Symbols of occupation in Hebron: evicted settlers are allowed to return, stones taken from Ibrahimi Mosque

Israel/Palestine
on 257 Comments
Ibrahimi Mosque
Ibrahimi Mosque by Nick Thompson

[Update below]

At a time when John Kerry seems to think that the Israelis are playing ball on negotiations, the colonization of the West Bank continues apace.

Noam Sheizaf reports at +972:

According to the Israeli Central Bureau of Statistics, new construction projects in West Bank settlements have grown by 176 percent (!) compared to the same period last year (January-March 2012). This is a 355 percent increase, when compared to the final quarter of 2012 (October-December).

One symbol of this expansion is a particularly contentious building in the heart of Hebron we focused on last year.  A little over a year ago, in a widely reported political farce, the Israeli military forcibly evicted about 1oo Jewish setttlers who had illegally occupied a three story building ‘Beit Hamachpela’ in a Palestinian neighborhood. The BBC reported  at the time “local Palestinian police disputed the validity of the deal, saying the building had more than 50 owners, only one of whom sold his share.”

But the settlers were theatrically removed on the eve of Passover, providing the Israeli government with a PR-coup, featuring photos of an evicted settler rolling her baby in a stroller surrounded by Israeli troops as Netanyahu, declaring his commitment to the rule of law, saw the area was cordoned off in a closed military zone while the Ministry of Housing was busy announcing tenders for 800 hundred new plots for expansion in the West Bank!

Well now they’re back: On Monday, an Israeli military appeals panel ‘validated‘ the purchase by the Jewish settlers of this three story building right across the street from the Cave of the Patriarchs in a Palestinian neighborhood under Israeli military control. The Jerusalem Post reports “Palestinians also live in a small section of the building which was not purchased by the settlers.”

Meantime, inside the mosque at the Patriachs’ caves, the settlers are up to no good. On Wednesday, under the protection of the Israeli military, Jewish settlers removed an archaeological wall inside the corridors of the Ibrahimi Mosque, removing the ancient stones. The Ibrahimi mosque, considered to be the fourth holiest site in Islam, was the site of a 1994 massacre by Israeli right-winger Baruch Goldstein who killed 29 praying Palestinians. Later the site was besieged by several thousand right-wing settlers and their supporters in 2010 who declared the mosque be designated as an Israeli national heritage site despite the fact that it is located well within Palestinian territory.

From the Palestinian Information Center:

Taysir Abu Sneineh, the Director General of the Ministry of Endowments in al-Khali, told Quds Press that the cleaners of the Ibrahimi Mosque found yesterday that the settlers, with the support of the Israeli occupation army, removed an ancient wall inside the mosque and took its stones to an unknown destination

Abu Sneineh considered that this act represents a blatant assault on the Ibrahimi Mosque and aims to change the mosque’s features and Judaize it, under the protection and support of the Israeli government.

It’s a very volatile/provocative location and initially there was no military authorization for the purchase, which is supposed to be required.  “Economic peace” is worthless when Palestinian homes are gobbled up left and right and Palestinians are constantly getting killed, abducted, arrested, detained and/or imprisoned while Israel expands. Maybe John Kerry should put that in his pipe and smoke it.

Update: Middle East Monitor (MEMO) reported Israeli forces held military exercises inside the Ibrahimi Mosque on Thursday, evicting worshipers:

The Israeli occupation army has held exercises inside the Ibrahimi Mosque in Hebron. Muslim worshippers were forced out of the mosque on Thursday as the troops moved in.

Tayseer Abu Sneineh, the Director of Religious Endowments in Hebron, said that worshippers were excluded from the mosque for several hours while the unidentified exercises took place. He added that the mosque officials were prevented by the soldiers from making the midday call to prayer.
 

F120403UL03
An ultra-Orthodox Jewish man walks past ‘Beit Hamachpela’ in Hebron. (photo: Uri Lenz)
About Annie Robbins

Annie Robbins is Editor at Large for Mondoweiss, a mother, a human rights activist and a ceramic artist. She lives in the SF bay area. Follow her on Twitter @anniefofani

Other posts by .


Posted In:

257 Responses

  1. Ramzi Jaber
    July 6, 2013, 11:24 am

    Annie, it’s more of the same… talk, talk, talk, then talk, talk, talk. No actions, no change on the ground. Kerry has to show immediate and fair and balanced progress to resuscitate the 2SS. While he seems honest and diligent, the fact that he relies very heavily on Blair is a bad omen. Blair forced Ashton to delay an EU statement on the zionist regime a week or so ago. This is a man no Palestinian can trust.

    The cliche that this is the last window on the 2SS is correct IMHO. What I believe is different this time is the structural and fundamental geo-political changes that are occuring in the region. This time around it seems to me there is a true divergence of the US interests and the zionist interests. The zionist regime is very happy about what is going on in Egypt as any and all turmoil and in-fighting in the enemy’s campy is always welcome by them. zionists thrive on uncertainty and exploiting chaos. They cheered loudly for what happened in Iraq because it destroyed the Iraqi army even though it brought Iran into Iraq. They are very happy at the on-going destruction of the Syrian army even if its fundamentalist extremists could win. Now the Egyptian army’s disintegration has started to the zionist regime’s great content even if the outcome is far from uncertain.

    But that is not how the US reads the situation it I think. The US/Obama/Kerry see what’s happening in Egypt as an opportunity to re-establish US’s good will and influence and interests by being the one that established the State of Palestine. They certainly see this as a great act that will certainly pay dividends and sway support towards the US in a region where the US is helpless to influence anything. Palestine/Israel is the one and only area in the ME where the US can be proactive and can influence the outcome.

    See this link to bakerinstitute.org on what could lay ahead as Kerry continues his efforts.

    Once this window closes, and it will in the next 6 or so months, 2SS is over once and for all and the march continues and intensifies towards 1S1P1V supported by BDS/ICC/ICJ/non-violent actions.

    • Sibiriak
      July 6, 2013, 1:49 pm

      Kerry has to show immediate and fair and balanced progress to resuscitate the 2SS.

      Kerry cannot resuscitate the 2SS. It’s all illusion.

    • American
      July 6, 2013, 3:27 pm

      @Ramzi Jaber

      Cant get the link to download but if this is a accurate summary:
      2http://www.jpost.com/Features/Front-Lines/Diplomacy-Fighting-windmills-318802

      Then it’s even a bigger ‘doing the donkey’ for Israel and bullshit piled higher and deeper than usual.

      The Kerry-Blair grand strategy is:

      1) Instead of going for a complete settlement they will get the sides to agree to conditions –trade marbles ‘one by one’ –that will supposedly lead to a final agreement on all the issues and a settlement.

      2) Plus 4 billion dollars provided by who knows in US MOU’s to BOTH Israel and Palestine as an incentive.

      All yee Palestines who enter this- abandon all hope. Because here is how this will go.
      Israel will trade a green marble for a Palestine red marble, a blue for purple, yellow for orange and so forth.
      These ‘a la carte’ trades will continue all the way until the 4 Billion MOU is in the bag and Israel has sucked as many $$$ as it can get out of that.
      Then Israel will manufacture an event or sticking point and refuse to hand over their marbles, insist on keeping the Palestine marbles as a token to prove Palestine sincerity in any future trade negotiations, keep the US MOU $$$ issued to them and that will be that.

      And then the US will have another grand strategy for I/P with a new set of Kerry-Blair dumb and dumbers.

      • W.Jones
        July 8, 2013, 1:04 pm

        American,

        Good analysis, based on the Oslo Accords and peace treaties with the Native Americans.

        One native American could break the treaty and then the US army goes in and slaughters or evicts the whole village.

    • Hostage
      July 6, 2013, 5:39 pm

      The US/Obama/Kerry see what’s happening in Egypt as an opportunity to re-establish US’s good will and influence and interests by being the one that established the State of Palestine.

      Mohamed ElBaradei’s memoir, “The Age of Deception,” said that George Bush and Tony Blair, together with the responsible members of their administrations, should be investigated and put on trial in the International Criminal Court (ICC) for the crimes committed in connection with the war and occupation of Iraq – and that reparations should be obtained through the International Court of Justice (ICJ). See pages 87-88. So the bar is probably already a bit higher than belatedly fufilling the existing US obligations to establish a Palestinian State.

  2. HarryLaw
    July 6, 2013, 12:04 pm

    Hague Regulation 1907 Art. 56. The property of municipalities, that of institutions dedicated to religion, charity and education, the arts and sciences, even when State property, shall be treated as private property.
    All seizure of, destruction or wilful damage done to institutions of this character, historic monuments, works of art and science, is forbidden, and should be made the subject of legal proceedings. Unless the Palestinians assert their legal rights, then all these International Laws are just scraps of paper.

  3. giladg
    July 6, 2013, 12:44 pm

    Ibrahimi, now lets look at this word for a moment. It’s Arabic and refers to the Abraham, the father of Issac and the grandfather of Jacob. The forefathers of the Jewish people. Abraham had another son, Ishmael, to who Islam trace their roots back to. Abraham lived over 2,000 years before Islam was introduced to the world. So the Tomb of the Patriarchs (to Jews) and referred to by Annie as the Ibrahimi Mosque, became part of Islam way after the evolvement of the Jewish religion by the Israelites. The Tomb of the Patriarchs was the most important site for Jews prior to the building of the Jewish Temples in Jerusalem, on top of which now stand the Dome of the Rock and Aksa Mosque. So please Annie, when talking about the Tomb of the Patriarchs, you should try not to hide and/or distort history. Islam often has latched onto the history and traditions of others and the Annie’s of the world couldn’t give a damn.

    • Ramzi Jaber
      July 6, 2013, 1:06 pm

      giladg, I just don’t understand the relevance of religion here. It was the zionists who brought religion into the equation. The bottom line is that Palestinians, including me, have been living here for many many generations. We were born here, grew up here. Whether a historic or religious book says one thing or another about one religion or another is not relevant and does not change that fact. It also does not change the fact that most of the leaders of the zionist regime were born elsewhere outside Palestine. And now you say your religion gave them more rights than me over this homeland?? Is that what you say?

      So lets leave religion out of it. Religion is between the person and her or his God, and last time I checked God was not a real-estate agent. Palestinians never had an issue with Jews or Judaism, a noble and Semitic religion just as Christianity and Islam are. Our issue has always been, and will always be, with an outdated ideology, zionism, that stole our land. A movement that may have started well but ended up wrong on all fronts. A movement that has usurped a great religion, Judaism, to illegally claim control and ownership of a land that does not belong to it. A movement that constantly works on bringing religious strife to the conflict so it can hijack and continue to hijack US Christian opinion to its side.

      Let religion belong to the realm of spirituality, where it correctly belongs. Lets solve our earthly matters based on facts and documents and lineages on the ground that prove who owns this land of Palestine. Let anyone choose any religion that she or he wishes to choose (or not) and let them build their futures in any country they wish alongside any other religion or non-religion that may exist in that country. Separation of religion and state is the bedrock of democracy. Our conflict is a conflict about land theft and not about religion.

      • dimadok
        July 6, 2013, 2:44 pm

        @Ramzi.
        Great and revealing comment indeed.
        Just two quotes: “Palestinians never had an issue with Jews or Judaism, a noble and Semitic religion just as Christianity and Islam are”- I’d say it’s a wishful thinking, considering the 1929 Hebron massacre of the indigenous Jewish families, with no relation to the secular Zionist movement. I’d love to hear your stories how you ancestors were the one who actually saved the Jews from killings. However the question will arise-killings by whom, aliens?
        Another quote:”Our conflict is a conflict about land theft and not about religion.”- I’ll re-phrase a bit, it’s a conflict about land and not about the religion.
        And how, pray tell us, you would resolve it within the one-state solution? The holy places are not just pieces of the real estate, the have history and emotional attachment about them. The reason that Patriarch Cave and the mosques are there is not because of some Ottoman deed, it’s because religious people BELIEVE that it is the place where Abraham is buried. The only deed is written in Torah, and unless you’d like to claim that it is all false, which is possible, it clearly states that the place was bought and paid for by Abraham himself.
        There is the whole argument why it is so important to state the exact price , size and the location of the lot in Torah, but this is not the place for this discussion.

      • amigo
        July 7, 2013, 6:25 am

        “And how, pray tell us, you would resolve it within the one-state solution?” dimadok.

        Then why pray tell us why the GOI is busy building the 1SS.

      • Shingo
        July 7, 2013, 8:54 am

        I’d say it’s a wishful thinking, considering the 1929 Hebron massacre of the indigenous Jewish families, with no relation to the secular Zionist movement.

        Absolute rubbish of course. The indigenous Jewish families were not targeted at all and most were saved by the local Arabs. The riot was entirely directed at the secular Zionist movement. How you can pretend otherwise boggles the mind.

        I’d love to hear your stories how you ancestors were the one who actually saved the Jews from killings.

        They did. The historical account shows that hundreds were saved by the local Arab families.

        Sorry of the reality upsets you.

      • Obsidian
        July 7, 2013, 11:26 am

        @Shingo

        ” The riot was entirely directed at the secular Zionist movement.”

        The riots were caused by doctored photographs purporting to show that the Jews had damaged the Dome of the Rock. Obviously this was a religious violence (which made any Jew fair game).

      • MRW
        July 7, 2013, 7:18 pm

        Dimmie,

        Oh, jesus, you still spouting your Hebron 1929 pilpul?

        Hostage has covered this countless times with documents that you obviously failed to read. You don’t deserve a response here as a result, but I’m laying down the following in case a newbie to this site thinks you have a leg to stand on, or has heard the same horseshit within his or her family.

        link to mondoweiss.net

        Treasure trove:
        link to mondoweiss.net

        link to mondoweiss.net

        link to mondoweiss.net

        link to mondoweiss.net

      • piotr
        July 10, 2013, 7:12 am

        Even now some “national religious Jews” (messianic Zionist?) want to blow up Dome of the Rock. I am not saying that 1929 riot was justified, but it was directed not at Jews as “Jews” but at Zionist Jews who advocated expelling all Arabs from Palestine in writing.

        Concerning historicity of Abraham, he is definitely BELIEVED to be the common ancestor of Jews and Arabs, and to live much earlier than the settlement of Jews, and Arab. No trace of him in Assyrian archives etc.

      • Mayhem
        July 7, 2013, 9:46 pm

        @Ramzi, please spare us the untruths

        Palestinians never had an issue with Jews or Judaism

        In an article titled ‘Islam’s War Against the Jews: Quotes from the Palestinian Authority’ you will find a pile of quotes that render your statement a complete joke – refer link to aish.com. These quotes aren’t about the settlements as being the obstacle to peace, no! They are about Jews being an obstacle to Islam.
        Jews were tolerated as long as they didn’t threaten the fundamental Muslim-Arab character of the land – it is easy to ‘accept’ people when they are under your subjugation. When the numbers of Jews grew that is when the problem developed into the conflict that we have today. There never has been any preparedness by the Arabs to allow Jews to establish their own independent state in the Middle East.

      • Shingo
        July 9, 2013, 6:34 pm

        In an article titled ‘Islam’s War Against the Jews: Quotes from the Palestinian Authority’ you will find a pile of quotes that render your statement a complete joke –

        The complete joke is this blog entry you have linked to, from a hack who can’t even name the alleged report he refers to, much less link to it.

        Itamar Marcus is a well known Nakba denying hack and Israeli propagandist with no credibility.

        Jews were tolerated as long as they didn’t threaten the fundamental Muslim-Arab character of the land

        Isn’t that Israel’s policy towards it’s Palestinian citizens? That they can stay so long as they don’t threaten the fundamental Jewish character of Israel?

        Pot meet kettle.

      • Hostage
        July 9, 2013, 7:27 pm

        There never has been any preparedness by the Arabs to allow Jews to establish their own independent state in the Middle East.

        LOL! You do realize that the 1st and 14th amendments to the US Constitution prohibit the establishment of a “Jewish State”, like Israel, anywhere in the USA? If you can’t establish a Jewish State in New York, then why should the people of the Middle East tolerate one?

      • Shingo
        July 9, 2013, 7:32 pm

        There never has been any preparedness by the Arabs to allow Jews to establish their own independent state in the Middle East.

        Until the last century, there was never any desire by Jews to create one. When Herzl proposed the idea, the majority of Jews were against the idea and thought he was nuts. That remained the case right up until the 1940s.

      • Shingo
        July 9, 2013, 7:39 pm

        Note that not only is Itamar Marcus a Nakba denier, he denies there is even a occupation.

        Watch Susan Abulhawa demolish Itamar Marcus here
        link to mondoweiss.net

      • RoHa
        July 10, 2013, 12:59 am

        “When the numbers of Jews grew that is when the problem developed into the conflict that we have today. There never has been any preparedness by the Arabs to allow Jews to establish their own independent state in the Middle East.”

        And quite rightly, too.

        The immigrant Jews had no right to set up a state of any kind. The duty of the immigrant is to become part of the society and polity into which s/he immigrates. The immigrant Jews not only failed in that duty, they went further and proposed a state which would deny the Arabs their rights.

        For the Arabs to be prepared to allow such immoral behaviour would have itself been grossly immoral.

      • Annie Robbins
        July 10, 2013, 1:45 am

        Itamar Marcus is a notorious nakba denier.

      • Mayhem
        July 10, 2013, 5:13 am

        @shingo, why do you have to resort to this tactic of playing the man, rather than listening to what the man has to say? Does it hurt your ears so much to hear things you don’t want to hear? I have to suffer the same, yet I indulge your falsehoods..These are the revealing tactics of the proponent who doesn’t have the arguments to back his case, resorting instead to common slander.

        The RT interview you point us at with Itamar Marcus and Susan Abulhawa was a travesty of fair journalistic practice. The interviewer Peter Lavelle ganged up on Marcus together with Abulhawa, no wonder Marcus was visibly uncomfortable facing such outrageous bias.

        What is the alleged report you are referring to? The material from Itamar Marcus discloses time and place for a whole screed of quotes that back up the premise that you have not gone one inch to refute i.e. the Palestinians (the majority being Muslim) will not tolerate a Jewish governing presence in the Middle East.

        @Hostage, with his legalistic brain overruling his mind, brings up some idiotic reference to the prohibition of a Jewish state in the US itself, according to its constitution. What does that have to do with anything?

        After all the mud slinging my assertion remains standing that “Jews will be only tolerated as long as they don’t threaten the fundamental Muslim-Arab character of the land”. Fundamental Muslim anti-semitism is the main obstacle to peace.

      • Annie Robbins
        July 10, 2013, 11:45 am

        Fundamental Muslim anti-semitism is the main obstacle to peace.

        what drivel. there’s an occupation going on that the person you’re quoting, Itamar Marcus, doesn’t even acknowledges exists. don’t blame this on ‘Fundamental Muslim anti-semitism’ while israel is ever so obviously gobbling up all the land. you can’t hide that and blame the conflict on the victims hatred. any people would resist this, ANY PEOPLE against anyone doing it to them. quit victimizing the oppressor.

      • Cliff
        July 10, 2013, 12:36 pm

        No, Jewish colonialism and the apartheid policies in the OT are the obstacle to peace.

        The Israel Lobby is the obstacle to peace.

        As is the MiC and our ‘War on Terror’ geopolitical strategy.

        Muslim antisemitism is meaningless. Antisemitism is not a destabilizing force in the region because Jewish colonialism is real and immediate.

        Thus, opposition to Zionism is not irrational. It is the logical consequence of bringing a mass of immigrants to usurp and expel an indigenous population from their land.

        Palestinians, Lebanese, etc. are not upset with Israel over philosophical disagreements.

        They have real tangible, physical disputes and grievances.

        The decades of war, occupation, and colonialism are the problem. Not Jewish naval-gazing and narcissism.

      • Cliff
        July 10, 2013, 12:38 pm

        Mayhem,

        Itamar Marcus, like you, is a delusional Zionist propagandist.

      • James Canning
        July 10, 2013, 5:56 pm

        Would have been “immoral”, perhaps. But Arabs are willing to accept Israel (w/in 1967 borders).

      • Shingo
        July 10, 2013, 7:02 pm

        I have to suffer the same, yet I indulge your falsehoods.

        As a Zionist you have chosen to adopt falsehoods as part of your belief system.

        The RT interview you point us at with Itamar Marcus and Susan Abulhawa was a travesty of fair journalistic practice.

        No, you’re just too used to seeing Zionist propagandist like him appearing in such programs unopposed. So when he was confronted with someone to challenge is Nakba denial, he went to pieces.

        I mean seriously Mayhem even the guy from the Jerusalem Post was laughing at his delusional claims, such as the one that there was no occupation.

        is the alleged report you are referring to?

        Marcus makes reference to a report in the article you linked to.

        The material from Itamar Marcus discloses time and place for a whole screed of quotes that back up the premise that you have not gone one inch to refute i.e. the Palestinians (the majority being Muslim) will not tolerate a Jewish governing presence in the Middle East.

        Oh please, you want to play the game of quotes? We can do that, beginning with countless quotes from Israeli leaders saying death to Arabs, Avigdor Liberman proposing to bomb the Aswan Damb and wanting to drown Palestinians in the Dead Sea.

        How about the leader of Shas who is well known for his pronouncements calling for the “annihilat­ion of Arabs”.

        Betar has some interesting ideas, not dissimilar from Sheik Yassin:

        “Betar supports the concept of a Jewish state with a Jewish Majority in its biblical-h­omeland.” “The entire land of Israel as given to the Jewish people by G-d with it’s eternal capital Jerusalem.­”

        “100% Jewish Labor in all Jewish enterprise­s.”

        “Every great colonizati­on in history, has always entailed a revolt of the natives.”

        “Our aim is to make Betar such a world organism which, at a sign from the center, will be able simultaneo­usly to move tens of thousands of hands in the cities of all countries.­”

        “Disciplin­e is the subordinat­ion of a mass to one leader”

        “every Jew is a “prince” ”
        link to www­.betar.co.­uk

        You don’t have a leg to stand on.

      • Hostage
        July 10, 2013, 9:51 pm

        The immigrant Jews had no right to set up a state of any kind.

        Using Miriam6’s logic about the Balfour declaration (somehow) making the partition of Palestine inevitable, they must have had a right to set-up states all over Europe too. After all Mr. Balfour had explicitly reserved “the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country” too. The League of Nations did that under a number of minority rights treaties.Its not as if we Jews are only unsuccessful or unassimilable troglodytes in Palestine ya know;-)

      • Hostage
        July 10, 2013, 10:02 pm

        the Palestinians (the majority being Muslim) will not tolerate a Jewish governing presence in the Middle East.

        In fact the PLO negotiating unit and chairman Arafat already recognized Israel in the exchange of letters before the Oslo Accords. Similarly the Arab Peace Initiative states that the Arab League is willing to recognize Israel.

        Abbas has pointed that out repeatedly, while politely refusing to recognize Israel as “the State of the Jewish people”. Since half of us Jews choose to live in other states and don’t owe any allegiance to any foreign power, and because one in five Israelis are non-Jews, that seems very reasonable. Abbas and the PLO negotiating support unit have also publicly stated that its up to Israel to decide if it wants to be called the State of the Jewish people, not the state of Palestine.

      • Shingo
        July 10, 2013, 10:40 pm

        Similarly the Arab Peace Initiative states that the Arab League is willing to recognize Israel.

