Jerusalem must be divided

[Degreez]

Yes, I know Jews do not worship in Mecca. In fact they aren't allowed near the place.

Neither are Christians, Buddhists, Zorastrians, or atheists, so your point is irrelevant.

Had the Jews applied the same policies in Jerusalem we wouldn't even be having this conversation.

What policies are these? From what time frame?

 

[Grant]

Neither are Christians, Buddhists, Zorastrians, or atheists, so your point is irrelevant.

Neither are agnostics or any number of religions. What is your point? Making lists?

What policies are these? From what time frame?

Read the post and think before responding, ok?

 

[Demon of Light]

I often wonder if it ever dawns on people prattling on with their demands as to the dispensation of Jerusalem that the very name they are using for the city is a Hebrew word?

It is not a Hebrew word, it is an Anglicized version of Yerushalayim and that is the Hebrew word. Also, the origin of the name goes back further than Hebrew as the Egyptians knew it as Rusalimum 4,000 years ago. So in fact Yerushalayim is probably just a Hebrew adaptation of the older Canaanite/Egyptian name for the city.

 

[CJ 2.0]

No one is going to put Muslims in probation when it comes to our own holy sites. You may as well get that thought of out of your head.

And secondly it was Extremists who did that. It was also Muslims who has preserved many historical sites of all religions in the ME. Many old Churches are still in tact and open even in countries like Syria and Iran and many Muslim countries condemned that act. I thought it was disgusting, I couldn't believe it but I expected no less from Al Qaeda and those like them

Actually, it isn't strictly extremists, or really extremists at all. The complete lack of respect in connection with the waqf's excavations under the temple mount, the destruction of Jewish holy sites in the west bank, the treatment of Jewish holy sites and cemetaries by Jordan during its occupation of Jerusalem, the treatment of Jewiosh religious places in the Muslim world generally, and on and on.

The perception of the outside world, which I believe is largely accurate, is that the Muslim political/religious movement as a whole institutionally affords very little respect to non-believers and their religious symbols/institutions, unless the muslim movement can co-opt the religious site to provide a greater claim of validity for its own religion. The entire thrust of muslim political theology is the rejection and subordination of other people's belief systems, and this destruction and disrespect for their religious symbols and intitutions is simply a manifestation of this core Muslim principle.

It is a laughable proposition to say that Muslims would treat minority holy sites, particularly Jewish holy sites, with anything approaching the same level of respect as jews treat muslim sites or christians treat muslim sites. You may believe it, but it is a completely irrational belief tyhat is not even remotely supportable in real life.

And remember, we Jews have treid the "trust us" approach before, and it hasn't worked out so well. And you may think that's irrelevant, or that it is not you or your people who did that, or whatever, but that's irrelevant. This is only to communicate our starting point. Saying for us to provide trust where there has been zero reason provided to actually give that trust, coupled with the fact that even well deserved trust has turned out very, very badly, means that unless you understand where we are coming from you will never really understand how to reach any sort of settlment.

Take from this what you wish.

 

[CJ 2.0]

Except Christians have destroyed more religious and culutural symbols than all the other religions combined.

While christians have obviously destroyed lots and lots of religious symbols, I don't think you can make this sort of asserttion, which is debatable, without any support.

I also think restricting your review period to, say, the purposeful destruction of religious symbols over the past 50 years, there would be no contest.

And the Christians would not be the winners.

 

[CJ 2.0]

Jews don't worship in Mecca nor is there anything of value to them there.

which was true of Jerusalem until the local warlord decided to graft the story of Mohammed onto a city conveniently within his territorial control. There had never been a muslim in Jerusalem until it was conquored well after mohammed's death.

Jerusalem, and particularly the temple mount, is and has always been central to the Jewish religion.

Again, whether you care or not, and whether you think any of this maters or not I leave up to you.

But if you refuse to get this point, you will never understand where the other side is coming from.

Jerusalem is the core of Jewish identity, and the core of the Jewish State of Israel. You will need to come to terms with this to allow for this core to be accomodated, or there will never be peace. And Don is right. Coming to terms with this does not eman you have to accept the Jews getting everything and the Palestinians nothing. it means that you will need to accept that Jewish aspirations in Jerusalem must be accomodated, and you must then try (along with those on the other side) to satisfy both Jewish and Palestinian aspirations there.

