"The last conquest of Jerusalem" by the Economist magazine predicts "Israel's plans for Jerusalem will create a large Jewish city but will have harsh consequences for the Palestinians...."

Doesn't the Economist know that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel? Doesn't the Economist know that Israel is the Jewish homeland? Doesn't it stand to reason, then, that the capital of the Jewish homeland should be a large Jewish city? And is the Economist so uninformed they didn't realize that the resident Arabs' standard of living has been raised with the restoration of Jewish rule over the Jews' ancient capital Jerusalem, as well as throughout the Holy Land?

Any "harsh consequences for the Palestinians" are of their own making. It is unbelievable but true that the Israelis didn't evict their sworn enemies from Jerusalem when they liberated Judaism's holiest city during the Six Day War in 1967.

A related Economist article about Jerusalem's holy places - "the heart of holy war" - refers to the "Old City and its holy sites, the stumbling-block of countless peace negotiations, will be put finally out of bounds to all but the couple of hundred thousand Palestinians living in Jerusalem, and the lucky few others who can get visiting permits. Moreover, the wall is just one part of a gradual and complex process of Israeli takeover."

Interesting, and most ironic, that the Economist should use such biblical language to describe Jerusalem as a "stumbling block," when they're falling for the big lie of the "Palestinians" and promoting their divisive agenda to tear the heart of Jerusalem in two, that plays right into the hands of the German-Jesuit EU that has its evil eye upon the Temple Mount.

Zechariah 12:2-3