Emboldened by the world’s liberals’ brainless habit of swallowing whole every cockamamie lie concocted by the Palestinians even as they are often brazenly caught in the act (e.g., staging fake funerals), the Palestinian Authority has really upped the ante now with the mother of all lies: that the Western Wall Was ‘not Jewish’ until the 16th century!

Arutz 7 reports:

The Palestinian Authority’s rewriting of the Bible has reached a new peak – or low – with a “scientific study” claiming that Jews did not begin to claim a connection to the Western Wall (Kotel) until 500 years ago.

The Western Wall, also known in pre-State times as the “Wailing Wall,” is the outer wall of the Second Temple compound, the only remaining structure from the compound,  and has been a symbol of the deepest connection between most of the Jewish world, both religious and secular, and Judaism for two  thousand years following the destruction of the Second Temple on the 9th of the Jewish month of Av  in 70 C.E. From that date until the present, Jews came to mourn at the Wall, including the Spanish Jewish poet and philosopher Yehudah Halevi who is believed to have been killed while praying there in 1141.

However, “Jews did not worship at the Wailing Wall at any time until the Balfour Declaration of 1917,” according to a report on the “study” posted by the PA Undersecretary of the Ministry of Information D. Mutawakkil Taha.

Writing on the official PA website, he added that the report quotes the “Jewish Encyclopedia, published in 1917” that “the Western Wall became part of the Jewish religious tradition around the year 1520, as a result of Jewish immigration from Spain, after the Ottoman conquest the year 1517… This was not part of the wall of the so-called Jewish Temple.”

Jews do not claim the Wall is part of the Temple building, but of the compound surrounding it..

The Ministry of Information also stated that a basis for the study’s denial of an ancient Jewish connection to the Western Wall is a Reform Judaism leader’s comment that “there is no sanctity to the Western Wall in Judaism.”

…

The Temple Mount site itself is the holiest site in Judaism, but the Arab world the past several years has conducted a campaign the past several years to deny Biblical accounts of the Jewish First and Second Temples.

The campaign also has included rewriting interpretations of the Bible, claiming that the “Binding of Isaac” actually was the “binding of Ishmael,” the forefather Abraham’s first son by the maidservant of his wife Sarah, who later gave birth to Isaac.

Muslim clerics, despite protests by Israeli archaeologists, also have removedtons of debris from the Temple Mount area as part of an effort to eliminate any discoveries of remnants of the First and Second Temples.

It seems that Obama’s idea of “bridging” our country’s gap with the Muslim countries is to mix in some Israel-bashing into his speeches there. After all, what better way is there to chum up to Muslim countries than to appeal to their hatred of Jews?

Obama, who warned the Israeli government that “this kind of activity [housing construction in Jerusalem] is never helpful when it comes to peace negotiations”, should take a look in the mirror. This kind of activity from the U.S. president—unnecessarily ostracizing one party in an unfair and unbalanced manner—is never helpful when it comes to peace negotiations either.

The WSJ had a nice, succinct piece on this today:

In recent weeks, Indonesia has endured a tsunami and volcanic eruption. On the positive side, it has a booming economy, a vibrant democracy and a welcoming investment climate. And because this Muslim-majority country has a long tradition of religious moderation and secularism, it serves as a model, or rebuke, to much of the rest of the Islamic world.

So what did President Obama talk about upon arriving in Jakarta yesterday? Israeli construction projects.

Why Mr. Obama chose to pick this fight from the distance of Southeast Asia is anyone’s guess. Israel’s decision to proceed with the building of some 1,000 housing units in the Har Homa neighborhood of municipal Jerusalem—a “settlement” only in the most jaundiced sense of the term—was made in October. Israeli governments of both the right and left have encouraged similar building projects since Jerusalem was reunified in 1967. And construction of the new housing will not begin for months if not years.

None of that deterred Mr. Obama, who warned the Israeli government that “this kind of activity is never helpful when it comes to peace negotiations.” The State Department also chimed in, saying it was “deeply disappointed,” while Palestinian spokesman Saeb Erekat added that the new construction proves “that Israel chooses settlements, not peace.” This is the same Mr. Erekat who recently wrote an admiring letter to Ahmed Sa’adat, the mastermind of the 2001 assassination of an Israeli cabinet member.

