As to David Klinghoffer's admission that he's not a Zionist, the obvious response is, "so what." But there's another problem here. That problem is that Mr. Klinghoffer doesn't understand the nature of Jewish history, nor the purpose of Zionism. His platitudes about "Jewish destiny" and "lights unto nations," are a smarmy combination of theological fantasy as well as a nationalism/chauvinism he claims to oppose.

The purpose of Zionism is to help Jews to survive in an often hostile world. The argument that a Jewish state "has caused us to neglect the higher mission God has in mind for us" is simply weird. Guys who profess to know that some deity has a higher mission are irrational. And what exactly is that mission? Is it the light unto nations tripe, or the tikkun olam crap?

The Jewish "mission" is simply to survive as a tribe, just like other tribes. I hate to break it to you, but Jews are not special and, outside of Larry, Curly and Moe, they don't have much to offer the world in the way of a divine mission.

By the way, your spin on Samson Raphael Hirsch's use of tikkun olam also doesn't wash. Hirsch was not trying to improve the world, but was lobbying the German government in order to obtain civil rights for Jews. He did this by spinning Jewish tradition in an attempt to prove that the Jews had something to offer and could serve as good, patriotic German citizens. As for maintenance of tradition, Hirsch had no problem chucking his parents' Yiddish culture onto the ash heap of history. You might also take a look at the photo accompanying your article. He's dressed exactly like a 19th century Protestant minister. Not too traditionally Jewish, is it.

It seems like your view is very heavily influenced by a bizarre combination of both Evangelical and ultra-orthodox thought. While these two fanaticisms meld easily, they don't make for a very rational argument.

Just like Portnoy said.

Mr. Portnoy's comments on Mr. Klinghohofer's essay is one of the most childish and ignorant things I've read in a while. Perhaps the descendants of Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch should apologize for his wardrobe which he seems to take offense to. I'm wondering if he suffers from carpal tunnel syndrome making it too painful to add the title "Rabbi" when referring to Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch unless he doesn't think the man is deserving of that title and that wouldn't surprise me. Unlike Mr. Klinghofer he has no references, no examples, just his own idea of what should be. Plain ignorance. I wouldn't expect anything else from an obvious Am Haaretz.

You ought to be ashamed but then again, the mishna says "Shoyta eino misbayesh", In the language of the Am Haaretz, Portnoy: "Idiots have no shame".

Thank you for the brilliant rejoinder. I'm sure Mr. Klinghohofer appreciates your support.

I've got it down now: instead of inserting my own comment, I just have to wait for Portnoy to say it, and just signify my agreement with him. The angry anonymice will then not notice my presence. It's like a fla(c)k jacket.

Happy to serve as communal flak.

I STILL don't see how putting us all in one place has made us any "safer."

This article is not worth reading. It is a joke. A Haredi Jew has a halachic reason for rejecting Zionism. A national-religious Jew has a strong halachic argument for supporting the state of Israel (read Rav Kook). The author seems to have nothing

simply kaka

The enemies of Israel and the Jewish people, like evil Kapo David, will vanish into obscurity and Israel will continue to thrive and survive. If you are against Israel you are against GOD!

David Klinghoffer, Yid from Brooklyn,

Your arguement no matter how you parse it comes down to one thing: asking other peoples to defend you.

When you give up your right to self defense which is to say your right to shape your destiny then you are nor the master in your house.

As the well known saying has it: "he who pays the piper calls the tune."

Grow up and take responsibility for your own existence.

"I STILL don't see how putting us all in one place has made us any "safer.""1

That's because you are blind.

As bad as things may look today they would be a lot worse without the Jewish State.

Anyone who believes that Islamicist antisemitism would not exist without israel they are either ignorant or blind.

Islamicism is the child of among other things western fascism and antisemitism is an article of faith in this evil ideology.

Besides, no matter with either leftist Jews or ultra religious Jews think, without Israel Western antisemitism would never have subsided as it did after 1948. The fact that nations have to deal with a Jewish country has shaped the post world war 2 view of Jews for over half a century. Prior to that the Jews were just like the Gypses, a contemptible people without a country.

Take that, gypsies. Seriously, is that cool, considering you were "just like" them?

