The Official Discussion Thread for who is considered indiginous to Palestine?

[yiostheoy]

I disagree that it should be the one way street you seem to think it should and I think the uniqueness of this situation be recognized.

Which I acknowledged in the rest of my post, making it very much a three way street. The Jewish people have absolutely no problem with other people and faiths worshiping at their own holy spots near the Jewish ones. As is very evident in Jerusalem. It is part of Jewish theology. Its not the Jewish people causing problems here.

It isn’t like some new found cult decided that the Cambodian Temp,es were part of their sacred landscape.

Yes, it is. Its exactly like that with Islam. (Not that I would use the term 'cult' for Islam, as it is demeaning).

The Holy Land, which is probably the best term for this area, is important to all three that it has been the flashpoint of so much senseless violence as a result of religious ties. However you might feel about the religions themselves, you can’t ignore this.

But people and faiths who use violence as a means to control spaces and other people should not be catered to. The violence has to stop. And the other side of the "all religions must have access to holy spaces" coin is that all religions must do so peacefully -- or else they shouldn't be able to have access to holy spaces. Again, its not the Jewish people causing problems here.

And the Holy Land is only important to one faith. There is nothing holy about the land to Muslims and Christians. There may be certain specific locations, but not the land in general.

As a result it needs to be treated as a sacred space and the rights of all three respected, not demeaned by claims of usurption,

The Jewish peoples, as the original aboriginal creators of those sacred spaces, must be acknowledged. Its not demeaning to recognize the facts of one's faith. its not demeaning to recognize things done in the past which have had an extremely negative affect on other peoples. For other peoples, that is the basis of reconciliation. In my synagogue, we acknowledge and thank the First Nations peoples, on whose land the building sits. There is nothing demeaning AT ALL about that. Its a powerful acknowledgement of the pain caused.

1. I have emphasized multiple times the importance of peaceful behavior. Do I need to repeat it? Nor have I said Jews are the cause of the violence.

2. I don’t have any issue with Jews as the creators of those sacred spaces being acknowledged and with gratitude, in fact that is a really nice tradition.

3. I Dont see how it matters whether the entire land or specific sites are important. Those specific sites ARE important to those faiths and they have a right to access those sites as a result.

I have been to the temple mount, King David's tomb, the garden Gethsemane, the garden tomb, Bethlehem chapel, the crusader church of the holy mount, the crusader castle in Acre, Jaffa, the archeological dig at Jericho, the fortress Masada, the Catholic shrine of the hill of beatitudes, the Sea Of Tiberias, and the IDF checkpoint at Naharia.

Beautiful place. A heritage for Christians and Jews.

There is a wealth of history in those places...I would love to see them. And I have to say I trust the Israeli’s far more than any other group to conserve, conduct responsible archeological investigations and preserve fair access.

When I was there I tried to shake hands and say thanks to as many IDF and UN guards as I could.

Dangerous job.

 

[yiostheoy]

The Palestinians inherited the land when the Romans kicked the Jews out. It was originally Jewish land. The Jews and their cousins the other Israelites took it from the Canaanites, and extinct people who were exterminated by Joshua and Caleb.

The Palestinians living along the coast in their ancient cities of Ascalon etc. then converted to Islam during the Arab Conquest.

Life was good for the Palestinians there until the Balfour Declaration.

It got worse during the 1948 Israeli War Of Independence.

Foolishly, rather than stay and unite with the Jews, the Palestinians mostly fled to Jordan ending up in refugee camps.

Life sucks when you turn chicken and abandon your land.

 

[Shusha]

They built a shrine on an older holy place, something religious conquests have done for ages and ethics were completely different.

But do you see how you are erasing Jewish history here? They built a shrine on an older Jewish holy place. Or they built a shrine on an older Cambodian holy place.

Yes. The ethics have changed. Exactly that. Conquering people and over-taking them is now seen as unethical. And the indigenous peoples in need of protection. That is exactly why Islam must recognize its past history and acknowledge that their holy places were usurped and gain permission to use them. Which the Jewish people will (have already) granted.

I think claiming usurption is insulting, a way of delegitimizating a religion’s rights to holy places. I agree with Jewish primacy there, but I think similar respect should be given to all the faiths.

It's not insulting to acknowledge harm your people has done to another people. It's healing. It's reconciliation.

 

[admonit]

I disagree that it should be the one way street you seem to think it should and I think the uniqueness of this situation be recognized.

