Monday, August 29, 2005

PA wants Arafat tomb on Temple Mount

The Palestinian Authority will continue to work toward moving Yasser Arafat's tomb to the Aksa Mosque in Jerusalem, Saeb Erekat, head of the PLO Negotiations Department, announced Sunday. Erekat, who was speaking during a meeting with PA security officers in Jericho, said the issue of transferring the late Palestinian Authority Chairman Arafat's grave from Ramallah to Jerusalem was a "trust" deposited with the PA. "From the Israeli perspective the issue is not on the agenda and neither do I expect it to be on the agenda," said Mark Regev, Israel Foreign Ministry spokesman in response to a query by The Jerusalem Post last night. "Arafat's legacy is one of political extremism, terrorist violence, and an inability to be flexible at crucial points in the negotiations. Instead of putting him up on a pedestal, thoughtful Palestinians should be thinking critically of his failures and how not to repeat the same mistakes," remarked Regev. Arafat, who died last November, is reported to have expressed his wish to be buried in Jerusalem. Although he did not leave a written will to this effect, PA officials, including the mufti of Jerusalem, were quoted as saying that Arafat had told them of his wish long before his death.


At August 29, 2005 4:13 PM, Blogger sissyblue said...

Good grief... That's all I can say. Here's a really good post from an enlightened muslim form Lebanon: There are some who can actually push throught the BS propaganda they're fed.

At August 29, 2005 7:17 PM, Blogger backstrokes said...

The Palestinian situation would not be on the radar if it weren't for Arafat. There would be absolutely no claims for Palestinian rights, they would long ago have been extinguished by the likes of Gen Sharon, nor would there be any international support for those rights, let alone the global support which exists today. Thanks to Arafat, there are claims, and there is support. That's what upsets people about him.

At August 29, 2005 9:12 PM, Blogger RobertinArabia said...

There is substantial evidence that "Temple Mount" is not the site of the Jewish Temple and that the "Wailing Wall" is not a remnant of the Jerusalem Temple.
If this is in fact the case then some bloodshed might be avoided.

"Most of the greatest evils that man has inflicted upon man have come through people feeling quite certain about something which, in fact, was false." :
Bertrand Russell

At August 29, 2005 9:19 PM, Blogger Fjordman said...

Robert: Then why did the Romans destroy it there? I believe Jews disgree on where the different parts of the Temple were placed, but the Temple itself was situated in that area. Where else should it have been?

At August 30, 2005 5:22 AM, Blogger RobertinArabia said...

The site called "Temple Mount" was not destroyed because it was not part of the city of Jerusalem. The new view is that it was Fortress Antonia, i.e., Roman property. All contmeporary witnesses agreed that Jerusalem was utterly destroyed, but the enormous structure we see today had to be visible in A.D.70, but no one mentioned it as a remnant of Jerusalem. Gospels recorded Jesus'prophesy that not one stone would be left upon another. This prophesy was never edited out even though anyone could see the myriad of stones still resting one upon another at the site now called "Temple Mount" for the next two thousand years. It is recorded that when the Romans finally allowed Jews back into Jerusalem that the Jews could not find the site of the Temple even though the enormous structure now called "Temple Mount" was staring them in the face.
The Romans levelled Jerusalem, just as they had levelled Carthage - very thoroughly.

At August 30, 2005 5:35 AM, Blogger RobertinArabia said...

War of the Jews:
Book 7 - Chapter 8
Speech by Eleazar: The Leader at Masada

7) ........ Where is this city that was believed to have God himself inhabiting therein? It is now demolished to the very foundations, and hath nothing but that monument of it preserved, I mean the camp of those that hath destroyed it, which still dwells upon its ruins; some unfortunate old men also lie upon the ashes of the temple, and a few women are there preserved alive by the enemy, for our bitter shame and reproach. Now who is there that revolves these things in his mind, and yet is able to bear the sight of the sun, though he might live out of danger? Who is there so much his country's enemy, or so unmanly, and so desirous of living, as not to repent that he is still alive? And I cannot but wish that we had all died before we had seen that holy city demolished by the hands of our enemies, or the foundations of our holy temple dug up after so profane a manner.


Post a Comment

<< Home