"Take that, gypsies. Seriously, is that cool, considering you were "just like" them?" JewcyCraig

From the BBC:

"Gypsies are 'Europe's most hated'

Gypsies are the most hated minority in Europe despite centuries of persecution and the Holocaust, it has been claimed.
Up to half-a-million were killed by the Nazis - but their plight is often forgotten and they remain "demonised".

The comments were made by Dr James Smith of the National Holocaust Centre, where a conference on the treatment of gypsies and travellers is being held.

It is hoped the event will help promote greater understanding of both the gypsy and traveller communities in the UK...."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4486245.stm

Those who fantasize a world without a Jewish State as the answer need to think about the fate of another Statelss minority.

So... are you saying they're contemptible or not?

"So... are you saying they're contemptible or not?"

No Craig, I am saying that without a country of their own they are not in a position to defend themselves.

I am also saying that if Jews didn't have a country of their own they would probably be even worse off given the realities of antisemitism.

Now, what are you saying? Is your point that of this matters?

the last sentence should read:

Now, what are you saying, Craig? Is your point that none of this matters?

couldn't have said it better than portnoy.

you seem like a man of torah--- we are promised a great nation. just like avraham's journey, it is our obligation to use tools from Gd to do so.

you won't be able to focus on religious aspects of judaism if israel does not survive. your religious life will be threatened.

your jewish army is fighting as we speak. try and remember why.

there is truth to klinghoffer and portnoy.  anti-zionism does not equal bad jew, and we should not be shaking hands with the religious right.  i mean really,they get us all there, and then tell us to convert or die to bring on the second coming...ick!

I'm new to the game of learning about Zionism.  I am in support of Israel's existence, but also would like to see how Israel could live with the creation of a Palastinian State.  I know, I know, the crazy, suicide bombers, infitada...etc., but what if we were to reexamine resolution 242 and redraw the lines.  is it too late?  and don't say "we tried that, but it didn't work."  as my aunt janet would say, "well, you didn't try hard enough."  none of it is going to be easy. 

David Klinghoffer makes a good argument against a certain stream of Zionism, which could be called 'secular Zionism,' and argues that Israel should be a nation like any other. This stream has in many ways has become mainstream in terms of the way people think about Israel. Caught up in political battles, we are constantly arguing against Israel's being held to a higher standard than other countries, and this distracts us from our theological traditional belief that we should hold ourselves to a higher standard.
But much of Zionist thought rejected the ideas of a Zionism aimed at making us just like other nations and revolved around the idea that a Jewish society would have the strongest voice as a Light Unto the Nations when it had come together as a nation in the land of Israel. When Isaiah speaks of the Jews as a Light Unto the Nations, he is speaking to a nation settled in its land, not one scattered in a diaspora. As a settled nation, the Jewish people are to make an example with its righteousness and observance of divine Law.
Labor Zionism (e.g. AD Gordon), which inspired Kibbutzim, saw Israel as the central stage of a socialist revolution. Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook saw Israel as an inspiration that would lead to the redemption of the world by being an example and spiritual center. Yes, Rabbi Kook's son Rabbi Tzvi Yehuda Kook corrupted his ideas by focusing on Israel's relevance for the narrow commandment of settling the land of Israel. But this should not distract us from the possibility of a religious Zionism with a universal mission.

"But much of Zionist thought rejected the ideas of a Zionism aimed at making us just like other nations and revolved around the idea that a Jewish society would have the strongest voice as a Light Unto the Nations when it had come together as a nation in the land of Israel."

Well, Ben B. the Zionism that I know did want to normalize Jewish existence as well as to create an independent Jewish culture which build on its ancient traditions. This means the Hebrew language as well as its literature. The Bible of course, is central to that tradition but there are many ways of reading the Tanach and modern Zionism wanted a State in which all the cultureal possibilities would be allowed to flourish. This means the coexistence of both religious as well as a secular culture in the same country.

This at its best is what Israel has achieved and this being threatened by fanatics on both sided of the divide.

While Klinghoffer is clearly a committed Jew who has given this issue some thought, he fails to understand the big picture of either Israel or Judaism.

Religious, orthodox Judaism-- on its OWN TERMS-- is broken. Badly damaged, seemingly irreparably. All of us know (I count myself as orthodox) that Judaism DOES have a certain set of missions in the world. We are indeed a tribal people, whose identity and wisdom tradition were uniquely founded in the traumas of slavery and exile.

