Settlements’ as Blood Libel: What Comes Next?
By Eric Rozenman
January 3, 2017
Many critics of President Obama’s abstention from
the recent UN Security Council vote, and Secretary of State John Kerry’s
justification for this betrayal, underplayed or missed the historical and
The US’ irrational insistence that a Jewish presence in
east Jerusalem and parts of the West Bank are “flagrant violations of
international law” is effectively a new blood libel.
For the historically challenged, the blood libel was the
allegation that Jews murder non-Jews in order to use their blood for religious
rituals. It began in pre-Christian Greek culture, grew as Christianity spread in
medieval Europe, was invoked in Czarist Russia and Nazi Germany, and has been
exhumed by Palestinian terrorists and Islamic clerics. For more than 2,000
years, this blood libel has led to the massacres of countless Jews.
Is it hyperbole to compare a UN resolution and a
harangue by a departing secretary of state to the blood libel?
The early Zionist writer Ahad Ha’am famously observed of
the blood libel: “It is based on an absolute lie, and is not even
supported by any false inference from particular to universal.”
The same applies to the incessant charge that Israel
illegally occupies Palestinian land, and then “settles” its residents on
this land. Israel’s legal case regarding the territories has been made often.
Essentially, there was never an Arab land called Palestine; Jews and Judaism
have had direct connections to the territory for 3,000 years; the League of
Nations Palestine Mandate (1922, Article 6) and UN Charter (1945, Chapter 12,
Article 80) encourage “close Jewish settlement on the land.”
More recently, UN Security Council Resolutions 242
(1967) and 338 (1973) did not require full Israeli withdrawal from the West
Bank, but rather anticipated “secure and recognized boundaries.” The 1995
Israeli-Palestinian Interim Accords left settlements for direct talks between
Yes this new, modern blood libel is endlessly repeated.
Never mind that Palestinian leaders rejected “two-state solutions” in 2000,
2001 and 2008, or that the Arabs went to war from the 1930s to the 1970s to
prevent or destroy the Jewish State. Like medieval plagues, the absence of
Middle East peace must be the Jews’ fault.
What comes next? 2017 marks the centenary of Great
Britain’s Balfour Declaration, which looked with favor on and committed His
Majesty’s government to the re-establishment of the Jewish national home.
Based on this commitment, the League of Nations granted London a portion of
the pre-World War I Ottoman Empire as the Palestine Mandate.
Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas, a
“moderate” in the madhouse scheme of things, plans a campaign this year at
the United Nations to overturn the Balfour Declaration. That is, to criminalize
the existence of Israel itself.
The Security Council now has a foot on board, having
certified Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria (Jordan’s “West Bank”)
and eastern Jerusalem (which was “ethnically cleansed” of Jews in 1948) as
“flagrant violations” of international law. And in October, the United
Nations Educational, Social and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) erased three
millennia of Jewish history by declaring the Jews’ Temple Mount to be a
But as with the blood libel, the whole world is wrong and
Israel is correct. Winston Churchill acknowledged that “the Jews are in
Palestine as of a right; not on sufferance.” One year after Israel’s
stunning triumph in 1967, Eric Hoffer wrote: “Other nations when victorious on
the battlefield dictate peace terms. But when Israel is victorious, it must sue
for peace. Everyone expects the Jews to be the only real Christians in this
world. … The Jews are alone in this world. If Israel survives it will be
solely because of Jewish efforts. And Jewish resources.”
The same is true of the new blood libel. As usual, we’re
on our own.