articles

May 31, 2017 | Current Events, Jerusalem Notebook, Muslims and Muslim Majority States

The following column first appeared in Fox News Opinion on FoxNews.com, the website of the Fox News Channel. Used with permission.

The first thing I read on Friday morning was that 28 Egyptians in the Sinai had been murdered by terrorists, with more than 20 others wounded. And my first thought was clear and to the point:

Maybe this will finally wake up the Egyptian authorities.

The grisly attack, carried out with firearms, took place on an isolated road in the Sinai desert – a sparsely populated region of Egypt where some believe the Islamic State is setting up a new base of operations in the wake of their losses in Iraq and Egypt.

The victims belonged to a church group of Coptic Christians and many of them were children. They were on their way to pray at the Monastery of St. Samuel the Confessor.

The victims belonged to a church group of Coptic Christians and many of them were children. They were on their way to pray at the Monastery of St. Samuel the Confessor.

Coptic scholar Samuel Tadros described the scene in The New York Times: “The terrorists waited on the road like game hunters. Coming their way were three buses, one with Sunday school children. Only three of them survived. Their victims were asked to recite the Islamic declaration of faith before being shot.”

Of course it wasn’t the first attack on Egypt’s Christians this year. It seems like just yesterday when, on Palm Sunday, two Cairo churches were bombed, and during those twin assaults a total of 45 people were killed and 126 injured.

“Maybe this will finally wake up the Egyptian authorities,” I remember thinking at the time.

In March, just weeks before, and again in Sinai, hundreds of Christian families fled their homes after ISIS threatened to slaughter them. And it wasn’t an idle threat – seven Christian men were found dead, their bodies discarded along roadways like so much trash.

Last year was no better. In May 2016, I wrote, “A riot – based on a salacious rumor – led to ferocious violence against a Coptic family in El-Karm, located in Egypt’s southern province of Minya. Some 300 raging Islamists stripped a 70-year-old mother naked and paraded her, shamed and weeping, through the streets of her hometown, while torching seven Christian houses.

“Then, on December 11, a suicide bomber attacked St. Peter and St. Paul Coptic Orthodox Church in Cairo, killing 29 and injured dozens.”

At the time, MEMRI reported, “Jihadis took to social media to express their satisfaction, even before any organization claimed responsibility. Many ISIS supporters shared posts on social media … explaining why Egypt’s Coptic Christians deserve punishment, while others vowed that Egyptian Christians will either be expelled or slaughtered.”

ISIS militants have since identified Christians as their “favorite prey.”

After the murder of Sinai’s Christian children on Friday morning, and perhaps due to President Donald Trump’s recent demands that Arab countries aggressively rein in their terrorists, Fox News reported:

Egypt’s military fought back against the attackers who stormed a bus full of Coptic Christians and killed 28 people on their way to a monastery to pray, President Abdel-Fattah el-Sisi said Friday.

The Egyptian military struck bases where the attackers had trained, the president said without elaborating. No group immediately claimed responsibility for the attack, but Egypt’s Coptic Christians have become the preferred target of the Islamic State in the region.

Is it too much to believe that this most recent bloodshed, particularly targeting children, has finally awakened the Egyptian authorities?

We can hope. And we can certainly pray. But only time will tell.

Jun 5, 2017 | Jerusalem Notebook, Jews and the Jewish State

Every year in Jerusalem, when early June arrives, poignant recollections of the Six-Day War come to mind. We remember the life-and-death battle that Israel fought in 1967 against an array of Arab nations.

And this year – June 2017 – marks that war’s 50th anniversary.

Even before Israel declared statehood in 1948, warlike Arab nations threatened the survival of its Jewish population. And after statehood, more than ever, they called for the fledgling nation to be “wiped off the map.”

A trio of enemies – Egypt, Syria and Jordan – had diligently prepared themselves for an inevitable confrontation. To make matters worse, they enjoyed financial, diplomatic and – briefly at times – military support from 10 other equally hostile Arab nations.

In 1965, Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser declared, “We shall not enter Palestine with its soil covered in sand; we shall enter it with its soil covered in blood.”

After the 1967 War was said and done, the Arabs called it an-Naksah – “The Setback.”

Israelis and their friends simply called it a miracle.

The miraculous happened, at least in part, thanks to the remarkable prowess of the Israel Defense Forces and the tireless planning, courage and brilliance of its commanders. Still, Israel’s brave soldiers had to fight their hearts out, against all odds.

In 1967, the State of Israel was only 19 years old. And despite its successes during the 1948 War of Independence, East Jerusalem – including the historic Jewish Quarter – had been lost.

Meanwhile, by 1967, Soviet-backed Arab states – motivated both by nationalistic and religious dogmas – felt justified in preparing for Israel’s destruction.

