[typoon]

http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/spages/550106.html

By Nadav Shragai, Haaretz Correspondent

Some 91 percent of the Jewish public in Israel would be unwilling to give up Israeli control of the Western Wall in exchange for peace, according to the results of a survey published Wednesday.
A representative sample of the Jewish population was polled on whether, in exchange for a final real peace agreement, Israel should transfer a number of sacred sites to the Palestinians, be prepared for joint control, or keep the sites under sole Israeli hegemony.

None of those polled said they would agree to Palestinian control over the Western Wall, although six percent were willing to see joint control.

With regard to the Temple Mount, 46 percent would agree to joint Israeli-Palestinian control, or sole Palestinian control, according to the survey conducted by the Dahaf Institute. Nine percent of the public were in favor of transferring control to the Palestinians, 36 percent favored joint control, 51 percent favored Israeli control only. With regard to the Tomb of the Patriarchs in Hebron, 13 percent were in favor of giving control to the Palestinians, 33 percent for joint control, and 49 percent for sole Israeli control.

Thirteen percent of those questioned said the would agree for the Tomb of Rachel to be in Palestinian hands, 30 percent would opt for joint control, and 53 percent wanted to see Israeli control only.

[SVass]

91% sounds about right. If I remember my history right, Neville came back from Berlin proclaiming PEACE IN OUR TIME. Jews weren't allowed to pray at the wall until after Israel recaptured the wall. Will you promise to give your money and your life to allow the pious to pray at the wall? There are always a few appeasers (9%) who believe that surrender will lead to peace. Jewish archeologists are still not allowed on the Temple Mount.

[von Wrangell]

Originally posted by SVass:
91% sounds about right. If I remember my history right, Neville came back from Berlin proclaiming PEACE IN OUR TIME. Jews weren't allowed to pray at the wall until after Israel recaptured the wall. Will you promise to give your money and your life to allow the pious to pray at the wall? There are always a few appeasers (9%) who believe that surrender will lead to peace. Jewish archeologists are still not allowed on the Temple Mount.

Then your history is wrong.

The Christian crusaders banned the Jews from praying at the Temple Mount. Then The Muslims(Suleyman the Magnificent) came and took Jerusalem from the Crusaders/Mameluks and allowed the Jews to pray there. In fact if IIRC the reason it is sometimes (incorrectly) called the Wailing Wall is because the Christians were so "gracious" to allow the Jews to cry/pray there because of the destruction of their temple.

And the Jewish archeologists are not allowed to the Temple Mount because of risk of making more damage to the Temple Mount and the Al Aqsa Mosque.

[vmarks]

Originally posted by von Wrangell:
Then your history is wrong.

The Christian crusaders banned the Jews from praying at the Temple Mount. Then The Muslims(Suleyman the Magnificent) came and took Jerusalem from the Crusaders/Mameluks and allowed the Jews to pray there. In fact if IIRC the reason it is sometimes (incorrectly) called the Wailing Wall is because the Christians were so "gracious" to allow the Jews to cry/pray there because of the destruction of their temple.

And the Jewish archeologists are not allowed to the Temple Mount because of risk of making more damage to the Temple Mount and the Al Aqsa Mosque.

Your account conflicts:

First you say that the Christians banned the Jews from praying there, and then you follow that sentence by saying that the Christians were so "gracious" to allow the Jews to pray there.

I don't know which you really mean.

More interesting is that you completely ignore that the Muslims came and desecrated the site of the Temple by building a mosque on it. Or that when Israel gained access to it in 67, centuries later, they found the Arabs had desecrated the wall, turned it into shacks and used it as a toilet.

[Big Mac]

Originally posted by von Wrangell:
And the Jewish archeologists are not allowed to the Temple Mount because of risk of making more damage to the Temple Mount and the Al Aqsa Mosque.

That's a good one. You think the Israelis are the ones representing a risk to the Mount? Don't you know that the Arabs have continued unlawful excavations of it?

[SSharon]

You can count me in the 91%. There should be peace because killing innocent civilians is wrong not for land or any other reason.

[von Wrangell]

Originally posted by vmarks:
Your account conflicts:

First you say that the Christians banned the Jews from praying there, and then you follow that sentence by saying that the Christians were so "gracious" to allow the Jews to pray there.

I don't know which you really mean.

I should have been more clear on that. Sorry.

