Reporter or inciter?

I was listening to a BBC interview with Jerusalem's mayor on (US) PBS this morning.

If we thought the US president was biased against Israel (and that is becoming increasingly clear to even the most liberal Jew), I will tell you the Brits are worse.

This reporter-with-an-agenda basically told the mayor Jews have no right to Jerusalem. Never mind that Jews have been the dominant population in Jerusalem since BEFORE it was Jerusalem (before David moved in). Never mind that all the powers that controlled Jerusalem - with one exception - either are known only as entries in history books (e.g., Babylon, Rome) or are has beens on the international playing field (e.g., England and Greece). The only country that can claim to have ruled Jerusalem and still have a measure of influence is Jordan, that that country is a figment of British chutzpah.

The reporter suggested that Israel some how grabbed the land from - who? Jordan? This "journalist" perhaps forgot that Jordan repeatedly attacked Israel and repeatedly lost the wars it commenced. Israel did NOT invade Jordan and did NOT exterminate or enslave the indigenous population as Britain did in its effort to dominate the world.

The Brits, at least this insult to journalism, would have Jerusalem be a divided capital. OK; let's make London be a shared city with the French and Germans; both countries have a claim on English real estate. Let's open up Rome and make it an international city state. Likewise Geneva, for all it's claims of international flavor, remains Swiss and only Swiss.

How about making Mecca and Medina cities with synagogues, churches, temples, and other non-Moslem places of worship?

But Jerusalem is different. The Moslems want it.

But aren't they satisfied getting France and Germany?

When Jordan, with its army under a British officer's command, controlled Jerusalem, Jews were prohibited from certain parts of Jerusalem. Today, all religions have access to all parts of Jerusalem. That doesn't mean a Jew won't be attacked in the Arab quarter or in Mea Sharim (to our shame), but it does mean that Jews - and Moslems and other non-Jews - have access to all parts of the city - except of course for the Temple Mount where the Moslems built a mosque on top of Judaism's most holy site. (Why there? To prove they once conquered Jerusalem? If that's the case, then Jews should raze the mosque since the Temple Mount is part of the "Jewish" state. Did Mohammed have a Jerusalem connection? There's certainly no mention of Jerusalem in the Ouran, although there are well over 100 Jerusalem entries in the Bible. Even one non-Jewish sect mentions Jerusalem in its religious texts; but not Islam.)

My argument is not against Moslems; they have a long history in Israel (but NOT a long history as rulers of Israel; like the Jews who have been there for centuries, they were subjects of foreign powers since the second temple was destroyed by the Romans).

My complaint is with the Brit "reporter" - and, having been an honest newspaper reporter and later editor, I have a hard time applying that title to the interlocutor - who either is ignorant of, or chose to ignore, history.

True, not all Americans are like the current resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue and not all Brits are like the so-called reporter, but both give a hint at what the majority of the populace is willing to accept or at least tolerate.

That the majority of Jews in both countries remain silent in the face of all this - and knowing the majority of the liberal Jews will again vote for an anti-Israel leader - boggles my mind.

Yohanon Glenn
Yohanon.Glenn at gmail dot com