Obama’s Rejection of Jewish Sovereignty

By Matthew M. Hausman

Israeli construction in Jerusalem has become a flashpoint in the Arab-Israeli conflict, but not for the reasons advanced by the Obama Administration. Despite the hysterical claims of international critics, such construction does not encroach on traditional Arab lands.

Jerusalem never had an Arab or Muslim majority, was never the capital of the mythical country of “Palestine” or lawfully part of any Arab nation, and was never without an indigenous Jewish population. In no way can Jerusalem neighborhoods be considered “settlements.” No – Jewish construction in Jerusalem is problematic precisely because it represents the lawful expression of Israeli sovereignty in the ancient Jewish homeland. The controversy is fueled not by honest disputes over contested real estate, but by the doctrinal repudiation of Jewish sovereignty – whether asserted in Jerusalem, Tel Aviv, or anywhere in the Mideast. No amount of U.S. pressure on Israel regarding a Jerusalem building freeze will change this fact, but will instead embolden Arab rejectionism.

The Obama Administration has attempted to erode American support for Israel by embracing the revisionist narrative in which Israel was created as a guilt response to the Holocaust. This view ignores the Jews’ unbroken, historical connection to their homeland and, consequently, belittles Israel’s legitimacy in the Mideast. Ironically, the administration’s biased perspective is reinforced by the mindless support of many Jewish Democrats, who advocate a political agenda in which the two-state paradigm is revered as a sacred cow despite its lack of historical precedent. Among other things, the two-state vision is premised on historical revisionism, moral relativism, and a general disdain for Israel’s Jewish character. The paradigm also ignores the role of Islamist totalitarianism, which rejects the concept of bilateral peace with a people it deems to be subjugated (dhimmis) and which considers any expression of Jewish sovereignty to be an affront to Islam.

This dogmatic repudiation of Jewish sovereignty has dictated relations with Jews since the rise of Islam – and with Israel since the reestablishment of the Jewish nation. Thus, any plan contemplating “two states for two peoples” is fatally flawed because it fails to take into account the existence of an article of faith that prohibits or discourages permanent peace with a dhimmi state. Consequently, those who advocate the two-state solution either are ignorant of the doctrinal impediment or are themselves committed to the phased destruction of Israel.

One need only consider the hostility against the Jewish population of the old Yishuv in the decades preceding Israeli independence to see how Jewish dhimmis were treated when they dared to assert their autonomy in a homeland that was deemed to have been incorporated into “dar al-Islam” through belligerent conquest and religious colonialism. This hostility did not arise out of the competing claims of an indigenous Arab people whose history was organically connected to the land for thousands of years. It was instead the natural expression of generations of canonical hatred and cultural supremacism that transcended the borders of the Jewish State.

The most significant expression of jihadist chauvinism was the usurpation of Jerusalem and the Temple Mount, which although not mentioned at all in the Quran are now claimed to constitute the “third holiest site” in Islam. While there is absolutely no historical or scriptural support for such claims to the ancient Jewish capital, the co-option of Jerusalem and the ruins of the Temple was typical of the tradition of mosque building over the holy sites of subjugated peoples. So are the pernicious attempts to deny that the Temple ever stood in Jerusalem, and to destroy or vandalize archeological evidence of a continuous Jewish presence that dates from antiquity.
The impulse to appropriate Jewish holy sites played out wherever jihadist conquerors came upon them. Thus, Rachel’s Tomb and the Cave of the Patriarchs at Machpelah were claimed as Islamic sites – in spite of their traditional Jewish origins and stewardship, and regardless of the paucity of Muslim scriptural authority for such pretense. Likewise, all of Hevron is now claimed as “Palestinian” land, although it was in fact a Jewish city until the Arab pogrom of 1929, when the Mufti incited Arab-Muslim gangs to murder the Jews who lived there and drive out their survivors.

The United Nations became complicit in the arrogation of Jewish sacred places by declaring such landmarks to be Islamic shrines entitled to international recognition, without any mention of their Jewish provenance. Not coincidentally, the U.N. has a long history of failing to protect Jewish sacred places, as when it failed to demand meaningful recognition and protection of the synagogues and cemeteries destroyed during Jordan’s illegal occupation of Judea, Samaria and East Jerusalem. The international community’s bias against Israel is evidenced by its facile acceptance of the Dome of the Rock built over the Temple Mount as the third holiest site in Islam. This stands in stark contrast to the international refusal to recognize the remains of the Temple as the single most sacred site in Judaism, or Jerusalem as the historical capital of ancient Israel.

