A week or so back Netanyahu asked Elie Wiesel to intercede with Obama. Wiesel said he would, when the two have lunch presently. Well, Obama's good friend has come to Washington: here is a grotesque ad signed by Elie Wiesel in today's Washington Post, saying that Jerusalem is Jewish history and the heart of the Jewish people, and it's never mentioned in the Koran but is mentioned 600 times in Scripture. Oh and don't make any "premature" deals about Jerusalem, it's too delicate. Let the communities learn to work things out together. Under Jewish sovereignty of course.
Wiesel says that Palestinians can build and live anywhere they like in Jerusalem. This is simply not true, West Jerusalem is effectively closed to Palestinians.
So the colonization continues. More reason why Yakov Rabkin below writes that no rational peace process can take place till the Jewish future is decoupled from the state of Israel.
More craziness: Nathan Diament of the Orthodox Union has a piece on Politico today-- yes, Politico, which often serves the lobby-- saying that Israel can't give up Jerusalem.
Wiesel is speaking accurately. Jerusalem is part of Jewish history intimately.
And, I assume he is accurate when he states that it is not once mentioned in Koran. Anyone know for sure.
And, given the history of even moderate Jordanian sovereignty over Jewish shrines in which they were abused, Jews are not confident that their memory will not be intentionally wiped off.
Even the rationally objected plan to build a “museum of tolerance” on an Islamic graveyard as Rashid Khalidi refers, illustrates a hypocrisy on Islam, in which there is a large precedent of Islam erasing other cultures’ landmarks from the surface, replacing them.
Sensitivity to Wiesel’s comments can result in a mutually acceptable resolution on Jerusalem, but dismissal doesn’t.
This is not war. I’m not sure why you seek to desensitize humanity on this.
“And, I assume he is accurate when he states that it is not once mentioned in Koran. ”
Mister sensitivity strikes again. I have no idea about the Koran, but there’s this place you might have heard of, called the Dome on the Rock, and a claim that Mohammad ascended to heaven from that spot, so apparently the place does have a certain significance to Muslims. Wiesel is being his usual smarmy self on this subject and you defend him.
There is a legitimate point about access to religious sites–Jordan’s record stunk on that, I gather. Why you can’t stick to legitimate points, but go on to endorse Wiesel’s insensitivity–well, I’m just flummoxed.
To say nothing of Jerusalem’s significance to Christians.
This is yet another example of Witty trying to make something exclusive to Jews and Jews alone.
“and a claim that Mohammad ascended to heaven from that spot,”
————–
It’s the Night Journey from the Ka’abah to Jerusalem, the “Isra’ and Mi’araj “.
The Isra begins with Muhammad resting in the Kaaba in Mecca, when the archangel Gabriel comes to him, and brings him the winged steed Buraq.The buraq was said to be longer than a donkey but smaller than a mule it was also said that each stride of the buraq would take you to the horizon it was the traditional lightning steed of the prophets. The Buraq then carries Muhammad to the Masjid Al Aqsa the “Farthest Mosque”, which many Muslims believe is “the Noble sanctuary” (Temple Mount) in Jerusalem.
link to en.wikipedia.org
I’ve noticed in the past months that this “not mentioned in the Qura’n” argument has become a major talking point in the despicable zionts discourse repeatedly used in fora and blogs. That the Weasel and Witty both use it should come at no surprise..They both sing in the same chorus..
“Not mentioned in the Qura’n”..
Not true! It’s in the Surat of “Al Isr’a”
From Wikipedia:
“Though at the time of the Isra and Mi’raj, there was no mosque in that location, the term “the farthest mosque”[8] (Arabic: المسجد الأقصى, al-Masğidu ‘l-’Aqṣà), from sura Al-Isra, is traditionally interpreted by Muslims as referring to the site at the Noble Sanctuary (Temple Mount) in Jerusalem. This interpretation is agreed with by even the earliest biographer of Muhammad—Ibn Ishaq—and is supported by numerous aḥādīth. The term used for mosque, “masjid”, literally means “place of prostration”, and includes monotheistic places of worship such as Solomon’s Temple, which in verse 17:7[9] (in the same sura) is described as a masjid. Some Muslim scholars argue that “the farthest mosque” referred to in the Qur’an actually points to the Temple.[10]
link to en.wikipedia.org
This argument,( not in the Qura’n) is no different in its malicious, deceptive intent from “there’s no such a thing as a Palestinian people” or “A land without people for a people without land” or ” We didn’t expel them, they just left” canards. The only difference is that the former “argument” is the latest fad or craze of the season. Rebuttals are easily found but they haven’t had enough time to circulate and show once more the Zionists for what they are, liars, mytholigers and embezzlers..
Yes, it seems that people assume that the Qur’an is the only primary source of Islamic teachings. They seem to forget about the Hadiths.
How many times is Jerusalem mentioned in Bereishit, Shemot, Vayikra, Bamidbar, Devarim?
It may be part of Jewish History, but that does not grant the right of any group to claim ownership of the city.
Is the Museum of Tolerance a building project that you support?
Lighten up. “Jews are not confident that their memory will not be intentionally wiped off.” Are you seriously suggesting any Jew anywhere worries that all evidence of Jewry on this planet will be ‘wiped out.’ Nonsense.
“A large precedent of Islam erasing other cultures’ landmarks.’
Do you mean the way the US annihilated MOST if Iraq’s historical legacy in the course of its rampage across Iraq? The American crimes regarding the unique and vast Iraqi archaeological record dwarfs what the Taliban did to the Buddhas of Bamyan.
Or do you mean the way Israel has systematically obliterated Palestinian landmarks (and everything required even for mere subsistence), as settlers desecrated a mosque in the West Bank recently?
Your language is glaringly racist. You don’t even bother to say “a large precedent of Muslims” but instead say — with sweeping, universal generalization — “a large precedent of Islam”. In Canada and many countries in Europe, your language would likely constitute actionable hate speech. It may even constitute such in New York City.
As for Elie Wiesel, he has a long, well-documented history of revoltingly racist positions on Arabs, Palestinians and Muslims. He strongly resisted even calling the treatment of Muslims in Kosovo “genocide”. He hinted that he wanted the term “genocide” reserved for what the Nazis did to Jews — not the term “Holocaust” but “genocide”!
His record on historical accuracy isn’t even particularly good on his own past. In later editions of “Night” he contradicts himself in earlier versions.
Good for you, Hughsansom. And Wiesel’s account of what happened in Romania in his ‘River’ biography contradicts his account of how he wound up in Auschwitz in late May 1944. The future Jewish leaders of Shin Bet (according to Wiesel) occupied his town of Sighet (and Romania) in January 1944 as local police (according to Wiesel), courtesy of the massive Russian army too busy forcing the Germans into retreat, (the Russians installed “returning Jews,” according to Wiesel) and bearing down with a furor on Hungary, Poland, Berlin, and the rest of the Eastern Front. So of course, the Nazis had the time to take a 15-year-old boy and his infirm father from a dipshit shtetl back into that furious Russian onslaught, jeopardizing the severely weakened German army, and drop him off in Auschwitz just before the Russians liberated it.
Thanks hughsansom. You may want to check out IraqCrisis: A moderated list for communicating substantive information on cultural property damaged, destroyed or lost from Libraries and Museums in Iraq during and after the war in April 2003, and on the worldwide response to the crisis.
https://listhost.uchicago.edu/web/info/iraqcrisis
Jerusalem not mentioned in the Qur’an?
[Qur'an 17:1]
“Glory to Him Who made His servant travel by night
from the Sacred Mosque (Masjid Al-Haram) to the Farthest Mosque (Masjid Al-Aqsa), whose precincts We did bless,
- in order that We might show him some of Our Signs: He alone is All Hearing, All-Seeing.”
One need not believe in the Qur’an as a divine scripture (thats between them and God) but one should be honest enough to admit that Jerusalem (or at least the Mosque in Jerusalm) is mentiond by name in the Qur’an.
Here is part of the commentary on the verse that I just posted from the from the commentary called”Maa’riful Qur’an.” I have added some notes in brackets to translate some phrases:
———————————————————————-
The word: (hawl: environs) in the verse: (the environs of
which We have blessed) means the entire land of Syria [Olive's note*: When the author mentions Syria, he means the Levant] . It appears in a
Hadith that Allah has made the land from the ‘Arsh (Divine
Throne) to the river, Euphrates and, out of this, He has bestowed particular holiness on the land of Palestine. (Ruh al-Ma’ani)
The blessings it has are both religious and worldly. As for religious
blessings, it has been the Qiblah [direction of prayer] of all past prophets, and their home, and the last resting place. And that its land is green, lush and verdant with streams, rivers and fruit farms etc. shows its worldly blessings. Sayyidna Mu’adh ibn Jabal reports that the Holy Prophetsaid: Allah says: 0 land of Syria, thou art My region chosen from
many and I shall make My chosen servants reach thee. (Qurtubi) And it
appears in a Hadith of the Musnad of Ahmadthat the Imposter [Anti-Christ] will traverse the whole Earth but he will not be granted access to four Mosques:
(1) Masjid of Madinah, (2) Masjid of Makkah al-Mukarramah, (3)
Al-Masjid al-Aqsa and (4) Masjid Tur.
——————————————————-
I hope that clears things up for some of our Jewish friends :D
Yes, thank you.
Who decided that the Al-Masjid al-Aqsa is the one in Jerusalem?
The mosque was built and named AFTER Mohammed’s death.
And now the outright attack on Islam itself starts.
This is what Israel is, kids.
It was refered to Al-Aqsa DURING the time of the Messenger (peace be upon him). The Qur’anic verse literally says “Al-Aqsa” which was why I bracketed it.
If you want to find an excuse to ethnically cleanse Palestine, it would be more fruitful to find other arguments.
You know, you have to give it to the Zionists. They are so skilled at diverting the issues that they are actually making me spend time giving them an explanation of Qur’anic linguistics instead of talking about their destruction of a civilization.
Olive,
An Aqsa mosque is referred to in the Quran, but it cannot be the one in Jerusalem as that one was built AFTER Mohammed died.
Hey, eee?
In one breath you attack Islamic history, and in the next breath you claim to be an atheist Jew, and in the next you defend Jewish beliefs about the Western wall and the tombs in Hebron?
You’re such a balls out, racist hypocrite its almost painful to read your posts.
eee,
There seems to be some misunderstanding of this issue on your part. But thats okay because this issue probably has not been explained clearly enough. The good people from Islamic-Awarness will explain:
————————————————–
————————————————–
They say more about this issue, but I think this is sufficient for now. What is important to take away from all this is their conclusion:
“The word masjid from a linguistic point of view refers to a place of prostration without any religious distinction. From a legal point of view the word masjid in shari`ah constitutes every place on earth that is fit for prostration, whether or not it is a building.
The verse 17:1 may very well refer to the holy locations in Jerusalem and Makkah because they are blessed regardless of the presence or absence of a building at the time of the heavenly trip of Prophet Muhammad from Makkah to Jerusalem to the Heavens. From an Islamic point of view, evidence has been given by eminent Muslim scholars like Ibn Hajar and Ibn al-Jawzi who have discussed the issue. They have shown that it was Adam who built both mosques for the first time and that the duty of Abraham and Solomon was only a renovation/reconstruction of these sanctuaries.”
Now, with that out of the way, would you kindly explain to me why you support the ethnic cleansing of Palestine. Thank you.
Woops, apparently the main bulk of the quote has disappeared due to my technical ineptness. Here it is again:
———————————————————-
“Masjid from a linguistic point of view
Linguistically, it comes on the scheme of maf`il with a kasrah [i.e. the 'i' of masjid] which is ism makan [i.e., name of location] for prostration, while with a fathah [i.e., masjad] it is a masdar.
Abu Zakariyya al-Farra’ [a famous grammarian] said: Every verb coming on the scheme of fa`ala [in the past form] yaf`ulu [in the present form] like dakhala yadkhulu [which means "to enter"] admits the form maf`al with a fathah as a noun or masdar without distinction like in dakhala madkhalan. There are some nouns that were bound to take a kasrah on the second letter of its root like masjid, matli`, maghrib, mashriq and others, thus making the kasrah a sign of the noun, and some Arabs may say it with a fathah.
Indeed, masjid and masjad, and matli` and matla` were all narrated.
He said: Putting a fathah in all these forms is admissible even if we did not hear it before.
He said in Al-Sihah: Masjad with a fathah refers to one’s forehead which is the place involved in prostration.[3]
The Arab grammarians classify masjid as “ism makan”, i.e., “name of location”; it indicates the place where an action takes place. Masjid being derived from the root sa-ja-da (to prostrate), it means “place of prostration”. Since a place of worship is a place where believers prostrate to God, “masjid” is a general term to designate any place of worship without any religious distinction. Later, this word was used to designate Islamic places of worship in particular, i.e., the mosques.
The Prophet’s night journey was from “the inviolable place of worship” (al-Masjid al-Haram) to “the farthest place of worship” (al-Masjid al-Aqsa). The former is certainly located in Makkah, but what about the latter? The reference to Allah blessing its surroundings (… whose precincts We did bless) suggests a location in the “Holy Land” (cf. 21:81; 7:137; 34:18). Neal Robinson states:
The [Muslim] tradition which identifies it [i.e., al-Masjid al-Aqsa] with the Temple Mount in Jerusalem makes admirable sense in view of the fact that the ‘place of worship’ (masjid) whose destruction is evoked in v. 7 [i.e., 17:7] is clearly the Temple.[4]
This view is also shared by many western scholars.[5]
As it was mentioned earlier that masjid refers to a place of prostration without any religious distinction; an excellent example of the usage of the word “masjid” referring to a non-Islamic sanctuary can be seen in the verse 17:7. The verse describes briefly the destruction of the masjid in Jerusalem (i.e., the Temple) by the enemies of Children of Israel. Allah says in the Qur’an that the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem was a punishment was inflicted upon the Children of Israel for their tyranny and arrogance.
Sorry Olive,
I am still completely unconvinced that there is any relation between the Quaran Aqsa and the Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem.
It is quite simple. Mohammed has no problem naming names of cities. So why is he not explicit about Jerusalem? If the city is so important to Islam, why not mention it by its name but refer to it only as the farthest mosque?
Well, eee, you know what? That’s because you have no compunctions about attacking Muslims, their faith and their historical record, only because you want to keep your stolen property.
If you were raking Jewish beliefs over the coals like this, you would be recognized as an anti-Semite. And after a fact, you are an anti-Semite — Arabs are Semitic people, too.
eee,
Jersualem is important to Islam because of the Prophets Night Journey as mentioned in the Qur’an and in the hadith ( reports about the prophet’s life) and because there are numerous reports from the Prophet that discuss how the Levant is an area that is particularly blessed by God. So if someone mentions an area that encompasses Jerusalem (the Levant) and mentions a place of worship (i.e the Temple of Solomon which is in Jerusalem ) as the area which was visited in the Night Journey, then any logical person can conclude that Jerusalem is held to be a particularly holy city even if the word “Jerusalem” is not actually used.
