Monday, March 4, 1974. Suez.

Israel completed the first phase of its withdrawal from the Sinai Peninsula 24 hours ahead of schedule. This gave Egypt control of both sides of the Suez Canal for the first time since 1967.

Last prior:

Sunday, February 24, 1974. Advent of Fireforce, getting mad at Confucious.

The largest? The Hamas v. Israel War.

I have now heard over and over in the press that the upcoming Israeli invasion is the "largest" this or that, suggesting that this is the biggest war, or the biggest deployment of troops, in Israel's history.

Is it?

Well, you have to have a sense of history to gauge that.

I've recently been running some items on the Yom Kippur War, which occured 50 years ago, and which brought the United States and the Soviet Union to the brink of war.  That pitted about 400,000 Israeli troops against the armies of Egypt and Syria, plus another 100,000 troops from other regional states.  Right at about 1,000,000 Arab troops contested the Israelis.

Now, in this one, we do hear that 300,000 IDF reservists have been called up, and yes, that's a bunch.  The total number of mass Israeli troops may exceed those that were hastily called up in 1973. We'll see. But the scope of the contest is, so far, smaller.  Indeed, the calling up of the reservists may be in the hopes of keeping it smaller.

In the Six Day War, Israel had 264,000 troops, but only deployed 100,000 of them.  The Arab forces had over 500,000 troops, but only deployed about 250,000 of them.

Israel isn't going to send all of is troops into Gaza.  A lot of those troops were likely called up in order to secure its northern border.  Assuming that it invades Gaza with this model, it certainly will not be Israel's largest war, but it might mean the largest overall manpower size for the IDF in its history.

Not that the threat of this being much larger doesn't exist.  Iran seems intent on making it so.

Jerusalem

 Jerusalem, 1915

We've recently run a couple of articles from 1917 that featured the city of Jerusalem.

Which turn out to be quite timely, as it were, as President Trump recently indicated that the American Embassy to Israel will be moved to Jerusalem, thereby fulfilling a campaign promise of his.

This has resulted in a lot of confusing news coverage, including the suggestion taht President Trump has unilaterally decided to recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capitol, which is quite incorrect.

Let's take a look at this mess a little more carefully to see where we're really at, if we can figure that out.

Israel itself has regarded Jerusalem as its capitol since its modern founding.

But you can't start there. And that's the entire problem.

Jerusalem is a really ancient city. The area was inhabited at least as far back as 7,000 years ago.  It comes into importance, however, in a significant way, as the City of David, from which the significant rulers of Israel in antiquity ruled.  We're not going to go into that much, but it was obviously a holy city to ancient Israel.  It was also one of the seats of the earliest Apostolic Bishops at the time dawn of the Christian Age, with  St. James, son of Alphaeus, being the first Catholic Bishop of the city (before I get some uninformed dispute on this, research it.  There's no doubt, he was the first Bishop of the Church in the City).  So, by the 1st Century, the city was not only a political capitol of the region but also a massively important religious site, none of which is news to anyone reading this.

During the period of Roman occupation the city was destroyed, specifically in the year 70. According to the Jewish historian Josephus the city "was so thoroughly razed to the ground by those that demolished it to its foundations, that nothing was left that could ever persuade visitors that it had once been a place of habitation".  If that's correct, it was sufficiently reoccupied to be destroyed at least twice more during the period of Roman occupation.  Of interest, the temple was destroyed in the 70 event which is one of the ways which the various books of the New Testament can be dated, as the event can be looked at in terms of whether it remained a prediction, or a historical event, at the time that the writing was authored.  If it remained a prediction, the writing can be assumed to predate the year 70, and therefore come within forty years of the Crucifixion.

Following the Bar Kokhba revolt in 132 the Romans rebuilt the city and in fact renamed it Aelia Capitolina.  They actually prohibited Jews from entering the city upon pain of death, except for a single day each year.  During the reign of the Emperor Constantine the Great, who of course had converted to Catholicism, this was relaxed and Jewish Christians were allowed back into the city.  Burials from the 4th Century through the 5th show that the town was Catholic during this period.  During the 5th Century the town passed back and forth between Byzantine rule and Persian rule.

In 638 the city was conquered by Umar ibn al-Khattab who was a lieutenant of Muhammad.  The city, in fact, became a holy city to Islam as well as Muslims claim that Muhammad ascended into Heaven after a miraculous nighttime journey from Mecca to Jerusalem.  Interestingly, Muslims at first prayed facing the direction of Jerusalem. a custom almost certainly picked up from Christians and Jews, as early Christians prayed facing Jerusalem as did Jews in the diaspora.* Muslims were instructed to face Mecca some thirteen years later.  Following the initial Islamic conquest Jews were allowed back into the city for the first time since 132, thereby creating a notable historic irony that initially Muslims and Jews in Jerusalem were on good terms and the restoration of a Jewish presence in the city came about due to Islamic military success.

