Indivisible Jerusalem belongs to Israel

O come, O come, Emmanuel
And ransom captive Israel

These are the first two lines of a well-known hymn which opened the service at my local Anglican church on Sunday last. It is apparently taken from a 9th-century Latin hymn. I assume it is no accident that Muslim invaders were occupying Jerusalem at the time. But it doesn’t matter whether that linkage is historically true, it is incidental to my theme which is that Israel and the people of Israel — to wit the Jews, distinctly not Palestinian Arabs — figure prominently in Christianity and in Western civilisation.

Jesus, the Apostles, Saint Paul were part of a Jewish population long occupying the land to the west of the Jordan River, including Jerusalem. They were not interlopers. The interlopers came later via conquest. Imams did not go barefoot into the unknown carrying copies of the Koran to proselytize by sweet reason.

But step back. Conquest was the name of the game for much of the history of mankind. It is useless to attach blame based on recent norms. That leaves us to make a judgment call. Who should ‘we’ recognise as being the rightful owners of the city of Jerusalem. Leave aside the broader question of the rightful geographical boundaries of Israel; though it has strong historical claims to all of Judaea and Samaria (the West Bank), which it currently occupies.

Who is the ‘we’ to whom I refer? A good question. I would like to think that Christians – though approaching a rump in many Western countries – would think as one. But that is no longer true. Too many to count would seem to be content with followers of a “false prophet” (Matthew 7:15-16) administering the Old City where Christ’s mission reached its conclusion. Can you imagine a greater blasphemy? But that seems to be the state of affairs.

Obviously, I can’t include western continental Europe or the UK in the ‘we’. They have sold out to Islam and to Palestinian aspirations. America is still in the game under Trump, but watch the Democrats as they insidiously embrace Islam. Democrat Jews in America should listen to and look at Linda Sarsour performing. And perform she does. They should reflect on her rabble-rousing mannerisms. If they still don’t get it, they must have a death wish.

I want to narrow the ‘we’ down to Australians. Where do we stand. Perilously close I would say to throwing Israel to the “ravenous wolves.” The Labor Party (as part of the worldwide left generally) has already made common cause with Islam to appease Muslim voters. It will only get worse. When in government they are likely to vote for most anti-Israel UN resolutions of which there are many (twenty-one last year) or, at best, abstain.

Mind you, the Coalition under Turnbull and Bishop were no slouches in getting on board the Palestinian train. Infamously, for example, Australia abstained in November last year on a resolution to disavow Israeli ties to Jerusalem. One hundred and fifty-one yeas, nine abstentions (Australia, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Honduras, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, South Sudan, Togo) and only six noble nays (Canada, Federated States of Micronesia, Israel, Marshall Islands, Nauru, United States). As consolation, it was at least better and more admirable to be in the company of Cameroon and Togo than it was to be in the company of the UK, or France, or Germany, or numbers of other Western nations; all now pale shadows of their former selves.

You might think there is hope by clinging to Morrison’s and Marise Payne’s official statement and media release announcing that the government will consider moving our embassy to Jerusalem. Think again. Cringingly, there is this sellout within the announcement which I have italicised: “… we should consider recognising Jerusalem as the capital of Israel without prejudice to its final boundaries, while acknowledging East Jerusalem as the expected capital of a future Palestinian state.” You can imagine how this sellout would be further emphasised in the unlikely event it is decided to move the embassy. Israel would probably prefer us to leave the embassy in Tel Aviv rather than see us join the quisling choir offering up East Jerusalem to their implacable and insatiable enemies.

In fact, the embassy won’t be moved no matter what the government decides — if it ever does decide. Labor will be in government before anything can be done. Even a feckless gesture of deciding to establish a peripheral consulate office in Jerusalem – something that I have seen mooted and you can imagine the wimps at Foreign Affairs coming up with as a backstop – will be undone. A good job really. Pathetic sops are worse than doing nothing.

