Right Web

Tracking militarists’ efforts to influence U.S. foreign policy

One Jerusalem

Please note: IPS Right Web neither represents nor endorses any of the individuals or groups profiled on this site.

Print Friendly

One Jerusalem, a rightist New York-based organization devoted to maintaining a united Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, was originally created in 2000 to combat peace proposals pushed by then Prime Minister Ehud Barak. Among its founding members were Natan Sharansky, Douglas Feith, David Horowitz, and former JINSA head David Steinmann.[1]

The group appeared to be largely inactive as of 2013, with its website offering links to months-old news stories, talking points, and a generic petition about keeping Jerusalem united, but little else.

One Jerusalem held its inaugural event in January 2001. The group claims it was "the largest rally in the history of Jerusalem. More than 400,000 people filled the hills around Jerusalem's Old City for an unprecedented demonstration of support for Israel's beleaguered capital city, just four months after the launch of a deadly Palestinian-Arab assault against the Jewish state. The world watched as the people pledged their allegiance to the preservation of Jerusalem as the eternal, unified capital of the State of Israel."[2]

One Jerusalem supported much of the George W. Bush administration's rhetoric regarding the "war on terror." During the Bush administration, the group’s online forum and news service frequently posted opinions hyping threats from countries like Iran and Syria. In November 2007, for example, it held an "exclusive bloggers conference call" with former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton, during which he discussed his 2007 book Surrender is Not an Option. "We urge you to buy this important book, written by a great American," the blog appealed.[3]

One Jerusalem also launched a well-funded campaign attacking the Annapolis peace talks supported by the Bush administration and the government of Israel Prime Minister Ehud Olmert. It opposed the talks because the Israeli government was considering ceding some Arab parts of Jerusalem to Palestinians. According to the Israeli Ynet.com news service, U.S. businessman Ronald Lauder, a scion of the Estee Lauder cosmetics empire, provided funding for the $1 million anti-Annapolis campaign.[4]

According to the Jerusalem Post, the Sharansky-led campaign was to “include radio and newspaper advertisements” and “special bus tours of Jerusalem,” as well as “an interactive Internet site” and “the distribution of golden ribbons for the unity of Jerusalem—a spin-off of the orange ribbon used by the settlement movement."[5] Voice of America had further details: "Israeli right-wing activists have launched the 'One Jerusalem' campaign, demanding that Prime Minister Ehud Olmert not make concessions on the Holy City at this week's peace conference in the United States. Activists are passing out half a million gold ribbons at intersections, urging Israelis to tie them to their cars in solidarity with a united Jerusalem."[6]

Before the Annapolis talks began, One Jerusalem also posted on its homepage a report titled "Olmert to World Jewry: Shut Up." The report derided the prime minister for allegedly ignoring the opinions of "world Jewry," arguing: "It is clear that Olmert, who has the support of about 5% of the Israeli electorate, sees himself as the sole voice on the future of the capital of the Jewish people. His contemptuous remarks are in sharp contrast to the views of [David] Ben-Gurion, [Menachem] Begin, Sharansky, and [Yitzhak] Rabin. While he is willing to bend to the wishes of Israel's enemies who are demanding Jerusalem as their capital he is not interested in what world Jewry has to say."[7]

Aside from private individual donors like Lauder, One Jerusalem has received support from the New York-based One Jerusalem Charitable and Educational Fund, which according to its 2010 Form 990 tax return "operates exclusively to perform and to assist in carrying out the charitable and educational purposes and functions of One Jerusalem, Ltd., an organization exempt under IRC section 501(c)(4), in order to provide the public with full and fair information about the danger of Jerusalem being divided." The foundation, which is led by Allen Roth and Nelson Warfield, listed a little over $113,000 in revenues in 2010, more than half of which was attributed to “foreign grants.”[8]

Past reports have linked One Jerusalem to the Policy Forum (PF) and the Case for Freedom (CFF), two now-defunct right-wing groups both linked to U.S. neoconservative activist Devon Gaffney Cross. In March 2008, an investigation by U.S. foreign policy LobeLog discovered that the websites for all three groups shared the same Israel-based IP address (along with the personal website of former Jerusalem Post editor Caroline Glick), leading journalist Jim Lobe to conclude at the time that PF and CFF “work very closely with and may well be fronts for One Jerusalem.”[9]

The connection is important because One Jerusalem claims to be a privately funded organization. Nevertheless, in 2008 the Pentagon policy office headed by Eric Edelman awarded a no-bid contract valued at nearly $80,000 to PF and Cross. Noting the group’s apparent ties to One Jerusalem and the group’s strident opposition to a U.S. backed proposal for a two-state solution to the Israel-Palestinian conflict, Lobe questioned: “Why is the Pentagon policy office awarding a no-bid contract to an organization whose institutional relationships and affiliations appear so opposed to official U.S. policy and which is so utterly lacking in transparency?“[10]


Share RightWeb

Please note: IPS Right Web neither represents nor endorses any of the individuals or groups profiled on this site.


