1
00:00:08,400 --> 00:00:14,100
Good afternoon and welcome, everybody, to our fifth or fifth week of this term.

2
00:00:14,100 --> 00:00:21,420
The third meeting of our Israel Studies Seminar. I'm very happy to present to you our speaker today.

3
00:00:21,420 --> 00:00:32,130
We were hoping to have both Peres and you and your buddy who have co-written the work that will be discussed this afternoon.

4
00:00:32,130 --> 00:00:38,690
But Roger Bundy could not attend for some personal reasons. So I very happy to present to you his co-author,

5
00:00:38,690 --> 00:00:50,340
John Peres was associate professor in the Department of Political Studies at Bar-Ilan University in a field of research include toleration,

6
00:00:50,340 --> 00:00:57,300
pluralism, religion and state religious relations and the rectification of past wrongs.

7
00:00:57,300 --> 00:01:05,130
He is the author of Freedom for Past Injustices A Critical Evaluation of Claims of Intergenerational Reparations.

8
00:01:05,130 --> 00:01:13,170
And he is the co-author, which was Ubani of Women of the World Navigating Religion in Sacred Sites.

9
00:01:13,170 --> 00:01:19,620
You may have seen the national present, this work here under my predecessor, Rick Penzler,

10
00:01:19,620 --> 00:01:28,620
and lately with you and your money again governing the sacred political toleration in five contested sacred sites,

11
00:01:28,620 --> 00:01:34,710
which is also the title of the talk today. Thank you for joining us.

12
00:01:34,710 --> 00:01:39,490
Let me send you live. Thank you. Thank you very much.

13
00:01:39,490 --> 00:01:45,840
Professor, I've you have got an old friend for inviting me to you present this smoke at your seminar.

14
00:01:45,840 --> 00:01:49,410
Thank you for people attending. I mean, I can't see you in person.

15
00:01:49,410 --> 00:01:54,660
So this is a slightly odd experience, but I hope to be able to enjoy it nonetheless.

16
00:01:54,660 --> 00:02:08,350
And so I also want to mention it is called a joint kind of research call also by myself and Yuval Jovani and I couldn't be here, unfortunately.

17
00:02:08,350 --> 00:02:18,990
So I hope Daljeet. OK, so so so did the Turkish state of governing the secret models of political toleration in contested sacred sites.

18
00:02:18,990 --> 00:02:23,990
And the cover of the new book published by Oxford is right rattly on the slides.

19
00:02:23,990 --> 00:02:30,360
So. So this is the TLC. So this is what we presented today.

20
00:02:30,360 --> 00:02:36,840
So refix Filatov remarks a little bit about the definition from contested sacred sites to six sites.

21
00:02:36,840 --> 00:02:39,420
Then a little bit about methodology, then the models.

22
00:02:39,420 --> 00:02:45,860
And why do we need to do models do for us and the five models of governance of contested sacred sites.

23
00:02:45,860 --> 00:02:51,330
Non-interference. Divide and separate preference. Second, all the models,

24
00:02:51,330 --> 00:02:59,120
which is that this square closure and then some concluding remarks and then I'll be happy to take any questions that you might have.

25
00:02:59,120 --> 00:03:03,840
So let's let's let's start with some explanatory remarks.

26
00:03:03,840 --> 00:03:10,200
So we are that the topic is contessa's sacred sites that reside in public spaces or sites,

27
00:03:10,200 --> 00:03:13,890
and they pose a difficult challenge for states to govern or to manage.

28
00:03:13,890 --> 00:03:21,420
There are many times the source of conflict and violence does very little material normative analysis regarding such sites.

29
00:03:21,420 --> 00:03:28,080
So in what way? This presentation provides a short version of our book Governing the Sacred Political Declaration in five Contessa's Sacred

30
00:03:28,080 --> 00:03:36,660
Sites and represent and not a novel typology of mapping of the models to use to govern such sites within Democratic controls.

31
00:03:36,660 --> 00:03:40,650
Yet as a listing of a context of theology, I'll explain what that means.

32
00:03:40,650 --> 00:03:46,360
And second, and following the broader assessment of the various models.

33
00:03:46,360 --> 00:03:52,930
So these are sites located in public spaces that are sacred or significant of these two groups.

34
00:03:52,930 --> 00:03:58,960
These groups compete over ownership, access, usage rights, permissible religious conduct management,

35
00:03:58,960 --> 00:04:03,190
allocation of space time slices and many other aspects of such sites.

36
00:04:03,190 --> 00:04:10,690
Some examples of the bubble, the magician up and Boyd from Uttar Pradesh, India, the Temple Mount, Ahmed Sharif from Jerusalem,

37
00:04:10,690 --> 00:04:21,580
the Church of the Holy Sepulchre from Jerusalem, Devastator National Monument from Wyoming and others will discuss during this talk.

38
00:04:21,580 --> 00:04:25,840
So these are some of those sites read some left or right.

39
00:04:25,840 --> 00:04:34,780
So we have to Devil's Tower up there, Bubley Majia in the middle, then the Western Wall, the Church of the Holy Sepulchre and the Temple Mount.

40
00:04:34,780 --> 00:04:43,050
So these are the sites that correspond to the models, you know, research.

41
00:04:43,050 --> 00:04:48,370
So we suggest to define such sites as fixed sites. We follow a little bit.

42
00:04:48,370 --> 00:04:51,990
Clifford Gilt's in his famous thick description kind of approach.

43
00:04:51,990 --> 00:04:58,080
But we applied to sites, so they fixed site within not a site typically, but not necessarily religious,

44
00:04:58,080 --> 00:05:05,250
which is loaded with different than incompatible meanings that are attributed to it by different agents from this agent's view.

45
00:05:05,250 --> 00:05:10,860
Such meanings are highly significant because sequentially these sites are irreplaceable.