        When that Arab Peace Initiative was first issued, Sharon and co described it as a threat to Israel and an ambush. Since then, people like Marcus and Likud have tried desperately to make the offer disappear because it does pose a threat – a threat to the Israeli talking point that there is no partner for peace of that the Arabs will never accept the state of Israel.

      • RoHa
        July 10, 2013, 11:20 pm

        “they must have had a right to set-up states all over Europe too.”

        I would say a far greater right in those areas of Europe where the Jews were natives rather than recent immigrants! But only with all the usual provisos and safeguards.

        Or are you pointing out that (under Miriam6’s interpretation) that American (e.g.) Jews would have the right to set up states in Luxembourg and Finland? How could anyone doubt that?

      • Sibiriak
        July 11, 2013, 4:04 am

        Mayhem,

        “Jews will be only tolerated as long as they don’t threaten the fundamental Muslim-Arab character of the land”.

        Personally, I think a good case can be made for that assertion, at least in the current historical conjuncture.

        But I don’t see how your next assertion follows:

        Fundamental Muslim anti-semitism is the main obstacle to peace.

        Desiring a state with a fundamentally Arab character seems to me a matter of Arab cultural-political *nationalism* , not antisemitism.

      • Sibiriak
        July 11, 2013, 4:58 am

        The immigrant Jews had no right to set up a state of any kind. The duty of the immigrant is to become part of the society and polity into which s/he immigrates. The immigrant Jews not only failed in that duty, they went further and proposed a state which would deny the Arabs their rights.

        Exactly. That’s the simple reality underneath all the surface complexity.

      • American
        July 11, 2013, 10:42 am

        ‘ “Jews will be only tolerated as long as they don’t threaten the fundamental Muslim-Arab character of the land”. Fundamental Muslim anti-semitism is the main obstacle to peace.”..Mayhem

        Lets turn that around.

        ”Arabs wll be only be tolerated as long as they dont threaten the fundamental Jewish character of the land”. Fundamental Jewish anti-otherism is the main obstacle to peace.

    • Annie Robbins
      July 6, 2013, 1:07 pm

      the Jewish Temples in Jerusalem, on top of which now stand the Dome of the Rock and Aksa Mosque.

      allegedly. there’s no proof that was the location of some grand temple. maybe lots of jewish stuff retroactively lands itself right underneath islamic structures. did you ever think of that? jealous much?

      edit, ramzi i just saw you’re comment. you’re so mature and rational. now i think maybe i wasn’t very sweet in my response to gilad. oh well.

      • jon s
        July 6, 2013, 2:38 pm

        Annie, if you’re referring to the First Temple , it’s reality is indeed hotly debated by historians and archaeologists.
        The existense of the Second Temple on the Temple Mount is not in question. You can go to Jerusalem and tour the site.

      • ToivoS
        July 7, 2013, 2:27 am

        The existense of the Second Temple on the Temple Mount is not in question. You can go to Jerusalem and tour the site.

        If you are talking about the Western Wall as being evidence of the Second Temple then you should know that this is in serious question. That wall or the Wailing Wall is more likely the foundations of a Christian Church that was built in the 3rd century AD by the Romans. It is likely that the Romans had earlier completely dismantled whatever remained of the Second Temple.

        You guys have been bumping your heads against a Christian Church for centuries. That is like Christians praying to remnants of the original cross or the Shroud of Turin for the last 5 centuries. It might make believers feel good but it is not historically accurate.

      • Hostage
        July 7, 2013, 2:35 am

        Annie, if you’re referring to the First Temple , it’s reality is indeed hotly debated by historians and archaeologists.

        Not to mention the serious doubts surrounding the literal existence of all those Patriarchs who are supposedly buried in Hebron,; the fact that Herod’s Wall doesn’t appear in the Madaba Map; and that even the Jewish Virtual Library admits that

        The earliest clear use of ha-kotel ha-ma’aravi in the sense of today’s “Western Wall” is by the 11th-century Italian Hebrew poet Ahima’az ben Paltiel. This, too, though, may predate the actual use of the wall by Jews for prayer, since it is not until the 16th century that we hear of the wall being used for that purpose

        link to jewishvirtuallibrary.org

        The existense of the Second Temple on the Temple Mount is not in question.

        That may be true, but there is still no indisputable evidence that the Haram esh-Sharif is actually sitting on the Temple Mount. There hasn’t been adequate archaeological research conducted in the modern era on the site to confirm those popular Jewish beliefs and legends. The eyewitness statements preserved in the accounts of the Jewish historian Josephus don’t match-up with the available evidence very well. His narratives say that Jerusalem was leveled to its very foundations and that the only monument left was the Roman encampment, Fort Antonia. The leader of the Zealots at Masada complained that it still dwelt upon the city’s ruins.

        So there are still conflicting theories about the possible location of the Temple with respect to the Western Wall, even among the faithful. Some place it farther to the South, in Silwan for example. link to templemount.org

      • giladg
        July 7, 2013, 3:02 am

        Annie, if you question the Jewish Temples then you should question your own involvement in the pro-Palestinian movement. With your initial comment above you lose all integrity and credibility and you also lose sight on how this conflict will one day be resolved, even if it takes 1,000 years.
        Google is making available and accessible copies and translations of the Dead Sea Scroll, written over 2,000 years ago. I suggest you start reading the scrolls dealing with the Jewish Temples, called the “Temple Scroll”. You should also read the works of Josephus Flavius.

        Useful Links:
        link to deadseascrolls.org.il
        link to dss.collections.imj.org.il

      • Annie Robbins
        July 7, 2013, 3:33 am

        With your initial comment above you lose all integrity and credibility

        omg, that’s devastating news coming from u of all peeps gilad.

      • yonah fredman
        July 7, 2013, 3:48 am

        Hostage- This contention that the Temple was not on the highest spot in the area, but rather on a low point like Silwan begs credulity. The exact location of the temple is for experts and scholars, but the fact that it was on what is called the Temple Mount really seems pretty clear, except for people who have a stake in disbelief.

        To Annie- The time of the temple as in 70 of the Current Era, is not a time shrouded in the mists of history. Historians will tell you that the Jews had a temple in Jerusalem that was destroyed in the year 70. There are sufficient records in the period of the heyday of the Roman Empire, which 70 still was, that testify to the existence of a Jewish temple in Rome. Agnosticism vis a vis Biblical accounts should not be used as an excuse for assuming that we know nothing about that period, when in fact, there are dependable histories and historians.

      • Hostage
        July 7, 2013, 4:33 am

        I suggest you start reading the scrolls dealing with the Jewish Temples, called the “Temple Scroll”. You should also read the works of Josephus Flavius.

        Some of us have already done that. Archaeologists have found several other Jewish temples in Israel and Egypt and evidence that Josephus was retelling a false version of the history of the Israelite Temple on Mt Gerazim that was invented by jealous Judaizers.

        FYI, many of the Dead Sea scrolls were written by a disaffected group that viewed the Temple cult as an abomination. You should probably read:
        *The Orion Center Symposia on the Dead Sea Scrolls link to orion.mscc.huji.ac.il
        *The texts by Josephus and the dissertation material on places, archaeology and scholarly studies listed by the PACE Project link to pace.mcmaster.ca

      • Walker
        July 7, 2013, 7:16 am

        Hee! Yes, I’m still waiting for gilad’s evidence that if IDF soldiers misbehave towards Palestinians they’re sent directly to jail.

      • Shingo
        July 7, 2013, 9:56 am

        The exact location of the temple is for experts and scholars, but the fact that it was on what is called the Temple Mount really seems pretty clear, except for people who have a stake in disbelief.

        It sounds like you have a huge stake is messianic beliefs, given your insistence of the location of something you have never seen.

        Agnosticism vis a vis Biblical accounts should not be used as an excuse for assuming that we know nothing about that period, when in fact, there are dependable histories and historians.

        The historian that is often relied upon, ie. Josephus, has been proven to be a fabricator.

      • Annie Robbins
        July 7, 2013, 11:14 am

        yonah, let’s begin with my words:

        allegedly. there’s no proof that was the location of some grand temple.

        now let me tell you a little story about my trip to graceland. i grew up in the 50’s and elvis was a pretty big deal (not to me personally but rumor was). and i’d seen pictures of graceland. once my son and i were traveling around the country on an extended trip living in the back of the truck visiting lots of sites, like the carlsberg cavern, southern plantations, smoky mountains, etc and one day we decided to go to graceland. it was exciting. we parked in a huge parkinglot (not as big as disneyland’s tho) and bought the ticket and they take you there on a bus. it wasn’t very big, at all. not by today’s standards.

        anyway, i’m not questioning whether jews had a special temple, or two or three or four.

        but when jon says “The existense of the Second Temple on the Temple Mount is not in question. ” it just makes sense to me that one might call the location of ones temple ‘the temple mount’. but why should i have any certainty the mount of a jewish temple was in the location of al aqsa mosque?

        and here’s another thing. i grew up in a family w/5 kids. and i learned early on wanting what others have is a human instinct. looking at the biggest brightest most gorgeous thing around and claiming you got it first (or should have gotten it first) isn’t an undeveloped notion, it’s part of a child’s instinct.

        plus i am a naturally skeptical person. if i had to bet the life of my loved ones over the question of whether jesus ever existed i would be extremely nervous but ultimately i think, even under duress, the logic behind christ symbolizing a movement is more likely. my mother had to bribe me at a very young age (2) not to tell my older sister santa didn’t exist.

        i’m sticking by my earlier statement, there’s no proof that was the location of some grand temple. there is no ‘fact’ a temple was once located on the place we call today the temple mount, and it is not “pretty clear”.

        what is “pretty clear” is that many many people have a lot invested in this being true. no different than lots of people having a stake in believing jesus existed. but that doesn’t make it more likely.

        i tend to believe that people who wrote holy books had an agenda of spreading the messages and moral lessons thru the texts. and i do believe most religious people are good people. but i’m a non believer. and if you think i have a stake in that disbelief… well of course i do. it’s my reality, my brain and my logic and it weaves thru my entire belief system.

        listen, i gave it a shot, i closed my eyes and with all my willpower i accepted jesus into my heart, and nothing happened. maybe if i was raised differently, with less support for trusting my instincts, i would be different.

        but here’s what i don’t understand, how come there’s such a demand, or such a backlash for people who don’t believe, whereas there’s very little respect for people like me. who protects my rights to be a non believer. we’ve never had even one american president who proudly stated they were not religious. i’m a minority, so why can’t you respect that. you want me to believe a temple sat in one specific place 2000 years ago or i get accused of anti semitism. seriously, this is crazy.

        and that said, i respect holy places. they are part of mankind’s history. and i respect that people are religious and not like me.

      • Hostage
        July 7, 2013, 2:52 pm

        Hostage- This contention that the Temple was not on the highest spot in the area, but rather on a low point like Silwan begs credulity.

        Why? The scriptures don’t say that Araunah’s threshing floor was located on the highest spot. The account by Josephus in the Jewish Wars explicitly states that the view from the Hasmonean Palace overlooked a spot in the Temple where the sacrifices were brought. He said that the Jews built a wall to block Agrippa’s view, and that the Romans who patrolled the threshold of the Temple Wall complained and had it removed.

        The exact location of the temple is for experts and scholars, but the fact that it was on what is called the Temple Mount really seems pretty clear, except for people who have a stake in disbelief.

        Once again, if you ignore written historical evidence and simply make up your mind, without conducting actual archaeological research, that’s the opposite of the scientific method that experts and scholars are supposed to employ to test their theories.

        There are plenty of unanswered questions about the exact location of Jerusalem’s landmarks 2,000 years ago, not the least of which is the location of the Roman fort or encampment used to garrison an entire Legion. It was supposedly the only surviving monument standing in the vicinity of the ruins. Josephus said that there was nothing left that would provide any indication to visitors that the site of the Temple had once been occupied. Rabbi Akiva and his Talmidim don’t mention the Western Wall at all, only the fact that the Holy of Holies served as a den for foxes. Scholars and experts have remarked upon the fact that the first definite reference to Jews praying at the Western Wall in Jewish literature is in the 16th century.

      • jon s
        July 7, 2013, 4:04 pm

        There’s another point: the Arabs, when they came to build the Dome of the Rock and Al Aqsa didn’t pick any old hill. They specifically chose a site which was already considered sacred, the place where the temples had stood.

      • jon s
        July 7, 2013, 4:15 pm

        Shingo, I’d like to know what makes Josephus a fabricator.

      • Shingo
        July 7, 2013, 6:32 pm

        There’s another point: the Arabs, when they came to build the Dome of the Rock and Al Aqsa didn’t pick any old hill

        So what? Go to any village in Europe and the church will always be located at the highest point in the village. Their location was always chosen to be the hub of the town.

        The temple was long destroyed and the sight was clearly chosen in the for the same reason the temple sight itself was chosen. I know it’s hard for you people to consider that not everything is about you.

      • Shingo
        July 7, 2013, 6:34 pm

        Shingo, I’d like to know what makes Josephus a fabricator.

        As Hostage explained:

        “Archaeologists have found several other Jewish temples in Israel and Egypt and evidence that Josephus was retelling a false version of the history of the Israelite Temple on Mt Gerazim that was invented by jealous Judaizers.”

      • MRW
        July 7, 2013, 8:21 pm

        There’s another point: the Arabs, when they came to build the Dome of the Rock and Al Aqsa didn’t pick any old hill. They specifically chose a site which was already considered sacred, the place where the temples had stood.

        Doesn’t make one ounce of sense. The Quran forbids defiling sacred grounds. Abraham, Moses, Noah, Job, Jacob, Isaac, Aaron, David, and Solomon (and more, like Jesus) are prophets in Islam.

      • Hostage
        July 7, 2013, 8:23 pm

        Shingo, I’d like to know what makes Josephus a fabricator.

        That’s an example of the type of thing that is missing at other sites – actual excavations carried out and the results published by the Israeli Antiquities Authority debunked the Jewish legends about the Temple on Mt. Gerazim that were published in the works of Josephus. See Yitzhak Magen, Haggai Misgav, and Levana Tsfania, “Mount Gerizim Excavations, volume 1 entitled “The Aramaic, Hebrew and Samaritan inscriptions”.

        The Samaritans did not come into existence in the fourth century BCE with Alexander’s grant of permission to dissident priests from Jerusalem’s temple to build another on Gerizim, as related by Josephus. The duration of the Samaritan temple, which was dedicated to “Yahweh-el-Eljon” in the 5th BCE (Magen 2000: 108, 113) was not the 200 years stated by Josephus (Ant. 13.256), but rather closer to the 343 years. he ascribes to the existence of the [Jewish] temple in Heliopolis / Leontopolis (War 7.436), stories of which, Josephus mingles with stories about Gerizim (Hjelm, in SJOT 13/2, 1999; Hjelm, The Samaritans and Early Judaism, 2000: 227-232). There were over 480 inscriptions found on the spot. According to Ephraim Stern this is the largest collection of building inscriptions, some of which are quite large, ever found in Israel. This is exactly the kind of evidence that we don’t have to check the veracity of the accounts concerning the Jerusalem Temple Mount. See also the abstracts from the Copenhagen Conference at link to shomron0.tripod.com

      • Hostage
        July 7, 2013, 8:41 pm

        There’s another point: the Arabs, when they came to build the Dome of the Rock and Al Aqsa didn’t pick any old hill. They specifically chose a site which was already considered sacred, the place where the temples had stood.

        We’ve discussed this in the past. There was a direct connection between worship, spirituality, and threshing floors, like the one David purchased, throughout the ancient world.

        Threshing floors were considered sacred places to the fertility cults and were used for licentious fertility rites. Hosea 9:1 contains a reference to the payment of wages to harlots or prostitutes “at every threshing floor”.

        The rituals of the ancient Israelites included a “heave offering” or “gift of the threshing floor” (Numbers 15:20).

        In Ezekiel 8:14 the reference to the women who were “making the Tammuz weep” (or “lamenting for Tammuz” in Breton’s LXX) “by the entrance of the gate of the house of the Lord”, were being portrayed in the role of fertility cult Temple prostitutes.

        So it’s very likely that the Temple site was used for worship long before David made the legendary purchase. Note that Ornan/Araunah already had everything on hand that was necessary to make an offering before David even approached him with the proposition of selling him the property.

      • Citizen
        July 8, 2013, 1:29 pm

        You are not alone, Annie Robbins.

      • miriam6
        July 8, 2013, 2:17 pm

        FILE UNDER;

        JUST FANCY THAT!

        Shingo@ says:

        The historian that is often relied upon, ie. Josephus, has been proven to be a fabricator.

        Meanwhile in an earlier post to me, Shingo said:

        t’s an established fact there was not a single Jewish historical text written between

        1st ce. (Josephus Flavius) & early 19th ce (Isaak Markus Jost).

        By the way Shingo, the fact that Jews prayed on the Temple Mount for a period of 80-100 years , until forbidden by Omar 11 720 ce is recorded historical fact.

        It may not have been recorded by Jewish historians but certainly other historians, and Muslim ones at that did record this history.

        See Simon Sebag Montefiore , Jerusalem : A biography.

        Ps whether Jews were considered ‘Tamei’ is irrelevant.

      • Hostage
        July 8, 2013, 10:48 pm

        Ps whether Jews were considered ‘Tamei’ is irrelevant.

        If the halakhah is irrelevant, then so are Jewish prayers uttered in the proximity of the Temple mount. You really can’t have it both ways, as much as you’d like to.

      • Shingo
        July 9, 2013, 12:47 am

        Shingo@ says:

        The historian that is often relied upon, ie. Josephus, has been proven to be a fabricator.

        Meanwhile in an earlier post to me, Shingo said:

        t’s an established fact there was not a single Jewish historical text written between

        1st ce. (Josephus Flavius) & early 19th ce (Isaak Markus Jost).

        Yes I did Miriam, and you will have noticed that there is no contradiction whatsoever in either position.

        Poor dear. You were really hoping you had a point to make didn’t you?

        By the way Shingo, the fact that Jews prayed on the Temple Mount for a period of 80-100 years , until forbidden by Omar 11 720 ce is recorded historical fact.

        Recorded where Miriam?

        See Simon Sebag Montefiore , Jerusalem : A biography.

        Cite page and paragraph or it didn’t happen.

      • ziusudra
        July 9, 2013, 4:54 am

        Greetings ToivoS,
        Bravo, good point.
        Not being a fan of Zionism or enemy of any Religion,
        ….. That wall is more likely the foundations of a Chrstian church, built in the 3rd C by the Romans…….
        Constantine becomes Emperor first in 312AD.
        The Council of Nicea in 325AD; dies in 337AD!
        Roman Legions would have been building Bridges & Pallisades in the 3rdC., not Churches.
        Anyway, what’s in a Symbol? We Euros went bananas looking for the spear that wounded Christ & a piece of wood supposedly being part of the cross in the Crusades!
        I still have the bicycle of me Grandfather that will be passed on in my family
        for generations to come! We will be, Children of the Bike!
        ziusudra

      • jon s
        July 9, 2013, 10:22 am

        MRW, are you saying that the Arabs thought of bulding the Dome and the Mosque as “defilement”? On the contrary: they perceived it as continuing, and adding to, the holiness of the site.
        Again, the location of the Temple on the Temple Mount is not seriously in question.
        I didn’t even mention the discovery of “Wilson’s Arch ” and “Robinson’s Arch”and their significance in the historical-archaeological record.

      • miriam6
        July 9, 2013, 2:42 pm

        Stinko@:

        True recorded historical fact is just true.

        Whether you personally are aware of it, or ignorant of historical fact is neither here nor there.

        Your contrasting statements on two different threads both involving Josephus, DOES show contradiction.

        Why not say on your earlier comment I quoted ,that you regarded Josephus as an allegedly unreliable source?

        Why quote him at all ?

        Anyway, for the record ,you should take NOTE of the following and keep it on file to educate yourself with:

        From :
        Jerusalem- The Biography.
        by historian and writer Simon Sebag Montefiore.

        from part four;
        ch. 17;
        The Arab Conquest 630-60
        Omar The Just: Temple Regained:
        Page 176;

        ‘The Muslim conquerors were initially happy to share shrines with the Christians.Contrary to the Omar legend , it seems that the early Muslims first prayed in or beside the Church of the Holy Sepulchre before arrangements could be made on the Temple Mount.
        The Jews at first too welcomed the Arabs after centuries of Byzantine repression .
        Omar’s interest in the Temple Mount understandably excited Jewish hopes, because the Commander of the Believers not only invited the Jews to maintain the Temple Mount but also allowed them to PRAY there with the Muslims.

        On page 176-77;

        A well- informed Armenian bishop , Sebeos, who wrote thirty years later, claims ‘ the Jews planned to build the Temple of Solomon and, locating the Holy of Holies , they built (the Temple) without a pedestal’- and adds that Omar’s first governor of Jerusalem was Jewish. Omar certainly invited the leader of Tiberius’ Jewish community , the Gaon, and seventy Jewish families to return to Jerusalem where they settled in the area south of the Temple Mount.’

        From;
        The Umayyads:The Temple restored:
        Page 183;

        The Jews were less important imperially but more important theologically.The Dome ( al Aqsa ) was maintained by 300 black slaves assisted by twenty Jews and ten Christians.The Jews could not help but see the dome with hope: was this their new Temple?They were STILL ALLOWED TO PRAY THERE and the Umayyad’s created an Islamic version of the Temple rituals of purification, anointment and circumambulation of the stone.

        The Umayyad’s: The Temple Restored;
        Chapter 18660-750;
        Muawiya: Arab Caesar ;
        Page 179;

        Muawiya had grown up beside the Jews of Arabia.

        Mauwiya settled
        MORE JEWS in Jerusalem, PEEMITTING THEM TO PRAY ON THE SITE OF THE HOLY OF HOLIES;

        traces of a menorah on the Temple Mount, dating from the seventh century, may be evidence of this.

        from Jerusalem; A Biography;see Ch.18;
        The Umayyads: The temple Restored;
        660-750;
        Page 186;

        ‘Jews ,many of them from Iran and Iraq, settled in the Holy City,living together south of the Temple Mount, retaining the privilege of praying on (and maintaining) the Temple Mount.But in about 720, after almost a CENTURY of FREEDOM to pray there , the new Caliph Omar 11, who was , unusually in this decadent dynasty , an ascetic stickler for Islamic orthodoxy,

        BANNED JEWISH WORSHIP – and this PROHIBITION WOULD STAND FOR THE REST OF ISLAMIC RULE.

        Instead, the Jews started to pray around the four walls of the Temple Mount and in a subterranean synagogue called Ha-Meara- the Cave-at Warren’s Gate, almost beneath the Temple Mount near the Holy of Holies.’

        End of citations/quotes from’ Jerusalem; A Biography’

        by Simon Sebag Montefiore.

        link to jewishtribune.ca

        Over the centuries, the Muslims who eventually took control of Jerusalem built two mosques on the Temple Mount, the site of the two Jewish Temples.
        (This was no coincidence; it is a common Islamic custom to build mosques on the sites of other people’s holy places.) Since any attempt to level these mosques would lead to an international Muslim holy war (jihad) against Israel

        link to jewishvirtuallibrary.org

      • miriam6
        July 9, 2013, 6:41 pm

        http://www.jewishmag.com

        see article :

        Did Maimonides really pray on the Temple Mount?
        By Meir Loewenberg

        link to jewishmag.com

        link to jewishmag.com

      • Shingo
        July 9, 2013, 6:53 pm

        True recorded historical fact is just true.

