Clashes After Jews Permitted to Pray At Temple Mount

[Sixties Fan]

Lp.

I have with this because you are talking about events truly in ancient history and selectively applying it.

On the contrary, I'm applying it universally. No matter when it happened. No matter where it happened. No matter who it happened to. No matter who perpetrated it.

None of the nation’s in those times still exist, neither do the people’s involved really. You are talking about world faiths spanning multiple cultures. With US and Canada, I can see the rationale and agree. These states exist, these states did great harm and as a citizen who’s ancestors had responsibility, I acknowledge it.

So you see the rationale and agree on the need for reconciliation between First Nations peoples and modern Americans and Canadians. But that you don't think this applies to the Jew/Arab conflict because the Jewish people and the Arab people don't really exist? Or they somehow don't count? That's nonsense.

No it isn’t nonsense. What nations still exist that we’re actively involved in conquests? What are Arabs even? (It is a broad term encompassing a wide range of people’s who were culturally Arabicized). Who are the victims? And when? Prior to the Muslim conquests the area was conquered by Christians. Right? The Israelites conquered it from the Canaanites. Shouldn’t that be acknowledged?

Do all Muslims owe an apology for ancient conquests? Why not Christians? Why are they exempt? Should all Christians be held accountable for the acts of ancient monarchies?

When a people have lived in an area for thousands of years they are not settlers or colonizing cultures.

I disagree. You can't become indigenous. Either your culture originated there or you are a settler culture. For as long as the cultures exist separately. But there doesn't have to be an inherent conflict between those cultures.

Yes. You can become indigenous. And to define people as either indigenous or settler (a term LOADED with negative association as you well know given the attacks on the Jewish people’s rights in Israel).

First Nations in America - multiple cultures, multiple waves of conquests, and some of the cultures we recognize as First Nations today conquered and incorporated earlier cultures, so e of whom remain as sub branches. Jews conquered earlier people and are now considered indigenous.

The definition of indigenous is grey.

Wikipedia
indigenous peoples, also known as First peoples, Aboriginal peoples or Native peoples, are ethnic groups who are the original settlers of a given region, in contrast to groups that have settled, occupied or colonized the area more recently.

What is “more recently”? What is the exact time span? Why do Jews get a special designation while Muslim Palestinians, many of whom’s roots go back just as far, they simply changed religion, get called settlers and colonizers by you? Loaded terms that imply, whether intended or not, that they have no, or less rights and ties to the region.

What do you want? A diatribe on how evil and horrible Muslims are? Because that is what it comes down in the end right? Some one has to be demonized to satisfy.

Honestly? I want the discussion to not always center on Jews. This thread should have been a discussion about Arab Muslims and their atrocious behaviour. But, sigh, once again got sidelined early on. So instead of discussing how we can influence the Arab Muslims to act with some respect and integrity in granting human rights, we are once again discussing how Jews are just as bad as everyone else.

No one said Jews were just as bad. In fact I clearly said otherwise.

You continue to change the meaning of the word indigenous to the utter and total dismay to all who are actually indigenous.

Germans are indigenous of Germany. No matter if they left 3000 years ago and settled in Sweden, they are still indigenous from the place they came from, where they originated for the First Place.

And I would like to add to my earlier post in response to yours:

Some religious Jews did become sick and tired of waiting for the Muslim Arabs to change their way of thinking and way of treating Jews and their endless incitement to destroy Israel and kill all Jews.

THAT is where their thinking of not allowing Arabs to live in Israel comes from. It will never be because they will never achieve the power in order to implement it.

On the other hand:

Saudi Arabia....no Jews since the 7th century .
Jordan....No Jews since 1925
Iraq....no more Jews since all had to be lifted into Israel post 1990s
Egypt....how many left?
Bahrain....how many left?
Lebanon?
Syria?

In how many Muslim countries, besides Morocco and Turkey, are Jews still allowed to live in and freely follow their religion and be free from persecution ?

Islam, unfortunately, is a one sided ideology. They have power, they conquer and they treat people as the person at the top decides.

Which is why the Palestinians are leaving Gaza in droves. And so are as many in areas A and B, as they can.

Because the current and previous leaders of the Palestinians only have one goal in mind. Take as much money as they can, keep as much money as they can, and spend it only on what they need.

Just look at how sorry Abbas is that he cannot pay his bills, while he keeps inciting and paying his people to kill Jews.


Going back to the Temple and why Jews simply have to do whatever they can in order to be "allowed" into their most important holy site, when they were not allowed at all between 1948 and 1967 and just as much during the whole time Muslims have been in charge since the 7th century.........


WHY do Jews have to ask "please" let us into our holiest place.
Please, allow us to pray there.
Please do not verbally assault us.
Please do not physically assault us.
Please, live up to the agreements.

 

[Shusha]

<<<The only point I see in this sort of argument is to be able to use it to undercut or marginalize the rights of the other side.>>>

The 500 Nations, Aboriginals, Maori and others are laughing their heads off at that sentence right now.

