Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Few people, especially, historians and academics would condone your extreme commitment to racist appropriation of historical artifacts. Arabs in Morocco do not have any right to claim ownership of the Alhambra which is in Granada and that Spanish city is where it stays despite hooligan vandalism by visitors since the glories of Al Andaluz. It is true that documents are more portable than glazed tiles but the removal of the Dead Sea Scrolls from the location where they were created in the West Bank is theft by the Israelis who claim ownership on the grounds that Israelis are Jews by their constitution if not in reality. Whoever stole this world heritage belongs behind bars.It has nothing to do with minorities or majorities. Under your scenario, Italians, particularly Romans, would have more claim to Roman artifacts found anywhere in the world than the country in which they were found.
Yes, the Italians would have more claim to them IMO. There are Roman ruins in Caesaria, Israel. I wouldn't mind it at all if they were all transported back to Rome.
Ditto. But, let's be practical, as well. Moving ancient buildings or monuments is much less practical than moving manuscripts.
There is no reason for Arab Muslims to have an interest in ancient Hebrew manuscripts. Just as there would be no good reason for Israelis to have an interest in ancient Arabic writings. And in a land which is, at best, shared between two peoples -- each people should have guardianship over their own cultural history.
Why anyone would argue against that is beyond me. And lets be honest here, Muslims don't exactly have a great history of respecting the monuments of other religious faiths.
Historical artifacts belong to everyone and international law requires that they be curated in trust for the people by the civil authority where they are found. For example, Roman coins found in Spain are studied there and on display in Spanish museums, not Italian museums.I am a bit tired of you refusing to deal with my supporting arguments.
Deal with my example of the Alhambra belonging in Spain along with other artifacts of Al Andaluz, not Arab Muslims in Iraq.
Your claim is that cultural heritage preferentially should be under the guardianship of the political entity currently in control of the territory in which the cultural heritage is found.
I'm pointing out that is a lame argument. I've also pointed out the difference between tangible heritage (buildings and monuments) and intangible heritage which is portable.
Why should the guardianship of cultural heritage be given to the owner of a piece of land, rather than to the people of the cultural heritage?
Read Post # 682. There is nothing funny about it.Few people, especially, historians and academics would condone your extreme commitment to racist appropriation of historical artifacts. Arabs in Morocco do not have any right to claim ownership of the Alhambra which is in Granada and that Spanish city is where it stays despite hooligan vandalism by visitors since the glories of Al Andaluz. It is true that documents are more portable than glazed tiles but the removal of the Dead Sea Scrolls from the location where they were created in the West Bank is theft by the Israelis who claim ownership on the grounds that Israelis are Jews by their constitution if not in reality. Whoever stole this world heritage belongs behind bars.It has nothing to do with minorities or majorities. Under your scenario, Italians, particularly Romans, would have more claim to Roman artifacts found anywhere in the world than the country in which they were found.
Yes, the Italians would have more claim to them IMO. There are Roman ruins in Caesaria, Israel. I wouldn't mind it at all if they were all transported back to Rome.
Ditto. But, let's be practical, as well. Moving ancient buildings or monuments is much less practical than moving manuscripts.
There is no reason for Arab Muslims to have an interest in ancient Hebrew manuscripts. Just as there would be no good reason for Israelis to have an interest in ancient Arabic writings. And in a land which is, at best, shared between two peoples -- each people should have guardianship over their own cultural history.
Why anyone would argue against that is beyond me. And lets be honest here, Muslims don't exactly have a great history of respecting the monuments of other religious faiths.
Funny how on one hand You claim historical artifacts belong to EVERY HUMAN, but then go and say that Jews 'stole' it.
Why when Jordanian put a Hebrew scroll in a museum it's fine, but when a Jew does it it's 'theft'?
