Appreciate this article? +972 depends on your support -- click here to help us keep going

Analysis News

Future Member of Knesset for Jewish Home party: 'Dome of Rock doesn't belong there' (WATCH)

I posted a video Friday showing Jeremy Gimpel, number 14 on Naftali Bennett’s Jewish Home list to the next Knesset, talking about the Dome of Rock being “blown up.” It wasn’t a gaffe: Here is Gimpel explaining in a radio show why the Dome of Rock – the holiest site for Muslims in the land – simply “doesn’t belong where it is.” According to Gimpel, even God wanted us to realize this. Watch:

Related
WATCH: Candidate from Jewish Home party wants Dome of the Rock blown up
+972 Magazine’s Israeli election page

For additional original analysis and breaking news, visit +972 Magazine's Facebook page or follow us on Twitter. Our newsletter features a comprehensive round-up of the week's events. Sign up here.

View article: AAA
Share article
Print article
  • COMMENTS

    1. rsgengland

      The Dome of the Rock may be the holiest place for Muslims in Israel, but why is it so holy.
      Jerusalem(or any name relating to it)is not mentioned in the Koran.
      It is the place where Mohammed is supposed to have leapt to heaven on his horse.
      There is not much evidence to make the Domes location signify Jerusalem’s importance to Islam.
      Yet in the Jewish Bible it is mentioned over 600 times, as the center of the Jewish Faith.
      This is not to say the Dome has not acquired the importance it has in Islam over the centuries, only that it needs to be viewed in the perspective of Judaism as well.

      Reply to Comment
      • aristeides

        O, the persistence of disinformation! No matter how often the Zionists repeat it, they are wrong. al-Quds is definitely mentioned in the Quran. Surah 17.1.

        Reply to Comment
        • aristeides

          Correction – al-Aqsa is the term used in that verse, not al-Quds.

          Reply to Comment
          • XYZ

            As you point out, Jerusalem is not mentioned by name. It is not clear that “Al-Aqsa” is referring to Jerusalem.

            Reply to Comment
          • joe

            I have no dogs in this fight. No reason to support Jews in their aspirations for ‘Temple Mount’ nor the Muslims just because they happen to have their building currently erected on the disputed land. There are no winners here.

            Reply to Comment
          • aristeides

            Oh, it’s very clear, except for those who deny it for political reasons.

            Reply to Comment
    2. Dag Kar

      Two nutcases talking to each other, and one of them’s going to be an MK next week.
      Pretty terrifying.

      Reply to Comment
    3. Danny

      The dome of the rock is probably one of the most beautiful and iconic buildings in Jerusalem. It is perhaps the one structure that most people around the world recognize and identify with the city. Its importance to Israel’s tourism as an historical and religious icon is beyond measure. It will continue to grace Jerusalem’s sky line long after Naftali Bennet and his “Jewish Home” are gone.

      Reply to Comment
      • JennieS

        I can only hope you are right Danny.

        Reply to Comment
      • The Trespasser

        >It is perhaps the one structure that most people around the world recognize and identify with the city

        Which is very bad. The structure was built by illegal occupier in violation of religious feeling of original worshipers of the place.

        >Its importance to Israel’s tourism

        It has zero importance to Israel’s tourism, never had and won’t have in foreseeable future – al-Quds is not listed in Hajj destinations.

        Reply to Comment
        • Danny

          It must really suck to be you. I mean, here you are – a messianic nut dreaming of building skyscraper temples – and all you will ever have to console you is that cheesy model of the temple in the Holiland amusement park. Too bad!
          .
          Even Nephtali Bennet wouldn’t dream of starting a war with 1.5 billion muslims. He’s an immoral settler thief, not a crazed lunatic (at least, he doesn’t give me the impression of one).
          .
          So continue to enjoy the Holiland park!

          Reply to Comment
          • The Trespasser

            >I mean, here you are – a messianic nut dreaming of building skyscraper temples

            Dude, you are hallucinating.

            Reply to Comment
        • ruth

          “was built by illegal occupier in violation of religious feeling of original worshipers of the place.”:
          The illegal occupier is you and the US citizens that arrived on this land with a colonial and messianic approach.
          The natives can never be “illegal occupiers”.
          I know that for you and your ideologic approach is difficult to accept: you are the foreigner that came from another continent, not them.
          First you will accept this, better you and the people that you try to oppress will live.

