Bible Prophecy Research
Title: Camp David and the Temple Mount
Submitted by: (Sharon)
Date: August 01, 2000
URL: //

Camp David and the Temple Mount


Four words used in the Scriptures for the word temple:

1964 heykal large public building. Such as a place where many people could come to, lets say, do idol worship. The temple to Diana is described as this.

1004 bayith the family house, household. The gathering of the family for worship.

2411 hieron a sacred or holy place and its entire area. This would be the entire Temple complex. All the courts and surrounding area such as the porticos.

3485 naos from the verb to dwell. Means a very specific area of the temple mount. The holy place and the Holy of Holies. It is where the presence of the Lord dwells. Jesus always referred to himself as the naos because he and the father were one. The anti-christ will refer to himself as the naos when he enters the temple and declares himself to be God. Consequently, the naos has to be in existence if this future individual will be able to stand in this spot and usurp God. Is this what is being hammered out before the Sept 13, 2000 deadline? After all the talks are bogged down and if you can listen to reports, the area under great contention is not the holy sites, but one specific holy site -- the Temple Mount. Lots of news clippings to read on this.

Abu Dis is essentially the Mount of Olives. Reports from Camp David hint that Jerusalem will have new borders. The new Palestinian state will have control over the eastern and northern areas of the city. Arafat has already built a multi-story capital building in Abu Dis. He can look out his office window and have a spectacular view of the Dome of the Rock and see the Palestinian flag flying over the Al Aksa Mosque. Moslems will be given free access to their Holy Sites by means of special tunnels and roads. Arafat will agree to hands off the western wall and the Jewish and Armenian quarters of the Old City. If this does go as planned, then the world will have to recognize that Israel is a bona fide nation with its capital Jerusalem.

Arafat probably signed his land away when he agreed, as part of the 1993 Oslo accord now reaching its climax at Camp David, to recognize Israel.

The most Abu Aker can hope for is a new home in a new Palestinian state. For many other refugees scattered across the Arab world, especially in Lebanon, where for decades they have festered as unwelcome aliens, the most they can realistically expect is money and sympathy. But many seem not to know it yet. "Arafat has betrayed us before, but I'm willing to give him another chance during these talks," says 21-year-old Muhammad Abu Rodayna, who spends his days shuffling aimlessly along the narrow, filthy alleys of the Sabra-Shatila camp. "The talks are my last hope for a future." The same could possibly be said of the two leaders deciding that future at Camp David.


Lapidot decided to end her survey with a prayer: "Seek peace for Jerusalem and may those who cherish it always enjoy tranquility" (Psalms 122:vi). For a while, it appeared there was a sufficient amount of divine compassion yesterday to save the summit from a crash-landing on the holy nucleus of Jerusalem. Unfortunately for the cause of peace, the talks got stuck in a quicksand that should have been avoided at all costs. Even if Arafat was ready to concede on the issue of the Temple Mount being under Arab sovereignty, the leaders of the world's Muslim nations (as well as Arab members of Knesset) would not have accepted such a concession. Even if Barak had agreed to concede on the issue of the Old City being under full Israeli sovereignty, no public relations genius on earth (not even Moshe Gaon, whose surname means "genius") could ever have successfully marketed those goods to the Jewish public. It is no accident that no Israeli government since June 1967 has ever disturbed the status quo on the Temple Mount. And it is not sheer coincidence that the police have always prevented Jews from exercising the principle of Israeli sovereignty over that site by holding group prayer services there. Nor is it coincidence that no flag - which is ipso facto an expression of sovereignty - is allowed to fly in the Temple Mount area.

Five years ago, Yossi Beilin, now minister of justice, and Palestinian leader Abu Mazen compiled a draft agreement for a final status treaty between the Palestinians and Israel. That agreement was custom-tailored to the measurements of the Palestinian and Israeli public as well as to the measurements of their respective leaders - Yasser Arafat and Yitzhak Rabin. Beilin and Abu Mazen agreed that the Palestinians should be allowed to fly their national flag over Haram Al-Sharif, the Temple Mount mosques, as an "expression of the Palestinian Waqf's autonomous management of the area, which would also be declared extraterritorial."

The Beilin-Abu Mazen paper stated that negotiations on the future sovereignty over East Jerusalem would be conducted by a joint committee but did not specify any deadline for the completion of the committee's deliberations.

