RSS
The Different Options for Administering Israel’s Holiest Sites
Italian operatic tenor Andrea Bocelli at the Western Wall in Jerusalem on June 9, 2022. Photo: Screenshot/TheKotel.org.
The Temple Mount, the Western Wall, the Church of the Holy Sepulcher — these are places of utmost importance to multiple religious groups, and they often give rise to bitter disputes and even acts of violence.
The question of how to effectively govern and manage such sites is of paramount practical significance. Until recently, no systematic models of governance for contested sacred sites have been proposed. This article describes a typology of five governance models in terms of their attributes, advantages, and disadvantages, so that decision-makers, scholars, religious figures, and other stakeholders can apply them as needed to different sacred sites.
Sacred sites are defined as “thick sites” — which means a site, typically but not necessarily religious, that is imbued with different and incompatible meanings by different agents. From these agents’ point of view, these meanings are highly significant and the sites are therefore irreplaceable.
Thick sites are not mere locations. They exist in specific public spaces and cannot be moved or replaced. This means that members of different religious groups all insist on conducting their activities in the same location, often simultaneously.
Unlike the Lockean-Madisonian solution, according to which religious practice is kept a private affair, thick sites contain different religious communities that each maintain their own place of worship within the site. These sites are thus focal points for intense inter-religious competition over ownership, governance, access, religious rights, and other aspects of control.
This raises the question of how to govern such sites effectively. What models of governance can promote social order and a measure of religious liberty at these sites?
The following is a brief, induction-based description of five main models for the effective governance and management of contested holy, or “thick,” sites:
The “Non-Intervention” Model: In this model, the state withdraws from religious or substantive management of the holy site, and does not finance the salaries of clerics, clergy, or religious personnel. The state focuses on providing services like security and cleaning. An example of this model is the management of “Devil’s Tower” in Wyoming, US, which is sacred to about 20 Native American tribes.
The “Divide and Separate” Model: Here, the government divides the thick site and separates competing groups, either spatially or temporally. This bureaucratic separation minimizes contact between rival groups, potentially cooling tensions, as contact between the groups is either minimized or banned completely. An example was the proposal (not ultimately accepted) to manage the Babri Masjid/Ram Janmabhoomi site in Ayodhya, India, which is embroiled in a dispute between Hindus and Muslims. This model also applies to the Cave of the Patriarchs.
The “Preference” Model: In this model, one group is given priority or advantages in certain aspects of site management over other groups. These advantages can include ownership rights, religious usage rights, and entry. The Western Wall illustrates this model, with Orthodox Judaism enjoying privileged status. Thus (to mention a few examples), the Rabbi of the Wall (a governmental position) is always Orthodox, space is allocated unequally between men and women with the advantage given to the men, and access to Torah scrolls is denied to women in their section of the Wall.
The “Status Quo” Model: This model “freezes” an existing situation — an allocation of ownership, usage, and entry rights to competing religious groups at a given thick site — at a specific point in time. That is, it locks in the status quo. While this ensures stability, it may not guarantee fairness, as the fairness of the allocation framework being maintained in perpetuity is not discussed at all. The Church of the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem, which is crucially important to multiple Christian groups, is an example of this model. At this church, the status quo from the days of Ottoman rule has been meticulously preserved throughout British, Jordanian and Israeli rule.
The “Closure” Model: This model involves a ban on entering or practicing religion at the site, either selectively or absolutely. The ban can apply to entrance, religious practice, or a combination and can be selective by group or by period. It is a strict tool that infringes on the religious freedom of observers of the restricted religion but can be justified in cases where there is a significant risk to public order, as is the case on the Temple Mount. At that site, Jews may enter but are not allowed to pray.
The suggested novel typology is rooted in field cases, and is a tool that can benefit both policymakers and academics. Researchers can use it to understand and analyze conflicts surrounding thick sites worldwide. Politicians can employ it to resolve these conflicts by considering various governance models, their pros and cons, and their suitability for specific cases.
This short paper is grounded in the joint research conducted by Nahshon Perez and Yuval Jobani, which was fully developed in the book Governing the Sacred: Political Toleration in Five Contested Sacred Sites (Oxford University Press, 2020). This research project was funded by an Israel Science Foundation grant (688/18).
Nahshon Perez, PhD, serves as a professor in the Department of Political Studies at Bar Ilan University. His academic interests encompass contemporary political theory, contested sacred sites, past injustices and reparations, and the intersection of religion and politics. His latest book is: Worldly Politics and Divine Institutions: Contemporary Entanglements of Faith and Government, which was published by Oxford University Press in 2023. A version of this article was originally published by The BESA Center.