          Reply to Comment
          • The Trespasser

            >The illegal occupier is you and the US citizens that arrived on this land with a colonial and messianic approach.

            By what law exactly Jewish migrants into Palestine could be considered “illegal” until, say, 1948?

            >The natives can never be “illegal occupiers”.

            What is your definition of “native”?
            How many generations should live on the same spot for a person to be considered native?

            Two simple questions, yet hereby I do predict that you won’t ever answer them.

            Reply to Comment
    4. XYZ

      Dag Kar-Cold Fish:

      All Jews who accept Jewish tradition believe the Beit HaMikdash (Holy Temple) in Jerusalem will eventually be rebuilt on the site of the Har Habayit. The Beit Hamikdash, as is made clear in the Bible, can only be built within a context of Israel being at peace with its neighbors and with an internal concensus within the Jewish people for having it. Thus, it can not be rebuilt under current circumstances. However, we all aspire and have confidence that it will indeed be rebuilt in the future, and the Muslims will agree to it. This is the mainline Orthodox Jewish position. If this makes us “nutcases” in your eyes, so be it. But it is no more being a nutcase than David Ben-Gurion was when he arrived as a young man in Eretz Israel around 1905 and he announced he was planning on building a Jewish state when there was only something like 80,000 Jews in the country and they were outnumbered by non-Jews something like 9 to 1.

      Reply to Comment
    5. LCHZ

      Danny:

      No, no, that’s cool. Just deny the ultimate redemption of the Jewish people so the tourist bureau can make an extra shekel. But if you want to stick with your line of reasoning, why don’t we build the Beit HaMikdash? As you hear in the video, it will be three times taller. That means hotels, restaurants and rooftops can expand to be farther out, increasing the amount of real estate that is valuable for its view of the Temple Mount. In addition, in the Beit HaMikdash all people are allowed to pray (contrary to the situation now) so that will open up the doors to people of all faiths who want to pray at the actual holiest site for them. And finally, the Shalosh Rigalim (Three Holidays) for the Jews come along with the Beit HaMikdash. On those three week-long festivals, every Jew must enter Jerusalem. That means hotels, restaurants, and vendors will see unheard of amounts of business. But only with a Beit HaMikdash. Think about it.

      Reply to Comment
    6. Noam, I think a headline along the lines of “Former English Language Talk Radio Host Broadcasting from Israel soon to be a MK” would have said it all.

      Reply to Comment
    7. meron

      RSGENGLAND&co,
      The mosque of al-Aqsa is certainly the result of an interpretation. However, I wonder what difference it makes if Jerusalem is explicitly mentioned or not. Everything is an interpretation. Many academics, especially Israelis, have shown that the exodus of the Jewish people in
      Egypt is full of distortions, often inventions. This does not change anything for Jewish believers.
      You continue to believe to your myths as well as other people continue to believe
      in theirs. It is not a matter of facts, but of believing. A billion and a half Muslims
      believe in the the night journey of their Prophet towards their
      Jerusalem. This is what counts, unless you don’t want to analyze the veridicity of
      all the events mentioned in the sacred books of the three monotheistic religions to find historical evidence. If so, you would be very disappointed.
      .
      The same is true about the exodus and many other Jewish myths. But no one force you to admit that most of these things are just inventions. Proven inventions, as the “read sea” and the “reed sea”

      Reply to Comment
      • The Trespasser

        >A billion and a half Muslims
        believe in the the night journey of their Prophet towards their
        Jerusalem. This is what counts.

        Basically what you are saying is that enough Jews would believe that Israel should be from Niles to Euphrates than it counts [and Jews are free to proceed].

        Or that since enough Nazis believed that exterminating Jews would benefit the mankind, that surely counts.

        You are so incredibly full of it. rofl.

        How old are you? 15-16?

        Reply to Comment
        • meron

          Trespasser,
          “Basically what you are saying is that enough Jews would believe that Israel should be from Niles to Euphrates than it counts [and Jews are free to proceed]“:
          uncorrect and provocative. First because the “promised borders” are different according to the “holy books”: different passages say different things.
          Second only few extremists (like you?) believe that Israel should be from “Niles to Euphrates”: something that would be ridicolous, in consideration of the fact that the Jews were in such region just one of dozens of different populations.
          .
          “Or that since enough Nazis believed that exterminating Jews would benefit the mankind, that surely counts”:
          to bring up Nazism is always useful. This sentence shows quite good your cultural and mental level.
          .
          Jewish history contains many boundaries for the land of Israel. The first boundaries – promised, but not realized – were those of the Patriarchs, and they established the Jordan River as a frontier. Later books of the Bible (Deuteronomy, Joshua) describe a border extending to the eastern side and Saul’s kingdom of the eleventh century B.C.E. included the non-desert parts of today’s Jordan. So did King David’s domains. In contrast, territory under Jewish control in the twelfth century B.C.E. ended at the river, as it did during much of the Second Commonwealth.

