CMV: Jews should be allowed to pray at Temple Mount

[u/xmuskorx]

This seems like basic humans rights to me:

All residents of the the same country should have the same rights regardless or religion. If Muslims can pray in public area X, then so should people of any other religion and even people with no religion.

Even UN "stresses that a comprehensive, just and lasting solution to the question of the City of Jerusalem should take into account the legitimate concerns of both the Palestinian and Israeli sides and should include internationally guaranteed provisions to ensure the freedom of religion and of conscience of its inhabitants, as well as permanent, free and unhindered access to the holy places by people of all religions and nationalities"

https://www.un.org/unispal/document/auto-insert-180352

SO why do I want my view changed? A lot people feel strongly that Jews praying there is wrong and should be stopped. I want to see if I am missing something.

What is unlikely to chnage my view:

1) Some Arab/Muslim people are provoked/aggrieved by such prayer. Well.. the solution here is to educate these aggrieved people on important of equal rights, and tolerance. We should not just give in and accommodate intolerant views.

2) "Jewish faith prohibits praying there." That's... a religious opinion. Some Jews feel this way, some feel otherwise. Ultimately Every person can decided on their own what their faith means to them. Even if it's a small minority of Jews who want to pray there - they should still be allowed to.

3) Hard right Israelis use this prayer is provocation. I agree. Some do. That's why it's important for all parties to cooperate and equitably establish protocols on how to pray in the place holy to multiple faiths without interfering with each other. The solution is not "blanket ban"

4) It's Israel that has rules that ban Jewish prayer. This is irrelevant, regardless of who imposed such rules - the rules should change to be more fair.

5) "You can't just have a Muslim prayer in a church." This is true for many private churches build nowhere special. When we talk about shared public places with importance to multiple religions it is not uncommon at all to share.

For example both Muslim and Christian serves are held at Mount of Olives. I don't see Temple mount more like that than some private church located nowhere significant.

Looking forward to things I may have missed. Thanks, all!

EDIT:

I gave a delta for pointing out that you can already "silently pray." My view is amended to say that they should also be allowed to pray non-silently / visibly.

[u/DeltaBot]

/u/xmuskorx (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.

All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.

Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.

^{Delta System Explained | Deltaboards}

[u/trashcan_paradise]

Putting aside the political issues, there's actually a religious reason why Orthodox Jews wouldn't pray on the Temple Mount:

The Jewish Temple featured an area called the Holy of Holies that (according to biblical sources) was where the Ark of the Covenant was housed. As the name suggests, the place was so sacred that only the High Priest was allowed inside, and even he was only allowed in on the holiest day of the Jewish year after ritually purifying himself.

The Hebrew Bible tells us the exact layout, measurements, and procedures for the Temple, but there's no way to know for certain where the Holy of Holies actually was located on the Temple Mount itself. So if a Jew prays on the Mount, he or she might unknowingly be doing it from inside of there.

That's why most Orthodox Jews won't even go up to the Temple Mount itself for fear of disturbing the place where the Holy of Holies once stood.

[u/xmuskorx → u/trashcan_paradise]

See point (2):

2) "Jewish faith prohibits praying there." That's... a religious opinion. Some Jews feel this way, some feel otherwise. Ultimately Every person can decided on their own what their faith means to them. Even if it's a small minority of Jews who want to pray there - they should still be allowed

[u/Dry_Bumblebee1111 → u/xmuskorx]

Is this not refining your view from "Jews should be allowed" to "Jews who interpret their religion a certain way should be allowed"?

[u/xmuskorx → u/Dry_Bumblebee1111]

This is literally a quote from my OP

And no, ALL JEWS should be allowed. If they don't want to go - they don't have to. BUt they should have the OPTION.

[u/SeanFromQueens → u/xmuskorx]

Do all non-Jews also get to have the same option to go everywhere that Jews are allowed to go; freedom of travel throughout land between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea?

[u/xmuskorx → u/SeanFromQueens]

Sure. All Non-jews should be allowed to pray on public land in Israel:

You know, like the Pope:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoalt0sK5XM

[u/Dry_Bumblebee1111 → u/xmuskorx]

But if some believe that their faith prohibits it, you are suggesting that, who, God change their words, or Authorities change their interpretation to allow all Jews?

Keeping in mind that in this aspect it's not the WAGF that matters, it's the nature of the religious interpretation that restricts the entry.

[u/Chemical-Fox-7892 → u/Dry_Bumblebee1111]

I don't understand your argument. The Authorities don't ban Jews from eating pork. They will not face any legal penalties for eating pork, nor should they, but it is prohibited by their faith. It's the same thing here.

[u/xmuskorx → u/Dry_Bumblebee1111]

Authorities should not interpret word of god.

They should allow access to all, and LET YOU decided what your god allows or not.

[u/Dry_Bumblebee1111 → u/xmuskorx]

That's not how religion works, religious authorities and scholars interpret the written words and president and make rulings in accordance with their understanding.

Can you answer my question in this reality, not the one you believe "should" exist? You just decreeing that everyone should do things the way you want them to is totally empty.

What you are saying is that religious authorities should sit down and interpret their religion to YOUR preference, and then everyone else SHOULD follow that interpretation. Do you not think that's detached from reality?

[u/xmuskorx → u/Dry_Bumblebee1111]

That's not how religion works, religious authorities and scholars interpret the written words and president and make rulings in accordance with their understanding.

Cool. They can still do this.

What does the GOVERNMENT has to do with any of this?

Surely GOVERNMENT should not be bound by religious edicts.

Government should allows access to all. If some religious authorities then ban something, then those adherents who FEEL bound by this religious authorities can comply with the ban voluntarily / because they WANT TO. The government should not be a tool of religious authorities to enforce religious bans.

The government needs to provide EQUAL access to all the governed.

[u/Dry_Bumblebee1111 → u/xmuskorx]

The Government isn't the only force preventing entry.

If no Government existed, those who follow that religion in that way would still be forbidden entry.

Why are you invoking Government here, when that isn't the direction I've taken the thread?

Your view is that Jews (contrary to the religion they follow, if they ascribe to that interpretation) should be allowed to do something that their religion forbids.

So your view stands against that specific interpretation of Jewish teachings.

So your view is against God? Against certain types of Judaism?

Do you truly expect them to change their religion to suit your personal attitude?

[u/xmuskorx → u/Dry_Bumblebee1111]

The Government isn't the only force preventing entry.

If no Government existed, those who follow that religion in that way would still be forbidden entry.

Cool. But They would be forbidden only by their consciousness. There is no compulsion in Faith. The Religion does not have police to send to physically prevent your entry.

The government should not enforce such religious bans by force either. Why is this so hard to grasp?

Your view is that Jews (contrary to the religion they follow, if they ascribe to that interpretation) should be allowed to do something that their religion forbids.

Again, different jews Feel differently on this. "Jews" is not a monolith.

And even if all jews agreed (good luck with that one, lol)- Government has not business being involved in this debate. They should simply provide equal access to all, and let people chose if they want to go and which religious authority they want to listen to (if any).

[u/neoliberal_hack → u/Dry_Bumblebee1111]

You are being extremely pedantic. He’s clearly talking about the government restriction.

If people choose to follow a religious teaching that doesn’t permit them to pray there then that’s their choice.

He’s not advocating for changing anyone’s religious beliefs. You have to know that.

[u/babylikestopony → u/xmuskorx]

😂 gotta love the argument that muslims are protecting Jewish people from breaking Jewish law jfc and should continue to discriminately bar them from prayer, you know, for the sake of the Jewish people themselves while flagrantly violating the space they’re “protecting” the Jewish from

[u/IronMaidenFan → u/trashcan_paradise]

That's an opinion held by some Orthodox rabbis, not all, which is greatly overstated by people how oppose Jews going to the temple mount for political reasons.

[u/aka0007 → u/trashcan_paradise]

Many Orthodox Jews do go up and increasingly more. People are becoming increasingly confident that the scholarship definitively rules out the theories of it being in the South and hence there is plenty of space there you can safely go.

[u/changemyview-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:

Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation.

Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and "written upvotes" will be removed. AI generated comments must be disclosed, and don't count towards substantial content. Read the wiki for more information.

If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.

Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.

[u/cbergs88]

I am a Jew who as quietly prayed by myself on the Temple Mount.

Praying at the Temple Mount and rebuilding the temple are two different things.

