Jerusalem Corpus Separatum

[Shusha]

Although Christianity developed out of Judaic texts, Christians do not follow Jewish law. Instead, they believe that the ritualistic Jewish law was abrogated in favor of a universal gospel for all of humanity and the Christian teaching, "Love thy neighbor as thyself."​

​

This is one place to start. "Love thy neighbor as thyself" is a JEWISH teaching. It was adopted and emphasized in Christian teaching.

So why don't they?

They do, of course.

 

[Coyote]

Although Christianity developed out of Judaic texts, Christians do not follow Jewish law. Instead, they believe that the ritualistic Jewish law was abrogated in favor of a universal gospel for all of humanity and the Christian teaching, "Love thy neighbor as thyself."​

​

This is one place to start. "Love thy neighbor as thyself" is a JEWISH teaching. It was adopted and emphasized in Christian teaching.

No, it isn't, or more accurately, Jews are ONE of many who have a version of that "golden rule". It exists in one way or another in every major religion and philosophy I believe.

 

[Coyote]

Islam's views of Judaism and Christianity

Islam sees Judaism and Christianity as earlier versions of Islam, revelations given within the same tradition by Allah but misunderstood over time by their followers. Muslims see Islam as the final, complete, and correct revelation in the monotheistic tradition of the three faiths.


...

Jews and Christians are specifically protected in the Quran as Peoples of the Book, reinforcing their spiritual connection to Islam by virtue of having been given revelations from God. The Islamic legal tradition has upheld the rights of Jews and Christians to maintain their beliefs and practices within their communities in Islamic lands, and this policy of tolerance has generally been upheld.​

I do not see "usurping" unique to Islam - I see the evolution of religions.

There is a difference between progressive revelation and usurping another faith. A progressive revelation acknowledges the source material as belonging to the originating faith. Usurping a faith denies the originating faith. See above. Judaism and Christianity are earlier versions of Islam. The receivers of the messages from G-d were Muslims and practiced Islam as Allah instructed them. Those who follow Judaism and Christianity today are not Muslims and do not practice Islam as their forefathers did -- but practice corrupt and misunderstood faiths which have no roots in the messages of G-d. The people of Judaism and Christianity do not follow a revelation from Allah. According to Islam, Judaism did not exist until the Diaspora, when it was invented. What existed prior to that was Islam. And its practitioners were Muslims.

Again, I disagree with your interpretation - of claiming it to be "usurption" and doing so is denigrating Islam as much as you claim Islam denigrates Judaism.

Usurp

1. take (a position of power or importance) illegally or by force.
   "Richard usurped the throne"
   synonyms: seize, take over, take possession of, take, commandeer, wrest, assume, expropriate
   "Richard usurped the throne"
   • take the place of (someone in a position of power) illegally: supplant.
     "the Hanoverian dynasty had usurped the Stuarts"
     synonyms: oust, overthrow, remove, topple, unseat, depose, dethrone;More
     supplant, replace
     "the Hanoverian dynasty had usurped the Stuarts"
   • archaic
     encroach or infringe upon (someone's rights).
     "the Church had usurped upon the domain of the state"

Muslims see Islam as the final step of the Abrahamic faiths much as Christianity did with the Messiah. Muslims claimed that certain interpretations were corrupt and that is how they fit the preceding religions of Mohammed's era into their own religious view with out rejecting them. That's hardly "usurption" unless you apply it to a variety of other religions - and it's just really odd to see that claim being made now (and I've never heard it claimed before so I'm wondering if it's a recent phenomenum), at the same time as others are pushing the claim that Islam isn't even a religion but a socio-political ideology.

The point may seem subtle and unimportant, but it is not, because it transfers, whole cloth, the entire foundations of Judaism from the Jewish people to Islam and completely denies any claim by the Jewish people to our own stories. It is literally appropriating another culture.

I don't see that at all - I see no difference between it and between Christianity's roots in Judaism.

It means that the Temple Mount is an exclusive Muslim holy site, originating at the location where the Muslim Abraham bound his Muslim son Isaac. It means denying there was ever a Temple to G-d on the site -- or, if there was, that it was a Muslim Temple built by the Muslim Solomon. It means that the city of David is an exclusively Muslim city, built by the Muslim King David. It means the shrines of the Cave of the Patriarchs and the Tomb of Rachel are Muslim shrines built to honor Muslim men and women. It means that the land is Muslim land and has always been Muslim land from time immemorial. It means it was gifted, not to the Jewish people, but to the Muslim Children of Israel (the Palestinians).

