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

Analysis News

WATCH: Candidate from Jewish Home party wants Dome of the Rock blown up

Israeli journalist Yehuda Nuriel came across this video of Jeremy Gimpel, number 14 on Naftali Bennett’s Habait Hayehudi (Jewish Home) party, speaking before a church in Florida on November 13, 2011. Among other things, Gimpel seems to want the Dome of the Rock to be blown up, making way for the third Jewish Temple.

According to most recent polls, Gempel is expected to enter the next Knesset.

Between the years 1982-1984, Israeli security services uncovered no less than three plans by Jewish extremists to blow up mosques on the Temple Mount. The most advanced was prepared by The Jewish Underground – a terror organization made up of settlers who were responsible for several murderous attacks on Palestinians across the West Bank. The Jewish Underground was caught in 1984 when its members attempted to place explosives under five Palestinian public buses in Jerusalem.

UPDATE: Here is another video of this kind starring Gimpel.

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. Danny

      Very nice. One more maniac to throw into the soup pot. I see much pain and frustration for sane Israelis in the next 4 years. If we’re all lucky, maybe Israel will finally be sanctioned by the international community, but I’m not betting on it. What’s certain is that Israel will continue to become more hated and despised the world over, and with good reason.

      Reply to Comment
      • aristeides

        It will be interesting to see whether the New Yorker profile of Bennett, who says much the same thing, minus the explosive part, has any fallout in the US.

        None, of course among the low-information, Islamophobic churches that would host such a speaker. But among US Jews, who count more.

        Reply to Comment
      • rsgengland

        Plots by Jews to destroy the Dome of the Rock have been hatched numerous times
        None have come to fruition.
        They have been foiled by the Israeli Police every time.
        When Jordan ‘OCCUPIED AND RULED EAST JERUSALEM’ between 1948-1967,
        all traces of Jewish life in the Old City were expunged and destroyed.
        The Jews were ‘ETHNICALLY CLEANSED’ from the Old City and all the Jewish Religious Sites etc destroyed or damaged.
        Israel has protected Muslim and Christian religious sites since 1967, in a way that Jewish Religious sites have never been protected by the Muslims.

        Reply to Comment
    2. Nisse

      The best/worst part of his outreach and fundraising among the gentiles [his main occupation?] would be his standing before non-jews actually suggesting G-d loving gentiles if they love jews! I believe he did that at that very church.

      Reply to Comment
      • The Trespasser

        >suggesting G-d loving gentiles if they love jews!

        It is so accordingly to Torah, although Thor and Osiris would probably not agree.

        Reply to Comment
        • Nisse

          Just saying it takes major balls standing before a non-jewish audience explaining how their purpose in life is to support the jews.
          That it is the very mechanism through which one – the gentile – achieves value as a human being, and could i please have some money!

          As for the Torah… well you can’t possibly defend it in it’s entirety? Using it, not only as the highest, but as the only source to draw lessons from, to act as the foundation for ethical and political decisions, as well, of course, as one’s understanding of history.

          Not into Thor and Osiris but a G-d – jews – gentiles – animals schematic is distasteful!

          Reply to Comment
          • The Trespasser

            >As for the Torah… well you can’t possibly defend it in it’s entirety?

            It is of no importance what I think of Torah – however I’m hardly holding it as an accurate source of information per se.

            What matters is that people who believe in Jesus Christ et cetera are obliged to believe in Torah as well.

            >Using it, not only as the highest, but as the only source

            What are the alternative/better sources?

            >to draw lessons from, to act as the foundation for ethical and political decisions

            What exactly is wrong with that?
            Especially with ethical part? 10 commandments are not good?

            >as well, of course, as one’s understanding of history.

            Religion simply can’t be historically correct ;)

            >Not into Thor and Osiris but a G-d – jews – gentiles – animals schematic is distasteful!

            Not more distasteful than G-d – Christians – Pagans – animals or G-d – Muslims – Dogs/Swine – Pagans

            Reply to Comment
    3. JKNoReally

      Didn’t the Parthenon serve as a Mosque from the 15th century until roughly the end of the Ottoman period? Threatening the Dome is, without a doubt, catastrophically foolish and dangerous and irresponsible. But if somebody did threaten it, and Muslims responded violently, they would be in the wrong, 100%. Buildings are not more valuable than human life. Don’t forget that when subject peoples make an effort to roll back Islamic conquests, the Muslim reaction is not based on a sense of fairness or universal justice – its based on the idea that Islamic conquest is unique and immutable.