 

[bub]

While christians have obviously destroyed lots and lots of religious symbols, I don't think you can make this sort of asserttion, which is debatable, without any support.

I also think restricting your review period to, say, the purposeful destruction of religious symbols over the past 50 years, there would be no contest.

And the Christians would not be the winners.

Make it 70 and I can name you one attempt of destruction of a religion, and it's worse than the destruction of a big statue.

 

[Laila]

It is a laughable proposition to say that Muslims would treat minority holy sites, particularly Jewish holy sites, with anything approaching the same level of respect as jews treat muslim sites or christians treat muslim sites. You may believe it, but it is a completely irrational belief tyhat is not even remotely supportable in real life.

I don't want Muslims controlling the wall. Muslims do not worship it or view it as holy so Jews can keep hold of that. The Mosque is however important to Muslims and should be under our control, I think the only reason Muslims sites haven't been destroyed is because no one could get away with it.

Israel did a bang up job in protecting Muslim sites when less than 2 years of it under their "control" a fire was set alight and Al Asqa suffered damages, many priceless artefacts was destroyed.

 

[Laila]

which was true of Jerusalem until the local warlord decided to graft the story of Mohammed onto a city conveniently within his territorial control. There had never been a muslim in Jerusalem until it was conquored well after mohammed's death.

Jerusalem was the first qibla where Muslims prayed to originally. It was going to be our holy site, I suppose people should be thankful that Prophet Mohammed later on chose Mecca as the direction of prayer. Later our Prophets hadiths he clarified it. There are only three mosques to which you should embark on a journey: the sacred mosque (Mecca), this mosque of mine (Medina), and the mosque of Al-Aqsa.

Jerusalem, and particularly the temple mount, is and has always been central to the Jewish religion. Again, whether you care or not, and whether you think any of this maters or not I leave up to you. But if you refuse to get this point, you will never understand where the other side is coming from.

I can understand that Temple Mount is important to Jews as well. But it is also important to Muslims and Islam.

Jerusalem is the core of Jewish identity, and the core of the Jewish State of Israel. You will need to come to terms with this to allow for this core to be accomodated, or there will never be peace. And Don is right. Coming to terms with this does not eman you have to accept the Jews getting everything and the Palestinians nothing. it means that you will need to accept that Jewish aspirations in Jerusalem must be accomodated, and you must then try (along with those on the other side) to satisfy both Jewish and Palestinian aspirations there.

What aspirations are these? It must be fair.
A united Jerusalem cannot be the Capital of Israel in any future peace settlement. What about the Palestinians and their wish for East Jerusalem?

 

[digsbe]

Why shouldn't the Palestinians have East Jerusalem as their capital? The city was meant to be administered internationally, under no country's sovereignty. Legally, all of Jerusalem is occupied by Israel.

United Nations Security Council Resolution 476 - Wikisource
3. Reconfirms that all legislative and administrative measures and actions taken by Israel, the occupying Power, which purport to alter the character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem have no legal validity and constitute a flagrant violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War and also constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East;

United Nations Security Council Resolution 476 - Wikisource
3. Determines that all legislative and administrative measures and actions taken by Israel, the occupying Power, which have altered or purport to alter the character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem, and in particular the recent "basic law" on Jerusalem, are null and void and must be rescinded forthwith;

And yet Israel continues to alter the status of the territories it occupies.

Splitting up Jerusalem would be chaos. It's best to give it all to Israel. Jerusalem is the holiest city in Judaism. Much of their holy sites are under Islamic control. Historically Jerusalem is Israel's capitol. It should remain completely and solely under Israeli control and not divided. I must disagree with the UN if they feel that it should be partitioned and divided.

 

[CJ 2.0]

Make it 70 and I can name you one attempt of destruction of a religion, and it's worse than the destruction of a big statue.

you can pretend that was the effort of a religion all you like, but aggresive efforts by one religious group to dominate and destory others appears pretty much to be restricted to islam nowadays. Just like 70 years ago.