46
00:05:10,860 --> 00:05:24,020
So the definition of a fixed site suggests for made major features of such sites being loaded with different meanings incompatibility.

47
00:05:24,020 --> 00:05:29,310
And you replace ability as Central City and Eteocles ability.

48
00:05:29,310 --> 00:05:33,970
So, so.

49
00:05:33,970 --> 00:05:41,470
How do we build the categories in the models? How do we go from a site with specific histories and cultural context to a model?

50
00:05:41,470 --> 00:05:46,930
So in our research we attempt to move in a context, sensitive fashion from the details of the various case studies.

51
00:05:46,930 --> 00:05:54,000
So the sites to a more general understanding of the category of governance methods of contested sacred sites,

52
00:05:54,000 --> 00:06:02,440
we found that the best way to understand and create such categories of denoted governance models is to examine actual case studies.

53
00:06:02,440 --> 00:06:09,100
Some examples include, as I mentioned, the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, the bubble in Majida on the bullet, the Western Wall and others.

54
00:06:09,100 --> 00:06:14,830
We limit our exploration to those models that are within democratic norms so broadly conceived.

55
00:06:14,830 --> 00:06:19,850
So theocracy is an oppressive secularism are excluded, right?

56
00:06:19,850 --> 00:06:25,870
It's not that they're not interested. It just couldn't include them in one research.

57
00:06:25,870 --> 00:06:30,030
David. Well, different analysis. The models.

58
00:06:30,030 --> 00:06:33,940
So why do we need models so models can be described as simplified?

59
00:06:33,940 --> 00:06:38,200
I to like an approximation of a given piece of targeted reality.

60
00:06:38,200 --> 00:06:48,010
The models illustrated in a parsimonious way of approximations or idealisation lummox level of mux, more complex sights, events in histories.

61
00:06:48,010 --> 00:06:56,110
The main test of such modelling is the ability to classify Nanase yet himself cases into denoted models using the lessons of

62
00:06:56,110 --> 00:07:04,840
the godding examined in classified cases and categories to better understand not as yet observed new models for the cases.

63
00:07:04,840 --> 00:07:13,150
Models of what governance models of contested sacred sites or sites in which models antonello typology.

64
00:07:13,150 --> 00:07:17,170
So have five models. Non-interference. Divide and separate referents.

65
00:07:17,170 --> 00:07:24,100
And the two second order models. I'll explain the concept in a few slides.

66
00:07:24,100 --> 00:07:30,190
Status quo and closure. So let's begin with the first model.

67
00:07:30,190 --> 00:07:34,600
So the first model is non-interference. And in this category,

68
00:07:34,600 --> 00:07:39,160
the state does not manage a given contested secret site in any religiously

69
00:07:39,160 --> 00:07:44,580
relevant way or in any way that follows the doctrine of a particular religion.

70
00:07:44,580 --> 00:07:47,440
The state or the government maintains law and order.

71
00:07:47,440 --> 00:07:57,400
And if the need arises, utilises an usher function as in a museum or theatre or similar coordination enabling tool, but nothing else.

72
00:07:57,400 --> 00:08:01,960
Religious worship and understandings are left to the believers themselves.

73
00:08:01,960 --> 00:08:06,130
The location, physical structure and the call remain as is.

74
00:08:06,130 --> 00:08:10,570
With alterations made only on non religious grounds. Fixing the bathrooms.

75
00:08:10,570 --> 00:08:16,240
Okay, that's all. This categorically lies on the brother model of separation of religion and state.

76
00:08:16,240 --> 00:08:20,530
However, and this is kind of a general comment on the five models.

77
00:08:20,530 --> 00:08:25,210
That is not necessarily a linkage between a model adopted at a given fixed sites

78
00:08:25,210 --> 00:08:31,570
and the general religion state model in the country in which the site resides.

79
00:08:31,570 --> 00:08:41,890
The reason is that fixed sites, kind of special locations that require a specified treatment.

80
00:08:41,890 --> 00:08:48,740
Non-interference. So continue. So the brief example is Devil's Tower in Wyoming and states.

81
00:08:48,740 --> 00:08:57,200
There is no state enforced limits on religious practise. There is a voluntary ban on climbing the site during the month of June.

82
00:08:57,200 --> 00:09:01,280
And does the site. So does a signal. But there's no coercion.

83
00:09:01,280 --> 00:09:08,330
The advantages of the model given hydrogen dorji anything that heterogeneity of beliefs held by citizens.

84
00:09:08,330 --> 00:09:13,510
The state treats all citizens with equal concern and respect.

85
00:09:13,510 --> 00:09:18,820
The government avoids complex in tandem with religion.

86
00:09:18,820 --> 00:09:23,410
It protects the mother, protects religions from the heavy hand of the state.

87
00:09:23,410 --> 00:09:29,950
The mother avoids factionalism. So there's no picking winners. It's fairly simple to implement.

88
00:09:29,950 --> 00:09:37,480
It promotes the free market of religions, which is advantageous for religions and delivers disadvantages.

89
00:09:37,480 --> 00:09:46,720
So the model raises fears of violence or a backlash? Well, we better quality is found quite often in the literature, not carefully defined.

90
00:09:46,720 --> 00:09:53,410
We define it as the threat of violence could and perhaps should justify the maintenance of a given restrictive of

91
00:09:53,410 --> 00:10:03,190
inegalitarian governance model at a fixed site that is biased in favour of affection that may otherwise resort to violence.

92
00:10:03,190 --> 00:10:10,480
Now we think that that important reasons to reject the backlash argument, sometimes on empirical grounds sometimes and more grounds.

93
00:10:10,480 --> 00:10:18,630
But it is often indicated and should be acknowledged by the 90 Fields model is introduced.

94
00:10:18,630 --> 00:10:25,320
Second model, divide and separate, so such a policy includes the following three features.

