by Carl Islam, LLM (Exon)(International Business Legal Studies), Diploma in Art Law (Institute of Art & Law) (London), Barrister & CMC Registered Mediator – Contentious Probate & Cultural Heritage Disputes – 1 EC Barristers, Temple, London.
The Foundation
Stone (Hebrew: Even ha-Shetiyya) is a bedrock protrusion
at the
center of the Dome of the Rock on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. It
is considered the holiest site in Judaism and the third-holiest in Islam
due to several foundational religious traditions:
Religious Significance
Judaism:
Creation of the World: Jewish tradition identifies this rock as the starting point from which God created the entire world.
Holy of Holies: It is believed to be the site of the Holy of Holies, the innermost sanctum of both the First and Second Temples.
Ark of the Covenant: Some sources state the Ark of the Covenant was placed directly upon this stone.
Sacrifice of Isaac: It is traditionally identified as Mount Moriah, the location where Abraham prepared to sacrifice his son, Isaac.
Islam:
The Night Journey: Known as the “Noble Rock” (al-Sakhra), it is believed to be the spot from which the Prophet Muhammad ascended to heaven during his Night Journey (Mi’raj).
Sacrifice of Ishmael: While Jews identify the site with Isaac, Islamic tradition typically associates it with the attempted sacrifice of Abraham’s older son, Ishmael.
First Qibla: Early Muslims originally faced this site (Jerusalem) for prayer before the direction (qibla) was changed to Mecca.
Christianity:
Temple Association: Christians revere the site for its connection to events in the Hebrew Bible and the life of Jesus, who taught at the Temple that once stood there.
Physical Features
Well of Souls: Beneath the stone lies a cavern known as the Well of Souls, which some traditions believe holds the spirits of the dead awaiting judgment.
Artificial Alterations: The rock bears several cuts and marks, some attributed to Crusaders who used the site as a church and others believed to be the footprint of Muhammad or Gabriel’s fingerprints.’
Israel/US is not only systematically targeting civilians, it is also carrying out ‘double-tap’ missile attacks on civilians.
This involves a 1st attack, e.g. on an apartment block, followed by a 2nd attack on those who go there to help the wounded and dying – including paramedics.
In Gaza, Israel carried out systematic attacks against civilians using AI, to commit ‘Domicide’ – see: https://lnkd.in/eYRg8M4N
‘According to the experts, the systematic and widespread destruction of housing, services and civilian infrastructure represents a crime against humanity, a domicide, as well as numerous war crimes and acts of genocide as described by the UN Special Rapporteur on the Occupied Palestinian Territory in her recent report to the Human Rights Council.
“… the shocking revelations of the use of AI systems by the Israeli military such as “Gospel”, “Lavender” and “Where’s Daddy?”, combined with lowered human due diligence to avoid or minimise civilian casualties and infrastructure, contribute to explaining the extent of the death toll and home destruction in Gaza,” the experts said.’
That is the depravity of Israel and the United States, and the UK now appears set to become involved in this illegal and immoral war – up to its neck!
In his opening statement at the Nuremberg Trials on November 21, 1945, Chief US Prosecutor Justice Robert H. Jackson declared that initiating a war of aggression is ‘not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole’.
Jackson argued that this supreme crime, rooted in a common plan or conspiracy, serves as the foundation for all other war crimes, crimes against peace, and crimes against humanity, making leaders accountable for the resulting destruction.
This is the endeavour upon which Starmer and his ministers, with what appears to be vocal opposition by only a handful of Parliamentarians, is now potentially embarking.
I predict that as result of full UK involvment in this unlawful war of aggression, which was started last Saturday by Israel and the United States, that the reputation of the UK will be forever tarnished, because Starmer, his ministers and what appears to be most Parliamentarians, will end up standing on the wrong side of history – along thereby, with the UK.
In other words, they will have brought the UK into disrepute – globally.
Consequently, the UK will receive universal condemnation.
In which case, the Jewel in the Crown of UK Diplomacy – ‘UK Soft Power’, will be finished.
I am left wondering what advice has been provided about this, by the UK Foreign Office?
As far as I am aware, the argument I have just outlined above, has not even been debated in Parliament. So, do our Politicians understand this?
