What is a reasonable response?

[aris2chat]

The Temple Mount and ‘Disproportionate Response’
November 26, 2014 12:50 am
Author:Maurice Ostroff


The Temple Mount atop Jerusalem's Old City. Photo: Dave Bender

Since pundits who profess to understand the Arab-Israel conflict regularly accuse Israel of “disproportionate response,” it would be interesting to know whether these opinion makers consider the current attacks on Jews in Jerusalem to be a “proportionate” response to activists who wish to pray on the Temple Mount.

What is all this verbal and physical violence about? The current “status quo” permits Jews to visit the Temple Mount but not to pray while there. By way of background, the Temple Mount, believed to be the site of the First and Second Temples, is the holiest place in the world for Jews. It is also believed by Muslims that about 550 years after the destruction of the Second Temple, Mohammed flew to this site on a winged horse named Buraq and then flew to heaven to plead with God before returning to Mecca. The Al-Aqsa Mosque and the Dome of the Rock stand on the site today, and it is the third holiest place for Muslims.

In 1948, Jordan occupied the West Bank and East Jerusalem where the Temple Mount is located – and annexed it in 1950. The annexation was considered illegal and void by the Arab League and all countries except Britain, Iraq, and Pakistan.

During its rule, Jordan refused to honor its undertaking in terms of the 1949 Israel-Jordan Armistice Agreement to allow free access to Jerusalem’s Holy Places and cultural institutions and use of the cemetery on the Mount of Olives. Jews were barred from the Old City and denied access to the Western Wall and other Holy Places. Synagogues were destroyed and tombstones were used in the construction of latrines. Christians were also adversely affected.

By contrast, when Israel took control of East Jerusalem after the 1967 Six Day War, Israel showed extreme respect for the Islamic religion. In a conciliatory act, Moshe Dayan ordered the removal of the paratroopers who had liberated the Mount and lowering of the newly raised Israeli flag. He made arrangements known today as the “status quo,” which provided that the Islamic Waqf would continue to manage the site while Israeli police would be responsible for security. Non Muslims including Jews would be allowed to visit but strangely and perhaps naively not permitted to pray.

Now, however, some religious Jews who revere this sacred site are vexed by the remaining condition prohibiting Jewish prayer on the Mount and a group of activists led by Yehuda Glick have for years made a practice of praying silently there.

Whether or not we agree with Rabbi Glick’s actions and even if we consider them to be provocative, they don’t by any stretch of imagination resemble the hysterical descriptions by some opinion makers. And they of course don’t justify the attempt on his life. In an incendiary speech in Ramallah on the 10th anniversary of the death of Yasser Arafat, PA President Abbas warned against changing the status quo despite Prime Minister Netanyahu’s repeated declaration that the status quo will not be altered. Moreover, when Israel closed entry to the Mount for one day in an effort to stem the violence, Abbas called this a “declaration of war.” And Abbas said that activists like Glick who wish to share in praying, tolerance, and respecting one another at the site, were “contaminating” the Temple Mount.

It is worrying that U.S. Sate Department spokesperson Jen Psaki and Secretary of State Kerry seemed to accept these incendiary reactions as unworthy of comment.

But of course, when Israel builds a house in East Jerusalem or uses force to stop the murder of its citizens, this is an outrage that the U.S. condemns immediately. Talk about a disproportionate response.

 

[Hossfly]

The Temple Mount and ‘Disproportionate Response’
November 26, 2014 12:50 am
Author:Maurice Ostroff


The Temple Mount atop Jerusalem's Old City. Photo: Dave Bender

Since pundits who profess to understand the Arab-Israel conflict regularly accuse Israel of “disproportionate response,” it would be interesting to know whether these opinion makers consider the current attacks on Jews in Jerusalem to be a “proportionate” response to activists who wish to pray on the Temple Mount.

What is all this verbal and physical violence about? The current “status quo” permits Jews to visit the Temple Mount but not to pray while there. By way of background, the Temple Mount, believed to be the site of the First and Second Temples, is the holiest place in the world for Jews. It is also believed by Muslims that about 550 years after the destruction of the Second Temple, Mohammed flew to this site on a winged horse named Buraq and then flew to heaven to plead with God before returning to Mecca. The Al-Aqsa Mosque and the Dome of the Rock stand on the site today, and it is the third holiest place for Muslims.

In 1948, Jordan occupied the West Bank and East Jerusalem where the Temple Mount is located – and annexed it in 1950. The annexation was considered illegal and void by the Arab League and all countries except Britain, Iraq, and Pakistan.

During its rule, Jordan refused to honor its undertaking in terms of the 1949 Israel-Jordan Armistice Agreement to allow free access to Jerusalem’s Holy Places and cultural institutions and use of the cemetery on the Mount of Olives. Jews were barred from the Old City and denied access to the Western Wall and other Holy Places. Synagogues were destroyed and tombstones were used in the construction of latrines. Christians were also adversely affected.

By contrast, when Israel took control of East Jerusalem after the 1967 Six Day War, Israel showed extreme respect for the Islamic religion. In a conciliatory act, Moshe Dayan ordered the removal of the paratroopers who had liberated the Mount and lowering of the newly raised Israeli flag. He made arrangements known today as the “status quo,” which provided that the Islamic Waqf would continue to manage the site while Israeli police would be responsible for security. Non Muslims including Jews would be allowed to visit but strangely and perhaps naively not permitted to pray.

Now, however, some religious Jews who revere this sacred site are vexed by the remaining condition prohibiting Jewish prayer on the Mount and a group of activists led by Yehuda Glick have for years made a practice of praying silently there.

Whether or not we agree with Rabbi Glick’s actions and even if we consider them to be provocative, they don’t by any stretch of imagination resemble the hysterical descriptions by some opinion makers. And they of course don’t justify the attempt on his life. In an incendiary speech in Ramallah on the 10th anniversary of the death of Yasser Arafat, PA President Abbas warned against changing the status quo despite Prime Minister Netanyahu’s repeated declaration that the status quo will not be altered. Moreover, when Israel closed entry to the Mount for one day in an effort to stem the violence, Abbas called this a “declaration of war.” And Abbas said that activists like Glick who wish to share in praying, tolerance, and respecting one another at the site, were “contaminating” the Temple Mount.

It is worrying that U.S. Sate Department spokesperson Jen Psaki and Secretary of State Kerry seemed to accept these incendiary reactions as unworthy of comment.

But of course, when Israel builds a house in East Jerusalem or uses force to stop the murder of its citizens, this is an outrage that the U.S. condemns immediately. Talk about a disproportionate response.

IMO, the Jews should march onto the Temple Mount and pray to their hearts content. A cult who forbids people to pray at their holy site should stand aside while all that Islamic obscenity is bulldozed down the hill. Let them go to the trash dump to worship their idols.

 

[Hossfly]

Israel is cracking down on those Muslim "guards" at the Temple Mount. You have to be a subscriber to Haaretz to read the full article.



. Haaretz: Israel is moving to outlaw an informal group of Palestinian “guards” at the Temple Mount, and restrict visits by Knesset members and right-wing activists.