What I meant was that the Christian Crusaders(as well as the Mameluks) desecrated the Temple Mount and used it as a as a rubbish dump. The Caliph Umar Ibn Al Khattabh was appalled by how the Christians had treated this holy place and ordered that it'd be restored at once. Both the Jewish Ben Yohai and the Byzantine Theophanes confessor stated that at that time the Jews were thrilled with the Caliphs actions and looked at it as the restoration of the Temple of Jerusalem.

The Christians had forbidden the Jews access to the Temple Mount but allowed them to grieve the Temple at what is often called the Wailing Wall, that is the Western Wall.

Later when Suleiman the Magnificent(referred to as the Lawgiver in Ottoman history) also built a wall around Jerusalem to prevent both the Mameluks as well as the Christians Crusaders to ever be able to desecrate this holy place ever again. That wall can still be seen in Jerusalem.

[Mithras]

Yeah, I have to say, I'm a peacenik but this is a nonstarter.
Saying: "You can have
* the most important symbol of your identity as a people, nation, and religion
* or you can have war"
is an pretty silly idea. And it's not like giving Palestinians control of the Western Wall would achieve peace anyway; I'd wager Palestinians couldn't give a fuck if they were given the Western Wall. They want and deserve a nation, not a chunk of somebody else's holy site.

[benb]

Would 91% of Palestinians give up the Temple Mount for peace? I don't know, but I tend to think not.

[von Wrangell]

This is the reason that the original plans saw Jerusalem as an international area. That way none of this would pose a problem.

If something like that could be established or some joint control over Jerusalem then we would probably be one step closer to peace.

[eklipse]

Originally posted by SSharon:
There should be peace because killing innocent civilians is wrong not for land or any other reason.

[SVass]

quote

<<This is the reason that the original plans saw Jerusalem as an international area. That way none of this would pose a problem.

If something like that could be established or some joint control over Jerusalem then we would probably be one step closer to peace.>>

It WAS under international control until recaptured by Israel. Jews were excluded by the "unbiased" international group. sam

[SSharon]

Originally posted by SVass:
It WAS under international control until recaptured by Israel. Jews were excluded by the "unbiased" international group. sam

International = Jordanian ?

What year are you talking about?

[SVass]

Jordan ruled Jerusalem under a UNITED NATIONS mandate. (Actually, Jordan is an artificial creation of the British to reward some friends as are/were Czechoslovakia and Iraq.) sam

[mitchell_pgh]

I would love to see what Christians say about this sacred place. I bet most would say "give it up as long as nobody changes it"

[vmarks]

Originally posted by mitchell_pgh:
I would love to see what Christians say about this sacred place. I bet most would say "give it up as long as nobody changes it"

Except that when it hasn't been under Jewish authority, THEY DO CHANGE IT.

First off, as soon as the Muslims took it from the Christians, they desecrated it with a Mosque on top.

Then they barred Jews from praying there.

Then centuries later, when Jews retook it, what did they find?

During the more than one thousand years Jerusalem was under Muslim rule, the Arabs often used the Wall as a garbage dump, so as to humiliate the Jews who visited it.

For nineteen years, from 1948 to 1967, the Kotel was under Jordanian rule. Although the Jordanians had signed an armistice agreement in 1949 guaranteeing Jews the right to visit the Wall, not one Israeli Jew was ever permitted to do so. One of the first to reach the Kotel in the 1967 Six-Day War was Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Dayan, who helped revive a traditional Jewish custom by inserting a written petition into its cracks. It was later revealed that Dayan's prayer was that a lasting peace "descend upon the House of Israel."

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/...tern_Wall.html

http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/...estruction.htm

More indicative of official Arab Moslem policy today are assertions such as those emanating most Fridays from mosques throughout the Middle East that there was no Jewish Temple on the Mount. Arab political and Moslem religious organizations re-affirm that outrageous claim at regular intervals. Typical are the words of these Iranian clerics that the Mount is a �sacred place only for Muslims, around the globe.� The Jerusalem mufti (or Moslem spiritual leader) regularly insists that Jewish or Christian prayer never will be allowed on the Mount, as it is strictly a Moslem holy site.5