 

[CJ 2.0]

I don't want Muslims controlling the wall. Muslims do not worship it or view it as holy so Jews can keep hold of that. The Mosque is however important to Muslims and should be under our control, I think the only reason Muslims sites haven't been destroyed is because no one could get away with it.

and what about below the mosque?

Israel did a bang up job in protecting Muslim sites when less than 2 years of it under their "control" a fire was set alight and Al Asqa suffered damages, many priceless artefacts was destroyed.

Israel does a far betetr job of securing Muslim holy sites than, say, the Iraqi government does, but that doesn't stop people from trying to blow those sites up (with great success).

The core difference is intitutional. it is Arab government and Muslim INSTITUTIONS that work to destroy other people's holy sites, not just terrorists. Which is why what Jordan and the Waqf did in jeruslaem is incomparably worse to what a terrorist does when he blows up a holy site (e.g., the sunni terrorist vblowing up of numrous shia sites in Iraq).

Because at its core, islam does not respect others. Or really its people, when yiou think about "submission" as the core of the religion rather than free will or compasion or law or enlightenment or anything else. Just blind, total submission.

 

[MKULTRABOY]

doh: martial law.... bad joke. (edit)

 

[CJ 2.0]

Jerusalem was the first qibla where Muslims prayed to originally.

of course it weas. because Mohammed was still in the process iof inventing his religion and the best way to do that was, as others have before and since, latch onto the religious beliefs of the targets of that religion in order to try to leech authenticity from the target's existing faith. Of course, when he didn't get the reaction of the Jews to his prosthyltizing that he wanted, the emphasis shifted away from appropriating Jewish history and practice to others' practice.

But that doesn't really change anything.

It was going to be our holy site,

because you wanted to seize it by force? I'm sorry, but any religion with a starting date so far into recorded history doesn't seem to have much of a claim to anything. Particularly the place that had been holy to another religion for thousands of years (Christianity was at least a derivative religion, which formed as a sect within Judaism before breaking off; Islam was simply an engineered tool of control).

I suppose people should be thankful that Prophet Mohammed later on chose Mecca as the direction of prayer. Later our Prophets hadiths he clarified it. There are only three mosques to which you should embark on a journey: the sacred mosque (Mecca), this mosque of mine (Medina), and the mosque of Al-Aqsa.

excact quote? When was it written? Who wrote it? Why did al-aqsa get institutionalized as important?

You may not care about these things, but those who had a far pre-dating claim do. Which I know has never been a concern for Islamic imperial expansionism, but not everyone actually wanted (or wants) that to succeed.

I can understand that Temple Mount is important to Jews as well. But it is also important to Muslims and Islam.

Sorry, so I'm not sure what we are arguing about. I will leave what I wrote above because it is, I think, correct and useful to put on the table, but I do agree with you.

It is important to Muslims, and certainly their needs should be accomodated.

But I still think that Islamic holy sites would be better protected under Jewish control than vice versa. All of history, from the creation of Islam until today supports that proposition, whereas the current political climate within both Islam generally and the PA in particular would make betting on the opposite proposition sort of ... crazy.

What aspirations are these? It must be fair.

I agree. But discourse around this has really coloured what "fair" means when spoken by Palestinian supporters. because to them "fair" is often code for "victory", just like "international olaw" "justice" and other western words that have been gerrymandered to support the same old destructionist maximalist agenda.

Fair is what has been proposed. Communities that are Jewish or that are essential to secure Jewish people from attack should remain Israeli. So should , at a minimum, the Jewish quarter of the old city. The current status on the temple mount is also pretty damned fair, with Israeli political control but Muslim administrative control (which seems to extend to the complete wanton destruction of antiquities under the mount), but efforts at shared sovereignty (which likely would fail) could also be considered.

A united Jerusalem cannot be the Capital of Israel in any future peace settlement. What about the Palestinians and their wish for East Jerusalem?

They should get the East Jeruslam in which they live.

Seems fair.

