‘The New York Times’ Goes Truther on the Temple Mount
Was the White House ever in Washington, D.C.? Can we ever really know for sure? Not unless we dig under the existing structure and find indisputable archaeological evidence of the original structure, which British general Robert Ross is said—by some sources—to have torched in August, 1814.Richard Millett: A Nice destruction of the Jewish state.
If you find everything about the previous paragraph patently ridiculous, you are clearly not a reporter or an editor for The New York Times. This morning, the paper of record published a piece about Jerusalem’s Temple Mount, questioning whether or not it was the site of, you know, the Jewish Temple. “Historical Certainty,” the article’s headline reads, “Proves Elusive at Jerusalem’s Holiest Place.” Capping the piece is a quote from Jane Cahill, who the paper notes is not only an archaeologist but also a practicing lawyer and therefore, presumably, an expert on incontrovertible evidence. Did the ancient Jewish temple stand where the Dome of the Rock now stands? “The answer might be ‘yes,’ if the standard of proof is merely a preponderance of the evidence,” Cahill is quoted as saying, “but ‘no’ if the standard of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt.”
It’s hard to begin to dissect the Times’ potent blend of ignorance and malice. There’s reporter Rick Gladstone’s repulsive bad faith in continually moving back and forth in his text between the narrow question he seems to have asked Cahill and other scholars: did the Temples stand precisely on the exact spot on the Temple Mount where Aksa was built, or might they have stood, say 50 feet over? This, in addition to the idea, which Gladstone weaves in and out of the piece, that there is even the slightest credibility to the idea that “Jewish Temples” were, you know, the products of some kind of religious fever-dream that Zionists then appropriated for their own aggressive purposes.
On Wednesday I went to the legal heart of London to hear a talk given by Professor Sir Geoffrey Nice QC. The talk Gaza-Israel: The Legal Military View was at Gresham College.Edgar Davidson: What to say to your MP about the failure of the media and politicians to acknowledge the current war against Israeli Jews
It was due to start at 6pm but I arrived at 5.50pm and by then every seat was taken including those in the overflow room. Latecomers were turned away with a copy of the talk, all 22 pages, Professor Nice was about to deliver.
On the tube home I read the Professor’s fantasyland; let’s call it Niceland.
In Niceland everyone is nice, except all Israelis (P.17):
And in Niceland history can be whatever you want it to be (P. 3):
“Israel as a state was thus imposed on and within Palestine in 1948…an as yet unfinished state project because the territorial ambitions of Israel were not satisfied. Thereafter, claiming to fight for the security of their people and preservation of their land, Israel fought their Arab neighbours, expanding Israel’s borders.”
And in Niceland those fantastical disappearing maps of Palestine used by the Palestine Solidarity Campaign are accurate (P. 5).
And in Niceland Israel never handed back the Sinai and made peace with Jordan (P.6):
“The 1967 war encouraged a revival of the “Greater Israel”, envisaged by the founder of Zionism, Theodore Herzl, as extending “from the Brook of Egypt to the Euphrates””.
Note this was before I heard this evening about the appalling statement by the Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond in which he blamed Israel's 'occupation' and 'violence by Palestinians and Israeli settlers' for the current situation. And there are still people who think that the Conservatives and David Cameron are 'friends of Israel'. Remember Hammond also made a blood libel antisemitic statement (one of the worst ever made by a British Cabinet member) when he said that Israel wanted to spike the Iran deal because it 'wanted to maintain a permanent state of war'. Anyway, I used the online form to contact the Prime Minister to make the following complaint:
I am appalled by the Foreign Minister's statement today which largely blames Israel for the unprecedented wave of terrorist attacks against Jewish civilians in every city of Israel (averaging 100 per day and increasing as I write) resulting in numerous dead Jews. The fact that the surge in attacks came immediately after Mahmoud Abbas (the leader of the Palestine Authority) effectively declared war against Israel's Jews at the United Nations was also unreported by the media and ignored by the Government (just like the attacks against Israelis). The media have chosen ONLY to report incidents in which the Palestinian attackers were killed in the act of committing murder. Moreover, such reports have typically led with the headline "Palestinian killed by security forces...". Now the government seems to have fallen into the same BIG LIE narrative. Perhaps Hammond could also clarify or name even one 'settler' who has attacked an Arab.