        What a silly piece of grammar. So there’s true and then there is True true? Is there true false, or false truths also?

        Your contrasting statements on two different threads both involving Josephus, DOES show contradiction.

        No it does not. One statement states that there was no history recorded from Josephus until the 18th century, the other states that he was not a credible historian.

        Both assertions can be true, therefore they are not a contradiction. Perhaps you don’t know what a contradiction is?

        Why not say on your earlier comment I quoted ,that you regarded Josephus as an allegedly unreliable source?

        Why quote him at all ?

        Miriam are you illiterate as well as completely illogical? Let me explain it again.

        1. I did say that I regarded Josephus as an unreliable source.
        2. I never quoted Josephus.

        Page Page 176 says nothing about Jews being forbidden to pray. In fact is contradicts Omar legend.

        On page 176-77 says that mar certainly invited the leader of Tiberius’ Jewish community , the Gaon, and seventy Jewish families to return to Jerusalem

        The Umayyads:The Temple restored, Page 183 says they STILL ALLOWED TO PRAY THERE .

        Muawiya: Arab Caesar, Page 179, says they were permitted to pray on the holiest of sites.

        The Umayyads: The temple Restored, 660-750; Page 186 is he first time any suggestion is made that Jews were banned from praying. So of the half a dozen links you provided, only one asserts your claims.

        You really should read your own sources before embarrassing yourself.

      • piotr
        July 10, 2013, 7:23 am

        The hub of a village can also be at the lowest spot, for example in a mountain valley. A preferred location can be related to roads, springs, defensive advantages etc.

        There is also a strong tendency of rebuilding temples on the same spot. What makes Jerusalem special is that Romans put a big effort to alter the topography of the town, they surely altered the street layout so they could change the location of the temple as well. After all, Jupiter did not care if He used the same spot as some other god (who as gods go, was quite anti-social).

      • Hostage
        July 10, 2013, 7:30 pm

        What makes Jerusalem special is that Romans put a big effort to alter the topography of the town, they surely altered the street layout so they could change the location of the temple as well.

        That’s a fine theory, but it isn’t supported by any archaeological or eyewitness evidence. What we do know, is that there is a report from a priest who reportedly served in the temple, which says the Hasmonean Palace had an adjacent Roman citadel. It was connected to the Temple by bridges. The Temple was supposedly destroyed, while the Roman fort is the only monument that supposedly survived.

        Starting in the 16th Century, the Jews claimed that the largest landmark in the area was the retaining wall of their former Temple. Just as suddenly the fort large enough to house an entire Legion has pretty much disappeared from the picture.

        This sort of thing is comparable to the ignorant Christian Crusaders who insisted on identifying the Dome of the Rock as the Jewish Temple and the Al Aqsa Mosque as Solomon’s Palace. You can theorize almost anything, but there’s no evidence that the Temple was definitely located on the so-called Temple Mount. The Ministery for Religious Affairs conducted tunneling and excavations there for nearly two decades and found no conclusive evidence.

      • Hostage
        July 10, 2013, 11:30 pm

        see article :

        Did Maimonides really pray on the Temple Mount?
        By Meir Loewenberg

        One of your links isn’t working, but the other is an example of a to-good-to-be-true claim that Maimonides didn’t pray at a local synagogue in Jerusalem, but rather at the site of the Temple itself. The author admits that other Jewish authorities disagree, but uses exegesis of the contents of the prayer that Jews say after meals regarding “Zion the abode of God’s glory” and “the great and holy house” that bears God’s name. Never mind that Mt Zion isn’t Mount Moriah. We’ve solved that difficulty by through the literary device of another Jebusite Zion, that’s located on nearby Mt. Moriah:

        Mount Moriah is the name of the elongated north-south stretch of land lying between Kidron Valley and “Hagai” Valley, between Mount Zion to the west and the Mount of Olives to the east.

        The Jebusite “Zion” was situated on the southern slope of Mount Moriah, above the Gihon Spring. After King David captured the city he made it his capital and named it for himself: the “City of David.”

        The northern area of the mountain’s summit lay desolate for long after Zion’s capture by David. It was in fact still the private property of Araunah, the city’s former Jebusite king. For various reasons David did not confiscate the site but preferred to buy it from Auranah for full value: “So David paid Ornan [Auranah] for the site 600 shekels’ worth of gold. And David built there an altar to the Lord and sacrificed burnt offerings and offerings of well-being” (1 Chronicles 21:25, and a slightly different version at 2 Samuel 24:18-25).

        link to jewishvirtuallibrary.org

        All of this is based upon traditions developed long after the fact by persons with no first hand knowledge of the ancient City of Jerusalem, including Maimonides.

      • dimadok
        July 6, 2013, 2:45 pm

        @Annie.
        There is also no proof that Muhammad flew on the winged horse but it doesn’t bother you at all. You can’t eat the hate-cake and leave it whole. Someone will always follow the crumbs you left.

      • Annie Robbins
        July 7, 2013, 1:42 am

        dim, it doesn’t bother me at all whether people think Muhammad flew on the winged horse. it also doesn’t bother me at all people think jesus walked on water. i’ve come to accept the fact there are religious people in the world who believe things like this and i try to respect those beliefs. but i hope you understand respecting your beliefs doesn’t mean believing in them.

        can i ask you to respect my beliefs? as a secular person who thinks all of these biblical characters and the fables that surround them are just that? stories that tell us about mankind which embed morals we’re all supposed to incorporate?

        for me these holy places are very much about the history of mankind, but i don’t take biblical stories literally nor do i think it’s likely most of these people actually existed. (sorry if that’s a shock to any of you but i have said it here before) you can call me an equal opportunity denier if it pleases you. but that’s all folks. that’s just how i think and there are other people out there like me.

        i thought i would clarify that because some tweets have informed me i crossed some heavy duty line. but nope, i don’t believe.

        The existense of the Second Temple on the Temple Mount is not in question.

        by you jon, but not by me.

        and in case anyone is listening in, i am not saying, nor do i believe there is “no evidence of any Jewish presence in the area and every bit of archaeology found there is fake”. it just means i don’t believe biblical lore.

      • ymedad
        July 7, 2013, 4:19 am

        You are mixing two things: actual historical fact and your beliefs vis a vis “biblical lore”, although you’re still wrong.

        If by lore (you didn’t typo that as “law”?), you mean fanciful myth that really didn’t exist, you’re not too familiar with anything much, are you?

        Is Carbon14 non-Biblical enough? Try this: link to biblicalarchaeology.org

        Would this from the Smithsdonian be of help? link to smithsonianmag.com

      • Citizen
        July 7, 2013, 9:02 am

        @Annie Robbins

        “…and there are other people out there like me.”

        Yep. Like me. Take the anthropomorphic out of the bible and what’s left?

        Next, take all the rest of the poetry out of the bible, and now what’s left?

      • Walid
        July 7, 2013, 9:56 am

        dimadoc, you’re talking about a dream in which The Prophet saw himself making a night journey (isra) to the farthest (aqsa) mosque in the land, which was assumed to be in Jerusalem, so no proof of anything is required since it was a dream. The dream had some similarities with Jesus’ Transfiguration in that it had a ladder (mi’raj) that took him to the 7 heavens where in each he saw in succession, the Biblical greats: Adam, Jesus with John the Baptist, Joseph, Enoch, Aaron, Moses, and Abraham. Jesus had only 2 greats in his story, Moses and Elisha. If you’re interested to know more about the dream, look up “Isra and Mi’raj”

        You can look up your own legends about the wall, Fort Antonia and the rest. The ME is full of Jewish, Christian and Islamic legends, myths, folklore and so on.

      • Shingo
        July 7, 2013, 10:16 am

        Is Carbon14 non-Biblical enough?

        Afraid not. Hasbara history always likes to link to vague references to artifacts dating back to specific periods believed to coincide with Jewish history, which of course, is anti intellectual circulatory logic, as it assumes this is itself is the evidence.

        Science marches on…..destroying myths left and right.

        And one of the biggest fights going on is evidence that says the bible tales were mostly just myth and ‘embellished folk tales in a time of primitive cultures.

        link to ngm.nationalgeographic.com

        (Here what the Jewish archaeologist and funders of archeology say of the agenda ….)

        “Our claim to being one of the senior nations in the world, to being a real player in civilization’s realm of ideas, is that we wrote this book of books, the Bible,” says Daniel Polisar, president of the Shalem Center, the Israeli research institute that helped fund Eilat Mazar excavation work. “You take David and his kingdom out of the book, and you have a different book. The narrative is no longer a historical work, but a work of fiction. And then the rest of the Bible is just a propagandistic effort to create something that never was. And if you can’t find the evidence for it, then it probably didn’t happen. That’s why the stakes are so high.”

        ‘I’ve found one olive pit at a stratum in Megiddo, and this olive pit—which goes against hundreds of carbon-14 determinations—is going to decide the fate of Western civilization.’ ” He snickers. The lack of pig bones, suggesting it is a Judaean site? “A gun, but not a smoking gun.” The rare inscription found at the site? Probably from Philistine Gath rather than the kingdom of Judah.

        link to salon.com

        Would this from the Smithsdonian be of help?

        Afraid not. It’s more of the same BS. The author begins with the assumption that the first temple period proves that there was a first temple and then makes the giant leap of logic that anything anything from that period (related to the first temple or not) is proof of the first temple.

      • Annie Robbins
        July 7, 2013, 11:32 am

        Afraid not. It’s more of the same BS. The author begins with the assumption that the first temple period proves that there was a first temple and then makes the giant leap of logic

        well, that’s not all the author begins with. let’s take the very opening sentence (my bold):

        My stint as an amateur archaeologist began one morning on the southern slope of Mount Scopus, a hill on the northern outskirts of Jerusalem.

        hellllo! he’s not an archaeologist
        link to en.wikipedia.org

        Joshua Hammer (born June 12, 1957) is an American journalist and foreign freelance correspondent [1] and bureau chief [2] for Newsweek and in Europe……His articles have appeared in The New Yorker, Smithsonian, and many more.[4] [5]

      • Hostage
        July 7, 2013, 3:47 pm

        If by lore (you didn’t typo that as “law”?), you mean fanciful myth that really didn’t exist, you’re not too familiar with anything much, are you?

        Is Carbon14 non-Biblical enough? Try this: link to biblicalarchaeology.org

        Would this from the Smithsdonian be of help? link to smithsonianmag.com

        The author of the Smithsonian article wastes six pages on a landfill sifting project conducted elsewhere that hasn’t found anything “under the Temple Mount”. The Israeli archaeologists quoted in the article even doubt that all of the landfill in question came from the Haram al-Sharif. In any event the author admits that no one really knows what is under the Temple Mount.

        The BAR articles don’t actually reveal any connection between the ancient cedar beams and Herod’s Temple Mount as the titles and teasers in the tag lines suggest.

        One of the beams actually pre-dates Herod’s Temple by at least eight centuries and could have just as easily been brought to the current site from elsewhere by the Romans or Muslims for secondary use, and not by Herod, i.e. where is the building material from the Temple of Jupiter, Aelia Capitolina today – and where did it originate?

      • Walid
        July 7, 2013, 4:16 pm

        “where did it originate?”

        The wood used to build Solomon’s temple and David’s palace was Lebanese cedar that was imported from there along with the Phoenician architects that built them.

      • piotr
        July 10, 2013, 3:37 pm

        People who use C14 or similar methods often arrive at dates that predate the beginning of the world, and as such they should be firmly rejected.

      • Obsidian
        July 7, 2013, 3:19 am

        @Annie

        “maybe lots of jewish stuff retroactively lands itself right underneath islamic structures”

        Jewish conspiracy nonsense coming from a senior Mondoweiss editor.
        Wow.

      • ToivoS
        July 7, 2013, 4:26 am

        Wow this is great. We have in one thread jon s, dimodak, obsideon and giladg asserting the historical reality of first and second temples. This is the current basis to defend the existence of the modern state of Israel. I do think that Herzl would be rolling in his grave if was aware of the support that his Zionist dream of Israel rested on in the 21st century.

      • Hostage
        July 7, 2013, 4:47 am

        Jewish conspiracy nonsense coming from a senior Mondoweiss editor.
        Wow.

        Well here is Gershom Gorenburg, a Zionist and Orthodox Jew, repeating a rabbinical legend that the Jews lied about the actual locations of the Tomb of the Patriarchs and the Temple and the theory that succeeding generations were confused by their own hasbara:

        He pauses, lets his voice drop: “And then I got the idea that the Jews fooled the Arabs. There’s a rabbinic legend that when the Arabs came, they asked the Jews where the tomb was. The same story is told about the Temple. I said to myself, If they fooled them about the tomb, all the more so they would have about the Temple.”

        – Gershom Gorenburg, What If This Isn’t the Western Wall?, Fonte: The Jerusalem Report, November 23, 1998 • Vol. IX, No.15 link to templemount.org

        I don’t suppose you can blame Mondoweiss for the Jewish rabbinical legends that are propagated or repeated on the templemount.org website.

      • just
        July 7, 2013, 5:26 am

        It’s interesting, to say the least. Must some folks continue to embroider ancient’ history’ rather than deal with reality?

        “We were here first, and now we are back with a vengeance” does not make any sense.

      • Obsidian
        July 7, 2013, 7:00 am

        @Hostage

        And the basis for Annie’s claim that, “..maybe lots of jewish stuff retroactively lands itself right underneath islamic structures” is what?

        Gorenberg quotes Tuvia Segev, ” The same story is told about the Temple. I said to myself, If they fooled them about the tomb, all the more so they would have about the Temple.”

        Segev, whose findings I agree with, doesn’t dispute the existence of the Temple, he only disputes it’s location beneath the Temple Mount.

      • Shingo
        July 7, 2013, 10:17 am

        And the basis for Annie’s claim that, “..maybe lots of jewish stuff retroactively lands itself right underneath islamic structures” is what?

        It’s called sarcasm and irony dude.

      • Ludwig
        July 7, 2013, 1:15 pm

        Obsidian, I am also shocked and appalled by this comment from Annie. Suggesting that Jews fabricate their own history under Islamic ruins. I can’t think of anything more hurtful to say to a Jewish person.

      • Cliff
        July 7, 2013, 1:54 pm

        Ludwig said:

        Obsidian, I am also shocked and appalled by this comment from Annie. Suggesting that Jews fabricate their own history under Islamic ruins. I can’t think of anything more hurtful to say to a Jewish person.

        Ludwig also said:

        Al-Durrah is clearly alive at the end of the scene. Just watch the footage. I hope that France 2 could release the full footage.

        link to mondoweiss.net

        I am shocked and appalled by this comment from Ludwig. Suggesting that Al-Durrah was not murdered by IDF thugs in spite of the evidence and in spite of the recent ruling by French courts.

      • Obsidian
        July 7, 2013, 2:19 pm

        @Ludwig

        Jews don’t have to fabricate history. We are history. Living history!

        That said, a few Arabic shrines in Israel have been converted into Jewish shrines. Benjamin’s Tomb in Kfar Saba and Rabbi Gamliel’s Tomb in Yavne, and one or two other minor sites. Religious triumphalism and re-writing history are wrong no matter who does it.

        Annie should put up her evidence, or retract her claims.

      • Obsidian
        July 7, 2013, 2:24 pm

        @Shingo

        “It’s called sarcasm and irony dude.”

        There is nothing ironic or sarcastic in Annie’s statement. You or Annie are welcome to explain where the irony or sarcasm lies, because no one else seems to be able to discern it.

      • Kathleen
        July 7, 2013, 3:50 pm

        Toivo”This is the current basis to defend the existence of the modern state of Israel.”

        Absurd

      • Hostage
        July 7, 2013, 4:00 pm

        Segev, whose findings I agree with, doesn’t dispute the existence of the Temple, he only disputes it’s location beneath the Temple Mount.

        He also points out that, according to rabbinical legend, the Jewish traditions about the actual locations of their ancient sites were based upon deceit. The determination of the supposed locations of the Christian Holy sites and Mt Sinai can also be attributed to unreliable stories passed along to the Emperor Constantine’s mother long after the fact.

      • Woody Tanaka
        July 7, 2013, 4:56 pm

        “Jews don’t have to fabricate history. We are history. Living history!”

        WhT a load of racist nonsense. Jews are no more and no less “history” than any other people in the world.

      • Hostage
        July 7, 2013, 5:36 pm

        Obsidian, I am also shocked and appalled by this comment from Annie. Suggesting that Jews fabricate their own history under Islamic ruins. I can’t think of anything more hurtful to say to a Jewish person.

        There are professional Israeli archaeologists and antiquities officials who have complained bitterly about the unprofessional, politically motivated, excavations being carried out by groups connected to the Zionist settlement enterprise in Silwan or The City of David.

        CBS News has devoted a segments of 60 Minutes to the subject:
        Jerusalem: The City of David? (also linked from “Can Archeology Prove the Bible?”). link to cbsnews.com

        Full segment: Jerusalem: City of David link to cbsnews.com

        FYI, leading experts in the field, like Israel Finkelstein and Kathleen Kenyon became famous for employing their archaeological research to challenge Jewish biblical legends.

      • ymedad
        July 7, 2013, 5:48 pm

        those “professional Israeli archaeologists and antiquities officials who have complained bitterly about the unprofessional, politically motivated excavations” you write of? they are just as unprofessional and politically motivated as anyone of who they complain. actually, more professional and less radicalized politically.

      • Shingo
        July 7, 2013, 7:04 pm

        You or Annie are welcome to explain where the irony or sarcasm lies, because no one else seems to be able to discern it.

        Who’s no one? You and the voices in your head?

      • Shingo
        July 7, 2013, 7:06 pm

        We are history.

        Yes Obsidian. We know Israel is headed for self destruction, but there’s no reason to get ahead of yourself.

        Annie should put up her evidence, or retract her claims.

        The burden of evidence is on you to provide evidence that a temple no one has ever seen exists.

      • Shingo
        July 7, 2013, 7:07 pm

        they are just as unprofessional and politically motivated as anyone of who they complain. actually, more professional and less radicalized politically.

        Based on what argument? Your say so and messianic delusions?

      • MRW
        July 7, 2013, 7:31 pm

        Suggesting that Jews fabricate their own history under Islamic ruins. I can’t think of anything more hurtful to say to a Jewish person.

        Park the violin and read what what an Israeli Prof. Ze’ev Herzog who teaches in the Department of Archaeology and Ancient Near Eastern Studies at Tel Aviv University had to say about it. He took part in the excavations of Hazor and Megiddo with Yigael Yadin and in the digs at Tel Arad and Tel Be’er Sheva with Yohanan Aharoni. He has conducted digs at Tel Michal and Tel Gerisa and has recently begun digging at Tel Yaffo. He is the author of books on the city gate in Palestine and its neighbors and on two excavations, and has written a book summing up the archaeology of the ancient city.

        This is what archaeologists have learned from their excavations in the Land of Israel: the Israelites were never in Egypt, did not wander in the desert, did not conquer the land in a military campaign and did not pass it on to the 12 tribes of Israel. Perhaps even harder to swallow is that the united monarchy of David and Solomon, which is described by the Bible as a regional power, was at most a small tribal kingdom. And it will come as an unpleasant shock to many that the God of Israel, YHWH, had a female consort and that the early Israelite religion adopted monotheism only in the waning period of the monarchy and not at Mount Sinai.

        And this

        Any attempt to question the reliability of the biblical descriptions is perceived as an attempt to undermine ‘our historic right to the land’ and as a shattering of the myth of the nation that is renewing the ancient Kingdom of Israel. These symbolic elements constitute such a critical component of the construction of the Israeli identity that any attempt to call their veracity into question encounters hostility or silence. It is of some interest that such tendencies within the Israeli secular society go hand-in-hand with the outlook among educated Christian groups. I have found a similar hostility in reaction to lectures I have delivered abroad to groups of Christian Bible lovers, though what upset them was the challenge to the foundations of their fundamentalist religious belief. It turns out that part of Israeli society is ready to recognize the injustice that was done to the Arab inhabitants of the country and is willing to accept the principle of equal rights for women – but is not up to adopting the archaeological facts that shatter the biblical myth. The blow to the mythical foundations of the Israeli identity is apparently too threatening, and it is more convenient to turn a blind eye.

        link to individual.utoronto.ca

      • Hostage
        July 7, 2013, 8:53 pm

        those “professional Israeli archaeologists and antiquities officials who have complained bitterly about the unprofessional, politically motivated excavations” you write of? they are just as unprofessional and politically motivated as anyone of who they complain. actually, more professional and less radicalized politically.

        The fact is that they exist, you can listen to their arguments on television, read and discuss their journal articles, and it hasn’t offend a host of other international experts and scholars. They are discussing the connection of these excavations to Zionist political activism. That is part and parcel of a discussion about the war of ideas and the I-P conflict.

      • miriam6
        July 9, 2013, 8:12 pm
      • Shingo
        July 10, 2013, 2:10 am

        link to haaretz.com

        Yawn, that’s old news.

        Talk about mucha do about nothing. This faux outrage was really a facade for the embarrassment that in spite of yet another dig, NOTHING turned up as evidence of the Temple – so a handful of propagandists tried to twist this to suggest that a treasure trove of evidence would have been uncovered if only the excavation had been properly supervised.

        BTW Miriam. Are you still insisting that you are not a Zionist? Or are you simply trying very hard to impersonate one?

      • Hostage
        July 10, 2013, 4:53 am

        miriam6: Waqf Temple Mount excavation raises archaeologists’ protests
        Antiquities preservation committee criticizes lack of archaeological supervision, documentation. link to haaretz.com

        Tunnel vision

        By ABRAHAM RABINOVICH

        (The Jerusalem Post, September 27, 1996) THE archeological tunnel which this week delineated the explosive fault line between Jews and Arabs in Jerusalem had no archeological purpose when its excavation was begun some 25 years ago, and the fault line it then defined was between Jews alone.

        The tunnel was initiated by the Religious Affairs Ministry after the Six Day War in order to expose the subterranean courses of the Temple Mount north of the Western Wall, an area it saw as suffused with holiness.

        By law, excavations in archeological areas are the exclusive province of professional archeologists licensed by the government. In a deft act of turfmanship, however, the archeological authorities agreed to let the Religious Affairs Ministry have its dig as long as its functionaries did not attempt to interfere with the major excavation being conducted at the southern foot of the Temple Mount by Prof. Binyamin Mazar.

        The ministry had previously attempted to declare the Temple Mount wall being exposed south of theWestern Wall as a prayer area and to oust the archeologists.

        Mazar’s assistant, archeologist Meir Ben-Dov, was assigned to oversee the ministry dig on a part-time basis in order to legitimize it, but the effort was more of a mining operation than an archeological dig. . . . & etc.

      • miriam6
        July 10, 2013, 7:36 am

        Hostage@;

        With this latest attempt to manufacture a dramatic story out of nothing, Ha’aretz continues in its efforts to influence — as opposed to report — news.
        After having earlier described Jerusalem’s Jewish Quarter, including the Western Wall, as “disputed area . . . on the agenda during negotiations with the Palestinians,” and after having erroneously claimed that for the last seven years Christians and Muslims from the Palestinian areas are prohibited from entering the Temple Mount, as are east Jerusalem Arab men, the newspaper yet again displays complete ignorance regarding the holy city, and/or deliberately seeks to make a mountain out of a mole hole…

        link to camera.org

        The Battle Over Jerusalem and the Temple Mount

        One of the main obstacles in previous peace-making efforts has been the issue of dividing Jerusalem and control over the Temple Mount. Muslim denial of Judaism’s historical and religious ties to Jerusalem and the Temple Mount, the Waqf’s illegal construction there, and the violent response to Jewish activities there present an obstacle to peace-making efforts.
        Both Israel and the Palestinians lay claim to Jerusalem and its holy sites. Israel maintains security and legal control over the Temple Mount while the Muslim Waqf has religious, economic, administrative, and some security control there. Past negotiations have faltered on Palestinian denial of any Jewish religious or historical connection and rights to the Temple Mount. During the July 2000 negotiations at Camp David, Yasir Arafat refused to acknowledge Jewish ties to the Temple Mount, claiming the Jewish Temple never existed there. When talks resumed in Taba later that year, the Israelis agreed to full Palestinian sovereignty on the Temple Mount, but requested Palestinians acknowledge the sacredness of the Temple Mount to Judaism. They refused. According to then-foreign minister Shlomo Ben-Ami:

        What particularly outraged me on that occasion wasn’t only the fact that they refused, but the way in which they refused: out of a kind of total contempt, an attitude of dismissiveness and arrogance. At that moment I grasped they are really not Sadat. That they were not willing to move toward our position even at the emotional and symbolic level. At the deepest level, they are not ready to recognize that we have any kind of title here. [Interview with Ari Shavit, Haaretz, Nov. 25, 2001]

        It is therefore useful to look back at the history of the conflict. Throughout history, Jerusalem’s stature as a Muslim holy city…..cont.

        link to camera.org

      • talknic
        July 10, 2013, 10:52 am

        @ miriam6

        Cute, but entirely Irrelevant to the State of Israel’s internationally recognition as the Israeli Government asked to be recognized May 15th 1948 link to trumanlibrary.org and the State of Israel’s illegal actions since, as the Occupying Power link to mfa.gov.il over ANY non-Israeli territories link to wp.me

      • Woody Tanaka
        July 10, 2013, 12:13 pm

        miriam, any article that quotes a bigot like Daniel Pipes without noting that he’s a big flaming bigot isn’t worth it’s salt. But you seem to have an issue with this:

        “[The zios] requested Palestinians acknowledge the sacredness of the Temple Mount to Judaism. They refused.”

        Why wouldn’t they refuse? History has shown that this is how the zionists steal the land. First they merely say, “Oh, we just want a small, meaningless acknowldgement” and that becomes, “oh, we just want to share” and then it becomes “It’s ours” and then it becomes a row of Palestinian graves.

        How about this, if the Palestinians (1) “acknowledge the sacredness of the Temple Mount to Judaism,” and (2) promise that the current structures and worship (i.e., Jews get the Kotel forever and the Muslims get al-Aqsa, the Dome of the Rock and all surrounding grounds) would remain inviolate forever, do you think the israelis would (1) acknowledge the scredness of al-Haram ash-Sharif to Islam and (2) promise that the current structures and worship (i.e., Jews get the Kotel forever and the Muslims get al-Aqsa, the Dome of the Rock and all surrounding grounds) would remain inviolate forever?

        The Muslims have reasonable fears that Israelis are going to do a Taliban-Bamiyam-Budda job on their holy places to make a Third Temple, or to interfere with their religious exercise. Do you think the Israelis would be willing to agree to this??

      • Annie Robbins
        July 10, 2013, 4:52 pm

        miriam, israel has no right to demand for palestinians to recognize historical or religious ties to jerusalem. israel is the annexing party, what nerve to demand any kind of acknowledgement. you’ve already ethnically cleansed w jerusalem and now you want the rest of it. give it a rest. your approach is all wrong. israel should request permission from palestine for worshipers access to the holy site since it is sacred to both religions. and then lead by example which i know you probably think is unheard of since israel denies tens of thousands of muslims and christians to worship in jerusalem. the hypocrisy is astounding.

      • Cliff
        July 10, 2013, 5:03 pm

        Miriam

        Everything you post is simply a copy/paste

        CAMERA is irrelevant. its a pro-israel propaganda org

      • MHughes976
        July 10, 2013, 6:21 pm

        It’s not the function of political organisations to make theological statements. It’s not for the British Government or the British people to adopt corporate opinions on whether Buddhists believe in nirvana, still less to decide whether this belief is authentic within Buddhism. Nor should we expect to cut much ice with the Argentinians by saying that God hath bestowed the Falkland Islands on us, or that some of us are convinced that a divine donation has occurred, and we expect them to recognise that fact. It’s inherently wrong to demand that a claim wholly based on the religion of the claimant be treated as authoritative by those mainly of another religion, or should influence both sides of the negotiating table, not just one side. That would be insistence that people act as if a proposition that they do not really believe were true, ie would be a tyrannical demand for irrational and self-betraying behaviour. Thus the only honest basis for negotiation between those who are not of the same religion is for all claims that are based wholly on one religion or another to be completely disregarded, to play no part. Claims based on shared or secular values which religions also endorse are another matter.

      • Shingo
        July 10, 2013, 7:09 pm

        Past negotiations have faltered on Palestinian denial of any Jewish religious or historical connection and rights to the Temple Mount.

        Rubbish. The past negotiations have not demanded this of the Palestinians, namely because it is legally and politically irrelevant to a negotiated settlement over territory.

        When talks resumed in Taba later that year, the Israelis agreed to full Palestinian sovereignty on the Temple Mount, but requested Palestinians acknowledge the sacredness of the Temple Mount to Judaism. They refused. According to then-foreign minister Shlomo Ben-Ami:

        What particularly outraged me on that occasion wasn’t only the fact that they refused, but the way in which they refused: out of a kind of total contempt, an attitude of dismissiveness and arrogance. At that moment I grasped they are really not Sadat. That they were not willing to move toward our position even at the emotional and symbolic level. At the deepest level, they are not ready to recognize that we have any kind of title here. [Interview with Ari Shavit, Haaretz, Nov. 25, 2001]

        That’s funny, because Shlomo Ben-Ami says something entirely different in his book, Scars of War.

        The Israeli and Palestinian negotiators at the Taba conference, six months after Camp David, were on the verge of an agreement, including mutual compromises over the two most difficult issues, Jerusalem and the right of return. But Barak pulled the rug out from Yossi Beilin, the head of the Israeli delegation.

        If you don’t believe me, read Beilin’s memoir.

        On top of all this, Jerome Slater wrote here a while ago that Barak himself has since has boasted–boasted, mind you–that “he didn’t give a thing” in the negotiations; if anything, he actually hardened the Israeli position on Jerusalem and any shared sovereignty over the Temple Mount/Haram.

      • Shingo
        July 10, 2013, 9:34 pm

        Speaking of Shlomo Ben-Ami, one thing you won’t find at camera.org, is his admission during his debate with Norman Frankenstein in 2004, that he would have also rejected the pathetic Camp David proposal if he were a Palestinian.

      • Hostage
        July 10, 2013, 9:35 pm

        miriam6 the only link to any Haaretz article in my comment was contained in the quotation from your own comment.

        The usual ad homenim from the CAMERA is pretty irrelevant. It’s not an organization known for expertise in any area, let alone biblical era archeology.

        I cited an article from the Jerusalem Post describing the unprofessional tunneling and excavations carried out by the Israeli Ministry for Religious Affairs under the Haram al-Sharif that had lasted nearly two decades before it was discovered by the Muslim Waqf officials. BTW, they never found an ancient Jewish Temple down there in the cisterns.

      • miriam6
        July 11, 2013, 4:24 am

        Hostage:

        From;

        link to sanfranciscosentinel.com

        Where Heaven and Earth Meet:
        Jerusalem’s Sacred Esplanade (Jamal and Rania Daniel Series in Contemporary History, Politics, Culture, and Religion of the Levant)

        What does it mean, this sacred esplanade, one of the smallest and most contested pieces of real estate on earth?
        How did it come to symbolize the past, present and future and the divergent traditions of Judaism, Christianity and Islam?
        These are questions that “Where Heaven and Earth Meet,” the first-ever volume to be sponsored by Israeli Jewish, Palestinian and Christian research centers in Jerusalem, attempts to answer, say its editors in their introduction.
        Hebrew University historian Benjamin Z. Kedar and Islamic art historian Oleg Grabar of the Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton, invited 21 scholars who are leaders in their fields and represent all three faiths to survey the history, architecture and religious traditions connected to what Jews and Christians call the “Temple Mount” and Muslims call “Haram al-Sharif.”
        The result is a lavishly illustrated volume with scholarly but readable essays that, more than putting the sacred esplanade under a microscope, succeed in presenting it in a kaleidoscope.
        The authors review the history of the mount, beginning with the biblical period (the 10th century to 586 BCE ) and the two Temples, and ranging through Jewish, Roman, Byzantine, Muslim, Crusader, Ottoman and British Mandatory control, as well as the current stormy conflict for sovereignty over the site.
        Thematic essays by such scholars as Grabar, Oxford University’s Guy Stroumsa, Hebrew University’s Rachel Elior and Mustafa Abu Sway of Al-Quds University add greater depth to the historical chapters by examining the meaning of the Temple Mount in Jewish, Muslim and Christian traditions, and, in Grabar’s case, looking at “Haram al-Sharif as a work of art.”

        link to sanfranciscosentinel.com

        Also this from the J.C. about the controversy surrounding competing Muslim/ Jewish claims on the Temple mount/ al- Aqsa site and about the book :

        ‘Heaven and Earth Meet: Jerusalem’s Sacred Esplanade (Jamal and Rania Daniel Series in Contemporary History, Politics, Culture, and Religion of the Levant.’

        link to thejc.com

        Arab scholar ‘blasted’ over Temple Mount.

        Prominent Palestinian academic Sari Nusseibeh has reportedly been blasted for writing about the Jewish connection to Temple Mount.

        However, Mr Nusseibeh’s aide, Rawan Dajani, denied this, saying that Mr Nusseibeh “did not have any problems at all from the publication of this book”.

        link to thejc.com

        Mr Nusseibeh was one of a number of Palestinian and Israeli scholars to contribute to an unprecedented joint new study about the site, Where Heaven and Earth Meet: Jerusalem’s Sacred Esplanade, initiated by the Hebrew University and the Yad Ben-Tzvi Institute.
        In his chapter, Mr Nusseibeh, president of al-Quds University in east Jerusalem, does not affirm that there were Jewish temples on Temple Mount.
        However, he does write that the site was revered by Jews before Mohammed stepped foot there and there is hope that adherents of the two religions, together with Christianity, would be able to accept the others’ attachments to the location.

        According to Israeli daily Ma’ariv, he has been threatened by other Palestinians for acknowledging the Israeli narrative.

        As a chapter by Hebrew University scholar Miriam Frenkel shows, some Jewish scholars have excoriated Islam over the centuries for allegedly building on the very ruins of the Temple after capturing the site in the seventh century. .
        The predominant Muslim view is to deny that Jewish temples existed on the site, which they call the Noble Sanctuary.Amnon Cohen, emeritus professor at the Hebrew University, who contributed a chapter on the Temple Mount during Turkish rule, believes the joint book project has political significance.
        The Palestinian participation, he says,

        “means they don’t disagree with the basic hypothesis that the First and Second Temples were on the Temple Mount.”

        However, Abu Sway disagrees.

        “I have written an Islamic narrative and people can read into it what they want.

        “Ultimately it’s a mosque and has been for 1,400 years.

        “When the Muslims arrived the area of the mosque was barren and it has been a mosque through and through.”

        link to thejc.com.

        Waqf Temple Mount excavation raises archaeologists’ protests Antiquities preservation committee criticizes lack of archaeological supervision, documentation.

        The Waqf Muslim religious trust is digging a ditch from the northern side of the Temple Mount compound to the Dome of the Rock as a prelude to infrastructure work in the area, generating protests from archaeologists. The dig has been approved by the police, but the Israel Antiquities Authority declined to respond to the Waqf’s excavations and would not comment on whether one of its archaeologists had approved the move.
        The Committee for the Prevention of Destruction of Antiquities on the Temple Mount, an apolitical group comprised of archaeologists and intellectuals from the left and right, criticized the use of a tractor for excavation at the Temple Mount “without real, professional and careful archaeological supervision involving meticulous documentation..

        Speaking for the committee Tuesday, archaeologist Eilat Mazar said:

        “There is disappointment at the turning of a blind eye and the ongoing contempt for the tremendous archaeological importance of the Temple Mount.”

        At the beginning of the year, Israeli excavations near the Temple Mount, part of a plan to rebuild the Mugrabi bridge walkway, led to violent protests from Arabs in Israel and around the world.

        link to haaretz.com 30

        link to haaretz.com

      • Trish94903
        July 7, 2013, 3:45 am

        “there’s no proof that was the location of some grand temple” Well, there is an extensive historical record, and as late as the 20th century, the Islamic Waqf published a tour guide to the Haram al-Sharif boasting that this was the spot where King David built an altar unto the Lord and made offerings, and discusses the chamber at Solomon’s Stables, stating it was in use at the time of the First Temple built by Solomon, and that according to Josephus was used as a place of refuge by Jews during the Roman conquest. I can provide a link if you can’t find it on-line. So it would seem that “jewish stuff retroactively lands itself right underneath islamic structures” is not the case, given even the Waqf’s agreement that this was the site of a Jewish temple. More historial record promoting dialogue, rather than inversion invention, which detracts from the writer’s credibility, is needed here.

      • Hostage
        July 7, 2013, 4:24 pm

        Well, there is an extensive historical record, and as late as the 20th century, the Islamic Waqf published a tour guide to the Haram al-Sharif boasting that this was the spot where King David built an altar unto the Lord and made offerings, and discusses the chamber at Solomon’s Stables, stating it was in use at the time of the First Temple built by Solomon, and that according to Josephus was used as a place of refuge by Jews during the Roman conquest.

        That’s cool, except how would anyone living in the 20th century know? The problem is that there is no “extensive historical record” until the 16th century, apart from the contradictory and vague details contained in Josephus, the Mishnah, and the Talmud. There are rabbinical legends which indicate that the Jews deliberately lied to the Arab conquerors about the real location of their ancient monuments.

        The fact is there is an element of ancient Jewish tradition dealing with keeping the details of the divine inheritance and history secret from the Gentiles. That attitude is reflected in the Talmudic injunction against permitting a Gentile to study the Torah and the synagogue inscription discovered in Ein Gedi:

        Anyone causing a controversy between a man and his friend, or whoever slanders his friend before the Gentiles, or whoever steals the property of his friend, or whoever reveals the secret of the town to the Gentiles —He Whose eyes range through the whole earth and Who sees hidden things, He will set His face on that man and on his seed and will uproot him from under the heavens. And all the people said: Amen and Amen Selah.

        — L. I. Levine (editor and translator), “The Inscription in the ‘En Gedi Synagogue,” in Ancient Synagogues Revealed, Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1981), p. 140.

      • Obsidian
        July 8, 2013, 3:10 am

        @Hostge

        “..whoever reveals the secret of the town to the Gentiles”

        You’re barking up the wrong palm tree. The ‘secrets’ refer to local industrial techniques for the extraction of aromatic oils.

        See, Pomegranates and Golden Bells: Studies in Biblical, Jewish and Near Eastern … edited by Jacob Milgrom, David Pearson Wright, David Noel Freedman, Avi Hurvitz, at page 144.

        link to books.google.com

      • Hostage
        July 8, 2013, 2:40 pm

        You’re barking up the wrong palm tree. The ‘secrets’ refer to local industrial techniques for the extraction of aromatic oils.

        Except of course for the fact that it is a dedicatory inscription found in the local synagogue, not the local industrial center. You are also forgetting that the industrial technique for producing dyes was a closely guarded religious secret of the Jewish cults.

        Clarification: the ancient mystery religions were cults with secret rites of initiation and hidden or esoteric teachings. There were prohibitions in Judaism against teaching Gentiles the Tanach and Talmud (Oral Torah); or admitting Gentiles into the precincts of the Temple cult, which were reserved for the exclusive ritual use of properly initiated Jews. There were similar prohibitions pertaining to sharing meals or fellowship with Gentiles in ancient Talmudic Synagogues and curses against anyone who revealed even mundane community secrets. See for example the inscriptions in the Ein Gedi Synagogue regarding curse on anyone revealing the secret of the local balsam industry or the modern-day rediscovery elsewhere of the secret of making Tekhelet dye.
        *http://unitedwithisrael.org/oasis-of-ein-gedi/
        *http://www.tekhelet.com/brochure.htm.

      • Obsidian
        July 8, 2013, 3:42 pm

        @Hostage

        Unable to refute my cite, you turn obtuse.
        Let’s move on.

      • Citizen
        July 8, 2013, 4:38 pm

        @ Obsidian
        Is Hostage barking up the wrong tree? Really? Wikipedia, well known currently as a source for information these days, but also well known as a source the Israeli government pays folks to monitor and continually edit everywhere it contains something seen as negative about Israel or the Jews who founded and maintain the state of Israel, merely states that your explanation of the secret as referenced in the inscription was the town’s secret way of making aromatic oils, is a
        “possible” explanation, that suggests one of many, a “possibility.”

        Speculation is only speculation. What would you speculate, for example, is the meaning of the black swastika at the same ancient place?

        The synagogue at Ein Gedi dates from the Roman-Byzantine period, but it underwent several changes in the course of its use.
        When first built at the beginning of the 3rd century, it was a modest, trapezoidal structure. In its northern wall, facing Jerusalem, were two openings. The floor was of simple white mosaic with a swastika pattern in black tesserae in the center. This pattern has been interpreted as a decorative motif or as a good luck symbol.

      • Hostage
        July 8, 2013, 11:05 pm

        @Hostage

        Unable to refute my cite, you turn obtuse.
        Let’s move on.

        I didn’t turn obtuse. I pointed out that ancient Judaism was a cult whose initiates protected secrets about the composition of rather mundane items for religious reasons. The references to the signs of the Zodiac in the Ein Gedi inscription and the wheels of the Zodiac in other synagogues are another example of the secrets kept by the the ancient Jewish cults. Most modern Jews were shocked to find that the ancients had so many supposedly prohibited images of the pagan Gods, like Helios et al in their synagogues, and rushed to claim that they really only represented the heavens and Yahweh or served as mere decoration. There’s been an on-going debate since the 1930s over the subject. See for example Jacob Neusner and E.R. Goodenough’s efforts to explain cult use of the symbols in the volumes of “Jewish Symbols in the Greco-Roman Period”.

      • Annie Robbins
        July 7, 2013, 2:51 pm

        i apologize to readers for questioning jewish biblical history about the temple mount. this is the last thing we need to be arguing about on a site that’s involved with important political questions, and i’m sorry that my offhand comments created such a distraction.

      • Philip Weiss
        July 7, 2013, 3:01 pm

        Thank you Annie for that apology. I also apologize to readers who were offended. Clearly many people hold strong religious beliefs about a lot of the sites and features of Jerusalem and Hebron and it’s not the business of our site to be trying to sort those beliefs and myths out. Also: I know Annie well enough to know that her disbelief in religious myth is not confined to one religion, and that she respects those different belief communities even if she doesn’t share their beliefs. This is why Herzl, the founder of political Zionism, assured world leaders that Jerusalem would stay internationalized. It is too important a place for three major religions to be controlled by one group. Phil

      • Kathleen
        July 7, 2013, 3:52 pm

        ” It is too important a place for three major religions to be controlled by one group.”

        Bingo And why the UN decided to define it as an international city belonging to all

      • Obsidian
        July 7, 2013, 3:54 pm

        ‘offhand comments’ Annie?
        I don’t think so.

        ‘ religious myths’, Phil?

        I’m not offended. Annie slandered a host of professional, internationally respected archeologists. She should be apologizing to them, not your readers.

      • gamal
        July 7, 2013, 4:27 pm

        “assured world leaders that Jerusalem would stay internationalized” not to cavel too much at that “stay”, when was Jerusalem “internationalized”, and the same could be said of Washington, too important to be controled by any one “group”, what would the “internationalization” of the District of Columbia look like? how would it impact those living there?

        whose consent should be sought or is internationalization something that could be imposed, out of sensitivity to foreigners “religious” sensibilities, should the Black Hills of Dakota (?) receive similar considerations considering their religious significance? significant to whom? how can we possibly live in a world when such mystifications as “of religious significance to….” are used to determine our living conditions and the scope of our peoples (meaning all of them, everyone) lives and rights?

        living beings have rights and need care religious myths less so i would contend, and the use of such discourses is always to lead the way to pillage and despoliation, ideological misdirection, these are non-issues, i cant think of anything less religious than arrogating rights to yourself (which are necessarily detrimental others wellbeing) on the basis of your feelings, such attitudes contradict the fundamental tenets of even the “Abrahamic” religions, righteousness, ha, take up thy cross, really? shahid, yeah right,
        eventually the religious are going to have live up to their own rhetoric, if their empty words had any meaning they would be pleading with each other to accept Jerusalem as a gift gratis, with love. alhamdillulah.

        what can save US other than OUR significance to each other, fuck the past its gone, thats the best thing about it.

      • Trish94903
        July 7, 2013, 4:29 pm

        >>”And why the UN decided to define it as an international city belonging to all” The UN didn’t do that at all. Under European (Christian, British) pressure, the UN created a corpus separatum for ten years, at the end of which time the city population would vote on whether they wished to be part of the Jewish state or the Arab state. Since the city had been majority Jewish since the mid-1800s, the vote was a foregone conclusion and hence the Arabs sought to conquer it and prevent both the formation of the Jewish state and the declaration of Jerusalem as its capital. In the half the Jordanians occupied, they expelled Jewish residents and imported Jordanians to live and work there.

      • MHughes976
        July 7, 2013, 4:59 pm

        I owe my copy of ‘Sand on the Land’ to my membership of MW: thanks again, Phil! That emboldened me to write an article here about ancient Palestine, which I didn’t think was a distraction. In fact I think Isaiah matters more than Secretary Kerry in all but a rather narrow view. Objective discussion of ancient history, since is in fact extremely important for the pressing problems of here and now. It would be nice if Zionists and non-Zionists could find some sort of common language here. If I may say so, I don’t think annie had that much to apologise for.

      • Hostage
        July 7, 2013, 7:26 pm

        Annie slandered a host of professional, internationally respected archeologists.

        Then please cite one of the the professional, internationally respected archeologists who has published conclusive evidence of an ancient Jewish Temple under the Haram al-Sharif.

        Getting back to the subject of the article, are there any journal articles or books by this host of archaeologists providing a shred of evidence that establishes the authenticity of the Tomb of the Patriarchs?

        I think in both cases, (then) Chief Rabbi of the Army, and future Chief Rabbi of Israel, Shlomo Goren did try to politically capitalize on the situation in the aftermath of the 1967 War without bothering to consult archaeologists.

        That was certainly the case with the early Zionists who deliberately declared that the structure was Herod’s Wall and then made it a national relic. See Adam Shatz (ed), “Prophets Outcast: A Century of Dissident Jewish Writing about Zionism and Israel”, Nation Books, 2004 page 53
        link to amazon.com

      • Shingo
        July 7, 2013, 7:30 pm

        The UN didn’t do that at all. Under European (Christian, British) pressure, the UN created a corpus separatum for ten years, at the end of which time the city population would vote on whether they wished to be part of the Jewish state or the Arab state.

        False.

        The plan was initially proposed in UN General Assembly Resolution 181 (II) of 29 November 1947. It provided that “Independent Arab and Jewish States and the Special International Regime for the City of Jerusalem … shall come into existence in Palestine two months after the evacuation of the armed forces of the mandatory Power has been completed but in any case not later than 1 October 1948″. All the residents would automatically become “citizens of the City of Jerusalem”, unless they would opt for citizenship of the Arab or Jewish State.

        So there was never to be a vote as so whether Jerusalem would become part of either state, but whether the residents wished to become citizens fo one state or the other.

        The UN didn’t do that at all. Under European (Christian, British) pressure, the UN created a corpus separatum for ten years, at the end of which time the city population would vote on whether they wished to be part of the Jewish state or the Arab state.

        Since the city had been majority Jewish since the mid-1800s, the vote was a foregone conclusion and hence the Arabs sought to conquer it and prevent both the formation of the Jewish state and the declaration of Jerusalem as its capital. In the half the Jordanians occupied, they expelled Jewish residents and imported Jordanians to live and work there.

        Hasbara alert. This rubbish has been debunked so many times, but here goes again.

        The Jordanians had promised the British that they would only defend the Arab territory, and not invade the jewish state. That is precisely what they did, which is why John Glubb called the 1948 war the phony war. The Arab League even informed the UN of their plans, and this drew no condemnation from any of the member states.

        The United States Representative at the United Nations (Austin) to
        the Secretary of State
        SECRET US URGENT NEW YORK, May 9, 1948-6: 43 p. m.:
        Parodi called meeting of British, Belgian, American, French representatives last night to discuss situation regarding truce and possible action which SC may be called to take following May 15. Hare and I attended. Parodi said time fast running out and essential to make up minds now regarding certain problems.

        He said that as of May 15 we would be faced by declarations two states of Palestine coupled with entrance of Abdullah. Regarding latter two ideas are current. The first is that if Abdullah moved beyond own frontier it might constitute an”act of aggression”. The second idea was that if he entered on invitation of Arab population of Palestine his act might not constitute aggression. Parodi said he was inclined to second theory and thought conclusion to that effect would avoid endless argument.
        – Foreign relations of the United States, 1948. The Near East, South Asia, and Africa, page 946

        Memorandum by the Director of the Office of United Nations
        Affairs (Rusk) to the Under Secretary of State (Lovett)
        SECRET [WASHINGTON,] May 4, 1948:

        “The Jews will be the actual aggressors against the Arabs. However, the Jews will claim that they are merely defending the boundaries of a state which were traced by the UN and approved, at least in principle, by two-thirds of the UN membership. The question which will confront the Security Council in scarcely ten days’ time will be whether Jewish armed attack on Arab communities in Palestine is legitimate or whether it constitutes such a threat to international peace and security as to call for coercive measures by the Security Council. The situation may be made more difficult and less clear-cut if, as is probable, Arab armies from outside Palestine cross the frontier to aid their disorganized and demoralized brethren who will be the objects of Jewish attack. In the event of such Arab outside aid the Jews will come running to the Security Council with the claim that their state is the object of armed aggression and will use every means to obscure the fact that it is their own armed aggression against the Arabs inside Palestine which is the cause of Arab counter-attack.

        The internal memo was published in the Foreign relations of the United States, 1948. The Near East, South Asia, and Africa , Volume V, Part 2, page 848

      • Shingo
        July 7, 2013, 7:34 pm

        Annie slandered a host of professional, internationally respected archeologists.

        Which ones?

      • MRW
        July 7, 2013, 7:37 pm

        No, she didn’t “slander” a host of professional archeologists. (The correct term would have been libeled, since it was written, not spoken aloud.) Read Herzog’s comments. I quote them above. Then look him up to see his stature in Israel today. Archeologists deal in hard evidence, artifacts, and physical proof.

      • Hostage
        July 7, 2013, 9:17 pm

        >>”And why the UN decided to define it as an international city belonging to all” The UN didn’t do that at all

        No they were simply retaining Jerusalem’s pre-existing status in accordance with Article 13, 14, and 28 of the LoN Mandate. That guaranteed the absolute immunity of the Muslim institutions and the Haram al-Sharif. FYI, immunity is always an aspect of sovereignty:

        In the event of the termination of the mandate hereby conferred upon the Mandatory, the Council of the League of Nations shall make such arrangements as may be deemed necessary for safeguarding in perpetuity, under guarantee of the League, the rights secured by Articles 13 and 14, . . .

        link to avalon.law.yale.edu

        The British government and Allied Powers made several declarations and entered into agreements with the Muslim inhabitants of its India colony, the Sharif of Mecca; the Gulf region Arab Sheikhs, and the Muslim notables of Egypt and the Sudan regarding the absolute immunity of the Muslim Holy Sites and Waqfs of Ottoman Asia in order to undermine attempts by the Ottoman Caliphate to declare a Holy War against them.

        *The 3rd paragraph of the Sykes-Picot Agreement required the Allies to consult with the Sharif of Mecca on the form of government in the brown area of international administration in Palestine.
        *More importantly, British Cabinet papers reveal that the Muslim Holy Places in Hebron and Jerusalem had been completely excluded from the territory of the brown, Palestinian “International Enclave”, shown on the map attached to the Sykes-Picot Agreement in accordance with the Government of India’s Proclamation No. 4 to the Arab and Indian Sheikhs and the Sharif of Mecca. The remainder of Palestine was included in the area pledged for Arab Independence. See for example paragraph 4 (c) on pp 4 (pdf page 5) and paragraph 6 (a), (d), & (e) on pp 8-9 (pdf page 9-10) CAB 24/72, “The Settlement of Turkey and the Arabian Peninsula” (Former Reference: GT 6506) , 21 November 1918 and the collection of small and large detailed maps of Palestine in CAB 24/72 “Maps illustrating the Settlement of Turkey and the Arabian Peninsula”, (Former Reference: GT 6506A) 21 November 1918.
        Former Reference: GT 6506A
        Title: Maps illustrating the Settlement of Turkey and the Arabian Peninsula.
        Author: Political Intelligence Department, Foreign Office
        Date 21 November 1918
        Catalogue reference CAB 24/72
        link to nationalarchives.gov.uk
        Former Reference: GT 6506
        Title: The Settlement of Turkey and the Arablan Peninsula.
        Author: Political Intelligence Department, Foreign Office
        Date 21 November 1918
        Catalogue reference CAB 24/72
        link to nationalarchives.gov.uk

        The government of Jordan called the ICJ’s attention to the fact that the Commission appointed by the Council of the League of Nations had determined that the Wailing Wall and pavement in front of it were constituted a Muslim Waqf by Afdal, the son of Saladin, in about the year 1193 A.D. and were under the sole proprietorship of the Supreme Muslim Council of Palestine. See (3) The Ownership of the Wall and of its Surroundings link to unispal.un.org

        The Court in-turn noted that an entire Chapter of the UN partition plan was devoted to protecting those “existing rights”.

        *The Full text of the recent Jordanian-Palestinian agreement on Holy Places in Jerusalem called attention to the continuity of the role of custodianship over the Holy sites and that fact that is wasn’t affected by the qualified Jordanian disengagement from the West Bank. link to en.lpj.org

      • Obsidian
        July 8, 2013, 1:47 am

        @Hostage

        “Then please cite one of the the professional, internationally respected archeologists who has published conclusive evidence of an ancient Jewish Temple under the Haram al-Sharif.”

        Easy. ‘To the trumpeting place’.

        link to en.wikipedia.org

        link to books.google.co.il

      • Trish94903
        July 8, 2013, 2:01 am

        ROTFL!! Ok, I had to go look up ‘hasbara’ and I’m still not sure what it means except that its a term of derision. Nonetheless, I checked your quote:”“The Jews will be the actual aggressors against the Arabs.etc.” and fell down laughing. There is no historical record of this missive–nothing more than an apparently invented document on two nut-case web-sites, one of which was so demonstrably historically inaccurate that it read like bad fiction. Nothing in State Department archives or any other official source I could find — maybe you have an official link to a Library of Congress or State site so I can take this seriously?

        You might be right about the corpus separatum issue–I had read that it was only for a 10 year period but I’ll have to go read up on that again.

        Your dismissal however blithely overlooks the fact that the Jordanians did in fact expel every Jew from the part of Jerusalem they controlled, so this wasn’t “defending” the Arab state but simply conquest and ethnic cleansing. As for what the Jordanians has “promised the British” — go on, getoutahere! With a wink and a nod, as all such diplomatic cover promises go, whether in 1948 Mandate Palestine, or in Iraq or Afghanistan or Assad’s promises in Syria—“promises” are nothing more than diplomatic hot air, and not citable as credible authority. Outside intervention in this civil war is akin to Britain, America,Russia, et al forcibly intervening in Syria’s civil war, or in VietNam’s civil war. They prolong the agony and prevent the parties from reaching closure, all in the name of protecting their own imperialist interests.

      • Shingo
        July 8, 2013, 3:42 am

        Easy. ‘To the trumpeting place’.

        From your link.

        It is believed that this was a part of the Second Temple.”

        Believed but not conclusive evidence.

        Nice try, but fail!

      • Hostage
        July 8, 2013, 2:23 pm

        Easy. ‘To the trumpeting place’.

        You are citing evidence that wasn’t actually found on the Temple Mount, and even your book admits it was discovered “nearby”. That’s an a priori assumption.

        It’s presence in the area of Haram al Sharif could just as easily be attributed to materials brought in from elsewhere for secondary use. There is a similar stone inscription, that is thought to be one of the signs warning Gentiles to stay out of the sacred area of the Temple. That was found in the walls of a Muslim cemetery near the Via Dolorosa by Clarmont Ganneau. That obviously isn’t cited as reliable evidence of a Jewish Temple under either the cemetery or the Haram al Sharif.

        FYI, many inscriptions, like the ancient text about the Prophet Baalam found at Deir Alla, Jordan were religious propaganda created centuries after the fact by believers. So people who ask me to read the text of Isaiah from the Dead Sea collection need to remember that I can also read translations of the Cylinder of Cyrus. Its text establishes the fact that the Jewish Temple was only one of many Temples devoted to non-Persian Gods that he ordered restored. So the portion of Isaiah which claims he was inspired and selected for this singular task by the God of Israel is just an example of really old propaganda to my way of thinking. FWIW, the site itself, not the Second Temple located on it, was considered Holy by the Sages. Rashi wrote:

        Even if they had all come up in the time of Ezra, the Divine Presence would not have rested over the second Sanctuary, for it is written: God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem, [that means], although God has enlarged Japheth, the Divine Presence rests only in the tents of Shem. — Yoma, folio 9b, and 10a
        ..
        and may He dwell in the tents of Shem: May He cause His Presence to rest in Israel. The interpretation of the Sages, however is: Although God will beautify Japheth, insofar as Cyrus, who was of the sons of Japheth, built the Second Temple, the Shechinah did not rest therein. But where did it rest? In the First Temple, built by Solomon, who was of the sons of Shem.

        — Rashi’s Commentary, Genesis 9:27

      • Obsidian
        July 8, 2013, 3:52 pm

        @Hostage

        “It was incribed on a huge block of stone that formed part of a parapet on a building at the southwest corner of the Temple enclosure, it fell to the street below when the Temple was destroyed.”

        You are being obtuse.
        Let’s move on.

      • Citizen
        July 8, 2013, 4:50 pm

        @ Phillip Weiss
        The guy with the gavel at the last Democratic Convention apparently didn’t get your memo when he was on national TV disposing of the Democratic Platform amendment regarding Jerusalem. A woman whispered like Iago into his ear, which we all saw on prime time, and we all know what happened in the face of our own ears on the yays and nays, and we all saw the panned disappointment of the delegates who were not Israel Firsters. The Israel Firsters apparently didn’t care what the founder of Zionism stated about Jerusalem. Look how far we’ve come! Thank you, US taxpayers!

      • Hostage
        July 8, 2013, 11:11 pm

        ROTFL!! Ok, I had to go look up ‘hasbara’ and I’m still not sure what it means except that its a term of derision.

        No it’s not. Generations of Zionists have used the term to “explain” their positions or situations. It’s just that most of those explanations have been debunked and are no longer viewed in a favorable light.

      • Hostage
        July 8, 2013, 11:35 pm

        Nonetheless, I checked your quote:”“The Jews will be the actual aggressors against the Arabs.etc.” and fell down laughing. There is no historical record of this missive–nothing more than an apparently invented document on two nut-case web-sites, one of which was so demonstrably historically inaccurate that it read like bad fiction.

        Sure you did. The Foreign Relations of the United States is the official documentary record of major foreign policy decisions. The memo was preserved and published as part of the volumes that documented the decisions to accept the armistice agreements and recognize Jordanian sovereignty over the West Bank.

        The internal memo was published in the Foreign relations of the United States, 1948. The Near East, South Asia, and Africa , Volume V, Part 2, page 894 link to digicoll.library.wisc.edu

        Analysis of the memo is contained in “The British Empire in the Middle East, 1945-1951″, William Roger Louis, Oxford University Press, 1984, ISBN: 0198229607, page 545; Zionism and the Palestinians, Simha Flapan, Croom Helm, 1979, ISBN: 0856644994, Page 336; and Fallen pillars: U.S. policy towards Palestine and Israel since 1945, Donald Neff, 2nd Edition, Institute for Palestine Studies, 1995, ISBN: 0887282598, page 65.

        Those are not flakey references or websites. It’s a matter of official public record here in the USA that the US government viewed the Jews as the aggressors in the 1948 war. If you’d like both barrels, here’s a link to the CIA Electronic Reading Room documents obtained under Freedom of Information Acts requests. The CIA termed the establishment of Israel a ‘Long Range Disaster’. The comment about the failure of the international community to guarantee borders, any borders, still rings true today. The idea of restoring a “balance of power” in the region never worked out because Israel always viewed other powers as “existential threats”:

        ‘The establishment of the State of Israel by force, with intimidation of the Arab governments by the US and USSR, with the cutting off of the British arms and ammunition (the Arabs only source of supply), with ample sources for Israel of munitions and finance, the Israeli battle victory is complete, but it has solved nothing.

        If boundaries to an Israeli State, any boundaries, had been set and guaranteed by the Great Powers, peace might return to the area. On the contrary, we have actually a victorious state which is limited to no frontiers and which is determined that no narrow limits shall be set. The Near East is faced with the almost certain prospect of a profound and growing disturbance by Israel which may last for decades… …Instead of restoring the boundaries of the province of Judea as they were in 70 A.D., the Israeli leaders now state freely though usually unofficially, their demand for an ever expanding empire. Their present possessions are regarded by them as only a beachead into the Arab and Muslim World – a large part of which they plan to exploit. They are not prepared to live off what the land will yield as the Arabs do… …Alone among the Great Powers, Britain has been working on a plan to restore a balance between the forces in Palestine, but it already appears that this plan is doomed to fail. Zionist pressure in the USA, Anglophobia in Iraq and Egypt, and above all, Russia’s determination to prolong chaos in the Near East and to complete the discrediting of British and American Diplomacy, combine to work against the policy of the British Government and its collaborators –King Abdulla of Trans-Jordan and the Prime Minister of Iraq, Nuri al Said.
        . . .
        The UN is already completely discredited in the minds of the Arab governments and Arab peoples. There are many reasons for this, but the evidence usually cited is the failure of the UN or the Mediator to enforce UN orders to Israel. For example:

        (f)To evacuate areas given to the Arabs by the UN proposal of November 29 1947; although at the same time insisting upon invading the Negeb, to excuse which they quote the same UN partition proposal.

        (g) To respect the international character of the Jerusalem area.

        — See “Observations Concerning Palestine And The Arab Countries”, 3/8/1949, CIA Electronic Reading Room link to foia.cia.gov

      • talknic
        July 9, 2013, 1:38 am

        Trish94903 “I had to go look up ‘hasbara’ and I’m still not sure what it means except that its a term of derision

        If you say so … (wow!)

        “There is no historical record of this missive–nothing more than an apparently invented document on two nut-case web-sites …. maybe you have an official link to a Library of Congress or State site so I can take this seriously?”
        link to digicoll.library.wisc.edu

        Meanwhile your ” on two nut-case web-sites” are?

        “… the Jordanians did in fact expel every Jew from the part of Jerusalem they controlled, so this wasn’t “defending” the Arab state but simply conquest and ethnic cleansing”

        Er… it’s NORMAL for states at war to expel or inter citizens and/or allies of their enemies and; to prevent their own citizens from entering the territory of their enemies. The US, UK, Australia did it to Japanese, Germans in WWII.. Only idiotic propagandists try to take something NORMAL and try to delegitimize their enemies with it, when THEY DID THE SAME THING themselves in Israeli territory and ILLEGALLY in non-Israeli territory under occupation.

        Israel banned Israeli citizens and residents from entering the territory of hostile states (1948 emergency ordnance – still current ) which prevented Israelis from worshiping in Judea and Samaria until 1967.

        “As for what the Jordanians has “promised the British” — go on, getoutahere!”

        Again, a source was given link to digicoll.library.wisc.edu

        “Outside intervention in this civil war is akin to Britain, America,Russia, et al forcibly intervening in Syria’s civil war”

        Uh? A civil war is within the boundaries and the business of a state. Israel has been acting in territories “outside the State of Israel” …”In Palestine” for 65 years. It is NOT a civil war.

        Amazing you didn’t even know you’d been swallowing and regurgitating the wholly holey moldy old Hasbara!

      • yonah fredman
        July 9, 2013, 1:54 am

        Hostage- “Hasbara” is a term I never heard until the year 2000. Of course I am aware of the Hebrew word, but its use as a term meaning: public advocacy (or negatively: propaganda) regarding the Zionist project was unknown to me until 2000.

      • Obsidian
        July 9, 2013, 2:26 am

        @ Shingo

        From my link:

        “It was inscribed on a huge block of stone that formed part of a parapet on a building at the southwest corner of the Temple enclosure, it fell to the street below when the Temple was destroyed.”

        Let’s move on guys.

      • Shingo
        July 9, 2013, 3:00 am

        Nothing in State Department archives or any other official source I could find

        Hostage has pointed you in the right direction.

        Your dismissal however blithely overlooks the fact that the Jordanians did in fact expel every Jew from the part of Jerusalem they controlled, so this wasn’t “defending” the Arab state but simply conquest and ethnic cleansing.

        They of course did this AFTER the Jews had already expelled close to half a million Palestinians from Israel. Ben Gurion ordered that even the Palestinians who had not partaken in hostilities were to be removed in case they became hostile – so you are apparently prepared to accept this as
        legitimate while objecting to the actions of the Jordanians after the fact.

        As for what the Jordanians has “promised the British” — go on, getoutahere!

        How about you getoutandreadsomehistory?

        In a meeting between Ernest Bevine, the Labor Govt’s foreign secretary, and Taufik Abdullah, the Jordanian PM and Glubb, Bevine asked Abdullah , what he planned to do. Abdullah explained that the plan was to send the Arab Legion to protect and keep the Arab part of Palestine. Bevin said that seemed the sensible thing to do, but do not invade the Jewish part.

        On the 2nd May they met for the last time to find a solution for Jerusalem. They bough maps to show where the Jordanian army would stop and where they stopped is today, the border of Israel and the West Bank, which is how the West bank was created.

        Glubb ordered the Jodarnian army to leave Lodd and Ramalah to the cries of betrayal by the Jordanian army.

        Now go and tend to your ignorance.

      • Hostage
        July 9, 2013, 2:57 pm

        From my link:

        “It was inscribed on a huge block of stone that formed part of a parapet on a building at the southwest corner of the Temple enclosure, it fell to the street below when the Temple was destroyed.”

        Again, that’s written by someone trying to use deductive logic to describe an event that happened 2,000 years before hand. That’s not the only possible explanation. Conjecture isn’t proof that the Temple was located above the spot where the rock was found, that the inscription is legitimate, or that there was a Jewish Temple on the spot occupied by the Haram al Sharif today.

      • Obsidian
        July 9, 2013, 4:24 pm

        @Hostage

        And it’s pure coincidence that the trumpet was blown on the southwest corner of the Temple Mount. See Josephus, War 4. 580-583.

        Good night Hostage.

      • Hostage
        July 9, 2013, 6:22 pm

        Hostage- “Hasbara” is a term I never heard until the year 2000. Of course I am aware of the Hebrew word, but its use as a term meaning: public advocacy (or negatively: propaganda) regarding the Zionist project was unknown to me until 2000.

        You’re still spinning your wheels. The Encyclopaedia Judaica records the fact that various Zionist officials, like Vladimir Jabotinsky, held official positions as “Directors of Propaganda” for the Zionist Organization, and its subsidiary organs from the moment the movement was founded, e.g. link to web.archive.org

        The “Extracts from the Reports of the Executive of the Zionist Organisation to the Twelfth Zionist Congress, Carlsbad, September, 1921″ noted (page 9) that after the Balfour Declaration, Zionist propaganda work involving pamphlets and the press was fully organised.

        For decades, thereafter the Zionist Organization or the Zionist Organization of America both adopted resolutions about the need to conduct formal Zionist propaganda and education efforts among Jewish youths in the USA, e.g.:

        Mr. Fishman : Resolution No. 12.
        (12) Whereas. Young Judaea is the organization engaged in the work of Zionist propaganda and education among the Jewish youth of this country; and
        Whereas, The efforts of Young Judaea alone have failed in this direction, with the result that the work of Zionist education among the Jewish youth of this country is seriously hampered and imperiled;
        Therefore, Be It Resolved, That the Zionist Organization of America, through its Executive Committee, regional unions and several Districts, take steps to assist Young Judaea in its work of Zionist education among
        the Jewish youth of America.

        — See resolution 12 (adopted) in “Report of the Proceedings of the 24th Annual Convention of the Zionist Organization of America”, Cleveland, 1921
        link to books.google.com

        Here is an extract from an essay published in the Young Judaea Zionist Primer:

        ZIONIST FEDERATIONS.
        Even as the Congress is built from the bottom up by the shekel payers, so the international Congress, in its turn, establishes Zionist Federations in the various countries for more effective local Zionist propaganda.

        Sundel Doniger, A Zionist Primer: Essays by Various Writers, Young Judea, 1917 link to books.google.com

        See also Yoram Bar Gal, “Propaganda and Zionist Education: The Jewish National Fund, 1924-1947, University Rochester Press, 2003

        *And “Zionist Organisation and Propaganda: Programme of the Inquiry and Conference on Questions of Zionist Organisation and Propaganda,” New
        Judaea, December 28, 1928; and Leo Lauterbach, “Organization and
        Propaganda: The Inquiry and Its Object,” New Judaea, February 28, 1929 – cited in Michael Berkowitz, Western Jewry and the Zionist Project, 1914-1933, Cambridge, 2003

        FYI, if “hasbara” is supposed to be a derogatory term, then you should let Aish and their International Hasbara Fellowships in on the secret. link to hasbarafellowships.org

      • Shingo
        July 9, 2013, 6:26 pm

        And it’s pure coincidence that the trumpet was blown on the southwest corner of the Temple Mount. See Josephus, War 4. 580-583.

        Even though the accounts of Josephus have been refuted.

        Good night Hostage.

        Why are you in such a hurry to run away Obsidian ?

      • Shingo
        July 9, 2013, 6:29 pm

        “It was inscribed on a huge block of stone that formed part of a parapet on a building at the southwest corner of the Temple enclosure, it fell to the street below when the Temple was destroyed.”

        Amazing how this was asserted without any evidence or claims of eye witness reports.

        Let’s move on guys.

        Yes, lets’ move along and not scrutinize this pathetic claim of evidence before it becomes even more embarrassing for Obsidian.

      • Shingo
        July 9, 2013, 6:30 pm

        Again, that’s written by someone trying to use deductive logic to describe an event that happened 2,000 years before hand

        It’s amazing isn’t it, how these people base their arguments on assumptions they cannot hope to prove? How can they know about a building at the southwest corner of the Temple enclosure when they can’t even find the Temple?

      • Hostage
        July 9, 2013, 7:15 pm

        You are being obtuse.
        Let’s move on.

        Then let me be perfectly clear. Many scholars, perhaps the majority, believe that the Jewish scriptures are pious forgeries of very late origin. They feel that, in many cases, the authors simply manufactured tall tales to explain existing ruins and monuments. The same thing applies to the Talmud, Zohar, & etc. The ancient historical texts say that there were already pilgrims in the Hasmonean era trying to find Mt. Sinai, Noah’s Ark, and monumental evidence or relics that could be used to prove the Jewish scriptures were non-fiction. Many of these individuals paid to have repairs made, shrines erected, and inscriptions made to sites which were not authentic. The fact that this stone has an ancient inscription doesn’t necessarily mean it was authentic.

        For example, the so-called Hezekiah inscription does not mention Hezekiah at all. In the 1990’s some British scholars claimed the inscription was made long after Hezekiah’s day, in the Hasmonean era. The experts in ancient languages and epigraphy argued against the proposition. But at one and the same time, they also argued in favor of the authenticity of several to-good-to-be-true discoveries that scientists using microscopes and standard laboratory methods debunked as forged inscriptions.

        In any event, regular readers of the Biblical Archeology journals have been informed, over and over again, that the biblical accounts are spurious and that much of the details that scholars thought they knew for certain about the ancient city of Jerusalem have turned out to be completely false after actual excavations were undertaken, e.g. Rewriting Jerusalem History
        link to cojs.org.

      • James Canning
        July 9, 2013, 7:19 pm

        Fascinating. Great post.

      • Hostage
        July 9, 2013, 8:35 pm

        And it’s pure coincidence that the trumpet was blown on the southwest corner of the Temple Mount. See Josephus, War 4. 580-583.

        Good night Hostage.

        Like the Priests, the Romans too used a trumpet (buccina) to mark the passage of their watches. Herod’s craftsmen built both the Temple and the Antonia Fortress. If they would have marked the destination of the stone in one case, why not mark it in the other?

        For that matter, how do you know that an ancient pilgrim who was acquainted with the legend didn’t mistakenly inscribe the southwest corner of the old Roman fortress or the Temple of Jupiter after the fact thinking it was the Temple wall? Christians used to claim that the Roman soldiers’ dice board chiseled in the pavement under the Zion Sister’s Convent was actual evidence described in John 19:2-3. But it’s regarded as a relic from Hadrian’s era these days – and purely a coincidence.

      • yonah fredman
        July 9, 2013, 9:11 pm

        Hostage- I was not asserting the nonexistence of propaganda or public advocacy for the Zionist project. I was merely stating that the term “hasbara” in that context was not current to my knowledge on the street until 2000. There is nothing wrong with the term hasbara. One of the talents of a teacher is being a good ba’al masbir, a good explainer. But maybe this drop of the hat will get another thousand words on something not relevant to what I wrote.

        Btw- I believe that the Temple in the time of Jesus was on the Temple Mount. The continuity of Jewish tradition as to the location of the temple (past tense) after its destruction was not strong enough to be specific about its location, but to assert that the tradition was so weak as to misplace the temple by half a kilometer, this I do not believe.

      • Hostage
        July 10, 2013, 1:00 am

        Btw- I believe that the Temple in the time of Jesus was on the Temple Mount. The continuity of Jewish tradition as to the location of the temple (past tense) after its destruction was not strong enough to be specific about its location, but to assert that the tradition was so weak as to misplace the temple by half a kilometer, this I do not believe.

        I think Tuvia Sagiv does a good job of explaining how that could have happened. link to templemount.org.

        The discrepancies he cites between the estimated size of the Temple precinct reported by Josephus, about 90 meters by 190 meters, and the actual area of the Haram as Sharif today, about 500 meters by 300 meters might very well allow for an error of nearly half a kilometer.

        It’s not unusual for atlases from the 19th century to contain errors of 500 meters. In this case we’re talking about uncharted ruins and vague verbal descriptions. The fact is that neither Jewish nor Christian tradition preserved any records about the layout of Hadrian’s remodeled Jerusalem. Both traditions claim that the site was completely leveled to the foundations or plowed like a field – and not one stone left standing on another.

        I don’t deny that ancient Jerusalem was at one time a Jewish city or that a Temple existed there somewhere. I’m simply saying that the popular beliefs about its exact location have not yet been verified by any actual excavations.

      • Obsidian
        July 10, 2013, 1:14 am

        @Hostage

        Firstly, the signpost was found smashed into the sidewalk, meaning that it had fallen from a height and left in situ. It hadn’t been dragged a distance, and dumped. Your theory would place Antonia’s Fortress south of, and downhill, of it’s logical and historical placement.

        Secondly, and just as important, the signpost is huge; eight feet long and therefore out of proportion to a small fort, but well proportioned to a huge temple that was built to contain thousands of worshipers

        Good try, though. I give you credit.

        Now stop being obtuse.

      • talknic
        July 10, 2013, 1:26 am

        yonah fredman “There is nothing wrong with the term hasbara:”

        Indeed. Nothing wrong with the term.

        However on the I/P issue it neither teaches or explains. It consists entirely of attempts to justify Israel’s illegal actions as the Occupying Power over non-Israeli territories, none of which passes the slightest scrutiny.

        Contrary to its intent, it provides evidence of the lies told by willing Israeli propagandists, completely against the most basic of Judaism tenets. Rather odd behaviour to engage in on behalf of the Jewish state.

        It’s wholly holey and entirely moldy olde propaganda. Tug at any thread and it will unravel. The Hasbarrow is empty link to wp.me

      • Obsidian
        July 10, 2013, 1:33 am

        @Hostage

        ” The fact that this stone has an ancient inscription doesn’t necessarily mean it was authentic.”

        So some ancient pilgrim found an 8 foot long blank buttress that had fallen from a height and smashed into the sidewalk and he forged inscriptions into it and skillfully obliterated half of the wording to make it appear even more ancient and decrepit.

        Sure, Hostage. Why not.

      • Annie Robbins
        July 10, 2013, 2:37 am

        hostage, for some reason your 7:15 pm link is not providing access. i googled it and found it at the same site, but tried linking to it and it is just not functioning. it can be accessed here link to google.com

      • Hostage
        July 10, 2013, 5:31 am

        hostage, for some reason your 7:15 pm link is not providing access.

        Maybe Mondo’s script is mangling it a bit when it turns the bare url into a no follow link. Here’s an attempt with the a tag and nofollow already added:
        Rewriting Jerusalem History, Hershel Shanks, BAR 25:06, Nov/Dec 1999. Everything You Ever Knew About Jerusalem Is Wrong (Well, Almost)

      • Shingo
        July 10, 2013, 7:39 am

        Firstly, the signpost was found smashed into the sidewalk, meaning that it had fallen from a height and left in situ.

        1. No it does not. It could have been smashed before falling – it could have been transported in pieces.
        2. As Hostage pointed out, there is no evidence the signpost is authentic.

        Your theory would place Antonia’s Fortress south of, and downhill, of it’s logical and historical placement.

        There is no logical and historical placement. Historical placement would be based on evidence, and there isn’t any.

        Secondly, and just as important, the signpost is huge; eight feet long and therefore out of proportion to a small fort, but well proportioned to a huge temple that was built to contain thousands of worshipers

        Again, there is no evidence it was authentic and not a forgery, so irrelevant.

        Now stop being obtuse.

        Stop being so desperate and anti intellectual

      • Shingo
        July 10, 2013, 7:42 am

        So some ancient pilgrim found an 8 foot long blank buttress that had fallen from a height and smashed into the sidewalk and he forged inscriptions into it and skillfully obliterated half of the wording to make it appear even more ancient and decrepit.

        Again uou are making the baseless assumption that it had fallen from a height at that spot, or that this was it’s original location. The stone could have been recycled and might not have been smashed beforehand or as the consequence of some other impact.

        You are also ignoring the fact that the Romans in particular, we renowned for recycling stone from previous ruins when they built new structures. Much of Rome was built and rebuilt that way. So the fact that the stone was found there is far from conclusive.

        The fact that the wording was ancient and decrepit does not make it authentic.

        Surely why not?

      • Obsidian
        July 10, 2013, 11:53 am

        @Shingo

        Last time.
        The sidewalk underneath where the parapet had fallen was smashed by the impact.

        Please. Basta!

      • MHughes976
        July 10, 2013, 4:24 pm

        One of the impressions made on me when I’ve had a look at (not pretending to have studied in depth) documents describing the Temple of Hasmonean times, Ezekiel, the Letter of Aristeas, perhaps the Dead Sea ‘Temple Scroll’, is that the style is quite intentionally surrealistic. Commentators tend to say that the structures are too large for any possible platform in Jerusalem.
        This style extends of course into our good old Christian Book of Revelation about Jerusalem – even though the Temple is no longer needed in that dispensation. If any Jewish or Muslim commenters wish to point out to me that I have a sacred book on my hands here that pushes the surrealistic style to questionable limits, go ahead, I can take it.
        I’ve rather thought that there is a theological point here, that where God’s presence touches the world the normal prosaic laws of description and measurement no longer apply and that though numbers and measures are often used they are really poetic reminders that the glory and providence of God are beyond such paltry human things as counting and measuring. To me there is a certain beauty in this idea which is muted in many departments of Christianity.
        For what it’s worth I think that on balance we should look for the Hasmonean/Herodian Temple on the Temple Mount, though the case for the Western Wall deserves a lot of questioning. Tacitus’ account would make you look in the area round the Gihon Spring. He must have talked to Roman soldiers who had had to fight their way into the daunting, fortress-like Temple, but there again his account is clearly a bit garbled.
        Just to say again that to me annie’s original comment was neither discourteous nor ill-informed.

      • Hostage
        July 10, 2013, 7:06 pm

        Your theory would place Antonia’s Fortress south of, and downhill, of it’s logical and historical placement.

        The Hasmonean Palace and adjacent Roman citadel were reportedly higher than the Temple itself. The citadel was supposedly the only monument that survived. Where are they now and where is the higher ground where they once stood? For example:

        5. King Herod Agrippa’s View of the Temple from the West

        Josephus, in The Jewish Wars, describes the fact that King Herod Agrippa could look out from his Hasmonean Palace (at or near the present Citadel at the Jaffa Gate), and view the sacrifices at the Azarah, at the altar of the Second Temple. This incensed the Jews, who then built a wall extending the height of the western rear wall of the Temple proper in order to block the view. Roman soldiers, patrolling the western threshold – thus unable to view the Azarah – demanded that the wall be demolished. The Jews objected, and even obtained the consent of Emperor Nero to leave the wall in place.

        If the Temple were at the location of the Dome of the Rock, it would have required a Palace tower height of 75 meters to view into the Azarah. There never was a building of such a height in Jerusalem. This all implies a lower, more southern location of the Temple.

        link to templemount.org

        Secondly, and just as important, the signpost is huge; eight feet long and therefore out of proportion to a small fort

        The team that found the signpost reported that it doesn’t mention the Temple. They speculated that the inscription was just a marking that indicated the assembly or destination instructions for the builders. I’ve already pointed out the same builders constructed the Roman citadel too, and that the Army used trumpets to mark the passage of their own watches, not unlike the Jewish Temple guard.

        BTW, where do you get the idea that it was a “small” fort? It was a city-sized encampment for an entire Legion of the Roman Army. Where is the site for an encampment for a force that size today if it isn’t located on the Haram al Sharif?

      • Hostage
        July 10, 2013, 7:46 pm

        So some ancient pilgrim found an 8 foot long blank buttress that had fallen from a height and smashed into the sidewalk and he forged inscriptions into it and skillfully obliterated half of the wording to make it appear even more ancient and decrepit.

        I didn’t say it was inscribed after it fell, or that it was protected from subsequent damage or weathering. I simply pointed out that you haven’t proved that it was ever part of any Temple or that some other structure located there during Hadrian’s era wasn’t inscribed by a pilgrim trying to identify the ancient sites. The legend of the Prophet Balaam and the collapsed Deir Alla inscription is an example of that very sort of thing.

      • Hostage
        July 10, 2013, 9:17 pm

        You are also ignoring the fact that the Romans in particular, we renowned for recycling stone from previous ruins when they built new structures.

        True enough and they enjoyed building monuments that displayed Jewish objects they had appropriated for themselves as a result of their wars precisely because they symbolized Roman triumphs over the humiliated Jews.

        The Jews certainly had refused to have shields bearing Roman inscriptions and the Emperor’s name displayed in Herod’s palace, but the Romans are not known to have voiced objections to displaying historical Jewish objects and spoils on buildings and monuments or to re-using building materials from the cities they had conquered.

    • Walid
      July 6, 2013, 1:13 pm

      gilad, your little history tour reminded me of the one about Manhattan and to whom it and the rest of the continent belonged before the Europeans arrived.

      • dimadok
        July 6, 2013, 2:48 pm

        @Walid. Funny you bring it up- because Manhattan was sold. The price was ridiculous and the tribe had now idea what would happen in 300 years, but it was sold. The rest of US is stolen and cleansed but Manhattan was sold. Same goes to Alaska, sold by Russia to US-was the price right, and would you like to negotiate again? No sane person would do.

      • Hostage
        July 7, 2013, 3:30 am

        @Walid. Funny you bring it up- because Manhattan was sold.

        And children find money that the Tooth Fairly leaves under their pillows. There is no documentary evidence to support the legend that Indians sold Manhattan for beads.

      • Citizen
        July 7, 2013, 9:18 am

        There is one period document (in Dutch) that says that Indians sold Manhattan, but it does not mention beads. Another document states Staten Island was traded, mostly for tools and other useful items. Apparently the Indians had no concept of land ownership. They were astute traders. They did have the concept of sharing. link to historymyths.wordpress.com

      • Citizen
        July 7, 2013, 9:25 am

        @ dimadok
        Some sane and knowledgeable people argue that the Alaska deal was not so good: link to economix.blogs.nytimes.com

      • Citizen
        July 7, 2013, 9:35 am

        @ dimadok

        RE: “The rest of US is stolen…”

        The Louisiana Purchase (from France)* was by far the largest territorial gain in US history, stretching from the Mississippi River to the Rocky Mountains. The purchase doubled the size of the United States.

        *US paid 50 million francs ($11,250,000) plus cancellation of debts worth 18 million francs ($3,750,000), for a total of 15 million dollars (less than 3 cents per acre) for the Louisiana territory ($230 million in 2012 dollars, less than 42 cents per acre)

      • Ludwig
        July 7, 2013, 2:36 pm

        Speaking of Manhattan and purchases. Hebron is widely discussed as being one of three spots that people can never claim Jews stole, since it was purchased at exorbitant prices.

        “Cave of Machpelah (Hebrew: מערת המכפלה, Me’arat ha-Machpela (help·info), trans. “cave of the double tombs”) is a series of subterranean chambers is located in the heart of Hebron’s old city. Situated beneath a large rectangular Herodian era structure, The biblical patriarch Abraham, was buried beside his wife Sarah at the site. The Hebrew name possibly refers to the physical layout of the original two chambers. Jacob “digged” (Genesis 50:5) further in, to make a third chamber for Leah and himself. The Book of Genesis relates that Abraham specifically purchased the land as a burial plot from Ephron the Hittite, making it one of two purchases by Abraham of real estate in the Land of Canaan, the Promised Land. An early Jewish text, the Genesis Rabba, states that this site is one of three that enemies of Judaism cannot taunt the Jews by saying “you have stolen them,” as it was purchased “for its full price” by Abraham. ”

      • MRW
        July 7, 2013, 7:43 pm

        The Spanish signed over the “Louisiana Purchase” back to France in 1803, which Spain won in the 1753 (?) treaty, so that France could sell it to Jefferson for 15 mill (end of 1803) so that Napoleon would have the dough to defeat the British at Waterloo. Didn’t work of course for Napoleon, but the King of Spain was pissed enough at the Brits that he was happy to help out Napoleon and the young Americans with land he knew he was never going to use. In other words, instead of coughing up the money from his own coffers for Napoleon, he made the Americans do it. Win-win-win.

      • Bumblebye
        July 7, 2013, 8:32 pm

        Abraham and co. might be Biblical characters, but they were not Jews as that religion along with it’s rules had not yet been invented. And what was purchased by individuals in the dim and distant past, long before a few of their descendants adopted this religion, does not vest ownership in this land in those few descendants. Your “early Jewish text” is very poorly argued if that is the sum of its argument.

      • Hostage
        July 7, 2013, 9:38 pm

        Ludwig, you really can’t appeal to the legend of Abraham to confirm the details of the legend of Abraham without chasing your own tail.

      • James Canning
        July 8, 2013, 2:17 pm

        France transferred the territory to Spain in 1752. France took it back in 1800. US initially wanted to buy city of New Orleans and hinterland.

      • Citizen
        July 8, 2013, 4:58 pm

        Yeah. I just wanted to point out dimadok’s ignorance or intentional lie. Always good to do that with hasbara bots weakly exercising their profession.

      • talknic
        July 9, 2013, 1:50 am

        Ludwig “Hebron is widely discussed as being one of three spots that people can never claim Jews stole, since it was purchased at exorbitant prices”

        Problem with your theory.. It’s completely irrelevant

        A) ‘real estate’ is not ‘territory’
        B) It was not within the territory Israel asked to be and was recognized by in 1948 within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947
        C) Israel has never legally annexed ANY territories to it’s Internationally recognized sovereignty

    • talknic
      July 6, 2013, 2:07 pm

      There is no end to giladg’s irrelevant drivel.

      • Annie Robbins
        July 6, 2013, 11:29 pm

        this is classic too

        link to mondoweiss.net

        ;)

      • Shingo
        July 7, 2013, 8:51 am

        There is no end to giladg’s irrelevant drivel.

        Nor will there ever be, seeing as he is a messianic nut job. For months he kept posting diatribe at Walt’s blog about how the root of all evil stemmed from the refusal of the Palestinians to recognize Jewish claim to Jerusalem.

    • lyn117
      July 6, 2013, 3:55 pm

      Historically, there was no such religion as Judaism when Abraham theoretically lived. Everyone in the region were pagans. Yahweh was just one of the gods in the Canaanite pantheon at that time. His elevation to sole, supreme deity happened some 1500 years later.

      What’s written in the bible contains considerable editing, redaction and adoption of mythology from all over the place, by various ruling elites and religious authorities, in order to promote whatever agenda they had. Abraham, assuming he existed, had very little to do with the formation of this religious mythology, except as a figure in the story.

      The Ibrahimi mosque was undoubtably originally a site of pagan worship, and remained so well into the Christian era (yes, Jews and Christians worshipped there as well). What it was under Herod is unknown, but historians of the Christian rule attest to attempts by Christian authorities to stamp out pagan practices in Hebron by demolishing existing pagan alters and rebuilding them as Christian sites (see Basem L. Ra’ad, “Hidden Histories,” p 71-72.). This is not so different from the Judaic rulers, according to historian Josephus, the Hasmoneans also attempted to stamp out pagan worship.

      As far as Abraham being the forefather (in the ancestor sense) of the Jewish people, historically, modern Jews are predominantly descended from people who converted to Judaism in other parts of the world. If anyone can legitimately claim Abraham as their forefather, it would be the Palestinian people.

      The only reason this matters is because Zionists are making some big claim to a certain territory based on purported religious “attachment”

      • Hostage
        July 7, 2013, 3:36 am

        The Ibrahimi mosque was undoubtably originally a site of pagan worship, and remained so well into the Christian era (yes, Jews and Christians worshipped there as well).

        Here is a portion of an article by Gershom Gorenburg about Tuvia Sagiv:

        “I started asking all sorts of questions about the Tomb of the Patriarchs,” he recalls; architecturally, it didn’t seem to line up with ancient sources. “Before the Muslim period [beginning in the seventh century], the descriptions are of a completely different building… Besides, the Talmud indicates that the Tomb was in ruins in the third century. Yet this building dates to the first century BCE.” Eventually, “I came to the conclusion that the Tomb we know today is really an Edomite sanctuary. It’s got nothing to do with the Jews.”

        — Gershom Gorenburg, What If This Isn’t the Western Wall?, Fonte: The Jerusalem Report, November 23, 1998 • Vol. IX, No.15
        templemount.org/sagiv-JR.htmlHebron

      • yesspam
        July 7, 2013, 3:13 pm

        The Temple was not exclusively dedicated to Yahweh worship. It had an Asherah pole for a start, and temple prostitution. The early Israelites were polytheists.

    • Hostage
      July 6, 2013, 6:06 pm

      So the Tomb of the Patriarchs (to Jews) and referred to by Annie as the Ibrahimi Mosque, became part of Islam way after the evolvement of the Jewish religion by the Israelites. . . . Islam often has latched onto the history and traditions of others and the Annie’s of the world couldn’t give a damn.

      The Talmud is hardly much older than Islam. Even your own foundational mythology unmistakably explains that Abraham was the patriarch of the Arab people too. That was long before there was any such thing as either Judaism in its current form or Islam. There is ample evidence in your own myths that both peoples have worshiped other Gods.

      The religion of the sons of Jacob had nothing to do with rituals connected to the tomb site anyway. Like other fertility cults, they performed rituals at the sites of the same threshing floors used by everyone else, i.e.

      and Joseph’s entire household and his brothers and his father’s household; only their young children and their flocks and cattle did they leave in the land of Goshen.

      And chariots and horsemen also went up with him, and the camp was very numerous.

      And they came to the threshing floor of the thornbushes, which is on the other side of the Jordan, and there they conducted a very great and impressive eulogy, and he made for his father a mourning of seven days.

      The Canaanite[s], the inhabitant[s] of the land, saw the mourning at the threshing floor of the thornbushes, and they said, “This is an intense mourning for the Egyptians.” Therefore, they named it Abel Mizraim (Egypt mourns), which is on the other side of the Jordan

      And his sons did to him just as he had commanded them.

      And his sons carried him to the land of Canaan, and they buried him in the cave of the field of Machpelah, which field Abraham had bought for burial property from Ephron the Hittite before Mamre. Genesis 50:8-13

    • ziusudra
      July 7, 2013, 2:14 am

      Re: giladg,
      ………Abraham, the forefather…….
      You have been eating too many motzas!

      Even fairy tale Zionist historical accounts Support that the ‘Tribes’ enter Canaan ca. 1200BC!
      Abraham from Mesopotamia migrates to Canaan ca. 1700BC!
      He brings his Deities EL & BAAL to the Canaanites!
      World Jewry is not the offspring of Abraham!
      The Hebrew Alphabeth is completed ca. 1000BC!
      Moses ne’er wrote anything!
      The Pharisees adopted, stole & Judaised Noah, Abraham & the stolen deeds of Moses! They first wrote their fairy tales ca. 536BC in Babylonia!!!
      Ziusudra
      PS EL, JAHWEH & ABRAHAM are Sumerian ethymology & make no sense in Hebrew!

      • lyn117
        July 7, 2013, 2:58 pm

        Actually the Hebrew alphabet is generally dated as started around 300 BCE. Since the alphabet is just squared-off Aramaic, one could reasonably date the alphabet as beginning around when Aramaic started, 800 BCE (according to wikipedia). At least, writers using the Aramaic alphabet probably could have easily read the Hebrew alphabet.

        However in an attempt to back-date Jewish claims, a lot of people seem to have started calling the Phoenician alphabet “paleo-Hebrew.” Never mind that the Phoenicians developed and spread the use the alphabet, and they were not Hebrews (the Greeks called them Phoenicians, they would have called themselves after the cities they sailed from such as Byblos or Tyre.) There’s no evidence that any people in 1000 BCE would have called themselves “Hebrews” or been called “Hebrews” so as to have an alphabet named after them.

      • Walid
        July 8, 2013, 3:22 am

        “Never mind that the Phoenicians developed and spread the use the alphabet, and they were not Hebrews (the Greeks called them Phoenicians, they would have called themselves after the cities they sailed from such as Byblos or Tyre.)”

        Whatever port-city the Phoenicians called themselves after or what the Greeks nicknamed them, these people were Canaanites.

      • ziusudra
        July 8, 2013, 5:51 am

        Greetings Lyn117,
        Brightly said, lyn.
        — they were not Hebrews……
        They first became Hewbrews after the Name giving by the Greeks, in Greek:
        Hebrew, One outside of the Hellenic Culture, only 323BC!
        5K return to Jerusalem from Babylonia under Rabbi, Scribe Ezra in 456BC, only to give up the Hebrew Language in 200BC taking up Aramaic!
        They were identified by their tribal names until their first puny Kingdom of Hebron under King Saul. Then Israelites, then Judeans (Jews)
        After the 66AD/70AD purge, they scattered all over No. Africa,ME & Southern Europe.
        Hebrew Language. After the Phoenicians develope an alphabeth, does Hebrew get to write vowels 1050BC! Moses ne’er wrote anything. The 10
        commandments were written by the Egyptians ca. 1336BC adopted & Judaised by Moses, and written first in 456BC.
        King Ziusudra of Mesopotamia, 2900BC in the great flood of the Euphrates gets Judaised as Noah after 456BC!
        Abraham from Mesopotania, 1700BC gets Judaised in 456BC!
        ziusudra

    • talknic
      July 7, 2013, 9:50 am

      @giladg July 6, 2013 at 12:44 pm Cute, but entirely irrelevant to the actual legal status of Israel’s internationally recognized borders and Israel’s illegal activities as Occupying Power in territories “outside the State of Israel” per the Israeli Government’s statements link to wp.me and;
      entirely irrelevant to Israel’s binding agreements link to domino.un.org and;
      entirely irrelevant to Israel’s obligations to binding Law/the UN Charter (binding in its entirety) /relevant binding Conventions, as emphasized in numerous UNSC resolutions link to wp.me

    • Danaa
      July 7, 2013, 3:34 pm

      giladg, i don’t understand your comment about “patriarchs”. It is a nice legend, to be sure, but what relevance does it have for a colonialist take-over of another people’s land and resources?

      In the Israeli secular school system, the myths of abraham, isaac and jacob were always taught as such – myths and parables, meant to deliver a series of lessons. In fact, the entire genesis reads like a “lesson plan” to me. The teachers i had did not discourage the idea of ‘made-up” history as a means to codify a law and rope people into a tribe. in fact, all tribes did that. The jewish one did it better than most. My teachers’ answers were always to the effect that no matter the veracity of the biblical tales, it is the lessons one derives from them that count.

      I do believe that a careful reading of Sand’s three books helps dispel many myths. Yet it does so without undermining the values in the lesson(s). It is still a good plan.

      • Citizen
        July 8, 2013, 5:10 pm

        So, tell us (once again?) why it’s “still a good plan”? You think the biblical myths were a net gain for the human race? I’m just asking, that’s why I’m an agnostic by default, rather than an atheist.

      • Hostage
        July 9, 2013, 12:19 am

        In the Israeli secular school system, the myths of abraham, isaac and jacob were always taught as such – myths and parables, meant to deliver a series of lessons.

        I pointed out above, that in many religious schools they teach what Rashi said, i.e. that even if all of the Jews had come back from Babylon with Ezra, God still wouldn’t have manifested his presence on the Second Temple, because the both the return and the construction project had no divine mandate. So the religious Jews used to claim that the exile declared in the Torah itself was still in effect. It’s a mystery why so many of the streams have changed their position on that subject.

  4. Ramzi Jaber
    July 6, 2013, 1:27 pm

    Annie, you’re always polite and courteous and generous.

  5. thetruthhurts
    July 6, 2013, 1:28 pm

    virtually everybody, but not eveybody, who posts on this site, are good, decent, conscientious people. I have been studying and following the arab/israeli situation since 1972.
    I can still very clearly remember sitting in my parents tv room in 1979 watching the camp davis signing with carter, sadat, and begin. My parents were just elated!. I said it all doesn’t mean a damn thing because they’re not dealing with the root cause which ,of course, is the palestinian refugee problem and the land unabatedly being stolen continuously from them.
    I’ve noticed, as I'[m sure most of my fellow readers and posters have also, a definite modus operandi of the likud jews in constantly trying to forestall dealing with this issue through the deceitful charade of “peace talks”, which are nothing more than a delaying tactic while israel steals more and more land.
    The bottom line is nothing is going to change,as it hasn’t since 1979, unless there is a serious, and I mean serious, force of some kind to make it change, sort of like that old priciple in physics, something will not change unless there is a force equal or greater to “make” it change,
    We all know it’s not going to come about from the american political environment, with our so-called elected officials all bought and payed for by israel like street corner prostitutes, who are, more so, representing israeli citizens than americans.
    And you know damn well that likud loyalists read everything we all write here. They’re all probably laughing their asses off at us, knowing that all our well-intentioned words are, well, just words, and they’re going to keep on doing what they’ve always been doinig until if and when that force, whatever it may be, comes along.

    • Ellen
      July 7, 2013, 5:53 am

      @thetruthhurts, so absolutely true! There is NOTHING to stop the pillage and destruction of a people. In their hearts Zionist justify it with, life is not fair, happens all the time to groups, and so what.

      Meanwhile the settlement and conflict industry expands and the likes of a gilagd and dim blabber on with stories about a mythical Abraham as their greatXXX….grandfather. Mythical stories written in a time when all stories told were myths and understood as symbolic. But these Zio guys really believe this stuff as reality, and one to justify the destruction of their fellow man. This is the basis of the Zionist State. It is weak, really nothing.

      Israel exists as a recognized legal entity. Albeit one without declared borders and without a constitution. It depends on outside support. And belief in ancient tales for justification of it’s actions.

      This is a really weak force, based on stories and myths, that cannot survive as massive forces and social developements progress all around it. That is what is coming along.

      Unless Israeli “leadership” comes to term with this, Israel as we know it simply cannot survive another 50 years.

      • ziusudra
        July 8, 2013, 6:03 am

        Greetings Ellen,
        Thank you.
        There is no precededence in history where a puny entity could ultimately survive w/o the Empire’s Support.
        Zionistan is too puny to man his social services & have a standing army to conquer & occupy even so. Lebanon! A greater Zionistan including Lebanon, Syria, Joradan, I think not.
        ziusudra

    • Citizen
      July 7, 2013, 9:49 am

      @ thetruthhurts
      I agree. The only force I see that might come along is a war by US/Israel that spreads regionally, and also draws in Russia and/or China. WW3

  6. jon s
    July 6, 2013, 1:57 pm

    What I don’t understand is complaining about the settlers , but at the same time not supporting two states. If you don’t accept the two state solution, you shouldn’t complain about the settlements.

    • Annie Robbins
      July 6, 2013, 11:39 pm

      but at the same time not supporting two states.

      source? hey, i’d support you growing wings and flying too. i support two states, that’s different then believing it’ll happen. i’m down with any formation that allows for free people w/equal rights. i’d even be down with a demilitarized palestinian state if israel was demilitarized too. just show me the equality and i’ll support it. 2 states or one i’d be satisfied. but economic peace for palestine while israel controls resources, borders and palestinian ‘security’?

      why don’t you show me the palestinian state you’d support with exactly the same requirements for israel. then let’s talk.

      • jon s
        July 7, 2013, 12:48 am

        Annie, “Source”? what am I supposed to provide a source for?

        I support a 2 state solution, which is really the only way to go, both politically possible and morally sound. Once the principle is accepted, there will be an ocean of details to negotiate and work out, issues such as those you mentioned -demilitarization, borders, resources – and more.

      • Annie Robbins
        July 7, 2013, 2:03 am

        sorry jon, you posted to the main thread so i assumed you were addressing the article..iow..my pov. there’s no 2ss to support at the moment. it’s like supporting an illusion. show me two equal states and i’ll support them.

        the question was in relation to your allegation. even bds is nuetral on one or two states. it’s rights based. you got a problem w/supporting a rights based solution? i got a tad of a problem w/supporting an illusion.

        the only way to go, both politically possible and morally sound.

        conceptually it may be politically possible, but practically, all evidence is to the contrary.

        btw, i noticed you didn’t take me up on my offer :

        why don’t you show me the palestinian state you’d support with exactly the same requirements for israel. then let’s talk.

      • Walker
        July 7, 2013, 7:25 am

        jon, do you accept the principle of “the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war” as described by UNSC resolution 242 as the ground for an agreement? If not, why not?

      • Woody Tanaka
        July 7, 2013, 10:52 am

        It’s really pathetic that someone who claims to be a liberal would argue that “separate and unequal (with the Jews dominating the Arabs in every way)” is “morally sound.” You are the opposite of moral.

      • Woody Tanaka
        July 7, 2013, 11:47 am

        btw, i noticed you didn’t take me up on my offer :

        why don’t you show me the palestinian state you’d support with exactly the same requirements for israel. then let’s talk.

        oh, don’t hold your breath. Nothing brings the racism in zionism to the fore than asking that Jews and Arabs be treated equally. Kind of hard to exercise Judeo-supremacism under those conditions.

    • Hostage
      July 7, 2013, 3:55 am

      What I don’t understand is complaining about the settlers , but at the same time not supporting two states. If you don’t accept the two state solution, you shouldn’t complain about the settlements.

      It’s really only a matter of scale, petite apartheid versus grand apartheid. Some of us here don’t condone ethnically segregated enclaves, like Jewish-only settlements or ethnically defined and segregated states.

      I’ve explained time and again that the UN never agreed to the establishment of new states in Palestine based upon racial or ethnic segregation or ethnic cleansing: link to mondoweiss.net

    • Shingo
      July 7, 2013, 8:58 am

      What I don’t understand is complaining about the settlers , but at the same time not supporting two states.

      You’re clearly not too bright. The presence of the settlers affects the Palestinians on two fronts – sovereign territory and property rights.

      For many of us, we have long supported the 2ss but recognize it is impossible to achieve, so the 1ss has become the only remaining option.

      Nevertheless, this still makes the settlements illegal and immoral. Stolen land is stolen land. What is it you don’t understand?

    • jon s
      July 7, 2013, 3:54 pm

      Wow, I’ve got a lot to reply to, made all the more difficult by “not being too bright” and being “dense”. Sorry I can’t compete with you guys and your overwhelming intellectual superiority…

      What I was trying to point out concerning the settlements and the 2 state solution is that that’s the only solution which provides for evacuation of the settlements and repatriation of the settlers back to Israel within the Green Line. Under one state the settlers get to stay.

      To answer Annie: actually I did answer when I said that the details need to be negotiated. My view?
      the borders should be based on the pre-1967 borders, Jerusalem should be the capital of both states, I don’t think the Palestinian state can be totally demilitarized.

      • Annie Robbins
        July 7, 2013, 4:41 pm

        the details need to be negotiated.

        between the oppressor and the oppressed? the prisoner negotiate for his release? perhaps you could give us an example in history where a negotiation under those conditions produced a fair, fruitful and balanced outcome.

        that’s the only solution which provides for evacuation of the settlements

        not necessarily.

      • jon s
        July 8, 2013, 12:48 am

        Annie,
        In negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians the latter would not be powerless . There’s also involvement by the US, EU, Russia, Egypt…In any case , what’s the alternative to negotiations? bloodshed? a diktat?
        You didn’t respond to my challenge: go to Jerusalem, see for yourself. How about it?

      • Hostage
        July 8, 2013, 1:41 am

        In any case , what’s the alternative to negotiations? bloodshed? a diktat?

        There you go again. See Construction of a Road in Costa Rica along the San Juan River (Nicaragua v. Costa Rica) 2011; Certain Activities carried out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua) 2010; Dispute regarding Navigational and Related Rights (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua) 2005; and Border and Transborder Armed Actions (Nicaragua v. Costa Rica) 1986; link to icj-cij.org
        Contrary to popular belief among Zionists, most international boundaries are established that way, not through negotiations conducted at gunpoint during an occupation.
        Here are a few of the other boundary cases that have been submitted to the Courts since Palestine declared its independence in 1988:
        *Eritrea/Yemen boundary dispute at the Permanent Court of Arbitration. link to pca-cpa.org
        *Eritrea-Ethiopia Boundary
        link to pca-cpa.org
        *Guyana v. Suriname boundary link to pca-cpa.org
        *Barbados/Trinidad and Tobago economic zone/continental shelf link to pca-cpa.org
        *The Frontier Dispute (Burkina Faso/Niger) link to icj-cij.org
        *Maritime Delimitation in the Black Sea (Romania v. Ukraine)
        link to icj-cij.org
        *Sovereignty over Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge (Malaysia/Singapore) link to icj-cij.org
        *Frontier Dispute (Benin/Niger) link to icj-cij.org
        *Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia) link to icj-cij.org
        *Territorial and Maritime Dispute between Nicaragua and Honduras in the Caribbean Sea (Nicaragua v. Honduras) link to icj-cij.org
        *Sovereignty over Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan (Indonesia/Malaysia) link to icj-cij.org
        *Land and Maritime Boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria (Cameroon v. Nigeria) link to icj-cij.org
        *Maritime Delimitation and Territorial Questions between Qatar and Bahrain (Qatar v. Bahrain) link to icj-cij.org
        *Maritime Delimitation between Guinea-Bissau and Senegal (Guinea-Bissau v. Senegal) link to icj-cij.org
        *Territorial Dispute (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya/Chad) link to icj-cij.org
        *Maritime Delimitation in the Area between Greenland and Jan Mayen (Denmark v. Norway) link to icj-cij.org

        I’ve never heard a rational explanation that supports the dubious proposition that the Palestinian boundary dispute is the only case where a settlement can only be achieved through negotiations conducted during an on-going armed conflict or belligerent occupation. The whole idea is preposterous.

        The bottom line is that, pending a final settlement, the Security Council does have the authority to enforce the armistice agreements it adopted under Article 40, Chapter 7 of the UN Charter. See UN SC resolution 73. You can always ask Sadaam Hussein how his border dispute with Kuwait worked out and stop asking so many dumb questions.

      • Shingo
        July 8, 2013, 1:43 am

        In negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians the latter would not be powerless .

        What are you smoking? The US and Israel insist that negotiations take place behind closed door with only the US, Israel and the PA. That’s about and equitable as Mike Tyson, tag teaming with Wladimir Klitschko against Pee-wee Herman in a cage fight.

        There’s also involvement by the US, EU, Russia, Egypt

        No there isn’t.

        When it comes to negotiations, these states are kept right away. Israel has repeatedly rejected any involvement from the EU.

      • Annie Robbins
        July 8, 2013, 2:06 am

        jon, i thought the quartet was the UN, US, EU and russia’s version of ‘support’, tony blair etc. they were not too effective and the US/obama appears to be unwilling to pressure israel in any meaningful way. israel completely spun the quartet after abbas declined going to the UNGA and left their bid dangling at the security council back in 2011, Abbas also committed to suspending any unilateral steps at the UN until after the quartets 3 month deadline. the quartet requested both sides put in their proposal for borders and security etc and palestine did, israel did not. The Quartet then requested that Netanyahu provide a counter proposal. israel claimed European countries’ intrusion into its “domestic affairs.”

        link to mondoweiss.net

        so, the quartet then did nothing. they just backed down. maybe i could be more optimistic if this team mentioned what kind of repercussions they’d be willing to take (stick as opposed to carrot) if israel didn’t comply with the minimum of offering a proposal and stopped building settlements. but as long as there’s no willingness to apply repercussions towards israel it meaningless. israel just says no or offers rhetoric.

        and israel said before when obama/biden got pissed, or i should say the lobby said, let’s keep it all behind the doors, and now that is exactly what is happening, according to the press briefing that was on the front page the other day. they asked..what progress re kerry and it’s all behind the scenes.

        so i don’t know what kind of ‘results’ this ‘involvement’ of US, EU, Russia and Egypt is supposed to produce. you must know under mubarak the US forbade egypt from brokering any kind of reconciliation w/hamas/fatah.

        i didn’t see your challenge to go to jerusalem earlier but i have been to jerusalem. i saw. i’m a little confused as to how you think the gov of israel would agree to 2 states, but even if they did i fail to see how this would ‘provide’ for evacuation of the settlements. israel can’t even seem to locate the terrorist settlers who are burning cars and attacking palestinian villages. there are a lot of those violent settlers and we’ve shown example after example of the israeli forces collaborating and facilitating their attacks. and clearly there are a lot of people in the government who support the settler movement. i’ve heard before the theory most of the settlers would evacuate if the gov told them too, i’m just not seeing much evidence of that. even if 1/2 of them up and left it still leaves hundreds of thousands.

        what’s the alternative to negotiations? bloodshed? a diktat?

        i think a change of israeli public opinion. there’s one thing the effects of which are not yet at it’s full potential. that would be bds. it’s actually a concept both israel and the US think are effective means of influencing governments and populations (see iran). there’s also the possibility as time goes on the US public will sour on this cozy relationship w/israel and then they will pressure the US gov. maybe not, but maybe. i think it might be effective, this deligitimization thing (which israel does quite well, we just need to keep exposing them doing it to themselves) or else there would not be such an effort from israeli gov and institutions and the lobby to counter it (you’d think it would occur to israel to change its policies, but no luck there). so, i think we should just keep doing what we’re doing (bds). but i would support negotiations if i heard about some serious backlash against israel (the kind we use to threaten the PA, cut off funds, sanctions etc) if they didn’t play ball. but without that negotiations are fruitless. no teeth.

        and as far as ‘support’ it’s a 2 way street. it’s hard to support something going on behind the scenes your government refuses to disclose. show me something to support besides ‘economic peace’, that’s not a replacement for two states.

        link to mondoweiss.net

      • jon s
        July 8, 2013, 10:54 am

        Hostage, All those precedents would be relevant if this was simply a conflict over borders. As you know, it’s much more.
        Shingo, that’s like saying that labor unions should never negotiate with owners and managers because they are unequal.
        Annie, I’m certainly not optimistic about the chances of real progress with the Netanyahu government. I think that most Israelis would support 2 states, including evacuating the settlements, if they thought they could trust the other side. One more personal question, if I may: when did you visit here? how many years ago?

      • James Canning
        July 8, 2013, 2:03 pm

        The Arab League has made a strong offer on behalf of the Palestinians, but Israel has not accepted it. (2002 Saudi peace plan.)

      • Hostage
        July 8, 2013, 2:56 pm

        Hostage, All those precedents would be relevant if this was simply a conflict over borders. As you know, it’s much more.

        No, I don’t. Do you mean that this constant shreying about a “Jewish State”, its Jewish parastatal organs (that misappropriated large tracts of the territory from the get-go and help administer all the rest), and its carefully cultivated demographics is just all bullshit? Get real. It’s a matter of public record that the Zionists have spent decades drawing temporary boundaries in order to annex territory for their exclusive use, while excluding as much of the Arab population as possible. The whole time, they’ve been spouting pseudo-legal sounding nonsense about the Balfour Declaration, the San Remo resolution, and the supercalifragilisticexpialidocious nature of the British Mandate and UN Partition plan. All of those claims are ripe for international adjudication.

      • Annie Robbins
        July 8, 2013, 4:11 pm

        i visited in june 2009 jon.

        I’m certainly not optimistic about the chances of real progress with the Netanyahu government. I think that most Israelis would support 2 states

        jon, i am wondering if you opened the supporting link in my last article. here it is again:

        link to mondoweiss.net

        That Haaretz article was written on December 1st. Israel initially welcomed the Quartet’s plans, then demanded adjustments. So: Abbas submits an unbelievably reasonable proposal, acquiesces to staving off Palestine’s UN membership bid, demilitarization of the West Bank with limited weaponry, international peacekeeping force on the Israeli border and in the Jordan Valley, and all the usual ’67 lines and willingness to swap stuff. And who has reversed course, refused to submit a proposal and proceed to announce new settlement expansion and flips the narrative as if the Quartet is the one who’s changed their position?

        Just look at what’s buried within the Jerusalem Post’s hubristic “Europeans are ‘irrelevant’ to the peace process” article yesterday– the Israeli rationalization of footdragging:

        However, the part of the statement that most infuriated Jerusalem was its backing of the Palestinian interpretation of the Quartet’s September 23 statement, which set out a framework for restarting Israeli-Palestinian negotiations.

        “We call the parties to present as soon as possible to the Quartet comprehensive proposals on territory and security,” the council members said.

        This contradicted a statement put out by representatives of the Quartet – which is made up of the US, EU, Russia and UN – just last week, which said these comprehensive proposals should be presented by the sides to each other in direct talks.

        The Palestinians said earlier this month that while they have presented the Quartet with comprehensive proposals on security and territory, Israel has refused to do so, creating the impression that Jerusalem was obstructing the process.

        Israel’s position is that these comprehensive proposals need to come out of negotiations between the sides, and not as a result of the Quartet mediating between them. The US has publicly backed this position.

        do you hear what i hear jon? do you see how the problem here is not only netanyahu’s government, the problem is the US government supporting his decisions even if it’s glaringly obvious they are nothing but diversions. what, pray tell, is the point of having ‘mediators’ if israel then decides they just want face to face with palestinians with no one interfering?

        that’s like saying that labor unions should never negotiate with owners and managers because they are unequal.

        no it’s not, because labor unions serve as a more powerful influential party , that represents the laborers. as you can see from my example israel’s position was they wanted ‘direct’ no meddlers in their “domestic affairs” and guess who supported them in NOT offering a proposal? the US. just the spider and the fly caught in the web negotiating. so it’s kind of irrelevant what most israelis would support, i keep hearing that over and over.

        no one stands up to israel repercussion-wise, ever. that makes ‘supporting’ 2States a worthless position. because there is no process in which israel will even offer a proposal or anyone will dare demand they put forth a proposal. they want to be alone in this ‘direct’ negotiation w/no transparency, no outside interference, what’s the point. it’s a waste of everyone’s time.

      • Woody Tanaka
        July 8, 2013, 4:45 pm

        “Shingo, that’s like saying that labor unions should never negotiate with owners and managers because they are unequal.”

        Nonsensical argument. In such situations the law generally imposes upon owners and managers the duty to negotiate in good faith. israel has never done that. Moreover, in the labor context, both parties have a incentive to settle the differences. Here, by contrast, israel has shown that its incentive is to drag out negotiations, continuing the occupation, until the ’48 refugees die and it can, like a swarm of locusts, continue to consume the land and resources in the West Bank it covets, leaving a trail of Palestinian death in its wake,

      • Shingo
        July 9, 2013, 12:17 am

        Shingo, that’s like saying that labor unions should never negotiate with owners and managers because they are unequal.

        On the contrary. When labor unions negotiate with their managers, both have equal power. The managers have the power to withhold wages, while the labor unions can withhold labor. They both have equal power.

        What you are suggesting is that the managers have all the power and the unions no right to strike.

      • talknic
        July 9, 2013, 8:43 pm

        jon s “In negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians the latter would not be powerless”

        The Palestinians are powerless because of the US veto vote preventing the enforcement of the law, enabling Israel to ignore any of the generous offers the Palestinian have put on the table wherein they would have have forgone much of their legal entitlements.

        Israel, has responded by increasing illegal settlements, never once offering a compromise or a single concession, making more and more bizarre demands that have absolutely no legal basis link to wp.me .

        Israel, without the rudder of a constitution and thus never having had a legally elected government is, like its blind apologists, pathologically incapable of honesty, any sense of morality, justice or empathy with the rest of humanity. It’s quite creepy.

        We see it and them constantly turning on conscientious Jewish folk who offer sound and rational advice. We see it and them attempting to destroy by any means, anything and anyone who gets in the way of its illegal facts on the ground fantasy. Like some ghastly monster who’d eat its own children.

        “In any case , what’s the alternative to negotiations? bloodshed? a diktat?

        Er … Is there no bloodshed now? How about Israel adhering to the law? Never enters your equation does it. In fact you do your best to ignore it. Preferring instead complete denial and reliance on idiotic and irrelevant mantras, incapable of facing the fact that any bloodshed would be entirely Israel’s own making.

        The larger Israel’s illegal facts on the ground enterprise has grown, the more impossible it is for Israel to adhere to the law because the consequences would send it spiraling into bankruptcy and see it some 33% smaller than it now illegally claims to be and facing a lot of egg. All those luverly billions of zio dollar investments in “territories occupied” wasted, blown on a fantasy based on fetid fallacy.

        The hundreds of thousands of Israelis who have been shafted, ripped off and deceived for 65 years by consecutive Israeli Governments will be very angry and likely to rise up against the State of Israel while they try to cope with the truth for the first time. Very likely a civil war will erupt against the State of Israel by the hundreds of thousand, if not millions of disillusioned Israelis in territories “outside the State of Israel” link to wp.me , thereby allowing the other Regional Powers to legally intervene as they did in 1948 in order to protect what remained of Palestine from Jewish forces “outside the State of Israel” after Israel was declared independent of Palestine.

        Any bloodshed would be inevitable and entirely the making of people like yourself, who have for years ignored the warnings of honest folk who’ve attempted at every level to save Israel from itself and the grip of the Zionist movement’s evil totalitarian enterprise

      • Citizen
        July 8, 2013, 5:14 pm

        @ jon s
        Tell us simple Gentile Americans, who pay Israel’s bills, why should the Israelis get to have sovereign power like any other state in the UN while the Palestinians get something less?

  7. just
    July 6, 2013, 7:03 pm

    I feel ill about this, and that is why I have not posted.

    I appreciate that you have written this, Annie. Desecration, theft, destruction, zero respect– IOF boots not only trampling about in a house of worship, but also barring the congregation from prayer.

    Where is ANY rule of law or respect? Are the settlers going to protect any Palestinian rights? Can the Israeli govt ever tell the truth?

    I can’t see thru my tears.

    • Citizen
      July 7, 2013, 9:59 am

      Makes me ill that my government supports this, and my tax money pays for it.

  8. giladg
    July 7, 2013, 10:24 am

    Annie, as you openly display disdain for religion, why don’t you show us how you are willing to call on Islam, and therefor the Palestinians, to pull back on their total demands on Jerusalem and Hebron, specifically the sites the major religions see as central to their beliefs? Or is your disdain directed only at Jews? Let’s see you call on the Palestinians to show respect to the Jewish people by openly calling on all Muslims and Palestinian Christians to share with Jews, especially in the places Jews regard as being central to Judaism?
    You may learn a little about the world when you try the above in the company of some of your agitated Palestinian and Muslim friends. Your popularity points will take a knock.

    • Annie Robbins
      July 7, 2013, 5:29 pm

      gilad, i am not familiar or aware of an islamic or palestinian “total demand on Jerusalem” but if there was such a demand i would advocate otherwise and asked that jerusalem be cherished as a holy city for the three abrahamic religions and be an international city as it was designated in the partition plan. here’s a video expressing ‘all free people’ welcome and it also shows a worshiper at the wall and crosses which indicates whoever made this video did not agree there was a palestinian ‘total demand’ wrt jerusalem. link to youtube.com

      wrt hebron, israel should not be allowed to designate ‘national sites’ outside it’s borders. but the site of both the ibrahimi mosque and the cave of the patriarchs should be cherished as a holy site and worshipers from all religions should be allowed access on holy days or times of prayer as well as accommodation for tourists (like me) where applicable. i’m not sure how those sort of logistics can be worked out but i’m sure they can. it’s my understanding at present there are two entrances to the site so it makes sense there could be people from multiple religions there working together. that doesn’t seem very complicated.

      as far as calling on palestinians to share with jews, what exactly is it you want them to share? israel is controlling everything. it’s hard to ask someone to give when they are in prison and have relatively nothing left. but of course i think the goal is for everyone to work together, share and get along. but if you’re asking palestinians to share the rest of their land for annexation…what do you mean? in a one state situation of course i think everyone should be equal, i do not advocate for people to be expelled from israel or palestine. in a two state solution if the settlers want to stay in the illegal settlements in the heart of a palestinian state then perhaps some comparable land..in the gallilee or something. i don’t know.

      also, i am not in fear of my opinion, of offending palestinians with my views. this has always been my view since i became aware of the conflict, that all three religions should try to live in peace together there, get along and share. but still, i am not religious and in the same way i respect that others have religious beliefs, i don’t believe what religious people believe.

      i can’t stop you from calling this ‘disdain’ and there may be muslims or christians out there who think my views represents ‘disdain’ for their beliefs too. but it doesn’t feel disdainful to me, to be a non believer.

      • just
        July 7, 2013, 7:01 pm

        Beautifully expressed, Annie– I agree with you.

      • Citizen
        July 8, 2013, 5:23 pm

        @ justno
        Me too. Consider how many people who have no religious belief are literally paying tax dollars for this conflict of religious factions. Recent polls show they are not insubstantial in contemporary America. That’s not a reality the highest American values aspire to, one of which is the separation of religion and state.

    • just
      July 7, 2013, 7:53 pm

      I don’t see any “disdain”, gil. I think you might want take another, more objective look.

      (just a suggestion)

    • talknic
      July 8, 2013, 1:13 pm

      giladg “why don’t you show us how you are willing to call on Islam, and therefor the Palestinians”

      Uh? No Christian, Coptic, atheist, etc etc Palestinians ? I wonder if they know?

      “to pull back on their total demands on Jerusalem and Hebron, specifically the sites the major religions see as central to their beliefs?

      Problem….. the Palestinian demands aren’t based on religious beliefs. There’s no point. Just as there’s no point in Israeli propagandists using religion in attempting to justify Israel’s illegal claims to non-Israeli territory. Freedom of religion has a place in International law & convention, otherwise religion is irrelevant, like the ‘we made the desert bloom’ nonsense, it’s completely irrelevant to the legal status of Israel’s sovereign extent and what Israel does as the Occupying Power over non-Israeli territories.

      The Palestinians claim their legal rights under binding International Law, the UN Charter (binding in its entirety) and the relevant binding Conventions as reaffirmed, emphasized and otherwise restated in numerous UNGA and more importantly UNSC resolutions reminding Israel of it’s BINDING obligations. Hundreds and hundreds of reminders. Hundreds of chances to rectify the situation

      Contrary to the sacred wholly holey moldy olde Hasbara, the Arab claims since 1920’s have been based on the legality of agreements, obligations and rights via the LoN Covenant, the LoN Mandate FOR Palestine, the UN Charter, relevant conventions, Armistice Agreements and Peace Treaties

      “Or is your disdain directed only at Jews?”

      A state cannot be ‘a Jew’, even if the Israeli Government wants to refer to it as ‘the Jewish state’. The policies of the ‘Jewish state’ are not ‘a Jew’. Illegal annexation is not ‘a Jew’. Israel’s illegal settlements are not ‘a Jew’ even if they are populated entirely by Jewish Israelis. Their illegality is based on ISRAELIS not being in ISRAELI territory. Has nothing to do with Jews, Jewish ethnicity, DNA or religion. Israeli Arabs are also prohibited from illegally settling in non-Israeli territory under Israeli occupation. A point Israeli propagandists overlook by necessity

      “Let’s see you call on the Palestinians to show respect to the Jewish people by openly calling on all Muslims and Palestinian Christians to share with Jews, especially in the places Jews regard as being central to Judaism?”

      They did for 2,000 years prior to the ghastly 1897 Zionist Colonization plan, otherwise there’d not have been any continual Jewish presence in Palestine.

      They did in accepting the LoN Mandate for Palestine. Article 7 … link to avalon.law.yale.edu

      They did in 1948. As stated in the Arab declaration on the Invasion of “Palestine” link to mfa.gov.il scroll down to
      “a unitary Palestinian State, in accordance with democratic principles, whereby its inhabitants will enjoy complete equality before the law, etc etc etc ”

      They did in front of the world at the UN. Palestinian UNGA speech 2011 and again 2012

      Let us build the bridges of dialogue instead of checkpoints and walls of separation, and build cooperative relations based on parity and equity between two neighboring States – Palestine and Israel – instead of policies of occupation, settlement, war and eliminating the other

      Keep clinging in denial to that putrid old security blanket of lies and deceit, it’s sad to watch, but your choice

  9. James Canning
    July 7, 2013, 1:19 pm

    John Kerry should read the riot act to Israeli government re; theft of stones from the mosque.

    • Citizen
      July 8, 2013, 5:30 pm

      Kerry sucks Heinz ketchup. He could care less about what it does to the human body.

  10. Trish94903
    July 7, 2013, 2:08 pm

    You guys are a riot. All this effort put into delegitimizing Jewish myth in order to legitimize Palestinian myths. Doesn’t exactly work that way. As one of the more intelligent commenters pointed out, it’s time to deal with solving the current problem instead of invoking delegitimization to undercut the position of the other side. Jews live in Israel–deal with it. Palestinians live in the West Bank and Gaza. Deal with it. They need to come to an end of conflict agreement. No end of conflict agreement, no end of occupation. Deal with it. All this pouring gasoline on the fire doesn’t make peace, it just makes more fires. But then maybe that’s what is intended? To keep stirring the pot so nothing settles.

    • Shingo
      July 7, 2013, 7:36 pm

      All this effort put into delegitimizing Jewish myth in order to legitimize Palestinian myths.

      What Palestinian myths might you be referring to? It appears that Jewish history and religious myths are being used to offset the facts on the ground as they existed for the last millenium or more – namely that the Palestinians were the vast majority in Palestine.

      • ymedad
        July 8, 2013, 2:07 am

        Perhaps the one about they being Jebusites, etc.?

        link to meforum.org

      • Shingo
        July 8, 2013, 4:33 am

        Perhaps the one about they being Jebusites, etc.?

        No one has mentioned anything about Jebusites, so you are simply barking up the wrong tree.

        In any case, your link is typical of the drek we have come to expect from Pipe’s web site. I had to laugh when the article cites David Bar-Illan, government spokesman under Benjamin Netanyahu, claiming to be a historically independent source.

        The only legitimate argument put forth is Cline’s thesis that modern Palestinians are “more closely related to the Arabs of Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Jordan, and other countries than the Jebusites of the ancient world. The same of course, could be said of recent converts to Judaism like yourself in relation to the Hebrews.

      • Hostage
        July 8, 2013, 1:37 pm

        Perhaps the one about they being Jebusites, etc.?

        link to meforum.org

        The Jebusites, the accounts of the conquest of their citadel on Mount Zion, and the purchase of a threshing floor from one of them by a Jewish King named David are staples of Jewish mythology.

        You are the only one in this entire thread who mentions a claim connecting any Palestinian mythology to the Jebusites. You had to cite a website run by a pair of Revisionist Zionists, Efraim Karsh and Daniel Pipes. FYI, they cite a book that ridicules both the Palestinian claim regarding the Jebusites and the Israeli government’s “Jerusalem 3000″ propaganda campaigns. The author, Eric H. Cline, doesn’t think that David’s conquest is relevant to modern day claims and neither do I. DNA testing has established beyond all doubt that many modern Jews and Palestinians had a common ancestor in the current era. So better claims to the city, based upon ancestry, are simply moot.

        I’ve pointed out before that the 19th century British Foreign Office Confidential Prints FO 424 series and early 20th century Arab Bureau Papers FO 882 series relate that the origins of the Husayni (aka al-Husseini), Khalidi, Nashashibi, ‘Abd al-Hadi, Tuqan families, and the major clans and tribes – including the Beersheba Bedouin – pre-date the first Zionist Aliya and that all of the groups had been settled there for centuries. Most of the inhabitants today can trace their ancestry to one or more of the families named in the 19th century British consular reports. That is definitely NOT the case when it comes to the Jewish government officials who spent the last 60 years displacing and persecuting the Palestinians living in Jerusalem. If we include Hebert Samuel, then the history of domination by foreign Jews goes back even farther. He denied petitions from Palestinians who had fled the region during the first world war to return to their country of origin. He also requested the authority to adopt a collective punishment ordinance for use in the so-called “tribal areas”.

      • Annie Robbins
        July 8, 2013, 4:20 pm

        shingo, i had to google ‘Jebusites’ i’d never even heard of them. that’s how obscure that argument is. and who brings it up here? he does!

    • Hostage
      July 7, 2013, 7:45 pm

      You guys are a riot. All this effort put into delegitimizing Jewish myth in order to legitimize Palestinian myths.

      I’m not even discussing Palestinian myths. Many of them obviously believe in the legend of the Tomb of the Patriarchs too. I’ve just spent a great deal of time studying Jewish literature and history and happen to know that scholars think much of it is historically doubtful, at best.

      There’s very little reason to avoid a discussion of the fact that the Netanyahu government has politicized the holy sites in Hebron and other locations in Palestine, by placing them on Israel’s national registry. Nonetheless, this article illustrates that the site is still being vandalized.

    • Cliff
      July 7, 2013, 8:11 pm

      to legitimize Palestinian myths

      What myths would that be?

      Jews live in Israel–deal with it. Palestinians live in the West Bank and Gaza.

      No, Jews live where they want which can include the West Bank and E. Jerusalem.

      Palestinians are CONFINED to the West Bank, Gaza, E. Jerusalem.

      All this pouring gasoline on the fire doesn’t make peace, it just makes more fires.

      Israel’s settlement project is what ISN’T ‘making peace’. Not a discussion on myths.

      Apparently bulldozers, military occupation, bombing refugee camps, sniping children on their way to school, or White Phosphorus aren’t as hurtful to you as a discussion in the comments section on a website.

      Pathetic ‘concern trolling’.

      • Shingo
        July 8, 2013, 1:44 am

        What myths would that be?

        Be patient. I’ve been hearing crickets since she posted that claim.

    • Citizen
      July 8, 2013, 5:40 pm

      @ Trish94903
      It’s no myth that the Palestinians are the natives, in comparison to the Jews who came from the Western countries, and still do daily, e.g., from Brooklyn.

  11. giladg
    July 8, 2013, 12:42 am

    Annie, it sounds like you have never visited Israel and yet you say things that give the impression that you sucked them out of the air or your thumb. Next time you are in Jerusalem, go and do the tunnel tour.

    • talknic
      July 8, 2013, 10:11 am

      giladg “Next time you are in Jerusalem, go and do the tunnel tour”

      With an illegal Israeli settler as a guide?

      • Citizen
        July 8, 2013, 5:41 pm

        Yeah, Annie, go do the tunnel tour. Bring along Uncle Tom’s Cabin.

    • W.Jones
      July 8, 2013, 1:06 pm

      The tunnels were lifelines for Jerusalem during the ancient siege.
      It brings to mind that there are some tunnels that are lifelines for the imprisoned refugee population in Gaza.

  12. talknic
    July 8, 2013, 7:00 am

    Starting with the apologist/propagandist giladg July 6, 2013 at 12:44 pm then dimadok, we see how the issue of TODAY’S illegal settlers is quickly diverted to completely irrelevant arguments that have absolutely NOTHING TO DO with TODAY’S ILLEGAL SETTLERS and their ghastly ILLEGAL behaviour in NON-ISRAELI territory.

    They’re so
    cute
    transparent
    predictable
    dishonest

  13. Citizen
    July 8, 2013, 5:45 pm

    It’s not new, this hasbara. Study the Nazi press and Nazi philosophy and social science.
    Oops, I did it again. Pop song.

  14. RJL
    July 9, 2013, 7:00 pm

    At least we know, Annie, you weren’t born Jewish. But why consider Islamic claims as more credible, if not superceding, those of my religion? You obviously have a deep resentment to Jewish claims, ‘fairytales’, but how can you back the Islamic claim to being the “true” heirs of Abraham, thru Ishmael, and not refer to the Cave of the Patriarchs (what about the other 3 pairs buried there?) as holy to Judaism for at least 2,000 years plus prior to Islam? You show your true colors-green-in your various defenses and put downs of facts to dispute your assumed “truths”-things you believe in, as prejudicial atheists also have their own religion and myths. You haven’t said one thing to refute the Jewish claim to the Cave, and you have not right to wave aside the Jewish attachment and reverence to our holy site. We can and do share it, and this won’t stop. Even if there’d be a wonderful two state resolution, Jews will insist on coming to pray here, preserve the ancient Jewish and Karaite cemetaries, and possibly continue living here, too. You are quite deficient on Jewish history, certainly that in the Holy Land. READ.

    • Annie Robbins
      July 10, 2013, 12:17 pm

      rjl, i’ve removed the double quotes from ‘fairy tales’ because it is not a word i used. i don’t think ‘ Islamic claims are more credible’ wrt that holy place. i realize now i should have mentioned the cave of the patriarchs was the cave of the jewish patriarchs even tho i did reference it as the cave of the patriarchs in the article.

      i had already heard of the cave of the patriarchs (and i knew what was, it’s easy to remember, catchy name and all that) as i assumed most readers had but was unfamiliar with the Ibrahimi Mosque and i imagine if you asked most americans what it is, they too would not know, hence, i informed. i also assumed it was self evident that the cave of the patriarchs (tombs) would be a holy site to jews, just as jesus tomb would be holy to christians. but i guess that stuff doesn’t go without saying as the comments attest to.

      anyway, if it makes you feel any better i wrote about jesus tomb here without mentioning it was a holy site to christians link to mondoweiss.net

      but then again ‘holy’ is in the name of the church. but since it’s not called ‘the holy cave of the patriarchs’ i should have mentioned it was holy to jews. sorry!

      and i do not elevate the importance of one abrahamic religion over the other or one people over the other. i don’t think about religion much in my personal life nor have i read the first or 2nd bible or the koran. i wasn’t raised that way.

      i also don’t tend to view the conflict as a religious war.

      • RoHa
        July 10, 2013, 9:37 pm

        ” just as jesus tomb would be holy to Christians”

        Ingeniously, Jesus managed to have several tombs. Aside from three in Palestine, he has one in Kashmir and another in Japan.

      • Hostage
        July 10, 2013, 10:36 pm

        i also assumed it was self evident that the cave of the patriarchs (tombs) would be a holy site to jews, just as jesus tomb would be holy to christians.

        There’s really no basis in either religion for claiming that the tombs are special holy places. In fact, Abraham said he wanted to get his dead wife out of his sight (Genesis 23:4).

        The notion in both religions is that only One is holy, and that even the ground that was cursed for Adam’s sake (Genesis 3:17) can be holy if God happens to be present there (Exodus 3:5). The notion of offering prayers for the dead is thought to be a development of the post-Temple, Hadranic era, e.g. link to torahmusings.com

      • Annie Robbins
        July 11, 2013, 3:45 am

        hostage, i meant:
        link to en.wikipedia.org
        Holiness, or sanctity, is in general the state of being holy (perceived by religious individuals as associated with the divine)[1]

    • yrn
      July 10, 2013, 1:42 pm

      “At least we know, Annie, you weren’t born Jewish.”

      any comments

    • Shingo
      July 10, 2013, 7:22 pm

      You show your true colors-green-in your various defenses and put downs of facts to dispute your assumed “truths”-things you believe in, as prejudicial atheists also have their own religion and myths.

      A perfect example of anti intellectual clap trap we have come to expect from messianic right wing nut cases.

      You haven’t said one thing to refute the Jewish claim to the Cave, and you have not right to wave aside the Jewish attachment and reverence to our holy site.

      Oh please, cry us a river. Israeli apologists keep insisting that most Israeli Jews are not religious, yet the apologists keep acting with hyper sensitivity about religious sensitivities. No one is buying it.

      Even if there’d be a wonderful two state resolution, Jews will insist on coming to pray here, preserve the ancient Jewish and Karaite cemetaries, and possibly continue living here, too.

      No doubt while the continue to desecrate Muslims cemetaries.

    • Hostage
      July 10, 2013, 10:15 pm

      But why consider Islamic claims as more credible, if not superceding, those of my religion?

      Because its not known who, if anyone is actually buried there. In actual practice, the inhabitants have operated a Mosque at the location for most of the last 2,000 years, not a Jewish Synagogue. Your religion’s claim isn’t based upon any evidence of actual ownership except an account that rivals a fairytale by attributing world wide floods, rains of fire and brimstone from heaven, & etc. to the displeasure of the invisible God of Israel.

  15. yrn
    July 10, 2013, 1:33 pm

    “i realize now i should have mentioned the cave of the patriarchs was the cave of the jewish patriarchs ”

    Well small information….. like writing about the conflict in Syria and not writing regarding the holy grave of Zaynab………….

    That’s what I call a professional editor.

    • Citizen
      July 11, 2013, 7:33 am

      @ yrn

      I don’t get your problem with Annie. She doesn’t judge the competing claims of the three Abrahamic religions against each other’s views. She knows these conflicting claims are a fact. Let me repeat her view:

      “…. since i became aware of the conflict, that all three religions should try to live in peace together there, get along and share. but still, i am not religious and in the same way i respect that others have religious beliefs, i don’t believe what religious people believe.
      i can’t stop you from calling this ‘disdain’ and there may be muslims or christians out there who think my views represents ‘disdain’ for their beliefs too. but it doesn’t feel disdainful to me, to be a non believer.”

      Like Dick Tracy and Sergeant Friday, Annie digs the facts, just the facts. For example, she doesn’t have to mention the religious zealotry of the Israeli settlers to note that they continue to dispossess the natives, harass them, and grab their land, which is illegal under Geneva, and which policy is opposed by the whole world except Israel, and which policy was for a long time against the stated official policy of the US, and that continuing to establish such “facts on the ground” is, according to current US statements “not productive” towards reestablishing a viable peace process.

Leave a Reply