Its like "men's rights" organizations complaining that they are being marginalized when women get equal rights.

 

[Shusha]

Perhaps then the Jewish people should practice acknowledgement and reconciliation for forcing the Palestinians, who were themselves indigenous to Palestine, off their land and recognizing the effect Nakbah had on THEIR People instead of marginalizing it.

Wait, what? "Their land"?! What happened to "shared space"?! It's interesting that historical Jewish places are "shared" and yet somehow "Palestine" (and you mean ALL of Palestine here) is Arab land.

I'm going to stop right here and challenge you on this. Is it shared land or Arab land?

You can challenge me, but you are missing the point I was making and misinterpreting what I said.

Please feel free to clarify. Because it seems awfully clear that in your mind Jewish spaces are really "shared spaces" but all of Palestine is "their land" (Arab).

 

[Shusha]

Well, the problem, it isn’t ONLY one side. Situations are seldom one sided. It is PRIMARILY one side. You do have factions among the Jews that want to see the mosque torn down and bans on non Jews entering the area. They are considered fringe but they exist and their vocal support for extreme actions feeds the fears of conspiracy-theory loving Arabs who don’t trust Israeli motivations and fear any change is a slippery slope.

It is only one side perpetrating violence, but the tensions aren’t one sided. And like I said religion isn’t very rational.

And frankly, a lot of conversations here go sideways. If it is criticizing an Israeli policy then inevitably we here but but the Palestinians...

See? You just did it again. Rather than recognizing and condemning Muslim actions on the Temple Mount, you (paraphrased):

• minimize the impact of issue on Jews
• describe the problem in narrow terms
• argue that both sides are responsible
• claim that Jews do it too
• illuminate Arab fears of what Jews "might" do
• question the "real" motivations of Jews
• attempt to equivalize the two sides by calling attention to "tensions"
• highlight the irrationality of both sides

Your post effectively hides Muslim atrocities and amplifies supposed Jewish wrong-doing.

So let's try this again. ONLY ONE SIDE:

• murders people at the holy site
• brings weapons to murder people
• throws stones at people
• stockpiles rocks, IEDs, guns, firebombs inside buildings
• demands an absence of metal detectors or other security equipment
• provokes people using ugly language, screaming, violent actions
• employs women and children to provoke
• prevents prayer and worship
• denies religious symbols
• limits access
• demands exclusive right to manage the site
• threatens large scale military, terror and political action

The other side does NOT do these things. The other side goes so far as to restrict the human rights of its own people to avoid "tensions" (translation: a mass killing spree perpetrated by Muslims). Further, the other side has a religious ideology of shared holy places.



Also, I haven't seen any criticism of "Israel's policies" in years on this board.

 

[Shusha]

No it isn’t nonsense. What nations still exist that we’re actively involved in conquests?

Well, if you understand self-determination of peoples as, you know, peoples and not as "nations" then the peoples which exist are the Jewish people and the Arab people.

Do all Muslims owe an apology for ancient conquests?

Well, I've been consistently calling for recognition and reconciliation, not apologies. But yes, all people who belong to a culture which invaded, conquered, overtook, or otherwise dominated an indigenous peoples should be aware of their privilege and domination and recognize and reconcile with the groups of people which were (and are) impacted.

Why not Christians? Why are they exempt? Should all Christians be held accountable for the acts of ancient monarchies?

Who said Christians were exempt? Not me.

Yes. You can become indigenous.

Not without changing the meaning of the word.

And to define people as either indigenous or settler

If you are of white European descent, and living on Turtle Island, you and all your descendants will always be settlers.

The definition of indigenous is grey.

Its not. Its quite clear. Indigenous cultures are those cultures which originated in a particular place or territory and existed prior to invasion, conquest, colonization by a different culture which originated in another place.

What is “more recently”? What is the exact time span?

It has nothing to do with time. Its not abrogated with time.

Why do Jews get a special designation ...

Its not a special designation. Its the designation used all over the world.

 

[Coyote]

Lp.

I have with this because you are talking about events truly in ancient history and selectively applying it.

On the contrary, I'm applying it universally. No matter when it happened. No matter where it happened. No matter who it happened to. No matter who perpetrated it.

Then perhaps the Jews need to do some reconciliation for the horrible things their ancestors did when they invaded conquered the local tribes because that is kind of the point where we are at with this by delving into ancient history. For record, I don’t apply this just to the Jewish people, but anyone in ancient history of nations, ethics and cultures long gone. I do not believe children are responsible in any way tbe sins of their parents. If chooses to take on and make amends that is another thing and admirable but imposed or expected especially upon a broad array of multi-cultural people who’s common denominator is a shared religion. It is a form of imposing collective guilt on those not responsible.

None of the nation’s in those times still exist, neither do the people’s involved really. You are talking about world faiths spanning multiple cultures. With US and Canada, I can see the rationale and agree. These states exist, these states did great harm and as a citizen who’s ancestors had responsibility, I acknowledge it.