The quotes that I posted that discuss these things from a historical and linguistic perspective are uncontroversial even among the bulk of non-Muslim Orientalists. So you will have to forgive me for being skeptical of your skepticism.
Note that there is a difference in believing that Islam is the Truth and that Islam holds certain beliefs. My bone of contention here is that Zionists are saying that Islam does not hold certaain belifs even though the historical and linguistic record clearly shows that it does.
On another note, can someon kindly show me how to use this blog function to quote things so that my posts can be a little bit more readable?
I myself am a fan of using the “blockquote” tag. You open with merely “blockquote” in the tag, have your text as normally, and close the box with a “/blockquote” tag. Like so (hopefully this works)
…and of course, it didn’t work. :P Well, hopefully you know how to use HTML tags, that’s harder to explain without digging up escape sequences.
olive: they are actually making me spend time giving them an explanation of Qur’anic linguistics instead of talking about their destruction of a civilization.
This is indeed a dishonest and irrelevant justification for the dispossession of the indigenous inhabitants of Palestine. It is all the more dishonest when cited by self-declared atheists. Palestine was inhabited by living, breathing people, who had every right to remain in their land and not to be dominated by others. Scripture is as relevant to this fundamental truth as Mickey Mouse or Superman (if you’ll pardon the blasphemy, olive). “My ancient book is better than your ancient book” is simply not a valid argument for throwing people off their land.
Altight let m give it a try:
“blockquote” testing “/blockquote”
Great, I think I got the gist of it, (hopefully)
eee,
It is quite simple. Mohammed has no problem naming names of cities. So why is he not explicit about Jerusalem?
Uhhh….eee…he did. It’s called al-Quds in arabic. Dummy.
Amen, Shmuel. It comes down to “We want your land more than you want your land. We have been raised since infancy to want your land, while you have no particular desire for it and insist on remaining only to thwart our yearnings.” This nonsense was bad enough in the 20th century.
An Aqsa mosque is referred to in the Quran, but it cannot be the one in Jerusalem as that one was built AFTER Mohammed died.
eee
——————-
Incorrect!
This is a Hadith(speech made by the prophet):
The Prophet Muhammad said, “There are only three mosques to which you should embark on a journey: the sacred mosque (Mecca, Saudi Arabia), this mosque of mine (Madinah, Saudi Arabia), and the mosque of Al-Aqsa (Jerusalem).”
link to islam.about.com
Hence, It’s fallacious to say that the mosque was built AFTER he died. He specifically mentioned it.
How is Islam’s claim to Jerusalem any different than Jews claim to Jerusalem, or even Christians for that matter? They are both pretty far fetched ideas. I mean the Exodus and the Night Journey, or even the Resurrection and the virgin birth?
Try it like this eeee:
Eventhough judaism does not recognize jesus or mohamad, Islam recognies/embraces jesus, moses and abraham, as well as all the minor prophets and sages in between.
Everything sacred to judaism and christianity, is also sacred to islam, including jerusalem.
Difference is that for moslems, mohamad was numero uno.
Keep in mind also that abraham gave the land of ‘milk and honey’ to both his sons, not just one of them.
How is Islam’s claim to Jerusalem any different than Jews claim to Jerusalem, or even Christians for that matter?
It isn’t. That’s the point, yonira. Wiesel is excusing the ethnic cleansing of non-Jews from East Jerusalem on the basis of a Jewish claim to Jerusalem that is no different than the Christian or Islamic one.
so its only ok to question Judaism, even though Christianity and Islam are intertwined with the beliefs of Judaism?
Straw man, yonira. You’re just running interference for eee when he tried to ridicule Islam. No one’s debasing the Jewish claim to Jerusalem — only pointing out that none of the big three have any less of a claim.
“How is Islam’s claim to Jerusalem any different than Jews claim to Jerusalem, or even Christians for that matter? They are both pretty far fetched ideas. I mean the Exodus and the Night Journey, or even the Resurrection and the virgin birth?”
yonira
——————-
No difference of course!..It’s all faith-based and one can’t, at least not now, argue such points. It’s a different issue altogether.
No, the Prophet is not numero uno. He is the last Prophet in a chain of prophets and messengers, so his importance is not more than other prophets or messengers. We are taught ALL are equal and all are important. The Quran specifically asks us to make no distinction between them and specifically says not to say who is better.
God on the other hand, makes distinctions like ‘Moses was beloved to me.’ Or Abraham was a “friend” of God, etc, etc.
Also, don’t forget, when Muslims were first asked to start praying…they were praying towards Jerusalem and then (Umar?) asked why don’t they make Kabba their direction for prayer and God gave the green light to that request. That does not diminish the importance of Jerusalem for Muslims.
It is also the anticipated site of return for Jesus who will descend from heaven at a certain place near a pillar and join the Muslims in prayer.
Man, I hate to be the “Muslim Police” here but Saleema, Islamic theology (as can be rad in classical manuals like Aqeedat ul-Tahawaiya) does hold the Prophet Muhammad to be the best of creation, including the best of the Prophets. There is a misunderstanding of the Qur’anic verse that says that God does not “distinguish” between the prophets. However, knowledge of the Arabic will show that this refers to the Jews rejecting some prophets (like Jesus) and the Christians rejecting prophets (like Muhammad saws) and that the Qur’an is essentially saying to the Jews and Christians “don’t pick and choose which prophets to believe in”.
But Muslim scholars are unnanimus in saying that the Prophet Muhammad (saws) is indeed numero uno.
Well you may be right but that’s what they taught us in Sunday school. Sunday school at the mosque.
olive,
I mean the prophetic lineage and the one-god belief.
I understand Saleema. Unfortunately many people who teach at Islamic schools in the West are not very qualified. I mean, if I had a penny for each time an Arab engineer tries to pass himself off as learned in the religion, I could buy Palestine back!
I taught Sunday school for a while. My mom volunteered me. I quit after a few weeks. I felt like such a hypocrite, teaching Islam when I wasn’t practicing very well.
I hope I didn’t impart any wrong knowledge. I tried to go by what was in the book.
Its okay. if you feel that your Islamic knowledge is lacking, there are many reliable resources to go to to get answers to questions.
Not in this thread Chaos, but it’s been done on numerous times on here. Isn’t it basically what Sands book is about?
None of the big three do have any less of claim, thats why I think it should be an International city.
saleema,
Moslems say: Ash’hadu inna la ilaha illa’laah wa ash’hadu inna mohamad rasoolu’laah. (loosely translated: i witness/attest there is but one god and mohamad is messenger of god)
I’m no theologian and i’ve only read some passages from the Quraan. I speak fluent Arabic: been taught it as a child while travelling across the mideast as well as taken courses as a youth and conversing in arabic with many arab friends over many years. I read and write it too, but I am no linguist nor ‘expert’ in classical Arabic. But certainly, i know that not jesus nor moses are included in the above testement I translated and I know for sure that this testement is the most important of utterances any moslem can make.
This, as well as from talking to many moslems over the years, leads me to believe that for moslems, mohamad is number one prophet for them – even though they do love and honor jesus and moses et all semitic prophets.
Taxi,
Yes I do know as a Muslim that it is the most important utterance a Muslim makes. That’s what makes a Muslim. That’s the first thing I taught my child when she started to speak.
However I was taught that all prophets are equal and that Prophet Muhammad (S) is the LAST prophet. And, yes, very beloved to us. Especially since we know so much about his life as opposed to other prophets and messengers.
i may not be an Islamic scholar but I’m not totally ignorant either.
Saleema,
For sure, you know more about the Quoraan more than I.
One of the most insidious hasbara strategies which traps many of us, is to introduce a total irrelevancy and divert the debate to that subject. We could one day hear a claim that Zionism has priority rights to Palestine because Zionists developed the eggplant and the eggplant has a deep and meaningful place in Jewish culture much more profound than among the Palestinians (who never existed anyway). Then those of us vested in the sorrow of Palestine are provoked into a frenzy of rebuttals on the history of Palestinian cultivation of the eggplant, the evolution of baba ghanouj and mutabbel, and maqloobeh. We furthermore debate among ourselves the relative merits of various competing recipes and who developed them. Doing this we are diverted from a disciplined focus on what the Zionists did and what happened to the Palestinians.
The discussion of how many times Jerusalem is mentioned in the Torah versus how many times it is or isn’t mentioned in the Koran is one such diversion. Islam and Christianity are mutations of ancient Judaism no more than is modern Judaism. In fact considering the athiesm of many modern Zionists, it could be argued that the Christians and Muslims are closer.
In any event, the notion that people who have some connection to a religion (however remote) that vaguely resembles a religion that was one of several cults practiced in ancient Palestine have right to “return” and displace people who are indiginous to the land, is the absurdity on which we must focus. Beyond that we must continue to imagine ways for a just solution, a return of the dispossessed, and a fair resolution of the status of the colonial settler community.
Its worse than a diversion. When taken up by dissenters, who then respond maximally, they end up taking the most vile reactionary positions like that “Jews were never in Jerusalem”, that exposes any reform movement to utter dismissal.
Even the rationally objected plan to build a “museum of tolerance” on an Islamic graveyard as Rashid Khalidi refers, illustrates a hypocrisy on Islam, in which there is a large precedent of Islam erasing other cultures’ landmarks from the surface, replacing them.
1) Islam is not a monolithic entity. People who happened to identity as Muslim have done horrible things, likewise people who identify as Muslims have also done incredibly amazing things.
To make such a generalized and bigoted statement as “the hypocrisy of Islam,” just gives us more insight into your warped mind frame.
2) Muslims have shown a great deal of tolerance historically in preserving several “cultural shrines,” as well. In fact more so than “erasing them.”
After all its the “Muslims” who allowed the Jews to return to Jerusalem.
Finally, for you to even show vague support for the Orwellian “Museum of Tolerance” is rather concerning. Trying to couch your defense of the museum with a “tit for tat” defense is ignorant at best.
And, given the history of even moderate Jordanian sovereignty over Jewish shrines in which they were abused, Jews are not confident that their memory will not be intentionally wiped off.
Really? What about the Palestinians who have seen the vast majority of their cultural history wiped off the map? What about the Palestinians who are constantly told by the Israelis that “they don’t even exist.”
If anything its the Palestinians that have a greater claim to having their cultural heritage erased.
My theme related to the assertion that “Jews are safe in Muslim countries”, when the facts are sometimes.
And, relating to the implied permission of any Muslim to protect all of Islam, in assaults on Zionists, that was referred as originating from “the prophet’s” writings.
My analysis was that that reasoning resulted in 1000 eyes for an eye, rather than the more moderate “a single eye for an eye”.
I thought my post indicated opposition to the siting of the “museum of tolerance”. Was I not clear?
You are a hypocrite. So if a few Muslim rulers erased some houses of worship (go to India and see how many Hindu temples survived a 700-year “Islamic” rule), that justifies the Jewish take over of a city holy to two other faiths?
The thing that strikes me, is no matter how much Witty would protest it, there is fundamentally no difference between his core beliefs and professed agenda, and that of people like eee.
You’re right, the only difference it seems is RW would like the Palestinians to willingly roll over and play dead, hopefully leave for other countries, whereas eee wouldn’t mind seeing them forcibly kicked out.
The opposite. I would like for Palestinians to live well, confidently self-governing, peaceable, good neighbors.
I definitely wish that they do not actively make war, as that will create a setting of war, that Israel will fight back hard.
If making peace is playing dead to you, then you are not motivated by goal, but by reaction.
If recent history is what matters than the fact that the Hashemites did not allow Jews to pray at the Western Wall between 1948 and 1967 clinches the argument in favor of the Jews getting the city.
True or false, eee — Zionist militants put their troops in Jerusalem first.
Trick question. The Jews lived in Jerusalem. Most adult Jews were part of the Haganah.
Were the Jews denied the right to pray at the Western Wall between 1948 and 1967? Yes they were. Did Jews deny Muslims the right to pray in Jerusalem after we controlled it in 67? No. Therefore the Jews get Jerusalem.
That’s not a “trick question.” The Haganah, like you said, were in Jerusalem and they specifically waged a campaign against the Arab civilian population.
And nothing is more emblematic of that than the davidka:
Even the Qassam rocket has its Zionist precursor. The fact is, Zionists fired the first shot, and that shot was aimed at the Palestinian civilian population.
Jews were not denied the right to pray at the Western Wall from 1948 to 1967. Israelis of any religious persuasion, Jewish, Muslim orChristian, were not allowed to enter Jordanian-controlled East Jerusalem to pray during that time. My great aunt (Jewish American) visited Jordan and East Jerusalem in the early 60′s.
Israel has consistently restricted access to Jerusalem holy sites for both its Palestinian citizens and the residents of the occupied territories throughout its occupation. And, as my article posted below shows, Israel has destroyed, desecrated and/or restricted access to numerous religious sites since 1948.
“Yes they were. Did Jews deny Muslims the right to pray in Jerusalem after we controlled it in 67?”
Not to Muslims who don’t live there.
Ergo, Jerusalem does not go to the Jews only.
Yeah, eee, that makes logical sense–care to show us how?
You are full of crap Ahmed.
link to en.wikipedia.org
Please explain this ‘take over’ I was in Jerusalem and visited all of the Christian holy sites. Christian pilgrimage to Israel is at an all time high. Aside from Al-Aqsa (which was built on a Jewish holy site) what other Muslim centers are worship are in Jerusalem? (whose religious relevance doesn’t originate with Judaism?)
Tree posted numerous rebuttals to your denial before you even got here, yonira.
Also, unsurprising that you lead off with an insult, and take the opportunity to taut how privileged you are that you can visit Jerusalem when most Palestinians are denied access completely.
Also, you posted an article in which both the neutrality and the factual accuracy are under dispute.
Dumbass.
And your reading comprehension is NIL. Muslim rulers, like any other, have demolished houses of worship, but that is not some Islamic tenet. Go to India to see the hundreds of thousands of temples that “survived” 700 years of Muslim rule.
Even better, go to the Middle East and see the Churches that stood there for over 1400 years.
I never said it was an Islamic tenet ahmed. But there were hundreds of Christians sites converted to mosques, just like Christians did the Jewish sites and Jews did to both.
I was more arguing that Israel some how is denying the rights of worshipers of the two other faiths.
Just as a point of curiosity, are non-Muslims allowed in Mecca?
(yes, I pulled a Chaos here, but I am truly interested)
With that said, The Saudi’s who are Wahabis (which takes heavily from the Hanbali School) do not allow non-Muslims into Makkah.
Yonira
I wouldn’t go there if I were you! Did you know that he Israelis wiped off the map several hundreds of Muslim and Christian places of worship since 1948? The fact that FEW were not destroyed doesn’t mean they weren’t
lol, wiped off the map…. haha did u get that from a MEMRI translation?
