Clashes After Jews Permitted to Pray At Temple Mount

[Shusha]

You can not hold a people today responsible for action of people thousands of years ago. People who lived under a completely different set of ethics, customs, and norms. You can not hold children responsible for the acts of their parents.

Yeah, well, if I can't teach an American to understand the need for acknowledgement and reconciliation, I'm damn sure I'm not going to be able to convince the Arab Muslims. But I'm going to try again...

It is not about holding the children responsible for the actions of the parents. Nor today's people for the actions of people thousands of years ago. It is a simple recognition and acknowledgement of the historical impact of invasion and colonization on the earlier people, and how that, in turn, impacts the present day relationship between the peoples.

Here is an introduction to land acknowledgement and why it matters. Some of it is specific to Canadian First Nations, but for the most part can apply to any peoples affected by invasion and colonization.

Another article sums it up like this: The purpose of these statements is to show respect for indigenous peoples and recognize their enduring relationship to the land. Practicing acknowledgment can also raise awareness about histories that are often suppressed or forgotten.

By that logic, Jews should apologize for the violence they bestowed on the earlier inhabitants when they invaded and conquered them.

Yes! Exactly. If there were a living people whose history and culture pre-dated the Jewish people, the Jewish people ABSOLUTELY should make land acknowledgements and meaningful reconciliation. Without question. (There aren't though. And all evidence points to the fact that the Jewish people developed from a local change, rather than an invasion from another point of origin).

Further, I'd push you one more step and suggest that as more indigenous peoples regain their self-determination and sovereignty, and very likely encounter resistance from the settler and colonizing cultures which are accustomed to privilege, it is important for these First Peoples to sensitively respond.

The thing is, taking over religious sites WAS not problematic. Not then and frankly, only became so in the last century.

I disagree. I strongly disagree. If its wrong, its always been wrong. It may not have been the norm. It may not have been understood to be wrong. But if it is wrong, then it has always been wrong. And if its not wrong, then let's take down the Dome and the Mosque and re-build the Temple.

And now that site is sacred to three very old religions equally.

Well, no. First of all, there is nothing about the Mount itself that is sacred to Christians. There are other places in the Old City which are, but the Mount is not. Also, I think you minimize the sanctity of the place in the Jewish faith, and neglect entirely the historical and non-religious significance for the Jewish people. That said, of course, people of all faith should be treated equally in that holy place.

Shame, we never get to talk about THAT, though, since the conversation always goes sideways into how Jews should be "more respectful" of Muslims. Even though Jews are the ones being mocked, provoked, banned, denied and murdered in their own holy place. The weight of effort you put on this discussion against the Jewish POV is ridiculous given what should be a clear, black-and-white violation of human rights and treaty rights by Muslims towards Jews.

 

[Shusha]

IMO a human rights perspective would only require a shared acknowledgement, mutual respect and tolerance.

How can you respect someone (and their culture and history) if you don't acknowledge them?

 

[Ria_Longhorn]

If the Jewish People cannot pray at their Holy site, then they are still in golus. As yeshiva student, Aharon Dovid Shainberg, a young man from America who came to study at Hebron and was murdered (may G-D avenge his blood) by the Arabs, wrote to his parents on August 20, 1929:

"So think of it! That the holiest & most sacred spot of the Jewish people is controlled by the heartless and brazen Esau! For the few feet remaining of our holy Temple we must regard the English soldiers as the 'Baale Battim' [owners or bosses]--Oh! I tell you it is heart rending!"

In Aharon Dovid Shainberg's memory, may the Jewish People once again pray, without fear, at their sacred spot.
(Thank you to Sixties Fan for bringing Aharon's story to light.)

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Clashes After Jews Permitted to Pray At Temple Mount
⁜→ Shusha, Coyote, et al,

The topic is strange enough without confusing the issue. When you look through a tunnel and see a light, it does not mean that if you look down the tunnel from the other end you will see a light. One end can be brite while the other end can be dark.

You can not hold people today responsible for the action of people thousands of years ago. People who lived under a completely different set of ethics, customs, and norms. You can not hold children responsible for the acts of their parents.

Yeah, well, if I can't teach an American to understand the need for acknowledgment and reconciliation, I'm damn sure I'm not going to be able to convince the Arab Muslims. But I'm going to try again...

(COMMENT)

Knowledge of Historical Actions is not the same thing (or even similar to) the Mental Ability for Reconciliation and Forgiveness. History can influence Reconciliation or Forgiveness; but the influence can be either be negative, nonexistent or positive.

And now that site is sacred to three very old religions equally.

Well, no. First of all, there is nothing about the Mount itself that is sacred to Christians. There are other places in the Old City which are, but the Mount is not. Also, I think you minimize the sanctity of the place in the Jewish faith and neglect entirely the historical and non-religious significance for the Jewish people. That said, of course, people of all faith should be treated equally in that holy place.

(COMMENT)

For a site to be "sacred," the believer must think that the supernatural is real. What is sacred and what is not sacred is a matter of being designated either by "man" or by a "supernatural power." →It is a matter of superstition and belief. And the quality that makes it sacred is transferrable. It has absolutely nothing to do with evidentiary materials or reality. Whichever side has ground control and site supervision makes the determination as to what is sacred and why. And that determination can change over time. Some historians believe that a thousand years ago Al-Ḥākim (996–1021) (historically the "Mad Caliph of Cairo) decreed that all churches, including the destruction of the Holy Sepulchre, must be "razed to the ground." The question remains as to what is there now if the site was destroyed in 1009, what is there nowThe powers that be have the ability to craft history and to make a new determination as they become politically necessary. If the powers that be want to declare a place sacred and dedicated to a religious ritual → deserving veneration. These various sacred sites were designated either by "man" or by a "supernatural power." You can judge which is the more believable.