So you see the rationale and agree on the need for reconciliation between First Nations peoples and modern Americans and Canadians. But that you don't think this applies to the Jew/Arab conflict because the Jewish people and the Arab people don't really exist? Or they somehow don't count? That's nonsense.

No it isn’t nonsense. What nations still exist that we’re actively involved in conquests? What are Arabs even? (It is a broad term encompassing a wide range of people’s who were culturally Arabicized). Who are the victims? And when? Prior to the Muslim conquests the area was conquered by Christians. Right? The Israelites conquered it from the Canaanites. Shouldn’t that be acknowledged?

Do all Muslims owe an apology for ancient conquests? Why not Christians? Why are they exempt? Should all Christians be held accountable for the acts of ancient monarchies?

When a people have lived in an area for thousands of years they are not settlers or colonizing cultures.

I disagree. You can't become indigenous. Either your culture originated there or you are a settler culture. For as long as the cultures exist separately. But there doesn't have to be an inherent conflict between those cultures.

Yes. You can become indigenous. And to define people as either indigenous or settler (a term LOADED with negative association as you well know given the attacks on the Jewish people’s rights in Israel).

First Nations in America - multiple cultures, multiple waves of conquests, and some of the cultures we recognize as First Nations today conquered and incorporated earlier cultures, so e of whom remain as sub branches. Jews conquered earlier people and are now considered indigenous.

The definition of indigenous is grey.

Wikipedia
indigenous peoples, also known as First peoples, Aboriginal peoples or Native peoples, are ethnic groups who are the original settlers of a given region, in contrast to groups that have settled, occupied or colonized the area more recently.

What is “more recently”? What is the exact time span? Why do Jews get a special designation while Muslim Palestinians, many of whom’s roots go back just as far, they simply changed religion, get called settlers and colonizers by you? Loaded terms that imply, whether intended or not, that they have no, or less rights and ties to the region.

What do you want? A diatribe on how evil and horrible Muslims are? Because that is what it comes down in the end right? Some one has to be demonized to satisfy.

Honestly? I want the discussion to not always center on Jews. This thread should have been a discussion about Arab Muslims and their atrocious behaviour. But, sigh, once again got sidelined early on. So instead of discussing how we can influence the Arab Muslims to act with some respect and integrity in granting human rights, we are once again discussing how Jews are just as bad as everyone else.

No one said Jews were just as bad. In fact I clearly said otherwise.

You continue to change the meaning of the word indigenous to the utter and total dismay to all who are actually indigenous.

Germans are indigenous of Germany. No matter if they left 3000 years ago and settled in Sweden, they are still indigenous from the place they came from, where they originated for the First Place.

Are Germans indigenous to Germany? The Germanic were a plurality of tribes spread out over Europe. They were conquered and incorporated into Rome.

According to your description then, Palestinians are indigenous to Palestine.

And I would like to add to my earlier post in response to yours:

Some religious Jews did become sick and tired of waiting for the Muslim Arabs to change their way of thinking and way of treating Jews and their endless incitement to destroy Israel and kill all Jews.

THAT is where their thinking of not allowing Arabs to live in Israel comes from. It will never be because they will never achieve the power in order to implement it.

On the other hand:

Saudi Arabia....no Jews since the 7th century .
Jordan....No Jews since 1925
Iraq....no more Jews since all had to be lifted into Israel post 1990s
Egypt....how many left?
Bahrain....how many left?
Lebanon?
Syria?

In how many Muslim countries, besides Morocco and Turkey, are Jews still allowed to live in and freely follow their religion and be free from persecution ?

See now are doing exactly what you criticized me about. You making excuses for the extremists on your side. As if the fact that “the other” behaves worse justifies it. Note, I agree that Israel has far more religious tolerance than any of it’s Muslim neighbors, I have never said otherwise.

Islam, unfortunately, is a one sided ideology. They have power, they conquer and they treat people as the person at the top decides.

That applies to any religion that gains nationalist identity and political power. Look at Hindu nationalism in India, the Buddhist nationalists in Myanmar, historic Christian nation’s, and many Muslim nation’s. Religion in government is usually not very good for those not of the right group.
And Israel in that regard even though it is far better than it’s neighbors it is nowhere as Canada or the US, because in state defined by religion, people are also defined by religion.

Which is why the Palestinians are leaving Gaza in droves. And so are as many in areas A and B, as they can.

Kinda sorta. But you only part of it. Corruption and bad leadership play a role but so do Israeli policies, economic devastation etc. as a result of those policies.

Because the current and previous leaders of the Palestinians only have one goal in mind. Take as much money as they can, keep as much money as they can, and spend it only on what they need.

Just look at how sorry Abbas is that he cannot pay his bills, while he keeps inciting and paying his people to kill Jews.

Did you manage to throw in the kitchen sink too?

Going back to the Temple and why Jews simply have to do whatever they can in order to be "allowed" into their most important holy site, when they were not allowed at all between 1948 and 1967 and just as much during the whole time Muslims have been in charge since the 7th century.........


