More proof Jerusalem is Jewish

By Marylou Barry

As if we needed it, more proof that the city of Jerusalem belongs to Israel has surfaced, although doubtlessly it will not be enough to convince the surrounding Muslim nations – or the industrialized ones that want their oil.

According to an Israel National News report dated Jan. 27, Canadian attorney Jacque Gauthier has written a 1,300-page doctoral dissertation proving what, until recently, every schoolchild knew: that Jerusalem is Jewish.

Why people with even a passing familiarity with world history would need this pointed out to them is mystifying. Where are the crowds clamoring for evidence that Paris is French, Washington, D.C., is American, or the pope is Catholic? Yet the affiliation of Jerusalem, which has been around longer than any of these and has never been the capital of any other country, is now being called into question.

"Jerusalem belongs to the Jews, by international law," Gauthier concluded after completing his exhaustive study, which took 20 years. He included 3,000 footnotes to back up his claim.

TRENDING: FBI agent undermines Pelosi's claim of insurrection 'incitement'

Gauthier – who is not Jewish – cites in his dissertation an unbroken series of treaties and resolutions in Israel's favor as laid out by the San Remo Resolution, the League of Nations and the United Nations.

The establishment of modern Israel began at San Remo, Italy, Gauthier says, when the four principal Allied powers of World War I – Great Britain, France, Italy and Japan – agreed to create a Jewish national home in the historic land of Israel. "Nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities," they agreed, but without providing any political rights to the Arabs who were living there.

The League of Nations resolution that created the Palestine Mandate read: "Whereas recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country ..." Again, no political rights were accorded to non-Jewish residents.

When the United Nations established the modern nation of Israel in 1945, it identified borders for the city of Jerusalem and resolved to administer it as an international entity for a period of 10 years, after which residents would be free to vote on its future. However, because Jordan controlled eastern Jerusalem after the 1948 War of Independence and refused to follow the provisions, that resolution never took effect.

It's understandable that people who deny the Bible also deny that this land and this city were given by the God of the Bible, an entity they don't believe in. What I don't understand is how they can deny the land was also given by the United Nations, an entity they very much believe in, especially when documentation is both recent and irrefutable. But then, many of those same people deny that the Holocaust ever took place, even though we have evidence for that on film. How right Paul Simon was when he wrote: "All lies and jest, still a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest. ..."

While pondering this absurdity I picked up the "Associated Press Stylebook" (2004 edition) by my computer and flipped through its pages. Although this popular grammar and usage guide – in one edition or another – has lived on my desktop since college, the last thing I would have expected from it was historical wisdom. Yet on the final subject page, right smack dab between zigzag and ZIP codes, in the secular Associated Press' very own words, with no equal ink for the Islamic revisionist viewpoint, lurks this very telling entry:

Zionism The effort of the Jews to regain and retain their biblical homeland. It is based on the promise of God in the Book of Genesis that Israel would forever belong to Abraham and his descendants as a nation.

The term is named for Mount Zion, the site of the ancient temple in Jerusalem. The Bible also frequently uses Zion in a general sense to denote the place where God is especially present with his people.

"Regain and retain," not invade? "Their" biblical homeland, not the Palestinians'? As a "nation," not as an occupier? The site of the "ancient temple," not ancient mosque?

With this bright remnant of untinkered-with history now out in the open, I suppose the AP editorial knife will flay the daylights out of its Zionism definition before the next update – though I understand the same explanation is used in its 2007 edition. How gratifying to know that as recently as last year, even the AP acknowledged who the owners of Jerusalem and Israel universally have been regarded to be.

Now, if we can only get them to explain it to President Bush ...