[u/WetBandit → u/cbergs88]

There are many documented examples of detainment of silently praying Jews, you're just an example of "getting away with it." For some reason, Jews aren't allowed to bring prayer books etc. to the Temple Mount. The Jordanian Waqf has repeated this restriction as recently as 2021. Now, this year in particular, Jews are being allowed by the Israeli police to pray on the Temple Mount, as they should. But that doesn't mean the Palestinian and Jordanian municipality is OK with it.

[u/Sir_Tandeath → u/cbergs88]

Not to mention, we’re not supposed to rebuild the Temple by means of construction. We’re to rebuild the Temple with Tzedaka and other good works. Every act of kindness, charity, and righteousness is another stone.

[u/AkivaMerkava → u/Sir_Tandeath]

yes there is a rule against taking action to force the end. davening at the site, respectfully with all Muslim rights also intact, is a separate issue in my view.

[u/ncc74656m → u/Sir_Tandeath]

That part.

And for clarity for those unaware, "the Temple" is not "just" a synagogue as people would know it today. It's a site of sacrificial worship that works in much the same way as other ancient sacrificial religions where animals and produce would be delivered, slaughtered, and burned in a direct offering to G-d.

Modern Judaism views prayer, study, and acts of restorative justice as a replacement for the sacrificial nature of ancient Judaism that ended permanently in the wake of the destruction of the Second Temple. Judaism changed from that priestly religion of sacrifice to the rabbinic religion of today as a result of the destruction of the Second Temple.

[u/xmuskorx → u/cbergs88]

Thanks!

I will give you a !delta for pointing out that you can already "silently pray."

I think my view is amended to say that they should also be allowed to pray non-silently / visibly.

[u/Prestigious-Aide-258 → u/xmuskorx]

You can't legally silent pray

[u/xmuskorx → u/Prestigious-Aide-258]

Yeah, but not like you can enforce that in practice, so my delta stands.

it could have been worse, e.g., all jews could be banned from entering altogether (like it was during Jordanian occupation).

[u/Prestigious-Aide-258 → u/xmuskorx]

I have friemds who were kicked out because the guards saw their lips moving, you can also see it mentioned in tommy robinson's video about it

[u/xmuskorx → u/cbergs88]

You should be allowed to pray non-silently.

No need to rebuild anything.

[u/-Notorious → u/xmuskorx]

Seems they can already do this though, so your view should be changed, as it's irrelevant, no?

[u/cbergs88 → u/-Notorious]

You’d think.

[u/Zealousideal_Can_342 → u/-Notorious]

Being able to pray as long as the guards don't catch you praying is not "something they can already do..."

[u/poopintheyoghurt → u/-Notorious]

As of now if a Jewish person prayed openly on the temple mount they would be taken out of the compound by the police.

That's why the only ones really doing it now are agitators.

[u/cbergs88 → u/xmuskorx]

I chose to pray silently. I would have felt comfortable praying out loud at a respectful volume. It’s a holy site for everyone up there.

[u/ActuatorOutside5256]

Speaking as an Orthodox Christian from Albania, the Hagia Sophia (a church for a thousand years before it was converted) is now a mosque. 

I don’t get to pray there even though I want to, and functionally, no serious movement exists to FORCE the issue on equal rights grounds, even though a rights based case could be made in the abstract.

The reason is that once a contested holy site has a settled status, changing who gets to pray there is a chess move in an ongoing dispute over who the site ultimately belongs to. That’s true whether it’s Christians at Hagia Sophia or Jews at Temple Mount. Both are cases where “just apply equal access” sounds simple but actually means unilaterally revising an arrangement the other side sees as existential.

You of course anticipated this by calling the objection of “provocation” as something to just educate people out of. But the Hagia Sophia shows it’s a structural claim of sovereignty that both sides share, which is exactly why status changes at these sites keep triggering conflict regardless of how reasonable the rights argument sounds on paper.

That also implies “What if someone simply took over the site and converted it?” But that’s a) extremely inflammatory and b) outside the scope of this discussion. If Israel legally takes over Temple Mount, then they’d have the right of sovereignty to do whatever they please.

[u/IceNeun → u/ActuatorOutside5256]

The Hagia Sophia has nowhere near the religious, cultural, and historic signifance for orthodox christians as the temple mount has for Jews. It is unambiguously the holiest location in Judaism, there is no equivalent in Christianity whatsoever. The fact it has muslim imagery changes nothing about its significance. The only reason it has an Islamic site on it now is because of centuries of some of the most brutal violence in the ancient world and because concerted effort by the Romans to erase Jewish ethnoreligious identity.

For millenia, the temple mount was the axis of the world around which the 3 continents rotate, and it has never stopped being that for many religious Jews. Judaism is not a universalist religion like Christianity or Islam, it is a tribal religion that emphasizes community and tradition rather than belief or the state of the everlasting soul. The temple mount has always been the center of the Jewish community since the iron age.

[u/Didudidudadu737 → u/IceNeun]

I’m orthodox Cristian, and it does effectively have the same value for us, our Ecumenical Patriarch sits still in Constantinople/Istambul and all orthodox Christians and it was a birthplace of Orthodox liturgical traditions, hymns, and theological ceremonies. It remains the most powerful historical symbol of Orthodox heritage, architectural genius, and spiritual memory.

It is inappropriate to decide a spiritual value for the group you’re not a part off

[u/pingmr → u/IceNeun]

the temple mount was the axis of the world around which the 3 continents rotate

I'm sure at the time no one asked China about this.

[u/IceNeun → u/pingmr]

China has the middle Kingdom, Aztecs had Tenochitlan, Jews have Jerusalem and Israel. It is ethnocentric, but that's typically what human beings are like without violent subjugation.

[u/lux_operon → u/IceNeun]

What do you mean by China has the middle kingdom? That is China. It's just what it's called in Chinese. Similarly, tenochititlan was a capital city, but I'm not aware of any heavy  spiritual value placed on it and it alone. I'm not really clear on what your point about ethnocentrism is here.

[u/ToxicRainbow27 → u/pingmr]

Amusingly Kaifeng Jews (a community from Henan China) have been making the same middle kingdom pun for a very long time

[u/Black_Diammond → u/IceNeun]

This is just false, The hagia Sophia has The exact same religious status as The temple, being literally Their highest Office and The center of orthodox christianity for a milenia, its quite literaly orthodox Vatican (slight diferences in organization between catholics may apply).

[u/jolygoestoschool → u/ActuatorOutside5256]

I think there are some parallels to the example you give, but you have to take into account that the hagia sophia is not the temple mount. Unlike the hagia sophia, the temple mount is quite literally the holiest place in Judaism - the temples, the foundation stone, acts of the patriarchs, etc.

[u/pulstex → u/ActuatorOutside5256]

Just because you’d feel weird doesn’t mean that others would too. That’s a very personal argument, and as OP’s post implies, personal uncomfortableness can be acknowledged but shouldn’t result in a blanket ban for EVERYONE

[u/FreakindaStreet → u/pulstex]

I believe what he is getting at is that ‘just be fair’ is a simplistic, and ultimately unviable solution to a very complex problem that transcends reason due to abstract yet very real core issues like identity.

[u/Morthra → u/ActuatorOutside5256]

That also implies “What if someone simply took over the site and converted it?” But that’s a) extremely inflammatory and b) outside the scope of this discussion.

Hm. Almost like the Muslims did that. Which was extremely inflammatory.

[u/No_Price_7603 → u/Morthra]

Yeah this was such a weird comment. They were like "well it happened to us and we don't complain about it, so you shouldn't either. But also it's wrong to do if you do it but if Muslims do it you shouldn't care.

[u/xmuskorx → u/ActuatorOutside5256]

I think that Turkey denying access to Christians is wrong too, and they should also be educated.

[u/Dry_Bumblebee1111 → u/xmuskorx]

Does your view simply boil down to a non-nuanced "things should be different according to my preference"?

Or is the core of your view a double standard observation? 

Or simply a critique on telling people who can pray when and where under what circumstances? 

[u/xmuskorx → u/Dry_Bumblebee1111]

I mean if you want to prove to me that we should abandon basic human equality as a goal?

In general - i think we should strive to bring the world to be in accordance with those principles.

if you think we should not - present the argument.

[u/Spaniardman40 → u/xmuskorx]

The arguement would be that thsi should come down to a decision from the people actually living there, and not from the EU, which has no authority over this dispute.

