New peace draft includes Palestinian rule on Temple Mount

[rini]

Last Update: 13/10/2003 01:40

http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/spages/348710.html

By Haaretz Service and Agencies
The following are snipetts of the article

Under the terms of the
agreement, the Palestinians
would be granted sovereignty
over the Temple Mount, and the
area would be monitored by
international bodies.

* The Temple Mount will be Palestinian, but an
international force will ensure freedom of
access for visitors of all faiths. However,
Jewish prayer will not be permitted on the
mount, nor will archaeological digs. The
Western Wall will remain under Jewish
sovereignty and the "Holy Basin" will be under
international supervision.

"* The Palestinians will pledge to prevent terror
and incitement and disarm all militias. Their
state will be demilitarized, and border


"Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me. I hope Israel is not foolish enough to be fooled again."

[Fight_n_back]

1. I would gladly trade the Temple Mount

for peace.

Of course the "progressives" here will see nothing wrong with people not allowing Jewish prayer there but whatever.

A generation after peace, there will be no problems there.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

4. Jewish prayer in the Al Aqsa Mosque?

Of course the "progressives" here will see nothing wrong with people not allowing Jewish prayer there but whatever.

I assume you mean Jewish prayer in the Al Aqsa Mosque, because the article makes it clear that Jews will still have access to the Western Wall for prayer, and that all that has been restricted is Jewish prayer on the mount itself which is now the location of the above mentioned mosque.

[Fight_n_back]

5. Thank you for proving my point

the hill has a long history. I suppose you know that and are just leaving out facts so you can push your narrow agenda.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

8. There hasn't been a Jewish Temple on that "hill" for over a millenia...

Why should the Muslim nature of it be changed now? Especially as it is clear that given the chance, many Jews would have the Mosque torn down so that a Temple could be built there.

Who is the one with the narrow agenda? I just pointed out that it is not unfair for one religion to refuse to allow another religion to pray on their premises.

[Fight_n_back]

10. Since you have researched

you know the whole story. For the life I can't figure out why you are leaving half of it out.

It is disputed and holy to more than one religion. If it were me I would let anyone pray there that wanted to but then Im a liberal.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

16. Half of what out?

The fact that no Jewish temple has existed on the Mount for over a thousand years? The fact that many Jews believe that they have a right to assert primacy over another religion on land that is not theirs and has not been for over a thousand years?

What exactly am I leaving out?

[rini]

49. Why the Temple Mount is Important

To give up the Temple Mount is the first step in turning Jerusalem over to the Arabs.

Truth is the first casualty in war.
The Palestinian Authority has taken to lying about the ancient biblical past in defense of its claims regarding Jerusalem. For Islam, there was never a Jewish temple at Al Quds .”1 This is one of the reasons why the Palestinians wouldn’t accept a compromise about Jerusalem during the Camp David negotiationsOne of the chief negotiators of the Oslo accords, Saeb Erekat, states bluntly the current position of the Palestinian Authority: “

To say that there never was a Jewish Temple in Jerusalem is a breathtaking revision of the past. Why would anyone want to deny the clear testimony of artifacts, texts and linguistic usage, stretching over thousands of years, that there was a Jewish Temple in Jerusalem?
The al-Aqsa Mosque was built by Caliph Umar after his conquest of Jerusalem in the seventh century precisely because of the belief that the Temple Mount (called in Arabic the Haram al-Sharif, “the Noble Sanctuary”) was the place of Muhammad’s Night Journey from Mecca and the site of the Temple. According to a later work, the Caliph entered the site and said, “This must be the sanctuary of David of which the Prophet spoke to us when he said, ‘I was conducted there in the Night Journey.’”3 The Dome of the Rock was built later (684) for the same reason. This is a lot of Islamic testimony and tradition to deny.

http://www.bib-arch.org/bswb_BR/indexBR.html


This sacred spot must not be used for political fodder.

[Darranar]

50. As YANG said, I'd willingly sacrifice it for peace...

Heck, I'd allow someone to tear the Wailing Walll to shreds if it brought peace.

[Fight_n_back]

52. Rini, in theory I agree with the importance of the rock

BUT...I think Jerusalem should be split like Berlin was and be the capital of both nations. It already is split and kinda sorta works that way.

Yes, the Mosque was built specifically to "De-Jew" the area. Yes the Palestinians area attempting to rewrite archeology to make it look like Jews never lived in the Middle East and the Bible was written in the mid fifties by the guys who wrote Superman.

BUT...it doesn't give any of Jewish Jerusalem to the Palestinians and in about a generation it will be okay.

The options are negotiate a peace or eliminate the Palestinians...Peace is preferable.

Of course, once there is a Palestinian state and there are still terror attacks, Im not sure what is suppossed to happen.

[rini]

56. Religiously

it means nothing to me, symbolically everything. We (that is Israel) want peace so much that we have been on a Ship of Fools. I didn't realize this until that Egyption weasel walked out of the "peace accords" and started the intafada. They don't want peace, they want the destruction of Israel and another holocaust. To give credit where credit is due, they have made no secret of this. The Geneva meeting is nothing more than a re-run. As an outsider (not a citizen of Israel) I say first one year of no attacks and then OK, we sit down again and look at things and put it all to a vote of both people. Of course I say this from a relatively safe haven in America so maybe my opinion isn't worth much, or maybe I can see a bit more clearly than the war-weary. Regardless all I can do is give my opinion and hope for the best.

[Name removed]

61. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bluesoul]

63. You can't be SERIOUS

"They don't want peace, they want the destruction of Israel and another holocaust."

This must be the single most absurd thing I have heard here! If one means that seriously and believes that it could actually happen and that the Palestinians really want that then in their minds their could NEVER be peace among Palestinians and Israelis (Jews) and the only solution would be for Israel to completely eliminate Palestinians to the last one. I have heard a lot of ridiculous things said, but this one tops them all. It can also be used as an excuse for the other side to actually do what they accuse the other side of. Oh my....

[Devils Advocate NZ]

64. Huh?

What did I say? How come I got deleted, when I wasn't the one that refered to the Holocaust first? Is it all right to say Palestinians want another Holocaust, but not alright to say that Israel is using that as an excuse to justify their own actions?

[seventhson]

6. Can Muslims Pray at the Wailing Wall?

Should that be allowed?


It is an important point...


Closing Holy places to ANY worshippers is unseemly



BUT, there are places that different groups want others to be excluded from.

Is it worth the deaths to fight for exclusivity for either Muslims or Jews in either the Dome of the Rock or the Wailing Wall???


Or should all the sites be open?


OR

Should Jews and Muslims embrace the needs and desires of each other to have their own places of worship.

It is NOT easy. But on an interim basis if such compromise can bring peace...

I think it is worth a try

[Devils Advocate NZ]

9. Last I heard, JEWISH women weren't welcome at the Wailing Wall...

at least not without a few rocks being thrown at them that is. The point is, a religion has the right to determine what happens on its premises, and the Al Aqsa mosque has been there for over a millenia.

The compromise here is that Muslims have allowed Jews and Christians to enter the premises, but not participate in prayers. Would a Jewish synagogue welcome Muslim prayers on their premises? I think not.

[Fight_n_back]

11. My synagogue has had them

but then we are liberals.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

15. So any Muslim at any time can enter your mosque...

and start praying to Allah? Yeah right. I am sure you have had Muslims durign specific interfaith gatherings, but that is not quite the same as unfettered access.

And you also point out that you a liberal over and over again like some broken record. Why are you so concerned with asserting this? Are you afraid someone might think that you are the opposite?

[Fight_n_back]

37. Actually

no one can enter my synagogue and pray at any time because the building is shared with other faiths so it is only open at certain times. It is never a mosque.

Anybody could go at anytime and pray to anything they wanted as long as they weren't bothering anyone else.

Its not a temple, g-d doesn't reside there, its just a meeting place where the Rabbi teaches.

I could go to any church in this country and pray and no one would give a shit. I could probably take communion on most churches without anyone gripping. Catholics have a certain way of doing it so that might get obvious but most other places, who would know?

I am pointing out that I am a liberal because it stands in contrast to many here that claim to be yet persist in supporting the most anti liberal practices imaginable, like religious persectuion, dictatorship, state sponsored terror, et al.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

38. Oops! I meant synagogue...

With all of these different names for the same thing I got confused :-)

So you are telling me that you are not actually talking about a synagogue, but a communal building that holds Jewish prayer meetings? Well, no wonder anybody is allowed in there!

Actually, if you went into a church and started praying to Allah I think you'd be surprised at the response. Hell, what I want to see is if you went in and started praying to Satan! The shit would hit the fan!

Of course we are talking about obvious prayer here, not internal prayer, but out loud prayer, or using obviously non-Christian (or in this case Muslim or in your case Jewish) articles.

For example, if you started praying in a Catholic Church the way you would pray at the Wailing Wall, I am sure you would be asked to leave. And why not? After all, it is THEIR church, and they don't have to let you pray there.

I am pointing out that I am a liberal because it stands in contrast to many here that claim to be yet persist in supporting the most anti liberal practices imaginable, like religious persectuion, dictatorship, state sponsored terror, et al.

So you support the Palestinians?

[Fight_n_back]

46. So you support the Palestinians?

Quite frankly that question is so insulting I am not going to answer it.

[Gimel]

13. women at the wailing wall

You must have the wrong story. Women do pray at the Wailing wall, and have for centuries. "The Temple Mount Faithful" is something else.

Temple Mount Faithful to be barred from ceremony today
http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=349103

[Devils Advocate NZ]

17. Centuries? Try three years... and not without being harrased..

JERUSALEM -- Curses were heard above prayers at the Western Wall in Jerusalem on Sunday as Orthodox Jews reacted angrily to the sight of hundreds of women asserting their right to pray out loud at the wall while wearing shawls and skullcaps.

In a groundbreaking decision in May, a panel of three judges in the Israeli Supreme Court reinterpreted a law governing Jewish holy sites.

The panel lifted the bans on women praying from the Torah scroll, the Jewish holy text, and wearing the prayer shawl traditionally worn by men at the holy site.

<SNIP>

The court ruling outraged ultra-Orthodox Jews, who say that what it allows women to do violates Jewish law and the division of roles that God assigned men and women.

"They can't have the right to come to us and say I think you should change your religious law," said Rabbi Ravitz. "They don't have the right to do so."

<SNIP>

Meanwhile, under the court ruling, the Israeli government has six months to provide conditions for the women to pray at the wall as they wish.

Until then, the services will be held a short distance away in a building which in the Middle Ages served Christian pilgrims.
http://www.cnn.com/2000/WORLD/meast/06/04/israel.women/

But hey, don't let the truth get in the way of a good argument!

[Gimel]

25. Link supplied in post below

I'm sorry to inform you of your terrible error. I personally have prayed at the Wailing Wall since 1981. There is a women's section. Your link refers to a group of women practicing in a way that only the Reform splinter group of Jews ascribes to. No rocks were thrown, however.

On edit: You can see for yourself by clicking on this link to a live web-cam of the Western Wall. You will see a divider, with men on the left, women on the right.

http://www.aish.com/wallcam/

[Devils Advocate NZ]

27. So there are rules on what KIND of praying that women are allowed to do?

Here is a sinppet from the article you quoted:

Anat Hoffman, a founder of the Western Wall Women's group, a member of the Reform syngagogue Kol HaNeshama, and a left-wing member of the Jerusalem City Council, said she was disappointed by the decision. She said that the Court wished to "hide" the group in a far-off corner of the wall.

So they are restricted to a certain area, that is not in the actual Western Wall plaza, and this is supposed to indicate total freedom of women to pray at the Western Wall? :eyes:

Look, I am not saying that Jews shouldn't be allowed to set rules for praying at the Western Wall, I am saying that ALL religions have the right to set rules on their holy sites, INCLUDING Muslims.

I am merely pointing to this rule about women as an example of Jews doing the same thing.

[Gimel]

30. Women are not excluded

So they are restricted to a certain area

If you will look at the web-cam I posted below, you will see that the women's section is adjacent to the men's section. Only the women who are not following Jewish tradition are included in the group you posted about. It is not a rule about women that you are explaining. It is a group of women from the Reform movement, which until recently has not been accepted in Israel.

People from other religions may also enter a pray in the area, as long as they observe the rule of modesty and cover their heads. The controversy of the women who wanted to hold a minyon and prayer service that was not a traditional women's role never prohibited women from praying at the Wall.

You claimed also that rocks were thrown at them. This is false. Rocks were thrown at all Jewish worshippers from the Temple Mount Mosque by Moslems on many occasions in the past few years.

The Temple Mount is actually built over the Jewish holy site, Abraham's alter, which the Moslems claim an exclusive right to.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

39. Unless they refused to go by Jewish custom.

If you will look at the web-cam I posted below, you will see that the women's section is adjacent to the men's section. Only the women who are not following Jewish tradition are included in the group you posted about. It is not a rule about women that you are explaining. It is a group of women from the Reform movement, which until recently has not been accepted in Israel.

People from other religions may also enter a pray in the area, as long as they observe the rule of modesty and cover their heads. The controversy of the women who wanted to hold a minyon and prayer service that was not a traditional women's role never prohibited women from praying at the Wall.

As I said, there are strict rules laid out under Jewish religous custom, and breaching those customs is not tolerated. So why should Muslims have to accept a breach of their customs?

You claimed also that rocks were thrown at them. This is false. Rocks were thrown at all Jewish worshippers from the Temple Mount Mosque by Moslems on many occasions in the past few years.

They were in the news story I saw. In fact I remember one orthodox Jewish youth smiling insanely as he threw a fist sized rock at a woman only a few metres away.

But, for the sake of argument I will concede that no rocks were thrown, only insults and threats. Is that much better? Or is the intention the same - to scare off the women who were breaching Jewish religous custom?

As for Muslims throwing rocks, that is why this peace deal is such an important thing, don't you agree? Isn't it more improtant to have peace between Jews and Muslims than to insist upon being able to do something that you haven't done in over a thousand years?

The Temple Mount is actually built over the Jewish holy site, Abraham's alter, which the Moslems claim an exclusive right to.

And? The fact is there has been no temple there for over a thousand years, and thus the Muslims have every right to consider it their territory now. They have conceded the right to enter the Mosque, all they ask is that no praying occur. Do Jews HAVE to go and pray at this particular location? If so, what did they do for the thousand years when they weren't there?

[Gimel]

44. Prefer not to argue these points

These issues are basic to the conflict. To understand them, a good understanding of both religions and their history is necessary.

My personal concepts of religion and worship, also of the history of religion does not impose a time schedule or a barrier of 1000 years, and anything older is considered invalid. Actually, the Moslems conquored Jerusalem in the year 638 and in 691 built the Dome of the Rock Mosque on the Jewish Temple Mount. In 1099 the Christina Crusaders conquored the city... etc.

You can view the timeline yourself:
http://www.jerusalem.muni.il/english/tour/history.htm

So Israel has controlled Jerusalem and the Temple Mount since 1967. Why hasn't the GOI thrown the Moslems out? Actually, Israel is not a theocracy. It is a democracy and freedom of religion is a basic law. Religious Jews do not demand that the Temple Mount be returned to Judaic control because of the belief that that will happen when the Moshiach arrives. It is not in our hands to do so.

"They have conceded the right to enter the Mosque"

The Tmple Mount Complex is entered, but not the Mosque, as far as I know. Here are some recent news items concerning the Temple Mount:

Jewish Prayer on the Temple Mount Again Prevented
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/news.php3?id=49956

Levy Says Zero Tolerance for Western Wall Rock Attacks
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/news.php3?id=49694

Arab Arrested in Temple Mount Assault
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/news.php3?id=48993

Temple Mount Report
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/news.php3?id=48960

Also on Aug 6, 2003:

Rabbi Shmuel Rabinovitz, Rabbi of Israel's Holy Sites, issued a request today to the police, Knesset Members and the Supreme Court, asking that Jews be prevented from visiting the Temple Mount. He said that there is a halakhic prohibition on such entry, and that the sanctity of the site must not be violated. Other rabbis have ruled that entry to certain known areas of the Temple Mount are permitted after proper precautions have been taken. Rabbi Rabinovitz further noted today that the tensions raised with the Moslems by such Temple Mount visits might even lead to a drop in Jewish visits to the Western Wall.

In keeping with the above, the Supreme Court turned down a suit on the matter by the Temple Mount Loyalists. They had asked, as they do every year, for permission to ascend to the Temple Mount on Tisha B'Av, in order to commemorate the day on which the Temples were destroyed. Although the Court gave their petition greater consideration than it did in previous years, the end result was the same: No.

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/news.php3?id=47718

[Devils Advocate NZ]

53. So we have come to a sort of agreement...

that restriction of Jewish prayer on the Mount is not too much to ask, and in fact one Rabbi (at least) doesn't even want Jews to be allowed onto the Mount, let alone pray there.

I'm an atheist, and as such all of this is ridiculous to me, but it is important to both Jews and Muslims, and is one of the major causes of the conflict. If both sides can come to an interim agreement that keeps both sides happy until a lasting peace can occur, I am sure at some time in the future Muslims would be happy to have Jews visit and even pray on the mount, especially considering that Islam is rather friendly towards both Jews and Christians becuase they all believe in the same god.

At the moment, however, Muslims in Palestine (and elsewhere in the world) feel a lot like the Jews did during WWII. They feel that Zionists (both Christian and Jew) are trying to eradicate them and their religion. They need to be shown that this is NOT true, and if this means giving up on some cherished Jewish land for the mean time than that is fair enough.

The Temple Mount is not going anywhere, and Jews have waited for over a thousand years to rebuild a temple there, and there is no reason why they can not continue to wait for a few more years or even decades. First make friends with the Muslims, and then negotiate for access, trying to just kick them off will only make the war worse.

In fact if the original Zionists had done this, then the last 50 years of war and the thousands of dead would never have occured.

[seventhson]

29. Wearing of shawls and skullcaps and reading from the Torah was a nono

for women - just as in many churches women cannot serve the communion and if they did so it would be protested.

You and I may think it is ridiculous.

But to the faithful it s a violation of their beliefs.

Worship by women at the wall is permitted.

If a woman wanted to say the liturgy in church wearing a priests outfit and collar you can bet there would be SOMEBODY pitching a bitch.

[Gimel]

18. Women's prayer at WW

You are perhaps recalling the group of women who want to pray in a non-traditional (for women) ceremoney. That would include tallit (prayer shawl) usually reserved for men. A court case decision allows the group to pray in a specific area near the Wester Wall.

The Supreme Court ruled this morning on a petition by the "Western Wall Women" who wish to conduct monthly public prayer services for women at the site, including Torah reading, prayer shawls (tallitot) and tefillin. Such practices are not in keeping with normative Jewish Law, and the women's previous attempts to pray at the wall in this fashion aroused strong protests by worshipers there. The latter maintained that the women's actions were provocative and religiously offensive to those present.
<snip>

State representatives claimed that the women's prayers caused a "disturbance of the peace." The women claimed that they have a right to pray as they wish at the site.

The Court ruled this morning that the government must set aside an area in the vicinity of Robinson's Arch - the southern end of the Western Wall, towards the Dung Gate entrance - and prepare it for the women's prayers within a year. If the area is not ready by the deadline, the Court ruled, the police must make arrangements for the women to pray in the actual Western Wall plaza.

<snip>

More

[Devils Advocate NZ]

24. So, are you saying...

that Jews not accepting women praying out loud and wearing the tallit at the Western Wall is not the same as Muslims not allowing Jews to pray out loud in their Mosque?

Seems identical to me...

[Gimel]

42. There are more differences

The event is not that women can't pray out loud. They can and do. The Reform prayer group was conducting a service that was felt to be distracting by some. I was not present, and I'll assume that you were not either. It is an internal problem within the religion. The court became invoved because there is a basic law protecting freedom of religion in Israel. Some compromises were reached.

Jews have been barred from entering the Temple Mount Mosque (The Temple Mount refers to the Jewish Temple, of course). The total history of the situation would have to be studied. This is a conflict between religions.

While both issues relate to freedom of religious expression, they are not identical. I'm sure a woman wearing a bikini would be barred from praying at the Wall. The Pope, however, can and did pray there.

[seventhson]

28. Female Jews may pray at the wall in a separate spot from the men

a few feet away.

Judaism (like Islam and Christianity) has strict rules for the roles of the sexes.

As far as the Jews are concerned - at least from my perspective as a Gentile who has discussed and researched this at some length and been to the Wailing Wall and the Temple Mount - and realizing that there is NO universal Jewish perspective on this issue:

The Temple remains on the site in a ruined condition and the Jews have ALWAYS worshipped there at the edge of the ruins.

The Wailing Wall is PART of the Temple Mount and PART of the destoyed Temple. It is the place of sorrow to mourn for the loss of the Temple in part because G-d allowed it to be destroyed due to the sins of the Jewish people and the evil of the Gentiles which swept over their Nation.

This is oversimplifying the issue...

BUT the fact is that the Dome of the Rock sits on the site of the Temple and BOTH religions (and even Christians and others) have worshipped there for aeons.

The ROCK itself - the place of Sacrifice - is a Holy place to Jews, Muslims and Christians.

So INTERNATIONAL and inter-religious bodies should PROTECT it for ALL people of faith.

The Muslims/Arabs control it (under some degree of control by the Israelis) NOW and therefore an interim agreement MUST take place.

I think the proposal is a workable one to some degree.

The Jews want a "Right of Return" to the Temple Mount just as the Palestinians want a "Right of Return" to their properties taken by Israel in her wars of independence and security.

But on an interim basis the Majority who want peace on both sides may need to sacrifice these wants until a more workable solution can occur.


There is NOTHING wrong - in my opinion - with BOTH sides wanting and claiming a right to pray and worship there. The claim of exclusivity likewise is a valid but probably an unworkable claim.

Like with the Holy Sepulcher (the alleged site of Jesus' crucifixion) - different sects must alternate use. It is controlled, actually, by Arab Israeli Christians, I believe -- who schedule periods for ALL worshippers and permit tourists and nondenominational persons to use as well as long as it is shared.

Fundie socalled Christians and some fundie Jews want to destroy the Mosque and rebuild the temple on the Mount. THAT should NOT happen and tolerance for this view (which is provocative, intolerant, divisive, and will lead to more insane death and warfare) must be totally discouraged. I understand it. But such fundamentalism is deadly and unGodly IMHO.

It is NOT an easy question. But those in the Israeli Opposition must be praised for their efforts which are incredibly brave and intelligent.

[Fight_n_back]

12. The wailing wall is not disputed

Muslims don't make any claim to the wall, just the land under it. Its why it is only a wall.

[rini]

21. I am curious

instead of discussing the merits or demerits of the plan, you focus on gross generaliazations of Jewish prayer, customs, and various things of which you obviously have little knowledge, why? This plan is worth discussing pro or con.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

23. I was responding to the post by YANG

where he or she said:

Of course the "progressives" here will see nothing wrong with people not allowing Jewish prayer there but whatever.

In other words, YANG obviously sees somthing wrong with Muslims refusing to allow non-Muslim prayers in their Mosque, to which I replied that it is THEIR MOSQUE, and nobody has the right to tell them what they allow or don't allow in it. They are allowing access to all, which in my opinion they did not have to do, but they made a compromise that seems fair to me.

As for my supposed "gross generalisations", do you care to point out any generalisations I have made that were wrong? Or are you blowing hot air?

Personally, I am all for the plan. It seems fair and if only it can get the support of the extremists on both sides it might just lead to peace.

[cantwealljustgetalong]

32. viva la difference...

on the Mount...

in the Mosque...

[Equinox]

19. Absolutely wrong, Yang....

I do have a problem with not letting anyone pray where they want to.

[Muddleoftheroad]

20. Then complain to the Muslims

Because I merely closed my eyes in the Dome of the Rock and I was almost attacked for doing so as an infidel. They thought I was praying, which is forbidden.

Welcome to the real world.

[rini]

22. Exactly,

that is one of a couple of problems I have with this plan.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

26. How dare the Muslims control religious observance on their holy site!

It's not like they have been there for a thousand years or something!

Oh wait... They HAVE been there a thousand years!

Well, it's not like Muslims are not welcome to pray at Jewish synagogues...

Hang on...

Wait a minute, why aren't Muslims allowed to set the rules on their own property again? I seem to have forgotten what gives Jews the right to demand free access to Muslim property...

[Muddleoftheroad]

31. Thanks for reinforcing my point

The Muslims don't get criticized for controling access and actions in the holy site, but Israel does.

And, for the record, look underneath that beautiful Dome of the Rock. Underneath is the Temple of Solomon, a JEWISH holy site. So, it's Israeli property, not Muslim.

BTW, the Dome of the Rock was the most impressive thing I saw in Jerusalem.

[bluesoul]

33. Using religion

Religion and mythology, or to be exact the abuse of it is part of the whole problem IMHO

[Muddleoftheroad]

34. That's what we need

Maybe we need an ATHEIST state in the Mideast. It would be the one thing Muslims and Jews could agree on after all. They'd both just LOVE people calling their religions myths after all.

Though I think you would get a slightly different reception in Israel than Saudi Arabia saying that.

[bluesoul]

35. Hmm

Maybe that would solve the problem. But seriously, I don't have a problem with any religion, but abusing it through mitology and saying that one land is holy and therefor people that have been living on it for their whole life must leave so that the chosen ones can be there is very problematic to say the least. Just as using Islam for pogroms against Jews or driving them out. It goes for both sides.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

40. Huh?

The Muslims don't get criticized for controling access and actions in the holy site, but Israel does.

Maybe because Israel has NO RIGHT to control access to it? After all, it is NOT their territory!

And, for the record, look underneath that beautiful Dome of the Rock. Underneath is the Temple of Solomon, a JEWISH holy site. So, it's Israeli property, not Muslim.

Well, actually, Jews abandoned the site over a thousand years ago. That makes it Palestinian territory, and thus Muslim!

[Muddleoftheroad]

41. Then who's territory is it?

The other nations that have been there before deny claim, Israel does not deny claim since it used to be part of Israel.

Jews did not abandon the site. Jews were forced out. There is a big difference.

And, for the record, until there is a Palestinian state, there is no Palestinian territory.

[bluesoul]

43. Palestine

So since there is no (internationally recognized) Palestinian state, they can all be driven out of their homes and land and Israel can continue to occupy their land, build even new settlements (as Sharon has been doing from the very start) destroy more Palestinian houses, their agriculture and then one day when there is no Palestinian left they will recognize them. I am sure people like Sharon would like to make that happen. Might is right, right?

[Muddleoftheroad]

57. They are not being driven out

They are still there last time I checked. The complaints about homes and "agriculture" being destroyed are the direct result of the Intifada and security procedures to protect against further terrorist attacks. So if they want to complain, they should visit the psychos in Hamas and Islamic Jihad for starters. Or just blame Arafat, which is the same thing.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

54. Palestinian territory...

is territory occupied by Palestinians.

Unless of course Israel has granted them citizenship without telling them or anyone else, that is.

As for Jews being forced out, that may be so, but it did happen over a thousand years ago, and the Palestinians weren't the ones who did it. Not to mention that Israel tried to force the Palestinians out, and they haven't abandoned it...

Also, if being forced out over a thousand years ago gives Jews the right to return, why does being forced out only half a century ago NOT give the Palestinians the right to return?

[Muddleoftheroad]

58. Tomas Territory

That's me, this is my home, ergo this is Tomas Territory. Oops, sorry, I guess it's still the United States.

Actually, a whole bunch of Jews were forced out at the same time that a whole bunch of Palestinians were. Things happen in war. But somehow the Jews made do and the Palestinians did not.

Hmmm, if I own something and it stolen from me and ends up in your hands, it is never yours to begin with.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

62. It worked for the Israelis...

That's me, this is my home, ergo this is Tomas Territory. Oops, sorry, I guess it's still the United States.

It worked for the Israelis. They occupied Palestinian land and called it Israel. Can't have it both ways.

Actually, a whole bunch of Jews were forced out at the same time that a whole bunch of Palestinians were. Things happen in war. But somehow the Jews made do and the Palestinians did not.

Were they now? And I suppose they were refused the right to return to that land? No? Well in that case they were not forced out were they? They may have left to avoid the war, but they returned after the war was over. Let the Palestinians return to their land from before the war, and I might agree that they haven't been forced out, until then...

Hmmm, if I own something and it stolen from me and ends up in your hands, it is never yours to begin with.

Is that right? Then "Israel" doesn't belong to Israelis either. After all, they stole it from someone else!

[Scurrilous]

48. Keep digging....

And, for the record, look underneath that beautiful Dome of the Rock. Underneath is the Temple of Solomon, a JEWISH holy site. So, it's Israeli property, not Muslim.

That whole area around Jerusalem has been occupied by various peoples for 5 thousand years or so. Cannanites, Israelites, Romans, Christians, and Muslims have alternately built and razed numerous structures throughout the city. If you dig underneath the Dome of the Rock, you'll probably discover more than just the Temple of Solomon. Maybe the remnants of an ancient Cannanite fort. Kinda complicates ownership with all those ancient ruins around.

[LevChernyi]

45. Rachel's tomb..

In Bethlehem, Rachel's Tomb -- which is also venerated by Muslims and Christians -- has been sealed inside a heavily fortified building . The tomb is no longer visible from the outside, and Palestinians are not allowed access. Foreign tourists can visit, but only Jews are allowed to pray

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A35189-2002Dec24¬Found=true

Your "liberal" friends in Israel have their own "prayer police".

[Devils Advocate NZ]

55. Oh dear! This can't be true!

Only those nasty Muslims would dare to prevent other religions from praying at their holy sites!

Thanks for pointing this out :-)

[Gimel]

59. I disagree with your point

Rachel's tomb is not a Moslum holy site. Of course the Palestinians feel offended. They feel offended if a Jew steps on their soil. But Rachel's tomb was about to be destroyed as was Joseph's tomb. They have no rightful claim to theses areas. Rachel is is revered as a matriarch of the 12 tribes of Israel. There is no connection to the settlements. That is pure fabrication.

[LevChernyi]

60. except it's in bethlehem..

I have no intention of trying to take seriously extraworldly justifications over who owns what, I was only responding to YANG's appeal to freedom of religion.

[Gimel]

65. Actually, it's not in Bethlehem

Rachel's tomb is between Bethlehem and Jerusalem. Unlike the Christian tradition, in Judaism the place of worship is important. Tzadikim (the righteous) and the patriarch's and matriarch's tombs are revered among the most holy of places. Access to the tomb is guaranteed by the peace plans proposed. The Palestinians want to cut off Jewish rights to the tomb.

[papau]

2. Follows Clinton Taba - seems reasonable - 4 powers should demand a vote

in each area - and after it passed in each area, they should demand the PA and Israel sign a treaty to that effect.

Then International monitors/military disarm Hamas and the rest.

I liked the provisions that said:

... "Geneva Understandings" - formulated by members of the Israeli
opposition and Palestinian officials –includes allowing a certain number of Palestinians to return to areas inside the State of Israel,
though not as part of a "right of return."

* The Palestinians will concede the right ofreturn. Some refugees will remain in thecountries where they now live, others will be
absorbed by the PA, some will be absorbed byother countries and some will receive financialcompensation. A limited number will be allowed
to settle in Israel, but this will not bedefined as realization of the right of return.

* Israel will withdraw to the 1967 borders,except for certain territorial exchanges, as described below.

* The settlements of Ariel, Efrat and Har Homa will be part of the Palestinian state. Inaddition, Israel will transfer parts of the
Negev adjacent to Gaza, but not includingHalutza, to the Palestinians in exchange forthe parts of the West Bank it will receive.

* The Palestinians will pledge to prevent terrorand incitement and disarm all militias. Theirstate will be demilitarized, and border
crossings will be supervised by aninternational, but not Israeli, force.

* The agreement will replace all UN resolutions
and previous agreements.

[seventhson]

3. WOW. AMAZING!!!

peace is built on compromise.

I may not like the whole deal from either perspective.

but it is, after all, a peace agrteement at which concessions must be made.

The Israelis would be wise not to reject it out of hand.

I personally believe that no one should be denied the right to pray on the Temple Mount. I was forced to stop praying in the "Holy of Holies" by the Moslem guards on the Temple Mount and it was humiliating and seemed patently ridiculous.

I do not understand why anyone cannot pray anywhere.

But this has been an Islamic shrine for something like a thousand years. Keeping it that way is probably okay for now if it means peace. I went onto the Mount and into the Haram Al Sharif (Dome of the Rock of Abraham and traditional site of the near sacrifice of Ishmael or Isaac - depending on what version you believe - and the site of Mohammed's night vision experience with Jesus and Moses et al) with a number of Jews and Christians. It was incredible.

I would gladly trade the right to visibly pray there for the right to BE there and experience it.

The rest of the agreement does not sound half bad.

Shalom/Salaam to all who want Peace

[Devils Advocate NZ]

7. Allowing Jewish (or Christian for that matter) prayer in Al Aqsa Mosque

Is a similar argument to the Palestinian right of return. The Israelis say to allow the Palestinians to return would be to overturn the Jewish nature of Israel.

The same argument could be made about the Mosque. Jews have made no bones about the desire to see the Mosque removed and the Temple rebuilt, so to the Muslims allowing non-Muslim prayer there may be seen as an attempt to overturn the Muslim nature of the Mosque and open it up to being removed at some point in the future.

Apart from that, a lot of Muslim holy sites (the Al Aqsa Mosque being the third most holy) are Muslim only affairs. They believe that it is a sin for non-Muslims to enter these areas and thus an affront to God. By allowing access yet denying the ability to pray, they are making a rather important RELIGIOUS compromise.

How many synagogues would allow Muslim or Christian prayer? For that matter how many Christian churches would allow Muslim or Jewish prayer?

It seems like a fairly obvious requirement that a religion deny the right to pray on their premises to other religions...

[Gimel]

14. A nice try, though

There will be much convincing to do for this to pass. The present govenment will not approve it, I'm certain. Much of the agreement has been around for a while. The part about dismantling terrorist organizations is another goal that seems unreachable.

[seventhson]

36. I agree that the left in Israel is TRYING despite Sharon and Likud and

the BFEE fascist right trying to KILL all peace deals.

War and hate are SURE moneymakers if you are the one selling the weapons and the oil and the uranium and marketing the hatred.

I admire Burg and the others' efforts.

[Darranar]

47. Preferably...

anyone should be allowed to pray anywhere to whoever. But that's really wishful thinking.

[tinnypriv]

51. The plan sounds reasonable

But the devil is in the details.

I'd be especially curious to see what is going to happen to Ma'ale Adumminn and the eastern Jerusalem salient. Specifics about Ari'el, Efrat etc.

Regardless, if I was advising the Palestinians, I would take whatever was on the table. Certainly on a practical (not moral) level, they should have taken Taba (assuming they could, that is).

I have no competence to comment of the religious aspects, so I won't. I'm assuming whatever is cooked up will probably be acceptable to majorities on both sides.