 

[Grant]

I don't want Muslims controlling the wall. Muslims do not worship it or view it as holy so Jews can keep hold of that. The Mosque is however important to Muslims and should be under our control, I think the only reason Muslims sites haven't been destroyed is because no one could get away with it.

No matter how you try to dress yourself up, Laila, those religious emotions always rise to the surface. Claiming "Muslims sites haven't been destroyed is because no one could get away with it" is typical Muslim paranoia, a mindset belonging to third world thinking and one which totally ignores all attempts by people of the first world to preserve and protect ancient relics, no matter where and what the source.

CJ 2.0 is quite right in his posts re Muslims disregard for the religious rights of others. While some might have been "extremists" as you claim, you also aren't above advocating war and issuing threats yourself, and I recall also your feeling and attitudes about Catholics.

 

[Laila]

No matter how you try to dress yourself up, Laila, those religious emotions always rise to the surface. Claiming "Muslims sites haven't been destroyed is because no one could get away with it" is typical Muslim paranoia, a mindset belonging to third world thinking and one which totally ignores all attempts by people of the first world to preserve and protect ancient relics, no matter where and what the source.

CJ 2.0 is quite right in his posts re Muslims disregard for the religious rights of others. While some might have been "extremists" as you claim, you also aren't above advocating war and issuing threats yourself, and I recall also your feeling and attitudes about Catholics.

No, I said I think.
I didn't say it will happen.

Muslims have a Mosque on a site which is important to all three branches.
Some Christians want the Mosque destroyed so Jews can build their Temple which apparently will beckon Jesus return quicker. In Judaism, the Mosque would need to be destroyed for the rebuilding so they can fulfil their religious obligations.

The one time there was a fire in Al Asqa it happened because a Christian wished to destroy the Mosque so Jesus could return and in doing so destroyed priceless artefacts. You are so right, I am just making all this stuff up and it is in my head.

Holy ****, what threats against Catholics have I issued??

 

[bub]

you can pretend that was the effort of a religion all you like, but aggresive efforts by one religious group to dominate and destory others appears pretty much to be restricted to islam nowadays. Just like 70 years ago.

like during the ethnic cleansing of muslims in Serbia in the 90's?

 

[digsbe]

To clarify. Christians don't want Al Aqsa to be destroyed. We believe through Biblical prophecy that the Jewish Temple will be rebuilt during the end times and recognize that for this to happen, Al Aqsa must be destroyed. It's not something we advocate, we just believe through Biblical prophecy that it is inevitable.

 

[bub]

Splitting up Jerusalem would be chaos. It's best to give it all to Israel. Jerusalem is the holiest city in Judaism. Much of their holy sites are under Islamic control. Historically Jerusalem is Israel's capitol. It should remain completely and solely under Israeli control and not divided. I must disagree with the UN if they feel that it should be partitioned and divided.

why would there be "chaos"? Why would a city that has historically be Jewish AND Muslim AND Christian be placed under Israeli sovereignty only? Would it be OK for Boudhists to occupy and annex Nashville if it was a boudhist holy site?

 

[bub]

To clarify. Christians don't want Al Aqsa to be destroyed. We believe through Biblical prophecy that the Jewish Temple will be rebuilt during the end times and recognize that for this to happen, Al Aqsa must be destroyed. It's not something we advocate, we just believe through Biblical prophecy that it is inevitable.

"we"? I'm christian too and I don't believe a single word of this.

 

[digsbe]

why would there be "chaos"? Why would a city that has historically be Jewish AND Muslim AND Christian be placed under Israeli sovereignty only? Would it be OK for Boudhists to occupy and annex Nashville if it was a boudhist holy site?

There is chaos now with Muslims control of Holy sites and with Jewish control of the city. Jerusalem has more important to Jews and is historically connected to Israel. There would be chaos and I don't believe the Palestinians will settle for a division, especially Hamas. I am not advocating Jewish control of all holy sites. What I said is that there should be fair control as Jews and Muslims both share similar sites. As it is now only Muslims have true freedom and rights to these sites and this is wrong.

"we"? I'm christian too and I don't believe a single word of this.

We could debate theology, but this isn't the thread for that. I recommend you read the Book of Revelations.

