Read other letters about this article
I think you've raised some really pertinent questions. Too bad no one wants to detail their objections or skepticism in regard to them, point by point.
As for SMac's contention that the Palestinians aren't up for "self-denial"- to the contrary. I see a society that prizes martyrdom above all other values- gruesome physical martyrdom- and in the name of territoriality at that, not religious principle. Unless they consider the two ideas one and the same- in which case I'd welcome a detailed explanation of exactly why that is.
Part of my difficulty with understanding such fierce attachment to a patch of land has to do with my personal experience, I think. I grew up as an Army brat. I never had a "hometown." I moved several times by the time I was nine years old. And several more times after that. I have very fond memories of a couple of those places. But there's a whole world out there.
If I had a choice between remaining hemmed in on a tiny patch of "homeland" and exile, I'd leave. I'd probably leave anyway, in fact.
But I know how it is. The Human Ego- particularly the Male Human Ego- would rather kill itself than loosen it's grip on its cherished ideas. Regaining a sense of proportion and sobriety isn't easy when you've pumped yourself full of self-justifications that are intertwined with emotional states like rage and anger.
What I find to be the irony is that if the Palestinians dropped that attachment and accepted exile, at least some of them or their immediate descendants might even conceivably find themselves back in the region within 50 or so years, resettling their old homesteads in a world that had lost its last, worst, most obdurate excuse for eternal territorial enmity and armed conflict. A world beyond nation-states, with communities instead of armed camps with borders.
That brings me to the other part of the issue, the supposedly most intractable issue of all: the Temple Mount.
I think the Islamic mullahs ought to, out of a genuine sense of magnaminity, simply cede the Al Aqsa Mosque and the Dome of the Rock to the Jews. Just give it back to them.
Think about it. What are the Mosque and the Dome, to the Muslims. The third holiest shrine. A mosque and shrine that Mohammed never spoke of, because it wasn't even constructed until after his death. Who is Mt. Moriah really more important to?
After all, the Muslims can still keep Mecca and Medina. They aren't going anywhere. And sure, the Al Aqsa Mosque and the Dome of the Rock might be destroyed by the Jews, once it's in their possession to do with it as they please. But those buildings have been destroyed before. Just measure the blueprints, and build a copy of the building somewhere else. It is an architectural masterpiece, after all. You don't have to be a Muslim or an Arab to recognize that.
What is the Temple Mount, to the Jews? Well, I couldn't tell you what they all think. For Jews, that's a real hot potato, I think. For some of them, I suppose it's their holiest ground. And some of them want to go the whole literal route of putting up another Temple, there. And a lot of other Jews would really get the- the willies, about the prospect of the Jews who want to return to old-time Jewish Temple worship, complete with animal sacrifices, in a reconstructed shrine with a reconstituted priesthood, etc.
What's the worst that could happen?
Personally, I don't believe in "holy shrines" made by human hands. It violates quantum mechanics, for a simple-minded monotheist like myself. Either the Universe is holy, or it isn't. And that has everything to do with the attitude of the observer, and little or nothing to do with the location of the observed. I don't know. Maybe I'm wrong. I'm re-thinking the matter already. That topic might warrant further discussion.
But speaking to this specific controversy, as an outside observer who seems to be involved whether I want to be or not, I'm tired of the impasse. Let's get it on.
I didn't "just fall off the turnip truck", either. I'm simply having a go at thinking outside of the box.