All Israel has done is insist that Jews have a right to live anywhere in their capital city, something that might be controversial in Ramallah but ought not to be in Washington. Mr. Obama’s public endorsement of the Palestinian view of what constitutes a settlement only puts the negotiated peace he seeks further out of reach.

Meanwhile, the Indonesian government forbids Israeli citizens from visiting their country. If Mr. Obama wants to bridge the distance between Jakarta and Jerusalem, maybe he can start with that one.

Khaled Abu Toameh, a Muslim Palestinian journalist, has strongly voiced his opinion against the idea of ever dividing Jerusalem in a clearly written piece outlining the reasons why even the Palestinian residents of Jerusalem themselves are opposed to such an idea!

He writes:

The future status of Jerusalem is back on the negotiating table between Israel and the Palestinian Authority and Israel. It is being described as one of the “core issues” in the US-sponsored direct talks that were launched in early September.

Both Israeli and Palestinian negotiators need to take into account that it’s completely unrealistic to talk about restoring the pre-1967 situation where Jerusalem was divided into two cities.

The division was bad for Jews and Arabs back then and it will be worse if it happens once again.

Jerusalem is a very small city where Jews and Arabs live across the street from each other and on top of each other. Since 1967, Israel has built many new neighborhoods in the eastern part of the city, rendering it impossible to imagine a reality where Jerusalem would exist as a divided city.

Redividing Jerusalem will turn the lives of both Jews and Arabs into a nightmare, especially with regards to traffic arrangements. Every day, tens of thousands of Jews and Arabs commute between the two parts of the city freely.

Redividing Jerusalem will result in the establishment of checkpoints and border crossings inside many parts of the city. Jews and Arabs will find themselves confined to their homes and neighborhoods, which will be surrounded by security barriers and checkpoints.

In addition, the negotiators must concede the possibility of asking the Arab residents of the city about their preferences. There is no reason why more than 200,000 Arabs in Jerusalem should be denied the right to voice their opinion on a matter that has a direct affect on their lives and future.

This can be done through a referendum where the Arab residents would be asked if they would like to live in a divided city under the rule of the Palestinian Authority or Hamas. Most likely, a majority of the Arab residents would say that they prefer the status quo to the other options.

Most Arabs in the city prefer to live under Israeli rule for a number of reasons. First, because as holders of Israeli ID cards they are entitled to many rights and privileges that Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip don’t enjoy. They include freedom of movement and social, economic, health and education services that Israeli citizens are entitled to.

Redividing Jerusalem means bringing either the Palestinian Authority of Hamas into the city. The Arab residents of Jerusalem have seen what happened in the West Bank and Gaza Strip over the past 16 years and are not keen to live under a corrupt authority or a radical Islamist entity.

Over the past few years, many Arab residents of the city who used to live in the West Bank have abandoned their homes and returned to Jerusalem. They did so mainly out of fear of losing their rights and privileges as holders of Israeli ID cards.

But many of them also ran away from the West Bank because they did not want to live in territories controlled by militiamen, armed gangs and corrupt leaders and institutions.

These are only some of the reasons why Jerusalem can’t be redivided, at least not under the current circumstances. Instead of talking about tearing the city apart, it would be better if the negotiators started thinking of ways that enable Jews and Arabs to share, and not divide, the city.

Those who think that Jerusalem can be split into two are living in an illusion and clearly do not know what they are talking about. Palestinian Authority president Mahmoud Abbas, like most Palestinians, is aware of this reality. However, that is not going to stop him and others from continuing to demand that eastern Jerusalem become the capital of a Palestinian state.

No one asked the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip before signing the Oslo Accords on 1993; will everyone really continue to ignore the opinion of the Arab residents of Jerusalem?

Arutz Sheva is reporting that sources within the PA are saying that the Obama administration is backing anti-Israel rallies in Jerusalem.

If this outrage is true, then this signals a huge escalation in the hostility towards Israel by the United States and, if true, Netanyahu will have no choice but to publicly repudiate Obama’s demands and incitement.

This is an incredibly dangerous and foolish game that Obama is playing with Israel’s security and this undoes years, maybe decades, of diplomacy and friendship with Israel. It also serves to continue emboldening Palestinian terrorists, as well as to give the PA leadership a free pass to shun the negotiating table.