I am a bit tired of you refusing to deal with my supporting arguments.Few people, especially, historians and academics would condone your extreme commitment to racist appropriation of historical artifacts. Arabs in Morocco do not have any right to claim ownership of the Alhambra which is in Granada and that Spanish city is where it stays despite hooligan vandalism by visitors since the glories of Al Andaluz. It is true that documents are more portable than glazed tiles but the removal of the Dead Sea Scrolls from the location where they were created in the West Bank is theft by the Israelis who claim ownership on the grounds that Israelis are Jews by their constitution if not in reality. Whoever stole this world heritage belongs behind bars.
The whole point of the principle of the human right to safe-guarding cultural heritage is to distance them from the political domain and arbitrary political territorial boundaries.
Intellectual property and cultural heritage belongs to those who belong to that cultural heritage. The idea that cultural heritage belongs to whatever
Why the hell would Arab Muslims WANT to hold the cultural heritage of another cultural group? What is their motivation in doing so? And what possible negative consequences would arise from permitting the cultural group which created the heritage to hold it, study it, explain it, transfer it to their children, etc?
Your claim is so ridiculously kindergarten -- its in my sandbox, so its mine. It does seem to cement the idea that the Jewish people absolutely must, in any agreement, maintain and protect its cultural heritage. If your standard is that Israel must "own" all the physical territory in which any of the cultural heritage was discovered -- well then, so be it.
Deal with my example of the Alhambra belonging in Spain along with other artifacts of Al Andaluz, not Arab Muslims in Iraq.
You have just earned yourself a place on my 'ignore' list. Your habit of insulting and claiming to speak for others, I will neither see nor miss.I am a bit tired of you refusing to deal with my supporting arguments.Few people, especially, historians and academics would condone your extreme commitment to racist appropriation of historical artifacts. Arabs in Morocco do not have any right to claim ownership of the Alhambra which is in Granada and that Spanish city is where it stays despite hooligan vandalism by visitors since the glories of Al Andaluz. It is true that documents are more portable than glazed tiles but the removal of the Dead Sea Scrolls from the location where they were created in the West Bank is theft by the Israelis who claim ownership on the grounds that Israelis are Jews by their constitution if not in reality. Whoever stole this world heritage belongs behind bars.
The whole point of the principle of the human right to safe-guarding cultural heritage is to distance them from the political domain and arbitrary political territorial boundaries.
Intellectual property and cultural heritage belongs to those who belong to that cultural heritage. The idea that cultural heritage belongs to whatever
Why the hell would Arab Muslims WANT to hold the cultural heritage of another cultural group? What is their motivation in doing so? And what possible negative consequences would arise from permitting the cultural group which created the heritage to hold it, study it, explain it, transfer it to their children, etc?
Your claim is so ridiculously kindergarten -- its in my sandbox, so its mine. It does seem to cement the idea that the Jewish people absolutely must, in any agreement, maintain and protect its cultural heritage. If your standard is that Israel must "own" all the physical territory in which any of the cultural heritage was discovered -- well then, so be it.
Deal with my example of the Alhambra belonging in Spain along with other artifacts of Al Andaluz, not Arab Muslims in Iraq.
Isn't is about time for you to get off your high horse? If you are not accusing posters of insulting you (when they realty haven't), or in this case you are a bit tired of Shusha (who has been so patient with you) because she is not marching to the same sick drummer in your head, why in the world have you gotten on the forum and parked yourself here? Don't you think most of the readers got your number the minute you crawled out of the woodwork.
Few people, especially, historians and academics would condone your extreme commitment to racist appropriation of historical artifacts. Arabs in Morocco do not have any right to claim ownership of the Alhambra which is in Granada and that Spanish city is where it stays despite hooligan vandalism by visitors since the glories of Al Andaluz. It is true that documents are more portable than glazed tiles but the removal of the Dead Sea Scrolls from the location where they were created in the West Bank is theft by the Israelis who claim ownership on the grounds that Israelis are Jews by their constitution if not in reality. Whoever stole this world heritage belongs behind bars.It has nothing to do with minorities or majorities. Under your scenario, Italians, particularly Romans, would have more claim to Roman artifacts found anywhere in the world than the country in which they were found.
Yes, the Italians would have more claim to them IMO. There are Roman ruins in Caesaria, Israel. I wouldn't mind it at all if they were all transported back to Rome.
Ditto. But, let's be practical, as well. Moving ancient buildings or monuments is much less practical than moving manuscripts.
There is no reason for Arab Muslims to have an interest in ancient Hebrew manuscripts. Just as there would be no good reason for Israelis to have an interest in ancient Arabic writings. And in a land which is, at best, shared between two peoples -- each people should have guardianship over their own cultural history.
Why anyone would argue against that is beyond me. And lets be honest here, Muslims don't exactly have a great history of respecting the monuments of other religious faiths.
Funny how on one hand You claim historical artifacts belong to EVERY HUMAN, but then go and say that Jews 'stole' it.
Why when Jordanian put a Hebrew scroll in a museum it's fine, but when a Jew does it it's 'theft'?
I am a bit tired of you refusing to deal with my supporting arguments.Few people, especially, historians and academics would condone your extreme commitment to racist appropriation of historical artifacts. Arabs in Morocco do not have any right to claim ownership of the Alhambra which is in Granada and that Spanish city is where it stays despite hooligan vandalism by visitors since the glories of Al Andaluz. It is true that documents are more portable than glazed tiles but the removal of the Dead Sea Scrolls from the location where they were created in the West Bank is theft by the Israelis who claim ownership on the grounds that Israelis are Jews by their constitution if not in reality. Whoever stole this world heritage belongs behind bars.
The whole point of the principle of the human right to safe-guarding cultural heritage is to distance them from the political domain and arbitrary political territorial boundaries.
Intellectual property and cultural heritage belongs to those who belong to that cultural heritage. The idea that cultural heritage belongs to whatever
Why the hell would Arab Muslims WANT to hold the cultural heritage of another cultural group? What is their motivation in doing so? And what possible negative consequences would arise from permitting the cultural group which created the heritage to hold it, study it, explain it, transfer it to their children, etc?
Your claim is so ridiculously kindergarten -- its in my sandbox, so its mine. It does seem to cement the idea that the Jewish people absolutely must, in any agreement, maintain and protect its cultural heritage. If your standard is that Israel must "own" all the physical territory in which any of the cultural heritage was discovered -- well then, so be it.
Deal with my example of the Alhambra belonging in Spain along with other artifacts of Al Andaluz, not Arab Muslims in Iraq.
Isn't is about time for you to get off your high horse? If you are not accusing posters of insulting you (when they realty haven't), or in this case you are a bit tired of Shusha (who has been so patient with you) because she is not marching to the same sick drummer in your head, why in the world have you gotten on the forum and parked yourself here? Don't you think most of the readers got your number the minute you crawled out of the woodwork.
Historical artifacts belong to everyone and international law requires that they be curated in trust for the people by the civil authority where they are found. For example, Roman coins found in Spain are studied there and on display in Spanish museums, not Italian museums.I am a bit tired of you refusing to deal with my supporting arguments.
Deal with my example of the Alhambra belonging in Spain along with other artifacts of Al Andaluz, not Arab Muslims in Iraq.
Your claim is that cultural heritage preferentially should be under the guardianship of the political entity currently in control of the territory in which the cultural heritage is found.
I'm pointing out that is a lame argument. I've also pointed out the difference between tangible heritage (buildings and monuments) and intangible heritage which is portable.
Why should the guardianship of cultural heritage be given to the owner of a piece of land, rather than to the people of the cultural heritage?
Historical artifacts belong to everyone and international law requires that they be curated in trust for the people by the civil authority where they are found. For example, Roman coins found in Spain are studied there and on display in Spanish museums, not Italian museums.I am a bit tired of you refusing to deal with my supporting arguments.
