Jerusalem Corpus Separatum

[Coyote]

When they immigrated back, after all that time, they brought back foreign cultures. How are they any more "First Nation" than the people who stayed behind, and absorbed foreign cultures?

Because they retained their distinct and recognizable Jewish culture, regardless of what other cultural attributes they may have gained they never LOST their originating, First Nations, Jewish culture. As opposed to the "Palestinian" people who were entirely swallowed up by the invading culture.

I think this is the spot where we disagreed before. I see people, you see cultures. I also think there is a tendency, when you label people indiginous (or as you are trying to make the claim for "first nations") - to give them special rights denied to other peoples in the area no matter how long they have been there and when those rights are expanded to include immigrants who's ancestors left that land three thousand years ago it becomes very questionable.

The only things we can know for sure is this:

Jerusalem is a very important Holy Place for three closely related major world religions. Can we agree on that?
No one usurped anything - cultures and religions (as part of the culture) build upon the ruins of older existing ones. Claiming "usurption" is claiming theft and undermines the authenticity of almost every culture and religion existing today. We will probably not agree on that one.

• Jerusalem has in the recent past been governed by the Ottomans, Jordanians, and a consortium of Israel and Jordan.
  
• Under the Ottomans Jews were forbidden from access to the Temple Mount. Under Jordan, those rules were somewhat relaxed, but access was still very limited. Under joint adminstratorship, Jews have more access, but are not allowed to actually pray.
  
• You propose Israeli/Jewish administratorship only, as the best and most just solution because the Jewish sites are the oldest and Israel will guarantee rights of access and preservation.
• I propose a continued joint management of some sort over religious sites because of the importance of the site to 3 world religions no ONE should be soley in control, the importance of preserving the archeological integrity of the site (which I would trust Israel over Muslims to do) and serious trust issues between Muslims and Israeli's that will take much time and cultural change to resolve.
• When it comes to Jerusalem - I also propose a joint management because it of it's importance to multiple peoples but this may become moot as Israel has been steadily driving out the Arab presence through a series of initiatives and laws. Joint management might also be able to address the Palestinian violence directed at Palestinians that sell property, innocent civilians as well as those Israeli's who try to fraudulently buy buy Palestinian property by misrepresenting themselves. If a city is jointly managed - then there is no longer anything to be gained in altering demographics or committing terrorism. Maybe.

As I keep asking and not getting an answer to the question "WHAT ARE THE TIES TO JERUSALEM FOR THE CHRISTIANS AND MUSLIMS THAT ARE NOT STOLEN FROM THE JEWS.

As far as I can see the most holy places for Christians are Bethlemem and the hill outside of Jerusalems city walls. For the muslims it is the Jewish cities of Mecca and Medina.

So no we cant agree on your fantasy as it is not holy to any religion but Judaism.

You were answered.

Then it must have been deleted before I read it, so would you kindly repeat what ties the Christians and muslims have to Jerusalem that are not based on Judaism or Jews ?

Post #151.

 

[Shusha]

I can admire it, but also reject it. There is a difference between a willingness to, as an individual - and a demand that one must. And it's not just Islam - I feel the same way for Christianity or the topic of slavery reparations. We are only responsible for our own actions. Why should innocent people be punished?

How is it a punishment? What innocent people are being punished?

I'm speaking of acknowledging inter-generational responsibility for wrongs done, some of which might be on-going or still have lasting effects.

Who is being punished when the Jewish people in my community acknowledge the past wrongs done by Canadians to the First Nations cultures on whose land our synagogue resides and make on-going, inter-generational restitution for that wrong?

 

[Shusha]

Again - There is absolutely no guarantee that Israeli-alone control would accomplish that or do better.

They could hardly do worse.

There is no guarantee that a sovereign Palestinian State won't become another nest of violent Islamic extremism either. But does that mean they should be robbed of the chance?

 

[Coyote]

I can admire it, but also reject it. There is a difference between a willingness to, as an individual - and a demand that one must. And it's not just Islam - I feel the same way for Christianity or the topic of slavery reparations. We are only responsible for our own actions. Why should innocent people be punished?

How is it a punishment? What innocent people are being punished?

I'm speaking of acknowledging inter-generational responsibility for wrongs done, some of which might be on-going or still have lasting effects.

Who is being punished when the Jewish people in my community acknowledge the past wrongs done by Canadians to the First Nations cultures on whose land our synagogue resides and make on-going, inter-generational restitution for that wrong?