      Reply to Comment
    4. The Trespasser

      Sooner or later world Islam will have to face the fact that their claims to Mount Zion are absolutely baseless.

      Mosque in Jerusalem was build AFTER Muhammad has died, which effectively nullifies all claims that “Jerusalem is holy to Muslims”

      Jerusalem is not mentioned in Quran even once and is not holy to Muslims. That’s a fact.

      Reply to Comment
      • aristeides

        For some definitions of “fact” that mean “lie.”

        And btw, there is no mention of Jerusalem in the Torah, either. “This effectively nullifies all claims that Jerusalem is holy to the Jews. Sooner or later, Judaism will have to face the fact that their claims to Mount Zion are absolutely baseless.”

        Reply to Comment
        • The Trespasser

          >And btw, there is no mention of Jerusalem in the Torah, either.

          1 – Torah was written a long BEFORE Jews took Jerusalem, while events depicted in Quran could only take place AFTER Muslims would capture Jerusalem.

          2 – Jerusalem is mentioned in Torah as Salem, the kingdom of Melchitzedek

          Genesis 14
          “18 And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine; and he was priest of G-d the Most High

          And one of hills Jerusalem is situated on – Mount Moriah – is mentioned as well And He said: ‘Take now thy son, thine only son, whom thou lovest, even Isaac, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt-offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of.’

          Samaritans however suggest that a proper place for the temple is Mountain Gzerim http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samaritans#Temple_on_Mount_Gerizim

          3 – Jerusalem is mentioned a multitude of times in ALL other books, written after the death of Moses and before Muslim conquest

          >This effectively nullifies all claims that Jerusalem is holy to the Jews

          Not really.
          Jerusalem is holy to Jews because two Temples were build there, while Muslim claims on Jerusalem are based on a false assumption that Muhammad ever visited it.

          In case you did not get it the first time I’ll repeat: Muhammad died BEFORE Muslims took Jerusalem, which means Muhammad could never visit it or travel to heavens to heavens from Jerusalem mosque.

          Reply to Comment
          • According to the Muslim story, Muhammad fell asleep in the shade of the Kaabah (in Mecca) and was transported to Jerusalem, from where he led the prophets in prayer and visited the heavens. It’s known as Lailat ul-Miraj (night of the miracle), commemorated each year by special prayers, and of particular significance in Islamic mysticism. According to one version of the whole event took place in so short a time that when Muhammad was returned to Mecca a cup of water that he had knocked over before he left was still draining beside him.

            Jerusalem is also important to Muslims because of its associations with various prophets in Jewish and Christian scriptures. The city was the first qiblah (the direction of the five daily prayers). There can be no doubt that it’s significant in Muslim spirituality, which is demonstrated in multiple Islamic sources. In the second century CE, describing the sacred character of the Levant, Thawr ben Yazid wrote, “The holiness of the land is al-Sham (Levant), the holiness of al-Sham is Palestine, the holiness of Palestine is Bayt al-Maqdis (Jerusalem), and the holiness of Bayt al-Maqdis is the mountain. The holiness of the mountain is the mosque. The holiness of the mosque is the cupola.” Here the importance of Jerusalem to Muslims is made plain in a very specific localised way, which in no way negates the centrality of Jerusalem in Judaism. They don’t have to be in competition with each other and I’ve never really grasped all the bickering that tries to make them so. Still less do I understand people who interpret blowing things up as a fitting pious nod to the place’s significance.

            Reply to Comment
          • Sorry, I meant ‘Night of the Ascent’. For some reason I often mix up the words mudijza and miraj.

            Reply to Comment
          • sh

            I think the Qur’anic reference to the story is Al-Isra and that the Hadith about the journey tells of a horse called Buraq that transported the Prophet and was tethered to a wall (believed by some to have been the Western Wall of the Jewish Temple) by the angel Gabriel. Anyway, you can see a mosque called after Buraq in this clip that has a black spot on one of its walls indicating where the horse was tethered.
            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQGLTL8KP2w

            Both the Jewish and the Muslim story are traditions that should be respected. They don’t have to be mutually exclusive.

