+972 Magazine's Stories of the Week

Directly In Your Inbox

Analysis News
Visit our Hebrew site, "Local Call" , in partnership with Just Vision.

The fraud that is the Temple Mount movement

Following the murder attempt on Yehuda Glick, the claim is being made – and getting a more sympathetic hearing than usual – that he and his colleagues have been leading a civil rights movement for Jews. Don’t believe it.

Palestinian Muslim worshipers pray at the al-Aqsa Mosque compound in Jerusalem’s old city on the first day of Eid al-Adha (Feast of the Sacrifice) marking the end of the hajj and commemorating Abraham's willingness to sacrifice his son Ismail on God's command, on October 4, 2014. Israel is in security lockdown for the Jewish fast of Yom Kippur, which is coinciding with the Muslim festival of Eid al-Adha for the first time in three decades. The concurrence of the holy days has not occurred for 33 years because the two faiths use different lunar calendars. (Activestills.org)

Palestinian Muslim worshipers pray at the al-Aqsa Mosque compound in Jerusalem’s old city on the first day of Eid al-Adha (Feast of the Sacrifice) marking the end of the hajj and commemorating Abraham’s willingness to sacrifice his son Ismail on God’s command, on October 4, 2014. (Activestills.org)

Ten years ago I interviewed Likud Knesset member Moshe Feiglin in his office in the West Bank settlement Karnei Shomron. On his wall was a framed aerial photograph of the Temple Mount – but the Aqsa Mosque and Dome of the Rock didn’t appear. In their place stood an illustrated, rebuilt Jewish Temple. I’ve heard that this photo and others like it are big sellers in Jerusalem.

Feiglin was at the Wednesday night conference in Jerusalem’s Menachem Begin Heritage Center where Temple Mount activist Yehuda Glick was shot and critically wounded by a Palestinian. Also present was Yehuda Etzion, who was imprisoned in the early 1980s for leading a plot within the “Jewish Terror Underground” to blow up the Dome of the Rock. Feiglin wasn’t the only extreme anti-Arab Likud MK at the gathering; Miri Regev and others were there too. The conference was titled “Israel Returns to the Temple Mount.”

Following the murder attempt on Glick, the claim is being made – and getting a more sympathetic hearing than usual (here and here) – that he and his colleagues have been leading a “civil rights” movement for Jews, one whose aim is simply to gain for Jews the same right Muslims have to pray on the Temple Mount, which Muslims worship as the Noble Sanctuary (Haram al-Sharif in Arabic). I heard Housing Minister Uri Ariel fuming on the radio about the injustice of the Israeli-enforced status quo on the Mount (which allows Jews to visit with police permission, but bars them from praying so as not to incite Muslim fears of a Jewish takeover, and in line with rabbinical rulings). The radio interviewer was at a loss to challenge him; no doubt Ariel convinced many listeners that he and the other Temple Mount activists are a bunch of Martin Luther Kings.

Right-wing activist Yehuda Glick holding a book depicting the Jewish Temple while standing in front of the Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem, May 21, 2009. (Photo by Oren Ziv/Activestills.org)

Right-wing activist Yehuda Glick holding a book depicting the Jewish Temple while standing in front of the Dome of the Rock in the Aqsa Mosque compound/Temple Mount in Jerusalem, May 21, 2009. (Photo by Oren Ziv/Activestills.org)

This is a great fraud. I’m sure there are some Jews who really only want to be allowed to pray on the Mount without having any intention of bothering the Muslims and their holy places, who genuinely want religious coexistence up there. But they are incidental to the movement. The Temple Mount movement is and always has been a movement not for religious equality, but for Jewish religious domination and contempt for Muslims and Islam. That’s what Feiglin’s about, that’s what Etzion is obviously all about, and anybody who thinks Miri Regev and Yariv Levin and these other nonstop Arab-bashers in the Knesset who want to let Jews pray freely on the Temple Mount are looking for peaceful coexistence, dream on.

The best known of the Temple Mount NGOs, the Temple Mount Faithful, headed by Gershon Salomon, makes no bones about its intentions. On its website, the first of the group’s “Long Term Objectives” is: 

Liberating the Temple Mount from Arab (Islamic) occupation. The Dome of the Rock and the Al Aqsa mosque were placed on this Jewish or biblical holy site as a specific sign of Islamic conquest and domination. The Temple Mount can never be consecrated to the Name of G‑d without removing these pagan shrines. It has been suggested that they be removed, transferred to, and rebuilt at Mecca.