The silver lining in this dark cloud is that at least Israel can clearly see Obama for what he is: an enemy of Israel. Had he taken the “friendly but forceful” tactic that had been used at times in the past, he would have been more successful at dividing Israel’s public opinion and possibly chasing Netanyahu out of office through public pressure and ultimately getting some or most of what he wants.

Instead, here the Israeli public can clearly see him for the enemy that he is to them, and his hostility has so far only served to rally the public behind Netanyahu (a few leftist newspaper pieces notwithstanding).

A high noon showdown seems to be looming.

UPDATE

A friend of mine commented to me:

which diplomats and what did they do by way of encouragement. Its so vague…

…the whole source for this is some unamed PA official. I assume you dont trust the PA to report things accurately?

Being that those are valid questions, I’ll take a moment to answer them here.

Yes, it is very vague, but the fact remains that there should be no U.S. diplomats getting involved on any level, and that if any do get involved they should be dealt with harshly.

Especially in light of the recent tensions with Israel, Obama should refute these reports if untrue, and should publicly reprimand those diplomats if true.

After all, when it recently reached Qaddafi’s ears that a Foggy Bottom diplomat ridiculed his U.N. “speech” (if anyone could even call it a “speech”), he was then made to publicly apologize to Qaddafi, and essentially to grovel for his forgiveness.

So, again, with tensions being what it is, and in light of Obama’s recent hostility towards Israel and Netanyahu, something like this needs to be addressed immediately… and it’s not. After all it has been two days since the original WND report broke.

As for trusting unnamed PA officials, no I certainly don’t trust the PA. It wasn’t that long ago that Saeb Erekat was decrying a “massacre” in Jenin. But, the difference here is that in this case this was apparently someone believable enough to be quoted in by reputable news sources.

And, again, the Jenin “massacre” flew in the face of all common sense. This, however, makes plenty of sense as part of continuing hostile escalations by Obama since his inauguration and especially in recent weeks.

Senator Sam Brownback (R-KS), a long-time friend of Israel, introduced a bill along with six other senators (none of them Democrats) that would abolish the “security” waiver that American presidents have used to prevent implementing a 1995 law declaring that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, saying, “it is long overdue for America to recognize the sovereign right of Israel to choose Jerusalem as its capital city.”

I’m not entirely hopeful of this bill ever taking root because, after all, if they couldn’t get anything done during the presidency of Bush, Israel’s greatest friend in a long time, there’s no way in hell they’re going to get anything done with Obama at the helm, Israel’s greatest enemy in a long time.

But, whether it will happen or not, I still have to give the proper recognition to Senator Brownback for his continued support of Israel and for his strong display of moral support in demanding that Jerusalem be treated the way any other country’s capital is.

Arutz Sheva has the details:

The proposed Jerusalem Embassy Relocation Act law, number S. 2737, is “a bill to relocate to Jerusalem the United States Embassy in Israel” and has six co-sponsors–five Republicans, from Kentucky, Texas, Arizona, and Louisiana and Independent Senator Joe Lieberman of Connecticut.

It would remove the current waiver, which gives the president authority to delay recognition of Jerusalem as the capital on the premise that doing so would endanger the security of the United States. Previous presidents, including George W. Bush, vowed during their election campaigns they would recognize Jerusalem as the Jewish State’s capital but they have failed out to carry out their election promise.

The senators introduced the bill following last week’s visit to the United States by Jerusalem Mayor Nir Barkat, who said, “I believe moving the American embassy to Jerusalem will the first step towards other embassies moving to the capital, as in every other country in the world.”

U.S. policy regards eastern Jerusalem, restored to Israel in the Six-Day War in 1967, as “occupied territory” and wants the status of the city to be part of an agreement to establish the Palestinian Authority as a new Arab state on all of the land in eastern Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria and Gaza.

The Democratic party has a majority in the Congress but includes legislators who support Israeli sovereignty over all of the capital. The certain opposition of the Obama administration to Senator Brownback’s bill may prevent its passage, but the proposal will bring the status of the city to center stage.

Bari Weiss wrote a piece in the Wall Street Journal last week decrying the history of Jerusalem being rewritten quite openly by the Palestinians to no one’s apparent concern.

She describes how Palestinian textbooks and guidebooks always acknowledged the importance of Jerusalem to the Jewish nation until recent decades when the Palestinians quite openly (and virtually unchallenged by anyone) decided to remove all such acknowledgments from their media and instead to go so far as to call such claims “lies”.