            Reply to Comment
          • The Trespasser

            >… that has a black spot on one of its walls indicating where the horse was tethered.

            That’s the point. Muslims believe that when Muhammad traveled to Jerusalem there was building, with a post to tether his stallion.

            Ariestiediedies however claims that at the time there was no building and that the trip was of spiritual nature – physical body of Muhammad remained near the Kaaba.

            >Both the Jewish and the Muslim story are traditions that should be respected. They don’t have to be mutually exclusive.

            Probably not. But some people do not think so. Two facts to think about:
            1 – Anyone can approach the Western Wall
            2 – Only Muslims are allowed within city boundaries of Mecca and Medina

            Reply to Comment
          • rsgengland

            Vicky
            You say the writings are in the Second Century CE
            Islam only appeared in the Seventh Century CE.
            Writing about Mosques and Domes in the Second Century CE was either very prescient or talking about different events/Religions

            Reply to Comment
          • It should have been pretty obvious that this was a stupid typo on my part. I’m familiar enough with Thawr ibn Yazid to quote him; do you really suppose I don’t know when he lived or when Islam was founded?

            This is one reason why I dislike Internet discussions at times – there is always this nit-picking going on.

            Reply to Comment
          • aristeides

            O The Wrongnesses! Where to begin?

            First, it obviously flew way over the Infiltrator’s head that I was quoting his own words back to him, to illustrate their absurdity.

            Second, the Torah was certainly NOT written before the Jews expropriated Jerusalem, but centuries later, and assembled in its current form later than that.

            Third, the Quran does indeed refer to Jerusalem in Surah 17.1, Al-Isra, the Night Journey:
            “Exalted is He who took His Servant by night from al-Masjid al-Haram to al-Masjid al- Aqsa, whose surroundings We have blessed, to show him of Our signs. Indeed, He is the Hearing, the Seeing.”

            al-Masjid al- Aqsa refers to the sacred area, not the mosque or the shrine later built on it. What the thickheaded fail to recognize is that the Prophet was said to have gone there because the place was holy, it wasn’t holy because the Prophet did or did not go there.

            This is because the Jewish traditions are the traditions of Islam, the Jewish prophets are the prophets of Islam, and the Jewish holy places are the holy places of Islam. The shrine and mosque were built in recognition of their holiness in Islam.

            Fourth, it is therefore totally irrelevant when the Prophet died or when the Muslims conquered Jerusalem.

            Fifth, the al-Aqsa mosque and the shrine have existed as sacred sites for Muslims for centuries longer than the Jewish Temple existed.

            Reply to Comment
          • The Trespasser

            >Second, the Torah was certainly NOT written before the Jews expropriated Jerusalem, but centuries later, and assembled in its current form later than that.

            If Torah was not written BEFORE Jews captured Jerusalem it means that Torah is not divine, which efficiently nullifies entire Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

            Fine by me.

            >al-Masjid al- Aqsa refers to the sacred area

            Yeah. Prophet went from Most Sacred Area to the Farthest Sacred Area. Hardly a viable reference.

            >This is because the Jewish traditions are the traditions of Islam

            Some of them are, while others are not.
            >the Jewish prophets are the prophets of Islam

            Jesus Christ? ROFL

            >and the Jewish holy places are the holy places of Islam.

            Which is why ALL Jewish holy places were numerous times desecrated by Muslims.

            >The shrine and mosque were built in recognition of their holiness in Islam.

            Or to have Islam legitimized.

            >Fourth, it is therefore totally irrelevant when the Prophet died or when the Muslims conquered Jerusalem.

            Apparently you’ve missed what Zara written above. She actually believes that Prophet was there AFTER the al-Aqsa mosque was built, and so do believe great most of Muslims throughout the world.

            It seems that your theory is not widely accepted amongst Muslims themselves.

            >Fifth, the al-Aqsa mosque and the shrine have existed as sacred sites for Muslims for centuries longer than the Jewish Temple existed.

            Yes. For centuries Muslims denied Jews access to their holiest site.
            Your point being?

            Reply to Comment
          • aristeides

            Since both religions are nullified, why the hell do you care?

            Reply to Comment
          • The Trespasser

            Cuz 1.5 billion Muslims are not aware of that. Wanna go tell them?