AI (07.03.2026) – ‘As of March 7, 2026, President Donald Trump has issued a series of severe escalatory warnings against Iran, following a week of intense US and Israeli military strikes.
“Complete Destruction and Certain Death”: Trump stated on Truth Social that “areas and groups of people” not previously considered for targeting are now under consideration for “complete destruction and certain death” due to “Iran’s bad behavior”.
Demand for Unconditional Surrender: Trump has explicitly declared that there will be “no deal with Iran except UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER,” asserting that the country is currently being “beat to hell”.
Regime Change Objectives: He further stipulated that after surrender, the U.S. and its allies would work with “GREAT & ACCEPTABLE Leader(s)” to rebuild the country, signaling a clear goal of replacing the current leadership.
Ultimatum to Security Forces: Trump issued a direct warning to members of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), military, and police to “lay down their arms” and support the Iranian people, or face “guaranteed death”.
If I understood correctly Trump has threatened the mass murder of civilians in Iran – see my previously comment.
AI (Today) – ‘Trump stated on Truth Social that “areas and groups of people” not previously considered for targeting are now under consideration for “complete destruction and certain death” due to “Iran’s bad behavior”. …’
So, Starmer, his Ministers, Parliamentarians and all UK military leaders, may be presumed at law to know about this fact.
In other words, today – Trump put all UK Political and Military leaders on notice, that he is about to commit a mass atrocities, which will be both War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity.
AI (07.03.2026) – ‘As of March 2026, multiple reports have surfaced alleging that some U.S. military commanders have told troops the war with Iran is a “biblical plan” and that President Donald Trump was “anointed by Jesus” to trigger Armageddon. These allegations are based on over 200 complaints filed by service members with the Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF), a watchdog group.
Key Allegations
“Anointed” Claim: Reports allege a commander told NCOs that President Trump was chosen to initiate a conflict with Iran to cause Armageddon.
Divine Plan: Commanders across over 30 installations allegedly framed the conflict as part of a theological plan related to the Book of Revelation.
Widespread Reports: The MRFF reported being “inundated” with complaints across all military branches.
Impact: Service members, including Christians, Muslims, and Jews, reported that this rhetoric violates the separation of church and state.’
AI (06.03.2026) – ‘As of early March 2026, many international legal experts, human rights organizations, and some UN officials have characterised the ongoing military operations by the United States and Israel against Iran as an illegal war of aggression.
The core of the legal dispute hinges on
whether the strikes meet the strict criteria for lawful force under the United Nations Charter.
Arguments for Illegality
Under international law, the use of force is
only permitted in two scenarios: self-defence against an
“armed attack” or authorization by the UN Security
Council.
Lack of Authorization: The UN Security Council has not authorised military action against Iran, and the US has not requested such authorization.
Absence of “Armed Attack”: Critics, including UN Special Rapporteur Ben Saul, argue that Iran had not launched an armed attack against the US or Israel prior to the strikes.
Failure of “Imminence”: For “pre-emptive” self-defence to be legal under the Caroline Doctrine, a threat must be “instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation”. Experts state a weeks-long military buildup and ongoing diplomatic talks disqualify this justification.
War of Aggression: Organizations like DAWN have called for the strikes to be investigated as a “crime of aggression,” defined by UN Resolution 3314 as the use of armed force against the sovereignty of another state without legal justification.
Arguments for Legality/Justification
The US and Israel justify the campaign as a
necessary defensive measure:
Preventive Defence: They argue the strikes are necessary to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons and to counter its support for regional proxy groups.
Ongoing Armed Conflict: Some legal scholars suggest the strikes are a continuation of a long-standing, undeclared war in which Iran has already initiated hostilities through its proxies.
Moral Justification: Proponents argue that the removal of a “bloodthirsty” regime and the protection of regional peace provide a moral basis for action, even if the formal legal framework is strained.
Domestic Legal Concerns (US)
The war is also being challenged under US law. Critics and some members of Congress argue the strikes violate the War Powers Resolution of 1973, as President Trump bypassed the required congressional authorization for offensive operations. …
The joint US-Israeli military strikes on Iran, launched on 28 February 2026, have been widely criticised by international law experts as failing to meet the legal requirements of the Caroline principles.
