Hamas warns Israel over al Aqsa Mosque, demands release of all prisoners

Islam's claim on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem as its "third most holy site" is one of the most fraudelent claims in religious history.

Israel's Jewish Temple long preceeded the mosque. In fact, the temple which was destroyed in 70 A.D. by the Romans, was the SECOND temple on the site.

After the crusades, which conquered Jerusalem, crusaders built a Christian Church on top of the mount, seeking to symbolize the new status of Christianity, built upon Jewish teachings. But the Church was relatively short-lived.

Less than 10 yrs after the death of Mohammed, an Islamic force captured Jerusalem and ended the Christian occupation. As a sign of triumph, the Islamics built a mosque on top of the Christian church--not even knocking it down and starting from scratch!! At the same time, the proprietor named the mosque "Al Aqsa" which is Arabic for "the furthest place".

Again, Islam is built upon Jewish teachings. In the writings about Muhammads death, his FRIENDS said that he rode by on a night journey to "the Furthest Place" where he ascended into heaven by horseback.

Of course the mosque was named Al Aqsa AFTER Mohammed's death, and BECAUSE of the passage in the Koran and related writings. Most likely the proprietor was trying to increase the pilgrim traffic to his mosque.

Mohammed never visited Jerusalem in his entire life. His followers face Mecca when they pray. Jerusalem is not mentioned once in the Koran. For many years it sat in decline, little visited, and choked with weeds.

By contrast, Jerusalem is mentioned over 700 times in the Torah. The Temple is the number one holy site for the Jews. Israel had one temple there for over 500 years, and another one built on its ruins that lasted many more centuries. The Temple was the center of Jewish life.

Since its destruction in 70 AD, Jews have spent one day a year mourning its loss and fasting. Every passover, for centuries, Jews have toasted "Next year in Jerusalem."

If the Arabs really wanted peace, they would remove their mosque from the Temple Mount piece by piece (and rebuild it somewhere else) and return the Mount to the Jews so they can rebuild the third Temple.

It is only Israel's respect for the Islamic religion that has prevented this from happening already. This article intimates that because the Israeli govt. has gotten credible threats to bomb the mosque, that it must be a govt. conspiracy to bomb the mosque. But If Israel is so heavily armed compared to the Palestinians, why hasn't Israel removed the mosque already?

ON ANOTHER TOPIC:

"Meanwhile, Sheikh Hassan Yousef, one of the Hamas Movement’s prominent leaders in the West Bank, has told a rally in Ramallah after the Friday congregation that releasing all Palestinian prisoners in Israeli occupation jails was a prime condition for continuing in the calming down."

BECKY: Hamas is not satisfied with the 900 prisoners Israel has agreed to release. They will not stop the killings until ALL prisoners are released which means they will not stop the killings. The remaining prisoners are convicted murderers and mass murderers. Israel could never, in good conscience, release these prisoners. I know its fashionable to blame Israel for breaking the calm, but with ridiculous demands like this, Hamas is clearly the one preventing any calm from occurring.

>>>"If the Arabs really wanted peace, they would remove their mosque from the Temple Mount piece by piece (and rebuild it somewhere else) and return the Mount to the Jews"<<<

This assertion happens to almost completely coincide with the Temple Mount Faithful Movement's position headed by Gershon Salomon in Israel. Most Israelis consider this movement lunatic fringe, and yet these people have always abided by court injunctions, verdicts and police instructions in their protracted struggle to gain access to the Temple Mount for decades now. Clearly this respect for Israeli law sets them apart from people like Alan Goodman who's doing time for his 1982 shooting spree on the Mount, or the erstwhile Jewish Underground that once plotted, and undertook some practical preparations, to blow up the mosques.

That said, the issue of building another Temple, regardless of where it would be constructed, is so contentious, problematic and complex within the frameworks of Jewish law and thought, it's virtually impractical; even if all the details could be worked through and resolved, the chances of creating or attaining a consensus among world Jewry about it are practically nil.