The Destruction


�_�_�_ The Waqf has proceeded on two fronts: one to de-Judaize the Mount and another to Islamicize it, although their actions often aim toward both at once. In a conscious attempt to make the Mount more hospitable to greater numbers of Moslem worshippers, the Waqf, in 1996, converted two Second Temple era structures into a new 1.5-acre mosque. The first was the Eastern Hulda Gate. This was one of the passageways used by ancient worshippers to access the Temple. The other structure is known as Solomon�s Stables. Located under the Mount�s current surface, it was used by ancient Temple priests to store vestments and other items. It also encompasses the area known as Jesus� Cradle, the site where the 40-day-old Jesus was presented in the Temple. This small room, only 32.5 square feet in area, is now used for Moslem prayer. In 1997, the Waqf built a second new mosque, destroying another ancient passageway, the Western Hulda, to do so. There is no accurate record of all the artifacts lost during the conversions, but we do know that the material removed for them dated back as far as the First Temple Period (1006-586 BCE).6 By the autumn of 1999, however, Waqf actions finally caused extensive concern and then protest action by many prominent Israeli archeologists and others. Over three days and nights in November, using heavy machinery to cut through the ancient Temple Mount wall, the Waqf opened a gaping hole, 18,000 square feet in area and 36 feet deep, for an �emergency exit� from the new mosques. In January, another hole, 1250 square meters in area and twelve meters deep, appeared north of Solomon�s Stables. And the destructive construction continued.

[von Wrangell]

Originally posted by vmarks:
Except that when it hasn't been under Jewish authority, THEY DO CHANGE IT.

First off, as soon as the Muslims took it from the Christians, they desecrated it with a Mosque on top.

There wasn't anything there but ruins when the Muslims took control of Jerusalem. And like I said, the Jews of that time thought it was a marvellous thing to do when the Muslims built the temple.

edited to add:

And isn't it true that many well respected Rabbi's have stated that Jews are forbidden from entering the Temple Mount?

[vmarks]

Originally posted by von Wrangell:
There wasn't anything there but ruins when the Muslims took control of Jerusalem. And like I said, the Jews of that time thought it was a marvellous thing to do when the Muslims built the temple.

edited to add:

And isn't it true that many well respected Rabbi's have stated that Jews are forbidden from entering the Temple Mount?

Hogwash.

There was the wall and mount. Archaeologists (real ones, not the Waqf that destroys artifacts) have found how deep the wall goes, and can tell when Muslims started building on top of existing structure. KEY WORD: Existing.

Well respected Rabbis? No, only the cult of neturei karta.

[von Wrangell]

Originally posted by vmarks:
Hogwash.

There was the wall and mount. Archaeologists (real ones, not the Waqf that destroys artifacts) have found how deep the wall goes, and can tell when Muslims started building on top of existing structure. KEY WORD: Existing.

Well respected Rabbis? No, only the cult of neturei karta.

So Chief Rabbis of Israel are apart of the neturei karta? They aren't respected? Interesting.

Moreover, given that Jews are in a state of ritual uncleanliness in the absence of the "red heifer" it was forbidden to enter the area where the Temple was located. In the absence of precise data as to where it was located, these rabbis imposed a blanket ban on access for Jews to the entire Temple Mount. Proponents of this school included Chief Rabbis Abraham Isaac Kook, Isser Unterman, Itzhak Nissim, Ovadiah Yosef, Avraham Shapiro, Eliahu Bakshi-Doron, and Israel Lau.8

http://www.jcpa.org/jpsr/s99-yc.htm

The wall still stands doesn't it? Several hundred years under Muslim rule. The mount? Of course the mount was there. It would take really long time for people of those times to remove a whole mount.

And was there really anything standing? I thought the Second Temple had been destroyed the year 70AD by Titus. Perhaps the archaeologists found parts of the ruins but I'd be interested in seeing any links for that though.

[vmarks]

Originally posted by von Wrangell:
So Chief Rabbis of Israel are apart of the neturei karta? They aren't respected? Interesting.

http://philologos.org/bpr/files/misc_studies/ms100.htm

September 09, 2004

First Wedding On Temple Mount

For possibly the first time in over 1,930 years, a Jewish wedding ceremony of sorts was held on the Temple Mount this afternoon. The groom, from a Jewish town in eastern Judea, placed a ring on his young bride's finger in front of a group of friends, and then recited the traditional blessing on the wine. Muslim Waqf officials, usually very vehement about not allowing Jewish prayers to be said at the site, sufficed with a weak protest. The couple's friends accompanied the new family with singing and dancing.

An aura of mystery surrounded the event. Students at the groom's yeshiva refused to answer questions about the ceremony - though it is known that a "follow-up" real wedding ceremony will be held this evening.