95
00:10:25,320 --> 00:10:34,500
The state recognises relevant parties and groups. It divides the thick side and separates a different supplications via the creation and

96
00:10:34,500 --> 00:10:40,380
maintenance of clear and recognised physical or temporal boundaries within such sites.

97
00:10:40,380 --> 00:10:45,070
In order to avoid collisions between parties, this policy is.

98
00:10:45,070 --> 00:10:54,150
If you're looking for kind of legal or mobile routes for this model, that the roots are an even handedness and even handed models.

99
00:10:54,150 --> 00:11:02,280
The government is expected to provide resources to religious groups as long as it treats all religions in a similar fair and equitable manner.

100
00:11:02,280 --> 00:11:06,450
The versions on this model little challenge your comments.

101
00:11:06,450 --> 00:11:13,740
First of Toronto, but also a non-profit adventurism, which is a kind of foam, has long history in American political and legal history.

102
00:11:13,740 --> 00:11:21,010
Brief example, the bubble of Majida. No boy was supposed to be divided to three factions, two Hindu groups, one Muslim group.

103
00:11:21,010 --> 00:11:28,140
However, recently, right at India's Supreme Court has since decided that entire side will be given to him.

104
00:11:28,140 --> 00:11:37,230
The groups. The advantages of the model is it avoids direct collisions between religious groups at the given site.

105
00:11:37,230 --> 00:11:48,300
Right. It aims to be inclusive and fair. Decided unburdens the state from the need to reach further and religiously significant decisions.

106
00:11:48,300 --> 00:11:55,470
And it introduces a straightforward rebellion, bureaucratic institution and does a version of this.

107
00:11:55,470 --> 00:12:03,030
In the case of the party, a couple up and down the can actually see when you reach a protocol.

108
00:12:03,030 --> 00:12:08,760
There were barely a bureaucratic kind of translation off off of this model just confirmed.

109
00:12:08,760 --> 00:12:15,960
Interesting. And it's easy for governments because you can teach it to soldiers on the ground, to police officers and so on,

110
00:12:15,960 --> 00:12:22,890
and challenges that the government needs to do quite a lot here to identify the different groups,

111
00:12:22,890 --> 00:12:29,290
to set the rules of religious practise in the way to limit religious liberty.

112
00:12:29,290 --> 00:12:35,850
Although that is debateable and it's an end state solution that is it's very, very strict.

113
00:12:35,850 --> 00:12:39,990
It does not provide further space for negotiations.

114
00:12:39,990 --> 00:12:51,780
It does exclude unrecognised groups because don't quite often more groups than slices of of of of policy to be allocated.

115
00:12:51,780 --> 00:13:00,880
It introduces the entanglement of religion and state. So there are also challenges for the model.

116
00:13:00,880 --> 00:13:03,810
Third model preference.

117
00:13:03,810 --> 00:13:11,620
So in this category, the state identifies with one denomination and provides sample financial commitment to it in a given fixed site.

118
00:13:11,620 --> 00:13:17,340
The state provide the state or the government provides a given group with a plus financial standing.

119
00:13:17,340 --> 00:13:23,010
This can include possession, usage, rights management, symbolic and other means.

120
00:13:23,010 --> 00:13:32,310
So does a menu rich menu of techniques. Preference, however, does not extend to complete exclusion of none selected groups,

121
00:13:32,310 --> 00:13:37,410
so otherwise it would become the mother of closure and the kind of only lies in what

122
00:13:37,410 --> 00:13:42,950
we call the religious Majola diet approach it adopts as its point of departure.

123
00:13:42,950 --> 00:13:48,990
Declare that there are substantial majorities in some countries that share cultural and religious understandings,

124
00:13:48,990 --> 00:13:53,280
which typically reflect longstanding traditions. Such majorities.

125
00:13:53,280 --> 00:13:55,740
The religious Majuba tion approach argues,

126
00:13:55,740 --> 00:14:03,270
can legitimately used governmental policies and resources to advance their religious and cultural traditions as long as such

127
00:14:03,270 --> 00:14:10,950
policies do not violate the core liberties and rights of minority groups of non-observant members of Desmonte majority groups.

128
00:14:10,950 --> 00:14:14,440
If you're interested in the further details on the religious maduka down and push

129
00:14:14,440 --> 00:14:19,310
to have a different article published in Religion which details this approach.

130
00:14:19,310 --> 00:14:24,560
Should one of the main advocates of this approach is David Miller used to be at Oxford.

131
00:14:24,560 --> 00:14:33,690
So nice. The name and brief example with got to fixed sites is the Western one Jerusalem with the express advantage given to Google Orthodox Judaism,

132
00:14:33,690 --> 00:14:41,190
for example, in the size of the Pearl Plaza and other buttholes introduced or that apply to

133
00:14:41,190 --> 00:14:46,800
dislocation advantages that it expresses their religious majority and an approach.

134
00:14:46,800 --> 00:14:52,950
So whatever arguments are that support the other may well support the preference model.

135
00:14:52,950 --> 00:15:02,270
The challenge as it is inegalitarian. Why is a religious Majola tion approach important, doesn't big debate about this model?

136
00:15:02,270 --> 00:15:08,660
It's very difficult to create distinctions between in egalitarianism and impermissible discrimination.

137
00:15:08,660 --> 00:15:12,920
So the limits to majoritarianism. Right, are at play here.

138
00:15:12,920 --> 00:15:25,370
It's from two, I would say, bring about dissatisfaction for minority groups and especially given the hypersensitivity of fixed sites.

139
00:15:25,370 --> 00:15:35,960
And it entails the entanglement of religion states so often with close relations between religion states that can be detrimental to both sides.

140
00:15:35,960 --> 00:15:43,830
Obviously. OK. Second, all the models.