Following the conquering of the city by Islamic Arab armies the city began to decline in importance.  It had in this period a Christian, Jewish and Muslim population.  Indeed, the region of Palestine was heavily Christian and the Islamic kingdoms in the region made little effort to impact that in any fashion until the ascension of the Turks as a primary force of Islamic expansion.  As the Turks began to replace the Arabs in these regards, in the East, a change began to occur, in the East and the West wherein Islamic rulers became increasingly intolerant of other faiths.  In 1099 Christians were expelled from the city by the Islamic rulers of the region, an example of the conduct which gave rise to Christian military expeditions into the region which are now termed "The Crusades".  Given no such name at the time, they were originally an effort to protect Christian pilgrims in the region.  In 1099 Western Christian armies arrived and took Jerusalem, resulting in a major change in political direction and one of the great overblown myths of history.  Even though the sum total of all the dead from the Crusades does not equal a single day of heavy casualties during World War Two, the period custom of grossly over-exaggerating deaths gave rise to the famous claims of vast Crusader slaughter (blood up to the knees of horses) which are wildly exaggerated, which is not to say that loss of civilian life did not occur.

 Representation of the Crusader victory at Jerusalem in 1099.

This resulted in the establishment of the Kingdom of Jerusalem, a misunderstood "Crusader Kingdom" which in fact represented the reestablishment of Christian rule to a largely Christian countryside, but with the introduction of European nobility.  As odd as that was, it largely worked and the existing Arab Catholic population worked well with the introduced Catholic nobility.

Struggle for the control of the city, and hence the kingdom, went back and forth between Christians and Muslims until 1244 when the city was conquered by the Tartars who slaughtered the Christians and drove out the Jews.  In 1247 they were in turn driven out by Islamic forces.  As of 1267, one notable figure found that the city, which had once numbered 200,000 inhabitants, was down to 2,000, of which only two families were Jewish and only 300 people were Christian.  The then minor city was mostly Muslim.

In 1517 the Ottoman Turks gained control of the city.  As I don't want to get into a long history of the Ottoman Empire, I'll only note that they ruled the city from 1517 until December 9, 1917, when the British entered it, as we noted here the other day.  During that period of time the population of the city recovered and it became one that had a majority Muslim population, but also an appreciable Jewish and Christian population. Christians were mostly represented by Catholic Arabs, which make up 20% of the Palestinian population even today, and Orthodox Christians that came in during the Ottoman period.  Armenian Christians actually started coming in during the 300s.

 Field Marshall Allenby approaching the Joffa Gate.

It was into this situation that the British stepped in 1917. Here, the British have to be admired in some ways for attempting not to play favorites.  But events would conspire against them.  With the introduction of a European power into the region, and one with a sense of fair play and equity, it was inevitably the case that the horrors of late 19th Century and early 20th Century Europe and Eurasia would begin to have an influence.  Faced with oppression everywhere, Palestine, and the United States, increasingly became the destination for immigration for Eastern European and Eurasian Jews, which the British could little anticipate or address.  Zionism, a political movement that sought to restore Palestine as a Jewish homeland, influenced the migration which was ongoing in any event.  As this occurred, the Jewish population began to rise, as it also did in Palestine in general.  A reversal of the early history of the city in which Jewish residents of Palestine were allied with Islamic Arabs occurred as the latter increasingly viewed the former as a political threat. World War Two, with its horrors, dramatically increased Jewish immigration and aspirations as the Jews themselves came to believe that they were not safe in particular in Europe, and not in general without a state.  The British, faced with irreconcilable aspirations on the part of its Jewish Palestinian charges, and its Arab Islamic ones, simply chose to leave, probably the best and only option under the circumstances.

The partition of Palestine, resulting in Israel on one hand and the Jordanian West Bank on the other, divided the city.  Israel, for its part, declared Jerusalem its capitol right from the onset, which had the practical impact of declaring a city that was in two different nations, Jordan and Israel, to be the capitol.  No nation could really acquiesce to that without playing favorites between one country, and religion, and the other, so nobody was bold enough to take sides in the matter, and no wonder.

Events would be forced in 1967 when Israel captured the city in the Six Day War.  That had the impact of unifying the city, but not happily.  For that matter, Israel occupied the entire West Bank and treated it for some time as its own.  Ultimately, however, Israel recognized the Palestinian Authority on the West Bank, which incorporates that territory as part of its own, but which gives the Authority administrative control of the West Bank.  The Authority regards West Jerusalem as the capitol of Israel, while stating that East Jerusalem shall be its capital.