It’s all too bad. Jewish Jerusalem is a shining symbol of the start of our Judeo-Christian civilisation. Out of it has flowed individual freedom, a culture of tolerance and decency, science, technology, capitalism and prosperity. Nothing matches it. All other civilisations and cultures past and present are grossly inferior by comparison. We need to fight for its preservation. That means recognising all of Jerusalem as being an integral and indivisible part of the Jewish state of Israel. That’s the call we should make without qualification or caveat. All else is appeasement towards forces set on our demise.




8 thoughts on “Indivisible Jerusalem belongs to Israel

  • brandee says:

    It appears that the Eastern part of Jerusalem contains the Old City and this Old City is comprised of quarters:
    *Armenian Quarter
    *Christian ”
    *Jewish ”
    *Muslim ”
    If this is so then the Old City could be arranged to function as a semi-independent suburban council or a small region like Canberra. It would still remain under the national government but some tension might be diffused.

  • Jacob Jonker says:

    Oh dear, I must remember to cancel my subscription early next year. It is fairly predictable, but there is simply too much of this kind of thing. Honestly, I can’t be bothered to go on raving against dishonest argument and propaganda and the rest of the brainwashing narrative. I have just been following the Brexit debate, for what it’s worth, the last three months or more. As in this case, there is an army of paid professional spruikers and spinners to falsify debate. It’s very effective, in the short term. Since all is fair in love and war, anything goes, because, let’s not pretend otherwise, this is politics, which is war pure and simple.
    When Israel won the Yom Kippur war, I was ignorant of the politics and said hooray. To be honest, on balance, the Arabs had it coming, but the entire show was and still is one continuous act to conquer what some Semite tribes lost about, oh, two millennia ago. It so happens that the Jews of today have a history going back that far, and more. I would not argue that today’s Jewry are not descendants from the Jews around the time of Christ, so I will accept that , but the excuse that the Jews/Israelis have a right to what Israel claims and seeks to claim in the future, because they, their forbears, fairly conquered that land thereabouts, even though they lost it by walking away from it, or most of them, is a bit rich to say the least.

    So, they have reconquered their land as we all know, and they are going for more. This means, as it stands, as civilised as we are, or supposedly are, we support Israel or ought to because they are more clever and stronger, at the moment, and, hence, have every right to whatever they can conquer. The blather that they have a right to it because they conquered that land two and a half thousand years ago does not stack up, of course. They were then conquered themselves and, mostly, at least they who kept the faith and their religion, their culture and history, went away to travel the world. Now they are back with (a) vengeance. The West has been roped in through their politics, as we all know. It is very clever, and politics being politics, all fair. When, very predictably, the boot is on the other foot, as we know is only a matter of time, it will be just as fair, but will the spruikers and spinners not squeel on you know whose behalf. I happen to be a believer in justice.

    What comes around goes around. The European peoples are going to suffer for the injustices they have dished out and not yet paid for. There are ways to escape karma, but it does not look the European peoples are ready to so do. They would rather carry on with their corrupt politics. Destroy the western democratic nation-states in order to attempt to world dictatorship. The entire mainstream commentariat is in on it. False news, false opposition, fake opposition, false narratives and no end of spin from paid spinmeisters. A plague on all your houses!

  • talldad says:

    Brandee and Jacob Jonker you both need to get a grip! (And study some history).

    There are no Canaanites to reclaim the territory won by the nascent Israeli nation under Joshua.

    Islam didn’t even exist when the Queen of Sheba acknowledged King Solomon’s great wisdom and the blessedness of his people.

    The Old City has only had a “Muslim quarter” since some time after 700AD (Anno Domine = The Year of the Lord: our calendars still date from the ascendancy of the most powerful King).

    The city of Jerusalem does not figure at all in Islamic history but is prominent, nay CENTRAL, in Jewish history.

    Modern history has previously accepted that the Jewish people had a claim to a homeland. That homeland was delineated in the Balfour Declaration and subsequent international treaties, plus early UN resolutions.

    However, when the modern nation was established certain groups vowed to exterminate the Jewish nation AND people and they have maintained their genocidal hatred since then.