This is done quite simply “to undermine Israel, which earned statehood in 1948 and captured the Old City of Jerusalem during the Six Day War of 1967. Since then, Palestinian leaders have fought to erase any Jewish connection to sacred places, particularly the Temple Mount.”

In my opinion, the most important paragraph of that piece is toward the beginning, when she states that:

As President Barack Obama and his foreign-policy team gear up to propose yet another plan for Israeli-Arab peace, they would do well to focus less on important but secondary issues like settlement growth, and instead notice that top Palestinian intellectual and political leaders deny basic truths about the region’s most important city.

This should be stated even more forcefully. Yes, she ends the piece with the sentence, “this is no foundation for ‘peace talks‘,” but I feel that this is an issue of huge importance that does not garner nearly enough attention in the global spotlight. Why is it that the Palestinians are permitted to rewrite history like this? Why does no one care that an entire generation of Palestinians are growing up learning that the Jewish link to Jerusalem is a “lie”?

At least some attention (of course, not nearly enough) is given to their Holocaust revisionism, but why does this related brand of revisionism go virtually unnoticed?

If Obama—or anyone, for that matter—is serious about peace, this is one major topic that needs to be addressed and, even more so, should be at the forefront of the agenda. After all, how long will peace really last with the Palestinians when their entire next generation is indoctrinated to see the Jews as supposed chronic liars?

I know this is an old video clip and has been around, but it’s so great and I refer it to so many people that my blog just wouldn’t be complete without it.

This is a clip of Dr. Mordechai Kedar, an Israeli scholar of Arabic literature and a lecturer at Bar-Ilan University, debating an anchorman on al Jazeera on Jerusalem and Islam, and  is truly one of the most entertaining and memorable debates I’ve ever seen.

Score one for Netanyahu.

Haaretz is reporting that the United States has dropped demands for freezing any construction in Jerusalem, indicating that Netanyahu’s firm stance and consistent message of Jerusalem being off the table is paying off.

Just as laudable, though, were the other stipulations that Netanyahu insisted be part of this new “gesture” toward the Palestinians of a nine-month temporary settlement freeze:

• This freeze will exclude some 2,500 housing units on which construction has already started.
• Some natural growth will be exempt, e.g., kindergartens and schools and other special cases where construction is necessary to maintain a “normal life”.
• This freeze must have a clear “exit plan”, i.e., it is a confidence-building measure that must be matched by reciprocal steps from the PA and Arab states. If these fail to materialize, Israel wants an American guarantee that it will not oppose renewed building.

So, although there is some sort of settlement freeze in the works now, it is not at all what Obama had been pushing and its details seem to be almost entirely controlled by Netanyahu.

If you were to look at the U.S. Consulate web site for Jerusalem, you might be forgiven for thinking that Jerusalem is the capital of a Palestinian state, rather than the capital of Israel. After all, the page is virtually entirely about Palestinians, Islam, and nothing to do with Israel. You won’t see mention of Israel, of any Israeli officials, of anything having to do with Israel.

Instead, you see a picture with the words “al-Quds” in the background, information about U.S. support for the Palestinian Authority, about a new library in Bet Jala, about a Tawjihi ceremony, about an-Najah University, about the skills of Palestinian teachers… you’ll see a message wishing everyone a “Ramadan Kareem”

Perhaps most telling, you’ll see that the site is available in English and Arabic… not Hebrew… and that the consulate is listed as “Gaza E-Consulate”.

Atlas Shrugs blog wrote about this a month ago and one of its readers sent in the following response from Gil Elan, the Executive Director of the Southwest Jewish Congress:

Dear Gail,

Actually…since 1967 the US Consulate in Jerusalem has been, with full agreement between the Israeli and US governments, the de-facto “embassy” to the Palestinians in the West bank and Gaza. As far as I know the Consul General in Jerusalem and his staff have no direct connection to the US embassy in Tel-Aviv, are not subordinate to the US ambassador to Israel and report directly to Washington. In fact – there are frequent stories of opposing reports or analysis coming to DC from Jerusalem and Tel-Aviv. Israelis do not normally (except in emergencies) receive services at the consulate in Jerusalem. There is a separate consulate office in Tel-Aviv. American citizens can get service in either.