I visited an ancient synagogue in the heart of downtown beirut last summer and indeed had a very lovely conversation there with a lebanese rabbi who spoke arabic, hebrew, aramaic and french.
yonira
I provided three lists with the sources/links..did you have a chance to see them?
BTW, you’re right, English is not my language of choice..Oh well!
When Islam arrived in Jerusalem the temple site had been a pile of rubble for more than five centuries. The Aqsa has now been there for a longer period than that of the two temples.
In any case, as a devotee of Ashtoreth, and a committed Jebusite, I want to reclaim this holy site from the ancient Hebrews who took it from my people. My argument is more serious than yours.
“And, given the history of even moderate Jordanian sovereignty over Jewish shrines in which they were abused, Jews are not confident that their memory will not be intentionally wiped off.”
And yet when Israel decides to build “museum of tolerance” on an Islamic graveyard , it’s Islam that is being hypcritical?
Witty, you have just described war, and that you are a full particpant. Anybody else see this?
Poor Witty! It’s a hell of a thing for an older guy, lucky those Yoga tantrums keep him all loosened up and fit!
I mean, it’s a hell of a thing to have those Native Americans moving in and out of your condo! And the mess the cooking-fires leave on the marble and parquet!
He makes this argument, and he’s got to clear out and let all the braves and squaws open up their teepees in his rumpus-room, he makes another argument, and all those poor Indians had better vamoose out of the way of a modern age! All of which requires constant packing, and unpacking, insurance claims, cleaning and painting crews, it’s a mess!
But that’s our Dick Witty, he’ll go to any lengths to avoid hypocrisy.
Thanks for your usual insightful and “witty” remarks.
But, I do have a politically correct bone to pick with you, though I would normally not consider myself any sort of PC cop.
The use of the word “squaw” is highly offensive to most native americans–it is the white man’s term for indian c–t.
It was a poor choice, then, for use in a comment, where inclusivness should take precedence over trying for colloquial affects. Having been informed (or more likely, having forgotten) that the word is offensive, and been reminded, I won’t use it again.
Some kind soul should remind Mr. Weisel that humanitarianism is not tribalism, but universalism.
“universalism”=Only Jews do not have the right to take care of their own nation.
Oh, and do Buddhists have a nation? Do Taoists? Catholics have Vatican city, arguable, but that’s hardly a state or a nation in any practical sense. Even so-called Islamic states do not exclude Christians or other religious minorities — even Jews (why have a constitutionally guaranteed seat in the Iranian parliament, for instance, no matter how small a minority they comprise).
So you are comparing Iran, who has one seat for the ‘token Jew’ to Israel who has a 20% Palestinian Israeli representation in the Knesset.
That would be a good argument for democracy in Israel and the multi-faceted face of the Israeli public. It blows my mind how you rationalize things in that meager little brain of yours.
Superficial comparison.
That 20% means nothing in any relevant sense. The entire society is segregated. Verb. Noun. Etc.
Gosh, you’re dumb, sunshine. Where do you get your info? What books do you read? Do you get your talking-points from Daniel Pipes?
It’s like you want us to dismantle your poorly constructed arguments.
Look up the world ‘superficial’. Please, and shut up. Just stop posting. You’re an embarrassment to Zionist trolls everywhere.
@yonira and Dick
Tony Greenstein, sums it up best.
Your math is off, yonira. There are presently 13 Arab members of the 120 member Knesset. That works out to under 11% of the Knesset when the Israeli Palestinian population makes up over 20% of the population of Israel.
Considering that the Arab parties have never been included in any ruling coalition, are regularly attacked as “fifth columnists” and “traitors” by other Knesset members, and are consistently banned from elections by the Israel Central Elections Committee,I don’t think that really makes for a good argument for democracy in Israel. Even the existence of Arab parties is a relatively new phenomenon in Israel, starting in the 90′s.
Iran, I believe, has a population of 70 million, and a Jewish population of 25,000, who have a guaranteed seat. This hardly equates with Israels’s 11%/20%.
13 Arab members is 13 times more than the average number of black Congressmembers during Jim Crow in the US.
Face, it eee — your ideology is practically medieval. It’s incompatible with established 21st century concepts of social justice and national identity.
You’re nothing but a race baiter and a race hater.
“You’re nothing but a race baiter and a race hater.”
Wasn’t there a dark comedic and offensive movie in which a blind black American was convinced to join the KKK?
Me, I’m a Jew and everything, proud of it, but I fugure we ought to at least reach the replacement birth-rate and be able to fill more than two good-sized cities before we go trumpeting (shofaring?) our racial superiority, but YMMV.
And for God’s sake, stop worrying, eee, the world wouldn’t dare get rid of the people who invented the bagel.
Colonization of Jerusalem will continue on a massive scale. What we need to do is support this.
“Colonization.” At least you’re not mincing words anymore.
East Jerusalem as the future Palestinian capital, or even Jerusalem as an International City (like proposed in 181) is what we need to support.
I’ve got to agree with you there, yonira. Thanks for that. I think the international city plan was the only worthwhile part of the UN Partition Plan.
I agree. Glad to see, you don’t support the bat-shit settler.
East Jerusalem as the future Palestinian capital, or even Jerusalem as an International City (like proposed in 181) is what we need to support.
yonira
—————–
Kudos to you..
Wiesel is right. The proof is simple. Just see how the Arabs reacted to the restoration of the Hurva synagogue in the Jewish quarter. Let’s not forget that it was the Arabs that wrecked the synagogue in the first place.
Here is a typical Arab view:
link to aljazeerah.info
eee is right, they trash the most holy places of Jews and cry tears of sorrow when they are rebuilt.
I thought the Jewish faith wasn’t about places but about covenants with God? You know, Catholics struggled a long long time with dangerously abusive deifications of iconography, and of objects and places as well (ahem, Crusades). Sounds like you still have a lot to learn about the dangers of worshiping golden calves, that we could teach you.
“I thought the Jewish faith wasn’t about places but about covenants with God?”
Anti-Semite!! Watch it, pal, we-all don’t tolerate yer blood libels round here-a-bouts! I warns you, suh, our honor will not be trod upon by the likes of you!
Oh, c’mon, you gotta admit there’s something really south-will-rise-again about eee.
Israel is the golden calf.
Just how many mosques and churches have been rebuilt (ir vene retained) in West Jerusalem?
A quote from that “typical Arab view” is illuminating, for what ee considers out of bounds, and for the rationality of the argument by Qumsiyeh:
Does anyone have anymore information about these 1200 mosques and 200 churches destroyed. Is this kinda like the genocide which took place in Ramallah during Operation Defensive Shield, or the martyr Mohammad Al-Faramawi, who just happened to turn up alive?
Jenin not Ramallah, but i get my alleged Israeli massacres mixed up…..
Yonira, there is a link below to some of the Israeli desecration of mosques and churches within Israel over the years. I;ll find you more information when I have a moment. But why assume that all tales of destruction of Jewish sites muct be true and tales of destruction of non-Jewish sites must be false. Why not take both claims with a grain of salt and investigate yourself? There are numerous reports from Israeli sources (and Jewish ones at that) detailing the Israeli destruction of mosques and churches in Israel and in the OT.
Here’s one historical report, from Haaretz, well worth a read from those who would deny or diminsh the Israeli demolition of mosques:
History Erased
I highly recommend you read the entire article, yonira.
It appears I messed up my link. Here it is:
link to haaretz.com
And here’s an incident from 2003 were a mosque in the Negev was destroyed:
link to haaretz.com
thank you tree, I will read these.
Does anyone have anymore information about these 1200 mosques and 200 churches destroyed.
Yonira
————————–
Here’s some:
Closed, Neglected and Demolished Mosques and Mausoleums
1- Umm Al Faraj mosque – jurisdiction of ‘Akka – (Ben Ammi) – demolished on 4/12/1997.
2- Wadi Al Hawarith mosque – jurisdiction of Tulkarem – (near Al Khudaira) – demolished by some Jews on 03/02/2000.
3- Sheikh Ni’ma mosque – Safad – demolished, but the minaret is still standing.
4- Al Khudar mausoleum – Al Bassa – Shlomy – in a state of neglect.
5- Al Zaidani mosque -Tabariyya- closed and in a state of neglect.
6- Al Bahar mosque – Tabariyya – closed and in a state of neglect.. The municipality of Tabariyya restored it for the purpose of using it as museum but it was burnt by a Jew on 6/2/2000.
7- Hittine mausoleum – jurisdiction of Tabariyya – (Kafar Zitim) – closed down several times by the Israeli land administration.
8- ‘Umqa mosque – ‘Umqa colony – closed, in a state of neglect and in danger of collapse.
9- Sheikh Mohammed Kwikat mausoleum – Bait Haemaq – in a state of neglect.
10- Prophet Yirchaa’s mausoleum – (Mitsoddat Yushaa) – jurisdiction of Safad- in a state of neglect.
11- Two mosques in Khan Jub Yussuf (Kibbutz Amead) – in a state of neglect.
12- Sheikh Ibriq mausoleum – Haifa coast – in a state of neglect.
13- Sheikh Ibriq mausoleum – Tabuun – in a state of neglect.
14- Prophet Hochan’s mausoleum – Hocha, north of Ibtine – jurisdiction of Haifa- restored by Muslims.
15- Mosque of Ibtine – jurisdiction of Haifa – in a state of neglect.
16- Ahmed mosque – ‘Akka – in a state of neglect.
17- Sumairiyya mosque – jurisdiction of ‘Akka – closed down by the Israeli Land Administration.
18- A mausoleum in Al Manchiyya – ‘Akka’ – inhabited by a Muslim family to preserve it.
19- Al Manchiyya mosque – in a state of neglect.
20- The Small mosque in Haifa – in a state of neglect ; Muslims are not allowed to restore and use it.
21- Assuhaili mausoleum – Balad Cheikh – Haifa – in a state of neglect.
22- Allujun mosque – Mjido- formerly converted into a carpenter shop, but now in a state of neglect.
23- Maalul mosque – jurisdiction of Nassera – demolished to a large extent and only a small portion remains.
24- A mausoleum in Tirat Al Karmal – Haifa jurisdiction – in a state of neglect.
25- Sarfand mosque – Haifa- (Hebonim) – in a state of neglect.
26- Ajzim mosque – coast of Haifa – closed down by the Israeli Land Administration. Anyone who violates the Israeli order risks going to prison.
27- Sheikh Ali mausoleum – Jab’- Coast of Haifa – in a state of neglect.
28- Umm Al ‘Alaq mosque – Rouha – (Rimat Handif) – in a state of neglect.
29- New mosque – Qissariya – demolished.
30- Sheikh Ahmed’s mausoleum – Al Khudaira – in a state of neglect.
31- Jamal Eddine Aqouch – south of Bir Sekka – in a state of neglect.
32- Saidna Ali mosque – Al Haram – (Herzelia) – restored by the Muslims and used for prayers.
33- Assadeq mausoleum – Majdal Sadeq – South of Kafr Qassim – jurisdiction of Ramla – in a state of neglect.
34- Prophet Yahya’s mausoleum – Al Muzairi’a – jurisdiction of Ramla- in a state of neglect.
35- Abi Al Awan’s mausoleum – Jamjuliyya – in a state of neglect.
36- Suraqa’s mausoleum – west of Qulaiqila – neglected.
37- A mausoleum in Al Midahdira – west of Tirat Bani Saab – in a state of neglect.
38- Maska mosque – west of Tirat Bani Saab – largely demolished.
39- Al Yazur mausoleum – jurisdiction of Yafa – in a state of neglect.
40- Ahmed Iqbal Usdud’s mausoleum – jurisdiction of Gaza – in a state of neglect.
41- Usdud mosque – jurisdiction of Gaza – partly demolished, in a state of neglect.
42- Sheikh ‘Awad mosque – ‘Asqalane – jurisdiction of Gaza – in a state of neglect.
43- Tamim Addari’s mausoleum – Bait Jibril – jurisdiction of Hebron – in a state of neglect, it was burnt three years ago.
44- Zakaraiyya’s mosque – north of Bait Jibril – in a state of neglect.
45- A mosque in Dir Sheikh – Al Quds mountains – in a state of neglect.
46- Ain Karem mosque – Al Quds – in a state of neglect. and used by drug addicts and prostitutes.
47- Lafta mosque – Al Quds – in a state of neglect.
48- Al Mijirmi’s mausoleum – Tantura – coast of Haifa – in a state of neglect.
49- Al Falluja mosque and mausoleum – jurisdiction of Gaza – the mausoleum was demolished one year and a half ago.
50- Mausoleum of Mohammed Al ‘Ajami – Al Majdil – Tabariyya – in a state of neglect.
link to alajnabiya.blogspot.com
Mosques converted into facilities for other purposes
1- Al Bassa mosque – ‘Akka jurisdiction – (Shlomy) converted into a sheep enclosure.
2- Zaib mosque – ‘Akka jurisdiction – (Akhzif) converted into a storehouse for agricultural tools for the Aghzif Park.
3- Ain Zaitun mosque – Safad jurisdiction – converted into a cattle enclosure.
4- Al Ahmar mosque – Safad – converted into a meeting place for artists.
5- As-Souk mosque – Safad – converted into an exhibition hall for statutes and photographs.
6- Al Qal’a mosque – Safad – converted into the headquarters of the Safad municipality.
7- Al Khalissa mosque – (Kriat Shmona) – converted into a municipal museum.
8- Dar Al Baida mosque – East-north and south of the petrol station- converted into block of offices.
9- Al Burj mosque -‘Akka – converted into a university students’ affairs office.
10- Ain Hawd mosque – Jurisdiction of Haifa – converted into a restaurant and a bar.
11- The old mosque in Qissaria – Jurisdiction of Haifa – converted into an office for the architects of the Development Company
12- The new mosque in Qissaria – Jurisdiction of Haifa – converted into a restaurant and bar
13- Al Hamma mosque- the Golan – closed and used by the adjoining restaurant as a storage facility for alcohol and foodstuffs.
14- Siksek mosque – Yafa – the ground floor is used as a plastic plant and the first floor as a gambling joint.
15- Attabia mosque – closed down and used by a Christian as a house.
16- ‘Asqalan mosque – one side of it is a museum and the other is a bar restaurant.
17- Al Maliha mosque – Al Quds – part of the mosque is used as a house by a Jew and the terrace of the mosque is used to hold festivities for the neighbours.
18- The Great Mosque – Bir Sab’a – in a state of neglect but was previously used as a museum.
19- The Small Mosque – Bir Sab’a – converted into a shop run by a Jew.
link to alajnabiya.blogspot.com
Zionist Desecration of Cemeteries
1- Bulldozing of the cemeteries of ‘Aqer in the vicinity of Ramla, Salma, ‘Abbassiyya near Yafa, ‘Asqalane, and Istiqlal in Haifa. Houses, commercial centres and industrial zones were built where these cemeteries used to be.
2- Another group of cemeteries was converted into a rubbish dump, such as the cemeteries of Khayriyya and Yazur at the entrance of which a sign reads “Rubbish Dump”.
