Posted on 01/07/2007 1:01:44 AM PST by Northern Alliance
t has become an axiomatic belief that solving the Israeli Palestinian conflict is central to resolving numerous other problems in the Middle East. That claim may or may not be an exaggerated one. But there is no doubt that certain aspects of the Israeli Palestinian conflict have become rallying cries to Jihadis throughout the world who proclaim that their armed struggle against Israel and the West must continue until nothing less than the "liberation" of Jerusalem from the hands of the infidel. To be more precise however, Jerusalem per se is not the issue. The heart of the matter is Al-Aqsa and the Mosque of Omar. Al-Aqsa is claimed by Moslem's world wide to be their third holiest site after Mecca and Medina. This is what they mean to "liberate" with fire and blood.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Interesting. Thanks for posting.
The proposal and the response are quite interesting though I tend to think the response is more practical.
I think as with the fascists and militarists of WWII, they will happily live with Israel and quit attacking the US when they are beaten. They being not just the soldiers but the societies from which they spring.
How can anyone be surprised that since the Iraqis did not miss as much as a meal during our overthrow of the former government, that they are not particularly compliant. The Germans that were just happy to survive the winter of 45-46 were naturally more compliant toward the people who controlled the food supply. Certainly the cultural differences are great in the current case and post WWII Germany, I am not so sure they are any greater than the US and post WWII Japan.
This is an interesting idea, but could the Saudis maintain security there? The Saudis lost control of their grand mosque in Mecca for several days in 1979 to a bunch of extremists, including a self-described "mahdi". And to compound their humuliation, they had to call in French special forces to flush out the invaders from the underground tunnels.
To me, the proposal sounds very, very optimistic, but in the absence of any other solution, why not consider every alternative.
The rebuttal mostly references the Cold War with the only real point being that the Lebanese used the mosque as an ammo dump. Given what we witness in Iraq, I am not sure that means anything at all. Also, I don't know what denomination the Lebanese are - perhaps they don't revere the mosque the way the Palestinians do.
How can anyone be surprised that since the Iraqis did not miss as much as a meal during our overthrow of the former government, that they are not particularly compliant. The Germans that were just happy to survive the winter of 45-46 were naturally more compliant toward the people who controlled the food supply. Certainly the cultural differences are great in the current case and post WWII Germany, I am not so sure they are any greater than the US and post WWII Japan.
I just don't know anymore about Iraqis or Muslims in general. Yes, they didn't miss a meal but now how many have died in terrorist attacks yet they don't seem to be interested in putting an end to it. When I see people (it won't be women of course like it was in Ireland) marching in the streets demanding that both sides stop the senseless killings like they did in Ireland then I'll feel like there is some sanity in their priorities. Now it seems like nothing, not even the deaths of their own children, come before tribal and religious loyalties. And those are Iraqis, which I think don't approach the levels of religious, well insanity, of the Palestinians.
The Muslim world is filled with complexities. Palestinians are a completely mixed bag of people.
When Israel won its War of Independence in 1948, hundreds of thousands of Palestinians were rounded up into UN camps. Neighboring Muslim regimes saw this as their chance to get rid of their criminals, political dissidents and other troublemakers. So they deported everyone in their respective countries with ancestral ties to Palestine and, at the same time, they deported all of their troublemakers while labeling them "Palestinian." These were also sent to the camps.
The Palestinian culture is a culture that developed behind barbed wire, in these camps; and on the streets of Gaza and the West Bank, with IDF patrols and checkpoints.
Agitators within the camps and out on the streets evolved a propaganda strategy. It wasn't very organized -- it was in much the same way that a crowd at a Boston Red Sox game starts chanting "Yankees suck, Yankees suck." It was more of a groupthink. One would hear another saying certain things, recognize them as clever, and repeat them.
These Palestinian agitators portrayed Israel as oppressive and the "noble Palestinian people" as the guardians of the Al-Aqsa shrine. They exaggerated the importance of Al-Aqsa and the importance of Islam in Palestinian life. This was carefully calculated to gain the sympathies of the very same Muslim nations that had expelled so many Palestinians.
The author of this article is either deluded or a fool. The basic premise of the article is that the crazed jihadis could be placated by turing control of Al Aqsa over to the Saudi Royal family (who are currently the self-described protectors of Mecca and Medina.) But the jihadis do not recognize the authority of the Saudi Royal family over Mecca and Medina. In fact they hate the Saudi Royal family even more than they hate the Jews. If the Saudi Royal family were to accomodate Israel the jihadis would only be encouraged in their quest to depose the Saudi Royals.
I think the Israelis are about as likely to let the Saudis have jurisdiction over the Temple Mount as the Saudis are to let the Israelis have jurisdiction over Mecca and Medina. In other words...this ain't happening.
The Jews do not have an obligation to advance a foreign religion let alone do so by advancing foreign state that would kill all Jews if it had the chance. The above proposal is worse than wrong.
To solve much of this problem, Israel should do what every other nation does: nationalize its religious sites.
That is, more than a dozen religions and sects claim to "own" religious sites in Israel, almost like embassies in which the Israelis may not enter.
By declaring all such holy sites are the property of the nation of Israel, yet freely allowing their peaceful use, much of the contention would end, or else.
If Wahabbis run the Al-Asqa mosque and misbehave, then Israel could replace them with Sufi managers. Even the threat of this would terrify the Wahabbis beyond description. They would be in an utter panic to stay in the good graces of Israel, to be good tenants.
Also the contentious Christian sects would benefit, as holy sites would stop being dormitories. No reason at all why monks can't live in a rental apartment in Jerusalem.
And best of all, instead of fighting it out among themselves for literally, square inches of space, in holy sites, each sect would, in turn, have complete run of the holy place for a time each day--with more space for pilgrims, too.
Of course, they would still fight it out for seconds, but such is the nature of contentious people.
And as the owner of all of these sites, Israel would also have total control over any modifications, adjustments and changes made to these properties.
It is one thing Israel could do that would settle down much of the brawling that has gone on for centuries.
Let me add that it is far more likely that the UN will be used to strip Jerusalem from control of Israel and make it an "International City", free from control of any religion or state.
Obviously, what the Ark of the Covenant is to the Jews, arms and ammunition is to the musselmen.
I concur that the response is more of a sanity check.
Besides, if Saudis controlled the area, who would be called to enforce it? I suspect ultimately, the US Marines.
High Volume. Articles on Israel can also be found by clicking on the Topic or Keyword Israel. or WOT [War on Terror]
----------------------------
Someone need to tell the author that the Temple Mount has been under the control of the Wakf, Muslims, since 1948. Despite the 1967 war. The Wakf excavates and throws Jewish artifacts in the trash, the Wakf determines that Jews and Christians can't pray up there, and as it collapses Jordan, not Israel, does the "repairs". The issue is the presence of Jews still breathing in the vicinity of the Temple Mount, defined as anywhere within a few hundred miles.
It's as if someone suggested that if DC were declared a muslim shari'a district, all the world's muslims would become peace-loving tolerant pussycats.
A waste of brain cells and printer's ink.
Neither is going to happen. Ever.
I dunno. Move the Al-Aqsa shrine, brick by brick, to Mecca or Medina. Or even Baghdad. It's been one before with historic structures. For example, isn't London Bridge in Arizona now?
It could be done. The question is getting together the players and the political will to get it done.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.