So for all intents and purposes, the US Consulate General in West Jerusalem is officially a separate State Dept delegation representing US interests in another Arab entity (though I think that the Marines who guard both buildings rotate between them). And no – as far as I know there is no other place in the world were this kind of “arrangement” exists.

Logical…no. But this is the Middle East – don’t look for logic!

In my opinion your question, Gail, should not be about the Consulate General, but about why the US has not yet moved its embassy from Tel-Aviv to the Capital of Israel – Jerusalem…despite Congress’s overwhelming and ongoing support for it.

Thanks,
Gil

Gil Elan
Executive Director
Southwest Jewish Congress

Regardless of the logic or lack of logic, the fact that Israel would debase itself by agreeing to such an arrangement is reprehensible and perhaps it’s time for Netanyahu to start reassessing such a foolish position. Allowing something like this would be like allowing a deranged kidnapper to indefinitely believe that the kid is really his; it’s the kind of concession or accommodation that just doesn’t do any good for anyone. And, especially when coupled with the refusal of the U.S. and other countries to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel by moving their embassies there, this is even more of an outrage.

Until something is done, this is the kind of crap we’ll have to look at on the site of the U.S. Consulate in Jerusalem:

In some unbelievably outrageous news, Arutz 7 is reporting that Britain is funding organizations that buy up land in Jerusalem for Arabs, so as to stem the Jewish population tide, or as admitted by a British diplomat, to “halt Israeli expansion”:

Israel is awaiting clarifications from Britain regarding a British diplomat’s remarks that his country was funding Arab neighborhoods in eastern Jerusalem to “halt Israeli expansion,” Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon said Friday.

Speaking in an interview for Regional Radio, Ayalon said that the Foreign Ministry still does not know how accurate the British diplomat’s statement was, and that “the British Ambassador to Israel was summoned to the Foreign Ministry for clarifications on the matter, including sending messages to London, that we will not accept these things, of course – not the funding of various organizations or things that have to do with internal politics and Israel’s internal affairs.”

Meddling in Israel’s internal matters is unacceptable, Ayalon said. “I am sure the British would not want us to interfere in their [internal affairs],” he added. “Israel sees this with great gravity and I assume that it will cease soon.”

The inflammatory statements were made on July 22 by the diplomat Martin Day, who is based in Abu Dhabi, to Al-Arabiyatelevision. According to a transcript of the interview, Day told the station, in Arabic, that the British government was “taking practical steps towards freezing settlement activities.”

“For instance,” Day said, “we finance projects aimed at halting settlement activities. One of these projects seeks to build new Palestinian neighborhoods in east Jerusalem and save Palestinian houses from demolition.” In addition, Day said, “we also finance organizations that monitor settlement activities.”

He added that “products from the settlements do not enjoy preferential custom duties that we offer to products coming from Israel. In light of this, we can say that we are taking effective and practical steps against settlement activities.”

This bizarre and outrage display of one country meddling into the affairs of another and attempting to disrupt or influence Israeli politics is absolutely inexcusable. Imagine if, back in the day, Israel were funding Irish terrorists? Could you imagine the global outcry at such interference? Where’s the outcry here?

This story has been the subject of two posts, here and here.

Quick recap: a years-long property dispute in Jerusalem (having nothing to do with settlements) resulted in the eviction of some Arab families and multiple court cases all the way up to the Supreme Court, which ultimately ruled in favor of the Jewish owners since they documented ownership going back to the Ottoman Empire, long before any Palestinian or Jordanian tenantship. The international media picked up on this and misleadingly ran with it as a “settlement” story to go with all the rest of the latest settlement-building hype in the news.

Rafael Broch published an article in the Guardian essentially yelling “stop the madness” and trying to call attention to the actual facts in this apartment dispute case, none of which even remotely resemble the story hyped up in the media. He writes:

Things are not always what they seem and the eviction of the Hanoun and Ghawi families are an apt example of how an appetite for a certain type of story can create that story regardless of the facts. As an organisation that follows media coverage of the Middle East closely, we gathered from Sunday and Monday’s reporting, such as on the BBC, inthe Guardian and in the Times that the two Palestinian families were evicted because Israeli courts had found that the land belonged to Jews, not to the Palestinians living there. Cut to religiously clad Jews busting in to the newly vacated houses and the whole thing is just obvious: Israel mercilessly turfs Arabs on to the street to plant more settlers in east Jerusalem.

