The myth of Arab Jerusalem
h/tip Daled Amos
The original UN vote for partition of the British Mandate for Palestine called for the ‘internationalizing of Jerusalem, although there was a tiny significant point, which hardly any one wants to acknowledge or even discuss; the ‘internationalizing’ of Jerusalem had a best before date.
Ten years after partition, the citizens of Jerusalem would determine, in a majority vote which nation – Israel or Arab Palestine – they would want to join. If that vote was held in 1948 or even ten years later in 1958; the majority of citizens of a united Jerusalem would have been Jews, and I suspect the vast majority of Jerusalemites would have voted to join Israel. Even today, if all the citizens of both West and East Jerusalem, Arab or Israeli, the vast majority of Jerusalemites would still vote to remain as part of the Israeli nation. This ‘clause’ was on the prime reasons it was imperative for the invading Arab armies to ethnically cleanse – at all costs or at any price – ‘East Jerusalem’ of all its’ Jews.
The history of Jerusalem did not start in 1967. Thousands of years of Jewish history took place in what is now called “Arab East Jerusalem. Only when the Jewish residents were driven from their homes in 1948 was the city divided between East and West. This video shows the reality of Jerusalem today and includes interviews from survivors of the fall of Jerusalem.”
Very informative. History is always distorted by someone; hearing the other side is universally a good idea. Thanks for this.
Todah.
I am so glad to see new blog posts; you always illuminate the areas under discussions. Plus, I’m glad to see Jews continue to fight for their right to their historic homeland and continue to try and rectify all the lies that the Palestinians and their media supporters spew out. The latest is another attack on Israeli farmers in Samaria and Judea, calling them “occupiers” and making a film which will, no doubt, play in all the film fairs around the world. Jews in their own land, in their own country are now routinely called “occupiers.” One wonders what these “critics” think the alternative is – that the Israelis, who now have had at least two generations born in the new state – go somewhere else? One shudders to think where that “somewhere else” would be.
http://www.nybooks.com/blogs/nyrblog/2012/jan/25/how-occupation-became-legal/
Nancy, there is just something rather ironic about being called a ‘colonialist’ for being a Jew in a land known historically as Judea. The ‘colonist’ rhetoric is really all pervasive throughout the left. From the Arab narrative it is absolute crucial to destroy all shred of history which proves the Jews were an indigenous people to the area. This is the point of the ‘dead-sea scrolls’ protest – never mind the fact, these are ancient Jewish religious writings written in either Hebrew or armanic – If the Jews are ingenuousness, then the Arab narrative must logically recognize that the Arabs came after the Jews and the cries of occupation loose their steam. But what Arab, let alone Palestinian, will admit that there have always been Jews in the region? And were in the region long before the Arab conquest?