Shawerma Threats

An article posted in Al Monitor describes the growing tensions between Israel and Turkey over the latter’s activities in Jerusalem Haram Al-Sharif/Temple Mount. Whether it is the rising funds directed to non-profit associations, primarily the Turkish Cooperation and Development Agency, the soaring number of tourists flocking into Jerusalem, or the opening of a series of Turkish shawarma places, Tel Aviv is concerned with Istanbul’s hidden agendas. One concern however seems to stick out - again as reported on the aforementioned article:

´The Israelis are convinced that Erdogan is trying to return Ottoman grandeur to the Temple Mount to intensify tension between Jews and Muslims in the holy places and become the top Islamic figure to protect the mosques and Al-Aqsa. “We won’t let this happen, no way,” an Israeli security source said on condition of anonymity’.

Now, what does this anonymous Israeli security official mean with return Ottoman grandeur to the Temple Mount? Does that mean that the official believe that reminiscing about the past and attempting to revive it are future - actually dangerous – acts that require immediate attention and development of counter measures? Is the Ottoman renaissance dream forbidden for its validity or rather its peril?  

It is quite ironic for an Israeli official to use the history card…after all that is all what Zionism is based on: history. No one is refuting or questioning the rights of Jews in living in peaceful coexistence in Palestine, noting that tracing back Jewish history in Palestine to thousands of years in the past has been a perfectly acceptable excuse for reviving the Israeli Sate. The question that begs itself would therefore be: why would the Ottomans be any different?? Can't one say that presence in the region for five centuries has led to planting roots in the holy land...roots that cannot be denied by history or ethnicity. Furthermore, the Ottoman Empire is much more recent in history, has stretched for five centuries across vast areas in the region, and has introduced political system that reflected – and somehow respected- cultural, ethnic, and religious diversity in the lands it ruled. In other words, the rhetoric employed by Israeli and Jews across the world that Israel is their homeland on the basis of history and religious texts should be viewed in the same lens as the argument of Turkey and Turks across the world that it is only natural for their country to expand its power and presence into foreign lands on the premises of historic rights and religious scripture.

Both arguments are invalid in both cases - but the lesser of two evils is clear to many. Or is it?