No room at the inn

Two thousand year's ago there was "no room at the inn" for a Jewish family and their newborn child. If Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas has his way, that will remain true in the future.

Today Abbas declared, "We have frankly said, and always will say, if there is an independent Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital, we won’t agree to the presence of one Israeli in it." So Abbas is saying that not a single Jew would be allowed to live in any future Palestinian state. But at the same time he is also demanding the "right of return" for all Palestinians to return to the state of Israel. So Israel must allow all Palestinians to return, but the Palestinians will not allow any Jews in their country--not those living there now nor the thousands who were also dispossessed from their homes in the past.

When the UN partitioned Palestine in 1947, they voted to create two states--Israel and Palestine. They also said that Arabs and Jews who chose to live in the other state would have full rights as citizens. Israel agreed to the partition and ultimately gave citizenship to those Arabs living in towns like Nazareth, which was within the boundaries of the new state. The Palestinians refused to accept the existence of a Jewish state and went to war to oppose it...which is why a state of Palestine never came into existence. Now Abbas is saying he is willing to accept a state of Israel...as long as all Arabs who want to live there can. But he adamantly refuses to allow any Jews to live in a future Palestinian state.

And it's Abbas who wants the world to condemn Israel as the racist state!

Just to be clear...

At a rally celebrating the 23rd anniversary of the founding of Hamas, Gaza Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh made the following statement. "We will never recognize Israel."

Some will likely view this as hyperbole, reflecting the frustration of the Palestinians in Gaza and their "aspirations" for a Palestinian homeland. I suspect many in the media will focus instead on Haniyeh's desire to end Israeli "occupation" of the Palestinian homeland. "We say today that there will be no occupation of the land of Palestine and then we can say there is no future for the occupation on our land."

But most will miss the exact nature of the "homeland" envisioned by Haniyeh. Exactly which part of "Palestine" does he believe Israel is occupying? Sadly, he's not referring to the West Bank or other Palestinian areas currently under dispute. Instead, he is referring to the entire country of Israel itself!

Most in the West don't understand that Haniyeh and Hamas are absolutely serious when they demand the elimination of the entire state of Israel. In part, this is because the secular West doesn't understand the deeply-held religious principles guiding Hamas. And in part it's because those in the West don't know geography. In his speech Haniyeh stated very clearly the extent of the land he considers occupied...and that needs to be part of the future Palestinian state. "I mean from the sea to the river and from Rafah up to Naqoora."

I've included a map to help the geographically impaired understand his statement. The "sea" is the Mediterranean, and the "river" is the Jordan. "Rafah" is on the southern border between Gaza and Egypt, and Naqoora (or Naqoura) is in Lebanon, just across the northern border of Israel. The Palestinian State he envisions would replace the state of Israel. From west to east, and south to north, Haniyeh is demanding all for the Palestinians...and leaving nothing for the Israelis.

There is no room for compromise in that position!

Did the U.N. Create the State of Israel?

Jeremy Hammond, founder of the Foreign Policy Journal, wrote an article in his journal titled, "The Myth of the U.N. Creation of Israel." In the article he tries to show that the U.N. decision to partition Palestine into two countries--one Jewish and one Arab--was an illegal decision that deprived the Arab majority of Palestine their right to self-determination. Thus, he argues, Israel cannot claim legal standing as a nation based on the U.N. vote to establish a Jewish state.

I have several problems with the article, including his misleading use of statistical data. For example, he sees huge inequity in the fact that "Jews owned less than 7 percent" of the land prior to partition but were "awarded 55.5 percent of the total area for their state." He fails to note, however, that an extremely large percentage of the land partitioned to Israel was in the modern Negev. This land was desert, almost completely devoid of any inhabitants.

But before I could write a response I came across another article that provides a strong rebuttal to Hammond. It was written by Dr. Mordechai Nisan, a lecturer in Middle East Studies at Hebrew University, and is titled "Is UN Creation of Israel a Myth? Ask Foreign Policy Journal." Dr. Nisan does a masterful job answering the arguments of Jeremy Hammond. One key point in the article is the truth that, ultimately, the U.N. didn't create Israel. The state was created because the Jewish population fought for their right of self-determination against an Arab population unwilling to accept a Jewish state in their midst.

I strongly encourage you to read both articles. Anyone interested in the Middle East needs to understand the historical issues surrounding the establishment of Israel. I believe Hammond's article illustrates a growing attempt on the part of some to delegitimize Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state. Those who believe God's land promises to Israel are still valid also need to know other ways to answer critics who won't accept the message of the Bible. And Dr. Nisan helps provide those answers!