It is known that in the times of King Solomon, there was a gate called the Grooms' Gate - but this was a place for grooms to come and receive a blessing before or after their wedding. More recently, Noam and Elisheva Federman of Hevron were married just outside the Temple Mount, at the Mughrabim Gate entrance.

(http://www.israelnationalnews.com/)

____________________

23:46 Sep-09-04 / 23 Elul 5764

Temple Mount Wedding

(IsraelNN.com) Netaya Fruman, the son of Rabbi Menachem Fruman, the rabbi of the Gush Etzion community of Tekoa, was married today on the Temple Mount.

Rabbi Fruman, his son and daughter-in-law went on the Mount with the group of Jewish visitors today during an authorized visit to the holy site. In compliance with the request of the bridegroom, Rabbi Fruman agreed to conduct the Kiddushin wedding ceremony on the holy site, even though he personally is opposed to Jews visiting the location of the Holy Temples since were are all in a state of spiritual impurity.

The actual modified chuppah and wedding feast are taking place in Tekoa at this time. The newlyweds will be settling down in nearby Bat Ayin.

(http://www.israelnationalnews.com/)

____________________

September 10, 2004

Follow-Up to the Temple Mount Wedding

Now that it's over, the details can be told. Netayah and Techiyah Fruman were married yesterday on the Temple Mount - and later in the evening held a "do-over" wedding ceremony with hundreds of guests in Jerusalem. A participant in both ceremonies told Arutz-7 this morning what happened: "We walked up to the Temple Mount in a group of about 15, including the groom's parents, Rabbi and Mrs. Menachem Fruman of Tekoa, and Rabbi Daniel Shilat. Rabbi Shilat guided us; he is very stringent on where one is permitted to walk on the Temple Mount, and so from the Mughrabim Gate [adjacent to and above the Western Wall Plaza] we walked basically straight; he permits turning left only at the very end. "Towards the end [of that straight walk], while one of our number was giving a 'lecture' as a way of diverting attention, the rest of us were watching a very special ceremony: Netayah took out a ring, placed it on Techiya's finger, and said, 'Harei at mekudeshet...' - You are betrothed to me. He himself recited the blessing over the wine - grape juice, actually, which he brought in a bottle and poured into a cup - as well as the wedding blessing of "sanctity and morality" traditionally recited under the wedding canopy. It was truly a very moving event... "The Waqf people were a little suspicious, but they didn't quite get it... We then walked back towards the Mughrabim Gate, turned right, and walked very close to and along the Western Wall from behind, until the Chain Gate, where we exited - right into a larger group of people who were waiting for us there, and we all broke out into song: "It will yet again be heard... in the cities of Judah, and in the streets of Jerusalem... the voice of joy and the voice of gladness, the voice of the bridegroom and the voice of the bride..." [Jer. 33, 10-11]."

"Later on in the evening," the eyewitness continued, "a 'regular' wedding was held, with a canopy and all - with the only difference being that the wedding blessing was recited by the rabbi without G-d's Name. This was done in accordance with the Halakhic [Jewish legal] ruling that the ceremony is very important, and should be done in public even without the full blessings... Everyone was aware that the 'kiddushin' had been effected before, on the Temple Mount... Happiness and joy abounded."

Moslem Waqf officials said that there was no wedding on the Temple Mount yesterday, but that if there was, "this will storm the entire world, and the Jewish extremist government will bear the responsibility for this grave act, if it happened."

Rabbi Y. Elboim of Jerusalem, a Temple Mount activist since the Six Day War, spoke to Arutz-7 last night about the happy event: "I would like to wish Mazel Tov and congratulations to Rabbi Fruman and his wife and the couple for making history in this way. They are going in the path of all [sic] the Yesha Rabbis who come to the Temple Mount, with their congregations... The Talmud teaches that there is a connection between weddings, joy of the heart, and the rebuilding of the Temple, thus that they are all connected... I don't know if in the past they used to have weddings on the Temple Mount, but certainly today when this holy site is abandoned, it's a very good sign... "I think it is a disgrace that we have to worry about what the Moslem Waqf will say; for 40 years they have been destroying all remnants of Jewish connection to the Holy Temple on the site, with the help of the closed-eye policy of the Jewish government... On the other hand, this past year [5764] has probably seen more Jews ascending to the Mount in holiness and purity, after having gone to the mikveh [ritual bath] and with all the precautions, than have gone up in all the previous years since the boast that 'the Temple Mount is in our hands' [in 1967]..."

