1. Ted Belman said:

I found much to comp[lain about in this article. The writer clearly sides with the {alestinioans and presents a distorted view of the facts.

No context was given for this "In two pre-dawn raids yesterday, Israeli troops killed three Palestinian militants around Jenin on the West Bank,". NO mention was made of the dozens of rockets which the Palestinians launched against Israel immediately prior to these raids. In fact no Israeli was interview. Only Palestinians and no mention was made of any Palestinian violence whatsoever.

"The intifada broke out at the end of September 2000 after Israel's Ariel Sharon, then a Likud minister seeking to wrest the party leadership from Benjamin Netanyahu, visited the Temple Mount in Jerusalem under heavy police guard. It was an election gimmick, but ostensibly to assert Israel's rights over the holy site, where Israelite temples existed in antiquity and which is now the third holiest site in Islam." Where should I start? First, "the intifada broke out" rather then the Palestinians started rioting and attacking Israelis. The Reporter avoids blaming the Palestinians. He should have said the Palestinians started the intifadah. He got the reason for the visit backwards. Sharon in fact wanted to assert Israel's right. It is libelous to suggest it was "an election gimmick".

He ignores,or probably doesn't know,that Sharon notified the Palestinians of his intended visit and got their permission for the visit. The Palestinians then arranged for the riot to accompany his visit and to launch the intifadah.

2. BobW said:

This article by Abraham Rabinovich of Jerusalem, carried in "The Australian", is enemy propaganda, a form of warfare used against Jews.

The Temple Mount was not merely the site of "Israelite temples" as if a dime buys a dozen of 'em. The Temple Mount was the site of THE Temple. Note how the propagandist uses "Israelite" as a parallel counterpart term to Islam. Note how "Israelite" is identified with antiquity, ie long ago and no longer current whereas the propagandist places "Islam" in the current tense.

The article's author must have attended Patrice Lumumba University, Moscow.

The propagandist continues with a strategic attack against Jews with the phrase "Jerusalem Arabs". He uses collective nouns when the only purpose can be is to cloud rather than clarify.

The Arabs of eastern sections of Jerusalem have made - and continue to make - diligent efforts to avoid being under the jurisdiction and venue of the PLO/PA. GOI provides them with health insurance, national insurance and Israeli ID cards allowing for free travel throughout Israel and a higher standard of living.

Do we have a Madam DeFarge knitting a scarf with the names of those commiting treason, ie kapos? I place this propagandist's name on the list along with Oholah and her sister Oholibab, both prostitutes. Ezekiel 23:chapter

the defectors who had gone over to the King of Babylon
II Kings 25:11

Kol tuv,
BobW

3. RB said:

By the way Rabinovich simply misinforms his readers: Ariel Sharon at the time of his visit to the Temple Mount wasn’t “a Likud minister seeking to wrest the party leadership from Benjamin Netanyahu”. First of all, he was then already a leader of Likud party. Moreover, he couldn’t be a minister because of Likud being in opposition to ruling Labor.
With such attitude to plain facts what analysis could we expect from this “journalist”? Hi is a member of international Agitprop as BobW sometimes defines this sort of writing stuff.