The term you used was "restitution" - recompense for injury or loss. That means people who had nothing to do with the original actions and might, indeed, have acted in a different manner, must pay restitution.

I find the concept of "inter-generational" responsibility to be very iffy. I find it iffier still when you talk about going back over a thousand years ago when both the victims and purpetrators are long dead.

There is a difference when restitution is made to the still living or immediate descendents (children of) an atrocity and when it is something that occurred so long ago the names are even lost.

An example where I see restitution as just is for example, restoring the art and materials looted by the Nazi's to their original owners. Recompensing the Japanese Americans for what they lost during their internment. In both those cases the victims and the purpetrators are known, often still living.

An example I don't see as right is demands of restitution for slavery. There are no longer any living former slaves or immediate descendents. You also have the questions of:

• who qualifies as a descendent? any black American? what about those of mixed race? what about those who came to America after slavery? what about those blacks who were slave owners themselves?
• 
  
• who pays restitution? All whites? what about those of mixed race? what about those who came to America after slavery? What about those who fought to abolish slavery or ran the underground railroad?

I think the biggest issue I have is simply the sheer amount of time involved -- we are so different from the people of then whether Jewish or Muslim - that it's difficult to relate to them and their culture or even know the truth about those cultures (how much is real, how much myth?). If we are talking about sheer spans of time then how many other cultures will restitution need to be made to?

 

[Shusha]

Coyote

You are taking my meaning of "restitution" too literally and too narrowly if you see it as financial payment. That is not at all what I am talking about.

Imagine more deeply symbolic and meaningful gestures towards reconciliation and restitution. Why don't the Muslim people, in recognition and honor of the Jewish people, offer to assist with the re-building of the Temple? (With the understanding that Al-Aqsa Mosque and the Dome of the Rock are unaffected.)

 

[Coyote]

Coyote

You are taking my meaning of "restitution" too literally and too narrowly if you see it as financial payment. That is not at all what I am talking about.

Imagine more deeply symbolic and meaningful gestures towards reconciliation and restitution. Why don't the Muslim people, in recognition and honor of the Jewish people, offer to assist with the re-building of the Temple? (With the understanding that Al-Aqsa Mosque and the Dome of the Rock are unaffected.)

That is how I always understood restitution but I see what you mean.

That would be one means though I think it could be highly controversial. A better one would be complete and unfettered access on par with the Muslims - a cooperative understanding of what that site means to each.

To me, events that took place thousands of years ago, are too far gone.

 

[Shusha]

That would be one means though I think it could be highly controversial.

Why would that be controversial? I mean, I agree with you that it would be. But the question is WHY?

Why is it controversial that the people who established and built the holy place should have it restored?

To me, events that took place thousands of years ago, are too far gone.

But the effects of the events thousands of years ago are still existing. They have not been righted or restored and restitution has not been made. It doesn't matter if the perpetrators of the events have "gotten over it" if the targets of the events are still suffering the consequences of the events of thousands of years ago.

 

[Shusha]

Let me put it another way.

If it morally acceptable to say that "some eggs can't be unscrambled", what prevents people from breaking and scrambling other people's eggs?

Shouldn't we be working to achieve something higher than just scrambling each other's eggs?

 

[Coyote]

That would be one means though I think it could be highly controversial.

Why would that be controversial? I mean, I agree with you that it would be. But the question is WHY?

Why is it controversial that the people who established and built the holy place should have it restored?

I think it would be controversial because of the intensity of religion on both sides and, correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't the building of a third temple play into a lot of religious prophecies in Christianity as well? I'm uncertain on the religious view (from all sides) on this so that is why I would see it as controversial. It would also be controversial from an archaeological point of view since some much archeaological study has been barred in that area.

But - that could also be remedied depending on where it's put - does it require a specific location?

There is too much I don't know.

To me, events that took place thousands of years ago, are too far gone.

But the effects of the events thousands of years ago are still existing. They have not been righted or restored and restitution has not been made. It doesn't matter if the perpetrators of the events have "gotten over it" if the targets of the events are still suffering the consequences of the events of thousands of years ago.

[/QUOTE]

I don't feel restitution needs to be made for events that long ago....and doing so potentially opens up a can of worms, going back throughout history to right wrongs - wrongs that we can't even be historically clear on because the records aren't all there and the ethics of the time completely different.