The Caroline doctrine is the standard for “anticipatory self-defence” in customary international law. It requires that the necessity for self-defence be “instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation“.
Experts argue the 2026 strikes failed this test for several reasons:
Lack of Imminence: There was no evidence of an “instant” or “imminent” armed attack from Iran. US intelligence as recently as March 2025 had judged that Iran was not building a nuclear weapon.
Available Alternatives: The attacks occurred while active diplomatic negotiations were underway. An Omani mediator had described a “breakthrough” just one day before the strikes began.
Deliberate Planning: The strikes were preceded by a weeks-long military buildup and months of tactical planning, which contradicts the “no moment for deliberation” requirement.
Competing Arguments
Official US/Israeli Position: The Trump administration and Israel justified the action as a “pre-emptive attack” to eliminate an “existential threat” and prevent Iran from rebuilding its nuclear program. They cited Iran’s long-term support for proxies and alleged nuclear ambitions as a continuous threat.
“Ongoing Conflict” Argument: Some supporters argue the strikes are part of an ongoing armed conflict started by Iran years ago, rather than a new act of aggression.
International Consensus: Most international legal scholars, as well as the UN Secretary-General, have termed the strikes a violation of Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, which prohibits the use of force against another sovereign state. …
Based on reports from early March 2026, multiple Yale Law School professors and legal experts have argued that U.S. and Israeli military strikes on Iran are illegal under both domestic and international law.
Yale Daily News +1Here are the key arguments and individuals involved:
Harold Hongju Koh: The Sterling Professor of International Law at Yale Law School and former State Department legal adviser stated that strikes on Iran constitute a “war of choice that is unlawful under both US and international law”. Koh argued that the actions violate the UN Charter because they were not taken in legitimate self-defense.
Oona Hathaway: A Yale Law School professor of international law has described the strikes as “blatantly illegal,” arguing that they violate international laws regarding the use of force.
Eugene Fidell: A senior research scholar at Yale Law School has repeatedly characterized the actions as a constitutional breach, noting that the strikes occurred without necessary Congressional authorization.
Context of the Legal Argument: The arguments center on the idea that the U.S. strikes violate the UN Charter’s prohibition on the use of force, as there was no direct, imminent threat from Iran that justified the action. Yale Daily News +4
These professors argue that such actions disregard the post-WWII international legal order, which restricts the use of force to scenarios involving self-defense or UN Security Council authorization.’
AI – ‘Whether colonialism is “naturally” genocidal is a subject of intense debate among historians, legal scholars, and sociologists, often depending on the specific type of colonialism and the definition of genocide used.
Perspectives on the “Inherent”
Nature of Colonial Genocide
The “Logic of Elimination”: Influential scholar Patrick Wolfe argued that settler colonialism is inherently “eliminatory”. Because settlers come to stay and require the land, the indigenous population is an obstacle to be removed. This removal can take many forms, from physical extermination (genocide) to forced assimilation or “breeding out”.
Structural Potential: Some contemporary research suggests genocide is a “structural potential” of all colonial domination, as the sovereign right to kill in colonies is often not subject to the same rules as in the “motherland”.
Lemkin’s View: Raphael Lemkin, who coined the term “genocide,” originally viewed it as an intrinsically colonial process involving the destruction of a group’s national pattern and the imposition of the oppressor’s pattern.
Arguments Against “Natural”
Genocidal Intent
Variability of Outcomes: Critics of the “inherently genocidal” view point out that colonial outcomes vary wildly. In some cases, such as Fiji, native societies were able to accommodate invaders without facing extermination.
Economic Motives: In many “extraction colonies” (e.g., British India), the goal was to exploit indigenous labour rather than eliminate it. Some argue that because colonisers needed workers, they had an economic incentive to prevent mass liquidation.
The Disease Factor: A significant portion of indigenous population declines (often up to 90%) was caused by unintentional disease spread, leading some historians to argue these deaths lacks the “intent” required by the UN legal definition of genocide.
Differing Definitions
The debate often hinges on how
“genocide” is defined:
UN Convention (1948): Requires proven intent to physically destroy a group “in whole or in part”. Under this strict legal definition, many colonial atrocities are debated because intent can be hard to prove.
Cultural/Sociological Definitions: Many scholars use broader terms like “cultural genocide” or “ethnocide” to describe the systematic destruction of languages, religions, and social structures (e.g., the Canadian and U.S. boarding school systems), arguing these are inherently part of the colonial project.’
This is one of the legal issues that I will discuss in my forthcoming book about the ‘Mediation of Cultural Heritage Disputes.’
See also the ‘Cultural Genocide’ page at www.carlislam.co.uk, on which I argue that, while excluded from the Genocide Convention, the concept of ‘Cultural Genocide’ is a useful tool for courts to link the destruction of cultural heritage with:
(i) the Crime of Genocide; and (ii) Crimes against Humanity.
Culture is a shared set of values, ideas, and behaviours that enable a social group to function and survive. Cultural heritage maintains identity, social cohesion, and a sense of security through intangible practices, including rituals, music, language and skills, and tangible property such as artefacts, archaeology and places.
Roosevelt’s four freedoms link cultural behaviour – to freedom from fear and want.
Targeting cultural heritage is an act of power that legitimises one group while diminishing others, and is often a precursor for the most offensive form of cultural destruction – ‘Genocide’.
Hence, there is an unspoken connection between:
(i) the deliberate destruction of cultural heritage as a strategy by an invading force in war and occupation; (ii) Ethnic Cleansing; and (iii) Genocide.
The intentional destruction of cultural heritage is therefore an offence against humanity as a whole.
My copy of ‘Making Amends for Historic Wrongs – Reparative Justice and the Problem of the Past’ (2025) (OUP) by Mayo Moran arrived last week, and forms part of the research reading for my book, which I am on schedule to complete by the end of June this year.
The public mood about ‘Reparative Justice’ which influences policy and political decison-making is changing. On page 2 of her book Mayo Moran states:
‘There is nothing new about the pursuit of justice after atrocity. In the aftermath of mass violence and abuse, survivors typically sought rectification, amassing evidence and pleading their cases to political leaders and sometimes even to courts. But they almost always failed. Political leaders were largely unmoved by their pleas, and courts pointed to numerous barriers and told them to go away. … However, beginning in the late 1980s, that ground started to shift. …. After many decades of inertia, the tide has discernibly turned in favour of return … Courts and other bodies are also showing themselves to be far more supportive of return [i.e. of cultural artefacts]. … For the purposes of the discussion here, the salient fact is that the meaning of the past and its significance as a matter of justice is now at the forefront of public debate, even when that significance is being disputed.’
The scope and embrace of the Principles of ‘Reparative Justice’, extend far beyond the return of cultural artefacts, and include civil claims for compensation as a result of wrongs done during an illegal war of aggression, or period of occupation.
As I warned on Tuesday, as a result of this illegal war, a ‘Humanitarian Crisis’, which could become a ‘Humanitarian Catastrophe’, is now unfolding in the Gulf States, where millions of foreign nationals (including expatriates), and migrant workers from all around the world, are trapped.
While as far as I am aware, Iran has not attacked any de-salination plants in the Gulf States, this commentator predicts that Israel will launch ‘false flag’ operations to destroy de-salination plants in these states, in order to rally other states, who e.g. are NATO members, to enter the war on their side.
See also my blog – ‘Can Humanitarian Mediation provide a Diplomatic Offramp?’
Tragically, Starmer and most UK parliamentarians appear to be taking the UK in the wrong direction.
Instead of:
(i) staying out of this widening and potentially global conflict; (ii) proposing Humanitarian Mediation; and (iii) offering to act as a ‘Humanitarian’ Mediator,
the UK Government appears militarily to have decided to plunge the UK into an illegal war of choice.
In other words Starmer, with what appeared vocally at PMQ’s on Wednesday, to be the almost universal support of members of the House of Commons of all parties, appears to have decided to escalate the war.
I am trying to understand why rational, intelligent, and well informed political actors, would in effect decide to ‘pour petrol on the fire’ of an illegal war, that is likely to result in a Humanitarian Catastrophe in the states of the UK’s allies – i.e. the Gulf States.