Enter the United States Congress and the Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995, which provides:

JERUSALEM EMBASSY ACT OF 1995

Public Law 104-45 104th Congress

An Act To provide for the relocation of the United States Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

The Congress makes the following findings:

(1) Each sovereign nation, under international law and custom, may designate its own capital.

(2) Since 1950, the city of Jerusalem has been the capital of the State of Israel.
(3) The city of Jerusalem is the seat of Israel's President, Parliament, and Supreme Court,and the site of numerous government ministries and social and cultural institutions

(4) The city of Jerusalem is the spiritual center of Judaism, and is also considered a holy city by the members of other religious faiths.

(5) From 1948-1967, Jerusalem was a divided city and Israeli citizens of all faiths as well as Jewish citizens of all states were denied access to holy sites in the area controlled by Jordan.

(6) In 1967, the city of Jerusalem was reunited during the conflict known as the Six Day War.

(7) Since 1967, Jerusalem has been a united city administered by Israel, and persons of all religious faiths have been guaranteed full access to holy sites within the city.

(8) This year marks the 28th consecutive year that Jerusalem has been administered as a unified city in which the rights of all faiths have been respected and protected.

(9) In 1990, the Congress unanimously adopted Senate Concurrent Resolution 106, which declares that the Congress ``strongly believes that Jerusalem must remain an undivided city in which the rights of every ethnic and religious group are protected''.

(10) In 1992, the United States Senate and House of Representatives unanimously adopted Senate Concurrent Resolution 113 of the One Hundred Second Congress to commemorate the 25th anniversary of the reunification of Jerusalem, and reaffirming congressional sentiment that Jerusalem must remain an undivided city.

(11) The September 13, 1993, Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements lays out a timetable for the resolution of ``final status'' issues, including Jerusalem.

(12) The Agreement on the Gaza Strip and the Jericho Area was signed May 4, 1994, beginning the five-year transitional period laid out in the Declaration of Principles.

(13) In March of 1995, 93 members of the United States Senate signed a letter to Secretary of State Warren Christopher encouraging ``planning to begin now'' for relocation of the United States Embassy to the city of Jerusalem.

(14) In June of 1993, 257 members of the United States House of Representatives signed a letter to the Secretary of State Warren Christopher stating that the relocation of the United States Embassy to Jerusalem ``should take place no later than . . . 1999''.

(15) The United States maintains its embassy in the functioning capital of every country except in the case of our democratic friend and strategic ally, the State of Israel.

(16) The United States conducts official meetings and other business in the city of Jerusalem in de facto recognition of its status as the capital of Israel.

(17) In 1996, the State of Israel will celebrate the 3,000th anniversary of the Jewish presence in Jerusalem since King David's entry. SEC. 3. TIMETABLE. (a) Statement of the Policy of the United States.-- (1) Jerusalem should remain an undivided city in which the rights of every ethnic and religious group are protected; (2) Jerusalem should be recognized as the capital of the State of Israel; and (3) the United States Embassy in Israel should be established in Jerusalem no later than May 31, 1999. (b) <> Opening Determination.--Not more than 50 percent of the funds appropriated to the Department of State for fiscal year 1999 for ``Acquisition and Maintenance of Buildings Abroad'' may be obligated until the Secretary of State determines and reports to Congress that the United States Embassy in Jerusalem has officially opened.

SEC. 4. FISCAL YEARS 1996 AND 1997 FUNDING.

(a) Fiscal Year 1996.--Of the funds authorized to be appropriated for ``Acquisition and Maintenance of Buildings Abroad'' for the Department of State in fiscal year 1996, not less than $25,000,000 should be made available until expended only for construction and other costs associated with the establishment of the United States Embassy in Israel in the capital of Jerusalem.

(b) Fiscal Year 1997.--Of the funds authorized to be appropriated for ``Acquisition and Maintenance of Buildings Abroad'' for the Department of State in fiscal year 1997, not less than $75,000,000 should be made available until expended only for construction and other costs associated with the establishment of the United States Embassy in Israel in the capital of Jerusalem.

SEC. 5. REPORT ON IMPLEMENTATION.

Not later than 30 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of State shall submit a report to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate detailing the Department of State's plan to implement this Act. Such report shall include--

(1) estimated dates of completion for each phase of the establishment of the United States Embassy, including site identification, land acquisition, architectural, engineering and construction surveys, site preparation, and construction; and

(2) an estimate of the funding necessary to implement this Act, including all costs associated with establishing the United States Embassy in Israel in the capital of Jerusalem.

