Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Jefferson23

(30,099 posts)
Thu Nov 6, 2014, 08:41 AM Nov 2014

PLO urge journalists: Don't use term 'Temple Mount'

PLO statement claims 'Al-Aqsa Mosque compound is not a disputed territory and all other terms, therefore, are null and void.'

The Palestinians on Wednesday urged reporters and news outlets not to use the term 'Temple Mount' when covering recent events in the complex which also houses the Al-Aqsa mosque

A press release by the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO), dubbed "Concern over the use of the inaccurate term 'Temple Mount' to refer to Al-Aqsa Mosque Compound in Jerusalem" was sent out on Wednesday.

First reported by Matthew Kalman's blog, the statement called on the international media "to adhere to international law and correct any other existing terminology used. The Al-Aqsa Mosque compound is not a disputed territory and all other terms, therefore, are null and void."

The Palestinians argue that "Al-Aqsa Mosque Compound is located in East Jerusalem, an internationally recognized part of the Occupied State of Palestine."


http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4588544,00.html
88 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
PLO urge journalists: Don't use term 'Temple Mount' (Original Post) Jefferson23 Nov 2014 OP
That's as stupid leftynyc Nov 2014 #1
They should call it Disneyland, King_David Nov 2014 #2
MIDDLE EAST Conflict Grows Over Temple Mount King_David Nov 2014 #3
What is Beneath the Temple Mount? King_David Nov 2014 #4
Israel, Jordan fear violence over Temple Mount King_David Nov 2014 #5
Thanks for the kicking the thread..surprising interest from a non-religious Jefferson23 Nov 2014 #6
It's just plain ridiculous , like if somebody has decided King_David Nov 2014 #9
You also don't appreciate their hardships, the incitememt and provocations nor anything Jefferson23 Nov 2014 #11
Well, Andalusia is its own thing in spain, actually Scootaloo Nov 2014 #26
True but it is still regarded as sacred ground hack89 Nov 2014 #33
You make one mistake Scootaloo Nov 2014 #35
Both are looking for a fight hack89 Nov 2014 #37
The problem with this statement of yours is... Scootaloo Nov 2014 #38
Religion is fundamentally irrational hack89 Nov 2014 #39
They don't have to renounce anything Scootaloo Nov 2014 #46
True. hack89 Nov 2014 #48
That's not what the op suggests. Shaktimaan Nov 2014 #50
Yes. It is al Aqsa. Shaktimaan Nov 2014 #49
How do you pronounce "Aqsa?" ZombieHorde Nov 2014 #51
Ak-sa Shaktimaan Nov 2014 #52
I never said the site lost its significance Scootaloo Nov 2014 #54
What's the opposite of Judaization? oberliner Nov 2014 #7
Clear: Jefferson23 Nov 2014 #8
The Temple Mount King_David Nov 2014 #10
So freaked out for a non-religious guy. n/t Jefferson23 Nov 2014 #12
Not sure exactly what you trying to say King_David Nov 2014 #13
That you're freaked out about it..you're clear. n/t Jefferson23 Nov 2014 #14
He's saying that for an atheist, you sure sound like a religious nut Scootaloo Nov 2014 #28
Another false and hostile post? King_David Nov 2014 #29
You expressed confusion over what was being said Scootaloo Nov 2014 #30
I never even read your reply King_David Nov 2014 #31
well, you just told us you're an atheist Dave Scootaloo Nov 2014 #36
You should post your own opinions here King_David Nov 2014 #40
well, no, you SAID you were atheist Scootaloo Nov 2014 #44
After you got caught today "divining" someone else's opinion King_David Nov 2014 #45
I don't need to fabricate Dave. You've stated your own Scootaloo Nov 2014 #47
The pretend atheist has been boxed in by his own words. R. Daneel Olivaw Nov 2014 #61
That really puts me in my place , King_David Nov 2014 #69
You're welcome. Any time. R. Daneel Olivaw Nov 2014 #79
Well done King_David Nov 2014 #80
I got an inkling you never were in Jewish camp King_David Nov 2014 #15
You're confused, there are distinctions/differences between Israeli nationalism and Jefferson23 Nov 2014 #16
Jewish nationalism King_David Nov 2014 #17
I think you're all set, regardless: Jefferson23 Nov 2014 #18
What !!!!! ???????? Israeli Nov 2014 #20
Really? The Western Wall is part of Israel.... shira Nov 2014 #21
Thats us being fair shira .... Israeli Nov 2014 #25
Fair? Your Team Palestine friends yell "THEFT"! shira Nov 2014 #32
+1..thank you. n/t Jefferson23 Nov 2014 #43
The Western Wall is part of West Jerusalem? oberliner Nov 2014 #22
"West Jerusalem (including the Western Wall) " King_David Nov 2014 #23
There are Mulsim holy sites that are located in "an internationally recognized part of Israel" oberliner Nov 2014 #19
and the Kotel is not being rendered "null and void" however azurnoir Nov 2014 #24
The site is still holy ground to both Jews & Christians shira Nov 2014 #41
No I am not, exactly what is Christian about the name temple mount? azurnoir Nov 2014 #53
You are WRT agreeing with the Waqf banning all non-Muslim prayer there.... shira Nov 2014 #59
The Palestinians are denying access to other religions.... shira Nov 2014 #34
I've always referred to it as the Temple Mount. NaturalHigh Nov 2014 #27
Do you really think he expects that? I don't think it's too difficult to understand where Jefferson23 Nov 2014 #42
There are many among the PA sabbat hunter Nov 2014 #55
It's not just Jews who are banned from praying at the Temple Mount.... shira Nov 2014 #56
That is because sabbat hunter Nov 2014 #57
I didn't know that. Do you have a source for that? shira Nov 2014 #58
Here is the info sabbat hunter Nov 2014 #64
Before 2000 (2nd Intifada) Jews were allowed to visit.... shira Nov 2014 #88
Not really shaayecanaan Nov 2014 #66
there are some extremist sabbat hunter Nov 2014 #73
My impression is that when people are threatened, they feel backed into a corner Jefferson23 Nov 2014 #60
Arafat stated in on numerous occassions sabbat hunter Nov 2014 #62
Just to be clear, I wasn't suggesting what you stated earlier was false, but my Jefferson23 Nov 2014 #63
but my point was sabbat hunter Nov 2014 #65
It's a coincidence he said it now, while he has been trying to get back to negotiations? Jefferson23 Nov 2014 #67
I agree with you sabbat hunter Nov 2014 #70
I think we're more in agreement than not. n/t Jefferson23 Nov 2014 #75
I suppose one problem with calling it the temple mount shaayecanaan Nov 2014 #68
well according to Roman records sabbat hunter Nov 2014 #71
I am not saying it went unused shaayecanaan Nov 2014 #81
The dome of the rock sabbat hunter Nov 2014 #82
From wikipedia:- shaayecanaan Nov 2014 #83
but you also failed sabbat hunter Nov 2014 #84
actually, the tabernacle itself was quite compact shaayecanaan Nov 2014 #85
but the point is sabbat hunter Nov 2014 #86
Probably (nt) shaayecanaan Nov 2014 #87
That is fascinating, thank you. I would suggest you post it as a thread on its own, Jefferson23 Nov 2014 #72
That link though sabbat hunter Nov 2014 #74
I understand that, and I'm not qualified to say one way or another about it. Jefferson23 Nov 2014 #76
a bit fascinating perhaps sabbat hunter Nov 2014 #77
Fair enough. Jefferson23 Nov 2014 #78
 