WHY do Jews have to ask "please" let us into our holiest place.
Please, allow us to pray there.
Please do not verbally assault us.
Please do not physically assault us.
Please, live up to the agreements.

I have absolutely no argument with you on this part.

 

[Coyote]

Well, the problem, it isn’t ONLY one side. Situations are seldom one sided. It is PRIMARILY one side. You do have factions among the Jews that want to see the mosque torn down and bans on non Jews entering the area. They are considered fringe but they exist and their vocal support for extreme actions feeds the fears of conspiracy-theory loving Arabs who don’t trust Israeli motivations and fear any change is a slippery slope.

It is only one side perpetrating violence, but the tensions aren’t one sided. And like I said religion isn’t very rational.

And frankly, a lot of conversations here go sideways. If it is criticizing an Israeli policy then inevitably we here but but the Palestinians...

See? You just did it again. Rather than recognizing and condemning Muslim actions on the Temple Mount, you (paraphrased):

• minimize the impact of issue on Jews
• describe the problem in narrow terms
• argue that both sides are responsible
• claim that Jews do it too
• illuminate Arab fears of what Jews "might" do
• question the "real" motivations of Jews
• attempt to equivalize the two sides by calling attention to "tensions"
• highlight the irrationality of both sides

Your post effectively hides Muslim atrocities and amplifies supposed Jewish wrong-doing.

So let's try this again. ONLY ONE SIDE:

• murders people at the holy site
• brings weapons to murder people
• throws stones at people
• stockpiles rocks, IEDs, guns, firebombs inside buildings
• demands an absence of metal detectors or other security equipment
• provokes people using ugly language, screaming, violent actions
• employs women and children to provoke
• prevents prayer and worship
• denies religious symbols
• limits access
• demands exclusive right to manage the site
• threatens large scale military, terror and political action

The other side does NOT do these things. The other side goes so far as to restrict the human rights of its own people to avoid "tensions" (translation: a mass killing spree perpetrated by Muslims). Further, the other side has a religious ideology of shared holy places.



Also, I haven't seen any criticism of "Israel's policies" in years on this board.

Hold on. You are here insisting that ONLY ONE SIDE has any issues and when I point, factually, that that is not quite true, you go off.

I usually policies, and actions as a state, so what do you mean you haven’t seen such in years?

Why is it necessary to portray it in strict black and white when it isn’t? For example I mentioned conspiracy theories, and there is a very widespread and powerful belief among Muslims that Israel plans to raze the Mosque. This belief is pervasive, fuels violence and should not be ignored. Note: I am not saying Israel plans to do this, there is no evidence to support that in any way, but people believe it.

If your only goal is to blame, sure blame the Muslims because they HAVE been more intolerant and violent.

But if you want to understand it, it isn’t so simple. I am not that black and white in how I view things.

 

[Sixties Fan]

Lp.

I have with this because you are talking about events truly in ancient history and selectively applying it.

On the contrary, I'm applying it universally. No matter when it happened. No matter where it happened. No matter who it happened to. No matter who perpetrated it.

Then perhaps the Jews need to do some reconciliation for the horrible things their ancestors did when they invaded conquered the local tribes because that is kind of the point where we are at with this by delving into ancient history. For record, I don’t apply this just to the Jewish people, but anyone in ancient history of nations, ethics and cultures long gone. I do not believe children are responsible in any way tbe sins of their parents. If chooses to take on and make amends that is another thing and admirable but imposed or expected especially upon a broad array of multi-cultural people who’s common denominator is a shared religion. It is a form of imposing collective guilt on those not responsible.

None of the nation’s in those times still exist, neither do the people’s involved really. You are talking about world faiths spanning multiple cultures. With US and Canada, I can see the rationale and agree. These states exist, these states did great harm and as a citizen who’s ancestors had responsibility, I acknowledge it.

So you see the rationale and agree on the need for reconciliation between First Nations peoples and modern Americans and Canadians. But that you don't think this applies to the Jew/Arab conflict because the Jewish people and the Arab people don't really exist? Or they somehow don't count? That's nonsense.

No it isn’t nonsense. What nations still exist that we’re actively involved in conquests? What are Arabs even? (It is a broad term encompassing a wide range of people’s who were culturally Arabicized). Who are the victims? And when? Prior to the Muslim conquests the area was conquered by Christians. Right? The Israelites conquered it from the Canaanites. Shouldn’t that be acknowledged?

Do all Muslims owe an apology for ancient conquests? Why not Christians? Why are they exempt? Should all Christians be held accountable for the acts of ancient monarchies?

When a people have lived in an area for thousands of years they are not settlers or colonizing cultures.

I disagree. You can't become indigenous. Either your culture originated there or you are a settler culture. For as long as the cultures exist separately. But there doesn't have to be an inherent conflict between those cultures.

Yes. You can become indigenous. And to define people as either indigenous or settler (a term LOADED with negative association as you well know given the attacks on the Jewish people’s rights in Israel).

First Nations in America - multiple cultures, multiple waves of conquests, and some of the cultures we recognize as First Nations today conquered and incorporated earlier cultures, so e of whom remain as sub branches. Jews conquered earlier people and are now considered indigenous.

The definition of indigenous is grey.

Wikipedia
indigenous peoples, also known as First peoples, Aboriginal peoples or Native peoples, are ethnic groups who are the original settlers of a given region, in contrast to groups that have settled, occupied or colonized the area more recently.

What is “more recently”? What is the exact time span? Why do Jews get a special designation while Muslim Palestinians, many of whom’s roots go back just as far, they simply changed religion, get called settlers and colonizers by you? Loaded terms that imply, whether intended or not, that they have no, or less rights and ties to the region.

What do you want? A diatribe on how evil and horrible Muslims are? Because that is what it comes down in the end right? Some one has to be demonized to satisfy.

Honestly? I want the discussion to not always center on Jews. This thread should have been a discussion about Arab Muslims and their atrocious behaviour. But, sigh, once again got sidelined early on. So instead of discussing how we can influence the Arab Muslims to act with some respect and integrity in granting human rights, we are once again discussing how Jews are just as bad as everyone else.

No one said Jews were just as bad. In fact I clearly said otherwise.

You continue to change the meaning of the word indigenous to the utter and total dismay to all who are actually indigenous.

Germans are indigenous of Germany. No matter if they left 3000 years ago and settled in Sweden, they are still indigenous from the place they came from, where they originated for the First Place.

Are Germans indigenous to Germany? The Germanic were a plurality of tribes spread out over Europe. They were conquered and incorporated into Rome.

According to your description then, Palestinians are indigenous to Palestine.

And I would like to add to my earlier post in response to yours:

Some religious Jews did become sick and tired of waiting for the Muslim Arabs to change their way of thinking and way of treating Jews and their endless incitement to destroy Israel and kill all Jews.

THAT is where their thinking of not allowing Arabs to live in Israel comes from. It will never be because they will never achieve the power in order to implement it.

On the other hand:

Saudi Arabia....no Jews since the 7th century .
Jordan....No Jews since 1925
Iraq....no more Jews since all had to be lifted into Israel post 1990s
Egypt....how many left?
Bahrain....how many left?
Lebanon?
Syria?

In how many Muslim countries, besides Morocco and Turkey, are Jews still allowed to live in and freely follow their religion and be free from persecution ?

See now are doing exactly what you criticized me about. You making excuses for the extremists on your side. As if the fact that “the other” behaves worse justifies it. Note, I agree that Israel has far more religious tolerance than any of it’s Muslim neighbors, I have never said otherwise.

Islam, unfortunately, is a one sided ideology. They have power, they conquer and they treat people as the person at the top decides.

That applies to any religion that gains nationalist identity and political power. Look at Hindu nationalism in India, the Buddhist nationalists in Myanmar, historic Christian nation’s, and many Muslim nation’s. Religion in government is usually not very good for those not of the right group.
And Israel in that regard even though it is far better than it’s neighbors it is nowhere as Canada or the US, because in state defined by religion, people are also defined by religion.

Which is why the Palestinians are leaving Gaza in droves. And so are as many in areas A and B, as they can.

Kinda sorta. But you only part of it. Corruption and bad leadership play a role but so do Israeli policies, economic devastation etc. as a result of those policies.

Because the current and previous leaders of the Palestinians only have one goal in mind. Take as much money as they can, keep as much money as they can, and spend it only on what they need.

Just look at how sorry Abbas is that he cannot pay his bills, while he keeps inciting and paying his people to kill Jews.

Did you manage to throw in the kitchen sink too?

Going back to the Temple and why Jews simply have to do whatever they can in order to be "allowed" into their most important holy site, when they were not allowed at all between 1948 and 1967 and just as much during the whole time Muslims have been in charge since the 7th century.........


WHY do Jews have to ask "please" let us into our holiest place.
Please, allow us to pray there.
Please do not verbally assault us.
Please do not physically assault us.
Please, live up to the agreements.

I have absolutely no argument with you on this part.

You Totally do not understand the meaning of the word Indigenous.

And we, the Indigenous people of any place, are not going to continue to waste our breath simply because you have adopted the very definition the Arab Muslims want all to adopt. Because it suits them.

 

[Sixties Fan]

Well, the problem, it isn’t ONLY one side. Situations are seldom one sided. It is PRIMARILY one side. You do have factions among the Jews that want to see the mosque torn down and bans on non Jews entering the area. They are considered fringe but they exist and their vocal support for extreme actions feeds the fears of conspiracy-theory loving Arabs who don’t trust Israeli motivations and fear any change is a slippery slope.

It is only one side perpetrating violence, but the tensions aren’t one sided. And like I said religion isn’t very rational.

And frankly, a lot of conversations here go sideways. If it is criticizing an Israeli policy then inevitably we here but but the Palestinians...