Wow, the lunatic Jewish fundamentalist fringe sounds a lot like the lunatic Hindu fringe. The Babri mosque was mainly of historical significance though, so while thousands died when religious crazies tore it down the number who will die in the MIddle East if the Jewish fundamentalists have their way will be much higher.

While a call to destory a Muslim holy site is not something to take lightly. I cant imagine what eitehr the BJP/VHP types in India or the Jeiwsh fundamentalist would realy do if they could rebuild their temples. It would probably be as tacky as Saddam Hussein's Babylon Disney World. Not that anyone can know exactly what some ancient building looked like but even if you did there would have to be compromises to route electrical wires and make sure there was room for a gift shop near the main exit.

A few modern edifices have been set up by Muslims on the Temple Mount for both tourism related and Palestinian-nationalistic purposes.

"A few modern edifices"

Im sure the same was true of the Babri Mosque since it was a functioning mosque and not worshiped for its historical past. The thing with tearing down thousand year old building to rebuild even older buildings is that the entire new construction is based on fantasy and its in essense tearing down an old building for a modern one. Obviously Im missing the point though in that in nether case is rebuilding something really the goal. In both cases the desire to destroy history stems from the same place as when the Taliban tore down the Bamiyan Buddhas; a past history dominated by a hated religion or ethnic group can only be purged by tearing down their monuments. In the cases of Ayodhya and the Temple Mount the new buildings are not a rebuilding but a way to humiliate Muslims and rally in victory for a biggoted view of ones own culture.

Religious fundamentalists like Becky above love to cloak the desire to take revenge on an ethnic minority under the guise that "they wronged us in the past". But taking revenge for a wrong comitted hundreds (or even thousands of years ago) is taking revenge on a modern people for the actions of distant ancestors and is a form of blood libel that resembles the worst forms of racism and antiSemitism. Like the Taliban crime at Bamiyan, the desire to rebuild a temple on the temple mount stems not form a desire to rebuild the past but to smash in the name of religious hatred.

of what Jews yearning to rebuild the Temple want it for. Rebuilding -- as well as restoring an ancient Jewish institution with all its splendor of yore -- IS most certainly THE goal in the Jewish case and it has *nothing* to do with humiliating Islam and Muslims.

Additionally, you have it backwards -- if any party has sought to purge the memory of a competing religion from the Temple Mount (as well as other holy sites in the Land of Israel), it has been the Muslim, who have so far eliminated many traces of Jewish symbols and artifacts on the Temple Mount by digging up thousands of tons of debris archaeologically unsupervised and dumping it elsewhere. What Muslims did to the physical evidence of ancient Jewish presence on the Mount amounts to hundreds of Bamiyans. The problem is, barely anyone worldwide has cared much, to the extent that these crimes have received media reverberation.

While there are a few differences among scholars as to the precise design of the 2nd Temple, it can't be honestly claimed a 3rd Temple would be based purely on fantasy.

"Religious fundamentalists like Becky above love to cloak the desire to take revenge on an ethnic minority under the guise that "they wronged us in the past". But taking revenge for a wrong comitted hundreds (or even thousands of years ago) is taking revenge on a modern people for the actions of distant ancestors and is a form of blood libel that resembles the worst forms of racism and antiSemitism."

I was as first, amused that you have mistaken me for a religious fundamentalist. I would hardly describe myself as that. But your next comment, that I have a desire to take revenge on anyone, much less a racial group I personally have very little contact with, is a vicious assault on my character, completely and utterly false, and makes me question your sanity. Is there something in particular that I have said or done which offends you so deeply?

Putting aside my own ruffled feathers for a moment, let me take on the second part of your comment, as if you had offered the idea seriously for discussion.

What you are describing is a Hatfield/McCoy syndrome, where the feud has gone on so many years, no one knows the source of it anymore. Others refer to this as "cycles of violence."