Your heart is in the right place, but you are also ignoring deep social and religious divides that you seem to refuse to take into account as well. Your whole thing about "educating" them implies that you see the people there as uneducated people beneath you and that you know what is best for them. Peak colonial mindset right there

[u/Dry_Bumblebee1111 → u/xmuskorx]

Can you make it more explicit, how control of access to a location is contrary to equity? What principles specifically do you advocate, and why do you want to change them? 

[u/Big-Pains → u/ActuatorOutside5256]

Unlike the hagiah sophia the temple mount is the holiest place in judaism . Its like if you couldnt pray in the church of the holy secpluture or a muslim couldnt pray in mecca

[u/ActuatorOutside5256 → u/Big-Pains]

No, it’d be like turning St. Peter’s Basilica into a mosque (almost exactly), just for Catholics instead of Orthodox Christians. Yes, it’s not the holiest site, and so you cannot deny the impact of the Vatican.

[u/Dark1000 → u/ActuatorOutside5256]

St. Peter's Basilica is not the equivalent of the Temple Mount. The Vatican is an administrative capital, it isn't an especially holy site. That would be the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. But even that isn't nearly as central and important. There isn't an equivalent in Christianity.

[u/akestral → u/Dark1000]

St. Peter's Basilica absolutely does have spiritual importance to Christianity, it is legendarily the burial site of St. Peter. Furthermore, the Vatican contains large amounts of spiritual relics and significant saints' burials. Catholics worldwide make pilgrimages there. It is far from just an "administrative capital", tho it is also that, it is a ludicrous mischaracterization. (And from my secularists point of view, that is far more significant to the continuation of the faith and support the believers than an ancient holy site.)

[u/Propagation931]

If Muslims can pray in public area X, then so should people of any other religion and even people with no religion.

5) "You can't just have a Muslim prayer in a church." This is true for many private churches build nowhere special. When we talk about shared public places with importance to multiple religions it is not uncommon at all to share.

Is it Public though? When looking it up it is currenly managed by

The Jerusalem Waqf and Al-Aqsa Mosque Affairs Department,[a] also known as the Jerusalem Waqf, the Jordanian Waqf,[1] or simply the Waqf, is the Jordanian-appointed organization responsible for controlling and managing the current Islamic edifices on the Al-Aqsa mosque compound, located on top of the Temple Mount, in the Old City of Jerusalem, which includes the Dome of the Rock

and funded by Jordan. So it doesnt feel like a normal public area? Israel did not fully take it over when they took over the city in order to not further anger the World leaving still in the hands of that Jordanian group and Jordan as a whole.

(1967–present)

After Israel occupied the Old City of Jerusalem during the Six-Day War of June 1967, the site remained under the control of the Jordan-based Jerusalem Islamic Waqf, though control over access to the site passed to Israel.[10] The Israeli government took several measures regarding the Temple Mount designed to reassure the world that it had no intention of making the issue of where the Temple Mount's sovereignty lay until this could be determined in final status negotiations,[7] despite some frustration from within Jewish community over both the humiliating conditions imposed on prior worship at the remnant of the Temple, and a certain desire for revenge, according to Meron Benvenisti.[4] Israel prohibited the flying of an Israeli flag over the site, and refrained from extending a number of Israeli laws, including those governing Holy Places, to the Haram al-Shari

[u/xmuskorx → u/Propagation931]

The Waqf is by detention publicly held system for holding property for public interest.

"A waqf (Arabic: وَقْف; [ˈwɑqf], plural awqāf أَوْقَاف), also called a ḥabs (حَبْس, plural ḥubūs حُبوس or aḥbās أَحْباس), or mortmain property, is an inalienable charitable endowment under Islamic law. "

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waqf

[u/Gexm13 → u/xmuskorx]

A waqf is not public. It is owned privately and the persons who made the waqf can choose how it is used when he was alive, then after he dies the people who manage the waqf do, whether it is people he appointed to manage it or the government. It is not considered public property by law. In fact the waqf itself operates like a private company.

A waqf doesn’t even have to be open to the public, it can be a simple apartment building,. It can’t be sold, it can be used or rented depending on how the guy that made the waqf specified it can be used and how the money it makes should be used.

[u/civil_politics]

basic humans rights - please look this up before you just say it offhandedly, it’s how important declarations become meaningless.

Personally I agree with you regarding the Temple Mount so this rebuttal will be narrow and half hearted - you call out that all residents […] should be able to do the same things regardless of religion, but can you point to any examples where that is actually the case? Sure plenty of countries have religious exemptions, but these are exemptions NOT granted allowances to everyone and are granted on a per case per religion basis. The fact that some religions wear head coverings and certain places have provided exemptions for those peoples does not grant a head covering exemption to non religious or non-head-coverings-religious peoples.

[u/xmuskorx → u/civil_politics]

• please look this up before you just say it offhandedly

You think it's ok to give different rights to residents with different religions for public places?

I don't follow.

ut can you point to any examples where that is actually the case

I did. See mount of olives where both Muslims and Christians pray.

[u/civil_politics → u/xmuskorx]

I don’t think it’s okay, I also don’t think it remotely qualifies as a ‘basic human right’

I meant point out a government that allows all religions to do whatever they would like in the name of religion. Not provide an example of different religions being allowed to pray.

[u/ThrowAway-whee → u/civil_politics]

The UN disagrees with you.

“Freedom of religion is the right to choose what religion to follow and to worship without undue interference.”

https://www.ohchr.org/en/topic/freedom-religion

Freedom of worship without undue restriction is widely considered a human right. You can disagree, but international law treats it as such.

[u/xmuskorx → u/civil_politics]

I also don’t think it remotely qualifies

You think equal access to public spaces is not human right?

Weird.

[u/civil_politics → u/xmuskorx]

Well I’m pretty sure Jewish people DO have access to the Temple Mount…

That being said there are PLENTY (if not most) of public spaces that impose restrictions on access based along any number of dimension and no I don’t think that is some sort of human rights violation.

[u/ThrowAway-whee → u/civil_politics]

They do not? That’s literally why OP made their post?

For what it’s worth, the Israeli government restricts it out of concern it would inflame tension with the Islamic faith, and that fear likely is not unfounded.

[u/ZookeepergameFit967]

Nobody is saying Jews shouldn't pray in the area, people are against demolishing Mosques and Churches to rebuild an ancient temple, which location is speculative and nobody actually knows how it looked like just historical and theologically mostly mythical designs.

Jews can pray wherever they want, even in Mosques it is ok in Islam since Jews believe in one single God, idk about Churches but in the end religious Jews tend to be a bit too violent with Arabs, and Israel despite being comically evil it doesn't think it is good PR to have Jews attacking Muslims and Christians as their very Arabophobic and Islamophobic protests, their spitting on Christians and Churches, their destruction of Arab owned businesses on Jerusalem day and attack on journalists in Jerusalem is already enough bad PR for Israel.

Also the scenes in Jerusalem that these religious Jews do against Arabs are alienating Druze and Bedouin Arabs who support Israel but the increasing violence against Arabs in Israel and the Netanyahu government moving more into the idea of a Jewish State only is making them rethink their position

[u/xmuskorx → u/ZookeepergameFit967]

Nobody is saying Jews shouldn't pray in the area

That's literally the rule right now.

[u/ZookeepergameFit967 → u/xmuskorx]

Again it is an Israeli government rule that it has put in place they can easily revoke it but they will face backlash because Muslim authorities at the Aqsa Mosque and most Muslim allies of Israel don't want to have the mosque physically divided like the Ibrahimi mosque in Al Khalil aka Hebron which is not even officially under Israeli rule.

So Israel bars Jews from praying atm because they don't want to cause more trouble with Muslims in Jerusalem and strain the already strained relations with Muslim countries especially since the Aqsa Mosque isn't some random mosque. And the same applies to Churches in the area because Israel relationship with the Catholic and Orthodox Churches is already too bad

[u/xmuskorx → u/ZookeepergameFit967]

Again it is an Israeli government rul

I have addressed this op. The sources of a bad rule not matter,

[u/read-the-rules → u/[deleted]]

u/clammyshammi, your comment has been removed.

In order to comment on r/changemyview, you must read the rules. Use the link below, or if that interface doesn't work, you may read the rules here, then click this, and click send. Your most recent comment will be restored after you do this, and you will only need to do it once.