Things are not always what they seem and the eviction of the Hanoun and Ghawi families are an apt example of how an appetite for a certain type of story can create that story regardless of the facts.

It turns out that this is simply not the case. In fact, there is nothing simple about this case at all. There is a long legal history pertaining to the dispute between 28 Arab families and Jewish organisations over the ownership of the land in question. However, one crucial point was omitted from all reporting from the British sources named above (bar a small amendment to the BBC article made yesterday following a communication from us): the two Arab families evicted on Sunday were evicted for failing to pay rent in violation of the terms of their tenancy agreements. The Arab families who have kept to the terms of their tenancy agreement have not been evicted.

It is true that the non-payment of rent is tied up with the dispute over who owns the land, but it is still intensely relevant to the story. It’s all very well for the Guardian’s Middle East editor, Ian Black, to describe the evictions as “the ugly face of ethnic cleansing” or for Cif contributor Matt Kennard to claim that they represent “a process of racial purification“. But without informing readers that the only people being evicted are the ones who refused to pay rent to the landlords they recognised decades ago, they paint a distorted picture.

As a story that has been widely reported and stirs deep emotions, it is vital that crucial facts are not erased from the narrative. There can be no doubt that there are clearly issues of inequality in Jerusalem which need to be addressed but that is no excuse for British journalists and commentators to misrepresent this particular story. Liberal Israeli daily Ha’aretz saw fit to mention the non-payment of rent element in its reporting, as did the Jerusalem Post.

This information was public. Furthermore, Ir Amim, the Israeli organisation supporting the position of the evicted families, is straight about the fact that the families are being evicted for not paying rent; a representative stated: “The legal issues surrounding the Sheikh Jarrah evictions are quite complex. In short, the Israeli courts have accepted the settlers’ claim of ownership over the property, but recognised the Palestinian residents to be protected tenants. Some of the 28 families continued to pay the rent, but some did not accept the court’s ruling and therefore did not pay the rent. Against those, the court issued eviction orders.”

So why the collective exclusion of this key fact from British reporting?

A couple of days ago, I blogged about America’s ridiculous condemnation of Israel regarding a legal title dispute over property in Jerusalem. It looks like that situation seems to be escalating now, as Arutz 7 is reporting that the U.S. has summoned Israel Ambassador Michael Oren for a dress-down.

Arutz 7 indicates that this is in fact an attempt to “lower” the heat in this dispute, as it was Assistant Secretary of State Jeffery Feltman, instead of Secretary Hillary Clinton, who summoned Oren. But, if you ask me, anything short of just dropping it (issuing an apology to Israel is expecting way too much) is an escalation regardless, as it continues to get news play and ridiculous statements continue to be made, such as this one:

Secretary Clinton earlier this week charged that the evictions of Arabs are “deeply regrettable” and violate Israeli obligations of the American Roadmap plan, although she did not cite any specific reference in the Roadmap to removing illegal residents.

Further adding to the stupidity of the U.S. position is the fact that they are making accusations without addressing the actual facts of the case. And when Israel responds with a direct challenge on the merits of the facts, the U.S. ignores it and keeps on spouting nonsense:

The State Department did not reply to Oren’s statement that the homes where Arabs were evicted are owned by Jews, who bought them during the British Mandate before the War for Independence in 1948. Arabs claim they bought the properties in 1958 during the Jordanian occupation.

Michael Oren had a great response to this:

Oren recently pointed out that even if Israel were to agree to the American demand to freeze construction for Jews, he is not sure that the Arab world would reach out for talks with Jerusalem.

“So Israel can freeze settlements tomorrow — we plucked up 21 settlements out of Gaza two years ago, and you know I was there, it was the most traumatic event of my military career, pulling Jews out of their houses — we did that, and we turned around and got 7,200 rockets fired at us,” Oren told the Atlantic magazine last week.

In what seems to be the solidifying policy of Obama’s administration, the United States has struck yet another blow against its supposed “friend”, Israel. The State Department lashed out against Israel for evicting a couple of Palestinian families who were squatting on Jerusalem land that clearly belonged to others (unfortunately the “others” in this case happened to be Jews).

