Name Gaming - Who Actually Wins the Final Naming Rights

Submitted by M. Tovey (United States), Nov 18, 2014 at 19:18

In reading some of the posts regarding what to call the Temple Mount and its environs, there was the initial impulse to weigh in with yet another argument as to whom the land was dedicated; whose ownership it is in currently; and whose possession might be considered valid dependent upon one's perspective of any such rights in this mortal realm. All things considered, and in the vein of the semantic argument ventured by Michael S. with the specific Arabic characterization by dhimmi no more, none of these discussions lead to the more basic aspect of what's in a name; only who gets the final rights of the Name.

Each epoch has lent some name to these locations, labeling being the convenience of the language/culture in which the local society functions by its own ethnicity, culture and social environment. The current venue happens to be controlled by the Waqf; this was allowed by Israel after the release of Judea and Samaria from protectorate control of others and now Israel must bear the brunt of that ill-advised action. No amount of bickering and anti-social behavior like that demonstrated by disaffected Arabic-'Palestinians' killing Jewish citizens for the sake of their religious bloodlust is going to change that.

What does need changing? The underlying hostilities that have generated all the discussion of what to call the Temple Mount arrive in collision course with what can only be called the ultimate destiny of the location, its eventual designation already being labeled-Mount Zion. But that is not the nom du jour for now, is it? No, it is not.

So, until the moment arrives in which the Name will be changing the character of the site for the future, this observer does not intend debating something no one will have any control of in the final analysis.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".