I don't think this accurately describes the situation. What is driving the situation is racism all right. But it is hatred of Jews. On a religious level, Mohammed at first tried to convert the Jews in Mecca and Medina. They said "Thanks anyway Mohammed. We're all right with what we've got."

So Mohammed began slaughtering Jews and taught his followers to do so. This is not a "cycle of violence" but a religiously whipped up male-mob frenzy to conquer and destroy.

Fortunately, the 24 Arab/Muslim states contain a lot of sane people who are not easily frenzied. Hence, these Jihadis, or Holy Warriors have been only more or less successful throughout history. I mean, you can get killed getting involved with something like Jihad!! The LAST thing we should do is give aid and comfort to those calling for a Holy Jihad. And until their reign is over, Israel is going to defend herself. Don't blame them for doing this.

Our efforts from afar, as peace advocates in Northern California should be to pressure the Arab countries to accept the right of Israel to exist as a Jewish State. The racism against Jews which is taught in the Arab countries must stop too before we will ever see peace in the region. On a personal level, we all can work to eliminate racism in our daily lives with the people we meet.

" So Mohammed began slaughtering Jews and taught his followers to do so"
Mohammed was a historical figure and thus can be condemned as such but to blame many of the worlds problems on him comes acorss as bigotted in the same sense as bringing up any ancient religious leader as an evil figure would be. If I were to go around blaming Moses for all the world's problem that would probably suggest antiSemitism not because as a historical figure he is beyond condemnation but because by blaming an ancient founder of a religion for current world problems one plays into a game of historical blame that can go whatever way one wants (it would be like blaming modern Jews for the massacre of some group thats described in the bible).

Oen can come up with nondestructive excuses for why a site that has for hundreds of years mainly been a Muslim holy place shoudl go back to an earlier time when it was a Jewish holy place (which is exactly like the arguments behind all the bloodshed that has occured in India by antiMuslim biggots) but there is something artificial in the excuse. Hindus were not calling for tearing down the Babri mosque for hundreds of years; the motivation came from relatively recent right wing Hindu groups and a desire to cleanse the culture of Muslim influences (the groups can be traced back to include even the man who killed Ghandi but in terms of mass appeal its a very recent phenomena) The same can be said of Jews and the desire to rebuild the temple mount. I've never seen anything in the writings of early Zionists calling for tearing down such a sacred site for Muslims. The real force behind the desire seems to stem from a fundamentalist movement in Israel (and the US) that really gained its current level of appeal at the same time as Islamic fundamnetalists in Afghanistan, Christian fundamentalists in the US and Hindu fundamentalists in India. I'm sure you can find someone calling for rebuilding the temple throught any period of history but the modern Jewish fundamentalist movement is tied to the same ideologies of hate (that seem to be in reaction to modern secularlism and globalization) that are behind other fundamentalist movements.

"if any party has sought to purge the memory of a competing religion from the Temple Mount (as well as other holy sites in the Land of Israel), it has been the Muslim, who have so far eliminated many traces of Jewish symbols and artifacts on the Temple Mount by digging up thousands of tons of debris archaeologically unsupervised and dumping it elsewhere."

Thats also what Hindus in India said about the Babri mosque and who knows in both cases in could be true (although in the indian case its not even obvous a shrine to Rama really did exist where the mosque was ). Buts its really beside the point. A severe violation occured hundreds of years ago (in the case of the temple in Jerusalem the destruction was thousands of years ago). Can tearing down a now ancient building make things better or just add to existing hatreds. Using historical guilt to demonize a people or religion (or make claims for the destruction of their most scared of sites) is the type of thing that leads to the worst forms of attrocities (do Bosnians bear the guilt of the Turks or do Uzbek Afghans bear the guilt of the Mongols and Tamerlane) . As an outsider looking at Ayodhya all one sees are a nationalist movement full of hate using an old myth of the birthplace of Ram to justify many current massacres. Looking at the temple mount one can cloak the issue in an ignorance of current realities but to even talk about tearing down one of the most scared sites to Muslims using an excuse that has been around for thousands of years (and never really called for or acted upon) is a pretty blatant attempt to fan the flames of hatred in one of the most destructive ways imaginable.

