I am [at] peace, but when I speak, they [come] to war – Psalms 120:7).
A new video of an Arab event in the Old City that was in celebration of a new groom shows the overwhelming presence of political aspirations, with flags of both the Hamas terrorist organization and the Palestinian Authority.
If foreign media were to take off their blinders, they could understand better, if they wanted to, the essential differences between the intentions of Jews and Muslims at the Old City and on the Temple Mount.
We have no idea of what the Arabs were chanting in their flag-waving celebrations, but it is a safe assumption they were not reciting Psalms.
Up to several thousand Jews march in the same place every month, except when the police decide it might offend Arabs. They also wave flags, those depicting the Holy Temple. Two of them were destroyed centuries ago, but the Palestinian Authority likes to claim they never existed.
The monthly rallies are centered on the recital of several Psalms, which brings to mind the obvious one when comparing the Muslim and Jewish marches.
Psalms 120:67 states:
I am [at] peace, but when I speak, they [come] to [wage] war.
The literal translation is “I am peace, but when I speak, they are war,” and the words “at or “for” are necessarily inserted in the first part of the verse and “come” in the second part.
Every translation of any text is prone to interpretation, and when it comes to Israel, the interpretations come with a mindset.
The international community does not consider Israel for peace, and it likes to believe that the Arab world wants peace.
The most recent evidence comes from the newest batch of “pro-Israel” Hillary Clinton’s private e-mails.
She and her close confidantes pre-judge Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu as a man against peace. The Palestinian Authority is assumed to be a friend of peace, despite Psalms 120:7, Palestinian Authority incitement and terror, and Mahmoud Abbas’ spitting in the face of the Obama administration by openly destroying the basis of the Oslo Accords and rejecting a diplomatic solution.
The e-mails to Clinton’s private e-mail server, even though some of the information was classified, are chock full of anti-Netanyahu observations from people such as Martin Indyk, former U.S. Ambassador to Israel. He wrote Clinton about Netanyahu:
At heart, he seems to lack a generosity of spirit. This combines with his legendary fear of being seen as a ‘freier’ [sucker] in front of his people to create a real problem in the negotiations, especially because he holds most of the cards.
Another source of the e-mails is Sid Blumenthal, whom Clinton seems to have made a de facto adviser when she was Secretary of State even though the White House rejected her attempt to bring him on board in an official capacity.
Clinton insists his e-mails were “unsolicited” but one of her e-mails to him states, “Keep ’em coming,” and another beseeches him to advise her before she was to speak to AIPAC.
She liked what she read because it was nasty towards Netanyahu, and keep in mind that if Clinton is the next president of the United States, Blumenthal will be on her team.
[Netanyahu’s] father, Benzion Netanyahu; 100 years old, secretary to Jabotinsky, and denounced as too radical by Begin, adored his son Yoni, heroically killed at Entebbe. Benyamin has never measured up. Benzion has constantly criticized him in public for his deviations from the doctrine of Greater Israel.
Bibi desperately seeks his father’s approbation and can never equal his dead brother. See Benzion’s most recent scathing undermining of his son Bibi and Bibi’s tearful tribute to his brother just last month.