My feeling on restitution is generally that it should be for the people who actually suffered, and maybe their children. For example, Palestinian refugees. You now have several generations of refugees living in camps or elsewhere as refugees. Should restitution be made to all? Or just the ones who actually were expelled? IMO - it would be the latter and maybe - just maybe - their children.

Wrongs of a thousand or more years ago are lost in history and the reason I say that is it's impossible to know the truths of the conflicts and what happened and people had completely different ethics and cultures then. Building a Mosque on an older site in ruins, over a thousand years ago - was not wrong by the standards of the time - that is why I have a problem with restitution.

I think it's better to concentrate on righting more recent wrongs where people are still suffering. For example - barring Jews from worshipping at the Temple Mount. The idea of religious freedom is a relatively new one (though religious tolerance is much older) - the old laws are not in line with modern ethics - so we should work on changing them.

 

[Coyote]

Let me put it another way.

If it morally acceptable to say that "some eggs can't be unscrambled", what prevents people from breaking and scrambling other people's eggs?

Shouldn't we be working to achieve something higher than just scrambling each other's eggs?

Interesting question which provokes me to examine my own sense of ethics.

I feel it's wrong to judge actions of the far past by today's moral ethics. People were working with the tools, knowledge and ethics they had at that time in an environment that is largely alien to us now.

What prevents people today from breaking and scrmabling other people's eggs is more highly developed (as opposed to tribal) ethics that tell us it's wrong. Those ethics are still evolving and constantly being tested. 500 years from now we may find things we did, that we felt were ethical, are considered atrocities.

 

[Lipush]

With the latest debate relating to Temple Mount/Haram al-Sharif I wonder if it's time to look at corpus separatum for Jerusalem again?

Perhaps this is the ONLY way to find a peaceful solution to the 'Jerusalem question'?

Take a ball from squabbling kids, no more squabbling...

So instead of the Muslims trying to detach the Jews from the holiest of holy places, you want a third party to do that?

Pfft. Fairly unlikely!

 

[Humanity]

With the latest debate relating to Temple Mount/Haram al-Sharif I wonder if it's time to look at corpus separatum for Jerusalem again?

Perhaps this is the ONLY way to find a peaceful solution to the 'Jerusalem question'?

Take a ball from squabbling kids, no more squabbling...

So instead of the Muslims trying to detach the Jews from the holiest of holy places, you want a third party to do that?

Pfft. Fairly unlikely!

Pfft, you miss the point....

But you are absolutely right, Israel would never let go of their unrecognised, occupied 'capital'.

 

[Shusha]

Pfft, you miss the point....

But you are absolutely right, Israel would never let go of their unrecognised, occupied 'capital'.

But you understand WHY, yes?

 

[Humanity]

Pfft, you miss the point....

But you are absolutely right, Israel would never let go of their unrecognised, occupied 'capital'.

But you understand WHY, yes?

Well, I have my views as to why yes...

I am guessing you are talking about 'security'? Well, with an international 'body' taking sole responsibility for Jerusalem and the security within, I don't think that is an issue... Maybe a 'perceived' issue for Israelis AND Palestinians alike, but, until there is some kind of action taken over Jerusalem there will never be peace.

 

[ForeverYoung436]

Pfft, you miss the point....

But you are absolutely right, Israel would never let go of their unrecognised, occupied 'capital'.

But you understand WHY, yes?

Well, I have my views as to why yes...

I am guessing you are talking about 'security'? Well, with an international 'body' taking sole responsibility for Jerusalem and the security within, I don't think that is an issue... Maybe a 'perceived' issue for Israelis AND Palestinians alike, but, until there is some kind of action taken over Jerusalem there will never be peace.

It's not only security. Jerusalem represents the deepest emotions within every Jewish heart. Even secular Israelis who spend Shabbat on the beach instinctively know that an Israel without Jerusalem is like a body without a soul. A rebuilt Jerusalem is mentioned in daily prayers, and the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE is the subject of 4 out of the 6 annual fast days in the Jewish calendar. A glass is broken at every Jewish wedding in memory of 70 CE, and pictures of Jerusalem adorn every Jewish home. Like it says in the Bible, "If I forget thee O Jerusalem, let my right hand wither. Let my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth, if I remember not Jerusalem above my greatest joy!"

