A few questions so I will know who I'm dealing with...

[sealadaigh]

You can take that a step further and also conclude that the anti Israel posters are usually the worst Jew haters. Therefore proving that anti Zionism is the new anti semitism.

There are Jews that are Anti-Zionist Roudy.
It's not that simple.

Does Israel have a Right to exist?
If it puts God first, establishes and serves Justice, by all means.

Does Palestine have a Right to Exist? If it puts God first, establishes and serves Justice. Yes. Can it do that while denying Israel's right to exist and live in peace? Not at all.

What is the foundation community is built on? What is your reaction to being treated fairly and honestly, as opposed to being cheated or scammed, or exploited? Value for value. What kind of seeds you plant, they are going to mature.

As Believers, is the foundation, God first in all things, regardless of the brand? What does that promote? It is not about getting the World to choose sides. It is about atonement across the board. Just a thought.

You are confusing anti Zionism with being critical of Israel. Do you understand what is the definition of anti Zionism? Zionism is simply the right for the Jewish people to exist in the land that is central to their faith and which their ancestors lived in. So one cannot be an "anti Zionist" and then say I believe that Israel has the right to exist. There are many Americans that are critical of the USA and its policies, including myself, does that make me anti American? However, not surprisingly you will find that most anti zionists happen to also be anti American.

Israel is a democracy by all standards, and has proven that it is for justice and peace and willing to make sacrifices to establish peace, as it has done in the past with Jordan and Egypt. Unfortunately the Palestinians as they say "never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity" and have shown many times that all they are interested in is the total destruction of the Israeli state to be replaced by an Islamic Palestinian Kalifate. That of course will never happen.

there is a vast difference between the way zionism is practiced and the way it is preached.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Jerusalem belongs to the people who lived there before all these wars removed a lot of people from their hometown. It belongs to the native Muslims, Christians, and Jews.

No one group has the right to pig the place for themselves.

I agree - that's why I think international control is best.

Would international control put all the rightful people back into their homes?

 

[HistoryBefore67]

But in reality - Israel does allow for all religions.



Jerusalem has been invaded and held by different people's throughout history. Who has the right to it? In addition - many of the Israeli's are the same people as the Palestinians, have been there the same amount of time. It's not that clear cut.



Totally agree!

Jerusalem belongs to the people who lived there before all these wars removed a lot of people from their hometown. It belongs to the native Muslims, Christians, and Jews.

No one group has the right to pig the place for themselves.

You're confusing the issue. The question is not "who should have access to the holy sites in Jerusalem?" The question is "who should be in control of the holy sites in Jerusalem?"

History has demonstrated that the only time when there has been open access for all to the holy sites in Jerusalem has been 1967-today. From 1948-1967, Jordan denied Jews access to their sites, built apartments within feet of the Western Wall, destroyed synagogues, desecrated Jewish gravesites, and did nothing to preserve (and, in some cases, outright destroyed) Jewish artifacts.

So, to me, the answer is: control by Israel, access for all.

 

[Coyote]

Jerusalem belongs to the people who lived there before all these wars removed a lot of people from their hometown. It belongs to the native Muslims, Christians, and Jews.

No one group has the right to pig the place for themselves.

I agree - that's why I think international control is best.

No group has the right to 'pig' the place for themselves?

Why not?

The Muslims did it for centuries.

It's a different world now.

Now it's their turn in the barrel, and they're screaming bloody murder about it.

Suck it up and get used to it, the way the Christians and Jews had to do for so long.

It's the Jews turn to control Jerusalem again... they went to the back of the line in 70 A.D. and have had to wait 1900+ years for another turn... they want full-value for their ride-ticket, and they seem intent on getting it, and we seem intent on backing them in that quest.

Why does it have to be someone's turn. Historically - they've ALL had a turn. Time to end the silliness.

All religions will continue to be welcome to visit Jerusalem once things settle down again... all that will have changed will be who serves as Guardian or Trustee of the Holy City... and both Christians and Muslims have held that role in times past... it's the Jews turn again... surprise!

While that is nice in theory it seldom works in practice. International control seems to sanest because religions that are so antagonistic as they are now - can seldom be trusted to act sanely.

 

[Coyote]

Jerusalem belongs to the people who lived there before all these wars removed a lot of people from their hometown. It belongs to the native Muslims, Christians, and Jews.

No one group has the right to pig the place for themselves.

I agree - that's why I think international control is best.

Would international control put all the rightful people back into their homes?

Not likely but it might prevent more people from being evicted.

 

[Coyote]

Jerusalem belongs to the people who lived there before all these wars removed a lot of people from their hometown. It belongs to the native Muslims, Christians, and Jews.