Glick appears to be a somewhat different story. Despite many media reports, he is not an activist in the Temple Mount Faithful, or at any rate not mainly in the Temple Mount Faithful; he heads an organization called the Temple Mount Heritage Foundation, and formerly led the Temple Mount Institute. Both of these groups express the hope of rebuilding the Temple alongside the Muslim holy sites, not in their place. But here is a brief video Glick made for the Temple Institute in which he makes what sounds like a veiled threat of what will happen to the Dome of the Rock if Muslim religious leaders do not cooperate peacefully with this project:

The decision of what will happen to that building, which today represents the Muslim religion – if the Muslim religious leadership decides to choose a path of peace, that building can remain and be part of the house of prayer for all nations, and it can be used as a center of monotheistic religions. If, unfortunately, the Muslim leadership continues the path they are leading today – [Islamic Movement leader] Ra’ed Salah and other Muslim leaders today – it will bring to a very dangerous … [here Glick pauses, searching for words, then continues in a barely audible voice] to a great threat to the world and to the peace of the world.

I’m calling upon the leadership of the Muslim religion: join, cooperate with those who want peace. Join with those who believe that the Temple Mount belongs to all those who believe in God, and then the Dome of the Rock, built by Abdel Malek, will be part of the house of prayer of all nations, the holy temple.

Glick did not deserve to be shot. From all reports, he is not a man of violence at all; he could be described as the friendly face of the Temple Mount movement. But he works alongside men of the most violent possible intent. He is the window-dressing of a movement with a psychotic, apocalyptic goal, one that goes back to the Six Day War conquest of the Mount when IDF Chief Rabbi Shlomo Goren, later to become Israel’s chief rabbi, implored Moshe Dayan to destroy the Dome of the Rock.

Again, I’m sure there are Jews who honestly just want to be allowed to pray on the Mount, nothing more, and who see this as an issue of religious equality. I would ask them if they favor introducing the same sort of religious equality for Muslims at the Western Wall, which Muslims worship as the Buraq Wall, the site where Mohammed mounted his winged horse Buraq and ascended to heaven:

Should Muslims, accompanied by Muslim police, be allowed to conduct Muslim prayer in the Western Wall plaza?

With a police escort, right-wing Jews visit the Aqsa Mosque compound in Jerusalem’s Old City at the end of a ‘Jerusalem Day’ demonstration calling to rebuild the Jewish temple, May 21, 2009. (Photo by Oren Ziv/Activestills.org)

With a police escort, right-wing Jews visit the Aqsa Mosque compound in Jerusalem’s Old City at the end of a ‘Jerusalem Day’ demonstration calling to rebuild the Jewish temple, May 21, 2009. (Photo by Oren Ziv/Activestills.org)

For that matter, should the police of a Muslim country be allowed to station themselves in the Western Wall plaza as the enforcer of law and order? Should the police of a Muslim country be allowed to decide which Jews can come pray at the Western Wall and which cannot?

That would be the mirror image of the current, Israeli-enforced status quo for Muslims on the Noble Sanctuary, which Jews worship as the Temple Mount. That status quo is not a violation of Jews’ civil rights, but a violation of Muslims’ religious rights and Palestinians’ national rights. That status quo is bad enough as it is; Glick, Feiglin, Etzion, Ariel, Regev and the movement they represent would make it out-and-out catastrophic.

Related:
There are no good guys in Jerusalem
Why the status quo on the Temple Mount isn’t sustainable
Disturbing the ‘peace’ in Jerusalem’s holiest site
Judenrein or Judaized? A false choice for the Temple Mount

Before you go...

A lot of work goes into creating articles like the one you just read. And while we don’t do this for the money, even our model of non-profit, independent journalism has bills to pay.

+972 Magazine is owned by our bloggers and journalists, who are driven by passion and dedication to the causes we cover. But we still need to pay for editing, photography, translation, web design and servers, legal services, and more.

