The Crime of Building a House

In Niger, two Frenchmen were murdered by their Islamic kidnappers. Saudi Arabia sentenced a 23 year old girl who was gang raped to a year in prison and 100 lashes. Iran arrested two dozen Christians for the crime of being well… Christians.

Which of these awful things did Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the EU’s Red Baroness Ashton forcefully condemn?

The answer is none of them.
Instead they forcefully and vigorously condemned the demolition of a hotel built by a Muslim Nazi collaborator and now owned by an American-Jewish businessman who bought it in order to build an apartment complex on the spot. An apartment complex for a mere 20 families that is somehow worse than all the aforementioned murders and atrocities. So much worse that they demanded the personal intervention of the highest diplomatic officials of the United States and the European Union.

The last Nazi collaborator hotel in Jerusalem

The Shepherd Hotel in Jerusalemis not the Plaza Hotel. It is a dilapidated neighborhood eyesore that has been abandoned since the 1980’s. No one lives in the Shepherd Hotel, a grim ugly fortress surrounded by barbed wire, that remains behind as a legacy of the Mufti of Jerusalem, who championed Hitler and helped recruit Muslims to serve in the SS. But with its demolition, people might actually begin to live on that spot. Children might actually play on ground that had been previously fenced off by barbed wire. And the worst thing of it all is that those people and their children will be Jews.

Mohammad Amin al-Husayni, the Mufti of Jerusalem

Mohammad Amin al-Husayni, the Mufti of Jerusalem, might have been displeased to look up from the netherworld and behold the demolition of his hotel, but to see the representatives of the United States and the EU taking up his work and treating the demolition of his hotel as the gravest issue of the day would surely have cheered him up. If he had ever been worried that his work would die with a bullet in Berlin or when his Holy War Army, even with the support of seven Arab countries and half the British officer corps failed to drive the Jews into the sea during the War of Independence, the statements of Hillary Clinton and the EUSSR’s Red Baroness Ashton testify once again that the evil that men and muftis do lives on after them.
In her statement, Hillary Clinton said the United States is “very concerned” about the demolition of a Nazi collaborator’s abandoned hotel. In a world where North Korea and Iran are racing ahead to build nuclear weapons, Russia and China are racing to outstrip the United States in weapons development and the economy is on the brink—that is what the Obama Administration is “very concerned” about. That 20 Jewish families will be able to have homes in the capital of their own city.
Hillary Clinton chose to attack Israel from Abu Dhabi, capital of the UAE, a totalitarian regime whose own construction boom was built on slave labor imported from India. Where there are no political freedoms and where non-Muslim foreigners have few rights, if any. Where a video showed the brother of the ruler of Abu Dhabi torturing a man in ways too horrifying to describe, with the approval of the police and the judicial system over a debt. Where 42 percent of the prisoners are there for being indebted. The UAE is essentially a slave state, built on the backs of mostly non-Muslim migrant workers with no human or legal rights.
While in Abu Dhabi, Hillary Clinton might have called on its rulers to open up the system to democratic elections. She might have raised the issue of Western women who are raped in Dubai and then sentenced to jail for being raped. Or the case of Roxanne Hillier, who was sentenced to jail for just being in the same room as her male boss. It certainly would have been appropriate for Hillary Clinton to have challenged the UAE on its abusive treatment of female visitors and tourists. But none of that happened.

How dare the Jews bulldoze this man’s hotel?

Instead Hillary Clinton used the platform of a barbaric skyscraper studded dictatorship to denounce the only democracy in the region. In a speech more inspired by Monty Python, than any concern for human rights, she described the demolition of a long abandoned hotel as a “disturbing development” and warned that “this move contradicts the logic of a reasonable and necessary agreement between the parties on the status of Jerusalem”. Yet oddly enough, Arab construction does not contradict such an agreement, only Jewish construction does.

This is not about Israel vs Palestine

This is not about Israel vs Palestine. The population of Jerusalem, both Jew and Arab, are Israeli citizens. If the Shepherd Hotel were being demolished to build homes for Arab citizens of Israel, does anyone seriously believe that Hillary or the Red Baroness would be getting so worked up over it? It’s not the passport that makes the difference, but the race and the religion. And if so, it’s not Israeli roads that are Apartheid, but the policies of Obama and the EU which strive to carve out a new “Pale of Settlement” where Jews may and may not live.
The Red Baroness, who has been too busy ordering bulletproof limousines and dispatching dozens of EU diplomats to such trouble spots as Barbados for vital martini drinking assignments, to actually attend European Commission meetings—found time to blast Israel instead. Baroness Ashton has missed two thirds of the EC meetings, but she has found time to show her commitment to human rights by lobbying on behalf of the People’s Republic of China. She may have ignored the persecution of Christian Copts in Muslim Egypt—but when the Jews demolish an abandoned hotel, then by all of the EU’s stars, the Red Baroness is on the ball.