I am truly not seeing it as usurption. How is it any different than when the Roman's took over the Greek pantheon (and their stories) or when Christianity took in the pagan gods and made them demons or saints? Even the stories of Jesus come out of older stories that they made their own. They built their churches on the older pagan shrines and made them their own. It's the way religions form and evolve.

It completely denies Jewish claim and connection to anything. It is along the lines of Monte and Challenger claiming that the Jewish people originated in Europe and have no ties or rights to any historical claim on anything. It denies the Jewish people our history, our origins, our culture, our narratives, our stories.

I think those are two separate issues that are being conflated. The fact that Muslims (and Christians) have many of the same stories, history, and narratives is not denying Jews theirs and in pushing that - aren't you simply demonizing Islam for evolving much like other religions?

Look at the UNESCO decision. Which ignores and thus denies any Jewish connection to the Temple Mount! Look who wrote that resolution. And look who accepted it.

Look at the conversation we are having here! Jerusalem should not belong to its own First Nations people! The Temple Mount should not belong to its own First Nations people! It must be turned over to an international body to become an international city and an international holy place. What other peoples are being stripped of their historical legacy in this way? What other peoples are being denied their historical legacy?

Unlike other "first nation's" holy sites - Jerusalem is important and holy to 3 major world religions, each of whom have over a thousand years worth of history. That's a reality - each one has an integral and just claim. Why are you trying to deny their historical legacy and why is any one of them more legitimate than the other? When you are looking at people that have been there over a thousand years - they are all essentially "first nations" in regards to rights, and their legacy is just as important.

Suggesting - and that is all it is - that Jerusalem should be held jointly is nothing more than an acknowledgement of that world reality - that each of these religions has an important associating with Jerusalem and how can Jerusalem be governed so as to protect it's religious heritage and allow access to those for whom it is important. That is all it is about - not denying someone their heritage. It's a shared heritage - in my opinion.

 

[Shusha]

... how can Jerusalem be governed so as to protect it's religious heritage and allow access to those for whom it is important. That is all it is about - not denying someone their heritage. It's a shared heritage - in my opinion.

Did you read the rest of my posts? Do you see where Islam and Muslims are denying MY heritage?

Where did I deny another's heritage in any of my posts?

Who is permitted to pray on the Temple Mount?

 

[Shusha]

Muslims claimed that certain interpretations were corrupt and that is how they fit the preceding religions of Mohammed's era into their own religious view with out rejecting them.

How is claiming that my entire religion is corrupt NOT rejecting it? Of course, its rejecting it. Mind you, that is not a problem. I expect Islam and Muslims to reject my faith. (After all, I sort of reject theirs. At least some of it).

What I find problematic is their assumption of MY narrative, stories, history, holy places as exclusively THEIR OWN.

 

[Shusha]

... how can Jerusalem be governed so as to protect it's religious heritage and allow access to those for whom it is important. That is all it is about - not denying someone their heritage. It's a shared heritage - in my opinion.

Except that people (Muslims) ARE denying the Jewish heritage. Its happening. UNESCO is SUPPORTING the denial of Jewish heritage. Why are you not up in arms, protesting with me that the Jewish people's heritage is being erased and denied?

 

[Shusha]

And again, what other religious faith is required to share their holy stories, places, narratives and characters with other religions?

 

[Phoenall]

Let's take a look at this article, published in at least six Arab newspapers:

Dozens of Israeli settlers on Thursday morning stormed the Bilal bin Rabah mosque north of the city of Bethlehem, claiming it is the site of "Rachel's Tomb", and they performed Talmudic rituals inside.

Local sources said that the settlers broke into the area near the Aida refugee camp, and performed provocative religious rituals inside, and that the settlers arrived by bus and were accompanied by patrols of the Israeli occupation.

They were there for several hours during which voices were heard screaming inside the mosque, while performing Talmudic rituals.

Sources reported that the mosque is located inside the wall of apartheid.

The settlers, under the pretext of performing Talmudic rituals, repeatedly desecrate the mosque.


So Jewish people, visiting and worshiping in a Jewish holy place are accused of desecrating a mosque with "Talmudic rituals".
How is this RIGHT?