It made no difference that this was a decision confirmed by several courts all the way up to Israel’s Supreme Court (often no real friend to its own country) and that this was a legal dispute not having to do with the issue of settlements, but rather actual legal title.

So, ignoring all that and making every effort to support Obama’s recent hostility to Israel at all opportunities, the State Department said that Israel had acted in violation of the Roadmap plan, and that “unilateral actions taken by either party cannot prejudge the outcome of negotiations and will not be recognized by the international community.”

Funny, because you didn’t hear anyone here complaining when Israel unilaterally pulled out of Gaza.

And, of course, senior Palestinian Authority negotiator Saeb Erakat got into the mix, spewing his usual foaming-at-the mouth nonsense, “Israel is once again showing its utter failure to respect international law” and that the homes are “Palestinian houses,” and that now “19 newly homeless children will have nowhere to sleep.”

Funny, because you didn’t hear him complaining when Israel threw thousands of children out of their Gaza homes, leaving them with nowhere to sleep.

Jeff Jacoby of the Jewish World Review points out the incredible irony of Obama’s policy on Jerusalem and the construction within, in that we have a black president who, having finally broken through the glass ceiling of the until-now white presidency, is now calling for apartheid and segregation in Jerusalem!

Furthermore, the restrictions that Obama wants to impose would affect only the Jews and not Arabs, meaning that Arabs can buy, own, and build anywhere they like free of scrutiny (legally or illegally, as I pointed out previously), while Jews would be restricted to only certain areas. Arabs can live in the Jewish areas, but Jews cannot live in Obama’s judenrein Arab areas. Jacoby shrewdly sums it up as follows:

The great obstacle to Middle East peace is not that Jews insist on living among Arabs. It is that Arabs insist that Jews not live among them. If Obama doesn’t yet grasp that, he has a lot to learn.

Not surprisingly, this is yet another in a long list of campaign promises that Obama has broken (government transparency, post-partisanship, reversing Bush’s policies, etc.). As Jacoby recounts:

To a 2008 candidate questionnaire that asked about “the likely final status Jerusalem,” Obama replied: “The United States cannot dictate the terms of a final status agreement… . Jerusalem will remain Israel’s capital, and no one should want or expect it to be re-divided.” In a speech to the American Israel Public Affairs Council, he repeated the point: “Let me be clear … Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided.”

The Washington Times published a great editorial spotlighting the State Department’s continued attack on Israel for their legal construction in Jerusalem (east Jerusalem was annexed and is part of Israel proper), while ignoring the far greater illegal construction by the Palestinians (among many other global events relegated to the back burner while the State Department takes on Israel).

The State Department’s fit over these 20 new [residential units on the site of the Shepherd Hotel, which stands on the edge of an Arab neighborhood in East Jerusalem] contrasts with the official silence of the United States on the vast number of Palestinian dwellings being constructed illegally in Jerusalem. According to the 2003 book, “Illegal Construction in Jerusalem” by Justus Reid Weiner, a senior Palestinian official boasted that they built 6,000 homes without permits in four years. Some of these homes have been funded by some foreign sources with little interest in promoting peace.

On Sunday, Shin Bet chief Yuval Diskin revealed that Qatar-based Sheikh Yousuf Qaradawi gave $21 million to a charity funded by Hamas to buy land and build houses in Jerusalem. Mr. Qaradawi is an Egyptian and longtime Hamas supporter who believes that suicide terror attacks are “evidence of God’s justice.” In a Jan. 9, 2009, sermon that aired on al Jazeera, he said, “Oh Allah, take this oppressive, Jewish, Zionist band of people. Oh Allah, do not spare a single one of them. Oh Allah, count their numbers, and kill them, down to the very last one.”

This crusade by the State Department is merely an extension of Obama’s verbal assault on Israel that he had brewing for a long time and which was finally bared in full during his speech in Cairo. All those people who bought into his “Israel is my friend” blather can now finally see Obama and his adminitration for what they really are, as they hold up Israel and some houses that the Israelis are building as the scapegoats for all the turmoil in the Middle East.

As journalist and blogger Burt Prelutsky puts it:

I sincerely hope that when the president goes in for his annual check-up, the doctors at Bethesda will do a brain scan. Surely something must be terribly wrong with a man who seems to be far more concerned with a Jew building a house in Israel than with Muslims building a nuclear bomb in Iran.