See? You just did it again. Rather than recognizing and condemning Muslim actions on the Temple Mount, you (paraphrased):

• minimize the impact of issue on Jews
• describe the problem in narrow terms
• argue that both sides are responsible
• claim that Jews do it too
• illuminate Arab fears of what Jews "might" do
• question the "real" motivations of Jews
• attempt to equivalize the two sides by calling attention to "tensions"
• highlight the irrationality of both sides

Your post effectively hides Muslim atrocities and amplifies supposed Jewish wrong-doing.

So let's try this again. ONLY ONE SIDE:

• murders people at the holy site
• brings weapons to murder people
• throws stones at people
• stockpiles rocks, IEDs, guns, firebombs inside buildings
• demands an absence of metal detectors or other security equipment
• provokes people using ugly language, screaming, violent actions
• employs women and children to provoke
• prevents prayer and worship
• denies religious symbols
• limits access
• demands exclusive right to manage the site
• threatens large scale military, terror and political action

The other side does NOT do these things. The other side goes so far as to restrict the human rights of its own people to avoid "tensions" (translation: a mass killing spree perpetrated by Muslims). Further, the other side has a religious ideology of shared holy places.



Also, I haven't seen any criticism of "Israel's policies" in years on this board.

Hold on. You are here insisting that ONLY ONE SIDE has any issues and when I point, factually, that that is not quite true, you go off.

I usually policies, and actions as a state, so what do you mean you haven’t seen such in years?

Why is it necessary to portray it in strict black and white when it isn’t? For example I mentioned conspiracy theories, and there is a very widespread and powerful belief among Muslims that Israel plans to raze the Mosque. This belief is pervasive, fuels violence and should not be ignored. Note: I am not saying Israel plans to do this, there is no evidence to support that in any way, but people believe it.

If your only goal is to blame, sure blame the Muslims because they HAVE been more intolerant and violent.

But if you want to understand it, it isn’t so simple. I am not that black and white in how I view things.

Except that the Muslims, have spelled it out in black and white, but too many are just too illiterate, which suits the Muslim leaders and others who follow them, just fine.

It is written in black and white in their holy books, etc. But let us not pay attention at all as to what they say they intend for the Jews, and mainly the Jews.

 

[Coyote]

Well, the problem, it isn’t ONLY one side. Situations are seldom one sided. It is PRIMARILY one side. You do have factions among the Jews that want to see the mosque torn down and bans on non Jews entering the area. They are considered fringe but they exist and their vocal support for extreme actions feeds the fears of conspiracy-theory loving Arabs who don’t trust Israeli motivations and fear any change is a slippery slope.

It is only one side perpetrating violence, but the tensions aren’t one sided. And like I said religion isn’t very rational.

And frankly, a lot of conversations here go sideways. If it is criticizing an Israeli policy then inevitably we here but but the Palestinians...

See? You just did it again. Rather than recognizing and condemning Muslim actions on the Temple Mount, you (paraphrased):

• minimize the impact of issue on Jews
• describe the problem in narrow terms
• argue that both sides are responsible
• claim that Jews do it too
• illuminate Arab fears of what Jews "might" do
• question the "real" motivations of Jews
• attempt to equivalize the two sides by calling attention to "tensions"
• highlight the irrationality of both sides

Your post effectively hides Muslim atrocities and amplifies supposed Jewish wrong-doing.

So let's try this again. ONLY ONE SIDE:

• murders people at the holy site
• brings weapons to murder people
• throws stones at people
• stockpiles rocks, IEDs, guns, firebombs inside buildings
• demands an absence of metal detectors or other security equipment
• provokes people using ugly language, screaming, violent actions
• employs women and children to provoke
• prevents prayer and worship
• denies religious symbols
• limits access
• demands exclusive right to manage the site
• threatens large scale military, terror and political action

The other side does NOT do these things. The other side goes so far as to restrict the human rights of its own people to avoid "tensions" (translation: a mass killing spree perpetrated by Muslims). Further, the other side has a religious ideology of shared holy places.



Also, I haven't seen any criticism of "Israel's policies" in years on this board.

Hold on. You are here insisting that ONLY ONE SIDE has any issues and when I point, factually, that that is not quite true, you go off.

I usually policies, and actions as a state, so what do you mean you haven’t seen such in years?

Why is it necessary to portray it in strict black and white when it isn’t? For example I mentioned conspiracy theories, and there is a very widespread and powerful belief among Muslims that Israel plans to raze the Mosque. This belief is pervasive, fuels violence and should not be ignored. Note: I am not saying Israel plans to do this, there is no evidence to support that in any way, but people believe it.

If your only goal is to blame, sure blame the Muslims because they HAVE been more intolerant and violent.

But if you want to understand it, it isn’t so simple. I am not that black and white in how I view things.

Except that the Muslims, have spelled it out in black and white, but too many are just too illiterate, which suits the Muslim leaders and others who follow them, just fine.

It is written in black and white in their holy books, etc. But let us not pay attention at all as to what they say they intend for the Jews, and mainly the Jews.

Yet they lived relatively fine (in the context of the times) with Jews for over a thousand years.