leftynyc

(26,060 posts)
1. That's as stupid
Thu Nov 6, 2014, 02:19 PM
Nov 2014

as those who say there is no such thing as a Palestinian or call the west bank Judea and Sumeria.

King_David

(14,851 posts)
9. It's just plain ridiculous , like if somebody has decided
Thu Nov 6, 2014, 10:22 PM
Nov 2014

To order everyone to call Spain Andalusia from now on..
WTF do they think they are.
What's it gotta do with religion anyway?
I call Mecca , Mecca and Islamabad, Islamabad and I don't believe in G-D.

Jefferson23

(30,099 posts)
11. You also don't appreciate their hardships, the incitememt and provocations nor anything
Thu Nov 6, 2014, 10:28 PM
Nov 2014

else the Palestinians have endured over this recently.

 

Scootaloo

(25,699 posts)
26. Well, Andalusia is its own thing in spain, actually
Fri Nov 7, 2014, 09:10 AM
Nov 2014

It's one of several Spanish nationalities, in fact, under the 1978 constitution. Seriously, learn some stuff.

Next, as has been repeatedly pointed out to you, there is no temple there. There has not been a temple there for nineteen hundred years. There is a Muslim mosque there. There is a Muslim shrine there. It is al-Aqsa.

hack89

(39,171 posts)
33. True but it is still regarded as sacred ground
Fri Nov 7, 2014, 12:49 PM
Nov 2014

The temple being destroyed is irrelevant to what the site means to Judaism.

The fact that it is regarded as sacred to the Jews is what will diffuse this issue - the Rabbis forbid Jews to pray there to prevent defiling the site as it is impossible to perform the required purification rituals.

 

Scootaloo

(25,699 posts)
35. You make one mistake
Fri Nov 7, 2014, 01:30 PM
Nov 2014

Namely, you think it's about Judaism. It's not. Look down there, at King_David. he tells us he's an atheist, he doesn't believe in god, he says. But there he is, yowling his head off about a chunk of masonry that some long-dead Jews used to pray to a thing he doesn't believe in anyway. Logically, it should matter as much to him, as the chunks of rubble left at Gamla Uppsala do to me. Neat place to tour perhaps, but something I'd get into a fight over?

But it seems that he and a lot of people really, really want to have this fight.

Why?

It's not about Judaism. it's about dominance. Israel wants to pick a fight over the al-Aqsa mosque. A fight that Israel will win through superior firepower, and then use as justification for further purges and restrictions against Arabs in the city.

hack89

(39,171 posts)
37. Both are looking for a fight
Fri Nov 7, 2014, 01:41 PM
Nov 2014

Because both sides believe there is something to fight for. Pox on both their houses as far as I am concerned when it comes to the temple mount.

 

Scootaloo

(25,699 posts)
38. The problem with this statement of yours is...
Fri Nov 7, 2014, 02:02 PM
Nov 2014

That the al-aqsa mosque is already there. The Dome of the Rock is already there. Both are Muslim sites. And sparing a fifty-year burp in the 12th century, both have been so since 691 CE. It's not as though someone is trying to install these features all of a sudden or something.

it is not "looking for a fight" if you are trying to protect something that is yours from people who are dedicated to wrenching it away from you.

This is simply not a "both sides are to blame" situation.

hack89

(39,171 posts)
39. Religion is fundamentally irrational
Fri Nov 7, 2014, 02:11 PM
Nov 2014

You want the Jews to renounce a central tenet of their religion simply because the Romans destroyed the temple many years ago. Not going to happen and you know it. .