What these politicians do not appear to have grasped is that such a crisis may end in:
(i) civil unrest; (ii) a break down in law and order; (iii) civil insurrection; and (iv) the overthrow of the Gulf Monarchies, by their own people/militaries.
So, I am wondering how educated Starmer, his ministers, and parliamentarians are, about the ‘demographic make-up’ of the Gulf States; and the risk of ‘political instability’ resulting from a ‘Humanitarian Crisis’ becoming a ‘Humanitarian Catastrophe’, as an inadvertent consequence of escalation.
Can someone please explain, since logically the price in deaths throughout the Gulf States, as a result of food and medical supplies not getting in, and of lack of clean water, is likely to be high if this turns out to be a protracted war.
That is because nothing can get in at scale by either sea or air, and in effect, the only way out for most civilians trapped in the Gulf, is south through Oman.
Oman may not allow refugees fleeing in their thousands from the Gulf States, to enter their country.
The route may also close if Yemen joins the war.
I hope that I am wrong!
Let’s see what happens.
Caveat – This post is written in my capacity as a graduate of one of the UK’s top schools of Political Science, and not in any professional capacity.
Comments added since:
AI (05.03.2026) – ‘As of March 2026, a rapidly worsening humanitarian crisis is unfolding across several Gulf states following an escalation of regional violence involving Iran, Israel, and the United States. While the Gulf has historically been a hub for stability, recent retaliatory strikes have brought direct conflict to its territory, leading to civilian casualties and infrastructure damage in countries including the UAE, Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia.
The Guardian +3Current Humanitarian ImpactInternational relief agencies, including UNOCHA and the British Red Cross, have raised alarms regarding the following developments:
Civilian Casualties & Displacement: Strikes have hit residential areas, schools, and hospitals across the region. In some areas, residents have been forced to flee or are sheltering in place due to ongoing drone and missile attacks.
Targeting of Infrastructure: Energy facilities, ports, and airports in Oman, Kuwait, and the UAE have been targeted, disrupting essential services and the movement of goods.
Vulnerability of Migrant Workers: Millions of expatriate workers from South and Southeast Asia (including India, the Philippines, and Pakistan) are at severe risk. Several governments have initiated massive evacuation and repatriation plans for their citizens trapped in affected zones.
Operational Constraints: Airspace closures and insecurity have severely restricted the movement of humanitarian personnel and the delivery of life-saving supplies across the region. unocha +5
Regional Context
Conflict Escalation: The crisis intensified following US and Israeli strikes on Iran in late February 2026, which prompted widespread retaliatory attacks by Iran and its allies against US-allied Gulf states.
Economic Disruption: The targeting of the Gulf’s trade and energy sectors threatens its status as a global hub for finance and tourism, further compounding the regional instability.
Resource Strain: The UN Relief Chief has warned that the “daunting” humanitarian fallout is draining the resources and political will needed to save lives in a region already home to millions of displaced people.’
Ai (05.03.2026) – ‘President Emmanuel Macron ordered the deployment of
the aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle to the Mediterranean
and Middle East on 3 March 2026, to protect French allies and secure critical
maritime trade routes during the escalating U.S.-Israel-Iran conflict.
Key reasons for the
deployment include:
Protecting Regional Allies: France is
fulfilling defense agreements with
It also serves as preparation for possible evacuation operations of French and EU citizens in Lebanon and the UAE.
Defending Cyprus: France is sending additional assets, including the frigate Languedoc, to protect Cyprus after attacks on British military bases on the island.’
“The Islamic Republic of Iran… denies its armed forces
launched a drone toward the Republic of Azerbaijan,” the general staff of
the armed forces said in a statement, according to state TV, which also blamed
Israel.
“Such actions by the Zionist regime, aimed at disrupting relations between Muslim countries in various ways, are not unprecedented.”
Humanitarian Mediation provides a diplomatic offramp by pivoting from unachievable strategic military objectives toward urgent, shared humanitarian concerns, such as protecting civilians and ensuring aid access.
By addressing immediate suffering, Humanitarian Mediation creates and protects a space for dialogue, building ‘habits of cooperation’ between adversaries that can eventually form the basis for renewed political negotiations.