[1] Jim Lobe, “Is the Pentagon Policy Shop Funding Likudist Fronts?” LobeLog, March 18, 2008, http://www.lobelog.com/is-the-pentagon-policy-shop-funding-likudist-fronts/

[2] One Jerusalem, “About Us: Our History,” One Jerusalem website, http://www.onejerusalem.org/about.php.

[3] One Jerusalem, “Audio: Ambassador John Bolton – Patriot,” November 14, 2007

[4] Ofer Petersburg, “Ron Lauder Funding Campaign Against Division of Jerusalem,” Ynetnews website, November 25, 2007, http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3475207,00.html.

[5] Etgar Lefkovits, "Sharansky Launches Public Campaign to Thwart Plan to Divide Jerusalem," Jerusalem Post, November 21, 2007.

[6] Robert Berger, “Jerusalem Issue Looms Large at Annapolis Peace Conference,” Voice of America News, November, 25, 2007.

[7] One Jerusalem, “Olmert to World Jewry: Shut Up,” January 27, 2007.

[8] Guidestar.org, One Jerusalem Charitable & Educational Fund, 2010 990 Tax Return, http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2010/311/758/2010-311758639-07708b19-Z.pdf.

[9] Jim Lobe, “Is the Pentagon Policy Shop Funding Likudist Fronts?” LobeLog, March 18, 2008, http://www.lobelog.com/is-the-pentagon-policy-shop-funding-likudist-fronts/.

[10] Jim Lobe, “Is the Pentagon Policy Shop Funding Likudist Fronts?” LobeLog, March 18, 2008, http://www.lobelog.com/is-the-pentagon-policy-shop-funding-likudist-fronts/.

Share RightWeb

One Jerusalem Résumé

Contact Information

One Jerusalem

136 East 39th Street

New York, NY 10016

Fax: 212-572-4396

Web: www.onejerusalem.org




“One Jerusalem is an educational foundation that does not accept government funding and is entirely supported by friends of Israel. We have one objective – maintaining a united Jerusalem as the undivided capital of Israel. Only Israeli sovereignty will protect access to the holy sites of all three major religions. One Jerusalem organizes, educates and rallies supporters in Israel and all democratic countries, so that we can educate elected government officials with a powerful voice in support of Israel's claim to sovereignty over Jerusalem.”


For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

Print Friendly

Hardliners at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies are working overtime to convince the Trump administration to “fix” the nuclear agreement with Iran on the pretext that it will give the US leverage in negotiations with North Korea.

Print Friendly

North Korea and Iran both understand the lesson of Libya: Muammar Qaddafi, a horrifyingly brutal dictator, gave up his nuclear weapons, was eventually ousted from power with large-scale US assistance, and was killed. However, while Iran has a long and bitter history with the United States, North Korea’s outlook is shaped by its near-total destruction by forces led by the United States in the Korean War.

Print Friendly

Europe loathes having to choose between Tehran and Washington, and thus it will spare no efforts to avoid the choice. It might therefore opt for a middle road, trying to please both parties by persuading Trump to retain the accord and Iran to limit missile ballistic programs and regional activities.

Print Friendly

Key members of Trump’s cabinet should recognize the realism behind encouraging a Saudi- and Iranian-backed regional security agreement because the success of such an agreement would not only serve long-term U.S. interests, it could also have a positive impact on numerous conflicts in the Middle East.

Print Friendly

Given that Israel failed to defeat Hezbollah in its war in Lebanon in 2006, it’s difficult to imagine Israel succeeding in a war against both Hezbollah and its newfound regional network of Shiite allies. And at the same time not only is Hezbollah’s missile arsenal a lot larger and more dangerous than it was in 2006, but it has also gained vast experience alongside its allies in offensive operations against IS and similar groups.

Print Friendly

Donald Trump should never be excused of responsibility for tearing down the respect for truth, but a foundation for his flagrant falsifying is the fact that many people would rather be entertained, no matter how false is the source of their entertainment, than to confront truth that is boring or unsatisfying or that requires effort to understand.

Print Friendly

It would be a welcome change in twenty-first-century America if the reckless decision to throw yet more unbelievable sums of money at a Pentagon already vastly overfunded sparked a serious discussion about America’s hyper-militarized foreign policy.