........
Most Respectively,
R

 

[Coyote]

You can not hold a people today responsible for action of people thousands of years ago. People who lived under a completely different set of ethics, customs, and norms. You can not hold children responsible for the acts of their parents.

Yeah, well, if I can't teach an American to understand the need for acknowledgement and reconciliation, I'm damn sure I'm not going to be able to convince the Arab Muslims. But I'm going to try again...

There is no need for insults. Perhaps then the Jewish people should practice acknowledgement and reconciliation for forcing the Palestinians, who were themselves indigenous to Palestine, off their land and recognizing the effect Nakbah had on THEIR People instead of marginalizing it.

It is not about holding the children responsible for the actions of the parents. Nor today's people for the actions of people thousands of years ago. It is a simple recognition and acknowledgement of the historical impact of invasion and colonization on the earlier people, and how that, in turn, impacts the present day relationship between the peoples.

I have with this because you are talking about events truly in ancient history and selectively applying it. None of the nation’s in those times still exist, neither do the people’s involved really. You are talking about world faiths spanning multiple cultures. With US and Canada, I can see the rationale and agree. These states exist, these states did great harm and as a citizen who’s ancestors had responsibility, I acknowledge it. I would say the same applies to the events of the Holocaust, Armenian genocide and a host of other relatively modern events. But why should a Chechnyan Muslim need to apologize for something an ancient Arab culture did in states that do not exist now?

There is another aspect to this that rather unsavory. One of the common anti-Semitic attacks on Jews is that they killed Christ, a pretty dominant Christian theme. Should the Jewish people as whole apologize for killing another religion’s Messiah? Do you see what I am getting at?

Here is an introduction to land acknowledgement and why it matters. Some of it is specific to Canadian First Nations, but for the most part can apply to any peoples affected by invasion and colonization.

Another article sums it up like this: The purpose of these statements is to show respect for indigenous peoples and recognize their enduring relationship to the land. Practicing acknowledgment can also raise awareness about histories that are often suppressed or forgotten.

By that logic, Jews should apologize for the violence they bestowed on the earlier inhabitants when they invaded and conquered them.

Yes! Exactly. If there were a living people whose history and culture pre-dated the Jewish people, the Jewish people ABSOLUTELY should make land acknowledgements and meaningful reconciliation. Without question. (There aren't though. And all evidence points to the fact that the Jewish people developed from a local change, rather than an invasion from another point of origin).

I get that, I really do. I think applying it to ancient history is a false moral equivalency.

And Israelites were a conquering tribe who invaded another area. They were conquerors like everyone else at the time. Canaan | Definition, History, & Facts

Further, I'd push you one more step and suggest that as more indigenous peoples regain their self-determination and sovereignty, and very likely encounter resistance from the settler and colonizing cultures which are accustomed to privilege, it is important for these First Peoples to sensitively respond.

When a people have lived in an area for thousands of years they are not settlers or colonizing cultures. When you apply that to ancient conquests such as that of Muslims or Christians, you are applying the term as dishonestly as those who claim Jews are colonists.

co·lo·ni·al·ism
/kəˈlōnēəˌlizəm/
noun

1. the policy or practice of acquiring full or partial political control over another country, occupying it with settlers, and exploiting it economically.

Definition of colonist: a settler or inhabitant of a colony.

From what I can read, the Muslim conquests in that region, converted local populations, both voluntary and involuntary, to Islam, exerted Islamic control, but had little to do with colonizing as we understand the term. And that is the problem with trying to apply modern concepts to ancient history.


In my opinion, if there should be reconciliation and acknowledgement for acts such as these:

The forced expulsion of Jews from Arab states.
The unwillingness to maintain peace and respect at shared holy sites.
The destruction, in relatively recent times, of sacred sites and artifacts.
Acknowledge of the Jewish people’s ancient ties to and rights to those places and the region.

The thing is, taking over religious sites WAS not problematic. Not then and frankly, only became so in the last century.

I disagree. I strongly disagree. If its wrong, its always been wrong. It may not have been the norm. It may not have been understood to be wrong. But if it is wrong, then it has always been wrong. And if its not wrong, then let's take down the Dome and the Mosque and re-build the Temple.

And now that site is sacred to three very old religions equally.

Well, no. First of all, there is nothing about the Mount itself that is sacred to Christians. There are other places in the Old City which are, but the Mount is not. Also, I think you minimize the sanctity of the place in the Jewish faith, and neglect entirely the historical and non-religious significance for the Jewish people. That said, of course, people of all faith should be treated equally in that holy place.

Shame, we never get to talk about THAT, though, since the conversation always goes sideways into how Jews should be "more respectful" of Muslims. Even though Jews are the ones being mocked, provoked, banned, denied and murdered in their own holy place. The weight of effort you put on this discussion against the Jewish POV is ridiculous given what should be a clear, black-and-white violation of human rights and treaty rights by Muslims towards Jews.

I have consistently supported Jewish rights to those places and have agreed that it is the Muslim community who is unwilling to share, so what in the hell are you going off about?

My statement stands: these are multifaith sites and all who worship there need to be respectful, tolerant and open about the other’s rights.