As long as the two sides stick to their respective guns, meaning that "sovereignty" over the Temple Mount area without peace is better than peace without such "sovereignty," the negotiations should never have been permitted to veer in that direction. Ironically, Barak, who has continually pledged his firm commitment to the status quo in Jerusalem, was dragged to the negotiating table, under which a time bomb named Jerusalem was furiously ticking away. As far as anyone knows, Barak continued to refuse to translate the many indications of Palestinian sovereignty in the Old City into a diplomatic and legal document.

Barak threatened that if Arafat dug in his heels all the other compromises formulated in the American "non-paper" would be rendered null and void. Rabin used those very same words after Syrian President Hafez Assad rejected the Israeli "deposit" that the U.S. gave Damascus. Barak was supposed to pay that debit note but instead he returned from the Shepherdstown meeting empty-handed. Now, as he returns from the Camp David summit empty-handed, the walls of the Old City of Jerusalem will continue to stand in his way as he continues his crusade on behalf of peace.

The night before Prime Minister Ehud Barak was to leave for Camp David, he sent a special emissary to the two chief rabbis, Yisrael Lau and Eliahu Bakshi-Doron. The emissary was a general who usually isn't in uniform: Maj. Gen. Yaakov "Mendy" Orr, government coordinator in the territories, who is on Barak's staff at the Camp David summit. His mission: to find out where the chief rabbis stand - and what they'll say to the public - about the religious issues at stake in the negotiations.

Orr went back to Barak after two hours with partial success. On one issue, at least, the rabbis will stand by Barak. But that issue, no matter how important, is secondary to the much more critical issue: the Temple Mount.

Lau and Bakshi-Doron told Orr - and through him, Barak - that they would not oppose transfer of control over Rachel's Tomb, Joseph's Tomb and even the Tomb of the Patriarchs, to the Palestinians, as long as appropriate measures were taken to guarantee access, prayer rights and security for Jews at the sites. Neither the halakha nor tradition, they said, requires Jewish sovereignty over graves, including the graves of the religious pantheon. Jews have always given in to the geography that gives others sovereignty over the final resting spots of Jews, from Moses on Mount Nevo in Jordan, to Rabbi Nahman of Breslau in Uman in Ukraine. There is always the matter of the ownership of the property, but it too is a matter that is derived from sovereignty.

The preliminary staff work before the departure for Camp David was based on the assumption that the Israeli public would agree to hand over Arab neighborhoods in East Jerusalem outside the Old City to Palestinian jurisdiction. Israeli Jerusalem in July 2000 is eight times the size of Jerusalem on June 5, 1967. In exchange for transferring the Arab neighborhoods to the Palestinians, within the context of an umbrella municipality, Israel will not only finally win international recognition of its capital, but Israeli Jerusalemites will enjoy a deep cut in their city taxes.

However, there is no easy solution for the Temple Mount issue. The chief rabbis agree that the halakha forbids any Jew from going onto the Mount until the conditions are right (the reconstruction of the Temple, with the arrival of the messiah), but they do not believe that Jewish sovereignty over the Mount can be relinquished. The Palestinians, through the waqf, would never dare to relinquish the claims to the Mount that they hold on behalf of the Arab world and Islam.

It's a religious problem more than a political one. And that's where a formula might be found for a tripartite, Jewish-Muslim-Christian administration that would preserve the status quo - but that's a formula that still needs a rhetorical juggle that would win approval not only from the Israelis and Palestinians but from authorities far from the Holy Land.

Sources said that US President Bill Clinton's last proposal on Jerusalem - which Barak was ready to accept, but which was rejected by Arafat - involved giving the Palestinians the right to call sections of Jerusalem part of the future Palestinian state. It also included giving Arafat far-reaching administrative authority in most of Jerusalem's Arab neighborhoods, allowing several neighborhoods outside Jerusalem's eastern border to be annexed to the future Palestinian state, and giving Arafat wide religious and civil powers within the Old City and formal custodial status on the Temple Mount.

In return, Barak would have received the right to annex several Jewish settlement blocs near Jerusalem, gained international and Palestinian recognition of Israel's right to the redrawn Jerusalem, and would have also received rights for Jews to pray on the Temple Mount.

Thanks to the Camp David summit, he continued, the negotiation process was already "above 80 percent" on the way to a settlement. "What took place between July 11 and July 25 in Camp David will be recorded in history," Erekat said.