To make matters worse, though war was threatened, Israel had no real allies. France had turned a cold shoulder; Britain was politely ambiguous, and although the United States claimed to be interested in Israel’s wellbeing, it was unwilling to make a concrete commitment to her support.

In short, the Jewish State was on her own.

Certainly, the last thing Israel wanted was a war. But by spring 1967, it was clear that sooner rather than later, the first shot would surely be fired.

Israeli Prime Minister Levi Eshkol warned on May 11,

In view of the 14 incidents of sabotage and infiltration perpetrated in the past month alone, Israel may have no other choice but to adopt suitable countermeasures against the focal points of sabotage. Israel will continue to take action to prevent any and all attempts to perpetrate sabotage within her territory. There will be no immunity for any state which aids or abets such acts.

Then came a particularly menacing incident: Nasser demanded that the United Nations Emergency Force, which was serving as a buffer between Israel and Egypt, be removed from the Sinai Peninsula.

UNEF obediently withdrew.

At the same time, Egypt was massing tens of thousands of troops and nearly 1,000 tanks, all facing Israel. Today, war historians say that some half a million Arab troops – Egyptian, Syrian and Jordanian – were prepared to attack Israel. Around 250,000 were initially deployed.

Meanwhile, the Russians spread the false rumor that Israel was assembling troops on the Syrian border, about to launch an offensive. In fact, the opposite was true. Syria was actively instigating the impending conflict.

By then, everyone knew that war was in the air. The Israelis were enduring an agonizing and suspenseful build-up to the looming conflict. All reserve soldiers were called into active duty. Young men dug trenches and graves; families obeyed home-front security drills; and everyone tried to ignore the relentless, hateful threats emanating from all sides. Many would recall, years later, that it was one of the most nerve-wracking times of their lives.

Then came Nasser’s decisive and ultimately deadly move. On May 23, he closed the Red Sea shipping lanes – the Straits of Tiran – to all Israel-flagged vessels. American President Lyndon Johnson later remarked,

If a single act of folly was more responsible for this explosion than any other, it was the arbitrary and dangerous announced decision that the Straits of Tiran would be closed. The right of innocent maritime passage must be preserved for all nations.

Even now, 50 years later, the events of those terrible days crescendo like an ominous drumbeat. It gradually deepened, intensified and finally exploded into a deafening, heart-stopping battle.

The Israelis launched a preemptive aerial attack on Egypt on June 5, 1967.

Michael Oren is an acclaimed historian, former Israeli ambassador to the U.S. and author of the meticulously researched book Six Days of War: June 1967 and the Making of the Modern Middle East. He wrote,

It started at 7:10 in the morning of June, 5, 1967, Israel time. By 7:30, close to 200 planes were aloft. With them went the orders, issued that morning, by Air Force Commander Mordechai “Motti” Hod,

“The spirit of Israel’s heroes accompany us to battle. From Joshua ben-Nun, King David, the Maccabees and the fighters of 1948 and 1956, we shall draw the strength and courage to strike the Egyptians who threaten our safety, our independence and our future. Fly, soar at the enemy, destroy him and scatter him throughout the desert so that Israel may live, secure in its land, for generations.”

Israeli planes roared into view while Egypt’s pilots were enjoying their breakfast; only four unarmed Egyptian training flights were in the air. The rest of Egypt’s aircraft were on the ground at several bases.

The Israelis relentlessly bombarded them. They continued to attack for hours, rearming and refueling planes more quickly than anyone imagined possible.

Oren wrote, “In little over half an hour, the Egyptians had lost 204 planes – half of their air force – all but nine of them on the ground.”

A historical report later confirmed that, during the course of the 1967 War, 452 Arab aircraft were destroyed. “The entire Jordanian Air Force, the entire Syrian Air Force and most of the Egyptian Air force was eliminated.”

Along with the aerial attack, Israel’s ground war began on June 5 against Egypt’s burgeoning forces in Sinai.

As for Jordan, Israel had no interest in fighting against her. But although their relations had always been less hostile than with Syria or Egypt, repeated efforts to avoid confrontation failed.

On June 6, after repeated bombardments by the Jordanians, Israel moved troops not only into East Jerusalem but also into historic Judea and Samaria – the West Bank.

The next day, after intense fighting, the IDF consolidated control over all Jordanian-held territories. The subsequent Israeli “occupation” of the West Bank, the legality of which has been debated for half a century, continues to this day.

Jordan suffered one humiliating loss after another.

Since the 1948 War of Independence, Israelis had not been permitted to enter Jerusalem’s Jordan-held Jewish Quarter, or to approach the Western Wall (often called the Wailing Wall), the holiest site of Jewish prayer. In fact, General Motti Gur – commander of the Jerusalem operation – can be heard inquiring on one radio broadcast, “Tell me, where is the Western Wall? How do we get there?”