What do you want? A diatribe on how evil and horrible Muslims are? Because that is what it comes down in the end right? Some one has to be demonized to satisfy.

What I don’t agree on is your attempt to put modern principles and ethics on ancient events.

Ancient people including Jews, were barbaric to women, held slaves, conquered other people’s, imposed culture and religion, and by today's standards would be right up there with Stalin.

On the other issue, the right or wrong of taking over religious sites...no...it was not always wrong even though it is abhorrent to us today. Concepts of right and wrong change. Maybe someday in the future the eating of animals will be analogous to murder. Does that mean humanity through the ages were murderers? We recognize things as historic wrongs but imo we have to judge them in the context of the times, not by today’s morality.

 

[Sixties Fan]

You can not hold a people today responsible for action of people thousands of years ago. People who lived under a completely different set of ethics, customs, and norms. You can not hold children responsible for the acts of their parents.

Yeah, well, if I can't teach an American to understand the need for acknowledgement and reconciliation, I'm damn sure I'm not going to be able to convince the Arab Muslims. But I'm going to try again...

There is no need for insults. Perhaps then the Jewish people should practice acknowledgement and reconciliation for forcing the Palestinians, who were themselves indigenous to Palestine, off their land and recognizing the effect Nakbah had on THEIR People instead of marginalizing it.

It is not about holding the children responsible for the actions of the parents. Nor today's people for the actions of people thousands of years ago. It is a simple recognition and acknowledgement of the historical impact of invasion and colonization on the earlier people, and how that, in turn, impacts the present day relationship between the peoples.

I have with this because you are talking about events truly in ancient history and selectively applying it. None of the nation’s in those times still exist, neither do the people’s involved really. You are talking about world faiths spanning multiple cultures. With US and Canada, I can see the rationale and agree. These states exist, these states did great harm and as a citizen who’s ancestors had responsibility, I acknowledge it. I would say the same applies to the events of the Holocaust, Armenian genocide and a host of other relatively modern events. But why should a Chechnyan Muslim need to apologize for something an ancient Arab culture did in states that do not exist now?

There is another aspect to this that rather unsavory. One of the common anti-Semitic attacks on Jews is that they killed Christ, a pretty dominant Christian theme. Should the Jewish people as whole apologize for killing another religion’s Messiah? Do you see what I am getting at?

Here is an introduction to land acknowledgement and why it matters. Some of it is specific to Canadian First Nations, but for the most part can apply to any peoples affected by invasion and colonization.

Another article sums it up like this: The purpose of these statements is to show respect for indigenous peoples and recognize their enduring relationship to the land. Practicing acknowledgment can also raise awareness about histories that are often suppressed or forgotten.

By that logic, Jews should apologize for the violence they bestowed on the earlier inhabitants when they invaded and conquered them.

Yes! Exactly. If there were a living people whose history and culture pre-dated the Jewish people, the Jewish people ABSOLUTELY should make land acknowledgements and meaningful reconciliation. Without question. (There aren't though. And all evidence points to the fact that the Jewish people developed from a local change, rather than an invasion from another point of origin).

I get that, I really do. I think applying it to ancient history is a false moral equivalency.

And Israelites were a conquering tribe who invaded another area. They were conquerors like everyone else at the time. Canaan | Definition, History, & Facts

Further, I'd push you one more step and suggest that as more indigenous peoples regain their self-determination and sovereignty, and very likely encounter resistance from the settler and colonizing cultures which are accustomed to privilege, it is important for these First Peoples to sensitively respond.

When a people have lived in an area for thousands of years they are not settlers or colonizing cultures. When you apply that to ancient conquests such as that of Muslims or Christians, you are applying the term as dishonestly as those who claim Jews are colonists.

co·lo·ni·al·ism
/kəˈlōnēəˌlizəm/
noun

1. the policy or practice of acquiring full or partial political control over another country, occupying it with settlers, and exploiting it economically.

Definition of colonist: a settler or inhabitant of a colony.

From what I can read, the Muslim conquests in that region, converted local populations, both voluntary and involuntary, to Islam, exerted Islamic control, but had little to do with colonizing as we understand the term. And that is the problem with trying to apply modern concepts to ancient history.


In my opinion, if there should be reconciliation and acknowledgement for acts such as these:

The forced expulsion of Jews from Arab states.
The unwillingness to maintain peace and respect at shared holy sites.
The destruction, in relatively recent times, of sacred sites and artifacts.
Acknowledge of the Jewish people’s ancient ties to and rights to those places and the region.

The thing is, taking over religious sites WAS not problematic. Not then and frankly, only became so in the last century.

I disagree. I strongly disagree. If its wrong, its always been wrong. It may not have been the norm. It may not have been understood to be wrong. But if it is wrong, then it has always been wrong. And if its not wrong, then let's take down the Dome and the Mosque and re-build the Temple.

And now that site is sacred to three very old religions equally.

Well, no. First of all, there is nothing about the Mount itself that is sacred to Christians. There are other places in the Old City which are, but the Mount is not. Also, I think you minimize the sanctity of the place in the Jewish faith, and neglect entirely the historical and non-religious significance for the Jewish people. That said, of course, people of all faith should be treated equally in that holy place.

Shame, we never get to talk about THAT, though, since the conversation always goes sideways into how Jews should be "more respectful" of Muslims. Even though Jews are the ones being mocked, provoked, banned, denied and murdered in their own holy place. The weight of effort you put on this discussion against the Jewish POV is ridiculous given what should be a clear, black-and-white violation of human rights and treaty rights by Muslims towards Jews.

