Home | Yes
No
Other
what would you define as "giving up"? the Temple Mount site is maintained by the Waqf. It is accessible almost exclusively to Muslims. Israel sovereignty over the site is set only in the eyes of Israel itself. how much are we giving up here?Originally Posted by dayag
Israel does have sovereignty over the site whether the world recognizes it or not. And if we give up sovereignty over the site, there is zero chance we will ever get to rebuild the Temple. That probably means nothing to you, but it means everything to me. I would not give up sovereignty over the Temple Mount even for a real peace.
I think that Moshe Dayan (yimach shemo) turning the Temple Mount over to the Waqf was the greatest betrayal ever committed by a Jew of his people ever. I curse his name and his memory.
The Waqf has destroyed archeological artifacts and prevented Jews from praying on the Mount. And Halakhah does allow Jews to pray on certain parts of the Mount. If it was up to me, I would take control back from the Waqf, allow all to pray at the site (like in Hebron), and begin preparations for reconstruction of the Temple. The Muslims could continue to pray in the El Aqsa Mosque at the southern end of the mount. Whether or not the Dome of the Rock would have to be removed would depend on archeological findings.
So, when I tell you that I am a kitzoni concerning the Temple Mount, I am not exaggerating.
"If I forget thee, O Jerusalem, let my right hand wither, let my tongue cleave to my palate if I do not remember you, if I do not set Jerusalem above my highest joy." (Ps. 137: 5-7)"
"Any generation in which the Temple is not built, it is as if it had been destroyed in their times" (Yerushalmi, Yoma 1a).
I am not religious at all yet, as I said above, I am totally against giving up the Temple Mount, for three reasons ...
- For the sake of the religious Jews of Israel.
- Because it is not only a religious symbol but a highly significant historic symbol for Jews.
- Last but not least because giving it up would send very much the wrong message to the Arabs. They would conclude that if Israel is willing to give up such a site, then Israel could be pushed around to give up everything else. We must NOT do it, EVER!!!
I know I am not Israeli but I feel I need to say it because my heart is with Israel.
PS
The fact that currently the Temple Mount is under the control of the Waqf does not change things. At the end of the day, the Temple mount is still under Israeli jurisdiction. And yes, I agree that Dayan gravely miscalculated when he handed the day to day control of the Temple Mount to the Waqf. It was a gesture of good will on his part to show magnonimity towards Arab sentiments. And all Israel ever got in return are lots of kicks from the Arabs instead of even minor thanks. They took it as a sign of weakness and they have been punishing Israel for it ever since ...
Idealism increases in direct proportion to one's distance from the problem.
Author: John Galsworthy 1867-1933, British Novelist, Playwright
dayag, you are right, you are kitzoni in this regard.
News flash - there is zero chance for Israel to build the Temple, regardless of sovereignty.
Reffo, I put to you the question that I put before dayag - what does "giving up" mean? currently, Israelis do not visit the site and Israeli sovereignty over the site is not recognized by anyone, not even the USA.
you think that the religious Jews of Israel (many of them not recognizing the state of Israel) thank Israel for this virtual sovereignty?
guys, did you know that in the Geneva Accord it is stated that Jews will have free access to the temple mount?
sharonbn
Sorry, it seems that while you were writing your last post, I added the PS note to my original post. I think that addresses your question.
As for the Geneva accord, forget relying on it. Once Israel would give up sovereignity of the Temple Mount, the danger is that the Arabs would at some point unilaterally change the rules. If you doubt this, then just think about what Egypt is doing right now with the Gas supply ...
By the way, sharonbn, the vast majority of religious Jews in Israel are loyal Israeli citizens. Not every religious Jew is part of the sects that live off the rest of Israelis while they don't recognize Israel ...
Idealism increases in direct proportion to one's distance from the problem.