Which I acknowledged in the rest of my post, making it very much a three way street. The Jewish people have absolutely no problem with other people and faiths worshiping at their own holy spots near the Jewish ones. As is very evident in Jerusalem. It is part of Jewish theology. Its not the Jewish people causing problems here.

It isn’t like some new found cult decided that the Cambodian Temp,es were part of their sacred landscape.

Yes, it is. Its exactly like that with Islam. (Not that I would use the term 'cult' for Islam, as it is demeaning).

The Holy Land, which is probably the best term for this area, is important to all three that it has been the flashpoint of so much senseless violence as a result of religious ties. However you might feel about the religions themselves, you can’t ignore this.

But people and faiths who use violence as a means to control spaces and other people should not be catered to. The violence has to stop. And the other side of the "all religions must have access to holy spaces" coin is that all religions must do so peacefully -- or else they shouldn't be able to have access to holy spaces. Again, its not the Jewish people causing problems here.

And the Holy Land is only important to one faith. There is nothing holy about the land to Muslims and Christians. There may be certain specific locations, but not the land in general.

As a result it needs to be treated as a sacred space and the rights of all three respected, not demeaned by claims of usurption,

The Jewish peoples, as the original aboriginal creators of those sacred spaces, must be acknowledged. Its not demeaning to recognize the facts of one's faith. its not demeaning to recognize things done in the past which have had an extremely negative affect on other peoples. For other peoples, that is the basis of reconciliation. In my synagogue, we acknowledge and thank the First Nations peoples, on whose land the building sits. There is nothing demeaning AT ALL about that. Its a powerful acknowledgement of the pain caused.

Nor have I said Jews are the cause of the violence.

Well, then who is the cause of the violence?

 

[yiostheoy]

I disagree that it should be the one way street you seem to think it should and I think the uniqueness of this situation be recognized.

Which I acknowledged in the rest of my post, making it very much a three way street. The Jewish people have absolutely no problem with other people and faiths worshiping at their own holy spots near the Jewish ones. As is very evident in Jerusalem. It is part of Jewish theology. Its not the Jewish people causing problems here.

It isn’t like some new found cult decided that the Cambodian Temp,es were part of their sacred landscape.

Yes, it is. Its exactly like that with Islam. (Not that I would use the term 'cult' for Islam, as it is demeaning).

The Holy Land, which is probably the best term for this area, is important to all three that it has been the flashpoint of so much senseless violence as a result of religious ties. However you might feel about the religions themselves, you can’t ignore this.

But people and faiths who use violence as a means to control spaces and other people should not be catered to. The violence has to stop. And the other side of the "all religions must have access to holy spaces" coin is that all religions must do so peacefully -- or else they shouldn't be able to have access to holy spaces. Again, its not the Jewish people causing problems here.

And the Holy Land is only important to one faith. There is nothing holy about the land to Muslims and Christians. There may be certain specific locations, but not the land in general.

As a result it needs to be treated as a sacred space and the rights of all three respected, not demeaned by claims of usurption,

The Jewish peoples, as the original aboriginal creators of those sacred spaces, must be acknowledged. Its not demeaning to recognize the facts of one's faith. its not demeaning to recognize things done in the past which have had an extremely negative affect on other peoples. For other peoples, that is the basis of reconciliation. In my synagogue, we acknowledge and thank the First Nations peoples, on whose land the building sits. There is nothing demeaning AT ALL about that. Its a powerful acknowledgement of the pain caused.

1. I have emphasized multiple times the importance of peaceful behavior. Do I need to repeat it? Nor have I said Jews are the cause of the violence.

2. I don’t have any issue with Jews as the creators of those sacred spaces being acknowledged and with gratitude, in fact that is a really nice tradition.

3. I Dont see how it matters whether the entire land or specific sites are important. Those specific sites ARE important to those faiths and they have a right to access those sites as a result.

I have been to the temple mount, King David's tomb, the garden Gethsemane, the garden tomb, Bethlehem chapel, the crusader church of the holy mount, the crusader castle in Acre, Jaffa, the archeological dig at Jericho, the fortress Masada, the Catholic shrine of the hill of beatitudes, the Sea Of Tiberias, and the IDF checkpoint at Naharia.

Beautiful place. A heritage for Christians and Jews.

There is a wealth of history in those places...I would love to see them. And I have to say I trust the Israeli’s far more than any other group to conserve, conduct responsible archeological investigations and preserve fair access.

If you go back into ancient history far enough you find that the Jews are actually a remnant of the ancient Babylonians like their distant cousins the Assyrians (who all mostly live in the USA now). These are Semitic speaking peoples distantly related to Sargon The Great of Akkad (somewhere in Bumfuk Iraq).

