‘The earth is round!’ trumpets Donald Trump. ‘How dare he claim the earth is round! Everyone respects the status quo that the earth is flat!’ Pope Francis shoots back. Patriarchs and heads of churches in Jerusalem write to Trump advising the US to continue recognising the present international status that the earth is flat.

‘Mr Trump! The flat earth position is a red line for Muslims,’ Turkish President Recep Erdogan retorts on television. Saudi Arabia’s King Salman phones Trump and tells him that to claim the earth is round is ‘a flagrant provocation of Muslims all over the world’.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s spokesman tweets to say that the status of the earth as flat or round ‘can only be negotiated within the framework of a two-state solution’. UK Prime Minister Theresa May says the Israelis and Palestinians should divide the earth between them – then Israel can say its half of the earth is round, while the Palestinians can maintain that their half is flat.

Is truth to be decided by the tyranny of the majority? Since there are 1.2billion Muslims voting for planet Flat Earth and 13million Jews rooting for a Round Earth we know who will win the tug-of-war. Since there is only one Jewish state and 57 Muslim states constituting the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation, there must be a global consensus that the earth is flat. Any departure from this orthodoxy is heresy. Trump the heretic must be burnt at the stake (along with tyres, cars, buildings and anything else rioters can find).

My TCW colleague, Karen Harradine, has debunked the myth of the so-called peace process receiving a setback from Trump’s blindingly obvious and historically factual recognition of Jerusalem as the eternal capital of Israel.

Of course, the Palestinians are incandescent. Trump has called their bluff and blackmail. Of course, Leftists are apoplectic. Trump has exposed their deep-rooted Jew-hatred. Of course, Pope Francis is frothing at the mouth. The Vatican did not formally recognise Israel until 1993, but Francis rushed to recognise the Palestinian state in 2015.

The refusal to recognise Jerusalem as Israel’s capital comes predominantly from Muslims who have nothing to do with the ‘peace process’ or the ‘two-state solution’. The majority of Muslims insist that the earth is flat despite 3,000 years of history. This is why President Erdogan is holding the world to ransom by threatening international mayhem. This explains the chorus of hostility from countries dominated by the ‘religion of peace’ ranging from Indonesia and Malaysia to Algeria and Egypt.

This is religion, not politics. Our secular Western media simply doesn’t understand the Eastern religious mindset. Political diplomacy can never even begin to resolve theological controversies. Jerusalem belongs to the Muslims because Islam has superseded Judaism. End of discussion.

I have delivered academic lectures (once under armed guard in Tel Aviv) on the roots of Islamic anti-Semitism. The Medinan sections of the Koran and the Hadith are simmering with Jew-hatred. While Christian, Jew and secular biblical scholars have reached a near-consensus on understanding the alleged anti-Semitism in the gospels as intra-faith rather than inter-faith polemic (Jesus was a Jew and his early followers were all Jews), there is no such resolution on the treatment of Jews in Islamic texts. It is in this light that the post-Christian West needs to consider Islamic opposition to Jerusalem and Israel.

The Hebrew Bible mentions Jerusalem more than 660 times. There are around 150 occurrences of Jerusalem in the New Testament. Israel’s history has everything to do with Jerusalem. Jerusalem has been Israel’s capital for more than 3,000 years. The Jerusalem Temple is God’s dwelling place on earth. For Jews, it is the centre of the universe. Jesus is crucified in Jerusalem. The Holy Spirit descends on the apostles at Pentecost in Jerusalem. Jesus, Paul, Peter and John pray in the Temple in Jerusalem. The Koran does not name Jerusalem even once!

So how do Muslims claim exclusive ownership over Jerusalem (and Israel)?

In AD 638, the Muslims captured Jerusalem. In AD 690, they built an octagonal building topped by a dome on the site which became known as the Dome of the Rock. In AD 715, the Umayyads built the Al-Aqsa Mosque or the ‘furthest mosque’, corresponding to the story of Muhammad’s miraculous night journey.