Author: John Galsworthy 1867-1933, British Novelist, Playwright
so you two prefer virtual sovereignty that is not exercised in reality and is not recognized by anyone in the world, coupled with no presence of Jews in the site itself, over giving up this sovereignty (which doesn't change anything in real life) and free access for Jews to the site?
oh and add one more small thing - true peace. end of violence.
yes, there is a chance of unilateral withdrawal from the agreement. I will even admit that this option is not hypothetical.
However, if we don't dare, we will never see peace in our lifetime or possibly never at all.
Plus, I believe that if the worst comes and the Arabs unilaterally break the agreement, then Israel can retake the temple mount by force once again. we won't be worse off then we are today...
Yes, and a meshuganeh as well. Freely admitted. However, based on polls, I disagree with your assessment that there is "zero chance" of this happening. To quote Herzl, "im tirtzu eyn zo agadah".
Per a YNET Gesher poll, 64% of Israelis want to see the Temple rebuilt.
source: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7...754367,00.htmlThe second question was whether respondents wanted to see the Temple rebuilt. Sixty-four percent responded favorably, while 36% said no. An analysis of the answers showed that not only the ultra-Orthodox and the religious look forward to the rebuilding of the Temple (100% and 97% respectively), but also the traditional public (91%) and many seculars – 47%.
No, I told you what I prefer. Taking back over the Temple Mount from the Waqf and rebuilding the Temple. I cannot abide the current situation.
Once a final border has been negotiated between Israel and the Palestinians, it will have lasting ramifications in International Law. It will be almost impossible to change it, even if we are forced to reconquer the West Bank.
Last edited by dayag; 04-30-2012 at 01:09 PM.
"If I forget thee, O Jerusalem, let my right hand wither, let my tongue cleave to my palate if I do not remember you, if I do not set Jerusalem above my highest joy." (Ps. 137: 5-7)"
"Any generation in which the Temple is not built, it is as if it had been destroyed in their times" (Yerushalmi, Yoma 1a).
sharonbn
I would never allow the Temple Mount to come under sole Arab sovereignity. During the 19 years of Jordanian rule, they proved how they deal with Jewish holy sites. They desecrated every Jewish site and they did not allow access to Jews.
Even under international law, Israel is not obliged to let East Jerusalem to come under Arab sovereignity. Remember that in 1948 the UN voted that Jerusalem should be an international city under the control of the UN. So why are we now talking about making East Jerusalem the capital of Palestine? Why are we suddenly pretending that East Jerusalem is solely Arab? Did you know that for at least the last 200 years, even before the modern Zionist movement, Jerusalem had a Jewish majority? And it's beyond debate that Jews have many holy sites in East Jerusalem not just the Temple Mount.
Idealism increases in direct proportion to one's distance from the problem.
Author: John Galsworthy 1867-1933, British Novelist, Playwright
The folly of the left and I am not talking now of extremist lefties, I am talking about leftists like you sharonbn, is that you seem to fully believe in "real" peace in our time. I am sorry to be a pessimist but I believe that the best that we can hope for in our time is no war or minimum of war. Real peace? Unfortunately not! That's why I advocate minimum of concessions and certainly NO concessions without reciprocal concessions from the Arabs.
Of course, I do believe that REAL peace will come in time. But not in our generation. Peace will come after the Arabs will get over their hatred of Jews and Israel in particular. When their obsession with Israel will be replaced with an obsession to better themselves. I can't see that happening in this generation of Arabs. They grew up with too much hate, too much wounded pride. I don't think they can shed all that baggage in less than a generation or two or even three. It makes me sad but unfortunately that seems to be reality at least today ...
Idealism increases in direct proportion to one's distance from the problem.
Author: John Galsworthy 1867-1933, British Novelist, Playwright
To be fair to Sharon, I was the one who brought up the idea of a "real peace" as part of a hypothetical discussion of what I would find acceptable in a peace deal and in the poll question on this thread. The fact that her goal is peace does not mean that she is guilty of folly. She discusses above the possibilities of the Palestinians withdrawing and/or breaking the agreement as very real possibilities:
"If I forget thee, O Jerusalem, let my right hand wither, let my tongue cleave to my palate if I do not remember you, if I do not set Jerusalem above my highest joy." (Ps. 137: 5-7)"
"Any generation in which the Temple is not built, it is as if it had been destroyed in their times" (Yerushalmi, Yoma 1a).