Rabbi Elboim had mixed words to say about the previous Public Security Minister, Tzachi HaNegbi: "He was the one who opened the Temple Mount gates to Jews, but in the end of his term he 'blackened our faces' by accusing us of possibly conspiring to do something violent, even though for a full year so many Jews visited the site and followed all police instructions like sheep - and then suddenly he himself was forced to leave his position with a 'blackened face' [over the issue of political appointments]; the two are apparently connected... "But unfortunately, his words have had some effect, because the police have started filming us and asking for identity cards; this is very discriminatory and unpleasant. "And so, we have ups and downs - but one thing that goes up and does not go down is the warm Jewish connection to the Temple Mount; the government has its quirks, but thank G-d the People of Israel are very connected. Almost every day, for instance, young brides or grooms on the day of their wedding come to visit the Temple Mount. This was the custom during the time of the Second Temple, as well: brides and grooms would come to the Temple for the people to bless them..."

The wall still stands doesn't it? Several hundred years under Muslim rule. The mount? Of course the mount was there. It would take really long time for people of those times to remove a whole mount.

And was there really anything standing? I thought the Second Temple had been destroyed the year 70AD by Titus. Perhaps the archaeologists found parts of the ruins but I'd be interested in seeing any links for that though.

http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/History/Ea...Western%20Wall

The Temple Mount, the buildings and the Temple itself were completely destroyed by the Roman legions in 70 CE. The lower part of the Temple Mount walls was preserved and its remains are still standing.

Long sections of the southern wall of the Temple Mount and its southwestern corner were exposed during the 1970s, furnishing a comprehensive picture of the monumental Herodian walls surrounding the Temple Mount and the vast, planned areas of public construction outside of them.

[Taliesin]

Originally posted by vmarks:
Except that when it hasn't been under Jewish authority, THEY DO CHANGE IT.

First off, as soon as the Muslims took it from the Christians, they desecrated it with a Mosque on top.

Since when is the building of a location where people could pray to God, the same God as the God of the jews, a desecration? Your words speak volumes about your anti-Islam-ideology.

The building of a mosque, a place where people can pray together to God, in an islamic country on top of ruins of an old place, where people used to pray to the same God was a deed as sacred as one could get.

That said, it's though a sin to bar jews or christians to pray to God in the mosque. Anyone who wants to pray to God should be welcome in a house of God (aka mosque).

Taliesin

[von Wrangell]

vmarks

Both parts of your post is irrelevant to what I said in the post you respond to.

1. I don't care if some Jews think it's OK to go up to the temple mount or if someone other than a Muslim got married there(though I do think it's a step forward to do so). I asked you if several well respected rabbis had said that Jews should not go up to the temple mount. Those well respected rabbis were also the Chief Rabbis of Israel. Were you wrong and therefore you ignore that part of my post?

2. That link of your talks about tunnels. It never mentions that the Muslims built upon something that was already in place. It mentions that they restored some things. But is restoring something really that bad? Your own link also backs up what I said and I quote:

The Temple Mount, the buildings and the Temple itself were completely destroyed by the Roman legions in 70 CE. The lower part of the Temple Mount walls was preserved and its remains are still standing.

So how could the Muslims have built upon existing buildings?


ps: how do I do bullets/points on this forum instead of using 1. 2. etc?

[vmarks]

The bottom of the wall is the old original stone. The top most rows are what the Muslims piled on top.

The fact of the matter is that the Waqf restricts Jews from the mount, and I imagine violence would erupt if Jews began to pray inside the mosque. The Waqf even said that if any wedding had taken place on the mount, that it their response would be violence and outrage around the world.

The mosque is there not for all peoples, but to establish Muslim dominance over Jews in the Jews' most holy place.

The latest is not only to have the mosque there only for Muslims, but to also surreptitiously remove any archaeological evidence of the history of the Jews' ties to the mount. So let's not fool ourselves.

[von Wrangell]

Originally posted by vmarks:
The bottom of the wall is the old original stone. The top most rows are what the Muslims piled on top.

The fact of the matter is that the Waqf restricts Jews from the mount, and I imagine violence would erupt if Jews began to pray inside the mosque. The Waqf even said that if any wedding had taken place on the mount, that it their response would be violence and outrage around the world.

The mosque is there not for all peoples, but to establish Muslim dominance over Jews in the Jews' most holy place.

