Bury Arafat on Temple Mount?

[Woodmonkey]

Arafat Burial on Temple Mount Unthinkable

By Rabbi Aryeh Spero

Planting Islamic monuments atop holy sites of other religions, cultures or nationalities has been a long-standing Moslem modus operandi to impress its ascendancy and permanence over a given area. In Turkey, for example, the St. Sophia Mosque in Istanbul was, before Islamic hegemony, a magnificent Christian church. The landscape of the entire Middle East is littered with Moslem religious buildings erected directly atop earlier Christian churches and monuments. We would be remiss thinking that these are arbitrary and local events when, in fact, it has been a well-documented, centuries-long political strategy.

In Israel during the past decade, Moslem clerics administering Islamic sites on Jerusalem's Temple Mount have deliberately destroyed historic Jewish artifacts unearthed around Solomon's Temple in a campaign to extinguish the ties of the Jewish people to their historic Temple. These imams wish to rewrite history.

The debate already has started to further supplant history by planting something into the Temple Mount earth never before there: Yasser Arafat. Reports abound that after Yasser Arafat's death, though hailing from Egypt, he wishes to be buried in Jerusalem where the ancient Jewish Temple stood, only yards from the ridge of Mt. Zion, King David's burial spot. Israel cannot let this happen, no matter the world's outcry in behalf of Arafat.

What greater credence would undergird Moslem claims to that spot — and thus to ancient Jerusalem and the Old City — than the permanence symbolized by such a monument/tomb. Talk about "facts on the ground." Decades from now, the Mount will achieve a Mecca-like Moslem status, codified by a shrine to a latter-day political Mohammed.

In life, what we see and can touch affirms more than what we simply hear or read. As hard as it is for us to conceive today, a century from now the visual of millions of Arabs making a pilgrimage to what will be termed "Islam's Second holiest site" will reify in the mind of humanity an Islamic connection to the Temple Mount dwarfing that of the Jewish connection remembered simply in scattered history books. Who today remembers that Mecca itself was once primarily a Jewish town? The reality of the Haj, pilgrimage, and stone obscures and deadens history.

Not even the United States would place its embassy in an East Jerusalem officially hallowed a northern Mecca. It would be the world's biggest political coup, without the Arabs having fired a shot to achieve it.

A Jubilee from now, the emotional attachment even of Jews to the historic site can be undermined, since reality always trumps what remains only theory. A theoretical Jewish holy site is no match against a countervailing living Muslim reality. It becomes simply nostalgia. Against the backdrop of an area teeming with zealous Moslem multitudes, Jews will feel alienated, pushed out.

Would the Israelis cave in? If history is a guide, the Israelis may first balk but later acquiesce under the prevailing attitude that land and holy sites are not as important as peace. The threat used successfully by the European Union to cut off all trade with a non-compliant Israel, as well as United Nations calls for boycotts, may well, again, exert over Israeli decision-making.

Aside from economic pressure, Israel will be portrayed as a "heartless" country if it denies Arafat his "last dying wish." Its refusal will be characterized as a unilateral decision over Jerusalem and, thus, an obstruction to the peace process.

During his life, Arafat claimed that the reason for the latest intifada was when then Minister of Defense Ariel Sharon walked on Jerusalem's Temple Mount, calling it an "intrusion." Israelis may fear that denying Arafat burial there would unleash a wave of anti-Jewish slaughter.

The much heralded concept of "land for peace" has in Israel repeatedly degenerated into "holy sites for peace," as demonstrated by Israeli forfeiture of three historic sites: 1) the burial place of the Biblical Joseph; 2) the second most holy and oldest Jewish city, Hebron; 3) the prohibition by the Israeli government itself of regular Jewish visitation on the Temple site in Jerusalem's Old City.

In each instance Israel relinquished Jewish administration of these sites out of fear of Arab rioting and out of a mindset that sublimates Jewish sovereignty to the aspiration of a concept, "peace."

The Israeli/Arab conflict is a demonstration of the tactile vs. the conceptual. The Arabs hardly speak of peace as much as they demand the tangibles of land and holy sites. Thus, every few years, like clockwork, they garner from the Israelis more and more of the above. The Israelis speak of and yearn only for the ideal of peace. The upshot: every few years, peace eludes them ever more.

Evidently, the Arab strategy of a bird in the hand — land and holy sites — is exceedingly more successful than the ephemeral one — peace — the Israelis pursue, an ever-elusive aspiration.

After the 1967 War, the Israelis decided not to establish a concrete Jewish presence on its own Temple Mount so as to be "peaceful," "unprovocative." But territory is not an ideal but physical. Where a vacuum exists, it eventually must be filled. Yasser Arafat and Arabs intend to fill it. Where a Jewish presence should have been will come, instead, an Arab presence that should not be. It will be the ultimate "in-your-face."

Secular Jews have believed that a confrontation over the Temple site has not been worth the trouble. Religious Jews have felt that the sheer sacredness of the place rendered it off-limits to all people, the impure. Jews were not even to walk within 100 yards of it. Incongruously, their other-worldly reverence for it has made it unusable for Jews and thus, in practical terms, irrelevant. Either way, Jewish political or religious timidity has resulted in a de facto forfeiture. What has been needed has been to build World Jewry's most glorious and most inspirational Central Synagogue there.

