hierosolyma

H I E R O S O L Y M A

AN EIGHT PART PEACE PROPOSAL FOR GREATER JERUSALEM

which defines Jerusalem's territory and citizens,
and their laws and their King.

AN EIGHT PART PEACE PROPOSAL FOR GREATER JERUSALEM

Unto thy seed will I give this land.
Genesis 12:7

Behold,

how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity!
It is like the precious ointment upon the head,
that ran down upon the beard, even Aaron's beard:
that went down to the skirts of his garments;
As the dew of Hermon,

and as the dew that descended upon the mountains of Zion:
for there the Lord commanded the blessing:
even life for evermore.
Psalm 133

And think not to say within yourselves,

we have Abraham to our father:
for I say unto you,

that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.
Matthew 3:9

If I have told you of earthly things, and ye believe not,

how shall ye believe if I tell you of heavenly things?
John 3:12

I should much rather see reasonable agreement with the Arabs on the basis of living together in peace than the creation of a Jewish state. Apart from practical consideration, my awareness of the essential nature of Judaism resists the idea of a Jewish state with borders, an army, and a measure of temporal power no matter how modest. I am afraid of the inner damage Judaism will sustain -- especially from the development of a narrow nationalism within our own ranks, against which we have already had to fight strongly, even without a Jewish state. We are no longer the Jews of the Maccabee period. A return to a nation in the political sense of the word would be equivalent to turning away from the spiritualization of our community which we owe to the genius of our prophets. If external necessity should after all compel us to assume this burden, let us bear it with tact and patience.
Albert Einstein, 1938

....the legal status of Jerusalem is different from the territory in which Israel is sovereign.
Israeli UN Representative Abba Eban, 1949

The United States has consistently taken the position that the final status of Jerusalem must be resolved among the parties concerned.... For that reason, we have refused to recognize unilateral acts by any party as affecting Jerusalem`s status.
US Secretary of State George Shultz, 1984

The battle is not about 20 outposts, nor about 20 apartments in the grounds of the Shepherd Hotel. Every house in every West Bank settlement serves one supreme purpose: to destroy any possibility for peace. Every Israeli house in East Jerusalem serves the same sublime aim.

Former Member of the Knesset, and founder of Gush Shalom, Uri Avnery, 2009

AN EIGHT PART PEACE PROPOSAL FOR GREATER JERUSALEM

I

KING HASSAN II OF MOROCCO SAID IT BEST: "THERE IS NO SHAME IN DEALING WITH ONE'S ENEMY." INDEED, THE PRINCIPLES OF JUSTICE, THE UNITY OF BRETHREN (THE BLOOD AND THE BLESSED OF ABRAHAM), DEMOCRACY, AND ADAPTABILITY TO CURRENT REALITIES CAN BE UPHELD ONLY BY THOSE WHO ACT IN A TRUE SPIRIT OF REASONABLE COMPROMISE; FOR THEM, GOD WILLING, THERE WILL BE GREAT HONOR. THE 13 SEPTEMBER 1993 INTERIM ACCORD MADE IN OSLO BY ISRAEL AND THE PLO IS A STRONG INDICATION THAT THE PEACE TALKS STARTED IN MADRID IN 1991 UNDER THE SPONSORSHIP OF THE FORMER COLD WAR SUPERPOWER RIVALS, THE USA AND RUSSIA, ARE NOT NOW, NOR WERE THEY EVER, EFFECTIVE. THE SUCCESSFUL BLUEPRINT FOR A TRULY COMPREHENSIVE PEACE ON ALL FRONTS MUST GIVE CLEARLY DEFINED OBJECTIVES, BOTH INTERMEDIATE AND FINAL, IN WHICH ALL PARTIES HAVE EQUAL STAKES.

1.   This Eight Part Peace Proposal for Greater Jerusalem is to be submitted to all the parties concerned as a basis for direct negotiations for a just and lasting and comprehensive settlementbetween Israel and its Arab foes.

2.   This peace proposal is to be taken under consideration by all the parties concerned in accordance with Article 33.1 of the Charter of the United Nations, which enjoins all parties to any dispute to seek a solution by various means, including "other peaceful means of their own choice."

3.   All negotiations for the implementation of this peace proposal are to be conducted within the framework of an international peace conference that will include all parties to the dispute as well as the United Nations Security Council, including both the five permanent members as well as the current non-permanent members. The conference will act in accordance with the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations and will consider all United Nations resolutions that pertain to the Arab-Israeli dispute.

4.   Each part of An Eight Part Peace Proposal for Greater Jerusalem exists in the context of the entire proposal, and the implementation of any one part shall be accomplished with the understanding and determination that all the other parts will be put into effect as well.

II

PART II IS DESIGNED TO PROVIDE A BUFFER STATE BETWEEN THE MAIN POWERS IN THE REGION: ISRAEL & SYRIA. THE PROPOSED STATE IS IN NO WAY INTENDED TO REPRESENT THE ULTIMATE ASPIRATION OF THE PALESTINIAN PEOPLE NOR IS IT MEANT TO BE A POINT OF TRANSFER FOR THE PALESTINIAN PEOPLE; IT IS A MEANS TO AN END AND A BADLY NEEDED WAY TO BUILD A CONSENSUS AND UNIFIED APPROACH AMONG THE ARABS, ESPECIALLY AFTER THE DIVISIONS THAT WIDENED AS A RESULT OF THE 13 SEPTEMBER 1993 INTERIM ACCORD BETWEEN ISRAEL AND THE PLO.

1.   The creation of a state for Palestinian Arabs, whose government will be their sole and legitimate representative and will act as proxy for the nascent State of Palestine that was declared by the Palestine National Council in Algiers on 15 November 1988. This surrogate Palestinian state to be under the sovereignty and, initially, the control of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, and to be formed from freely granted territories comprising:

     A)   Lebanon south of the Nahr al-Litani and an east-west line drawn between the peak of Mount Hermon and the Nahr al-Litani;

     B)   Syria south of the Nahr al-Pharpar (also called:   Nahr al-Awaj) and an east-west line drawn between the peak of Mount Hermon and the western extremity of the Nahr al-Pharpar, including the areas in and around Al-Qunaytirah, Dar'a, and As-Suwayda;

     C)   Jordan's Irbid Governorate west of the northeast to southwest Syrian borderline extended southwesterly to the line that divides the Irbid Governorate from the Al-Asimah Governorate;

     D)   Israel north of the 33rd parallel.

2.   The formation of the new state to be accomplished by a series of separate treaties involving, in order:

     a)   Lebanon and Jordan;

     b)   Syria and Jordan;

     c)   the provisional government of the new state and Jordan;

     d)   Israel and Jordan.

3.   The new state to be entirely without armaments of any kind, with the single exception of weapons for the King's militia. Moreover, the native inhabitants and all current residents of the regions described above will live undisturbed in their usual occupations and domiciles, except in cases wherein the power of eminent domain is exercised by the King. Furthermore, all newcomers and returnees as well as all current residents of the aforesaid regions will pledge allegiance to the King as a necessary condition for permanent residency and citizenship in the new state; otherwise, they must leave the land, but not without adequate compensation and proper relocation to a state of their own choice.

III

PART III, WHICH IS INTENDED TO BE A PRELUDE TO NEGOTIATIONS FOR A JUST AND LASTING AND COMPREHENSIVE SOLUTION TO THE ARAB/IRANIAN-ISRAELI CONFLICT, CALLS FOR EQUAL FOOTING AS WELL AS A VOICE FOR THE PALESTINIAN PEOPLE IN THE ASSEMBLY OF NATIONS, WHICH IS NOT A GOAL OF THE 13 SEPTEMBER 1993 INTERIM ACCORD BETWEEN ISRAEL AND THE PLO.

