Jerusalem and Jewish Religious Freedom Are One

To not lend voice to all of the tools of truth is to offer truth a pale defensive effort. To deny any aspect of truth, is to pick up the mantra of the enemy and to insanely fight with oneself over the other aspects of truth that one still remembers to use to their own merit. You have embraced the enemy's deception and called it normalcy and thus weakened your overall efforts to preserve what absolutely must be preserved. To uphold that which is known to God and humankind. To put it plainly, that Jews have an historic, legal, moral and religious right to Jerusalem. Judaism itself, in fact, depends on Jerusalem.

By trying to divide either the physical Jerusalem, or the Jewish People from Jerusalem, you are violating their collective religious freedom in the most profound way possible. The Nazis tried to exterminate the Jewish race. The effort to divide Jerusalem is no less than an effort to exterminate the Jewish faith from the world. Which side of this divide does the Netanyahu Administration wish to place itself?

Even as the Prime Minister said that Israel will continue to build in Jerusalem, his Intelligence Affairs Minister, Dan Meridor of Likud showed with his recent interview all that is wrong with those leaders who are insensitive to the concept of freedom to pursue one's own religion being an inalienable right.

Seemingly drawing a line in the sand, Meridor said, "The Old City with the Jewish Quarter and the Wailing Wall will never be part of an Arab state; all the major Israeli parties share this conviction. There could be a compromise on land in Judea and Samaria. But all Israeli governments have agreed on having a united Jerusalem. This is our clear position, but we can negotiate about Jerusalem. There are no preconditions."

...he noted that the introduction of religion into a conflict that was historically defined on nationalistic ideas complicated matters. "It has become more difficult over the years because of the introduction of religion into this conflict. Arab rulers hated us in the past, but they did so because of nationalistic ideas. Since the [1979] revolution in Teheran, we hear a different tune: The Iranians, Hizbullah and Hamas fight us in the name of religion. This is very bad because people can compromise, but gods never compromise."

But Meridor also insisted that the issue of Jerusalem was not predicated on religion. "The previous pope (John Paul II) said that Jerusalem is sacred to all religions, but was promised to one people. We have no religious claim on Jerusalem; we have a national one. Jerusalem is our capital," he said.


You just said that Iran is using a religious argument to try to take your capital out from under you. Further the anti-democratic-democratically-elected Hamas denies the plain truth of your rights, using pseudo religious terms not found in the Koran to assault your claims. In other words, if this moral debate were not a battle of religious rights before, your enemies have turned this into one. To use a parable, if rioters take to the streets to loot innocent businesses, either you match their force with law enforcement, or you tell your citizens to at least protect themselves against the looters by staying off the streets.

By stating this is exclusively a secular conflict even as your enemy uses and twists religion as a tool to further their ends, you are disarming yourself before their verbal onslaught. Discapacitating your public relations at the same time as you empower their deceitful propaganda. Worse, you are disenabling dialectal pursuit of root and absolute truths. The very life preserver of moral, historic and legal rights themselves.

The majority of Israelis practice religion. This means that the many poll results that Jerusalem is considered beyond abandonment to the vast majority of Israelis are certainly true. Which also means that there is no way, no philosophic construction that could be devised that would be honestly conducive to democratic ideals that would allow the United States of America to support the separation of Jerusalem from Israel, the abrogation of the Jewish faith itself, with any shred of moral clarity or justification. If today you will try to abolish Judaism, is not the obliteration of Christianity on your agenda for the morrow?

Rather than trying to exploit any ideological weakness it can find in those few confused Israeli leaders who believe in whatever current U.S. policy happens to be, the U.S. Administration should be encouraging true democratic representation within Israeli's own government and policy making. At least that's what a true friend of Israel and bastion of democracy would do.


A call to a more hybridized political thought process on the Middle East Conflict would serve to sooner end it.

By the Grace of God.

Pollard for Robinson?

By awarding the Presidential Medal of Freedom to pro-violence and anti Israel Mary Robinson, the Obama Administration has found a way to not only continue to aggravate pro-Israel Jews and Christians, but has made perhaps an unintentional but seriously flawed declaration that the ways of violent protests of Yasir Arafat trumps the non violent path of Martin Luther King Jr. Besides the broad implications this may have for domestic politics and the dire consequences for Democrats to keep their majorities in congress come the next election cycle should they be viewed as anti-King, this immediately and negatively effects American influence in the Middle East. This can only lend further extremes to future Palestinian Leadership demands and complicate the impossibly difficult situation between Israel and the PA beyond repair. While I would applaud an end to the wrong minded Roadmap to Peace, it should not be done in this way.