"Since its destruction in 70 AD, Jews have spent one day a year mourning its loss and fasting. Every passover, for centuries, Jews have toasted "Next year in Jerusalem.""

Growing up Jewish I remember that but dont ever remember it being a call to take back Jeruslem and make it a religious capital for Judaism. It always struck me as being more related to myths about end times and just a traditional saying rather than a Jewish form of a call for a Crusade to take back the temple. The sad part of this whole thing is that while most of those who founded Israel saw it as a refugee for Jews that happened to be in the historical location of ancient Israel there is this newfound crazyness about rebuilding the temple and the land being robbed by the Muslims (rather than the Romans....) It seems the type of end times crazyness more suited to a Pat Robertson or Jimmy Swagert than a Jewish movement. Becky may not think of herself as having views that originated in the US Christian right but talk of the temple of Jerusalem strikes me as something much more rooted in the end times thinking and bigotry of some Evangelical US sects than anything really Jeiwish in origin.

Look, you unfortunately seem incapable of separating your own opinion from some of the Jewish Temple advocates' opinions, motives or from facts/reality, hence you make statements like "to even talk about tearing down one of the most scared sites to Muslims using an excuse that has been around for thousands of years is a pretty blatant attempt to fan the flames of hatred in one of the most destructive ways imaginable.".
I can understand a position that charges those Jewish Temple advocates with an inadvertent effect of pouring fuel on an existing simmering religious pressure cooker volatile in the extreme, but accusing them all of deliberately feeding the fire is somewhat disingenuous. And I know for a fact that not all of them are looking to provoke Muslim sensibilities.

There is ample documented and photographed proof for the destruction of antiques I mentioned above on the Mount. It's not a matter of conjecture.

All that said, I'm not a Temple Mount Faithful member and believe most of their struggles are futile. Somehow they're deluding themselves that the next major earthquake that might destroy the mosques as well as the southern and eastern walls of the Mount in addition to damaging the Western Wall will usher in a golden opportunity for Israel to remove all Muslim presence from the Mount and enable the construction of the 3rd Temple. In reality, the Israeli govt. will simply allow the Muslim holy trust to rebuild the mosques. Indeed, there are numerous parallels between those Jews and Christian Evangelicals.

As for your claim that "using historical guilt to demonize a people or religion (or make claims for the destruction of their most scared of sites) is the type of thing that leads to the worst forms of attrocities", well, that's quite what actually occurred in the cases of the ancient "Shalom Al Yisrael" Jericho synagogue and Joseph's Tomb in Nablus when Palestinian Muslim mobs destroyed these ancient Jewish sites. Again, it's the Muslim side that has engaged in this sort of attitude and behavior, not the Jewish one. You're academically discussing the potential damage of Jewish fundamentalism, yet we must bear in mind that Muslim fundamentalism has actually wrought destruction on the ground. Seems to me -- and I'm probably not alone in this -- that most people aren't willing to admonish against Muslim desecration (violent at that) of Jewish holy sites as they would against mere extremist Jewish wishes to remove Muslim shrines in any way to rebuild Jewish ones.

>>>"there is this newfound crazyness about ... the land being robbed by the Muslims (rather than the Romans....) "<<<

I'm making this comment since you brought up ancient history and are being unjustifiably discriminatory in apportioning blame.

Hate to brake it to you, but the Land of Israel was overrun by Muslim invaders in the course of an aggressive, expansionist and imperialistic Muslim occupation in the 630s AD. They had no more legitimate business occupying historical Israel and heavily taxing the local Jews (and other locals) than the Romans had.

"most people aren't willing to admonish against Muslim desecration (violent at that) of Jewish holy sites as they would against mere extremist Jewish wishes to remove Muslim shrines in any way to rebuild Jewish ones."