1.   The new state, to be called Aram (after the Biblical Hebrew name for the region), to be under the King of Jordan, just as Canada once existed and now exists and will continue to exist under Great Britain's monarchs. A formal agreement will be made between His Majesty's Government and the Provisional Government of the State of Aram for a peaceful and orderly transfer of authority to the Government of the State of Aram. But during the formative years of the new state, which period will be specified in the aforementioned agreement, the King will exercise absolute authority therein, and will decide foreign and domestic policies with regard to issues such as deployment and withdrawal of troops, water rights, treaties, security, trade, economy, borders, law, finance, civil rights, diplomatic recognition, and the modalities of admission for Palestinian Arabs from around the world, and other issues.

2.   After sufficient time has elapsed for the establishment of law and order within the State of Aram, as determined in the aforesaid agreement, transitional arrangements will go into effect for a smooth and gradual transfer of authority to the Government of Aram. This procedure will continue until the goal of complete independence is achieved. No law or policy may be established if it contravenes any law, policy, or agreement resulting from implementation of this peace proposal.

IV

PART IV IS A STEPPING-STONE TO PART VI; THIS PROVISION ACKNOWLEDGES PALESTINIAN SOVEREIGNTY OVER THE WEST BANK, WHICH WAS MADE VERY CLEAR BY KING HUSSEIN IN HIS 31 JULY 1988 SPEECH IN AMMAN CONCERNING THE WEST BANK, AND WHICH WAS FORMALLY EXPRESSED IN ALGIERS BY THE PALESTINE NATIONAL COUNCIL'S DECLARATION OF THE STATE OF PALESTINE ON 15 NOVEMBER 1988. PART IV RESISTS THE EFFORTS, BOTH SUBTLE AND OVERT, TO BLUR THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN JORDANIAN AND PALESTINIAN IDENTITIES, AND TO PRESSURE KING HUSSEIN INTO RENEGING ON HIS SCRUPULOUS REAFFIRMATIONS OF THE RABAT DECLARATION OF 1974.

     The donation by the proposed Palestinian State of Aram, and the incorporation by Israel, of the entire West Bank region of the State of Palestine, except Jerusalem. This arrangement to be made by a separate treaty between Israel and the proposed Palestinian State of Aram. All current residents of the West Bank and all newcomers and returnees to the West Bank must either keep or else assume Israeli citizenship and all the rights and responsibilities thereof in order to be permanent residents there or anyplace else in Israel proper. All those who refuse the offer of Israeli citizenship must leave the land, but not without adequate compensation and proper relocation to a nation of their own choice.

V

PART V IS ALSO A STEPPING-STONE TO PART VI; THIS PROVISION ACKNOWLEDGES PALESTINIAN SOVEREIGNTY OVER THE GAZA STRIP, WHICH WAS DECLARED BY THE PALESTINE NATIONAL COUNCIL ON 15 NOVEMBER 1988 AND SUBSEQUENTLY AFFIRMED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF THE ARAB REPUBLIC OF EGYPT ON THE SAME DAY.

     The donation by the proposed Palestinian State of Aram, and the incorporation by Israel, of the entire Gaza region of the State of Palestine. This arrangement to be made by a separate treaty between Israel and the proposed Palestinian State of Aram. All current residents of the Gaza region and all newcomers and returnees to the Gaza region must either keep or else assume Israeli citizenship and all the rights and responsibilities thereof in order to be permanent residents there or anyplace else in Israel proper. All those who refuse the offer of Israeli citizenship must leave the land, but not without adequate compensation and proper relocation to a nation of their own choice.

VI

PART VI IS THE CENTERPIECE OF AN EIGHT PART PEACE PROPOSAL FOR GREATER JERUSALEM; IT EMPHASIZES UNITY OVER PARTITION AND IS ACCORDINGLY SELECTIVE IN ITS INTERPRETATION OF UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTION 181. THE REAGAN PLAN OF 1982, THE FEZ ACCORD OF 1982, VARIOUS IDEAS PUT FORWARD BY SHIMON PERES AND EVEN THE 15 NOVEMBER 1988 DECLARATION BY THE PALESTINE NATIONAL COUNCIL IN ALGIERS ARE BUT VARIATIONS OF THE FAILED UNITED NATIONS PARTITION PLAN AND AS SUCH THEY ONLY SERVE TO PERPETUATE A "HOUSE DIVIDED," WHICH CANNOT STAND. PARTS IV, V & VI ARE ADAPTABLE TO THE 13 SEPTEMBER 1993 INTERIM ACCORD BETWEEN ISRAEL AND THE PLO; THEY PROVIDE A BLUEPRINT FOR FUTURE GROWTH AND A MAXIMUM RANGE OF SETTLEMENT AND OPPORTUNITY FOR BOTH THE ARAB AND THE JEW, WITHOUT WHICH THE INTERIM ACCORD IS LIABLE TO DEGENERATE INTO AN ARRANGEMENT FOR THE PALESTINIANS QUITE SIMILAR TO THE AMERICAN INDIAN RESERVATIONS IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

1.   The creation of the State of Jerusalem as the Holy Patrimony of Christians, Muslims and Jews alike. The new state to be initially under the administration and protection of Israel. The lines and the laws of the new state -- including a Constitution and a Bill of Rights for all its citizens -- to be drawn by the parties concerned under the supervision of a special mission appointed by and working under the auspices of the United Nations, in accordance with the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations as well as all applicable United Nations resolutions that pertain to the Arab/Iranian-Israeli dispute, including Resolution 181, which affirms by a solemn agreement among nations that Jerusalem is a separate entity from Israel proper.

2.   Upon ratification of the aforesaid measures by a treaty between the Government of Israel and the Government of the proposed Palestinian State of Aram, transitional arrangements for the complete transfer of authority from the Government of Israel to the Government of Jerusalem will commence.

3.   A mechanism will also be established in the Constitution of the State of Jerusalem whereby other portions of what is now called Israel (including areas incorporated pursuant to parts IV & V of this proposal) may be annexed or otherwise incorporated into the State of Jerusalem so that there will ultimately be but one nation in the land west of the Jordan river and the Sea of Galilee and the Dead Sea and the Arabah down to the Gulf of Aqaba. Most importantly, this one nation, Jerusalem, will have one government centered in one capital, Jerusalem, and it will offer the citizenship of Jerusalem equally to all the children of Abraham, be they Jew, Muslim or Christian.

VII

PART VII, OR "PLAN DALET," ASSURES THE ASSEMBLY OF NATIONS THAT FUNDAMENTAL ISSUES OF LAW AND ORDER, JUSTICE AND EQUITY, CLAIMS AND COMPENSATION, CANNOT BE IGNORED. FOR INSTANCE, A PALESTINIAN AND HIS FAMILY WHO WERE DYNAMITED OUT OF THEIR HOME IN HAIFA IN 1947 CANNOT BE FORCED TO LIVE IN KUWAIT OR BEVERLY HILLS OR ANYWHERE ELSE. THEIR HOME, AND THEIR DESCENDENTS' HOME, IS HAIFA.

     A Bill of Rights for all citizens of the newly augmented Israel (per parts IV & V), with special provisions for the right of return of Palestinian Arabs and for claims and compensation and the redress of grievances held by Palestinians who choose to live in their homeland as law-abiding citizens of Israel. These rights will not be infringed or otherwise diminished in any way in cases wherein the jurisdiction of the new State of Jerusalem replaces the jurisdiction of the State of Israel, as stipulated in Part VI.3.

VIII

PART VIII, OR "PART VANUNU," IS IN THE COMMON INTEREST OF THE COMMUNITY OF NATIONS, ESPECIALLY THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITY FROM THE URALS TO THE BRITISH ISLES, WHERE ISRAEL'S NUCLEAR FORCES ARE NOW TO BE WEIGHED ON THE WORLDWIDE STRATEGIC BALANCE.

