Temple Mount - fact or religious belief?

Tatarka to ABC

ABC Audience and Consumer Affairs
7 June 2005

Sir,

When the ABC refers to the Temple Mount as the place that "Jews believe" was the site of the Temple in Jerusalem (as it did on AM today) it seems to raise a question regarding an archaeologically and historically established fact. The Temple Mount is the site of the Temple which was razed by the Romans nearly 2000 years ago. After remaining vacant and desolate for a few centuries it was then used as a Church (when the Crusaders were in charge) or a mosque when the Muslims were in charge and for the last few hundred years as the site of the Dome of the Rock and the Al Aqsa Mosque.

Much as the Palestinian political cause would be served by obliteration of thousands of years of Jewish history in Israel it is as much a fact as is the Aboriginal history in Australia, or the history of the American Indians in North America.

It is far less objectionable to refer the site (as you do in a seeming attempt to maintain neutrality) by both its Jewish and Muslim nomenclature viz Temple Mount/ Noble Sanctuary, however to then further qualify the description with "Jews believe" is a distortion of history.

Sincerely

Sam Tatarka

Melbourne

ABC to Tatarka

Friday 29 July 2005

Dear Sam Tatarka

Thank you for your email of 7 June 2005, regarding the AM report; Violence erupts over Jerusalem's holy mosque.

ABC reporter Mark Willacy stated that "Jews believe the first and second temples once stood on this site, and some would like to see a Jewish temple stand there once again."

The ABC acknowledges the historical and archaeological evidence supporting the widely held belief that the Temple Mount was the site for the original temples. However, the use of the phrase "Jews believe" was not intended to cast doubt on that belief, but was intended to draw attention to the more important point of the competing claims to the site.

Nevertheless, please be assured that your comments have been noted by ABC News and Current Affairs.

Yours sincerely

Kieran Doyle
Senior Liaison Officer
Audience and Consumer Affairs

Tatarka to ABC

Friday July 29 2005

Dear Kieran Doyle,

Thank you for your none too prompt reply to my email of June 7 however I fear that in purporting to acknowledge the validity of my point you have once again fallen foul of the very issue of inappropriate qualification that caused me to write in the first place.

You say "The ABC acknowledges the historical and archaeological evidence supporting the widely held belief that the Temple Mount was the site for the original temples" My point is that belief simply doesn't enter into the equation. According to the Cambridge University online dictionary belief means "the feeling of certainty that something exists or is true". No question of feeling enters into an established historical fact no matter how widely held it is.

Assume if you will that the Opera House was demolished tomorrow. Would the ABC in a hundred years time suggest that "Australians believe that Bennelong Point was the site of the Opera House"? Or would it correctly report that Bennelong Point was the site of the Opera House?.

In all seriousness one can hardly justify Mr Willacy's choice of language as an attempt to characterise the competing claims to the Temple Mount and if indeed that is what he intended it was a particularly clumsy choice of words.

The Temple Mount is the site of the first and second Temples and the site now is occupied by the Al Aqsa Mosque and Dome of the Rock as a result of the Muslim conquest of Jerusalem several hundred years ago. I acknowledge that it is correct to say that "some would like to see a Jewish temple stand there once again". Belief (as Monty Python was wont to say) just "doesn't enter into it".

Sincerely
Sam Tatarka