No one group has the right to pig the place for themselves.

You're confusing the issue. The question is not "who should have access to the holy sites in Jerusalem?" The question is "who should be in control of the holy sites in Jerusalem?"

History has demonstrated that the only time when there has been open access for all to the holy sites in Jerusalem has been 1967-today. From 1948-1967, Jordan denied Jews access to their sites, built apartments within feet of the Western Wall, destroyed synagogues, desecrated Jewish gravesites, and did nothing to preserve (and, in some cases, outright destroyed) Jewish artifacts.

So, to me, the answer is: control by Israel, access for all.

Which is why the answer would not be Jordanian control. Meanwhile, the Israeli's are engaged in an active program of removing Arab citizens through a system of building permits and settlement construction. I would not trust Israeli control to stop this ethnic cleansing.

As of this point - international control is the only option that has no black list associated with it.

 

[HistoryBefore67]

You're confusing the issue. The question is not "who should have access to the holy sites in Jerusalem?" The question is "who should be in control of the holy sites in Jerusalem?"

History has demonstrated that the only time when there has been open access for all to the holy sites in Jerusalem has been 1967-today. From 1948-1967, Jordan denied Jews access to their sites, built apartments within feet of the Western Wall, destroyed synagogues, desecrated Jewish gravesites, and did nothing to preserve (and, in some cases, outright destroyed) Jewish artifacts.

So, to me, the answer is: control by Israel, access for all.

Which is why the answer would not be Jordanian control. Meanwhile, the Israeli's are engaged in an active program of removing Arab citizens through a system of building permits and settlement construction. I would not trust Israeli control to stop this ethnic cleansing.

As of this point - international control is the only option that has no black list associated with it.

Sorry, but removing squatters who have no legal right to a piece of property is not "ethinic cleansing."

In fact, your use of that term is insulting. "Ethnic cleansing" is a term that originates from historical examples of in which particular ethnicities were slaughtered to remove them, not from a parcel of land, but from the planet. The flippant use of that term (and others) to describe Israel's actions is nothing short of disgusting.

Besides, let's not pretend that the fight over Jerusalem centers on suburban communities within the imaginary "Green Line." The fight is, and always has been, over the Old City which contains the holiest sites in Judaism, as well as Christian and Muslim holy sites. Israel has demonstrated its ability and willingness to protect these sites and provide access for all faiths.

 

[Coyote]

Which is why the answer would not be Jordanian control. Meanwhile, the Israeli's are engaged in an active program of removing Arab citizens through a system of building permits and settlement construction. I would not trust Israeli control to stop this ethnic cleansing.

As of this point - international control is the only option that has no black list associated with it.

Sorry, but removing squatters who have no legal right to a piece of property is not "ethinic cleansing."

In fact, your use of that term is insulting. "Ethnic cleansing" is a term that originates from historical examples of in which particular ethnicities were slaughtered to remove them, not from a parcel of land, but from the planet. The flippant use of that term (and others) to describe Israel's actions is nothing short of disgusting.

Besides, let's not pretend that the fight over Jerusalem centers on suburban communities within the imaginary "Green Line." The fight is, and always has been, over the Old City which contains the holiest sites in Judaism, as well as Christian and Muslim holy sites. Israel has demonstrated its ability and willingness to protect these sites and provide access for all faiths.

The Old City also contains the Old Arab Quarter. What's happening to it?

It's not flippant. There are Israeli historians who have used that term. Being flippant would be throwing around accusations of genocide.

 

[MHunterB]

"While that is nice in theory it seldom works in practice. International control seems to sanest because religions that are so antagonistic as they are now - can seldom be trusted to act sanely. "

Coyote, the same can be said for 'international control'. The Arab League nations started their boycott against 'Zionism' over 75 years ago. They also beggared and ejected some 950,000 of their citizenry for being Jewish. They have refused to allow Magen Dovid Adom to be part of the 'International Red Cross/ Crescent' Society. And when one of them - Jordan - had control over part of Jerusalem, the Jews of East Jerusalem were ethnically cleansed out of their homes. And somewhere around 28,000 graves of Jews in the Mt of Olives cemetery were desecrated. Headstones of Jewish graves were used as paving stones - with the inscriptions UP - and to line sewer channels.

Do you truly imagine that such 'governments' as continue to keep 'Mein Kampf' in print from government-owned presses would have any consideration for Jewish people's sacred sites?

Oh, and as has been discussed previously, a very prominent archaeologist has sold out the profession to politics by adding his voice to the lying noise by the current Waqf that 'The Jewish Temple never stood on the Temple Mount'.

