Economist deceives in citing partial quote by Israeli MK about the Temple Mount

Mount of Troubles‘, published in the print edition of The Economist on Oct. 18th, included the following claim (underlined in red):


However, that sentence only includes part of what Feiglin said, and omits important context.
According to a report on Feiglin’s visit to the Mount by Israel National News, he was talking specifically about Sukkot, and protesting the police decision to ban Jews from visiting the site during that Jewish holiday – due to a recent surge in Arab riots and attacks on police and Jewish worshippers.
Here are the relevant passages.

Deputy Knesset Speaker Moshe Feiglin (Likud) attacked the Israeli police’s decision to close the Temple Mount to Jewish worshipers on Sukkot.

Sukkot is one of the three Jewish pilgrimage holidays that in ancient times required Jews to travel to the Temple in Jerusalem – a practice maintained today.

The decision to bar Jewish worshippers comes following an onslaught of violent Arab riots against police and Jewish visitors to the mount.

“The person responsible for this is the Prime Minister (Binyamin Netanyahu). I call on the prime minister to order an immediate removal of all Muslims from the Temple Mount during Sukkot. This would allow Jews to visit freely and safely on the holiday.” 

Unless they have another source that we weren’t able to find, the passage in The Economist is extremely misleading as it fails to include a key part of the quote, as well as vital context about the scope and motivation of Feiglin’s demands.  He evidently was referring to visiting rights for Muslims during Sukkot, and only in reaction to the police decision to ban Jews during the holiday due to Muslim riots.

(Alternately, according to his Facebook page, Feiglin was even more narrowly calling for the removal of only Muslim rioters from the site.)

To be clear, Feiglin’s views regarding the Temple Mount (and many other issues) are in fact extreme and morally indefensible. Nonetheless, The Economist – as with all serious newspapers, magazine and journals – has the responsibility to report accurately on even those public figures their journalists don’t view sympathetically, or whose opinions they find offensive.

25 replies »

  1. The Economist ignored the elephant in the room: The Temple Mount should be open to all faiths on an equal basis; it should not be the exclusive possession of Islam.
    If Judaism and Christianity cannot trust Islam (and world powers) to guarantee equal access to even a small area, then proposals for an “internationalized” Jerusalem are just so much unrealistic blather.

  2. Feiglin’s views regarding the Temple Mount (and many other issues) are in fact extreme and morally indefensible.
    Oh dear …. Feiglin is the “Great White Hope” of the Israeli Right and probably of many of your readers. Are the regulars here also “morally indefensible” ?

    • Oh dear…. you’re a troll. As a typical bigot troll, you seem to think that anybody who doesn’t agree to your Guardian worldview is a right-winger, and of course a supporter of Feiglin, but that is not the case for many of the “regulars”.

    • “Oh dear …. Feiglin is the “Great White Hope”

      Oh dear…when did Jews become so “white”?
      Answer: Just as soon as it fell out of fashion.

      • Spot on Jeff. The last thing External’s anti-Semitic ancestors would have called Jews is ‘white’ – they would have been obsessed with the fact they were not white, or Christian. And when going to Israel, I’ve never known its inhabitants to categorise each other on the basis of colour. That of course is the preserve of wankers like External, who project their visceral bigotry onto a convenient canvass to air their indignant and self-righteous concerns over myriad ‘Zionist’ crimes and other Jewish misdemeanours.

  3. Al Guardian defends the exclusivity of Islam and the discrimination of other faiths or of atheists.

    • And the Economist follows suit. A sound economic investment in futures, bearing in mind the economies of scale and the mass production of children in the Arab/Muslim world, thanks to the suppression of women.
      A forced mass production of young men without education, work etc. unevitably would have lead to war in former times, whether civilwar or war against other countries, nowadays this can be delayed by low intensity warfare/terrorism, subventions, religion, social work, media lobotomy and deflection by scapegoats

  4. so what do we expect, The Economist is just one of member of the media empire that’s continually waging war on Israel. almost all of the major media outlet see Israel as the Warmonger and The Source of all the world’s trouble…

  5. Your opinion that Moshe Feiglin’s views are morally indefensible I disagree with. I think any Palestinian who wants to live should move west or to whatever country they came from; because the West Bank, Gaza, all of Jerusalem and all the land mentioned in Parshas Mattot Masei as the borders of Israel should be claimed and annexed by Israel for Israeli Jews and diaspora Jews. I’m gearing up to ask President Obama and his State Dept to negotiate for US Jews their constituents. Israel needs to be prepared for US Jews; we want to come 3 Holidays every year.comments

  6. Why are Zionist obsessed with killing of the innocent and than shouting anti-semite. It does not work. Nobody but nobody cares who you think is an anti-semite. We all know Zionism is the worst form of racism and nobody is bothered about you shouting wolf it has lost its value. Realize it asap or face disaster. Perhaps it is already too late for the Zionist entity facing abyss.

    • “Why are Zionist obsessed with killing of the innocent”

      When Jerry says, “the innocent” he means anyone who isn’t Jewish, i.e., anyone.

  7. by “show restraint” the economist means fuck the Jews because the Arabs may get mad if we hold them to the same standards that we hold civilized people. Should Obama show restraint and not allow blacks to live in white neighborhoods in America bc it may disrupt things?