          Whatever the situation on the ground, Jewish tradition clearly distinguished between areas of historical Jewish habitation and the land of the Covenant as defined in the Bible. Only the latter, more circumscribed, area is “the land of milk and honey,” the subject of God’s promise to Israel. The Torah (Numbers 34:1-12) makes it clear in its most exact specification of the boundaries of the land of the Covenant that the Jordan River is the eastern limit of Eretz Yisrael: “And the border shall go down and strike against the slope of the Sea of Kineret eastward; and the border shall go down to the Jordan, and the goings out thereof shall be at the Salt Sea.” This explains why Moses’ death on Mount Nevo, in today’s Jordan, was viewed as a punishment. It is also revealing that God imposed conditions on the two tribes (Reuben and Gad) that inherited land on the eastern side of the river.Each of these points implies a lesser status for the eastern side of the Jordan.

          Outside the Jewish tradition, there is a broader political history to consider. Palestine was administered in a myriad of divisions under the Babylonians, Persians, Ptolomies, Seleucids and Romans, sometimes combining east and west sides, sometimes not. To take Roman times as an example, the Jordan River initially formed a boundary; after 66 C.E. it did not. Conversely, the first Jewish revolt extended beyond the Jordan, the second ended at the river.

          The Romans introduced the word Palestine as a way to expunge the name Judea from the map – a punishment for the Bar Kochba rebellion suppressed in 135 C.E. Naming the region after the Philistine residents of the coast, they called it Palaestina. But a new name did not slow down the constant redistricting. In 284 the southern part of the Roman province of Arabia was added to Palaestina; in 358 territory east and south of the Dead Sea were separated and called Palaestina Salutaris. Shortly thereafter, Palaestina Primera (capital: Caeserea) and Palaestina Secunda (capital: Scythopolis, the modern Beit Shean) came into being. Palaestina Salutaris was renamed Palaestina Tertia (capital: Petra). The Jordan River did not divide these regions.

          When the Arabs conquered the area in 634, they inherited and kept the Roman divisions for over three centuries, so their provinces too straddled the river.During the Crusades, the Jordan River did for the most part divide Palestine from Muslim territory. In Mamluk times (1250-1516), the land’s administrative boundaries changed again, with the river serving as a boundary in the north, but not in the south.The Ottomans (1516-1918) initially left the Mamluk divisions in place, but then made a series of changes that increased the role of the river as a boundary.

          Not only did the border to-and-fro during Roman and Muslim rule, but Palestine never constituted a single political unit between the fall of the Second Jewish Commonwealth in 68 C.E. and 1917 – with the one exception of the Crusades. Therefore, it is nonsense to speak of “historic” Palestine as if it were a single long-standing polity. Palestine lived in the hearts of those who loved it, and that was in a realm without boundaries. In medieval Europe, for example, “Palestine” referred to that area occupied by the Hebrews before the Diaspora, but since this area had changed size many times, the definition implied no precise boundaries on a map.
          http://www.danielpipes.org/298/is-jordan-palestine

          Reply to Comment
          • The Trespasser

            Dude, you said that
            >A billion and a half Muslims
            believe in the the night journey of their Prophet towards their
            Jerusalem. This is what counts.

            Which (supposedly) means that if a large enough group of people believes that something is right than so it is. You own words.

            But when I’m replacing Muslims with Jews it all of the sudden becomes ” uncorrect and provocative”

            You see, the fact is that Jerusalem is not mentioned in Quran even once.

            “The farthest holy place” is not an address by any standard.

            Besides that, there is not one single mosque where qibla points towards Jerusalem – only towards Mecca and another ancient location, which one you’ll have to discover yourself.