The post The Different Options for Administering Israel’s Holiest Sites first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Striking Hamas Leaders in Qatar Is 100% Legal Under International Law
Vehicles stop at a red traffic light, a day after an Israeli attack on Hamas leaders, in Doha, Qatar, Sept. 10, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Ibraheem Abu Mustafa
Here are just a few of the absurd reactions from world leaders in the wake of Israel’s stunning strike on Hamas leadership in Doha, Qatar, last week:
- A “blatant violation of international law.”
- A “violation of sovereignty.”
- A “flagrant breach of international law.”
France, Spain, the UK, the Qataris themselves, and others have joined in the hysterics.
Yet all these sloganizing leaders have one thing in common: an astonishing and total ignorance of actual, international law.
In future articles, I will dive into the far reaching implications and consequences of this stunning operation, but for now, here’s a quick review of international law.
- Qatar is not technically at war with Israel, therefore the country could be considered a “neutral power” under the Hague Convention V and thus immune from attack.
- However, under articles 2, 3 and 4 of Hague Convention V, a “neutral power” may not allow anyone on its territory to direct combat operations, run command and control centers, or even to communicate electronically with combatants.
- For years, the Hamas leadership has been carrying out exactly those prohibited acts from within Qatar — with sustained and integral Qatari support. In other words, Qatar has been violating international law for years — before, during, and after the October 7 massacre.
- Hamas is the internationally-designated terror organization that carried out the October 7 massacre of Israelis in 2023, and continues holding Israeli hostages in Gaza to this day. Though the Hamas leadership in Qatar claims the moniker “political wing,” it is consistently involved in directing combat operations against Israel.
- Qatar cannot claim to be a “neutral power” under the Hague Conventions, because it provides sustained and integral support for Hamas — which aids Hamas combat operations against Israel — from Qatari soil.
- Furthermore, Israel has an inviolate right to self defense under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, and Hamas may not undermine that right simply by directing its combat operations from inside a third-party country.
In summary: Qatar has been providing sustained and integral support for Hamas combat operations — from Qatari soil — in violation of The Hague conventions.
These acts give Israel the inviolate right, under both the Hague Conventions and the UN Charter’s Article 51, to defend itself and its citizens by targeting Hamas leadership inside Qatar.
Daniel Pomerantz is the CEO of RealityCheck, an organization dedicated to deepening public conversation through robust research studies and public speaking. He has been a lawyer for more than 25 years.
RSS
No, Mahmoud Abbas Did Not Condemn Jerusalem Terror Attack
People inspect a bus with bullet holes at the scene where a shooting terrorist attack took place at the outskirts of Jerusalem, Sept. 8, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Ammar Awad
Last week, terrorists opened fire in Jerusalem, murdering six and injuring 12 innocent Israelis.
Palestinian Authority (PA) leader Mahmoud Abbas — the man the international community insists is a “peace partner” — then put out a statement that was labeled by much of the international media as a condemnation. In reality, it was anything but.
Abbas never once mentioned the terror attack. He never referred to the murders, never acknowledged the victims, and never expressed a word of sympathy for their families. His statement spoke in vague terms about rejecting “any targeting of Palestinian and Israeli civilians,” a formula carefully crafted to sound balanced while deliberately blurring the reality that it was Palestinians who carried out the terror attack, and Israelis who were its victims.
Worse still, 98% of Abbas’ statement was condemnation of Israel, the “occupation,” “genocide,” and “colonist terrorism.” Instead of using the attack to speak out against Palestinian terror, Abbas used it to criticize Israel without even actually mentioning the attack, and while portraying Palestinians as the victims.
Abbas’ remark is not a condemnation of terrorism. It is a cover-up. He is once again confirming the PA’s ideology that sees Palestinian attacks against Israeli civilians as justified.
The emptiness of Abbas’s words becomes glaring when compared to the response of the United Arab Emirates.
The UAE condemned the “terrorist shooting incident … in the strongest terms,” offered condolences to the victims and their families, and wished a speedy recovery to the wounded.
The UAE’s statement was clear, moral, and human. Abbas’ was political and self-serving, designed to enable gullible Westerners to delude themselves that Abbas was actually condemning terrorism. The UAE and Abbas’ statements follow. The difference speaks volumes.
| UAE condemnation of terror | Mahmoud Abbas’ sham |
| “The United Arab Emirates has condemned in the strongest terms the terrorist shooting incident which occurred near Jerusalem, and resulted in a number of deaths and injuries.