Deal with my example of the Alhambra belonging in Spain along with other artifacts of Al Andaluz, not Arab Muslims in Iraq.
Your claim is that cultural heritage preferentially should be under the guardianship of the political entity currently in control of the territory in which the cultural heritage is found.
I'm pointing out that is a lame argument. I've also pointed out the difference between tangible heritage (buildings and monuments) and intangible heritage which is portable.
Why should the guardianship of cultural heritage be given to the owner of a piece of land, rather than to the people of the cultural heritage?
I'm honored.You have just earned yourself a place on my 'ignore' list. Your habit of insulting and claiming to speak for others, I will neither see nor miss.I am a bit tired of you refusing to deal with my supporting arguments.Few people, especially, historians and academics would condone your extreme commitment to racist appropriation of historical artifacts. Arabs in Morocco do not have any right to claim ownership of the Alhambra which is in Granada and that Spanish city is where it stays despite hooligan vandalism by visitors since the glories of Al Andaluz. It is true that documents are more portable than glazed tiles but the removal of the Dead Sea Scrolls from the location where they were created in the West Bank is theft by the Israelis who claim ownership on the grounds that Israelis are Jews by their constitution if not in reality. Whoever stole this world heritage belongs behind bars.
The whole point of the principle of the human right to safe-guarding cultural heritage is to distance them from the political domain and arbitrary political territorial boundaries.
Intellectual property and cultural heritage belongs to those who belong to that cultural heritage. The idea that cultural heritage belongs to whatever
Why the hell would Arab Muslims WANT to hold the cultural heritage of another cultural group? What is their motivation in doing so? And what possible negative consequences would arise from permitting the cultural group which created the heritage to hold it, study it, explain it, transfer it to their children, etc?
Your claim is so ridiculously kindergarten -- its in my sandbox, so its mine. It does seem to cement the idea that the Jewish people absolutely must, in any agreement, maintain and protect its cultural heritage. If your standard is that Israel must "own" all the physical territory in which any of the cultural heritage was discovered -- well then, so be it.
Deal with my example of the Alhambra belonging in Spain along with other artifacts of Al Andaluz, not Arab Muslims in Iraq.
Isn't is about time for you to get off your high horse? If you are not accusing posters of insulting you (when they realty haven't), or in this case you are a bit tired of Shusha (who has been so patient with you) because she is not marching to the same sick drummer in your head, why in the world have you gotten on the forum and parked yourself here? Don't you think most of the readers got your number the minute you crawled out of the woodwork.
Originally posted by Montelatici
Most of us appreciate Eloy's calm approach with dealing with Zionist maniacs.
The shameful negligence of some to respect the the sacred artifacts that were their responsibility to care for should make us more determined not to do the same.Historical artifacts belong to everyone and international law requires that they be curated in trust for the people by the civil authority where they are found. For example, Roman coins found in Spain are studied there and on display in Spanish museums, not Italian museums.I am a bit tired of you refusing to deal with my supporting arguments.
Deal with my example of the Alhambra belonging in Spain along with other artifacts of Al Andaluz, not Arab Muslims in Iraq.
Your claim is that cultural heritage preferentially should be under the guardianship of the political entity currently in control of the territory in which the cultural heritage is found.
I'm pointing out that is a lame argument. I've also pointed out the difference between tangible heritage (buildings and monuments) and intangible heritage which is portable.
Why should the guardianship of cultural heritage be given to the owner of a piece of land, rather than to the people of the cultural heritage?Historical artifacts belong to everyone and international law requires that they be curated in trust for the people by the civil authority where they are found. For example, Roman coins found in Spain are studied there and on display in Spanish museums, not Italian museums.I am a bit tired of you refusing to deal with my supporting arguments.
Deal with my example of the Alhambra belonging in Spain along with other artifacts of Al Andaluz, not Arab Muslims in Iraq.