That could be the case but I would guess it to be mainly economic and expectations related; one expects less of poor dictatorical countries.

But, there is a difference between worries over destruction of artifacts and worries over the destruction of the third holliest site to many Muslims that is still an operating mosque. Bamiyan was an attack on history and in terms of their history and art value one could claim it was worse than if the al Aqsa Mosque got destroyed. But there is an obvious difference which has to do with the number of people who still find the site sacred (and the number of people who live in the region who will be upset). Becky above tries to argue the site shouldnt be considered sacred but thats completely missing the danger of calling for the mosque's destruction (or actiing as if those calls dont fan the flames of hatred in the region).

"Hate to brake it to you, but the Land of Israel was overrun by Muslim invaders in the course of an aggressive, expansionist and imperialistic Muslim occupation in the 630s AD."

Sure but looking at any wave of people who took over the region at any point in history one can say the same thing (probably including the ancient Israelites). Why not condemn the Mongolian invasion of the Middle East that killed more people? Or the Crusades that explains much of the Christian population in Lebanon? Or for that matter the invasion of Europe by the Franks, Germans, Goths, Slavs etc.. I'm sure the Franks destroyed many sacred places of the Gauls (and Romans) but there is something strange about taking a modern conflict (and modern destruction of archeology) and then using the actions of groups hundreds of years ago to say "they did it too". In a modern context the Arab Invasions were horrible for those who stood in its way, but no more so than other mass migrations during the first melinium.

In terms of the strangeness of a focus on Muslim Arab invaders by present day Israelis rather than the Roman destruction of Israel I think that is completely modern. The Roman destruction was built into the religion as a great disaster wheras a focus on the Arab invasion is completely new (and probably somewhat related to the fact that before 1914 the Turkish invasion was of much more significance sice they still occupied the region) The Arab invasion of Jersulem resulted in destruction of buildings and the construction of the al Aqsa Mosque mosque but were there not other buildings (now considered of historical signficance) constrcuted by Romans, Crusaders and Turks? (and does one ever hear the Crusader castles of Lebanon questioned in terms of their historical value just because they were built by invaders) Wasnt the massacre of people by the Crusaders and Mongolians worse than any massacre ever carried out as a result of the Arab invasions? To rewrite history so all one sees is a crime by Muslims against Jews seems to be driven by a dislike for Muslims.

>>>"I would guess it to be mainly economic and expectations related; one expects less of poor dictatorical countries."<<<

It's not only the PA that was at fault for participating in and failing to prevent the destruction of two ancient Jewish holy sites and continued attempts to burn down Rachel's Tomb too. Muslim groups and individuals are just as much at fault for having engaged in these acts.
At any rate, to expect less of the PA cannot justify letting them off the hook as most people have been all too eager to do.

>>>"But, there is a difference between worries over destruction of artifacts and worries over the destruction of the third holliest site to many Muslims that is still an operating mosque."<<<

As far as religious Jewish sensibilities go, the Temple Mount's Jewish relics are just as holy as in a functioning site. The Mount is still considered Judaism's holiest site even though it's no longer operative.

Barring the issue of universally acknowledged artistic creations' art value, what has eluded you is that the Jewish relics on the Mount have immense historic value, not to mention their archaeological value.


CT: Hate to brake it to you, but the Land of Israel was overrun by Muslim invaders in the course of an aggressive, expansionist and imperialistic Muslim occupation in the 630s AD.

>>>"Sure but looking at any wave of people who took over the region at any point in history one can say the same thing (probably including the ancient Israelites). Why not condemn the Mongolian invasion of the Middle East that killed more people? etc. etc. "<<<

Not because you're wrong. Rather, I was trying to get the other Jew to see his error. He was the one ostensibly absolving the Muslims from guilt while insisting on Roman culpability, as if it were an "either-or" historical choice. I even suspect this wasn't lost on you. Am I forbidden from engaging the other guy debate?