1. Accession by the State of Israel to the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty with additional protocols for mutual monitoring by Iran and Israel of their nuclear programs under supervision of the International Atomic Energy Agency.

2. A conventional arms non-proliferation treaty, a nuclear arms non-proliferation treaty, and a chemical and biological weapons non-proliferation treaty, each to be made by Egypt, Lebanon, Iraq, Jordan, the proposed State of Aram, Hierosolyma (the proposed State of Jerusalem) and Syria, whereby each nation prohibits the importation and manufacture of all types of firearms, explosives, and other advanced weaponry including all kinds of weapons of mass destruction. Limitation, reduction and verification will be the guiding principles and strict standards for each of these treaties, which will transform the land between the Nile and the Euphrates rivers into a region free of weapons of mass destruction.

                            sederunt:

                         E L I J A H ' S
                         G E R O R I   Y
                         Y B A R A E R
                         P A Q D M R I
                         T N    A    O A
                            O     N    S
                            N            O
                                          L
                                          Y
                                          M
                                          A

MAPS

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

The author of An Eight Part Peace Proposal for Greater Jerusalem notes that the tense situation along the Temple Mount in Jerusalem is a constant reminder of the urgent need for peace through better understanding rather than peace through sheer strength.

Ignorance of the Bible is behind the fevered notion of blowing up the Dome of the Rock and the Al Aqsa Mosque and then putting in their places the next Jewish temple simply because the Temple Mount is truly the historic place where the first two temples were once located.

Furthermore, the frequently repeated assertion that the Temple Mount with its Western Wall, or Wailing Wall, is the holiest place in Judaism is absolutely untrue. Nowhere in Torah (also called the Pentateuch, or the first five books of the Bible) is there any mention of Jerusalem let alone a temple anywhere in Jerusalem. And to a Jew, the Torah is the Almighty's law and blueprint for all mankind's peaceful existence.

Only the plain truth can set us free: Israel's next, prophesied temple belongs between Beth El and Hai, about 10 miles north of the old city of Jerusalem. This is where Abraham first called upon the Lord and made an altar to Him. (Genesis 12:8) And this is the place that Jacob later called "the house of God" and "the gate of heaven." (Genesis 28:17) This is also where the Almighty subsequently told Jacob that "Israel shall be thy name." (Genesis 35:10) Indeed, the Torah tells us this place called Beth El is endued with a spiritual significance so sublime that it is beyond compare!

On the other hand, the story of how David came upon and bought the Temple Mount site in Jerusalem is from the Book of Chronicles, which, strictly speaking, is not a book of the Torah and therefore has less authority than a book of the Torah such as the Book of Genesis.

Note well that it was not until after the ancient Israelites had rejected the Almighty Himself as their King (I Samuel 8) and had set a man (Saul) to be king over themselves that their jealous Lord by and by put the idea of a temple into the head of Saul's successor, King David. (I Chronicles 17) Shortly afterwards, David's diabolical decision to take a census of the Israelites -- a people foretold in Genesis to be numberless like the stars in the sky or the sands of the sea or the dust of the earth -- again provoked the Almighty's long lasting wrath. Thus it was the Almighty's wrath that ultimately led David to the threshingfloor of Ornan the Jebusite and it was the Almighty's wrath that caused David to buy this land for a temple site (I Chronicles 21), where his son Solomon was later to build the first temple.

And so the discovery by David of the Temple Mount site, previously known as the threshingfloor of Ornan the Jebusite, was part of the enactment of divine retribution against David and the Israelites. This is an amazing but true fact recorded in Scripture.

Moreover, the entire chain of events that led David to this place, known then as the threshingfloor of Ornan the Jebusite but now known as the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, was the direct result of a choice made by David at the behest of the prophet Gad (I Chronicles 21:11-13); this circumstance is not in accord with the positive command in Deuteronomy 12:5, to seek the habitation of the Almighty, a "place which the Lord your God shall choose."

Biblical scholars are naturally inclined to be skeptical about the future Beth El temple site -- if indeed they are aware of it at all -- because they are conditioned to believe that the Temple Mount site in Jerusalem is theologically as well as historically or archaeologically axiomatic and therefore any attempt to gainsay such conventional wisdom must be the work of a crackpot, an eccentric or even Satan himself; indeed, they point to II Chronicles 7:1, the dedication of Solomon's temple, to clinch their point about the Temple Mount site:

     "Now when Solomon had made an end of praying, the fire came down from heaven, and consumed the burnt offering and the sacrifices; and the glory of the Lord filled the house."

Moreover, II Chronicles 7:12 is even more explicit:

     "And the Lord appeared to Solomon by night, and said unto him, I have heard thy prayer, and have chosen this place to myself for an house of sacrifice."

However, a caveat concerning Solomon's temple on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem is included at the end of the Almighty's covenant with Solomon (II Chronicles 7:19-22) and it is reproduced here with the author's own emphasis added in italics:

     "But if ye turn away, and forsake my statutes and commandments, which I have set before you, and shall go and serve other gods, and worship them;
     Then will I pluck them up by the roots out of my land which I have given them; and this house, which I have sanctified for my name, will I cast out of my sight, and will make it to be a proverb and a byword among all nations.
     And this house, which is high, shall be an astonishment to every one that passeth by it; so that he shall say, Why hath the Lord done thus unto this land, and unto this house?
     And it shall be answered, Because they forsook the Lord God of their fathers, which brought them forth out of the land of Egypt, and laid hold on other gods, and worshipped them, and served them: therefore hath he brought all this evil upon them."

History of course shows us the doom that was prescribed not only for the first and second temples in Jerusalem, but also for the ten tribed House of Israel which was carried away and made to disappear by the Assyrians when the first temple was still standing, and for the House of Judah which the Babylonians carried away but later, by the decree of the Persian King Cyrus, was allowed to return to Jerusalem and build the second temple, the remains of which are mistakenly revered by Jews throughout the world to this day.

It is also important to understand that the Koran makes clear reference to the destruction of the first temple by Nebuchadnezzar in 586 B.C. and of the second temple by Titus in 70 A.D. and the revelation concludes: "It may be that your Lord may yet show mercy unto you." (Sura Bani Isra'il 17, Ayat 4-8) These hopeful words of the Almighty were spoken directly to the Children of Israel through the prophet Muhammad more than five centuries after Jerusalem fell to the Romans! Can "your Lord" be so very different from Muhammad's Lord? Do not Christian, Jew and Muslim all believe there is one God, the Lord of Lords and King of Kings? But if only the Children of Israel would be guided by the Torah and only the Torah and realize their full potential in Beth El!

Unfortunately, there is still no temple in Beth El, which still remains the headquarters for the military authority of what is left of the Zionist occupied West Bank. Are these militant Zionists, whose "Iron Fist" tactics have been successfully countered by the Palestinian intifadas, really the descendants of Abraham, by whom "shall all families of the earth be blessed"? (Genesis 12:3)

Stubborn habits and old traditions die hard. For example, a Lubavitch Rabbi in New York City, Abraham Stone (770 Eastern Parkway, Brooklyn, New York 11213), wrote in a newspaper article published by the Jewish Press of 19 November 1993 (page 64) that the Beth El location cited above from Genesis 28:17 is in fact the Temple Mount in Jerusalem and that this scripture proves that the Temple Mount is where the third temple should be built! Stone acknowledges that this scripture is the authoritative source giving the right location for the temple, which is quite correct. But he insists that Beth El is the Temple Mount location in Jerusalem, which is an assertion that is simply not supported by Scripture!

