Posted on 03/21/2011 3:45:10 PM PDT by dynachrome
Temple Mount Should Jews be able to pray at Temple Mount?
Yes. It's a sacred site to Jews and Muslims.
No. Tensions are high enough already. Why fan more flames?
I'm not sure.
(Excerpt) Read more at nydailynews.com ...
Jews on the Temple Mount?! Never! What’s next, Catholics at the Vatican!??
FREEP THIS POLL ***PING!*** FRmail me if you want to be added or removed from the Fearless Poll-Freeping Freepers Ping list. And be sure to ping me to any polls that need Freepin', if I miss them. (looks like a medium volume list) (gordongekko909, founder of the pinglist, stays on the list until his ghost signs up for the list)
That’s like saying are Mexicans allowed to eat in Mexican restaurants?
Duh...
Sacred to both Muslims and Jews?
Isn’t it only important to muslims because its important to Jews?
Isn’t it only sacred to Muslims because they killed a $hitTon of Jews there?
The Pedophiles and Sissy’s at NY Daily News had to add this :Palin a failed GOP vice presidential candidate.
They should be allowed to put their temple back up and take that Muslim house of Satan down.
Oh fer cryin out loud!!! I didn’t like the way the yes was phrased. It is only a muzzie sacred site because they made it one, so they could have control over the area, or say in what happens there. Jerusalem isn’t even mentioned in the Koran.
Yes. It’s a sacred site to Jews and who cares about the Muslims.
93%
No. Tensions are high enough already. Why fan more flames?
6%
Dude! What? Wait...
1%
Should Muslims be allowed?
Period.
Exactly!!!! Jerusalem isn’t even mentioned in the Koran. They did the same thing at the Wailing Wall that they are trying to do where the twin towers once stood in NY.
Yes and as a side note - F* the Arabs who now refer to themselves as Palestinians.
and why do they never say "Hillary, a failed presidential candidate" Or "Obama, a former community organizer"...?
Mormons in Utah??? The Amish in - oh, wait, ...
Done = 93% yes
Here’s a better idea: Israel nationalizes all holy sites.
It does this to eliminate the claims of any religion or nation to ownership of sovereign land in Israel other than embassies. Importantly, the government of Israel can then be quite liberal with its terms for “leased use” of such holy sites.
However, if a group currently leasing a site creates a public nuisance or engages in disruptive behavior, they might lose their lease, and the *administration* of that holy site would be turned over to someone else who is not pestiferous.
As an example, say the al-Asqa mosque is run by a Wahhabi faction that encourages a public riot. The Israelis could take away their rights to administer that mosque, and turn them over to, say, the Sufi sect of Islam, that of late has been more orderly and pacifist.
Even the suggestion of this would frighten the Wahhabi sect into incontinence. It is similar to the threat used by the Saud family of Saudi Arabia, when the Wahhabis who run half the country get too ambitious about displacing the Saud. The Saud just suggest that the Sufi might be better administrators than the Wahhabis. This shuts the hot heads right up.
So, what’s not to like? As sovereign Israeli property, the Israelis could declare that such holy sites are no longer “World Heritage Sites”, so they would no longer be immune from demolition if they became problematic to Israel.
This would clear the path for Israel, so that it could issue the threat that if ever again attacked by an Islamic nation, all Muslim holy sites in Israel would be permanently abolished. Razed, and rebuilt as Jewish holy sites.
“Yea, the question should have been, should the NY Daily News be allowed to continue printing it’s garbage? Vote:
Yes it should have been put down many years ago.
No, I need toilet paper, this works great.
Or
I don’t know, works pretty good at starting a fire in my fire place.”
LMAO Good ones!
Thank you ;)
Slight change of approach ... award the site access, management and control over the cost for visitation to the highest bidder for a two year lease sold as a public auction with full disclosure of the bids.
Restrictions or forfeture of the lease can be caused by failure to protect the site from damage, incitement to riot or hatred, etc.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.