The guards are called “Mourabitoun” in Arabic, a term used to describe an advance guard meant to protect Islamic holy sites from heretics. Dozens of men and women are part of the guard, and are present near the mosques on the Temple Mount – which is worshipped by Muslims as the Noble Sanctuary – day and night. They are funded by various Islamist parties, including some extremist groups in Israel. In many cases, the guards, particularly the females, have been involved in clashes with the Israel Police or Jewish visitors to the Temple Mount. Five female members of the guard have been issued orders prohibiting them from being on or near the Temple Mount, due to their involvement in previous incidents.

Israel moves to outlaw Muslim guards at Al-Aqsa mosque - Diplomacy and Defense Israel News Haaretz

 

[Grendelyn]

The Temple Mount and ‘Disproportionate Response’
November 26, 2014 12:50 am
Author:Maurice Ostroff


The Temple Mount atop Jerusalem's Old City. Photo: Dave Bender

Since pundits who profess to understand the Arab-Israel conflict regularly accuse Israel of “disproportionate response,” it would be interesting to know whether these opinion makers consider the current attacks on Jews in Jerusalem to be a “proportionate” response to activists who wish to pray on the Temple Mount.

What is all this verbal and physical violence about? The current “status quo” permits Jews to visit the Temple Mount but not to pray while there. By way of background, the Temple Mount, believed to be the site of the First and Second Temples, is the holiest place in the world for Jews. It is also believed by Muslims that about 550 years after the destruction of the Second Temple, Mohammed flew to this site on a winged horse named Buraq and then flew to heaven to plead with God before returning to Mecca. The Al-Aqsa Mosque and the Dome of the Rock stand on the site today, and it is the third holiest place for Muslims.

In 1948, Jordan occupied the West Bank and East Jerusalem where the Temple Mount is located – and annexed it in 1950. The annexation was considered illegal and void by the Arab League and all countries except Britain, Iraq, and Pakistan.

During its rule, Jordan refused to honor its undertaking in terms of the 1949 Israel-Jordan Armistice Agreement to allow free access to Jerusalem’s Holy Places and cultural institutions and use of the cemetery on the Mount of Olives. Jews were barred from the Old City and denied access to the Western Wall and other Holy Places. Synagogues were destroyed and tombstones were used in the construction of latrines. Christians were also adversely affected.

By contrast, when Israel took control of East Jerusalem after the 1967 Six Day War, Israel showed extreme respect for the Islamic religion. In a conciliatory act, Moshe Dayan ordered the removal of the paratroopers who had liberated the Mount and lowering of the newly raised Israeli flag. He made arrangements known today as the “status quo,” which provided that the Islamic Waqf would continue to manage the site while Israeli police would be responsible for security. Non Muslims including Jews would be allowed to visit but strangely and perhaps naively not permitted to pray.

Now, however, some religious Jews who revere this sacred site are vexed by the remaining condition prohibiting Jewish prayer on the Mount and a group of activists led by Yehuda Glick have for years made a practice of praying silently there.

Whether or not we agree with Rabbi Glick’s actions and even if we consider them to be provocative, they don’t by any stretch of imagination resemble the hysterical descriptions by some opinion makers. And they of course don’t justify the attempt on his life. In an incendiary speech in Ramallah on the 10th anniversary of the death of Yasser Arafat, PA President Abbas warned against changing the status quo despite Prime Minister Netanyahu’s repeated declaration that the status quo will not be altered. Moreover, when Israel closed entry to the Mount for one day in an effort to stem the violence, Abbas called this a “declaration of war.” And Abbas said that activists like Glick who wish to share in praying, tolerance, and respecting one another at the site, were “contaminating” the Temple Mount.

It is worrying that U.S. Sate Department spokesperson Jen Psaki and Secretary of State Kerry seemed to accept these incendiary reactions as unworthy of comment.

But of course, when Israel builds a house in East Jerusalem or uses force to stop the murder of its citizens, this is an outrage that the U.S. condemns immediately. Talk about a disproportionate response.

IMO, the Jews should march onto the Temple Mount and pray to their hearts content. A cult who forbids people to pray at their holy site should stand aside while all that Islamic obscenity is bulldozed down the hill. Let them go to the trash dump to worship their idols.

You of course worship the one true God of the Universe that allows trash dump worshipping of idols <guffaw>. ~ Susan
PS If You haven't heard, the Muslim religion allows no worship of idols.

 

[Coyote]

The Temple Mount and ‘Disproportionate Response’
November 26, 2014 12:50 am
Author:Maurice Ostroff


The Temple Mount atop Jerusalem's Old City. Photo: Dave Bender

Since pundits who profess to understand the Arab-Israel conflict regularly accuse Israel of “disproportionate response,” it would be interesting to know whether these opinion makers consider the current attacks on Jews in Jerusalem to be a “proportionate” response to activists who wish to pray on the Temple Mount.

What is all this verbal and physical violence about? The current “status quo” permits Jews to visit the Temple Mount but not to pray while there. By way of background, the Temple Mount, believed to be the site of the First and Second Temples, is the holiest place in the world for Jews. It is also believed by Muslims that about 550 years after the destruction of the Second Temple, Mohammed flew to this site on a winged horse named Buraq and then flew to heaven to plead with God before returning to Mecca. The Al-Aqsa Mosque and the Dome of the Rock stand on the site today, and it is the third holiest place for Muslims.

In 1948, Jordan occupied the West Bank and East Jerusalem where the Temple Mount is located – and annexed it in 1950. The annexation was considered illegal and void by the Arab League and all countries except Britain, Iraq, and Pakistan.

During its rule, Jordan refused to honor its undertaking in terms of the 1949 Israel-Jordan Armistice Agreement to allow free access to Jerusalem’s Holy Places and cultural institutions and use of the cemetery on the Mount of Olives. Jews were barred from the Old City and denied access to the Western Wall and other Holy Places. Synagogues were destroyed and tombstones were used in the construction of latrines. Christians were also adversely affected.

By contrast, when Israel took control of East Jerusalem after the 1967 Six Day War, Israel showed extreme respect for the Islamic religion. In a conciliatory act, Moshe Dayan ordered the removal of the paratroopers who had liberated the Mount and lowering of the newly raised Israeli flag. He made arrangements known today as the “status quo,” which provided that the Islamic Waqf would continue to manage the site while Israeli police would be responsible for security. Non Muslims including Jews would be allowed to visit but strangely and perhaps naively not permitted to pray.

Now, however, some religious Jews who revere this sacred site are vexed by the remaining condition prohibiting Jewish prayer on the Mount and a group of activists led by Yehuda Glick have for years made a practice of praying silently there.

Whether or not we agree with Rabbi Glick’s actions and even if we consider them to be provocative, they don’t by any stretch of imagination resemble the hysterical descriptions by some opinion makers. And they of course don’t justify the attempt on his life. In an incendiary speech in Ramallah on the 10th anniversary of the death of Yasser Arafat, PA President Abbas warned against changing the status quo despite Prime Minister Netanyahu’s repeated declaration that the status quo will not be altered. Moreover, when Israel closed entry to the Mount for one day in an effort to stem the violence, Abbas called this a “declaration of war.” And Abbas said that activists like Glick who wish to share in praying, tolerance, and respecting one another at the site, were “contaminating” the Temple Mount.

