Gazans barred from Al-Aqsa Mosque

Because of fears of a structural collapse of part of the Temple Mount near the area known as "Solomon's stables" the Israeli govt. limited the number of Muslim pilgrims who could go up onto the mount.

They did not limit the age of the pilgrims.

Later, after examining security fences and other precautions the Islamic Wakkf had instituted, the Israelis withdrew the restrictions, feeling that safety issues had been addressed.

As usual, Al Jazeera got it all wrong.

(BTW--why was my comment yesterday deleted? censorship???)

JERUSALEM, Palestine, October15,2005 (IPC+Agencies)--The Israeli occupation authorities barred Friday the residents under the age of 45 year old to reach the holy al Aqsa mosque (Noble Sanctuary) to perform their tradition Friday noon prayers
--

Tens of military checkpoints and roadblocks looms every spot leading to the holy al Aqsa mosque in order to check the worshipers ID's and fully vetted their vehicles as the gates of the mosque beefed up by hundreds of the IOF policemen, who took up positions at the rooftops of the houses looking out on the al Aqsa mosque and over the walls of the old town of the city to monitor the worshippers.

Thousands of the residents coming from the west Bank provinces were banned to head off to Jerusalem for the traditional Juma'a (Friday) congregational prayers; it will remain off-limits for those less than 45 year old.


The IOF authorities locked down the center of the city and forced hundreds of busses carrying the worshippers from arab48 territories to park in a far remote distances from the gates of the old town of the city, bitterly distressing for elderly, women and sick people, thereby they have to take a long walk before reaching the mosque.

Al-Aqsa mosque, which Jews refer to as the Temple Mount, is considered the third holiest Islamic site, and first Qebla , the direction of prayers, directly after the sacred mosque in Makka and the Prophet's mosque in Madina.

According to the Islamic doctrine, the reward for a single prayer at al-Aqsa is multiplied 500 times.

On the other hand, the preacher of al Aqsa mosque Ismael Nawahada addressed the congregations, stressing on the need to deal with the Jerusalem and holy al Aqsa mosque atop the paramount issues in life of Arabs and Muslims as a time Jerusalem is still constrained by walls as well as its indigenous are deprived to practice freely their worshiping rights.

"Ever since 1967, the Jerusalem city has been liable to perilous cats and measures mainly representing in destruction of the buildings, digging tunnels, endless excavation acts aiming at grotesquely disfiguring the Arab and Islamic features of the city and drive out its indigenous. The latest was the construction of the Apartheid wall to cut off fully the city from its hinterland," the al Aqsa mosque [preachers said in Friday's ceremony.

Ultimately, he concluded his address with launching an outcry to the Arab and Muslim leaders to awake up their prolonged deep sleep and assume their responsibilities before its too late "the Jerusalem city and al Aqsa mosque are begging help, is there any savior?," the preach wonders.

http://www.ipc.gov.ps/ipc_new/english/details.asp?name=11204

Occupied Jerusalem, Oct. 14 (BNA) Israeli occupational forces built military barriers on the entrance of the holy city of Jerusalem preventing citizens from performing Friday prayer in Ramadhan in Al Aqsa Mosque.
The Israeli forces allowed limited groups of citizens above 45 years old to enter the Mosque amid restricted security and military procedures. Palestinian News Agency said that the occupational forces spread borders guards into the city and the old towns leading to Al-Aqsa to frisk prayers and letting them to enter from narrow passages.

http://english.bna.bh/?ID=36612

Recycled rant
by the real story • Sunday, Oct. 16, 2005 at 11:41 AM


the rest of the story without the Al Jazeera bias


Sept. 26, 2004 update: Ma`ariv reports that, notwithstanding the repair efforts, Israeli officials worry that "Solomon's Stables," an underground space on the east side of the Mount that since 1996 serves as a mosque, could collapse and bury thousands of Muslim worshipers.