 

Scootaloo

(25,699 posts)
46. They don't have to renounce anything
Fri Nov 7, 2014, 08:20 PM
Nov 2014

But the al-Aqsa compound's current status is not really up for question. The only way that status will change, is by force. Which seems to be exactly what is desired by Israel and its supporters. Superior firepower, after all.

hack89

(39,171 posts)
48. True.
Fri Nov 7, 2014, 08:59 PM
Nov 2014

It will be a flash point for certain. But then there are no shortage of flash points in the region.

Shaktimaan

(5,397 posts)
50. That's not what the op suggests.
Sat Nov 8, 2014, 12:33 PM
Nov 2014

The PLO is not only seeking to refute the site's Jewish religious, historical and cultural significance themselves, but are actively demanding that the rest of the world follows suit.

I have no idea what you mean by "the compound's current status is not up for grabs." It's current status hasn't changed at all. It's currently sacred to several religions. In fact the only group seeking to challenge other religion's legitimacy is the PLO. An act you seem to support.

Unfortunately for you, the status of the Temple Mount is not up for grabs.

Shaktimaan

(5,397 posts)
49. Yes. It is al Aqsa.
Sat Nov 8, 2014, 12:19 PM
Nov 2014

It's also still the Temple Mount. You seem to think that the site lost its significance following the temple's destruction for some reason. The fact that for the following thousands of years the site remained the place Jews worldwide face while praying should indicate that it hasn't lost any of it's spiritual significance. More troubling is your insistence on dictating the tenets of another people's ancient religion based on your own uninformed views. The site has been the holiest place throughout Jewish history. The temple was built there because the site is sacred, not vice versa. The fact that a mosque was built there does nothing to mitigate this fact. It merely means that the site is regarded as sacred by several religions.

Regarding secular Jews' interest in the issue; one doesn't need to be religious in order to support the rights of others to practice their religion. Your argument thus far has centered around trying ins to delegitimize the religious significance of the Temple Mount; a position that tells us everything about your motivations. You care less about seeking equal access for Muslims than you do about voicing your rejection of Jewish parity.

 

Scootaloo

(25,699 posts)
54. I never said the site lost its significance
Sat Nov 8, 2014, 06:43 PM
Nov 2014

I said that it is a Muslim place of worship. Has been for over thirteen hundred years. As such, the Muslim community sets the rules about it. Those rules ought to be respected, just as the rules set by any other religious community around their places of worship ought to be respected. It is extremely disrespectful and hostile to barge in and demand the rules be changed.

Jefferson23

(30,099 posts)
8. Clear:
Thu Nov 6, 2014, 09:39 PM
Nov 2014

*The Al-Aqsa Mosque compound is not a disputed territory and all other terms, therefore, are null and void."

The Palestinians argue that "Al-Aqsa Mosque Compound is located in East Jerusalem, an internationally recognized part of the Occupied State of Palestine."

King_David

(14,851 posts)
10. The Temple Mount
Thu Nov 6, 2014, 10:25 PM
Nov 2014

Will never be relinquished by any government of Israel EVER...

The PLO better realize this soon.

It's not a left nor right wing thing either.

 

Scootaloo

(25,699 posts)
28. He's saying that for an atheist, you sure sound like a religious nut
Fri Nov 7, 2014, 09:15 AM
Nov 2014

Not sure exactly how that's hard to understand.

 

Scootaloo

(25,699 posts)
30. You expressed confusion over what was being said
Fri Nov 7, 2014, 10:09 AM
Nov 2014

You're an atheist, right? Don't believe in god?

yet here you are, screaming at the top of your lungs that Israel shall never ever ever "give up the temple mount."

it's a little incongruous for an atheist to be so caught up in a religious debate that was settled two millennia ago.

 

Scootaloo

(25,699 posts)
36. well, you just told us you're an atheist Dave
Fri Nov 7, 2014, 01:32 PM
Nov 2014
I call Mecca , Mecca and Islamabad, Islamabad and I don't believe in G-D.


Were you lying?

King_David

(14,851 posts)
40. You should post your own opinions here
Fri Nov 7, 2014, 02:44 PM
Nov 2014

And not fabricate others ... Because you were caught this time.

 

Scootaloo

(25,699 posts)
44. well, no, you SAID you were atheist
Fri Nov 7, 2014, 08:11 PM
Nov 2014

That's your opinion, expressed right here on this thread.

You are also expressing your opinion on the site in question:

The Temple Mount Will never be relinquished by any government of Israel EVER...


You've made your opinion crystal clear. And now I'm wondering why you hold that opinion. Why, as an atheist, is this such a fervent idea for you?

King_David

(14,851 posts)
45. After you got caught today "divining" someone else's opinion
Fri Nov 7, 2014, 08:15 PM
Nov 2014

here, incorrectly and fabricated , you desperetly want to change the topic.

Take home message is that you should post your own opinion and not manufacture other people's opinions.

 

Scootaloo

(25,699 posts)
47. I don't need to fabricate Dave. You've stated your own
Fri Nov 7, 2014, 08:31 PM
Nov 2014

I'm asking about your rationale for your opinions expressed.

You say you are an atheist. Yet you also demand that Israel claim and keep the Noble Sanctuary. Why?