It is worrying that U.S. Sate Department spokesperson Jen Psaki and Secretary of State Kerry seemed to accept these incendiary reactions as unworthy of comment.

But of course, when Israel builds a house in East Jerusalem or uses force to stop the murder of its citizens, this is an outrage that the U.S. condemns immediately. Talk about a disproportionate response.

IMO, the Jews should march onto the Temple Mount and pray to their hearts content. A cult who forbids people to pray at their holy site should stand aside while all that Islamic obscenity is bulldozed down the hill. Let them go to the trash dump to worship their idols.

Muslims have as much right as Jews to pray there, even if you don't think so.

They need to respect each other's rights, not destroy each others sites.

 

[Hossfly]

The Temple Mount and ‘Disproportionate Response’
November 26, 2014 12:50 am
Author:Maurice Ostroff


The Temple Mount atop Jerusalem's Old City. Photo: Dave Bender

Since pundits who profess to understand the Arab-Israel conflict regularly accuse Israel of “disproportionate response,” it would be interesting to know whether these opinion makers consider the current attacks on Jews in Jerusalem to be a “proportionate” response to activists who wish to pray on the Temple Mount.

What is all this verbal and physical violence about? The current “status quo” permits Jews to visit the Temple Mount but not to pray while there. By way of background, the Temple Mount, believed to be the site of the First and Second Temples, is the holiest place in the world for Jews. It is also believed by Muslims that about 550 years after the destruction of the Second Temple, Mohammed flew to this site on a winged horse named Buraq and then flew to heaven to plead with God before returning to Mecca. The Al-Aqsa Mosque and the Dome of the Rock stand on the site today, and it is the third holiest place for Muslims.

In 1948, Jordan occupied the West Bank and East Jerusalem where the Temple Mount is located – and annexed it in 1950. The annexation was considered illegal and void by the Arab League and all countries except Britain, Iraq, and Pakistan.

During its rule, Jordan refused to honor its undertaking in terms of the 1949 Israel-Jordan Armistice Agreement to allow free access to Jerusalem’s Holy Places and cultural institutions and use of the cemetery on the Mount of Olives. Jews were barred from the Old City and denied access to the Western Wall and other Holy Places. Synagogues were destroyed and tombstones were used in the construction of latrines. Christians were also adversely affected.

By contrast, when Israel took control of East Jerusalem after the 1967 Six Day War, Israel showed extreme respect for the Islamic religion. In a conciliatory act, Moshe Dayan ordered the removal of the paratroopers who had liberated the Mount and lowering of the newly raised Israeli flag. He made arrangements known today as the “status quo,” which provided that the Islamic Waqf would continue to manage the site while Israeli police would be responsible for security. Non Muslims including Jews would be allowed to visit but strangely and perhaps naively not permitted to pray.

Now, however, some religious Jews who revere this sacred site are vexed by the remaining condition prohibiting Jewish prayer on the Mount and a group of activists led by Yehuda Glick have for years made a practice of praying silently there.

Whether or not we agree with Rabbi Glick’s actions and even if we consider them to be provocative, they don’t by any stretch of imagination resemble the hysterical descriptions by some opinion makers. And they of course don’t justify the attempt on his life. In an incendiary speech in Ramallah on the 10th anniversary of the death of Yasser Arafat, PA President Abbas warned against changing the status quo despite Prime Minister Netanyahu’s repeated declaration that the status quo will not be altered. Moreover, when Israel closed entry to the Mount for one day in an effort to stem the violence, Abbas called this a “declaration of war.” And Abbas said that activists like Glick who wish to share in praying, tolerance, and respecting one another at the site, were “contaminating” the Temple Mount.

It is worrying that U.S. Sate Department spokesperson Jen Psaki and Secretary of State Kerry seemed to accept these incendiary reactions as unworthy of comment.

But of course, when Israel builds a house in East Jerusalem or uses force to stop the murder of its citizens, this is an outrage that the U.S. condemns immediately. Talk about a disproportionate response.

IMO, the Jews should march onto the Temple Mount and pray to their hearts content. A cult who forbids people to pray at their holy site should stand aside while all that Islamic obscenity is bulldozed down the hill. Let them go to the trash dump to worship their idols.

You of course worship the one true God of the Universe that allows trash dump worshipping of idols <guffaw>. ~ Susan
PS If You haven't heard, the Muslim religion allows no worship of idols.

There is no Muslim religion. It's a cult.

 

[Hossfly]

The Temple Mount and ‘Disproportionate Response’
November 26, 2014 12:50 am
Author:Maurice Ostroff


The Temple Mount atop Jerusalem's Old City. Photo: Dave Bender

Since pundits who profess to understand the Arab-Israel conflict regularly accuse Israel of “disproportionate response,” it would be interesting to know whether these opinion makers consider the current attacks on Jews in Jerusalem to be a “proportionate” response to activists who wish to pray on the Temple Mount.

What is all this verbal and physical violence about? The current “status quo” permits Jews to visit the Temple Mount but not to pray while there. By way of background, the Temple Mount, believed to be the site of the First and Second Temples, is the holiest place in the world for Jews. It is also believed by Muslims that about 550 years after the destruction of the Second Temple, Mohammed flew to this site on a winged horse named Buraq and then flew to heaven to plead with God before returning to Mecca. The Al-Aqsa Mosque and the Dome of the Rock stand on the site today, and it is the third holiest place for Muslims.

In 1948, Jordan occupied the West Bank and East Jerusalem where the Temple Mount is located – and annexed it in 1950. The annexation was considered illegal and void by the Arab League and all countries except Britain, Iraq, and Pakistan.

During its rule, Jordan refused to honor its undertaking in terms of the 1949 Israel-Jordan Armistice Agreement to allow free access to Jerusalem’s Holy Places and cultural institutions and use of the cemetery on the Mount of Olives. Jews were barred from the Old City and denied access to the Western Wall and other Holy Places. Synagogues were destroyed and tombstones were used in the construction of latrines. Christians were also adversely affected.

By contrast, when Israel took control of East Jerusalem after the 1967 Six Day War, Israel showed extreme respect for the Islamic religion. In a conciliatory act, Moshe Dayan ordered the removal of the paratroopers who had liberated the Mount and lowering of the newly raised Israeli flag. He made arrangements known today as the “status quo,” which provided that the Islamic Waqf would continue to manage the site while Israeli police would be responsible for security. Non Muslims including Jews would be allowed to visit but strangely and perhaps naively not permitted to pray.

Now, however, some religious Jews who revere this sacred site are vexed by the remaining condition prohibiting Jewish prayer on the Mount and a group of activists led by Yehuda Glick have for years made a practice of praying silently there.