Cos the arab muslims say so, and what they say is fact.

 

[Phoenall]

Although Christianity developed out of Judaic texts, Christians do not follow Jewish law. Instead, they believe that the ritualistic Jewish law was abrogated in favor of a universal gospel for all of humanity and the Christian teaching, "Love thy neighbor as thyself."​

​

This is one place to start. "Love thy neighbor as thyself" is a JEWISH teaching. It was adopted and emphasized in Christian teaching.

So why don't they?

They do right up to the point their neighbour starts attacking them. Then the gloves come of and the Jews defend against the attacks. And don't say that the muslims have not attacked the Jews as it is a religious command

 

[Phoenall]

Although Christianity developed out of Judaic texts, Christians do not follow Jewish law. Instead, they believe that the ritualistic Jewish law was abrogated in favor of a universal gospel for all of humanity and the Christian teaching, "Love thy neighbor as thyself."​

​

This is one place to start. "Love thy neighbor as thyself" is a JEWISH teaching. It was adopted and emphasized in Christian teaching.

No, it isn't, or more accurately, Jews are ONE of many who have a version of that "golden rule". It exists in one way or another in every major religion and philosophy I believe.

Apart from islam which has no such rules, which is why so many extremist groups exist in islam.

 

[Phoenall]

Islam's views of Judaism and Christianity

Islam sees Judaism and Christianity as earlier versions of Islam, revelations given within the same tradition by Allah but misunderstood over time by their followers. Muslims see Islam as the final, complete, and correct revelation in the monotheistic tradition of the three faiths.


...

Jews and Christians are specifically protected in the Quran as Peoples of the Book, reinforcing their spiritual connection to Islam by virtue of having been given revelations from God. The Islamic legal tradition has upheld the rights of Jews and Christians to maintain their beliefs and practices within their communities in Islamic lands, and this policy of tolerance has generally been upheld.​

I do not see "usurping" unique to Islam - I see the evolution of religions.

There is a difference between progressive revelation and usurping another faith. A progressive revelation acknowledges the source material as belonging to the originating faith. Usurping a faith denies the originating faith. See above. Judaism and Christianity are earlier versions of Islam. The receivers of the messages from G-d were Muslims and practiced Islam as Allah instructed them. Those who follow Judaism and Christianity today are not Muslims and do not practice Islam as their forefathers did -- but practice corrupt and misunderstood faiths which have no roots in the messages of G-d. The people of Judaism and Christianity do not follow a revelation from Allah. According to Islam, Judaism did not exist until the Diaspora, when it was invented. What existed prior to that was Islam. And its practitioners were Muslims.

Again, I disagree with your interpretation - of claiming it to be "usurption" and doing so is denigrating Islam as much as you claim Islam denigrates Judaism.

Usurp

1. take (a position of power or importance) illegally or by force.
   "Richard usurped the throne"
   synonyms: seize, take over, take possession of, take, commandeer, wrest, assume, expropriate
   "Richard usurped the throne"
   • take the place of (someone in a position of power) illegally: supplant.
     "the Hanoverian dynasty had usurped the Stuarts"
     synonyms: oust, overthrow, remove, topple, unseat, depose, dethrone;More
     supplant, replace
     "the Hanoverian dynasty had usurped the Stuarts"
   • archaic
     encroach or infringe upon (someone's rights).
     "the Church had usurped upon the domain of the state"

Muslims see Islam as the final step of the Abrahamic faiths much as Christianity did with the Messiah. Muslims claimed that certain interpretations were corrupt and that is how they fit the preceding religions of Mohammed's era into their own religious view with out rejecting them. That's hardly "usurption" unless you apply it to a variety of other religions - and it's just really odd to see that claim being made now (and I've never heard it claimed before so I'm wondering if it's a recent phenomenum), at the same time as others are pushing the claim that Islam isn't even a religion but a socio-political ideology.

The point may seem subtle and unimportant, but it is not, because it transfers, whole cloth, the entire foundations of Judaism from the Jewish people to Islam and completely denies any claim by the Jewish people to our own stories. It is literally appropriating another culture.

I don't see that at all - I see no difference between it and between Christianity's roots in Judaism.

It means that the Temple Mount is an exclusive Muslim holy site, originating at the location where the Muslim Abraham bound his Muslim son Isaac. It means denying there was ever a Temple to G-d on the site -- or, if there was, that it was a Muslim Temple built by the Muslim Solomon. It means that the city of David is an exclusively Muslim city, built by the Muslim King David. It means the shrines of the Cave of the Patriarchs and the Tomb of Rachel are Muslim shrines built to honor Muslim men and women. It means that the land is Muslim land and has always been Muslim land from time immemorial. It means it was gifted, not to the Jewish people, but to the Muslim Children of Israel (the Palestinians).

I am truly not seeing it as usurption. How is it any different than when the Roman's took over the Greek pantheon (and their stories) or when Christianity took in the pagan gods and made them demons or saints? Even the stories of Jesus come out of older stories that they made their own. They built their churches on the older pagan shrines and made them their own. It's the way religions form and evolve.

It completely denies Jewish claim and connection to anything. It is along the lines of Monte and Challenger claiming that the Jewish people originated in Europe and have no ties or rights to any historical claim on anything. It denies the Jewish people our history, our origins, our culture, our narratives, our stories.

I think those are two separate issues that are being conflated. The fact that Muslims (and Christians) have many of the same stories, history, and narratives is not denying Jews theirs and in pushing that - aren't you simply demonizing Islam for evolving much like other religions?

Look at the UNESCO decision. Which ignores and thus denies any Jewish connection to the Temple Mount! Look who wrote that resolution. And look who accepted it.

Look at the conversation we are having here! Jerusalem should not belong to its own First Nations people! The Temple Mount should not belong to its own First Nations people! It must be turned over to an international body to become an international city and an international holy place. What other peoples are being stripped of their historical legacy in this way? What other peoples are being denied their historical legacy?

Unlike other "first nation's" holy sites - Jerusalem is important and holy to 3 major world religions, each of whom have over a thousand years worth of history. That's a reality - each one has an integral and just claim. Why are you trying to deny their historical legacy and why is any one of them more legitimate than the other? When you are looking at people that have been there over a thousand years - they are all essentially "first nations" in regards to rights, and their legacy is just as important.

Suggesting - and that is all it is - that Jerusalem should be held jointly is nothing more than an acknowledgement of that world reality - that each of these religions has an important associating with Jerusalem and how can Jerusalem be governed so as to protect it's religious heritage and allow access to those for whom it is important. That is all it is about - not denying someone their heritage. It's a shared heritage - in my opinion.

So answer this question which all of team Palestine have hidden from

What connection does Christianity have with the Jewish temple site, what connection does islam have with Jerusalem that they had never even seen until 35 years after mo'mad died.

There is no connection other than the fact they both stole Judaisms holy places rather than erect their own. Even the black rock is Jewish, and had no attraction to the arabs before mo'mad was buried there

 

[Coyote]

Islam's views of Judaism and Christianity

Islam sees Judaism and Christianity as earlier versions of Islam, revelations given within the same tradition by Allah but misunderstood over time by their followers. Muslims see Islam as the final, complete, and correct revelation in the monotheistic tradition of the three faiths.


...

Jews and Christians are specifically protected in the Quran as Peoples of the Book, reinforcing their spiritual connection to Islam by virtue of having been given revelations from God. The Islamic legal tradition has upheld the rights of Jews and Christians to maintain their beliefs and practices within their communities in Islamic lands, and this policy of tolerance has generally been upheld.​

I do not see "usurping" unique to Islam - I see the evolution of religions.

There is a difference between progressive revelation and usurping another faith. A progressive revelation acknowledges the source material as belonging to the originating faith. Usurping a faith denies the originating faith. See above. Judaism and Christianity are earlier versions of Islam. The receivers of the messages from G-d were Muslims and practiced Islam as Allah instructed them. Those who follow Judaism and Christianity today are not Muslims and do not practice Islam as their forefathers did -- but practice corrupt and misunderstood faiths which have no roots in the messages of G-d. The people of Judaism and Christianity do not follow a revelation from Allah. According to Islam, Judaism did not exist until the Diaspora, when it was invented. What existed prior to that was Islam. And its practitioners were Muslims.

Again, I disagree with your interpretation - of claiming it to be "usurption" and doing so is denigrating Islam as much as you claim Islam denigrates Judaism.