Your claim is that cultural heritage preferentially should be under the guardianship of the political entity currently in control of the territory in which the cultural heritage is found.
I'm pointing out that is a lame argument. I've also pointed out the difference between tangible heritage (buildings and monuments) and intangible heritage which is portable.
Why should the guardianship of cultural heritage be given to the owner of a piece of land, rather than to the people of the cultural heritage?
Really? Did the Spanish people use Italian gravestones for..khhm khhm..TOILETS in any recent time??
Like the Jordanians did in occupied Judea:
Or use Jewish and Christian gravestones to pave roads and build walls:
Historical artifacts belong to everyone and international law requires that they be curated in trust for the people by the civil authority where they are found.
I treat everyone with respect and I confess to having a weakness of demanding the same in return.Originally posted by Montelatici
Most of us appreciate Eloy's calm approach with dealing with Zionist maniacs.
Indeed... but good ol' Hoss has a point.
The guy is WAY too thin-skinned.
The United Nations has made an effort to specifically name examples of international heritage worthy of protection.Historical artifacts belong to everyone and international law requires that they be curated in trust for the people by the civil authority where they are found.
Actually, "international law" is quite a bit more nuanced and detailed than that.
Few people, especially, historians and academics would condone your extreme commitment to racist appropriation of historical artifacts. Arabs in Morocco do not have any right to claim ownership of the Alhambra which is in Granada and that Spanish city is where it stays despite hooligan vandalism by visitors since the glories of Al Andaluz. It is true that documents are more portable than glazed tiles but the removal of the Dead Sea Scrolls from the location where they were created in the West Bank is theft by the Israelis who claim ownership on the grounds that Israelis are Jews by their constitution if not in reality. Whoever stole this world heritage belongs behind bars.It has nothing to do with minorities or majorities. Under your scenario, Italians, particularly Romans, would have more claim to Roman artifacts found anywhere in the world than the country in which they were found.
Yes, the Italians would have more claim to them IMO. There are Roman ruins in Caesaria, Israel. I wouldn't mind it at all if they were all transported back to Rome.
Ditto. But, let's be practical, as well. Moving ancient buildings or monuments is much less practical than moving manuscripts.
There is no reason for Arab Muslims to have an interest in ancient Hebrew manuscripts. Just as there would be no good reason for Israelis to have an interest in ancient Arabic writings. And in a land which is, at best, shared between two peoples -- each people should have guardianship over their own cultural history.
Why anyone would argue against that is beyond me. And lets be honest here, Muslims don't exactly have a great history of respecting the monuments of other religious faiths.
Funny how on one hand You claim historical artifacts belong to EVERY HUMAN, but then go and say that Jews 'stole' it.
Why when Jordanian put a Hebrew scroll in a museum it's fine, but when a Jew does it it's 'theft'?I am a bit tired of you refusing to deal with my supporting arguments.Few people, especially, historians and academics would condone your extreme commitment to racist appropriation of historical artifacts. Arabs in Morocco do not have any right to claim ownership of the Alhambra which is in Granada and that Spanish city is where it stays despite hooligan vandalism by visitors since the glories of Al Andaluz. It is true that documents are more portable than glazed tiles but the removal of the Dead Sea Scrolls from the location where they were created in the West Bank is theft by the Israelis who claim ownership on the grounds that Israelis are Jews by their constitution if not in reality. Whoever stole this world heritage belongs behind bars.
The whole point of the principle of the human right to safe-guarding cultural heritage is to distance them from the political domain and arbitrary political territorial boundaries.
Intellectual property and cultural heritage belongs to those who belong to that cultural heritage. The idea that cultural heritage belongs to whatever
Why the hell would Arab Muslims WANT to hold the cultural heritage of another cultural group? What is their motivation in doing so? And what possible negative consequences would arise from permitting the cultural group which created the heritage to hold it, study it, explain it, transfer it to their children, etc?