            Reply to Comment
      • Adele

        it is mentioned by the way and it is holy to Muslims

        Reply to Comment
        • Kolumn9

          Jerusalem is not mentioned in the Koran. You have to go the Hadith to find references to it.

          This is the aya in the Koran that supposedly references Jerusalem:
          “Glory be to Him Who made His servant to go on a night from the Sacred Mosque to the remote mosque of which We have blessed the precincts, so that We may show to him some of Our signs; surely He is the Hearing, the Seeing.”

          The ‘remote mosque’ (remote is al-aqsa in Arabic) is only defined in the Hadith (that is, not the koran) as being in Jerusalem. Interestingly the reason why Jerusalem was the first qibla was because Jews had been praying to it and Mohammed decided to take their tradition until changing his mind later on to appeal to the pagan Arabs in their tradition to making pilgrimages to the Kaaba in Mecca. This is the classic understanding of the reason for the change in qiblas. It is thus hilarious and tragic when Muslim preachers try to deny the connection of Jews to Jerusalem.

          Reply to Comment
    5. Since Apocalypse Christians tend to believe that building the third temple will begin said Apocalypse, including Armageddon, I have long found glee over this projected building quite disturbing. I am not certain Gimpel understands that failure to accept Jesus as Son of God results in hell. Christians may be going to heaven; perhaps steadfast Jews are expected to change their minds living through Armageddon, the final benevolance of the Master of All.

      Reply to Comment
    6. Uri Schneider

      First, I urge you to watch the FULL video of Jeremy’s lecture from over a year ago: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-71_FqrPm9M .

      Second, Unfortunately – people nowadays don’t have the patience nor time to hear long and complex messages and are more comfortable just hearing short slogans and half-truths which are easy to swallow. We are often are fed such spins and propaganda by a biased media and by political campaign strategists and advertising agencies in order to sway our opinions in a desired course. We of all people should know this best – since our enemies are masters of half-truth based and blatant lie-based propaganda against us! e.g. notice that the title of the video clip which you linked to above does not say: Jeremy Gimple – it says the “Jewish Home” – even though when this video was recorded Jeremy was speaking on his own behalf before he was even elected to the Jewish Home party’s 14th place. There’s no connection between this lecture and the party’s platform.

      Furthermore, the video clip above is edited out — it cuts out the bit were he jokes about the temple mount (bad humor I agree, but a joke which should be regarded in context!) and adds it to the end of his lecture – 26 minutes later (1:06:20)- when he talks about the strong potential bond between Jews and Christians. The title of the video then tries to mislead us by falsely claiming that: “The Jewish Home wants to blow up the temple mount to make place for Christian churches”. This is a blatant lie! I urge you to take the time and watch the entire video and make an opinion based on Jeremy’s actual words and context and not just base it on such low level political spins.

      Third, Jeremy is far from the extremist image that this edited-out video is trying to portray him as. By watching the entire video you can clearly learn that he is trying to talk in a humorous way in order to appeal to a very religious American Christian audience. You will learn that the point of his speech was not to encourage “blowing up” the Temple Mount but to discuss the similarities between the times of the Biblical prophets such as Ezra and our own times – in order to inspire the Christian audience to build a stronger connection to the State of Israel and the Jewish people. Obviously he used an unfortunate terminology, but it should be taken in the context above and not be completely “blown” out of proportion – excuse the pun.

      Fourth, this video was obviously held up as a “weapon” by Bennet’s political opponents who are having a difficult time finding damaging material on Bennett himself. They must have jumped up and down with excitement after watching an over an hour long video of Jeremy in which they finally found 10 seconds which could be used against him if edited out of context… They are obviously trying to hurt the Jewish Home party ahead of Tuesday’s elections. Notice that it was released on a Friday night – on Shabbat – so that no one in the Jewish Home could react to it until after Shabbat! 24 hours in which the Jewish Home cannot defend itself is a very long time in Internet terms and just days ahead of the election! This is a dirty tactic used by some political parties time and time again in their counter-productive negative campaign against the Jewish Home party.