3- Other cemeteries were bulldozed to lay roads, set up animal farms or public parks.
4- The Ain Ghazal cemetery was converted into a municipal dump.
5- The Ain Hawd cemetery was converted into a parking lot.
link to alajnabiya.blogspot.com
yikes
thanks atheist……
Wiesel commercial success with marketing the Holocaust is a reminder of Norman Finkelstein’s criticism. Not all the profiteers have been lawyers and Zionist outfits but individuals like Wiesel who has made out handsomely by actively pursuing his personal commercialization of the Holocaust.
Les,
You are spewing libel and wearing your irrational hatred on your sleeve.
From wikipedia link to en.wikipedia.org
:
When Wiesel was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1986, the Norwegian Nobel Committee called him a “messenger to mankind”, noting that through his struggle to come to terms with “his own personal experience of total humiliation and of the utter contempt for humanity shown in Hitler’s death camps”, as well as his “practical work in the cause of peace”, Wiesel had delivered a powerful message “of peace, atonement and human dignity” to humanity.
His commercial success gave him the $500,000 to take out ads in US newspapers to call for US sanctions against the people of Iran. If there is anything humanitarian about punishing the people of Iran, you probably consider the wars of the US against the people of both Iraq and Afghanistan to be humanitarian.
Most people understand that sanctions are more humanitarian than more proliferation of nuclear weapons including all your American Congress and your president.
Great! So when can sanctions against Israel as one of the chief rogue nuclear states responsible for arms proliferation start?
When you are able to convince more than Iran that this is indeed the case. You are living in fantasy land.
If you think the rest of the world excluding the US doesn’t have horse sense about the dangers of Israel as a rogue nuclear state, you’re the one in the fantasy land.
Enjoy cowering in the shadow of the US while there’s still shade to be had, eee. You don’t exactly have that much longer out of the daylight.
Israel’s use of (US supplied) white phosphorous against the Gazans during Operation Cast Lead because it was a more humanitarian weapon than what?
eee – “economical with the truth yet again” old boy! The 2007 NIE stated blah, blah, blah (since you are already aware of its contents, I can’t be bothered to cut and paste a quote or link).
RE: the Norwegian Nobel Committee called him a “messenger to mankind”
PLEASE SEE: Elie Wiesel, Moral Mercenary, By Richard Silverstein, Tikun Olam, 02/09/10
(EXCERPTS)…Did you know morality is for sale? No? Well, as far as Elie Wiesel is concerned it is. If the Palestinians had $500,000 THEY might find moral favor in Elie’s eyes as well. You see, since Bernie Madoff blew Wiesel’s foundation assets, I guess he’s found a need to sell his scruples to the highest bidder. Last year that would’ve been John Hagee, before whose Christians United for Israel conference Wiesel pronounced the anti-Semite and homophobe his “dear pastor”:
“For delivering one speech to Hagee’s congregation, Wiesel received a check for $500,000 toward his foundation, according to Marita Styrsky, the wife of Christians United for Israel Eastern Regional Director Victor Styrsky (Christians United is Hagee’s lobbying arm).”
…And the next time you hear of some good deed performed by the Elie Wiesel Foundation remember it’s probably funded by a man who said that Hitler was half-Jewish and doing the work of the Lord, John Hagee.
ENTIRE POST – link to richardsilverstein.com
What Hagee actually said is:
“It was Esau’s descendants who produced the half-breed Jews of history who have persecuted and murdered the Jews beyond human comprehension … Adolf Hitler was a distant descendant of Esau.”[47]
Only people that want to incite against Israel at any price would interpret that as Hagee saying Hitler was half Jewish.
Woohoo! The Israeli is now defending extremist war-mongering Christian televangelists.
It’s like Christmas came early this year.
Who is defending Hagee?
I am defending Wiesel against a libel that Israel haters have thrown at him.
You claim that Hagee said Hitler was half Jewish not to attack Hagee but to discredit Wiesel. I have just shown that you are a liar and would stop at nothing to incite against Israel.
So you admit that Herr Hagee said that God sent Hitler, “the hunter”, to herd the Jews into Israel?
Dick,
Do you admit you posted a lie? Did Hagee in fact say that Hitler was half Jewish?
eee, we can all read Hagee’s quote for ourselves. You can keep waving a picture of the great big blue sky and keep insisting that it is, in fact, greenish orange, but that’s not exactly strengthening your argument.
Chaos,
So much verbiage, so little of it relevant.
Do you admit Dick posted a lie? Did Hagee in fact say that Hitler was half Jewish?
Hagee said that “Esau’s descendants” “produced the half-breed Jews of history” and that “Adolf Hitler was a distant descendant of Esau.”
Right?
Seriously, transitive law. If A = B, and B = C, than A = C. Don’t they teach basic algebra in Israel? Or are you that Islamophobic that you won’t even touch science named after Arabic words?
Ignoramus, I didn’t think I had to spell it out, but according to Jewish tradition, the Jews are bnei-Israel the sons of Israel, who is Jacob. Jacob’s son make up the tribes of Israel. Esau was not Jewish.
Then you should be arguing that Wiesel accepted money from a Christian pastor who lying about the nature of the Jewish people and Hitler, huh.
Also accepted money from a man who stated that God sent Hitler. Care to address that?
Did you or did you not post a lie?
SEE: McCain Backer Hagee Said Hitler Was Fulfilling God’s Will (AUDIO) By Sam Stein, 05/21/08
(excerpt)…in his 2006 book “Jerusalem Countdown”, Hagee proposed the theory that “anti-Semitism, and thus the Holocaust, was the fault of Jews themselves — the result of an age old divine curse incurred by the ancient Hebrews through worshiping idols and passed, down the ages, to all Jews now alive.” …
ENTIRE ARTICLE – link to huffingtonpost.com
He did not, in fact, post a lie. And there’s your additional substantiation.
Your turn, eee. We’re still waiting for you to address the fact that Wiesel took on a speaking gig and got paid by a man who believes that Hitler was doing God’s work.
SEE – Pastor Hagee: The Antichrist Is Gay, “Partially Jewish, As Was Adolph Hitler” (Paging Joe Lieberman!) , By Max Blumenthal, 06/02/08
(EXCERPTS) On March 16, 2003, on the eve of the United States’ invasion of Iraq, Pastor John Hagee took to the pulpit to warn of the coming Antichrist. In his sermon, “The Final Dictator,” Hagee described the Antichrist as a seductive figure with “fierce features.” He will be “a blasphemer and a homosexual,” the pastor announced. Then, Hagee boomed, “There’s a phrase in Scripture used solely to identify the Jewish people. It suggests that this man [the Antichrist] is at least going to be partially Jewish, as was Adolph Hitler, as was Karl Marx.”
This “fierce” gay Jew, according to Hagee, would “slaughter one-third of the Earth’s population” and “make Adolph Hitler look like a choirboy.”…
…now that Hagee’s political allies have listened to the preacher’s sermon identifying the Antichrist as a homosexual Jew, how can they still share a stage with him? Is attributing Jewish ancestry to the Man of Sin not anti-Semitism in its most classical form? Are the conspiratorial screeds of Nesta Webster,Henry Ford, and David Duke not replete with passages disturbingly similar to this most recently revealed jeremiad of Hagee and to many of his past sermons?
ENTIRE ARTICLE – link to huffingtonpost.com
P.S. Res ipsa loquitur!
FROM WIKIPEDIA: (excerpt)…In what was described as a “God and country” sermon [on 11/05/06] at the Cornerstone church in San Antonio, attended by Perry and other mostly Republican candidates, the Rev. John Hagee stated, “If you live your life and don’t confess your sins to God Almighty through the authority of Christ and His blood, I’m going to say this very plainly, you’re going straight to hell with a nonstop ticket.” Perry was asked if he agreed with those comments and said, “It is my faith, and I’m a believer of that.”[30] Perry went on to say that there was nothing in the sermon that he took exception with. Kinky Friedman, the Jewish independent candidate for governor said “He doesn’t think very differently from the Taliban, does he?”
…While on tour in August 2009 interview with Israel’s Jerusalem Post newspaper Perry [Texas Gov. Rick Perry] affirmed his support for Israel from his religious background, “I’m a big believer that this country was given to the people of Israel a long time ago, by God, and that’s ordained.”[32]…
SOURCE – link to en.wikipedia.org
ALSO SEE: Perry believes non-Christians doomed , The Dallas Morning News, 11/05/06
(excerpts) SAN ANTONIO – Gov. Rick Perry, after a God and country sermon attended by dozens of political candidates Sunday, said that he agreed with the minister that non-Christians will be condemned to hell….
“In my faith, that’s what it says, and I’m a believer of that,” the governor said.
Throughout much of the 90-minute service at Cornerstone Church, Mr. Perry sat on the red-carpeted stage next to the Rev. John Hagee. Mr. Perry was among about 60 mostly Republican candidates who accepted the invitation to be introduced to the megachurch’s congregation of about 1,500, plus a radio and TV audience.
“If you live your life and don’t confess your sins to God almighty through the authority of Christ and his blood, I’m going to say this very plainly, you’re going straight to hell with a nonstop ticket,” Mr. Hagee said during a service interspersed with religious and patriotic videos.
Asked afterward at a political rally whether he agreed with Mr. Hagee, the governor said he didn’t hear anything that he would take exception to.
He said that he believes in the inerrancy of the Bible and that those who don’t accept Jesus as their savior will go to hell…
….In his sermon, Mr. Hagee exhorted the congregation to fight moral weakness, to vote for religious people and oppose same-sex marriage.
“Quit acting like a Bible-thumping wimp,” he said.
He added: “God is the Supreme Court,” prompting applause from the governor….
…And he has already had to answer some complaints from the Jewish community. Last year, he invited ministers of all faiths to stand with him as he signed a law requiring parental consent for abortion and a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. The Jewish representative was a member of a messianic group that accepts Jesus as their savior.
Mr. Perry’s predecessor as governor, George W. Bush, took considerable criticism in 1993 for saying that those who do not accept Jesus as their personal savior cannot get to heaven. Later, when running for president, Mr. Bush issued his regrets to the Anti-Defamation League, saying his comments had been misunderstood….
ENTIRE ARTICLE – link to dallasnews.com
Ooooh! LIBEL! If you are gonna sue, eee, count me in! I’m suit happy these days.
What court should we file in? We’ll take these libelers for every drachma they’ve got!
RE: What court should we file in? – Mooser
MY SUGGESTION: What about Judge Judy?
Submit Your Case – link to judgejudy.com
Wiesel is a complete phony.
It may not be accurate to call Wiesel a phony. The phony laurels he is credited with are a creation of our fawning media. There is certainly nothing phony about the fact that he has been a money grubber for ages. Give him personal credit for that.
Hey Phil,
I love your continental headline: “Laissez les bontemps rouler en Jerusalem”.
Translation: Let the good times roll in Jerusalem.
Yeah! Rock on Weizy!
RE: Hey Phil, I love your continental headline: “Laissez les bontemps rouler en Jerusalem”. – Taxi
SERENDIPITOUS MUSICAL INTERLUDE (brought to you by Ziocaine Intravenous™ ~ “Guaran-damn-teed To Rock Your World!”
Helen Reddy – Laissez les Bontemps Rouler (02:33) – link to youtube.com
P.S. Ziocaine Intravenous™ – “A Little Jab’ll Do Ya!”
more accurately it would read “Let the Caterpillar Merkava Bulldozers Roll in East Jerusalem”
>> “Jerusalem … is mentioned more than six hundred times in Scripture … There is no more moving prayer in Jewish history than the one expressing our yearning to return to Jerusalem.”
That’s the basis for ownership? Repetition of a name, and yearnings? Hmmm…I guess the One Ring really *did* belong to Gollum. Strike One.
>> “To many theologians, it IS Jewish history …
That’s because theologians are not historians – they are highly-trained experts in useless religious “wisdom”. Strike Two.
>> ” … to many poets, a source of inspiration.”
*rolleyes* Strike Three.
Wow, that sounds just like my neighbor’s claim to part of my lot!
This development should be recognized as progress in the IP debate. Since 1993 the Israeli negotiators (and amen troops here in the US) claimed to accept the two-state solution with E Jerusalem as its captal. During this time many of us, watching the ever expanding settlements, began to suspect that the so-called peace process was one big lie — that it was just a cover for annexation. Thus it was not possible to debate the real issue, rather the debate was over a totally artificial issue of Israel’s creation — Does Israel really support the two state solution? As long as that was the debate progress was impossible. (I must admit the deviousness of Israel and her supporters is really remarkable, quite an accomplishment to keep this swindle in play for so many decades).
Obama has forced a change for the better — he called the bluff. Now Israel must come right out and defend their claims to West Bank lands without the big lie.
FOLKS- Anyone interested in getting a quickie introduction to political Jerusalem should go to the Real News Network, link to therealnews.com
, and view interview #6 with Michel Warschawski (On the Border, #6), an Israeli radical. All eight interviews are well worthwhile, however #6 is right on topic (10 minutes).
the only solution for Jerusalem is to bring in US troops, secure it, turn it over to UN troops forever and declare it a stateless “international city” open to all
And hopefully you and other members of this blog will be leading the charge.
Itching for a chance to shoot us, are you? We should warn you that Americans aren’t as easy targets as Palestinian families, eee. Most of us have grown up around guns all our lives and some of us know what its like to be shot at. And that’s not even talking about the military veterans.
Well then, instead of talking trash, contact radii and other fellow minded Americans and create a militia to come free Jerusalem. It seems though that you are sending others to do the fighting for you and that is quite cowardly.
It may surprise you to learn, eee, that most 21st century human beings find the idea of taking up arms and going weapons hot in a densely packed urban setting is repugnant.
But then it’s been long since established that you are operating at 19th century levels of barbarism, in your own rationale.
What, so you are not coming with radii?
Why are you criticizing me instead of radii who is the genius behind this great idea that I have been ridiculing? It was he/she that was promoting the idea of using arms.
Who said I agreed with radii?
Answer me this — do you believe that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel?
If you don’t agree with radii, why are you defending him?
Oh I’m not defending him, my sole motivation is exposing you for what you are. :)
So, do you consider Jerusalem to be part of Israel? Do you proclaim it as Israel’s capital? It’s relevant to what you are trying to frame as radii’s motivation, after all.
hey eee,
I said send US troops – not a single shot needs to be fired … I favor non-violence, but military might seems to be the only thing zionists understand and they will never ever do the right thing on their own so the US needs to become the lever that moves israel to where the rest of the world needs it to be – behaving in a civilised, responsible, and human manner
I loathe the fact that we’ve already wasted so many American (and others’) lives for the wars for israel in Iraq and Afghanistan and Pakistan (and Iran too if zio-fascists like you get their way) … all of these military campaigns were conceived, directed and pushed through by the zionists and their agents and operatives within the US gov’t and intelligentsia
this operative is hard-at-work in our own Pentagon pushing the Iran war: Dr. Strangelove/Lani Kass
Blood libel. The US fights wars for Israel. Yeah, right.