The term “settlement” no longer means a new town in an unsettled region

“I strongly condemn this morning’s demolition of the Shepherd Hotel and the planned construction of a new illegal settlement,” said Baroness Ashton. The “settlement” is somewhat confusingly a housing project being built in place of an existing hotel in one of the oldest cities of the world. But somehow the term “settlement” no longer means a new town in an unsettled region, it now simply means a place where Jews live. Or propose to live. As Nazi Germany termed some art as “Jewish art” and the Soviet Union euphemistically labeled some science as “cosmopolitan science”, the word “settlement” has become untethered from its literal meaning and instead become synonymous with a Jewish dwelling place.
While Baroness Ashton sent out her spokesman to condemn the attack on Christian Copts in Egypt and the assassination of Salman Taseer in Punjab, she personally declared her outrage over a hotel in which no one was killed, aside perhaps from a stray lizard or two sunning themselves on the nearby rocks. It’s rather clear where her priorities lie and it isn’t with the victims of Muslim terror, rather with its perpetrators. For that same reason, Hillary Clinton can’t be bothered to offer sympathy to the Western women raped in Dubai and raped again by its Muslim legal system, but lashes out over something as petty as the demolition of an abandoned hotel.

The EU’s Red Baroness

It was perfectly fitting for Hillary Clinton to deliver her condemnation of Israel from Abu Dhabi, one of the region’s centers of corruption, where oil money buys human slavery, and rape victims are sent to jail by the law of a Muslim tyranny. And the West keeps silent, rather than offend the fat greasy hands of the royals who control the pipeline. It was similarly fitting that the Red Baroness neglected representing her country, in order to come prancing down to Israel, berate the locals for not dismantling itself quickly enough to suit the rulers of those same oil rich countries, who pull the strings on those like Baroness Ashton, that the Soviet Union grew tired of playing with.
Hillary Clinton and the Red Baroness accuse Israel of obstructing peace negotiations by demolishing theShepherd Hotel. But was there any serious prospect for negotiations before that? While the Mufti’s hotel still stood, then Israel was charged with obstructing peace by allowing Jewish families to build homes in Judea and Samaria. And during the 9 month construction freeze in which they were not allowed to do it—then Israel was charged with obstructing peace through its blockade of Gaza’s terrorists. And before Israel withdrew from Gaza, it was charged with obstructing peace by not withdrawing from Gaza. And before Israel liberated Gaza in 1967, it was still charged with obstructing peace by refusing to do one thing or another that the Arab Muslim regimes wanted from it. Israel is always under attack and always at fault. If not for one thing, then for another. And while women are gang raped and whipped by our friendly allies in the Gulf, Israel is charged with the terrible crime of building a house.

Did Israel illegally demolished a Palestinian national landmark in East Jerusalem?

FACT

On January 9, 2011, Israeli crews began demolition work on the Shepherd Hotel building in the Sheikh Jarrah community of Jerusalem to make way for the planned construction of a Jewish housing project. Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas insists the hotel is a historic national landmark and Palestinian Chief Negotiator Saeb Erekat claims that Israel is illegally demolishing the hotel as part of their attempt to “ethnically cleanse Jerusalem from its Palestinian inhabitants, culture and history.” ⁴⁶¹

In truth, the hotel, situated in the middle of a predominantly Arab neighborhood that overlooks Hebrew University and the Mount of Olives, was built in the 1930s. The building served as an Israeli district court for almost two decades, but has been vacant for many years and was privately purchased in 1985 by an American businessman who plans to build an apartment complex on the site. The project will not displace any Arab residents or affect any other buildings in the neighborhood. The site was never considered a Palestinian cultural heritage spot and, in fact, its only claim to Palestinian historical fame was that it served as a home for Hajj Amin al-Husseini, the former Grand Mufti of Jerusalem and Nazi collaborator.⁴⁶² The British exiled al-Husseiniduring the Mandatory period and confiscated the property; ultimately the building's rights were passed to Israelfrom Jordan after the Six Day War. Contrary to reports, the Israeli government did not illegally confiscate the building under the “Absentee Property Law” and the sale of the property in 1985 was conducted in the same legal manner as other real estate transactions. ⁴⁶³

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton criticized Israel’s actions, suggesting that demolition of an unused building somehow “undermines peace efforts to achieve a two-state solution.” ⁴⁶⁴ In doing so, Clinton once again - as with the earlier insistence on a settlement freeze - gave President Abbas an excuse for refusing to return to peace negotiations advocated by President Obama.