Usurp

1. take (a position of power or importance) illegally or by force.
   "Richard usurped the throne"
   synonyms: seize, take over, take possession of, take, commandeer, wrest, assume, expropriate
   "Richard usurped the throne"
   • take the place of (someone in a position of power) illegally: supplant.
     "the Hanoverian dynasty had usurped the Stuarts"
     synonyms: oust, overthrow, remove, topple, unseat, depose, dethrone;More
     supplant, replace
     "the Hanoverian dynasty had usurped the Stuarts"
   • archaic
     encroach or infringe upon (someone's rights).
     "the Church had usurped upon the domain of the state"

Muslims see Islam as the final step of the Abrahamic faiths much as Christianity did with the Messiah. Muslims claimed that certain interpretations were corrupt and that is how they fit the preceding religions of Mohammed's era into their own religious view with out rejecting them. That's hardly "usurption" unless you apply it to a variety of other religions - and it's just really odd to see that claim being made now (and I've never heard it claimed before so I'm wondering if it's a recent phenomenum), at the same time as others are pushing the claim that Islam isn't even a religion but a socio-political ideology.

The point may seem subtle and unimportant, but it is not, because it transfers, whole cloth, the entire foundations of Judaism from the Jewish people to Islam and completely denies any claim by the Jewish people to our own stories. It is literally appropriating another culture.

I don't see that at all - I see no difference between it and between Christianity's roots in Judaism.

It means that the Temple Mount is an exclusive Muslim holy site, originating at the location where the Muslim Abraham bound his Muslim son Isaac. It means denying there was ever a Temple to G-d on the site -- or, if there was, that it was a Muslim Temple built by the Muslim Solomon. It means that the city of David is an exclusively Muslim city, built by the Muslim King David. It means the shrines of the Cave of the Patriarchs and the Tomb of Rachel are Muslim shrines built to honor Muslim men and women. It means that the land is Muslim land and has always been Muslim land from time immemorial. It means it was gifted, not to the Jewish people, but to the Muslim Children of Israel (the Palestinians).

I am truly not seeing it as usurption. How is it any different than when the Roman's took over the Greek pantheon (and their stories) or when Christianity took in the pagan gods and made them demons or saints? Even the stories of Jesus come out of older stories that they made their own. They built their churches on the older pagan shrines and made them their own. It's the way religions form and evolve.

It completely denies Jewish claim and connection to anything. It is along the lines of Monte and Challenger claiming that the Jewish people originated in Europe and have no ties or rights to any historical claim on anything. It denies the Jewish people our history, our origins, our culture, our narratives, our stories.

I think those are two separate issues that are being conflated. The fact that Muslims (and Christians) have many of the same stories, history, and narratives is not denying Jews theirs and in pushing that - aren't you simply demonizing Islam for evolving much like other religions?

Look at the UNESCO decision. Which ignores and thus denies any Jewish connection to the Temple Mount! Look who wrote that resolution. And look who accepted it.

Look at the conversation we are having here! Jerusalem should not belong to its own First Nations people! The Temple Mount should not belong to its own First Nations people! It must be turned over to an international body to become an international city and an international holy place. What other peoples are being stripped of their historical legacy in this way? What other peoples are being denied their historical legacy?

Unlike other "first nation's" holy sites - Jerusalem is important and holy to 3 major world religions, each of whom have over a thousand years worth of history. That's a reality - each one has an integral and just claim. Why are you trying to deny their historical legacy and why is any one of them more legitimate than the other? When you are looking at people that have been there over a thousand years - they are all essentially "first nations" in regards to rights, and their legacy is just as important.

Suggesting - and that is all it is - that Jerusalem should be held jointly is nothing more than an acknowledgement of that world reality - that each of these religions has an important associating with Jerusalem and how can Jerusalem be governed so as to protect it's religious heritage and allow access to those for whom it is important. That is all it is about - not denying someone their heritage. It's a shared heritage - in my opinion.

So answer this question which all of team Palestine have hidden from

What connection does Christianity have with the Jewish temple site, what connection does islam have with Jerusalem that they had never even seen until 35 years after mo'mad died.

First question is a strawman. I never claimed a connection between Christianity and the temple site. I said Jerusalem.

There is no connection other than the fact they both stole Judaisms holy places rather than erect their own. Even the black rock is Jewish, and had no attraction to the arabs before mo'mad was buried there

That's how religions evolve, even Judaism, which "stole" (to use your term) or was influenced by (to use the common term) from Zororastrianism. The region was a melting pot of civilizations, cultures and religions who directly or indirectly influenced each other.