You are also very funny. Why would you send troops if you think that no shot need be fired? Send the boy scouts. And it seems that you prefer non-violence except with Zionists.
Bottom line, thank you for proving you are an irrational Israel hater.
Blood libel? What part of the article is lying about Lani Kass’ identity? Are you really that incapable of an actual debate that you have to flee to AIPAC and ADL shouting points, every time?
“Blood libel”
“Jew hater”
“Israel hater”
Wow, you’re really making a great impression as an Israeli here, eee.
LOL blood libel. You’re are such a nitwit. You can’t formulate any kind of argument that doesn’t lead to ‘jew haterrssss!!!1!!1′
Cultist freak!
“Blood libel”
“Jew hater”
“Israel hater”
I bet he says that to all the girls. Probably his best pick-up lines.
You don’t think WJ is part of Israel?
eee is not only israeli, he/she is american with dual israeli passport.
oh eee,
you’re the best available to spew the israeli propaganda?
even yonira does it with more passion and some verve … and UNIX is just silly and amusing the way a clown at the circus is amusing – obvious and overly-broad pratfalls
now if israel would do the following, US troops would not be needed to secure Jerusalem for the world as an international city
1. israel could share (nope, they simply won’t)
2. israel could stop ethnically-cleansing (nope, they’re ramping it up)
3. israel could act in good-faith and unilaterally withdraw our of E J’lem and give over their illegal housing to the Palestinians (oop, the corrupt developers tied to the mafia gov’t wouldn’t make their money then)
4. israel could decide to just be decent human beings and enter into real, meaningful negotiations to work out a shared J’lem (not while the zio-fascists are in power)
…. well, none of the reasonable, humane responses are forthcoming and the rightwing-nutjob faction leading israel and the now racist populace (for the most part – skewed younger) seem even willing to consider anything approaching decency and fairness an outside force will have to compel a fair settlement.
… i do hope the israeli-firsters here in the US and the zionists everywhere will continue their arrogance and condescension toward America and harden our position solidly into taking control over israel for the benefit of US security interests and rooting out israeli operatives from our gov’t – only then can we play the role of “honest broker” and compel a reasonable outcome
… the biggest roadblock, by far, is not islamo-extremists but zionists
Ten cents says that eee can’t define “blood libel”
Oh, Wiesel has done it again uh. All these times he came over to my place for lunch, I told him beforehand: “No ads, Elie, or you’ll pay your own lunch”. That saved me.
This biblical ‘logic’ is too much to bear. Israel will only survive within the context of a functioning system of international law. If Zionists insist its existence is dependent upon the biblical imperative, pitting the ‘chosen’ tribe against all others, Israel is a goner. And this Diament is just nuts.
That might help you understand why most Israelis — and many American Jews — balk at the current suggestions that Israel surrender large parts of Jerusalem in return for peace with the Palestinians. And this is not just a suggestion; it’s assumed by some administration officials and other advisers. They argue that President Barack Obama needs to put forward his own Israeli-Palestinian “peace plan” — including this trade.
Oh, woe to the Israelites, the temerity of this Schwartze telling G-d’s people what to do. What is conveniently ignored is that ‘some administration officials and other advisors’ just didn’t make this plan up out of whole cloth. Jerusalem was never to belong to the Zionists from 1948 onward under international law, law to which Israel owes its existence.
Historically, King David made Jerusalem his capital 3,000 years ago — and it has been the national capital of the Jewish people ever since. Only brute force kept them out.
So aside from the 2,000 years or so it hasn’t been the ‘Jewish’ capitol, it has the uninterrupted ‘national capitol of the Jewish people’ for 3,000 years. Huh? And spell ‘capitol’ correctly, you moron, if you’re going to write newspaper columns.
Great article thanks MRW.. Israel Fimkelstein, the head of the Archaeology department at Tel Aviv University, came to the same conclusions in his book “The Bible unearthed”.
It is not necessary to state, “Jews were never there” to accomplish decency and respect for Palestinians.
You can’t prove that “that didn’t happen”. The only truthful statement you can make is, “so far we have not found supporting evidence to x thesis”.
I find that absurdly ironic, considering how thoroughly the events of the Nakba are documented, and that’s history in living memory, and you deny large portions of that.
Hell, you even deny what Israel did to savage the Gazan population when the IDF attacked literally thousands of buildings — favoring mosques, hospitals and civil infrastructure.
Chaos,
Have you yet ready a history of the region, of the time, from a Zionist or conventional perspective.
I’m sure that you will find irritations, but you will also learn that the demagogic literature on the period is fundamentally incomplete.
There is MUCH documented of mutual animosities, but also of actual work to build an actual society, in a land where there were few (not none, but not entirely occupied either). As indicated by the Arab population of the region now three times what the total population was in 1948, that the total population of the land is something like 11 times what it was.
You can say that there is now no more room for expansion, for settlement by anyone (possibly, likely not, it is still sparsely populated in many areas). But, you can’t really say that there was no room to settle.
Given that early Zionists, including Ben-Gurion sought out local Arab community leaders to find peaceable forms of mutual governance and co-existance, indicates to me that the thesis of “they sought only to conquer” is a false one.
Certainly some did, and that stimulated the Arab fears who then sought to conquer, which stimulated the need for Israeli self-defense, which enhanced the safety of Jews’ presence thereby making it possible for more to come, which stimulated Arab fears of losing cultural control over the region that they had just been relieved of Turkish dominance.
One miscommunication after another, one harrassment after another, escalating.
Until we reach the point of Oslo, of the mutual recognition, “enough is enough. We ARE neighbors.”
Then disrupted by fanatics, which is what they are primarily capable of.
Do you think that the likud Zionists have the intent for a coherent plan for mutual betterment? Do you think that Hamas has the intent and a coherent plan for mutual betterment?
Or, do you think, like me, that the fanatics derail positive efforts, efforts to reconcile, to establish color blind rule of law, self-governance for the mutual communities?
This David Ben-Gurion?
Who also said, after the fact:
And then of course, in the very soul of Zionism:
Yeah, thanks for bringing him up as a first hand reference point, Witty.
So far? You’re the one, above, near the beginning of the thread, legitimizing a ‘religious’ claim to a piece of real estate.
You’re not much different from the Jewish terrorists who ethnically cleansed Palestine. It’s just that your political aspirations are considered mainstream.
A Christian Zionist doesn’t have to blow themselves up, they can simply vote in a nutter who’ll help them fulfill their religious insanity.
Likewise, you and the rest of the Zionist freak-show are robbing the Palestinians blind, as you always have – and you can get away w/ it NOT because of ‘Jewish religious history’ and all that pretentious garbage but because you buy politicians. You have the money/guns/influence.
That’s what it takes. Truth and reason don’t matter. So ‘progressive’ Zionist (you mock the term ‘Liberal’) Jewish intellectuals will decry racism/etc. here while promoting and advocating it over in that shitty Levantine country.
I don’t recall legitimizing a religious claim to a piece of real estate.
Maybe the Jewish portion of the old city of Jerusalem.
I know that is outside of the green line, but I don’t see it being given up.
My points were in contrast to the statements that Wiesel made about long-term sentimental connection to the Hebron, Jerusalem, Safed, elsewhere, which is undeniable and not erasable.
The specific means to facilitate respectful means to retain that sentimental connection is an open one.
Double-posting this comment, so people can check out this horrible piece and let LAT know they should know better.
The LA Times has a godawful op-ed by Benny Morris.
The headline is “When Armageddon lives next door”
Right off the bat he lies about Ahmadinejad wanting to wipe out Israel and Israelis:
I take it personally: Iran’s president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, wants to murder me, my family and my people. Day in, day out, he announces the imminent demise of the “Zionist regime,” by which he means Israel. And day in, day out, his scientists and technicians are advancing toward the atomic weaponry that will enable him to bring this about.
Next step, Nazis and the Holocaust. Shame on the LAT for printing such garbage
What a shame that a so called “historian” can write Goebels style propaganda.
“so called “historian””
What does that make Finkelstein who has based his own career on quoting Morris.
I’m confused. Are you really willing to attack Morris to get at Finkelstein, Julian? You neocons and your love of “collateral damage,” huh.
Finkelstein kept a clear distincion: (in my words) Morris is a good scolar, but a bad historian.
“Right off the bat he lies about Ahmadinejad wanting to wipe out Israel and Israelis:”
Wrong. Where’s that tired nonsense about mistranslating Ahmadinejad.
Of course the Iranian newspapers also “mistranslated” him.
The facts about what Ahmedinjad said:
link to arbeiterfotografie.de
Nice source Chaos, and you bag on EEE and myself for siting MEMRI, you are siting a lefty German blog w/ Nazi leanings. Nice.
Are you calling the German anti-war/anti-occupation movement Nazi, yonira?
(cited)
I corrected the spelling Chaos, so instead of going straight to the misspelled word, maybe try to debate the actually issue I bring up. I know its an impossibility for you, but you say you want me to debate on here, well here is your chance.
…what am I supposed to debate, exactly? The word “cited” between two parenthesis? I’m more interested on your labeling of a German web site as “Nazi” just because it’s German.
“I’m more interested on your labeling of a German web site as “Nazi” just because it’s German.”
What the hell are we, chopped liver? Between the writers of the articles and the commenters, surely we deserve better Zionist trolls then this? Clicked over, saw something German, and abra-cadabra-goddam, we got Nazis!
This is the best Zionism can do?
Pretty much, Mooser.
I mean seriously, we got Witty labeling us “fascists” on the other flank. It’s like Zionism can’t sustain itself without slapping vile and false accusations on someone or something.
“grotesque ad”
What was grotesque was what the Arabs did to Jewish religious sites in Jerusalem. Now they want another shot at them?
The only time the Arabs had any interest in Jerusalem was when it wasn’t in their hands and it’s not mentioned a single time in the Koran.
More grotesque than clearing out hundreds of Palestinian villages, planting land mines among the homes and shooting anyone who dared to try to return?
great argument, EEE
Seriously, yonira? Can you come back when you’ve fully sobered up?
LOL, good point Chaos, Friday is my day off, I usually start sucking on the nozzle around 8am
great argument, EEE
yonira
———
Ha ha..Com’on yonira! You’re not going to do a UNIX now, do you? Yes, I think you’re better that that.
They also demolished mosques as part of their village demolition program, according to Meron Benvenisti in “Sacred Landscapes”. Cemetaries too. Here’s Benvenisti on the bottom of page 296–
“Activists from the al-Aqsa Association have been unsuccessfully confronting bulldozer-drivers for years. These confrontations occur over and over in many locations, and their outcome is plainly seen:shattered tombstones scattered over the burial site, numerous open graves, and human bones rolling around.”
So yes, Jordan did a disgraceful job when it controlled holy sites in Jerusalem, but it seems they’re not the only ones who were careless about the sacred sites of another culture.
“The only time the Arabs had any interest in Jerusalem was when it wasn’t in their hands and it’s not mentioned a single time in the Koran. ”
Incorrectamundo. It’s called al-Quds.
Where in the Koran is al quds mentioned? the term used is al aqsa or the far end, but al quds is not mentioned. (i assume that olive or some other person who knows the koran would have mentioned al quds. i myself know that the second chapter is called the cow, but other than that my knowledge is paltry.)(not poultry, but paltry)
WJ,
The city of Jerusalem is known in Arabic as Al-Quds or Baitul-Maqdis (“The Noble, Sacred Place”). Jerusalem was the first place that Muslims bowed towards during daily prayer. It was later replaced by Mecca, but I can’t remember how much later. It is an extraordinarily important place in the Islamic religion. it is not just ‘some mosque’ located there.
mrw,
In Isaiah it is stated: “For my house will be called a house of prayer for all the nations.” 56:7 Thus the fact that Jerusalem and the spot of the temple is holy to both Muslims and Christians is a fulfillment of prophecy. The fact that instead of this being a unifying feature for the believers of the monotheistic religions it is a bone of contention demonstrates the unfortunate nature of the current state of humankind or of the monotheistic religions. (Not wishing to absolve Zionism, but the treatment of Jews vis a vis prayer on the Temple mount and the treatment that was given to the Western Wall certainly does not absolve Islam and I consider Christianity’s contributions towards Jewish yearning towards Jerusalem to be dubious, previous to 1917.)
Nonetheless Al Quds is not mentioned in the Koran as you asserted and you could at least admit that you made a faulty assertion.
Nonetheless Al Quds is not mentioned in the Koran as you asserted and you could at least admit that you made a faulty assertion.
——————–
Hold your horses for a moment, WJ..
First there was the name Al Aqsa mentioned in the Quran and referred to by the prophet in many of his “ahadeeth”(hadiths), built on a holy place (Qudsi or Muqaddas) which became commonly called Al Quds. To say that the name Al Quds as such is not mentioned in the Qur’an is malicious and misleading because it infers that the place itself where the Alqsa mosque is not mentioned. It’s like saying that Paris was unknown to the Romans when in fact Lutetia, the ancient name of Paris was known to them.
It really boils down to the fact that dishonesty and malice are what the zionists put into their fantastical interpretations in order to whitewash and revise history..It’s a shame to see YOU taking part in it.
And I’ll take it one step further and say that I’m literally blown away by the sheer dishonesty, deceitfulness and malice the Zionists are happy to embrace in order to justify theft and robbery..A vomit inducing experience I’ve been having on a daily basis and for quite some time..
thankgodimatheist- read mrw’s post
“The only time the Arabs had any interest in Jerusalem was when it wasn’t in their hands and it’s not mentioned a single time in the Koran. ”
Incorrectamundo. It’s called al-Quds. ”
the inference is clear that the name al Quds was in the koran.
it is not.
i’m sorry that you feel that i was inferring that al aqsa doesn’t refer to yerushalayim. i meant to infer nothing of the sort.
if i said yerushalayim is in the book of Deuteronomy i would be wrong. But according to your logic, since it says, “the place that I will choose” and all scholars of Judaism admit that this means Jerusalem which eventually was chosen as the place for the temple, therefore it is accurate to say that Jerusalem is mentioned in Deuteronomy. But in fact it is not mentioned in Deuteronomy and to say that it is, is an inaccuracy. I don’t know why people cannot be accurate and cannot admit when they state something inaccurate. it must be because mrw is an antizionist that he deserves your support for his inaccuracy.
1400 frigging years (at the very least!) of continuous presence in Palestine are all of a sudden suspiciously questioned by some heteroclite group of European extract and descent claiming more than geography itself but also the history!
Chutzpah!
I don’t know why people cannot be accurate and cannot admit when they state something inaccurate.
WJ
————
Maybe because there isn’t a straightforward answer and maybe also no one was prepared to answer such a wicked, maliciously formulated question. Who in his right mind would question the importance of Al Quds to Muslims and why should it matter that it is mentioned as such and not by any other name..? What kind of people are we up against in this conflict? How FAR are they ready to go to justify the unjustifiable? ..It really boggles my mind!
