Old City Jerusalem as an Independent Sovereignty

[Andylusion]

There is absolutely no fundamental difference between that insanity, and this idea that somehow Jerusalem should be controlled by any other country or group of countries, or United Nations of countries, than the nation of Israel alone.

Sure there is. Arabs have lived in Jerusalem for a really, really long time. You can't just ignore that fact. The question on the table is how to practically deal with that fact.

Correct.
In fact, Arabs have lived in Jerusalem for over 5000 years before the Hebrew invasion around 1000 BC.
The Palestinian Arabs are the Akkadians, Urites, Chaldeans, Canaanites, Philistines, Phoenicians, Nabatians, Amorites, etc.
And they were the only ones who never left.

The Chamites conquered it from the Shemites and we got it back.
Life is tough.

Wrong.
The owners of the Land of Canaan were the Canaanites, Akkadians, Urites, Chaldeans, etc., going back to 8000 BC.
The Hebrew tribes did not invade until around 1000 BC, and never held it very long.
The Jews clearly were the illegal invaders, and have no rights to the Land of Canaan.
Nor would they retain rights after leaving around 160 AD.
Those are the rules, and Israel is in violation.

Illegal invaders? Based on what?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It would be really great if some of us at least tried to have a more sophisticated discussion about this topic beyond, "the Jews have no rights" and, "Jerusalem is Israel's forever". Blah, blah, been there, done that, got the t-shirt.

The reality is that both Jews and Arabs live in the Old City, and unless you are planning on forcibly removing some of them, its going to stay that way. The Old City is also home to places of historical and religious significance for both Jews and Arabs (as well as Christians and others).

Can we just entertain the notion that maybe, perhaps, Jews and Arabs can live and function together there in peace? (Especially since they already do).

What are the potential benefits of this sort of plan for a sovereign, independent Old City? What are the potential problems?

Since there are historic place in Jerusalem, it should not be conflicted by being a capital of anywhere.
It has no significance as a Jewish capital because there were 3 different Jewish states back before the Jewish Diaspora. Judea, Israel, and Samaria. And Jerusalem never had a Jewish majority.
No one should be able to take land from the private land owners, and it is Arabs who legally own ALL of Jerusalem.
You can not legally change that by invading.

and it is Arabs who legally own ALL of Jerusalem.

LOL!

You can not legally change that by invading.

Why not, it worked for the Arabs.

 

[Coyote]

[
This thread is about Jerusalem being an separate sovereign entity of its own, which definitely DOES preclude it from being the capital of Israel.
And that is not only my opinion, but also the opinion of the UN when they partitioned Palestine in 1948.

Well, the UN doesn't get a say in domestic matters, but whatever.

You agree that Jerusalem should not be the capital of either Israel or an eventual Palestine. Cool. Do you have any suggestions as to how to make that work? Or what protections should be put in place for various peoples, especially minorities? How tourism could be carefully, respectfully and properly implemented? How coveted apartments in the Old City could be transferred? How its to be governed? Or any of the other points of discussion brought up in the OP?

Those are difficult questions.

For example,apartments, two things drive conflict : affordability and ethnicity.

In an ideal world:

Governance...a city council, with a mayorship that rotates between the Jews and the Muslims (but there are other communities too, such as Christians.

Maybe something kind of like the Swiss have : Politics of Switzerland - Wikipedia

Thank you for participating.

I would shy away from the religious designations and make it an ethnic/cultural division between Jews and Arabs. I don't think its a good idea to make this about religion. Its about the ethnic and cultural peoples who are resident in the City.

I definitely think a city council with equal weight given to Jews and Arabs would be the best way to go.

You read my mind on the affordability aspect. Because it is such sought after property, we wouldn't want to make it driven by wealth. That just seems to me to be a bad idea.

I agree with with you on ethnicity vs religion good point.

Affordable housing is a huge issue in any area, and a crisis in many US cities. How would Jerusalem deal with it? Rent control?

I was thinking more outside the box. Lottery? Community ownership? Limited time shares or leases?

