Al-Aksa Mosque, Temple Mount, and the restoration of peace to the Middle East
Al-Aksa Mosque, Temple Mount, and the restoration of peace to the Middle East
The Arab-Jewish conflict goes back many centuries. Clashes between Jews and Philistines and/or other nations (Edomites, etc.) are mentioned in the Bible. However, a focal point of conflict in the current situation is the Temple Mount and al-Aksa Mosque.
The al-Aksa Mosque is built on Temple Mount in Jerusalem which is said to have been the location of the Jewish Temple.
Religion appears to be a major factor in the current tensions. In 1967 Israel’s socialist Prime Minister Levi Eshkol gave control of access to the Temple Mount to the Muslims. Currently Jews are only allowed to pray at the western wall of the Temple Mount compound while Muslims can use the whole compound as they please.
Additionally, Israeli Arabs are backed by Turkey and Iran, who claim to be the leaders of the Muslim world and are the main powers hostile to Israel and involved in destabilizing the region.
A philosophically justified solution may consider the following measures as preliminary steps toward the restoration of enduring peace, stability and prosperity in the region.
1. Immediate removal of the mosque and all other Islamic structures from the Temple Mount to alternative locations and restoration of Israeli control of the area.
2. Creation of a Palestinian State and separation of Jewish and Arab populations.
3. Return of Constantinople (“Istanbul”) to Greece.
4. Equitable division of Turkish territory among Turkey’s different ethnic groups such as Greeks, Kurds, Armenians and ethnic Turks.
5. Creation of a Kurdish State comprising Kurdish-inhabited territories currently located in Turkey, Iran, Syria and Iraq.
6. Establishment of an Eastern Mediterranean Union or Commonwealth of Nations consisting of territories formerly under the control of the Eastern Roman Empire (Byzantine Empire) and return of some of the said territories to Greek control.
Of course a movement would need to be started to promote the plan. Participants could be recruited from all the other movements and organizations that have failed and funding could be obtained from the UN and other intergovernmental organizations and NGOs.
Edit: There can be no peace without justice. The Muslims have three or more holy sites. Jews only have one and even that is controlled by Muslims. This doesn't seem just. I think justice is central to true philosophy. Therefore true philosophers should support my proposal.
The Arab-Jewish conflict goes back many centuries. Clashes between Jews and Philistines and/or other nations (Edomites, etc.) are mentioned in the Bible. However, a focal point of conflict in the current situation is the Temple Mount and al-Aksa Mosque.
The al-Aksa Mosque is built on Temple Mount in Jerusalem which is said to have been the location of the Jewish Temple.
Religion appears to be a major factor in the current tensions. In 1967 Israel’s socialist Prime Minister Levi Eshkol gave control of access to the Temple Mount to the Muslims. Currently Jews are only allowed to pray at the western wall of the Temple Mount compound while Muslims can use the whole compound as they please.
Additionally, Israeli Arabs are backed by Turkey and Iran, who claim to be the leaders of the Muslim world and are the main powers hostile to Israel and involved in destabilizing the region.
A philosophically justified solution may consider the following measures as preliminary steps toward the restoration of enduring peace, stability and prosperity in the region.
1. Immediate removal of the mosque and all other Islamic structures from the Temple Mount to alternative locations and restoration of Israeli control of the area.
2. Creation of a Palestinian State and separation of Jewish and Arab populations.
3. Return of Constantinople (“Istanbul”) to Greece.
4. Equitable division of Turkish territory among Turkey’s different ethnic groups such as Greeks, Kurds, Armenians and ethnic Turks.
5. Creation of a Kurdish State comprising Kurdish-inhabited territories currently located in Turkey, Iran, Syria and Iraq.
6. Establishment of an Eastern Mediterranean Union or Commonwealth of Nations consisting of territories formerly under the control of the Eastern Roman Empire (Byzantine Empire) and return of some of the said territories to Greek control.
Of course a movement would need to be started to promote the plan. Participants could be recruited from all the other movements and organizations that have failed and funding could be obtained from the UN and other intergovernmental organizations and NGOs.
Edit: There can be no peace without justice. The Muslims have three or more holy sites. Jews only have one and even that is controlled by Muslims. This doesn't seem just. I think justice is central to true philosophy. Therefore true philosophers should support my proposal.
Comments (50)
The Philistines were probably related to the Mycenaeans.
Probably. But they've long been replaced with Arabs in the meantime.
And Persians.
Just make some dramatic landscaping and transport everything on the Temple Mount and the hill itself to the bottom of the Marianas Trench.
A philosophically justified solution.
No, there isn't. Satire is provocative.
Is @Apollodorus attempting humour?
You could sell it on eBay.
I don't know. I think that it's superficially plausible. Aside from @Apollodorus's assumption that the removal of the third holiest site in Islam from Jerusalem could somehow ease religious tensions, were the United Nations to be capable of doing anything in these regards, that they and nongovernmental organizations should work together to bring peace to Western Asia does seem like a good idea.
This kind of meddling is little more than a racket at this point. It’s a hard no, for me, when that which is the cause of the problem presents itself as the solution.
Hey, a fellow Bronx cat like old (OG) George, would tell it like it is:
Your plan involves a lot of loading, unloading, shipping, and dumping debris into the Marianas Trench. Too much trouble. It would be easier to just nuke the Temple Mount, then everyone everywhere could share its alleged holiness. And while we're at it, might as well get rid of several other centers of superstition and nonsense. Everyone can make up their own lists--but let's keep to under 10 nukes in all.
Nobody said anything about removing the site. I said relocate the mosque. This should be done with Muslim support. Islam is a religion of peace and I'm sure a compromise could be easily made.
Plus, the Muslims have three or more holy sites. Jews only have one and even that is controlled by Muslims. This doesn't seem just. I think justice is central to true philosophy. Therefore true philosophers should support my proposal.
Because the mosque just happens to be on temple mount. No religious significance whatsoever.
Quoting Apollodorus
Is "true philosophy" the name of your stand-up-comedy routine?
What you're saying it that Temple Mount has no religious significance to the Jews whatsoever and that Muslims can have a mosque or anything they like on Temple Mount but Jews can't have a temple on their own Temple Mount in their own country.
Is that your argument?
No.
Constantinople was Greek for thousands of years. It had a large Greek population until recently and was only renamed "Istanbul" in 1930 under Ataturk's national-socialist regime. Territories occupied by the Nazis were returned to their original owners. It shouldn't be a problem.
I am not convinced that your solution would really work to address the depths of the political conflict. I know that it may seem like it would address the matter symbolically, but it would probably create more political unrest than anything else, especially if it meant taking sides. If you really tried to implement it, even though I think you mean well, it could potentially start a world war, although I am sure that could happen anyway.
If the greeks had wanted to keep it, they should have done a better job with their empire. Not the Turks fault they lost most of their empire to some arab nomads.
Why should anyone "start a world war" if all parties come to an agreement through diplomatic and religious understanding?
I think it's the other way round. World war is more likely if the region is not stabilized. Turkey and Iran have been threatening with war for years and they have been involved in military operations across the region already. Inaction on the part of the international community will only encourage them to become more aggressive.
Quoting Apollodorus
If religion is the major factor, then there can only be peace without religion. Religion, like politics, is just another way to divide us and see each as different, as more or less of a human being.
The recent conflict started when Israelis tried to evict Palestinians from their homes, which the Arabs did to the Jews several decades ago just after Israel became a state. Your solutions are all about evicting people from where they live, or re-arranging borders, which just going to cause more problems.
The only solutions are to wait until one side annihilates the other or we wait several generations until religion is abandonded and relegated to myth like all the other religions before it.
Religions may well disappear of their own accord some day. But in the meantime the road to peace seems to be to separate them and keep them apart. That was the solution with the partition of India and it worked quite well. So, separation seems to be a sound principle on which to build a practicable road to peace. The same principle is applied in marital conflict, boxing matches and military conflict.
So who is the designated referee that will send in their own troops to evict people from their homes in an effort to make peace?
What I find interesting is that there are populations that are willing to abandon their homes for economic hardship or being oppressed and migrate to another country, but when religion comes into play, people are willing to stay and continue to expose themselves to economic hardships and oppression. This is partly because practicing religion includes in part practicing being a victim.
They could go to Somalia, Afghanistan, or Texas.
I am offended by this as a Christian. Surely the Crusader States existed for longer than the US, or many established nations. That's long enough to be a people. They were removed through violence and conquest, thus Jerusalem is rightful Norman clay and should be ceded to Norway.
Meanwhile, Constantinople was ruled by the Latin Empire for many a year, by the Holy Catholic Church as opposed to the (less than) Holy Orthodox Church. It must thus be annexed by Venice, which as we all know, is Austrian.
I am willing to consider other claims though. The Levant may be part of Iran or Italy, however I find these claims doubtful. Ideally the whole region, to Hungary, would be ceded to Mongolia.
Russia or France or a coalition of NATO and non-NATO countries? This remains to be discussed and determined. It isn't for me to decide.
Plus, people won't be evicted. Just relocated and in the vast majority of cases there won't even be relocation. Kurds already live in the territories they currently inhabit so it's just a matter of unifying them into a Kurdish state. Dividing Turkey along ethnic lines shouldn't be too hard either. Jews and Arabs in Israel are already largely divided on ethnic lines. etc.
And, as they say, where there is a will, there is a way. It would be a small price to pay for lasting peace, stability, prosperity, progress and civilization in the region and in the world.
I'm not sure which is worse: your proposal; or that some here have taken it seriously enough to address directly.
Guess I'll just shake my head and go elsewhere.
Though I see your point about this being silly, I do think it brings up a point I brought up earlier:
Quoting schopenhauer1
We can add in asymmetric warfare along with imperialism in there too. Hey, keep going about your business. It's only those people that are committing X atrocities. MY history gets me to "realize" the errors others are making.. Meanwhile, keep eating your ice cream and enjoying that view. You deserve it. In other words, have your cake and eat it too.
That's "whataboutism." No one stands higher on a pile of bones and souls than does my own U.S., including all the denial and lack of contrition or reparation. But if what was wrong then is wrong now, two wrongs don't make it right. One might say the U.S. lacks moral authority to counsel one party or another in a conflict, but the U.S. has 100% moral authority to refrain from funding one side or the other.
I just think it's an interesting thing that Western countries take a high ground after a certain establishment has been met.. I would say around WW2, one of the worst of atrocities.
In other words, "We're cool with the arrangement now.. Germany got their war-thing out of their system..America has manifest destiny, Britain has its social welfare and common wealth, America is basically backing the world's security so others can have their social welfare program.. Australia has its country, all the players in place" So NOW is the time to call foul.. Right NOW, no no, right NOW.
Yeah, it's like the criminal who becomes so successful that he can go legit. The Plutocracy is chock full of them. And if you can only make it to death and leave your spoils to your spawn, they are gold.
See my second post too. But yes agreed.
Your historical analysis makes it sound like this is new. It's not. It was done then. And, when it was done, the doers were making the same excuses that the doer now (Israel and it's defenders) are doing now. It was wrong then, and it's wrong now. And we don't have to fund it.
Yeah, I'm just looking at it from the 3D perspective. The message seems to be, "You should have done X, Y, Z deeds prior to the 20th century (or at least WW2), otherwise you are SOL. Meanwhile, I'm going to lick my ice cream and enjoy my view from the history that we were able to accomplish. How convenient this all turned out".
There has always been a disconnect between aspirational idealism, and might-makes-right. If we were to allow the track record of the latter to inform or influence the former, then there would be no former. We would not be allowed to learn from history, or we would only take the lessons from it that current wrong actors are taking from it now: "Hey, the U.S. did it and it worked, so . . ."
All I'm saying is, the U.S. doesn't have to fund it. Giving $3.8b per year in military aid to a nuclear superpower so it can defend itself against a stateless territory with no air force, army or navy is $3.8b we could use here. It's not unlike the waste in response to 9/11.
Yes this accords with what I think is true, which is that morality is actually "discovered" over time. The feelings are nascent but don't completely show up until it plays out and goes too far.
Quoting James Riley
It's more about strategic partner in an unstable region. More Real Politik than idealism. But again, taking the 3D approach, what is it when countries who have done pretty terrible things, but have already gotten its use and goals met from it mean? All the players are in place conveniently for the finger wagging. I'm guessing the people who were living in Native American societies would like their lifestyle back, no? Did your ancestors consider that they were moving to a land that was not originally the power/country/people that controlled it before they moved? Was it a justified move? I mean, these seem like stupid questions only because of the fog of historical perspective.
I don't think they are stupid questions at all. In fact, as I indicated earlier, we "knew better" at the time, or at least ignored, dismissed or beat down those who objected. And it wasn't just the Indians objecting. There were those in our "own camp" who objected. Abolitionists, if you will. And all kinds of excuses were made (manifest destiny, savages, civilization, blacks were inherently inferior, etc.). But "might makes right" ruled the day and often does. It's easier to be magnanimous from the cat bird seat. I get that. And I understand why one might raise an eyebrow. But if we can't aspire to better for others, we can for ourselves. That whole Real Politik stuff, with strategic interests, oil, etc. keeps us in bed with monarchies, religious states, dictators, etc. Makes it hard to lead by example. But that doesn't mean we should quit. "Angels of our better nature" and all that.
I only misunderstand this last post. You mentioned how you thought this was a joke. I said I recognized the silliness of going backwards to who should own what but then used it as a jumping off point to point out the interesting case of those who benefit from nations built before the 20th century and those sort of "going through history" into the 21st century. Your ancestors benefited and you (collective we really) "benefit" from taking a long view. @James Riley understood, not sure why you don't.
As it stands, I've no clear idea of what "this" is - thread, OP, Apollodorus...?
Well, now that this has been addressed perhaps we could (re-) focus on the issue at hand.
Oh but that wouldn't create the jobs that this kind of a huge operation would take. And using nukes creates a cloud of radiation that at worst could be blown by the wind to Europe. Greta wouldn't be happy.
Besides, once the wailing wall and Al-Aqsa mosque are on the bottom of the Marianas trench, James Cameron could direct an interesting film about "The Secrets of the Marianas trench -The Temple Mount". He likely would get easily finance from the religious fanatics.
There's already plastic bags at bottom of the Marianas trench, so religious rocks can easily fit there too as humanity has already trashed that serene place on Earth.