      As opposed to Jeremy Gimpel – the real extremists are sitting in other parties… i.e Likud’s Moshe Feiglin who is in a much more realistic position to enter the Knesset than Jeremy and is the real extremist with quotes such as:
      “[Hitler was] an unparalleled military genius. Hitler savoured good music. He would paint. This was no bunch of thugs. They merely used thugs and homosexuals,” Feiglin was quoted as saying at the time.
      “Nazism promoted Germany from a low to a fantastic physical and ideological status.”The ragged, trashy youth body turned into a neat and orderly part of society and Germany received an exemplary regime, a proper justice system and public order,” or “”Arabs don’t live in the desert, they create it,” he was quoted as saying.”

      http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hYCCZRWjMCmnGrgrArL6LX2zSdCA

      Do I think that the Likud party or Bibi is Nazi-admiring and Arab-hating just because Feiglin is a candidate? Obviously not, “Kal va khomer” that neither is the Jewish Home party and Bennett because of this short manipulated video clip…

      Reply to Comment
      • zara

        so somebody wrote there’s no mention of Jerusalem in Qur’an. I just wanted to say that you’re wrong and there is a mosque near the dome of the rock which is called the farthest mosque or what we call masjid al aqsa and it is mentioned in Qur’an.(al-isra chapter)

        Reply to Comment
        • The Trespasser

          A good example of indoctrination-induced ignorance.

          Facts are following:

          1 – Quran was written by Muhammad.
          2 – Muhammad has died at 632 C.E.
          3 – Jerusalem was captured by Muslims at 637 C.E.

          Said above means that if Quran is referencing to a specific building it can not be the Al-Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem – simply because by the time Quran was written there was no mosque in Jerusalem.

          There is another theory which states that “masjid” means “any holy place” and not a specific building.
          Is that so? Even if it is – by what logic the temple mount in Jerusalem is the “furthest holy place”? Why not Stonehenge? or Taj Mahal?

          Reply to Comment
          • aristeides

            I addressed this in my post above, thoroughly refuting the ignorance and lies of the trespasser.

            The reference, written by the Prophet during his life, is to the location where the mosque was later built, with which he was very familiar as a holy place, even if one discounts the story of the Night Journey.

            Only a person determined on spreading falsehoods about Islam would persist in the sort of nonsense that the trespasser posts.

            Reply to Comment
          • The Trespasser

            Are you really that bloody dumb?

            Zara said:
            “there is a mosque near the dome of the rock which is called … masjid al aqsa and it is mentioned in Qur’an.”

            You claim that it was not a mosque but just a “holy place”, however it is not what Zara believes or being taught.

            >addressed this in my post above, thoroughly refuting the ignorance and lies of the trespasser.

            Your post above is full of s**t.

            At first you claim that Torah was written by later compilers and thus not divine, but just a few paragraphs below you claim that Quran actually is divine and was written by Muhammad himself while it is known that final version of Quran was canonized after conquest of Jerusalem and all older scriptures was destroyed. Hiding something, huh?

            >The reference, written by the Prophet during his life, is to the location where the mosque was later built

            Or the mosque was built where it seemed appropriate to gain more legitimation.

            Ever heard that new temples are nearly always built on ruins of old ones? An obvious solution when one comes to replace a god.

            >with which he was very familiar as a holy place

            A rather baseless claim.

            >even if one discounts the story of the Night Journey.

            Did I ever claimed that Muhammad haven’t traveled anywhere that night?

            All I’m saying is that there is not even tiniest bit of proof that Muhammad ever been to Jerusalem or sought it as a holy place or that the direction of the first qibla was Jerusalem.

            Reply to Comment
          • aristeides

            More crap from the infiltrator. I make no claim that the Quran is divine or that the Prophet ever set foot in Jerusalem, although the Quran makes such a claim, in a mystical fashion.

            What is clear is that the Quran and thus the Prophet recognized the holiness of the al-Aqsa site. Of this, the Quran is the proof. From the beginning of Islam, it was regarded as a holy site, and as soon as the Muslims took possession of it they built shrines there as a sign of its holiness.

            This is quite entirely clear, except for Islamaphobes like the infiltrator who insist on placing a sinister cast over the the entire issue and even denying the obvious fact.

            Unfortunately for the Islamophobic lie, the evidence is clear and unequivocal, that for the entirety of Islam’s history, the site was holy to it.

            Reply to Comment
          • The Trespasser

            >I make no claim that the Quran is divine

            If Quran is not divine that whatever is written there is nothing more that a delusions of a sun-struck shepherd.