141
00:15:43,830 --> 00:15:49,170
So the two following model status quo closure of second older models.

142
00:15:49,170 --> 00:15:55,180
Second, all the models of decisions as defined by Kazakhstan,

143
00:15:55,180 --> 00:16:03,000
the legal professor from Harvard and the like, and the old one, it was a philosophy professor at Hebrew.

144
00:16:03,000 --> 00:16:08,100
You defined it jointly, kind of philosophical.

145
00:16:08,100 --> 00:16:08,610
But second,

146
00:16:08,610 --> 00:16:17,820
all the decisions will defer to decisions about the appropriate strategy for reducing the problems associated with making it first order decision.

147
00:16:17,820 --> 00:16:22,710
Second, all the decisions does involve the strategies that people use in order to avoid

148
00:16:22,710 --> 00:16:28,740
getting into an ordinary decision making situation in the first instance.

149
00:16:28,740 --> 00:16:32,700
So the first all the decision here would be to reach a decision with regard to

150
00:16:32,700 --> 00:16:39,510
the veracity of the claims regarding ownership and usage rights in thick sites.

151
00:16:39,510 --> 00:16:48,170
So this is what second all the models wish to avoid.

152
00:16:48,170 --> 00:16:52,430
You can hear me and dance until you see me properly, right?

153
00:16:52,430 --> 00:16:58,760
OK. That's I'll never get used to this, you know, impersonal kind of technology.

154
00:16:58,760 --> 00:17:03,800
OK. Thank you. Okay. So the first. Second or the models.

155
00:17:03,800 --> 00:17:11,900
And that is status quo. So the status quo model refers to a governmental attempt to maintain an existing state of affairs with regard

156
00:17:11,900 --> 00:17:19,610
to conflicting claims to usage rights and ownership claims raised by competing groups in thick sites.

157
00:17:19,610 --> 00:17:28,940
Now, this model, unlike the free preceding models, is not uncaught in a general approach to religion, state relations.

158
00:17:28,940 --> 00:17:34,670
This is a model developed and maintained for the purposes of governing contested sacred sites,

159
00:17:34,670 --> 00:17:41,210
most famously with regard to the Christian holy sites in Jerusalem. Advantages.

160
00:17:41,210 --> 00:17:46,820
So, as you can expect from a second order model it unburdens the state functions.

161
00:17:46,820 --> 00:17:49,820
It is ill equipped to handle or manage.

162
00:17:49,820 --> 00:17:57,460
That is, sorting out claims and counterclaims going back hundreds of years regarding rates of possession and usage.

163
00:17:57,460 --> 00:18:05,840
But very quickly, the level of information that deteriorates. So the statistical model simply says you don't have to worry about anything.

164
00:18:05,840 --> 00:18:11,680
Right. Just follow the rules of the status quo. Be such court, the status quo.

165
00:18:11,680 --> 00:18:18,140
That's the second kind of important advantage, attempts to bring about stability.

166
00:18:18,140 --> 00:18:25,920
If the government cannot be recruited to promote a given religious groups demand for larger slices of ownership or usage rights,

167
00:18:25,920 --> 00:18:30,850
no to repress other religious groups at a relevant Secrett fixed site.

168
00:18:30,850 --> 00:18:35,900
The conflict is expected to become less radical and less violent.

169
00:18:35,900 --> 00:18:44,450
Furthermore, the status quo creates a set of clearcut boundaries and rules to be followed by the relevant parties.

170
00:18:44,450 --> 00:18:50,780
The management of a fixed site is transformed into a bureaucratic commission.

171
00:18:50,780 --> 00:19:01,850
You simply follow the rules of the status quo and you ignore questions of holiness or sacredness, of godly intervention and all that is put aside.

172
00:19:01,850 --> 00:19:07,120
So that's an advantage of the status quo challenges.

173
00:19:07,120 --> 00:19:14,220
So the status quo is not consent based, right? It's not necessarily fair or even handed.

174
00:19:14,220 --> 00:19:19,890
It usually reflects the results of various past power struggles.

175
00:19:19,890 --> 00:19:29,410
Crystallise into a state decree. At one point. And unavoidably is a substantive decision regarding religion and ethnic,

176
00:19:29,410 --> 00:19:38,100
it neglects the religious liberties of unrecognised groups and of individuals not belonging to the recognised groups.

177
00:19:38,100 --> 00:19:44,550
It's not completely clear with it whether this is a cynic and not for the achievement of stability.

178
00:19:44,550 --> 00:19:51,060
And some critics argue that the universal ability of status quo agreements

179
00:19:51,060 --> 00:19:56,100
might cause resentment amongst groups who are disadvantaged by the status quo.

180
00:19:56,100 --> 00:20:02,030
It increases coordination costs, making them almost impossible. And finally, the disagreements have gotten.

181
00:20:02,030 --> 00:20:12,330
The rules of the status quo can be fierce. And with regard to D to the example of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre.

182
00:20:12,330 --> 00:20:20,310
Right. The status quo is emergent in certain decrees issued by the Ottoman Empire.

183
00:20:20,310 --> 00:20:29,040
And it was the result indeed of various past power struggles, has nothing to do with fairness or even handedness or so forth.

184
00:20:29,040 --> 00:20:36,820
So in the case, provides a good example to the two that critique.

185
00:20:36,820 --> 00:20:43,030
Final model closure. So the last model to be examined is closure.

186
00:20:43,030 --> 00:20:52,950
So this model, the government's. Restricts access to end of religious practise in six sites,

187
00:20:52,950 --> 00:20:58,590
usually as a response to severe and often violent clashes amongst competing groups

188
00:20:58,590 --> 00:21:05,080
at the site or because of the high likelihood such clashes are about to kill.

189
00:21:05,080 --> 00:21:11,940
Now, the model has several variants. First one is, is partiality.

