A Critique of Daniel Pipes Critics

Submitted by Michele Henderson (United States), Nov 1, 2014 at 21:31

@ #Infant: If I understood you correctly, you claimed that the D.Pipes article was impartial and referenced only the Torah. I will stand corrected if I misunderstood your intent.

This critique of the article is falsely claiming that the entire article bases its claim to Jerusalem upon their holy books only. When in fact, the writer opens the discussion clarifying the purpose of the article is to: "sort through the Jews' and Muslims' conflicting claims on the city that King David entered three millennia ago." and that in Jerusalem, the theological and historical arguments matter, serving often as the functional equivalent of legal claims.

The blogger, Infant's example was in itself not impartial. It cites only one of the writers claims/arguments. The writer supported that claim quite clearly by referencing notable theologians and historians who are following the subject....as well, numerous other historical arguments were made in the article/discussion, illustrating how, over the milleniums during, Arab/Muslim or Ottoman Turkish governance, the city of Jerusalem was ignored, avoided and neglected.

For Infant, the critic, to have signed off this blog, writing the words "free tibet".... illustrates an even greater disconnect with the article in its entirety. A Free Tibet, is a 'cause célèbre' that all free nations, including Israel, would not hesitate to support. The Jewish people in particular would be supportive of a Free Tibet for obvious reasons. The Tibetans are being persecuted and violated daily by the mere presence of a giant communist over powering nation which surrounds and threatens its very existence on a daily basis.

The blogger, by emphasizing only one account the writer gave, failed to diminish the writers supportive dissertation, as to why Israel has a legitimate claim to Jerusalem and should not (although not written in these words/this is this writers perspective and perceived analysis only) should not share, its jurisdiction with the Palestinian people who are making an effort to claim and divide Jerusalem, quite violently, as it is doing today in 2014.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".