Let’s forget about all that.

 

[Coyote]

Perhaps then the Jewish people should practice acknowledgement and reconciliation for forcing the Palestinians, who were themselves indigenous to Palestine, off their land and recognizing the effect Nakbah had on THEIR People instead of marginalizing it.

Wait, what? "Their land"?! What happened to "shared space"?! It's interesting that historical Jewish places are "shared" and yet somehow "Palestine" (and you mean ALL of Palestine here) is Arab land.

I'm going to stop right here and challenge you on this. Is it shared land or Arab land?

You can challenge me, but you are missing the point I was making and misinterpreting what I said.

Please feel free to clarify. Because it seems awfully clear that in your mind Jewish spaces are really "shared spaces" but all of Palestine is "their land" (Arab).

Sure. I will clarify because you seem to be contradictory here.

1. I never said all of Palestine is “their” land.
2. There seems to be an underlying assumption on your part that all of Palestine is Jewish land,
3. When Jews are driven off their land...uh..it’s their land. When Palestinians are driven off their land...well what? They are settlers? Ge that sounds like a familiar theme only I usually hear it from the anti Israel faction.

What in fact I was talking about was specific people driven off their specific property during conflict and refused return. Not a general all land belonging to one group or another.

 

[Shusha]

Hold on. You are here insisting that ONLY ONE SIDE has any issues and when I point, factually, that that is not quite true, you go off.

Except, no. With respect to the Temple Mount (which IS the topic of discussion on this thread), only one side is the perpetrator. Period. Full stop. Fact.

Neither individual Jews, nor the collective Jewish people, nor the State of Israel:

• murders people at the holy site
• brings weapons to murder people
• throws stones at people
• stockpiles rocks, IEDs, guns, firebombs inside buildings
• demands an absence of metal detectors or other security equipment
• provokes people using ugly language, screaming, violent actions
• employs women and children to provoke
• prevents prayer and worship
• denies religious symbols
• limits access
• demands exclusive right to manage the site
• threatens large scale military, terror and political action

Why is it necessary to portray it in strict black and white when it isn’t?

It is black and white. Black. And. White. One side does all of these things. The other side does none of these things.

 

[Shusha]

For example I mentioned conspiracy theories, and there is a very widespread and powerful belief among Muslims that Israel plans to raze the Mosque. This belief is pervasive, fuels violence and should not be ignored. Note: I am not saying Israel plans to do this, there is no evidence to support that in any way, but people believe it.

Hold on here.

So, Jews are to be judged and evaluated on what Muslims believe even if those beliefs are patently false and there is no evidence to support those beliefs in any way.

Are you serious?

 

[Sixties Fan]

Perhaps then the Jewish people should practice acknowledgement and reconciliation for forcing the Palestinians, who were themselves indigenous to Palestine, off their land and recognizing the effect Nakbah had on THEIR People instead of marginalizing it.

Wait, what? "Their land"?! What happened to "shared space"?! It's interesting that historical Jewish places are "shared" and yet somehow "Palestine" (and you mean ALL of Palestine here) is Arab land.

I'm going to stop right here and challenge you on this. Is it shared land or Arab land?

You can challenge me, but you are missing the point I was making and misinterpreting what I said.

Please feel free to clarify. Because it seems awfully clear that in your mind Jewish spaces are really "shared spaces" but all of Palestine is "their land" (Arab).

Sure. I will clarify because you seem to be contradictory here.

1. I never said all of Palestine is “their” land.
2. There seems to be an underlying assumption on your part that all of Palestine is Jewish land,
3. When Jews are driven off their land...uh..it’s their land. When Palestinians are driven off their land...well what? They are settlers? Ge that sounds like a familiar theme only I usually hear it from the anti Israel faction.

What in fact I was talking about was specific people driven off their specific property during conflict and refused return. Not a general all land belonging to one group or another.

All of the Mandate of Palestine was the Jewish Homeland, which is different from saying that it is Jewish land, as in land bought and paid for and belonging only to Jews.

That is what the Mandate was about, before the British reneged on it and gave 78% of freely to the Hashemite Arab clan.

Jews had lived in Gaza long before the Arabs arrived. But.....in 1920 the British saw fit to "save" the Jews from the Arab mobs by making them leave.....to never allow them to return.

Jews were also attacked in Hebron, Jerusalem and Judea and Samaria, from 1929 to 1948, from their homes and lands and expelled from them. The Arabs now call those, Palestinian land.

There is a huge difference between someone's original homeland and a piece of land which someone from another part of the world may have bought and lived on, or simply lived on for a long time.

Which is about the same difference between Indigenous and someone moving into that land, and not being indigenous of that land, no matter how long they have lived there, simply because they Are indigenous of the place their ancestors settled in and created a separate culture and language, long before anyone of that clan decided to migrate and live somewhere else.

The Arabs started the war against the Jews in 1920.

The Jews do not have to apologize for fighting back and protecting their properties, and even taking back some of what the Arabs took from the Jews during the riots and wars between 1920 and 1967 and more. That is how wars go. Sometimes a side loses, sometimes it wins.