Precisely because of this, our existence in the world, our struggle to return to homeland and wholeness and 'home', and our sacred texts in which we explore this trying path, have become the essential foundation and inspiration for the world's morality, belief system, and ontology.

There is no corner of the planet where the stories of Abraham, Jacob, Moses and David have not reached either through Christian or Muslim translations (or Chabad!) Yet an inescapable, essential-but-not-sufficient part of the 'tikun' we are trying to do in the world (unwittingly or not) is to return to our land, and to the forms of worship spelled out in the torah.

I react with incredulity that Klinghoffer makes no reference to 'Eim ha Banim Semicha', which far more strongly than rav kook takes on haredi anti-zionism from within the halachic perspective. Neither secular nor religious Jews like the shape of our state; Olmert's approval rating is an astonishing ZERO percent. But if you don't like it and want to change it, ENGAGE with it.

To simply say that the dati-leumi community invests the state with sanctity betrays astonishing ignorance of the issues. Since withdrawal from Gaza, massive civil disobedience and open questioning of the legitimacy of the state are mainstream in the D-L population. But the haredi have remained apart from the real struggles. If you want to shape it, if you want the Jewish state to have an imprint of kedusha, YOU MUST HELP MAKE THAT HAPPEN!!!!!

For the haredi communities, all these years, to have remained out of the fray, not supported nor sought to shape the state and its laws, and then to point fingers and say they don't like the state the way it is, is pathetic hypocrisy. If you want it different, get off your ass and get involved. But also, get off your high-horse: being an observant Jew in Brooklyn is NOT what G-d wants of us as Jews. He explicitly wants us in Israel, working to build the temple and do sacrifices to H-m, on all the levels that means-- both metaphorical AND literal.

mm: You say: "Yet an inescapable, essential-but-not-sufficient part of the 'tikun' we are trying to do in the world (unwittingly or not) is to return to our land, and to the forms of worship spelled out in the torah."

At first, I thought "form of worship spelled out in the Torah" was a bit of a rhetorical flourish. You couldn't possibly mean we need to go back to animal sacrifice, right? I mean, this is the 21st century.

But then in your last sentence you actually say we need to start doing sacrifices again. Does that really get you excited, the thought of cutting open a bird or a rabbit and cooking it for G-d? It almost makes me appreciate my shallow Conservative Jewish upbringing.

"Can a nationalist people be a light among the nations?"

Every people that has been a light upon the nations since ancient times were nationalistic peoples.

Who was more nationalistic then the Ancient Greeks, the Arabs, the French, the English, etc.

These have all acted for good and ill, as a light unto the nations.

No people can act coherently without the sense of itself as a "people" which is to say as a "nation," conscious of itself as different from other nations, which is the definition of nationalism.

anonymous, do you eat meat?

 Do you participate in the taking of the animal's life that you eat?  Have you ever?

 I submit that people who eat meat without being in touch with the full cycles of life and death that meat comes from--including that moment when life is taken from the animal-- are contributing to making the world dangerously out of balance.  Yes, we should be directly in touch with the true meaning of taking an animal's life for our sustenance; and not only in touch with it, present at that moment, but it should be done "be shem shamayim"-- it should be done in a sacred way.  Do you really think the world, and you personally, are better off eating massive amounts of meat slaughtered impersonally in industrial processing centers, rather than having the deaths of those animals play a direct role deeply connected to our belief system and place in the world?

Judaism is ALL about throwing big roasted-meat barbecue parties for our friends and loved ones.  That could be argued to be our central ritual throughout history, via several forms.  More than half the mitzvot relate directly to sacrifices.  Something about that life and death moment, the way it's done and happens, is considered by our religion to be incredibly important with respect to setting the world in balance, and to restoring balance after various sins or problems.  One could even argue that every day that goes by since '67 that we ARE here in the land, yet not doing sacrifices nor anything else on har ha bayt, the world gets MORE out of balance. Yer damn straight I think we should go back to animal sacrifice-- and I think the burden of proof should be on those who think we shouldn't, and they should have to re-justify it every single day that goes by.