            Reply to Comment
          • meron

            Trespasser,
            “Which (supposedly) means that if a large enough group of people believes that something is right than so it is”: it is not a matter of being “right”. A big percentage of things in which you believe are total bullshit. The same happen with Christians and Muslims. In as much as you don’t try to harm or to destroy the religious symbols of the other (not the alleged religious symbols of thousands of years ago but the one of today) you are free to continue to believe to all your myths as the other will continue to believe in theirs

            Reply to Comment
          • The Trespasser

            Before you’ve claimed that if a sufficiently large group of people believes in some myth – that’s what counts and they have all rights to do as they please accordingly to their belief.

            Now you are claiming that they only have such right if they are not hurting others’ myths.

            Now, that makes a huge load of nonsense.

            Make up your mind – you can’t have it both ways.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gearoid

            Not to disagree too heavily, but archaeology doesn’t support even the smallest of the Biblical borders.

            There doesn’t seem to be any point where the United Monarchy exists (the existence of it’s individual monarchs is not known, only David is know extra-biblically, and that is from a stele centuries later that is disputed). The territory of the kingdom of Israel did seem to expand at one point, at the expense of Aram-Damascus and city-states along the coast, though the exact boundaries are hard to suggest (though the ruling class was Hebrew, Israel was a multi-ethnic and multi-religious state. Much of the population under it’s rule seems to have kept the same material culture, distinct from the Hebrew material culture, without too much influence).

            Judah never controlled nearly as much territory as it suggests, and as some have argued (Finklestein is the best know I believe) the Biblical narrative serves the desires and needs of 7th century Judah as it finally becomes a full fledged state and tries to expand/enforce it’s rule over the former kingdom of Israel and others. But for most of it’s existence it was fairly small, mostly in the highlands around Jerusalem and parts of the Beer Sheba valley. They controlled the Shephelah off and on, but frequently lost the region to the city states of the coast.

            So the ancient states didn’t even control what is now Israel and the West Bank, let alone any area beyond it. In the times periods afterwards I have no dispute with your statement.

            Also, I’d just like to point out my design is not to try and “disprove” Jewish history, but to state the findings of archaeology.

            Reply to Comment
          • The Trespasser

            Archeology is certainly the worst enemy of religion.

            Interesting, what Muslims are hiding beneath the Temple Mount ?…

            Reply to Comment
    8. ruth

      Jeremy Gimpel belongs to the US, while the Dome of the rock is the most beautiful and powerful image of this city.
      Gimpel please go back from where you came from.

      Reply to Comment
      • XYZ

        The “beautiful” Dome of the Rock was built as a triumphalist attempt to eradicate the pre-existing Jewish Beit Hamikdash that stood there in order to trumpet Islam’s imperialist aggression that lead to the conquest of the country. Now, I am willing to accept a “live-and-let-live” approach where I recognize that it is a Muslim holy place, but they should also recognize it as a Jewish holy place WHICH THEY REFUSE TO DO. Barak was willing to hand over control of the site to Arafat at Camp David in return for a modest request that he sign a paper saying that he recognizes that it is also a Jewish holy site. He adamantly refused. Thus, if you want to send someone away, maybe you should suggest that intolerant Muslims who do not believe in religous pluralism go back to where THEY came from…to Arabia.

        Reply to Comment
        • Philos

          XYZ, totally and utterly incorrect. Palestine was not conquered from the Christian Byzantine Empire because of the Jews and what stood on the “Beit Hamikdash” was a Christian basillica which was converted from the old temple dedicated to Jupiter that Hadrian built on the site of the destroyed Jewish temple. Perhaps, it was constructed as “triumphalist” but triumphalism over the Christian Byzantines who were the Arab’s enemies before they became Muslim. And again their triumphalist gesture is no different than the triumphalist gesture of the ancient Israelite’s erecting their temple on the site of the Caananite holy site, followed by the triumphalist erection of the Roman temple, then the basillica and then the mosque.
          .
          Interestingly, right before the Muslim invasion of Palestine the Byzantines had just put down the last Jewish rebellion in the territory with the instructions: convert or die. The majority of the Jews converted to Christianity. Then along came the Muslims with much the same offer. And these converts from Judaism to Christianity to Islam are the indigineous people of the land known as Palestinians today but used to be called Hebrews, Jews and Israelites. Unfortunately, in spite of the archaeological, genetic and demographic evidence in support of this theory it totally contradicts the Zionist and Palestinian narratives….

