The third destruction of the Temple

Lee Jakeman

When Israel withdrew from settlements in Gaza rcently, the first thing that the incoming Palestinians did was destroy all the synagogues. As this is regarded as "normal" Arab behaviour, the incident went largely uncommented in the Western press.

field

It is misleading to say Jerusalem was under "international" control prior anymore than Gaza is under "international" control now. I agree with Lee that it is shameful how the media in democratic countries cover up for the Palestinians on their expressions of hatred for Jews (and Kufrs in general). We saw how there was a big cover up after 9-11 to hide the evident support on the Palestinian street for the attack. I'm not here to argue that the Palestinians can be trusted. Thats; why I a arguing for an international zone in part of Jerusalem. It is completely unrealistic of Israelis to think that they can hang to the whole of the city under their sole sovereignty. If there were an international zone there would be much more chance of saving the Jewish archaeological remains than under Israeli sovereignty.

Fred

This is utterly horrifying. It is inconceivable that the Israelis would allow this to happen. It is totally horrific that they can allow the destruction of the remains of their original temples while they have such a powerful position. This is tantamount to conspiracy with the arabs to destroy their own history. This is completely beyond the pale and beggars belief.

Tas Walker

I'm glad the text on your blog is larger, all the same size, and and much more readable.

Elena

Dear Melanie, Thank you very much for your article. It’s appalling and disturbing that archaeological site of this enormous historical and religious value has been destroyed and our world is watching and doing usual nothing about it. How very sad….

Yisrael Medad

As I wrote back in 2000 (http://www.acpr.org.il/ENGLISH-NATIV/06-issue/medad-6.htm), just when the Pal. Authority was increasing its attempts to wrest control over the Temple Mount (construction of the underground mosques, creation of Pal. Mufti, etc.,), it behooved Israel to similarly display more public signs of attachment either by halting the Waqf efforts or stymiing them or by increasing Jewish identification without necessarily being provocative. Israel's political leadership, bolstered by a High Court of Justice that views the location as "sensitive" fro Muslims but disregards any Jewish feelings, a distinctly un-legal approach, and a Chief Rabbinate afraid of the more Hareidi public then as today continue to view kowtowing as an admirable statement vis a vis the Taliban-like activites of the Waqf (the recent digging and destruction of First & Second Temple artifacts) and the upcoming Annapolis Conference where, once again, we will see and hear of very creative forms of compromise, like the "upstairs/downstairs" Camp David 2000 proposal. I need not add how idiotic this appears and is, do I?

eliXelx

Let's not get into too much of a tizzy over this. It is stupid of the Pals to believe that they can delegitimize Jewish claims to the Land by destroying artefacts, since we have always carried our claims to the Land in our hearts and (in the case of males) in our flesh! Nadia Abu Al-Haj and her co-conspirators in Waqf are a minor irritant to the Jewish archaeological community and to people who want physical proof and substantiation of their Jewishness! That said, the destruction of artefacts in order to deny history, a la the Bamiyan Buddhas, is an aesthetic crime, not yet a legal one and is surely one for the UN to address. Of course the best resolution of this problem would be the annexation of the Temple Mount, but if that were really so important to our identity why have we not done it yet?

szeni

True to form, BBC did its best to cover up Palestinian vandalism on the Temple Mount. When a couple of years ago, Dan Cruickshank was in Jerusalem making his notorious Israel-bashing 'documentary', the destruction of Jewish heritage was in full swing. Not only Cruickshank's interview with the head of Waqf wasn't used, but the issue wasn't even mentioned in the film

Joshua

A note to field. If the international community could be trusted to safeguard Jewish interests, there would be little need for Israel in the first place.

field

Joshua - As I think you probably realise your argument is one that leads to occupation of a sizeable chunk by Israel in order to "defend" itself. Except that would just put off the evil day. Israel already only survives with the backing of a sizeable part of the international community. If that support were withdrawn, military and economic collapse would follow in short order. An international zone in the most sensitive parts of Jerusalem with archaeological matters being resolved through extensive consultation and professional input is the only way forward. I agree that Palestinians aren't ready to take part in this process now. But that is not an excuse to avoid saying what constitutes a just settlement. Perhaps you can tell us what constitutes a just settlement in your eyes.