Anonymous bbq

If Hashem asked us to bring sacrifices, then it is a Chok to do exactly as asked. If you argue that we have grown out of sacrifices (I know, Rambam has made this argument, but then he was a hellenist), you can just as well argue that we may grow out of keeping taharat hamischpacha, kashrut, shabbes and all the rest. Of course the non-orthodox make this argument too, but it doesn't fit an orthodox person. After all, all shomrim mitzvos start their schachris prayers by going through the Thora, Mischna and Gemara portions on the sacrifices.

By the way, since Klinghofer has mentioned the German Jewish philosophers, why shouldn't we include in the discussion what could be the reasons that Hashem let this branch of anti-Zionist Jewish thought perish? Since they kept the daily mitzvos, it was surely not because they didn't keep these mitzvos? But what about their violent slander against the Land? Isn't that the reason the entire male Jewish population between 20-60 perished after Exodus too, with just 2 exceptions?

With regards to the 3 vows in Ketubot based on "I make you swear, o daughters of Jerusalem, by the gazelles and by the hinds of the field, do not wake or rouse love until it is wished (Song of Songs 2:7, 3:5, 8:4)." An outsider could of course hold the opinion that a lot of talmudic discussion is trial and error. For example, revolts against Romans didn't work at all, ergo stop hoping for a Jewish state.

Nothing could be further than that. It is clear from the statements of Rabbi Yose in the name of Rabbi Hannina, that the nations of the world made a promise to Hashem not to persecute Jews too harshly. Vice versa, once they do persecute Jews too harshly, these 3 vows will be voided. In fact, this is exactly what happened.

The entire world conspired in the Shoah, be it Americans through people like FDR, British who opened no outlets or inlets for our people to flee, Poles, Swiss, Russians, and don't forget the German rotzchim, of course. Thus, the entire world has broken that promise and voided the vows that blocked the erection of the Jewish state.

In the last paragraph of the article, Mr Klinghoffer refers to America nation in the first person - "our own". Notice that the Jewish people is never defined in first person ("our people"), and the Land of Israel is also never "our land" - just "the Holy Land". There is also Jewish nationhood in this essay, as in "Jewish national purpose" (the last words of the article) - but notice it's not "our national purpose". First person, as we noted, is reserved for the American nation. Herein lies the true reason that Mr Klinghoffer is not a Zionist. His primary identity is American. It's not that he really believes that Jews should stay in Exile until the proper time - there is no Exile! He's an American living in America, and as all Americans living in America - that's not an exile.

I'm the "barbeque" Anonymous from 6/11.

To mm: I very much appreciate your point about the fact that if you eat meat you obviously are killing animals. And to the extent that sacrificial animals were actually eaten (which, I believe, was true for most but not all sacrifices in the temple), I would agree that sacrificing an animal in a kosher way is no less ethical than eating meat in any other manner. In fact, it is far more ethical than purchasing meat that has been raised in the horrendous industrial Mordor that Americans now call "agriculture."

So my objection to animal sacrifice in this day and age is not an animal rights objection. Here are my reasons why I think it's a bad idea:

1. As practiced in the temple, it perpetuated a caste system. As far as I recall, sacrifices were never about "throwing big roasted-meat barbecue parties for our friends and loved ones." They were about peasants buying animals to be roasted and enjoyed by the priests and Levites. The latter, of course, got their position through no merit of their own, but only by accident of birth.

2. It relies on the outdated magical thinking that one's sins can be forgiven if you perform some physical act that has no moral significance. The whole notion is completely irrational, and no different from the long-discredited notion that the Catholic church could sell "indulgences" to the highest bidder. Of course, all religious ceremony consists of physical acts with no moral significance. But the difference between sacrifice and modern Jewish ceremonies is that the modern ceremonies are symbolic. When you practice T'shuvah you don't really believe the bread contains your sins--the purpose of T'shuvah is to focus your mind on the real act of t'shuvah--which can only happen internally. Sacrifice is different--it's more of a quid pro quo with G-d, which is patently ridiculous.

3. I agree with your point that our lives and spirits can be enriched by imbuing the act of eating (particularly the act of eating animals) with spiritual significance. But I don't think the restoration of animal sacrifice is either necessary or sufficient to accomplish this goal. It's not necessary because saying Hamotzi like you mean it accomplishes the same goal. And it's not sufficient because we can only have one temple in one place, meaning that most animals killed for meat by Jews around the world will not be sacrificed.