I already lost faith in god and I have the gruesome feeling next in line is humanity itself!
Btw, WJ
Nothing personal. I really think you’re a decent guy..
Finally a big thank you to Julian, eee and UNIX who regularly and systematically, on a daily basis, provide us with a living proof that those whom we are up against are the basest, lowest and most disgusting pieces of trash I’ve ever heard of. And more importantly that our cause is right if ONLY because they’re so bloody wrong!.Thank you guys. A job well done!
>What was grotesque was what the Arabs did to Jewish religious sites in >Jerusalem. Now they want another shot at them?
It is instructive to see what the Israeli authorities did to the Mughrabi Quarter
on the 3rd day after they captured the Old City in 1967:
link to en.wikipedia.org
Is the Mughrabi Quarter a religious site?
Israel had every right to make the place respectable. Instead of criticizing the Arabs that from 1948 to 1967 did not let Jews pray there, you are criticizing Israel. Irrational hatred on display.
Did the Mughrabi Quarter contain any religious sites? None at all?
Israelis have been demolishing homes and mosques pretty much non-stop since 1948.
Exactly!
A comment (Bill Hull) on the above article tells the gist of what’s taking place :
You mean “white,” don’t you?
Israel had every right to make the place respectable.
Yes, we’ve seen how Israel makes places “respectable.”
By putting Museums of Tolerance on Muslim cemeteries.
>Is the Mughrabi Quarter a religious site?
From link to en.wikipedia.org
:
Workers under the guard of soldiers then proceeded to demolish the quarter, consisting of 135 houses, the al-Buraq mosque, the Bou Medyan zaouia and other sites, with the exception of a mosque and a zaouia which were demolished two years later.
As far as I remember, the quarter and the mosque were from Saladin’s time.
As an antidote to the false hasbara (is that a redundancy?) that has been floating around, here is an except from an authoritative report by the Arab Association for Human Rights, an Israeli NGO, on Israeli desecration of non-Jewish religious sites:
On the Margins: Chapter Six, Violations of Relgious Rights
The entire Report is a good source on the institutionalized discrimination faced by the Palestinian minority within the green line, or Israel proper. This is the discrimination that pervades Israel against its own citizens and a good illustration of why Israel being a” Jewish state”, rather than a state of all its citizens, is so wrong.
The Full Report is available here:
On The Margins
More building on cemetaries.
link to desertpeace.wordpress.com
Yes RoHa..I posted the same link somewhere up or down here..It’s a pity we can’t post photos on this comments system as it is possible on ECHO(JS.Kit)
Missed it. Rather a lot of stuff in here. Still, a little repetition will do no harm.
(A lot of repetition gets tedious. That’s why I skip eee and UNIX.)
Looking for mention of the Vatican in the Bible.
Looking, looking, looking……nope. Looks like its not a Holy place. Maybe its up for grabs Elie.
Good one Brewer!
Walid Khalidi speech to U.N. on status of Jerusalem:
link to sabbah.biz
The point about Jerusalem as special to Jews says nothing about whether or not it is also special to other faiths.
Its just a truth. To engage in reactionary suppositions that Jews should somehow abandon that sympathy, that sensitivity is a suppression, not a democracy.
To have sympathy does not necessitate control, so long as the alternatives allow full access. The forced separation from the wailing wall, from Hebron, from Safed, from many other sites in the West Bank and elsewhere, galls Jews.
It lends hypocrisy to the assertion of Islamic rulers as considerate and tolerant. And, it lends hypocrisy to the assertion that Islam compels the protection, sanctuary of Jews, and honors their faith.
When there is abuse one way, there will be abuse in response.
Better to work NOW to stop the cycle of abuse. If there is a means to allow Jerusalem to be a city of international access, safely, lets do it.
If there isn’t, then the least worst alternative is the best one.
The theme, “its our land exclusively”, stated by Israelis is false, stated by Palestinians is false.
False presently, false historically. False in 2010, false in 1948, whether stated by Israelis or Palestinians.
Division is an arrangement, not a right. It is the best arrangement, given the hatred expressed.
“‘The point about Jerusalem as special to Jews says nothing about whether or not it is also special to other faiths.”‘
You’re lying Witty.
If it is special to other faiths, then there should be no necesasity to mentino it’s obvious importance to Judaism unless you subscribe to Wiesel’s belief that Judaism has a unique claim to it.
“Better to work NOW to stop the cycle of abuse.”‘
Yes, after 40 years, and only now that the world is suggesting Jeruslame shoudl be shared do you agree that the cycle of abuse should end.
It is obviously special to other faiths.
And, solutions that make it available to other faiths should be constructed. Before the 67 war, Jews were prohibited from their shrines in Jerusalem, Hebron. It is a truth. (Yes, there were still a couple hundred Jews in the old city of Jerusalem, that occassionally waded through the intentionally sited dump to pray at the wall.)
Its not a good precedent. It doesn’t demonstrate Islamic magnamity. Other historical events do, but recent history doesn’t.
So Israel has set good precedent?
Of course not. But, Palestinian resistance has not either, nor Palestinian solidarity.
Something knew is needed than either/or.
Why do you speak of Palestinian solidarity in negative terms, while you celebrate Zionism as a “positive” and as a “good?”
Be specific, please.
I speak of harrassing and dismissing Palestinian solidarity in negative terms for the insensitivity to the experience, history, politics, future of the other.
That they rationalize that only their concerns are worthy of consideration, and undertake no obvious design efforts to realize a common good, but only the good for their side.
Liberal Zionism I know well does listen to the needs, history, concerns of Palestinians and seeks a mutually helpful outcome, more than mutually accepting even.
The psychological shift for Palestinians of prospectively achieving self-governance (only possible in a two-state approach currently) is similar to the liberatory experience that Zionists felt. It deserves encouragement, but vengeance with terror as its precedent is not it.
Actually, I find that much of what is expressed as Palestinian solidarity similarly ignores the good of the Palestinians as individuals or as a people.
Its a disaster when insensitive.
Its just a car careening downhill, not capable of avoiding running over raccoons, deer, moose (a moose collision kills the driver and mains the moose).
So Zionism can be liberal and “democratic,” (another favorite word of yours), but Palestinian liberation movement is dismissing of others needs, history and future?
Zionism is not dismissing of others, exclusive? After all it is about JEWS, and that leaves a lot of people out.
And when exactly did “liberal” Zionism come about? After they had the upper hand and had the situation in control on the ground, and their boots on Palestinian necks?
Why do you believe in the goodness of your people and look for evil in others? And while you are suggesting that there are different ideologies within Zionism, “liberal” being the most kind, I suppose, you are implying that Palestinian solidarity movement does not have different political distinctions.
Palestinian liberation movement need not dismiss others needs. Those that post here, seem to.
There certainly is variety, but too many dismiss and ridicule instead of dialog, inquire, respectfully respond to points made.
Liberal Zionism was in its heyday, relative to the Palestinian issue from the early 80′s through to Oslo, when Peace Now attracted a couple hundred thousand people to its demonstrations.
Even after the first intifada, liberal Zionism grew in popularity and scope of perspectives. It had a lot to learn of unpleasant elements of Zionist history, which it has now largely.
It took the Goldstein massacre in Hebron, the assassination of Rabin, the Hamas and other terror assaults, to shift the prevailing Israeli consciousness to the right, to the sense that it was impossible to reconcile.
There are four possible status’ between the two peoples:
1. Active war
2. Low level suppression/irritation/periodic war (the current)
3. Two states reconciling as good neighbors
4. Single state (a fantasy that would result in 1, if not preceeded by active organizing for integration and civilist non-nationalist parties. As the advocates for single-state originate in and support Palestinian nationalism, the prerequisite to what they say they want doesn’t occur. It is the oppossite of BDS, active integration efforts.)
I’ve seen goodness in a few dozen very respectable and considerate Palestinians that I’ve met. I was a study partner with a Palestinian student in one class at business school, who was a wonderful man, whom I got to know fairly well. We did not talk politics ever. And, I’ve met people like Ed Said, and a few dozen others that have made presentations for peace publicly, under some threat for their shifts to reconciliation from active resistance.
And, I’ve seen abusive Palestinians more often, sadly. I’m sure privately they are variable, some warm some cold. Politically, the raging at real people in front of them was disparaging. I have similar feelings of disparagement when Zionists assault others verbally, and I have been personally threatened by some as well.
I find the threatening approaches to be detrimental to anyone’s welfare, and usually an admission of failure of commitment to adopt “by any means necessary” if that requires cool-headedness and consideration of the other.
“I have similar feelings of disparagement when Zionists assault others verbally,”
Zionists have done more than assault others verbally. They have killed in the thousands. Children, women, the old. You would do well to remember that.
Richard, the Palestinians you met and deemed “good” must have felt very honored to be so judged by a man of your discernment and moral stature. One can only hope the abusive ones learned of the error of their ways when they realized how saddened you were by their behavior.
I expect they felt uncomfortable presenting in a foreign world. I expect that they felt encouraged by my public and personal comments, to be their best possible human and to not forget their experience so that they can honestly convey it, so that peace can actually be pursued.
You are taking the low road on this ridicule Donald.
Oh, piss off. You’ve been going around screaming “Fascist” and “Maximalist!” and “Child!” and the like, and you have the gall to accuse Donald of ridiculing you?
You’re the perfect avatar of Zionism, Witty: aggressive, wearing a pretense of victimhood, and phony to the core.
Richard Habibi, I’ve seen you mention this a few times, and now must call you on it. I have not seen evidence that the “one country solution” (country, not state, as state is treif) originates in “Palestinian nationalism.” Leaving aside the Zionist one state or the Hamas imagined Islamic state, the forward thinking ideas on the one country come from a variety of individuals including as many Israelis as Palestinians. And so many of the Palestinians are “rootless cosmopolitans” now. Nationalism is passe and so yesterday, like Zionism. In this vision not only will Palestinians have a full and unconditional right to return but Jews will have the right to live anywhere between the sea and the river. At peace with their neighbors, they will also have the right to live anywhere from Morocco to Iran. Try it. You’ll like it.
“Wiesel to Obama: Laissez les bons temps rouler a Jerusalem” (let the good times roll in Jerusalem)
—————————
Shouldn’t that be “Laissez les BULLDOZERS rouler a Jerusalem”?
“It lends hypocrisy to the assertion of Islamic rulers as considerate and tolerant. And, it lends hypocrisy to the assertion that Islam compels the protection, sanctuary of Jews, and honors their faith.”
Maybe they’re getting tired of the dish of ingratitude served up by people like Witty. After all it was Muslims who rescued them from the Sassinids in 614
Then came the Crusaders in 1099, slaughtering Jews and Moslems alike. Again the Moslems came to the rescue:
Tired.
Yes, they are human. Human deserving sympathy and humanly fallible.
The problem continually is looking to the past, rather than from the present to the future.
Rather than co-create our world, requiring communication, requiring enough respect to listen to each other, rejection is promoted by those that present themselves as Palestinian advocates.
For example, to me, a person that sincerely desires to both speak truth (even uncomfortable truth) but also to avoid racism towards Muslims, there is the opportunity to calmly state, “I understand that you are trying to be humane, but that comment offended me, and this is why”.
Similarly, when Jewish individuals state that about the tone of solidarity dissent, it should be respected even if disagreed with, or that solidarity has other disclosed priorities.
To FAIL to find a humane way to dissent is EQUALLY racist and the oppossite of progressive as for Israel to fail to find a humane way to defend and assert itself.
The humane characteristic is the most important one. The right answer (whomevers) is sincerely not enough to change the world.
Why do you constantly ignore the content of people’s posts, Witty?
I responded to the gist which was summarized in the first line.
There certainly have been times when certain Muslims have offered Jews shelter (but as dhimmis, with tax obligations and lower than peer status). And, it is also true that in many locales where one Muslim ruler offered Jews sanctuary, that sanctuary was removed 100 years later, not for cause, except to firm up the new ruler’s power.
Zionism is different than that.
When confronted with the accusation (mine), that “you are not fuflilling the Torah commandment to honor the stranger”, many right-wing neo-religious state “we don’t control the territory yet, they are currently warring with us, not living with us as our guests”.
Its a stupid rationalization for treating people cruelly. You will hear it, a rationalization to avoid a primary responsibility for something very secondary.
The same occurs in many Muslim applications of affording Jews’ sanctuary. There is content in Koran that justifies abuse of Jews, and there is content in Koran that compels hospitality.
It creates a setting that is far less than fully confident, far less than fully applied.
I went through the only period of Israeli-Palestinian ‘peace hope’ that’s ever been known, from 1993 (Oslo) to 1996 (Netanyahu). The feeling was there, on both sides; this time it might work; everyone was very optimistic and hopeful, and restrictions and attitudes were relaxed on both sides of the Jordan/Israel border.
It wasn’t to last; in 1995 Israeli rightists murdered Yitzhak Rabin, and the next year elected Netanyahu. That was it; peace finished.
Try listening to Michel Warshawski at:
link to therealnews.com
The symbolic value of Jerusalem existed before. And there were huge pilgrimages to Jerusalem of Jews before ’67 to West Jerusalem, which creates a problem for the ministry of cults, of religions, because there was no holy site whatsoever. So they invented one. One of the biggest jokes of Jerusalem was the Tomb of David on Mount Zion. And I was part of tens of thousands of people coming in the summer [inaudible] in the summer, tens of thousands praying at King David grave. The day after Israel occupied eastern Jerusalem, there was no King David and no grave anymore, because everyone knew that King David was buried far away in Silwan, not at all there. But they need a fake holy site to concretize the myth of Jerusalem: we are coming back to our roots. Our roots are not Tel Aviv. Our roots are not Beersheba. Our roots are Jerusalem, the kingdom of David.
“I went through the only period of Israeli-Palestinian ‘peace hope’ that’s ever been known, from 1993 (Oslo) to 1996 (Netanyahu).”
Time to restore it. The tangible questions are only slightly more complex than then.
How we speak about these issues affects the prospects. Israelis had hope because Arafat indicated clearly, “we’re committed to a new relationship”, though MANY doubted him. Palestinians were hopeful because they experienced similarly.
You conspicuously left out the escalation of terror by Hamas and other factions as a contributor to the breakdown of hope in that exact same time period.
As I said, the fanatics on both sides preferred a state of revolutionary chaos, for their opportunistic and brutal efforts to build street-cred.
“Ironically” from that quote, you derive only the “fake holy site”, and not the reality that Jews DO have historical sentiments for the old city of Jerusalem and surrounding sites.
Its just ignorance to claim that Jews have no permanent and long-held historical sentiment to Jerusalem.
It is part of the effort to erase Judaism from the record. It is a contributing factor to Jews that only slightly exagerate that those in Christian and Muslim countries that speak in those terms, figuratively seek to continue the “final solution”, the erasure.