I have consistently supported Jewish rights to those places and have agreed that it is the Muslim community who is unwilling to share, so what in the hell are you going off about?

My statement stands: these are multifaith sites and all who worship there need to be respectful, tolerant and open about the other’s rights.

What do you want? A diatribe on how evil and horrible Muslims are? Because that is what it comes down in the end right? Some one has to be demonized to satisfy.

What I don’t agree on is your attempt to put modern principles and ethics on ancient events.

Ancient people including Jews, were barbaric to women, held slaves, conquered other people’s, imposed culture and religion, and by today's standards would be right up there with Stalin.

On the other issue, the right or wrong of taking over religious sites...no...it was not always wrong even though it is abhorrent to us today. Concepts of right and wrong change. Maybe someday in the future the eating of animals will be analogous to murder. Does that mean humanity through the ages were murderers? We recognize things as historic wrongs but imo we have to judge them in the context of the times, not by today’s morality.

The "Palestinians" themselves have no evidence that they are indigenous to the area, as the Jews are.

Invading an area of the world and living on it for hundreds of years, does not turn one into indigenous, the same as those who were there for thousands of years before they invaded.

Arabs are new, as colonizers, to everywhere outside of the Arabian Peninsula past the 7th Century CE.

They are aware of that reality. They know that they are NOT the indigenous people of anywhere outside of the Arabian Peninsula.

They use that argument in order to turn Israel into another, number.....Arab country, because non muslim countries are not allowed in that area, since Islam invaded it.

 

[Shusha]

There is no need for insults.

It wasn't meant to be an insult to you, personally, but to Americans in general. You guys are a little behind when it comes to progressive morality. It is frustrating to try to get Americans to understand some simple concepts. You know like gun control, health care, women's reproductive rights, proper sex education, and you know, reconciliation for First Nations and slavery. Oh. Also the metric system, jeez, guys.

 

[Shusha]

Perhaps then the Jewish people should practice acknowledgement and reconciliation for forcing the Palestinians, who were themselves indigenous to Palestine, off their land and recognizing the effect Nakbah had on THEIR People instead of marginalizing it.

Wait, what? "Their land"?! What happened to "shared space"?! It's interesting that historical Jewish places are "shared" and yet somehow "Palestine" (and you mean ALL of Palestine here) is Arab land.

I'm going to stop right here and challenge you on this. Is it shared land or Arab land?

 

[Shusha]

I have with this because you are talking about events truly in ancient history and selectively applying it.

On the contrary, I'm applying it universally. No matter when it happened. No matter where it happened. No matter who it happened to. No matter who perpetrated it.

None of the nation’s in those times still exist, neither do the people’s involved really. You are talking about world faiths spanning multiple cultures. With US and Canada, I can see the rationale and agree. These states exist, these states did great harm and as a citizen who’s ancestors had responsibility, I acknowledge it.

So you see the rationale and agree on the need for reconciliation between First Nations peoples and modern Americans and Canadians. But that you don't think this applies to the Jew/Arab conflict because the Jewish people and the Arab people don't really exist? Or they somehow don't count? That's nonsense.

When a people have lived in an area for thousands of years they are not settlers or colonizing cultures.

I disagree. You can't become indigenous. Either your culture originated there or you are a settler culture. For as long as the cultures exist separately. But there doesn't have to be an inherent conflict between those cultures.

What do you want? A diatribe on how evil and horrible Muslims are? Because that is what it comes down in the end right? Some one has to be demonized to satisfy.

Honestly? I want the discussion to not always center on Jews. This thread should have been a discussion about Arab Muslims and their atrocious behaviour. But, sigh, once again got sidelined early on. So instead of discussing how we can influence the Arab Muslims to act with some respect and integrity in granting human rights, we are once again discussing how Jews are just as bad as everyone else.

 

[Shusha]

Coyote

No one needs to be demonized in order to satisfy. But in a thread like this one, where ONLY ONE side is perpetrating harm and restricting rights in violation of treaties and international law, we need to center the conversation on that party. And not excuse the behaviour, justify it, try to make it a moral equivalency or point out "both sides".

This thread, like many, went sideways on pages 1 and 2, when posters (including you) began to argue that "both sides" need to (do something). Nope. This is wrong. Only one side is wrong here, on this specific topic. We should be discussing that side.

 

[ForeverYoung436]

There is no need for insults.

It wasn't meant to be an insult to you, personally, but to Americans in general. You guys are a little behind when it comes to progressive morality. It is frustrating to try to get Americans to understand some simple concepts. You know like gun control, health care, women's reproductive rights, proper sex education, and you know, reconciliation for First Nations and slavery. Oh. Also the metric system, jeez, guys.

As both a Jew and an American, I take offense to that. I don't like anti-American bias. As the song goes, "I'm proud to be an American, where at least I know I'm free..."

 

[Coyote]

You can not hold a people today responsible for action of people thousands of years ago. People who lived under a completely different set of ethics, customs, and norms. You can not hold children responsible for the acts of their parents.

Yeah, well, if I can't teach an American to understand the need for acknowledgement and reconciliation, I'm damn sure I'm not going to be able to convince the Arab Muslims. But I'm going to try again...

There is no need for insults. Perhaps then the Jewish people should practice acknowledgement and reconciliation for forcing the Palestinians, who were themselves indigenous to Palestine, off their land and recognizing the effect Nakbah had on THEIR People instead of marginalizing it.