In a statement, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MoFA) reaffirmed the UAE’s strong condemnation of these terrorist acts and its permanent rejection of all forms of violence and terrorism aimed at undermining security and stability. The Ministry expressed its sincere condolences and sympathy to the families of the victims, and to the State of Israel and its people, as well as its wishes for a speedy recovery for all the injured.” [United Arab Emirates Ministry of Foreign Affairs, website, September 8, 2025] |
“The Palestinian Presidency reiterated its firm stance rejecting and condemning any targeting of Palestinian and Israel civilians, and denouced all forms of violence and terrorism, regardless of their source.
The Presidency stressed that security and stability in the region cannot be achieved without ending the occupation, halting acts of genocide in the Gaza Strip, and stopping colonist terrorism across the West Bank, including occupied Jerusalem. It emphasized the Palestinian people’s attainment of their legitimate rights to an independent and sovereign state with East Jerusalem as its capital, and the achievement of security and peace for all, is what wil end the cycle of violence in the region. This came in the wake of today’s events in occupied Jerusalem.” [WAFA, official PA news agency, September 8, 2025] |
Ephraim D. Tepler is a contributor to Palestinian Media Watch (PMW). Itamar Marcus is the Founder and Director of PMW, where a version of this article first appeared.
RSS
Carrying Charlie Kirk’s Torch: Why the West Must Not Retreat
A memorial is held for Charlie Kirk, who was shot and killed in Utah, at the Turning Point USA headquarters in Phoenix, Arizona, US, Sept. 10, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Caitlin O’Hara
Charlie Kirk’s sudden death leaves more than grief; it leaves a void in a moment of profound civilizational danger. He was not just a political organizer or cultural commentator. He was a voice that gave the next generation permission to reject the lies of relativism, to reclaim confidence in the West, and to stand against the forces — both ideological and violent — that seek to dismantle it. To honor his life means refusing to let that mission fade.
Kirk understood that the greatest threats to freedom were not hidden in obscure policy debates, but in the cultural and spiritual health of the West. He saw that when a society abandons faith, mocks tradition, and treats national identity as a shameful relic, it becomes easy prey for movements that thrive on weakness and self-doubt. His genius was to frame this not as nostalgia, but as survival.
For him, defending family, faith, and moral order was not a luxury — it was the only path by which free societies could endure.
One challenge Kirk named very clearly was the rise of radical Islamism and terrorism. He warned that this was not merely a foreign problem, but an internal one. Radical ideologies, cloaked in the language of grievance, have found fertile ground in Western cities, universities, and political discourse. Under the cover of tolerance, they have grown bolder. Under the silence of elites, they have become entrenched. Kirk refused to bend to the false equivalence that excuses extremism as cultural difference. He understood that those who despise freedom should not be empowered to weaponize it.
His critics often called him polarizing, but what they truly feared was his clarity. He reminded audiences that not all values are equal, not all ideas are harmless, and not every ideology deserves space in a free society. In a climate where cowardice is praised as moderation, his directness was seen as dangerous. But the true danger lies in the refusal to speak plainly about the threats that face us. Civilizations do not collapse overnight; they are eroded when their defenders lose the courage to distinguish between what is worth preserving and what must be rejected.
Kirk never lost that courage. He confronted progressive elites who undermined confidence in the West from within, and he confronted radical Islamist sympathizers who justified violence against it from without. He saw that both positions, though different in form, worked toward the same end: a weakening of Western resolve, an erosion of shared identity, and the creation of a generation uncertain of its own inheritance. His refusal to allow that message to go unchallenged gave hope to millions of young people who might otherwise have drifted into cynicism or despair.
Now his death presents a stark choice. The forces he warned against are not pausing to mourn. They are pressing forward, eager to fill the space that was already under siege. If his legacy is not actively continued, it will not simply fade — it will be replaced by movements hostile to everything he fought to defend. To preserve his mission, the West must double down on the truths he carried: that strength is not arrogance, that tradition is not oppression, and that freedom without moral order is an illusion that collapses into chaos.
The stakes are high. If these principles are allowed to wither, we risk a generation unmoored from history, unprepared for the battles ahead, and unwilling to confront the ideological threats at our doorstep. But if Kirk’s legacy is embraced and advanced, his death will be the beginning of a renewal.
The West cannot retreat. It cannot afford the luxury of silence or the temptation of compromise with those who seek its undoing. The path forward requires the clarity and courage that Charlie Kirk embodied. To carry his torch is not simply to honor his memory. It is to safeguard the survival of the civilization he loved and defended. The question is not whether we should continue his work. The question is whether we can endure if we do not.
Amine Ayoub, a fellow at the Middle East Forum, is a policy analyst and writer based in Morocco. Follow him on X: @amineayoubx