The Palestinians are most closely related to the ancient Greeks of Mycenae and Crete. They are not Arabs. Their ancient religion before the Arab Conquest was Greek polytheism (Zeus, Poseidon, Hades, etc.).

 

[yiostheoy]

Long and short of it, the Palestinians have always throughout ancient and modern history been chicken-sh!ts that don't stand for anything very long.

 

[Sixties Fan]

Long and short of it, the Palestinians have always throughout ancient and modern history been chicken-sh!ts that don't stand for anything very long.

Do you have anymore of this pathetic rewriting of history of the area and the people who lived on it?

Amazing. The only area of the world, and the only people on the planet (The Jewish People/Nation) who seem to have whatever version of history those who do not care about them are willing to spit out.

 

[P F Tinmore]

One religion building on another is not exactly new. What I have a problem with in terms of Muslims is when they want to claim it for Islam only, which they can't, but they are a sacred trust for 3 religions now.

What do you do?

1. You acknowledge the originating indigenous, aboriginal culture.
2. You remove yourself as much as possible from everything you have usurped.
3. You give the originating culture the space to honor their religion and worship as they need.
4. You ask permission of them to continue to use your holy spaces with mutual respect and dignity.

I disagree that it should be the one way street you seem to think it should and I think the uniqueness of this situation be recognized. I can’t think of any other situation where three very ancient religions, closely related, have strong ties to the same sacred areas and artifacts. It isn’t like some new found cult decided that the Cambodian Temp,es were part of their sacred landscape. The Holy Land, which is probably the best term for this area, is important to all three that it has been the flashpoint of so much senseless violence as a result of religious ties. However you might feel about the religions themselves, you can’t ignore this.

As a result it needs to be treated as a sacred space and the rights of all three respected, not demeaned by claims of usurption, over events more than a thousand years in the past. The people of today have every right to worship, peacefully and respectfully at their sacred places.

That said, I think guardianship of those places belongs with the indiginous culture, and they are responsible for insuring fair access to the site, respectful treatment of all worshippers, and maintaining the integrity of those places and setting appropriate rules. I don’t think either of the other religions should have to beg “permission” to visit their Holy Places any more than the Jews should have had to when it was under the control of others.


Mutual respect, dignity and peaceful conduct all around.

None of this is HARD for decent, moral human beings. The especial Holy Places do NOT actually encroach upon each other. There is no reason for Jews not to have the Temple Mount and the Kotel, the Christians to have the Church of the Holy Sepulchre and the Via Dolarosa, and the Muslims to have Al-Aqsa. They do not actually encroach on each other. (Depending on where Jews decide the Holy of Holies is -- but Jews tend to be somewhat flexible (cough cough) in that way).

There is no actual conflict here. And you have the added advantage that the originating peoples -- the Jewish peoples -- have a theology that encourages worship by ALL of the nations. And a sovereign government which is willing to BEND OVER BACKWARDS to facilitate worship for other people.

This is win, win, win, win. If only the OTHER religions would just let it happen.

I agree

The Holy Land, which is probably the best term for this area, is important to all three that it has been the flashpoint of so much senseless violence as a result of religious ties.

And it really saddens me that Israel is destroying it.

 

[rylah]

One religion building on another is not exactly new. What I have a problem with in terms of Muslims is when they want to claim it for Islam only, which they can't, but they are a sacred trust for 3 religions now.

What do you do?

1. You acknowledge the originating indigenous, aboriginal culture.
2. You remove yourself as much as possible from everything you have usurped.
3. You give the originating culture the space to honor their religion and worship as they need.
4. You ask permission of them to continue to use your holy spaces with mutual respect and dignity.

I disagree that it should be the one way street you seem to think it should and I think the uniqueness of this situation be recognized. I can’t think of any other situation where three very ancient religions, closely related, have strong ties to the same sacred areas and artifacts. It isn’t like some new found cult decided that the Cambodian Temp,es were part of their sacred landscape. The Holy Land, which is probably the best term for this area, is important to all three that it has been the flashpoint of so much senseless violence as a result of religious ties. However you might feel about the religions themselves, you can’t ignore this.

As a result it needs to be treated as a sacred space and the rights of all three respected, not demeaned by claims of usurption, over events more than a thousand years in the past. The people of today have every right to worship, peacefully and respectfully at their sacred places.

