More on transplanting al Aqsa

Herbert E. Meyer's fine response debunking "Dan Gordon's astonishing" (and appalling) proposal that Israel turn over Al-Aqsa, on the Temple Mount to Saudi Arabia, appeases an insidious bias against Jews, a gesture that is unworthy of those professing commitment to Jews and Judaism as does Mr. Gordon. 

The bias in question is that Jews are so lowly (untermenschen in German, dhimmi in Islam) that they shouldn't be allowed to own land which houses a monument or anything of significance of another faith group.

When Jerusalem was first divided in 1948 following the war started by the Arabs to crush Israel's birth, Jordan won control over many sites important to Jews.  According to the treaty between these two countries, Israel was to have access to these sites. Not only did Jordan ignore this, it damaged many of them as Mr. Meyer mentioned. 

The world heard not one protest from the UN at this gross violation; not one peep from Christian groups whose many sites were also not well treated - but still better treatment than Jewish ones received; not one poignant story from the media in the 19 years the city was divided.  Immediately following Israel's miraculous victory in the June, 1967 war which resulted in the liberation of Jerusalem, the Israeli government broke the barriers separating the city and unified it under Jewish control.

All these entities and more converged in protest with one word -- internationalization. 

Yes, the thought of Jewish control over not just Jewish sites but Christian and Moslem ones shook their foundations.  They all agreed, Jews should not dominate Jerusalem; it must be internationalized. The UN condemned Israel -- this time for winning.  The Pope, who just a few years earlier had visited divided Jerusalem, obediently following the intricate steps required by Jordan to travel  to the Israeli one, worried about Christian sites in Jewish hands.  The media suddenly did the teary eyed reports about the plight of the losing Arabs. 

This hypocrisy has continued; recall the outrage, the absolute outrage, from Christian clergy a few weeks ago because Jews, Jews! controlled access to the village of Bethlehem. This topsy turvy order displaced concerns that half of the terrorists emanated from there; it even overrode the plight of the quickly shrinking Christian population in that important historic area.

This must be emphasized and understood: Ahmadinjehad is just saying out loud what the others believe privately. The Arabs don't want a separate Palestinian country, for they easily could have had one.  The Arabs want to eliminate Israel, they want to return the Jews to their dhimmi status.
Herbert E. Meyer's fine response debunking "Dan Gordon's astonishing" (and appalling) proposal that Israel turn over Al-Aqsa, on the Temple Mount to Saudi Arabia, appeases an insidious bias against Jews, a gesture that is unworthy of those professing commitment to Jews and Judaism as does Mr. Gordon. 

The bias in question is that Jews are so lowly (untermenschen in German, dhimmi in Islam) that they shouldn't be allowed to own land which houses a monument or anything of significance of another faith group.

When Jerusalem was first divided in 1948 following the war started by the Arabs to crush Israel's birth, Jordan won control over many sites important to Jews.  According to the treaty between these two countries, Israel was to have access to these sites. Not only did Jordan ignore this, it damaged many of them as Mr. Meyer mentioned. 

The world heard not one protest from the UN at this gross violation; not one peep from Christian groups whose many sites were also not well treated - but still better treatment than Jewish ones received; not one poignant story from the media in the 19 years the city was divided.  Immediately following Israel's miraculous victory in the June, 1967 war which resulted in the liberation of Jerusalem, the Israeli government broke the barriers separating the city and unified it under Jewish control.

All these entities and more converged in protest with one word -- internationalization. 

Yes, the thought of Jewish control over not just Jewish sites but Christian and Moslem ones shook their foundations.  They all agreed, Jews should not dominate Jerusalem; it must be internationalized. The UN condemned Israel -- this time for winning.  The Pope, who just a few years earlier had visited divided Jerusalem, obediently following the intricate steps required by Jordan to travel  to the Israeli one, worried about Christian sites in Jewish hands.  The media suddenly did the teary eyed reports about the plight of the losing Arabs. 

This hypocrisy has continued; recall the outrage, the absolute outrage, from Christian clergy a few weeks ago because Jews, Jews! controlled access to the village of Bethlehem. This topsy turvy order displaced concerns that half of the terrorists emanated from there; it even overrode the plight of the quickly shrinking Christian population in that important historic area.

This must be emphasized and understood: Ahmadinjehad is just saying out loud what the others believe privately. The Arabs don't want a separate Palestinian country, for they easily could have had one.  The Arabs want to eliminate Israel, they want to return the Jews to their dhimmi status.