• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Jews have no right to Western Wall, PA 'study' says

Well, I do not think Israel would destroy any Muslim relic knowingly, but I think some Muslims do have that concern. After all, rebuilding the Temple is certainly a common desire of many Jews.

Muslims have concerns that others will act as they do, but they will need to get over that. As to the "common desire of many Jews", can you point me to a poll or someting. Cause I had always understood that was a radical lunatic fringe of the lunatic fringe, as that certainly is not even remotely an objective of secular jews, reform jews, conservative jews, modern orthodox jews, or hassidic jews (for the last group it is about not doing anything that the "messiah" should do, while for the others this is not even in the realm of consciousness for religious, political or life objectives).

Point me to a poll or something and I'd be happy to take a look, but I suspect you are getting your info from the Arab propaganda/demonization machine, which doesn't do you or anyone else any favours.
 
agree with everything in this article

Israel to PA: Reject

It is amazing how often the Palestinians make moderate jews feel like throwing up their hands, telling the Palestinians to **** off, and walking away.

Combine this sort of **** with the kinds of terrorism that the Palestinians have revelled in, and honestly it becomes very difficult to care less what happens to them.
 
Point me to a poll or something and I'd be happy to take a look, but I suspect you are getting your info from the Arab propaganda/demonization machine, which doesn't do you or anyone else any favours.

Half the Public Wants to See Holy Temple Rebuilt - Jewish World - Israel News - Israel National News

Honestly, it only makes sense. Why mourn the loss of the Second Temple if you do not care about whether there is one? Also the fact many Jews are not particularly religious does not mean they have no interest in seeing the Temple rebuilt. I imagine for many it would be a symbol of national pride as much as anything else.
 
Actually, you've missed it again. Jerusalem was at the core of the biblical narrative, the localtion of the original covenant between Abraham and god, the centre of the Jewish political and religious universe, and the centre of Jewish identity during thousands of years of exile.

Jerusalem is Jerusalem because of the Jews and their connection to the place, not because it was some minor canaanite encampment. Were it not for the jews and their connection to Jerusalem, the Christians (who of course started out as a branch of Jews) would have had no interest in it, and the Muslims, who wern't to show up for thousands of years, would never have even heard of it until they conquored it.
So then do you admit your original contention was horribly flawed? You know, this asinine post:
http://www.debatepolitics.com/middl...tern-wall-pa-study-says-4.html#post1059117436

Jerusalem became a part of Jewish culture when it was conquered. That is a statement of history.
Don't suppose you want to discuss anything esle of substance I raised about, say, access to Mecca for various moon-god worshippers that also would like access to the space rock? My understanding was that this relic was stolen from them, after all.
You want to talk substance, then go and purport one of the oldest myths about Islam. Are you just some Robert Morey wanna-be? There's a conspiracy section somewhere else on this, so post your unsubstantiated myths over there.
Or maybe allowing the zoroastrians to be free to undertake their religious activities in the cradle of their civilization, which flourished a thousand years before Mohammed began his genocidal imperial expansion and continued to do pretty well until Muslims amde an effort to exterminate their religion?
It's obvious now you have some hatred for Islam. What exactly does this have to do with the Western Wall/Jerusalem? And Zoroastrinism started off in Persia.
What about returning constantinople to the eastern orthodox christians for whom it was the heart of their civilization for over a thousand years, or at least declaring ti an "open city" under "international sovereingty"? Constantinople, founded by Constantine in the 300s, was the key centre of Christian life and thought for hundreds of years before, and hundreds of years after, Mohammed's imperial expansion. The key site there, the Hague Sophia, was converted into a mosque and my understanding is that Christians are not allowed to pray there. Maybe give it back?
LOL. First off, Constantinople was founded well before 300 AD. You are off by just a tiny 1,000 years. :roll: And before it become part of Christianity, it was part of the Athenian Empire. Before it became part of Christianity, it was part of the Persian Empire. Your understanding of the Hagia Sophia is just like your understanding of Middle Eastern history, flat out wrong. The Hagia Sophia hasn't been used as mosque for well over 50 years. It's been a museum since the 1930's, and no one is allowed to pray inside (except maybe the people who work there). Of course, none of this information will stop you from spewing ignorant comments that only show your narrow, limited view of history.
 