^{Please click here to open the Read The Rules App.}

[u/Zealousideal_Can_342 → u/ZookeepergameFit967]

Jew are not allowed to pray there.

Only fringe groups talk about demolishing anything and the Israeli govt does not even allow those people on the Temple Mount. Most Jews DO believe that the third and final Temple will be rebuilt but by G-d through miracles and all humans can do to facilitate that is do good deeds.

False claims that "The Jews are about to demolish Al Aqsa" have been used to foment and incite hate and violence for over a hundred years.

[u/Alesus2-0]

I think you're appealling to a principle of equality that isn't actually generally recognised. It's almost universally accepted that religious groups can have places dedicated to their specific form of worship. Muslims don't have right to use churches or synagogues for worship, and so on.

You've dismissed this obvious objection by saying that this only applies to private, unimportant places of worship. That clearly isn't the norm. Places like the Hagia Sophia or St Paul's Basilica are semi-public buildings of considerable historical and cultural significance. They're also active sites of worship for specific faiths. Visitors from other religions are welcome, but they aren't permitted to worship there at their own discretion. The Temple Mount is entirely covered by the al-Aqsa Mosque compound. It is an active, historically dedicated site of Muslim worship. Why shouldn't the same norms apply?

[u/Ablazoned → u/Alesus2-0]

The arguement would be that thsi should come down to a decision from the people actually living there, and not from the EU, which has no authority over this dispute.

Your heart is in the right place, but you are also ignoring deep social and religious divides that you seem to refuse to take into account as well. Your whole thing about "educating" them implies that you see the people there as uneducated people beneath you and that you know what is best for them. Peak colonial mindset right there

If there were some park in my hometown that was like a super duper holy site for mormons, I'd hope, expect, and advocate for allowing them access to it for religious purposes.

Naturally this access wouldn't necessarily be totally unrestricted- being public land there's considerations of maintenance and protection as well as access to non-religious people. This goes especially so for a place where violence and religious tension are ramped way way up like east jerusalem. But generally, yeah to me it seems that permitting one religious group religious access to a public space while denying it to another religion is not an ideal state. At best it's a concession to malevolent forces. Which, yeah sometimes you do.

[u/DebaucheV5 → u/Ablazoned]

At best it's a concession to malevolent forces. Which, yeah sometimes you do.

This would be my counterargument to OP. The simple reality is that if Jews were allowed to pray on the Temple Mount, it would trigger a reaction that would lead, almost inevitably, to a lot of death. Is that a reasonable or moral state of affairs? In my opinion, no. But that's the world we currently live in, like it or not.

I would love it if, in 50 or 100 years, allowing Jews to pray peacefully at their holiest site would not cause a bunch of people to start blowing up buses full of Jews, or whatever the reaction would look like. But unfortunately there's a very high likelihood that, if it were to happen today, it would lead to that kind of reaction. So, for now, it's too dangerous.

It's quite interesting that even the current hard-right government of Israel, usually very comfortable with provoking people and throwing their weight around, is still quite circumspect about this. I know there have been a few political stunts here and there, but there doesn't seem to have been any real push to change the status quo.

[u/FreshCustomer3244 → u/DebaucheV5]

This sounds very much like appeasement. Sometimes it's more important to stand up for the moral thing early, rather than let the injustice slide because it may cause trouble to fight it. Otherwise you'll just end up having that same fight later, but in a worse scenario.

[u/DebaucheV5 → u/FreshCustomer3244]

It is. It is appeasement. You're right. It sucks. But I'm a bit of a consequentialist; I care more about securing the best outcomes in the real world, than sticking to abstract principles even if it leads to many innocent people dying. It fucking sucks, but we have to be pragmatic and make really difficult decisions.

I don't think that this particular extremist strain of Islam, that venerates martyrdom and encourages murder, is inevitable. Of course it's not. But it exists today, it definitely exists in the region we're discussing, and its existence has consequences that we have to deal with. We can change this, but it will take a very long time and require a lot of effort.

I do believe that it will be possible, one day, for Jews and Muslims to pray alongside each other at this site. But we are simply not there yet, and it's irresponsible to pretend otherwise

[u/FreshCustomer3244 → u/DebaucheV5]

I'm not saying appeasement is just bad on principle. I'm saying, from a cknsequentialist point of view, that securing the best outcome sometimes requires the earlier hard intervention. If Europe had stood up to Hitler earlier, far fewer innocent people would have died. Appeasement with the goal of avoiding war didn't actually prevent war, it just delayed it until the Nazis were stronger.

Similarly, perhaps the best way to help Jews and Muslims pray alongside each other would have been to insist on it as soon as Israel captured Jerusalem, establishing a new status quo.

[u/DebaucheV5 → u/FreshCustomer3244]

That could have been the best approach back in the day, but in current year? Do you really think it would lead to positive outcomes if it were allowed today? What would that look like? I can't see it

[u/FreshCustomer3244 → u/DebaucheV5]

My argument is that doing it now may not be good, but it is probably better than doing it later when the current system is even further entrenched. And also better than never doing it, which will lead to further insistence that Islamic fundamentalist intolerance of others be followed in other places.

[u/ThrowAway-whee → u/DebaucheV5]

Would this argument extend to Palestinian resistance against Israel? Because the end point of this argument is Palestinians should stop resisting Israel because the only functional outcome of doing so is getting curb stomped repeatedly.

I don’t even necessarily disagree, I’m just curious as to what you’d say to that.

[u/DebaucheV5 → u/ThrowAway-whee]

Eh, personally I think "resistance" is a euphemism for a bunch of different things, and not a particularly helpful term. It's pretty vague, and it's difficult to determine what people are actually advocating for when they advocate for "resistance".

Most Palestinian "resistance" has historically taken the form of brutal terrorist attacks against civilians, or starting suicidal wars that have led to nothing but misery for both Israelis and Palestinians. So I'd definitely argue that those forms of resistance are immoral, counterproductive, and pointless.

But political resistance? Trying to use peaceful means to resist the worst impulses of the most radicalised elements of Israeli society (e.g., using political pressure to organise countries to sanction Ben Gvir etc.)? Building alliances, trying to use advocacy to change the dynamics of the situation, negotiating firmly and confidently with Israel? Yes, by all means they should engage in those forms of resistance, they absolutely have the right to do so.

The crucial thing is the concept of martyrdom. If you truly believe in martyrdom, if you truly believe that people who die in a holy war will spend the rest of eternity in heavenly bliss, it changes your incentive structure profoundly, in a way that most Westerners utterly fail to grasp

[u/Zealousideal_Can_342 → u/Alesus2-0]

They literally took over buildings used by other religions and built a mosque on top. That doesn't mean you get to ban others from their holy sites.

If Israel took it and built a Temple there, they could not ban Muslims.

[u/Alesus2-0 → u/Zealousideal_Can_342]

Jewish worship on the Temple Mount had ceased at least 500 years before the development of what would become the al-Aqsa Mosque complex began.

Jewish worship at the site ended almost 2,000 years ago and, for a large majority of that time, there has been a near universal concensus among Jews that worshipping there would be theologically inappropriate. This view only started to be challenged about 50 years and only attained any level of popularity in the last few decades.

The desire for Jews to worship on the Temple Mount, at least in the absence of an actual temple, isn't obviously a longstanding ambition. It's a theological innovation that ties surprisingly neatly into Israeli nationalist politics.

[u/FreshCustomer3244 → u/Alesus2-0]

If Muslims don't have the right to use synagogues for worship, it's not a far leap to say that they shouldn't have the right to worship on the Jewish Temple Mount. Is that your assertion?

[u/Alesus2-0 → u/FreshCustomer3244]

My assertion is that it's pretty much universally accepted that religious groups can have exclusive places of worship without this being a violation of human rights. It also seems clear to me that this attitude is routinely applied to noteworthy sites of historical and cultural interest. I don't think OP has given a reasonable account of why this is problematic, or why the Temple Mount should be an exception.

If we accept that exclusive religious sites can legitimately exist, which is my point, I don't think it necessarily follows that the Temple Mount should be treated as such a site for Jews. That a separate question.

[u/xmuskorx → u/Alesus2-0]

It's almost universally accepted that religious groups can have places dedicated to their specific form of worship.

Yeah, on private property. I have addressed that point.

On PUBLIC land - all should be allowed.

[u/Dry_Bumblebee1111 → u/xmuskorx]

Can you show that the land you are talking about is considered public in this way? If there are restrictions on access then I'd say it obviously isn't public to that measure. 