As an independent journalism outlet we aren’t beholden to any outside interests. In order to safeguard that independence voice, we are proud to count you, our readers, as our most important supporters. If each of our readers becomes a supporter of our work, +972 Magazine will remain a strong, independent, and sustainable force helping drive the discourse on Israel/Palestine in the right direction.

Support independent journalism in Israel/Palestine Donate to +972 Magazine today
View article: AAA
Share article
Print article
  • LEAVE A COMMENT

    * Required

    COMMENTS

    1. Pedro X

      Rabbi Glick is like the human right leaders in America who refused to sit at the back of the bus, who refused to be denied service in stores and restaurants and who bused their children to white only schools. Glick is like the Jewish and Catholic human rights leaders in Canada who fought against quotas for Catholics and Jews in Universities and professional schools like medical and legal studies.

      Whites and Protestants said they did not want Jews, Blacks or Catholics to invade their spaces and impose their presence of them in their neighborhoods, churches and schools. Human rights won.

      And here is Larry Derfner arguing for denial of the right of religious freedom for Jews to pray on the Temple Mount.

      Jews can be allowed to pray without the destruction of the Dome of the Rock or Al Asqa Mosque. For hundreds of years prior to the Crusades there had been a Jewish synagogue on the Temple Mount during Muslim rule. If a Jewish synagogue was not an abomination to the earliest dynasties of Islam, why is it objectionable to allow Christians, Muslims and Jews the right to pray on the Temple Mount?

      It is nothing more than overt racism to deny the right of Jewish people to pray on the Temple Mount.

      Reply to Comment
      • rose

        Pedro, Glick is far from being a “peace activist (he is an ignorant fanatic). This issue it is not about racism nor “Islamic intolerance”.

        Israel justifies its conquest of Jerusalem East in 1967 with the fact that between 1948 and 1967, the Jews had no right of access to the Wall Wailing . This refusal , which lasted twenty years , did not have any Muslim motivation , as Jews had free access to Jerusalem in the previous twelve centuries of Muslim rule the city, while the same access they had been forbidden under Christian domination , both Byzantine crusade. The question of the Wailing Wall is a consequence of 1948’s War. In the course of the war Jewish forces occupied the five mixed cities, nine cities entirely Arab, and five hundred Palestinian villages were razed and mainly distributed to settlers. On the other hand the ethnic cleansing deprived of the house 750,000 Palestinians , Christians and Muslims , the inhabitants of these villages and towns.

        And while between 1948 and 1967, Jews were forbidden access to the Wailing Wall, for those refugees Palestinians and their descendants there was and remains the prohibition of access to their lands and their homes in Israel .

        Reply to Comment
          • barrym

            Really Joel, very similar to Israel isn’t it? Except Palestinians aren’t even allowed on ‘Jewish’ roads.

            Reply to Comment
          • Joel

            Not so.
            There are roads for Israelis, including Israeli Arabs, and roads for Palestinians. There are only a few roads, so designated, like this, and only in the West Bank.

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, right

            Mecca is not being held under the belligerent occupation of a foreign army, Joel.

            Are you suggesting that Israel has a “right” to invade and occupy Mecca in order to enforce religious equality inside Saudi Arabia?

            If the answer is “yes” then I’d have to ask you what is the basis for that “right”.

            If the answer is “no” then I’d have to ask you why it isn’t right to do that in Saudia Arabia but is A-OK to do that in a territory that Israel seized at the point of a gun in June 1967.

            Please, take your pick, but be prepared to defend your answer.

            Reply to Comment
          • Joel

            Israel’s belligerent occupation of the West Bank is not illegal. Aspects of that occupation, such as the settlements, are illegal.

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, right

            Joel: “Israel’s belligerent occupation of the West Bank is not illegal. Aspects of that occupation, such as the settlements, are illegal”

            There comes a point where you are simply making a distinction without a difference.

            I’d suggest that point is reached whenever an occupying power justifies its continued occupation because:
            a) it hasn’t finished colonizing that territory yet, and/or
            b) the occupied are refusing to concede territory to the occupier.

            Neither are legitimate reasons for continuing an occupation, and therefore the continuation of this occupation itself has (long ago) slipped over the line into the “illegal”.