190
00:21:11,940 --> 00:21:14,040
If the model is partially implemented,

191
00:21:14,040 --> 00:21:23,640
that is if the government chooses to restrict access for the limited period of duling sensitive events selectively implemented in

192
00:21:23,640 --> 00:21:32,640
situations in which the restriction is levied on some but not all groups wishing to worship at a given site or fully implemented.

193
00:21:32,640 --> 00:21:40,900
If the site is is is permanently closed to all religious factions, some brief examples of them of selective control.

194
00:21:40,900 --> 00:21:49,100
The bubble in magic number boy from India. There was no religious practise allowed, said one Hindu faction, for a long period.

195
00:21:49,100 --> 00:21:57,240
So that selective closure, the Temple Mount has different versions of selective closure and the main one and the most famous ones.

196
00:21:57,240 --> 00:22:06,990
The Jewish prayer is banned and occasionally mix a Muslim and filled in prayer and the advantages of the closure,

197
00:22:06,990 --> 00:22:12,780
which is a little bit of a blunt instrument. I have to say, is avoidance of violence.

198
00:22:12,780 --> 00:22:17,790
So you use it when the circumstances are urgent.

199
00:22:17,790 --> 00:22:23,940
I would say in the book we have a long discussion of the precautionary principle,

200
00:22:23,940 --> 00:22:28,900
which is the kind of intellectual device used in such and such cases.

201
00:22:28,900 --> 00:22:39,240
And so avoidance of balance. It unburdens to state from the need to look more substantial decisions and give an exact.

202
00:22:39,240 --> 00:22:43,620
And challenges. Well, violation of religious liberty.

203
00:22:43,620 --> 00:22:47,760
You don't allow people to access or worship at a given site.

204
00:22:47,760 --> 00:22:58,980
Aside from really rare cases, it lacks proportionality. It is illegal to tell and leave indiscriminately in cases of selective closure.

205
00:22:58,980 --> 00:23:06,270
And does a debate whether such a drastic measures are self-defeating?

206
00:23:06,270 --> 00:23:12,690
Because, as you know, if you have young children taking the way, it makes it more desirable.

207
00:23:12,690 --> 00:23:19,380
Right. So it just makes you do wish to access and worship at a given site more urgent.

208
00:23:19,380 --> 00:23:25,880
And then the the measure itself can be counterproductive.

209
00:23:25,880 --> 00:23:32,550
And it's you suggest. I would say for a limited period of time.

210
00:23:32,550 --> 00:23:37,710
So this is kind of a blunt instrument to be used in specified circumstances.

211
00:23:37,710 --> 00:23:42,660
OK. Concluding remarks. Right.

212
00:23:42,660 --> 00:23:47,010
And so the advantage of creating that, a policy of governance model.

213
00:23:47,010 --> 00:23:56,310
So it improved understanding of the arrangements at particular sites. It can now go to specification, enables the components in different cases.

214
00:23:56,310 --> 00:24:00,330
And hopefully it's useful for decision makers.

215
00:24:00,330 --> 00:24:09,820
And we also have, I think, a pluralist conclusion, I think is somewhat different than the other major book in the field that perhaps a document.

216
00:24:09,820 --> 00:24:18,960
Q And can explain. I can explain more so that there is no one size fits all model.

217
00:24:18,960 --> 00:24:26,110
Rather, the evaluation of the faith between a site and a model must be contextualised.

218
00:24:26,110 --> 00:24:35,530
And that's about it. So thank you so much for your attention and I'm looking forward to your questions.

219
00:24:35,530 --> 00:24:48,280
Thank you, Sean. Let me just remind our audience you're most welcome to submit your questions through the Q&A option on your team's app.

220
00:24:48,280 --> 00:24:54,020
If you prefer not to be identified, just leave it as anonymous or put your name if you want to,

221
00:24:54,020 --> 00:25:00,640
the name to be mentioned until people maybe think about what they have to ask you.

222
00:25:00,640 --> 00:25:10,370
And I'm sure. May I just ask you to just bring home your conclusion to the.

223
00:25:10,370 --> 00:25:16,660
How is that immediate experience of the Israeli-Palestinian situation?

224
00:25:16,660 --> 00:25:27,430
Um, do you see this model's business as potentially solving detentions surrounding the Temple Mount,

225
00:25:27,430 --> 00:25:34,180
Harm Sharif and and and the Hebron Moscow maritime umbrella?

226
00:25:34,180 --> 00:25:38,950
Yes, I think you should actually do it. So a technical question. I'm your address.

227
00:25:38,950 --> 00:25:42,100
Should I just stop sharing what you're not sharing now?

228
00:25:42,100 --> 00:25:46,540
And it's fine. And it's very nice to see you speak. Okay. So let me start kicking you.

229
00:25:46,540 --> 00:25:52,690
Okay. Now I can see you and can you see me and hear me? Yes. OK, as you can see how insecure you've got the technology.

230
00:25:52,690 --> 00:25:58,300
I mean, last night, was it not so. Well, actually, I was at Topsfield and we had to be in conversation.

231
00:25:58,300 --> 00:26:08,350
And this is so alienating. OK. So your question, your question in soda bottles.

232
00:26:08,350 --> 00:26:14,750
And am. Well, I'll put it up, put it in a different way.

233
00:26:14,750 --> 00:26:19,790
So what we had in the literature on Cortesio sacred sites prior to this book, right.

234
00:26:19,790 --> 00:26:24,700
Were two kinds of research. One was intensive studies of single cases.

235
00:26:24,700 --> 00:26:31,560
So some of them were fantastic. So Raymond Cohen's book on the Church of Dr Sepulchre and several books on the bubble Majid did.

236
00:26:31,560 --> 00:26:35,300
This fantastic because they are difficult to write. Right.

237
00:26:35,300 --> 00:26:41,580
And you have to be a lot of research and archives and so on, so forth. They provide lots of information on one single case.

238
00:26:41,580 --> 00:26:48,650
Usually historians. Right. And the second kind of jonell.

239
00:26:48,650 --> 00:26:54,480
Well, it's led by Ron Haskins book, which you probably know, which is kind of deductive in nature.

240
00:26:54,480 --> 00:26:58,910
He had a very strong intuition that Secrett ties cannot be divided or shared.

241
00:26:58,910 --> 00:27:06,620
What you need is kind of Ferb hopes, your suffering, Radka, imposing certain governance model.

242
00:27:06,620 --> 00:27:13,880
And you have to be heavy handed. The government has to be like, think of a heavy hand, you know, kind of setting down the rules of the game.

243
00:27:13,880 --> 00:27:19,280
And this did that was the state of the of the field.

244
00:27:19,280 --> 00:27:26,960
And we wanted to do something else. First of all, we wanted to just better understand a menu of options and that and for that,

245
00:27:26,960 --> 00:27:32,000
we needed to kind of look at the intensive studies of single cases and to elucidate

246
00:27:32,000 --> 00:27:36,950
from them models that can be compared and can be used in different circumstances.

247
00:27:36,950 --> 00:27:41,600
And second, as you know, visibly, one huskiness view.

248
00:27:41,600 --> 00:27:45,890
We didn't want to do a deductive war. We wanted to look at X job cases.

249
00:27:45,890 --> 00:27:50,900
And I think that our conclusion is slightly more optimistic because that was very pessimistic.

250
00:27:50,900 --> 00:27:55,370
Says you have to have a heavy handed involvement, and that's all that is.

251
00:27:55,370 --> 00:28:02,750
Everything else is fantasy's by people who really are not realistic enough about the about conflict.

252
00:28:02,750 --> 00:28:15,160
And one of the things that I think that may answer to your question is that we now have a kind of the wide menu of options.

253
00:28:15,160 --> 00:28:20,810
Right. That can be used in that menu did not exist before.

254
00:28:20,810 --> 00:28:29,720
So some of the some of the some of the models are more modern deliberative traditions to come to feel.

255
00:28:29,720 --> 00:28:35,400
And some of them are more attuned to more difficult seem to seek consensus and kogyo.

256
00:28:35,400 --> 00:28:42,860
But did I need improvement? Because before that decision made Kemp or professor, I think people did not have any other option.

257
00:28:42,860 --> 00:28:50,570
So now at least you can choose. So from that perspective, that's an improvement.

258
00:28:50,570 --> 00:28:55,530
Thank you. We have a question from our friend, Matteo Renzi.

259
00:28:55,530 --> 00:29:01,100
Are you in Venice now? Good to see you. At least the online metro is asking.

260
00:29:01,100 --> 00:29:08,390
Have you looked at the examples of transition from one model to the other?

261
00:29:08,390 --> 00:29:17,760
And he adds that you're right. It's much better to do it in person in Oxford. And, you know, at one point, hopefully am.

262
00:29:17,760 --> 00:29:22,490
So they all cases. So there are two kinds of transitions.

263
00:29:22,490 --> 00:29:33,680
One is from one government to the next government. And if you look at those cases that the models are pretty up, do not change.

264
00:29:33,680 --> 00:29:39,340
So if you think of the of the status quo in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. So the same model.

265
00:29:39,340 --> 00:29:44,450
Right. The Ottoman Empire, the British mandate, Jordan,

266
00:29:44,450 --> 00:29:53,480
then the state of Israel and all those did very different countries and ruling countries of descent did not touch the model.

267
00:29:53,480 --> 00:29:56,660
So the models are pretty robust. Right. But there's a reason why.

268
00:29:56,660 --> 00:30:02,380
I mean, what prime minister would want you to amend or change the status quo agreement on the Church of the Holy Sepulchre?

269
00:30:02,380 --> 00:30:08,870
That will be an interesting thing to see. There are some cases in which the models shift.

270
00:30:08,870 --> 00:30:13,190
So, for example, in the Bubley Majid there a change in the model.

271
00:30:13,190 --> 00:30:17,270
It used to be selected closure. And then the decision was to do evenhandedness.

272
00:30:17,270 --> 00:30:25,480
And now it's becoming an, I would say, once one sided ownership.

273
00:30:25,480 --> 00:30:27,860
It's kind of for closure in a way.

274
00:30:27,860 --> 00:30:41,750
So there are cases like that and it needs to be seen and further researched how to what influence those changes introduced.

275
00:30:41,750 --> 00:30:48,050
What do we have now that we didn't have before is we have names for the models that we've changed.

276
00:30:48,050 --> 00:30:59,510
So now we can put them into an empirical analytical research. So does this have some kind of film, a fruit of this research?

277
00:30:59,510 --> 00:31:05,090
Another question from Marcus. Could you say a little more about the application of the model of the Church of

278
00:31:05,090 --> 00:31:11,450
the Holy Sepulchre and how is it not being the site of interest to Judaism?

279
00:31:11,450 --> 00:31:18,430
Come compete with the other Jerusalem sites that are sacred, both of the truth.

280
00:31:18,430 --> 00:31:24,230
So the so. That's a good question. Right. So so in a way.

281
00:31:24,230 --> 00:31:31,430
One of the things that will interesting to us is the person that holds the keys for the Church of the Sepulchre is a Muslim.

282
00:31:31,430 --> 00:31:40,160
Right. And sometimes when the ruling party has his stake see the side, it becomes more complex.

283
00:31:40,160 --> 00:31:46,340
Right. And so that's kind of that. That's interesting indeed.

284
00:31:46,340 --> 00:31:51,230
When when the British mandate. Right. To cover Jerusalem from the Ottoman Empire,

285
00:31:51,230 --> 00:31:56,000
there were real worries from certain factions that the church of also book

286
00:31:56,000 --> 00:32:02,000
that the British Empire would play an active role in how the site is governed.

287
00:32:02,000 --> 00:32:06,070
So anyway, the fact that the governing party right.

288
00:32:06,070 --> 00:32:15,950
Does not have a stake in a given site executive actually makes it less complicated to govern because it it's kind of impartial.

289
00:32:15,950 --> 00:32:21,350
All the governing party wants is social order and stability.

290
00:32:21,350 --> 00:32:30,230
Right. So do governing those sites become really troublesome when when the governing the governing

291
00:32:30,230 --> 00:32:39,170
party attempts to shift the model towards the party with which it identifies once?

292
00:32:39,170 --> 00:32:45,260
That's not the case. Everything counts. Less sounds problematic.

293
00:32:45,260 --> 00:32:52,530
Mark is asking a follow up question. Does the site of the Last Supper in the Old City fit your model?

294
00:32:52,530 --> 00:33:01,620
I actually was there, but actually not sure about the particular site, I'm willing to have a look and see.

295
00:33:01,620 --> 00:33:13,120
Usually the most Christian sites and also in in the Old City in Jerusalem fall under the city's of school agreements.

296
00:33:13,120 --> 00:33:18,050
And but I'm not sure about that one. I can cheque.

297
00:33:18,050 --> 00:33:22,410
And let's move on to another question.

298
00:33:22,410 --> 00:33:31,920
The question is from an anonymous participant to do you approach sacred sites without contextualising their historical or sociopolitical conditions?

299
00:33:31,920 --> 00:33:38,940
The problem in Al-Aqsa or the Abara mosque is that they are under settler colonial occupation.

300
00:33:38,940 --> 00:33:45,120
How you treat these sites must account for the simple fact that Israel is a racist occupier.

301
00:33:45,120 --> 00:33:54,450
How do your model's account for their colonial reality? So I think what's interesting about about the governance models of contested sacred

302
00:33:54,450 --> 00:34:00,060
site is that they are compatible with many different regimes and kinds of government.

303
00:34:00,060 --> 00:34:05,310
So the example goes back to all the time is the church of Thought of sepulchre.

304
00:34:05,310 --> 00:34:11,910
So governments and regardless of their identity, usually treat those sites very carefully because they're explosive.

305
00:34:11,910 --> 00:34:22,680
Right. People fight wars about those sites and they can be used to bring about lots of social unrest.

306
00:34:22,680 --> 00:34:32,930
So the D the general mode of governance and the way those sites are governed are usually completely different.

307
00:34:32,930 --> 00:34:40,710
And I think in the case of the de Patriarca, that's actually a good example because there a divide and separate arrangement taking place and that

308
00:34:40,710 --> 00:34:46,410
it is quite a lot of cooperation between Jews and Muslims indicate in the Cave of the Patriarchs.

309
00:34:46,410 --> 00:34:53,900
So I think these two things should be thought of as two separate issues.

310
00:34:53,900 --> 00:35:04,080
I think not only if I can, again, take the prerogative and ask you another question, to what degree do you think the motives you present,

311
00:35:04,080 --> 00:35:09,600
it goes back to actually to Mattel's language question, I'm sorry to say, concerning transition.

312
00:35:09,600 --> 00:35:21,180
So to what degree are these models, in a sense, bound to what you call the earlier hope to be a Hobbesian concept of sovereignty?

313
00:35:21,180 --> 00:35:27,870
Are these questions solved or seen differently in different understanding of sovereignty?

314
00:35:27,870 --> 00:35:36,960
Let's say was the empire. I'm thinking about this differently than the nation state.

315
00:35:36,960 --> 00:35:42,180
So am I. So the short answer would be no.

316
00:35:42,180 --> 00:35:47,220
Because the saying the same concerns about those sites repeat themselves over and over again.

317
00:35:47,220 --> 00:35:54,720
And when you read some of the literature on contested sacred sites from many different sites,

318
00:35:54,720 --> 00:36:03,480
many different periods and many different governments and democratic and non-democratic and in,

319
00:36:03,480 --> 00:36:11,880
we went over many such documents in the Indian context, in the Israeli Palestinian contacts, in the British modern context,

320
00:36:11,880 --> 00:36:24,240
we read many reports and many court decisions and often kind of share the wolly that those sites are.

321
00:36:24,240 --> 00:36:29,500
It can be a serious source of social discontent and social disorder.

322
00:36:29,500 --> 00:36:35,650
And so they were very careful about about how to deal with them.

323
00:36:35,650 --> 00:36:43,300
One interesting thing that we found in some of the most interesting models will not talk down.

324
00:36:43,300 --> 00:36:49,080
So unlike what has known far, but there will button up.

325
00:36:49,080 --> 00:36:54,780
So some of the most interesting arrangement actually came from local.

326
00:36:54,780 --> 00:36:59,050
I would say initiatives to how to approach those sites.

327
00:36:59,050 --> 00:37:05,800
And when we look at them, we thought about it in Awesomes Walk on the tragedy of the Commons when she

328
00:37:05,800 --> 00:37:10,180
said that sometimes governmental involvement is unnecessary and even harmful.

329
00:37:10,180 --> 00:37:16,900
The government is far away, doesn't understand the local conditions. Local people can reach certain agreements.

330
00:37:16,900 --> 00:37:29,770
And when you look at some of the most promising solutions that bottom up, for example, the voluntary ban, although climbing at the Devil's Tower.

331
00:37:29,770 --> 00:37:35,680
Right. That's a local initiative. So people want to climb it, but it's sacred.

332
00:37:35,680 --> 00:37:43,660
It's a sacred indigenous location. But the indigenous people did not want the government to impose a ban because

333
00:37:43,660 --> 00:37:49,480
they said that that would not express proper respect towards our tradition.