Half the Public Wants to See Holy Temple Rebuilt - Jewish World - Israel News - Israel National News

Honestly, it only makes sense. Why mourn the loss of the Second Temple if you do not care about whether there is one? Also the fact many Jews are not particularly religious does not mean they have no interest in seeing the Temple rebuilt. I imagine for many it would be a symbol of national pride as much as anything else.

But the question needed to be asked is not would you like to see the temple rebuilt, of course half the public will say yes being the half of the religious and traditional Jews who believe in god. The question needed to be asked is "Do you support the destruction of the mosque on temple mount in order to build the temple" I doubt if you'd get more than 25% yes on that question. You can see that a suggestive question got 27% support, a direct one would have gotten much less support.

Even I as a secular Jew would love to see not the temple rebuilt but excovation to find the remains of the old one, but to destroy the mosque in order to do so? are you nuts?
 
There is no need because even Israel recognizes Muslim ownership of the Temple Mount.

Lol was that deliberate? If I did not know better I would think you were baiting with that comment. Israel of course has delegated the day to day control of access to the Temple Mount to Muslims. It never conferred legal ownership. There's a huge difference as you are well aware.
 
Half the Public Wants to See Holy Temple Rebuilt - Jewish World - Israel News - Israel National News

Honestly, it only makes sense. Why mourn the loss of the Second Temple if you do not care about whether there is one? Also the fact many Jews are not particularly religious does not mean they have no interest in seeing the Temple rebuilt. I imagine for many it would be a symbol of national pride as much as anything else.

from your article:

Should the State of Israel take active steps towards the reconstruction? Forty-eight percent said no, while 27% said yes.


so huge opposition to actually doing something about it. When you ask this sort of question the day before the holiday where the destruction is commemorated and ask an abtract question (like do you ever think this will be rebuilt" or "would you like to see it rebuilt" then of course you are going to get a decent number. But the fact that there is such strong opposition to actually doing something about it shows how marginal that view is and that, even for people who said yes they'd like to see it, that the preference is very marginal within their belief and value system.
 
Oh enough with the arrogance. Jews have control over the area now.
Who knows what will happen in the next 100 years. Muslims have had control over Jerusalem 10x that length and when Christians took Jerusalem from Muslims, it was a while but eventually Muslims took it back.

If you really want to play that game, that is fine but the fact is Jews are what? 50 million? Muslims are 1.2 billion and growing. There are 48 Muslim majority countries in the world. :shrug:

Edit: LOL @ my 50 million Jews estimate which was wayyy off the mark. There are only basically 13 million. Wtf, why aren't they having more children ... o_O


Lol no because idiots like me fall in love with people like you and it screws things up.

On a more serious note, I would contend all three religions have equal rights to Old Jerusalem. In my version of Judaism I was not taught any one's religion has superior rights to Old Jerusalem or any of the sites. As a Zionist I was taught the same thing, i.e., that holy sites are equally as important to all 3 religions and the views I now express are those once stated by Moishe Dayan and Rabin and are typical of the Labour Zionist approach to the issue (Kadima is all over the place these days) which I admit is my bias view of how I see the situation. I support a bit of Kadima and a bit of Labour on this but I also don't think Netanyahu for a second is the rigid extremist many think he is either. I think much of what he says is designed to keep the right wingers in his coalition calm. I think what actually is said once the cameras are off and people are more candid is a lot more flexible than what either Natanyahu or Abbas would dare state in public for fear of alienating extremists in both their populations.

I repeat again, Mmost Israelis are not orthodox religious. So their concerns about Jerusalem are more pragmatic. Finding a way to assure tourists have access to all the sites makes pure economic sense. The real concern for Israel is not religious access or tolerancem its preventing terrorism and attacks against Israelis. It would welcome anything to increase tourism. Its the attack on its people it is concerned about.

It should also be ntoed again that many ultra religious Jews who getupset about certain religious sites are not even Zionists or recognize the State of Israel and as far as I am concerned, and I say it very bluntly, they are a bloody pain in the ass as are all religious fundamentalists of all 3 religions. They spit at Israeli soldiers and I have had to come to the rescue of Jwish women with unprotected arms or stupid tourists and have them spit at me and throw rocks at me. I am a moderate man but people with beards of all three faiths equally get on my nerves so excuse that bias in my response. I mean no disrespect but I think many Israelis agree with me they find all the religious extremism a pain.