On June 7, the IDF surged into Jerusalem’s Old City through the Lion’s Gate and advanced rapidly toward the Western Wall and the Temple Mount.

The aftermath of the Jerusalem battle was summed in a simple statement in Hebrew that electrifies Israelis to this day. It couldn’t have been clearer or more to the point: “Har haBayit be Yadenu!”

“The Temple Mount is in our hands!”

Eloquent photographs appeared in newspapers around the world, capturing the awestruck faces of young Israeli soldiers, standing in amazement at the Western Wall. Not long thereafter, Yitzhak Rabin – future prime minister of Israel – stood in the shadow of the Wall and declared,

The sacrifices of our comrades have not been in vain. The countless generations of Jews murdered, martyred and massacred for the sake of Jerusalem say to you, “Comfort ye our people, console the mothers and the fathers, whose sacrifices have brought about redemption.”

It is astonishing, in retrospect, to realize that on the same day Israel took back Jerusalem from the Jordanians, an entirely different IDF operation seized control of Egypt’s Sharm El Sheikh, on the Red Sea shoreline.

And from Sharm, on June 6, the IDF broke the Egyptian naval blockade of the Straits of Tiran which had sparked the war.

In the meantime, despite key Israeli victories that had taken place in Egypt, Sinai, Gaza and the West Bank, the war wasn’t over. In the north, the Syrian Army was persistently shelling Israeli villages – kibbutzim – from vantage points in the Golan Heights and along Israel’s northern borders.

This ignited a ferocious IDF engagement with Syria which involved fiery tank battles and, at times, even hand-to-hand combat.

Finally, on June 10, Syria was also defeated.

A ceasefire between Israel and the surrounding nations soon followed. Newsday summed up the results.

After just six days of fighting, Israel controlled the Sinai Peninsula and the Gaza strip, the Golan Heights, the West Bank, and all of Jerusalem. The new Israel was more than three times larger than the old one. It was oddly reminiscent of Genesis: six days of intense effort followed by a day of rest, in this case the signing of a ceasefire.

The 1967 War ended with such a dramatic conclusion that the facts are still, to this day, hard to fathom. Analysts cite it as one of the greatest military victories in modern times. Many of us still shake our heads in wonder.

Oren has described the war’s impact on his family:

I will never forget my father rushing to the breakfast table, waving a copy of Life. On the cover was a photo of an Israeli soldier chest-deep in the Suez Canal, a captured Kalashnikov brandished over his head. “You see that?” he shouted. “That is what we can do!” And then he kissed the picture.

Far away in California, young as I was, I still recall listening to a radio broadcast at the war’s conclusion with a secular Jewish man named David Rabinowitz. He shook his head in disbelief as he heard the news.

“There’s only one explanation,” he told me, and he all but shouted the ancient words: “Ten thousand will fall at the hand of one Jew!” His face was flushed with joy.

Later, when I talked to my father about the Israeli triumph, his eyes flooded with tears.

“I’ve seen the Bible come alive in my lifetime,” he told me, his voice breaking. “First the Jews were re-gathered in their homeland. And now this?

“It really is a miracle.”

Jun 13, 2017 | American Foreign Policy, Current Events, Jerusalem Notebook, Jews and the Jewish State

The United States Embassy to Israel has been located in Tel Aviv since the 1940s. But now, in 2017, the address of the embassy has become the center of a contentious political discussion, both in and around Israel.

Why? Well, as the saying goes, it’s complicated. But the shortest possible version of the ongoing debate goes like this:

As a presidential candidate, Donald Trump promised to move the U.S. Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. As president, he has decided to at least delay the move, and has signed a waiver stating that the embassy will not be moved from Tel Aviv for six months.

The White House statement reads,

While President Donald J. Trump signed the waiver under the Jerusalem Embassy Act and delayed moving the U.S. Embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, no one should consider this step to be in any way a retreat from the president’s strong support for Israel and for the United States-Israel alliance. President Trump made this decision to maximize the chances of successfully negotiating a deal between Israel and the Palestinians, fulfilling his solemn obligation to defend America’s national security interests. But, as he has repeatedly stated his intention to move the embassy, the question is not if that move happens, but only when.

It may yet happen, but nothing is certain.

But since there’s time to spare, perhaps Trump, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and Ambassador David Friedman should take a long, hard look at some of the present U.S. government employees, both at the U.S. Embassy in Tel Aviv and the American Consulate in Jerusalem.

Although Israel regards Jerusalem as its capital, the United States doesn’t agree – at least not officially. Neither do any of the other 85 countries with embassies in Israel, all of which are located in Tel Aviv. Nine countries have consulates in Jerusalem, and these primarily serve the West Bank (Judea and Samaria).

Of course, moving the U.S. Embassy is not a real estate deal, nor would it be simply a matter of transporting furniture and file cabinets a few miles up the road. It will be – if and when it happens – a statement that America recognizes Jerusalem as the capital of the Jewish State.