Ahad Ha'amoratzim

Field, you say that " It is completely unrealistic of Israelis to think that they can hang to the whole of the city under their sole sovereignty. If there were an international zone there would be much more chance of saving the Jewish archaeological remains than under Israeli sovereignty." Unfortunately, history shows that it is even more unrealistic to think that the rights of Jews would be protected in an international zone, the moreso if the UN or the EU has anything to do with enforcing those rights. If 1947 or even 1967 is too long ago for you to take into account, consider the UN's recent record in South Lebanon. Consistent with the UN's record for the past 25 years or more, the UN forces pursue a 4 point program: (1) allow the terrorists to re-arm and reorganise, (2) allow the terrorists to launch attacks into Israel (and in some cases, work actively with them or cover up their activities), (3) prevent Israel from interfering with the terrorists or retaliating against them, and (4)in return, piously demand that Israel make real concessions, withdraw troops, and expose its civilians and its soldiers to the risk of terrorist attacks. Apart from that, why should Israel concede that any foreign people has rights to its capitol? A just settlement in my eyes? Recognize that Israel has the longest and strongest claim to Jerusalem, that Jerusalem in 1947 had a higher percentage of Jewish population (who had also been living there over a longer continuous period)than many of the areas awarded to Israel by the Partition Plan but was made international solely due to the anti-Semitic demands of certain Catholic nations, that the resulting invasion of Jerusalem by the Arab League and the expulsion of that Jewish community was illegal and ought not to be rewarded, that Israel legitimately controls Jerusalem due to Israel's legitimate defensive victory in a war launched against her without provocation by enemy nations admittedly seeking to destroy the Israel and exterminate her population, and that the unprovoked attack by these nations ought not to be rewarded by returning land that the aggressors lost as a result of their war, and that Israel's actions from the moment of its 1967 victory demonstrate conclusively that she has been and would be a more impartial and responsible guardian of the rights of all religions and nationalities than any alternativem, including the UN or the mythical international community. As against all this, you can tell me only that it would upset a large group of powerful and evil people who want to see Israel destroyed altogether and Jews as a group either exterminated or enslaved, and who actively preach that Jews are responsible for all of the world's ills. And I reply, Good! Trying to satisfy the evil demands of evil people is nothing to be proud of. Cf. Ber. (or if you prefer, Gen.) 19:5 - 9.

Chip

"Jahiliyyah" -- soon to be bulldozed and forgotten at a location near you.

john d

one wonders how many Jewish artefacts and antiquities the Arabs destroyed in the Cave of the patriarchs. And why is Hebron not on the agenda anyway?

Les Hardie

As a non-believer of Christian background, I'm appalled that what is happening at Temple Mount is no less than the erasing of Jewish history, religion and culture by imperialist islamism. We see that the Muslims want to wipe away all evidence of Jewish history at Temple Mount, so that the knowledge of Jewish life there disappears down the "memory hole". For Israelis to assist in this 1984-style erasure of reality is saddening.

Majid Salim

Melanie Phillips recounts allegations of vandalism that constitute "a deliberate attempt to erase the historical proof of the Temple and with it the truth about the origins of Israel as a Jewish state and the heart of the Jewish religion long before the Arabs ever got there." Israel is not the ancestral homeland of the Jews, it is the ancestral homeland of someone else. The Book of Joshua (chapters 6 - 10)tells of the Hebrew military occupation of Israel, including Jerusalem, a city that is not originally Jewish and which was not built by the Jews. And they were not nice about it either, the city of Ai was massacred to a person. The origins of Israel are not "as a Jewish state".

Martin Meenagh

This is a depressing piece and more people should see what is going on. Thanks for writing about it