Your claim is so ridiculously kindergarten -- its in my sandbox, so its mine. It does seem to cement the idea that the Jewish people absolutely must, in any agreement, maintain and protect its cultural heritage. If your standard is that Israel must "own" all the physical territory in which any of the cultural heritage was discovered -- well then, so be it.
Deal with my example of the Alhambra belonging in Spain along with other artifacts of Al Andaluz, not Arab Muslims in Iraq.
Isn't is about time for you to get off your high horse? If you are not accusing posters of insulting you (when they realty haven't), or in this case you are a bit tired of Shusha (who has been so patient with you) because she is not marching to the same sick drummer in your head, why in the world have you gotten on the forum and parked yourself here? Don't you think most of the readers got your number the minute you crawled out of the woodwork.
Most of us appreciate Eloy's calm approach with dealing with Zionist maniacs.
Speaking of nut cases, I suggest you go to a V.A. psychiatrist who will help you understand that it is not mentally healthy to spend your life in front of a computer demonizing Israel morning, noon and night, Evidently you can't figure this out for yourself so you need help.Dear, dear. A nutcase without a pot to pee in, and a dummy, tries to salvage his honor.
I am a bit tired of you refusing to deal with my supporting arguments.Few people, especially, historians and academics would condone your extreme commitment to racist appropriation of historical artifacts. Arabs in Morocco do not have any right to claim ownership of the Alhambra which is in Granada and that Spanish city is where it stays despite hooligan vandalism by visitors since the glories of Al Andaluz. It is true that documents are more portable than glazed tiles but the removal of the Dead Sea Scrolls from the location where they were created in the West Bank is theft by the Israelis who claim ownership on the grounds that Israelis are Jews by their constitution if not in reality. Whoever stole this world heritage belongs behind bars.
The whole point of the principle of the human right to safe-guarding cultural heritage is to distance them from the political domain and arbitrary political territorial boundaries.
Intellectual property and cultural heritage belongs to those who belong to that cultural heritage. The idea that cultural heritage belongs to whatever
Why the hell would Arab Muslims WANT to hold the cultural heritage of another cultural group? What is their motivation in doing so? And what possible negative consequences would arise from permitting the cultural group which created the heritage to hold it, study it, explain it, transfer it to their children, etc?
Your claim is so ridiculously kindergarten -- its in my sandbox, so its mine. It does seem to cement the idea that the Jewish people absolutely must, in any agreement, maintain and protect its cultural heritage. If your standard is that Israel must "own" all the physical territory in which any of the cultural heritage was discovered -- well then, so be it.
Deal with my example of the Alhambra belonging in Spain along with other artifacts of Al Andaluz, not Arab Muslims in Iraq.
Dear, dear. A nutcase without a pot to pee in, and a dummy, tries to salvage his honor.
Historical artifacts belong to everyone and international law requires that they be curated in trust for the people by the civil authority where they are found. For example, Roman coins found in Spain are studied there and on display in Spanish museums, not Italian museums.I am a bit tired of you refusing to deal with my supporting arguments.
Deal with my example of the Alhambra belonging in Spain along with other artifacts of Al Andaluz, not Arab Muslims in Iraq.
Your claim is that cultural heritage preferentially should be under the guardianship of the political entity currently in control of the territory in which the cultural heritage is found.
I'm pointing out that is a lame argument. I've also pointed out the difference between tangible heritage (buildings and monuments) and intangible heritage which is portable.
Why should the guardianship of cultural heritage be given to the owner of a piece of land, rather than to the people of the cultural heritage?
I treat everyone with respect and I confess to having a weakness of demanding the same in return.Originally posted by Montelatici
Most of us appreciate Eloy's calm approach with dealing with Zionist maniacs.
Indeed... but good ol' Hoss has a point.
The guy is WAY too thin-skinned.