And that is a very hotly disputed issue.

Since many countries do not officially recognize Jerusalem as an Israeli city at all – refusing even to print the words “Jerusalem, Israel” on official documents – moving the U.S. Embassy is, to say the least, controversial.

This isn’t altogether surprising, especially in light of a UNESCO pronouncement made last fall. The United Nations’ notorious declaration – which was initially submitted by Algeria, Egypt, Lebanon, Morocco, Oman, Qatar and Sudan – officially claimed that the Temple Mount, the Western Wall and the Old City of Jerusalem are the “Cultural Heritage of Palestine.”

This disavows Jerusalem’s historical and religious connection with both Judaism and Christianity.

As I wrote for Fox News at the time,

Attempts to de-Judaize – and thus de-Christianize – Jerusalem and the rest of Israel seem to have begun in earnest in 2000 at Camp David, when Yasser Arafat famously informed President Bill Clinton that there was never a Jewish Temple on the Temple Mount. This latest UNESCO resolution is simply a continuation of that mythology.

Such falsehoods continue to flourish in large portions of the Muslim world.

Meanwhile, as far as the embassy move is concerned, Trump isn’t the first candidate to make such a vow. Barack Obama, of course, never mentioned it. But both Bill Clinton and George W. Bush offered similar promises. And they both signed the waiver every six months, leaving the decision for some future president to worry about.

But Trump, who is well known for his self-declared expertise as a dealmaker, seems to have more in mind than the usual procrastinated promise to the Israelis. He has repeatedly spoken of a “deal” between the Israelis and Palestinians that will finally resolve the Middle East “peace process.”

Some see the embassy issue as a tactic in Trump’s deal-making scenario.

Trump’s reiterating his promise to move the embassy also functions as a pressure tactic, said Hussein Ibish, a scholar at the Arab Gulf States Institute:

By signing the waiver, he avoids creating a problem. But by saying he still intends to move the embassy, he protects himself, protects Netanyahu, and is still holding out the threat to the Arabs and the Palestinians that look, there’s still something on the other side, so cooperate with me.

There are numerous other shades of opinion. One of my friends, no stranger to diplomatic debates, firmly disagrees with Trump’s decision. “The president would have had a far stronger negotiating position if he had moved the embassy. He made a bad decision.”

An Israeli friend who works with high-level policy advisors told me that her colleagues are all disappointed. The move’s not taking place “was indeed anticipated, but still a disappointment. More disappointing was how disconcerting it is to see President Trump employing ‘linkage’ – i.e. the idea that an Israeli-Palestinian peace deal is key to all other possible agreements.”

Still another Israeli friend, journalist Ruthie Blum, summed up the disagreements like this:

Israelis who care about moving the embassy believe it will settle the issue of the U.S. position on Israeli sovereignty in Jerusalem – sealing its legitimacy.

Left-wing Israelis think Jerusalem should be divided anyway, and they don’t want to antagonize the Palestinians.

And Centrists think it shouldn’t be a problem, since the embassy would be in West Jerusalem.

Along with specifically political concerns, there’s also a very real possibility that violence – incited by Hamas or other radical Muslim groups – could erupt. The staging of an “uprising” or intifada would be their angry response to any official declaration of Israeli authority over Jerusalem.

In any case, as of today, the United States Embassy in Israel has not been moved. And its relocation is unlikely to take place before the six-month presidential waiver expires.

In the meantime, in my opinion, the anti-Israel attitude of some U.S. government employees is more troubling than the U.S. Embassy’s location.

In Israel, stories abound about the rude treatment of Israelis visiting the Tel Aviv Embassy, applying for U.S. visas. Too often, little or no effort is made to accommodate their specific needs. Even urgent concerns can be dismissed with chilly finality.

And the U.S. Jerusalem Consulate is notoriously worse. On several occasions, I’ve watched with dismay as Jewish Americans – often young parents with babies and toddlers – are treated with cold indifference by the almost entirely non-Jewish staff. And the more religiously attired the American Jews are, the less warmly they are welcomed.

A similarly arrogant attitude was exposed just days before Trump’s visit to Jerusalem in May. Haaretz reported that when a staffer from Prime Minister’s Benjamin Netanyahu’s office (PMO) asked the president’s advance team how they could help prepare for Trump’s visit to the Western Wall,

Diplomats from the American consulate in Jerusalem … asserted that the Western Wall is part of the West Bank, implying that Israel has no sovereignty over the site. The PMO employees responded furiously, terming the diplomats’ statements unacceptable.

The reality is that the Jerusalem Consulate perceives itself simply as an outreach to the Palestinians in Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza. Its Facebook page is worded in Arabic and English only – not in Hebrew.