Whether or not we agree with Rabbi Glick’s actions and even if we consider them to be provocative, they don’t by any stretch of imagination resemble the hysterical descriptions by some opinion makers. And they of course don’t justify the attempt on his life. In an incendiary speech in Ramallah on the 10th anniversary of the death of Yasser Arafat, PA President Abbas warned against changing the status quo despite Prime Minister Netanyahu’s repeated declaration that the status quo will not be altered. Moreover, when Israel closed entry to the Mount for one day in an effort to stem the violence, Abbas called this a “declaration of war.” And Abbas said that activists like Glick who wish to share in praying, tolerance, and respecting one another at the site, were “contaminating” the Temple Mount.

It is worrying that U.S. Sate Department spokesperson Jen Psaki and Secretary of State Kerry seemed to accept these incendiary reactions as unworthy of comment.

But of course, when Israel builds a house in East Jerusalem or uses force to stop the murder of its citizens, this is an outrage that the U.S. condemns immediately. Talk about a disproportionate response.

IMO, the Jews should march onto the Temple Mount and pray to their hearts content. A cult who forbids people to pray at their holy site should stand aside while all that Islamic obscenity is bulldozed down the hill. Let them go to the trash dump to worship their idols.

Muslims have as much right as Jews to pray there, even if you don't think so.

They need to respect each other's rights, not destroy each others sites.

I didn't say they have no right to pray there as long as the Jews can pray there too. Otherwise, move it out of the area.

 

[Grendelyn]

Awww you, thank you. ~ Susan
PS Love to you . . . .

 

[aris2chat]

The Temple Mount and ‘Disproportionate Response’
November 26, 2014 12:50 am
Author:Maurice Ostroff


The Temple Mount atop Jerusalem's Old City. Photo: Dave Bender

Since pundits who profess to understand the Arab-Israel conflict regularly accuse Israel of “disproportionate response,” it would be interesting to know whether these opinion makers consider the current attacks on Jews in Jerusalem to be a “proportionate” response to activists who wish to pray on the Temple Mount.

What is all this verbal and physical violence about? The current “status quo” permits Jews to visit the Temple Mount but not to pray while there. By way of background, the Temple Mount, believed to be the site of the First and Second Temples, is the holiest place in the world for Jews. It is also believed by Muslims that about 550 years after the destruction of the Second Temple, Mohammed flew to this site on a winged horse named Buraq and then flew to heaven to plead with God before returning to Mecca. The Al-Aqsa Mosque and the Dome of the Rock stand on the site today, and it is the third holiest place for Muslims.

In 1948, Jordan occupied the West Bank and East Jerusalem where the Temple Mount is located – and annexed it in 1950. The annexation was considered illegal and void by the Arab League and all countries except Britain, Iraq, and Pakistan.

During its rule, Jordan refused to honor its undertaking in terms of the 1949 Israel-Jordan Armistice Agreement to allow free access to Jerusalem’s Holy Places and cultural institutions and use of the cemetery on the Mount of Olives. Jews were barred from the Old City and denied access to the Western Wall and other Holy Places. Synagogues were destroyed and tombstones were used in the construction of latrines. Christians were also adversely affected.

By contrast, when Israel took control of East Jerusalem after the 1967 Six Day War, Israel showed extreme respect for the Islamic religion. In a conciliatory act, Moshe Dayan ordered the removal of the paratroopers who had liberated the Mount and lowering of the newly raised Israeli flag. He made arrangements known today as the “status quo,” which provided that the Islamic Waqf would continue to manage the site while Israeli police would be responsible for security. Non Muslims including Jews would be allowed to visit but strangely and perhaps naively not permitted to pray.

Now, however, some religious Jews who revere this sacred site are vexed by the remaining condition prohibiting Jewish prayer on the Mount and a group of activists led by Yehuda Glick have for years made a practice of praying silently there.

Whether or not we agree with Rabbi Glick’s actions and even if we consider them to be provocative, they don’t by any stretch of imagination resemble the hysterical descriptions by some opinion makers. And they of course don’t justify the attempt on his life. In an incendiary speech in Ramallah on the 10th anniversary of the death of Yasser Arafat, PA President Abbas warned against changing the status quo despite Prime Minister Netanyahu’s repeated declaration that the status quo will not be altered. Moreover, when Israel closed entry to the Mount for one day in an effort to stem the violence, Abbas called this a “declaration of war.” And Abbas said that activists like Glick who wish to share in praying, tolerance, and respecting one another at the site, were “contaminating” the Temple Mount.

It is worrying that U.S. Sate Department spokesperson Jen Psaki and Secretary of State Kerry seemed to accept these incendiary reactions as unworthy of comment.

But of course, when Israel builds a house in East Jerusalem or uses force to stop the murder of its citizens, this is an outrage that the U.S. condemns immediately. Talk about a disproportionate response.

IMO, the Jews should march onto the Temple Mount and pray to their hearts content. A cult who forbids people to pray at their holy site should stand aside while all that Islamic obscenity is bulldozed down the hill. Let them go to the trash dump to worship their idols.

Muslims have as much right as Jews to pray there, even if you don't think so.

They need to respect each other's rights, not destroy each others sites.

Muslims have a right to pray at al-Aqsa. Everyone else should have a right to the mount itself when it is not time for services. If they want to quietly recite a pray should be no one elses business.

 

[Beelzebub]

Muslims have a right to pray at al-Aqsa. Everyone else should have a right to the mount itself when it is not time for services. If they want to quietly recite a pray should be no one elses business.

If Israel were to allow free movement of Palestinians in Israel and Palestine, I would agree.
As Israel does not - with maybe an excuse that they are worried that Palestinians would do mischief if given free movement, then Palestinians - Muslims in fact, as Jordanians and others have an interest here - should be allowed to bar the ultra aggressive invaders from this site, especially when many Zionists have openly stated an intention of tearing it down to build a Jewish Temple on the site.

If Zionists with that mischief in mind are allowed in it would not be long before a excuse is manufactured by Israelis to damage then damage some more, then to bomb, utterly destroy the mosque, at which point they will claim there is no reason to not rebuild it as a Jewish temple.

We know that is the agenda Aris. So don't pretend innocence.

 

[Lipush]

The Temple Mount and ‘Disproportionate Response’
November 26, 2014 12:50 am
Author:Maurice Ostroff


The Temple Mount atop Jerusalem's Old City. Photo: Dave Bender

Since pundits who profess to understand the Arab-Israel conflict regularly accuse Israel of “disproportionate response,” it would be interesting to know whether these opinion makers consider the current attacks on Jews in Jerusalem to be a “proportionate” response to activists who wish to pray on the Temple Mount.

What is all this verbal and physical violence about? The current “status quo” permits Jews to visit the Temple Mount but not to pray while there. By way of background, the Temple Mount, believed to be the site of the First and Second Temples, is the holiest place in the world for Jews. It is also believed by Muslims that about 550 years after the destruction of the Second Temple, Mohammed flew to this site on a winged horse named Buraq and then flew to heaven to plead with God before returning to Mecca. The Al-Aqsa Mosque and the Dome of the Rock stand on the site today, and it is the third holiest place for Muslims.