That said, I think guardianship of those places belongs with the indiginous culture, and they are responsible for insuring fair access to the site, respectful treatment of all worshippers, and maintaining the integrity of those places and setting appropriate rules. I don’t think either of the other religions should have to beg “permission” to visit their Holy Places any more than the Jews should have had to when it was under the control of others.


Mutual respect, dignity and peaceful conduct all around.

None of this is HARD for decent, moral human beings. The especial Holy Places do NOT actually encroach upon each other. There is no reason for Jews not to have the Temple Mount and the Kotel, the Christians to have the Church of the Holy Sepulchre and the Via Dolarosa, and the Muslims to have Al-Aqsa. They do not actually encroach on each other. (Depending on where Jews decide the Holy of Holies is -- but Jews tend to be somewhat flexible (cough cough) in that way).

There is no actual conflict here. And you have the added advantage that the originating peoples -- the Jewish peoples -- have a theology that encourages worship by ALL of the nations. And a sovereign government which is willing to BEND OVER BACKWARDS to facilitate worship for other people.

This is win, win, win, win. If only the OTHER religions would just let it happen.

I agree

The Holy Land, which is probably the best term for this area, is important to all three that it has been the flashpoint of so much senseless violence as a result of religious ties.

And it really saddens me that Israel is destroying it.

No nation in the world has developed this land more than Israel.

Under any other rule it was a secondary district, now Israel is a leading country in the whole of middle east. No one around the world would even care or know it as a Holy Land if not for the Jewish heritage and history.

 

[Hollie]

One religion building on another is not exactly new. What I have a problem with in terms of Muslims is when they want to claim it for Islam only, which they can't, but they are a sacred trust for 3 religions now.

What do you do?

1. You acknowledge the originating indigenous, aboriginal culture.
2. You remove yourself as much as possible from everything you have usurped.
3. You give the originating culture the space to honor their religion and worship as they need.
4. You ask permission of them to continue to use your holy spaces with mutual respect and dignity.

I disagree that it should be the one way street you seem to think it should and I think the uniqueness of this situation be recognized. I can’t think of any other situation where three very ancient religions, closely related, have strong ties to the same sacred areas and artifacts. It isn’t like some new found cult decided that the Cambodian Temp,es were part of their sacred landscape. The Holy Land, which is probably the best term for this area, is important to all three that it has been the flashpoint of so much senseless violence as a result of religious ties. However you might feel about the religions themselves, you can’t ignore this.

As a result it needs to be treated as a sacred space and the rights of all three respected, not demeaned by claims of usurption, over events more than a thousand years in the past. The people of today have every right to worship, peacefully and respectfully at their sacred places.

That said, I think guardianship of those places belongs with the indiginous culture, and they are responsible for insuring fair access to the site, respectful treatment of all worshippers, and maintaining the integrity of those places and setting appropriate rules. I don’t think either of the other religions should have to beg “permission” to visit their Holy Places any more than the Jews should have had to when it was under the control of others.


Mutual respect, dignity and peaceful conduct all around.

None of this is HARD for decent, moral human beings. The especial Holy Places do NOT actually encroach upon each other. There is no reason for Jews not to have the Temple Mount and the Kotel, the Christians to have the Church of the Holy Sepulchre and the Via Dolarosa, and the Muslims to have Al-Aqsa. They do not actually encroach on each other. (Depending on where Jews decide the Holy of Holies is -- but Jews tend to be somewhat flexible (cough cough) in that way).

There is no actual conflict here. And you have the added advantage that the originating peoples -- the Jewish peoples -- have a theology that encourages worship by ALL of the nations. And a sovereign government which is willing to BEND OVER BACKWARDS to facilitate worship for other people.

This is win, win, win, win. If only the OTHER religions would just let it happen.

I agree

The Holy Land, which is probably the best term for this area, is important to all three that it has been the flashpoint of so much senseless violence as a result of religious ties.

And it really saddens me that Israel is destroying it.

You are a sad little Islamist. Obviously you are ignorant to the fact that Israel is preserving religious sites. That is quite at odds with the islamic practice of destroying religious sites.

 

[Sixties Fan]

One religion building on another is not exactly new. What I have a problem with in terms of Muslims is when they want to claim it for Islam only, which they can't, but they are a sacred trust for 3 religions now.

What do you do?

1. You acknowledge the originating indigenous, aboriginal culture.
2. You remove yourself as much as possible from everything you have usurped.
3. You give the originating culture the space to honor their religion and worship as they need.
4. You ask permission of them to continue to use your holy spaces with mutual respect and dignity.