It is not about holding the children responsible for the actions of the parents. Nor today's people for the actions of people thousands of years ago. It is a simple recognition and acknowledgement of the historical impact of invasion and colonization on the earlier people, and how that, in turn, impacts the present day relationship between the peoples.

I have with this because you are talking about events truly in ancient history and selectively applying it. None of the nation’s in those times still exist, neither do the people’s involved really. You are talking about world faiths spanning multiple cultures. With US and Canada, I can see the rationale and agree. These states exist, these states did great harm and as a citizen who’s ancestors had responsibility, I acknowledge it. I would say the same applies to the events of the Holocaust, Armenian genocide and a host of other relatively modern events. But why should a Chechnyan Muslim need to apologize for something an ancient Arab culture did in states that do not exist now?

There is another aspect to this that rather unsavory. One of the common anti-Semitic attacks on Jews is that they killed Christ, a pretty dominant Christian theme. Should the Jewish people as whole apologize for killing another religion’s Messiah? Do you see what I am getting at?

Here is an introduction to land acknowledgement and why it matters. Some of it is specific to Canadian First Nations, but for the most part can apply to any peoples affected by invasion and colonization.

Another article sums it up like this: The purpose of these statements is to show respect for indigenous peoples and recognize their enduring relationship to the land. Practicing acknowledgment can also raise awareness about histories that are often suppressed or forgotten.

By that logic, Jews should apologize for the violence they bestowed on the earlier inhabitants when they invaded and conquered them.

Yes! Exactly. If there were a living people whose history and culture pre-dated the Jewish people, the Jewish people ABSOLUTELY should make land acknowledgements and meaningful reconciliation. Without question. (There aren't though. And all evidence points to the fact that the Jewish people developed from a local change, rather than an invasion from another point of origin).

I get that, I really do. I think applying it to ancient history is a false moral equivalency.

And Israelites were a conquering tribe who invaded another area. They were conquerors like everyone else at the time. Canaan | Definition, History, & Facts

Further, I'd push you one more step and suggest that as more indigenous peoples regain their self-determination and sovereignty, and very likely encounter resistance from the settler and colonizing cultures which are accustomed to privilege, it is important for these First Peoples to sensitively respond.

When a people have lived in an area for thousands of years they are not settlers or colonizing cultures. When you apply that to ancient conquests such as that of Muslims or Christians, you are applying the term as dishonestly as those who claim Jews are colonists.

co·lo·ni·al·ism
/kəˈlōnēəˌlizəm/
noun

1. the policy or practice of acquiring full or partial political control over another country, occupying it with settlers, and exploiting it economically.

Definition of colonist: a settler or inhabitant of a colony.

From what I can read, the Muslim conquests in that region, converted local populations, both voluntary and involuntary, to Islam, exerted Islamic control, but had little to do with colonizing as we understand the term. And that is the problem with trying to apply modern concepts to ancient history.


In my opinion, if there should be reconciliation and acknowledgement for acts such as these:

The forced expulsion of Jews from Arab states.
The unwillingness to maintain peace and respect at shared holy sites.
The destruction, in relatively recent times, of sacred sites and artifacts.
Acknowledge of the Jewish people’s ancient ties to and rights to those places and the region.

The thing is, taking over religious sites WAS not problematic. Not then and frankly, only became so in the last century.

I disagree. I strongly disagree. If its wrong, its always been wrong. It may not have been the norm. It may not have been understood to be wrong. But if it is wrong, then it has always been wrong. And if its not wrong, then let's take down the Dome and the Mosque and re-build the Temple.

And now that site is sacred to three very old religions equally.

Well, no. First of all, there is nothing about the Mount itself that is sacred to Christians. There are other places in the Old City which are, but the Mount is not. Also, I think you minimize the sanctity of the place in the Jewish faith, and neglect entirely the historical and non-religious significance for the Jewish people. That said, of course, people of all faith should be treated equally in that holy place.

Shame, we never get to talk about THAT, though, since the conversation always goes sideways into how Jews should be "more respectful" of Muslims. Even though Jews are the ones being mocked, provoked, banned, denied and murdered in their own holy place. The weight of effort you put on this discussion against the Jewish POV is ridiculous given what should be a clear, black-and-white violation of human rights and treaty rights by Muslims towards Jews.

I have consistently supported Jewish rights to those places and have agreed that it is the Muslim community who is unwilling to share, so what in the hell are you going off about?

My statement stands: these are multifaith sites and all who worship there need to be respectful, tolerant and open about the other’s rights.

What do you want? A diatribe on how evil and horrible Muslims are? Because that is what it comes down in the end right? Some one has to be demonized to satisfy.

What I don’t agree on is your attempt to put modern principles and ethics on ancient events.

Ancient people including Jews, were barbaric to women, held slaves, conquered other people’s, imposed culture and religion, and by today's standards would be right up there with Stalin.

On the other issue, the right or wrong of taking over religious sites...no...it was not always wrong even though it is abhorrent to us today. Concepts of right and wrong change. Maybe someday in the future the eating of animals will be analogous to murder. Does that mean humanity through the ages were murderers? We recognize things as historic wrongs but imo we have to judge them in the context of the times, not by today’s morality.

The "Palestinians" themselves have no evidence that they are indigenous to the area, as the Jews are.

Invading an area of the world and living on it for hundreds of years, does not turn one into indigenous, the same as those who were there for thousands of years before they invaded.

Arabs are new, as colonizers, to everywhere outside of the Arabian Peninsula past the 7th Century CE.

They are aware of that reality. They know that they are NOT the indigenous people of anywhere outside of the Arabian Peninsula.