When traditional diplomacy falters due to hardline political stances, humanitarian mediation offers several practical paths forward:
(i) ‘Pivoting to Interests over Positions’ – While political positions may be irreconcilable, parties often share underlying interests, such as maintaining legitimacy or managing public health crises.
(ii) ‘Building “Habits of Cooperation’ – Small, technical agreements, such as prisoner swaps, hostage returns, or the reopening of aid corridors, demonstrate that dialogue remains legitimate and that conflict can be managed through words rather than violence.
(iii) ‘Creating Neutral Forums’ – Mediators provide a safe, neutral platform for communication without the fear of prejudice. This allows antagonists to test ideas and explore compromises in a confidential environment.
(iv) ‘Providing a Humanitarian Cover’ – Negotiations that might be politically impossible can sometimes proceed under a humanitarian mantle.
Humanitarian mediation is distinct from traditional peacebuilding because it is often faster, more informal, and focused on immediate problem-solving rather than long-term political restructuring.
The primary aim is improving the protection of civilians by mitigating violence, preventing forced displacement, and improving access to basic services.
Humanitarian relief operations and political tracks are increasingly viewed as inseparable; unless diplomacy and humanitarianism advance together, neither is likely to succeed.
While effective as an offramp, Humanitarian Mediation faces significant challenges. It can be seen as ‘performative’ if it lacks consistent backing from states and donors.
Additionally, agreements emerging from transactional arrangements, such as those that exclude the voices of women or civil society, can be difficult to sustain long-term.
See; – ‘Douglas Macgregor: A New World Emerges: Iran Will Win & Israel May Not Survive’: https://lnkd.in/esc_ic2S – ‘Saudi, Qatar Capture MOSSAD MEN Involved In Attacks? Iran Drops Israel Bombshell After Aramco Strike’: https://lnkd.in/eCjt_Vrq – ‘Israel’s imminent attack on Iran forced US to join war, says Rubio’: https://lnkd.in/eiT_BgS5 war-attack-trump-b2930752.html -‘This is an illegal war’:https://lnkd.in/eXeWXSSZ – ‘Statistical probability of regime change in Iran is almost Zero!’: https://lnkd.in/diQPaQMY
AI (03.03.2026) – ‘A
humanitarian and logistical crisis is unfolding across the Gulf as of March 3,
2026. Following major escalations in the Middle East conflict, millions of
foreign nationals, including migrant workers, tourists, and transit passengers—are
currently trapped due to sweeping airspace closures and attacks on
regional infrastructure.
Over 13,000 flights have been cancelled,
leaving tens of thousands of travellers stuck in major hubs like Dubai,
Abu Dhabi, and Doha.
An estimated 24 million migrant
workers from South and Southeast Asia are at high risk. Countries like
the Philippines and Indonesia are monitoring the situation closely,
with some nations considering large-scale evacuations if conditions deteriorate.
Several European and Asian governments have
issued “Shelter in Place” orders, advising their citizens to stay
indoors and avoid land travel to neighbouring countries like Oman unless
specifically instructed.
Reports indicate missile and drone
strikes have caused damage at Abu Dhabi, Dubai, and Kuwait airports,
complicating exit routes.
While some limited flights resumed on
March 2nd via carriers like Emirates and Etihad, the vast majority of foreign
nationals remain unable to leave.’
AI – ‘Multiple U.S. embassies in the Middle East have explicitly stated they are not in a position to evacuate or directly assist American citizens departing their host countries as of early March 2026. This follows escalating regional conflict and the closure of several diplomatic posts.
Business Insider +1Key details from recent official alerts include:
Israel (Jerusalem & Tel Aviv): The U.S. Embassy in Jerusalem stated on March 2, 2026, that it is “not in a position at this time to evacuate or directly assist Americans in departing Israel”. Citizens were instead directed to register for private shuttles to the Egyptian border operated by the Israeli Ministry of Tourism, though the embassy warned it cannot guarantee safety for those using them.
Lebanon (Beirut): The U.S. Embassy in Beirut issued a Level 4 “Do Not Travel” advisory and warned that American citizens “should not rely on the U.S. government for assisted departure or evacuation”. All consular services, both routine and emergency, have been suspended as the embassy footprint was reduced to essential personnel only.