There is NO reason to suppose that any 'international control' which would be at all effective in securing everyone's rights to their holy sites is going to be tolerated by all parties. NONE.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Jerusalem belongs to the people who lived there before all these wars removed a lot of people from their hometown. It belongs to the native Muslims, Christians, and Jews.

No one group has the right to pig the place for themselves.

I agree - that's why I think international control is best.

No group has the right to 'pig' the place for themselves?

Why not?

The Muslims did it for centuries.

Now it's their turn in the barrel, and they're screaming bloody murder about it.

Suck it up and get used to it, the way the Christians and Jews had to do for so long.

International Control over the Holy City will not work over the long haul.

International Control is a fragile and ethereal thing and one cannot long govern a region or a city without a single firm hand at the wheel.

One controlling-faction at a time, is the only way to play this game, in the long run.

It's the Jews turn to control Jerusalem again... they went to the back of the line in 70 A.D. and have had to wait 1900+ years for another turn... they want full-value for their ride-ticket, and they seem intent on getting it, and we seem intent on backing them in that quest.

All religions will continue to be welcome to visit Jerusalem once things settle down again... all that will have changed will be who serves as Guardian or Trustee of the Holy City... and both Christians and Muslims have held that role in times past.

Let the Jews have their turn again... they paid full-price for their ticket and they've waited long enough... you (Islam) or we (Christianity) will probably get another turn in a few centuries... c'mon... be a sport...

Nothing lasts forever, and things change... welcome to the next centuries-long chapter in the history of Jerusalem...

Of course that is not true.

There were many Christians and Jews living in Jerusalem and other places in Palestine.

The Zionist invasion caused the displacement of many people of all faiths.

 

[RoccoR]

Indofred, et al,

I thank you for the straight forward way in which you approach the interrogatives.

In an attempt to make the dialog manageable, the Asperger's in me says: Start with Issue #1.

This is directed primarily to the anti-Israel/pro-"Palestinian" posters...

1. Do you believe that there should be a Jewish State of Israel?

No. No state should be built on a bigoted/racist principle that allows for only one religion/ethnic group/whatever.
That is wrong.

(PREFACE)

The response you gave answers the question, What Kind of State? But it doesn't truly answer if there "should be a state." Of course, clearly the inference here is that you don't agree with that either.

(INTRO & REFERENCE)

Humanity and civilization evolve at different rates, depending on the time period and the culture. Clearly, various forms of slavery and involuntary servitude (using it as an example only) was considered perfectly normal and an acceptable practice for more than four millennium. In fact, speaking on the overall development of the species, it has only been about two centuries (less than one one-hundredth of a percent of human written history) that slavery, bondage, and involuntary servitude has become unacceptable as a practice. You could not use today's moral and ethical values and expect them to be acceptable in the shadow of Alexander the Great's realm, the Imperial Senate of Rome, the Egyptian dynasty of Macedonian kings, the Court of Sheiks in Arabia, or before the throne in the Persian Achaemenid Empire. It was only two hundred years ago that the monopoly held by the Royal African Company was broken and the world demand opened the slave trade to all off the coast. It was only a hundred and fifty years ago (January 1, 1863) Emancipation Proclamation was signed. The point here is that what is ethical, humanitarian, and acceptable changes over time. And this must be kept in mind when trying to apply what is politically correct (ideas, policies, and behavior aimed at minimizing alienation of and discrimination against politically, socially or economically disadvantaged groups) today, in comparison to what was acceptable when decisions of historical importance were made.

Keeping in mind, that it was more than a century ago that the idea of a Jewish National Home emerged, what was the position held by the principle parties in conflict today. For this, we have to examine one of the key, founding documents, that set the tone and the intent of the Arab-Jewish relationship. There is no question that "first" among such documents would be the agreement reached by His Royal Highness the Emir Faisal, representing and acting on behalf of the Arab Kingdom of HEJAZ (the most senior of the Arab leaders of the time and Hashemite dynasty.), and Dr. Chaim Weizmann (President of the Zionist Organization, and the first President of the State of Israel), representing and acting on behalf of the Zionist Organization.

• SOURCE: Faisal-Weizmann agreement/Non-UN document (3 January 1919)

The language in this agreement was so instrumental, that some of it is repeated over and over again, in follow-on historical documents. Clearly, it appears in the Keystone document known as "The Mandate of Palestine."

The Preamble says in part:

"realizing that the surest means of working out the consummation of their national aspirations, is through the closest possible, collaboration in the development of the Arab State and Palestine, -"​

Oddly enough, it was the beginnings of the two-state solution. An Arab State and a Palestine State. Back then, the Jews were considered Palestinians.