SEC. 6. SEMIANNUAL REPORTS. At the time of the submission of the President's fiscal year 1997 budget request, and every six months thereafter, the Secretary of State shall report to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate on the progress made toward opening the United States Embassy in Jerusalem.

SEC. 7. PRESIDENTIAL WAIVER.

(a) Waiver Authority.--

(1) Beginning on October1, 1998, the President may suspend the limitation set forth in section 3(b) for a period of six months if he determines and reports to Congress in advance that such suspension is necessary to protect the national security interests of the United States.

(2) The President may suspend such limitation for an additional six month period at the end of any period during which the suspension is in effect under this subsection if the President determines and reports to Congress in advance of the additional suspension that the additional suspension is necessary to protect the national security interests of the United States.

(3) A report under paragraph (1) or (2) shall include--

(A) a statement of the interests affected by the limitation that the President seeks to suspend; and

(B) a discussion of the manner in which the limitation affects the interests.

(b) Applicability of Waiver to Availability of Funds.

If the President exercises the authority set forth in subsection (a) in a fiscal year, the limitation set forth in section 3(b) shall apply to funds appropriated in the following fiscal year for the purpose set forth in such section 3(b) except to the extent that the limitation is suspended in such following fiscal year by reason of the exercise of the authority in subsection (a).

SEC. 8. DEFINITION.

As used in this Act, the term ``United States Embassy'' means the offices of the United States diplomatic mission and the residence of the United States chief of mission.

[Note by the Office of the Federal Register: The foregoing Act, having been presented to the President of the United States on Thursday, October 26, 1995, and not having been returned by him to the House of Congress in which it originated within the time prescribed by the Constitution of the United States, has become law without his signature on November 8, 1995.]

This was, a bad idea.

Right now its widely believed that Donald Trump "recognized" Jerusalem as the capitol of Israel.  In reality, it was Congress that did this 1995.

And when I mean Congress, I mean Congress.  This bill passed into law with out the President's signature.  Bill Clinton was the President at the time.

This raises the question of why would Congress have done this?  And that has to do with politics.

A lot of the reason that this passed may in fact be because Bill Clinton was President.

Let us take a look at that.

It is not possible to recognize Jerusalem as the capitol of Israel without making a lot of people mad. We are well aware of this. We commonly hear that the city is "holy to three major religions".  It is, but it's a lot more complicated than even that.  The city is obviously holy to Jews, and so identified with their history that it is not really possible to conceive of a government of Israel really wishing to share the city with any other group politically.

It is also obviously holy to Muslims in a way that they cannot be expected to simply ignore.

And the city is holy to Christians, but not to all Christians in the same fashion.  It is obviously an important city for to all Christians because of what happened there during Christ's time on Earth.  It's additionally important to all Apostolic Christians and those Protestant Christians who closely identify with the Apostolic Churches as it was an Apostolic seat and it has had a presence on the part of Apostolic Christians from the very beginning.  Indeed, they have the second longest presence in the city next to Jews.

However, it's become important to some fundamentalist American Protestants who associate restoring Israel's rule to the city with the End Times, which they seek to hasten. That is something that Apostolic Christians largely miss and which Jews find to be rather uncomfortable.

And all of this has a role in American politics.

The United States has been uniquely friendly to Israel since its founding in a way that no other nation has been. In no small part this is due to the United States being uniquely friendly to refugees and immigrants to a degree no other nation has been which has meant that it has a large Jewish population that stems from European immigration.  Indeed, the United States has received more Jewish immigration than Israel has.  Given this, the US has been uniquely supportive of Israel.  If you look at the issue of Jerusalem, for example, even Norway is opposed to Jerusalem being Israel's capitol  We're pretty unique in these regards.  Right now, only the Philippines seems slated to follow us, and given their leadership, that really can't be taken as a great sign.

Anyhow, there's no way to move an embassy from Tel Aviv without sending a message you probably don't really want to send unless that message is that you wholeheartedly take Israel's position in this.  But do we,  and should we?

FWIW, in pondering this I came up with an idea I thought was original, but it turns out not to be.  It won't happen, however.  I'd make Jerusalem a self governing city.  That's the position, as it turns out, of the Vatican and at least a few other countries.  It's also the position of at least the Armenian population of the city, it seems.

About any other result ends up favoring one culture and one religion over another. And that doesn't seem to be recipe for resolution.

____________________________________________________________________________________

*This is really entering dangerous territory but this custom was almost certainly adopted from Christians and Jews, with whom Muhammad was very familiar and had been influenced by.  To get into this in greater depth would require an exploration of the history of Islam which will have to wait for some future thread, assuming that we post on it ever.