Qatar (Doha): The U.S. Embassy in Doha confirmed on March 2 that it is not evacuating or directly assisting Americans departing the country at this time, as local airspace remains closed.
Kuwait & UAE: Both the U.S. Embassy in Kuwait and the U.S. Mission to the UAE have ordered the departure of non-emergency government personnel and advised private citizens to have departure plans that do not depend on U.S. government help. U.S. Embassy Jerusalem (.gov) +8
Why are evacuations not being provided?
Closed Airspace: Major airports, including Ben Gurion in Israel and Hamad International in Qatar, have suspended civilian flights, making commercial or government-assisted air travel impossible.
Active Hostilities: Ongoing missile and drone strikes have created significant safety risks that prevent the U.S. government from guaranteeing the safety of departing citizens.
Embassy Closures: Several embassies have shut down or evacuated their own staff following direct attacks, such as the drone strike on the U.S. Embassy in Riyadh.
American citizens currently in these regions are advised by the U.S. Department of State to shelter in place, maintain a personal safety plan, and monitor local media.’
AI – ‘In many ancient architectural traditions, particularly in Mesoamerica and Ancient Egypt, the inverted step pyramid is viewed as a foundational component of a cosmogram.
What is a Cosmogram?
A cosmogram is a geometric diagram or architectural model that represents the order of the universe. It serves as a “map” of the cosmos, often linking the celestial (heavens), the terrestrial (earth), and the underworld.
The Inverted Pyramid as a Foundational Component – The use of the inverted step pyramid within this framework usually signifies a specific dualistic understanding of reality:
The Above and Below: While a standard step pyramid (like the Pyramid of Djoser or a Mayan Ziggurat) reaches toward the sky to represent the celestial realms, the inverted pyramid represents the “mirror image” or the underworld/subterranean realm.
The Convergence Point: In a cosmogram, the point where the upright pyramid and the inverted pyramid meet is often the “Center of the World” (Axis Mundi). This is where the human experience resides, balanced between the physical and spiritual worlds.
Mathematical Encoding: Proponents of this theory argue that these shapes encode specific ratios (like or ) and precessional numbers that demonstrate an advanced ancient understanding of the Earth’s dimensions and its place in the solar system.
Key Examples in Architecture
Culture
Application in the Cosmogram
Mayan/Aztec
Temples were often built over cenotes (natural sinkholes) or artificial caves, creating a “reflected” spiritual pyramid beneath the stone structure.
Ancient Egyptian
The pyramid was seen as the Benben stone (the mound of creation). Some theories suggest the foundation and the internal chambers represent the “inverted” journey into the Duat (underworld).
Indus Valley
Step-wells (Baoris) are literal inverted step pyramids, often interpreted as shrines to the water/underworld element of the cosmos.
Why this matters – In the context of the “Cosmogram” theory, the inverted pyramid isn’t just a design choice; it is a symbolic tool used to teach that the universe is symmetrical and that every physical action has a spiritual counterpart.
According to Matthew LaCroix, this symbol specifically signifies:
Layered Realities: It represents the non-physical underworld or foundational spiritual realm.
The Blueprint of Reality: Along with traditional step pyramids and T-shapes, it forms a vertical “map” showing how the physical world emerges from the non-physical below, moving substance and energy upward through layers.
A “Global Code”: LaCroix identifies these inverted forms in disparate locations, such as the Sphinx Temple in Egypt, Tiwanaku and Puma Punku in Bolivia, and sites in Turkey, arguing they are proof of a singular, lost global civilisation.
Instructional Technology: He views these as “technologies of understanding” designed to survive catastrophes and preserve teachings about human divinity and cosmic cycles. …
At Persepolis, stepped battlements (merlons) and recessed door frames create a “stepped” visual effect, which researchers like Matthew LaCroix interpret as the “inverted pyramid” symbol. …
While LaCroix identifies these architectural features as “inverted pyramids,” mainstream scholars generally classify such carvings at Persepolis as decorative or functional motifs.’