There are no precedents or statutes in international law that would prohibit Israel from granting construction permits to private citizens to build in its capital. As Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said, “No democratic government would impose a ban on Jews purchasing private property… Just as Arabs can buy property in Jewish neighborhoods in Jerusalem, Jews can buy property in predominantly Arab neighborhoods.”⁴⁶⁵

"Calling Jerusalem a settlement is a misinterpretation, an insult to the city. It is incomprehensible that they are mixing questions of private rights, international law and politics. [The hotel was built] on private land, the development of which has nothing to do with diplomacy." —Yigal Palmor, Israel Ministry of Foregin Affairs Spokesman

The Shepherd Hotel in Jerusalem: An End to the Arabs’ Wars of Limited Liability? There Are Consequences for Choosing Aggression

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s resolute response to a State Department official’s objection to a Jewish building development in the Sheikh Jarrah neighborhood of Jerusalem may actually close a 90-year-old chapter of the Arab-Israeli conflict and bring about a measure of justice. "We cannot accept the idea that Jews will not have the right to live and buy (homes) anywhere in Jerusalem," Netanyahu said.
For way too long Arab states, terrorist groups and the Palestinian Arabs believed that they could wage “wars of limited liability” first against the Jews of Palestine and then against the State of Israel. They embraced a fantasy that they could unleash attacks with impunity in an attempt to wipe out Israel, convinced that if they were defeated they could return to a status quo ante, or even achieve diplomatically what they couldn’t win on the battlefield. Territories captured by Israel would be returned and not annexed, terrorist leaders would be honored and not condemned, and Jews/Israel would be blamed and never indemnified. Tragically, that fantasy became reality. 

In 1920, the Balfour Declaration, written three years earlier, was a very pertinent and relevant document in Palestine. The Turks were gone from Palestine after 400 years, and the British were attempting to establish their authority. Jews who had fled the Turkish regime began to return, and they were joined by other Jews – “Zionists” from Russia and eastern Europe -- eager to build the promised “national home for the Jewish people.”

Arab clans and local groups began to coalesce and compete to fill the vacuum left by the Turks. They found sympathetic British authorities who opposed the establishment of a Jewish home in Palestine and sought to rescind the Balfour Declaration. Together, they opposed the Jewish immigration into Palestine and the Jewish purchase of large tracts of land. The British authorities placed limitations on the formation of Jewish self-defense groups, some of whom included veterans of the British army’s Jewish Legion and Zion Mule Corps.

The Jewish settlement of Tel Chai in the Galilee was overrun by local Arab marauders in early 1920, and within months, riots and pogroms against Jews erupted across Palestine. According to witnesses, the ax and sword-wielding mobs, emboldened by their perception of supportive British authorities, yelled, “Addowlah ma’anah! The government is with us! Itback el yehud! Slaughter the Jews!” as they attacked Jewish communities. They were led by the nephew of Jerusalem’s mayor, a young rabble-rouser named Haj Amin el Husseini. Rather than throw Husseini in prison or hang him, the British chose an appeasement policy and appointed him as the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem. The Mufti would later incite more bloody pogroms against Jewish communities in 1929 and launch the Arab Revolt (1936-1939) against the British, Jews and fellow Arabs. The anti-Semitic terrorist leader used his position to garner a following and a status that he would wield for the next 25 years, culminating in his collaboration with Adolf Hitler in World War II.

[Santayana’s admonition, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it,” was tragically proved true. Britain’s policy of appeasement in Palestine was copied years later when Chamberlain met Hitler at Munich in 1939. And the honors and adulation bestowed upon Haj Amin al-Husseini were later granted to his cousin Abdul Kader al-Husseini, a leader of the attacks against Jews in the 1940s. Similar tributes were paid to another terrorist cousin, Mohammed Abdel Rahman Abdel Raouf Arafat al-Qudwa al-Husseini, AKA Yasir Arafat.]

When the British attempted to arrest the Mufti in 1937 he fled Palestine, and the British made do with confiscating his property. The Husseini clan owned several well-known buildings in Jerusalem, among them the Palace Hotel on Mamilla Street (later Israel’s Ministry of Trade, and now being rebuilt as a hotel), the Orient House (the site of Palestinian Authority attempts to establish its rule in east Jerusalem), and the Shepherd Hotel in Sheikh Jarrah on a plot of land known as Karam al Mufti, named for Husseini.

The Shepherd Hotel was located on a key roadway; just yards away is the site of the infamous Hadassah Hospital convoy massacre in April 1948, prior to Israel’s independence. Seventy-nine Jews, mostly doctors and nurses, were killed on that road when their convoy to the Mt. Scopus hospital was attacked by hundreds of Arab terrorists. A meek British military response allowed the attack to continue for many hours throughout the day.

