MKs propose bill to allow Jewish prayer on Temple Mount

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4520843,00.html

Labor and Likud members join bid to push controversial legislation to open up Temple Mount compound for Jewish prayer, currently permitted for only for Muslims.

Labor and Likud MKs have joined forces on a new bill that proposes to allow Jews to pray at the Temple Mount compound - for the first time since the destruction of the Second Temple, as Jews are currently barred from praying at the site.

MK Miri Regev (Likud) and MK Hilik Bar (Labor) are expected to introduce the bill for discussion in the Knesset. It aims to extend freedom of worship on the Temple Mount to the level allowed in Hebron's Cave of the Patriarchs, where Jews and Muslims share the holy site.

Last April, dozens of Arab youths, some masked, rioted on the Temple Mount, throwing stones and fire crackers at security forces deployed to the scene. The clashes led to the compound being closed to visitors and the arrests of dozens suspected of violent acts. Such scenes constantly reoccur in the compound.

And isn't that the endgame of the apartheid picnic in some ways? Push you way onto the Mosque grounds, demand that the already beaten down Palestinians have to compromise, push them out eventually and presto chango here comes the third temple.

Hallelujah, Hallelujah! all the fundies everywhere, Jewish and Christian will be rejoicing over the prospects of the return of Yahweh!

[Shaktimaan]

1. Good to see you being honest about your beliefs.

And isn't that the endgame of the apartheid picnic in some ways? Push you way onto the Mosque grounds, demand that the already beaten down Palestinians have to compromise, push them out eventually and presto chango here comes the third temple.

So, to you, it's apartheid to request that both religions share a site holy to both groups? While restricting access to allow only Muslims the right to pray there is the fair approach?

Why exactly is demanding that the Palestinians compromise a bad thing when that compromise is allowing all religions the right to pray at their holy sites?

Btw, no. Pushing out Muslims and building a third temple isn't really the agenda here. Just like it wasn't at other sites that were opened up to Jewish prayer.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

3. So you agree that is the endgame. Good.

Israel shares nothing that it can't first take by force...hence the present state of apartheid it exhibits.

I'm glad that you weighed in on the side of Israel, colonialism and apartheid.

[Mosby]

6. Why are you dodging the real issue?

Why should Jews and Christians be excluded from praying on the Temple Mount?

I take it your not real big supporter of religious tolerance?

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

7. Perhaps you need to re-read my previous post since you seem to have trouble understanding that

Israel shares nothing that it can't first take by force...hence the present state of apartheid it exhibits.

[Mosby]

9. you're not making sense

Have the israelis taken the temple mount by force? I must have missed that story.

And who is Yahweh and why would Jews be waiting for his/her return?

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

10. The bill would force their way onto the Temple Mount.

That's what you're ducking.

You're doing that a lot today.

[Shaktimaan]

37. They're already allowed there.

The bill would simply allow them the right to pray there.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

39. It's the Al-Aqsa Mosque Compound. It's been there for 1,400 years.

I'm not sure why Israel needs to pass this law when there are already many synagogues in the area and the plans for a mega synagogue is in the works: to be less than 600 feet away from the Al-Aqsa Mosque Compound.

There's plenty of places to pray, but in Israeli style it is just easier to take from the Palestinians; who live under constant harassment and land theft.

[Shaktimaan]

41. Because it's still the holiest site in Judaism.

How is allowing Jews to pray there taking anything away from the Palestinians?

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

42. Just take, take, take. That's all Israel ever does.

When it's questioned about stoking religious tensions out come the apologists.

[Shaktimaan]

45. And how is this taking?

So asking Palestinians to share access to a place revered by both religions is "stoking religious tensions?"

Is that like how desegregating southern schools inflamed racial tensions? I guess your solution there would have been continued segregation, right? You even have the exact same arguments as the segregationists did.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

49. Israel asking Palestinians to share is rich. I wonder how the Palestinians like sharing

the West Bank with 500k illegal Israeli settlers.

The only thing that this may have in common with the south of the last century is that the Palestinians are the oppressed people.

The Israelis are looking more and more like southerners all the time.


Thanks for the poorly thought out guilt and spin

[Shaktimaan]

51. Answer the question

How does ending discriminatory policies here take anything away from the Palestinians?

Btw the commonalities are obvious. You're arguing for continued segregation.

Actually it's not even segregation as you're against the Jews having a right to pray there at all. It's simply discrimination. My mistake.

Still indefensible of course.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

53. It's the al-Aqsa >>>Mosque<<< compound: built 1,400 years ago.

There are no discriminatory policies except those visited by the Israelis on the Palestinians each and every day.

Apartheid.

But what is far more egregious are the amateurish whining of those who attempt to paint the Israelis as the victims as they stand with their boot on the neck of the Palestinian people: screaming "segregation!" "discrimination!" while Israel thefts all that it can.

[Shaktimaan]

55. Interesting.

So how is it not discriminatory?

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

56. I guess that you'll figure it out someday when it finally dawns on you that

freedom of religion does not mean that you get to impose your religion on others by decree or force.


You'll get it someday.


But if you really want to see discrimination in action here it is.

Israeli bulldozers destroy mosque and medical center in East Jerusalem
http://mondoweiss.net/2014/03/bulldozers-medical-jerusalem.html

and...

Israelis to turn historic mosque into a synagogue
https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/news/middle-east/6789-israelis-to-turn-historic-mosque-into-a-synagogue-

and...

Israel closes al-Aqsa mosque to worshipers
http://www.maannews.net/eng/ViewDetails.aspx?ID=630928

and...

Israel blocks Palestinians from Easter celebrations
http://www.maannews.net/eng/ViewDetails.aspx?ID=591836

and...

Police, Bedouin clash as state demolishes condemned Negev mosque
http://www.haaretz.com/news/national/police-bedouin-clash-as-state-demolishes-condemned-negev-mosque-1.323337

and...

Israel to ‘evict the dead’ in Bedouin village demolished over 60 times
http://rt.com/news/161596-israel-bedouin-evict-dead/

and...

Israelis demolish Negev mosque as ethnic cleansing continues
https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/news/middle-east/11664-israelis-demolish-negev-mosque-as-ethnic-cleansing-continues

[Shaktimaan]

57. Try and stay on topic.

We can discuss other issues or events if you like but we aren't finished talking about this yet. Regardless, pointing out instances of even obvious Israeli oppression does nothing to aid your argument against open access for all religions to their holy sites.

How is allowing Jewish prayer at the TM imposing Judaism on the Palestinians? In what way does it impinge their own freedom to practice religion?

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

65. I am on topic. I just proved that Israel

is not the victim but in all regards the aggressor.