>>>"In a modern context the Arab Invasions were horrible for those who stood in its way, but no more so than other mass migrations during the first melinium. "<<<

The Arab occupation was more than some mere migration. It was spearheaded by a military endeavor.

>>>"In terms of the strangeness of a focus on Muslim Arab invaders by present day Israelis rather than the Roman destruction of Israel I think that is completely modern."<<<

I'm not aware of a distinct obsession on the 7th century Arab occupation by Israelis.
Neglecting that part of the land's history altogether in favor of focusing on the destructive results of the Roman occupation in the first centuries AD would be mistaken. The Roman occupation's ravages certainly receive the attention they deserve. I don't see a problem here.

>>>"The Roman destruction was built into the religion as a great disaster wheras a focus on the Arab invasion is completely new "<<<

Does this really astound you? It wasn't the Arabs who razed the Temple and it wasn't the Arabs who killed upwards of 600,000 million Jews during the first and second Jewish revolts, i.e. within a period of 10 years combined.

>>>"Wasnt the massacre of people by the Crusaders and Mongolians worse than any massacre ever carried out as a result of the Arab invasions?"<<<

Obviously the Mongols and Crusaders topped the Arabs in massacres. However, the Muslim rule was the lengthiest and less benign to Jews than most fellows on the far Left are willing to admit (usually we hear these saccharin accounts of how the local Jews and Muslims got along all dandy before the Zionists arrived on the scene).

>>>"To rewrite history so all one sees is a crime by Muslims against Jews seems to be driven by a dislike for Muslims."<<<

That's probably correct. But I'm not in the business of rewriting history. I tend to get concerned when I notice folks engaging in history narration trying to exempt Muslims from historical wrongdoing and shift it onto the most convenient villain, as if it's always legitimate to point out wrongs committed by any party but never by a Muslim one.

The real count is 600,000 thousand Jews rather than "600,000 million Jews".

"the Muslim rule was the lengthiest and less benign to Jews than most fellows on the far Left are willing to admit"

There wasnt one period of Muslim control of the area and each invasion had its own characteristics. While the original Arab invasion, the Ottomans and the Mamluks were of the same religion one shouldnt paint them all with the same brush and treat it like a single historical time period. Even within each time period one has leaders who were bigots and leaders who treated minority religions better. While Muslim dynasties may have put down Jewish revolts at several points (Im curious which ones you are refering to with a 600,000 number since thats almost greater than the population in region that is now Israel in the early 1800s) they also put revolts down by other groups (like competing dynasties). If one is merely trying to state that nobody would want to go back to pre1800 conditions in any country in the world since discrimination and pogroms against minorities were bad everywhere beforet hen that would be one thing but there is a tendency to single out Muslim countries for blame.

" The Arab occupation was more than some mere migration. It was spearheaded by a military endeavor. "
Looking at any migration before the year 1000 can you explain the difference to me? Was the Visigoth migration into Europe an invasion or a migration? What about the movement of the Franks into what is now France, the movement of Lombards into Northern Italy....

" I'm not aware of a distinct obsession on the 7th century Arab occupation by Israelis. "
Perhaps you are just reacting in a way to say that things were not all great in the Middle East before Israel. But there does seem to be an obsession with the Arab invasion one sees in both your posts (you distinguish it as being not a mere migration as if it was somehow worse than other movements of people at that time or earlier) and most accounts of Israeli history. When Becky writes "If the Arabs really wanted peace, they would remove their mosque from the Temple Mount piece by piece (and rebuild it somewhere else) and return the Mount to the Jews so they can rebuild the third Temple." its framed in a way that makes it sound like the temple could have been easilly rebuilt if it hadnt been for that pesky Arab invasion that took the land from the Jews. But that was centuries after the temple was destroyed, the area wasnt controlled by Jews at the time of the Arab invasion. Framing things in a way where it was the Arab invasion and construction of the Al Aqsa mosque that was a crime gives the impression of a great environment before the invasion occured.