They use that argument in order to turn Israel into another, number.....Arab country, because non muslim countries are not allowed in that area, since Islam invaded it.

I am not going to argue who is and who is not indiginous. We have been through that already, presented our evidence and various points of view and neither has changed the other's mind. The only point I see in this sort of argument is to be able to use it to undercut or marginalize the rights of the other side. And we see this regularly.

 

[Coyote]

There is no need for insults.

It wasn't meant to be an insult to you, personally, but to Americans in general. You guys are a little behind when it comes to progressive morality. It is frustrating to try to get Americans to understand some simple concepts. You know like gun control, health care, women's reproductive rights, proper sex education, and you know, reconciliation for First Nations and slavery. Oh. Also the metric system, jeez, guys.

well I dont disagree on some of that, sadly...

 

[Shusha]

There is no need for insults.

It wasn't meant to be an insult to you, personally, but to Americans in general. You guys are a little behind when it comes to progressive morality. It is frustrating to try to get Americans to understand some simple concepts. You know like gun control, health care, women's reproductive rights, proper sex education, and you know, reconciliation for First Nations and slavery. Oh. Also the metric system, jeez, guys.

As both a Jew and an American, I take offense to that. I don't like anti-American bias. As the song goes, "I'm proud to be an American, where at least I know I'm free..."

You can be a proud American, and still recognize that y'all are having some troubles down there right now. And that in some areas, you are not caught up with other nations.

 

[Sixties Fan]

You can not hold a people today responsible for action of people thousands of years ago. People who lived under a completely different set of ethics, customs, and norms. You can not hold children responsible for the acts of their parents.

Yeah, well, if I can't teach an American to understand the need for acknowledgement and reconciliation, I'm damn sure I'm not going to be able to convince the Arab Muslims. But I'm going to try again...

There is no need for insults. Perhaps then the Jewish people should practice acknowledgement and reconciliation for forcing the Palestinians, who were themselves indigenous to Palestine, off their land and recognizing the effect Nakbah had on THEIR People instead of marginalizing it.

It is not about holding the children responsible for the actions of the parents. Nor today's people for the actions of people thousands of years ago. It is a simple recognition and acknowledgement of the historical impact of invasion and colonization on the earlier people, and how that, in turn, impacts the present day relationship between the peoples.

I have with this because you are talking about events truly in ancient history and selectively applying it. None of the nation’s in those times still exist, neither do the people’s involved really. You are talking about world faiths spanning multiple cultures. With US and Canada, I can see the rationale and agree. These states exist, these states did great harm and as a citizen who’s ancestors had responsibility, I acknowledge it. I would say the same applies to the events of the Holocaust, Armenian genocide and a host of other relatively modern events. But why should a Chechnyan Muslim need to apologize for something an ancient Arab culture did in states that do not exist now?

There is another aspect to this that rather unsavory. One of the common anti-Semitic attacks on Jews is that they killed Christ, a pretty dominant Christian theme. Should the Jewish people as whole apologize for killing another religion’s Messiah? Do you see what I am getting at?

Here is an introduction to land acknowledgement and why it matters. Some of it is specific to Canadian First Nations, but for the most part can apply to any peoples affected by invasion and colonization.

Another article sums it up like this: The purpose of these statements is to show respect for indigenous peoples and recognize their enduring relationship to the land. Practicing acknowledgment can also raise awareness about histories that are often suppressed or forgotten.

By that logic, Jews should apologize for the violence they bestowed on the earlier inhabitants when they invaded and conquered them.

Yes! Exactly. If there were a living people whose history and culture pre-dated the Jewish people, the Jewish people ABSOLUTELY should make land acknowledgements and meaningful reconciliation. Without question. (There aren't though. And all evidence points to the fact that the Jewish people developed from a local change, rather than an invasion from another point of origin).

I get that, I really do. I think applying it to ancient history is a false moral equivalency.

And Israelites were a conquering tribe who invaded another area. They were conquerors like everyone else at the time. Canaan | Definition, History, & Facts

Further, I'd push you one more step and suggest that as more indigenous peoples regain their self-determination and sovereignty, and very likely encounter resistance from the settler and colonizing cultures which are accustomed to privilege, it is important for these First Peoples to sensitively respond.

When a people have lived in an area for thousands of years they are not settlers or colonizing cultures. When you apply that to ancient conquests such as that of Muslims or Christians, you are applying the term as dishonestly as those who claim Jews are colonists.

co·lo·ni·al·ism
/kəˈlōnēəˌlizəm/
noun

1. the policy or practice of acquiring full or partial political control over another country, occupying it with settlers, and exploiting it economically.

Definition of colonist: a settler or inhabitant of a colony.

From what I can read, the Muslim conquests in that region, converted local populations, both voluntary and involuntary, to Islam, exerted Islamic control, but had little to do with colonizing as we understand the term. And that is the problem with trying to apply modern concepts to ancient history.


In my opinion, if there should be reconciliation and acknowledgement for acts such as these:

The forced expulsion of Jews from Arab states.
The unwillingness to maintain peace and respect at shared holy sites.
The destruction, in relatively recent times, of sacred sites and artifacts.
Acknowledge of the Jewish people’s ancient ties to and rights to those places and the region.

The thing is, taking over religious sites WAS not problematic. Not then and frankly, only became so in the last century.

I disagree. I strongly disagree. If its wrong, its always been wrong. It may not have been the norm. It may not have been understood to be wrong. But if it is wrong, then it has always been wrong. And if its not wrong, then let's take down the Dome and the Mosque and re-build the Temple.

And now that site is sacred to three very old religions equally.

Well, no. First of all, there is nothing about the Mount itself that is sacred to Christians. There are other places in the Old City which are, but the Mount is not. Also, I think you minimize the sanctity of the place in the Jewish faith, and neglect entirely the historical and non-religious significance for the Jewish people. That said, of course, people of all faith should be treated equally in that holy place.

Shame, we never get to talk about THAT, though, since the conversation always goes sideways into how Jews should be "more respectful" of Muslims. Even though Jews are the ones being mocked, provoked, banned, denied and murdered in their own holy place. The weight of effort you put on this discussion against the Jewish POV is ridiculous given what should be a clear, black-and-white violation of human rights and treaty rights by Muslims towards Jews.

I have consistently supported Jewish rights to those places and have agreed that it is the Muslim community who is unwilling to share, so what in the hell are you going off about?

My statement stands: these are multifaith sites and all who worship there need to be respectful, tolerant and open about the other’s rights.

What do you want? A diatribe on how evil and horrible Muslims are? Because that is what it comes down in the end right? Some one has to be demonized to satisfy.

What I don’t agree on is your attempt to put modern principles and ethics on ancient events.

Ancient people including Jews, were barbaric to women, held slaves, conquered other people’s, imposed culture and religion, and by today's standards would be right up there with Stalin.

On the other issue, the right or wrong of taking over religious sites...no...it was not always wrong even though it is abhorrent to us today. Concepts of right and wrong change. Maybe someday in the future the eating of animals will be analogous to murder. Does that mean humanity through the ages were murderers? We recognize things as historic wrongs but imo we have to judge them in the context of the times, not by today’s morality.

The "Palestinians" themselves have no evidence that they are indigenous to the area, as the Jews are.

Invading an area of the world and living on it for hundreds of years, does not turn one into indigenous, the same as those who were there for thousands of years before they invaded.

Arabs are new, as colonizers, to everywhere outside of the Arabian Peninsula past the 7th Century CE.

They are aware of that reality. They know that they are NOT the indigenous people of anywhere outside of the Arabian Peninsula.

They use that argument in order to turn Israel into another, number.....Arab country, because non muslim countries are not allowed in that area, since Islam invaded it.

I am not going to argue who is and who is not indiginous. We have been through that already, presented our evidence and various points of view and neither has changed the other's mind. The only point I see in this sort of argument is to be able to use it to undercut or marginalize the rights of the other side. And we see this regularly.

<<<The only point I see in this sort of argument is to be able to use it to undercut or marginalize the rights of the other side.>>>

The 500 Nations, Aboriginals, Maori and others are laughing their heads off at that sentence right now.

 

[Coyote]

Coyote

No one needs to be demonized in order to satisfy. But in a thread like this one, where ONLY ONE side is perpetrating harm and restricting rights in violation of treaties and international law, we need to center the conversation on that party. And not excuse the behaviour, justify it, try to make it a moral equivalency or point out "both sides".

This thread, like many, went sideways on pages 1 and 2, when posters (including you) began to argue that "both sides" need to (do something). Nope. This is wrong. Only one side is wrong here, on this specific topic. We should be discussing that side.

Well, the problem, it isn’t ONLY one side. Situations are seldom one sided. It is PRIMARILY one side. You do have factions among the Jews that want to see the mosque torn down and bans on non Jews entering the area. They are considered fringe but they exist and their vocal support for extreme actions feeds the fears of conspiracy-theory loving Arabs who don’t trust Israeli motivations and fear any change is a slippery slope.

It is only one side perpetrating violence, but the tensions aren’t one sided. And like I said religion isn’t very rational.

And frankly, a lot of conversations here go sideways. If it is criticizing an Israeli policy then inevitably we here but but the Palestinians...

 

[OldLady]

The Temple Mount should be demolished and the area paved over into a parking lot. When little kids fight over a toy, you take it from them.

Which is why you have no business at all with what happens with the Temple Mount.

By your standards, Kashmir and anywhere else in dispute should be destroyed.

How destructive of you

Kashmir is a large swath of land. Not a stupid, "magical" rock.

I thought the Temple Mount was the site of King Solomon's Temple? Maybe he built it on a magical rock? Anyway, it's all symbolic, and even if you razed it, people would continue to remember where it was for generations, or find another symbol to fight over.

There is something to be said for your argument. I realize concrete symbols are frowned on by those who don't want something troublesome worshiped, like Osama bin Laden's body being tossed into the ocean so there could be no grave. I just don't think it would work with the Temple Mount. Even centuries after King Solomon's Temple had been destroyed, people remembered where to rebuild it, didn't they?

 

[Sixties Fan]

Coyote

No one needs to be demonized in order to satisfy. But in a thread like this one, where ONLY ONE side is perpetrating harm and restricting rights in violation of treaties and international law, we need to center the conversation on that party. And not excuse the behaviour, justify it, try to make it a moral equivalency or point out "both sides".

This thread, like many, went sideways on pages 1 and 2, when posters (including you) began to argue that "both sides" need to (do something). Nope. This is wrong. Only one side is wrong here, on this specific topic. We should be discussing that side.

Well, the problem, it isn’t ONLY one side. Situations are seldom one sided. It is PRIMARILY one side. You do have factions among the Jews that want to see the mosque torn down and bans on non Jews entering the area. They are considered fringe but they exist and their vocal support for extreme actions feeds the fears of conspiracy-theory loving Arabs who don’t trust Israeli motivations and fear any change is a slippery slope.

