Ben Franklin and Jerusalem
Connecting the Dots
from 
JoeUser Forums
JoeUser Forums
It is not that easy to get hold of my daughter (I have two grown-up ones by the way), so when I got this call from her saying she would like to show me her Washington office while I was visiting, I grabbed at the chance wanting to see as well if she had firmed up her plans for a wedding of her own following her younger sister.
It was a nifty little place where she worked , and everything, including a donated DVD player and TV monitor seemed to fit in place. What actually caught my eye were some words neatly framed at the center of her office wall. It said ,
There can be no Freedom without Order.
There can be no Order without Virtue. - Benjamin Franklin
I met up with Ben Franklin aphorisms a number of times and even have this quote from his Poor Richard s Almanac (Where there's Marriage without Love, there will be Love without Marriage.) on my desk, but this particular saying on that office wall escaped me.
Trying to contemplate on those words and remembering the current world focus on the forced evacuation of Jewish settlers in Neve Dekalim and Kfar Darom , I said to myself, there you have it - The American patriot - actually a theocrat at heart. But was it ever meant that way? Well, I guess if you equate virtue with organized religion, it would come out that way, but if by virtue, he meant the persistence of men to overcome temptation (read Graft, Corruption & political accommodation versus the common good) to govern wisely., then it still would be consistent with his avowal, as one of our Founding Fathers, to separate Church and State functions.
What after all, is the issue of Neve Dekalim and Kfar Darom,two of the Jewish settlements in Gaza to be first dismantled, but an issue of organized Religion versus State (Israel's Knesset) policy ? Was Virtue or the common good at work in the decision? The majority of Israelis seem to think so. In the end, a political message for the boiling region of Middle East and its spillover of global Terrorism came across - that Judaism and Islam have a much better chance of finding common ground than do Zionism and Palestinian nationalism (-Jonathan Lincoln, DAILY STAR). - that all religions, no matter how strange and differing are to be respected, but to have Order, Laws must be followed. Only then can there be talk of Freedom and perhaps Peace.
Perhaps Peace... since the thorny issue of Jerusalem had this knee-jerk perception in the minds of many that the solution on how to treat Jerusalem is politically irreconcilable making Peace between Palestinians and Israelis an impossibility. The historical precedence of Jerusalem as an example to the world of religious tolerance was never factored into this equation where many less-than-virtuous men govern. One needn't be a Benjamin Franklin to know that.
I actually wanted to link this post with a news commentary on Jerusalem by author Lincoln which I spotted last Aug. 15, 2005. For some reason, the URL seems to have disappeared from their archives. Having fortunately copied the article , I'm reprinting it in full for the value of information readers may derive from it.
On Jerusalem, Jewish and Muslim Beliefs Correspond
Commentary by Jonathan Lincoln ,Monday, August 15, 2005
Despite the current focus on Israel's planned withdrawal from Gaza, there is no territorial issue as likely to sabotage hopes for peace between Israelis and Palestinians as the final status of Jerusalem. This issue, while not in the international headlines, continues to fuel the conflict.
The battle for control of Jerusalem and its holy places has always provoked passionate and often belligerent emotions from Jews, Christians and Muslims. In the words of historian Karen Armstrong: "Once an issue like Jerusalem is elevated beyond the reach of compromise, the most extreme and immoral actions become not only possible but 'holy' to a disaffected minority."
Jerusalem need not be the cause of such conflict. The city is often mistakenly portrayed as a source of religious tension between Muslims and Jews, but an examination of the city's history and religious significance reveals a legacy of coexistence enshrined in Jewish and Islamic traditions. This legacy is largely ignored by Israelis and Palestinians, which suggests that the current conflict has more to do with divergent territorial ambitions than with religious claims.
At the heart of the dispute is the question of sovereignty over the compound that consists of the Western Wall, the Dome of the Rock and the Al-Aqsa Mosque, a site sacred to Jews and Muslims. Analysts and journalists have a habit of writing that the compound is known to Jews as the "Temple Mount," as it is believed to be the site of the first and second Jewish Temples; and to Muslims as "Haram al-Sharif," or the "noble sanctuary."
The use of these terms is accepted as a form of journalistic impartiality, yet it falsely suggests that Jewish and Islamic claims to the site are derived from different historic and religious narratives and thus irreconcilable. In reality, Islamic and Jewish beliefs concerning the site's sacredness are complementary.
According to Islamic tradition, Al-Aqsa - Arabic for "the farthest mosque" - was built on the site of the "night journey" and subsequent ascension to heaven of the Prophet Mohammad. According to a number of orthodox Muslim scholars, Mohammad visited Al-Aqsa because it was the site of the Jewish Temples - a place close to God.