At the same time, it is the only U.S. consulate in the world (apart from Hong Kong) that does not operate under the authority of the U.S. Embassy.

Since the 1940s, the American Consulate in Jerusalem has reported directly to the U.S. State Department.

In 1940, before Israel was declared a state, the “American ambassador in Tel Aviv [James McDonald] … tried to give orders to the consul general in Jerusalem, but the consul general would have none of it. The consulate insisted on reporting directly to the State Department rather than through an embassy, and continues to do so today.”

Historically, the State Department has had Arabist leanings, and has at times been clearly anti-Israel. The U.S. Consulate in Jerusalem mirrors those perspectives.

It is certainly true that moving the U.S. Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem would send a clear message to the world: America recognizes Jerusalem as Israel’s undisputed capital.

But meanwhile, why not move the anti-Israel bureaucrats out of the U.S. Embassy in Tel Aviv and the U.S. Consulate in Jerusalem?

In the long run, that might prove to be almost as beneficial as changing the embassy’s address.

Jul 6, 2017 | Current Events, Jerusalem Notebook, Jews and the Jewish State

In recent days – both in Israel and in Jewish communities in North America – a burning debate has ignited amongst political and religious leaders and has flared up in the media. This argument focuses on Jerusalem’s Western Wall: Who can worship there? Where and how should they worship? What forms of worship are acceptable?

These questions continue to hang uneasily in the holy air over Jerusalem.

For those who aren’t fully aware of Jerusalem’s spiritual geography, a little background about the Western Wall (once known as the “Wailing Wall”) may be helpful.

The Western Wall is called the Kotel in Hebrew. It is virtually all that remains of a retaining wall that was built to support the Temple Mount on which Herod’s magnificent Jewish Temple was constructed.

The Wall is a holy site where Jews, as well as other prayerful people from around the world, offer praise and petitions to God.

In 70 CE, Herod’s Temple was demolished and burned to the ground at the command of Roman Emperor Vespasian, carried out by his son, military commander Titus, and his troops. This followed an agonizing siege, a starvation strategy that all but decimated Jerusalem’s Jews.

Many who somehow survived the siege were slaughtered in the gruesome massacre that followed. Jerusalem was leveled, and its remaining Jewish population was either taken captive by the Romans or somehow desperately straggled into hiding.

Following those terrible days, the Jews who fled – the Diaspora – made their way to nearby lands or faraway places. They were called “Wandering Jews,” because they were never in one place for long before being brutalized or expelled by fanatics – all too often by Christians.

Wherever these Jewish wanderers went, they took with them their holy books, and they carried in their hearts deep sorrow over their destroyed and desecrated city and its Temple. They prayed, generation after generation, that they could one day return to the Holy Mountain: “Next year in Jerusalem…”

Centuries passed. Stories of successful Holy Land pilgrims began to circulate, and there was word of a surviving stone wall that remained intact, where Jews could pray. They not only prayed; they wept in grief for what had been lost, and in gratitude for the holy place they had found.

This was the “Wailing Wall” – where Jews could pound on the gates of heaven, and where the glory of God still seemed to glimmer around them. Surely it was a holy place, a sacred space, where they could pour out their hearts.

Little by little, it was also a place where the vision of Jews returning to Zion flickered into flame.

In the early 20th century, after the destruction of the Ottoman Empire which had long kept a tight rein on Jewish practice, and before the 1967 War, which finally liberated and unified Jerusalem, early photographs bear witness that Jewish men and women unselfconsciously gathered at the Kotel and prayed together. Amanda Borschel-Dan wrote,

From the mid-1800s, photographs of Jews praying together at the Western Wall became common on the walls of houses across the Western world. Today, a rich collection is found in Washington’s Library of Congress digital archives, in which a jumble of Sephardic and Ashkenazi Jews, men and women, are depicted in prayer at what has been considered one of Judaism’s holiest sites for the past two millennia.

Mixed prayer, with men and women praying together, appears to be the norm – or at least a viable option – in these archival images, aside from High Holy Day crushes, in which women either were not in attendance, or prayed off to the side.

Then came the Six-Day War in 1967, and the Jews once again possessed all of Jerusalem – including the Western Wall. In fact, just weeks ago, iconic images of that astonishing military victory appeared as the 50th anniversary of the 1967 War was celebrated.

The Islamic Dome of the Rock and Al Aqsa Mosque have dominated the Temple Mount plaza since the seventh century CE. After June 1967, rabbis warned Jews against walking on the mount’s sacred soil for fear of treading on the site of the biblical Holy of Holies. Some religious leaders forbad all pilgrimages to the Temple Mount, fearing further desecration.

The Western Wall suffered no such restrictions. It was a worship destination for the Jewish faithful, both near and far.

However, as time passed, rabbinical constraints were extended to the Wall, as well. Most notably, it was divided into separate sections for men and women. This reflected the gender separation that is traditional in Orthodox synagogues around the world.

