By: Lynne Newington

Lynne Newington — Sat, 15 Oct 2016 16:14:53 +0000

I’d be interested in hearing what Rabbi Fred Morgan had to say. http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/218938
Or would he be reluctant to broach the subject due to his position at the Catholic University.
I’ve been waiting to catch up with him about his address on the 50th anniversary of Nostra Aetate as to whether he was aware how the Jewish community suffered at the hands of the Argentine dictatorship supported by the Catholic Church and, as the country’s recognised religion, was financially supported as part of the constitution.

By: Michael Burd

Michael Burd — Fri, 14 Oct 2016 22:50:44 +0000

Why is it not surprising the the looney left and allies of the Palestinian Lobby in Australia support the Notion.

By: Larry Stillman

Larry Stillman — Fri, 14 Oct 2016 02:58:40 +0000

Actually, read the damn motion which focusses to be blunt, on the cultural Judaization [yihud yershalayim] of east Jerusalem at the expense of others’ physical and cultural rights. See http://www.timesofisrael.com/full-text-of-new-unesco-resolution-on-occupied-palestine/.

Now, there is also carrying on about the absence of the Hebrew name for the Western Wall in the document and that is claimed to demonstrate an attempt to wipe out the existence of ancient Israel. Eh– what is stated is “Al-Buraq Plaza “Western Wall Plaza” ” — Just remember Western Wall Plaza is the modern area built on top of the demolished Mugrabi quarter. In fact, Al-Buraq (weeping) is the traditional Arabic name used for the wall and is the name used on signs in the old city. It might have been a nice gesture to use Kotel, but one wouldn’t expect it in such a toxic environment. Israelis can be equally criticized for renaming maps with only Hebrew street and place names on Jerusalem maps and certainly for engaging in cultural warfare to prove Jewish predominance.

What the critics of the motion have done is entirely ignore the parlous state of cultural relations (both physical and social) caused by activities associated with the Occupation (including excavations on the Ofel by nationalists) that set out to ‘prove’ Jewish hegemony or existence prior to Islam, the Greeks, or the Romans, activities that damage other antiquities and monuments that are part of common world heritage, but over which Israeli authorities want unique authority. Mind you, the al-Aqsa authorities should come in for severe criticism over removal and dumping of materials from the area of the Haram. In the normal world, cultural protocols and practices would be in place to prevent such fraught activity, but Jerusalem is not normal.

BTW, despite all the geschrei, the document nowhere denies shared heritage, e.g.

parag 3 “Affirming the importance of the Old City of Jerusalem and its Walls for the three monotheistic religions, also affirming that nothing in the current decision, which aims, inter alia, at the safeguarding of the cultural heritage of Palestine and the distinctive character of East Jerusalem, shall in any way affect the relevant Security Council and United Nations resolutions and decisions on the legal status of Palestine and Jerusalem”
(on Hebron)
parag 36 “. Shares the conviction affirmed by the international community that the two sites are of religious significance for Judaism, Christianity and Islam; “

Comments on: WJC warns UNESCO of adopting ‘another inflammatory, one-sided decision’ denying Jewish link to Jerusalem

By: Lynne Newington

By: Michael Burd

By: Larry Stillman