          Reply to Comment
          • The Trespasser

            >And these converts from Judaism to Christianity to Islam are the indigineous people of the land known as Palestinians today but used to be called Hebrews, Jews and Israelites.

            Not exactly.

            Palestinian Arabs are divided into somewhat distinct groups, of which known to me are Negev Bedouins, Gaza Arabs, Jaffa Arabs, Hebron Mountains Arabs, Northern Bedouins and Druze.

            What makes these groups distinct? Ancestry. Bedouins and Druze claim to be direct descendants of tribes from Arabia, while Jaffa and Hebron Arabs indeed appear to be descendants of Arabised Jews, Byzantines, Crusaders and what not, while Gazans rather surely have some Philistine blood running in their veins.

            >Unfortunately, in spite of the archaeological, genetic and demographic evidence in support of this theory it totally contradicts the Zionist and Palestinian narratives…

            Until circa 1948 everyone who resided in Palestine was Palestinian. Accordingly to 1922 Mandate, Jews arriving to Palestine were supposed to became citizens of Palestinian state.

            The problem became irreversible with the Palestinian charter of 1964

            “Article 6: The Palestinians are those Arab citizens who were living normally in Palestine up to 1947″

            Extremely racist article. A major obstacle to any coexistence.

            Reply to Comment
          • ruth

            Yes, very racist:-)
            While on the contrary the fact that any jew from NY or Amsterdam can come in this land having right away more rights than a person whu is from here is not racist but a flexible and fair policy: you look like a joke, are you aware of it?

            Reply to Comment
          • The Trespasser

            Since persons who are from here had willingly chosen to forfeit all and any citizenship rights it is only fair that they are being treated as outlaws.

            Reply to Comment
          • meron

            trespasser as usual you are funny:-)

            Reply to Comment
          • The Trespasser

            To people with certain mental impairment, yes.

            Reply to Comment
        • meron

          “Dome of the Rock was built as a triumphalist attempt to eradicate the pre-existing Jewish Beit Hamikdash”:
          not at all. history did not start with the Jews. As Oded Balaban wrote, the Solomon Temple “was probably built upon the ruins of an older Canaanite temple [dedicated to the supreme Canaanite god, Baal], just as the Aksa Mosque was built upon the ruins of Solomon’s Temple”. O. BALABAN, Interpreting conflict, Lang, New York 2005, p. 68.
          .
          “they should also recognize it as a Jewish holy place”:
          yes, so you can start to steal, using again religion in a selective way, also that last piece of land as you did in every eanch of the Pal Territories.
          .
          “go back to where THEY came from…to Arabia”:
          they didn’t come from Arabia, and in case they arrived more than 1300 years ago and NOT in the last few years like Gimpel and most of the people on this and other sites.
          .
          Btw, no one stole anything. The population was simply Arabized. You trespasser and Kolumn repeat always the same things as if you don’t have enough knowledge about the argument. In the words of Maxime Rodinson:
          “A foreign people had come and imposed itself on a native population. The Arab population of Palestine were native in all the usual senses of that word. Ignorance, sometimes backed up by hypocritical propaganda, has spread a number of misconceptions on this subject, unfortunately very widely held. It has been said that since the Arabs took the country by military conquest in the seventh century, they are occupiers like any other, like the Romans, the Crusaders and the Turks. Why therefore should they be regarded as any more native than the others, and in particular than the Jews, who were native to that country in ancient times, or at least occupiers of longer standing? To the historian the answer is obvious. A small contingent of Arabs from Arabia did indeed conquer the country in the seventh century. But as a result of factors which were briefly outlined in the first chapter of this book, the Palestinian population soon became Arabized under Arab domination, just as earlier it had been Hebraicized, Aramaicized, to some degree even Hellenized. It became Arab in a way that it was never to become Latinized or Ottomanized. The invaded melted with the invaders. It is ridiculous to call the English of today invaders and occupiers, on the grounds that England was conquered from Celtic peoples by the Angles, Saxons and Jutes in the fifth and sixth centuries. The population was “Anglicized” and nobody suggests that the peoples which have more or less preserved the Celtic tongues – the Irish, the Welsh or the Bretons – should be regarded as the true natives of Kent or Suffolk, with greater titles to these territories than the English who live in those counties.”
          .

          Reply to Comment
          • Kolumn9

            The dome of the rock was built where it was because it was on top of Solomon’s Jewish Temple. That Jews prayed to Jerusalem was also the reason for the Muslims to pray to Jerusalem in the first place before switching the direction to prayer 13 years later when god changed his mind.