Although men and women had prayed together at the Wall for centuries, it was now forbidden.

Meanwhile, as travel opportunities increased, families began traveling to Israel from abroad to celebrate their children’s Bar Mitzvahs and Bat Mitzvahs at the Kotel. Many of those who observed these rites of passage at the Western Wall belonged to either conservative or reformed Jewish congregations. Therefore, their family events were scrutinized by the watchful eye of the rabbinate, who were determined to maintain ultra-Orthodox Jewish traditions and religious laws at the Wall.

Then, in the 1980s, a new Jewish feminist movement emerged:

In 1988, the Women of the Wall (WoW) organization was founded in order to obtain the right for women to pray at the Kotel with Torah scrolls and wearing a tallit (prayer shawl). They did not ask for mixed prayer with men, just a relaxation of the rules concerning how they could pray with other women in the women’s section of the Kotel. This would not violate Orthodox halacha (religious law), but is in opposition to the rules established by the Rabbi of the Kotel and the customs of strictly observant Jews (among others, the prohibition against women chanting out loud in the presence of men).

Although the WoW activists did not initially seek a separate section at the Wall for combined prayer, the obstacle of male and female worship stood in the way of full agreement among Jewish worshippers. Before long, it became a stumbling block between various denominational groups.

In recent months, the WoW issues were addressed in a resolution that approved the construction of a separate worship area, and permitting mixed prayers, women carrying Torah scrolls, wearing prayer shawls and laying tefillin, all overseen by non-Orthodox authorities.

Then, in late June, although construction had already begun to improve access to that section of the Wall, the compromise resolution was abruptly suspended by Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu.

At the same time, another law – also shelved at the same time by the prime minister – would have permitted Jews who wish to marry, divorce or be buried in Israel to choose private religious conversions, not supervised by Israel’s ultra-Orthodox rabbinate (presently, those Jews who move to Israel without rabbinical approval of their religious status are required to submit to an ultra-Orthodox conversion process).

So why were two seemingly reasonable resolutions, addressing couple of sticky disagreements, abruptly shelved? The primary reason lies in the not-so-simple way Israel’s democracy works.

Unlike in the U.S., there aren’t two (or three) primary political parties in Israel. There are as many as a dozen small parties or more, all of which must be cobbled into a coalition parliament – the Knesset.

The prime minister – who represents the political party with the most votes – must negotiate with the other parties, great and small, to form a government. This can result in a wobbly and vulnerable coalition – one that can be readily shattered by a smaller but determined minority, most notably ultra-Orthodox political parties.

A shattered coalition inevitably demand new elections.

In this latest upheaval, Netanyahu shelved the two resolutions about the Western Wall for obvious political reasons. He has been widely excoriated by American Jews for this “shameful” decision. But he explained the situation in very concise terms to a troubled group of U.S. envoys representing AIPAC:

“It was either the Kotel or my government.”

Jonathan Tobin explained further:

American Jews need to understand … Israel is a country where there is no separation between religion and state. In such a place, debates on religion are political, not religious. Israel’s political system allows parties like those of the haredi [ultra-Orthodox] community to obtain a disproportionate amount of power. One can’t be surprised when they exercise that power, both to undermine a historic compromise at the Kotel that was first proposed by Jewish Agency Chairman Natan Sharansky, and to exclude other rabbis, including the modern Orthodox, from control of conversions and other policies.

Netanyahu explained his decision to go back on his word by saying that any of his rivals would have done the same. It’s no excuse, but it’s true; it has happened before with Israeli governments on the left, as well as the right.

Netanyahu knew that the ultra-Orthodox parties would remove themselves from his coalition if he allowed the two resolutions to pass. He therefore concluded that he had no choice but to reverse the earlier agreements and maintain a stable Israeli government, even though it guaranteed continuing conflict between warring Jewish religious leaders, both in Israel and the U.S.

And what happens when the postponement ends? Time will tell.

Thankfully, despite occasional demonstrations, and troubled as the atmosphere may be in Israel’s politico-religious world, worshippers including Christians can continue to visit the Western Wall, enjoying it as a place of peace, solace and wonder.

I sometimes go there myself, now and then bearing prayer requests written on bits of paper for loved ones, which I fold up and try to fit into a fissure between the stones.

We Christians are not subject to rabbinical restraints at the Kotel as long as we women dress modestly; our men cover their heads with a kippah or a hat; we observe the men’s and women’s partitions; and we do not practice evangelism.

Otherwise we are free to sit and read a passage of Scripture, or stand and pray in the shadow of the Wall, sometimes pressing an open palm against the cool, ancient stones.