Destruction of Mosques, building Synagogs in place of Mosques: aggression.

Live with it and squirm all you want.

[Shaktimaan]

88. If you say so.

I noticed you still can't answer a simple question though.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

89. I do say so, and I have noticed that

you are great at ducking replies.

Carry on.

[sabbat hunter]

80. the mosque was built

around 1400 years ago

But the platform itself is older than that, built by Herod as a base for a greatly enlarged, renovated temple.

That being said, allowing jews to pray on the temple mount will only cause problems.

[shira]

137. Not allowing Jews or Xtians to pray there is discriminatory.

Tough shit on people who can't handle that. They're the extremists, not the ones who only wish to pray there in peace.

[sabbat hunter]

142. Most reasonable Jews

would not want to pray on the temple mount due to rabbinical teachings saying that since we do not know where the holy of holies lay, it would be bad form to pray on the temple mount. Hell, most say that Jews should not enter the temple mount due to that.

It is the extremist rabbis that are trying to cause problems with praying there. Muslims consider the entirety of the temple mount a mosque. I would not expect Muslims to go to the wailing wall or a shul to pray there, nor would I expect a jew to enter a cathedral to davan. It is showing respect for other religions to not have Jews pray there.

If at some future time, something can be worked out by both sides, to have a portion of the temple mount given to jewish prayers, like the way Joseph's Tomb is split up, then that would be fine. But until then we should respect the status quo.


Personally, I would want to go to the temple mount to visit a historical site, not as a religious one. And ALL people should be allowed to do that.

[Israeli]

144. I missed this thread ...

It was when I was gone this summer .

Most reasonable Israelis dont go near the place ...religious or not .

Thanks for a balanced opinion sabbat hunter .....not only should the status quo be respected so should the law .......feel free to pray there if you must shira ....but dont cry about it when you are arrested .

[sabbat hunter]

145. please note

that I do believe that all people should be allowed to go there, for non religious purposes.

the Dome of the Rock is a magnificent work and when prayers are not going on, everyone should be allowed in to view it, as you would a museum. precautions of course would be taken to make sure nothing is damaged in it. But I for one would LOVE to be allowed inside of it, to view all of its wonder. This is probably something that would have to be done with very small groups, arranged ahead of time.


The arches that are on the Mount, probably date back to the time of Herod.

I also would love to see what is below the Mount, the works that support it, the ancient gates (some open, some sealed)

But all of that is the historian in me.

[shira]

148. You understand that what's at issue isn't....

....non-Muslims going into a Mosque to pray. The problem is seeing anyone outside the Mosque on the plaza grounds muttering anything under their breath. Like being on the White House lawn muttering something quietly.

[Israeli]

149. So do I sabbat hunter....

Ref : " I do believe that all people should be allowed to go there, for non religious purposes. "

" the Dome of the Rock is a magnificent work and when prayers are not going on, everyone should be allowed in to view it, as you would a museum. precautions of course would be taken to make sure nothing is damaged in it. But I for one would LOVE to be allowed inside of it, to view all of its wonder. This is probably something that would have to be done with very small groups, arranged ahead of time. "

I've been inside once ....1974/75 ..cant remember exactly when ... its impressive .

[shira]

147. It's not just Jews being discriminated against....

Christians cannot pray there either.

We're not even talking within a Mosque alongside Muslims but outside on the plaza ground. I don't see why that should offend anyone reasonable. It's no worse than muttering something quietly in front of the White House, Kremlin, or Buckingham Palace...perhaps talking to someone on the phone with a bluetooth device. The current situation is totalitarian in nature.

I understand it provokes crazies, but that's their problem.

========================

I'm not religious so I wouldn't pray there. To each their own, however.

I see this as something similar to Women of the Wall, who fought to do their own thing at the wall.

[Israeli]

150. " I'm not religious so I wouldn't pray there. "....

...pull the other one shira ....it has bells on it .

[azurnoir]

152. accompanied by police guards Yehudah Glick’s son prays on Temple Mount

Shahar Glick, whose Temple Mount activist father was shot last week in an attempted assassination, visited the Temple Mount on Monday to pray for his father’s recovery as he underwent lifesaving surgery.

The teenager entered the volatile compound accompanied by a news crew from Channel 2 and with a heavy police escort.

Glick visited the spots where his father, Yehudah Glick, chose to pray and offered personal supplications for his dad’s speedy recovery.

http://www.timesofisrael.com/yehudah-glicks-son-prays-on-temple-mount-for-fathers-recovery/#ixzz3IVQjo4jo

[King_David]

14. It clearly is happy with a ban on Jews

The one who talks of Apartheid so frequently.

But it seems to be about Jews...not Israelis or Zionists or anything else...Just Jews.....

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

90. I am respectful of religion, king.

I just don't like to see religion rammed down others throats while so many other aspects of apartheid are stuffed down there as well.

The Muslims have the Mosque compound and the Jews have Ha'kotel.


Not to mention Jordan and Israel have a treaty regarding the Al Aqsa Mosque compound.


Why would one wish to inflame matters?

[dballance]

27. Didn't Isralis Take it by force decades ago?

Seriously? Former Prime Ministers for Israel like Ariel Sharon admitted to using, what today, we call terrorist tactics in order to form the state of Israel and secure its dominance in the area. This is a well-known, documented fact, not supposition.

Perhaps, if the IDF stops killing Palestinian people in support of "Israeli settlers" the Apartheid rhetoric will cease. Those Palestinians are actually the indigenous people of the region. Much like Native Americans here in the US that we wiped out, subjugated and relegated to "reserves" as part of our white privilege Manifest Destiny as Europeans who were above the savages.

[Mosby]

28. Jews have lived in Israel and the Levant continuously for three thousand years

So Jews are an ethnic and cultural indigenous ME group, unlike the Palestinians who didn't even exist 100 years ago.

100 years ago the Palestinians were Syrians, it wasn't until the Zionists started showing up that they became Palestinians.


OT - hope your feeling better from your surgeries.

[dballance]

30. Thanks for the education. Honestly.

I welcome people educating me on issues. So thank you for educating me.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

54. "it wasn't until the Zionists started showing up..."

So the Palestinians were there before the Zionists "showed up."

[leftynyc]

60. You're like a child

Who thinks it's clever to put words into people's mouths and think sarcasm is an actual argument. This place has really gone downhill.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

66. No, actually those were Mosby's words.

Are you choking on the reality of them?

If you can't keep up you are free to whine some place else.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

71. Poor you. If you can't handle the truth

don't expect silence when Israel behaves poorly.

[Mosby]

73. You really should read up a little on the history of the region

Jews had been emigrating to Palestine in large numbers since the 12th century, adding to the existing population of indigenous Jews.