Also, how about thinking more tribal government? Two Councils? One which handles all the religious and cultural issues and another which deals with the practical, day-to-day matters.

Excellent idea! One council should include an archaeologist as well, to insure development respects antiquities.

What do you me@n by more tribal?

On ownership...wouldn’t it be neat to consider Jerusalem an experiment...try each of the modalities in different areas of it?

 

[rylah]

And Shusha don't change the subject,
it's not separating ANY part of "greater Israel", but Jerusalem from tiny Israel.

And it's not about recognizing the presence of Arabs there.
Arabs have established Sharia law in Jerusalem, how much can I pretend they're not there with their Dome, and all the moons and crosses above and rocks down thrown at us when praying down the Mountain?

 

[Shusha]

Have You seen the amount of "interior spaces" around the city?
I'm not yet talking about sites like the tomb of King David A"H, but actual mosques, churches with all their courts and gardens where they expect to guard the place.

I'm not sure I follow your meaning here. The City itself, in all practical matters would be run by some sort of Council, providing equality for all. The individual mosques and churches and synagogues, with all their courts and gardens would be places of worship and run by the leaders of the religious faith. Why is this a problem? Please clarify?

 

[rylah]

According to Halakha,
Even if as children, we're supposed to forgive our father's honor, in case he forgave,
the King's honor is not forgiven, even if He Himself forgives.

My Father happens to be The King, what about His honor,
when suggesting I give His throne to be used as a leg chair to those whom He defeated,
and serve them drinks, instead of You know acting accordingly?

 

[Shusha]

Excellent idea! One council should include an archaeologist as well, to insure development respects antiquities.

Absolutely.

What do you me@n by more tribal?

I don't mean more family-tribe oriented, if that is what you are worried about. (Although, wouldn't that be interesting....). But just more co-operative, I guess?

 

[Shusha]

And Shusha don't change the subject,
it's not separating ANY part of "greater Israel", but Jerusalem from tiny Israel.

And it's not about recognizing the presence of Arabs there.
Arabs have established Sharia law in Jerusalem, how much can I pretend they're not there with their Dome, and all the moons and crosses above and rocks down thrown at us when praying down the Mountain?

You know I am not supporting any of that.

 

[rylah]

Have You seen the amount of "interior spaces" around the city?
I'm not yet talking about sites like the tomb of King David A"H, but actual mosques, churches with all their courts and gardens where they expect to guard the place.

I'm not sure I follow your meaning here. The City itself, in all practical matters would be run by some sort of Council, providing equality for all. The individual mosques and churches and synagogues, with all their courts and gardens would be places of worship and run by the leaders of the religious faith. Why is this a problem? Please clarify?

Because it makes most of Jerusalem equal, or very close, to the situation on mount Zion.
By increasing the power of the religious authorities of both dominating Christian and Islamic religions, You actually physically increase their authority to police the streets. By setting the govt with the focus on religious preferences You allows waqf guard and alike outreach into guarding the city, as well as motivate more territorial disputes between their high authorities over ownership of lands by sultans, popes and emirs from abroad, opening Jerusalem further to hostilities that may result from seeming unrelated conflicts of one or both of the dominating religions far abroad.

 

[rylah]

And Shusha don't change the subject,
it's not separating ANY part of "greater Israel", but Jerusalem from tiny Israel.

And it's not about recognizing the presence of Arabs there.
Arabs have established Sharia law in Jerusalem, how much can I pretend they're not there with their Dome, and all the moons and crosses above and rocks down thrown at us when praying down the Mountain?

You know I am not supporting any of that.

I'm not the one trying to justify that humiliation of Hashem's Name and Israel as a virtue,
let alone a way to fix the world.

It will get fixed though, either we deserve it or not, for the sake of Hashem's Name alone,
once and for all, after a war they actually attempt again and last.

Israel won't be much longer the dhimmis they're now in Jerusalem.

 

[Indeependent]

And Shusha don't change the subject,
it's not separating ANY part of "greater Israel", but Jerusalem from tiny Israel.

And it's not about recognizing the presence of Arabs there.
Arabs have established Sharia law in Jerusalem, how much can I pretend they're not there with their Dome, and all the moons and crosses above and rocks down thrown at us when praying down the Mountain?