I disagree that it should be the one way street you seem to think it should and I think the uniqueness of this situation be recognized. I can’t think of any other situation where three very ancient religions, closely related, have strong ties to the same sacred areas and artifacts. It isn’t like some new found cult decided that the Cambodian Temp,es were part of their sacred landscape. The Holy Land, which is probably the best term for this area, is important to all three that it has been the flashpoint of so much senseless violence as a result of religious ties. However you might feel about the religions themselves, you can’t ignore this.

As a result it needs to be treated as a sacred space and the rights of all three respected, not demeaned by claims of usurption, over events more than a thousand years in the past. The people of today have every right to worship, peacefully and respectfully at their sacred places.

That said, I think guardianship of those places belongs with the indiginous culture, and they are responsible for insuring fair access to the site, respectful treatment of all worshippers, and maintaining the integrity of those places and setting appropriate rules. I don’t think either of the other religions should have to beg “permission” to visit their Holy Places any more than the Jews should have had to when it was under the control of others.


Mutual respect, dignity and peaceful conduct all around.

None of this is HARD for decent, moral human beings. The especial Holy Places do NOT actually encroach upon each other. There is no reason for Jews not to have the Temple Mount and the Kotel, the Christians to have the Church of the Holy Sepulchre and the Via Dolarosa, and the Muslims to have Al-Aqsa. They do not actually encroach on each other. (Depending on where Jews decide the Holy of Holies is -- but Jews tend to be somewhat flexible (cough cough) in that way).

There is no actual conflict here. And you have the added advantage that the originating peoples -- the Jewish peoples -- have a theology that encourages worship by ALL of the nations. And a sovereign government which is willing to BEND OVER BACKWARDS to facilitate worship for other people.

This is win, win, win, win. If only the OTHER religions would just let it happen.

I agree

The Holy Land, which is probably the best term for this area, is important to all three that it has been the flashpoint of so much senseless violence as a result of religious ties.

And it really saddens me that Israel is destroying it.

You are a sad little Islamist. Obviously you are ignorant to the fact that Israel is preserving religious sites. That is quite at odds with the islamic practice of destroying religious sites.

Judaism may be the only Monotheism which has built a Temple for All of the People:


From its very inception, the Temple was designed to be a universal institution. The prophet Isaiah, addressing the "foreigners who join themselves to the Lord" (Isa. 56:6), proclaimed, "My house shall be called a house of prayer for all the nations" (Isa. 56:7).

IsraelBiblicalStudies.com

 

[Hollie]

One religion building on another is not exactly new. What I have a problem with in terms of Muslims is when they want to claim it for Islam only, which they can't, but they are a sacred trust for 3 religions now.

What do you do?

1. You acknowledge the originating indigenous, aboriginal culture.
2. You remove yourself as much as possible from everything you have usurped.
3. You give the originating culture the space to honor their religion and worship as they need.
4. You ask permission of them to continue to use your holy spaces with mutual respect and dignity.

I disagree that it should be the one way street you seem to think it should and I think the uniqueness of this situation be recognized. I can’t think of any other situation where three very ancient religions, closely related, have strong ties to the same sacred areas and artifacts. It isn’t like some new found cult decided that the Cambodian Temp,es were part of their sacred landscape. The Holy Land, which is probably the best term for this area, is important to all three that it has been the flashpoint of so much senseless violence as a result of religious ties. However you might feel about the religions themselves, you can’t ignore this.

As a result it needs to be treated as a sacred space and the rights of all three respected, not demeaned by claims of usurption, over events more than a thousand years in the past. The people of today have every right to worship, peacefully and respectfully at their sacred places.

That said, I think guardianship of those places belongs with the indiginous culture, and they are responsible for insuring fair access to the site, respectful treatment of all worshippers, and maintaining the integrity of those places and setting appropriate rules. I don’t think either of the other religions should have to beg “permission” to visit their Holy Places any more than the Jews should have had to when it was under the control of others.


Mutual respect, dignity and peaceful conduct all around.

None of this is HARD for decent, moral human beings. The especial Holy Places do NOT actually encroach upon each other. There is no reason for Jews not to have the Temple Mount and the Kotel, the Christians to have the Church of the Holy Sepulchre and the Via Dolarosa, and the Muslims to have Al-Aqsa. They do not actually encroach on each other. (Depending on where Jews decide the Holy of Holies is -- but Jews tend to be somewhat flexible (cough cough) in that way).