 

[Laila]

What I said is that there should be fair control as Jews and Muslims both share similar sites. As it is now only Muslims have true freedom and rights to these sites and this is wrong.

No one is disagreeing. I think Jews have as much right to visit as Muslims and Christians.
It is only the ongoing political issues which doesn't .... help matters. Look what happened when Ariel Sharon visited Haram al-Sharif :shrug:

It is not only Jews and Christians who are limited. So are Muslims, many times Israel prevents them from visiting as well not to mention Muslims worldwide are banned from going to Israel to visit Jerusalem

 

[CJ 2.0]

like during the ethnic cleansing of muslims in Serbia in the 90's?

or the ethnic clensing of christians from kosovo?

I am not saying we can't point to examples. But, to be frank, Islam is at its core an unreformed, tribal, aggresive ideology. There is absolutely no reason for anyone to trust the PA (or Hamas, once they take over) with any of their holy sites, let alone the security of their persons.

you can stretch to identify areas where you can obfuscate or divert attention from the core issue, but I don't see why you feel you need to (internalized political correctness?). Anyone who thinks that the Palestinian leadership would do a good job at protecting Jewish religious sites, or that Islam generally is as open and tolerant, on the whole, as other major world religions or Judaism (I don't include judaism as a major religion as there are, what, fewer than 20 million adherents), is, to speak figuratively, smoking crack.

 

[CJ 2.0]

It is only the ongoing political issues which doesn't .... help matters. Look what happened when Ariel Sharon visited Haram al-Sharif :shrug:

You mean the pre-planned effort by the PA to use that as a justification for laucnhing a pre-planned terrorist war targeting Israel's civilian population, which took days of follow up incitement by the PA, including the pallywood mohhamed al-dura incident, to put into practice?

And look what happened when Netanyahu opened a tunnel that wasn't even remotely connected to the temple mount and could not have had any impact on the temple mount, right? Due to exactly the same incitement and an effort to mobilize violence for political purposes, the PA caused riots which killed, what, a hundred people?

At some point the Palestinians, and their supproters, will need to stop blaming others for every bad thing that happens. the start of the Oslo war was not spontaneous and was not triggered by the Sharon visit. That was a pre-text to implement a pre-planned strategy by the PA leadership.

It is not only Jews and Christians who are limited. So are Muslims, many times Israel prevents them from visiting as well not to mention Muslims worldwide are banned from going to Israel to visit Jerusalem

yes, because of threats of violence, which are often borne out. There is a MAJOR difference.

See, unlike pretty much everyone in the Muslim world, the Jews have this pesky trait of not being indifferent (let alone joyful) at the murder of other Jews by Islamic fanatics or PA suicide-murder automatons. And so they do wholly unreasonable things like trying to actually prevent other Jews from being murdered.

I get that this "causes" grievances, but c'est la vie.

Oh, and the last bit is not true. Muslims worldwide are not banned from visiting Jerusalem. That would be people with passports from enemy states formally at war with Israel, as well as anyone else who follows the recommendation of various "leaderships" that tell them visiting Jerusalem is aiding the enemy.

oh, and those who want to blow things up.

 

[Laila]

And look what happened when Netanyahu opened a tunnel that wasn't even remotely connected to the temple mount and could not have had any impact on the temple mount, right? Due to exactly the same incitement and an effort to mobilize violence for political purposes, the PA caused riots which killed, what, a hundred people?

Well, one side of the argument is that the visit did contribute in raising tensions :shrug:
What tunnel?

yes, because of threats of violence, which are often borne out. There is a MAJOR difference.

See, unlike pretty much everyone in the Muslim world, the Jews have this pesky trait of not being indifferent (let alone joyful) at the murder of other Jews by Islamic fanatics or PA suicide-murder automatons. And so they do wholly unreasonable things like trying to actually prevent other Jews from being murdered.

I get that this "causes" grievances, but c'est la vie.

....
I have no idea what you are talking about here, it seems you have just gone off on one. The ban imposed is done largely by the Muslim Governments who refuse to allow flights/access for Muslims to go to Israel.