The religious imperative to deny Jewish history, and by extension Israeli sovereignty and legitimacy, is not limited to “extremist” organizations such as Hamas, al-Qaeda or Hezbollah. On the contrary, it is the view of the supposedly moderate camp anointed by the United States and European Union as Israel’s negotiating partner. This was amply demonstrated by the Palestinian Authority’s Chairman, Mahmoud Abbas, when he officially announced that the PA will never recognize Israel as a Jewish State. This declaration of no recognition was voted on at the fifth convention of Fatah’s Revolutionary Council, where it “affirm[ed] its rejection of the so-called Jewish state, or any other formula that could achieve this goal.”

Clearly, a truly moderate entity committed to resolving the Arab-Israeli conflict would not adopt a position “rejecting any … formula” for achieving peace with its putative negotiating partner. Nevertheless, with a wink and nod from the international community, the supposedly moderate PA reaffirmed its refusal to recognize Israel even as it honored Amin al-Hindi, one of the masterminds behind the 1972 Munich Massacre. Not so ironically, Mahmoud Abbas – then known as Abu Mazen – was a PLO operative who had helped secure funding for the terrorist attack at the Olympic Village in which 11 Israeli athletes were murdered. Despite such clear and provocative antisemitic displays, President Obama continues to perpetuate the farce that Abbas and the PA are moderates, and that Israeli “settlements” are the stumbling blocks to a peace agreement.

Although the PA does not posture itself as an Islamist organization, the net result of its intractable rejectionism is the same as that of Hamas, Hezbollah, or any other extremist religious group. In considering the PA’s commitment to “no recognition, no negotiations and no peace,” the influence of generations of religiously-mandated hatred cannot be ignored. Whether expressed by the nominally secular PA or the religiously orthodox Hamas, the rejection of Jewish history and sovereignty comes from the same doctrinal foundation. That is, because the Jews were subjugated and relegated to dhimmi status in their own homeland, Islamist ideology precludes any recognition of their right to national regeneration or sovereignty.

The PA’s provocative conduct shows that it has no desire for peace, but rather remains committed to its charter calling for the annihilation of the Jewish State. Thus, if Obama were truly acting as an honest broker for peace, his pressure on Israel to accept a building freeze as a precondition to negotiations – in effect conceding territory and predetermining the outcome before substantive talks even begin – would be incongruous. An impartial broker would not threaten, as Obama did, to support a unilateral declaration of Palestinian statehood in the absence of Israeli acquiescence to a freeze. Rather, an honest broker would address the ongoing illegal Arab construction in Jerusalem and elsewhere, and would also condemn the PA’s continuing incitement as reflected by its public honoring of the terrorists who perpetrated the Munich Massacre. Mr. Obama has done none of these things, but instead has engaged in a course of conduct that indicates he is a partisan advocate for the Palestinian cause.

By demanding a construction freeze and threatening Israel, Mr. Obama has shown little respect for America’s only reliable ally in the Mideast. Moreover, by failing to chastise the PA for honoring terrorists who murder Israeli civilians, or to condemn its rejectionist statements, he has demonstrated an abject disregard for Israeli sovereignty. The PA’s escalating antisemitic incitement – and its stated refusal to recognize the legitimacy of a Jewish State – make painfully obvious that Israel has no real negotiating partner. Thus, it seems clear that any discussion of a two-state solution by the PA is merely subterfuge for its commitment to the phased destruction of the Jewish State.
If Mr. Obama were truly concerned with facilitating peace, he would recognize that the doctrinal repudiation of Jewish sovereignty bars any resolution short of dismantling the Jewish State. But his bullying of Israel and refusal to condemn Palestinian incitement suggest instead that he is more concerned with cementing an alliance with the Arab-Muslim world at Israel’s expense.

Accordingly, Israel should send the President a clear message by rejecting his presumptuous demands for any construction freeze. In addition, she should declare that all Jewish territories and holy sites disingenuously claimed to be Arab or Muslim by tradition in fact belong to Israel and the Jewish People by law and history. Only by such assertiveness can Israel defend against the attacks on her sovereignty and proclaim categorically that she will not be bullied into national suicide. # # #