Israel's new tack in mostof its policy is to somehow return to a past that cannot be revisited so simply by just enacting laws and to push the boundaries of what is reasonable policy.
The grounds of the Al Aqsa mosque, the third holiest site for Muslims, was built on the ancient grounds that contained the perimeter of the Temple of Jerusalem. Long destroyed, the ancient Temple's remains now consist of one remaining wall, the Wailing wall, which Jews consider just as important to their religion.
Now, however, because of that ancient perimeter, although it is now occupied by other structures, Israel wants to allow Jews to be able to pray inside the Al Aqsa's own area. But how wise is such a decision?
The law, currently in Parliament, would actually carve out areas where Jews could go pray. The last time, however, that a Jew entered the Temple Mount, in the person of then premier Sharon, an intifada was sparked that killed many.
Because the Al Aqsa mosque is named in the Quran itself, Muslim see the place as one that could bear no encroachment, by any faith or for any reason at any time. It would be tantamount, in the ummah's sensibility, to Jews trying to access Mecca with the reasoning that two thousand years ago there was a Jewish presence in the area.
To boot, the Rabbis in Israel had themselves banned Jews from accessing the Mosque. But lately they seem amenable to a revisiting of their position, at least in theory. The Rabbis however, maintain that the ban is still in full effect.
So why the law? And why now?
Israel has veered much more to the right in the past decade. The tenure of Netanyahu has rekindled activist ultra orthodox Jews' notion that they can somehow violate the known order and 'retake' the Temple Mount in its entirety. In many ways, they feel they can redraw Israel to look much as it was thousands of years ago.
But the Jewish religion forbids walking on the grounds on the Al Aqsa, not to respect the sovereignty of the Muslim locus, but because to do so could allow Jews to walk over what was once the place where the Ark of the Covenant was located.
But if the Knesset goes ahead and passes the controversial law, Israel could see another intifada or worse. Is it worth the risk? The mania with which Israel lately views Jerusalem as its own exclusive historical domain is the riskiest by far.
Some hope that the law will be blocked due to security concerns. But why table it in the first place? Is the Knesset just pandering to the ultra orthodox? Is this just a display?
Many however, point to Netanyahu's current and past record as a man who flirts constantly with radical ideas that please only the right wingers. To do so on a continual basis, to test perenially the will of the people, or to sample the reaction that could come from controversial measures like this one by coming up with such proposals, is however only a game that will turn off many Israeli and further diminish Israel's chances of a meaningful resolution of the Israeli Palestinian problem.
Partial Source : France 24/ 11.14.13
No comments:
Post a Comment