The latest is not only to have the mosque there only for Muslims, but to also surreptitiously remove any archaeological evidence of the history of the Jews' ties to the mount. So let's not fool ourselves.

And this has what exactly to do with what I said and asked you?

[vmarks]

When did this thread become all about you?

There are other people here, and I can respond to them as well in my post.

[von Wrangell]

Originally posted by vmarks:
When did this thread become all about you?

There are other people here, and I can respond to them as well in my post.

No need for any hostility. You mentioned a few things you have mentioned before when sort of addressing my points so I deducted from that, that you were responding to me.

So again, no need for any hostility.

[villalobos]

What exactly makes people get so excited about a wall? Why is that the Human Being has to put a notion of sacred to an object or a location? And then irrationally decide to fight/hate whoever will 'threaten' it. Do Catholics need the Vatican to be faithful? Does any religion justify killing or hating for the preservation of a sacred building/location?
I am not being facetious. I am just struggling to understand. This sounds so artificial, so vain.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by von Wrangell:
No need for any hostility.

He wasn't being hostile. Just stating the facts.

[bstone]

Originally posted by Taliesin:
Since when is the building of a location where people could pray to God, the same God as the God of the jews, a desecration? Your words speak volumes about your anti-Islam-ideology.

The building of a mosque, a place where people can pray together to God, in an islamic country on top of ruins of an old place, where people used to pray to the same God was a deed as sacred as one could get.

Israel is not an Islamic country, any way you cut it. Majority population if Jewish. It's the birthplace of Judaism and Christianity. Jerusalem or the Temple Mount are never once mentioned in the Koran.

That said, it's though a sin to bar jews or christians to pray to God in the mosque. Anyone who wants to pray to God should be welcome in a house of God (aka mosque).

Someone should have told that to the Jordanians while they controlled Jerusalem and the Old City.

[Taliesin]

Originally posted by bstone:
Israel is not an Islamic country, any way you cut it. Majority population if Jewish. It's the birthplace of Judaism and Christianity. Jerusalem or the Temple Mount are never once mentioned in the Koran.

Oh, please, have some better perspective on history, again you mix things together irresponsibly. In the context I wrote my posting you replied to, I have talked about the building of a mosque in Jerusalem/Al-Quds, which happened way after the Temple was destroyed by the roman empire, and way before new Israel was to be created by european colonists of british and jewish nature.

By the way Jerusalem was indeed mentioned in the Quran as it was at the beginning the direction muslims were called to pray to, as Mecca was at that time still in polytheist's hands. Besides the Quran makes it also pretty clear that muslims and jews are believers in the same God and Moses is highly regarded as one of the greatest prophets, as well as Abraham, Noah, Jesus... There is a direct connection between Judaism, christianity and Islam and therefore from the point of view of Islam, the building of a mosque on the Temple-mount is the same as rebuilding the Temple itself, as both are just locations in which God can be praised and prayed to together.

Originally posted by bstone:
Someone should have told that to the Jordanians while they controlled Jerusalem and the Old City.

Indeed someone should have told them so.

Taliesin

[MacManMikeOSX]

Originally posted by Taliesin:
...the building of a mosque on the Temple-mount is the same as rebuilding the Temple itself, as both are just locations in which God can be praised and prayed to together...

No, we can't offer sacraficies to hashem in al-Aqsa or fufill all gods comandments now can we? Islam is just a rip-off of Judaism that said I'm fine with Islam but a Mosque and our Beit-Miqdash are not the same.

[malvolio]

Wonder what results you would get if you asked Muslims if they would give up Mecca in return for destroying Israel.

[Taliesin]

Originally posted by MacManMikeOSX:
No, we can't offer sacraficies to hashem in al-Aqsa or fufill all gods comandments now can we? Islam is just a rip-off of Judaism that said I'm fine with Islam but a Mosque and our Beit-Miqdash are not the same.

I'm aware that jews are not allowed to practice their rituals inside the Al-Aqsa-mosque, but ideally in the future it should be allowed, off course with a good organization so that the followers of both religions don't disturb each other.

But the point though is that despite that restriction, there is no secular reason for jews nowadays to reclaim the mosque for themselves, after all it belongs now and belonged for centuries to muslims and arabs and East-jerusalem belongs as well to muslims and arabs but also christians, and in that mosque the same God of the jews gets praised and prayed to, so nothing is lost on religious grounds, and the jews can build their synagogues, where they can practice their religious rituals undisturbed everywhere in west-Jerusalem and the rest of Israel.