Yes, I know dayag but I still say that what drives people like sharonbn is the mistaken belief that "real" peace is just around the corner, if only Israel would make a few more concessions. I am sorry to be a pessimist but I just don't agree. In fact, I think that making even more concessions, after the concessions that Rabin, Barak and Olmert offered, would further delay peace. That's just my opinion and I hope that I am wrong. But I don't think that I am ...
Idealism increases in direct proportion to one's distance from the problem.
Author: John Galsworthy 1867-1933, British Novelist, Playwright
Reffo, before you bring up the UN partition plan as an argument, you should know that
1) The green line is NOT the border of the partition plan, it is border of the 1949 ceasefire agreements, and it is significantly different from the one in the plan, giving Israel large areas in the Galilee and Negev and of course, Jer'm.
2) For that reason, the plan, in its entirety, was declared obsolete by Ben Gurion after 1948 war.
and what's that good for? Do you want to count the population in the last 200 years in Jaffa? in Haifa? in Lod? in Ramla? In Beer Sheba? in Nazareth?
I have two things to say to that:
1) First, we are debating the academic question of the price each of us is willing to pay for true peace. question of viability and/or timeline is off the scope.
2) In practical terms, you may be right. I would say that the chances of seeing peace in our life time are about the same as Israel rebuilding the Temple on its historical site (now you go argue the chances with dayag). However, regardless of the timeline, I believe we can still envision today what the situation will be when the Arabs and Israel come to their senses and sign a peace deal.
guys,
on a more general note: you seem to think that Israel giving up sovereignty automatically means handling over to the Arabs, but there is another option. The temple mount and possibly other holy sites (Holy Basin) can come under "special regime" (quote from Clinton plan) which is governed by some kind of int'l body. The place can even have NO sovereignty at all, with daily administration handled jointly by Israel and the Arabs and the int'l community. or any other arrangement that will not place sole sovereignty in the hands of one party.
I will say it again: under this arrangement, Jews will have free access to places that they cannot access today, when the site is under Israeli control...
Actually Jews can visit the Temple Mount currently. I have done so myself. They are just not allowed to pray there. Christians are forbidden to pray on the Mount as well.
Sorry, but free access to visit the Temple Mount isn't sufficient. My goal is the rebuilding of the Temple. I believe that can only be accomplished under Israeli sovereignty. So, ceding sovereignty to a "special regime" or anyone else is a no go for me.
"If I forget thee, O Jerusalem, let my right hand wither, let my tongue cleave to my palate if I do not remember you, if I do not set Jerusalem above my highest joy." (Ps. 137: 5-7)"
"Any generation in which the Temple is not built, it is as if it had been destroyed in their times" (Yerushalmi, Yoma 1a).
Of course I know that. But you were the one who suggested that according to international law, Israel sovereignity over Jerusalem is not recognized. You also suggested that you would be prepared to hand over the Temple Mount to the Arabs for the sake of peace. So whether you wanted to or not, by putting it that way, you suggested to people who are not familiar with the history of the Middle East that East Jerusalem belongs to the Arabs according to international law. That's why I brought up the partition vote about Jerusalem which declared Jerusalem as an international city, not an exclusively Arab city.
I know you did not purposefully want to create the wrong impression but I do believe that inadvertantly you did. I think that what motivates you is your desire for peace and while I am very sympathetic with your desire, in my opinion you advocate the wrong ways to bring it about. I stated my reasons above why I believe that. I won't repeat myself.
Idealism increases in direct proportion to one's distance from the problem.
Author: John Galsworthy 1867-1933, British Novelist, Playwright
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks