Shusha
Gold Member
- Dec 14, 2015
- 14,954
- 3,025
- 290
The Temple Mount Affair: What Has Changed?
This is a long and thorough review of this summer's events concerning the Temple Mount which considers them from multiple points of view, including Jordan, the US and wider Muslim world. I would encourage anyone with time and interest to review it fully.
But I just want to touch on one thing from the article for this thread. And that is the difference between the Israeli (Western) mindset and the Palestinian (Muslim) one.
At the root of the latest flare-up between Israel and the Palestinians/Islamic world is the difference in how the issue is defined. From Israel’s standpoint, the problem revealed in the July 14, 2017, terror attack on the Temple Mount in which two Israeli policemen were murdered by three terrorists from Umm al-Fahm is first and foremost a security problem. One of the ways to address it is to improve security at the location, and metal detectors and security cameras were naturally chosen as means that would contribute to that goal. The talk about the security issue sounded reasonable to Western and, especially, American ears; this is how the whole world deals with problems of this kind at airports and even (as Israeli public diplomacy emphasized) at Islamic and Christian holy places in the Arab world.
The catch is that in the Palestinian and Muslim discourse the central issue is the need to combat what they believe to be guiding the Israeli policy, namely, the Jewish (or Zionist or settler) effort to take over the holy compound that includes the Al-Aqsa Mosque, and to destroy the mosque and the Dome of the Rock so as to turn the Temple Mount into a place of Jewish prayer. Hence, the Palestinians and the Muslims did not see the installation of the metal detectors as a measure to improve security, but instead, as an obvious way to prepare the groundwork for changing the status quo and thereby advancing the objective that they ascribe to the Jews.
The fact that Israel eventually agreed to reverse its decision on the security devices also reflects the cultural and perceptual gaps between the sides. For Israel, the decision was meant to prevent an escalation and enable a return to normal life through a sort of compromise on the security issue (which could be solved in the future if more sophisticated devices could be found). The Americans, as Jared Kushner told congressional interns, saw it the same way. In his view, by convincing Israel to roll back the decision, the United States had scored an achievement; it had been able to talk to both sides and calm the tensions. In Palestinian and Muslim eyes, however, the Israeli concession was something else. On the one hand, it was inevitable, since a Palestinian-Muslim concession on such a sensitive matter would have been inconceivable in Arab eyes; on the other, it bolstered the Palestinian narrative because the Israeli capitulation signified that Israel was prepared to take the Palestinian-Muslim narrative seriously, confirming – in the Palestinians’ view – that what motivated Israel were not security considerations.
In sum, in contrast to the Israeli-Western practical approach, the Muslim culture rejects any compromise on such issues.
It seems apparent to me this is a microcosm of the entire conflict. Israel is addressing practical concerns, willing to compromise (even reverse decisions!) in order to reassure the Arabs of their good intent, make concessions, limit their own control. Arabs, on the other hand, accept the "Al-Aqsa is in danger" libel wholeheartedly and see it as a zero-sum game for which there is no compromise or negotiation.
The questions for this thread:
1. What can Israel do (if anything) to shift the perception of the Palestinian/Muslim narrative?
2. If it can not be shifted, how should Israel proceed?
Feel free to discuss either in the context of the Temple Mount specifically, or in the context of the wider conflict.
This is a long and thorough review of this summer's events concerning the Temple Mount which considers them from multiple points of view, including Jordan, the US and wider Muslim world. I would encourage anyone with time and interest to review it fully.
But I just want to touch on one thing from the article for this thread. And that is the difference between the Israeli (Western) mindset and the Palestinian (Muslim) one.
At the root of the latest flare-up between Israel and the Palestinians/Islamic world is the difference in how the issue is defined. From Israel’s standpoint, the problem revealed in the July 14, 2017, terror attack on the Temple Mount in which two Israeli policemen were murdered by three terrorists from Umm al-Fahm is first and foremost a security problem. One of the ways to address it is to improve security at the location, and metal detectors and security cameras were naturally chosen as means that would contribute to that goal. The talk about the security issue sounded reasonable to Western and, especially, American ears; this is how the whole world deals with problems of this kind at airports and even (as Israeli public diplomacy emphasized) at Islamic and Christian holy places in the Arab world.
The catch is that in the Palestinian and Muslim discourse the central issue is the need to combat what they believe to be guiding the Israeli policy, namely, the Jewish (or Zionist or settler) effort to take over the holy compound that includes the Al-Aqsa Mosque, and to destroy the mosque and the Dome of the Rock so as to turn the Temple Mount into a place of Jewish prayer. Hence, the Palestinians and the Muslims did not see the installation of the metal detectors as a measure to improve security, but instead, as an obvious way to prepare the groundwork for changing the status quo and thereby advancing the objective that they ascribe to the Jews.
The fact that Israel eventually agreed to reverse its decision on the security devices also reflects the cultural and perceptual gaps between the sides. For Israel, the decision was meant to prevent an escalation and enable a return to normal life through a sort of compromise on the security issue (which could be solved in the future if more sophisticated devices could be found). The Americans, as Jared Kushner told congressional interns, saw it the same way. In his view, by convincing Israel to roll back the decision, the United States had scored an achievement; it had been able to talk to both sides and calm the tensions. In Palestinian and Muslim eyes, however, the Israeli concession was something else. On the one hand, it was inevitable, since a Palestinian-Muslim concession on such a sensitive matter would have been inconceivable in Arab eyes; on the other, it bolstered the Palestinian narrative because the Israeli capitulation signified that Israel was prepared to take the Palestinian-Muslim narrative seriously, confirming – in the Palestinians’ view – that what motivated Israel were not security considerations.
In sum, in contrast to the Israeli-Western practical approach, the Muslim culture rejects any compromise on such issues.
It seems apparent to me this is a microcosm of the entire conflict. Israel is addressing practical concerns, willing to compromise (even reverse decisions!) in order to reassure the Arabs of their good intent, make concessions, limit their own control. Arabs, on the other hand, accept the "Al-Aqsa is in danger" libel wholeheartedly and see it as a zero-sum game for which there is no compromise or negotiation.
The questions for this thread:
1. What can Israel do (if anything) to shift the perception of the Palestinian/Muslim narrative?
2. If it can not be shifted, how should Israel proceed?
Feel free to discuss either in the context of the Temple Mount specifically, or in the context of the wider conflict.
