In response to this article at the Economist, the Elder of Ziyon posted the following comment:
The right for Jews to pray on the Temple Mount is enshrined in numerous UN resolutions like the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the UN Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief. It is a basic civil and human right for Jews to be allowed to peacefully visit and pray on their holiest spot.
It is curious that The Economist is coming out against civil rights for Jews.
Why is that? Because the Muslims there threaten violence – and now they are murdering Jews in the name of Islam!
Civil rights are not dependent on the veto power of extremists to threaten violence. There are numerous videos of Jews visiting the Temple Mount, and not one of them shows any of them doing anything the least bit provocative. On the other hand, their quiet strolls are greeted with screams, threats and occasional violence.
Yet The Economist seems determined to label the Jews who want equal rights as the agitators and the Muslim rioters as the victims of Israeli aggression.
The Economist’s idea of the “status quo” is completely wrong. Before 2000, Jews were able to visit the Mount and no one objected if visitors quietly prayed. Before 1967, of course, Jews were forbidden altogether. Perhaps that is the “status quo” that The Economist prefers to see.
Modern liberals are supposed to defend civil rights, to stand up for those being threatened by bigots. One must wonder why The Economist believes that in this case those making the threats are in the right and civil rights for Jews are not important.
When you pick and choose which human rights you are in favor of, you can no longer call yourself an advocate for human rights.
“Apparently, The Economist’s interest in freedom of expression is exactly as strong as its support for human rights.”
Now my posts have been removed, too. I have been censored. The Elder has been censored.
I will gladly stand corrected if anyone at the Economist would point out what is – allegedly – wrong with the material. It appears, in the absence of any explanation, that somebody has made a bad mistake – with the article in the first place – and is trying to cover their tracks in a cack handed fashion. Or there’s a genuine – albeit misguided – belief that the censorship is appropriate. But until there is an explanation, my hunch is that, to quote a certain fictional soldier: they don’t like it up em…