As far as the Black Stone, it pre-dates Islam, and is a relic from their pagan past - there is no indication it is Jewish.

Black Stone of Mecca | Islam
Black Stone of Mecca, Arabic Al-Ḥajar al-Aswad , Muslim object of veneration, built into the eastern wall of the Kaʿbah (small shrine within the Great Mosque of Mecca) and probably dating from the pre-Islamic religion of the Arabs. It now consists of three large pieces and some fragments, surrounded by a stone ring and held together with a silver band. According to popular Islamic legend, the stone was given to Adam on his fall from paradise and was originally white but has become black by absorbing the sins of the thousands of pilgrims who have kissed and touched it. In 930 it was carried away by the fanatics of the Qarmatian sect and held for ransom for about 20 years.

 

[Coyote]

Although Christianity developed out of Judaic texts, Christians do not follow Jewish law. Instead, they believe that the ritualistic Jewish law was abrogated in favor of a universal gospel for all of humanity and the Christian teaching, "Love thy neighbor as thyself."​

​

This is one place to start. "Love thy neighbor as thyself" is a JEWISH teaching. It was adopted and emphasized in Christian teaching.

No, it isn't, or more accurately, Jews are ONE of many who have a version of that "golden rule". It exists in one way or another in every major religion and philosophy I believe.

Apart from islam which has no such rules, which is why so many extremist groups exist in islam.

Wrong again.

Islamic Text on the Golden Rule:
“Serve God, and join not any partners with Him; and do good – to parents, kinsfolk, orphans, those in need, neighbors who are near, neighbors who are strangers, the companion by your side, the wayfarer (ye meet), and what your right hands possess [the slave]: For God loveth not the arrogant, the vainglorious” (Q:4:36)
(In fact the Quran goes beyond saying the Golden Rule by stating in more than four places that “Return evil with Kindness.” (13:22, 23:96, 41:34, 28:54, 42:40)
Prophet Muhammad (pbuh):
“None of you have faith until you love for your neighbor what you love for yourself” (Sahih Muslim)
“Whoever wishes to be delivered from the fire and to enter Paradise…should treat the people as he wishes to be treated.” (Sahih Muslim)
“None of you truly believes until he wishes for his brother what he wishes for himself” (Forty Hadith-Nawawi)
“None of you is a believer if he eats his full while his neighbour hasn’t anything.” (Musnad)
“Do unto all men as you would wish to have done unto you; and reject for others what you would reject for yourselves.” (Abu Dawud)

 

[Shusha]

As far as the Black Stone, it pre-dates Islam, and is a relic from their pagan past - there is no indication it is Jewish.

But all that has to happen to MAKE it Jewish is to erect a synagogue there. Then it will be Jewish and the Jewish people will have the exclusive use of it.

 

[Coyote]

... how can Jerusalem be governed so as to protect it's religious heritage and allow access to those for whom it is important. That is all it is about - not denying someone their heritage. It's a shared heritage - in my opinion.

Except that people (Muslims) ARE denying the Jewish heritage. Its happening. UNESCO is SUPPORTING the denial of Jewish heritage. Why are you not up in arms, protesting with me that the Jewish people's heritage is being erased and denied?

I am not familiar with UNESCO's

... how can Jerusalem be governed so as to protect it's religious heritage and allow access to those for whom it is important. That is all it is about - not denying someone their heritage. It's a shared heritage - in my opinion.

Did you read the rest of my posts? Do you see where Islam and Muslims are denying MY heritage?

Where did I deny another's heritage in any of my posts?

Who is permitted to pray on the Temple Mount?

No, I don't - or at least I'm not seeing it as anything unique to Islam. What about those who claim that Muslims have NO ties to the Temple Mount or Jerusalem because neither is referenced by name in the Quran? Are they denying Muslims their heritage and erasing it? This very much appears to be as much of a dispute over territory as it is about religious claims.

All three religions SHARE a heritage and each puts it's own spin on the narratives. That's not stealing someone elses heritage it's the way cultures and religions develop.

The reason I'm not up in arms, as you put it, about UNESCO's decisions is I hadn't read about it.

So what are the facts?