 

[RoccoR]

Humanity, Shusha, et al,

In the case of Jerusalem, it may take the Wisdom of King Solomon; HM was the wisest of all men, built the Temple in Jerusalem where he was sovereign during the "Golden Age" of Israel.

I remember a time in Darmstadt, when a Jewish friend of mine were engaged in a discussion of the rapidly formulation Israeli Policy. I had been under the mistaken impression that Israel had not declared Jerusalem its capital until 1980 (amended to the Basic Law). Needless to say, I was trounced that day.

• November 1988: Excerpt --- The Palestine National Council (PNC), in the name of God, and in the name of the Palestinian Arab people, hereby proclaims the establishment of the State of Palestine on our Palestinian territory with its capital Jerusalem. Palestinian Declaration of Independence, al-Bab

* (The Knesset adopted a proclamation declaring Jerusalem the capital of the State of Israel: 23 January 1950) “Whereas with establishment of the state of Israel, Jerusalem once more becomes the capital; Whereas practical difficulties which caused the Knesset and government institutions to be temporarily housed elsewhere have now for the most part been removed and the government is carrying out the transfer of its institutions to Jerusalem; The Knesset expresses the wish that construction of the seat of the government and Knesset in Jerusalem proceed speedily on the site allotted by the government for this purpose.”
​

Pfft, you miss the point....

But you are absolutely right, Israel would never let go of their unrecognised, occupied 'capital'.

But you understand WHY, yes?

Well, I have my views as to why yes...

I am guessing you are talking about 'security'? Well, with an international 'body' taking sole responsibility for Jerusalem and the security within, I don't think that is an issue... Maybe a 'perceived' issue for Israelis AND Palestinians alike, but, until there is some kind of action taken over Jerusalem there will never be peace.

(COMMENT)

In our contemporary times both sides (Arab-Israel) of the equation have declared Jerusalem as their capital. And, indeed, there is actually room for both in the City; and may be that is the necessary King Solomon solution (Cut the baby in half --- Jewish Law Commentary). Whether or not you believe in Divine Wisdom of Solomon (as in the God of Abraham is the same for all three major religions) we better be as successful as King Solomon in deriving a solution.

One more point: There is no such thing as an "unrecognised, occupied 'capital.'" Either the seat of government is there, or it is not.

In the case of Israel, exist both in terms of the Law [example: UN Resolution 273 (III) Admission of Membership of Israel to the UN] and in terms of reality [physical and sovereign control over a territory] without regard to whether the boundaries are disputed. This is the aspect of a de jure recognition, when other states sign-on to the adoption by the general assembly, and send ambassadors to that nation.

Equally as important, in the case of Israel, is when the political existence of Israel is totally independent of external recognition. And in this case Israel must only meet the criteria of the 1933 Convention of Montevideo; this is when Israel demonstrates that it has a permanent population; resident within a defined territory; an established and functioning government; with the capacity to enter into diplomatic relations and legitimate understandings (treaties, agreements, protocols, etc) with the other states. In this aspect, the nature is de facto control.

Israel's de jure existence follows the constitutive theory of statehood defines it having been recognised as sovereign by other states. Israel has even been mentioned by name in opinions rendered by the International Court of Justice.

But Israel also follows the "declarative" theory which defines a state as an entity under international law if it meets the following criteria most famously expressed in the 1933 Montevideo Convention.
​

This is important only because no matter how the Israeli Capital in Jerusalem is viewed, the State of Israel is recognized. If you follow the 1933 Montevideo Convention, then recognition is unconditional and irrevocable. It may be politically inconvient, but none the less there. (Again the Jedi Montra: Do or Not do!) Now, I cannot speak for Israel or the Israeli people, but it appears to me that after a half a century of functioning under the Khartoum Resolution ("Three No's": "no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations with it!) style of diplomacy, first started by the Arab League, Israel might be disappointed in the denial of the reality exhibited by both the US and the UN over the establishment of the Capital in Jerusalem, none the less, it is there. The Capital of Israel is there in Jerusalem (really) --- iand that is just as much a reality as when Russian Troops took control of the Crimea. Some may or may not approve; but, BAM! --- it is done --- no muss - no fuss - let's move-on.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Shusha]

5 December 1949, Statement by Prime Minister Ben Gurion


When we proclaimed the establishment of the renewed State of Israel, on 14 May 1948, we declared that, "The State of Israel will guarantee freedom of religion and conscience, of language, education and culture. It will safeguard the Holy Places of all religions. It will be loyal to the principles of the United Nations Charter." Accordingly, our delegation to the U.N. announced that Israel would honor all the existing rights regarding the holy places and sacred buildings in Jerusalem, assure freedom of worship and free access to all the holy sites under its control, recognizing the rights of pilgrims of all religions and nations to visit their holy places and assuring freedom of movement for clergymen. We agreed to allow effective U.N. supervision of the holy places and the existing rights in a way that would be agreed to between Israel and the United Nations.

