It’s always interesting to watch clueless outsiders interpret (read “spin”) Israel’s internal government business. For instance in this Washington Post article on Israel’s recent coalition shake-up, Israel’s defense minister abruptly resigns in slap at growing ‘extremism.’
First of all, it wasn’t a slap at extremism. Yaalon was forced out. He was insubordinate. He made statements in public that undermined the elected government of Israel and he acted against the vested interests of that government’s electorate. We, the people, wanted Yaalon out. Our prime minister did his job by doing what the people wanted and asked Yaalon to resign.
But you’d never know any of that from reading the Wapo article. The article goes on to suggest that Netanyahu “dumped” his “well-regarded” defense minister when the fact is that Yaalon, at this point in time, is not well-regarded outside of the leftist IDF army brass and, perhaps, Washington.
There is much one can say about the Washington Post’s bias and media bias in general, but here is what really made me grit my teeth:
“With Yaalon’s departure, the next in line on the Likud list to join parliament is Yehuda Glick, a prominent activist who wants Jewish worshipers to be allowed to pray on the raised esplanade that Jews call the Temple Mount.
“The same site is called the Noble Sanctuary by Muslims and holds al-Aqsa Mosque and the Dome of the Rock.”
This is really sneaky. First there’s this idiotic attempt at neutrality: “Jews call” it the Temple Mount.
Um, no. We don’t “call” it the Temple Mount. It IS the Temple Mount. Hasn’t anyone at Wapo read the bible, the Quran, or a history book?
But then, neutrality is swept aside in a kind of rock, paper, scissors game. Jews call it this, Arabs call it that, but they’ve got mosques and stuff there and what have the Jews got?
NADA.
Which is really gross. It’s like saying that it doesn’t matter what people SAY, what matters is what’s there NOW. And the reason that’s gross is because the only reason anyone wanted to build anything there in the first place is because of the importance of this spot to the Jewish people. It was in recognition of this spot’s holiness to the Jews that anyone cared at all about this tiny little hilltop.
It’s kind of like Hillary’s “What difference does it make?”
Chris Stevens is dead, right? So what difference does it make HOW he died or whether Hillary blamed it on a video? Does it change anything if Obama slept soundly while it was all going down in Benghazi?
Same difference here, with Wapo saying what difference does it make that the Romans burned down the Jews’ Temple and threw the Jews out of their indigenous land? What difference does it make that Crusaders came in and built churches on holy Jewish land? What difference does it make that Muslims subsequently burned down the churches and built mosques on the spot instead?
What difference does it matter that Jews prayed facing Jerusalem and prayed to return to Jerusalem for thousands of years?
Because there’s a mosque there now. And the mosque is something physical, something tangible, whereas Jewish history is ephemeral, in the past, in the mind, in a book: something that is no more.
Somehow, Yehudah Glick is damned by Wapo because he wants to restore freedom of religion in Jewish Jerusalem. It’s absolutely true: Glick wants Jews to be able to pray on the Temple Mount and Wapo is trying very hard to make you think there’s something wrong with that. Because there’s a mosque there, now.
How many American readers will see through this attempt at legitimizing the silencing of Jewish prayer in Jerusalem–the very antithesis of democracy–and know it for what it is?
Antisemitism.
Since the Islamofascists got our Temple Mount by conquest and destruction of a church that was there, WaPo must support our claims if we destroy the Muslim trash there and rebuild our Temple, right?
Exactly. In my original draft, I wrote something like: So if the Jews throw all the WAPO staff out of the building, tear down the building and erect a synagogue on the site, is that okay?
Firstly, Antisemitism is the only logical term that applies to the idea that only Jews cannot pray in an open space because there is a mosque nearby, when that space in the world’s only Jewish state. And Antisemitism is the only logical term that applies to the world saying it’s “understandable” rather than absurd and grotesque.
Secondly, that a religion would DEMAND that people not pray NEAR their house of prayer, and justify acts of violence for the mere appearance of this demand not being observed, tells you everything about this religion.
We definitely see eye to eye on this.
Well, there are some things that are so obvious, that it boggles the mind that there should be any contention. Sure, if it’s phrased sneakily like in that article that; to Jews it’s the Temple Mount, while to Muslims it’s the Noble Sanctuary, and the Muslims have a mosque and Jews just have historical significance, it sounds like Jews could easily not be there, but they are being pests. But that sort of thing is just so ridiculously easy to take apart, before you even get to trying to prove that Muslims built the mosque (dafka) there precisely because it was a Jewish holy site, and before you even have to prove that yes, that’s where the Temple stood, or even before you have to prove that a Jewish Temple existed. I don’t know if the Israeli government is so used to fighting the Palestinian Arabs’ lies, that they don’t see that this one is different, and too obvious – Jewish people are getting violently attacked by mobs for the act of WALKING in an area OUTSIDE of a mosque, in Israel, and the attackers are the ones claiming the righteous moral high ground!!!!!!! The only other explanation, which is truly frightening, is that the whole world has adopted a Dhimitude mentality and is afraid of pissed off Muslims, because they have a fair idea of what pissed off Muslims are capable off.
The only thing I might disagree on, is that since we do know what pissed off Muslims are capable of, I wouldn’t want to be in a position of someone who sent in Israel’s troops and risk the soldiers’ lives, if G-d forbid something happened to the soldiers. And the way things are currently, I personally don’t think people should take young children there. Yes, it is good for them to learn that we should be strong and defiant in the face of injustice, but I think it could be too stressful, and they could get hurt. On the other hand, I wouldn’t like to be in a position of someone, who sends army or police officers to drag a religious Jew off to the station or to prison for muttering a prayer in an open space!
The world doesn’t mind sacrificing the Jews to feed the hungry Ba’al that is the Islamic war machine. They just don’t know they’re next.
They should know that they’re next. Europe is all “Je suis Charlie” and French flags on their Facebook icons, but they side with people who justify violence against people just because they hate them and they use the excuse that these people are WALKING near their big mosque. These people are actually filmed screeching “they’re not supposed to be praying. They’re praying. Their lips are moving” WTF? And why is anyone even giving them a pass in framing it in terms of Israel/ Palestinian conflict. Why is no one mentioning that Jordan administers the Temple Mount and has to share some responsibility for reigning in the violence. As wilfully blind as they are, you know what would happen if people were flooding out of a mosque in Paris or Berlin or London and yelling and attacking passers-by or throwing Molotov cocktails.
You know the answer. So do I.
Yep. All that is before you get to the Jews’ religious freedom bit. And more disheartening is seeing those sanctimonious, delusional Israeli left who bleat about the “radical, extremist Jews” – again, forget about the praying. They are walking in an outdoor area!
Yeah.
“there are none so blind as those who will not see” – Jews “call it the Temple Mount” Muslims have a mosque there, so Jews should move out. There is no difference between this and the idea of applying Sharia law in Europe or the U.S.
When did it become radical or extremist to say, “Dear Muslims, although you consider it a catastrophe, the fact is, that you are a significant minority in a non-Muslim country. As such, you have freedom of religion, but no rights to subjugate others to Dhimitude”? Maybe the problem is that this is often assumed to be obvious, but should actually be stated frequently, to help the message sink in.
Good point, Inessa.
Wapo has really gone downhill the past couple of years. Kay Graham is spinning in her grave-I hope.
I made some really nasty comments on the website and encourage all like minded people to do as well.
Good for you, Kelly!