Again the fact that the State of Israel had no problem ceding day to day management of the Mount reflects its pragmatic approach and was typical of the views of Moishe Dayan and the Labour Zionists when they won the war in 1967 and reflected the popular Zionist sentiment of the day-Zionism taught its people to respect Islam and Christianity not crush its followers rights to pray as they saw fit.

Yes there area few religious parties in the Knesset that do have some influence on Netanyahu's shaking coalition and could dismantle it if he doesn't tow a hard line on certain issues dealing with religion but the exact same can be said of Abbas. for the most part, Israelis when surveyed time and time again have indicated if they thought a genuine permanent peace was achievable and it meant no more terrorism, they would be willing to discuss seperation of Jerusalem or sharing of the Old City.

The friction continues with the concern that Mr. Abbas does not reflect the majority of Palestinians any more. Many feel Hamas would win a majority vote if a genuine election was held on the West Bank and I am one who believes that is a distinct possibility as is Hamas assassinating Abbas at an opportune time.

The reality is the average Palestinian wants freedom of movement to travel in and out of East Jerusalem and all over the West Bank and access to work within Israeli proper and that can not happen as long as Hamas, Intifadah, Faah Hawks, Hezbollah and other such cells remain in tact and dedicated to attacking and dismantling Israel.

We can talk until doomsday about dividing the city and entering into peace agreements but right now Israel negotiates with one man, Abbas, who hangs on to power by a thread and represents a very small minority cell in his own authority and has no popular support from his own people or the largest group in the PA, Fatah Hawks who are militant, believe in terrorism and would think nothing of killing him. The only reason fatah Hawks have not killed him is because they are a bitter foe of Hamas, not because they are supporters of Abbas.

There are as many militant Palestinians if not more then Jewish Israeli settler extremists on the West Bank or hard liners within Israel. To pretend they would settle for a divided city and live peacefully after that is wishful thinking at this point. Many believe they should have the right to travel into Israel, work there, be granted citizenship and land rights in Israel and some are not even interested in Palestinian citizenship and would prefer Israeli citizenship since Israeli Arabs have the highest standard of living in the Middle East. Its extremely complex.

Many security experts in Israel believe dividing Jerusalem would simply be seen as an invitation to put terrorists on Israel's doorstep and make it easier to continue the war to recover Israel from that place.

What would be the point of entering into any peace agreement for Israel if its an illusion, i.e., the person who enters into it with them is soon deposed and replaced by a terrorist?

It was Arafat who said no Palestinian would ever agree to anything but taking back all of Jerusalem and any agreement with Israel would only be a temporary one until full retrieval of Israel could be obtained. People forget he stated to the world the PA had bargained in bad faith all along and he made a full or Ehud Barak and Bill Clinton who offered him 98% of what he asked for.

What exactly has changed? We still have Abbas refusing to recognize Israel as a Jewish state and saying he believes Palestinians should have the option to be able to go back to Israel, move into Israel pre-1967and be given land titles and citizenship. He doesn't just ask for a country on the West Bank but the right to turn Israel into a majority Palestinian population nation as well.

So just what is the point? Who at this point believes Abbas is a moderate? Well we know the U.S. and European Union do but we also know Hamas, Hezbollah, Intifadah and Fatah Hawls have all made it clear they consider him a Zionist traitor. So just what is he other then a prop for the West?

Do you really think Israel is so stupid as to not realize he's no different than Arafat?

Just who is there in the Arab world who has stood up and say, let's recognize the state of Israel and dismantle all terrorist cells attacking it? Who? Name be but one Arab leader who has ever said that?

Good luck finding someone who is considered a moderate in the Western world and who is Arab who said that. Certainly not King Abdullah in Jordan nor Mubarak in Egypt and no not even the friendly King of Morrocco.

There's a practical obstacle to any discussion of Israel's existence and Jerusalem gets caught up in that and the fact that deep down inside no one on the Arab side of the equation has ever done anything to date but attach unilateral demands to Israel in any discussion for peace. Every single statement Abbas makes starts with, he will not talk and continue peace talks, UNLESS......... then he dictates the unilateral terms and the European Union, UN and the US repeat his ultimatums.

All this does is cause Israel to entrench and become more rigid.

Right now there are a hell of a lot of people blowing wind at Israel trying to get it to loosen its grip on Jerusalem. They might want to remember Aseop's fable and how the wind was unable to get the man to take off his coat by blowing hard on it and how the Sun managed to get the man to loosen his grip.

