Y'know, that really doesn't matter, since the facts (which I just mentioned) are what matter - not some alternate history which didn't happen. Since Zionism, as a response to nationalism in general, didn't have a nation-state to center upon, it seemed the perfect solution. But before the suggestion was made, Zionists didn't have any particular favoured place to call 'home'. Zionism made it so. You are right about one thing though: nationalism was a big deal, especially late 19th century nationalism: Zionism was a direct response to it.
That wouldn't make much difference. Ancient Judaism being centered around the Temple is a myth. You see, there was more than one temple - nor did the Temple in Jerusalem have authority over other temples. Schama mentions one in Philae, erected by Jewish mercenaries serving under the Ptolemees. But it's safe to assume that pretty much any Jewish community outside Israel of any substance would have one, if they could afford it.
The point of the Temple Mount being a heritage site "held dear" to the Jews as a people group has little to do with the religious and nationalistic straw men, that you are proposing. As you, seem to be so adamant that there is no authority associated with the point of there being a Temple there. Perhaps like your insinuation that building a Temple there would make no difference, but may make another religion or authority a little nervous where no nervousness is needed?
UUNESCO is more about culture and natural sites of historical relevance. Allegedly, it is not about religion and who controls what.
I'm a bit confused about such things as "UN apologists" and how easy people seem to confuse UNESCO and the UN. (But I guess a term such as "UN apologist" can be expected from an Israel apologist.)
This may explain it?
The resolution reminds me of when the Governor Chris Christie was accused of shutting down a bridge for construction purposes and was accused of using construction as a ruse for something else.
The bigger issue is the fact that the current Leader of UNESCO, has made it her goal to make UNESCO more than just a protector of cultural Heritage Sites. In essence they are doing the same thing they accuse the Israeli government of doing.
They are using the ruse of protecting historical sites to change the policy and effect of how Nations have to deal with political issues outside the scope of a Heritage Site.
This is as much as I've been able to find about this purported phenomenon, and I don't view Schama as a particular great historian, so I'm going to withhold judgment. But none of this refutes the original Jewish presence on the Temple Mount or the tremendous importance it has had to Jews even before its destruction.
The Muslims seem to be more identified with a "sacred" place, than the Jews on their religious sites. Even Christians seem to put a particular emphasis on certain places. The phenomenon of the Temple and other places of worship including the past usage of the
Chinese Tabernacle, was more on the lines of a
local place of worship.
The Muslim claim is that the prophet visited there. That is not a cultural or even historical relevance, but more a religions significance. That it happened at a point in history is not relevant. The cultural relevance comes into play in that they have visited the spot for hundreds of years. While it is true a Temple can be built or a tabernacle be set up possibly any where, there is a strong argument that building it in Jerusalem would place it in a more historically relevant spot as the first two Temples that have been attested to have been there in the past. This is regardless of religious or even cultural significance. The cultural relevance can only be attributed to a Temple actually being there and part of the culture.