The advent of Zionism and WWII just sped things up.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

74. You should stop pretending that

the Palestinians are just a group of interlopers that have been squatting on Israeli land awaiting their return.

Please step away from the Koolaide.

[dballance]

91. Thanks for wishing me well. However, you are soo very wrong.

Last edited Sun Jun 1, 2014, 04:43 PM - Edit history (4)

If I'm not totally mistaken the Palestinians have been considered an indigenous Arabic people local to the region along with Israelis. The Bible clearly points out there were multiple "tribes" that were not Jewish in the area of the Levant through many of it's verses. It preys upon the very common "Us vs. Them" theme used by the GOP today to demonize and make those "other" tribes less than people. Maybe like African-Americans were counted as only three-fifths of a person in our Constitution.

Some of those "other" tribes were ripe for subjugation and slavery. The Bible and its angry, petulant God of the Old Testament had absolutely no issues with slaying or enslaving the peoples of "other" tribes en masse. Not exactly the most Christian of acts. Read it if you are unsure about my assertions. You won't be able to refute me.

The Jewish people are NOT the only indigenous people to inhabit the region dating back thousands of years.

Not to mention, seriously, should our respect for the human lives of Palestinians be bounded upon the length of their presence in the region even if it were a short period? I'm quite certain that's not a very "Christian" concept. Not at all "pro-life."

Correct me if I'm wrong here. The state of Israel didn't exist until 1948. A small amount of time since the current date that, in your arguments, would make it difficult to recognize it as a state and nation since it's been around far less than a hundred years. About half a century less than your stated argument against the Palestinians. 100 is still twice around 50.

I'm not sure what the comparison of Palestinians to Syrians has to do with anything. Other than our far too recent call by GOP idiots to put us into another war based on rather faulty claims. Thankfully, the American people were properly wary of claims by their government this time around.

What I do know is that, on a regular basis, I read stories in the news about settlers and the IDF abusing and killing a certain set of indigenous people who are not "them." That sounds a lot like the apartheid state we eventually rallied against in South Africa.

[King_David]

92. The bible is your source on the history of the region ?

The Bible is an accurate history book ?

[Mosby]

94. I'm busy so I'm going to keep this short

The Palestinian Arabs did not develop a national identity until the early 1900s. This isn't my opinion, it's a fact. Before that most Palestinian Arabs self identified as Syrians which is not surprising since Palestine was considered part of "greater Syria" by the local Arabs. I'm not demonizing them or claiming that there is no such thing as a Palestinian, but there are a lot of misconceptions floating around now about Palestinians like they descended from the Philistines (not true) and that Jesus was a "Palestinian Arab" (not true) so my previous statements were made with that in mind.

I never claimed that Jews were the only indigenous population in the area, but they are one of a few ancient tribes in the Levant to survive into the modern era. The Arabs originated in the Arabian Peninsula and took the middle east through conquest, just like the Ottomans, Byzantines, Assyrians and others.

I don't think it's appropriate to talk about the bible in this group, but the legal and moral justification for Israel is not based on the bible, it's based on the fact that the Jewish tribe have been continuously living in their ancient homeland for thousands of years. In the modern era, the Jews of the middle east and the Jewish Zionists built up Israel from almost nothing, nobody gave it to them.

[Shaktimaan]

12. So...

Since Israel's already taken this site by force decades ago that would imply that they would now share it. According to your own dogma of course.

Israel shares nothing that it can't first take by force...hence the present state of apartheid it exhibits.

As for this, everyone understands what you're saying but since it's not the least bit true it's been disregarded. You can hardly blame us. It's an absurd statement considering the relevant history.

You don't even seem aware of the problem you'll have arguing here in the future after revealing such an odious belief if your own.

Good luck to you. You'll need it

[King_David]

13. "revealing such an odious belief"

Yes.

[shira]

101. kick. Quite the odious belief. n/t

[King_David]

4. Of course it's not about Jews or Judaism

Or the Jewish people.

It's all about Israel and apartheid .

LOL

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

5. I'm happy to have enlightened you, king.

[azurnoir]

2. Has Jordan weighed in on this yet?

the 1994 Peace Treaty gave Jordan custodianship over Islamic sites in Jerusalem or is this treaty now unimportant?

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

8. As I have stated to the hasbaristas...

Israel shares nothing that it can't first take by force...

It is only a matter of time before they annex what they want. After that excuses will be made that Israelis are not safe on the Mount and it will be closed to Muslim worship.

[Shaktimaan]

11. So it seems.

You're willing to back a plan that outright excludes people based entirely on their religion. Exclude Jews from their most holy site in fact. For the reason that Muslim unrest would cause their activities to be curtailed. In other words, you MUST discriminate against Jews in order to save the entire site. Correct?

Iow, discrimination is occasionally preferable action. The ends justify the means, yes?

[azurnoir]

15. so you're claiming not not allowing Jews to worship at Haram al-Sharif

is discrimination? What about the treaty with Jordan, is that too discrimination? Oh and when was the last time Muslims said prayers at the Kotel? Perhaps loudspeakers should be installed there so the muezzin's call to adhan can be heard and followed

[King_David]

16. Because the Kotel is a holy Muslim place ?

Clearly.

[azurnoir]

18. but a mosque is? I see n/t

[King_David]

20. Difficult to debate issues in this forum

When the basics and traditions are not completely understood by some .

That's the problem .

[azurnoir]

21. well I'll agree to that basic traditions obviously are either not understood

or studiously ignored, the mosque BTW was built in 705 ce some 7 centuries after the temple was destroyed

[King_David]

22. Yes there was a good reason no one has ever seen the argument ,being made by yourself , before .

It's a ridiculous argument.

[azurnoir]

23. No the reason is that until now Israel has

respected the mosque being Islamic along with its treaty with Jordan, and not made such a demand-unless of course that's what you meant

[King_David]

24. The Temple Mount is not "Islamic "

Mosque ?

Do you know what area we are talking about ? Maybe you need to have been there before to visualize.

[azurnoir]

25. Do you? the Temple Mount and al Aqsa are located on the same ground

the Mosque has been in use for 1400 years, the temple was destroyed 2100 years ago

[King_David]

26. Yes there are a couple of mosques on the Temple Mount

And yes they are Islamic these mosques .

I'm not sure your getting what this is all about.

In fact I'm sure of it.

[azurnoir]

29. oh I think we all get exactly what this is about

in fact this started a more than a month back when Israeli rightwingers attempted to revive the Korban Pesach the result was Muslims rebelling, to wit the Israeli government restricted Muslim access to only those over the age of 50, which could be a preview of things to come

[King_David]

31. I'm thinking your not too clear on what The Twmple Mount is ,

Hint : it's not a mosque .