Regardless of what point of view you want to use, be it the legal point of view, or the secular point of view or the religious point of view, there is no justification to proclaim any rights on East-Jerusalem including the Al-Aqsa-mosque. I can understand though the emotional and sentimental aspects, that surround the Temple-mount, after all there was a jewish temple thousands of years back and the memory and nostalgia is part of zionistic ideologies, therefore I propose the internationalisation of whole Jerusalem and the use of a part of the Al-Aqsa-mosque as a synagogue.

Taliesin

[Taliesin]

Originally posted by MacManMikeOSX:
Islam is just a rip-off of Judaism

What do you mean with rip-off? Have you really forgotten that God promised to Abraham that he would invoke prophets from the descendants of Abraham, from all of them, including the descendants of Isaac and the descendants of Ismael?

Taliesin

[MacManMikeOSX]

Yes but can the true Arabs in southern Arabia prove that they are the Ishmaelites, more than likely the decendants of the Ishmaelites we know today as the Jordanians, Mukhamad found a conveniant gap and he claimed that the ancesteral Arabs filled it. This may be true but the tennants and practices of Islam are in a great part borrowed from Judaism as are your prophets, do you deny that Moses was of the Hebrew nation? Also if you believe that we are the decendants of Yitskhaq (Issac) then why do you claim we are colonists, we are just returning for the westerners dragged us into exile from our beloved homeland. G-d has given Muslims a great many lands so let G-d give the Jews this one land as ours and let it be undivided. Do not sway the hand of Ha-El and do not take from us what he has given for in essence then you steal from him as well.

[eklipse]

Originally posted by MacManMikeOSX:
Islam is just a rip-off of Judaism...

Honoring and respecting prior teachers and their teachings does not constitute 'ripping-off'.

[eklipse]

Originally posted by MacManMikeOSX:
G-d has given Muslims a great many lands so let G-d give the Jews this one land as ours and let it be undivided...

...and let God tell the millions of disenfranchised Palestinians to go **** themselves.

[SVass]

So as I understand it, Christians don't care if the Church of the Holy Sepulcher is knocked down and Jesus's bones are scattered to the winds, and a Muslim Holiday Inn Express is constructed in return for an end to Al Quaeda or whatever you want. OK, we can support that. sam

[MacManMikeOSX]

What people don't seem to understand is Islam's holiest site is the al-Ka'ba in al-Maka (Mecca), not Jerusalem. As where in the Torah Jews are told and commanded that all the Land of Israel is given to us. Jews are not some colonial power we are only a people returning to our native land, yes some of us are black, some tan, and most white but this is not our fault in exile we had to intermix with natives to stay alive. Arabs need to realize that like it or not we the Jews and the Assyrians (Closely related Semitic people, they speak Aramaic the closest language to Hebrew) have just as much right to lands in the Middle East as they, and we will seize them by force if needed. Anyone who knows Hebrew and Arabic knows that our relatedness is undeniable, so stop pushing on us and we'll stop whopping your ass in every war. I remind the readers of this thread that after the UN declared the partition of 'Palestine' the Jews agreed the Arabs did not and invaded therefore breaking the resolutions viability. We were then freed as a defense to seize as much land as possible and secure it in Milkhemet Ha-'Atzma'ut (the War of Freedom or Independence). Then all through the 50s and 60s Fedayeen gangs crossed from Egypt occupied Gaza and Jordanian occupied Judea and Sumeria to harass our kibbutzim and moshavim. Then again in the late 60s intelligence reports from the Arab lands showed a large force buildup in Egypt and we attacked wiping out the Arabs air potentials in Syria, Jordan and mainly Egypt. We captured the Sinai, Gaza, Judea, Sumeria and the Golan Heights within six days and the Arab threat of attack was neutralized. Then again in the 70s President Nassar died in Egypt, his successor Saddat and his Arab allies attacked us on our holiest holiday when ever Jew is in temple and troop strength is lowest, we counter attacked and again defeated the Arab threat. I point out these first three wars to illustrate we are not the aggressors in the region. Basically the Arabs thought they out numbered us but did not realize what 200 years exile does to a people, it stiffens the neck and hardens the resolve. The Golan and Jerusalem have been annexed they are officially part of Israel as far as the government is concerned. Judea, Sumeria and Gaza have not been annexed no doubt they will be given over to the Arabs in the near future. The Arabs have claimed they will throw us into the sea time and again, yet it is we that have pushed you farther from it, give up trying we aren't leaving until hell raises onto the Earth.

