Peddeling Zionism without Zion

The architects of the Geneva "understandings" are manufacturing another paper agreement to reward terrorism by providing it with more and more territory, and upgrading its lethal capabilities. They are putting yet more Jerusalem neighborhoods within Palestinian firing range.
After more than 3,000 shells, bombs, and Kassam rockets have landed on Gush Katif in attacks that no agreement, fence, or wall can stop, the planners seek to return Israel to its narrow-waisted borders of 1967, bringing missiles to the porches of houses in Kfar Sava, Lod, and Rosh Ha'ayin.

They have overlooked dozens of declarations of steadfast adherence to the "right of return" and they ignore an endless stream of articles, speeches, and commentaries articulated in the spirit of the "Hudaybiya Treaty" (the agreement abrogated by Muhammad), which prove that Oslo, Cairo, Wye, Hebron, and other agreements are tactical ploys to promote one main objective - ongoing, relentless strikes against the Jewish-Zionist entity that we built here after 2,000 years, until Israel as a whole is destroyed.

Jerusalem and the Temple Mount are components without which Jewish identity has no hope of continuity. Without them, the justice of Jewish-Zionist claims cannot be perceived. Without Zion, without the Temple Mount, there can be no Zionism.


http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/351565.html

To quote another poster: This article ain't nothing but ....

Red flags go up for me as soon as I hear someone whine about "rewarding terrorism" by leaving illegaly occupied land. This article is one of the worst things I have seen Haaretz print in a long time (granted I don't have time to read everything Haaretz prints) and belongs more at Gamla than Haaretz. What an insult for progressives to have to come across ignorant drivel like this is a supposed left-leaning publication. Do they regularly print stuff this idiotic? Maybe as a way of exposing their readers to the right-wing view of religious pyschopaths?

neither left-leaning nor right-leaning in their editorials or opinion pieces.

That may be true, but this article proves that it can be "Fair and balanced" in the way Fox News is "fair and balanced" :eyes:


Btw, I always thought Haaretz was left leaning since many from the peace movement even wrote for it. Apparently i was wrong..too bad

doesn't mean that they ONLY have right-wing junk. Some of the best articles I have ever read on the situation have come from Haaretz.

I KNOW Darranar. That's why I was so surprised. Because till now I only had heard good things about them and the articles I read confirm what you have said. I hope this isn't a sign of changes..

The truth is, almost nobody in Israel cared about the Temple Mount (or the Cave of the Patriarchs in Hebron) until a few years ago. All of this interest in these holy sites is politically motivated.

The claims to it and the resistance to giving it up IS politically motivated. The fact that the Jewish people feel a connection to those sites is not.

It is a fact that the Temple Mount was not an issue in Israel until the Sharon Government. I have researched this subject, and it's true.

since I am sure I remember complaints during Barak's prime ministership that the Palestinians were removing evidence of jewish buildings on the mount.

The Temple Mount is important to Judiasm for many reasons; along with both the First and Second Temples being built there, Abraham attempted to sacrifice Isaac there as well, according to the Bible.

Personally, despite my Jewish heritage, I respect peace more than any religion; if it brought peace to the region, I'd let the Palestinians dynamite the Wailing Wall, destroy any remnants of the temples, and take the entire Old City for themselves. Of course, many disagree with me...

I do not mean to discount the importance of the Temple Mount in Judaism. I am only saying that interest in this site has intensified in recent years largely because of Sharon's successful effort to politicize the issue. (By the way, I'm jewish also.)

then we basically agree there.

Sharon has tried to use the Temple Mount multiple times for political advantage. Note his journey to it in 2000...

That hill has been rather a pre-occupation for centuries. You may be misled by a rabbinical ruling Jews ought not walk upon it, for fear of inadvertantly trespassing on the old inner sanctum, the precise location of which is now unknown, and trespass upon which by any but the proper priest is held to be grave offense to the diety.

<i>Jerusalem and the Temple Mount are components without which Jewish identity has no hope of continuity.</i>

The Jews preserved their identity for over 1500 years without the Temple Mount just fine. To argue that if Israel doesn't control 100% of Jeruselem they are going to fall apart is a canard...they could share the city with the native peoples w/o problems. It's not like Jeruselem isn't a big enough city.

But it is still Israeli territory and should remain so.

include Jews, of course.