Of course, it would be great if Haaretz would be more inclusive in representing various Israeli voices (it's English blogger section is all hard-line left). And if it would voluntarily cease employing Nazi-themed vocabulary by Rogel Alpher, Gideon Levy, etc. And if it would publish op-eds a little bit more reasoned.
Take this one:
The Temple Mount "belongs" to the Muslims?
Why? Why does it "belong"?
Because Muslims conquered Jerusalem in 638 and then occupied it?
Because Jews were finally banned from the compound in the late 13th century (1266) after maintaining a presence therein, including a synagogue, even after losing political independence?
Because Muslims believe Abraham was really a Muslim and constructed there a mosque?
Because the Waqf officials and also Palestinian Authority officials believe Solomon' Temple never existed?
Because they belief Mohammed landed at the site on Al-Buraq, his winged horse?
Because they believe Jewish feet defile the area?
Because despite their Quran does not mention Jerusalem in that night's magic flight, they insist the "farthest mosque" means Jerusalem and not the other mosque near Medina?
Or because Muslims are willing to kill, murder, stab, run-over, bomb, shoot or otherwise threaten violence?
That's why?
^
Posts
2 comments:
Excellent, excellent post. Thank you.
Seems to me the Muslim claim rests on extortion and violence.
That does not give them lawful title to the place.
Would be different if they bought it. They haven't and I don't recognize the occupier's title to the Temple Mount.
Hey, the shoe is on the other foot. Keep in mind they're the folks who constantly accuse Israel of "occupation."
That works both ways.
Post a Comment