4. If you believe that the Temple can only be built in one spot, we have a little problem of another historic building occupying the same spot, where thousands of people are already worshiping. Depriving those people of a place of worship would obviously violate the Golden Rule (or Hillel's edict to "not do unto others...") Even if you have no care in the world how others would feel (which in itself would be a halachically suspect position to take), you have to balance any karmic points earned by sacrifice against the inevitable bloodshed that would result from tearing down the Dome of the Rock.

In response to LondonYid, you're right that I believe religious practice must evolve along with civilization's evolving notions of science, morality, philosophy, etc. At one point in time the Jews were spiritual revolutionaries, and our ideas changed humanity forever. It would be a shame if we now became a force for stagnation, unable to let go of ideas that are long past their time.

No shit! Jews need a Jewish homeland to survive - Chuckle, I am a Deist, raised the the Episcopal faith!

Mr Klinghoffer feels that Zionism has made "a pedestrian and foreign 19th-century-style nationalism so central to contemporary Jewish culture". To make his point, he relies on Samson Raphael Hirsch who claimed that Jews should be “patriots” in their adopted home countries. Well, wouldn't it be obvious that such a sense of patriotism is also a 19th century legacy? As Yehuda points out in his above observation, Mr Klinghoffer refers to the American nation as "our own", in the first person. Surely, this is not the traditional, "orthodox" perspective of the Jews - who are a nation in their own right: u-mi ke-'ammekha Yisrael goy ehad ba-aretz - "Who is like Your people Israel, a unique nation in the world" (see I Chr 17:21 and the Jewish prayerbook)! In other words, Mr Klinghoffer identifies with the American nation (as Rabbi Hirsch identified with the German nation), breaking with the traditional Jewish thinking of our being a separate nation called Israel (in the Land of Israel or in the Galut). He's an American (core identity) whose religion is (orthodox) Judaism. In this respect, the "orthodox" perspective of Mr Klinghoffer is no different than the 19th century Reform outlook that also defined itself as "Germans (or Americans) of the Mosaic faith". Zionism has always been the legacy of those Jews whose core identity has been Jewish.

londonyid, do you then agree we should do sacrifices?

 i agree with those who have pointed out, via the first-person clues etc, that klinghoffer is accepting american identity, refusing to admit he's in exile.

anonymous-- good points.  arguably the temple hierarchy was more of servitude than of 'higher' caste-- priests couldn't own land, so they received food (via sacrifices etc.) but that was their payment for maintenance of ritual and of being the teachers of the people. 

'outdated magical thinking'-- you don't KNOW that prayer or ritual (or sacrifice) DOESN'T have any effect.  Plenty of evidence points to there being a 'method to the madness', even scientifically.  Wrapping tefillin corresponds to acupuncture points, which have proven medical value.  Positive prayer and words has been shown to 'imprint' water with beautiful crystal patterns, while negative epithets can imprint water with messes or no crystals. 

The sacrifices are necessary but not sufficient towards restoring balance in the world (or addressing the imbalances of a specific penitent, sinner, or sin.)  They are part of a process of identifying, understanding, and atoning for ways in which we through our imperfections cause the world to be out of balance, and the process as a whole can be likened to 12-step.  You can't skip steps-- and the sacrifices are important steps.

As for the temple/dome of the rock, the muslims didn't just 'happen' to build there.  They knowingly, deliberately, sought to replace, overlay, bury the Jewish story under their retelling of it, and take over and destroy our holiest place.  They did that in the very specific context of Mohammed's anger at the Jews for not recognizing his prophecy; in the context of expelling all Jews from Arabia (where at one point we were one-fourth of the pop.) and forcing conversion or second-class status (or death) on Jews throughout the middle east.  It wasn't nice and it isn't nice, it's utterly disrespectful, and it continues to this day with the Muslim Waqf excavating under the temple mount specifically to eradicate and destroy archaeological proof of Jewish past there, in violation of international agreements. 

You saying we should consider the possibility of bloodshed is like saying hm, maybe we shouldn't try to arrest mobsters or terrorists because they might shoot back.  It allows the bully to always have his way. 

