Palestinians demand return of "their" heritage -- Dead Sea Scolls

[Phoenall]

Israel does not contest that the Islamic waqf trust has authority over the Al-Aqsa Mosque. Do you?

You over-simplify. Israel has actual sovereignty over the Temple Mount at this time and asserts her sovereignty there on a daily basis. Israel also asserts her sovereign claim over all of Jerusalem in theory and in practice.

Israel has both a legal agreement (peace treaty) and a gentleman's agreement with Jordan that the Islamic Waqf has some authority to manage the Muslim shrines on the Holy Site.

Even though international and Israeli law clearly states that people of ALL religious faiths have the right to access their places of worship, Israel VOLUNTARILY restricts the rights of the Jewish people in order to pacify (in its most literal sense) Muslims who feel that using murderous violence to prevent people from worshiping G-d is both appropriate and necessary.

The Holy Places MUST remain under the sovereignty of Israel because only Israel is capable of realizing the morally correct attitude that everyone must have freedom of religion and freedom to worship.

What you write is very ideologically based. When Israel occupied Jerusalem in June 1967, the issue of Jews entering the area of the Al Aqsa Mosque was indefinitely postponed as a result of a ruling by the Chief Rabbinate on 10th June 1967. It ruled that because the location is holy to Jews, no religious Jew is allowed to set foot on any of the area that is referred to as the Temple Mount by Jews in order not to defile it. The statement said: "In view of the fact that the holiness of the area never ceases, it is forbidden to ascend the Temple Mount until the Temple is built."
The Israeli Chief Rabbinate and the Temple Mount Question
The unique situation at Al-Aqsa compound, where the Islamic Waqf — an affiliate of the Ministry of Awqaf in Jordan — is entrusted by the Muslim world to administer and control the entire site together with the Israelis. With this understanding, there is no problem concerning access to the Al Aqsa Mosque and its surrounding compound. Al-Aqsa has banned non-Muslim prayer since 1187. Only trouble-makers say differently.

And then in 1967 the new sovereigns repealed that law as they are allowed to do and made it open to all. The muslims started to rip big chunks of rock from the inside and outside of the mosque, defiling it permanently and using these as weapons against anyone coming even close to the Temple Mount. The IDF should have used laser guided sonic weapons to kill the muslims holed up inside the mosque and then taken full control. When the waqf complained told them they were incapable of looking after the Holiest relic in the world and to get of Jewish territory.

EVERYTHING IS AS A RESULT OF ISLAMONAZI VIOLENCE, LIES, BLOOD LIBELS AND TERRORISM BECAUSE THEY CANT GET THEIR OWN WAY AND RULE THE WORLD. AS EVERY DAY GOES PAST WITHOUT A VICTORY FOR ISLAM THEY GET MORE AGITATED AND AGGRESSIVE

 

[Onyx]

Yes, you read that right -- the Arab Palestinians are going to make a formal request to UNESCO to have "their" cultural heritage, the Dead Sea Scrolls, returned to them.

The Dead Sea Scrolls should definitely not be owned by the government of Israel.

They should be liberated and turned over to a reputable NGO.

 

[Moonglow]

Why do the Palestinian's want the Dead Sea Scrolls, they can't read Hebrew...

 

[Phoenall]

Al-Aqsa has banned non-Muslim prayer since 1187. Only trouble-makers say differently.

Either you believe that everyone should have the freedom to worship as they choose in places which have religious significance to them or you do not. Which is it, Eloy ? Do you believe in religious freedom? Or do you believe that only ONE religion has the right to religious freedom?

Because you are given away in your post above. You say that those who want equality and shared access and human rights are trouble-makers. Yep. That's why Israel MUST maintain the Temple Mount.

Since Jews are forbidden by ruling of the Chief Rabbinate to set foot in the Al Aqsa Mosque and its Esplanade, it follows that only those who want trouble seek to change this status quo.