    I have no time for such hatred, and nor should you.

  • Jacob Jonker says:

    @talldad. Let Brandee speak for him/herself. As for lumping the two comments together, I suppose, I could tease out your tall dad argument and make a reply. Well, to be honest, as I have have suggested elsewhere, the facts stand as they are and the justifications precede, accompany and follow, emanating from all quarters.
    A lot of what you are saying, talldad, is quite beside the point I made. Whta the Canaanites or anyone tribe has to do with this, you better explain. Is this a new kind of international law only applicable to a certain religious collective? Are you perhaps suggesting that the area of land in the ME claimed by Israel was terra nullius before 1948? The Balfour Declaration, what on earth does that do to expropriate a piece of ME real estate from the people, mostly Semites, who lived there and who owned the land just after WWII? Modern history agrees, agrees what? International treaties, the UN, etc., etc. well, I’ll leave it to the Israelis and the Jewish Diaspora socalled to sort that one out. I do believe there are dissenting voices. Of course, dissent is barely tolerated. It is not an even playing field. If you read my comment again you might be better able to sort my point from that of Brandee. It is a fact that when the state of Israel was brought into existence, there was a period of terrorism on the part of they who sought the establish it. Possibly, some local indigenous/autochtonous resident there took offence. Once Israel was up and running, the neighbours took offence as well. When the hatred against Israel started you have not written, but whatever the answer to that my question, the neighbouring countries started looking war-like and Israel got in first. That is as much as I remember about it. Other than by conquest, by might rather than right, I don’t see the justification as offered in the piece I was being critical of.
    Now, politics being what it is, and the winner clearly being Israel and whoever else is on its side, the facts stand as they do, but the notion that by some international law or some kind of justice the state of Israel had to be where it is now, or that modern history agrees, does not follow, as I made plain in my comment which you did not agree with. The Palestinians appear to be the meat in some geopolitical sandwich. Most of their land is lost to them. They were, politically, outmanoeuvred. They still are politically and militarily outmanoeuvred. So there, according to many, whosever can wrangle by whatever means something from someone else has a right to it. That is how it works, yes. I do not agree that that is a good way to proceed in this world. However, in a way, a people who are organised as a nation, without a state to call their own, or else without the means to defend themselves from being usurped, exploited, expropriated and/or driven out by clever shenanigans and Machiavellian politicking, well, they are going to lose out.
    Still no reason to defend the indefensible. However, looking at AGW aka climate change, international high finance, politics generally and now Brexit, I have no illusions about trying to win an argument or even just debate when there is no agreement on what principles to apply and what exceptions should apply and why.

  • Gazman says:

    @Jacob Jonkers
    For someone who says, “Honestly, I can’t be bothered to go on raving against dishonest argument and propaganda and the rest of the brainwashing narrative”, that is an incredibly disingenuous and rambling “rave”.
    Your history is woefully revisionist and your politics seem muddled. I am still trying to tie together Israel with Brexit…

  • whitelaughter says:

    Thanks Talldad and Gazman for dealing with the wingnuts; on to the problem.

    Australia is one of the oldest continuous democracies on the planet; about 7th iirc. Our simple rule in any political stoush should be to side with humane democracies against corrupt tyrannies. Making this an open and public position, and following through with it, is the best way to use our political capital, and to protect it.
    So yes, we should accept Jerusalem as Israeli, not because of the considerable historical reasons for doing so, but simply because Israel is a modern democracy while Palestine is a failed state. Shaming the Palestinians is the best thing we can do: every time an issue comes up, punish them for their failure to hold regular elections, for the unbridled corruption, for the constant warmongering.

    Similarly, we should be treating Taiwan as the rightful voice of China, and helping them become the voice of the Chinese diaspora. Joint Australian/Taiwanese citizenship should be available for any Chinese Australian who shows themselves dedicated to the idea of Chinese democracy.

    The future of Asia is held in two hands, one Israeli and the other Taiwanese. The cesspool of dictatorships and fanatics that sits between them have nothing to offer.

Leave a Reply