I'm not saying there's no rational basis for ANY religious exercise (i.e.: tefillin, prayer, etc.)--it's clear that some contemplation and depth is necessary to live a fulfilling life, especially in our materialistic culture.

I'm just saying there's no rational basis for sacrificing animals. If you show me scientific studies linking animal sacrifice to healing the world, improving your relationships, reducing heartburn, etc., then I'll consider sacrifices something we might want to spend time doing. Good luck with that.

In my view, prayer (if done sincerely), forces us to contemplate our highest and deepest values and instincts. With animal sacrifice you just can't get over the notion of quid pro quo. I kill an animal, give it to the priests, and in return I get blessings, forgiveness, rain, etc.

Also, I think the evil in the Kohanim/Israel distinction does not depend on whether the priests were considered higher or lower than the Israelis. "Separate but equal" is no excuse for denying people opportunities based on who their father was. I can't blame the ancient Israelis for doing this--the very notion of equality and civil rights did not really exist back then. But in our day and age there is no excuse.

As for the Temple Mount--I don't really think it's productive to list all the grievances and injustices committed by Muslims against Jews and vice-versa over the past 1400 years. I don't know the history of why the Dome of the Rock was built where it was built but for the sake of argument I will grant you that it was put there for unjust reasons.

But I want to point out that your entire analysis of the Temple Mount situation treats "Muslims" and "Jews" as if they were two indivduals who have been alive for 1400 years. Replace "Muslim" and "Jew" with the names of two individuals, and your argument essentially says "Mike maliciously burned Jake's temple 1400 years ago; therefore Jake has the right to rebuild Jake's temple today, regardless of what Mike may have done with the place in the intervening years."

The problem with this argument is that there is no Mike or Jake. The Dome of the Rock was built by people living 1400 years ago. The Muslims who now pray there and the Jews who want the place back are completely different people. Of course, they still identify themselves as Jews or Muslims--but ultimately they are individuals. And just because some Muslim did something terrible to a Jew way back when does not mean that Jews now have a right to do bad things to Muslims now. (doesn't the Torah say something about "sins of the fathers").

Every Muslim individual who prays at the Dome of the Rock and finds spiritual fulfillment there should not be deprived of the right to pray there simply because some Muslims went there for the wrong reasons.

Also--no legal system in the world will recognize a claim to land that has not been occupied for 1200 years. That along should give someone pause before making those sorts of claims.

I also would point out that I'm probably in the middle of the sprectrum on the Palestinian/Israel question and certainly do NOT blame Israel for all the problems there. I'm not trying to make a political argument about the Middle East here. I'm just saying that it is barbaric to treat groups of people as if they do not consist of individuals. It took Europe thousands of years to recognize this basic notion, on which all of modernity is based. The root of the problems in the Middle East stems from people's inability to adopt that notion there.

zbird, are you aware that the Muslim religious authorities, CURRENTLY, deny Jews and Christians the right to pray and 'find religious fulfillment' in ANY form on the Temple mount?  Jews and Christians have no such prohibitions on other peoples praying in their synagogues, churches, or other holy sites; only Muslims, TODAY, maintain such a medieval intolerant attitude, and they continue this KNOWING that Jews consider the Temple Mount the holiest site to Jews.  forget about rebuilding the temple; if they see you doing anything that resembles prayer when you visit the temple mount-- even blissfully close your eyes for a moment-- they throw you off, and you can be arrested.  I can't imagine you could defend the status quo, even if you don't support rebuilding the temple.  The injustice is current, not just 1400 years old.  I don't want to stop Muslims from connecting to and praying to God on the temple mount, regardless of what buildings are there; THEY want to and ARE stopping ME.

 You have admitted that having our slaughter of animals for meat done in impersonal slaughterhouses, distant from consumers who are insulated from the reality as well as from that life-and-death moment, is not good.  And that if we were more involved with hands-on knowing and connecting to the lives and deaths of the animals that we eat (in meaningful ways-- including ritual) it would be better, more rational for the overall working of society, and more holistic for society.  (Please stop me if I'm putting words in your mouth)  Do I need to 'scientifically prove' this?