 

R. Daneel Olivaw

(12,606 posts)
61. The pretend atheist has been boxed in by his own words.
Sun Nov 9, 2014, 04:39 PM
Nov 2014

How embarrassing (not really) to watch him wriggle.

King_David

(14,851 posts)
69. That really puts me in my place ,
Sun Nov 9, 2014, 09:38 PM
Nov 2014

Great Gotcha moment towards pathetic lill me , well done .
You really showed me with that and really embarrassed me with that "biting" post showing how inferior I really am.

LOL

King_David

(14,851 posts)
15. I got an inkling you never were in Jewish camp
Thu Nov 6, 2014, 10:37 PM
Nov 2014

Never was a madrich or Hebrew school or an Madrassa or went on a Haj or Birthright.

But you are passionate about these cultures.

Jefferson23

(30,099 posts)
16. You're confused, there are distinctions/differences between Israeli nationalism and
Thu Nov 6, 2014, 10:41 PM
Nov 2014

religion..I assure you.

Israeli

(4,151 posts)
20. What !!!!! ????????
Fri Nov 7, 2014, 06:50 AM
Nov 2014

ref : " It's not a left nor right wing thing either. " ........

Establishing Jerusalem as the capital of the two states, with East Jerusalem (including the Haram al-Sharif) serving as the capital of Palestine and West Jerusalem (including the Western Wall) serving as the capital of Israel. The city is to be united on the physical and municipal level, based on mutual agreement.

http://zope.gush-shalom.org/home/en/about/aims/

What are we .... chopped liver ???

 

shira

(30,109 posts)
21. Really? The Western Wall is part of Israel....
Fri Nov 7, 2014, 07:24 AM
Nov 2014

....according to Gush Shalom? Interesting.

Your friends from BDS would definitely object. See if you can find anyone from Team Palestine here agreeing with that whopper.

Israeli

(4,151 posts)
25. Thats us being fair shira ....
Fri Nov 7, 2014, 09:00 AM
Nov 2014

....we understand that you need a wall to wail at ..........we dont .

For you I'm sure its Jerusalem the Golden for us its ........

O Jerusalem, Israelis have already forgotten thee

Tel Aviv isn’t beautiful, yet it is loved. But a secular, liberal and humanist Israeli cannot love Jerusalem – you can’t love a city that's immoral.

By Gideon Levy

I don’t like Jerusalem. The truth is, I hate it. I try to go there as little as possible and leave as quickly as possible. For the most part, it’s an ugly and infuriating city.

The Jewish part has some charming spots, all in the old neighborhoods. The Old City, which is in the Palestinian part, is of course spectacular in its beauty and history. All the rest: ugliness.

The new settler neighborhoods are ugly, as are the Palestinian neighborhoods, which are filthy and neglected, as is the city center. Even the Old City’s beauty has long been erased – an occupied city is always frighteningly ugly.

But a city doesn’t have to be beautiful to be loved. Tel Aviv isn’t beautiful, yet it is loved. A secular, liberal and humanist Israeli cannot love Jerusalem – you can’t love a city when it's immoral. Its sanctity cannot speak to a secular person; such a person can’t accept the false political premises stemming from this sanctity.

Such Israelis should stand up against the religious-nationalist brainwashing campaign all around Jerusalem. This isn’t their campaign.


This campaign began the morning after the city’s conquest and has only grown stronger. At the end of the 1967 war, while I was still a boy, I too fell prey to the orgy of the return to holy Zion, as did my whole generation. I was thrilled to tears at the sight of the Western Wall, as I was at Rachel’s Tomb and the Tomb of the Patriarchs just days after the conquest. We didn’t see what was going on around them.

Then came the years of romance, no less blind and steeped in denial: the night tours of the Old City, the humus, the young women students in their embroidered dresses from the market, the wine from the nearby Cremisan Monastery, the copper tables in every living room.

We loved Jerusalem. We loved it mainly because a trip there was a trip to another country, and in those days such trips were rare. We felt like we were abroad in Jerusalem; we didn’t feel sanctity or Judaism.

A few friends rented rooms in a monastery in the eastern part of the city. We were secular, we were like dreamers. We loved Jerusalem and we thought that since the Knesset had passed a law, Jerusalem would remain occupied — “united forever” in the whitewashed terminology of the occupation.

We thought it was enough that Jerusalem had a mayor who spoke with a Viennese accent, was considered a Central European liberal, and was a friend of international celebrities. We thought this was enough to obscure the crimes of the occupation and the settlements for which he, Teddy Kollek, was responsible from the first day.

The sobering up came, of course, only with the uprising. The first intifada reminded Israelis that the situation could not endure forever, not in the West Bank, not in the Gaza Strip and not in the capital forever and for all eternity. The occupation responded in the usual manner – it tightened its violent grip.

In the second intifada the occupation even added another wall to the city, which tore its eastern part to shreds. At least the mask came off: Secular Israelis no longer traveled in the middle of the night to eat salted round bread in the Old City. The sanctity remained the province of the believers and the zealots.

But here’s the amazing thing: “United” Jerusalem remained in the consensus, as if nothing had happened. As if secular Israelis had not long stopped going to the Old City, as if many secular people had not abandoned the western part, as if there had been no talk that the eastern part was occupied territory, just like Qalqilyah and Tul Karm.

But to tell the truth about Jerusalem, we need courageous leaders, who of course are lacking. The truth is, no country in the world recognizes Jerusalem as Israel’s capital. It has been destroyed by the occupation. It is divided, torn and scarred.