For me I say it again-show Israel a real reason to believe terrorist attacks would stop on it and it would be recognized as a Jewish state, and the majority of Israelis who are not religious would be more than willing to give their politicians all the flexability they need to negotiate creative compromises.

Keep blowing on Israel and it will do what it has always had to do, sleep with one eye open and put anti-terrorist security concerns, first and foremost.

The vision I have is a West Jerusalem in Israel, an East Jerusalem in Palestine, the Old City an independent autonomous zone run by a trilateral religious council and policed by the IDF, free trade between Palestine, Israel and Jordan and an i.d. card allowing expedited travel for Israelis, Jordanians and Palestinians in each other's nations
and a trilateral council with members from each of these nations working on issues of mutual concern, i.e., water,
electricity, food production, transportation, policing against drug and sex trafficking and other cross border crimes.

All that would require a monumental shift in the collective psyche's of many peoples. I think if it is ever reached, it would have to evolve in slow, stages with many expected battles along the way as policies, procedures, rules, regulations are ironed out. People will necessarily be displaced in this process and require compensation.
 
Last edited:
So then do you admit your original contention was horribly flawed? You know, this asinine post:
http://www.debatepolitics.com/middl...tern-wall-pa-study-says-4.html#post1059117436

you still don't seem to get it. The conquest itself was not what afforded religious significance. But it doesn't matter. You clearly have no interest in listening.

Jerusalem became a part of Jewish culture when it was conquered. That is a statement of history.

but it did not gain religious significance because of the fact its conquest or its relevance to tohers, like it did for Islam. But again, I wouldn't expect you to actually try to enagge in on this.

You want to talk substance, then go and purport one of the oldest myths about Islam. Are you just some Robert Morey wanna-be? There's a conspiracy section somewhere else on this, so post your unsubstantiated myths over there.

sorry, what myth? Islam is a recent invention. There were lots and lots of religions beforehand. Islam's histoirical MO has been to usurp the religious symbols and narratives of others in order to try to latch onto their credibility when working to subjugate a local population. They did it with the Jews, with the Christians, and with the "pagans" they encountered along the way, particularly in Arabia.

Not sure why this is such a soft spot, it's just reality.

It's obvious now you have some hatred for Islam. What exactly does this have to do with the Western Wall/Jerusalem? And Zoroastrinism started off in Persia.

everything. It has to do with teh Muslim mentality that what's mine is mine and what's yours is mine. It's relevant because you have no issues with Muslims controlling other religions' sites and symbols, even where that is accompanied by flat-out persecution of those religions. But JEWISH control over a site that is only of religious significance to Muslims because of early appempts to co-opt the Jews by Mohammed, sacrelige!

As for "hatred", I honestlydon't like Islam very much. As a philosophical belief system, it is beyond retrograde and repressive and illiberal. As a political system (it was of course started to legitimize a political system), it is repressive, authoritarian, archaic and backwards. As a social code, it is mysogynistic, inflexible, tribal and brutal. And as a player on the world stage, it is violent, disruptive and hostile. So yeah, I don't really much care for Islam.

Of course, it also may have something to do with the profoundly disgusting anti-semitism that is so mainstream within Muslim societies that a non-anti-semite in these countries who is actually open about their non-anti-semitism is worthy of individual attention as an oddity to be praised.

LOL. First off, Constantinople was founded well before 300 AD. You are off by just a tiny 1,000 years. :roll: And before it become part of Christianity, it was part of the Athenian Empire. Before it became part of Christianity, it was part of the Persian Empire. Your understanding of the Hagia Sophia is just like your understanding of Middle Eastern history, flat out wrong. The Hagia Sophia hasn't been used as mosque for well over 50 years. It's been a museum since the 1930's, and no one is allowed to pray inside (except maybe the people who work there). Of course, none of this information will stop you from spewing ignorant comments that only show your narrow, limited view of history.

Was founded by the empire on top of a previously existing city, but historically viewed as a new city. Of course.

As for the Hague Sophia, well what if that's not good enough. Is Israel justified in turning the temple mount into a museum and banning all prayers there? Good enough for you?

