mind state can resolve the conflict about Jerusalem.  But does anyone want to change it’s state of mind? And to what,  to modernity with its hedonism? Is the final aim of human culture about this? 

    Like

    • Gmax Says:

      Patrice showed Hamas government doctrine DO NOT DIFFER from Nazis and Islamists want to kill ALL Jews. Did you read ALL of Patrice’s essay?

      The way to negotiate with people like that is to remove all hope from them like with Nazis in 1945

      Like

      • EugenR Says:

        I do agree with Patrice about Hamas. They and their supporters believe in their right to murder others, just because they think differently from them and the only thing that stops them from doing it is their military incompetence. They are just like the Nazis.

        From this point of view the Jews never had this kind of state of mind. They never used their superior military power to make organized atrocities. But then how to resolve the problem, that there are millions of Muslims, who denial the right to live from other people and believe, their duty is to murder all those who don’t except their faith as the only legitimate faith?

        Like

        • Gmax Says:

          The thing about killing Jews in Islam is all about what PEOPLE ARE. If some is born Jewish, Islamist and HAMAS say: KILL HIM, THAT’S WHAT ALLAH ORDERED TO DO. Only then shall Paradise come. That’ s total hardcore, even more hardcore than Nazism

          Like

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Accepting that Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel, while tolerating (implicitly) Hamas’ charter (“Kill All The Jews”, see Article 7, and kill everybody Allah wants killed, Article 8) as quoted in my essay is siding with the Nazis, and having learned from history only how to cause mayhem.
      The Economist broached the subject, and went for the side of appeasement: 1938, all over again. Appeasement does not work with those given to the Dark Side, on a Nazi level of intensity. One does help Arabs by telling them a madly homicidal religion is the epitome of wisdom. Just the opposite.

      Liked by 1 person

      • EugenR Says:

        If you read my remark to Gmax, you will see that i totally agree with you. But what can we do? So many brainwashed Muslims in the world. But we should try to persuade at least the lefties. They are supposedly rational and evidence should work on them.

        Like

        • Patrice Ayme Says:

          OK, will read, didn’t get to it yet, I was quite busy since I posted the essay. I just sent a broadside to The Economist, perhaps explaining better my position. I CCed it as a comment here. The Islam problem is mostly from the fact that the worst of Islams, the original SALAFISM, is viewed as the ONE & ONLY Islam. Fundamentalism, (now called Wahhabism) was subject to the death penalty after Saladin (12th Century). Same around Baghdad.

          Most “lefties” are NOT leftists. Not at all. I am, they are not. They are actually plutocrat fellow travellers, that’s why they love Castro and Chavez so much. OK, all right, they used to love Stalin to the point the French military didn’t arm its latest planes in 1939/1940 (when Hitler and Stalin made their alliance official). It’s especially true in the USA and France. Although things are moving a bit in both places…

          Like

  3. Gmax Says:

    Hard hitting and to the core as usual. I read the background article on Jerusalem by the New York Times, it was inedible shallow. No historical sense whatsoever at the Times. For the Times history starts after world War two. Instead you put the history of Israel in that full history which gives it meaning. THANKS!

    (I am not Jewish either. Nor an Evangelical or Trumpist)

    Like

  4. SDM Says:

    What about the British sponsored UN resolution that created modern Israel with provisions for two states, one Arab and one Jew with Jerusalem as a separate international entity?
    The subsequent Arab-Israeli wars and aftermath have left the Arab populations being forced into smaller and smaller territory with Jewish settlements in Gaza, Golan Heights and West Bank in occupied Palestinian territory. This is considered to be in violation of international law. The expansion of these settlements has been an ongoing source of violence and human rights violations. Should not Israel keep to its borders as initially established?

    Like

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Actually, as far as I know, Great Britain was anti-Israel. Before, during and after WWII. The UN set up a commission, which presented a proposition, which was modified several times. It needed 2/3 majority. In the final vote, the UK abstained. France & her cohorts (Belgium, Netherlands, Luxembourg, Norway, etc.) and the USA voted FOR.
      Final vote
      On 29 November 1947, the United Nations General Assembly voted 33 to 13, with 10 abstentions and 1 absent, in favour of the modified Partition Plan. The final vote, consolidated here by modern United Nations Regional Groups rather than contemporary groupings, was as follows:
      In favour (33 countries, 72% of voting)
      Latin American and Caribbean (13 countries):

      Bolivia
      Brazil
      Costa Rica
      Dominican Republic
      Ecuador
      Guatemala
      Haiti
      Nicaragua
      Panama
      Paraguay
      Peru
      Uruguay
      Venezuela

      Western European and Others (8 countries):
      Belgium
      Denmark
      France
      Iceland
      Luxembourg
      Netherlands
      Norway
      Sweden

      Eastern European (5 countries):
      Byelorussian SSR
      Czechoslovakia
      Poland
      Ukrainian SSR
      Soviet Union
      African (2 countries):

      Liberia
      South Africa
      Asia-Pacific (3 countries)

      Australia
      New Zealand
      Philippines
      North America (2 countries)

      Canada
      United States
      AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
      AGAINST ISRAEL CREATION: Against (13 countries, 28% of voting)
      Asia-Pacific (9 countries, primarily Middle East sub-area):
      Afghanistan
      India
      Iran
      Iraq
      Lebanon
      Pakistan
      Saudi Arabia
      Syria
      Yemen
      Western European and Others (2 countries):

      Greece
      Turkey
      African (1 country):

      Egypt
      Latin American and Caribbean (1 country):

      Cuba

      ABSTENTIONS Abstentions (10 countries)
      Latin American and Caribbean (6 countries):

      Argentina
      Chile
      Colombia
      El Salvador
      Honduras
      Mexico
      Asia-Pacific (1 country):