First the reversal on Jerusalem. Next the heavy handed interference on the matter of internal Israeli infrastructure policy that was never explicitly forbidden and signed upon in the Roadmap. Now the Administration can be viewed as implicitly rubber stamping future PA sponsored violence against Israel, let alone whatever good intentions that may have been in play during this Robinson decision.

Will supporters of terror look at the President's unstated intentions or his explicit actions to justify their evil plans? If the President does not retract his decision entirely, which is the preferred option, then I would suggest that clarification should issue from the White House that support for any anti-King philosophy that Robinson may hold was not intended and is virulently rejected by this administration.

Three such faux pas in a row is not just a bad sign, it is a diplomatic disaster than needs some cleanup work to be done as soon as possible.

A couple years ago I wrote that there could be a lot of political Goodwill to be gained with Israel by granting freedom to Jonathan Pollard, and no significant political downside to releasing him. President Bush rejected this opportunity, but perhaps President Obama will not. Perhaps this can be the political life preserver that Democrats need to show they are not the Anti-Israel party of the United States of America. Come the next election cycle, the Democrats could spin that it wasn't a Republican President who had mercy on a man incarcerated for 24 years, it was a Democrat. Conversely, it could be that what may be remembered at the next election cycle will be instead that every year, month, week and day that passes with undeserving fools like Robinson getting awards, while the humanitarian plight of Pollard is ignored as he is left to rot in prison.

What will the President choose to do?

Roadmap Agreements Are Not Universally Binding Under International Law

Bringing peace to nations is not a game. So why are the Roadmap Nations treating it as such? As if they can make up "house rules" of diplomacy where you can discriminate against the nation of your choice regardless of what objective norms (International Laws) say on the matter.

The new USA objection is due to concern over potentially prejudging the final outcome of a negotiated settlement. But in actuality, all that happened was not a political decision, but a decision in a court case between private litigants. To connect a court ruling on a decade old case with any future negotiation is a ludicrous suggestion at face value. No one at the signing of the Roadmap back in 2003 would ever have expected future court cases to be decided even before final status negotiations have taken place. To suggest that is to state fiction.

I start to worry where we are headed as a nation when our Foreign Affairs officials state current policy and call it International Law, when it is not. Until now the Obama Administration has been far from even handed in its treatment of Israel. But if its "experts" continue to misstate plain facts so grossly that they are viewed as either fools or liars not just by opposition political forces, but even mainstream members of foreign Parliaments, then the USA's influence in the Middle East will wane and erode along with it the hopes of participating in the bringing of true peace to the Middle East in the near future. Participating. That word is key. It implies a certain level of humility that current USA foreign policy lacks towards our best friend in the Middle East, Israel.

The court ruled that illegal housing was built on private property. In cases where the property owners were not Arabic, there was no previous protestation of the many prior decisions of the Israeli courts.

CNN reported the following declarations by the State Department:

In the United States, a State Department spokesman urged Israel to refrain from "provocative actions."

"As Secretary [of State Hillary] Clinton has stated previously, the eviction of families and demolition of homes in East Jerusalem is not in keeping with Israeli obligations under the Roadmap," said Robert Wood, referring to the 2003 "Roadmap for peace" plan.

"We urge that the government of Israel and municipal officials refrain from provocative actions in East Jerusalem, including home demolitions and evictions. Unilateral actions taken by either party cannot prejudge the outcome of negotiations and will not be recognized by the international community."

If any nation is discouraged from heeding its own courts because it is not preferred by other nations, would any nation listen to this? How about those non-democratic countries that are dismembering their own citizens due to highly questionable court decisions? Where is the condemnation?

What if another nation tried to threaten America IN ANYWAY for a ruling of an American court of justice? Would, COULD, America ever dare give in to such meddling? It would undermine the whole justice system to do so, and therefore it is unreasonable and ridiculous to even suggest such a thing.

This is not a matter of even-handedness or not. It is a process toward making a mockery of objective truth and justice and therefore such a path is antithetical to the American Way.

Worse it shows that America no longer cares about how it looks in the eyes of her allies. That is diplomacy gone astray. The greatest threat to the Roadmap to Peace is not an Israeli judge, but current American Foreign Policy!

Even as a critic of the false Roadmap to Peace I do not glory in this path to failure through an overdose of self contempt. A hog enjoys playing in the mud, but a diplomat should not. The Roadmap nations need to respect themselves more by either speaking more truthful statements from now on, or getting out of the game.