Indeed, Beth El is cited as early as Genesis 12, as pointed out above, well before any mention of Jerusalem in the Bible. Beth El appears again and again in Genesis, whereas Jerusalem does not appear anywhere in the Torah (or first five books of the Bible)! In I Kings 12:25-29, Jerusalem and Beth El are mentioned in the same context as two different place names, the latter being the place where the rebel King of Israel set up a golden calf so as to keep his subjects from returning to worship at the first temple on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem in the rival Kingdom of Judah. Clearly the Temple Mount in Jerusalem and Beth El are two different places, and Genesis 28:17 tells us, as even Rabbi Stone has already affirmed, Beth El is the place that the Almighty chose for his habitation!

Rabbi Stone took a supercilious tone in a telephone conversation on this all important topic of the correct location for Israel's next temple and did not deign to reply to the author's follow-up letter on the same subject, in which he made the following additional points beyond those already expressed in his first letter to the rabbi:

First, David, in Psalm 48:2, seems to give special significance to the northern reaches of Jerusalem, where Beth El is, when he indited these words:

     "Beautiful for situation, the joy of the whole earth, is mount Zion, on the sides of the north, the city of the great King."

A diplomatic approach to this subject may very well be that the greater metropolitan area of Jerusalem could include Beth El in the final peace agreement between the Arabs and the Israelis. The spiritual significance of Jerusalem the city will not be diminished a whit by recognition and acceptance of Beth El as the next temple site.

Second, in this same regard it should also be noted that Ezekiel prophesied there would be among the portions finally allotted to the twelve tribes one separate portion comprising land for the sanctuary of the Lord, for the priests of the sanctuary, for "a profane place for the city, for dwelling, and for suburbs," and the remainder for the prince. (Ezekiel 48:7-22) Inasmuch as this extra portion contains a sacred place "for the sanctuary of the Lord" as well as "a profane place for the city, for dwelling, and for suburbs," it cannot be more clear that the sanctuary is not supposed to be located inside the city!

Third, Ezekiel, upon beholding from his vantage point on a high mountain the vision of the future temple, indicates that there was "as the frame of a city on the south," which must be old Jerusalem as the center of the new Jerusalem. (Ezekiel 40:2) Isn't it clear that if Jerusalem appeared just to the south of Ezekiel, then Ezekiel stood just to the north of Jerusalem? And isn't Beth El located just to the north of the old city of Jerusalem?

Is it only a coincidence that Ezekiel, in his vision of the future temple, stood in or near Beth El, the very same place that Jacob called the "House of God and the Gate of Heaven" after the Almighty had begun to communicate to Jacob in a dream the spiritual significance of the place?

Rabbi Stone later retreated somewhat from his Beth El is Mount Moriah (or his Beth El is the Temple Mount) position when, in the Jewish Press of 1 December 1995 (page 9), he quoted from Rashi, the preeminent Biblical commentator who lived in the European diaspora from 1040 to 1105 A.D., that, with reference to the account of Jacob at Beth El in Genesis 28:17, "Mt. Moriah (the Temple Mount) was uprooted and was brought to the site where Jacob was lying." Unbeknownst to Moses himself not to mention modern day geologists and archaeologists, Stone's assertion is sheer nonsense that only compounds ignorance and promotes confusion on a truly vital question on which the peace of Jerusalem hinges and must therefore be totally rejected!

Whereas Jesus did say, "If ye have faith, and doubt not, ...if ye shall say unto this mountain, Be thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea; it shall be done" (St. Matthew 21:21), so too is it true that there are none so deaf as those who will not hear. What a pity indeed, for a rabbi to turn away from such an important message enshrined in his very own Scripture! As Jesus said, "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil." (St. Matthew 5:17)

That the Temple Mount in Jerusalem is associated with Divine retribution echoes throughout history. Beyond the aforementioned destruction of the first temple by the Babylonians and then of the second by the Romans pursuant to the Almighty's promise of punishment as expressed in chapter 26 of Leviticus and reiterated in the previously cited caveat of II Chronicles 7:19-22 right after Solomon's dedication of the first temple, the Evangelist Matthew (St. Matthew 24:1-2) records that Jesus Christ himself put a curse on the temple in Jerusalem when, shortly before his arrest, he looked at the buildings of the temple on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem and told his apostles: "See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down."

If one were to take Jesus fully at His word as mankind fast approaches the twenty-first century and bears witness to the ever unfolding progress in the technologies of modern warfare, one must acknowledge that this prophecy of total destruction has not yet been completely fulfilled despite the best efforts of the Jews and their Roman conquerors under Titus; for the Western Wall, being part of Herod's refurbishment of the second temple, was standing when Jesus uttered his malediction against "the buildings of the temple" and it is still standing today!

Can it be that the remainder of this curse may yet prove to be causeless and therefore will not come if there is a change of hearts and people seek for and go to Beth El, the habitation of the Almighty that He Himself has chosen through his prophets?

Centuries later, the Temple Mount in Jerusalem became the objective point of numerous military expeditions from Europe, which are known as the Crusades or Holy Crusades; the blood and money and toil expended for these cruel and crazy and futile ventures can only be viewed as the product of ignorance combined with misguided fervor or religious fanaticism. In these dark pages of history, the wrong temple site became a most worthy goal of Europe's royalty, nobility and aristocracy, and even lent its name to the religious military order called the Knights Templars; thus their acquisition of the Temple Mount in Jerusalem became one of their justifications for war; indeed, it is noteworthy that even today the putative heir to the now defunct throne of the Hapsburgs, Otto von Hapsburg, still styles himself, among many other titles listed in the European edition of Who's Who, "King of Jerusalem"! So does King Juan Carlos of Spain have the additional title "King of Jerusalem"! Yet neither man can show the correct, prophesied location for the real Israel's next temple!

Throughout the remainder of the Middle Ages, ignorance of the correct site for the next Israelite temple remained pervasive. But then in the early seventeenth century, there appeared a glimmer of truth and of hope. John Milton, in his Paradise Lost (Book I, 400-405), clearly indicates two different temple locations -- one right and one wrong -- when he composed these inspired words about the false god Moloch:

                                                 "...the wisest heart
                         Of Solomon he led by fraud to build
                         His Temple right against the Temple of God
                         On that opprobrious Hill, and made his Grove
                         The pleasant Valley of Hinnom, Tophet thence
                         And black Gehenna called, the Type of Hell."

Milton's genius clarifies the Almighty's commandment to Ezekiel, "...show the house to the house of Israel..." (Ezekiel 43:10); to obey such a command, the prophet must be able to distinguish between two vying temple sites that are in close proximity to each other, as are Beth El and the Temple Mount. Indeed, if the correct temple site were so very obvious to all, then there would be no need for a prophet to "show the house to the house of Israel"! Likewise, were the whole world -- even the very elect -- deceived as to the correct location for the next temple, as is the case today with the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, then a prophet would surely be needed to set the matter straight and to "show the house to the house of Israel." Otherwise, the wrong choice, "the Type of Hell," would continue to be made without any warning to the Almighty's chosen people.

It must be understood that Ezekiel was among the Jewish captives when the House of Judah fell to the Babylonians along with Jerusalem and the first temple. But the House of Israel, to whom Ezekiel was charged to "show the house," had already been made to disappear at the hands of the Assyrians more than one hundred years before the Babylonian captivity. Ezekiel was never in direct contact with the House of Israel when he prophesied and his prophecies are therefore for the end time.

Hence, there is reason to conclude that Ezekiel's charge to "show the house to the house of Israel" is somehow related to or at least compatible with Jesus's instructions to his apostles to "...go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." (St. Matthew 10:6)

Furthermore, the Christian concept of a spiritual temple actually comprising the faithful and the elect and indeed Jesus Himself need not preclude the idea of a physical Israelite temple, just as John the Baptist's express need for baptism by Jesus did not preclude John's baptism of Jesus; for, as Jesus said, "Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness." (St. Matthew 3:13-15) Building the next temple in Israel will indeed fulfill all righteousness, but only if the right location in Beth El is chosen!