That Al-Aqsa sits where it does today is also perfectly reconcilable with Jewish belief and tradition. According to documents found in the Cairo Geniza, an archive of ancient Jewish manuscripts, the Caliph Omar asked the Jewish community to ensure that the shrine he erected on the Temple Mount, later to become the Al-Aqsa Mosque, be built over the Temple's foundation. In return, Omar allowed Jews to return, establish houses of worship and rebuild their community - rights not accorded to them by their former Christian rulers. This history makes it particularly disheartening to hear some Palestinian religious and political leaders deny Jewish connections to the city.
Orthodox Jewish tradition holds that Jews may not visit the Temple Mount, as they might tread on sacred ground in a state of ritual impurity. Rabbi Ovadiah Yosef, spiritual leader of the fervently religious Shas political party in Israel, proclaimed "it is absolutely forbidden to ascend to the Temple Mount according to Jewish Law. ... It is also forbidden as it might antagonize the Muslim nations." This interpretation, to which most credible religious scholars subscribe, suggests that the controversial visits of religious and secular Israelis - including the infamous visit in 2000 by then-opposition politician Ariel Sharon - are expressions of nationalism, not the performance of a religious rite.
Many religious Jews understand that when they pray three times a day for the rebuilding of Jerusalem, they are not thinking about adding housing units to West Bank settlements like Maale Adumim. These prayers refer to the re-establishment of the Davidic dynasty and the coming of the Messiah, not the sovereignty of the state of Israel over Jerusalem's municipal boundaries.
Instead of providing inspiration for coexistence based on mutual respect for a shared religious heritage, Jerusalem remains the physical and emotional center of the Middle East conflict. In this case, religion has been co-opted by nationalists who have failed to learn from this heritage.
If Israelis and Palestinians are to begin to solve their conflict, then the recognition of a shared religious legacy is an imperative starting point. Judaism and Islam have a much better chance of finding common ground than do Zionism and Palestinian nationalism.
John Paul II, who during his historic visit to the Holy Land in 2000 offered these words to the Israeli and Palestinian people: "It is the duty of believers - Jews, Christians and Muslims - to seek every means to promote understanding and mutual trust in favor of peace for a land that God wanted holy."
Jonathan Lincoln is senior research associate for Middle East studies at the Council on Foreign Relations. THE DAILY STAR
I
It was a nifty little place where she worked , and everything, including a donated DVD player and TV monitor seemed to fit in place. What actually caught my eye were some words neatly framed at the center of her office wall. It said ,
There can be no Freedom without Order.
There can be no Order without Virtue. - Benjamin Franklin
I met up with Ben Franklin aphorisms a number of times and even have this quote from his Poor Richard s Almanac (Where there's Marriage without Love, there will be Love without Marriage.) on my desk, but this particular saying on that office wall escaped me.
Trying to contemplate on those words and remembering the current world focus on the forced evacuation of Jewish settlers in Neve Dekalim and Kfar Darom , I said to myself, there you have it - The American patriot - actually a theocrat at heart. But was it ever meant that way? Well, I guess if you equate virtue with organized religion, it would come out that way, but if by virtue, he meant the persistence of men to overcome temptation (read Graft, Corruption & political accommodation versus the common good) to govern wisely., then it still would be consistent with his avowal, as one of our Founding Fathers, to separate Church and State functions.
What after all, is the issue of Neve Dekalim and Kfar Darom,two of the Jewish settlements in Gaza to be first dismantled, but an issue of organized Religion versus State (Israel's Knesset) policy ? Was Virtue or the common good at work in the decision? The majority of Israelis seem to think so. In the end, a political message for the boiling region of Middle East and its spillover of global Terrorism came across - that Judaism and Islam have a much better chance of finding common ground than do Zionism and Palestinian nationalism (-Jonathan Lincoln, DAILY STAR). - that all religions, no matter how strange and differing are to be respected, but to have Order, Laws must be followed. Only then can there be talk of Freedom and perhaps Peace.
Perhaps Peace... since the thorny issue of Jerusalem had this knee-jerk perception in the minds of many that the solution on how to treat Jerusalem is politically irreconcilable making Peace between Palestinians and Israelis an impossibility. The historical precedence of Jerusalem as an example to the world of religious tolerance was never factored into this equation where many less-than-virtuous men govern. One needn't be a Benjamin Franklin to know that.