Its sanctity is a matter for believers only — and in any case there’s no connection between this and sovereignty. Its division into two capitals or its morphing into the capital of one state will be much less of a disaster than continuing its occupation.


Meanwhile, we can only stay away from it, as much as possible.

http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-1.623930

 

shira

(30,109 posts)
32. Fair? Your Team Palestine friends yell "THEFT"!
Fri Nov 7, 2014, 12:48 PM
Nov 2014

I'm just modeling the response from Team BDS.

Gush Shalom is sanctioning land theft. So they're right wing Zionist extremists on the same side with Team Apartheid.

Welcome to the club, Israeli.

 

oberliner

(58,724 posts)
19. There are Mulsim holy sites that are located in "an internationally recognized part of Israel"
Fri Nov 7, 2014, 05:12 AM
Nov 2014

That doesn't give the Israeli government the right to deem "null and void" any reference to their Muslim character.

Similarly, Jewish holy sites that are located in East Jerusalem ought not to be made devoid of their Jewish character just because of where they are located.

azurnoir

(45,850 posts)
24. and the Kotel is not being rendered "null and void" however
Fri Nov 7, 2014, 08:35 AM
Nov 2014

Temple Mount refers to a Jewish Temple that has not existed for nearly 2000 years rendering the more recent Islamic presence at best second class if not "null and void"

 

shira

(30,109 posts)
41. The site is still holy ground to both Jews & Christians
Fri Nov 7, 2014, 02:48 PM
Nov 2014

The Romans destroying the Temple does nothing to take away a central tenet of Judaism. It's not for the Palestinians to decide what is or is not holy to Judaism today.

Or to make such rulings against Christians, for that matter.

You're advocating very ugly discriminatory policy.

azurnoir

(45,850 posts)
53. No I am not, exactly what is Christian about the name temple mount?
Sat Nov 8, 2014, 02:07 PM
Nov 2014

to call it the temple mount while what is actually there happen to be mosques is denying that presence

 

shira

(30,109 posts)
59. You are WRT agreeing with the Waqf banning all non-Muslim prayer there....
Sun Nov 9, 2014, 01:53 PM
Nov 2014

As for the name Temple Mount, that's a denial of Jewish history. It's bad enough the Waqf has damaged or destroyed ancient Jewish artifacts beneath the Mount in order to deny Jewish history.

 

shira

(30,109 posts)
34. The Palestinians are denying access to other religions....
Fri Nov 7, 2014, 01:01 PM
Nov 2014

Christians and Jews are being denied access in the name of Palestinian rights.

This is discrimination, and Team Palestine here is in full support.

Why?

NaturalHigh

(12,778 posts)
27. I've always referred to it as the Temple Mount.
Fri Nov 7, 2014, 09:14 AM
Nov 2014

I don't plan to change that because of some edict from the PLO.

Jefferson23

(30,099 posts)
42. Do you really think he expects that? I don't think it's too difficult to understand where
Fri Nov 7, 2014, 03:30 PM
Nov 2014

he's coming from..there was provocations from right wing Israeli's and then
violence in return, then it escalates. People begin to feel threatened about their
land and broken promises all over again...it's a mess.

sabbat hunter

(6,829 posts)
55. There are many among the PA
Sun Nov 9, 2014, 01:22 PM
Nov 2014

that deny any historical connection for jews to the Temple Mount. They claim that a jewish temple never existed in Jerusalem (despite all the historical records from the time of Herod, the Romans, etc that prove the contrary).

While I do not believe that Jews should be praying on the Temple Mount, out of respect to Muslims who consider the entire temple mount to be a mosque, I also think it is rather stupid on the part of others who deny a historical link between Jews and the Temple Mount. And that is exactly what the PLO is trying to do by urging journalists to not use the term Temple Mount. They are trying to deny any historical links for Jews. and by denying a link to Jews to the Temple Mount, they are in effect denying a link that makes the Wailing wall holy for jews.

 

shira

(30,109 posts)
56. It's not just Jews who are banned from praying at the Temple Mount....
Sun Nov 9, 2014, 01:27 PM
Nov 2014

All non-Muslim prayer is banned.

Here's a picture demonstrating the kind of prayer that is deemed disrespectful and too extreme:

sabbat hunter

(6,829 posts)
57. That is because
Sun Nov 9, 2014, 01:42 PM
Nov 2014

Islam considers all of the temple mount to be a mosque. So you would not go in to any mosque and do prayers of other religions besides Islam.

 

shira

(30,109 posts)
58. I didn't know that. Do you have a source for that?
Sun Nov 9, 2014, 01:50 PM
Nov 2014

Seems like Saudi Arabia, where public displays of non-Muslim religious prayer is banned. Not just in Mecca, but everywhere throughout Arabia.

Discriminatory nonetheless.

sabbat hunter

(6,829 posts)
64. Here is the info
Sun Nov 9, 2014, 08:17 PM
Nov 2014

Al-Aqsa Mosque from the west
The building became known as Masjid al-Aqsa, Al-Aqsa Mosque, although in reality the whole area of the Noble Sanctuary is considered Al-Aqsa Mosque, the entire precincts inviolable according to Islamic law. Every Friday prayer, the Al-Aqsa Mosque building overflows, with thousands of worshippers who must make their prayers outside in the courtyards of the vast open expanse of the Noble Sanctuary.


http://www.noblesanctuary.com/AQSAMosque.html

 

shira

(30,109 posts)
88. Before 2000 (2nd Intifada) Jews were allowed to visit....
Tue Nov 11, 2014, 09:41 AM
Nov 2014

...and quietly pray on the Temple Mount grounds. Before 1967, no Jews were allowed there at all, for any reason.