To be a landed people means knowing the importance of one's land and historic/holy places. Call it pride. Call it the glue that unites a people, binds it. While ideas certainly inspire, a nation tied to a land must first recognize the primacy of its land and its historic sites.

It should be obvious that Yasser Arafat, the child killer and monster dedicated to the destruction of a people and nation, cannot be enshrined forever on that very people's most holy site, its heart. If it were to happen, it would be an obscenity. It would be akin to carving the face of Osama bin Laden into the granite of Mount Rushmore. Imagine the Via Dolorosa, where Jesus walked towards his death, being used as a procession route for Arafat, a self-avowed enemy of Christianity. If allowed to happen, it would constitute utter, irredeemable capitulation.

http://jewishworldreview.com/1104/sp...at_burial.php3

[conlor]

I sure hope this doesn't happen.

[Snowden]

It would indeed be an obscenity; this man would become the symbol for a restored Palestine; a deleted Isreal. This is what he has aimed for most of his life - Palestine being the name of all that land. Our Holy Land - Jew and Christian. They have the legend of Mohammad - on his horse - leaping into heaven from Mt. Moria. Mohammad, who only went to Jerusalem in his dreams. He never went there, historically.

For Arafat to be buried there would create a rallying point for all Islamists - more and more death and destruction of Israel, to whom God gave that land. How could they even consider letting that man be buried there!? Nobody is buried up there, so far as I know. In all my visits to the Temple Mount in Israel, never have I been told of so-and-so being buried there. All Muslims are buried immediately outside the Golden Gate, which all three Monogamous religions believe will fly open when the Messiah appears. That gate is closed now and cannot be opened until then.

What greater credence would undergird Moslem claims to that spot — and thus to ancient Jerusalem and the Old City — than the permanence symbolized by such a monument/tomb. Talk about "facts on the ground." Decades from now, the Mount will achieve a Mecca-like Moslem status, codified by a shrine to a latter-day political Mohammed.

And this would happen - no doubt about it.

During his life, Arafat claimed that the reason for the latest intifada was when then Minister of Defense Ariel Sharon walked on Jerusalem's Temple Mount, calling it an "intrusion." Israelis may fear that denying Arafat burial there would unleash a wave of anti-Jewish slaughter.

This, although the killing had already started in Gaza - just a few days before Saron's stupid trick of taking 1500 soldiers up there in an "in-your-face" act that gave credence to the claim. In the first place, Jews should never have been banned - if necessary, and if they really want to remain in and as Israel, I think it's important that they have at the very least, equal access to the Temple Mount. But they made the decision so long ago, that it's now accepted. "Peace" will never come to their land in this manner. If at all.

Evidently, the Arab strategy of a bird in the hand — land and holy sites — is exceedingly more successful than the ephemeral one — peace — the Israelis pursue, an ever-elusive aspiration.

Why don't the Israelis realize this? Will they ever do so?

[cb88]

I think it would be a disgrace if they buried him anywhere near David.

[JohnRN]

The Israelis under Mr. Sharon certainly pursue peace.

This could have the potential to swing big - eitherway. Sadly, I see hot-heads on both sides ruining it for all, as they always have.

[Betty Boop]

Holy sites should be respected as HOLY! Three faiths consider this a HOLY site but Yassar Arafat has never even pretended to be a holy man. There should never even be a question as to its appropriateness. Clearly his burial place should be in a place that will not incite "holy" warring.

[penumbral_shadow]

arafat and his followers have brainwashed generations of palestinians to hate israel , now while i support israel they do get a bit heavy handed , but i believe that is just a sign of their frustration , not knowing what to do to solve this situation. under clinton there was a deal on the table that gave arafat and his people alot of land , recognition as a state , and if i remember correctly a portion of jeruselum. they turned it down because it did not include all of jeruselum. this shows their unwillingness to deal for them it is all or nothing no compromise. when they have been given land in the past , there is relative peace for 6 months or so then bam they turn up the terror campaign. of course the question should be asked...... where is the eu and the un's outcry to this terror campaign?

israel gets smaller and smaller , but peace gets ever more elusive. eventually they will have to wake up and realise they have to stop this in its tracks or else become overtaken and consumed by the modern day crusaders ... thats right i said modern day crusaders , the muslims. or at least the wahabi sect... though from what i gather it isnt just that sect that hates israel. they often say we need to show respect for them and for islam , when they themselves do not show respect for any religion but their own as stated in the above article and their deeds , such as we witnessed in afgannistan with the taliban , despite international outcry they went on a campagin to " rid the country of what the militia calls 'un-Islamic false idols'." . as you all remember i am sure there were 2 ancient 50' buddhas that had been there from sometime around 200ad-500ad , they blasted them out with rpg and tank fire as well as demo charges. they also destroyed " false idols " in the Kabul museum .... the taliban master was quoted as stating , "they are just rocks".

i am sure that the same level of " respect " would be paid to jewish and christian holy sites as they would be " just buildings " in their own parlance. as the taliban did not heed international outcry when they destroyed those religious artifacts , i dont believe that israel should heed the outcry when they dont let arafat be burried where he doesnt belong. i have my opinions as to where he should be buried , but i will keep those to myself.

the question is , can israel make the hard decisions they need to make regardless of the outcry. are they strong enough and willing to stand up for their rights and beliefs?for their sakes i pray they are.