At a Washington Post blog section "On Faith, guest Daniela Deane had what I would consider a bad blog piece entitled Faiths clash at Jerusalem''s sacred site.

Be the first to know - Join our Facebook page.

It was biased in that it misrepresented not only the past month of incidents at the Temple Mount excluding the two rock-throwing events where Christians were the target, for example, but also well-known historical facts thereby facilitating the Arab side.   In essence, it was extremist.

Some points to consider:

a) she writes "the Temple Mount, Jerusalem’s sacred site for Muslims". No. The Temple Mount is sacred for Jews whereas for Muslims it is the Haram A-Sharif.  More importantly, though, the official Palestinian Authorities including the Waqf as well as Israeli Muslim institutions deny any Temple existed or that the site possesses any sanctity.  Here''s something from the Washington Post itself:

"In the Monday night meeting, for instance, Erekat took issue with Ben-Ami''s contention that Solomon''s Temple, the Jewish sacred site built 3,000 years ago, had really once stood on the Temple Mount. As the two negotiators debated, Clinton looked on amazed.

"I don''t believe there was a temple on top of the Haram, I really don''t," said Erekat.

Ben-Ami, stunned, pulled down a volume from a bookshelf and looked up Temple Mount, showing Erekat dozens of references to Solomon''s temple and its successor that stood until it was destroyed by the Romans in 70 A.D."

That was from Lee Hockstader on July 30, 2000.

And from a PBS television program:

When Clinton returns to Camp David, Jerusalem is again put on the table. Immediately there is a problem. Arafat argues that the Jews have no claim at all to the area of the Temple Mount.

YASSER ARAFAT: They had excavated everywhere, and no one single stone from the temple had been found, only some stones of Herodotus''s temple.

...SAEB EREKAT: The fact today that there is no such a thing as a Temple Mount in existence today. There is a mosque.

The Western Wall, of course, is definitely not "Judaism''s holiest shrine" which is the Temple Mount.

b) she doesn''t mention the ugly elements in Abbas'' speech in Doha: “The Israeli occupation authorities are using the ugliest and most dangerous means to implement plans to erase and remove the Arab-Islamic and the Christian character of east Jerusalem.” Note: no Jews allowed in his scheme of things.

c) she notes Jerusalem as being "captured" in 1967 as if Israel began shelling Jerusalem instead of what happened - Jordan''s Hussein shelled Jewish civilians.

d) and in 1967, we found over 50% of some 70,000 graves on Mt of Olives desecrated, used as latrine covers and walkways.

e) she mentions one site that suggests destruction of mosques but ignores years of destruction of archaeological artifacts by the Waqf and the Islamic Movement/North''s campaign to deny Jewish rights including the simple one of pilgrimage and prayer.  On Temple Mount denial, see here, also here as well as Dore Gold''s book.

f) she also adds that "Many Palestinians believe that Jews will not relent in their quest to have the Third Temple built there".  But why should we relent?  Why must we yield our faith issue but the Muslims are awarded by her a false narrative and a sympathetic approach as well as ignoring their violent activity, their illegal activity?


Relevant to your professional network? Please share on Linkedin
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this blog article are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or viewpoint of The Jerusalem Post. Blog authors are NOT employees, freelance or salaried, of The Jerusalem Post.

Think others should know about this? Please share