That's the reason your not following this conversation .

[azurnoir]

32. lets be clear then Israel already has access to the Temple Mount via the Kotel

which along with al Aqsa Mosque and the Qubbat As-Sakhrah shrine are located there. Israel now is attempting to gain full religious access to the traditionally Muslim areas of the temple mount, are we clear now?

[King_David]

33. LOL

It's clear you've never been there .

Maybe there's a 3D model of The Temple Mount somewhere for you to look at before posting further in this thread ?

[azurnoir]

43. what don't you understand?

you seem confused here

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

34. It's not a new idea, azurnoir. What the king probably doesn't want to acknowledge are these...

Minister calls for third Temple to be built
http://www.timesofisrael.com/minister-calls-for-third-temple-to-be-built/

Jewish Home MK calls for a Third Temple in Jerusalem
http://www.timesofisrael.com/jewish-home-mk-calls-for-a-third-temple-in-jerusalem/

Gimpel has said Dome of the Rock ‘doesn’t belong there,’ but not that it must be blown up
http://www.timesofisrael.com/gimpel-has-said-dome-of-the-rock-doesnt-belong-there-but-not-that-it-must-be-blown-up/



But ya know, they are all jus kiddin.

[Shaktimaan]

36. Those articles prove our point.

The idea of destroying al aqsa is so outside mainstream opinion that only the most extreme wing nuts advocate it openly, as they're immediately lambasted by the Israeli public and government officials.

You have zero evidence that any kind of actual movement exists outside of the fringe to enact such an odious policy. And yet you use it to justify open discrimination.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

38. You are willfully blind and amateurish.

The point that you have missed on purpose IMHO is that these articles are about Israeli government officials calling for the third temple to be built and the Al-Aqsa Mosque Compound to go away.

Let me repeat that again for all of the DU readers to comprehend.

These articles are about Israeli government officials calling for the third temple to be built and the Al-Aqsa Mosque Compound to go away.

Please keep up with your "zero evidence/discrimination" bullshit and I will gladly expose the truth for all to see.


And BTW, thanks for the kick.

[Shaktimaan]

40. Those articles

Also noted the firestorm of criticism that their ideas met by the public and other officials. Since when do we use the rhetoric of the most extreme examples of any society to judge likely policies? There's no indication that anything like what these three (two really) people are advocating. Your best examples actually supported my argument.

Not to mention their ideas have no relation to this issue anyway. Embracing discriminatory policies to forstall discrimination in the other direction is no more sensible or ethical than what these bigots are advocating.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

48. These assholes are part of the Israeli government. Period. Keep on ducking that,

and I'll keep on painting you with that. Naftali Bennet couldn't even denounce the comments made by a member of his own party. Instead he criticized Netanyahu.

Fact: Uri Ariel, Jewish Home Party

Fact: Zevulun Orlev, Jewish Home Party

Fact: Jeremy Gimpel, Jewish Home Party candidate


>>>>Fact: Naftali Bennet, Jewish Home Party and coalition member of Bibi Netanyahu.

So these asshats are in the government, are in Bennet's (aka right wing asshole) own party, so YES they do have a direct relation to this issue.

Thanks for trying to duck that fact and skirt the issue.


It's all relevant.

[Shaktimaan]

50. I'm not ducking it.

It's just not relevant.

So the fact that three officials embrace racist policies is your excuse for continuing your own discriminatory policies?

That's a very weak argument.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

52. Sure you are ducking it. By calling it not relevant when I have

clearly pointed out that it is, for all to see mind you, shows that you don't even bother to take it seriously.

Just wave it off and pretend that it doesn't matter that these yahoos are in government.

But please proceed with cheering the attempt of the Israelis to take yet another symbol of the Palestinian people, and Muslims worldwide, and forcing their will upon it.


And while we're at it...

https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/news/middle-east/10649-israeli-committee-approves-huge-synagogue-near-al-aqsa-mosque

Israeli committee approves huge synagogue near Al-Aqsa Mosque

A Palestinian Islamic foundation concerned with protecting the sacred sites in Jerusalem revealed on Monday that an Israeli committee has approved a scheme to build a huge synagogue in the heart of Jerusalem's Old City, only 200 meters away from Al-Aqsa Mosque.

A statement issued by Al-Aqsa Foundation for Endowment and Heritage said that a sub-committee of the District Committee for Planning and Building in Jerusalem, which is affiliated with the Israeli Ministry of Interior, approved during a meeting that took place on Sunday, 30 March 2014 the establishment of a very large synagogue called the Jewel of Israel in the heart of the Old City of Jerusalem.

The synagogue, which will be located only 200 meters to the west of Al-Aqsa Mosque, will consist of four floors, topped by a vaulted dome in addition to an underground space.

and...

http://www.maannews.net/eng/ViewDetails.aspx?ID=700236

Group: Israel plans synagogue near Aqsa site

JERUSALEM (Ma’an) – Israeli authorities plan to establish a foundation corner for a large synagogue that will be built in the middle of the Old City of Jerusalem, about 200 meters from the al-Aqsa Mosque.

The synagogue will be called “The Jewel of Israel,” according to the Al-Aqsa Foundation.

The statement said there would be celebrations in which Israeli political and religious leaders will participate including Israel's Jerusalem mayor, Nir Brakat, housing minister Uri Ariel and deputy religious services minister Eli Ben Dahan.

The foundation said that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government had provided funding for construction of the synagogue with a budget of 50 million NIS set to be approved Wednesday.

Yes, those poor poor Israelis have it so tough that they intend to hem in the Al-Aqsa Mosque. Those poor victimized Israelis just can't catch a break.

[Shaktimaan]

17. It's actually the definition of discrimination.

The site is holy to both religions. The sole reason Jewish prayers have been forbidden is because of the volatility that would follow from the Muslim community.

What about the treaty with Jordan, is that too discrimination?

No idea. Is it the treaty that only allows one religion to pray at this site? Because then yes. Yes it is.

Oh and when was the last time Muslims said prayers at the Kotel?

Probably never. Because it isn't a religious site to Muslims they aren't interested in praying there.

I feel like you're failing to grasp the details of the issue here.

[azurnoir]

19. so it's only discrimination one way I see n/t

[Shaktimaan]

35. That seems to be your argument.

You think the site should only be available to a single religion, correct? If they restricted it to Jews-only that would be discriminatory as well. But since that isn't happening your point is moot.

[azurnoir]

44. as I already pointed out the site is presently availible to more than 1 religion

it seems one religion wants another religion blocked from all of the site

[Shaktimaan]

46. Huh?

What are you talking about? Currently Jews are forbidden from praying there.