Israel's reaction: Israel slams UNESCO members for ‘erasing’ Jewish ties to Jerusalem

Arab news reaction: UNESCO: Israel must respect Al Aqsa mosque

It seems that the outrage that is specific deals with calling Israel an occupying power in Jerusalem; using the Arabic names for some of the places; calling the Cave of Patriarchs and Rachel's Tomb "Palestinian" sites; accusing Israel of planting fake graves in certain sites and converting Muslim and Byzantine sites to Jewish sites; claims that there is no Jewish ties to Temple Mount and Jerusalem.

I looked up articles but I'm finding very little with specifics and I can not find a link to the UNESCO document - can you? With out it, it seems to be an exercise in interpretation and outrage with each side putting it's spin on things.

As far as who should worship there - they both have that right.

 

[Coyote]

And again, what other religious faith is required to share their holy stories, places, narratives and characters with other religions?

They all do to some extent. Judaism has ties with Zorastrianism, B'ahai with Islam, Christianity with Judaism, Islam with Judaism and Christianity. They pick and choose what they what they take and reject and alter. To me, I'm not seeing it as a big deal because it wouldn't alter my faith at all what other faiths think of it. For example - if my gods are made into demons in the Christian pantheon - that sucks, but it doesn't make any difference to my faith.

 

[Coyote]

As far as the Black Stone, it pre-dates Islam, and is a relic from their pagan past - there is no indication it is Jewish.

But all that has to happen to MAKE it Jewish is to erect a synagogue there. Then it will be Jewish and the Jewish people will have the exclusive use of it.

I think there is a bit more to the Temple Mount than that, but ya that is how those things have worked historically and when the site is shared, all holy hell breaks loose because religion is anything but rational.

 

[Coyote]

Smithsonian has a really good article on the Temple Mount, it's importance to all 3 religions, what is known, and not known and the conflicts surrounding it.
History, Travel, Arts, Science, People, Places | Smithsonian

The odds and ends I was gathering are the fruits of one of Israel’s most intriguing archaeological undertakings: a grain-by-grain analysis of debris trucked out of the Temple Mount, the magnificent edifice that has served the faithful as a symbol of God’s glory for 3,000 years and remains the crossroads of the three great monotheistic religions.

Jewish tradition holds that it is the site where God gathered the dust to create Adam and where Abraham nearly sacrificed his son Isaac to prove his faith. King Solomon, according to the Bible, built the First Temple of the Jews on this mountaintop circa 1000 B.C., only to have it torn down 400 years later by troops commanded by the Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar, who sent many Jews into exile. In the first century B.C., Herod expanded and refurbished a Second Temple built by Jews who had returned after their banishment. It is here that, according to the Gospel of John, Jesus Christ lashed out against the money changers (and was later crucified a few hundred yards away). The Roman general Titus exacted revenge against Jewish rebels, sacking and burning the Temple in A.D. 70.


Among Muslims, the Temple Mount is called Haram al-Sharif (the Noble Sanctuary). They believe it was here that the Prophet Muhammad ascended to the “Divine Presence” on the back of a winged horse—the Miraculous Night Journey, commemorated by one of Islam’s architectural triumphs, the Dome of the Rock shrine. A territorial prize occupied or conquered by a long succession of peoples—including Jebusites, Israelites, Babylonians, Greeks, Persians, Romans, Byzantines, early Muslims, Crusaders, Mamluks, Ottomans and the British—the Temple Mount has seen more momentous historical events than perhaps any other 35 acres in the world. Nonetheless, archaeologists have had little opportunity to search for physical evidence to sort legend from reality. For one thing, the site remains a place of active worship. The authority that controls the compound, an Islamic council called the Waqf, has long forbidden archaeological excavations, which it views as desecration. Except for some clandestine surveys of caves, cisterns and tunnels undertaken by European adventurers in the late 19th century—and some minor archaeological work conducted by the British from 1938 to 1942, when the Al-Aqsa Mosque was undergoing renovation—the layers of history beneath the Temple Mount have remained tantalizingly out of reach.​

Of note, it does appear that the Palestinians are trying to rewrite the history and I agree that is wrong and I think it is part of each side attempting to hold on to Jerusalem:

Until recently, Palestinians generally acknowledged that the Beit Hamikdash existed. A 1929 publication, A Brief Guide to the Haram al-Sharif, written by Waqf historian Aref al Aref, declares that the Mount’s “identity with the site of Solomon’s temple is beyond dispute. This too is the spot, according to universal belief, on which David built there an altar unto the Lord, and offered burnt and peace offerings.” But in recent decades, amid the intensifying quarrel over the sovereignty of East Jerusalem, a growing number of Palestinian officials and academics have voiced doubts. “I will not allow it to be written of me that I have...confirmed the existence of the so-called Temple beneath the Mount,” Palestinian leader Yasir Arafat told President Bill Clinton at the Camp David peace talks in 2000. Arafat suggested the site of the Temple Mount might have been in the West Bank town of Nablus, known as Shechem in ancient times.