            Reply to Comment
        • Pedro X

          Rose, Glick is nothing of the sort which you describe. Glick is not only a activist for Jewish human rights but also for the Muslim right of free worship on what they call Haram a-Sharif, the Noble Sanctuary. He does not advocate the destruction of the holy Muslim places of worship but joint Jewish-Muslim prayers on the site that is so sacred to both religions.

          Reply to Comment
        • Pedro X

          Rose, Israel’s act of self defence in 1967 had noting to do with Mount Moriah, the Kotel or religious rights.

          Israel liberated the eastern part of its capital City from Jordanian occupation when the Jordanians breached the terms of the 1949 armistice agreement by bombing Israel, shelling the western side of Jerusalem and moving its troops onto the Evil Hill of Counsel. Jordan had amassed 45,000 troops in the West Bank and its American made tanks were flooding over the Jordan River into the West Bank towards Israel.

          Israel in an act of self defence repelled the Jordanian advance, crushed their tank formations and expelled the Jordanians to the East side of the Jordan River.

          Jordan has since given up its claims to the West Bank. However, in the agreement with Israel Jordan and Israel agreed to promote freedom of worship.

          Article IX of the peace agreement states:

          “Each party will provide freedom of access to places of religious and historical significance….The Parties will act together to promote interfaith relations among the three monotheistic religions, with the aim of working towards religious understanding, moral commitment, freedom of religious worship, and tolerance and peace.”

          So, how is it that Jews are denied the right of freedom of worship, while the Muslims are given the exclusive right to do so? This exclusivity goes against the tenets of all human rights.

          Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, right

            PX: ….”when the Jordanians breached the terms of the 1949 armistice agreement”….

            Pedro appears not to know that in 1967 Jordan had a Mutual Defense Pact with Egypt.

            Under such Pacts (NATO, for example) to attack one party is to be regarded as an attack on all parties, and their response must be seen in that light.

            The formal term in int’l law is “casus foederis”.

            Now, remind me again: did the IDF launch an armed conflict on Egypt in June 1967, or didn’t it?

            Because if the answer is “Yes” then the terms of that pact are triggered, and Jordan’s entry into that war on the side of Egypt was, indeed, an act of “defence” in the face of Israeli aggression, it was not an act of “aggression” against Israel.

            Reply to Comment
          • bar

            Well, if you’re going to talk about triggers for war, then prior to Israel’s attack, Egypt illegally closed the Suez, violated a treaty by demanding that peacekeepers leave the area assigned to peace-keeping and simultaneously threatened attack publicly.

            Therefore, defensive war for the Arabs is not the case.

            Also, not to forget that Jordan didn’t join the war immediately. It waited. Then it was warned by Israel not to join but did anyway. Oops.

            Reply to Comment
      • Disgusted

        Not surprised by Pedro X delusional comment. After all people cried at Stalin’s funeral.

        Reply to Comment
    2. Yaakov

      Mr. Derfner, it’s tough when you have to write about some like Rabbi Glick, who disrupts your preconceived notions, isn’t it? Perhaps people and their motivations are a bit more complex than you give them credit for, even if you don’t agree with their politics?

      Reply to Comment
      • tod

        Yakoov, Palestinians paid already enough. You cannot have Everything.

        Reply to Comment
    3. Lo

      Suddenly, the original proposal to place Jerusalem under an internationally-shared administration through UN conservatorship looks achingly good.

      Reply to Comment
    4. Bruce Gould

      “Stone Cold Justice” – a documentary about the treatment of Palestinian children in the Israeli justice system:

      http://vimeo.com/86575949

      Reply to Comment
    5. Richard

      A secular person who doesn’t subscribe to Judaism or Islam shouldn’t adhere to the idea of “religious rights” for a specific group of people at a particular site of worship. Freedom of conscience and freedom to believe are one thing, but if you don’t believe in the Islamic or Jewish God, there’s not principle that privileges Muslims over Jews on the Temple Mount, which is merely a piece of property. The secular position should be pragmatic – keep the Third Temple fanatics out to maintain law and order. But that pragmatic stance is merely a function of the balance of power in Jerusalem, in the Middle East, and in between the Muslim and secular worlds. As an purely ethical matter, it should make no difference whether the Dome is replaced with a Temple or not. A Turkish Mosque stood on the Acropolis for 400 years. Why doesn’t anyone remember this, or care now that its gone? Because at the time Greece was being purged of Turks and re-Hellenized, the geopolitics of the region and the world were very different. Greek knowledge and culture had become an integral part of Western knowledge and culture as the result of the Renaissance, and many people (correctly) saw cultural and nationalistic value in reviving it. As a secular person, nationalistic person, I find it difficult to make a meaningful distinction regarding any proposed re-Judaification of the Temple Mount. Why not revive another ancient cultural monument, which still stands mostly in tact, but for a few buildings which are relatively minuscule compared to the size of the original, Jewish construction? Is Jewish culture less worthy than Greek? The answer doesn’t matter because building a Third Temple is not pragmatic to put it very, very, mildly. But its worth pointing out that, beneath the realities of power, there is no secular principle that supports or opposes the presence of a Temple or Mosque on a given piece of dirt. The Muslims don’t have “religious rights” to Al-Aqsa any more than the Jews have a right to demolish it and build a Temple.

      Reply to Comment
      • Lo

        I’m not Mr. Derfner, but I think I can take a stab at your question.

        What some particular scholar thinks about the Wall (God damn, Pink Floyd was really on to something) is probably inconsequential to the vast majority of Muslims who don’t live anywhere near Jerusalem and have other pressing matters to attend to.

        Moreover, why should reasonable people/governments *ever* privilege religious viewpoints? Even within religions, you’re guaranteed to find some group messing with another group based on non-religious irritants (socioeconomic factors almost always).

        When it comes to the particular bit of real estate that no less than three of the major human religions are keen about, why would you ever decide that giving one of them control of it is a good idea?

        Someone/something that isn’t directly invested in Jerusalem should oversee it. Let all faiths who give a shit about this particular bit of the Mediterranean desert have access to whatever bits of rock they want to do their rituals. Let an uninterested party deal with keeping the peace.

        Reply to Comment
        • Lo

          That party should clearly not be me. I meant “disinterested” not “uninterested.”

          Apologies for any inconvenience to all.

          Reply to Comment
        • Joel

          Lo.

          Sheik Yusuf al Qaradawi is far and away, the best known and respected Islamic scholar in the world.

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yusuf_al-Qaradawi

          He is NOT, just another guy with an opinion.

          Reply to Comment
          • Lo

            Please re-read my post. He could be the love child of Pope Francis and Tupac and it still wouldn’t make one whit of difference. The most responsible option is international conservators hip.

            Reply to Comment
          • Joel

            Lo

            Not a whit of difference to you and I, but a very big difference to the believers, who demonstrably outnumber us.

            Reply to Comment
    6. Mikesailor

      I have often thought the Jewish harangue about the Temple Mount a

      Reply to Comment
    7. Mikesailor

      I have often thought the Jewish harangue about the Temple Mount a

      Reply to Comment
      • Joel

        Prinz,

        Which temple are you referring to?

        The first or second temple?

        *he won’t respond*

        Reply to Comment
    8. Mikesailor

      I have often thought the Jewish harangue about the Temple Mount is a truly stupid monologue which should rightly be ignored. The Second Temple, if it existed or more particularly if it existed on that site was destroyed in 70 AD or thereabouts. So, what happened after that? Were “No Trespassing” signs erected? No. apparently the area was used for a time as a church, a storage facility and, at one time, horse stables. After the advent of Islam, some 600 plus years later, the area was cleared and the Dome of the Rock constructed. Instead of seeing this as an honorific gesture however, the Israeli Jews (and many in the Diaspora) somehow deem it an insult. Why? Would it have been better to destroy everything and build apartment housing over the area? Or maybe turn it into a parking lot? Perhaps a cemetery? Or a castle? Instead, a beautiful structure was erected. Something, I dare say, far more architecturally beautiful than the ugly reconstruction models of the Temple. What are these Jews doing? Trying to erase and rewrite the history of the area? From expelling Palestinians, destroying their villages and trying to hide reality by planting those execrable pine forests over the remains? By renaming the cities (Jaffa becomes Haifa etc.) or merely confiscating (stealing) land, homes and possessions? Does the despicable behavior ever stop? Or are the Zionists so insecure and frightened that they, like Pol Pot in 70’s Cambodia, are trying to recreate an alternate reality by erasing history and proclaiming a new Year One?