At the same time we see fit to state that Jewish Jerusalem is an organic, inseparable part of the State of Israel, just as it is an integral part of Jewish history and belief. Jerusalem is the heart of the State of Israel. We are proud of the fact that Jerusalem is also sacred to other religions, and will gladly provide access to their holy places and enable them to worship as and where they please, cooperating with the U.N. to guarantee this.

We cannot imagine, however, that the U.N. would attempt to sever Jerusalem from the State of Israel or harm Israel's sovereignty in its eternal capital.

Twice in the history of our nation were we driven out of Jerusalem, only after being defeated in bitter wars by the larger, stronger forces of Babylon and Rome. Our links with Jerusalem today are no less deep than in the days of Nebuchadnezzar and Titus Flavius, and when Jerusalem was attacked after the fourteenth of May 1948, our valiant youngsters risked their lives for our sacred capital no less than our forefathers did in the time of the First and Second Temples.

A nation that, for two thousand and five hundred years, has faithfully adhered to the vow made by the first exiles by the waters of Babylon not to forget Jerusalem, will never agree to be separated from Jerusalem. Jewish Jerusalem will never accept alien rule after thousands of its youngsters liberated their historic homeland for the third time, redeeming Jerusalem from destruction and vandalism.

 

[Shusha]

13 December 1949, Statement by Prime Minister Ben Gurion:

As you know, the General Assembly of the United Nations has, in the meantime, by a large majority, decided to place Jerusalem under an international regime as a separate entity. This decision is utterly incapable of implementation - if only because of the determination and unalterable opposition of the inhabitants of Jerusalem themselves. It is to be hoped that the General Assembly will in the course of time amend the error which its majority has made, and will make no attempt to impose a regime on the Holy City against the will of its people.

We respect and shall continue to respect the wishes of all those States which are concerned for freedom of worship and free access to the Holy Places, and which seek to safeguard existing rights in the Holy Places and religious edifices in Jerusalem. Our undertaking to preserve these rights remains in force, and we shall gladly and willingly carry it out, even though we cannot lend our participation to the forced separation of Jerusalem, which violates without need or reason the historic and natural right of the people who dwell in Zion.

From the establishment of the Provisional Government we made the peace, the security and the economic consolidation of Jerusalem our principal care. In the stress of war, when Jerusalem was under siege, we were compelled to establish the seat of Government in Tel Aviv. But for the State of Israel there has always been and always will be one capital only - Jerusalem the Eternal. Thus it was 3,000 years ago - and thus it will be, we believe, until the end of time.

 

[montelatici]

Pfft, you miss the point....

But you are absolutely right, Israel would never let go of their unrecognised, occupied 'capital'.

But you understand WHY, yes?

Well, I have my views as to why yes...

I am guessing you are talking about 'security'? Well, with an international 'body' taking sole responsibility for Jerusalem and the security within, I don't think that is an issue... Maybe a 'perceived' issue for Israelis AND Palestinians alike, but, until there is some kind of action taken over Jerusalem there will never be peace.

It's not only security. Jerusalem represents the deepest emotions within every Jewish heart. Even secular Israelis who spend Shabbat on the beach instinctively know that an Israel without Jerusalem is like a body without a soul. A rebuilt Jerusalem is mentioned in daily prayers, and the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE is the subject of 4 out of the 6 annual fast days in the Jewish calendar. A glass is broken at every Jewish wedding in memory of 70 CE, and pictures of Jerusalem adorn every Jewish home. Like it says in the Bible, "If I forget thee O Jerusalem, let my right hand wither. Let my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth, if I remember not Jerusalem above my greatest joy!"

Our two holiest cities/sites are under Jewish or Muslim control. We don't whine about it and we have the power to change that if we want.

 

[Shusha]

Our two holiest cities/sites are under Jewish or Muslim control. We don't whine about it and we have the power to change that if we want.

Is the international community denying your connection to the places? Are you permitted to visit and worship there?