What's new
US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

The Temple Mount -- the differences between Israeli (Western) and Palestinian (Muslim) Discourse

Shusha

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2015
Messages
12,259
Reaction score
1,783
Points
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.
 

teddyearp

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2014
Messages
4,735
Reaction score
968
Points
255
Location
Pinetop, AZ
[sarcasm]WHAT!? You islamophobic zionist! Trying to steal my thunder? Just like a zionist, they just steal everything! I created a thread about this same subject here:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/threa...he-waqf-and-the-status-quo.616381/[/sarcasim]

But seriously, we have all seen the Palestinian narrative posed by their leadership to try to consider the whole Temple Mount as the Al Aqsa mosque. Sure they sometimes call it the Al Aqsa 'compound', but we have all seen the end result. Just another incitement tool to stir up some of the rank and file Palestinians to more and more violence, as we saw last month. Any thinking person in a rational mind would see the added security measures that Israel put into place as rational. But the Palestinian leadership just used it as part of their never ending campaign to make some of the rank and file Palestinians actually believe that Israel wants to destroy the Al Aqsa and the Dome. Hence the increase in more violence and rioting by some of the more gullible; and the capitulation by Israel.

It is truly truly sad that the Palestinian leadership is not at all interested in any peace at all. Neither are many posters here who claim to be 'pro-Palestine'. Both seem to just want another 'status quo': The total destruction of the State of Israel.

So to answer:

1. It will never happen with the current leadership. They are gorging at the table of UN handouts and will NEVER give them up.

2. See #1.

As I said in MY thread, I just wish that it could change. Why does it have to be Muslim dominated when it is only their 'third' most Holy site, but most Holy to Jews and Christians?
 

Roudy

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2012
Messages
51,647
Reaction score
10,056
Points
2,030
The Al Aqsa has never been holy to the Arabs in Israel, itf it was they wouldn't be pointing their asses to it five times a day as they face Mecca.

True story. :cool:
 

rylah

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2015
Messages
14,575
Reaction score
2,964
Points
290
"This is a microcosm of the entire conflict" indeed. Needs a fundamental change on the Israeli side, and a change in the vocabulary.

1. What can Israel do (if anything) to shift the perception of the Palestinian/Muslim narrative?

My solution is Utopian:dunno:

a. Establishment and invitation to a joint Israeli-Arab Muslim council, under the authority of the Jordanian-Israeli govt. with open doors for other respected persons relevant to the issue as explained below.

On both sides the aim is to gather the elders, who are the leaders of borh communities behind the scenes. For development of mutual understanding, in the following direction:

b. On the Israeli side: loud proclamation of 2 things:

1.The issue is not "Israeli-Filastinian", but Arab-Israeli.
Therefore in any further dealing or communication the word "Ishmael" is going to be used. Enough with the denial, we know who our cousins are, they do too.

2.The proclamation of Ishmael's extent of right to the land, due to the partial circumcision. It applies to both Jewish and Muslim laws.

c. A new law for a day in a year, for the memory of "Joint burial of Abraham" in Hebron.

2. If it can not be shifted, how should Israel proceed?

Each time the women of murabatin shout "Allahu Akbar" on the Temple Mount, Jews answer - "אמן".
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now call me crazy, but I think this is more in line, with what's going on on the ground, and who has the perceived control. There's a reason Jews didn't flood the scene, after the incident, when they were more "free" to do so.
Some did, but it wasn't an action of "Now I've got it while You can't".
It was more a reminder...that while Muslims prayed outside because of security measures, there were as well Jews outside, who cared to cleanse ritually and go wait in the lines (while their background is checked), GO THROUGH the detectors. And just for maybe the the 2nd time in the 70 years of this govt, pray freely on the Temple Mount.

What a wonder. We need a new vocabulary.
 

JoelT1

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 30, 2017
Messages
1,999
Reaction score
79
Points
50
Jerusalem isn’t even mentioned in the Koran Not even once


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.
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$350.00
Goal
$350.00

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top