      Reply to Comment
      • Michael W

        Re: “By renaming the cities (Jaffa becomes Haifa etc.)”

        Jaffa (Yafo in Hebrew, Yaffa in Arabic) and Haifa are two different cities and both appear on Israeli maps. They are not even next to each other.

        Reply to Comment
      • Joel

        @Mike

        “So, what happened after that?”

        What happened was, that under rabbinic Judaism, there developed {over a period of five centuries) the replacement of the Temple by the synagogue, the priest by the rabbi, and of the sacrificial ceremony by the prayer service and study.

        What happened was, Mike, that the Jews continued their ‘Temple worship’, albeit in a different form.

        Can you understand that?

        Reply to Comment
    9. Tomer

      The Torah mentions Jerusalem 669 times.

      How many times does the Koran mention it?

      0!

      That’s why Yerushalyim does not belong to them and never will.

      PS: Look at the photo above – the Muslims’ asses point to the mosque on Temple MT.

      Reply to Comment
      • berl

        “Uru-Shalem” was founded 2,000 years before that King David allegedly set a foot in the area.

        Reply to Comment
    10. Secular Force

      If our planet ever got hit by a giant asteroid or comet, please let it happen directly in Jerusalem and make this place for every believer of religious fairytales a giant hole in the face of the Earth. Nobody sane needs this 3 Abrahamitic lunatics fighting over a shithole city since hundreds of years.

      Reply to Comment
    11. “Glick did not deserve to be shot. From all reports, he is not a man of violence at all; he could be described as the friendly face of the Temple Mount movement. But he works alongside men of the most violent possible intent. He is the window-dressing of a movement with a psychotic, apocalyptic goal, one that goes back to the Six Day War conquest of the Mount when IDF Chief Rabbi Shlomo Goren, later to become Israel’s chief rabbi, implored Moshe Dayan to destroy the Dome of the Rock.

      No one deserves to be shot. Maybe your’re right, maybe there are Jews who honestly just want to be allowed to pray on the Mount and nothing more. Violence solves nothing and only begets violence. Dr. Martin Luther King was a true man of God and devoted himself to uplift his people from the afflictions put on them by godless men and was murdered. Mr. Glick is no Martin Luther King.

      Where are all the peace-loving Jews hiding who “only want to pray? They’re terrified of golem – the religious right, the settlers, et al, in other words, their own people, who’ve hijacked their “religion” for the purposes of land theft and murder. The Most High God will not allow the rebuilding of the temple by this Godless people with so much blood on their hands and nothing but hate in their hearts. That is an abomination and He will not allow it. Only fools fight with God.

      Reply to Comment
    12. Brian

      http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-1.624191

      How the far-right changed the debate over the Temple Mount
      Plus, some talking points for the left.
      By Nir Hasson | Nov. 2, 2014 | 7:53 PM

      [Nir Hasson makes this point among several important points]

      …The third argument involves Judaism. Contemporary Judaism is a religion that developed over the past 2,000 years, and is based on the absence of a Temple. This is not an edict of fate that Judaism learned to live with; the absence of a Temple is in many ways the backbone of rabbinic Judaism, which is an entirely different religion than priestly Judaism, from Second Temple times. In his book “The End of Sacrifice,” Guy G. Stroumsa shows how around the first century C.E., the custom of offering animal sacrifices at the altar ended, not only among the Jews but also in the Roman creed and in the new religion, Christianity. A return to this custom would be a cultural and religious step backward 2,000 years – before halakha (Jewish religious law), the rabbis, the Mishna and the Talmud….
      ——————————-

      Glick and Feiglin seriously want to revive a priesthood and start sacrificing goats and chickens again and burn them at the altar and collect payments for these services from the masses seeking expiation of sins? Seriously? To this cause they devote their lives? These Jews want to go 2000 years backwards like this? To sacrificing goats? And this is really all about pure “religion” and not religion as a fascist device? Seriously? Glick may be Feiglin’s “useful idiot,” but Feiglin?