Oct. 14, 2004 update: This year during Ramadan, the Israeli police are taking steps to prevent catastrophe. They announced an plan to limit the number of Muslim worshipers on the Temple Mount unless the Islamic authorities agree to ban worshipers from the Mount's fragile southeastern corner, where digging in Solomon's Stables could lead to a collapse of the esplanade above. Israeli officials worry about an "unimaginable disaster" killing thousands. Internal Security Minister Gideon Ezra announced that "If the Wakf does not agree to the Israeli demand to not allow worshipers into Solomon's Stables we will view this as a real and immediate threat and will have to limit the number of worshipers from 250,000 to 50,000 or 60,000." For their part, Wakf officials dismiss the warnings as an Israeli conspiracy to obstruct the Ramadan prayers.

Oct. 15, 2004 update: The Wakf authorities may bluster in public but the Israeli police found that "sufficient measures had been taken to build scaffolding and cordon off the dangerous areas" so that they did not need to limit access to the holy site.

Damned if they do, damned if they don't. You just know if the whole thing had collapsed, they woulda blamed Israel anyway.

Personally I couldnt care one way or the other about either the Temple Mount or some ancient mosque since I'm an athiest. But I can understand that both are important to people who are religious. What is confusing though is why the area isnt divided up so Israel doesnt govern over a Muslim holy site since it seems like that is something that almost make conflict a certainty. The mosque does sit on a site that is holy to Jews but its not like the mosque is on top of the Western Wall. The most holy parts of the site for Jews isnt the exact same area that is most holy to Muslims so dividing up the site does seem possible.

This isnt just a matter of the future. From Clinton and Albright's accounts of what happened at Camp David, it sounds like Arafat's rejection of the final peace offer was mainly based around his belief that he wasnt in a position to negotiate away ownership of a site that was seen as belonging to the wider Islamic community and not just to Palestinians. Arafat even stated (as one may have heard on the recent PBS documentary about this) that he would have been willing to negotiate a lot of other things away but couldnt negotiate over the ownership of the Al Aqsa mosque without agreement from other Muslim leaders (with his statement almost sounding like it wasnt a matter of him personally caring more about the Mosque, but more that he feared the reaction of others)

When talking about Israel's current rules around the mosque one should also take into account how Sharon sparked the 2nd intifada by going on a walk around the site with military personel. While one can try to argue that he had a right to do this he did it to undermine Barak and at the time most in Israel knew this. If Sharon hadnt sparked the 2nd intifada there is a chance that Arafat and Barak could have come to an agreement. Arafat probably only needed the consent of the Saudis to sign off on the deal with the mosque ownership so its not unlikely that he would have agreed to the proposal Barak had on the table if things hadnt exploded following Sharon's little PR stunt (while I dont trust Sharon, his statements about that day do make me wonder if some of his willingness to stand up to his own party on ocassion today is that he holds himself personally responsible for the bloodshed that followed).

Truthfully, I wouldnt doubt that Israel could probably preserve the Mosque better than it could be if it were turned over to Palestinian control completely (since Israel has more money and a more stable government). But as long as Israel is in conflict with most of the Muslim world it just doesnt seem like a great situation for Israel to be governing over and making rules on a Muslim holy site.

The most holy site to Jews is NOT the Western Wall. In fact, the Temple Mount itself, where the Temple stood is the mos holy site. The Western Wall is just a remnant of the Temple. The most holy parts of the site for Jews is the exact same area that the Muslims now claim, and so dividing up the site does not seem possible. People don’t recall that it was Moshe Dayan who, after the Six Day war, unilaterally transferred administration of the Temple Mount to the Wakf. It remains under Israeli sovereignty.

While Arafat was negotiating with Barak, at the exact time that he was ordering the heavy weapons shipment on the Karine A. Arafat was notably duplicitous. The Intifada was planned well in advance, as was later acknowledged by the Palestinians. Sharon’s walk was just an event used as a pre-text.

Since they distorted this story so much, just in an effort to villify the Jews, can we really trust them as a news source?

We can trust al-jazeera to accurately represent a point of view.

Just not the Israeli one.