There is no actual conflict here. And you have the added advantage that the originating peoples -- the Jewish peoples -- have a theology that encourages worship by ALL of the nations. And a sovereign government which is willing to BEND OVER BACKWARDS to facilitate worship for other people.

This is win, win, win, win. If only the OTHER religions would just let it happen.

I agree

The Holy Land, which is probably the best term for this area, is important to all three that it has been the flashpoint of so much senseless violence as a result of religious ties.

And it really saddens me that Israel is destroying it.

You are a sad little Islamist. Obviously you are ignorant to the fact that Israel is preserving religious sites. That is quite at odds with the islamic practice of destroying religious sites.

Judaism may be the only Monotheism which has built a Temple for All of the People:


From its very inception, the Temple was designed to be a universal institution. The prophet Isaiah, addressing the "foreigners who join themselves to the Lord" (Isa. 56:6), proclaimed, "My house shall be called a house of prayer for all the nations" (Isa. 56:7).

IsraelBiblicalStudies.com

Protection of Holy Places Law, 1967:

Protection of Holy Places Law, 1967:

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

(More at the link)

 

[P F Tinmore]

I was referring to the forced transfer of people.

I have never suggested a forced transfer of people.

No, but what you said in response to my post took me by surprise.

I said:

Denying them ties to the region is denying them rights to it - and I see that [often enough when they talk of sending them to Jordan for example.

And you responded with a description of how it was divided, and saying it was a legitimate solution. Sending the Palestinians to Jordan would likely mean a forced transfer and that is not in my mind a legitimate solution. It would be inhumane.

But I did not suggest a forced transfer. Or any transfer. You are putting things on me that I do not believe and did not say. This is why I suggest you are misunderstanding and missing the context of some of the TI posters here.

750,000 got the boot in 1948. A few thousand more in 1967. And more all the way through to today, and not allowed to return.

You are perfectly fine with that.

 

[P F Tinmore]

What do you do?

1. You acknowledge the originating indigenous, aboriginal culture.
2. You remove yourself as much as possible from everything you have usurped.
3. You give the originating culture the space to honor their religion and worship as they need.
4. You ask permission of them to continue to use your holy spaces with mutual respect and dignity.

I disagree that it should be the one way street you seem to think it should and I think the uniqueness of this situation be recognized. I can’t think of any other situation where three very ancient religions, closely related, have strong ties to the same sacred areas and artifacts. It isn’t like some new found cult decided that the Cambodian Temp,es were part of their sacred landscape. The Holy Land, which is probably the best term for this area, is important to all three that it has been the flashpoint of so much senseless violence as a result of religious ties. However you might feel about the religions themselves, you can’t ignore this.

As a result it needs to be treated as a sacred space and the rights of all three respected, not demeaned by claims of usurption, over events more than a thousand years in the past. The people of today have every right to worship, peacefully and respectfully at their sacred places.

That said, I think guardianship of those places belongs with the indiginous culture, and they are responsible for insuring fair access to the site, respectful treatment of all worshippers, and maintaining the integrity of those places and setting appropriate rules. I don’t think either of the other religions should have to beg “permission” to visit their Holy Places any more than the Jews should have had to when it was under the control of others.


Mutual respect, dignity and peaceful conduct all around.

None of this is HARD for decent, moral human beings. The especial Holy Places do NOT actually encroach upon each other. There is no reason for Jews not to have the Temple Mount and the Kotel, the Christians to have the Church of the Holy Sepulchre and the Via Dolarosa, and the Muslims to have Al-Aqsa. They do not actually encroach on each other. (Depending on where Jews decide the Holy of Holies is -- but Jews tend to be somewhat flexible (cough cough) in that way).

There is no actual conflict here. And you have the added advantage that the originating peoples -- the Jewish peoples -- have a theology that encourages worship by ALL of the nations. And a sovereign government which is willing to BEND OVER BACKWARDS to facilitate worship for other people.

This is win, win, win, win. If only the OTHER religions would just let it happen.

I agree

The Holy Land, which is probably the best term for this area, is important to all three that it has been the flashpoint of so much senseless violence as a result of religious ties.

And it really saddens me that Israel is destroying it.

You are a sad little Islamist. Obviously you are ignorant to the fact that Israel is preserving religious sites. That is quite at odds with the islamic practice of destroying religious sites.

Judaism may be the only Monotheism which has built a Temple for All of the People:


From its very inception, the Temple was designed to be a universal institution. The prophet Isaiah, addressing the "foreigners who join themselves to the Lord" (Isa. 56:6), proclaimed, "My house shall be called a house of prayer for all the nations" (Isa. 56:7).