I actually wanted to link this post with a news commentary on Jerusalem by author Lincoln which I spotted last Aug. 15, 2005. For some reason, the URL seems to have disappeared from their archives. Having fortunately copied the article , I'm reprinting it in full for the value of information readers may derive from it.
On Jerusalem, Jewish and Muslim Beliefs Correspond
Commentary by Jonathan Lincoln ,Monday, August 15, 2005
Despite the current focus on Israel's planned withdrawal from Gaza, there is no territorial issue as likely to sabotage hopes for peace between Israelis and Palestinians as the final status of Jerusalem. This issue, while not in the international headlines, continues to fuel the conflict.
The battle for control of Jerusalem and its holy places has always provoked passionate and often belligerent emotions from Jews, Christians and Muslims. In the words of historian Karen Armstrong: "Once an issue like Jerusalem is elevated beyond the reach of compromise, the most extreme and immoral actions become not only possible but 'holy' to a disaffected minority."
Jerusalem need not be the cause of such conflict. The city is often mistakenly portrayed as a source of religious tension between Muslims and Jews, but an examination of the city's history and religious significance reveals a legacy of coexistence enshrined in Jewish and Islamic traditions. This legacy is largely ignored by Israelis and Palestinians, which suggests that the current conflict has more to do with divergent territorial ambitions than with religious claims.
At the heart of the dispute is the question of sovereignty over the compound that consists of the Western Wall, the Dome of the Rock and the Al-Aqsa Mosque, a site sacred to Jews and Muslims. Analysts and journalists have a habit of writing that the compound is known to Jews as the "Temple Mount," as it is believed to be the site of the first and second Jewish Temples; and to Muslims as "Haram al-Sharif," or the "noble sanctuary."
The use of these terms is accepted as a form of journalistic impartiality, yet it falsely suggests that Jewish and Islamic claims to the site are derived from different historic and religious narratives and thus irreconcilable. In reality, Islamic and Jewish beliefs concerning the site's sacredness are complementary.
According to Islamic tradition, Al-Aqsa - Arabic for "the farthest mosque" - was built on the site of the "night journey" and subsequent ascension to heaven of the Prophet Mohammad. According to a number of orthodox Muslim scholars, Mohammad visited Al-Aqsa because it was the site of the Jewish Temples - a place close to God.
That Al-Aqsa sits where it does today is also perfectly reconcilable with Jewish belief and tradition. According to documents found in the Cairo Geniza, an archive of ancient Jewish manuscripts, the Caliph Omar asked the Jewish community to ensure that the shrine he erected on the Temple Mount, later to become the Al-Aqsa Mosque, be built over the Temple's foundation. In return, Omar allowed Jews to return, establish houses of worship and rebuild their community - rights not accorded to them by their former Christian rulers. This history makes it particularly disheartening to hear some Palestinian religious and political leaders deny Jewish connections to the city.
Orthodox Jewish tradition holds that Jews may not visit the Temple Mount, as they might tread on sacred ground in a state of ritual impurity. Rabbi Ovadiah Yosef, spiritual leader of the fervently religious Shas political party in Israel, proclaimed "it is absolutely forbidden to ascend to the Temple Mount according to Jewish Law. ... It is also forbidden as it might antagonize the Muslim nations." This interpretation, to which most credible religious scholars subscribe, suggests that the controversial visits of religious and secular Israelis - including the infamous visit in 2000 by then-opposition politician Ariel Sharon - are expressions of nationalism, not the performance of a religious rite.
Many religious Jews understand that when they pray three times a day for the rebuilding of Jerusalem, they are not thinking about adding housing units to West Bank settlements like Maale Adumim. These prayers refer to the re-establishment of the Davidic dynasty and the coming of the Messiah, not the sovereignty of the state of Israel over Jerusalem's municipal boundaries.
Instead of providing inspiration for coexistence based on mutual respect for a shared religious heritage, Jerusalem remains the physical and emotional center of the Middle East conflict. In this case, religion has been co-opted by nationalists who have failed to learn from this heritage.
If Israelis and Palestinians are to begin to solve their conflict, then the recognition of a shared religious legacy is an imperative starting point. Judaism and Islam have a much better chance of finding common ground than do Zionism and Palestinian nationalism.
John Paul II, who during his historic visit to the Holy Land in 2000 offered these words to the Israeli and Palestinian people: "It is the duty of believers - Jews, Christians and Muslims - to seek every means to promote understanding and mutual trust in favor of peace for a land that God wanted holy."
Jonathan Lincoln is senior research associate for Middle East studies at the Council on Foreign Relations. THE DAILY STAR
I