>>>"There wasnt one period of Muslim control of the area and each invasion had its own characteristics. While the original Arab invasion, the Ottomans and the Mamluks were of the same religion one shouldnt paint them all with the same brush and treat it like a single historical time period. Even within each time period one has leaders who were bigots and leaders who treated minority religions better."<<<

Agreed, 100%.

>>>"If one is merely trying to state that nobody would want to go back to pre1800 conditions in any country in the world since discrimination and pogroms against minorities were bad everywhere beforet hen that would be one thing but there is a tendency to single out Muslim countries for blame."<<<

Not by me. If the Crusaders would be at discussed at length and in detail, you'd find me blaming the Crusaders for ill treatment of Jews.

CT: The Arab occupation was more than some mere migration. It was spearheaded by a military endeavor.

>>>"Looking at any migration before the year 1000 can you explain the difference to me?"<<<

Take the Jewish migrations, regardless of scope. They had no military character to speak of. Being the oddball nation, people all too often forget to even look at the Jews in the context of certain historical phenomena for examples of exceptional behavior.

CT: I'm not aware of a distinct obsession on the 7th century Arab occupation by Israelis.

>>>"Perhaps you are just reacting in a way to say that things were not all great in the Middle East before Israel. But there does seem to be an obsession with the Arab invasion one sees in both your posts (you distinguish it as being not a mere migration as if it was somehow worse than other movements of people at that time or earlier) and most accounts of Israeli history."<<<

Wrong on both counts.
I emphasize the Arab occupation when it's contextually appropriate and as a counterbalance to other debaters' lacking narratives so that the historical picture encompasses all the necessary info.


In closing, I'm not Becky's umbudsman or spokesman.

"Growing up Jewish I dont remember a call to take back Jerusalem and make it a religious capital for Judaism. It always struck me as being more related to myths about end times and just a traditional saying rather than a Jewish form of a call for a Crusade to take back the temple. The sad part of this whole thing is that while most of those who founded Israel saw it as a refugee for Jews that happened to be in the historical location of ancient Israel there is this newfound crazyness about rebuilding the temple and the land being robbed by the Muslims (rather than the Romans....) It seems the type of end times crazyness more suited to a Pat Robertson or Jimmy Swagert than a Jewish movement. Becky may not think of herself as having views that originated in the US Christian right but talk of the temple of Jerusalem strikes me as something much more rooted in the end times thinking and bigotry of some Evangelical US sects than anything really Jeiwish in origin."

This is a most excellent comment. What's really going on with this "rebuild the Temple" crap is that Jewish Zionists have recognized the immense electoral power possessed by apocalyptic Christian Zionists in the United States, and have realized that by pandering to their 'End Times' theology they can align that power with their own interests, and that's all this Temple nonsense really is. So now since they have this gigantic U.S. voting block of Bible whackos eating out of their hands, they have every American politician's balls in a vice, also. This is why no U.S. politician ever says shit about Israel, even the ones who needn't worry about AIPAC's clout (few and far between). This shift you've noticed in Temple doctrine is a definitive example of Jewish Zionist political calculation, pure and simple. It also represents a disturbing subtext of ALL religious doctrine, i.e. social engineering and mass manipulation for completely unenlightened purposes.

Now observe as the incredibly duplicitous Becky "Bullshit" Johnson and Critical (har!) Thinker try to twist it into something else. There's three things you need to keep in mind about these clowns:

1) they lie

2) THEY LIE

3) THEY. LLIIIIE !!!!!!

You could be demanding the truth from them while slicing their balls/tits off with an electric arc, and they'd just keep screaming out lies the whole time, even in their most extreme panic. Lies are their idea of "truth." Along with their Bible whacko friends, these two are a grave symptom of an extremely sick Western world.