But the choice of the wrong location -- on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem -- for the next temple in Israel remains a constant threat to world peace. In this very decade right before the twenty first century we have already faced a controversy of parallel proportion with the still pending threat of Jewish extremists blowing up the Dome of the Rock so as to build in its place on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem the third Jewish temple; I refer to the destruction of the Babri Mosque in the Hindu holy city of Ayodhyatoday on 6 December 1992, which resulted in brutal rioting throughout India between Hindus (82% of a total population of 844 million) and Muslims (12%). The Babri Mosque was built in the sixteenth century and is said to stand on the site of an old Hindu temple that marks the birthplace of the Hindu god Ram. As Hindus clamored to destroy Al-Babri the Government of India gave assurances that the mosque would be protected. Suddenly, however, the Indian Government was faced with a fait accompli and all the promises of protection were proved to be empty words. Will history repeat itself in another part of the world where the Mayor of Jerusalem, Ehud Olmert, once said just before his election victory over long time Jerusalem Mayor Teddy Kollek: "Do I say we have to wipe out the Dome of the Rock? I say, on the contrary, I'll do everything to invest in the quality of life of the Arab residents, much more than Teddy did. Teddy did nothing in this area." Will we rise one day to find another fait accompli and proof that Mayor Olmert's words had no meaning behind them? Or, does Mayor Olmert disguise a conviction that the third Jewish temple on the Temple Mount will be an investment in the quality of life of the Arab residents?

The stakes are very high indeed. The source of all the strife, upon close examination, emanates from the "elephantiasis of intellect and atrophy of emotion" resulting from traditional beliefs that sometimes prevent clear understanding of Scripture and the collective wisdom of the ages. Thus, a temple site proposed by a man (King David) is preferred to the temple site revealed by God to Jacob and Ezekiel! This is not a good foundation for the temple or for peace!

Here it would be good to consider that the prophets foretell the advent of three rather distinct peoples to the land of Israel near the end time: the return of the House of Judah, the return of the House of Israel and the intrusion of the people of Gog and Magog. The choice between the right and wrong locations for the next temple represents a way to separate, so to speak, the tares from the wheat among them.

The House of Judah largely consists of those Israelites of the Babylonian captivity who kept their Sabbath-keeping identity and Hebrew language intact. They are descended from the tribes of Judah and Benjamin and Levi, which made up the Kingdom of Judah that the Babylonians took into captivity. They are the survivors of the Babylonian exile and the Roman occupation and their descendants are known today as the Sephardic Jews.

The House of Israel consists of the ten tribes of the breakaway Kingdom of Israel, which were taken away by the Assyrians and made to disappear more than one hundred years before the more familiar Babylonian captivity described above. (See II Kings 17) The prophet Amos foretold that this House of Israel would be mingled among the gentiles (Amos 9:9) and it was Jesus Christ who indicated that the whereabouts of the House of Israel were unknown to the Sanhedrin when he bade his apostles to "go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." (St. Matthew 10:6)

Thus it was the House of Judah only that kept its distinctive Sabbath keeping identity and Hebrew language intact and is therefore known as the Sephardic Jewry of today. The House of Israel, though still heir to the promises just like the House of Judah, does not for the most part have a Torah based Sabbath keeping identity or Hebrew speaking facility today because the descendants of these ten tribes of Israel lost these traits during the Assyrian captivity and subsequent assimilation into northern and western Europe. Even so, the spirit of the prophet Ezekiel will eventually show them the house that the Lord God of Israel has chosen for Beth El.

Gog and Magog include the Khazars, who are described by the Encyclopaedia Judaica as a national group of general Turkic type whose conversion to Judaism is dated as far back as 730 C.E., when the Khazars consecrated a tabernacle on the Mosaic model over 1260 years ago. After the fall of the Khazar Empire, these Jews moved west into eastern and central Europe. The Encyclopaedia Judaica states:

"In spite of the negligible information of an archaeological nature, the presence of Jewish groups and the impact of Jewish ideas in Eastern Europe are considerable during the Middle Ages. Groups have been mentioned as migrating to Central Europe from the East or have been referred to as Khazars, thus making it impossible to overlook the possibility that they originated from within the former Khazar Empire."

These Jews of the Khazar conversion are among the Turkic people of Gog and Magog and are known today as the Ashkenazi Jews of central and eastern Europe, whereas the Jews descended directly from the House of Judah are, as stated above, principally the Sephardic Jews. The Sephardic Jews are of Semitic origin just like the Arabs and the Ashkenazi Jews are of Turkic and European origin; it is indeed ironic that the term "anti-Semitism" arose among these Turkic Khazar-derived Ashkenazi Jews in Europe.

Thus, when these identities are firmly established in one's mind, one readily understands the prophecy of Ezekiel (Ezekiel 39:2) wherein a remnant of one-sixth of Gog will survive and be brought from the north to the mountains of Israel. This is the extermination of the Ashkenazi Jews at the hands of the Nazis and the Zionist emigration out of Europe into Palestine, which is commonly mistaken for the ingathering, or the prophesied return of the House of Judah and the House of Israel to the Holy Land. For more information see http://www.show-the-house.com/id55.html.

Thus has this militant Zionism of a decidedly Ashkenazic cast usurped in one fell swoop both the promise of a scepter to Judah and the real Jews of the House of Judah (Genesis 49:10) and the birthright promise to Joseph's sons (Genesis 48:20) and the descendants of the "lost ten tribes" of the House of Israel. One only needs to take an objective look at Zionism today to know the import of the question that God commanded Ezekiel to ask of Gog (Ezekiel 38:14): "Thus saith the Lord God; in that day when my people Israel dwelleth safely, shalt thou not know it?" Just turn on your television set to the world news to find out the answer to God's own reality-check for the people of Gog who have usurped the holy name of Israel and with their cruel and crazy full spectrum fraud and force have made the name of Israel to stink in the assembly of nations!

With regard to the United Nations, where both the United States (a land literally flowing with milk and honey) and the Ashkenazi dominated State of Israel (Gog) have conspired to frustrate either the passage or implementation of one Security Council resolution after another with regard to the Arab/Iranian-Zionist dispute, one should be aware of the Almighty's displeasure as expressed through Ezekiel (Ezekiel 5:7): "...neither have done according to the judgments of the nations...." Such haughty disregard for the decent opinion of mankind is just one reason for the Almighty to turn against the real Israel as well as Gog! Here are all the reasons, with the author's own emphasis added in italics:

     "Because ye are multiplied more than the nations that are round about you, and have not walked in my statutes, neither have kept my judgments, neither have done according to the judgments of the nations that are round about you;
     Therefore thus saith the Lord God; Behold, I, even I, am against thee, and will execute judgments in the midst of thee in the sight of the nations." (Ezekiel 5:7-8)

But enough of this foreboding tone and concentration on the Almighty's curses and more about the blessings that were also promised as part of the bargain between the Almighty and His chosen people. Whereas these blessings on the seed of Abraham in general as well as on the Israelites in particular are indeed racial in nature, there is also a spiritual dimension that must be given paramount importance in the foregoing consideration of identities, be they of Gog and Magog or of Israel or of Judah or of indeed most anyone else. Thus it was said by St. John the Baptist (St. Matthew 3:9):

"And think not to say within yourselves, we have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham."

Virtually anybody is eligible to belong to the Abrahamic family and be heirs to the promises made to Abraham. For example, even a Lubavitch Jew whose origins are from Khazaria via central and eastern Europe, and therefore fits the Ashkenazic Gog and Magog type, may nevertheless transcend the terrible prophecies made concerning Gog and Magog by living according to the Golden Rule and obeying all the commands of the God of Israel.