Why pray at the Western Wall if we are not Jewish? We can find good reason in the words of King Solomon, as he dedicated the First Jewish Temple in the 11th century BCE. His prayer carries with it a promise of blessing to all venture there:

Also concerning the foreigner who is not of Your people Israel, when he comes from a far country for Your name’s sake (for they will hear of Your great name and Your mighty hand, and of Your outstretched arm); when he comes and prays toward this house, hear in heaven Your dwelling place, and do according to all for which the foreigner calls to You, in order that all the peoples of the earth may know Your name, to fear You, as do Your people Israel, and that they may know that this house which I have built is called by Your name.

Aug 30, 2017 | Current Events, Jerusalem Notebook, Jews and the Jewish State, Muslims and Muslim Majority States

In the scorching heat of a troubled Jerusalem summer, the government of Israel announced that it intends to shut down Qatar-based Al Jazeera News Service.

Shuttering a large and well-known news outlet in a democratic nation is not to be taken lightly. This is especially true when that nation is the Jewish State, which the world consistently holds to a higher standard of conduct than its Muslim neighbors.

Israeli Minister of Communications Ayoub Kara has declared that Al Jazeera will be shut down – a decision confirmed by Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu.

Accusations about Al Jazeera’s complicity with terrorists are nothing new, and the network has been under careful Israeli scrutiny. But for years, its freedom to report and broadcast has continued unabated. Last year, Israeli terrorism expert Mordechai Kedar carried on his years-long disapproval of Al Jazeera’s presence in the Jewish State. He put it this way:

Israel knows exactly how to keep hostile media outside its territory: Hezbollah’s Al-Manar TV channel and Iran’s El-Alam TV network are not allowed to work from within the Jewish State. Al Jazeera should be given identical treatment. I once discussed this with a well-known Israeli lawyer and asked him if there is a legal basis for ejecting Al Jazeera from Israel. He answered in the positive, because no foreign media outlet has legal standing in the state of Israel, and all the foreign media based in the country are here only because Israel permits them to be. Israel does not even have to explain why it ejects any of the foreign media, and since none have standing in court, they cannot sue the state to allow them to remain.

Despite complaints similar to Kedar’s by commentators and politicians alike, Al Jazeera has for years kept up its controversial reporting in Israel. Some cynics even claim that Israel only allowed it to exist for the sake of good Israeli publicity.

But the rage and rioting that exploded in Israel following this July’s terrorist killing of two police officers on the Temple Mount exponentially raised the Al Jazeera debate’s volume by several decibels.

On July 14, three terrorists from the Arab-Israeli town of Umm al-Fahm – all claiming the same name, Muhammad Jabarin – made their way to Jerusalem’s Temple Mount around 3 a.m.

They smuggled guns and a knife into the area surrounding the al Aqsa Mosque and the Dome of the Rock. Around 7 a.m., they opened fire, killing two Israeli police officers, Haiel Sitawe, 30, and Kamil Shnaan, 22, who were guarding one of the Temple Mount entrances. Neither of the victims was Jewish; both were Druze police officers from the Galilee.

The three terrorists were shot dead.

The double murder motivated Israel to install metal detectors at the entrance to the Temple Mount. To most western observers, the only question regarding the metal detectors was, “Why on earth weren’t they there in the first place?”

Certainly those all-too-familiar security devices are in use around the world, including at numerous Muslim holy sites across the Middle East.

Meanwhile, “in Mecca,” reported Lev Haolam, “there are more than 5,000 CCTV cameras and over 100,000 people employed to provide security during the annual Hajj. Like Israel, Saudi Arabia faces terrorist threats and has upgraded its security in recent years. In 2015, the International Business Times reported that Saudi Arabia was “issuing pilgrims with electronic bracelets” and was increasing the number of cameras.”

Nevertheless, the installation of metal detectors on the Temple Mount inspired massive riots, serious injuries and even murders, not to mention a dangerous escalation of tensions across Jerusalem and well beyond Israel’s borders. Many thousands of enraged Muslims rioted, chanted anti-Jewish and death-to-Israel slogans in Turkey, Jordan, Yemen and Malaysia.

This uproar emanated from a widely held belief that Israel is stealthily changing the status quo of Temple Mount access. So a recycled rumor took flight across the world that the Jews were about to seize the site, ban Muslims, destroy the Dome of the Rock and the al Aqsa Mosque, and construct a Jewish temple.

Without a doubt, Al Jazeera has done its share of propagating that decades-old and baseless lie: “Al Aqsa is in danger!” This is particularly so in its notoriously hateful and dishonest Arabic language reports.

In the meantime, another news story provides related background. Just weeks before the Temple Mount crisis, Qatar (home base of Al Jazeera) was formally boycotted by Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain for its support of terrorism. In the process of ending diplomatic and trade relations with Qatar, these Islamic states also banned Al Jazeera.