You Zionists have been trying to erase Islam from Jerusalem. How many times have we heard advocates of Zionism repeat the lie that Jerusalem is not mentioned in the Qu’ran?
You can’t keep trumping up an imaginary purge of Judaism from the Middle East when Israel has been engaged in an actual purge of non-Jews.
Today was the first time that I heard it.
Jews don’t generally do not deny that the Dome of the Rock and the Al Aqsa Mosque are ancient, historical.
But, many Islamic advocates assert that there never was a Jewish presence in Israel, that is was made up by Zionists.
Its laughable if it wasn’t also so hateful.
Witty, let’s have some pilpul fun:
Since you agree there was a strong muslim presence in Jerusalem since ancient times, and we all agree there was a strong jewish presence in jerusalem since ancient times, then the only two remaining questions are:
1. How far back do we need to go to make one ‘ancient” more valid than another? ie, if antiquity is the measure of ownership, how do we measure it exactly and by what yard stick? proven chronology? by subjective years?
2. How strong is strong enough? ie if strength of attachment is the bond that binds, how is it measured?
To complicate the measurement process, there are three more complicating factors:
A. Since god is said to have banished the jews from jerusalem at least twice for their sins, is there an expiration date is on “sins”, and does the nature of the “sin” affect both strength and antiquity of the bond? or, to make it simpler: does time alone expunge “sin” through greater yearning and deep repentence?
B. Can the “jews” who are now laying claims to greater jerusalem be said to be the true descendents of the jews of antiquity? can the palestinians be the closer descendents of the biblical jews, and how do we know who is who, short of absolute genetic proof?
C. Just exactly how is one to be cleansed of the original sins that caused the expulsions in the first place? through millenia-worth of staying power, through prayer and talmudic/koranic editorializing? or through self-control of the natural hubris that comes with conquest?
As you see, Witty, what we have here is a highly non-linear process, all wrapped up onto itself in search of its own, ever elusive Golden Rule.
Can you think yourself out of the conundrum, or would you like me to help?
Hint: I know the answer(s) but the proof requires a 6 dimesional abacus… if I lend you two of my extra dimensions, that may still leave me with enough to keep me busy this week-end. Just ask.
I’m nearly out the door for a few days, but both Parker and Witty are wrong on the period of “hope” during Oslo. What precipitated the second intifada was the WORSENING conditions for Palestinians during the period. This was the start of a system of closures and permits, restricting the Palestinians right of movement within the OT. Amira Hass had a very detailed report about this policy during Oslo. At the moment I’ve only been able to find it here, where only the first page is free, but when I get back I can try to find a free source.
As for the trail of terror, one of the first terror incidents during Oslo was the massacre in Hebron committed by Baruch Goldstein, who was lionized by a portion of Israeli society. There were a few car bombings in Jerusalem, perhaps 2 or 3 during the span of several years ( and one in November 2000), but the first suicide bombing didn’t occur until February of 2001, months after Sharon stood on the Temple Mount and declared Jerusalem the undivided city of Israel and sparked the second intifada in late September 2001. Israel had already killed hundreds of Palestinians, firing over a million bullets in October 2000 alone, and surrounding most of the larger Palestinian cities and towns with tanks, while instituting a very repressive and extended closure and checkpoint policy.
Here’s a timeline from 2000 from the UK Guardian:
link to guardian.co.uk
And here’s the timeline for 2001:
link to guardian.co.uk
Suicide bombing started AFTER Israel violently cracked down on the OT after the start of the second intifada , not before, despite Witty’s “memory” of events. The death toll at the end of 2000 was over 300 Palestinians, with the toll for Israelis less than a tenth of that.
messed up the link for the Amira Hass piece about Israel tightening restrictions on the Palestinians during the Oslo period.
Here it is:
link to jstor.org
Bye, all. See ya next week.
Well, miss you, tree. Your commentary here is incredibly valuable. Pretty please hurry back. ;)
link to en.wikipedia.org
Hamas terror definitely ramped up after the 2nd intifada, which radically contributed to the right-ward electoral results in Israel.
The mode of suicide bombing however, started in the 90′s, timed to disrupt efforts at Israeli/Palestinian reconciliation.
Do you believe that they had valid reason for this effort?
The record indicates that Fatah was responsible for a large number of the bombings even after signing the Oslo accords.
A difficult dilemma.
This is typical–tree types up a detailed post with links accurately describing when Hamas began suicide bombing and the acts of Israeli violence which preceded it and how does Witty respond? He completely ignores the Israeli component, and repeats that Hamas suicide bombing led to a rightward shift in Israeli politics.
The latter point is doubtless correct and Hamas’s terrorist attacks were both immoral and stupid, but once again Witty totally ignores the Israeli violence which preceded it (and in the 2nd intifada it was on a much larger scale).
It happens over and over again. It’s irritating to us and makes Witty a troll, but it’s also interesting, because it is no doubt how many “liberal” Zionists see the situation. The narcissism prevents them from seeing their own violence and how it feeds Hamas violence–they prefer only to tell a story where Hamas violence causes Israelis to swing right and leave it at that.
What the hell, Witty? You didn’t even read what tree wrote, did you? About what was the precursor to the suicide bombings?
Fuck no, huh. You don’t want to sully your so-called emotional detachment. Which of course is a farce — all you care about is making Israel out to be the victim when it is Israel who is responsible for most of the bloodshed.
link to huffingtonpost.com
You can keep ignoring the links the rest of us post, but the rest of the reading audience isn’t. You expose yourself as a fraud, each and every time.
You mean besides the fact that Israelis were rushing to colonize Palestinian land, and confiscations spiked dramatically, during and after Oslo?
And then of course, there was Ariel Sharon standing in the al-Aqsa mosque, surrounded by security forces, exclaiming, “Everything I see from here, belongs to the Jewish state, now and forever.”
100 suicide bombings a year to protect a couple square miles of land in question?
How many eyes for eyes is that?
Yes an insult, a walk with security forces after requesting and receiving permission from the Mosque’s religious authorities.
He certainly abused it.
How many deaths ONLY directed at civilians?
Get human Chaos. It does not deserve encouragement.
Over a hundred children murdered per week. How many eyes for eyes was that for?
Five hundred Palestinian villages, 750,000 people lost their homes. And in that case no Israeli eyes had been put out at all beforehand.
Anyway, Witty, your full of shit, and something worse.
I posted statistical data that shows that ISRAELIS FIRE FIRST, the vast majority of the time.
I posted pictures that show what Israelis do and there is NOTHING that Palestinians have ever done to your people that even compares to that magnitude of death, destruction and attacks on human decency for the sheer motivation of making one’s perceived enemies suffer.
You’re nothing but a pro-Israeli partisan hack making excuses so that your extremist faction of Judaism — your children, I predict — can go right on slaughtering Palestinians, taking their land and suffering no justice for the crime.
You don’t even care about AMERICAN interests, about the safety and security of the United States, where it conflicts with your ugly Zionist dream of blood and ash.
Donald,
Did you bother to read the list of bombings.
Tree’s post asserted that bombings started in 2000, when they started in 1993.
The second intifada was scary to Israelis. It did signal that the Palestinians had lost their tether, and undertook measures that they thought would protect Israeli civilians.
Its not unlike Gaza in 2008, or Gaza/Lebanon in 2006.
Terror on civilians is taboo in the modern and all worlds. It is not rationalizable.
Don’t you dare fucking call me inhuman, either. You’re the one trodding upon charred corpses of children without trifling to look down.
Who died in greater numbers, Witty? Palestinians, or Israelis?
Apology for terror is inhuman.
If you didn’t apologize for, advocate for, encourage, terror, be have enough backbone to say that.
If you did apologize for terror in any form, be honest enough to state that overtly.
Both died too many.
That is my point, to stop the escalation, to acknowledge, “yes, this was wrong AND that was wrong”, rather than continuing the childish “its your fault”.
There is no starting point, no first insult. Its a cycle
For the record, I don’t believe that it is wrong for Israel to undertake martial law in the territories to protect Israeli civilians during times of violence.
Sorry.
Says the hypocrite who claims that the King David Hotel bombing was “a legitimate act.” Says the greedy green-eyed man who thinks its “fair” and “just” when an Ashkenazim government strips land “legally” from an occupied population living behind barbed wire and concrete walls and doles it out to Jews alone — that is actual fascism, incidentally, not any protest movement against it.
Says the man who believes Israel was justified to drop bombs and white phosphorous on Gaza and won’t even give the victims the dignity of his attention.
You are the terrorist, Witty. Zionism has always been a terrorist movement, from the first honest Jew you assassinated to strike fear into the hearts of your fellow Jews.
And that’s not even counting the millions of Palestinians you’ve terrorized.
If Goering said he was sorry, would you have accepted his apology?
The idiocy of this repetitition is that it does NOTHING to help the Palestinians. The opposite. It keeps the state of relations at danger zone, which requires things like closure of borders and checkpoints for the IDF to fulfill its responsibilities to Israeli citizens to protect them from external assault.
Hotheads over decades.
As I said, radicalism is a temporary state. It either morphs into productive work, or fascism (calling itself progressive, as fascists did in Italy in the late 20′s).
You’re only willing to speak in absolute numerical terms when we’re talking about Palestinian crimes, and then you become vague and philosophical when it’s time to talk about crimes by Israel.
You are racist and hypocritical. Every time.
I didn’t say I was sorry in the sense of apologizing for actions. I said I was sorry in the sense of “you won’t get you want from me”.
Martial law is not unjust in the circumstances of violent uprising.
You’re the fascist, Witty. YOU are. You’re the one who believes that its perfectly legal for a government run by Jews to take land from non-Jews and give it only to Jews.
Don’t think you can win this debate by corrupting and subverting the basic definitions of words. That just reveals you for the con man you are.
A misrepresentation again.
You are bottom feeding.
If you really believed that, then Israel wouldn’t exist because the British, the Palestinians and the Arabs would have treated Zionist militants exactly like the Zionists-cum-Israelis treat Palestinians NOW.
See? And that’s what you are. Strip away the false rhetoric, the lies, the propaganda, and that’s all you really are, Witty.
A schoolyard bully who persisted in to middle aged mediocrity.
Speaking of fascism.
link to haaretz.com
It’s funny, I’ve yet to see you reconcile the contrived talking-points spewed forth by those Zionist cults, in preparation for the BDS debate with all the endless clap-trap you write about the Palestinians and their supporters.
The only reason your side has been winning is because of money/guns/influence. Not because of truth. It’s not like truth matters to politicians. And it’s not like the media’s first and foremost goal is to report the truth.
“Tree’s post asserted that bombings started in 2000, when they started in 1993.”
You’re right–I misread tree. I thought she acknowledged the suicide bombings of the 90′s but rereading her post she understates the violence then. I fully agree that Hamas (and some other Palestinian factions) had a terrible record of atrocities against Israeli civilians and this is not justifiable.
She is right about the 2nd intifada, however. The relative death toll before the suicide bombings began was 10 to 1–afterwards, the suicide bombings in all their horror still left the relative death toll as 3 Palestinians for each Israeli. This obviously doesn’t matter to you, as you totally ignored her point. You have never done what I just did and condemned Israeli violence against civilians in a forthright way–it’s always weasel words. For you it is Hamas violence, followed by Israelis understandably shifting rightwards. And further on you justify Israeli martial law, never asking yourself what corresponding action Palestinians or their supporters should take to protect Palestinian civilians from the constant daily brutality of the occupation, let alone the larger atrocities that Israel commits.
I would suggest a total ban on weapons imports or anything security related into Israel.
In an environment of multiple suicide bombings directed at civilians, martial law is a moderate response.
Again and again, it should be obvious by now that whenever there is violent uprising, that Israel cracks down and that that stops any improvement to Palestinian well-being.
It is past the communication phase, the bringing attention to the problem phase. Suicide bombings are at the repeated trauma phase, exhibiting and evoking the mind-numbing, reptilian rage phase.
Its a curse on all of humanity, invoking that degree of rage. There is no humane justification for it in the universe.
I have nothing to do with anybody’s talking points. I’ve never seen them, read them, heard them.
ALL of my comments are my own thinking, period.
Your dismissal of information is astounding. An intellectual can read sources that are not considered complete, but still derive important information, even judgement from them.
The dismissal of information is cultish, true.
How about an environment of home demolitions, property seizures, bulldozing as “punitive action,” extracting natural resources such as water from occupied territory, organized pogroms by settlers shielded by military personnel, government subsidized population transfer, and Jews-only roadways?
How come you don’t care what happens to the Palestinians? They’ve been living under those conditions for DECADES. Seriously, did you think none of that happened until after the first errant suicide bombing?
You seek to legitimize state terror against the Palestinians. Don’t call anyone else the terrorist when YOU are the one trying to nail the false appellation “martial law” to it.
I hope the IRS audits you some day. I really do. I have to assume this delusion of yours is so pervasive that it extends into other facets of your life.
“Martial law is not unjust in the circumstances of violent uprising.”
The violent uprising is against Israeli apartheid. This is exactly as though a Mafia crimelord started extorting money from the local neighborhood, beating and killing some of the residents. Some in the neighborhood then react violently, and even start taking potshots at the crimelord’s own children. He then really cracks down and along comes Richard Witty, grandly proclaiming that the crimelord has the right to impose martial law.
“I didn’t say I was sorry in the sense of apologizing for actions. I said I was sorry in the sense of “you won’t get you want from me”.”
I’ve gone back and forth on this and Shmuel is right–RW is a troll. There’s no give and take with him. I had to come back and correct one of my own mistakes just now, where I sounded like I was downplaying Hamas atrocities in the 90′s and that was my mistake, but none of us will ever see Witty confessing that he has downplayed Israeli atrocities–if he can’t blame them on the Israeli right, they must be justifiable. For him the moral question always comes back to how some Palestinian faction triggers an Israeli move to the right, and there is never any blame to be placed on the Zionist mainstream. This is the difference between RW and WJ–with WJ there is the possibility of give and take, where he may acknowledge your points while still making his. This doesn’t happen with RW.
Most of the time he should simply be ignored. Not 100 percent of the time–he makes legitimate points too, sometimes, but he’s not going to acknowledge any that go against his beliefs. And there are plenty of opportunities to supply links and make valid arguments without interacting with someone who ignores facts he doesn’t like. Whether I can stick to this policy is another question, but I’ll give it another shot.
Actually, I answer your questions, and I continue to disagree.
I don’t believe that Israel is fundamentally oppressor, but fundamentally in conflict.
I don’t believe that there is any apology for Hamas terror.
I believe that the IDF has a responsibility to protect Israeli civilians. If the relationship is an administrative occupation, then Israel is required by international law to maintain order in the territories. (Or did you miss that part of the Geneva documents?)
It is a rock and hard place, firmed up as that, rather than creatively structured to actually change.
Same relations over and over and over and over.
Donald,
A recommendation.
Be clear about what it is that you are asking me to consider, what specific question, so that I can address it specifically and clearly.