LIAR as the ruling is that no Jew can enter the area believed ti be the repository of the Holy of Holies, not the Temple mount. As that place is not known the Rabbinate defined an area that takes in the al aqsa mosque as being of limits to Jews other than the priests.
Yes you are correct and this is why the arab muslims go looking for trouble all the time, then whinge and whine when Israel responds to their violence and terrorism by killing a few hundred engaged in these acts contrary to actual International laws detailed in the Geneva conventions. The land is Jewish and has been since 1922 when the legal owners granted it to them under international law as their National Home. The same international law that give Jordan to the arab muslims.


NOW WHY DO YOU SUPPORT ONE HALF OF THE INTERNATIONAL LAW AND NOT THE OTHER ? IS IT BECAUSE IT IS JEWS INVOLVED GETTING SOMETHING YOU DONT WANT THEM TO HAVE ?

 

[Shusha]

You got your answer from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu who stated "I want to clarify, we strictly keep to the status quo on the Temple Mount."

Again, no one is arguing that Israel is voluntarily keeping the status quo on the Temple Mount. What I am asking you is whether or not you feel that it is morally correct for only ONE faith to have access to a Holy Place. And whether or not you feel that using violence to prevent others from accessing their own Holy Place is morally acceptable.

But you are just going to dodge this. Again.

 

[Phoenall]

Since Jews are forbidden by ruling of the Chief Rabbinate to set foot in the Al Aqsa Mosque and its Esplanade, it follows that only those who want trouble seek to change this status quo.

The status quo, which states that only SOME people should have religious freedom is morally wrong. Yes or no?

Its a simple question. Answer it.

Not just morally but also ethically and legally wrong, but then it is only the " filthy Jews " so it does not matter in his eyes

 

[Phoenall]

Since Jews are forbidden by ruling of the Chief Rabbinate to set foot in the Al Aqsa Mosque and its Esplanade, it follows that only those who want trouble seek to change this status quo.

The status quo, which states that only SOME people should have religious freedom is morally wrong. Yes or no?

Its a simple question. Answer it.

You got your answer from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu who stated "I want to clarify, we strictly keep to the status quo on the Temple Mount."
Israel ‘keeps the status quo on the Temple Mount,’ Netanyahu assures Muslims on Ramadan eve

But which status quo is that ?

 

[Shusha]

Also notice that keeping to the status quo does not prevent violent intifadas from the tantruming Muslims who can not stand to have the filthy Jews get too close to them.

 

[Phoenall]

Yes, you read that right -- the Arab Palestinians are going to make a formal request to UNESCO to have "their" cultural heritage, the Dead Sea Scrolls, returned to them.

The Dead Sea Scrolls should definitely not be owned by the government of Israel.

They should be liberated and turned over to a reputable NGO.

Then red square and the Kremlin should also be liberated and handed over to an NGO

 

[Phoenall]

Why do the Palestinian's want the Dead Sea Scrolls, they can't read Hebrew...

To start a fire in one of the churches so they can blame the Jews ?

 

[Eloy]

You got your answer from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu who stated "I want to clarify, we strictly keep to the status quo on the Temple Mount."

Again, no one is arguing that Israel is voluntarily keeping the status quo on the Temple Mount. What I am asking you is whether or not you feel that it is morally correct for only ONE faith to have access to a Holy Place. And whether or not you feel that using violence to prevent others from accessing their own Holy Place is morally acceptable.

But you are just going to dodge this. Again.

I cannot express an opinion on the morality of Jewish doctrine which forbids Jews from setting foot in the Al Aqsa Mosque and its Esplanade.

 

[Phoenall]

You got your answer from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu who stated "I want to clarify, we strictly keep to the status quo on the Temple Mount."

Again, no one is arguing that Israel is voluntarily keeping the status quo on the Temple Mount. What I am asking you is whether or not you feel that it is morally correct for only ONE faith to have access to a Holy Place. And whether or not you feel that using violence to prevent others from accessing their own Holy Place is morally acceptable.

But you are just going to dodge this. Again.

I cannot express an opinion on the morality of Jewish doctrine which forbids Jews from setting foot in the Al Aqsa Mosque and its Esplanade.

You already have and were shouted down for getting it wrong based on what you gleaned from the hate sites.


