A Financial Times article by Neri Zilber (“Israel’s security minister makes surprise visit to al-Aqsa mosque compound”, Jan. 3) included the following:
Itamar Ben-Gvir arrived at the al-Aqsa mosque compound, Islam’s third-holiest site, known to Muslims as the Noble Sanctuary and to Jews as the Temple Mount, just after dawn under heavy Israeli security protection.
Zilbery included the fact the Temple Mount’s is Islam’s third holiest site, while omitting that it’s the most holy site in Judaism.
Interestingly, the Financial Times itself, in a 2021 article by their previous Jeruslaem correspondent, was clear about this point, writing that “The area the mosque sits on, called the Temple Mount by Jews, is the holiest site in Judaism and is the original home of the second temple destroyed by the Romans in AD70″. Further, only a few months ago, CAMERA prompted the New York Times to correct an article that also initially omitted that the Temple Mount is Judaism’s holiest site.
We turn now to to another Financial Times article published last week (“Israel’s righward shift stokes alarm to threat over West Bank stability”, Jan. 4), which included the following:
[Itamar Ben-Gvir’s] willingness to challenge the status quo was underlined on Tuesday as he made a surprise visit to the al-Aqsa mosque compound, Islam’s third-holiest site known to Muslims as the Noble Sanctuary and to Jews as the Temple Mount. The visit to a location that is historically a flashpoint for Israeli-Palestinian tensions was labelled “an unprecedented provocation” by the Palestinian Authority’s foreign ministry.
First, contrary to Zilber’s claim, the Temple Mount visit by Ben-Gvir did not “challenge the status quo”, which permits Jews to visit the site, as long as they don’t pray. And, media reports were clear that he did not pray. This is important context, as Palestinains and their supporters often characterise any peaceful Jewish visit to the compound as a “provocation”, “invasion“, “defilement” or even part of a conspiracy to destroy al-Aqsa.
Moreover, note that Zilber again omitted that it’s the holiest site in Judaism – which gives crednce to the PA foreign ministry’s baseless claim that the visit was an “unprecedented provocation”.
We’ve complained to Financial Times editors, asking that they amend the articles to note the site’s significance to Jews.
(See an in-depth CAMERA backgrounder on the issues surrounding the Temple Mount here)
“Islam’s third holiest site”, my left foot. It only became so ‘holy’ in the 1970s as part of Arab anti-Israeli propaganda . Before that it was being left to rot by the Jordanians and Palestinians. There are plenty of ‘holier’ sites in Islam, from Bagdad to Cordoba. And the Shiites have their own holy sites.
The media education system in the UK was taken over by anti – Israel so called academics more than forty years ago, it is their intended goal to eradicate the legitimacy of the Jewish claim to their capital city, Jerusalem by telling basic lies and distorting the truth. Any Jew or Christian knows the historical evidence and truth behind that legitimacy because it is written down in the Old Testament and the Torah Scrolls. Indeed Jerusalem is mentioned over 650 times. Whereas in the Islamic Quran it is not mentioned once and even now is admitted to being their third holiest site. So why should Islamists have control or even object to the presence of other religions? Because they are fundamentally racists at heart! and their religion allows them to lie for the furtherment of the goal of Islam, i.e. world domination unfortunately the woke Western world seems blind to their aspirations and openly embrace their takeover, like lemmings jumping over a cliff