Would suspect not.
 
you still don't seem to get it. The conquest itself was not what afforded religious significance. But it doesn't matter. You clearly have no interest in listening.
Just like the conquest of Jerusalem by the Rashidun Caliphate is not what afforded religious significance of Al-Quds to Islam. But it doesn't matter. You cannot see the hypocrisy in your own argument.
but it did not gain religious significance because of the fact its conquest or its relevance to tohers, like it did for Islam. But again, I wouldn't expect you to actually try to enagge in on this.
Jerusalem was already significant to Islam prior to its conquest. But again, I wouldn't expect you to actually KNOW something that you are trying to discuss.
sorry, what myth? Islam is a recent invention. There were lots and lots of religions beforehand. Islam's histoirical MO has been to usurp the religious symbols and narratives of others in order to try to latch onto their credibility when working to subjugate a local population. They did it with the Jews, with the Christians, and with the "pagans" they encountered along the way, particularly in Arabia.

Not sure why this is such a soft spot, it's just reality.
The Moon-God myth, which has already been thoroughly debunked by Shabir Ally. You are going to talk about Islam "usurping" religious symbols and narratives despite leaving out where the origins of Judaism came from? Of course, hypocrisy is second nature to you. How many things did Judaism "usurp" from the Jebusites? How many things from Ugaritic mythology has been incorporated into Judaism? And you have the audacity to spew 20 year old debunked myth.

everything.
Yeah, you're right! Zoroastrinism has everything to do with the Western Wall and Jerusalem! :roll:
It has to do with teh Muslim mentality that what's mine is mine and what's yours is mine.
That's a Muslim mentality? Most people would consider that common sense. It's a redundant affirmation by the way.
It's relevant because you have no issues with Muslims controlling other religions' sites and symbols, even where that is accompanied by flat-out persecution of those religions. But JEWISH control over a site that is only of religious significance to Muslims because of early appempts to co-opt the Jews by Mohammed, sacrelige!
How do you know I have no issues with Muslim control of other religious/culutral sites/symbols? In the year you've posted here you've thoroughly researched me and are preparing a thesis? If you're gonna accuse me of something, at least have some evidence to back up the claims. You've barely been here a quarter of the length I have. You have no right to judge me.
As for "hatred", I honestlydon't like Islam very much. As a philosophical belief system, it is beyond retrograde and repressive and illiberal. As a political system (it was of course started to legitimize a political system), it is repressive, authoritarian, archaic and backwards. As a social code, it is mysogynistic, inflexible, tribal and brutal. And as a player on the world stage, it is violent, disruptive and hostile. So yeah, I don't really much care for Islam.

Good for you! At least you admitted you cannot maintain objectivity in a dicussion about Jerusalem/the Western Wall.

Of course, it also may have something to do with the profoundly disgusting anti-semitism that is so mainstream within Muslim societies that a non-anti-semite in these countries who is actually open about their non-anti-semitism is worthy of individual attention as an oddity to be praised.
Yes, damn that Islamic anti-semistism! That Islamic anti-semitism brutually killed 6 million Jews. Oh wait, that was a Christian who believed he was doing God's work. :roll:
Was founded by the empire on top of a previously existing city, but historically viewed as a new city. Of course.
Of course :roll: It is not historically viewed as a new city. You won't find one scholar who will agree with that asinine sentiment. With that logic, when the Rashidun Caliphate conquered Jerusalem, it become viewed as a "new city". It was a Greek city well before it was a Roman city. It was a Persian city well before it was a Roman city. It grew more as a Roman city, but that doesn't make it any newer like you purport.
As for the Hague Sophia, well what if that's not good enough. Is Israel justified in turning the temple mount into a museum and banning all prayers there? Good enough for you?

Would suspect not.
No, because Israel occupies Jerusalem. Turkey does not occupy Istanbul. You really love false analogies don't you?

Apparently so, since fallacious logic seems like your speciality.
 
Last edited:
Lol was that deliberate? If I did not know better I would think you were baiting with that comment. Israel of course has delegated the day to day control of access to the Temple Mount to Muslims. It never conferred legal ownership. There's a huge difference as you are well aware.

Uh no, the Temple Mount is legally owned by Muslims and Israel has recognized that ownership.

from your article:

Should the State of Israel take active steps towards the reconstruction? Forty-eight percent said no, while 27% said yes.


so huge opposition to actually doing something about it. When you ask this sort of question the day before the holiday where the destruction is commemorated and ask an abtract question (like do you ever think this will be rebuilt" or "would you like to see it rebuilt" then of course you are going to get a decent number. But the fact that there is such strong opposition to actually doing something about it shows how marginal that view is and that, even for people who said yes they'd like to see it, that the preference is very marginal within their belief and value system.