AI – ‘In ancient art and architecture, “aesthetic truth” refers to the belief that beauty is not merely a sensory pleasure but an objective reflection of a deeper, universal reality. This concept was often expressed through two primary theories:
1. Mathematical and Cosmic Order (Symmetria)
Ancient thinkers, particularly in Greece and
Egypt, believed that truth was found in the mathematical order of
the universe.
Proportion and Harmony: Beauty was defined as summetria—the appropriate proportionality of parts to each other and to the whole.
Architecture: Buildings like the Parthenon used precise mathematical ratios and the Golden Ratio (approx. 1:1.618) to embody this cosmic harmony.
Sculpture: The sculptor Polycleitus developed the “Canon,” a treatise on the exact proportions required to create an idealised human form that reflected “truthful” beauty.
2. Representation of
Divine and Ideal Forms (Mimesis)
Aesthetic truth also concerned how accurately
art represented the “ideal” or the divine.
Plato’s Forms: Plato argued that physical beauty is a mere reflection of the higher, eternal Form of Beauty. True art, in his view, should strive to lead the soul toward these intellectual realities.
Egyptian Ma’at: In Ancient Egypt, aesthetic principles like perfect symmetry were not stylistic choices but a way to manifest Ma’at—the goddess of truth, balance, and cosmic order.
Aztec Teōtl: Similarly, Aztec aesthetics valued art that truthfully revealed teōtl, an all-encompassing divine force.
Comparison of
Philosophical Views
Philosopher
View on Aesthetic Truth
Plato
Art is often “twice removed” from truth because it copies physical objects, which are themselves copies of the ideal Forms.
Aristotle
Art reveals universal truths by showing what “might happen” based on probability and necessity, rather than just historical particulars.
Plotinus
Art is a “truer” beauty than nature when the artist’s intellect imposes a divine form onto raw matter. ‘
AI – ‘Aesthetic truths in ancient art and architecture are primarily
gleaned by identifying objective principles such as
mathematical proportion, harmony, and functional excellence, which were
believed to mirror a universal order. While “aesthetics” as a formal
discipline is a modern 18th-century invention, ancient cultures embedded these
“truths” into their creative practices through specific philosophical
and technical methods.
1. Mathematical
Proportion and Symmetry (Symmetria)
Ancient Greeks and
Romans believed beauty was an objective property derived from numerical
ratios.
The Pythagorean
Influence:
Pythagoreans posited that the same mathematical intervals found in music
(thirds, fifths, octaves) governed the beauty of physical objects and the
universe itself.
Architectural Precision: Temples like the Parthenon used strict ratios to achieve a sense of “awe”. To ensure these “truths” were visible to the human eye, architects used optical refinements like entasis (a slight bulge in columns) to correct visual illusions and make the structure appear perfectly straight.
The Canon of Sculpture: Sculptors like Polyclitus wrote treatises (such as the Canon) defining exact proportions—like the head being one-eighth of the total body height—to capture “ideal” beauty rather than mere realism.
2. Mimesis and
Representational Truth
Aesthetic truth was
also found in mimesis, or imitation, though its value was debated:
Plato’s Critique: He argued that art was “thrice removed” from reality—an imitation of a physical object, which itself is an imitation of an eternal “Form”.
Aristotle’s Defense: He believed art could reveal universal truths by depicting what could happen (probability/necessity) rather than just what did happen (history).
3. Functional Beauty and To Kalon
The Greek term to kalon bridges the gap between the “beautiful” and the “good”. Functionalism: For many ancient thinkers, an object reached its highest aesthetic truth when it excelled at its purpose. A shield was “beautiful” if it defended well; a person was “beautiful” if they acted with moral virtue.
Unity of Ethics and Aesthetics: Beauty was rarely seen as separate from morality or education. Art was expected to shape a citizen’s character and lead them toward higher intellectual realities. 4. Psychological Truth (Catharsis and the Sublime)
Aesthetic truths were
also gleaned through the emotional and transformative power of
art:
Catharsis: Aristotle viewed tragedy as a means of “purification,” where viewers experienced pity and fear in a structured way to achieve emotional balance.
The Sublime: Later ancient thinkers identified “sublimity” as a truth that “takes the reader out of himself,” using elevated language or monumental scale to flash like lightning and reveal the power of a subject in a single moment.’