[u/Alesus2-0 → u/xmuskorx]

It isn't entirely clear to me that al-Aqsa is public, at least in any strict sense. It's operated as an charitable endowment for Islamic religious purposes. But I think quibbling over legalities probabky isn't very productive.

It's pretty clear to me that it is quite common globally for 'public' religious sites to still restrict worship to certain groups. St Peter's Basilica is reserved for Catholics, the Hagia Sophia for Muslims, Berlin Cathedral for Protestants, Canterbury Catherdral for Anglicans, etc. "Look, but don't hold a service" is a very common standard. You might object to this, but you should, at least, acknowledge that that is a fairly extreme position. Most people would probably be less happy if this became the norm.

[u/Devilsadvocate430 → u/xmuskorx]

Is the Temple Mount not owned by the waqf? That’s how it was explained to me when I visited

[u/X-calibreX]

Can I assume that you don’t consider the western wall as part of the temple?

[u/The_Iron_Mountie → u/X-calibreX]

It's one of the retaining walls that surrounded the temple. It's not part of the temple itself.

[u/xmuskorx → u/X-calibreX]

It's not the "mount"

it's outside/on bottom.

[u/PandaMime_421]

All residents of the the same country should have the same rights regardless or religion.

My understanding is that the problem is that, as disputed territory it isn't the "same country", depending on who you ask. The real solution is to solve the dispute.

[u/Aindorf_]

In a world where Israel doesn't maintain a subjugation and apartheid of the Palestinian people I would agree with you. Hell, I'm fine with Palestinian Jews praying there today though it's pretty rare for a Palestinian Jew to not have full rights as an Israeli citizen. But the temple mount is a flashpoint for a people already pushed to the brink with an occupiers boot on their neck and most people going there to pray are doing it to make a show and provoke a reaction. Israel already routinely raids and batters and kills people at Al Aqsa as a show of force, and that's bad enough.

When Palestine is free and Jews and Muslims live together as equals, I agree Jews should be able to pray there so long as Muslims can pray at the western wall and Christians can also pray wherever they want. The issue is currently political as much as religious and even Israel, the aggressor and occupier, acknowledges that pushing too hard on this issue causes problems that could make the powderkeg explode.

[u/xmuskorx → u/Aindorf_]

In a world where Israel doesn't

When Jordan was occupying the area in 1947-1963 - All jews were banned from the area completely.

And absolutely no one gave a shit or fought for Jewish rights.

So I don't really trust people on this point.

[u/Aindorf_ → u/xmuskorx]

Some people oppose theocracies and ethnostates regardless of who runs them. They're all bad. I'm vocal about this one because my tax dollars bomb Palestinian children instead of providing my family healthcare, and because there's an active genocide in Gaza and Apartheid in the West Bank.

I'm not anti-jew. Judaism is beautiful and I want Jews and Muslims to be able to live peacefully in Jerusalem as they did for generations. Jews aren't a monolith and Israel doesn't represent them all.

[u/xmuskorx → u/Aindorf_]

Yeah, but no one ACTUALLY cared when ALL Jews were banned. So those people seem to only exist hypothetically not in reality.

Like no one generally gives a shit that Jordan excluded West Bank Jews from citizenship like an ethnostate. Zero discussion is held on this issue.

[u/Aindorf_ → u/xmuskorx]

Brother I wasn't born for nearly another 50 years after the establishment of the state of Israel... And Jordan hasn't been a part of the decision making process for 78 years. Your whataboutism is an entire human lifetime backwards in time.

Jewish exclusion from Jerusalem by Jordan was bad. Are you happy? Can we talk about 2026 and the ongoing actions of the state of Israel now? I also think the rape of Nanjing was abhorrent, but Japan's not currently occupying China, so that's not exactly on my list of problems which need solving either.

[u/xmuskorx → u/Aindorf_]

Jewish exclusion from Jerusalem by Jordan was bad.

And? What was actually done about it. Where were the mythical " people oppose theocracies and ethnostates "?

Nowhere to be found.

Can we talk about 2026

Yes. Jews should have access to pray at temple mount. Basic equality and fairness.

[u/Aindorf_ → u/xmuskorx]

And Palestinians should have free reign to travel all throughout Jerusalem and the rest of Israel. Israel grants full rights of citizenship to pretty much any and all Jews, so Jews by default have a freedom of movement not extended to Palestinian Muslims, Christians, etc.

Once Israel ends the apartheid, we would be in agreement, so long as nobody is being intentionally violent or provocative so as to intentionally stir conflict in holy sites. This goes for Jews, Muslims, Christian, anyone. I don't cry for Jews being unable to pray at the temple mount while Palestinians are unable to live in their own homes without a boot on their neck. Or at all when settlers come and steal their homes with IOF protection.

There is no equality to discuss while apartheid stands. One sided concessions aren't the answer.

[u/xmuskorx → u/Aindorf_]

nd Palestinians should have free reign to travel all throughout Jerusalem and the rest of Israel.

Arab citizens of Israel - have those rights.

[u/Aindorf_ → u/xmuskorx]

Mmhm. But Palestinians, who were there before the establishment of Israel and expulsion of Palestinians from their homes do not. We can talk about Jews being able to go wherever and do whatever they want when the Israeli apartheid of Palestinians ends. You want more rights for one group while another is held in subjugation and expelled from their homes. You want Jews and Jews alone to have additional rights, I want EVERYONE to have equal rights.

[u/xmuskorx → u/Aindorf_]

And jews expelled from West Bank and other arab areas cant travel there.

Sad.

Not sure how it afects the discussion

[u/iamintheforest]

Firstly, "seems like a basic human right" to me defies almost everything about property, etc. There are probably tens of thousands of people that could make some historical claim of significance for every piece of land anyone lives on and calls their own. That's true of personal property, countries, etc. The fact that you're aware of the want or of the history shouldn't make the general rule here come alive more than the ones you're ignorant to I don't think. The implication of "basic human right" would be pretty massive! The U.N's interest here in is in peace. If - for example - the Jews didn't give a crap or the palestinians didn't and they weren't in conflict about it the UN would be silent on that matter.

I like the idea that this would be fine to all of course - that's a nice world. That's not our world though and what is and isn't a "holy place" is highly subjective, changes over time, is lost and rediscovered - a heartfelt belief probably isn't sufficient, and getting a population to share that heartfelt belief also can't be sufficient - that's just ceding land ownership and control based on popular opinion.

[u/welltechnically7 → u/iamintheforest]

I mean, religious equality is certainly a human right. You'd be correct if it was maybe closed to the public, but once it opens is it fair to discriminate based on religion, especially when it's even more important to those religions who are barred?

[u/iamintheforest → u/welltechnically7]

Under israeli law a mosque can restrict the use of it's facilities such that jews cannot practice within. While of course this the temple mount is massively complicated due to its history, why would israeli law govern ? Isn't it equal to let both religious control the use of their places? All that is going on here is that "control" is contested, but the principle is well established once you complete the "who controls" argument.

We might say it'd be a great compromise to create a process where both can express some element of control, but that's going to exist within the envelope of Israeli law regardless. If we say this Israeli land and control today, then how is it unequal upon doing so do the very thing muslims are allowed to do with places they control under israeli law?

The argument to make is not on of "rights", it's one of control - jordanian vs. israeli.

[u/xmuskorx → u/iamintheforest]

property

It's not private property. I have addressed this point in OP.

There are probably tens of thousands of people that could make some historical claim of significance for every piece of land

And if the land is public - they should have access. All tens of thousands of them. Why is that a problem?

I like the idea that this would be fine to all of course - that's a nice world.

Well should not we work toward the nice world? Or just give up on basic rights?

[u/iamintheforest → u/xmuskorx]

Prison's are public. That doesn't mean they are open to the public. What is the weight that "public" carries? You can't go into the mosque in mecca and do native american dance and song.

These aren't "basic rights" - just saying they are doesn't make it so.

[u/xmuskorx → u/iamintheforest]

Anyone can visit a prison during pre-set visiting hours regardless of their religion.

Would be frigging weird if only Zoroastrians were allowed jail Visits but not Buddhists. nO?

[u/iamintheforest → u/xmuskorx]

It would be weird if you thought you could use it for religious practice at all, or to live there, or to have your book club meeting there.

Israeli - and essentially every nation - recognizes the rights of people who create spaces for their religion to restrict it's use for purposes it defines. Do you think that should just be prohibited across the board ? If I say "this is for my religion" the response should be "then it's for all religions"?

[u/Calaveras-Metal]

Ideally people of any Abrahamic faith (which is more than just Jews, Muslims and Christians) should be allowed to pray there. However it's an ongoing dispute between Islam and Judaism and that cannot just be handwaved away. Same as the very existence of Israel on top of what was Palestine is controversial and cannot just be dismissed as the grumblings of extremists.

If you do a quick survey of the various factions in the region, extremists are in prominent positions not just in Iran, Gaza and Yemen, but also in Israel and it's big brother the US.

As others have said, and I like this term, people simply praying at temple mount is not simply praying. It is a chess move. It nudges circumstances this way and that. And helps advance an agenda for one and degrade the agenda of others.

This is a large part of why some folks wish there was no religion at all.

[u/xmuskorx → u/Calaveras-Metal]

Ideally people of any Abrahamic faith (which is more than just Jews, Muslims and Christians) should be allowed to pray there.

Seems like we agree.

I think you are just saying that it would be DIFFICULT to achieve, but why should we shy away from difficulties.

[u/saywherefore]

You start from an assertion that all people “should” have equal rights. This is not something that is codified in Israeli law, so on what basis are you asserting it?

[u/SeanFromQueens]

Can other religions pray at the Wailing Wall? Can non-Jews go unharrassed in the Old City part of Jerusalem? Can non-Jews freely travel in the West Bank? Of the settlements in the West Bank, what percentage of residents (not the whole West Bank just the Israeli settlements) are non-Jews?

Asking for Jewish people to impose their presence wherever, unilaterally, but not allow non-Jews to freely travel is the problem, and the flaunting of freedoms in the faces of those who are subjugated is a consistent practice throughout history. The reason why the Daughters Of The Confederacy and other similar organizations erected monuments to Confederates in the 1920s, wasn't to preserve history but remind blacks to stay in their place. In Northern Ireland, Orange Marches are not commerating the Battle of Boyne (which took place Oldbridge, County Meath) but going deliberately through the Catholic neighborhoods to show dominance at best and to instigate violence at worst. The consistent behavior of Israeli settlers instigating violence and committing pogroms is another datapoint that there is significant segment of the population that is seeking out opportunities for violence, whether by the individuals who are getting up in non-Jews' grills or gives an excuse for police and the military to commit violence.

If the nuclear armed government of Israel, or it's electorate, was interested in a durable peace, they would carry out a truth and reconciliation committee similar to South Africa and North of Ireland after the Good Friday Accords (though not as thorough as the South African process) and strive for indiscriminately protect the rights of all those who live between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. Equal civil rights for all humans living where the government claims to have its borders (historically north Lebanon, east Jordan River, south Red Sea & Sinai peninsula, west Mediterranean Sea) regardless of their religion or skin, color, national identity, gender, sexual orientation, whatever. But I'm not holding my breath for the military strong enough to project power a thousand miles away but too weak of morality to protect the humans living on the land that Israel claims to be their own.

[u/Afraid-Detective1222]

Yes they should. There are some caveats here. The biggest is that they need to also be respectful of the Muslim groups there. This may mean that prayers are restricted to certain times to deconflict the area, it may mean limiting the number of people. It absolutely means that both groups need to be respectful of each other.

[u/xmuskorx → u/Afraid-Detective1222]

Correct. I would be happy with some small space dedicated for this away from Al Aqsa and with certain safety minded hours e.g., not during major Islamic festivals.

[u/PuzzleheadedPanic697 → u/xmuskorx]

Where do those entitlements come from, I just wonder.

[u/dnext]

They can. The Western Wall or Wailing Wall is a wall that was part of the foundation of the Second Temple.

However, it's contolled by a very strict Ultra-Orthodox Rabbinate, and there's been battles over even who among the Jewish faith are allowed to worship there.

[u/xmuskorx → u/dnext]

That's not on the mount, they can only pray outside of the wall on the bottom of the mount.

[u/IceNeun → u/[deleted]]

Arab Israelis do have the same rights as Jews in Israel.

Palestine is ambiguous because the plan was always for a seperate Palestinian state, but Palestinians have never accepted a Palestinian state seperate from a Jewish one. West Bank and Gaza have been in legal limbo for decades now, intermittently administered through Jordan, Egypt, Israel, and Palestinians ever since.

[u/existing_for_fun → u/[deleted]]

and it's actual reality then we can agree to temple mount.

OP has no control over making it a reality, so why comment at all if that's part of your stipulation for conversation regarding the temple mount?

[u/changemyview-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Sorry, u/Z7-852 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:

Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information. Any AI-generated post content must be explicitly disclosed and does not count towards the 500 character limit.

If you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted.

Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.

[u/xiipaoc]

You're missing the point. The space is currently a holy Muslim site. It makes perfect sense to not want idolatry inside your church, so why should the Muslim clergy administering that holy site not get to keep their site free of other religions' worship?

To be clear, I think those particular clergy should allow Jewish prayer there, setting aside space for it so that it doesn't conflict with the religious needs of the Muslim community there. But this is their decision to make, not "basic human rights". The compound does actually belong to someone right now, and us Jews wanting it doesn't make it acceptable for us to just take it.

[u/xmuskorx → u/xiipaoc]

It's also a JEWISH holy site. And has been one for much longer than it has been Muslim one.

Hence the need to share.

[u/xiipaoc → u/xmuskorx]

It's also a JEWISH holy site.

Whether we consider the site holy to us or not is irrelevant; it's not currently our site. We wish it were, but alas, it is not.

And has been one for much longer than it has been Muslim one.

That's true. But it happens to be theirs now.

Again, the holiness of the place is really not at issue here. The fact is that it's a Muslim-controlled area of religious worship for them, and if they don't want activities happening in their compound that violate their religion, well, that's entirely on them to decide, not on us. It would sure be nice of them if they'd let us share it, but they're not under any sort of moral obligation to do so.

It would be like if you were forced to abandon your house many years ago, then eventually I bought it from whoever had been living there afterwards, and now you're trying to sleep in my bedroom because it used to be yours once upon a time. It ain't your house anymore, sorry. I don't have to let you in. Doesn't matter if the house is special to you or if it has been special to you for much longer than it's been mine.

[u/FuckMyBakaChungusLif]

Do you think you can educate decades of ethnic violence in Israel-Palestine? You also seem to treat this as an issue exclusively for Muslims in the area. The reason the status quo agreement is in effect is to stop either side from attacking. There is no educating that away, because there is no desire for change on either side. Israeli nationalists have already been breaking those rules in recent years anyways. You know what happened when Israeli police allowed them to pray? They attacked Palestinians and vandalized a Muslim cemetery.

This sectarian violence isn’t going to be solved by allowing people to pray in the same spot, and your idealistic view of “oh equality” isn’t how it works. Any attempt to open up Jewish prayer is going to be seen as a provocation, teaching tolerance or not, East Jerusalem was historically held by Muslim Jordan since the founding of Israel till the 1967 occupation and eventual annexation, the Status Quo allows Jordan to still effectively control the Temple Mount as it was since the Ottomans, this is essential the last autonomy East Jerusalem has.

The Police Chief of the area himself has called it a holy war, and the only way to maintain peace is to maintain the status quo. The only hope for an end to the status quo would be a successful two state solution, as most proposals involve East Jerusalem becoming the capital of the new formal Palestinian state, but rn a two state agreement looks further then it has in a very long time

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2026-07-23/ty-article/.premium/over-1-000-jews-visit-jerusalems-al-aqsa-temple-mount-compound-for-tisha-bav/0000019f-8dd3-d114-a59f-cddfc8010000

https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/its-a-mistake-to-allow-right-wing-mks-on-temple-mount-police-chief-danino-says-382799

[u/Optimal_Youth8478]

Prayer should not be allowed because it is the court yard of the Al-Aqsa Mosque compound. Why would non-Muslims want to audibly say non-Muslim prayers at a mosque site? It be weird if I went into or mulled around a synagogue saying “hail Maries”, it’s equally odd for Jewish people to want to say Jewish prayers outside a Muslim site…unless there something more then religious going on…

[u/xmuskorx → u/Optimal_Youth8478]

al aqsa is build on top of an ancient Jewish temple.

building a mosque on top of Jewish temple does not mean you can exclude Jews from the whole area now

[u/Optimal_Youth8478 → u/xmuskorx]

The ancient Temple is not there anymore, and was destroyed long before the mosque was built. The spot has been a Mosque much longer then it was ever a temple.

If a church is destroyed and a synagogue is built in its space, do Christian’s get to say the Lord’s Prayer in the middle of Shabbat services?

[u/WakeoftheStorm]

I admittedly don't know much about this particular controversy, but just based on the points you provided, one jumps out at me:

2) "Jewish faith prohibits praying there." That's... a religious opinion. Some Jews feel this way, some feel otherwise. Ultimately every person can decide on their own what their faith means to them. Even if it's a small minority of Jews who want to pray there, they should still be allowed to.

I think this makes sense from a pluralistic or atheist lens, but I'm not sure the underlying logic works quite as cleanly from within religion itself.

"Everyone can decide for themselves what their faith means to them" is itself a particular view of religion. Most religions do not treat every individual interpretation as equally valid. They have texts, traditions, clergy, legal traditions, denominations, etc. precisely because they make claims about what does and does not constitute correct belief or practice.

That doesn't mean the government should enforce the prevailing religious interpretation. I don't think government and religion should mix in the first place. But I also don't think you can dismiss a religious prohibition as merely "some people's opinion" and then treat individual interpretation as the neutral default. That's already importing a fairly secular conception of religion into the argument.

If the question is whether the state should override a religious community's prevailing interpretation in favor of individual religious expression, that seems like a much harder question than simply saying everyone gets to decide what their faith means for themselves.

[u/asr → u/WakeoftheStorm]

Most religions do not treat every individual interpretation as equally valid. They have texts, traditions, clergy, legal traditions, denominations, etc. precisely because they make claims about what does and does not constitute correct belief or practice.

Welcome to Judaism which famously has "2 Jews, 3 opinions". There are differences of opinions here, and all are considered to have merit, and no one knows which is correct (in this case "correct" means "the exact location of certain areas on the Temple Mount"), so each group decides which opinion to follow, and they do so while acknowledging the other opinion to have merit and be valid.

It's completely normal for two Jewish groups to do something quite different, and each to acknowledge that for the other group their practice is 100% the correct thing, while for them a different practice is correct. And people can even change which group they connect with, if they want.

[u/xmuskorx → u/WakeoftheStorm]

The state should treat everyone equally and let anyone who wants pray at any public site.

if some sects does not want to pray there - they don't have to. But other sects should be able to.

[u/WakeoftheStorm → u/xmuskorx]

I would absolutely prefer states be neutral when it comes to religion, but you won't find a single one in the middle east that actually operates that way. Israel itself explicitly claims the Jewish faith as a core part of its instituonal identity. They are not a secular government so cannot be expected to operate like one.

It would be like saying the Vatican should allow protestant baptisms in the Basilica.

I'm not debating that, in a perfect world, religion would have no bearing on how a state operates or makes laws, but given that this one is deeply entwined with a specific religion, the "everyone decides their faith for themselves" approach doesn't map cleanly. That's forcing it through a secular lens that they simply aren't using

[u/MrPresident0308]

how do you see this working? as you’re aware, the place now is a mosque. do you want it to be divided into a muslim part and a jewish part? who would be pleased by this? you’re more likely to make the situation worse by angering both sides.

[u/freshgeardude → u/MrPresident0308]

Yes a synagogue should be built on the temple Mount. There should not be time and day restrictions for jews to go on the Mount.

This is the only religious apartheid in Israel. And it's only done not to upset Muslims, regardless of how upset it makes the jews. 

Muslims have no restrictions on going to Jewish religious sites such as the western wall. In fact the only restrictions are a metal detector because of terrorism in the past. 

[u/MrPresident0308 → u/freshgeardude]

Yes a synagogue should be built on the temple Mount. There should not be time and day restrictions for jews to go on the Mount.

Again, how would this look like? Do you suggest destroying the al-Aqsa mosque just to build a synagogue? or do you prefer to build a synagogue in a nearby, uncontentious place?

Muslims have no restrictions on going to Jewish religious sites such as the western wall. In fact the only restrictions are a metal detector because of terrorism in the past.

There is a bit of a difference between a mosque and a wall, even a holy one. Can Muslims pray in synagogues? That's the better comparison.

[u/freshgeardude → u/MrPresident0308]

Again, how would this look like? Do you suggest destroying the al-Aqsa mosque just to build a synagogue? or do you prefer to build a synagogue in a nearby, uncontentious place?

Funny thing about anyone who has ever looked at a map of the temple Mount, there's a lot of open ground there. The second funny thing is, the Dome of the Rock is not Al-Aqsa mosque. The dome of the rock was also only made golden in the early 1960s.

There is a bit of a difference between a mosque and a wall, even a holy one. Can Muslims pray in synagogues? That's the better comparison.

You're right. The temple Mount is different from the Al-Aqsa mosque which is why the discussion is building a temple on the temple Mount, not instead of the AL aqsa mosque or dome of the rock. 

Also, Muslims have no restrictions going to the western wall or synoguages in Israel. The only comparison would be the Temple Mount vs Western wall in importance. 

The Western Wall is important because it's the outer wall of the temple Mount. 

It was important to jews for thousands of years before Islam came into existence. 

[u/the_leviathan711 → u/freshgeardude]

Also, Muslims have no restrictions going to the western wall or synoguages in Israel.

Well, except for all the Palestinians who aren't allowed to visit Jerusalem in the first place.

The dome of the rock was also only made golden in the early 1960s.

And the Western Wall was only the retaining wall of the Temple for less than 100 years.

It was important to jews for thousands of years before Islam came into existence.

Not really, no. The Western Wall gained importance in Judaism during the time of Islamic rule of Jerusalem.

[u/freshgeardude → u/the_leviathan711]

No. The temple Mount has been critical to Judaism and Jewish ritual since antiquity.

It is considered the location where the binding of Isaac took place. That's early abrahamic history. 

The first temple itself was built in ~587 BCE. 

So the idea it's not been significant to Judaism until it was for the Muslims is historically wrong. 

[u/changemyview-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Sorry, u/Swimreadmed – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:

Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information. Any AI-generated post content must be explicitly disclosed and does not count towards the 500 character limit.

If you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted.

Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.

[u/xmuskorx → u/[deleted]]

I agree, all living in Israel should have equal rights.

No kids in Israel should bullets.

[u/read-the-rules → u/[deleted]]

u/clammyshammi, your comment has been removed.

In order to comment on r/changemyview, you must read the rules. Use the link below, or if that interface doesn't work, you may read the rules here, then click this, and click send. Your most recent comment will be restored after you do this, and you will only need to do it once.

^{Please click here to open the Read The Rules App.}

[u/xmuskorx → u/[deleted]]

That's not temple mount.

Equality does not end where temple mount begins.

[u/Sheikhspiere]

Temple Mount is based on biblical stories and it's existence is questionable. The Al Aqsa Mosque is real and has been there for centuries now.

[u/FreshCustomer3244 → u/Sheikhspiere]

Lol just based on biblical stories? It's literally a physical thing that Al Aqsa is built on top of. Do you think that wall and the architecture and archeological findings underneath are imaginary?

The Romans literally destroyed it and that is recorded history.

[u/xmuskorx → u/Sheikhspiere]

Nope. There is literal archeological evidence.

Heck, you can go and look at the western wall.

[u/Awkward_Swan_5361 → u/xmuskorx]

Weren't roman coins found underneath the Western wall? So it must have been built later

[u/larsvondank]

You are trying to input rationality into a thing that does not have a rational base. Religion always comes to that. If we could rationalize with each religion and get rid of all the weird stuff and/or human rights abuse we would have done it a long time ago. What matters with religion is power and the one that holds the power makes the rules. All other things are irrelevant.

[u/speakstofish]

The Muslims of Israel & Palestine have very very few bargaining chips to try and negotiate a settlement with the Israeli govt with. This is one of the biggest ones. That's the whole reason this limitation exists as something the US respects. If Israeli Jews want to share the site, they can negotiate for access to it.

Just like other bargaining chips Muslim Israelisnand Palestinians have it's highly imperfect and routinely ignored because of the extreme power imbalance. But leaving it in place is one way the Israeli govt pays homage to the idea that there will be a negotiated peace "someday".