[azurnoir]

47. The Kotel is part of the Temple Mount complex

albeit the lower level, so you're claiming Jews aren't allowed to pray there?

[Shaktimaan]

58. Correct

Do you seriously not grasp the distinction?

Regardless it's besides the point. Is there a reason to refuse all non-Muslim prayer at the actual TM site itself?

[azurnoir]

59. Is there a reason to insist on non-Muslim prayer at a what is generally considered a Muslim site?

especially at this point in time, considering this bill passed by the Knesset, seems a step in furthering that separation

Knesset passes bill distinguishing between Muslim and Christian Arabs

The Knesset on Monday approved a controversial law, whose ultimate aim, according to its sponsor, is to distinguish between Muslim and Christian Arab citizens and to heighten involvement of Christians in Israeli society.

Critics slammed the law, sponsored by MK Yariv Levin (Likud), for constituting an attempt to “divide and conquer” the country's Arab population – an allegation Levin seemed to confirm in a recent newspaper interview.

The law demands what initially seems to be a minor change in the makeup of the public advisory council which is appointed under the 1988 Equal Employment Opportunities Law. It would expand that panel from five representatives of groups that promote workers’ rights, to 10 members, which will now include Christian, Muslim, Druze and Circassian representatives.

The law passed by 31 to six votes, even though Equal Employment Opportunity commissioner Tziona Koenig-Yair clarified in a committee discussion of the legislation two weeks ago that she opposed it and that she viewed it as superfluous – “in the same way that I wouldn’t be interested in separate representation for Lithuanian Haredim and [Sephardi] Haredim,” she said. “Furthermore, there are no groups promoting employment for different sectors in the Arab population per se, only for the Arab population as a whole.”

http://www.haaretz.com/news/national/.premium-1.576247

and right after the failure of the so called peace talks-it couldn't be something to do with further entrenching Israel's presence in the occupied err disputed East Jerusalem-could it?

[shira]

112. But the site is holy to all 3 major religions. It's not exclusively a Muslim....

...religious site.

So how do you defend excluding people from the site based solely on their faith?

========

If a site were holy to Muslims and all Muslims were being denied access to the site, that would certainly be considered bigoted - so why the double standard here?

[azurnoir]

116. are Christians demanding access to er the Temple Mount ?

because it seems only a very small percentage of Israeli extreme Rightwingers such as Moshe Feiglin are but why are they and where has this bill gone? and more importantly why do you seem to support them?

[shira]

117. So Xtians should be barred from the site - is that what you're saying?

Muslims stone Christians on Temple Mount
http://www.israeltoday.co.il/News/tabid/178/nid/23122/language/en-US/Default.aspx

Apparently, Christians want access to the site too. Why do u have a problem with that?

I support the site being open to everyone. It's not possible for someone to be anti-racist and argue in favor of prejudice towards non-Muslims.

[azurnoir]

118. LOl a Rightwing Messianic publication and a years old article

impress us more please

and what will Israel do if Muslims protest the site being opened to all or do we already know? because right now only males over 50 (Muslim only) and women are allowed to worship at the site

that said per Israeli agreement Jordan has a word on this too

[shira]

120. Let's go to news video of the incident....

The pope made a visit there last month. If you're consistent, you should condemn that provocative act.

All you have to say is that "yes, everyone should be permitted on the grounds but...". You can't even do that. Is it because you have difficulty criticizing Palestinians of any stripe for anything?

[azurnoir]

121. another blurry/short/ heavily edited years old video making spurrious claims

and BTW what does the Popes visit have to do with any of this or why did you catapult that one in what impression were you attempting to make?

[shira]

123. Unreal denial. Here's the Times of Israel reporting....

http://www.timesofisrael.com/christian-tourists-hit-with-stones-at-temple-mount/

and for good measure....

http://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsContent/2/8/35084/World/Region/Israeli-police-stoned-at-Jerusalems-AlAqsa-compoun.aspx

Now try denying it.

And Jordan wouldn't have banned christians from the site if christians had no interest being there in the first place.

I mentioned the Pope b/c it's obvious the Temple Mount still has religious significance to Christians. Why would you want this info. censored?

It's ridiculous to defend the Waqf's prejudice towards non-Muslims. There's no good reason the site shouldn't be open to all faiths.

[azurnoir]

124. The Pope prayed at the Wailing Wall and on that thought the Temple Mount is then by

your own standards open to all However a Rightwing group tried to attempt an animal sacrifice on the Temple Mount the eve of Pesach, a practice long abandoned by mainstream Jews, who also are commonly prohibited by religious (Jewish) edict to set foot on the Temple Mount

Two Jews have petitioned Jerusalem police in the name of dozens of others for permission to carry out the mitzvah of the Passover sacrifice on the Temple Mount this year, for the first time in nearly 2,000 years.

The petitioners claim that police authorization is the only obstacle to ascending the Temple Mount, praying and offering their sacrifice of a lamb, as commanded in the Torah.

They said 100 Jews will be present and will bring with them a portable sacrificial altar and other equipment as described in the Torah.

Rabbi Menachem Boorstein, who is involved with studies of the Holy Temples, said that the mitzvah of the Passover sacrificial offering can be carried out without violating Jewish law. The Chief Rabbinate forbids Jews from ascending the Temple Mount, while a growing number of national religious rabbis permit it under certain conditions and in certain places.

http://www.jewishpress.com/news/breaking-news/jews-petition-police-to-offer-passover-sacrifice-on-temple-mount/2014/04/01/

[shira]

125. So u agree w/ the Waqf that all non-Muslims should be barred....

...from the Temple Mount.

Yes or No?

Just answer the question, please.

[azurnoir]

126. you keep saying the Temple Mount which includes the Wailing Wall but do keep digging :)

but on that basis obviously I do not

[shira]

132. It's blatant discrimination & fits the anti-Israel definition of apartheid (separateness)

Hard to believe some folks here are proudly defending the Waqf's detestable policies.

I wonder what Desmond Tutu would say if he were denied the opportunity to pray at the site. Would it be like or worse than apartheid...?

[Dick Dastardly]

110. The Kotel is not restricted to just Jews praying. All religions are welcome to pray at the Kotel

unlike on the Temple Mount which is restricted to Islam. Pope John Paul and the Dalai Lama have prayed at the Kotel. Last month Pope Francis prayed at the Kotel but could not do so on the Temple Mount.

[azurnoir]

127. what do 2 popes and the Dalai Lama all have in common? :)

[oberliner]

143. None of them are allowed to pray on the other side of the Wall at the Temple Mount

Only Muslims are allowed to pray there.

Non-Muslim prayer is strictly prohibited.