In 1948, Jordan occupied the West Bank and East Jerusalem where the Temple Mount is located – and annexed it in 1950. The annexation was considered illegal and void by the Arab League and all countries except Britain, Iraq, and Pakistan.

During its rule, Jordan refused to honor its undertaking in terms of the 1949 Israel-Jordan Armistice Agreement to allow free access to Jerusalem’s Holy Places and cultural institutions and use of the cemetery on the Mount of Olives. Jews were barred from the Old City and denied access to the Western Wall and other Holy Places. Synagogues were destroyed and tombstones were used in the construction of latrines. Christians were also adversely affected.

By contrast, when Israel took control of East Jerusalem after the 1967 Six Day War, Israel showed extreme respect for the Islamic religion. In a conciliatory act, Moshe Dayan ordered the removal of the paratroopers who had liberated the Mount and lowering of the newly raised Israeli flag. He made arrangements known today as the “status quo,” which provided that the Islamic Waqf would continue to manage the site while Israeli police would be responsible for security. Non Muslims including Jews would be allowed to visit but strangely and perhaps naively not permitted to pray.

Now, however, some religious Jews who revere this sacred site are vexed by the remaining condition prohibiting Jewish prayer on the Mount and a group of activists led by Yehuda Glick have for years made a practice of praying silently there.

Whether or not we agree with Rabbi Glick’s actions and even if we consider them to be provocative, they don’t by any stretch of imagination resemble the hysterical descriptions by some opinion makers. And they of course don’t justify the attempt on his life. In an incendiary speech in Ramallah on the 10th anniversary of the death of Yasser Arafat, PA President Abbas warned against changing the status quo despite Prime Minister Netanyahu’s repeated declaration that the status quo will not be altered. Moreover, when Israel closed entry to the Mount for one day in an effort to stem the violence, Abbas called this a “declaration of war.” And Abbas said that activists like Glick who wish to share in praying, tolerance, and respecting one another at the site, were “contaminating” the Temple Mount.

It is worrying that U.S. Sate Department spokesperson Jen Psaki and Secretary of State Kerry seemed to accept these incendiary reactions as unworthy of comment.

But of course, when Israel builds a house in East Jerusalem or uses force to stop the murder of its citizens, this is an outrage that the U.S. condemns immediately. Talk about a disproportionate response.

IMO, the Jews should march onto the Temple Mount and pray to their hearts content. A cult who forbids people to pray at their holy site should stand aside while all that Islamic obscenity is bulldozed down the hill. Let them go to the trash dump to worship their idols.

Muslims have as much right as Jews to pray there, even if you don't think so.

They need to respect each other's rights, not destroy each others sites.

Yet Muslims can pray on the Temple Mount, while Jews cannot.

Hossfly's opinion may sound pretty much out there, but in reality, the only ones being discriminated there are the Jews.

 

[Phoenall]

The Temple Mount and ‘Disproportionate Response’
November 26, 2014 12:50 am
Author:Maurice Ostroff


The Temple Mount atop Jerusalem's Old City. Photo: Dave Bender

Since pundits who profess to understand the Arab-Israel conflict regularly accuse Israel of “disproportionate response,” it would be interesting to know whether these opinion makers consider the current attacks on Jews in Jerusalem to be a “proportionate” response to activists who wish to pray on the Temple Mount.

What is all this verbal and physical violence about? The current “status quo” permits Jews to visit the Temple Mount but not to pray while there. By way of background, the Temple Mount, believed to be the site of the First and Second Temples, is the holiest place in the world for Jews. It is also believed by Muslims that about 550 years after the destruction of the Second Temple, Mohammed flew to this site on a winged horse named Buraq and then flew to heaven to plead with God before returning to Mecca. The Al-Aqsa Mosque and the Dome of the Rock stand on the site today, and it is the third holiest place for Muslims.

In 1948, Jordan occupied the West Bank and East Jerusalem where the Temple Mount is located – and annexed it in 1950. The annexation was considered illegal and void by the Arab League and all countries except Britain, Iraq, and Pakistan.

During its rule, Jordan refused to honor its undertaking in terms of the 1949 Israel-Jordan Armistice Agreement to allow free access to Jerusalem’s Holy Places and cultural institutions and use of the cemetery on the Mount of Olives. Jews were barred from the Old City and denied access to the Western Wall and other Holy Places. Synagogues were destroyed and tombstones were used in the construction of latrines. Christians were also adversely affected.

By contrast, when Israel took control of East Jerusalem after the 1967 Six Day War, Israel showed extreme respect for the Islamic religion. In a conciliatory act, Moshe Dayan ordered the removal of the paratroopers who had liberated the Mount and lowering of the newly raised Israeli flag. He made arrangements known today as the “status quo,” which provided that the Islamic Waqf would continue to manage the site while Israeli police would be responsible for security. Non Muslims including Jews would be allowed to visit but strangely and perhaps naively not permitted to pray.

Now, however, some religious Jews who revere this sacred site are vexed by the remaining condition prohibiting Jewish prayer on the Mount and a group of activists led by Yehuda Glick have for years made a practice of praying silently there.

Whether or not we agree with Rabbi Glick’s actions and even if we consider them to be provocative, they don’t by any stretch of imagination resemble the hysterical descriptions by some opinion makers. And they of course don’t justify the attempt on his life. In an incendiary speech in Ramallah on the 10th anniversary of the death of Yasser Arafat, PA President Abbas warned against changing the status quo despite Prime Minister Netanyahu’s repeated declaration that the status quo will not be altered. Moreover, when Israel closed entry to the Mount for one day in an effort to stem the violence, Abbas called this a “declaration of war.” And Abbas said that activists like Glick who wish to share in praying, tolerance, and respecting one another at the site, were “contaminating” the Temple Mount.

It is worrying that U.S. Sate Department spokesperson Jen Psaki and Secretary of State Kerry seemed to accept these incendiary reactions as unworthy of comment.

But of course, when Israel builds a house in East Jerusalem or uses force to stop the murder of its citizens, this is an outrage that the U.S. condemns immediately. Talk about a disproportionate response.

I wonder if the American members of team Palestine consider a similar response to that shown by American law enforcement officers during the recent riots in Ferguson as being proportionate. Or the Waco affair, how about the response by SWAT teams, FBI, CIA, ATF and tax officers.

What ever gets the job done is the right response when peoples safety and lives are in danger

 

[Phoenall]

The Temple Mount and ‘Disproportionate Response’
November 26, 2014 12:50 am
Author:Maurice Ostroff


The Temple Mount atop Jerusalem's Old City. Photo: Dave Bender

Since pundits who profess to understand the Arab-Israel conflict regularly accuse Israel of “disproportionate response,” it would be interesting to know whether these opinion makers consider the current attacks on Jews in Jerusalem to be a “proportionate” response to activists who wish to pray on the Temple Mount.

What is all this verbal and physical violence about? The current “status quo” permits Jews to visit the Temple Mount but not to pray while there. By way of background, the Temple Mount, believed to be the site of the First and Second Temples, is the holiest place in the world for Jews. It is also believed by Muslims that about 550 years after the destruction of the Second Temple, Mohammed flew to this site on a winged horse named Buraq and then flew to heaven to plead with God before returning to Mecca. The Al-Aqsa Mosque and the Dome of the Rock stand on the site today, and it is the third holiest place for Muslims.

In 1948, Jordan occupied the West Bank and East Jerusalem where the Temple Mount is located – and annexed it in 1950. The annexation was considered illegal and void by the Arab League and all countries except Britain, Iraq, and Pakistan.

During its rule, Jordan refused to honor its undertaking in terms of the 1949 Israel-Jordan Armistice Agreement to allow free access to Jerusalem’s Holy Places and cultural institutions and use of the cemetery on the Mount of Olives. Jews were barred from the Old City and denied access to the Western Wall and other Holy Places. Synagogues were destroyed and tombstones were used in the construction of latrines. Christians were also adversely affected.

By contrast, when Israel took control of East Jerusalem after the 1967 Six Day War, Israel showed extreme respect for the Islamic religion. In a conciliatory act, Moshe Dayan ordered the removal of the paratroopers who had liberated the Mount and lowering of the newly raised Israeli flag. He made arrangements known today as the “status quo,” which provided that the Islamic Waqf would continue to manage the site while Israeli police would be responsible for security. Non Muslims including Jews would be allowed to visit but strangely and perhaps naively not permitted to pray.

Now, however, some religious Jews who revere this sacred site are vexed by the remaining condition prohibiting Jewish prayer on the Mount and a group of activists led by Yehuda Glick have for years made a practice of praying silently there.

Whether or not we agree with Rabbi Glick’s actions and even if we consider them to be provocative, they don’t by any stretch of imagination resemble the hysterical descriptions by some opinion makers. And they of course don’t justify the attempt on his life. In an incendiary speech in Ramallah on the 10th anniversary of the death of Yasser Arafat, PA President Abbas warned against changing the status quo despite Prime Minister Netanyahu’s repeated declaration that the status quo will not be altered. Moreover, when Israel closed entry to the Mount for one day in an effort to stem the violence, Abbas called this a “declaration of war.” And Abbas said that activists like Glick who wish to share in praying, tolerance, and respecting one another at the site, were “contaminating” the Temple Mount.

It is worrying that U.S. Sate Department spokesperson Jen Psaki and Secretary of State Kerry seemed to accept these incendiary reactions as unworthy of comment.

But of course, when Israel builds a house in East Jerusalem or uses force to stop the murder of its citizens, this is an outrage that the U.S. condemns immediately. Talk about a disproportionate response.

IMO, the Jews should march onto the Temple Mount and pray to their hearts content. A cult who forbids people to pray at their holy site should stand aside while all that Islamic obscenity is bulldozed down the hill. Let them go to the trash dump to worship their idols.

You of course worship the one true God of the Universe that allows trash dump worshipping of idols <guffaw>. ~ Susan
PS If You haven't heard, the Muslim religion allows no worship of idols.

Just rape of children, violence, murder and terrorism as commanded in the koran

 

[Phoenall]

The Temple Mount and ‘Disproportionate Response’
November 26, 2014 12:50 am
Author:Maurice Ostroff


The Temple Mount atop Jerusalem's Old City. Photo: Dave Bender

Since pundits who profess to understand the Arab-Israel conflict regularly accuse Israel of “disproportionate response,” it would be interesting to know whether these opinion makers consider the current attacks on Jews in Jerusalem to be a “proportionate” response to activists who wish to pray on the Temple Mount.

What is all this verbal and physical violence about? The current “status quo” permits Jews to visit the Temple Mount but not to pray while there. By way of background, the Temple Mount, believed to be the site of the First and Second Temples, is the holiest place in the world for Jews. It is also believed by Muslims that about 550 years after the destruction of the Second Temple, Mohammed flew to this site on a winged horse named Buraq and then flew to heaven to plead with God before returning to Mecca. The Al-Aqsa Mosque and the Dome of the Rock stand on the site today, and it is the third holiest place for Muslims.

In 1948, Jordan occupied the West Bank and East Jerusalem where the Temple Mount is located – and annexed it in 1950. The annexation was considered illegal and void by the Arab League and all countries except Britain, Iraq, and Pakistan.

During its rule, Jordan refused to honor its undertaking in terms of the 1949 Israel-Jordan Armistice Agreement to allow free access to Jerusalem’s Holy Places and cultural institutions and use of the cemetery on the Mount of Olives. Jews were barred from the Old City and denied access to the Western Wall and other Holy Places. Synagogues were destroyed and tombstones were used in the construction of latrines. Christians were also adversely affected.

By contrast, when Israel took control of East Jerusalem after the 1967 Six Day War, Israel showed extreme respect for the Islamic religion. In a conciliatory act, Moshe Dayan ordered the removal of the paratroopers who had liberated the Mount and lowering of the newly raised Israeli flag. He made arrangements known today as the “status quo,” which provided that the Islamic Waqf would continue to manage the site while Israeli police would be responsible for security. Non Muslims including Jews would be allowed to visit but strangely and perhaps naively not permitted to pray.

Now, however, some religious Jews who revere this sacred site are vexed by the remaining condition prohibiting Jewish prayer on the Mount and a group of activists led by Yehuda Glick have for years made a practice of praying silently there.

Whether or not we agree with Rabbi Glick’s actions and even if we consider them to be provocative, they don’t by any stretch of imagination resemble the hysterical descriptions by some opinion makers. And they of course don’t justify the attempt on his life. In an incendiary speech in Ramallah on the 10th anniversary of the death of Yasser Arafat, PA President Abbas warned against changing the status quo despite Prime Minister Netanyahu’s repeated declaration that the status quo will not be altered. Moreover, when Israel closed entry to the Mount for one day in an effort to stem the violence, Abbas called this a “declaration of war.” And Abbas said that activists like Glick who wish to share in praying, tolerance, and respecting one another at the site, were “contaminating” the Temple Mount.

It is worrying that U.S. Sate Department spokesperson Jen Psaki and Secretary of State Kerry seemed to accept these incendiary reactions as unworthy of comment.

But of course, when Israel builds a house in East Jerusalem or uses force to stop the murder of its citizens, this is an outrage that the U.S. condemns immediately. Talk about a disproportionate response.

IMO, the Jews should march onto the Temple Mount and pray to their hearts content. A cult who forbids people to pray at their holy site should stand aside while all that Islamic obscenity is bulldozed down the hill. Let them go to the trash dump to worship their idols.

Muslims have as much right as Jews to pray there, even if you don't think so.

They need to respect each other's rights, not destroy each others sites.

Then why do the muslims refuse to allow anyone but a muslim to set foot on the mount to pray, and this has been common practise for the last 1400 years on and off

 

[Phoenall]

Muslims have a right to pray at al-Aqsa. Everyone else should have a right to the mount itself when it is not time for services. If they want to quietly recite a pray should be no one elses business.

