At the back of the hill

Warning: If you stay here long enough you will gain weight! Grazing here strongly suggests that you are either omnivorous, or a glutton. And you might like cheese-doodles.
BTW: I'm presently searching for another person who likes cheese-doodles.
Please form a caseophilic line to the right. Thank you.

Thursday, September 28, 2006


Over at the Muqata there's a rather sweet post about davening at the kotel (see )
which, in it's own way, proves the vital importance of not giving back even one inch of Jerusalem to the Arabs.

Readers will no doubt remember what the Kotel was used for in the old days when King Hussein of blessed memory still owned that part of Jerusalem?

My readers should know that I am, generally speaking, in favour of giving back some of the liberated territories - Gaza is a poxy hellhole that the Arabs are welcome to, and there are some parts of the Shomron where the Arabs dominate overwhelmingly. Think in terms of population dynamics.

But Jerusalem is a different kettle of fish.

It is only because of the Catholic countries that Jerusalem was not reckoned part of Israel by the United Nations in 1947. From the war of independence till 1967 Jerusalem was partitioned, the Kotel within sight but unreachable, Jews forbidden to come near, the area used as stables and urinals by the Arabs in spite. Since then Jerusalem has been reunited, with all three religions that claim it being allowed to worship there. The Masjid Al Aqsa is STILL a holy place where Muslims worship.

And the Jews are right - the Mosque of Omar and the Dome of the Rock are too lovely to use for stables and urinals.

Jerusalem is holy to three religions - but only because it was holy to one.
Christians and Muslims are, relatively speaking, Johnny-come-latelys. The Christians were content to leave it in Arab and Turkish hands for centuries, the Muslims for their part didn't discover how much Jerusalem could possibly mean to them until it was clear that the Jews wanted it back.
At that point, the Catholics grew kinda upset that not they, but the Jews might liberate the place from the Saracen hordes, and threatened to vote against the partition plan at the United Nations.

It turns out that having voted to partition, and deny the Jews Jerusalem, the Catholics had little interest in further involvement - leaving the Arabs and Jews to duke it out. The rest, as they say, is history. And at present the city is in the hands of the people by whom it was first holy. The heirs have come home, the exile of the sons of Abraham, Jacob, and Josef is over.

So, no division of Jerusalem. Ever.

The Arabs can still worship there. And Arabs yet live there. But the city is not theirs.


Afterthought: One would have assumed that the Catholic nations would have remembered what happened to Iberia - it took several centuries of brutal struggle and horrific sacrifice for the owners to get it back from the Muslims. For several centuries, non-Muslims were often enslaved and exploited, and had to pay a discriminatory head-tax.
One could also discuss the humiliating behaviour and garb which Muslim rulers impose on their non-Muslim subjects - but, given that that presupposes being able to live, and live in peace, doing so would be slightly pointless.
And it has been too long since the reconquista - the Catholic world seems to have a short memory, bless their hearts. Nor do they admit to any problem with Muslims holding the holy places, if Jews are the alternative. Deus used to volt, but deus no longer volts.


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older