IsraelBiblicalStudies.com

Protection of Holy Places Law, 1967:

Protection of Holy Places Law, 1967:

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

(More at the link)

Israel protects holy sites...but...

 

[Hollie]

I was referring to the forced transfer of people.

I have never suggested a forced transfer of people.

No, but what you said in response to my post took me by surprise.

I said:

Denying them ties to the region is denying them rights to it - and I see that [often enough when they talk of sending them to Jordan for example.

And you responded with a description of how it was divided, and saying it was a legitimate solution. Sending the Palestinians to Jordan would likely mean a forced transfer and that is not in my mind a legitimate solution. It would be inhumane.

But I did not suggest a forced transfer. Or any transfer. You are putting things on me that I do not believe and did not say. This is why I suggest you are misunderstanding and missing the context of some of the TI posters here.

750,000 got the boot in 1948. A few thousand more in 1967. And more all the way through to today, and not allowed to return.

You are perfectly fine with that.

The Arab-Moslem invasion caused the al-boot.

 

[Hollie]

I disagree that it should be the one way street you seem to think it should and I think the uniqueness of this situation be recognized. I can’t think of any other situation where three very ancient religions, closely related, have strong ties to the same sacred areas and artifacts. It isn’t like some new found cult decided that the Cambodian Temp,es were part of their sacred landscape. The Holy Land, which is probably the best term for this area, is important to all three that it has been the flashpoint of so much senseless violence as a result of religious ties. However you might feel about the religions themselves, you can’t ignore this.

As a result it needs to be treated as a sacred space and the rights of all three respected, not demeaned by claims of usurption, over events more than a thousand years in the past. The people of today have every right to worship, peacefully and respectfully at their sacred places.

That said, I think guardianship of those places belongs with the indiginous culture, and they are responsible for insuring fair access to the site, respectful treatment of all worshippers, and maintaining the integrity of those places and setting appropriate rules. I don’t think either of the other religions should have to beg “permission” to visit their Holy Places any more than the Jews should have had to when it was under the control of others.


Mutual respect, dignity and peaceful conduct all around.


I agree

The Holy Land, which is probably the best term for this area, is important to all three that it has been the flashpoint of so much senseless violence as a result of religious ties.

And it really saddens me that Israel is destroying it.

You are a sad little Islamist. Obviously you are ignorant to the fact that Israel is preserving religious sites. That is quite at odds with the islamic practice of destroying religious sites.

Judaism may be the only Monotheism which has built a Temple for All of the People:


From its very inception, the Temple was designed to be a universal institution. The prophet Isaiah, addressing the "foreigners who join themselves to the Lord" (Isa. 56:6), proclaimed, "My house shall be called a house of prayer for all the nations" (Isa. 56:7).

IsraelBiblicalStudies.com

Protection of Holy Places Law, 1967:

Protection of Holy Places Law, 1967:

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

(More at the link)

Israel protects holy sites...but...

Israel protects holy sites. Arabs-Moslems on the other hand,

 

[rylah]

I disagree that it should be the one way street you seem to think it should and I think the uniqueness of this situation be recognized. I can’t think of any other situation where three very ancient religions, closely related, have strong ties to the same sacred areas and artifacts. It isn’t like some new found cult decided that the Cambodian Temp,es were part of their sacred landscape. The Holy Land, which is probably the best term for this area, is important to all three that it has been the flashpoint of so much senseless violence as a result of religious ties. However you might feel about the religions themselves, you can’t ignore this.

As a result it needs to be treated as a sacred space and the rights of all three respected, not demeaned by claims of usurption, over events more than a thousand years in the past. The people of today have every right to worship, peacefully and respectfully at their sacred places.

That said, I think guardianship of those places belongs with the indiginous culture, and they are responsible for insuring fair access to the site, respectful treatment of all worshippers, and maintaining the integrity of those places and setting appropriate rules. I don’t think either of the other religions should have to beg “permission” to visit their Holy Places any more than the Jews should have had to when it was under the control of others.


Mutual respect, dignity and peaceful conduct all around.




I agree

The Holy Land, which is probably the best term for this area, is important to all three that it has been the flashpoint of so much senseless violence as a result of religious ties.

And it really saddens me that Israel is destroying it.

You are a sad little Islamist. Obviously you are ignorant to the fact that Israel is preserving religious sites. That is quite at odds with the islamic practice of destroying religious sites.

Judaism may be the only Monotheism which has built a Temple for All of the People:


From its very inception, the Temple was designed to be a universal institution. The prophet Isaiah, addressing the "foreigners who join themselves to the Lord" (Isa. 56:6), proclaimed, "My house shall be called a house of prayer for all the nations" (Isa. 56:7).

IsraelBiblicalStudies.com

Protection of Holy Places Law, 1967:

Protection of Holy Places Law, 1967:

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

(More at the link)

Israel protects holy sites...but...

So when are Jews allowed to have their property back in Lebanon, Jordan and Syria?

 

[P F Tinmore]

And it really saddens me that Israel is destroying it.

You are a sad little Islamist. Obviously you are ignorant to the fact that Israel is preserving religious sites. That is quite at odds with the islamic practice of destroying religious sites.

Judaism may be the only Monotheism which has built a Temple for All of the People:


From its very inception, the Temple was designed to be a universal institution. The prophet Isaiah, addressing the "foreigners who join themselves to the Lord" (Isa. 56:6), proclaimed, "My house shall be called a house of prayer for all the nations" (Isa. 56:7).

IsraelBiblicalStudies.com

Protection of Holy Places Law, 1967:

Protection of Holy Places Law, 1967:

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

(More at the link)

Israel protects holy sites...but...

So when are Jews allowed to have their property back in Lebanon, Jordan and Syria?

 

[Shusha]

750,000 got the boot in 1948. A few thousand more in 1967. And more all the way through to today, and not allowed to return.

You are perfectly fine with that.

On the contrary, I support return. All those who lost actual property should be able to return to it, or be compensated for its loss. All those descended from those uprooted people should be permitted to return to their ancestral land -- the Jewish people to Israel and the Arab people to Palestine in a two state solution. Should any uprooted people prefer to stay in the country of their refuge (Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, etc) they should be permitted to do so.

 

[P F Tinmore]

One religion building on another is not exactly new. What I have a problem with in terms of Muslims is when they want to claim it for Islam only, which they can't, but they are a sacred trust for 3 religions now.

What do you do?

1. You acknowledge the originating indigenous, aboriginal culture.
2. You remove yourself as much as possible from everything you have usurped.
3. You give the originating culture the space to honor their religion and worship as they need.
4. You ask permission of them to continue to use your holy spaces with mutual respect and dignity.

I disagree that it should be the one way street you seem to think it should and I think the uniqueness of this situation be recognized. I can’t think of any other situation where three very ancient religions, closely related, have strong ties to the same sacred areas and artifacts. It isn’t like some new found cult decided that the Cambodian Temp,es were part of their sacred landscape. The Holy Land, which is probably the best term for this area, is important to all three that it has been the flashpoint of so much senseless violence as a result of religious ties. However you might feel about the religions themselves, you can’t ignore this.

As a result it needs to be treated as a sacred space and the rights of all three respected, not demeaned by claims of usurption, over events more than a thousand years in the past. The people of today have every right to worship, peacefully and respectfully at their sacred places.

That said, I think guardianship of those places belongs with the indiginous culture, and they are responsible for insuring fair access to the site, respectful treatment of all worshippers, and maintaining the integrity of those places and setting appropriate rules. I don’t think either of the other religions should have to beg “permission” to visit their Holy Places any more than the Jews should have had to when it was under the control of others.


Mutual respect, dignity and peaceful conduct all around.

None of this is HARD for decent, moral human beings. The especial Holy Places do NOT actually encroach upon each other. There is no reason for Jews not to have the Temple Mount and the Kotel, the Christians to have the Church of the Holy Sepulchre and the Via Dolarosa, and the Muslims to have Al-Aqsa. They do not actually encroach on each other. (Depending on where Jews decide the Holy of Holies is -- but Jews tend to be somewhat flexible (cough cough) in that way).

There is no actual conflict here. And you have the added advantage that the originating peoples -- the Jewish peoples -- have a theology that encourages worship by ALL of the nations. And a sovereign government which is willing to BEND OVER BACKWARDS to facilitate worship for other people.

This is win, win, win, win. If only the OTHER religions would just let it happen.

I agree

The Holy Land, which is probably the best term for this area, is important to all three that it has been the flashpoint of so much senseless violence as a result of religious ties.

And it really saddens me that Israel is destroying it.

No nation in the world has developed this land more than Israel.

Under any other rule it was a secondary district, now Israel is a leading country in the whole of middle east. No one around the world would even care or know it as a Holy Land if not for the Jewish heritage and history.

Nice deflection.