If Israel were to allow free movement of Palestinians in Israel and Palestine, I would agree.
As Israel does not - with maybe an excuse that they are worried that Palestinians would do mischief if given free movement, then Palestinians - Muslims in fact, as Jordanians and others have an interest here - should be allowed to bar the ultra aggressive invaders from this site, especially when many Zionists have openly stated an intention of tearing it down to build a Jewish Temple on the site.

If Zionists with that mischief in mind are allowed in it would not be long before a excuse is manufactured by Israelis to damage then damage some more, then to bomb, utterly destroy the mosque, at which point they will claim there is no reason to not rebuild it as a Jewish temple.

We know that is the agenda Aris. So don't pretend innocence.

As soon as the Palestinians renounce violence and terrorism, sit down and negotiate peace terms and mutual borders then they will be allowed free movement around their own land. When you consider that the Palestinians stole the land from the Jews in 1948/1949 and also from the UN then they are the ultra aggressive ones and they should be barred from the whole of the corpus seperatum

 

[aris2chat]

Muslims have a right to pray at al-Aqsa. Everyone else should have a right to the mount itself when it is not time for services. If they want to quietly recite a pray should be no one elses business.

If Israel were to allow free movement of Palestinians in Israel and Palestine, I would agree.
As Israel does not - with maybe an excuse that they are worried that Palestinians would do mischief if given free movement, then Palestinians - Muslims in fact, as Jordanians and others have an interest here - should be allowed to bar the ultra aggressive invaders from this site, especially when many Zionists have openly stated an intention of tearing it down to build a Jewish Temple on the site.

If Zionists with that mischief in mind are allowed in it would not be long before a excuse is manufactured by Israelis to damage then damage some more, then to bomb, utterly destroy the mosque, at which point they will claim there is no reason to not rebuild it as a Jewish temple.

We know that is the agenda Aris. So don't pretend innocence.

The US does not allow Mexicans free access and movement to the US. It "tries" to control its borders to limit the Mexicans from entering the US. A visitor, depending on the type of visa, is not allowed to work in the US, buy property in the US and they cannot vote in the US.
Israelis certainly are not allowed free access in arab states.
Israel does not want palestinians that seek to undermining the state moving freely in Israel. They don't want potential terrorist have access to Israel to cause damage or death.
Muslims in other countries that support terrorism are having their citizenship or visas revoked.
With the creation to the PA, why should those wanting their own state have free movement or access to Israel? They want their own state, they should be treated as foreigners, and in many cases has hostile foreigners.
With the desolation of the PA, Israel might well draw a line in the sand and after removing all weapons give them their own state but certainly much smaller that what they had wanted. They could then close the borders. They might deport those unwilling to accept Israeli authority and send them to gaza labeled as traitors. Without a unity government Gaza will become the new palestine but will no longer get tariffs from Israeli and as a hostile state can still be subject to some blockades and sanctions, even a no fly zone. All refugees could be deported from the middle east host countries to gaza.
Whether in the PA or Israel, if palestinians do not accept Israel's right to exist and stop hostilities the future could become quite bleak. Israel will not accept people in Israel who do not want to live peacefully under Israeli law. They should not have to. Most arabs in Israel are happy as Israelis. Those who are not should leave not be permitted to undermine Israel.
With so many refugee from syria and africa, it is not likely that other countries would accept palestinian migration in large numbers, and certainly not if they have ties to terrorism. Those that did get in would have to accept identity as citizens of that state, not as palestinians waiting for statehood. They could not engage in violence against Israel or their new country. No country wants another "Lebanon" or Black September.

 

[Beelzebub]

Muslims have a right to pray at al-Aqsa. Everyone else should have a right to the mount itself when it is not time for services. If they want to quietly recite a pray should be no one elses business.

If Israel were to allow free movement of Palestinians in Israel and Palestine, I would agree.
As Israel does not - with maybe an excuse that they are worried that Palestinians would do mischief if given free movement, then Palestinians - Muslims in fact, as Jordanians and others have an interest here - should be allowed to bar the ultra aggressive invaders from this site, especially when many Zionists have openly stated an intention of tearing it down to build a Jewish Temple on the site.

If Zionists with that mischief in mind are allowed in it would not be long before a excuse is manufactured by Israelis to damage then damage some more, then to bomb, utterly destroy the mosque, at which point they will claim there is no reason to not rebuild it as a Jewish temple.

We know that is the agenda Aris. So don't pretend innocence.

The US does not allow Mexicans free access and movement to the US. It "tries" to control its borders to limit the Mexicans from entering the US. A visitor, depending on the type of visa, is not allowed to work in the US, buy property in the US and they cannot vote in the US.
Israelis certainly are not allowed free access in arab states.
Israel does not want palestinians that seek to undermining the state moving freely in Israel. They don't want potential terrorist have access to Israel to cause damage or death.
Muslims in other countries that support terrorism are having their citizenship or visas revoked.
With the creation to the PA, why should those wanting their own state have free movement or access to Israel? They want their own state, they should be treated as foreigners, and in many cases has hostile foreigners.
With the desolation of the PA, Israel might well draw a line in the sand and after removing all weapons give them their own state but certainly much smaller that what they had wanted. They could then close the borders. They might deport those unwilling to accept Israeli authority and send them to gaza labeled as traitors. Without a unity government Gaza will become the new palestine but will no longer get tariffs from Israeli and as a hostile state can still be subject to some blockades and sanctions, even a no fly zone. All refugees could be deported from the middle east host countries to gaza.
Whether in the PA or Israel, if palestinians do not accept Israel's right to exist and stop hostilities the future could become quite bleak. Israel will not accept people in Israel who do not want to live peacefully under Israeli law. They should not have to. Most arabs in Israel are happy as Israelis. Those who are not should leave not be permitted to undermine Israel.
With so many refugee from syria and africa, it is not likely that other countries would accept palestinian migration in large numbers, and certainly not if they have ties to terrorism. Those that did get in would have to accept identity as citizens of that state, not as palestinians waiting for statehood. They could not engage in violence against Israel or their new country. No country wants another "Lebanon" or Black September.

Your equivalence is off the mark.
Had the US invaded and occupied Mexico, then not allowed Mexicans free movement in Mexico, that would be an equivalent.

If you like you could take Texas or New Mexico as a broad equivalent of Israel. But Israel is an invader in Palestine and trying to annex through military power. You have no right to try to control Jerusalem. You should at least stay away from the Mosque, and arrest any of your own who provoke through claiming it for Israel, and agitating for it to be torn down to be replaced by a Temple.

 

[aris2chat]

The Temple Mount and ‘Disproportionate Response’
November 26, 2014 12:50 am
Author:Maurice Ostroff


The Temple Mount atop Jerusalem's Old City. Photo: Dave Bender

Since pundits who profess to understand the Arab-Israel conflict regularly accuse Israel of “disproportionate response,” it would be interesting to know whether these opinion makers consider the current attacks on Jews in Jerusalem to be a “proportionate” response to activists who wish to pray on the Temple Mount.