You know I am not supporting any of that.

And you know we don’t care.

 

[Shusha]

Have You seen the amount of "interior spaces" around the city?
I'm not yet talking about sites like the tomb of King David A"H, but actual mosques, churches with all their courts and gardens where they expect to guard the place.

I'm not sure I follow your meaning here. The City itself, in all practical matters would be run by some sort of Council, providing equality for all. The individual mosques and churches and synagogues, with all their courts and gardens would be places of worship and run by the leaders of the religious faith. Why is this a problem? Please clarify?

Because it makes most of Jerusalem equal, or very close, to the situation on mount Zion.
By increasing the power of the religious authorities of both dominating Christian and Islamic religions, You actually physically increase their authority to police the streets. By setting the govt with the focus on religious preferences You allows waqf guard and alike outreach into guarding the city, as well as motivate more territorial disputes between their high authorities over ownership of lands by sultans, popes and emirs from abroad, opening Jerusalem further to hostilities that may result from seeming unrelated conflicts of one or both of the dominating religions far abroad.

Can we be really, really clear about what I am and what I am not suggesting here?

I am suggesting a plan which increases Jewish sovereignty and religious equality over the Old City, while acknowledging not only reality but what should be a tenet of our faith. I’m certainly not suggesting handing the Old City over to Muslims. Let alone powers from abroad.

Have you guys read anything I’ve written over the years? Sheesh.

Now it’s one thing to argue that it can’t be done because Muslims will never accept it. (It. Can’t. Be. Done. Muslims. Will. Never. Accept. It. Duh.). But it’s quite another to suggest that giving consideration to other nations and religious faiths is an abomination.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Old City Jerusalem as an Independent Sovereignty
⁜→ Shusha, et al,

In May 1949, the UN decided to admit Israel to membership in the United Nations.

In December 1949, the Knesset voted to move the seat of government to Jerusalem.

Can we be really, really clear about what I am and what I am not suggesting here?

I am suggesting a plan which increases Jewish sovereignty and religious equality over the Old City, while acknowledging not only reality but what should be a tenet of our faith. I’m certainly not suggesting handing the Old City over to Muslims. Let alone powers from abroad.

Have you guys read anything I’ve written over the years? Sheesh.

Now it’s one thing to argue that it can’t be done because Muslims will never accept it. (It. Can’t. Be. Done. Muslims. Will. Never. Accept. It. Duh.). But it’s quite another to suggest that giving consideration to other nations and religious faiths is an abomination.

(COMMENT)

I'm not at all sure how this actually could be implemented.

..........
Most Respectfully,
R

 

[fncceo]

Israel is in violation of international law.

Call an international cop.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Old City Jerusalem as an Independent Sovereignty
⁜→ fncceo, et al,

Yes, iI noticed that many people make this "blanket claim."

Israel is in violation of international law.

Call an international cop.

(COMMENT)

Maybe you would like to share and discuss the uncited international law to which you refer?

........
Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

RE: Old City Jerusalem as an Independent Sovereignty
⁜→ fncceo, et al,

Yes, iI noticed that many people make this "blanket claim."

Israel is in violation of international law.

Call an international cop.

(COMMENT)

Maybe you would like to share and discuss the uncited international law to which you refer?

........View attachment 278811
Most Respectfully,
R

I think it's the "If Muslims lose, they get infinite do overs" law.

 

[Shusha]

I'm not at all sure how this actually could be implemented.

..........View attachment 278788
Most Respectfully,
R

Well, remember I'm JUST talking about the Old City here, not the entirety of Jerusalem. Its a suggestion specifically to address the historical and Holy places and create a place of shared interest and co-operation, with a relatively small number of people (~50,000 ish?). It puts the power over the places of historical and religious significance in the hands of the people who actually live there. It removes the idea that either Israel or the wider Muslim world will "take over" the sites and City. It would remove a major source of "stickiness" for a peace treaty, take it right off the table.

