Ownership, in those days, was by force of arms, not law. Whomever conquered it - owned it. Don't you suppose the Jews themselves conquered territory from lesser tribes? Did they then "own" the territory? Or is this a selective interpretation? How are you going to untangle events of a thousand or more years ago, of people who no longer exist, and pass judgements based on modern ideas?
Today, we have Jerusalem conquered by and under the control of Israel. Just as it had previously been conquered and controled by Muslims, Christians, Jews. A very ancient city with many different owners, yet you claim one of them "usurped" it.
(Although a majority of Muslims actually do argue that very thing which rattles my bones like you have no idea). Clearly, the Arab Muslims, when they invaded the area 1300 years ago usurped a Jewish holy place (at that time ONLY a Jewish holy place -- as in a First Nations/original inhabitants holy place) and built a mosque there and laid claim to it.
They did not "usurp" anything. These are events that occurred over a thousand years ago and that is a TREMENDOUS amount of time and that time has given their claim to it validity. If you deny this, than you need to go and examine each of the ancient cultures that "owned it" and it might be the Egyptians who hold claim to it, not the Jews - they were just interlopers, like the rest that followed.
You then clarified your position by saying that we can not apply the ethics of 1300 years ago to today and that, by virtue of the length of time the Muslim Arabs have had a presence there, they have claim to the site. In effect, you are saying, its an egg that can't be unscrambled. We agree. Wholeheartedly.
So, here's my position. Jerusalem and the Temple Mount were, originally, Jewish historical and holy sites which now also have a great significance to the Arab Muslim peoples and to Christians. An ideal solution would be to have a joint, co-operative, shared and respectful administration over the area.
This I totally agree with - it's the only reasonable solution.
But since neither the Arab Muslim people nor the international community appears capable of achieving this at the moment, and, in point of fact -- are working against it, in order to protect Israel's and the Jewish people's lasting interests in preserving our history and religious faith absolutely MUST retain control over both the city and the Temple area. Failing to do so would result in a catastrophic and irredeemable loss of Jewish history and culture and places of religious significance. Since both Israel's government and the Jewish people's religious faith accept the rights of ALL peoples to access the holy places and worship there as they choose, in peace with others, this should pose absolutely no problem and indeed should be the solution to the problem.
I do not agree with that. At this point in time Jerusalem is administered by the Muslim Waqf and Israel and they have preserved it peacefully for the most part. As to whether Israel, if it retained sole control, would continue to accept the rights of all people's to freely worship (Jews do have their extremists), is debatable but even more important would people trust it? Muslims would likely trust the Jews about as much as the Jews would trust the Muslims. I think the better solution, is a joint adminstratorship.