How many jews would advocate not only animal sacrifice, but also human sacrifice in the new Temple once the dome of the rock is destroyed?
Surely a few of you must know that some jewish sects have a history of human sacrifice throughout history. Anyone up for sacrificing some goys?

play_fair67@yahoo.com

R. James

one of the central advancements of abrahamic monotheism was the end of human sacrifice, symbolized by the akeidat yitzhak (or ishmael). 

mm--I don't approve of the way Muslims relate to other religions. In fact, there's a lot about the Muslim religion that I don't approve of. But I don't think we are justified in mistreating them just because they mistreat Jews.

You say you want to be able to pray there without interference. And if all you wanted was to go to the Dome of the Rock, close your eyes, and pray, I'd say fine. But you want to rebuild the temple, and presumably you want to rebuild it on the Temple Mount, with a center at the Holy of Holies. That means you want to remove a Muslim shrine that's been sitting there for 1400 years--that's hardly "sharing." That IS stopping Muslims "from connecting to and praying to God on the temple mount." I don't see how your attitude is fundamentally any different from theirs.

Even if sacrifice were restored to the Temple, most people in Israel (even those who believed) wouldn't get there more than 3-4 times a year, and in the diaspora many would be lucky to do one sacrifice in a lifetime. That means that restoration of the Temple would make us "more involved with hands-on knowing and connecting to the lives and deaths of [MAYBE 1% OF] the animals that we eat.

I can think of ways to connect to 100% of the food we eat, right now, without animal sacrifice and without all the other problems that rebuilding the Temple would cause:
Say a blessing on your food.
Buy only meat that's been ethically raised. The very act of consciously choosing food you can ethically stomach is an act of higher consciousness.

I believe we all can choose to live more authentic, more ethical, more spiritually fulfilling lives right now, just by choosing to be conscious of what we do. I can't see how any plan to accomplish this some time in the future through a big construction job can be anything but a narcicistic ego trip skillfully disguised as spiritual passion.

Somebody ought to take a huge Caterpillar to that Dome. It's gaudy.

as a minimum to remove blatant, flagrant, anti-semitic hypocrisy, I advocate NOW the opening of the Temple Mount to worshipers of all faiths.

 As far as any construction projects, I would not seriously advocate them until there is more consensus in the Jewish world about what needs to be built there and why.  I am indeed working towards that consensus, but I don't expect it to happen soon, and if it becomes closer, then we can have a serious talk with Muslims about how they are welcome to connect to God here in the 'farthest temple' (their koranic description of it, and their very rationale for wanting to connect to it.)

All that being said, the strongest argument i've ever heard for rebuilding the temple came from several Egyptian Muslims my friend studied with in Cairo.  They asked him, 'why don't you guys just build it already?  every day that goes by that you DON'T build it, we wonder what the hell you're doing in the holy land.  If you don't believe you belong there, then leave-- plenty of Palestinians sure believe they belong.  But if you DO believe you belong, there, then ACT LIKE IT-- and rebuild your damn temple already.'

zbird, BTW, i do partly agree that there are many ways to connect to animal sacrifice, etc.... the tikun of the beit ha migdash goes WAY beyond just the 3 visits a year, way beyond just killing animals.  If it was just for that, it wouldn't be enough justification.

distinction,
yes, it is quite proper that harhabayt should be rebuilt, by removing all traces of idol worship that are currently the reason to weep. No wonder Israel finds no peace as long as harhabayt is desolate.
Human sacrifice - yes, we do pay in our own human sacrifice as long as the temple is not rebuilt. Even far away in London - think of 7/7, where more then 50 promising lifes were taken away, Hashem should not forget their blood. Animal sacrifice at the proper site is definitely more humane.

but i can't tell if you are joking.

 Of all the charges that could be laid at the feet of muslims, idol worship is emphatically not one of them: Islam has stronger strictures against graven images and representations of the divine than any other religion as far as i know. 

One could make a case that esp. in Palestine, a death cult has arisen which resembles idol worship: posters of 'shaheeds', suicide bombers, plaster the walls of most Palestinian cities, to the exclusion of even advertising, much less positive murals or other art (or even blank space)

but yes, i agree, however crazy it might sound, that doing real animal sacrifices on har ha bayt in a true way would put the world more into balance.  And perhaps, hopefully, dissipate or replace that bloodthirsty energy that led to such 'sacrifices' (l'havdil!!)