Likewise, it is also very important to understand that when the land of Israel is finally divided among the tribes of Israel, Ezekiel states:

     "ye shall divide it by lot for an inheritance unto you, and to the strangers that sojourn among you, which shall beget children among you: and they shall be unto you as born in the country among the children of Israel; they shall have inheritance with you among the tribes of Israel." (Ezekiel 47:22)

Surely in the vast sweep of history this end time prophecy of an ancient Hebrew prophet concerning "the strangers that sojourn among you" applies today to the indigenous Arab population of historic Palestine. The Turkish government has preserved the Ottoman Empire records of Arab land ownership in historic Palestine, which one may consider to be the default setting before the imposition of discriminatory restrictive covenants after land sales to Jews and, later, outright ethnic cleansing of Palestinians from their lands.

After all is said and done, the Almighty is still the Judge and the Executioner for better or for worse; those who live in His favor will be the ones who look for and find the place that the Almighty has chosen for his habitation, which is Beth El. But the false impostors and others who do not look for and find -- or do not believe when shown -- the correct location for Israel's next temple are sowing the wind and will reap a whirlwind.

Finally, it is worth adding that the Lord of Israel's jealousy was aroused by Samuel's fulfillment of a positive command written in the Book of Deuteronomy (17:15), to set a man as King of Israel. Being King of Israel is certainly no easy matter; perhaps being King of a truly democratic and integrated State of Jerusalem with one capital and one citizenship and a maximum range of settlement and opportunity for Jews, Muslims and Christians alike is more in keeping with the spirit of prophecy, particularly the spirit of Ezekiel, as just set forth above in Ezekiel 47:22. At any rate, being the first to know and understand and actually expound on where the next Israelite temple really belongs is a very good beginning. This is the only way for a Jew to perform the mitzvah of all mitzvahs. A Christian skeptic need only remember the words of Jesus to Nicodemus: "If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?" (St. John 3:12) And a Muslim can relax as the danger of an assault on the Dome of the Rock and the Al-Aqsa Mosque goes away. Everybody will be happy!

APPENDIX B

As a citizen of the United States of America, the author of An Eight Part Peace Proposal for Greater Jerusalem notes with pride that the source of his idea for the territorial arrangements contained in Parts II, IV, V, and VI is the Constitution of the United States. Article IV, Section 3, reads in part:

"New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress."

Though the Constitution of the United States certainly does not apply directly to other nations, this dynamic document has nevertheless influenced the minds of people in every corner of the earth and, with the Almighty's help, will continue to do so. And although no union exists between Israel and its proximate Arab neighbors, which is a state of affairs quite different from the one in which the framers of the Constitution of the United States indited their formula for new combinations of states, the urgent need for peace may nevertheless spur the people of these troubled nations to test a truly democratic idea that is rather old -- yet never used -- in the annals of American history but quite new and revolutionary in the context of world history.

This idea or formula, which offers both a legal precedent and a model for conflict resolution among states by means of territorial adjustment, could very well serve as the basis whereby an international convention will establish rules expressly recognized by all the parties to the Iranian/Arab-Israeli dispute.

Furthermore, a properly modified version of this formula for conflict resolution by means of territorial adjustment would, as a new article in the Charter of the United Nations, provide a specific rule and remedy for situations wherein the right of self determination of a people is in direct conflict with the sovereign and territorial rights of a member state.

America's founding fathers based their formula for conflict resolution by means of territorial adjustment on the principle of mutual agreement with state sovereignty as the paramount default position. That this formula, enshrined in Article IV, Section iii of the Constitution of the United States, has never been exercised is testament to its fidelity to the established order and applicability to rare and unusual circumstances only. As a model formula for a political solution to the Iranian/Arab-Zionist dispute, and even for a new article in the Charter of the United Nations for situations wherein the right of self-determination rubs against a nation's sovereignty, this truly democratic idea deserves consideration without fear of a promiscuous breaking up of nations and their sovereign rights. Words written in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania over 200 years ago can and should be enlivened for a global context first as guarantor of sovereignty and second as creator of sovereignty by mutual agreement only, and with power greater than all the armies of the world and the utter destruction that their modern technologies of warfare can cause. This is the basis of An Eight Part Peace Proposal for Greater Jerusalem, which is anchored in the United Nations Security Council Resolution 242, a sure foundation for reasonable compromise.

Finally, yet another new article in the Charter of the United Nations is recommended; such article would give mandatory jurisdiction to the International Court of Justice of all disputes between states that are unable to settle them by negotiation or any other peaceful mode of settlement.

This proposed article on the mandatory jurisdiction of the ICJ, together with the aforementioned proposed article on conflict-resolution by means of territorial adjustment, will greatly help the United Nations meet the challenges of the twenty-first century.

Appendix C

     The author of An Eight Part Peace Proposal for Greater Jerusalem regrets that he finds it necessary to present to his audience a conspiracy theory; he is reasonably confident that this theory, if put fully to the test, will make all of us witnesses to a monumental act of deception. The author also wishes to emphasize that, with the exception of this Appendix C, his peace proposal is basically an action programme and not a discussion paper. He shall endeavour to answer as best he can written inquiries from LIBERTY NEWS subscribers which are sent to P. O. Box 449, New York, NY 10185.

     According to informed sources whose identities must remain secret for their own safety, a meeting took place between certain Syrian and Zionist representatives in the Spanish State, in Madrid, sometime prior to the Six Day War of June, 1967. The result of this meeting was an agreement whereby the Syrian conspirators, in consideration of a stupendous sum of money, promised to orchestrate a retreat of the Syrian Armed Forces from the Golan Heights against the day of an Israeli advance.

     Some details of the arrangements resulting from what the author now calls "the Madrid Pact" can be found in Suqut al-Julan, or, The Fall of the Golan, which was published in Cairo in 1980 by the Dar El E'etsam Publishing House. The author, Khalil Mustapha, is said to be a former Syrian intelligence officer.

     In the early spring of 1967, the very idea of Israel's easy capture of the Golan Heights, an extremely well-fortified place, was simply preposterous; for this public relations problem, the Syro-Zionist conspirators had a ruse that would give plausibility to their private real estate venture. On 7 April 1967, a limited engagement took place between the armed forces of Syria and of Israel; Syria's principal action that day was a vituperative harangue against Egypt for not coming to the aid of Damascus during the short-lived surprise attack. Thus, from this preplanned skirmish between Israel and Syria there exploded on the airwaves reports and rumors of war and hot rhetoric that were cleverly designed to place the blame on Egypt for Israel's imminent taking of the Golan Heights.

     The Syrian Minister of Defense at the time, an ambitious former Air Force General named Hafez al-Asad, was also a brilliant propagandist. Born in humble circumstances, Asad's love of western money eventually boosted him to the presidency in 1970; Asad is the only man in world history to become the leader of his nation right after losing a significant portion of its sovereign territory. He is a sure shot for the Wax Museum, close to where the brandy-brained masterminds originally concocted their plans for the Zionist expansion onto the Golan Heights.

     Unforeseen complications arose as the Syro-Zionist conspirators made ready to put the Israeli flag on the Golan Heights. Egyptian intelligence had already uncovered this planned treachery against the Syrian people, which Gamal Abdel Nasser tried to forestall with diversionary tactics along Israel's southern border. Nasser hoped that the Israeli conspirators, who were apparently operating on their own with their Syrian counterparts and not within the councils of their own government, would back off from their designs on the Golan Heights to the north by making all of Israel (in fact, all the world) look warily at the Egyptian border to the south. His purpose was to thwart Israeli aggression with a show of force.

     But Nasser could not, and did not, anticipate the reaction of the Pentagon in Washington, which suddenly became very paranoid about Dimona, the nuclear weapons facility in Israel's Negev desert, not far from Egypt's military buildup. Dimona represented then, and still represents today, an extreme diversion for nuclear armaments of United States and Israeli human and economic resources, which is an egregious violation of the letter and spirit of Article 26 of the Charter of the United Nations. In order to save face, the United States had to protect Dimona at all costs.