It is the Temple Mount that is at the heart of the conflict. The Arabic term bayt al-maqdis (‘house of the holy’) has three meanings: first, the Jewish Temple and its successor, the Temple Mount (al-aram al-sharīf) with the Dome of the Rock and the Al-Aqsa Mosque; second, the city of Jerusalem; third, the Holy Land as a whole. Yasser Arafat titled his terrorist war launched in September 2000 the ‘Al-Aqsa Intifada’ after the mosque in Jerusalem.



In later theological development, the Temple Mount is said to have been the destination of Muhammad’s ‘night journey’ and the scene of his ascension into heaven. Muslim theologians, however, disagree as to whether Muhammad prayed in the sanctuary. Had he done so, it would have been incumbent on Muslims also to visit Jerusalem when on pilgrimage to Mecca.

Islam is supersessionist – it succeeds and supersedes Judaism (and Christianity). It understands itself to be the true Judaism and hence dates its Muslim origins back to Adam. The Jerusalem Temple is, in effect, a mosque. In classical Islam, all conquered land becomes the sacralised property of the Muslim community for ever. Even when subsequently lost to non-Muslims, these areas remain holy to Islam and must be restored to the rightful rule of the Muslims by ‘defensive’ jihad.

Read Article 11 of the Hamas Charter! ‘The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine has been an Islamic Waqf throughout the generations and until the Day of Resurrection, no one can renounce it or part of it . . .’ Article 11 discusses whether such land can be partitioned and quotes Caliph Umar who replied emphatically in the negative.

With such a theological position it is impossible to achieve a permanent peace solution. Further, Islam has no concept of a peace treaty with non-Muslims. It has only the concept of a truce that allows Muslims to re-gather their strength before achieving a final military victory.

This is based on Muhammad’s truce of Hudaibiya with the pagan Quraish tribe who controlled Mecca. Muhammad dispensed with the ‘treaty’ a year later when he had become strong enough to take Mecca by force. This is so widely known in the Islamic world that when Yasser Arafat signed the peace accord with Israel, he silenced Muslim criticism by saying ‘Well, brothers, let’s just say this is Hudaibiya.’ Similarly, in late 2008 Hamas felt quite at liberty simply to dispense with the ‘truce’ it had earlier agreed with Israel.

The monumental irony is that the post-Christian West, wallowing in its own rejection of religious belief, has swallowed the Islamic pill of pious fiction and fabricated history in the name of fake peace, fake consensus and a fake status quo. The so-called scientific West now believes the world is flat because Muslims are insisting that the world is flat.

With Trump’s morality, truth and principle have trumped fiction, politics and religion. Trump will live on in Jewish history as one of the most courageous goyim (Gentiles) to recognise Jerusalem as the eternal capital of Israel. I join in praying Psalm 137 with my Jewish brethren: ‘If I forget you, O Jerusalem, let my right hand forget its skill!’

  • Homer Simpson

    In 1995 the government of the USA promised officially that it would recognise Jerusalem as Israel’s capital. But every president since that time, Clinton, Bush, Obama, has waived that official promise. Now Donald Trump has done the honest thing and made good his country’s word. Yet he is excoriated for so doing. This can only mean that the mainstream media and our Leftwing politicians value more highly men who betray their promises than the man who keeps them.

    • Sean Toddington

      The resolution passed in 1995 allowed for the move of the US embassy from TelAviv to Jerusalem, unless doing so would cause an unacceptable risk to US interests and security. Successive presidents have judged that it did. In fact Trunp also judged taht it does and has signed the same waiver that each of his predecessors did.

      • Lancastrian Oik

        That is correct. Trump signed the “waiver’ on 1st June this year; on 6th June there was a motion passed by the Senate 90-0 to recognise Jerusalem as the capital in accordance with the 1995 Jerusalem Embassy Act; the motion was co-sponsored by Chuck Schumer. Trump was therefore acquiescing to the wishes of the Senate.