            Also, given the history you provide you should have no problem with a military conquest of territory whatsoever. You keep saying ‘arabized’ leaving aside the reason why that happened – an Arab military conquest, a system of oppression of non-Muslims, a system for the promotion of those that convert to Islam and adopt Arabic as their language, and the free ingress of other Arab tribes into the territory at the expense of the local population. You also ignore the large number of invasions that left the land of Israel basically depopulated with the local population being replaced by immigrants from other parts of the Arab/Muslim world. Given the vast population movements and distortions throughout history into the region under Muslim/Arab control going back to the 7th century the only way you can grant the Arabs ‘native’ status is by presuming that the land belongs to Arab/Muslim culture and so anyone of that culture is a native. By doing so of course you present an exclusive claim to the land which relegates anyone that isn’t Arab/Muslim to guest status a priori. This is known as nativism and looked down upon in the ‘civilized’ west.

            Reply to Comment
          • meron

            Kolumn,
            “The dome of the rock was built where it was because it was on top of Solomon’s Jewish Temple”: assuming that you are right, you have to add that the Temple was built upon the ruins of an older Canaanite temple dedicated to the supreme Canaanite god, Baal. This means that history does not start from where you want. Even less, this means that you can think to support the destruction of Al Aqsa because few thousands years ago there was probably something else on it. Or if you really want to do it, first you have to fight so that hundreds of thousands of Palestinians can go back to their houses, from which they were expelled (or that in other cases they left for few days or weeks)
            .
            “‘arabized’ leaving aside the reason why that happened – an Arab military conquest, a system of oppression of non-Muslims, a system for the promotion of those that convert to Islam and adopt Arabic as their language”:
            You speak about things that you barely know.
            Not by chance until the beginning of the eleventh century the majority of the population in Palestine (but also in Egypt, Syria and other areas) remained predominantly Christian, this confirms that the Islamic religion was not imposed on the local population. The Arabic language entered in place long before the Islamic religion.
            .
            In the rest of your post, beside putting as usual your thoughts in my mouth, you don’t address or you misunderstood the topic. I try again:

            “It has been said that since the Arabs took the country by military conquest in the seventh century, they are occupiers like any other, like the Romans, the Crusaders and the Turks. Why therefore should they be regarded as any more native than the others, and in particular than the Jews, who were native to that country in ancient times, or at least occupiers of longer standing? To the historian the answer is obvious. A small contingent of Arabs from Arabia did indeed conquer the country in the seventh century. But as a result of factors which were briefly outlined in the first chapter of this book, the Palestinian population soon became Arabized under Arab domination, just as earlier it had been Hebraicized, Aramaicized, to some degree even Hellenized. It became Arab in a way that it was never to become Latinized or Ottomanized. The invaded melted with the invaders. It is ridiculous to call the English of today invaders and occupiers, on the grounds that England was conquered from Celtic peoples by the Angles, Saxons and Jutes in the fifth and sixth centuries. The population was “Anglicized” and nobody suggests that the peoples which have more or less preserved the Celtic tongues – the Irish, the Welsh or the Bretons – should be regarded as the true natives of Kent or Suffolk, with greater titles to these territories than the English who live in those counties.”
            .

            Reply to Comment
          • Kolumn9

            The reason why they built their temple up there is because it is holy to the Jews. It doesn’t particular matter where history started, and unless you wish for it to start at the point where the mosque was built up there you have to respect the traditions of those that had held it holy prior to them, which at present is the Jews. As such I don’t really understand the problem with Jeremy Gimple stating that the site is holy and that he one day as a religious Jew believes that the Temple will be rebuilt. If does seem like you should be however arguing with the Muslims who make an exclusive claim for the Temple Mount, again, unless you wish to start history at the point where the mosques were built.

            The demographics of the land of Israel in the 11th century are unknown. There are minimal sources. I know this because I did research into it while determining Crusader-native relations in the 11th century. There were certainly still some Christians there, but it doesn’t flow from that they were not oppressed. I do really like your cut-off of the 11th century though since precisely in that century there was an attempt by the Fatimids to forcibly convert non-Muslims to Islams. The Ottomans later did likewise to the Samaritans in the 17th century where they killed or converted the vast majority. Regardless of the time period, even outside of the periods of forced conversions the system of government most certainly discriminated against Christians, Jews and Samaritans and rewarded conversion, so whether you call even this ‘peaceful’ or not there was a consistent program of coerced conversion and acculturation. As for Arabic, again your point is questionable. It isn’t at all clear at what point Arabic became the dominant language, but it is entirely obvious that it became the dominant language as a result of the Arabic dominated system of government put in place by the conquest of the territory by the Arab tribes. The supposed ‘nativeness’ of Arabic is also not exactly absolute since Aramaic is not dead and was very much alive in the region until recently.

            Then there are the massacres that were carried out by the Romans, Persians, Jews, Mongols, the Crusaders, Muslims, Fatimids, Ottomans and the repopulations that followed. Then there were the quite real movements of peoples during the Ottoman and Mandatory periods which you admit have taken place. So, the argument that the current Palestinian population is the permanent persistent native population going back thousands of years is pretty naive and selective at best. As such you are only left with abstractions and generalizations which ignore all these movements by granting exclusive ‘native’ status to Arabs/Muslims and anyone who settled here under their rule and pretending that this was some kind of voluntary situation.

            I have done plenty of my research of my own to not be particularly concerned by the quote you have selectively posted.

            Reply to Comment
    9. Yaron

      I am reading Montefiore’s biography of Jerusalem. I am at around page 60 and you won’t believe how many times that temple was conquered, reconquered, sacrified, desacrified, built up again, destroyed again, etc. The two ‘great destructions’ were just the highlights in a never ending string of wars through the cause of a couple of hundreds of years. Every event was beautified with the killing of thousands of (innocent?) people. I guess these crazy men just want to add another bloody chapter to this book…

      Reply to Comment
    10. Kolumn9

      I don’t understand the problem. Was someone expecting a religious Jew to reject the idea that someday the temple will be rebuilt? Of course religious Jews believe that the temple will one day be rebuilt on the Temple Mount. That is the major component of the Jewish idea of redemption and has been such for thousands of years. I mean I know some people are offended by religion in general, but it seems there is very little tolerance for Jewish beliefs compared to those of the Muslims.

      Reply to Comment
      • ruth

        “I mean I know some people are offended by religion in general, but it seems there is very little tolerance for Jewish beliefs compared to those of the Muslims”:
        Yes, very little tolerance. Poor people, they have all the right to dream to destroy the Dome of the Rock. The Palestinians have to give up the chance to go back to their houses, but these poor people have all the right to keep dreaming the distruction of the Dome of the Rock.
        This conflict will last forever. With people like you the Pals have only the chance to resist with all their strenght.

        Reply to Comment
        • The Trespasser

          >This conflict will last forever

          Yes. Arabs are not seem to agree that Jews have a right for own state.

          >With people like you the Pals have only the chance to resist with all their strength.

          Just make sure they are not running out of virgins. Scarce resource it is these days, even on heaven.

          Reply to Comment
        • Kolumn9

          Great. Let the Muslims then abandon the significance they have for the Temple Mount and we can have a discussion on neutral ground. Until then you demand that Jews unilaterally abandon their religious convictions in the interests of ‘peace’ while you are unlikely to make the same demand of Muslims.

          Reply to Comment
    11. The Dome of the Rock on the Temple Mount now symbolizes the impossibility of mandated exclusive religious redemption. A single pathway to a single God forces the destruction of outsiders. The Dome is there, as Palestinians are in the West Bank. Those who want the Dome demolished mostly, I suspect, want the Bank residents to vanish. God has given us a zen koan: everybody is unique, but uniqueness doesn’t travel to others. What do you say/do?

      Both faiths will have to change in struggle with a past they cannot give up. So too will the combined residents of “Greater Israel/Palestine.”

      Reply to Comment
      • XYZ

        Since you oppose religious exclusivity then I presume you support the right of Jews to pray on the Temple Mount and oppose the Muslim prohibition of it?

        Reply to Comment
        • meron

          XYZ (trespasser/kolumn),
          If Israel would not continue to steal on a daily bases what remains in Palestinian hands – or If there would not be around people like Trespasser and Kolumn that hope for the destruction of Al Aqsa – I do believe that would not be a problem.
          Many Israelis, out of ignorance, speak for example about “Muslim intolerance” in regard to the access to the Western Wall during Jordanian rule.
          Actually that refusal of access, which lasted twenty years, didn’t have any Muslim motivation, as Jews had been given free access to Jerusalem in the previous twelve centuries of Muslim rule of the city, while the same access was forbidden under Christian domination (Byzantines and Crusades as well).
          The issue of the Wailing Wall fell among the consequences of 48′s War. During it Israeli/Jewish forces occupied 5 mixed cities, 9 fully Arab cities and 500 enterely Arab villages. Afterward Israel razed to the ground 400 of these 500 villages and distributed that land. On the other hand, the expulsions have deprived of their home 750,000 Pals, Christians and Muslims.
          ..
          And, most important, while between 1948 and 1967 Jews didn’t have access to the Wailing Wall, for those Palestinians refugees and their descendants there was and still remains the denial of access to their lands and their homes in Israel

          Reply to Comment
          • The Trespasser

            >Many Israelis, out of ignorance, speak for example about “Muslim intolerance” .

            There is no such thing as “Muslim tolerance”
            Non-muslims are oppressed in ALL Muslim countries.

            http://frontpagemag.com/2013/frontpagemag-com/video-muslims-enforcing-sharia-law-on-the-streets-of-london/

            At 01:50
            Muslim Patrol, get away from the mosque, don’t come back.

            >in regard to the access to the Western Wall during Jordanian rule

            Nonsense.
            Jews are not allowed onto the Har Habayt until today.

            Reply to Comment
          • meron

            Until there will be around people like you that aim to destroy al aqsa the pals will have all the right to fight so that you don’t try to steal them also that one.
            .
            I write you again the same post because as usual you answer to every analysis with stupid videos and basic statements that don’t address the issues about which we are talking about.
            .
            If Israel would not continue to steal on a daily bases what remains in Palestinian hands – or If there would not be around people like Trespasser and Kolumn that hope for the destruction of Al Aqsa – I do believe that would not be a problem.
            Many Israelis, out of ignorance, speak for example about “Muslim intolerance” in regard to the access to the Western Wall during Jordanian rule.
            Actually that refusal of access, which lasted twenty years, didn’t have any Muslim motivation, as Jews had been given free access to Jerusalem in the previous twelve centuries of Muslim rule of the city, while the same access was forbidden under Christian domination (Byzantines and Crusades as well).
            The issue of the Wailing Wall fell among the consequences of 48′s War. During it Israeli/Jewish forces occupied 5 mixed cities, 9 fully Arab cities and 500 enterely Arab villages. Afterward Israel razed to the ground 400 of these 500 villages and distributed that land. On the other hand, the expulsions have deprived of their home 750,000 Pals, Christians and Muslims.
            ..
            And, most important, while between 1948 and 1967 Jews didn’t have access to the Wailing Wall, for those Palestinians refugees and their descendants there was and still remains the denial of access to their lands and their homes in Israel

            Reply to Comment
          • The Trespasser

            Dude, repeating nonsense won’t make it any more credible.

            Reply to Comment
          • meron

            Perhaps in your eyes, that’s a compliment to me. You represent the lowest of the lowest on this site, as I and others already wrote you more than once

            Reply to Comment
      • Since the Qur’an absorbs your patriarchs, I guess you are ready to let Muslims pray in the tombs.

        You will have to begin my admitting your various little exclusivities. More difficult will be the exclusivity of salvation itself. I was in the Dome in 96. I was also at the Western Wall then. Maybe someday we can both be, again.

        Reply to Comment
    12. XYZ

      Wasn’t it Nobel Peace Prize winnter Yitzhak Rabin who once said he wished “Gaza would drop into the sea” and also ordered the army to “break the bones” of Palestinians rioters? Sounds like genocide to me and a worse than Gimpel’s supposed desire to move a building.

      Don’t forget Peace-camp-icon-sculptor Yigal Tumarkin who said “when I see Haredim, I understand the Nazis”. Yet another call for genocide from a “peacenik”. Worse than anything Gimpel said.

      Reply to Comment
    13. Click here to load previous comments

    LEAVE A COMMENT

    Name (Required)
    Mail (Required)
    Website
    Free text

© 2010 - 2014 +972 Magazine
Follow Us
Credits

+972 is an independent, blog-based web magazine. It was launched in August 2010, resulting from a merger of a number of popular English-language blogs dealing with life and politics in Israel and Palestine.

Website empowered by RSVP

Illustrations: Eran Mendel