'Of No Concern' Ignorance as regards the Temple Mount

In an academic journal, Revista d’Arqueologia de Ponent 34, 2024, Bijan Rouhani of the School of Archaeology, University of Oxford and Bill Finlayson, also of that same School of Archaeology, published "Constructing, Deconstructing, and Reconstructing Heritage Values Amidst Conflicts".

Israel is mentioned, of course, mostly in the connection with Iran and the heritage legacy of Cyrus the Great. They note, in another reference, that "in April 2024, UNESCO confirmed the destruction of at least 43 historical sites in Gaza, including a museum."

They quote from a 2000 work by Meron Benvenisti which "details how over 9,000 Palestinian natural features, villages, and ruins were systematically renamed with Jewish names, reshaping the physical and human landscape into a Jewish state, reflecting profound changes and cultural erasure." There is no counter-source to that and so the readers must assume that Benevinisti's claims are absolute truth, an incorrect assumption.

In another mention they further press this point:

The 1948 Israeli-Palestinian war transformed Palestine’s cultural landscape, with the systematic destruction of village landscapes as a key Israeli military strategy. The surviving ruins,  representing a lost cultural topography for Palestinians, challenge claims denying their historical ties to the land (Falah 1996).

What is not mentioned is the 7th century conquest and occupation of Judea, then ruled by the Byzantine Empire which it had assumed from the Roman Empire which applied to the territory the name "Palastina". That conquest was done by Arab tribes from the Saudi Peninsula who then applied Arabic names causing the loss of a 'cultural topography' not to note the various prohibitons by subsequent Muslim rulers on Jewish residency, immigration, property ownership and other elements of suppression, All this, especially the denial, until this very day, which obliterates the historical claims of Jews to this land.

It never occurs to them to see the other side of the picture.

They do quote from a speech delivered by Prime Minister Biyamin Netanyahu at the United Nations in 2013 in which he described the proclamation of Cyrus:

"he proclaimed the right of the Jews to return to the land of Israel and rebuild the Jewish temple in Jerusalem. That’s a Persian decree. And thus began an historic friendship between the Jews and the Persians that lasted until modern times."

A temple. A temple? Could a temple or a place where a temple, or even two, were located be part of all this culutral topography?

Could a cultural site, a heritage and legacy location be added to their study? After all, they do deal with the Babri Mosque in Ayodhya, India.

I am referring to Jerusalem's Temple Mount. But they do not relate to it. At all.

A response there in that issue does not mention the Temple Mount either. In the response to that response, "temple" is mentioned. An Aztec one.

The Temple Mount's Jewish character is adamantly denied by Muslims and, in particular, the Palestinian Authority (Ramallah) and Hamas (Gaza). Under the supervision of the Islamic Waqf Trust, with Jordan's oversight, much archaeological destruction has been done. That, it appears, does not concern them although I would guess they have no idea of this issue at all. Their "of no concern" translates into their willful ignorance.

Moreover, it probably just isn't part of their agenda, their political interest, that is.

^

Interviewed for a Christmas Story in Trouw

I was interviewed, by telephone, by Mella Fuchs for the Dutch newspaper, Trouw. Incidently, that paper is a bit famous amongst Israelis as way back on March 31, 1977, it published an interview with PLO Executive Committee member Zuhayr Muhsein (see below) with a remarkable admission about the existence of a "Palestinian people".

The headline of the story is "What would Joseph and Mary's journey to Bethlehem have looked like in 2025?" with the Trouw correspondent speaking with residents along the route.

I will present my entire section and then make some comments.

"For Yisrael, it's relatively easy to travel from Nazareth to Bethlehem, he says. Unlike Palestinians (without an Israeli passport), he's allowed to cross the border between Israel and the West Bank. Entering Bethlehem itself is a different story: he needs special permission from Israel, unless he—a native American—poses as a tourist. Bethlehem is located in Area A.

Under the 1995 Oslo Accords, which were intended to lead to Palestinian self-government, the occupied West Bank was administratively divided into three zones. Area A (18 percent of the West Bank) is officially administered by the Palestinian Authority (PA). This does not mean the Israeli army remains absent; Jenin, for example, also falls under this zone. In Area B (22 percent), the PA and Israel share control. Area C (the remaining 60 percent) is entirely under Israeli authority. This division was intended as a temporary solution: power would gradually be transferred to the PA. But almost thirty years later, nothing has come of it.

The route Mary and Joseph have traveled thus far is one that Yisrael would never take. After all, it runs through Palestinian urban areas (mostly Areas A and B) in the north, around Jenin. Moreover, there are few settlements in that part of the West Bank. Settlers travel on their own roads, which are often directly connected to Israeli highways, such as Routes 55 and 5, and are (partially) prohibited to Palestinians.

Yisrael himself usually travels by hitchhiking, as he doesn't own a car. He only gets into cars with yellow license plates, avoiding green Palestinian ones. "That's the first check," he says. "The driver's accent is the second." In 2014, three hitchhiking Israeli boys in a settlement were kidnapped and killed by Hamas. "Since then, we've been very categorical," Yisrael says. "We don't get into cars that aren't driven by Jews."

According to Yisrael, the idea that settlers have their own road network is "propaganda" and that "apartheid" is a fabricated concept. But he also says he takes the bus to Jerusalem three times a week, where Palestinians are only allowed with special permits. And that he's never locked out of his settlement, while Palestinians are often confined to their towns or villages.

Yisrael doesn't find it strange that Palestinians have to pass through checkpoints constantly. "If I cross a border in Europe, I have to show my travel documents. There's no Palestinian state, but the principle is the same." Yisrael believes that the nearly 1,000 roadblocks within the West Bank are also necessary. "The army is looking for terrorists. It's not because they're trying to cause problems for people. Yes, they sometimes get stuck. But sometimes I also have to travel long distances to get somewhere."

Yisrael doesn't think it would be dangerous for Joseph and Mary to walk to the settlement where he lives. "They were Jewish, right? Then there wouldn't be any problems."

An overnight stay is likely necessary after traveling 35 kilometers from Nablus. In Shilo, there's a kosher winery, where Joseph might enjoy a glass, unless he were in solidarity with Mary. "We produce hundreds of thousands of bottles of wine a year and win gold medals in Europe," Yisrael says."

My comments:

a. "it's relatively easy to travel from Nazareth to Bethlehem, he says."

I actually said that it is not at all easy, as a Jew and an Israeli, or safe, as due to most of the route is from Jenin to Shiloh going through PA territory, I would be required to take a detour that would easily double the distance, and more, of the road length.

b. "They were Jewish, right? Then there wouldn't be any problems."

I had also said that at the time of the actual trek, the Romans were the occupiers of Judea and the family would perhaps have been feeling insecure, not to mention King Herod, the Jewish ruler, on the look out for them.

c. "Settlers travel on their own roads"

I specifically said that there are no "settler-only" roads and moreover, most of the traffic on Route 60, for example, was Arab traffic. There is no apartheid transportation phenomenon. Moreover, as noted in the article, most of the actual road kilometers in Judea & Samaria are prohibited for Israelis to travel along.

d. "The route Mary and Joseph have traveled thus far is one that Yisrael would never take."

I related to her that until the Oslo Accords of 1993, we indeed drove through much of the area. Bus 955 drove from Jerusalem to Afula (near Nazereth) straight through Ramallah and Shchem until the First Intifada [I maintain, as do the Arabs, that 1936-39 was the true first intifada] and its violence cause route changes.

----------------------------------

The words of Zuhayr Muhsein:

The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism.

For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan.

^

How Oren Yiftachel Sees Zionism

How do Israeli academic anti-colonialists who identify with the cause of a liberated Palestine view Zionism? What is their conceptual thinking? How do they grasp the historical record?

One prominent such figure is Oren Yiftachel. As his biography attests, he is a product of Australia's higher education, home to the deveklopment of post-colonial studies.

I have selected an excerpt from a recent article, published in Hebrew in the Van Leer Institute's journal Theory and Criticism that recently appeared. Even the most cursory reading as well as a nominal knowledge of Jewish nationalism can easily notice that Yiftachel chooses to denude all historic depth of Jewish attachment to, residence in and returning to the Land of Israel over a 3,000 year period.

There is an absence of the literature, the religious rituals and cultural customs attached to the land, the various Returns of Zion, prayers and poetry, laws and commandments, financial support for the communities living in the Land during the centuries of Exile and so much more. He adopts fully the approach poularized by A.B. Yehoshua in his essay "Between Right and Right" [translated from his Hebrew Bein Zechut Le-Zechut], Doubleday, 1981 in which, as one reviewer puts it, he "proposes justifications for Israeli statehood in terms of universal morality rather than particularistic religious entitlement.".

On the other hand, the Palestinian narrative, all theoretical, lacks any critical review or detailed attention from Yiftachel. They, in good part, are "liberal".

The excerpt:

There is a clear disregard in Palestinian academic and political discourse in the Diaspora and the occupied territories for the tragic fate of Jews in the twentieth century and the need to discuss their future in the Middle East, most of which is hostile to Zionism. Zionism is perceived by many Palestinians primarily as an ideology of taking over the land, and not as much of its members formulated it — a national movement to save Jews from anti-Semitism and persecution. Palestinian discourse sometimes lacks the understanding that Israel served and still serves as a land of refuge in a historical homeland, and is characterized by frequent disregard for the legitimate rights of Jews the Israelis have earned them from the family of nations. 

The Zionist project is perceived as one-dimensional – an occupying homogeneous power of which the Palestinians are eternal victims. The critical discussion of the active part of the Palestinians in the disaster that rages upon their people is extremely poor, except for a few exceptions such as the researchers Salim Tamari, Rama Hammami, Asaad Ghanem or Yazid Sayigh, and its lack of an internal critical discussion on the devastating consequences of Palestinian defiance and terrorism in the century of struggle. Also, from the Palestinian discourse is almost completely absent an examining of non-colonial structural factors, such as Israeli nationalism and liberalism, which also shape the conflict and sometimes even moderate it.

And yet, it is important to note that throughout a century of conflict there have been Palestinian voices calling for mutual recognition and division of the land, led by communist leaders such as Emil Habibi and Tawfik Ziad but also prominent figures from the Nashashibi and Dajani families or relatively liberal  organizations led by leaders like Hanan Ashrawi or Mustafa Barghouti.

^

Turkey Reincarnating Itself as a Neo-Ottoman Empire

The threat from Turkey is deeply historio-ideological and religious.

How do I know?

Read on:

August 25, 2025

'Jerusalem Unites Us': Gaza Conference in Istanbul highlights Islamic duty toward Al-Aqsa

Delegates on Democracy and Freedom Island debate sanctity of Al-Aqsa Mosque, lessons of history, and practical strategies for global Muslim unity as Israel’s genocide on Gaza rages on

'Jerusalem Unites Us': Gaza Conference in Istanbul highlights Islamic duty toward Al-Aqsa

Delegates on Democracy and Freedom Island debate sanctity of Al-Aqsa Mosque, lessons of history, and practical strategies for global Muslim unity as Israel’s genocide on Gaza rages on

The eight-day Gaza Conference's fourth day continued Monday on Democracy and Freedom Island in Istanbul, with a series of workshops on the protection of the Al-Aqsa Mosque, the historical lessons of the medieval Crusades, and strategies to strengthen unity across the Muslim world.

In the morning session, participants split into groups to discuss “the value of Al-Aqsa Mosque, the threats it faces and what must be done for its protection,” while another group examined “the duties of Muslims toward Al-Aqsa.”

The discussions underscored the centrality of Jerusalem to the Islamic faith and the shared responsibility of safeguarding its sanctity.

The afternoon program turned to historical and political questions, with one group analyzing “the causes that initiated the Crusader occupation” and another reflecting on “the reasons that would bring it to an end.”

...On the role of religious leaders, he stressed the need for spiritual revival: “If the Muslims are close to Allah, then Palestine will be close to their hearts. But if the Muslims are far away from Allah, Palestine won’t be.”

He recalled how an Israeli prime minister once remarked that “as long as the Muslims are not (performing) fajr (dawn prayers) in the masjid, they are still safe.”

For Gabriels, this reflected the urgent responsibility of scholars “to bring the Muslims closer to Allah and closer to their Deen (religion) and closer to the Quran.”

He emphasized that the Palestinian issue is not only political but moral and universal: “The issue of Gaza, the issue of Palestine, the issue of Al-Aqsa, it’s not a Palestinian issue. It is an issue of humanity and more so an issue of Muslims.”

MEMRI's report relates to the resolutions:

"A call for all countries, especially the Islamic ones, to immediately sever all their relations with the occupying Zionist entity and with anyone who supports it – including political, economic and military [ties] – in accordance with the principles of the Islamic shari'a and international law, which enjoin [us] to battle tyranny and restrain the occupation and its ongoing violations.

"The shari'a forbids maintaining commercial ties, or anything resembling them, with the occupying Zionists, or to allow their ships to traverse the waterways of the Islamic countries. This ruling applies to individuals, companies and governments.

"A call on Muslim scholars to urge mass demonstrations and protest strikes, and on governments to respect the civil rights of their peoples and remove all restrictions on public liberties – especially on freedom of expression and the right to demonstrate peacefully and express support for Gaza and opposition to the continuation of the war – as required by international charters of human rights.

"The decisions of the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court must be implemented, and the international justice system must commence proceedings against the perpetrators of the crimes of extermination, war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza… We demand that the Islamic countries and the free countries establish criminal tribunals in their territory to prosecute the war criminals…

"The IUMS contends that the countries likely to be harmed by the 'Greater Israel' plan [i.e. Jordan, Lebanon and Syria] bear the responsibility of dealing with  the enemy's plans and initiating tangible and pragmatic measures to deter it and confront it…"[10]

And most recently, this analysis from November last month:

Turkey’s return to great power status   November 6, 2025

Sumantra Maitra

A resurgent Turkey is returning to its Ottoman roots as an essential and influential pivot in the Eurasian balance of power.

Vigilance is required.

^

Judea, Samaria and...Tahpanhes, Egypt

In a recent academic archaeological article you can read of Judean Jews who are soldiers arriving in Egypt. The article is "Judeans and Samarians at Tahpanhes: Speculating on the Identity of the King in Papyrus Amherst 63" by Marshall A. Cunningham in Advances in Ancient, Biblical, and Near Eastern Research  4, no. 1 (Spring, 2024).

Cunningham highlights similarities between the story in the Papyrus record and the story of  the prophet Jeremiah’s forced flight to Egypt in Jeremiah 40–44.  Finally, he suggests that the two accounts are similar enough to use the Jeremianic version.

He thereby provides another ex-Biblical source that could possibly confirm the truth of Biblical history. He identifies the unnamed king as Apries, the fourth pharaoh of the Twenty-sixth Dynasty, and the royal outpost of  Tahpanhes as the site where he receives the Judean and  Samarian caravan.

Excerpts:

Papyrus Amherst 63, a scroll featuring a collection of Aramaic compo-sitions written in Demotic script, features a short narrative concerning the arrival of a group of Judean and Samarian refugees to an unnamed royal outpost. At this outpost, they are received by an  unnamed king who welcomes them into his kingdom with an offer to sustain them...The narrative of the Judean and Samarian caravan occurs in col. xvii of P. Amh. 632...the text opens with narration in the first person...When asked their place of origin, a spokesman for the caravan answers:ʾ[n(h)] ⸢mn⸣-[y]hwd ’t(h) [I] come from [Y]ehud. ’ḥy mn-šmry⸢n⸣ m{m}y⸢t⸣(y) My brother is brought from Samaria. pkʿt ʾdm ⸢m⸣sq ’ḥty myrwšl{l}m And now a man is bringing my sister up from Jerusalem.

...In a recent article on when the Judean garrison at Yeb was established, Kahn (2022, 154)  has  connected this scene with the description of the Elamite jackal causing chaos in Rash’s temples in the preceding column, suggesting Rash as the caravan’s point of origin...

...While the details surrounding the scene are vague, there is strong evidence to suggest that the Judean and Samarian caravan is to be understood as a group of refugees: displaced soldiers and their families fleeing war and seeking shelter. First of all, the narrator identifies the band of Samarians as a gys, [גיס] a “troop” (l. 1).

... a comparison with a similar account of migration to Egypt may allow us to fill in some of  the omitted details. Jeremiah 40–44 narrates the prophet Jeremiah’s forced flight from Judah in the aftermath of a political assassination of the Babylonian-appointed governor, Gedaliah, and his supporters. While the traveling party in that narrative is primarily composed of Judeans fleeing  Babylonian reprisal, it does include a group of Samarians that had been taken captive by the rebel Ishmael outside Mizpah. Notably, the group includes men of fighting age alongside their families (41:16; 44). Finally, according to Jeremiah 43:7–9, the Judeans and Samarians in  Jeremiah’s  caravan made their first stop at the Egyptian city of  Tahpanhes (תחפנחס). Once there, the prophet received an oracle that began by identifying the city as the site of a royal palace  (בית פרעה) before performing a sign-act and announcing Pharaoh’s (and the caravan’s) impending devastation at the hands of Nebuchadnezzar and the Babylonian army (43:8–12)...

Impressive.

And another study there, posits that the Damascus Document, in existence before its earliest copy 4Q266 was produced in the first half of the first century BCE, employs a rhetorical use of  the terms “Israel,” “Ephraim,” and “Judah”.

^ 

Raz Segal: A "Liar-for-his-Cause"?

One Raz Segal, an Assoc Professor of Holocaust and Genocide Studies Stockton Univ, writing in the UK Guardian, once a very pro-Zionist newspaper in Manchester before it moved down to London, among other things describes Israel thus:

"a self-proclaimed exclusionary settler state – what Ze’ev Jabotinsky, the father of revisionist Zionism, described in his well-known essay from 1923 as a settler colonial project that can only work with an “Iron Wall.”

As readers of my blog know (and others can use the search engine), Jabotinsky did not advance an "exclusionary" character for the Jewish state or the idea of "racial supremacy". Moreover, the usage of "Jewish" indicates a nationality just like all other countries. Jabotinsky, a liberal democrat, envisioned full civic equality for all resident citizens of the future Jewish state. His last testament on the matter is his 1940 "The War and the Jew".

One can read the book here.

Here's p. 215:

216

217

218

Any fair reader would necessarily come to the conclusion that Segal is either an ignoramus, or unintelligent or, most likely, a liar-for-his-cause.

The idea of an "Iron Wall" was simply an expression of a firm, impenetrable defense system, not a physical structure, that would not allow the repeat of the 1920 and 1921 Arab murderous riots against Jews in Jerusalem and Jaffa. His idea was replacing unreliable British forces with Jewish soldiers and police. And as we saw on October 7, 2023, that wall was still necessary and continues to be.

UPDATE

Although Raz mentions the "Iron Wall" essay, he leaves out the opening lines that contradict his charaterization of Jabotinsky, who wrote:

I am reputed to be an enemy of the Arabs, who wants to have them ejected from Palestine, and so forth. It is not true.