Do I think it is possible that this could actually happen? Not a chance. Muslims (world-wide) will go bonkers if filthy Jewish feet have equal access to the Temple Mount. And Jews will (correctly, I believe) fight against having their most holy site taken from their control.

All that said, I was looking for a fresh and interesting topic to discuss. Something a little more sophisticated. Something beyond the typical round and round and round we usually seem to do on this board.

How do you think it could be implemented?

 

[Coyote]

I dont think it would be just the Muslims who would go bonkers, judging by the remarks on the thread.

But I DO like the idea of it being an independetly governed entity.

Wouldnt it be interesting if it could be, not just a center for reliion and antiquities but a center for learning and education with universities. The Jews have always held education highly and the ancient Muslim world did as well, together with the Jews. What would provide an economy for Jerusalem? A center of learning?

 

[Indeependent]

Have You seen the amount of "interior spaces" around the city?
I'm not yet talking about sites like the tomb of King David A"H, but actual mosques, churches with all their courts and gardens where they expect to guard the place.

I'm not sure I follow your meaning here. The City itself, in all practical matters would be run by some sort of Council, providing equality for all. The individual mosques and churches and synagogues, with all their courts and gardens would be places of worship and run by the leaders of the religious faith. Why is this a problem? Please clarify?

Because it makes most of Jerusalem equal, or very close, to the situation on mount Zion.
By increasing the power of the religious authorities of both dominating Christian and Islamic religions, You actually physically increase their authority to police the streets. By setting the govt with the focus on religious preferences You allows waqf guard and alike outreach into guarding the city, as well as motivate more territorial disputes between their high authorities over ownership of lands by sultans, popes and emirs from abroad, opening Jerusalem further to hostilities that may result from seeming unrelated conflicts of one or both of the dominating religions far abroad.

Can we be really, really clear about what I am and what I am not suggesting here?

I am suggesting a plan which increases Jewish sovereignty and religious equality over the Old City, while acknowledging not only reality but what should be a tenet of our faith. I’m certainly not suggesting handing the Old City over to Muslims. Let alone powers from abroad.

Have you guys read anything I’ve written over the years? Sheesh.

Now it’s one thing to argue that it can’t be done because Muslims will never accept it. (It. Can’t. Be. Done. Muslims. Will. Never. Accept. It. Duh.). But it’s quite another to suggest that giving consideration to other nations and religious faiths is an abomination.

Where is consideration not currently being given?

 

[Shusha]

Have You seen the amount of "interior spaces" around the city?
I'm not yet talking about sites like the tomb of King David A"H, but actual mosques, churches with all their courts and gardens where they expect to guard the place.

I'm not sure I follow your meaning here. The City itself, in all practical matters would be run by some sort of Council, providing equality for all. The individual mosques and churches and synagogues, with all their courts and gardens would be places of worship and run by the leaders of the religious faith. Why is this a problem? Please clarify?

Because it makes most of Jerusalem equal, or very close, to the situation on mount Zion.
By increasing the power of the religious authorities of both dominating Christian and Islamic religions, You actually physically increase their authority to police the streets. By setting the govt with the focus on religious preferences You allows waqf guard and alike outreach into guarding the city, as well as motivate more territorial disputes between their high authorities over ownership of lands by sultans, popes and emirs from abroad, opening Jerusalem further to hostilities that may result from seeming unrelated conflicts of one or both of the dominating religions far abroad.

Can we be really, really clear about what I am and what I am not suggesting here?

I am suggesting a plan which increases Jewish sovereignty and religious equality over the Old City, while acknowledging not only reality but what should be a tenet of our faith. I’m certainly not suggesting handing the Old City over to Muslims. Let alone powers from abroad.

Have you guys read anything I’ve written over the years? Sheesh.

Now it’s one thing to argue that it can’t be done because Muslims will never accept it. (It. Can’t. Be. Done. Muslims. Will. Never. Accept. It. Duh.). But it’s quite another to suggest that giving consideration to other nations and religious faiths is an abomination.

Where is consideration not currently being given?

Not enough consideration is being given to the Jewish people, imo.

Maybe I'm not being entirely clear in what I am imagining here.