"Immediately following the completion of the deliberations of the Peace Conference, the definite boundaries between the Arab State and Palestine shall be determined by a Commission to be agreed upon by the parties hereto."​

NOTE: With an open mind, I encourage you to read it. It is a one page agreement, but enormously important.​

The point of collapse surely was the part where the Arab and Zionist Leadership mutually agreed:

"The parties hereto agree to act in complete accord and harmony in all matters embraced herein before the Peace Congress."​

(COMMENT)

There is no question that Arab and Zionist Leadership understood what the intentions were of each other.

The Zionist wanted a home where they could be safe. Were both parties wrong?

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Coyote]

"While that is nice in theory it seldom works in practice. International control seems to sanest because religions that are so antagonistic as they are now - can seldom be trusted to act sanely. "

Coyote, the same can be said for 'international control'. The Arab League nations started their boycott against 'Zionism' over 75 years ago. They also beggared and ejected some 950,000 of their citizenry for being Jewish. They have refused to allow Magen Dovid Adom to be part of the 'International Red Cross/ Crescent' Society. And when one of them - Jordan - had control over part of Jerusalem, the Jews of East Jerusalem were ethnically cleansed out of their homes. And somewhere around 28,000 graves of Jews in the Mt of Olives cemetery were desecrated. Headstones of Jewish graves were used as paving stones - with the inscriptions UP - and to line sewer channels.

That's why I said Jordanian control would not be an option but international control does not have to mean Arab League control. Given Israeli policies towards the Muslim Quarter, it's building of Jewish-only apartments there - I would not trust Israeli control.

Do you truly imagine that such 'governments' as continue to keep 'Mein Kampf' in print from government-owned presses would have any consideration for Jewish people's sacred sites?

International control means multiple countries or UN. Yes, I would. Mein Kampf is in print around the world. It's called free speech

Oh, and as has been discussed previously, a very prominent archaeologist has sold out the profession to politics by adding his voice to the lying noise by the current Waqf that 'The Jewish Temple never stood on the Temple Mount'.

There is NO reason to suppose that any 'international control' which would be at all effective in securing everyone's rights to their holy sites is going to be tolerated by all parties. NONE.

There is no reason to suppose Israeli control would be any better.

 

[HistoryBefore67]

No reason, other than history (1967-today).

 

[Coyote]

No reason, other than history (1967-today).

I still prefer the option of international control - such as by the UN. That way we can be sure that all religions will be respected and we can hope that the cities diversity will remain intact.

 

[toastman]

I agree - that's why I think international control is best.

No group has the right to 'pig' the place for themselves?

Why not?

The Muslims did it for centuries.

Now it's their turn in the barrel, and they're screaming bloody murder about it.

Suck it up and get used to it, the way the Christians and Jews had to do for so long.

International Control over the Holy City will not work over the long haul.

International Control is a fragile and ethereal thing and one cannot long govern a region or a city without a single firm hand at the wheel.

One controlling-faction at a time, is the only way to play this game, in the long run.

It's the Jews turn to control Jerusalem again... they went to the back of the line in 70 A.D. and have had to wait 1900+ years for another turn... they want full-value for their ride-ticket, and they seem intent on getting it, and we seem intent on backing them in that quest.

All religions will continue to be welcome to visit Jerusalem once things settle down again... all that will have changed will be who serves as Guardian or Trustee of the Holy City... and both Christians and Muslims have held that role in times past.

Let the Jews have their turn again... they paid full-price for their ticket and they've waited long enough... you (Islam) or we (Christianity) will probably get another turn in a few centuries... c'mon... be a sport...

Nothing lasts forever, and things change... welcome to the next centuries-long chapter in the history of Jerusalem...

Of course that is not true.

There were many Christians and Jews living in Jerusalem and other places in Palestine.

The Zionist invasion caused the displacement of many people of all faiths.

Calling the Zionist immigration an 'invasion' is just part of the Arab propaganda campaign.
The European Jews were invited by the British and it was the British who also ENCOURAGED Zionist immigration. Since the land was known as the British Mandate of Palestine, and was controlled by the British, it was their decision to invite the Jews to what is now called Israel.
The British Recognized their historical right and their need to have their own state .

 

[Kondor3]

"...Of course that is not true. There were many Christians and Jews living in Jerusalem and other places in Palestine. The Zionist invasion caused the displacement of many people of all faiths."

You missed the point entirely, Tinny.

I said nothing about multiple ethnic and religious groups residing in Jerusalem.

I was talking about various ethnic and religious groups controlling Jerusalem.

Big difference.