Emotionally, my attitude to the Arabs is the same as to all other nations –

polite indifference. Politically, my attitude is determined by two principles. First of

all, I consider it utterly impossible to eject the Arabs from Palestine. There will

always be two nations in Palestine – which is good enough for me, provided the Jews become the majority. And secondly, I belong to the group that once drew up the Helsingfors Programme, the programme of national rights for all nationalities living in the same State. In drawing up that programme, we had in mind not only the Jews, but all nations everywhere, and its basis is equality of rights.

I am prepared to take an oath binding ourselves and our descendants that we

shall never do anything contrary to the principle of equal rights, and that we shall

never try to eject anyone. This seems to me a fairly peaceful credo.

But it is quite another question whether it is always possible to realise a

peaceful aim by peaceful means. For the answer to this question does not depend on our attitude to the Arabs; but entirely on the attitude of the Arabs to us and to

Zionism. 

^

Peter Beinart: Before and After

 Peter Beinart tweeted:

Tonight, I’m going to speak at Tel Aviv University. I know many people who I respect will think this was the wrong decision given that Israel—as widely recognized by experts on international law—practices not only apartheid but genocide. I support full equality for Israel’s Palestinian citizens, an end to the occupation and the right of Palestinian refugees to return. I support many forms of boycott, divestment and sanction against Israel and Israeli institutions. I have repeatedly advocated implementing the Leahy Law, which would radically restrict—if not end—US arms sales to Israel. I support the European Union ending its free trade agreement with Israel. I support ending Israeli participation in sports and cultural arenas like FIFA and Eurovision. I support these things because I don’t believe that Israel will end its oppression of the Palestinian people and move towards equality under the law and historical justice without outside pressure. But I believe there is value in speaking to Israelis about Israel’s crimes. I have spent much of my adult life speaking to Jews about Israel’s treatment of Palestinians. In that effort, I have conducted public discussions with many people whose views I consider immoral and spoken at many institutions that are based on principles with which I profoundly disagree. These include institutions like Tel Aviv University that are in various ways complicit in Israeli oppression. I do so because I want to reach Jews who disagree with me—because I believe that by trying to convince Jews to rethink their support for Israel’s oppression of Palestinians, I can contribute, in some very small way, to the struggle for freedom and justice. I don’t have many opportunities to speak to Israelis. As it is, right-wing Israeli organizations have pressured Tel Aviv University to cancel my talk. I felt I should take advantage of this opportunity to say in Israel what I’ve been saying elsewhere for the last two years. I know many people I admire will disagree with this logic. But it stems from my desire to challenge Jewish supremacy and see the end of Israel’s oppression of the Palestinian people.

and then tweeted:

By speaking earlier this week at Tel Aviv University, I made a serious mistake. In the past, when formulating my views about Israel-Palestine, I’ve sought out Palestinian friends and interlocutors and listened carefully to their views. In this case, I did not. I really wanted to speak to Israelis. In the US, I’ve cultivated conversations with Jews with whom I strongly disagree, both to listen and in hopes of changing their minds. Over the horrifying last two years, I’ve hoped for more conversations with Israelis, to explain why I believe Israel has committed genocide in Gaza and why I believe Jewish supremacy is fundamentally wrong. My motivation for giving the talk wasn’t financial; I didn’t receive an honorarium. I wanted to say certain things to an Israeli audience. Speaking at Tel Aviv University seemed to offer that chance. I let my desire for that conversation override my solidarity with Palestinians, who in the face of ethnic cleansing, apartheid and genocide have asked the world boycott Israeli institutions that are complicit in their oppression. As Noura Erakat and others have pointed out, there are ways for me to talk to Israelis without violating BDS guidelines and undermining a collective effort against oppression. I could have had the exchange I desired while respecting a non-violent movement based on human rights and international law. Had I listened more to Palestinians, I would have realized that earlier. It’s embarrassing to admit such a serious mistake. I dearly wish I had not made this one, which has caused particular harm because international pressure is crucial to ensuring Palestinian freedom. This was a failure of judgment. I am sorry.

That reminded me of a Soviet show trial confession

^

UPDATE:

Read this blog post.

And this one.

^