WashPost Blog Takes Too Many Liberties

Someone named Daniela Deane (I'm guessing she's the same DD that published at CNN recently and has been at the WashPost since 1999 and was a reporter at USA Today covering international news. She spent most of her career in Europe and Asia, working as a correspondent and editor for UPI and Reuters, and as a stringer for The Post and Newsweek) had an atrocious blog entry at the Washington Post today:

Faiths clash at Jerusalems sacred site

You don't have to read it but this is the comment I added there:

This is quite an extremist op-ed, biased, too.

a) " the Temple Mount, Jerusalem’s sacred site for Muslims". No. The Temple Mount is sacred for Jews, for Muslims it is Haram A-Sharif and they deny any Temple existed or that the site possesses any sanctity. Oh, the Westrern Wall is definitely not "Judaism's holiest shrine" which is the Temple Mount.

b) she doesn't mention the ugly elements in Abbas' speech in Doha: “The Israeli occupation authorities are using the ugliest and most dangerous means to implement plans to erase and remove the Arab-Islamic and the Christian character of east Jerusalem.” Note: no Jews allowed in his scheme of things.

c) she notes Jerusalem "captured" in 1967 as if Israel began shelling Jerusalem instead of what happened - Jordan's Hussein shelled Jewish civilians.

d) and in 1967, we found over 50% of some 70,000 graves on Mt of Olives desecrated, used as latrine covers and walkways.

e) she mentions one site that suggests destruction of mosques but ignores years of destruction of archaeological artifacts and the Islamic Movement/North's campaign to deny Jewish rights including the simple one of pilgrimage and prayer.

I could have gone on but even I get tired at times.

Okay, I added another:

and here's something from the Washington Post itself:

"In the Monday night meeting, for instance, Erekat took issue with Ben-Ami's contention that Solomon's Temple, the Jewish sacred site built 3,000 years ago, had really once stood on the Temple Mount. As the two negotiators debated, Clinton looked on amazed.

"I don't believe there was a temple on top of the Haram, I really don't," said Erekat.

Ben-Ami, stunned, pulled down a volume from a bookshelf and looked up Temple Mount, showing Erekat dozens of references to Solomon's temple and its successor that stood until it was destroyed by the Romans in 70 A.D."

That was from Lee Hockstader, Sunday , July 30, 2000

And another reference:

When Clinton returns to Camp David, Jerusalem is again put on the table. Immediately there is a problem. Arafat argues that the Jews have no claim at all to the area of the Temple Mount.

YASSER ARAFAT: They had excavated everywhere, and no one single stone from the temple had been found, only some stones of Herodotus's temple.

...SAEB EREKAT: The fact today that there is no such a thing as a Temple Mount in existence today. There is a mosque.

Read more:
 

^