Let's not bullshit here. It's that status quo (the pre-'67 conditions) which is being revived once again by Jew haters.

This isn't about sacred Muslim ground. In this photo, there are Palestinian kids playing soccer on the Mount:

shaayecanaan

(6,068 posts)
66. Not really
Sun Nov 9, 2014, 08:21 PM
Nov 2014

Observant Jews are not supposed to pray on the temple mount, or even enter the temple mount, as they might inadvertently enter the holy of holies:-



So nothing to do with Muslims at all, really.

sabbat hunter

(6,829 posts)
73. there are some extremist
Sun Nov 9, 2014, 10:44 PM
Nov 2014

Jews that say as long as they avoid the area that they think was the holy of holies it is ok to pray there.

In fact it is why many very religious jews will go in to the western wall temple to pray, so they can be as close to the suspected location of the holy of holies as possible, without stepping foot in there.

Jefferson23

(30,099 posts)
60. My impression is that when people are threatened, they feel backed into a corner
Sun Nov 9, 2014, 04:05 PM
Nov 2014

and you have these types of responses. It's not as if Abbas went with
this call out before..not that I'm aware of.

sabbat hunter

(6,829 posts)
62. Arafat stated in on numerous occassions
Sun Nov 9, 2014, 07:54 PM
Nov 2014

as have other PA leaders.
http://archive.adl.org/anti_semitism/arab/temple_denial.html

http://zoa.org/2014/04/10238476-zoa-pal-lies-denial-about-jewish-connection-rights-in-jlem-must-stop-now/

Islamic-Christian Council for Jerusalem: Israel "never saw or knew any Jewish civilization, antiquities"
Source: Official PA daily, Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, June 6, 2014
“Secretary-General of the Islamic-Christian Council for Jerusalem and the Holy Places Hanna Issa said…: ‘Fate and divine will willed that the land of Jerusalem be filled with countless civilizations and antiquities – for there are various antiquities under most of the properties in the Old City of Jerusalem, including hallways, cellars, tunnels, water shafts, bath houses and places of worship… whose history goes back over 5,000 years. In the past, the Near East knew ancient civilizations of various kinds that succeeded each other, but it never saw or knew any Jewish civilization, antiquities or even a historic structure.”

Source: Official PA daily, Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, Feb. 27, 2014
Op-ed by Adli Sadeq, PLO Ambassador to India and regular columnist for official PA daily
“These days, the occupiers have reached the height of their rampage in their parliament, which is populated by a handful of crazy people reinforced by fairy tales and bundles of dreams, not a single letter of which has been proven true by a single stone of Jerusalem…
Each day, they come out with a new refrain that not [even] the first Zionists before them could have imagined, and pretend that their alleged Temple stood exactly at the site of the Al-Aqsa Mosque…
Recognizing the ‘Jewishness of the State’ is an implicit confirmation that the refugees have no rights, that we stole ourselves a homeland and have not been [living] on our ancestors’ land for thousands of years. If the Jews were indeed present [here] for a short period in the history of our land, that presence was not along the coast, nor in the north or south of Palestine. In other words, the Jews never passed through or were present in the territories which the peace process firmly defines as being outside the negotiations and [designates] as Israeli territory

1. Denial of the Jewish Connection to the City of Jerusalem

"The archaeological treasures in Jerusalem emphasize the depth of the city's heritage and history; they emphasize its Arabness and refute the Israeli claims that it is a Jewish city... It is known that perhaps under every stone and in every corner, on every street and at every turn in Jerusalem there are relics. These relics say, 'We are Arab, we are Muslim, we are Christian."
[Dr. Marwan Abu-Khalaf, director of the Archaeological Institute at Al-Quds University - PA TV (Fatah), Feb. 27, 2009]

"They [the Jews] base themselves on myths and invoke the Jewish religion and Jewish faith, despite the fact that the truly religious Jews truly believe - and they have stated this on more than one occasion - that the Temple was never in the Holy City [Jerusalem], and was absolutely never on the site of the Al-Aqsa Mosque."
[Mahmoud Al-Habbash, PA Minister of Agriculture and Welfare - PA TV (Fatah), April 16, 2009]

"[The Jews] wept and cried over the western wall of the Al-Aqsa Mosque due to the self-delusion and falsification that this was a remnant of a wall of the alleged Temple… They place notes between the stones and dream of the day when they will approach closer, into the Al-Aqsa Mosque and the Dome of the Rock, and plan to build the alleged Temple…
[PA TV (Fatah): "Synagogues Encircling Al-Aqsa" - May 1, 2009]


[Dr. Hasan Sun'-Allah, a scholar at the Center of Modern Research] "criticized the use of the term 'Wailing Wall' instead of 'Western Wall' [of Al-Aqsa], and stated that the occupation falsifies the facts, and has no rights over the walls of Al-Aqsa mosque, to use them as a site for mourning."
[Al-Ayyam, April 28, 2009]

Dr. Tayseer Al-Tamimi, PA Chief Justice of religious court, and Chairman of Supreme Council of Islamic Law:
"Jerusalem is the religious, political and spiritual capital of Palestine - the Jews have no rights to it."
[Al-Hayat Al-Jadida (Fatah), March 2, 2009]