        • Bruce Atkinson

          Trump never acquiesces unless he personally agrees. No one owns Trump, no one can buy him (not the DC establishment, not Wall Street), so no one can easily manipulate him. This is why he is so popular. He may change his mind on things, but not to please anyone else.

  • Sean Toddington

    The rev may know his scripture but his grasp of politics is woeful.

    There are two reasons for this move by Trump. The first is in exchange for campaign donations from Sheldon Adelson. The second is because Jared Kushner has set up a deal with Mohammed Bin Salman. Bin Salman wants to ditch the Palestinians to manoeuvre the house of Saud closer to Israel. This is because the Saudis fear the increase of Iran’s power and influence. Trump is acting as proxy in this plan.Of course alignment with Israel is anathema to any Muslim nation, and Bin Salman and Kushner’s plan looks to have already collapsed. Is Saudi Arabia stable? No. Is Bin Salman secure as head of state? Probably not. Even less so, as on the heels of going to war with Yemen, he wishes to start a war with Quatar. Saudi Arabia is America’s sole remaining friend in the arab world. This decision risks the stability of this ally and the whole region. I guarantee the Iranians are loving this.

    Can someone please explain to me why this is good for the USA? I thought it was America first, not Israel first.

    • Homer Simpson

      Wow! Toddington has inside knowledge the rest of us don’t! How wonderful to have such an inspired insider. Pity he wastes his life commenting in this space when he could be writing brilliant columns himself for the New York Times and the Washington Post and there demonstrate his brilliant grasp of politics. Moreover, how sad Mr Toddington does not believe that there are politicians who could act on principle rather than pragmatism.

      • Sean Toddington

        It isn’t inside knowledge. Google is your friend here. Don’t wallow in ignorance.

        • Homer Simpson

          Oooo! So you trust the great Oracle Google?

        • Bruce Atkinson

          Sean,
          Personally, I prefer Holy Writ to unholy secular google. Peer-reviewed scientific research is also to be preferred. You may be one of the least qualified to preach higher education to the rest of us. What are your degrees again?

    • Charitas Lydia

      Have you missed the point of the article? The earth is round… Jerusalem has been the capital of Israel for three thousand years… and not a single mention of it in the Quran!!!
      Only those who have a hidden agenda will deny this fact and distract the attention from it to fulfil that hidden agenda… what a shame! Intentions of Muslim countries is clear… they are out to destroy Israel.. Jerusalem or no Jerusalem… they want to destroy everyone who denies that Mo is the prophet of Allah. But what agenda do you have?

    • It is very simply the right thing for America to do. As John Quincy Adams said long ago,

      “Wherever the standard of freedom and independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own. She will recommend the general cause, by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example.”

      It’s a standard we have kept imperfectly, of course, but it is the the standard our people believe in.

    • Bruce Atkinson

      Your political hypothesizing is pure imaginary bunk. And you think your political acumen is greater than that of Gomes? Not a chance. You have no grasp on the thinking of Donald Trump. He is not a sneaky guy; what you see is what you get; what he says is what he means (even if sometimes he says it without tact and cushion).

      The scriptures say that he who blesses Israel will be blessed himself. The U.S.A. best insures blessings by supporting Israel and by continuing to evangelise her. Jerusalem also happens to be the original capital of Christianity (not Rome).

      • Sean Toddington

        My political acumen greater than Gomes? It wouldn’t be hard. Have you looked at the guy’s background? Let me give you a hint, he generated a fine headline in the Sun and he wasnt described as a ‘Rebel Priest’!

        • Bik Byro

          “with an over-inflated view of his own self-importance … [Rev Dr Jules Gomes] … has dealt with people with little or no compassion or pastoral concern.”
          Is it that Rev Jules Gomes ? Is “rebel” a euphemism for “sacked” ?

          • If so, and it was from the CofE, I’d call it a great compliment.