            You got to make up your mind, dude.

            >or that the Prophet ever set foot in Jerusalem, although the Quran makes such a claim, in a mystical fashion.

            No. Quran explicitly states that trip to al-masjid al-Aqsa was physical. Spirit of Muhammad wouldn’t need a flying horse, would it?

            >What is clear is that the Quran and thus the Prophet recognized the holiness of the al-Aqsa site.

            Yes, cap. What remains unclear, however, is the exact location of the site.

            If you ask Samaritans, who probably know the best, they’d say that it’s Mount Grezim, not Mount Moriah.

            >From the beginning of Islam, it was regarded as a holy site

            A baseless claim. All is known for fact is that for first 13 years Qubla was facing north, after which it was changed to face Mecca.
            http://searchformecca.com/timeline.html

            >and as soon as the Muslims took possession of it they built shrines there as a sign of its holiness.

            No. They did not restored ancient temple, but built a new one on top of it. That makes quite a difference.

            >even denying the obvious fact.

            The only obvious fact I’ve seen so far is that Muslim claim to Jerusalem is 100% baseless.

            You are yet to produce any substantial proof that Jerusalem was “holy” to Muhammad.

            For starters, an explanation why there is no mosques which are facing Jerusalem would be nice.

            >that for the entirety of Islam’s history, the site was holy to it.

            Yeah, I know – “the 3rd holiest site”.

            Which does not mean that Muslims have any kind of inherent rights to Jerusalem because some part of it is theoretically could be an alleged masjid.

            Reply to Comment
          • aristeides

            And it comes out at last, what all the Islamophobic twisting, turning and lying is really about – denying a Muslim claim to the place. “If it’s holy, it must belong to them. But it’s OURS OURS OURS so it can’t be holy to them.”

            “That’s a fact.”

            Reply to Comment
          • The Trespasser

            >And it comes out at last…

            You truly aren’t the brightest.

            From the beginning I’ve stated that Muslims have no legit religious claims to Jerusalem other than a building or two, built by historical mistake.

            Reply to Comment
      • aristeides

        So what about all those churches? The ones that the Jews are going to build all over the Land of Israel? What are Jewish voters supposed to think about that? Or is it just another joke? Or is it just pandering and lying to the stupid goyim?

        And what about the Orthodox strictures against any Jew entering a church in the first place? Or doesn’t that count when the church has a drum set in the corner?

        Or is this maybe just a slimy politician who’ll say anything to anyone and do anything to get elected? And call it a joke when he gets caught out?

        Reply to Comment
    7. Philos

      If there was a God, he would have had Titus Flavius tear the city down stone by stone and had its earth plowed with salt and its water aquifers filled with salt and sulphur like the Romans did to Carthage. Nothing lives or grows on the site of that ancient city. It is uninhabitable. If there was a God he would have destroyed that city millenia ago because if he was “the all loving, all knowing” then how could he allow such a stupidly contentious place to exist at all? Where’s the love in that?

      Reply to Comment
      • aristeides

        It would make a good radioactive waste dump. I’d regret the loss to archaeology, but archaeology, like everything else in the accursed land, has been warped to serve one cause or another.

        Reply to Comment
        • The Trespasser

          Dear Phalos and Ariestiedies,

          I sincerely wish you both to remain the two last people on Earth, safely contained in a top-grade shelter.

          Water, food, alcohol, library, movies, videogames, you two, and no way out.

          Could make a nice screenplay.

          Reply to Comment
    8. Michael

      Exactly why is it ok for radical muslims to desecrate Judaism’s holy
      site by building a mosque on it?

      This has been a normative part of Islam’s racist history conquering other people’s homelands massacring the non muslims and desecrating their holy sites with mosques.

      The mosques on the Temple Mount exist for the sole purpose of establishment the racist idea of Islamic supremacy.

      But most Israeli Jews would be happy to leave them their and also build a Jewish synagogue their. Today the muslims threaten violence if a single Jew prays on the Temple Mount.

      We must all protest this racism of banning Jews from praying on the Temple mount. Gimpel knows that no one is removing the Golden Dome anytime soon. But why can’t we have Jews praying in a synagogue alongside the mosque.

      Reply to Comment
    9. 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