"We do not agree with the biblical version, according to which [Jerusalem] was a mighty kingdom, or the capital of a mighty kingdom. No palace has been discovered, nor have any remnants of the First Temple - built in Solomon's time - been found, testifying to this greatness... The Hebrews arrived in Jerusalem during the first millennium B.C.E., but their rule in Jerusalem lasted only for a short time... To date one cannot point to any element in Jerusalem that is related, historically speaking, to that period, or any element that is historically related to the Hebrew culture."
[Nazmi Al-Ju'ba, lecturer in history at Bir Zeit University - PA TV (Fatah), Feb. 27, 2009]

"It [Jerusalem] is the meeting point of a number of archaeological sites, by means of which the Israeli establishment is trying to raise an imaginary Hebrew history."
[Al-Hayat Al-Jadida (Fatah), March 4, 2009]

"[Dr. Yunes Amr, President of the Al-Quds Open University,] who authored a book entitled, 'Jerusalem - City of Allah', has reviewed the Israeli claims concerning the history of the Jewish presence in Palestine and in Jerusalem, and has disproved them historically and linguistically, [exposing] their falsification of the facts. He pointed out the inaccuracy of the widespread view that the Palestinians originated with a group of people who emigrated from the Greek [Isles] and settled in Palestine, affirming instead that the Palestinians are Arab Canaanites indigenous to this land."
[Al-Ayyam, April 7, 2009]


Jefferson23

(30,099 posts)
63. Just to be clear, I wasn't suggesting what you stated earlier was false, but my
Sun Nov 9, 2014, 08:16 PM
Nov 2014

point of reference was to the present, with Abbas and the situation at hand.

He made this call out in response to the provocations and violence.

Religious beliefs and the respect due and lack there of, is another example of
a failed peace process all these decades, I feel.

sabbat hunter

(6,829 posts)
65. but my point was
Sun Nov 9, 2014, 08:19 PM
Nov 2014

that this call out wasn't due to recent provocations, but a long history of the PA to deny a historical link of jews to the temple mount, jerusalem.
He may have stated it now, but it is not a new thing.

Jefferson23

(30,099 posts)
67. It's a coincidence he said it now, while he has been trying to get back to negotiations?
Sun Nov 9, 2014, 08:22 PM
Nov 2014

I find that hard to believe he decided to bring this up at this point in time if it
had not been for the unrest.

Obviously, I can't read his mind but I don't see it that way.

Thanks for the links, btw.

sabbat hunter

(6,829 posts)
70. I agree with you
Sun Nov 9, 2014, 10:23 PM
Nov 2014

on why he brought it up now (current unrest). But I believe that he is just stating something that is a long held view of his, probably in hopes of shoring up his support.

shaayecanaan

(6,068 posts)
68. I suppose one problem with calling it the temple mount
Sun Nov 9, 2014, 08:36 PM
Nov 2014

is that no one actually knows for sure whether the Dome of the Rock or the Al-Aqsa mosque is in fact the location of the Second Temple, or even whether it overlaps with the site of the second temple.

The assumption that the rock of the Dome of the Rock is the same as the rock on which the Second Temple was founded is just an assumption. Its worth noting that the site lay barren for six hundred years before the Arabs built the Dome, so its fairly unlikely that they had much to guide them by that time.

As for the temple, more modern archaeological findings have hypothesised that its location may have been further over to the south east.

Another chap called Martin has opined that the temple complex may have been entirely distinct and that the retaining wall known as the Western Wall may not have been connected with the temple complex at all:-

http://askelm.com/temple/t001211.htm

sabbat hunter

(6,829 posts)
71. well according to Roman records
Sun Nov 9, 2014, 10:42 PM
Nov 2014

as well as records from Herod's time and historians such as Josephus, the Temple Mount is where the second temple was located.

It is harder to determine where the first temple was located. So I will go with those known sources.

As far as Ernest Martin, his findings are not well supported, neither historical documents, nor by what has been recovered from under the temple mount. Most historians do not agree with his determinations.

While the site remained undeveloped until the Arab conquest, it did not remain unused. In fact under Emperor Hadrian the area was cleared of the ruins of what remained of the temple, and there were initially plans to rebuild the temple at that time, with Hadrian's permission. But then he changed his mind and wanted a pagan temple build there as well.

Then Emperor Julian stopped at Jerusalem, and gave permission for Jews to rebuild the temple, but that work was ended by an earthquake in 363, which was taken as a symbol at the time that god did not want the temple rebuilt so work was halted.

There is also further historical evidence that sacrifices on the temple mount at the foundation stone thru the Byzantine period.

When the Sassanids conquered the area from the Byzantines, they gave jews local autonomy and permission to once again restart animal sacrifices (which was done for 5 years) but shortly before the Byzantines retook jerusalem, the Persians revoked that autonomy and gave control to Christians which used the temple mount as a garbage dump. The Christians also tore down what had been rebuild by the Jews.
When the Caliph conquered jerusalem in 630 it was still being used as a garbage dump.


So Martin's assertions come from that it was undeveloped from 70AD - 630ADish (or when the mosques were built) to mean that the temple did not exist there is just wrong.

The temple mount was used on and off from the time of Herod, thru about 615AD as a temple with sacrifices, etc, even if the physical structure of the temple was gone.




shaayecanaan

(6,068 posts)
81. I am not saying it went unused
Sun Nov 9, 2014, 11:41 PM
Nov 2014

but you are assuming that the current dome of the Rock was built on the ruins of a church apparently built by Constantine, which was built on the ruins of a Jovian temple built by the Romans, which was etc etc...

So the assumption that the dome is where the temple stood is an assumption founded on a succession of other assumptions.

Apart from certain passages in the Mishnah, there is very little documentary guidance in jewish sources as to the location of the temple. The very limited archaeological evidence (a cistern and some other bits and bobs) point to the temple having been located some ways off to the south east, although still within the four walls of the mount.

Even ultranationalist jews can't make up their mind. Sometimes they say that the al Aqsa mosque was built on the ruins of the temple, sometimes they say that the dome was. It can't possibly be both.

sabbat hunter

(6,829 posts)
82. The dome of the rock
Sun Nov 9, 2014, 11:56 PM
Nov 2014

is supposed to be where the sacrifices took place, and where the holy of holies would have been. But that was only a part of the temple. The herodian temple was quite large, and had both enclosed areas as well as open air ones. (inner and outer courtyards)

And I am going by historical records that show where the temple was located.

Both herodian and Roman records show the temple mount being constructed for the use of a Jewish Temple. This project was expansive and literally took decades to complete. Historical records also show that it was never out of use, and that is what we have to go on.

shaayecanaan

(6,068 posts)
83. From wikipedia:-
Mon Nov 10, 2014, 01:09 AM
Nov 2014
Others disagree, citing that if the Southern Wall of the Temple Mount is in fact the one which existed when the Temple was standing, the measurements given in the Talmud do not reconcile.[6] The Holy of Holies ends up being too far north and they therefore locate the Foundation Stone as being directly opposite the current exposed section of the Western Wall, where no building currently stands. This is the view of the Arizal[7] and the Maharsha,[8] who state the prophecy that “Zion will become a ploughed field” indicates that no dwelling will be established there until the time of the redemption. It therefore follows that the area of the Temple courtyard and Holy of Holies is situated in the unbuilt area between the Dome of the Rock and the Al Aqsa Mosque.[9]

Some believe the position is north of the Dome of the Rock, opposite the Gate of Mercy, which Rabbi Emmanuel Chai Reiki[10] identifies as the Shushan Gate mentioned in the Talmud. This gate was described as being opposite the opening of the sanctuary.[11]

Modern Jewish academics list four possible locations of the Foundation Stone:[12]

The stone that was located beneath the Ark of the Covenant is the one under the Dome of the Rock.[13]
The stone that was located beneath the altar is now the one that is under the Dome of the Rock.[14]
The stone that was located beneath the Ark of the Covenant is now near El Kas fountain to the south of the Dome of the Rock.[15]
The stone that was located beneath the Ark of the Covenant is now inside the Spirits Dome situated to the north of the Dome of the Rock.[16]


That is just the Jewish scholars. There are plenty of other views. If the holy of Holies was near the spirits dome then the temple would probably have overlapped slightly with the dome, if it was near the El kas fountain then not at all.

sabbat hunter

(6,829 posts)
84. but you also failed
Mon Nov 10, 2014, 01:43 AM
Nov 2014

to take the part of the article that the foundation stone (dome of the rock) was just one PART of the temple. The temple itself was fairly expansive.
But your link still states that the area between the dome of the rock and the al asqa mosque might be in the unbuilt area between the dome of the rock and the al asqa mosque. Which would still mean that the temple mount is part of the Herodian temple.

Historical records do show that sacrifices took place on the foundation stone after the herodian temple was destroyed by the Romans.
Additionally the temple mount was not just used for the temple itself, but for religious court rulings, which would have taken place in the outer courtyard.

shaayecanaan

(6,068 posts)
85. actually, the tabernacle itself was quite compact
Mon Nov 10, 2014, 04:13 PM
Nov 2014

it would have easily fit within the dome. The associated courtyards and so forth making up the rest of the complex extended the size, but I was referencing the fact that many Jews conflate the dome with the al aqsa mosque, and say that both were built on the ruins of the temple building. It can't possibly be both.

Historical records do show that sacrifices took place on the foundation stone after the herodian temple was destroyed by the Romans.


Which is neither here nor there, even if it were true.

Additionally the temple mount was not just used for the temple itself, but for religious court rulings, which would have taken place in the outer courtyard.


Likewise.





Jefferson23

(30,099 posts)
72. That is fascinating, thank you. I would suggest you post it as a thread on its own,
Sun Nov 9, 2014, 10:44 PM
Nov 2014

bit it's old. Can't have that, as you know.


I can post it in replies, though:

New Evidence for the Site of the Temple in Jerusalem

" Two Academic Reviews of my New Research in the Book "The Temples that Jerusalem Forgot."

The first is from: Prof. James D. Tabor, Dept. of Religious Studies, The University of North Carolina at Charlotte, Charlotte, NC 28223. Given in May, 2000.

http://askelm.com/temple/t001211.htm


sabbat hunter

(6,829 posts)
74. That link though
Sun Nov 9, 2014, 10:46 PM
Nov 2014

and the professors within, rely heavily on Ernest Martin.

And yes there is that pesky rule about new threads here having to be based on new articles.


Jefferson23

(30,099 posts)
76. I understand that, and I'm not qualified to say one way or another about it.
Sun Nov 9, 2014, 10:50 PM
Nov 2014

But it is fascinating to consider the premise, no?

sabbat hunter

(6,829 posts)
77. a bit fascinating perhaps
Sun Nov 9, 2014, 10:52 PM
Nov 2014

but I would have to read a LOT more of his work to really say if it is truly fascinating

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Israel/Palestine»PLO urge journalists: Don...