This was printed in Haaretez following the Camp David II meeting:

Barak telephoned the White House and requested the president's assistance in dealing with the difficult political problems he now faces back at home. Clinton will thus tomorrow give a television interview (most probably with Channel One) in which he will state his country's commitment to Israel's security and welfare. Clinton is also expected to promise that the United States will lay the corner stone of its new embassy in West Jerusalem as soon as Israel signs a peace agreement with the Palestinians.

If the Camp David summit had succeeded, Clinton would have traveled to Jerusalem in an effort to help Barak mobilize public support for the agreement and also would have laid the new embassy's cornerstone. The president did not however agree to Barak's request that he announce that the embassy will be moved before September 13. So Bill Clinton is the one who is holding up this move. More on this:

"This is really a historic moment for the people in Israel. Now we are saying to the United States it should move its embassy to Jerusalem. There is a resolution on the Hill; it is only the waiver of the president which has to be removed. Symbolically, this would be a major and important step."

A Republican-led bill aimed at moving the embassy from Tel Aviv was passed by both houses of Congress on Oct. 24, 1995. The act, opposed by the Clinton administration as a threat to the peace process, included an escape clause allowing the president to indefinitely postpone the move at six-month intervals if he deemed the measure to be contrary to U.S. security interests.

WASHINGTON, July 28 -- Following are excerpts from an Israeli Television interview with President Clinton today, as transcribed by the White House Office of the Press Secretary:

Q. Mr. President, how do you consider right now the relationship between Israel and the United States after the summit?

A. Well, I think it's very strong. But I think in view of the courageous actions that the Prime Minister and the Israeli team took at the summit and in view of the withdrawal from Lebanon, I think some review and strengthening is in order.

I plan to have a comprehensive review to improve our strategic relationship. We're going to have talks that will start right away, with a view toward what we can do to ensure that Israeli maintains its qualitative edge, modernizes the I.D.F. [Israeli Defense Force] and meets the new threats that Israel and the other countries will face in the 21st century.

Secondly, I want to have a memorandum of understanding done as soon as possible with regard to our bilateral assistance, with a goal of making a long-term commitment to the necessary support to modernize the I.D.F. I think that's important.

The third thing that I think is significant is that we provide assistance, which we will do, to Israel, to upgrade its security, in light of the withdrawal from Lebanon. And in that context, we also want to try to help the government of Lebanon to strengthen its ability to control south Lebanon. . . .

You know, I have always wanted to move our embassy to West Jerusalem. We have a designated site there. I have not done so, because I didn't want to do anything to undermine our ability to help to broker a secure and fair and lasting peace for Israelis and for Palestinians. But in light of what has happened, I've taken that decision under review and I'll make a decision sometime between now and the end of the year on that. . . .

Q. Can you assure the Israeli people that Barak isn't going to divide Jerusalem?

. . .

A. What I believe is that Prime Minister Barak in no way ever compromised the vital interests of the security of the State of Israel.

One thing I think that I can say without violating either side is that the most progress in the talks was made in the area of security, where there was a surprising amount of consensus and an understanding that neither side would be secure after a peace agreement unless both were secure and unless both worked together.

. . .

Q. There is in the Congress some proposal to eliminate or prevent the use of aid to the Palestinians if they decide unilaterally to declare about statehood. Hillary Clinton, your wife, is for this proposal. What is your approach?

A. Well, the bill has just been introduced. We don't give a great deal of aid there, as you know. And a lot of it is---- B.

Q. But it's very symbolic.

A. Very symbolic.

Well, let me just say this. I think there should not be a unilateral declaration. And if there is, our entire relationship will be reviewed -- not confined to that. So I don't -- I make it a practice normally when the bills are first introduced -- and I haven't even reviewed them. Not to comment, but I think it would be a big mistake to take a unilateral action and walk away from the peace process.

And if it happens, there will inevitably be consequences. Not just here, but throughout the world. And things will happen. I would review our entire relationship.

-- Sharon



BPR Home | Miscellaneous Files | Jewish Calendar | Reference Guide | Online Books | Search | About Us

Please be advised that this domain ( does not endorse 100 per cent any link contained herein. This forum is for the dissemination of pertinent information on an end-times biblical theme which includes many disturbing, unethical, immoral, etc. topics and should be viewed with a mature, discerning eye.

privacy policy