And my contention that multiple groups have controlled Jerusalem over time is entirely true and accurate.

 

[RoccoR]

et al,

Of the possible solutions to the control of Jerusalem, there is going to be no perfect answers. Someone is going to dispute the authority and claim discrimination and some prior historical claim; and the conflict will continue.

The critical pitfall to "International Trusteeship" (new phrase to describe a Mandate or Protectorate) is that, with rare exception, the Arab Regional Community challenges the leadership and intimidates them with the threat of violence. There is no modern day state that wants to repeat the mistakes of the post-War allied powers. No matter how well intended, the Regional Arab Community seriously mauled the mandatories to the point that no one really wants anything to do with them. They need a King of the Hejaz to implement rule over Jerusalem; which they lost. And even such a King would have to make some serious investments in infrastructure and civil service reform to make it all come together. That leaves it squarely in the realm of His Royal Highness, Abdullah of Saudi Arabia. His Majesty is the only stable regional leader that is beyond intimidation and yet, understands the ways of the general indigenous population of Jerusalem. In effect, the UN would have to promote a new King of the Hejaz; if you could even get him to consider it as a Saudi protectorate.

You may ask, what is the difference between having HRH Abdullah II of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, and that of HM, King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia? Good question!

Saudi Arabia is immensely wealth; and is not a bordering state. HM has great experience at administering the protective umbrella over other places of holy significance (Mecca & Medina). King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, if HM were to take on such a responsibility, would do it for the right reasons, because HM strongly believes that such an efforts are an Arab and Islamic duty. HM commands the respect of International Community, as well as every member of the Regional Community. HM is strong, but fair and can maintain a diplomatic dialog with the Israeli, as well as, the Arabs; being someone that can be trusted to consider all sides of the issues at hand and make an uncorrupted decision.

Just My Thought,
Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

et al,

Of the possible solutions to the control of Jerusalem, there is going to be no perfect answers. Someone is going to dispute the authority and claim discrimination and some prior historical claim; and the conflict will continue.

The critical pitfall to "International Trusteeship" (new phrase to describe a Mandate or Protectorate) is that, with rare exception, the Arab Regional Community challenges the leadership and intimidates them with the threat of violence. There is no modern day state that wants to repeat the mistakes of the post-War allied powers. No matter how well intended, the Regional Arab Community seriously mauled the mandatories to the point that no one really wants anything to do with them. They need a King of the Hejaz to implement rule over Jerusalem; which they lost. And even such a King would have to make some serious investments in infrastructure and civil service reform to make it all come together. That leaves it squarely in the realm of His Royal Highness, Abdullah of Saudi Arabia. His Majesty is the only stable regional leader that is beyond intimidation and yet, understands the ways of the general indigenous population of Jerusalem. In effect, the UN would have to promote a new King of the Hejaz; if you could even get him to consider it as a Saudi protectorate.

You may ask, what is the difference between having HRH Abdullah II of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, and that of HM, King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia? Good question!

Saudi Arabia is immensely wealth; and is not a bordering state. HM has great experience at administering the protective umbrella over other places of holy significance (Mecca & Medina). King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, if HM were to take on such a responsibility, would do it for the right reasons, because HM strongly believes that such an efforts are an Arab and Islamic duty. HM commands the respect of International Community, as well as every member of the Regional Community. HM is strong, but fair and can maintain a diplomatic dialog with the Israeli, as well as, the Arabs; being someone that can be trusted to consider all sides of the issues at hand and make an uncorrupted decision.

Just My Thought,
Most Respectfully,
R

No matter how well intended, the Regional Arab Community seriously mauled the mandatories to the point that no one really wants anything to do with them.

Indeed, and it was their right to act against foreign intervention.

 

[Coyote]

Off topic posts regarding the discussion of anti-semitism and racism have been moved to a new thread: http://www.usmessageboard.com/usmb-badlands/298322-anti-semitism-and-racism.html

If you want to continue those discussions, please take it there - it is largely unmoderated aside from site wide rules.

 

[P F Tinmore]

"...Of course that is not true. There were many Christians and Jews living in Jerusalem and other places in Palestine. The Zionist invasion caused the displacement of many people of all faiths."

You missed the point entirely, Tinny.

I said nothing about multiple ethnic and religious groups residing in Jerusalem.

I was talking about various ethnic and religious groups controlling Jerusalem.

Big difference.

And my contention that multiple groups have controlled Jerusalem over time is entirely true and accurate.

You are missing the point.

Muslims, Christians and Jews had lived there for centuries.

It was not until the Zionists came along to pig the place for themselves that it was turned up side down displacing many people.