In response to loud chants of “Mr.
President, take us to Jerusalem” from a crowd of young people in Mardin,
Turkey, during a Dec. 22 speech, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan
shockingly responded, “Patience brings victory,” instead of chiding the
crowd about their inappropriate demand.
Lest there be any misunderstanding about
the intent of this exchange, Erdoğan has implied a number of times since
2020 that Jerusalem belongs to Turkey. Indeed, Devlet Bahçeli, leader
of the Nationalist Movement Party, Erdoğan’s coalition partner, in an
address the very next day, reportedly declared that the goal was for
Turkey to take Jerusalem. This is in line with the resurgent neo-Ottoman
posture of Erdoğan.
By way of background, the Land of Israel,
including Jerusalem, was conquered and controlled by the Ottoman Empire,
with Istanbul as its capital from 1517 to 1917.
The Ottoman Empire was on the losing side
of World War I, and under the Treaty of Sèvres of 1920, portions of its
former empire were ceded to the victorious allies to establish or
reconstitute sovereign states. One such reconstituted country was the
Jewish State of Israel, and Article 95 of the Treaty laid the groundwork
for its re-establishment within boundaries to be determined by the
Principal Allied Powers. The Treaty of Lausanne of 1923 with Turkey, in
effect, reaffirmed the foregoing, as detailed in the San Remo Resolution
of 1920 and unanimously adopted by the League of Nations in 1922. The
United States also confirmed it in the Anglo-American Convention of
1924.
In summary, under treaties to which the
Ottoman Empire and Turkey are bound and under international law, the
Jewish people’s right to return to their homeland of Israel (then called
Palestine), join fellow brethren there and reconstitute the Jewish
State there was recognized. As Winston Churchill stated in 1922, the
Jews had returned to Palestine “as of right and not by sufferance, and
that this was based on their ancient historical connection.”
Erdoğan’s musings are just another one of
the baseless positions circulated by biased sources promoting a false
narrative and ideologically motivated revisionist history to undermine
the legitimacy of the Jewish State of Israel. As a matter of fact and
law, the nations of the world in the League of Nations and the United
States unanimously confirmed the legal right of the Jewish People to the
whole of the area west of the Jordan River, then called Palestine and
now known as Israel.
It is suggested that much of the uproar
and machinations regarding the Temple Mount are inspired by
pseudo-Muslims (not pious ones) with political and ideological driven
agendas unrelated to prayer at the Al-Aksa mosque. Instead, it appears
they callously tread in the Al-Aksa mosque, clad in shoes, despite the
Islamic prohibition against doing so, dressed in inappropriate apparel,
like shorts and T-shirts, and without head covering. They also play
soccer and conduct other non-prayer activities on the Temple Mount
without regard to its sanctity. This includes despoiling the Al-Aksa
mosque, throwing rocks, setting off explosive devices, breaking windows,
arson and other despicable acts. This abusive behavior by their fellow
Muslims should offend the Muslim authorities in charge of the site. Yet,
they don’t seem to have taken any actions to prevent a reoccurrence,
nor does there appear to be a public outcry against the perpetrators or
the laxness of the Muslim authorities.
At the same time, there are all sorts of
negative reactions, protests and rancor when non-Muslims quietly and
reverently pray elsewhere on the Temple Mount. This is wholly
inconsistent with the usual religious sensibilities and kindness
practiced by those treasuring the sanctity of a site, be it a synagogue,
church, mosque, ashram, Buddhist temple or other place of worship
almost anywhere else in the world.
In this regard, it is interesting to note
that the Ottoman Empire agreed, pursuant to the Treaty of Paris of 1856
at the end of the Crimean War, that Christians and Jews were legally
permitted to pray on the Temple Mount.
It is important to note that the 1925 “A
Brief Guide to Al-Haram Al-Sharif” (i.e. the Temple Mount), published by
the Supreme Moslem Council, the Waqf, refers to the seminal Jewish link
to the Temple Mount (citing Samuel II, 24:25), saying this, too, is the
spot, according to the universal belief, on which “David built there an
Altar unto the Lord, and offered burnt offerings and peace offerings.”
The pseudo-Islamist temple deniers should
be universally reviled for their impudent rejection of their own
religious traditions and beliefs in favor of absurd propaganda.
The guide also focuses on Muslim history
and its first encounter with the Temple Mount and notes that the Muslim
period’s starting point is the year 637 CE, when Caliph Omar first
occupied Jerusalem. This is a striking rebuke to those who falsely
assert that Arab Muslims were indigenous to Jerusalem. As the Waqf’s own
guide recognizes, the Jews and their Holy Temple on the Temple Mount
were there first. This was more than 1½ millennia before the Arabs
arrived and began their occupation of Jerusalem.
The guide also explains that the Dome of the Rock is not a mosque. The actual Arabic name of Qubbat al-Sakhrah
is more precisely translated as the dome over the “foundation stone.”
This accords with Jewish tradition, which refers to this stone as the Even Shetiyah “foundation stone.” It is where the Holy of Holies portion of the Beit Hamikdash, the Holy Temple, was located. Hence, the use of the Arabic term al-Quds for the Temple Mount is derived from Bayt Al-Maqdis, which is Arabic for the Hebrew term Beit Hamikdash.
The Al-Aksa mosque is located outside the
holy precincts of the Jewish Temple and is situated on the southern
extension of the Temple Mount platform built by Herod. As Al-Tabari, a
9th-century respected Muslim historian, explained, this was Omar’s
intention so that Muslims would pray towards Mecca, consistent with
Islamic practice and not the place of the Jewish temple as required by
Jewish custom. In this regard, it should be noted that 13th-century
Ahmad Ibn Taymiyya declared about the site of the Dome of the Rock:
“Men of knowledge who were companions or followers of the Prophet chose
the best path and did not exalt the Rock, because it is a quibla mansukha, like the Sabbath, … so too, the Rock is exalted only by Jews and some Christians.”
It is astonishing that the words of this
noted Sunni scholar are simply and callously ignored in favor of the
dictates of political ideology by Erdoğan.
As to Erdoğan’s other fatuous remarks
about Jerusalem, pictures are worth a thousand words. Just view
photographs of the Temple Mount in the 19th century when the Ottoman
Empire controlled the area. These photos show an abandoned site with the
Dome of the Rock and other structures in disrepair. They do not depict
what might be expected if this were indeed a highly venerated site,
important to the Muslim religion, which, after all, was the official and
dominant religion of the Ottoman Empire that occupied and was in firm
control of Jerusalem and the Temple Mount, at the time.
Jerusalem does not belong to Turkey, and
Erdoğan’s apparent aspirations to re-create a neo-Ottoman colonial
empire are nothing more than a dystopian nightmare.
Israel is a blessing to the world. Turkey
should genuinely join the circle of peace under the Abraham Accords and
enjoy the shared prosperity and mutual respect it engenders. May the
blessings of peace prevail.
No comments:
Post a Comment