Active steps would mean taking steps to retake control of the Temple Mount and ultimately creating a very volatile situation with Muslims. That is why most are not supportive of taking active steps.
 
Uh no, the Temple Mount is legally owned by Muslims and Israel has recognized that ownership.

You mind telling me where in the following law, the state of Israel conferred legal title of the Mount to anyone?

Protection of Holy Places Law
June 27, 1967

1. The Holy Places shall be protected from desecration and any other violation and from anything likely to violate the freedom of access of the members of the different religions to the places sacred to them or their feelings with regard to those places.
a. Whosoever desecrates or otherwise violates a Holy Place shall be liable to imprisonment for a term of seven years.
b. Whosoever does anything likely to violate the freedom of access of the members of the different religions to the places sacred to them or their feelings with regard to those places shall be liable to imprisonment for a term of five years.

3. This Law shall add to, and not derogate from, any other law.

4. The Minister of Religious Affairs is charged with the implementation of this Law, and he may, after consultation with, or upon the proposal of, representatives of the religions concerned and with the consent of the Minister of Justice make regulations as to any matter relating to such implementation.

5. This Law shall come into force on the date of its adoption by the Knesset.

Levi Eshkol
Prime Minister

Zerach Warhaftig
Minister of Religious Affairs

Shneur Zalman Shazar
President of the State
 
Does anyone see any delegation of land title ownership to anyone with these words?

14 Protection of Holy Places Law

27 Jun 1967



VOLUMES 1-2: 1947-1974


IV. JERUSALEM AND THE HOLY PLACES

14. Protection of Holy Places Law, 1967:


On 27 June 1967, Prime Minister Eshkol again addressed the spiritual leaders of all communities and assured them of Israel's determination to protect the Holy Places. On behalf of the religious dignitaries present, His Beatitude Benedictos, the Greek Orthodox Patriarch, replied. On the same day, the Knesset passed the Protection of Holy Places Law, 1967. Texts of the statements and the Law follow:



I. Statement by the Prime Minister:

It is my pleasure to inform you that the Holy Places in Jerusalem are now open to all who wish to worship at them - members of all faiths, without discrimination. The Government of Israel has made it a cardinal principle of its policy to preserve the Holy Places, to ensure their religious and universal character, and to guarantee free access. Through regular consultation with you, heads of the communities, and with those designated by you, at the appropriate levels, for this purpose, we will continue to maintain this policy and to see that it is most faithfully carried out. In these consultations, I hope that you will feel free to put forward your proposals, since the aims that I have mentioned are, I am certain, aims that we share in common. Every such proposal will be given full and sympathetic consideration. It is our intention to entrust the internal administration and arrangements of the Holy Places to the religious leaders Of the Communities to which they respectively belong; the task of carrying out all necessary procedures is in the hands of the Minister of Religious Affairs.



II. Reply by the Greek Orthodox Patriarch:

We have heard with pleasure of the free access to the holy sites and we deeply appreciate your kind wish... I believe that I speak on behalf of all my brothers and fellow leaders here tonight if I say that we are pleased with the behaviour of the Israeli army. All of its men have shown us kindness and a willingness to serve us. Everybody has displayed respect for the Holy Places and churches...



III. Protection of Holy Places Law, 5727-1967

Protection of Holy Places.
1. The Holy Places shall be protected from desecration and any other violation and from anything likely to violate the freedom of access of the members of the different religions to the places sacred to them or their feelings with regard to those places.

Offences.
2.
(a) Whosoever desecrates or otherwise violates a Holy Place shall be liable to imprisonment for a term. of seven years.

(b) Whosoever does anything likely to violate the freedom of access of the members of the different religions to the places sacred to them or their feelings with regard to those places shall be liable to imprisonment for a term of five years.

Saving of laws.
3. This Law shall add to, and not derogate from, any other law.

Implementation and regulations
4. The Minister of Religious Affairs is charged with the implementation of this Law, and he may, after consultation with, or upon the proposal of, representatives of the religions concerned and with the consent of the Minister of Justice make regulations as to any matter relating to such implementation.

Commencement.
5. This Law shall come into force on the date of its adoption by the Knesset.




Levi Eshkol
Prime Minister

Yaakov S. Shapiro
Minister of Justice

Shneur Zalman Shazar
President of the State
 
with due respect there is no law that the State of Israel passed that ever ceded or conferred legal title to the Temple Mount to anyone.