[azurnoir]

146. But the Pope can hold a mass at the Kotel?

but the stances I see here are absolutely no surprise and very revealing indeed

[leftynyc]

61. And like a child

you think repeating something over and over and over again gives it credibility. Grow up - unless, of course, you're okay with sounding like you're in the playground because there is zero intellectual heft to any of your posts. They're idiotic.

[King_David]

62. +1

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

67. Pray tell me, exactly how many Mosques has

Israel destroyed or built a Synagog over?

Historically speaking, Israel has been the aggressor not the victim in that regard.

If you don't like what you are reading you are free to go whine some place else.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

72. Leave it to you to ignore the query.

I guess it was too hard for you to acknowledge.

[Shaktimaan]

95. Well.

It was both nonsensical and irrelevant so I don't know how he'd respond. Interestingly I can't think of any instances when Israel built a synagogue over a mosque. Nor is this about labeling Israel as victim or aggressor. It's really just about whether all groups should have the right to worship at their religious sites, even shared ones.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

96. Hey, thanks for the kick.

[sabbat hunter]

63. It has always been my understanding

as someone who was raised jewish, that Jews should not go up to the temple mount, lest we accidentally enter the area where the holy of holies stood, a place only the temple priests should go, and even then only once a year.


Plus these "third temple" MK are also violating the jewish religion, in that it can only be built after the messiah comes.


So Jews everywhere should be against this bill for the above reasons alone.

Not to mention the fact that Israel has treaties in place that grant Jordan (thru its appointed islamic iman) religious control over the Temple Mount. IF (and that is a HUGE if) any other religions were to be granted prayer rights on the Temple Mount it would have to be via negotiations with Jordan, not via a bill in the Knesset.

[Jefferson23]

64. Yes, quite right. n/t

[shira]

136. So you approve of discriminatory policy...

...vs Jews and Xtians who wish to pray at the Temple Mount site?

[Jefferson23]

138. I see you're busy kicking up a Friday Strawman Special. Take up your problem

with post#63.

[shira]

139. Can't answer a simple question. I'll make it easier for u...

Do you believe it's wrong to ban Christians from praying at the Temple Mount site?

[Jefferson23]

140. You have a hard time comprehending language today?

Read post 63, then see my response.

Do you feel you have credibility here, in this discussion on
discrimination? I don't think you do and I don't care to
waste my time.

I'm in a really good mood, have you seen this?

Obama Threatened Netanyahu With Dropping UNSC Veto Against Anti-Israel Moves: Report

http://www.democraticunderground.com/113486282

[shira]

141. What were you agreeing to in #63? Anything specific?

Everything?

My guess is that you can't answer these simplest of questions either.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

68. I believe if I had mentioned that Israel

has treaties in place prohibiting worship on the Mosque compound that it would be flatly ignored.

As to your point about the 3rd Temple, I just find it troubling that Israeli politicians would be pushing this garbage: knowing that it will incite Palestinian / Muslim anger.

In addition the same sensitivities / common sense seem to be lacking in the replied to this OP: making Israel out to be the victim while it is the one destroying Mosques or re-purposing them into Synagogs.

If Jordan wants to invite Jewish worshipers onto the Mosque compound then that us their right.

[Dick Dastardly]

111. The treaties dont prohibit any worship but just formalizes the Temple Mounts administration to an

Islamic Waqf controlled by Jordan. Israel allowed the Waqf to continue administration of the Temple Mount after 67.

[shira]

113. Should christians be denied access to the Temple Mount? n/t

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

114. It's a mosque compound, shira. Deal with it.

[shira]

115. It's holy to all 3 major religions. Why should non-muslims be barred? n/t

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

119. If the muslims wish to invite other faiths to their mosque compound

then that is their business.

I'm not sure why you want to push your way onto the mosque compound.


It's a mosque compound, shira. Deal with it and move on.

[shira]

122. Is it illegitimate to criticize the Waqf for refusing to be inclusive....

....to all faiths?

Do you agree with their decision to bar non-muslims from the site?

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

128. It's a mosque compound, shira.

Why are you proposing to get your hands on their religious identity: freedom of religion, freedom of worship?

[shira]

129. It's an apartheid picnic at the Temple Mount site....

Or is that Apartheid Circus?



Blatant discrimination by the Waqf that should in no way be defended on a liberal forum.

Defending this prejudice will make it quite difficult for some folks to hypocritically argue against Israel in the future, don't you agree?

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

133. How many mosques ha Israel destroyed lately?

If Israel were destroying churches then I could easily see that christians would also not be disposed to grant any fig leaf.

The Israeli way, for some time now, has been to demolish mosques, take land that does not belong to them and squeeze the Palestinians until something snaps...the the whole process of cleansing starts all over again.

[shira]

134. So because Israel has done some things....

...you object to, that excuses collective punishment against the world's Jews by the Waqf that bars their prayers at the site?

Thing is, the Waqf also bars the world's Christians from praying at the site too.

There's no excuse for such discrimination. It's an apartheid circus.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

135. "So because Israel has done some things..."

Did anybody just catch that?

"So because Israel has done some things..."

Shiva, your clumsy attempts apologize away what Israel IS doing is not only shameful, but I feel embarrassed even reading your deuce of a reply.

Israel has built Synagogues on the ruins of at least one Mosque, and it has presently destroyed a few mosques within the last month or two.

So not to mention all the other human rights clusterf*cks that Israel has plopped onto the Palestinians if I were them I wouldn't feel inclined to do anything except flip the Magen David the bird every time I saw it.


So keep on spinning that top, perhaps you'll snare a sucker one of these days.

[shira]

153. Yep, "done some things YOU object to..."

Because of that, the Waqf is justified in banning all non-Muslim prayer at the compound in your view.

You're defending discriminatory segregationist policy against all non-Muslims based on the actions of the Israeli government.

It's an Apartheid picnic you and your mates here are proudly supporting here.

How charming on a liberal board.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

154. LOL! You're replying to something that I posted over 4 months ago??

Did it take you that long to come up with that crappy response?

[shira]

155. Are you LOL'ing at your support of the Waqf's apartheid policy?

Because that is funny considering you're Mr. "Apartheid picnic" here. BDS, etc..



Difficult to argue against Apartheid when you're going out of your way here to defend the Waqf's apartheid policy, don'tcha think?



But no worries, laugh it off...

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

156. I'm laughing at your 4 month in-the-making crappy "I'm a victim!" response.

Israel is the victimizer here.

BDS.

[shira]

157. No one is claiming Israel is a victim....

But non-Muslims who wish to pray at the Mount are being discriminated against, and you're defending this Apartheid Picnic.

As for BDS, you're making a strong case here that it stands for Bigoted Double Standards. It's not just you making the case, it's all of Team Palestine, all of the same mind. Kinda Borg like...