     On 7 April 1967, the very same day the Syrians and Israelis briefly locked horns for the believing world to see, the "303 Committee," a United States Government interdepartmental group that supervised CIA covert operations, met and approved a sensitive Department of Defense project known as "Frontlet 615," which involved secretly placing an unregistered submarine or two inside the territorial waters of the United Arab Republic; this mission was most likely for the purpose of electromagnetic interference with radio airwaves, thereby allowing United States technical support for the defense of Dimona and of Israel to proceed undetected. Secrecy was of paramount importance both tactically and strategically; while Dimona had to be defended at any cost, if the United States had been exposed as "a party to a dispute," this great nation, under the provisions of Article 27 of the Charter of the United Nations, would have been forced to abstain from voting in the Security Council on matters pertaining to the Arab-Israeli dispute! Imagine!

     Furthermore, Pentagon heads knew that any fighting between Egypt and Israel would have put the nuclear weapons facility at Dimona in jeopardy in more ways than one. If the Egyptians had captured Dimona, their discovery would have been a major embarrassment to the USA; for only a few years before, it was the USA that had so righteously forced the USSR to remove its nuclear weapons from Cuba. The Pentagon did not want any surprises at the United Nations for their colleagues across the Potomac at the Department of State, who were apparently unaware, or pretended to be unaware, of the nuclear weapons facility at Dimona. Dean Rusk, then the US Secretary of State, recently said of those days: "We were especially concerned about the Israelis. If they ever developed and deployed nuclear weapons, nuclear proliferation in the Middle East could not be far behind. Fearful of this, we repeatedly urged Israel not to be the first country to introduce nuclear weapons into the Middle East. If they did, we told them they'd lose the United States and the protection of our nuclear umbrella." (As I Saw It, W. W. Norton & Co., New York, 1990, pp. 342-343)

     Whatever the case back then in the 1960s, we know now -- thanks to one Mordechai Vanunu and The Sunday Times of London (5 October 1986) -- that Israel has nuclear weapons and also rockets to deliver them; true to Rusk's sober reflections, this ominous development predated Iraq's acquisition of weapons of mass destruction as a deterrent force. Unlike Iraq, however, Israel's nuclear facilities have never been open for international inspection under any circumstances.

     The official attitude of the United States Government with respect to Israel's nuclear weapons capability remains a mystery to this day.   Questions such as "Who knew what about Dimona and when did they know it?" remain unanswered. Was President John F. Kennedy opposed to Israel's nuclear weapons program? If so, how far were the Israelis willing to go to circumvent his objections? (Wasn't President Kennedy the son of a pro-Nazi United States Ambassador to the Court of St. James?) Why was the systematic theft of weapons-grade uranium from a US Government contractor located in the State of Pennsylvania never properly investigated? These concerns do not fall exclusively within the domestic jurisdiction of Israel and the United States; the conspiracy of silence in both countries is a danger to international peace and security.

     Nasser's noble bluff was unfortunately destined to fail. War erupted and, despite all the inflammatory rhetoric of the previous weeks, Syria stayed in a defensive posture as Israel's attention was focused on several objective points in the south and the east. In a classic illustration of "peace through strength" vying with and prevailing over "peace through understanding," Dean Rusk recollects: "But we were shocked as well, and angry as hell, when the Israelis launched their surprise offensive. They attacked on a Monday, knowing that on Wednesday the Egyptian vice-president would arrive in Washington to talk about reopening the Strait of Tiran." (As I Saw It, p. 386) The closure of the Strait of Tiran had been declared a casus belli by Israel, and its reopening would have lessened tensions in the region considerably. Maybe a telephone call to Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara or his assistant at the Pentagon, Cyrus Vance, would have helped immeasurably too.

     With a key opportunity for a diplomatic solution lost forever, the outcome was disastrous for both Egypt and Jordan; with the West Bank, East Jerusalem, Gaza and Sinai now under Israeli control and with the action all but finished on these fronts largely because of US aerial photographic reconnaissance that was made available to the Israel Defense Force, the Israeli conspirators soon resumed their original preparations for a northern invasion into Syria.

     But at the last moment, another obstacle presented itself to the Syro-Zionist conspirators: an audio-electromagnetic surveillance ship, the USS Liberty, arrived off the coast of Gaza. According to James M. Ennes, Jr., who was an officer aboard this US Navy "spy ship" at the time, the USS Liberty was in a position to learn a great deal about the tactics, procedures, morale, discipline, order-of-battle and the military objectives of both sides of the conflict. Ennes raises a number of important questions that still need answers in his well researched book, Assault on the Liberty, which was published by Random House in New York in 1980.

     Clearly, the USS Liberty's sudden and unexpected visit to the eastern Mediterranean put the Golan operation in jeopardy; secrecy could no longer be assured with this intelligence-gathering platform floating nearby. A bold move was called for; Israel launched a carefully coordinated air and sea attack that was calculated to sink the USS Liberty and leave no survivors -- an extraordinary measure that remains controversial even to this day largely because the demolished ship refused to go under and the surviving crew vehemently rejects Israel's claim that the attack was an unfortunate case of mistaken identity. Thus, the Israel Defense Force, whose ranks were already thinned over the newly conquered West Bank, East Jerusalem, Gaza and the Sinai Desert all the way to the Suez Canal, was finally free to take the virtually impregnable Golan Heights in less than 24 hours! (This feat is indeed wondrous when compared with the PLO's tenacious defense of Beaufort Castle with rifles and mortars against a fully concentrated thrust by the Israel Defense Force in 1982.)

     Survivors of the USS Liberty formed their very own veterans association and actively seek ways to bring the whole truth about the attack on their ship before the American public. Despite strong hindrance brought to bear on these courageous men by American Jewish organizations, the Liberty survivors are quite determined to end the cover-up that has been perpetrated for 24 years now by the governments of Israel and the United States.

     Largely because of their self-sacrificing dedication and diligent supererogation that carry on in their retirement years, the United States Navy changed course in 1989 and finally admitted that the original Navy Court of Inquiry focused only on certain military communication problems prior to the attack and the heroic efforts of Liberty's crew in controlling damage caused by the attack. Clearly, the presiding officer, Admiral Isaac Kidd, never carried out in good faith President Lyndon Johnson's order to investigate all the circumstances of the attack. Or, maybe Kidd's real instructions came to him between the lines.

     The United States Navy now maintains that sensitive international issues arising from Israel's attack on the USS Liberty were best left for diplomatic and political consideration. But for 24 years, the Congress of the United States, because of sheer lack of integrity, has failed to face this issue honestly and forthrightly. The House of Representatives has a Constitutional mandate "To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations." (Article I, section 8) But in the case of the USS Liberty, this assembly refuses to recognize and carry out one of its enumerated powers. In fact, the case of the USS Liberty represents the only major incident at sea involving a US Navy ship that has not been fully investigated by Congress.

     Political expediency is by no means the only reason American politicians have for ducking responsibility when it comes to the USS Liberty. Other factors include the demagogic character of the major American Jewish organizations. For example, an excellent TV documentary, called "Days of Rage," produced by Jo Franklin Trout, was nearly kept off the air through their highly skilled and organized protests across the United States. The film was finally aired on 6 September 1989 thanks to an emerging Arab-American constituency, but even so, a very controversial statement evoked by Ms. Trout from retired Israeli Major General Mattiyahu Peled, that the conquest of the Golan Heights was the "private venture of the then Defense Minister Moishe Dayan and a few generals who were very much interested in this adventure," drew no comment whatsoever from Hodding Carter's discussion panel or any other member of the press, the government or academia except this writer. The shrill Jewish protestors caused PBS executives to "wrap" the documentary with two others more to their liking, and placed one at the beginning and the other at the end of "Days of Rage," thereby wearing down the attention span of most TV viewers. How Peled's remarkable statement can still be ignored in public fora for so long remains to be explained fully. Certainly there is a "chilling effect" on certain topics that are unflattering to Israel, from the halls of Congress even to one's own living room.

     Another reason for American politicians to shun the just cause of the USS Liberty Veterans Association is the strenuous effort by American Jewish lobbyists to persuade government officials to believe that the attack was an accident and that any statement to the contrary is merely Arab propaganda or out and out anti-Semitism. Indeed, most Congressmen are more familiar with the Israeli version of the attack than the well-researched accounts that their own fellow citizens are trying to offer against all odds. Unrelenting pressure has been applied to those who ask questions too much.

     One must also consider the fears that normally attend espionage and blackmail. Israel's official version of the attack, a Preliminary Inquiry known as the "Yerushalmi Report," makes clear reference in its opening paragraphs (establishing time, place, etc.) to the officially "unconfirmed" existence of a submarine in the vicinity of the USS Liberty on the day of the attack. It is quite easy to conjecture that such prominent mention of an unconfirmed sighting of a submarine was a warning to the United States Government that any rigorous investigation into the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty would also result in exposure of the "Frontlet 615" project, which, as already mentioned, involved secretly placing at least one submarine inside UAR territorial waters -- a clear violation of international law, and an especially serious one by an avowed neutral nation that was in fact controlling the course of an ongoing war.

     A thorough investigation into all the circumstances of Israel's premeditated attack on the USS Liberty will, of course, consider the question of motivation, and such an inquiry will inevitably lead not only to a realistic appraisal of the "miraculous" Golan operation, which just happened to proceed apace a day after Liberty's electronic eavesdropping capability was neutralized by Israeli jet fighters and torpedo boats, but also to a frank and objective discussion of the Pentagon's key role in Israel's aggression against its Arab neighbors. The stakes are indeed quite high: The duplicity, the lies, the ruthlessness and corruption will be exposed for all to see. But with the removal of the facade and all the false pretenses associated with "bargaining chips" and "land for peace" and "limited autonomy" (Give me limited autonomy or give me death, already!?!?) and with proper measures for accountability and responsibility finally taken, the consequences can be dealt with justly and expeditiously and the United Nations will be free to move on the Arab-Israeli agenda without so many hidden obstacles.

     And finally, an investigation of the USS Liberty incident is such a hot political potato because the Bush Administration, which stood so vigorously on principle in the Arabian Gulf crisis, would be compelled to admit US involvement in Israel's willful aggression against Egypt, Jordan and Syria in 1967. The White House, having poured its armed forces into Saudi Arabia, has reminded Arabs of what could have been done for Palestinians if President Bush or any other President of the United States since Eisenhower had so chosen. In stark contrast, the White House's niggling veto in May 1990 of a United Nations Security Council Resolution calling for United Nations observers in the Israeli-occupied territories leaves a very bitter aftertaste. What good was the UN coalition against Iraq if there cannot be a UN coalition for peace between Israel and the Palestinian people?

     Some readers will believe without a doubt that collusion between Israel and Syria is just too far-fetched an idea to imagine. They would be well advised to read Jimmy Carter's Blood of Abraham (p. 79) where he describes at some length "the peculiar confluence of some Syrian and Israeli interests." This book, published by Houghton Mifflin in New York in 1985, contains plenty of food for thought.

     The "Madrid Pact" not only explains certain events in the past such as the USS Liberty incident but also offers a ready explanation of the current impasse in the Arab-Israeli dispute. Take for example this cryptic statement by Shimon Peres, which is from a Rosh Hashanah radio address that he made when he was still the Prime Minister of Israel and which appeared as a news item inside the Los Angeles Herald-Examiner:

     "In the past we have already seen several instances in which we reached all kinds of understandings with the Syrians -- on the Golan Heights, even in Lebanon itself -- almost without negotiations. When the Syrians identify their interests, and when they are capable of also understanding our interests, and there is no conflict between the two, then an understanding is created which is limited in scope and limited to a certain place. And this is what I see in the future, more or less."

     In straight talk, Peres's message is that United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 has no bearing at all insofar as the Golan Heights are concerned. Israel refuses to implement this resolution and Israel will not even attempt to negotiate the content of this resolution with Syria. Avoiding an international peace conference is Israel's way of avoiding discussions about 242 and the Golan Heights. Simply put, there is no need for negotiations where an agreement already exists! Never mind that this secret agreement was sealed with the blood of the Liberty crew!

     This Syro-Israeli "understanding" is, in effect, an agreement, and, as such, it violates Article 102 of the Charter of the United Nations, which stipulates that every treaty and international agreement "shall as soon as possible be registered with the Secretariat and published by it."

     Furthermore, this failure on the part of Israel and Syria to honor Article 102 effectively prevents the United Nations Security Council from exercising its responsibilities under Section 2 of Article 36 of the Charter of the United Nations, which enjoins the Security Council to "take into consideration any procedures for the settlement of the dispute which have already been adopted by the parties." Such a procedure is the secret agreement or understanding between Israel and Syria which this writer calls the "Madrid Pact."

     Shimon Peres's "understanding" with the Syrians, which was cited above, has impaired his own thinking process to such an extent that he dares to assert, in an article published on the Op-Ed page of the New York Times of 21 December 1988, that a "comprehensive settlement" can be negotiated with a Joint Palestinian-Jordanian delegation. He hopes in vain to isolate Syria from negotiations by not mentioning Syria in his article! The editors of the New York Times are playing in the same key with Peres. Reading this newspaper, one can easily get the impression that the West Bank and Gaza are the only occupied territories. A semantical shift makes occupied Lebanon a "security zone." And Jerusalem, east and west, is just a dot conveniently straddling the 1967 green line. But the Golan Heights? Where seldom is heard a discouraging word, all is calm; all is quiet! No problem. Not even those diagonal lines that denote "occupied by Israel" on their maps; they are for the West Bank and Gaza only.

     Common sense of course tells us that a comprehensive peace plan for the Arab-Israeli dispute will ultimately be implemented only by all the parties involved in the dispute. Any separate arrangements by Israel and Syria with the weaker entities, Jordan and Lebanon, will only preserve the Syro-Israeli understanding, which will sooner or later undermine any efforts to make peace. Unfortunately, this is the direction that we seem to be taking as the superpower sponsors of Israel and Syria prepare to take matters into their own hands at a "regional peace conference" in October 1991.

     Only an international peace conference sponsored by the United Nations with the participation of the five permanent members of the Security Council can offer authenticity and balance to Middle East peace negotiations; without such a unified approach one must question the variable commitment of the USA to the UN as it runs hot in the case of Iraq but freezes on issues concerning Israel. With the balance and authenticity that only the United Nations can bring to the negotiations, imaginative solutions are possible, including one that features a legal mechanism for conflict resolution patterned after the only provision of the Constitution of the United States that has never been exercised. Article 4, Section 3 is the inspiration and basis for the territorial arrangements called for in this work, An Eight Part Peace Proposal for Greater Jerusalem.

Copyright Stephen M. St. John 2007, 2010
All original articles on this website and its forerunner mysite.verizon.net/vze4wbps are fully protected by copyright law. All rights are reserved. However, non-commercial dissemination of these articles is allowed and encouraged so long as there is no change to the text or its meaning and proper attribution is given to the author, Stephen M. St. John. The author is not responsible for any changes made to the contents of this website without his awareness and consent, and will as soon as possible restore the true content if and when such changes are discovered.

Have you any idea how easy it is to create and maintain your very own website? Click the Web.Com logo above or http://www.web.com/.