SO YOU DODGED THE QUESTION AS EXPECTED

 

[Shusha]

I cannot express an opinion on the morality of Jewish doctrine which forbids Jews from setting foot in the Al Aqsa Mosque and its Esplanade.

Well, of course you can't, since there IS no such doctrine.

Can you express an opinion about the Muslim insistence that only they should have the privilege of fully accessing the Holy Place? And the Muslim use of violence to uphold this?

 

[Eloy]

I cannot express an opinion on the morality of Jewish doctrine which forbids Jews from setting foot in the Al Aqsa Mosque and its Esplanade.

Well, of course you can't, since there IS no such doctrine.

Can you express an opinion about the Muslim insistence that only they should have the privilege of fully accessing the Holy Place? And the Muslim use of violence to uphold this?

I'm sorry but I will not disregard the opinion of the Chief Rabbinate whose clear and binding teaching was delivered on 10th June 1967.

 

[rylah]

I cannot express an opinion on the morality of Jewish doctrine which forbids Jews from setting foot in the Al Aqsa Mosque and its Esplanade.

Well, of course you can't, since there IS no such doctrine.

Can you express an opinion about the Muslim insistence that only they should have the privilege of fully accessing the Holy Place? And the Muslim use of violence to uphold this?

I'm sorry but I will not disregard the opinion of the Chief Rabbinate whose clear and binding teaching was delivered on 10th June 1967.

So from now on will you accept the rulings of the zionist rabbinate ?
Or just the rulings that suit your POV...

Here's a new ruling calling for pilgrimage and explaining the right way to purify, so it's done with respect to the holiest place of the Jews...you know unlike the arabs who play soccer there and destroy their mosque each time they feel like rioting.

 

[Shusha]

I'm sorry but I will not disregard the opinion of the Chief Rabbinate whose clear and binding teaching was delivered on 10th June 1967.

There are two very distinct responses I can make to this.

First, and most importantly, I notice you again dodged the actual question. It is transparently an avoidance. You are perfectly aware that there is only one moral response to the question. Else you would have stated your belief, either way, early on in the conversation. Your reluctance to simply say, "yeah, hey, there is only one moral response to this question" means that your answer is the immoral one and you are unable to justify your immoral response in a social setting which includes multi-ethnic and multi-religious people. Which means, of course, that your immoral response is unjustifiable. And, you are entirely correct, the Muslim insistence that ONLY they have rights to pray and worship and celebrate their faith on a site which is, at best shared and at worst, STOLEN, is immoral. The fact that they use violence to impose their immoral belief is all the more appalling and disgusting.

Second, you reveal your utterly inadequate knowledge of the Jewish faith and how the Jewish people and their leaders make halakhic decisions. There is a range of thought on how to proceed now that the Jewish people once again have sovereignty on the Temple Mount, all of it halakhically based, whether on Maimondes' understanding of "And you shall build me a sanctuary" or on Rashi's understanding of "The Sanctuary, oh G-d, which your hands have established". No one disagrees that there is only a small portion of the Temple Mount upon which it is prohibited to be present, depending on one's understanding of whether the Shechinah is still present and to what degree. The question is only what to do until we determine where that space is. Given that we can be sure, in many places, where it is NOT, there is plenty of space for the Jewish people to enter the space and pray and worship. And indeed, as previously posted, Israeli law upholds the right of people to freedom of worship.

Keep in mind as well, that all decisions having to do with the presence of the Jewish people on the Mount are political decisions as well as religious ones. The Jewish people are not free to make decisions based solely on religious faith. They are forced to deal with the hissy fits of an overwhelming number of Muslims who are willing to both die and murder people (read: Jews) to enforce their immoral belief.

 

[Eloy]

I cannot express an opinion on the morality of Jewish doctrine which forbids Jews from setting foot in the Al Aqsa Mosque and its Esplanade.

Well, of course you can't, since there IS no such doctrine.

Can you express an opinion about the Muslim insistence that only they should have the privilege of fully accessing the Holy Place? And the Muslim use of violence to uphold this?

I'm sorry but I will not disregard the opinion of the Chief Rabbinate whose clear and binding teaching was delivered on 10th June 1967.