If that acrononym isn't strong enough, try Bigoted Deceitful and Shameless on for size.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

158. 'No one is claiming Israel is a victim...."

"But non-Muslims who wish to pray at the Mount are being discriminated against, and you're defending this Apartheid Picnic."

Apparently you are claiming some victim hood here for somebody.

The present site is a Mosque complex. Get over it.


And please, I believe that you need to take another 4 months to craft at the very least one of your half-hearted responses.

[shira]

159. Right, only you are. Discrimination vs. non-Muslims is odious...

You made yourself clear in #100 when you conflated Israel with Jews:

Their holiest site, destroyed two thousand years ago is now somebody else's holy site. They should get over it and move on.

Israel, conflated with the Jews, should get over it and move on. All Jews, no matter their political persuasion are all the aggressor in your mind.



And then you have the nerve to accuse others of bigotry and racism. You make it too easy for your opponents here.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

160. Instead of cherry picking, as you have boldly stated that you do in past posts,

why don't you post my words in their entirety?

Their holiest site, destroyed two thousand years ago is now somebody else's holy site. They should get over it and move on, but in the classic sense of colonistic(sp correction) state it will be easier to just push the Palestinians aside as has been done countless times. The Palestinians don't feel inclined to share since Israel's idea of sharing is taking over Palestinian possessions.

Perhaps if Israel acted more like a democracy and ceased occupation and apartheid the Palestinians might also offer an olive branch, but frankly there is no incentive given Israeli colonial tendencies.

I stand by my words.

Israel = Apartheid.

BDS

[shira]

161. You conflated Israel with Jews again by quoting yourself

The Palestinians don't feel inclined to share since Israel's idea of sharing is taking over Palestinian possessions.

Here you are again hypocritically supporting Palestinian apartheid policies vs Jews and other non-Muslims, who you conflate with Israel.

You're defending collective punishment against all individual non-Muslims and then have the nerve to accuse others of supporting and defending apartheid.

Priceless.

Once again proving for all to see how you merely use human rights to serve a political agenda.

Bravo! You're a fine representative for all those following the growing yet fanatical religion of Palestinianism. Please, go on about BDS and Israeli Apartheid while simultaneously defending odious racist policies vs non-Muslims. Do your worst!

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

162. Israel = Apartheid. Live with it.

[shira]

163. LOL...That means so much coming from defender of Waqf Apartheid. n/t

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

164. Yes, it does. Doesn't it.

And as always, thanks for the kick.

[Mosby]

75. Only the ultra Orthodox feel that way about the temple mount

The other 90% of world Jewry have no problem going up there.

Secondly, there is no Rabbi qualified to comment on end times theology, so opinions differ about the third temple, but regardless this is not about halacha.

Lastly the Jordan/Israel peace agreement states in article 9 item 3:

The Parties will act together to promote interfaith relations among the three monotheistic religions, with the aim of working towards religious understanding, moral commitment, freedom of religious worship and tolerance and peace.

So the peace agreement isn't being followed because of the religious intolerance in the Arab/Muslim world. The GOI made the rule in the first place because they knew how Muslims would react.

eta just so you and everyone else is clear on this - there is NO PRAYER BAN in the Jordan/Israel peace agreement, the ban is self imposed by the Israelis because they understand that the Muslims will freak fucking out if Jews and Christians were allowed to pray near a mosque.

[azurnoir]

77. Do you consider Dov Lior to name but one as representing 90% of the worlds Jews?

These rabbis include: Shlomo Goren (former Ashkenazi Chief Rabbi of Israel); Chaim David Halevi (former Chief Rabbi of Tel Aviv and Yaffo); Dov Lior (Rabbi of Kiryat Arba); Yosef Elboim; Yisrael Ariel; She'ar Yashuv Cohen (Chief Rabbi of Haifa); Yuval Sherlo (rosh yeshiva of the hesder yeshiva of Petah Tikva); Meir Kahane. One of them, Shlomo Goren, states that it is possible that Jews are even allowed to enter the heart of the Dome of the Rock, according to Jewish Law of Conquest. These authorities demand an attitude of veneration on the part of Jews ascending the Temple Mount, ablution in a mikveh prior to the ascent, and the wearing of non-leather shoes. Some rabbinic authorities are now of the opinion that it is imperative for Jews to ascend in order to halt the ongoing process of Islamization of the Temple Mount.

In December 2013, the two Chief Rabbis of Israel, David Lau and Yitzhak Yosef, reiterated the ban on Jews entering the Temple Mount.[87] They wrote, "In light of [those] neglecting [this ruling], we once again warn that nothing has changed and this strict prohibition remains in effect for the entire area [of the Temple Mount]".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temple_Mount

[Mosby]

78. what's your point?

Seriously, I don't get it. The orthodox position about the temple mount is evolving, good for them.

[azurnoir]

83. It was a question about your previous statement regarding 90% of Jews

it is indeed your prerogative to not answer that.

[King_David]

82. Nope I only consider Scootaloo

And the rest of her group of AntiZionists posting in this forum to be the legitimate spokeswomen of the Jews.

[Jefferson23]

84. He told you he was not a her, so why do you repeatedly state otherwise? What is the reason? n/t

[King_David]

86. Got any Gay friends

Ever hear them talking ?

"Hey Girl" "sister". Etc

Not particularly hung up on gender labels myself being gay and all.

[Jefferson23]

87. You're friends with him? Anyway, he has corrected you..so there is that. n/t

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

93. I guess that it is alright for some

to harass others while continually playing the victim.

If Scoot were to use the same approach I'd bet good money that he'd be tombstoned.

Some victims make the worst bullies.

[sabbat hunter]

79. I was not raised Ultra-orthodox

I went to a conservative temple as a kid for high holidays, hebrew school, but was raised reform. We were taught that jews should not go up to the temple mount (And certainly not to pray) because of the possibility of stepping in to the area of the holy of holies.

The historian in me wants to go visit to see the magnificence of the two mosques, the remains of the platform that Herod had built, even go below to see any remains of the older temples, the support structure, etc.

As a pagan, it holds no particular religious connotation for me any more, but I remember when I was a kid, and was bar-mitzvahed by the wailing wall.

Allowing prayers on the temple mount would only do one thing, inflame passions and cause problems. I hope that this bill meets a quick death in Knesset.

[Mosby]

81. I didn't mean to suggest you are orthodox

Sorry if I gave that impression, I'm a sucky writer and tend to write in shorthand with a lot of built in assumptions. (does that make sense?).

The official conservative position is that one should avoid the mosque of omar because of its possible proximity to the holy of holies.