334
00:37:49,480 --> 00:37:59,620
The way to express proper respect told our tradition, if someone understands our tradition and changes here, his or her behaviour accordingly.

335
00:37:59,620 --> 00:38:03,970
So the issue of the voluntary ban and we look at the data of how many how many

336
00:38:03,970 --> 00:38:11,890
persons climbed the devil's tower after the debate was introduced and the numbers,

337
00:38:11,890 --> 00:38:21,220
as far as we saw, went down considerably. So there was no need for the Hopsin Huston area, kind of heavy hand.

338
00:38:21,220 --> 00:38:25,930
And this was for us, kind of an encouraging perspective. Right.

339
00:38:25,930 --> 00:38:34,370
And it will not solve all conflicts on the sacred sites, but it's a helpful mechanism.

340
00:38:34,370 --> 00:38:39,460
Have a whole classification of those mechanisms, signalling and nudging and ushering and so on.

341
00:38:39,460 --> 00:38:48,020
So forth. Yeah. Yeah. Very interesting. I just want to comment that when you think of a bottom up reaction, you can also.

342
00:38:48,020 --> 00:38:50,020
Well, unfortunately,

343
00:38:50,020 --> 00:38:59,860
the Israeli Palestinian case also offers you examples of where individuals tried to force the hand of the sovereign to to do this or that.

344
00:38:59,860 --> 00:39:03,580
Even just by massacring the worshippers at the Abara Moscow,

345
00:39:03,580 --> 00:39:15,040
the terrorist was trying to force a change that would necessarily be a top down change after he's against the individual act.

346
00:39:15,040 --> 00:39:19,690
But let me move forward to another question from Formalises Simmon.

347
00:39:19,690 --> 00:39:24,790
Could you maybe expand on the issue of violence? Well, not too far in your eyes.

348
00:39:24,790 --> 00:39:32,770
What is the interplay between the history of decide the model and the religious importance which the site holds?

349
00:39:32,770 --> 00:39:41,770
Are other models which generate higher levels of violence, or is this impossible to decipher?

350
00:39:41,770 --> 00:39:51,250
So a lot depends on. So that's a good question. So a lot depends on the perspective of the decision makers.

351
00:39:51,250 --> 00:40:01,360
So and when you look at how the other decisions for those sites will, we'll reach right to that.

352
00:40:01,360 --> 00:40:09,710
So so that some of them are a little bit random like they did in the status quo at the Church of the Holy Sepulchre.

353
00:40:09,710 --> 00:40:12,280
It was almost random.

354
00:40:12,280 --> 00:40:23,660
The Ottoman Empire had certain concrete interests and that was definitely the agreement reached a decision reached in seventeen fifty seven.

355
00:40:23,660 --> 00:40:29,050
And and a few years before that, they did, which is a different decision.

356
00:40:29,050 --> 00:40:39,290
So there was a little bit of randomness which we can find at the moment in which a model was decided, what your model was decided.

357
00:40:39,290 --> 00:40:43,390
It is not an easily changed.

358
00:40:43,390 --> 00:40:58,360
So for example, another example, in 1967 when Israel and Israel decided on a governance model, which is preference for the Western Wall, the.

359
00:40:58,360 --> 00:41:03,520
It was almost almost by random because the the prime minister,

360
00:41:03,520 --> 00:41:12,760
which left call issued statically allocate into the governance of the Christian holy sites.

361
00:41:12,760 --> 00:41:16,780
And in other Polish sites to the religious communities. Right.

362
00:41:16,780 --> 00:41:23,480
And then the certain rabbis took that decision and read.

363
00:41:23,480 --> 00:41:31,130
And apply that to the Western Wall. So sometimes tough decisions are almost, I would say, unplanned.

364
00:41:31,130 --> 00:41:34,460
What is interesting, however, is once they are decided upon,

365
00:41:34,460 --> 00:41:42,980
though not easily changed and a lot of importance is attributed to does those governance models.

366
00:41:42,980 --> 00:41:50,120
And it's sometimes frustrating for a scholar, because when you look back at the hysterical kind of line leading to that decision

367
00:41:50,120 --> 00:41:54,780
and you read and you say to people that this happened to me in your violin talks,

368
00:41:54,780 --> 00:41:59,780
I said, well, the region of the of the of disagreement is a death decision.

369
00:41:59,780 --> 00:42:04,280
It's not that impressive on epistemological grounds or normative grounds.

370
00:42:04,280 --> 00:42:13,160
And they responded that doesn't do any change in the world. People just said, well, we don't care how it started, but now it's really important.

371
00:42:13,160 --> 00:42:15,930
It's also something if you want I mean this if you're in England, right.

372
00:42:15,930 --> 00:42:24,080
Sir Edmund Burke said something about importance, about about traditional institution, traditional institutions having a power and logic of their own.

373
00:42:24,080 --> 00:42:30,430
And don't think you've just you smart enough in order to kind of redesign everything from scratch.

374
00:42:30,430 --> 00:42:38,980
Right. So maybe there's some point of humility here as well. You know, that's a wonderful conclusion.

375
00:42:38,980 --> 00:42:43,790
Greg, remark on the merit of tradition. I don't see any other questions.

376
00:42:43,790 --> 00:42:48,830
Can I ask the audience if you have a question to raise it now? And if not,

377
00:42:48,830 --> 00:42:55,070
I think it would be a wonderful opportunity to thank you and Sean for this interesting presentation and

378
00:42:55,070 --> 00:43:03,110
encouragement to rethink some of the existing models in our minds regarding not just sacred sites.

379
00:43:03,110 --> 00:43:07,750
Thank you so much for this fascinating time. Thank you very much for having me.

380
00:43:07,750 --> 00:43:16,075
Thank you. Thank you.