But how will we know when this pleases Him? When mass migration to Israel is unopposed by other peoples living there.

Lovely. And I agree.

We already tried Tikkun Olam in the absence of a nation. It was rejected in the Holocaust, which I argue is the height of European civilization. One can argue that the European sojourn of Jewry was doomed from the beginning, because European civilization is based upon paganism, that values beauty, while Judaism values life. The lack of a Jewish state would be a major impediment for the Jewish people to perform Tikkun Olam. Tikkun Olam should be the elevation of all humans, rather than the worship of whatever cause appears to be trendy for the day

What are the roots of antisemitism? You say Islam is antisemitic, but aren't the Arabs  semitic too? Does not Allah address the Jews as follows: "O Children of Israel! Remember My favour wherewith I favoured you and how I preferred you to (all) creatures. (47) And
guard yourselves against a day when no soul will in aught avail
another, nor will intercession be accepted from it, nor will
compensation be received from it, nor will they be helped. (48) And
(remember) when We did deliver you from Pharaoh's folk, who were
afflicting you with dreadful torment, slaying your sons and sparing
your women: that was a tremendous trial from your Lord. (49) And when We brought you through the sea and rescued you, and drowned the folk of Pharaoh in your sight.(50)" Surah al-Baqara.

why not convert to Islam, accept the Dome/al-Aqsa as the Temple and live on?

I think the "pigs and apes" the Muslim Quran talks about are not all the Jews, but only those who profess contempt and hatred to Judaism, the quintessence of our Jewishness, our Covenant with G-d, the olam of our own.

What God? Whose God? Who said that?

He contradicts himself. He says Zionism twits him out because it is just so last year, silly old nationalism, so out of fashion in intellectual circles, but then he turns right around and says he would be proud of his son for joining the Israeli army! His problem is a larger one: what are nation-states still good for? How about this: they deliver visible instead of invisible government, much better than having a social patchwork of local war lords. States are the protectors of inter-group civil peace, and individuals' rights. And, they make doing business, in a reasonably fair way, possible. They keep down gangsterism. They protect, and therefore promote, innovation. Promoting busines is a good thing, unless you like picking your food in the forest. A very Western idea. Not at all fashionable in intellectual circles. 

You get mushy thinking like this from writers and academics who have never started a business, or even owned a lemonade stand, or made a payroll. They write, socialize, pass exams, talk well, write some more, talk some more, have some wine and cheese, review each others' books favorably, and live sheltered lives. He wants it all ways. He wants to have his cake and eat it too.

Klinghoffer should take some money out of savings, rent a little shop in the center of a college town, order some merchandise wholesale from giftware suppliers, and from local craftsmen such as knitters, T-shirt designers, painters, and potters, put up a sign or awning, and get his wife to sit in the shop to set out the displays and make the sales. He should spell her there, too, several hours every week, behind the counter. In a year he would know a lot more than he knows now. So would she. They should both keep a journals of the experience, which they would not show each other. Might make a good book at the end of two years. They would be out of business, of course. They haven't the faintest idea where money really comes from. They think it grows on trees, or in libraries.

This thread contains precious few mentions of the expansionist obsession of the zionists. Perhaps because it's so damned hard to defend.

Oh baloney. The Zionists don't want the world. It is the other side that wants the world. The Zionists want an oil-free patch of sand with a coastline much smaller than North Africa's, 80 degrees F in winter, and often over a 100 degrees F in summer, with almost no rain. No paradise. A pitiless terrain full of rocks. Surrounded by miles of identical terrain in other hands - do they need everything? Ignored for centuries, and spurned as a dusty backwater, until after the Second World War. During which the other side sided with - the other side. The baddies. Your grandpa saved you from those baddies! Jerusalem's name recognition is useful to another expansionist plan, not the Zionists'. Jerusalem was ignored for centuries. The Dome of the Rock was only gilded recently, for instance. I thought you were for pluralism and tolerance. There CAN be more than one kind of person living in the Middle East. Why not? There are a 104 languages in the public schools in Queens, and it's all right. 

 G-d and history want to give this patch, the size of New Jersey, to the Jews. You can spare it. So can the other guys.