      Reply to Comment
      • Brian

        Nir Hasson:

        The fourth argument, and in my opinion the strongest, is that the Temple Mount must once again be connected to its surroundings. To hear the Israeli debate, one might think the Temple Mount is located in outer space, or at the very least in West Jerusalem, over which no one challenges Israel’s sovereignty. But the Temple Mount is a real place, located between the village of Silwan and the Old City’s Muslim and Jewish quarters. Annexing the Temple Mount and East Jerusalem to the State of Israel is not a fait accompli, as one might suppose listening to the Israeli media. And although there are many who recognize the Jewish relationship to the Temple Mount, there is not one country that recognizes Israel’s right to sovereignty over it.

        Reply to Comment
    13. Rabbi David Mivasair

      I just want to correct a small error in the original article: that the Prophet Mohammad “mounted his winged horse Burak and ascended to Heaven”.

      The Muslim tradition is that the Prophet tied his horse Buraq to the Kotel and then he ascended to Heaven from the Temple Mount above. The horse stayed down below.

      Reply to Comment
    14. Larry, this is an important article and I hope everyone reads it. Thank you for writing it. But I must challenge you on one thing. You wrote:

      ” Despite many media reports, he is not an activist in the Temple Mount Faithful, or at any rate not mainly in the Temple Mount Faithful; he heads an organization called the Temple Mount Heritage Foundation, and formerly led the Temple Mount Institute. Both of these groups express the hope of rebuilding the Temple alongside the Muslim holy sites, not in their place. ”

      I clicked on the link for Temple Mount Institute that you provided and arrived at the Temple Institute’s web site. (Note the absence of the word “Mount” in the name.) Glick was indeed a former director of the Temple Institute.

      Now, here is where it gets interesting. Scroll down to the search bar at the very bottom of the Temple Institute’s main web page and type in “FAQ”. You will see a link pop up to their Frequently Asked Question Page. Click on the link and you will find the following passage:

      “Geo-politically, the Temple Mount has to be cleared of the Dome of the Rock and the mosques which are presently located upon it before the physical rebuilding of the Holy Temple can begin. Many scenarios can be imagined which would accomplish this, the most promising, and not necessarily the most far-fetched, would entail Moslem recognition of the Mount as the intended location for the rebuilt Temple. With the acquiescence of the Moslem world the Moslem structures currently on the Mount would be disassembled and reassembled elsewhere. traditionally, Moslem texts, beginning with the Koran, accept the prophecies of the return of the Jewish nation and the rebuilding of the Holy Temple. Today, of course, radical Islam holds sway over the Moslem world, and until this phenomenon is defeated, the likelihood of a peaceful preparation for the rebuilding of the Holy Temple remains nil.”

      The folks at the Temple Institute are delusional if they think the Muslims will EVER agree to dismantle their Mosque and the Dome of the Rock because the Jewish religious claim to the area is superior to theirs. But even if a miracle happened and they agreed to this in principle. Just how would they dismantle these two great buildings, move them, and then put them back together again. They are not tinker toys. I am not an architect and I don’t work in construction, but I don’think anything on this scale has ever been done before. If anyone knows of any cases where this HAS been done successfully, please let me know.

      I suspect that the Temple Institute really doesn’t care whether these buildings can successfully be re-assembled. Their main goal is the removal of these buildings, but they know there will be consequences if they are honest and flat out state “Our goal is to destroy the al-Aqsa Mosque and the Dome of the Rock in order to make way for the Third Temple” Therefore, they offer up the bogus possibility that the buildings can be removed and re-assembled peacefully.

      Remember, Glick was an executive Director of the Temple Institute. Unless he explicitly repudiates and condemns all plans to have the al-Aqsa Mosque and Dome of the Rock removed or destroyed then we must assume that his true goal is their destruction. He is just too smart to say it in public.

      Reply to Comment
      • Thanks very much, Robin – important point.

        Reply to Comment
    15. Margot Dunne

      I am really, really tired of all this carry-on between the Abrahamic religions. I am really, really disappointed that people can believe in & fight each other about such a limited, tribal god. Time to move away (regretfully) from Jerusalem to the East.

      Reply to Comment
    16. MichaelS

      There is no such thing as Palestinians, and even it there is, this name would belong first and foremost to the Jewish people residing in Israel.

      Reply to Comment
    17. Child of the Most High

      Why are you not saying anything about the Islamic dominance of the temple mount?
      Are you saying that Muslims may dominate, but not Jews?

      Reply to Comment
    18. Click here to load previous comments