Let's be clear about the law. Boing backwords, neither the Balfour Declaration of 1917, nor the Terms of the British Mandate for Palestine ever referred to Jerusalem and so never discussed who should own it.

The Terms of the Mandate did mention that the Mandatory was requested to preserve existing rights in those places and to ensure free access and worship it never discussed anything else.

The UN then inherited the Jerusalem issue in 1947 and recommended that all of Jerusalem be internationalized.

In fact The Jewish leadership accepted that suggestion. It was the Arab League of Nations that opposed internationalization of Jerusalem along with the partition plan. It was the Arab League of Nations who then started a war to force the issue and conquer all of the remaining area of Palestine including Jerusalem.

It was only after the Arab League declared war Israel declared itself a nation and its first Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion stated Israel was forced off its initial position as it was fighting for its life.

The fact is it was in in May 1948, Jordan decided to invaded east Jerusalem with the express intent of seizing all of Jerusalem and was lead by a British General.

After this battle for Jerusalem, the Jews were forced to surrender the Jewish Quarter to the forces of the Jordanian Arab Legion, which then divided the city and drove thousands of Jews into exile.

That act of war to unilaterally seize the Jewish quarter as well as east Jerusalem by Jordan is always ignored by present day commentarians.

It was after that initial battle for Jerusalem for the next 19 years, the city remained split, with Israel on the west side of Jerusalem where it in fact established its capital and where Jordan occupied the eastern section, which included the Old City and most of the holy places.

Right before the Six-Day War of June of 1967, Jordan massed troops in Jerusalem preparing to invade Israel and Nasser openly stated the Arab League was preparing to invade Israel. Israel then repeatedly asked the King of Jordan to stand down and not enter the war but he refused and Israel in fact was forced to then engage Jordan and it was at that time it took control of east Jerusalem and the West Bank.

It is an indisuputable fact now in public domain that at the end of the June 1967 war, then Israeli Prime Minister Levi Eshkol called a meeting with the spiritual leaders of Jerusalem and The Knesset passed the Protection of the Holy Places Law, 1967, which I reproduced above which was designed to ensure protection of the holy places against desecration as well as freedom of access thereto to all religions.

In fact the Knesset also pass Ledaw and Administration Ordinance Law, 1967- Amendment 11 1967 which in fact extended Israeli law and jurisdiction over east Jerusalem so how anyone would suggest Israel ceded legal ownership of the Mount to Muslims is beyond me to fathom.

Israel never tried to force Israeli citizenship on Muslim or Christian residents of east Jerusalem, but left the option open to them to obtain Israeli citizenship through application.

In fact Israel has since then increased the municipal boundaries of Jerusalem, and they were fixed as extending from Atarot in the north to Rachel's Tomb in the south, and from Ein Kerem in the west to the eastern slopes of Mount Scopus.

Because of the above increase the UN then comdened Israel's expansion and the vast majority of UN nations with embassies in Israel moved them to Tel Aviv.

In 1980 the Knesset adopted what is called the Basic Law: Jerusalem Capital of Israel. This law states, inter alia, that "Jerusalem, complete and united, is the capital of Israel", and that the holy places shall be protected. The Committee discussed the meaning of the phrase "complete and united", and its constitutional significance.

No it does not state the Mount's legal title was ceded to Muslims. Of course not.

This law was later amended in 2000, requiring apecial majority of 61 members of the Knesset to agree before an order to alter the municipal boarders of Jerusalem can be implemented.

This Law inrerestingly also states quite clearly that tje responsibility for municipal functions and services of Jerusalem cannot be transferred into foreign hands with less than this 61 member majority vote. So again I am not sure why as the poster stated, the fact Israel has no written constitution factored into the ownership of the Mount.

With due respect Demon of Light you are misrepresenting the laws of Israel.
 
In April of 2009, the current PM of Israel Benjamin Netanyahu: stated:

"The right of the Jewish people to its holy place - the Temple Mount - cannot be questioned...I believe it is necessary to arrange for Jewish prayer on the site, especially given that we permit freedom of worship to all the religions in Jerusalem...".

At that time he was responding to thePalestinian Authority's head Mufti who had stated "... (jews) must absolutely forget about having any rights over the Temple Mount...the Western Wall is just a fence belonging to a Muslim holy site".