[SVass]

Originally posted by eklipse:
...and let God tell the millions of disenfranchised Palestinians to go **** themselves.

Remember that every war the US has fought was with a kingdom/country invented by our aristocratic allies in Great Britain. Palestine, Iraq, Austria-Hungary, even Czechoslovakia (no reason to exist other than to reduce Hungary to a non threatening condition) were indefensible inventions. We support democracy with no bill of rights in many parts of the world and outlawing of labor unions in Iraq and jury trials in Iraq, Palestine, and the US. We are not supporting Palestinians. We are trying to appease those great friends of freedom Saudi Arabia and corporate bribery. Our non-interventionist, non-activist judicial heroes such as Scalia (who apparently has not read of John Lilburne-a real Limey) are anti intellectuals who believe that written history started in 1787 instead of 4000 or so years earlier. The Palestinian people are the typical peasant victims of the British attempt to divide and rule. sam

[Taliesin]

Originally posted by MacManMikeOSX:
This may be true but the tennants and practices of Islam are in a great part borrowed from Judaism as are your prophets, do you deny that Moses was of the Hebrew nation? Also if you believe that we are the decendants of Yitskhaq (Issac) then why do you claim we are colonists, we are just returning for the westerners dragged us into exile from our beloved homeland. God has given Muslims a great many lands so let God give the Jews this one land as ours and let it be undivided. Do not sway the hand of Ha-El and do not take from us what he has given for in essence then you steal from him as well.

Ok, I will be patient and explain it to you:

Judaism, Christianity and Islam stem from the same God, the prophets, like Abraham, Isaac, Ismaeel, Moses, Jesus, Mohammed but also Noah, David, Salomon, and numerous others, Islam counts more than hundred of thousands of prophets were all inspired and invoked, in one case directly spoken to, in one case explicitly created for the purpose, by one and the same God. That's why in Islam we hold high the teachings of Moses and Jesus and of Abraham and quite a few others, and their stories are part of the Quran, our holy book.

So what does that mean for the case of this new conflict? It means two things:

a) Any land that was promised to the jews, aka only believers in God at that time, is also automatically promised to christians and muslims, since they are also believers in the same God and mostly descendants of Abraham.

b) Every christian country is as well jewish country because Jesus was a jew and the Torah is part of the Bible.

Together these things mean that there is no religious justification to claim back the land in order to found a souvereign jewish state, since all the people there were believers in God already, be they arabic christians, arabic jews or the majority arabic muslims. That doesn't mean that european jews were not to be allowed to immigrate there, but they had no religious right to come there with a political plan (zionism) to found a state of their own and to drive out the native people there which were brothers in faith and in blood.

So, when there is no religious right for zionism, there can then only be a secular right left, and that right can only be of colonialistic nature, and that's why I call the european zionists colonists.

The problem nowadays though lies not with Israel itself, be it illegally created, which it was, or not, let's even ignore the violent uprooting of 700,000 islamic palestinians, and let's also just ignore the expansion during the 48-war from 30% owned land, and 52% UN-granted land (while 49% of the inhabitants should be muslims according to the UN-plan) to the conquered (according to the UN, conquering land during a war is illegal) 78%-proportion that then became known as Israel, what is now the point of the conflict is not the 78%-proportion, aka Israel, but the rest 22% that is on top of that occupied, aka Gaza, Westbank, Golan and East-Jerusalem.

When Arafat founded the Fatah, he called for the destruction of Israel to the point that all jews that came to Palestine after 1917 get expelled, the rest of the jews should live in a unified Palestine with the majority of muslims. But he and the PLO changed that maximalistic goal to a workable compromise over the decades of resistance, and that compromise finally reached the minimal goal of founding a palestinian state in the 22%-proportion, namely the whole Westbank, Gaza and with East-Jerusalem as capital.

That goal is not only a workable and sensible solution, since there are nowadays millions of immigrated jews in Israel, who have born children, etc..., but it's also a legally supported solution, since that's what the UN has called for during the last few decades, since 67.

Taliesin

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by benb:
Would 91% of Palestinians give up the Temple Mount for peace? I don't know, but I tend to think not.

I tend to agree with you.