- Joined
- Jun 2, 2006
- Messages
- 3,216
- Reaction score
- 1,021
- Location
- Houston, TX
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
Neither are Christians, Buddhists, Zorastrians, or atheists, so your point is irrelevant.Yes, I know Jews do not worship in Mecca. In fact they aren't allowed near the place.
Had the Jews applied the same policies in Jerusalem we wouldn't even be having this conversation.
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?
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?
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
Except Christians have destroyed more religious and culutural symbols than all the other religions combined.
Jews don't worship in Mecca nor is there anything of value to them there.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I can understand that Temple Mount is important to Jews as well. But it is also important to Muslims and Islam.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
"we"? I'm christian too and I don't believe a single word of this.
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.
like during the ethnic cleansing of muslims in Serbia in the 90's?
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
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?
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?