Quote:
for brevity i did ignore the fact that the area is now under the control of the jewish people as a result kf defensive military actions they took when under attack. they captured this region as a result of the conflict.
if anything that makes my point stronger. they occupy these sites only because the muslims attacked them. nevertheless they are occupied as a result of war, so they should get to do with them as they please.
just like the muslims in turkey see it ad their right to do whatever they want with the Hagia Sophia.
It isn't under control because of "defensive military actions". I don't know why people insist this is the case when the history of the war is available for anyone to read. Given that the Israelis initially claimed to have been attacked first to create support for the war only to later change their story claiming that it was preemptive, I'm not sure why people keep accepting their initial claim that they have since rejected. The only reason I can think of is just plain partisanship.
The Israelis attacked first. One of the reasons they were so successful is because they attacked first and the Egyptians were surprised and not prepared to fight, nor were any of the other Arab nations either ready or capable to go to war with Israel which should be a bit surprising given that they were supposedly about to attack Israel. The only even moderately capable (but vastly outnumbered and outgunned) force were the Jordanians who were absolutely screwed over by incompetent and self-serving Egyptian generals.
The Jordanians had been in communication with the Israelis throughout the conflict, and after the "threat" to Israel had passed, the Israelis prolonged the conflict in order to acquire territory, particularly the Old City and historical Judea and Samaria. They only stopped due to intense pressure from the West.
You keep saying "the muslims" attacked them as if they were some unified group of people who bear responsibility for the actions of the others. "The Muslims" were not unified at the time and had extreme hostilities and rivalries between the groups. For example, the Jordanians were far more fearful of the Syrians, Egyptians, Iraqis, and Saudis than the Israelis. The inner-Arab rivalry is probably the biggest cause of the war in '67 - at least according to Avi Shlaim. And it certainly isn't the case that "the muslims" that went to war with the Israelis in the mid 20th century are united in any way with the Turks given that Arabs in the Levant had just broken free from Turkish rule in a war the Arabs fought against the Turks just half a century earlier while allied with the West. Grouping all Muslim people and nations together in a weird type of collectivist responsibility and obligation only serves to make this argument about justifying Israeli occupation in Palestine given the Turkish takeover of the Hagia Sophia 550 years ago. And even if it is hypocritical, it still doesn't justify doing what is wrong.
Your argument doesn't work.
All that said, the Turks shouldn't have converted it back into a mosque. It strains relations with everyone else, further harms the Christian minority in Turkey, reminds Eastern Christians in the Middle East and abroad of historical injustice, and, most of all, harms regular Muslims in Turkey who have to live under an increasingly Islamist leader bent on using their faith to justify an illiberal, autocratic government that is, against its national interest, further isolating itself from its neighbors and the West.
The attempt to turn this into a Muslim vs Jew or Muslim vs the West isn't helpful. This is Islamist autocrat vs the Turkish people.
