Ken Berwitz
One of the central claims of Palestinian Arabs is that the Jewish temples – the first and the second both – did not exist at the sight of the temple mount – or, as Arabs call it, the “Haram”.
This, of course, is ludicrous on its face, as proven (among many other proofs) by the existence of its Western Wall, which stands in Jerusalem for anyone to see any time they want.
On the other hand, since “The Palestinians” themselves are an invented “people” (until arafat and his pals dreamed them up as some kind of ancient tribe, they were just Palestinian Arabs…i.e. Arabs who happened to live on the land area of Palestine as opposed to, say Syrian Arabs who lived in Syria), why not invent history too?
Which brings us to the New York Times.
Within Jerusalem\’s holiest site, known as the Temple Mount to Jews and the Noble Sanctuary to Muslims, lies an explosive historical question that cuts to the essence of competing claims to what may be the world\’s most contested piece of real estate.
The question, which many books and scholarly treatises have never definitively answered, is where on the 37-acre site, home to Islam\’s sacred Dome of the Rock shrine and Al Aqsa Mosque, was the precise location of two ancient Jewish temples, one built on the remains of the other, and both long since gone.
Those temples are integral to Jewish religious history and to Israel\’s disputed assertions of sovereignty over all of Jerusalem. Many Palestinians, suspicious of Israel\’s intentions for the site, have increasingly expressed doubt that the temples ever existed – at least in that location. Many Israelis regard such a challenge as false and inflammatory denialism.
Un effing believable.
Notice the equivalency of the argument – “well, some say one thing, some say another” – as if this were a 50/50, either/or proposition?
Notice the calling into question of the precise location of the second temple….the western wall of which is STILL STANDING?
I wonder how rick gladstone, and the Times people who approved this article for publication, think it got there. Do they think it magically materialized one day? Did it used to be a donut shop that they quickly built up while no one was looking, to fool the rest of the world? How?
As any reasonable person would hope, reaction to this witches brew of stupidity and malevolent dishonesty was quickly forthcoming.
“This piece is a disgrace. The archaeological evidence is literally unimpeachable,” said Commentary\’s John Podhoretz.The Atlantic\’s Jeffery Goldberg added, “Proof of no progress in the Middle East: The never-ending contention that no Jewish Temple stood on the Temple Mount.”
Fellow Atlantic reporter Yani Appelbaum said in his own note, “But other than contemporary accounts, archaeological evidence, and a surviving wall, what proof is there of a Temple?”
Even the Times\’ own Binyamin Appelbaum seemed confused by the report, asking on social media, “We\’re seriously covering both sides of a debate about the existence of a Jewish temple on the Temple Mount?”
“Next up: How do we know Jesus existed if there\’s no video footage?” he added jokingly.
FYI: The Times – embarrassed (as it damn well should have been) by its propaganda piece posing as commentary, which, no doubt, warmed the heart of hamas, hezbollah, fatah, and assorted other Israel-hating anti-Semites everywhere – quickly published a half-baked, incomplete, equally dishonest retraction:
An earlier version of this article misstated the question that many books and scholarly treatises have never definitively answered concerning the two ancient Jewish temples. The question is where precisely on the 37-acre Temple Mount site the temples had once stood, not whether the temples had ever existed there.
Please note that the “retraction” STILL puts the location of the temple in question, and therefore is not a meaningful retraction at all.
But, then again, what does it matter what the Times\’ retraction says? The damage is done. The article – this hot steamy load of bull mung – is out there. So the haters will be able to ignore retractions – even significant ones – and use it for their propaganda purposes, won\’t they?
Congratulations to the New York Times. Your latest foray into mindless, fact-challenged Israel bashing is a success.
How proud you must be.
