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?
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?