It is only one side perpetrating violence, but the tensions aren’t one sided. And like I said religion isn’t very rational.

And frankly, a lot of conversations here go sideways. If it is criticizing an Israeli policy then inevitably we here but but the Palestinians...

If you would care to enter into the equation the fact that since 1920 the Muslim Arabs have been attacking Jews with riots and wars, and with the clear message that Jews were not going to have a state, and that since Dayan gave the management to Jordan to promote peace, but Jordan has been reneging on it for the past few decades.....therefore creating the idea that Jews, and only Jews, do not have the right to enter the Temple Mount.....

.....And that the Temple Mount is an Islamic place, and Jews are dirtying the grounds of the place, and Jews are the ones being verbally and physically assaulted on a daily basis by Arab Muslims.......

It has always been one sided.

The Jewish side wants to share the Temple Mount.
The Muslim side does not want to have Jews on the Temple Mount.

The Jewish side allows all religions to go up the Temple Mount and pray.

The Muslims are intent in not allowing the Jews to pray on the Temple Mount.


But.....but.....but.......

Show me where the Muslims are making any effort, or are opening their arms anywhere to the idea that Jews are equal to them, that they have the same rights as they do, and that indeed.....the Temple Mount is a Jewish site, which CAN be shared by all religions?


So, some Jewish orthodox have lost their patience with the 99 year attacks on Jews, or the endless NO to Jews going to their holy sites? Yes, they have and so have many others. But the leaders of the Jews, unlike the leaders of the Muslims, be they Palestinians, Syrians, Jordanians, Egyptians, etc, have not stopped to actually act on stopping the Jews from going freely and safely to their holy sites, and have not stopped inciting any violence on any and all Jews around the world.


It starts with leadership. It all started with Al Husseini and his incitement and attacks on Jews from 1920 and it continues with Abbas, and all other Muslims who think that they HAVE to murder Jews, that it is what Islam demands of them.


But....but....but....

 

[Coyote]

Lp.

I have with this because you are talking about events truly in ancient history and selectively applying it.

On the contrary, I'm applying it universally. No matter when it happened. No matter where it happened. No matter who it happened to. No matter who perpetrated it.

None of the nation’s in those times still exist, neither do the people’s involved really. You are talking about world faiths spanning multiple cultures. With US and Canada, I can see the rationale and agree. These states exist, these states did great harm and as a citizen who’s ancestors had responsibility, I acknowledge it.

So you see the rationale and agree on the need for reconciliation between First Nations peoples and modern Americans and Canadians. But that you don't think this applies to the Jew/Arab conflict because the Jewish people and the Arab people don't really exist? Or they somehow don't count? That's nonsense.

No it isn’t nonsense. What nations still exist that we’re actively involved in conquests? What are Arabs even? (It is a broad term encompassing a wide range of people’s who were culturally Arabicized). Who are the victims? And when? Prior to the Muslim conquests the area was conquered by Christians. Right? The Israelites conquered it from the Canaanites. Shouldn’t that be acknowledged?

Do all Muslims owe an apology for ancient conquests? Why not Christians? Why are they exempt? Should all Christians be held accountable for the acts of ancient monarchies?

When a people have lived in an area for thousands of years they are not settlers or colonizing cultures.

I disagree. You can't become indigenous. Either your culture originated there or you are a settler culture. For as long as the cultures exist separately. But there doesn't have to be an inherent conflict between those cultures.

Yes. You can become indigenous. And to define people as either indigenous or settler (a term LOADED with negative association as you well know given the attacks on the Jewish people’s rights in Israel).

First Nations in America - multiple cultures, multiple waves of conquests, and some of the cultures we recognize as First Nations today conquered and incorporated earlier cultures, so e of whom remain as sub branches. Jews conquered earlier people and are now considered indigenous.

The definition of indigenous is grey.

Wikipedia
indigenous peoples, also known as First peoples, Aboriginal peoples or Native peoples, are ethnic groups who are the original settlers of a given region, in contrast to groups that have settled, occupied or colonized the area more recently.

What is “more recently”? What is the exact time span? Why do Jews get a special designation while Muslim Palestinians, many of whom’s roots go back just as far, they simply changed religion, get called settlers and colonizers by you? Loaded terms that imply, whether intended or not, that they have no, or less rights and ties to the region.

What do you want? A diatribe on how evil and horrible Muslims are? Because that is what it comes down in the end right? Some one has to be demonized to satisfy.

Honestly? I want the discussion to not always center on Jews. This thread should have been a discussion about Arab Muslims and their atrocious behaviour. But, sigh, once again got sidelined early on. So instead of discussing how we can influence the Arab Muslims to act with some respect and integrity in granting human rights, we are once again discussing how Jews are just as bad as everyone else.

No one said Jews were just as bad. In fact I clearly said otherwise.

 

[Coyote]

Perhaps then the Jewish people should practice acknowledgement and reconciliation for forcing the Palestinians, who were themselves indigenous to Palestine, off their land and recognizing the effect Nakbah had on THEIR People instead of marginalizing it.

Wait, what? "Their land"?! What happened to "shared space"?! It's interesting that historical Jewish places are "shared" and yet somehow "Palestine" (and you mean ALL of Palestine here) is Arab land.

I'm going to stop right here and challenge you on this. Is it shared land or Arab land?

You can challenge me, but you are missing the point I was making and misinterpreting what I said.