Winning on the Palestinian side, means destroying Israel and sending all the Jews away.

It is not the same on Israel and the Jewish side, no matter how small a number of extremists exist on the Israeli side, who would like to see ALL Arabs to leave in order for there to be real peace inside Israel.

No, the Arabs will never stop attacking even if all Arabs were expelled, which will not happen.

No Jews in Saudi Arabia to undermine that country?
No Jews in Jordan to undermine that country?

How many Muslim and Christian Arabs live in Israel with the express intention of delegitimizing the country and attempting to make it disappear? Just look at the Arab List and what their interests are. How many Hamas, Fatah and IS members live in or came in illegally in order to incite the Arabs living in Israel against Israel. Even Arab Israeli citizens?

 

[Shusha]

If your only goal is to blame, sure blame the Muslims because they HAVE been more intolerant and violent.

My goal is for people to start holding Arabs/Muslims/Palestinians responsible for their actions and start requiring them to do better.

That means people like you have to start, in your dialogue and discussions, you know, holding Arabs/Muslims/Palestinians responsible for their actions.

This thread, this moment, would be a really, really good time for you to do that.

 

[Sixties Fan]

And again, getting back to the topic....

New Poll: Palestinians Want All of Jerusalem, Prisoners Not as High a Priority as Widely Thought


And they mean it.

Jordan cannot be gracious about letting Jews visit or pray at the
Temple Mount. Neither are the Palestinians going to be gracious about it. Both have made it very clear, that Jews are not welcome now to the Temple Mount then they were before WWI.

 

[Shusha]

Yet they lived relatively fine (in the context of the times) with Jews for over a thousand years.

There are no places in the Arab or Muslim world TODAY where Jews are living "relatively fine".

In nearly every place today controlled by Arabs/Muslims/Palestinians, Jews are outright forbidden to be in that space, have legal sanctions against them, or have their human rights restricted. (Don't @me with the two exceptions which prove the rule (Morocco and Turkey).)

 

[Shusha]

Perhaps then the Jewish people should practice acknowledgement and reconciliation for forcing the Palestinians, who were themselves indigenous to Palestine, off their land and recognizing the effect Nakbah had on THEIR People instead of marginalizing it.

Wait, what? "Their land"?! What happened to "shared space"?! It's interesting that historical Jewish places are "shared" and yet somehow "Palestine" (and you mean ALL of Palestine here) is Arab land.

I'm going to stop right here and challenge you on this. Is it shared land or Arab land?

You can challenge me, but you are missing the point I was making and misinterpreting what I said.

Please feel free to clarify. Because it seems awfully clear that in your mind Jewish spaces are really "shared spaces" but all of Palestine is "their land" (Arab).

Sure. I will clarify because you seem to be contradictory here.

1. I never said all of Palestine is “their” land.
2. There seems to be an underlying assumption on your part that all of Palestine is Jewish land,
3. When Jews are driven off their land...uh..it’s their land. When Palestinians are driven off their land...well what? They are settlers? Ge that sounds like a familiar theme only I usually hear it from the anti Israel faction.

What in fact I was talking about was specific people driven off their specific property during conflict and refused return. Not a general all land belonging to one group or another.

I'd suggest you try not to conflate sovereignty with private land ownership in conversation then. If you are discussing private land ownership, please label it as such.

 

[Shusha]

2. There seems to be an underlying assumption on your part that all of Palestine is Jewish land,

It's not an assumption. It's a legal and moral position taken after decades of research.

All of the Western section of the Mandate for Palestine was designated for the self-determination of the Jewish people. (Just as all of Eastern portion of the Mandate for Palestine was designated for the self-determination of the Arab Palestinian people, and Syria, Iraq and Lebanon were designated for the self-determination of their respective Arab people.)

The expectation in Western Palestine was that the Jewish Homeland would include a significant majority of Arab Muslims who would (of course!) have full civil rights without the right to self-determination since that right was housed with the Jewish people based on their existing, historical claim. (Just as Jewish self-determination would not be permitted on the east bank of the Jordan River where Arab Palestinians had the right to self-determination).

 

[Shusha]

Above said,

This does not mean that it is "Jewish land", but that it is land under the sovereignty of Israel until such time as a treaty changes it. Such a treaty was signed in 1994 -- the Oslo Accords -- which designates certain areas (A, B and Gaza) to be under a government separate from Israel and which calls for a treaty between Israel and the eventual State of Palestine to determine final status for several important items. Area C remains under the sovereignty of Israel. In the absence of a final treaty with a State of Palestine, the land can only be either Israel or terra nullius. There are no other legal options.

The development of a distinct Arab Palestinian people who seek self-determination is -- of itself -- enough, legally and morally, to partition Western Palestine. (As other states have been partitioned: Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, India, etc.) This is, however, dependent on Arab Palestine being capable of developing a state and then actually achieving it.

So you won't see me discuss "Jewish land". I tend to use the legal designations.