Despite all of the Arab attacks in 1920, 1921, 1929 and 1936 the British response was to reward Arab aggression against the Jews and impose draconian restrictions on Jewish immigration. Part of the British mandate of Palestine, what could have been part of the Jewish homeland, was lopped off in 1922 and given to Emir Abdullah to form the state of Jordan.Addowlah ma'anah.
The pattern of Arab attacks and rewards would repeat itself time and again. Limited liability – the Arabs paid little for their attacks. Despite Arab aggression against the Jewish communities in Palestine in 1947 and 1948, Palestinian Arabs still demand today a “right of return” to areas within Israel’s borders since the 1949 Armistice.

In 1956, Egyptian-commanded fedayeen terrorist attacks led Israel to join Britain and France in the Sinai campaign against Egypt. Two days into the war, President Dwight Eisenhower called Israel’s Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion. According to a biographer of Jewish leader Max Fisher, Eisenhower admonished Prime Minister Ben Gurion "... You ought not forget that the strength of Israel and her future are bound up with the United States." This was followed by specific threats: If Israel did not leave Sinai and Gaza there would be U.N. condemnation, U.S. aid would be terminated, the tax-status of charitable contributions would be challenged.” 

AIPAC’s founder, Si Kenen, wrote of the period: “There were long and feverish negotiations between the Israelis and Secretary of State Dulles who tried to divide American Jews, most of whom were backing the Israelis. Dulles invited a group of major Jewish philanthropists, including leading non-Zionists, to use their influence to persuade Israel to accept the U.S. position…”

Sound familiar and contemporary? To a recent meeting with American Jewish leadership, President Obama also invited two leftist organizations highly critical of Israeli policies.
In 1957, the U.S. pressure forced Israel to withdraw from Sinai without securing ironclad guarantees against Egyptian aggression and blockades. In October, 1965 Max Fisher visited Eisenhower at his Gettysburg farm. Eisenhower admitted to him "... looking back at Suez, I regret what I did. I never should have pressed Israel to evacuate the Sinai.”

Several casus belli directly led to the 1967 Six Day War. They include Egypt’s naval blockade of Israel, the massing of Egyptian troops in Sinai, Jordanian dispatch of tanks into the West Bank and shelling of Jerusalem, and Syrian bombardment of Israel’s northern communities. The American and British drafters of the 1967 UN Security Resolution 242, while “emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war,” also recognized the madness of returning to the 1949 armistice lines. “We didn't say there should be a withdrawal to the '67 line,” said British Ambassador Lord Caradon. “We did not put the 'the' in, we did not say all the territories, deliberately.. We all knew - that the boundaries of '67 were not drawn as permanent frontiers, they were a cease-fire line of a couple of decades earlier... We did not say that the '67 boundaries must be forever; it would be insanity.”

Yet, today, under the Arab concept of wars of limited liability, they and the United Nations demand a complete withdrawal from the West Bank and east Jerusalem – “100 percent” -- and a dismantling of the security barrier erected to block Palestinian suicide bombers. In other words, there is no punishment, no price to pay, and no indemnification for acts of aggression. Addowlah ma'anah. 

The actions and words of the Obama administration today elicit from Israel’s “peace partners” echoes of that ominous war cry.

“Obama,” noted the Washington Post’s Jackson Diehl after interviewing the Palestinian Authority’s Mahmoud Abbas, “has repeatedly and publicly stressed the need for a West Bank settlement freeze, with no exceptions. In so doing he has shifted the focus to Israel. He has revived a long-dormant Palestinian fantasy: that the United States will simply force Israel to make critical concessions, whether or not its democratic government agrees, while Arabs passively watch and applaud.” Addowlah ma'anah.

Ironically, Abbas himself, recently revealed that once the Arabs of Palestine did not expect the great powers or other Arabs to rescue them, and that indeed they were capable of recognizing the responsibility for their actions. Describing the 1948 flight of his Arab community from Safed, a mixed Arab-Jewish town in the Galilee, Abbas admitted on Al-Palestinia TV last month, “People were motivated to run away... They feared retribution from Zionist terrorist organizations - particularly from the Safed ones. Those of us from Safed especially feared that the Jews harbored old desires to avenge what happened during the 1929 uprising. [pictured: destroyed Jewish homes in 1929.] This was in the memory of our families and parents... They realized the balance of forces was shifting and therefore the whole town was abandoned on the basis of this rationale - saving our lives and our belongings."

The acquisition of the Shepherd Hotel site was carried out according to the letter of the law. The land, first confiscated by the British was administered by the Jordanian government after it illegally annexed the West Bank and east Jerusalem in 1950. Under international law, the Israeli government became custodians after the 1967 war. For the last 15 years the building stood abandoned. Soon the piece of real estate will house the descendants of those who Haj Amin al-Husseini tried to kill in Palestine or the grandchildren of those European Jews who escaped Husseini’s ally, Adolf Hitler. Maybe, just maybe, there are consequences for aggression.