As I understand the story of Jacob's Ladder, in the Torah, Jacob fears he will not survive a night of sleeping out of doors on top of a mount. Using a rock for a pillow, he prays to God, that if he survives the night, he shall return and build a temple to God on the exact spot.

During the night he dreams/sees angels arriving down a glowing ladder and reassuring him that God has heard his prayer. All will be well.

At least, that's how I remember the Lutherans telling it.

The whole "end times" thing regarding the Temple, is that when the Messiah comes he will return the third Temple to its former glory. All people will be returned to their homelands (or perhaps have homelands to return to?) The Lion shall lie down with the lamb and world peace will finally come to stay.

Sounds good to me.
I've even got the Purina Lion's Chow. Lots of it.

Its my understanding that there has always been a strong desire and even a calling to rebuild the temple. Right now, the only thing stopping the Orthodox Jews from doing so, is the Al Aqsa Mosque.

Let me be very clear here. I am NOT advocating any group other than the Arab Wakf, which administers the Mount to make the decision to remove it. None the less, it doesn't belong there, any more than the Christian Church underneath it. Orthodox Jews have always prayed for the day when the third temple is built. The Israelis had their chance in 1967 when they took over the mount with military force.

Jews hadn't been allowed to go to their most sacred site for 19 years of Jordanian occupation. Excited Jews ran to the Western Wall, eager to be at the holiest of all Jewish sites, only to find the Jordanians had piled manure there!!

Some wanted to take over the mount then. But it was Israeli military generals who insisted that the Arab Muslim Imans who had been administering the Al Aqsa mosque be allowed continued control.

Perhaps they were worried about giving the Arabs a rallying point to come back and attack. Perhaps they thought, after such an incisive victory, they could negotiate a fair settlement. Perhaps is was just a Jewish tendency to go overboard to accomodate anothers feelings. I don't know.
In any case, despite Israel's superior military strength relative to the Palestinian military, it has not dismantled the Islamic mosque and begun building the third temple out of greater respect for Islam's third most holy site than it has for its own first most holy site.

So should every modern building all over the modern world be torn down because at one time or another something else was built there? This is one of the reasons that the refugees should not be allowed to return into Israel proper becaus their homes and land now have Jewish buildings, homes etc. So since this Mosque has been there for many many years it should be allowed to remain and at some point become part of the Palestinian State. A Grand Temple can be built anywhere inside Israel Proper....and praying from this Temple would mean more to God then Praying from a spot that was obtained through so much blood shed.....I believe God is more for Peace then he is for War.....
Should the many Properties inside Israel be torn down because at one time an Arab resident or business was there?
Time marches on and we need to adjust to the way things are in the present and not try to live in the past...

Because given their abysmal record of conduct toward Jewish holy sites, the Palestinians cannot be trusted to allow Jews daily access to the Mount. The Mount had been closed to Jews 3 years since the intifada's outbreak. Enough is enough. The Palestinians don't deserve more opportunities to deprive Jewish access to the Mount.

Building another Temple, regardless of where, isn't in the cards and will probably never be. The vast majority of Orthodox Jewry objects to building another Temple prior to the Messiah's arrival; and the psychology of the ultra-Orthodox groups actually ensures they'll never recognize any earthly person as the Messiah. (of course, Jewish history has seen its fair share of charismatic Jews who swept many followers into the belief they're the Messiah, only to meet horrendous failure. Therefore -- and given the reality of a worldwide Global Village -- this phenomenon is very unlikely to recur.) See? It boils down to a pure logical deduction.

At an absolute most, should a major earthquake destroy the mosques, the Israeli government will dispatch archaeologists to pick the Mount clean of antiques and relics prior to entrusting the Waqf with rebuilding the al-Aqsa and Dome of the Rock.

Aside from the above issues, there's probably one remaining outstanding matter: whether or not Jews who do ascend the Mount may pray. I haven't checked, but I sure hope the visiting arrangements for Jews instilled in 2003 allow them to conduct prayer services atop the Mount, so long as they stay clear of the Mosques themselves.