          • Bik Byro

            I wouldn’t. He seems a particularly self-serving nasty individual and you’re not doing your own reputation any favours sticking up for him.

          • He sounds at least in writing as very much the sort of Christian I grew up with, and that is a very good thing.

          • Bik Byro

            You’ve clearly not read up enough on him. Do some more research and if you still want to defend him, then fair do’s it’s your reputation that looks bad by association.

          • Bruce Atkinson

            Although there are always a few exception to any generalization, I must say that CofE clergy are a bunch of secularized PC cult members. To be persecuted by them is indeed a compliment. To be ignored by Canterbury (like the Anglican Church in North America) is also a badge of honor.

          • The only exception I’d make is that I suspect that a fair number of local clergy are at least OK, just as it is in my (nearly as bad) ELCA. but agree completely.

          • Sean Toddington

            The COE can’t actually unpriest someone, once you are ordained you remain a priest whatever. What they can do in is remove you from any post you hold, and make sure you don’t get another. So you remain a Rev, just not one inflicted on another congregation. So ‘rebel’ is more properly a synonym for ‘toxic’.

        • Bruce Atkinson

          I have read virtually all that Gomes has written online. I also read exactly why he is a “rebel priest” and the true history of his persecution by eccesiastic liberals. I have also read what you have posted. You are quite deceived.

          • About what I thought. Thanks, Bruce.

          • Bruce Atkinson

            D.A., I have noted that you and I are usually right on the same page. I appreciate your posts.

          • As I do yours, for the same reason.

  • noix

    The Koran contains a greater number of anti Jewish statements than Mein Kampf, yet one is seen as hate filled and the other a religious text.

  • Shazza

    Israel is the canary in the mine. Should Israel fall to Islam, we will as well.

    The faux outrage by the UK/EU and the rest of the dhimmi governments perfectly illustrates that Islam, which means ‘submission’ and not ‘peace’ has succeeded. Islam has never lied about its intention, as per their book, to convert either by peaceful means (hijrah, i.e., immigration) or jihad – Western leaders just refuse to believe it.

    Why?

    • Owen_Morgan

      The politicians are aware, surely, of the way in which later, more threatening and triumphalist passages of the koran replace milder, more ambiguous ones, but they insist on purporting to regard the replaced sections as authentic, in the teeth of all the evidence. In Britain, the desire to appease islam dates back at least to John Major and to well before his time in the Foreign Office.

      Successive governments have allowed outright islamists to advise them on matters islamic. It doesn’t appear that Blair, Brown, Cameron and May have ever considered the possibility that they have been systematically lied to, or have tried to get a second opinion. May would have been better advised to listen to Robert Spencer and read his books; instead, she banned him from Britain, presumably at the recommendation of the self-appointed muslim council of Britain.

      As always with this car-crash of a government, political correctness trounces sound policy. Defence of the realm is a long way down the list of priorities. Striking poses over Twitter and getting one vaguely favourable headline in the Guardian will have motivated May more than any of her serious responsibilities, though even she must know that the headline and the sentiment behind it are equally ephemeral.

  • JabbaPapa

    While Christian, Jew and secular biblical scholars have reached a near-consensus on understanding the alleged anti-Semitism in the gospels as intra-faith rather than inter-faith polemic (Jesus was a Jew and his early followers were all Jews)

    A related subtlety that many don’t realise is that the word translated as “Jews” in modern Bibles not infrequently actually means “Judeans” in the original texts.

    • Bruce Atkinson

      There is no difference, really. “Judea” as a place name means land of the tribe of Judah, which in David’s time time included Jerusalem and the lands of Benjamin. For the most part, “Jews” meant Judeans, especially after the the return of the Jews from their Babylonian exile.

      • JabbaPapa

        There is a major difference if for example the Scripture makes negative comments about the Judeans specifically.

        Because a) no not every Judean was Jewish, but far more importantly, b) the great majority of Jews were Hellenistic ones not living in Judea at all.