I have been to Israel twice and visited the temple mount both times with friends and family. Both times I went into the "dome of the rock".

The first time I visited the temple mount I was stung by a yellow jacket, hurt like hell.

That first visit was when I was 13, we held my bar mizvah at the kotel. There was rain the prior Thursday so come monday there must have been 8-9 bar mitzvahs going on! One was a yemenite service, it was really interesting.

You would love Israel, everywhere you go is filled with history. For me growing up in Phx it was particularly awe inspiring, I thought a building from the 1800s was old!

[sabbat hunter]

85. I was in Israel

and bar-mitvahed at the wall. Although it was a Sephardi rabbi who did the ceremony, because I wasn't 13 yet (only 12.5) and I loved the ancient sites there, especially the Roman ruins, Masada, the crusader forts

[azurnoir]

76. Generally speaking you're right however there is another school of thought on this

among what are called (diplomatically) nationalistic Rabbi's Dov Lior is among them and apparently they along with their followers have gained enough momentum to bring this up in the Knesset-again

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

97. An update on those innocent Israeli victims of discrimination...

http://www.maannews.net/eng/ViewDetails.aspx?ID=702481

Hundreds of Israeli rightists enter Aqsa compound

JERUSALEM (Ma'an) -- Over one hundred right-wing Israelis entered the Al-Aqsa Mosque compound on Thursday as part of celebrations for the Jewish holiday of Shavuot.

Some 170 right-wing religious Jews entered the compound, including Michael Ben-Ari, a former MK, and far-right Jewish activist Yehuda Glick.

Glick is the chairman of the controversial Temple Mount Heritage Fund, which seeks to establish a Jewish Temple in the Asqa compound.
---
Because of the sensitive nature of the Al-Aqsa compound, Israel maintains a compromise with the Islamic trust that controls it to not allow non-Muslim prayers in the area.

[sabbat hunter]

98. 170 people

is not "hundreds"

and the pic they have with the article shows about 18-24 people.

Additionally I cannot find any verification of this story, even from sources you would think would have stories on it like alarabiya or aljazeera.

If there truly was "hundreds' of Israelis entering the Temple Mount, I believe that there would be stories from other sources.

[Shaktimaan]

99. Did anyone

Describe them as victims of discrimination? I think you're missing the point of this.

That said, you're right. They don't seem to have done anything wrong here. A group of Jews went to their holiest site to celebrate Shavuot, despite not Bering allowed to pray. They were threatened by the Muslim groups, whereupon they left and the police limited entrance for a short while to prevent a riot.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

100. Their holiest site, destroyed

two thousand years ago is now somebody else's holy site. They should get over it and move on, but in the classic sense of coloristic state it will be easier to just push the Palestinians aside as has been done countless times. The Palestinians don't feel inclined to share since Israel's idea of sharing is taking over Palestinian possessions.

Perhaps if Israel acted more like a democracy and ceased occupation and apartheid the Palestinians might also offer an olive branch, but frankly there is no incentive given Israeli colonial tendencies.

[Shaktimaan]

102. I hope everyone reads this post.

It is perhaps the most close-minded, truly disgustingly offensive thing I've read in the eight years I've been posting here.

That you seem so oblivious to the inherent bigotry in your words is nothing less than astounding. Hopefully as many people will read your post as possible to demonstrate how someone can hold such odious beliefs while simultaneously considering themselves an enlightened left wing liberal.

[King_David]

103. Yes it is simply unbelievable ,

"close-minded, truly disgustingly offensive thing" is putting it mildly.

He says about the Jews :
"100. Their holiest site, destroyed
two thousand years ago is now somebody else's holy site. They should get over it and move on"

Imagine if he had said :
"their land has been destroyed and is now somebody else's land . They should get over it and move on."

(Somebody would probably have called it on this before but your the only one in either side who engages it...)

[Shaktimaan]

105. Actually...

It's far worse than your example. Land can and does change ownership, especially over the time periods we're discussing. R. believes that he has the authority to dictate what beliefs certain religions should hold based solely on his own shaky understanding of a current political situation. He feels justified in determining what sites are "qualified" to be considered sacred by a religion he knows next to nothing about. The hypocrisy required to ignore such universally accepted agreements such as the guarantee that all religions should be granted access to their own religious sites is truly breathtaking.

Most odious IMHO is his callous comparison of Judaism's claim to the Temple Mount as sacred with colonialism and ethnic cleansing. The fact that he claims the right to dictate the tenets of any religion based in his own political beliefs clearly demonstrates a profound lack of respect for anyone whose ideology differs from his own. That he chose the MOST important religious, historical and cultural site in Judaism highlights the extent to which this lack of tolerance pervades his thought process. Earlier he even described the construction of a synagogue as being an act of aggression. Even ignoring the fact that over 50 ancient temples in east Jerusalem were razed by the Jordanians during their short occupation, the idea that building temples and allowing mutually revered sites to be shared is somehow unethical or aggressive reveals a deep seated prejudice that stands as obvious to any reasonable person.

[shira]

131. The message is consistent. Jews are the oppressors after all....

...and to pay for that, Jews should just get over the fact their holiest site is off-limits to them now.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/113465489#post36

Jews lost the right to pray at their holiest site due to their collective guilt. Sounds almost like a medieval religious decree.

[shira]

130. "Their (Palestinian) land has been destroyed & is now somebody else's land.....

...They should get over it and move on."

+1

Excellent point made there, KD.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

104. Like I've written before. I really don't care what you believe.

You can also pretend to play the victim in all this, crying bigotry, when the real bigots are doing a very good job destroying anything and everything Palestinian...while they are cheered on for doing it.

[Shaktimaan]

106. Playing the victim?

That's funny. Nothing I wrote could possibly be construed as claiming victim hood. Your inability to view issues through any lens other than "victim" and "oppressor" clearly contributes to your black and white understanding of this conflict.

In reality the fact that the settlers are frequently racist themselves in no way negates the bigotry inherent in your own beliefs. Nor does the fact that you offer these beliefs up unapologetically for scrutiny somehow indicate that I'm claiming "victimhood" when I point them out as such. Truly if there is a victim here it would be yourself; unknowingly held hostage to an ideology long ago deemed abhorrent to liberal thinkers.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

107. Like I've written. I don't care what you believe.

Strange how you can't come to terms with that.

[Shaktimaan]

108. Good for you.

But I'm not sure why you think that I'm writing these posts for that reason.

That said it really sounds like you're trying to convince someone besides me of how little you care what I write.

Can you guess who?

[King_David]

109. That's the reason you the only one on either side of this that actually engages there

It's over the top and everything opposite of liberal Democratic Party view.

[MisterP]

151. a new Temple? how very Herodian ...