An accusation about an incident is not really a substantive question, as it usually hides the substantive question.
For me, the question of who is to blame in a yelling match that has escalated over 90 years, is irrelevant and impossible. You can’t say “he started it, or no he started it”.
So, I don’t see the point.
The questions I would ask of each are:
“Was that really necessary? Isn’t that escalatory?” with the goal of deescalating.
“Be clear about what it is that you are asking me to consider, what specific question, so that I can address it specifically and clearly”
There is a certain comic value in having you around. Anyway, been there, tried that, and so have others. Doesn’t work.
I’d be fine in an IRS audit.
That you speak of threat at all, is idiotic, one example of the stacked deck between those that are responsible enough to use their own names in presentations, versus those that hide behind anonymity.
Witty: “You conspicuously left out the escalation of terror by Hamas and other factions as a contributor to the breakdown of hope in that exact same time period.”
Please give me some genuine instances of the ‘escalation’ of terror during that time period.
There may have been a continuance of (some) very public suicide bombings, because many Palestinians didn’t trust Israelis (with good reason) and continued to fight, in the only way they could.
But you should also give a rationale about exactly why some individuals would voluntarily give up their lives while all around them was supposedly peace and light.
That didn’t actually happen, and my short-sight through the ‘Peace Glasses’ led me to describe it as a ‘Peace Interval’.
The suicide bombings were timed to disrupt efforts at reconciliation. I don’t have dates and sequences, only memory and impressions.
Hamas particularly led them. They always stated some cause.
I don’t believe that distrust is a just basis for mass murder, do you?
I think you accurately describe the willingness to kill and to be killed, rather than the reluctance to, individually and culturally.
I spoke of the contrast between the New Hampshire state slogan of “Live free or die”, and the Vermont (across the 30 yard wide Connecticut River), “Live free and prosper”.
You remind of the New Hampshire slogan. Bold, intense, fanatic.
I’m more of a Vermonter.
You’re an ass.
There’s Witty’s fantasy world, and then there’s statistical fact.
link to huffingtonpost.com
Witty, you conspicuously avoided answering my question:
Please give me some genuine instances of the ‘escalation’ of terror during that time period.
Your only reply was The suicide bombings were timed to disrupt efforts at reconciliation. I don’t have dates and sequences, only memory and impressions.
Hamas particularly led them. They always stated some cause
In other words, you have absolutely no evidence for:
1) Any escalation of suicide bombings by Hamas during 1993-6
(Memory and impressions don’t hold up in court – do some homework).
2) Do you have any evidence at all that suicide bombings were planned to disrupt efforts at reconciliation? I can cite you a few assassinations, incursions, night raids, etc, that were undertaken by the Israelis for just this purpose.
3)Hamas particularly led them. Any evidence of this?
The 2nd Intifada began 4 years after this period, after Ariel Sharon’s disgusting pantomime performance at Haram al Sharif. The immediate repression by the Israelis brought out all guns blazing.
Correction: Ariel Sharon went up to the Temple Mount. This is the most holy site in Judaism. It is illegal for Jews to pray at their most holy site at this time.
It is the right of every Jew to visit their most holy place.
And what of the right of every Palestinian to visit the Mosques and graves of their forebears?
‘Jerusalem was founded by Melchizedek in 2000 BC and was intended as a sanctuary for all who worshipped God Most High, without insistence that He be known by the name ‘Yahweh’, even though that name was already in use. Throughout most, though not all, of its history ever since the city has been a place in which different forms of religion are practised and people of different races are present. To give this history the respect it deserves all people who worship God Most High, under whatever name, should be treated as citizens with equal rights in the city within whatever boundaries it assumes from time to time. This includes the Palestinians of today.’
This is not entirely what I believe, but supposing I said it in reply to Wiesel what would make his story superior? It’s rather too uncritical, but then so is his. If you say that ancient history is irrelevant to today’s problems then that saying applies to ancient history in all versions.
I don’t know where you got your reference to Melchizedek from, but I believe that it was little David who took the city from the Jebusites, who for long after continued to dominate the Jewish priesthood under the name of Zadok, the god of the Jebusites.
There is absolutely no archaeological evidence of little David, or of Solomon. And not a trace of either’s kingdom or empire.
Melchizedek, King of Jerusalem and priest of God Most High, El Elyon, appears in Gen.xiv 18. Abraham pays taxes to him, treating him as sovereign over the region in general. I believe that Jewish tradition makes M the actual founder of Jerusalem, though the Muslims nominate someone else. A King of Jerusalem appears, I understand, in the Amarna letters of c.1350, so perhaps the city, though not rich or extensive, was politically valuable in later days because its ruler was traditionally recognised as a fairly senior king.
I think that the Abraham stories are part of the late layers of Biblical writing, but it’s possible (likely?) that there was some genuine record of a religion of (even a temple of) God Most High where things were more relaxed than they were to be in the stern days of Nehemiah.
I agree that beyond the Tel Dan evidence, which is quite slight, we have no independent record of David or Solomon.
According to one Jewish tradition (Talmud,Tr. Nedarim), Melchizedek was none other than Shem, son of Noah. In the Bible, Melchizedek is referred to as the king of Salem (Shalem), which another tradition (Onkelos) identifies with Jerusalem. It is the first reference to Jerusalem (well, sort of) in the Bible, although I am not familiar with any tradition that names Melchizedek as the founder of the city. Jewish tradition also identifies the site of the “binding of Isaac” (“one of the mountains” in “the land of Moriah”) with Jerusalem, yet the impression given by the Bible is of an uninhabited area.
Something to keep in mind when considering Jewish legends – biblical and especially extra-biblical – is that there are many parallel and even contradictory traditions (due to various historical and methodological causes, discussed eg. by Prof. Umberto Cassuto and more recently by Zakovitch and Shinan and many others), rather than a single, coherent narrative.
“Something to keep in mind when considering Jewish legends – biblical and especially extra-biblical – is that there are many parallel and even contradictory traditions”
Say what?!? Where the hell do you get that? Why, a statement like that could only spring from the poisonous wellsprings of anti-Semitism! Once again, Shmuel, you have trotted out the blood libel that Jews are pretty much like other people, and Judaism much like other religions! How dare you!!
Guilty as charged, Mooser. That must be why I’m on The S. List, and why my dear brother-in-law once told me that I will hang one day, along with all the other Jewish traitors – but not to worry, because we will be given fair trials.
Thank you all for proving the elite concept of confounding religious hog wash with actual land, and any acts for acquiring the divine deed. Anyone who believes any of this is just putty in the hands of the few who employ it, lets all worship the deities of genocide. Perhaps the earth will than be cleansed of humanity and get on to the next phase.
- from “The rape of Dulcinea” by Israel Shamir.
The spam control forbids me to post a link. A search should throw the full article up.
Anti-semites call Elie Wiesel these horrible things
Bugger it. The piece is so good I’m gonna paste some more:
At the risk of banishment, here is some more from Shamir’s essay:
I have cited Abunimah’s letter about Shamir before. This is what Jeff Halper, Lea Tsemel and Michale Warschawski had to say about Shamir (from Tony Greenstein’s blog):
Despite my admiration for Jeff Halper, I disagree with his ad hominem against Shamir and, in any case, fail to see what relevance it has to the merit of Shamir’s beautifully crafted and witty essay – an essay that displays none of the characteristics Halper attributes to Shamir. On the contrary, “The rape of Dulcinea” pokes nothing but the gentlest of fun at Wiesel yet manages to expose the fallacy of applying “ownership” (in the physical sense) to what is a spiritual asset.
Shamir’s work is highly nuanced and draws on his vast knowledge of both the Judaic and Christian traditions. He is possessed of a formidable and fearless intellect that is often mistaken for iconoclastic. He wrote a rebuttal of Halper’s criticism which I will try to locate and post.
Meantime, why not simply enjoy the essay?
Brewer,
I followed Shamir from the very beginning (on the Al-Awda listserve), and enjoyed his essays until they took a decidedly racist turn. The change in his work created quite a stir in the pro-Palestinian community, and it was at about that time that Abunimah and Ibish published their letter about him, distancing themselves from Shamir and stating that some of the positions he had taken were detrimental to the Palestinian cause. This view was shared by many – Palestinian and non – including Halper, Tsemel and Warschawski, whose intelligence and commitment (like that of Abunimah) are beyond reproach. I too believe that Shamir’s involvement in pro-Palestinian activism is extremely detrimental, and would avoid citing anything he has written.
For Jerusalem, a response to Elie Wiesel
By Yossi Sarid
link to haaretz.com
I think both the reactive respondents here and Yossi Sarid got Elie Wiesel’s comments innacurately. I don’t believe that in describing “Jerusalem is above politics”, he is speaking of Jewish exclusivity, but the oppossite. I doubt he means an open international city, for all the dangers that that entails, as well as making impossible for West Jerusalem to be Israel’s capital and East Jerusalem to be Palestine’s.
I think he attempting to invoke, the “lets work it out” theme. I hope that is what he is saying.
ANY of the proposals for Jerusalem, international city, green line with right of transportation from Palestine to Israel, and Israeli to Palestine, require willingness to live and let live.
And, that requires that tensions relax in favor of current efforts at integration and relationship-building, in direct contrast to BDS which is isolating.
In my morning walk I was thinking about Jewish proponents of BDS, and their failure to acknowledge that that they are part of a coalition that includes those that seek the destruction of Israel, and also their failure of the relative extent of power that they have in the movement compared to affiliates with Hamas and other militant current supporters of BDS.
Hamas is more adept at politics than Naomi Klein, Lynn Gottlieb. Hamas has won elections, has won street fights for their opportunity. Naomi Klein hasn’t. Noam Chomsky (84 years old) hasn’t. Norman Finkelstein hasn’t.
Who knows at all what they are committed to anyway.
“‘Who knows at all what they are committed to anyway. “‘
And even if we do, let’s pretend unless it can be used in a negative ligth.
It is important to know what the movement ACTUALLY is, rather than what it presents.
Anti-Zionist or for reform?
If it were accurate and known that BDS represented a attempt to “remove Israel from the map” by some application of force, prospectively indirectly controlled by former advocates of intimate terror, would the Berkeley divestment movement has achieved a majority?
Its a functional question. I doubt that Chomsky or Klein supported suicide bombings directed solely at civilians in Tel Aviv or Jerusalem. But, many of the vanguard that they defer to, do or did.
Its a dilemma in all politics. Once one has any power the range of responsibility shifts from one’s own personal witness to the effects of the movement as a whole.
Will Naomi Klein accept personal responsibility, to the extent to make it right, if/when the BDS goes more maximalist, more arbitrary, more fascistic? Or, will she go denial. “I was just an individual, not a public figure, not in any position of responsibility.”
If it starts to veer to a more fascistic approach, will she, Chomsky, others actually OPPOSE that, or even end up opposing the movement?
Or, would they prefer to protect their reputations?
With you RW, like with all Zionists, it is always the argument of “what is coming – what it might be – what it could turn into – where it might eventually go,” etc. In the meantime for over sixty years there has been ethnic cleansing that the Israelis have committed, house demolitions, killing on a systemic level, wholesale theft, and a veritably fascist government elected by the majority of the people (and totally fascist activity against the Palestinians no matter who has been in government over these many years).
Students act fearful because they are “uncomfortable,” but nothing has happened to them. On the other hand there have been litmus tests applied to teachers, some have been hounded out of positions, there are constant threats from this Zionist community in the states – some have been the target of these activities to the point of numerous death threats. I have been on campuses where there have been nothing but hounding, baseless accusations, that when examined they have been thrown out as spurious. This has been going on for years.
So it is time for you to just can it with your baseless accusations, in light of the fact that the very things you say that “might come – could be a possibility – are just around the corner – what it might turn into,” etc. is just sheer bullshit. Especially in light of what has been dished out against those who wish to champion the cause of the persecuted Palestinians. I hope this is clear, it is painfully obvious, and if you cannot see it nor admit it than you are merely a blind ideologue, who just wants the unacceptable status quo to continue.
As an example on campuses across the nation, this has been going on for years – the harassment from your contingency RW, in 2005 which is like a carbon copy of the same everywhere. It was presented under the rubric of academic freedom, and it is now the same issue while you point out “what might be – could possibly happen – where it might eventually go” -
ACADEMIC FREEDOM
It has been five long years since this happened, and it shows no signs of stopping (actually it has been present for decades).
I assume that individuals that are considering supporting BDS read here, and am including the voice of ethics into the dialog.
For those that can perceive affects of actions more than one chess move out, to ignore those perceived affects is moral negligence.
As many that commented in the Berkeley divestment proposal noted, supporters of the proposal, there is danger that the movement could devolve to more cynicial and racist exclusion efforts, fascism.
The rational question is how relevant is that concern?
Its not “no concern”. Its not “silencing” to raise the question. And, hopefully, those that are supporting BDS for ethical purposes will conclude that there is material danger that the effort will devolve and be used opportunistically, not incidental danger.
Again, I hope that those with some actual knowledge, broader than propaganda, will develop literature, film, other media that humanizes the other, all of us, developing a basis of mutual respect rather than the litmus tests of contempt.
One of the reasons that I take offense at the low blow commentary on Elie Wiesel, is that I believe that he does respect the humanity of Palestinians, and that his voice, his message, can be amplified and expanded to more prominently include the welfare of Palestinians in leaders’ math.
In contrast, the approach of condemnation ONLY divides. It eliminates his lessons from the holocaust, which have been stated as “Never again, to anyone”.
So, by dissing him, rather than respecting and contrasting his application, the great lessons are cut off, to be replaced by the anti-lesson of anger only.
Without getting into a back and forth with RW, who is hopelessly dishonest on certain subjects, here is Wiesel “respecting the humanity” of the Palestinians by repeating a vicious canard about the origin of the Palestinian refugees. Witty knows this–we had this discussion last December.
link
I’m impressed with Wiesel’s generosity, intent, and candor.
He seeks good for Palestinians, not evil.
I don’t get your point.
“I don’t get your point.”
This is probably trolling. Might be ideologically induced blindness, but I’m gonna go with trolling.
The Weasel to repeat myths and fabrications, now that’s new!
Wiesel is speaking accurately. Jerusalem is part of Jewish history intimately.
On the contrary, Wiesel knows nothing about the history he claims to be bound by. He states that the Western Wall is the last remaining vestige of Solomon’s Temple. In fact, nothing remains from the latter (also known as the First Temple), which was completely destroyed by the Babylonians in 587/6 BCE. The Wall is part of the Second Temple built by Herodes, who may have been an infant murderer.
Wiesel’s sentimental approach thus backfires, exposing him once again as the intellectual fraud he’s long been known to be.
I like Norman Finkelstien’s attribution to his mothers first words –
“The first words I ever heard my mother say was, “Elie Wiesel looks like he was pulled out of a vat of sauerkraut.” ”
lol
Funny. I was just reading it 5 min. ago.
Pingback: MONDOWEISS ONLINE NEWSLETTER « Shoah