        And that’s not even to get into the fact that the Roman Province of Judaea included fair chunks of present-day Syria and Jordan.

    • Kapricorn4

      The Jews did not become Jewish until they invaded Judea, since before that time they were Hebrews, a wandering tribe of sheep farmers.

  • John Smith

    Israel is the only real democracy in the region and our only friend
    Well done to Trump for recognising Jerusalem
    The improvement in relations between Israel and Saudi is to be welcomed and has been a major reason for putting ISIS on the run

    The lib left unwittingly fuel the violence, as the Hamas and Palestinian Islamists well know

  • It’s just a pity that the Israelis didn’t hang onto all the land tat they captured, including the Gaza strip and Th Sinai Desert. Through history, the victors have always kept captured land and certainly wouldn’t return any without a peace treaty and guarantees.

    • Kapricorn4

      If the Israelis had incorporated Gaza and the Left Bank into the state of Israel, then Jews would be in a minority in a Greater Israel. Therefore in a supposed democracy, they would be outvoted by Arabs.

      • I suppose that’s true if the Arabs didn’t go elsewhere!

      • JabbaPapa

        Israel :

        Jews 6,219,200 75%
        Muslims 1,453,800 17.5%
        Christians 163,500 1.97%
        Druze 135,400 1.63%
        Other 325,000 3.92%

        Total 8,743,000

        Palestinian territories :

        West Bank 2,369,700
        Gaza Strip 1,416,539

        Muslim 80–85% (predominantly Sunni; also non-denominational), Christian 1.0–2.5%, Jewish 12–14%

        Total 3,786,239

        So nope !! 3.1 million plus 1.4 million is not a greater number than the 6.2 million Jews in Israel plus the half a million or so Jews in the Palestinian territories.

        • Kapricorn4

          Yes, I stand corrected, but the birthrate of Muslims is generally higher than that of Israeli Jews, that would sooner or later threaten their majority. Also, what would be the immigration policy of a Greater Israel – would they still be able to maintain the racist Jewish matrilineal descent limitation?

          • JabbaPapa

            but the birthrate of Muslims is generally higher than that of Israeli Jews

            I really do wish people would just stop pushing this fake “muslim birth rate” bollox, no offence to you personally as I’m sure you’ve just been on the receiving end of it.

            1) The birth rate in raw numbers in Israel is that about 100,000 more jews are born there every year than muslims, and the ratio is over 3:1

            2) In 1996 that’s 83,710 versus 30,802 ; 2016 134,100 versus 37,592 — in fact it’s an increase over 20 years from a ratio of Jewish to Muslim births from 2.72 to 3.57, so that it is mathematically impossible for Muslims there to have a higher birth rate.

            the racist Jewish matrilineal descent limitation

            Rules to gain a Nationality by proving one’s descendance from Nationals by right are not “racist”.

          • Kapricorn4

            “Rules to gain a Nationality by proving one’s descendance from Nationals by right are not “racist”

            So what is your definition of a “National” ?

            It seems to me, and I am married to a Jewish woman by the way, that acceptance into Israel as a permanent resident or citizen is based on one’s Jewish ancestry going back several generations. It is not acceptable to have converted to the Jewish religion within one’s lifetime. Thus eligibility is based on ethnic and religious background.

          • JabbaPapa

            based on one’s Jewish ancestry going back several generations

            Similar conditions exist in several European Nations. And ?

            Jewish ancestry going back several generations. It is not acceptable to have converted to the Jewish religion within one’s lifetime

            So in other words, one’s ethnicity is the key condition here rather than one’s religion.

          • Kapricorn4

            ethnicity

            Identity with or membership in a particular racial, national, or cultural group and observance of that group’s customs, beliefs, and language.

          • JabbaPapa

            So what, are you trying to suggest that ethnicity itself might be “racist” ??

            Good luck with that one — it’s a non-starter.

  • Bruce Atkinson

    Absolutely correct once again, Jules Gomes! And brilliantly expressed