Monday, November 10, 2014
Elder of ZiyonRabbis and activists have been preparing for the restoration of the temple and challenging the ban on Jews praying on the esplanade on top of the mount, the Haram al-Sharif, site of two venerable Muslim shrines, the golden Dome of the Rock and the al-Aqsa mosque.Here was my response:
This would be esoteric if it were not so dangerous. A minority obsession with the temple is entering the mainstream and creating a vicious cycle. More temple activists, among them politicians and ministers, are visiting the Haram to demand the right to pray. To some, this is the first step to sweeping away the mosques. In turn, Palestinian rioters vow to “defend al-Aqsa”, the third-holiest site in Islam. The attempted murder of a prominent temple activist, Yehuda Glick, on October 29th has redoubled calls for Jewish prayers and more restrictions on Muslims. As Palestinians adopt a new tactic of driving into Jewish pedestrians, there is talk of a new uprising, even of war.
The right for Jews to pray on the Temple Mount is enshrined in numerous UN resolutions like the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the UN Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief. It is a basic civil and human right for Jews to be allowed to peacefully visit and pray on their holiest spot.
It is curious that The Economist is coming out against civil rights for Jews.
Why is that? Because the Muslims there threaten violence - and now they are murdering Jews in the name of Islam!
Civil rights are not dependent on the veto power of extremists to threaten violence. There are numerous videos of Jews visiting the Temple Mount, and not one of them shows any of them doing anything the least bit provocative. On the other hand, their quiet strolls are greeted with screams, threats and occasional violence.
Yet The Economist seems determined to label the Jews who want equal rights as the agitators and the Muslim rioters as the victims of Israeli aggression.
The Economist's idea of the "status quo" is completely wrong. Before 2000, Jews were able to visit the Mount and no one objected if visitors quietly prayed. Before 1967, of course, Jews were forbidden altogether. Perhaps that is the "status quo" that The Economist prefers to see.
Modern liberals are supposed to defend civil rights, to stand up for those being threatened by bigots. One must wonder why The Economist believes that in this case those making the threats are in the right and civil rights for Jews are not important.
When you pick and choose which human rights you are in favor of, you can no longer call yourself an advocate for human rights.
(h/t Ron)
UPDATE: After my comment was up on the site for several hours and received over 50 "recommends," The Economist removed it.
Their comments policy is here. I didn't violate it, except possibly if they are claiming that I am impersonating the "real" Elders of Zion.'
Apparently, The Economist's interest in freedom of expression is exactly as strong as its support for human rights.