So from now on will you accept the rulings of the zionist rabbinate ?
Or just the rulings that suit your POV...

I am unaware of any reason to disrespect Chief Rabbinate.

 

[rylah]

I cannot express an opinion on the morality of Jewish doctrine which forbids Jews from setting foot in the Al Aqsa Mosque and its Esplanade.

Well, of course you can't, since there IS no such doctrine.

Can you express an opinion about the Muslim insistence that only they should have the privilege of fully accessing the Holy Place? And the Muslim use of violence to uphold this?

I'm sorry but I will not disregard the opinion of the Chief Rabbinate whose clear and binding teaching was delivered on 10th June 1967.

So from now on will you accept the rulings of the zionist rabbinate ?
Or just the rulings that suit your POV...

I am unaware of any reason to disrespect Chief Rabbinate.

Great I'll remember that! So now that we've put this thing aside you can answer Shusha's questions

 

[Eloy]

I'm sorry but I will not disregard the opinion of the Chief Rabbinate whose clear and binding teaching was delivered on 10th June 1967.

There are two very distinct responses I can make to this.

First, and most importantly, I notice you again dodged the actual question. It is transparently an avoidance. You are perfectly aware that there is only one moral response to the question. Else you would have stated your belief, either way, early on in the conversation. Your reluctance to simply say, "yeah, hey, there is only one moral response to this question" means that your answer is the immoral one and you are unable to justify your immoral response in a social setting which includes multi-ethnic and multi-religious people. Which means, of course, that your immoral response is unjustifiable. And, you are entirely correct, the Muslim insistence that ONLY they have rights to pray and worship and celebrate their faith on a site which is, at best shared and at worst, STOLEN, is immoral. The fact that they use violence to impose their immoral belief is all the more appalling and disgusting.

I am puzzled by your hostility and your determination to put words in my mouth. Everyone except trouble-makers accepts the teaching of the Chief Rabbinate.

Second, you reveal your utterly inadequate knowledge of the Jewish faith and how the Jewish people and their leaders make halakhic decisions. There is a range of thought on how to proceed now that the Jewish people once again have sovereignty on the Temple Mount, all of it halakhically based, whether on Maimondes' understanding of "And you shall build me a sanctuary" or on Rashi's understanding of "The Sanctuary, oh G-d, which your hands have established". No one disagrees that there is only a small portion of the Temple Mount upon which it is prohibited to be present, depending on one's understanding of whether the Shechinah is still present and to what degree. The question is only what to do until we determine where that space is. Given that we can be sure, in many places, where it is NOT, there is plenty of space for the Jewish people to enter the space and pray and worship. And indeed, as previously posted, Israeli law upholds the right of people to freedom of worship.

I can read English and I understand the decision of the Chief Rabbinate. At the same time, I am not and do not claim to be an expert on Jewish dogma.

Keep in mind as well, that all decisions having to do with the presence of the Jewish people on the Mount are political decisions as well as religious ones. The Jewish people are not free to make decisions based solely on religious faith. They are forced to deal with the hissy fits of an overwhelming number of Muslims who are willing to both die and murder people (read: Jews) to enforce their immoral belief.

For the sake of peaceful coexistence, I believe it is best to maintain the status quo on the Al Aqsa Mosque and its Esplanade.

 

[Eloy]

I cannot express an opinion on the morality of Jewish doctrine which forbids Jews from setting foot in the Al Aqsa Mosque and its Esplanade.

Well, of course you can't, since there IS no such doctrine.

Can you express an opinion about the Muslim insistence that only they should have the privilege of fully accessing the Holy Place? And the Muslim use of violence to uphold this?

I'm sorry but I will not disregard the opinion of the Chief Rabbinate whose clear and binding teaching was delivered on 10th June 1967.

So from now on will you accept the rulings of the zionist rabbinate ?
Or just the rulings that suit your POV...

I am unaware of any reason to disrespect Chief Rabbinate.

Great I'll remember that! So now that we've put this thing aside you can answer Shusha's questions

I have answered questions to the best of my ability.