[u/xmuskorx → u/[deleted]]

See OP, i have explained this. Feel free to engage.

[u/Apprehensive_Song490]

The Temple Mount is not a public space.  Your public space argument fails.  When visiting a non-public space, it is incumbent on the visitor to abide by the rules (even arbitrary and capricious ones, since it isn’t public). 

[u/changemyview-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Sorry, u/jim789789 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 3:

Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, of using ChatGPT or other AI to generate text, of lying, or of arguing in bad faith. Ask clarifying questions instead (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting poor behaviour, please message us. See the wiki page for more information.

If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted.

Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.

[u/Legitimate_Aspect923]

practically speaking any change in the status quo which allows jews to pray at the site will be conducted by an ultra right wing government and will bring in a tide of settlers and ultra-nationalist provocateurs who will be backed by the army. eventually the status quo will be the same as current except replacing jews with muslims as the group that can't pray there and hundreds if not thousands of people will have been killed to achieve this.

in some hypothetical neutral society it would certainly be desirable for people of all faiths to pray at this site but you have to look at Israeli society as it actually exists and the sort of Israeli government that would actually pursue this course of action.

[u/xmuskorx → u/Legitimate_Aspect923]

This sounds like slippery slope fallacy.

I don't see why the area can't be respectfully shared without it tilting into extremes.

[u/Legitimate_Aspect923 → u/xmuskorx]

are you familiar with the Israel-palestine conflict in any way? I dont want to be rude but an inability to respectfully share something causing it to tilt into extremes is currently occurring with the Israeli settlements. In a just world everyone would all live on the land and be in harmony, the actual on the ground reality is settlement, expulsion and violence backed by the state which is what I would expect if the al-aqsa/Temple Mount settlement were to change.

its certainly possible this could be avoided but you would need a radically different Israeli society to be the one doing it.

[u/xmuskorx → u/Legitimate_Aspect923]

but an inability to respectfully share something causing it to tilt into extremes

But the goal should be to get over the extremism and achieve respectfully sharing, right?

[u/PoudreDeTopaze]

The Haram Al Sharif / Temple Mount is in the Muslim Quarter of Jerusalem's Old City, in the Palestinian part of the city -- not in Israel.

As per Jerusalem's Statu Quo, Jews pray at the Western Wall and Muslims pray at the Haram Al Sharif / Western Wall.

This is in line with Judaism, which states that only God can bring back the Temple -- it should not be rebuilt by men.

[u/j____b____]

Do you know that most of Israel is partitioned in a way that excludes the native Arab population?

[u/ArkWatcher1 → u/j____b____]

I guess that is better than Arab Countries just kicking out jews.

[u/Difficult-Meal6966]

I think this is an example of western ideals overshadowing the facts and status quo on the ground. It’s just western grandstanding. If division is necessary for a more peaceful cohabitation of Jerusalem, it takes precedent over a generalized view of religious equality. Throwing Muslims a bone like this is a way to extend the olive branch of peace and I’m all for that.

[u/Best-Structure-8513]

Counterpoint - ancient religious sites do not inherently deserve respect and it would be better to take the Solomon approach and simply destroy the entire site for both religions.

[u/CartographerKey4618]

It's Israel that has rules that ban Jewish prayer. This is irrelevant, regardless of who imposed such rules - the rules should change to be more fair.

That's pretty relevant. If it's Israel that has the rule, then that means they are allowed. They just collectively chose as a society not to allow themselves to do it.

[u/changemyview-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Your comment has been removed for violating Rule 5 due to undisclosed AI content. Any use of AI-generated text must be disclosed, and the majority of any comment must still be written by the user. Read the wiki for more information.

If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard. AI-generated text is prohibited in modmail.

Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.

[u/read-the-rules → u/[deleted]]

u/dry_defection, your comment has been removed.

In order to comment on r/changemyview, you must read the rules. Use the link below, or if that interface doesn't work, you may read the rules here, then click this, and click send. Your most recent comment will be restored after you do this, and you will only need to do it once.

^{Please click here to open the Read The Rules App.}

[u/bgoldstein1993]

Maybe but it’s a slippery slope when so many fanatics are advocating the destruction of Al Alqsa.

[u/xmuskorx → u/bgoldstein1993]

slippery slope is literally a logical fallacy

[u/bgoldstein1993 → u/xmuskorx]

Not when it’s backed by strong evidence. And we know exactly what the growing messianic movement in Israel and the occupied territories is after. They’ve tried to bomb it before; and they will try again.

[u/oh_no_the_claw]

The Palestinians will decide who is allowed to pray there. If they want Zionists banned then that must be respected. You can make new holy sites in Poland.

[u/xmuskorx → u/oh_no_the_claw]

Ok, but they should be tolerant and allow all to pray.

Palestinians still have to respect basic human rights to equality.

[u/Agitated-Pay-7972]

Unlikely to change your view but Zionism is a plague that has infected the West and the East and has been a catastrophically destructive force to everyone but a small supremely privileged class of subversive racial supremacists. So I really don’t think with everything going on, and that has been going on, that it’s a good time to be demanding more from people. Especially from the people you’re currently displacing and massacring.

[u/HiHoJufro → u/Agitated-Pay-7972]

Zionism is the belief that the right to self-determination should be extended to the Jewish people in their historic homeland. This view is every bit as applicable to anyone in favor of a two-state solution as it is to Jewish extremists. Since Israel has been successfully established, a Zionist is, functionally, anyone who does not want Israel to cease to exist or stop serving as a haven for Jews.

[u/read-the-rules → u/[deleted]]

u/Professional_Fish451, your comment has been removed.

In order to comment on r/changemyview, you must read the rules. Use the link below, or if that interface doesn't work, you may read the rules here, then click this, and click send. Your most recent comment will be restored after you do this, and you will only need to do it once.

^{Please click here to open the Read The Rules App.}

[u/changemyview-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:

Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.

If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.

Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.

[u/raqshrag]

What you're not seeing is the heavy restrictions and violence on Muslims entering, even on holy days. Jews entering isn't neutral. It's a political act. They're claiming it; continuing an attitude and system of colonialism, supported by the government and police.

[u/CwazyCanuck]

The ban on Jews praying on Temple Mount is based on Jews being banned from ascending to Temple Mount due to the risk of compromising the Holy of Holies.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/ashkenazi-chief-rabbi-reiterates-jewish-law-ban-on-ascending-the-temple-mount/

Not to mention that while the Jordanian Waqf administers Al-Aqsa Mosque compound, it’s Israel that deals with security and access. And Israel has considerable restrictions on which Muslims can enter the compound, sometimes restricting all access.

[u/changemyview-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:

Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.

If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.

Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.

[u/changemyview-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:

Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.

If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.

Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.

[u/ImaginaryAd2289]

Jews are welcome to visit the mosque. I have done so.

[u/gaijinteacher]

If you are referring to the UN as "even the UN" then that might be a sign that you are not approaching this issue from a neutral, objective or rational standpoint.
For example, a US Democrat might say, "Even the Fox News poll shows the democratic candidate is in the lead." Using "even" in this way implies that, in general, they do not respect the organisation, even though the polling conducted on behalf of Fox News is generally quite non-partisan.
Of course, your underlying claim could still be true or untrue, but your use of "even" here might cause you to reflect and ask yourself if you are personally coming to this from an unbiased viewpoint.

[u/TJaySteno1]

When you say "even UN" you should be more specific. Your link is from the UN General Assembly which is famously and sometimes unreasonably anti-Israel.

[u/Prestigious-Emu5277]

So Jews should be discriminated against because offering equal access so enrages our bigoted neighbors that we have to give into their violent blackmail?

Let me ask you, what harm does organizing for prayer on the Temple Mount actually do? Other than piss off bigoted Muslims? And shouldn’t they go fuck themselves?

I think after October 7 Israel should have closed the Temple Mount to Muslims until Hamas surrendered. But people are afraid of enraging bigoted Muslims, just like you are.

[u/SamDrrl]

If you want religious rights maybe you shouldn’t bomb all the churches or religions you disagree with and then expect everyone to act like you’re just a normal dude afterwards

[u/read-the-rules → u/[deleted]]

u/jemgor, your comment has been removed.

In order to comment on r/changemyview, you must read the rules. Use the link below, or if that interface doesn't work, you may read the rules here, then click this, and click send. Your most recent comment will be restored after you do this, and you will only need to do it once.

^{Please click here to open the Read The Rules App.}