Michael Freund, the Communications Director for Netanyahu also responded directly to the Mufti's statements saying, "these statements are repugnant and they betray a contempt for Judaism's most sacred sites and beliefs. They are an affront to history and insulting to Jews everywhere."

At the current time Jewish guards prevent Christians and Jews from exercising their religious right to pray on the Temple Mount and have done so while the State of Israel continues to try find a peaceful way to deal with Muslims and negotiate access for Jews, Christians and others.

Interesting in 1995, Professor Nahum Rakover, a noted Israeli legal scholar and at that time Deputy Attorney General of Israel, stated it isn't illegal for Christians or Jews to pray upon the Temple Mount, even though it was forcibly being prevented by the police
pending negotiations which continue to drag on.

The fact is the The Wakf, the Muslim authority that oversees Jerusalem's Temple Mount, continues to refuse to allow Christians and Jews access and that has nothing to do with the State of Israel's decision as Demon has misrepresented. That is the Wakf which has unilaterally declared no one but Muslims is allowed on the Mount.

Israeli police at this time keep Jews and Christians away to prevent riots while politicians continue to find a compromise.

To suggest as Demon has that the Wakf's unilateral refusal to recognize Jewish and Christian rights is an Israeli government decision or is as a result of a transfer of legal title with due respect is a fabrication.

Its a stalemate caused by one religious entity refusing to recognize the other 2. Christians and Jews are on record as saying they believe the Mount should be accessible to all 3 religions and other peoples of other faiths to visit. That is all the 1967 law recognizes. The decision of the Mufti of Jerusalem and Wakf to blatantly show dispresect and intolerance of anyone but Muslims is a classic example of the religious intolerance that fuels the anger of religious Jews. Non religious Jews also see it as an obstacle to peace and yet another source that fuels terrorist militancy.
 
I already explained this, but when I am taking about ownership I mean who actually owns the property. The State of Israel does not own the Temple Mount. Under Israeli law the Temple Mount is part of Israeli territory and thus Israel has declared sovereignty over it, something no other country recognizes, however that does not mean the State of Israel directly owns every speck of land.
 
I already explained this, but when I am taking about ownership I mean who actually owns the property. The State of Israel does not own the Temple Mount. Under Israeli law the Temple Mount is part of Israeli territory and thus Israel has declared sovereignty over it, something no other country recognizes, however that does not mean the State of Israel directly owns every speck of land.


No one "owns" the Mount. You stated Israel ceded ownership. That is legally incorrect. As I stated at this time, the state of Israel has chosen to avoid a direct confrontation over the Wakf's refusal to allow Christians and Jews on the Mount. The fact it has chosen to avoid a confrontation does not mean they ceded ownership of the Mount nor does it mean the Wakf was conferred ownership.

In fact and I repeat again, the only people who actually have any legal titles to land in Old Jerusalem are in fact an assortment of Christian churches. This is why the state of Israel pays rent to them for access to such land. This is why the State of Israel pays rent to keep the Knesset on the land it is to a Christian church and to other Christian churches where other Israeli government buildings are. Unlike the Wakf, Israel recognizes the rights of all three religious groups to the land.

The Wakf (Muslim) Council continues to refuse to recognize the legal title rights of these Christian churches as well as ccess rights to the Mount to anyone but Muslims.
 
Half the Public Wants to See Holy Temple Rebuilt - Jewish World - Israel News - Israel National News

Honestly, it only makes sense. Why mourn the loss of the Second Temple if you do not care about whether there is one? Also the fact many Jews are not particularly religious does not mean they have no interest in seeing the Temple rebuilt. I imagine for many it would be a symbol of national pride as much as anything else.

you know there was an attempt to blow up the mousq up there by some jews, they all got arrested and are still in jail i think 0-0
This is like saying cause 78% of the american public likes green eggs and ham, the government is going to turn every single chicken into a mutation that lays green eggs...

just my 2 cents ^__^
 
From today's edition of Haaretz:

The United States on Tuesday condemned claims by a senior Palestinian official that the Western Wall of Jerusalem's Temple Mount holds no significance for Jews...

"We strongly condemn these comments and fully reject them as factually incorrect, insensitive and highly provocative," a U.S. State Department spokesman said.


This condemnation of a what can only be described as a fictional narrative is a welcome development. Hopefully, in coming days, the Palestinian Authority will reject the claim that the Western Wall has no religious significance to the Jewish people.
 
Back
Top Bottom