...And in November 2010, the Palestinian Authority created a diplomatic kerfuffle when it published a study declaring the Western Wall was not a Jewish holy site at all, but part of the Al-Aqsa Mosque. The study contended, “This wall was never part of the so-called Temple Mount, but Muslim tolerance allowed the Jews to stand in front of it and weep over its destruction,” which the U.S. State Department called “factually incorrect, insensitive and highly provocative.”​

There is a lot not known, because archealogical study of it is so tricky.

 

[Uncensored2008]

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...

You are a Muslim Supremacist. You want to kill or expel all JOOOOOOOZZZZZ and any other infidels from what you view as Muslim lands.

 

[Coyote]

Another article, that has, I think, a good perspective (less inflammatory) on what UNESCO said:

The day the UN downgraded Judaism’s holiest site to a stable - Israel News

The resolution condemns various Israeli activities around the Western Wall Plaza, including the recently-approved construction of an egalitarian Jewish prayer space on the southern side of the plaza, plans to build an elevator that would help disabled people reach the Kotel in a wheelchair, and even “the installment of an umbrella” at the Mughrabi Gate entrance, the only access to the Temple Mount open to non-Muslims.

I don't see why that should be condemned, it seems like a reasonable solution to issues of accessability, protection from the sun and allowing some prayer.

The resolution also ignores the Jewish link to the rest of the holy site, which archaeologists widely agree houses the remains of two Jewish temples, the second of which was destroyed by the Romans in 70 C.E.

The document refers to the compound only as “Al-Aqsa Mosque/Al-Haram Al Sharif” (The Noble Sanctuary) and describes it solely as “a Muslim Holy Site of worship.”

Under the current status quo, Jews and non-Muslims are permitted to visit the Temple Mount but not pray there. Despite Israel’s continued claims of support for this arrangement, Muslim and Palestinian fears of Jewish encroachment on the compound have been one of the causes behind the latest round of Mideast violence.​

Ignoring the Jewish link is not "denying it", however the document should have included the Jewish references on equal footing with the Muslim ones.

The UNESCO resolution appears to back these fears, condemning “Israeli aggressions and illegal measures against the freedom of worship and Muslims’ access to their Holy Site.” Among various complaints, it accuses Israel of “planting Jewish fake graves” in the area around the Temple Mount and removing or destroying archaeological remains dating to the Islamic period. This despite the fact that a number of Islamic remains have been uncovered or preserved by Israeli archaeologists in recent years, including the palaces built on the south side of the Temple Mount by the Umayyad dynasty.​

What specific Israeli aggressions and "illegal measures" have interfered with freedom of worship and access? Also, the planting of Jewish fake graves is intriguing. I can't find a single informative reference from a reputable site on this though apparently fake Muslim graves were removed in 2010.

“UNESCO should have praised Israel for its effective protection, preservation and promotion of heritage sites in Jerusalem under dire circumstances,” he said in an email to Haaretz, adding that the agency “should have raised its voice against the most brutal damage of cultural heritage in the city in recent years – the bulldozing by the Waqf of important archaeological debris from the Temple Mount.”

Finkelstein was referring to the 9,000 tons of soil that the Muslim religious trust dumped in a nearby valley in 1999-2000 after conducting works, which were uncoordinated with Israel, on the southeast corner of the Temple Mount. The sediments have since been collected by Israeli archaeologists and are being studied as part of the so-called “Sifting Project.” Earlier this week, it was reported that a 12-year-old Israeli girl discovered an ancient Egyptian amulet dating back more than 3,200 years while volunteering with her family on the project. ​

I agree - Israel has done a good job preserving it, conducting professional archeology and allowing access to all religions. Without seeing the actual report I'm inclined to agree UNESCO effed up on this one.