What is all this verbal and physical violence about? The current “status quo” permits Jews to visit the Temple Mount but not to pray while there. By way of background, the Temple Mount, believed to be the site of the First and Second Temples, is the holiest place in the world for Jews. It is also believed by Muslims that about 550 years after the destruction of the Second Temple, Mohammed flew to this site on a winged horse named Buraq and then flew to heaven to plead with God before returning to Mecca. The Al-Aqsa Mosque and the Dome of the Rock stand on the site today, and it is the third holiest place for Muslims.

In 1948, Jordan occupied the West Bank and East Jerusalem where the Temple Mount is located – and annexed it in 1950. The annexation was considered illegal and void by the Arab League and all countries except Britain, Iraq, and Pakistan.

During its rule, Jordan refused to honor its undertaking in terms of the 1949 Israel-Jordan Armistice Agreement to allow free access to Jerusalem’s Holy Places and cultural institutions and use of the cemetery on the Mount of Olives. Jews were barred from the Old City and denied access to the Western Wall and other Holy Places. Synagogues were destroyed and tombstones were used in the construction of latrines. Christians were also adversely affected.

By contrast, when Israel took control of East Jerusalem after the 1967 Six Day War, Israel showed extreme respect for the Islamic religion. In a conciliatory act, Moshe Dayan ordered the removal of the paratroopers who had liberated the Mount and lowering of the newly raised Israeli flag. He made arrangements known today as the “status quo,” which provided that the Islamic Waqf would continue to manage the site while Israeli police would be responsible for security. Non Muslims including Jews would be allowed to visit but strangely and perhaps naively not permitted to pray.

Now, however, some religious Jews who revere this sacred site are vexed by the remaining condition prohibiting Jewish prayer on the Mount and a group of activists led by Yehuda Glick have for years made a practice of praying silently there.

Whether or not we agree with Rabbi Glick’s actions and even if we consider them to be provocative, they don’t by any stretch of imagination resemble the hysterical descriptions by some opinion makers. And they of course don’t justify the attempt on his life. In an incendiary speech in Ramallah on the 10th anniversary of the death of Yasser Arafat, PA President Abbas warned against changing the status quo despite Prime Minister Netanyahu’s repeated declaration that the status quo will not be altered. Moreover, when Israel closed entry to the Mount for one day in an effort to stem the violence, Abbas called this a “declaration of war.” And Abbas said that activists like Glick who wish to share in praying, tolerance, and respecting one another at the site, were “contaminating” the Temple Mount.

It is worrying that U.S. Sate Department spokesperson Jen Psaki and Secretary of State Kerry seemed to accept these incendiary reactions as unworthy of comment.

But of course, when Israel builds a house in East Jerusalem or uses force to stop the murder of its citizens, this is an outrage that the U.S. condemns immediately. Talk about a disproportionate response.

I wonder if the American members of team Palestine consider a similar response to that shown by American law enforcement officers during the recent riots in Ferguson as being proportionate. Or the Waco affair, how about the response by SWAT teams, FBI, CIA, ATF and tax officers.

What ever gets the job done is the right response when peoples safety and lives are in danger

no country can tolerate the masses taking to the streets without permits like that or allow the type of violence that we have seen. They are breaking the law, they are protesting the law, they are rejecting the outcome of the grand jury that followed the law.
If a disproportionate among if crime is being carried out by a group, they cannot expect law enforcement to arrest equal numbers of each type of group within the country. If police are being attacked, even by rocks, they will consider that person hostile and be permitted to use force, even deadly force if they feel threatened.
Brown slugged the officer twice, he was not casually walking down the street or quietly following the officer's instruction and surrendering peacefully. The "mob" does not have the right to destroy property. Other countries and state use deadly force when there is a threat, or potential threat.
If you don't like a law, work through the system to change the law or work to change the circumstances to prevent a repeat. Mobs lynchings are not the way and should not be permitted by the state. Mob violence should be dealt with and if necessary deadly force could be used.

 

[Roudy]

Muslims have a right to pray at al-Aqsa. Everyone else should have a right to the mount itself when it is not time for services. If they want to quietly recite a pray should be no one elses business.

If Israel were to allow free movement of Palestinians in Israel and Palestine, I would agree.
As Israel does not - with maybe an excuse that they are worried that Palestinians would do mischief if given free movement, then Palestinians - Muslims in fact, as Jordanians and others have an interest here - should be allowed to bar the ultra aggressive invaders from this site, especially when many Zionists have openly stated an intention of tearing it down to build a Jewish Temple on the site.

If Zionists with that mischief in mind are allowed in it would not be long before a excuse is manufactured by Israelis to damage then damage some more, then to bomb, utterly destroy the mosque, at which point they will claim there is no reason to not rebuild it as a Jewish temple.

We know that is the agenda Aris. So don't pretend innocence.

The US does not allow Mexicans free access and movement to the US. It "tries" to control its borders to limit the Mexicans from entering the US. A visitor, depending on the type of visa, is not allowed to work in the US, buy property in the US and they cannot vote in the US.
Israelis certainly are not allowed free access in arab states.
Israel does not want palestinians that seek to undermining the state moving freely in Israel. They don't want potential terrorist have access to Israel to cause damage or death.
Muslims in other countries that support terrorism are having their citizenship or visas revoked.
With the creation to the PA, why should those wanting their own state have free movement or access to Israel? They want their own state, they should be treated as foreigners, and in many cases has hostile foreigners.
With the desolation of the PA, Israel might well draw a line in the sand and after removing all weapons give them their own state but certainly much smaller that what they had wanted. They could then close the borders. They might deport those unwilling to accept Israeli authority and send them to gaza labeled as traitors. Without a unity government Gaza will become the new palestine but will no longer get tariffs from Israeli and as a hostile state can still be subject to some blockades and sanctions, even a no fly zone. All refugees could be deported from the middle east host countries to gaza.
Whether in the PA or Israel, if palestinians do not accept Israel's right to exist and stop hostilities the future could become quite bleak. Israel will not accept people in Israel who do not want to live peacefully under Israeli law. They should not have to. Most arabs in Israel are happy as Israelis. Those who are not should leave not be permitted to undermine Israel.
With so many refugee from syria and africa, it is not likely that other countries would accept palestinian migration in large numbers, and certainly not if they have ties to terrorism. Those that did get in would have to accept identity as citizens of that state, not as palestinians waiting for statehood. They could not engage in violence against Israel or their new country. No country wants another "Lebanon" or Black September.

Your equivalence is off the mark.
Had the US invaded and occupied Mexico, then not allowed Mexicans free movement in Mexico, that would be an equivalent.

If you like you could take Texas or New Mexico as a broad equivalent of Israel. But Israel is an invader in Palestine and trying to annex through military power. You have no right to try to control Jerusalem. You should at least stay away from the Mosque, and arrest any of your own who provoke through claiming it for Israel, and agitating for it to be torn down to be replaced by a Temple.

What a pile of dung. The land was Ottoman territory for 700 years, and then under the control of the Brits. The Arabs who now call themselves are mostly illegal invaders and squatters from neighboring Arab countries. True story

 

[Beelzebub]

No population can tolerate what the Israeli Occupation Forces do to them in Palestine.

Don't want uprisings? Get out. Make peace. Secure your borders.