Metal detectors "encroach on Muslim rights" ??

[Flankerl]

and special laws for Muslims.

If you want to enter the Temple Mount as a non-Muslim you've had to pass a metal detector for quite some time.

But hey... who cares about facts.

It's not about 'discrimination', it's about ownership of sacred sites. Do you not understand why Israeli acts perceived as asserting ownership of, or limiting access to the Haram al-Sharif cause such anger?

I got a great idea: Don't support terrorism on the Temple Mount, don't get your access denied.

That the Waqf got control of the Mount after 67 was an act of goodwill from the Israeli side.

But as all acts of goodwill it was seen as a weakness.

Because the modern state of Israel didn't exist then.

And the Palestinian National identity didn't exist in 1948. Oops.

 

[LuisDantas]

Why 'Muslim pride' rather than Palestinian anger though?

Fair question. How much of a distinction there is?

When the Palestinian movement was dominated by secular leftists in the 70s would they have been fine with it?

I did not even know that such a time existed, so I have no idea.

Non-Muslims don't always keep a calm head in territorial disputes either.

Non-Muslims, as a rule, do not claim to be backed up by God when they fail to.

 

[Magus]

Temple Mount is Roman, not Jewish, not Christian, not Islamic, so why are they fighting over it, why don't they just go home.

 

[Flankerl]

Temple Mount is Roman

So that's why they conquered it. All makes sense now.

 

[sun rise]

For any who are interested in history rather than repeating opinion here's one perspective I found interesting because of the obvious bias in their choice of language.

This ongoing conflict can be attributed to three main schools of thought regarding crusader phenomena. The first sees the Arab-Israeli conflict as a religious confrontation between Islam and Christianity and the impending Christian crusader threat. The second sees the conflict as an extension of European imperialist goals that first originated during the Crusades. The last interpretation views the conflict as an extension of the ongoing confrontation in the Middle East between East and West that began during the 5th century BCE. (Ohana 134)

Uses of The Crusades in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict | The Crusades and Crusade Memory

 

[LuisDantas]

I don't think it is really useful to talk of "crusader phenomena" at this point in time, although I know that it is a popular narrative in some Muslim circles. Mostly, I would assume, because it is their best shot at presenting a scene of virtuous Muslims being "forced" to take arms against "imperialistic" Christians (or non-Muslims generally).

 

[LuisDantas]

Temple Mount is Roman, not Jewish, not Christian, not Islamic, so why are they fighting over it, why don't they just go home.

Land has no ethnicity, nor nationality, no belief.

As for "going home", it would be nice if it were ever quite that simple.

 

[Kapalika]

I ain't no fan of Islam but this is messed up.

Israeli's have installed metal detectors at a shrine in Jerusalem important to both Muslims and Jews. Palestinians are perpetrating violent protests, claiming the metal detectors "encroach on Muslim rights".

Wow! This seems like a pretty clear example of a demand for Sharia? One rule of law for the world, a different rule for Muslims? Yikes!

3 Palestinians, 3 Israelis killed in violence over holy site

Banning people under 50 from entering a holy site for the reasons they did is encroaching someone's human rights to peacefully practice their religion. I don't care if half of all Muslims blew up Africa, that wouldn't make the other half any less innocent. By punishing innocent Muslims you just make the extremeists' narratives become true and more people to join them.

I know, it's a crazy idea, that treating people like **** might make them join crazy groups who promise to change things for them. It's why so many southerners who were unfairly ****ed over in the mishandled reconstruction after the American Civil War looked for something to blame and so formed the Ku Klux Klan. Imagine a world where there wasn't vindictiveness and the aftermath was much better handled, we might not even have the KKK today.

You can apply the same insight into this situation... what good will come of treating Muslims poorly because of the actions of others? All it serves is to be vindictive.

If a metal detector is what is needed thats fine for security but don't ban people from entering to worship.

Given the chain of recent events, how would you characterize the matter?

As ageist.

Special laws for Muslims.

That isn't what Sharia law is, and if there is any "special law" it's the one stopping Muslims from entering a mosque.

 

[icehorse]

I ain't no fan of Islam but this is messed up.

Banning people under 50 from entering a holy site for the reasons they did is encroaching someone's human rights to peacefully practice their religion. I don't care if half of all Muslims blew up Africa, that wouldn't make the other half any less innocent. By punishing innocent Muslims you just make the extremeists' narratives become true and more people to join them.

I know, it's a crazy idea, that treating people like **** might make them join crazy groups who promise to change things for them. It's why so many southerners who were unfairly ****ed over in the mishandled reconstruction after the American Civil War looked for something to blame and so formed the Ku Klux Klan. Imagine a world where there wasn't vindictiveness and the aftermath was much better handled, we might not even have the KKK today.

You can apply the same insight into this situation... what good will come of treating Muslims poorly because of the actions of others? All it serves is to be vindictive.

If a metal detector is what is needed thats fine for security but don't ban people from entering to worship.

As ageist.

That isn't what Sharia law is, and if there is any "special law" it's the one stopping Muslims from entering a mosque.

As I read it, every group is treated equally by this metal detector law, no?

 

[Kapalika]

As I read it, every group is treated equally by this metal detector law, no?

So what do you think about the Muslims under 50 not being allowed in which seems to be the real source of the outrage?

 

[LuisDantas]

A few posts ago it was clarified that it is not only Muslims, IIRC.

 

[Poisonshady313]

So what do you think about the Muslims under 50 not being allowed in which seems to be the real source of the outrage?

Not according to a link posted earlier in this thread... the ban (on MEN... not just Muslim men) was imposed after the Palestinian reaction to metal detectors.

 

[Kapalika]

Huh. My bad then.The one time I take for granted what others are saying and don't read the article fully and slip up.

In fairness I usually feel like I'm one of the few who actually read an article before opening my mouth, so I shouldn't be too hard on myself.

 

[Augustus]

You are sure that's the origin of this dispute? I know it's often stated to be, but I'm not convinced.

What else do you think it is? Why are the Israelis and Palestinians in conflict with each other?

As I read it, every group is treated equally by this metal detector law, no?

Seeing as the issue is whether or not you agree Israel has the right to impose it's authority over and limit access to the site, you are misunderstanding the cause of the problem.

It's not about a metal detector, it is about who has the right to the territory.

I did not even know that such a time existed, so I have no idea.

Most of the Arab independence movements were leftist, the Islamification process really started in the 80s.

Fair question. How much of a distinction there is?

If the dispute is about control of territory, we tend to refer to the group by their national identity.

Non-Muslims, as a rule, do not claim to be backed up by God when they fail to.

People always claim to have right on their side in conflicts, whether it is god based or otherwise.

 

[LuisDantas]

It's not about a metal detector, it is about who has the right to the territory.

There is no such thing as a right to a territory. Lots of people claim otherwise, but that makes no logical sense.

What does exist is a need to pursue solutions to make the coexistence of people as harmonious as possible. Which makes the Palestinians' stance very difficult to justify.

Most of the Arab independence movements were leftist, the Islamification process really started in the 80s.

One wonders why the leftists left the cause...

If the dispute is about control of territory, we tend to refer to the group by their national identity.


People always claim to have right on their side in conflicts, whether it is god based or otherwise.

I am just not seeing a case there.

I am left wondering why you replied to this thread.

 

[Augustus]

There is no such thing as a right to a territory. Lots of people claim otherwise, but that makes no logical sense.

Wonderful, you could tell them this and the trouble will instantly cease.

Many people believe they have this right, and seeing as I was explaining it from their perspective rather than offering a value judgement...

One wonders why the leftists left the cause...

The Soviet Union collapsed

I am just not seeing a case there.

Not all Palestinians are Muslims.

I am left wondering why you replied to this thread.

Because the OP was clearly wrong. When the (mostly Catholic) Nationalists in Northern Ireland objected to the actions of the British, did anyone put that down to Canon Law or expecting 'special laws for Catholics'? Or did they put it down to them rejecting the legitimacy of the British government and perceived abuses of their rights in the context of a decades long period of hostilities?

Why did you reply?

 

[LuisDantas]

Wonderful, you could tell them this and the trouble will instantly cease.

Hardly. But we should certainly refrain from encouraging that dangerous yet popular delusion.

Many people believe they have this right, and seeing as I was explaining it from their perspective rather than offering a value judgement...

It seems to me that by the time that killings become so commonplace there is a need to let go of those preconceptions. Respect for life is supposed to trump nationalism, well, every single time.

The Soviet Union collapsed

Yet the left still exists, but it is not apparently nearly as vocal there as the islamists. What would that suggest?

Not all Palestinians are Muslims.

Certainly not all. How significant would the distinction be in practice?

Actually, how much room for expression do non-Muslims have there, in a territory under Hamas rule?

Because the OP was clearly wrong. When the (mostly Catholic) Nationalists in Northern Ireland objected to the actions of the British, did anyone put that down to Canon Law or expecting 'special laws for Catholics'? Or did they put it down to them rejecting the legitimacy of the British government and perceived abuses of their rights in the context of a decades long period of hostilities?

That was an entirely different situation and I hope that you know that.

Why did you reply?

I have become wary of silencing when faced with signs of Muslim presumption of superiority.

 

[Augustus]

That was an entirely different situation and I hope that you know that.

Why? Both were nationalist struggles against a government seen as being illegitimate.

A good comparison for this would be the marching bands of the Orange Order. Many a riot has started over these because the Orangemen demand they should be able to take their 'traditional' routes, whereas the nationalists object as these 'traditional' routes often go through areas that have become nationalist due to demographic changes. Seeing this as a dispute about simply walking through a metal detector is like seeing those as disputes about flute music.

What do you see as the fundamental differences? Just saying 'that was different' doesn't make it so.

 

[icehorse]

If the dispute is about control of territory, we tend to refer to the group by their national identity.

Didn't Arafat create this "Palestinian" identity out of thin air long after Israel was established? In other words, there never was a Palestinian National State, correct?

 

[DavidFirth]

The metal detectors are necessary and they do not infringe anyone's rights. Next case, bailiff.