      China
      African (1 country):

      Ethiopia
      Western European and Others (1 country):

      United Kingdom
      Eastern European (1 country):

      Yugoslavia
      Absent (1 country)
      Asia-Pacific (1 country):

      Thailand

      Like

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Not to be a smart ass, but the truth is that Israel should be at the minimum reincorporated in the BORDERS of 136 CE. Caesar and Augustus Roman Emperor JULIAN (“The Apostate” as the hateful Christians call him, showing they learned nothing important) agreed to this in 360 CE.
      The Arabs, and their descendants, who fought Israel nasty are now increasingly reduced. The path of wisdom, which I advocate is to take their losses, and embrace the advantages that Israel provides THEM with, POTENTIALLY, if not really.
      An example was the deal about desalination from the Red Sea with Jordan. The Jordan plutocrat king whatever his title, a half Brit, got angry because Bibi embraced somebody (who had killed an aggressor who had wounded him, when trying to kill). So he scuttled the deal to provide water to farmers and to Amman, capital of Jordan, and to the Dead Sea. That’s childish. But very becoming to the adorators of the epileptic, ultimately poisoned, analphabet.

      Like

      • SDM Says:

        What is Israel’s right to land when they claim it according to their superstition/religion ? Certainly Jews were not the first people to live there. Is it acceptable just because they claim their god gave them the land? No.
        Religious tradition is a poor claim to any property. Many Muslims accept a murderous creed, but their mistaken religiosity has no real bearing on land rights. The reality is that two sworn enemies are unlikely to make peace when the very right to exist does not appear to be respected on either side.

        Like

        • Patrice Ayme Says:

          This answer of mine below should be turned into an essay “On the Moral Right Of Return Of Jewish Governance”

          The claims of Israel go way beyond religion, in my opinion. Let me stress that this is my personal opinion, and I am not channeling anything I read anywhere else. The question is what is the right of descendants? It depends. It depends. It depends upon the ideology they depend upon. I have scorn for Abrahamism:
          https://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2015/02/20/commonly-accepted-delusions-follies-that-bind/
          However, the practice of the nation of Israel, Israel as a secular culture, was NOT restricted to Abrahamism.
          The Samaritans (and others) were living alongside the Jews.

          The Samaritans were wiped out by the Romans when they rebelled later, at a time when the Jews had already been expelled (there are 2,000 Samaritans left)
          All in all, one may argue that the decision to expel the Jews from their homeland was very unjust, and that the ideology of governance of the Jewish people was democratic enough. Also, they kept it over the generations. So they should be allowed to return, AS LONG AS said return does not brutalize the Native population. One could argue that the Palestinian population has been brutalized by Arab leaders and policies which, by making things worse, helped the formation of the Greater Israel.

          When Islam appeared, there were 40,000 Muslim warriors, and millions of Jews and Christians all over the Middle East. Islam, though threatened the former with death. And here we are, 13 centuries later.

          Like

  5. Patrice Ayme Says:

    [Sent to The Economist, which says it’s “reckless” to recognize Jerusalem as capital of Israel!]

    What is reckless is continual appeasement of the main trouble making ideologies in the Islam dominated areas.

    Accepting that Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel, while tolerating (implicitly) Hamas’ charter (“Kill All The Jews”, see Article 7, and kill everybody Allah wants killed, Article 8) as quoted in my essay, is more than reckless, it’s criminal:
    https://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2017/12/08/next-year-in-jerusalem-%D7%9C%D7%A9%D7%A0%D7%94-%D7%94%D7%91%D7%90%D7%94-%D7%91%D7%99%D7%A8%D7%95%D7%A9%D7%9C%D7%99%D7%9D/

    Approving implicitly of Hamas’ control of Gaza is siding with the Nazis, and having learned from history only how to cause mayhem.

    The Economist broached the subject in a fully PC way, amputating 3200 years of history into a stump of a few decades, and went for the side of appeasement: 1938, all over again (or was it 1935, when Great Britain signed what the Nazis viewed as an alliance of Nazi Germany with Great Britain, against France?).

    Appeasement does not work with those given to the Dark Side, on a Nazi level of intensity. One does NOT help Arabs by telling them a madly homicidal religion is the epitome of wisdom. Just the opposite. It is reckless not to embrace the deepest, 3200 year old wisdom available.

    Jerusalem was the capital of Israel 3,000 years ago. Now Israel, forcefully evacuated by the Romans in 136 CE, is back. Why should it be back without a head?

    3,000 years, that’s more than twice older than a mayhem religion founded by an epileptic analphabet. Why to follow the latter instead of the former? Because epileptic, vengeful analphabets determined to raid the world offer a more astute world model, highly compatible with global plutocratic exploitation?

    Like

  6. Patrice Ayme Says:

    [Sent to Roger Cohen NYT, as comment on
    An Israel of Pride and Shame
    One thing can be said of 2018: It will not bring peace to the Holy Land. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/29/opinion/israel-jerusalem-ben-gurion-trump.html; it will be probably CENSORED, as usual…]

    If one wants peace, the first thing to do is to completely reject all and any religious element as a consideration. For example Hamas has part of the Qur’an and Haddith in its constitution, calling for the destruction of Jews (exact quotes can be found with an Internet search). That should be rejected. Palestinians should embrace secularism with a vengeance, the vengeance of requesting Israel to respect human rights in full. Once the idea, and the mood, that Israel is back where it used to be is accepted by all, real negotiations can start. Indeed, Israel will not be able to maintain an as aggressive a policy. Paradoxically, in the present situation, the extremisms are feeding each other.

    Like

What do you think? Please join the debate! The simplest questions are often the deepest!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: