Israel minister angers Muslims by touring holy site

[Herschel]

— Israel's internal security minister went to a Jerusalem shrine which is holy to both Jews and Muslims on Wednesday, angering Muslim clerics who described the visit as a provocation.

The Internal Security Ministry said the minister, Tsahi Hanegbi, spent 30 minutes at the site which is known to Jews as the Temple Mount, Judaism's holiest shrine, and revered by Muslims as the al-Haram al-Sharif, one of Islam's holiest sites.
It said in a statement that Hanegbi, accompanied by deputy internal security minister Michael Ratzon and senior police officers, inspected police preparations for a festival marking Islam's fasting month of Ramadan which begins next week.
The site in Jerusalem's walled old city has been a flashpoint between Israelis and Palestinians, but the visit ended without any violence.

cut

http://famulus.msnbc.com/FamulusIntl/reuters10-22-042718.asp?reg=MIDEAST

======================

The shrine is holy to Jews. Perhaps some Muslim clerics need to demonstrate tolerance. Oh, my.

[J B]

1. Perhaps the minister should display some intelligence.

But we can't have that, can we?

[stopthegop]

2. why shouldn't he be able to go there also?

if you yield every time someone objects, or threatens to riot...the bad guys win...and yes, if they object to the mere presence of the man at a site holy to both Jews and Muslims I consider them to be bad guys...

[Sesquipedalian]

18. Christians and Muslims are barred from a number of sites

by the Israeli government. If this is an example of some concrete evil to oppose have the Israeli's become "bad guys" or was your moral pronouncement just a load of sanctimonious horseshit?

[Muddleoftheroad]

3. Exactly the problem

When Muslims control the religious sites, they don't want anyone else to have any rights. This is why they blame Sharon falsely. He did what he has a right to do, go to the Temple Mount.

[rini]

4. I hope this posting

opens some eyes.

[Resistance]

5. And your point is?

Tell you what, let's start talking about what "Jews control" and what "Jews want" from others ... oh wait, that would fall into the category of racist bigotry, which is what the Malaysian PM engaged in recently.

You must make the good Dr. King Jr. really proud, Muddle.

[Muddleoftheroad]

7. What the heck are you talking about?

We have a holy site where one group doesn't even want the other to visit. Where any time anyone they don't like visits it's a controversy. Well too damn bad for them.

[Resistance]

10. Listen carefully please

If we're all agreed that talking about what "Jews control" and what "Jews want" is ignorant bigotry (for example the recent remarks made by the Malaysian PM), then we should be agreed that talking about what "Muslims control" and what "Muslims want" from others is also equally offensive.

Do you get it yet?

[The Magistrate]

12. Apples And Oranges, Mr. Resistance

This is not a question of "Jews controlling the world" or "Jews wanting to defeat Islam" on some cosmic scale; it is a tangible question of real estate. No one, for example, would denounce the statement "Jews control Israel" as ignorant bigotry.

Similarly, to state the Moslems control that particular hill is not ignorant bigotry: it is in fact controlled by a Wafq, an Islamic trust for administering religious sites, that has done so in this case for many centuries. The desires of these administrators have frequently in the present and the past, been backed up by mob violence by Moslem residents of Jerusalem.

Viewed as a matter of pure property ownership, the Wafq have a right to bar any from property they own. That ownership, of course, originates in conquest only, a concept people here have differing degrees of ease with, and need to show a little care either in opposing or invoking, lest they undermine their arguments in other facets of this matter.

Whether they are right to bar persons from that property, to whom that property has a sacred character long pre-datng the Wafq's ownership of it, is a seperate question. It would seem to me a most intolerant thing to do. It certainly seems to reflect a considerable quotient of bigotry if such a visit sparks threats, or on occassion, even the actuality, of mob violence.

[Resistance]

13. Absolutely disagreed

You can say that a particular Muslim has control, or that an "Islamic trust" adminsters certain sites - but what point would there be really, in making mention of the person's religion? What would you think about talking about the fact that a Jew controls some particular corporation? Or news network? What would be useful about that point. Further, would you not be among those to challenge the person who would make such statements?

I don't mind talking about the Wafq either, since it seems to be a factual point you insist on making. But to say "Muslims control" and "Muslims want" this or that are just as bigoted and ignorant statements as the ridiculous things said in the Malaysian PMs speech.

[The Magistrate]

15. They Are Imprecise Things, Sir

But that imprecision falls a little short, to my mind, of demonstrating bigotry, in discussing this particular issue.

The thing being discussed here is whether the Wafq ought to raise a stink about a visit by Jews to the site of the Herodian temple. Since much of the Wafq's resistance to this is based on their feeling that site is sacred to their religion, their religious belief is an unavoidable element of the discussion, and since such visits have been, at times, greeted with mob violence by Moslems who made it very clear they were responding to a belief the place was being desecrated by such visits, the question of a widespread view held by many Moslems also arises unavoidably.

That is somewhat different from pointing out that both X Co. and D Co. are owned by Jews, and suggesting therefore that whatever they do is moved by some conspiracy among Jews, or is done only in the interests of Jews and Israel.

[Sesquipedalian]

16. al-aqsa riots were misreported

Sharon's visit in itself didn't cause anything. Nothing happened that day. Sharon's visit in itself though it was certainly meant to symbolize Jewish soverienty over the place wasn't impressive enough to create a real reaction.

However, the next day when a massive phalanx of armed riot police entered the place it certainly went beyond Sharon's symbolic, little, pimpstrut across the place and demonstrated a rather more concrete example of exactly who was in charge and that was what provoked anger and protests which provoked an incredibly disproportionate violent response.

The Waqf doesn't seem horribly interested in Jews visiting or not, they seem very sensibly motivated in keeping their shrine from turning into a pit of violence.

[tinnypriv]

21. Damn good post

:thumbsup:

[Gimel]

22. "symbolize Jewish soverienty over the place "

The visit didn't represent "Jewish soverienty" as Sharon wasn't and isn't a King sitting on a throne. He was a member of the government, but acting as a private person. No mention of Jewish soverienty.

Perhaps the message of the suicide bombers in Tel Aviv or Haifa and points in beween is meant to convey Islamic soverienty? I prefer a peaceful visit to a holy site in contrast to a homicidal bombing.

[Sesquipedalian]

31. Why do you think he went there?

by all accounts he's a secular, hedonist that eats pork. It's not like he went there to pray or something.

[Gimel]

32. Surprising, isn't it?

Many posters think he is heading a theocracy. I think he went there to demonstrate that no one other than Moslems will have free access to the holy sites under Moslem rule. Not Jews or Christians.

[Sesquipedalian]

33. so how did he get in then?

[Gimel]

34. He didn't

He only walked in the courtyard. Many have a false impression of the whole incident.

[Sesquipedalian]

35. truer words have never been spoken..

Am I understanding what you are saying? He wanted to go hang out in Al-Aqsa Mosque but they wouldn't let him?

[Resistance]

36. just imagine

Osama Bin Laden taking a stroll through Manhattan (or, really, anywhere in America), to get an idea of what it might have been like.

[Sesquipedalian]

37. Why would he want to go to a mosque at all?

Not only that but up until after he had his little walk anyone could go anywhere they wanted there and it it wasn't the clerics that closed it, it was the Jerusalem police.

[The Magistrate]

39. That Closure, Though, Sir

Was largely due to fear of mob violence. This seems to me the most important part: it really ought not to make a damned bit of difference to anyone. My patience for "true believers" in any connection is often stressed past its breaking point: the less seriously people take their religion, the better for everyone, seems to me one of the leading lessons of history.

[Resistance]

40. Sharon's overall plan has been to provoke Palestinians

into getting into a conflict with Israel, so that Sharon can pretend that he is defending Israel from terrorism, when in fact, the real goal is to steal Palestinian land.

[The Magistrate]

44. And Knowing That, Sir

Arab Palestinians, whether leaders or ordinary folks, would have been wise not to rise to that provocation, and thus frustrate this obvious scheme of their enemy. That is the highest form of strategy, after all: to balk the enemy's plans.

[Resistance]

17. Fine, let's discuss the rightness or wrongness of it then

But don't extrapolate the thing into what "Muslims want" and how awful things become when "Muslims control" the place. It is the same bigotry that causes the Malaysian PM to speak about "Jewish control" when he really means to criticize Israeli policies, or the actions of certain Jews.

So, yes I do think it is entirely avoidable to speak about "Muslim control" just as it would be entirely avoidable for the Malaysian PM to have to resort to the "Jews rule the world" kind of thing. Just make your criticism against the Wafq or the Israeli gov't, or whatever individual it is, and move on. There is no need to try and smear the entire religion, and that goes for both Muddle and Mahathir.

[Muddleoftheroad]

19. Muslim control

Muslim control is entirely an issue. Sorry if you don't like the term, but that is what is being discussed here.

And I have said enough times for you to know that I don't try to smear Islam. Either accept it or not. Frankly, I care not which.

[Darranar]

20. Hmm...

I think I agree with you and the Magistrate here, Muddle.

[Resistance]

29. seriously?

Alrighty then -- how about you explain it to me then, Darranar, since I may be the one missing the point which Muddle and Magistrate are trying to get across.

Tell me, since it is bigoted and racist to talk about how "Jews rule" and the bad things "Jews want" to do (such as in the case of the Malaysian PM), how is it perfectly acceptable to talk about "Muslim control," what "Muslims want" and how "they (Muslims) blame Sharon"? It's ok to do it, because the site is a religious one? But then, it's not ok to do it if you're talking about a corporation or, say, real estate considered 'Holy' to some?

Tell you what, how about instead of talking about "Israeli" control over the Occupied Territories, let's start calling it "Jewish control" over Judea and Samaria - since it's suddenly become acceptable now to broadly generalize about all the members of a religious group due to the things done by certain members of that group. You agree with that, Darranar?

[The Magistrate]

30. There Is Something To Your Point Above, Mr. Resistance

We are agreed that the original expression was imprecise, and could therefore have been taken in an over-broad manner, whatever its intent.

But there remains a real distinction here between discussion of a specific place, and real difficulties associated with it, and the sort of conspiracist views of the "Hidden Hand" with which you are suggesting an essential identity.

In discussing this religious site, for one thing, there is a practical limit to how far even a generalization can be viewed as extending. The circumstance exists, after all, only in this particular region. Nowhere else do Moslem organizations hold sway over sites viewed as fundamentally sacred to another active religion. Certainly in the period of expanding Islamic imperialism there were other sites taken over, and mosques erected to replace churches and temples, but that is a garden variety sort of thing all expanding powers do. Only in India do there remain a few contested sites, and there Moslem power, to put it mildly, is rather on the wane.

Here in the Levant, due to Islam having appropriated the figure of Abraham from the Jews, there is an unavoidable over-lap in sacralization of real estate, that exists nowhere else in the world. It is therefore a little difficult to extend even general comments concerning that issue into identity with allegations of world-wide conspiracy and cosmic struggle.

[Darranar]

41. You have a point...

but concerning Jerusalem itself, it is essentially segregated into Jewish and Muslim sections; since it has great religious importance to both religions, the term "Muslim control" does not seem innacurate, any more than the term "Jewish control" would be in regard to the Wailing Wall.

[Resistance]

42. That point

might actually pass with me, if the entire post didn't also contain the talk about how "Muslims don't want anyone else to have any rights" and how "Muslims blame Sharon falsely".

The entire passage stinks of blatant bigotry, and frankly I don't know how others continue to put up with the stench around here.

[Gimel]

49. "Jewish control"

It is in fact implied, if not stated. Nothing else is meant. The Arabs or Christians in Israel are not involved. Arabs are not part of the IDF (except for Druze and Bedouins).

However, there is no "Jewish Control" of the West Bank. It is shared with the PA. Current operations by the IDF are aimed at ridding the area of terrorists. Sorry you seem opposed to that.

[rini]

45. Even bigots can't have it both ways

It hasn’t yet been a month since the leading legal mind in the Arab world admitted that the Hebrew bible was fact. Of course, the man did this to justify suing every Jew in the world for a trillion gazillion dollars. But in his lust and greed and hatred, he overlooked the fact that by admitting the Bible was true and accurate history, we Jews could use him as our chief witness to reclaim the Temple Mount, all of Jerusalem, and parts of Syria, Jordan and other Arab countries. You’d think these haters would learn to keep their mouths shut so we wouldn’t know their true agendas. But no-ooooo-oo....

[Darranar]

46. But the Bible isn't fact...

a large portion of it is greatly exxagerated.

And if you believe that the Bible is fact...

Since you justify the current Jewish state by going back to 60 CE, ever considered discussing the genocide and ethnic cleansing of those inhabiting the lands when the Jews entered?

If it "was right for it's time," do you agree then that the Roman conquest of Judea and the subsequent expelling of the Jews was legitimate?

[Resistance]

48. It isn't???

:wow:

[edzontar]

24. No, he won't get it,,,,,

But I admire you for trying.

[Darranar]

6. And it's holy to Muslims as well...

I think the way the Geneva Accords deals with it is among the bezst and most workable solutions.

[drewb]

8. How about the sites that are also holy to Christians...

yeah... remember us???

Why do we always get shit on in the cesspool that is the middle east.

Make peace already you idiots, I want to go tour the holy sites.

[Muddleoftheroad]

9. I did

Honestly, when you are there, a lot of thinks make some sense. Everything in the area is so close together and everyone has a history in the same area. It's bound to be a mess.

[Equinox]

11. LOL...drewb...

you're a riot!

:toast:

[ex_jew]

14. Hard to display tolerance when your people are being

slaughtered at will by weapons against which they have no defense. And of course this goes the other way as well, if you believe there's no defense against suicide bombing. Perhaps hoping for tolerance in wartime is somewhat pointless.

[Gimel]

23. The defense against suicide bombers

is the fence. That's why they don't like it.

[edzontar]

25. An imperfect and ultimately doomed defense, of course...

What is needed is a fair and enforceable peace.

Which I am guessing, from what I read, is something you don;t really want--not if it means giving up the settlements--am I right?

[Muddleoftheroad]

26. Fair is a relative term

What Israel considers fair might not be what the Palestinians consider fair. And nothing short of the destruction of Israel is what Hamas and others would consider fair. There is no perfect solution.

[Gimel]

27. Absolutely wrong

The security fence is only part of the answer, but can keep out inflitrating terrorists. Co-operation from the PA security forces is necessary. In the absence of any real effort on the Palestinian side to stop the murdurous assults, the wall/fence is the only alternative that can provide comprehensive security.

Most of the Israelis should be on one side and most of the Palestinians on the other. No border has been determined, and erecting the Wall on the greenline would have been just as controversial.

I wholeheatedly support a comprehensive agreement and an end to violence. You'll have to read more before you can read my mind.

[Muddleoftheroad]

28. What's funny

Is that Israel already has to build a security wall to protect it from the West Bank and Gaza. If the new peace plan goes through, then Israel will have to build a similar wall to protect it from Palestinians travelling along the fantasy corridor from Gaza to the West Bank.

[Sesquipedalian]

38. a wall has one side

that thing isn't a wall.

[Muddleoftheroad]

43. You must live in a funny house

nt

[Forkboy]

50. lol

:)

[drewb]

47. I can't imagine Israel building a road for only one religion to use...

They wouldn't do something like that? Or would they???