It is well known that both Qatar and Al Jazeera are deeply influenced and financially entangled with the Muslim Brotherhood, including Hamas; this has caused some countries to ban the news source either temporarily or permanently. Israel has reason to agree. Dan Diker at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs explained to NBC News,

Al Jazeera has been guilty of terrible and fundamentally unprofessional reporting that uses incitement to please their radical paymasters in the Hamas and Muslim Brotherhood, referring to two Islamist organizations based in Gaza and Egypt respectively.

Israel is saying, “Enough is enough,” and that you cannot exploit our democratic system in order to assault our democratic country via your propagandistic and radical-Islamic reporting.

Israel has repeatedly stated its case regarding claims of Al Jazeera’s record of incitement to violence, broadcasting of anti-Israel propaganda and support for the Boycott, Divest and Sanction Israel movement.

And unsurprisingly, myriad voices have repeatedly been raised to protest Israel’s impending Al Jazeera ban. Opinion writers and analysts on all sides have brought forth various arguments expressing concern about press freedom, free speech and inappropriate censorship of journalists.

For example, Freedom House, a Washington-based non-governmental organization, said that Israel “hosts a lively, pluralistic media environment in which press freedom is generally respected.” However, “due to ongoing conflicts with Palestinian groups and neighboring countries,” it added, “media outlets are subject to military censorship and gag orders, and journalists often face travel restrictions.”

For Israel, surrounded by large and powerful Muslim countries, the delicate balance between national security, false oppositional media reports, and occasional governmental gag orders placed on sensitive subjects, remains difficult to maintain.

How can a small nation like Israel, with mortal enemies on all sides, keep security secrets, curtail libelous and incendiary rumormongering and still retain press freedom?

The essential reality in all this is that free speech has limitations. All speech is not free. In US law, for example, one of the limitations of free speech involves True Threats. Such threats are words that convey a genuine threat of actual danger; they are not spoken in jest or hyperbole.

Another form of speech that isn’t free is Incitement: words intended to provoke or produce lawless action or actual harm.

Press freedom is an extension of free speech. So, when a news source advances a true threat or incitement that is intended to cause illegal behavior or physical harm, it is illegal under U.S. law.

As for international law, there are also limitations to a totally free press. A section of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights informs nations that they should ban war propaganda which is able to cause “national, racial and religious hatred or incite racial discrimination, hostility or violence. This stipulation does not run counter to the right to freedom of expression, because it conforms to the objectives of the United Nations Organization and the requirements of a civilized society.”

Meanwhile, the most significant argument defending Israel’s right to ban Al Jazeera comes, interestingly, from a former Al Jazeera journalist, Mohamed Fahmy. He provides ample evidence of incitement to violence in Al Jazeera’s weekly sermons of Islamist cleric – and spiritual guide of the Muslim Brotherhood – Yusuf al-Qaradawi.

There are also indications that Al Jazeera reporters are in close touch with terrorist groups.

In a June 2017 Bloomberg article by Eli Lake titled “The Ex-Journalist Who Says Al Jazeera Aids Terrorists,” Mohamed Fahmy, former Cairo bureau chief of Al Jazeera, explains why bans of his ex-employer make sense. Lake reports,

To begin with, the network still airs a weekly talk show from Muslim Brotherhood theologian Yusuf al-Qaradawi. This elderly cleric has used his platform to argue that Islamic law justifies terrorist attacks against Israelis and U.S. soldiers.

U.S. military leaders such as retired Lt. General Ricardo Sanchez, who commanded forces in the initial campaign to stabilize Iraq, have said publicly that Al Jazeera reporters appeared to have advance knowledge of terrorist attacks.

Fahmy told me that in his research he has learned that instructions were given to journalists not to refer to Al-Qaeda’s affiliate in Syria, Al-Nusra, as a terrorist organization.

Fahmy believes that Qatar’s neighbors were justified in banning Al Jazeera. “Al-Jazeera has breached the true meaning of press freedom that I advocate and respect by sponsoring these voices of terror like Yusuf al Qaradawi,” he said. “If Al Jazeera continues to do that, they are directly responsible for many of these lone wolves, many of these youth that are brainwashed.”

A separate article in The Tower reported, “[Fahmy] rejected the accusation that, by trying to revoke Al Jazeera press credentials, Israel is violating press freedom.” “They [Qatar] use the press,” Fahmy said, repeating his view that the network engages in “unethical journalism.”

Arguments over Israel’s proposed Al Jazeera ban will doubtless continue. And it may well be, no matter what Israel’s prime minister or minister of communications intend, that the complications involved in pushing an Al Jazeera ban through the Knesset and the Israeli justice system will bog the effort down indefinitely.

Still, the Al Jazeera case is instructive. Freedom of speech and a free press have their limits. True threats, and incitement to violence or illegal activity, are internationally defined no-go zones. These boundaries apply to all journalists, their news services and their editors – here, there and everywhere.