Jerusalem Corpus Separatum

[Phoenall]

You can't usurp - or steal - something that you are part owner of. And no, I did not say that THAT was an atrocity - you are distorting my words.

I don't think I am. I asked you if it was morally acceptable for one culture to build on top of another culture's holy place. You said that it would be an atrocity if it happened today. I take that to mean that it is morally unacceptable (an atrocity), in your opinion, to usurp another's holy site by building a structure on top of it and then laying claim to it.

You absolutely are distorting my words by stripping them of their context. When you talk about it in the context of cultures a thousand or more years ago - the ethics don't apply. The ethics were developed in today's world, by today's cultures. You don't simply go backwards and start condemning based on a newly found ethic because it suits your present position. It's not an atrocity - it's history and it's the way history evolves.

Secondly, no holy site was "usurped". It was a pile of ruins. Another culture built their own holy site on it. They didn't usurp anything, they made their own. Given the considerable expanse of time, it's hard to make a legitimate argument that they are "usurping" anything. Jerusalem preceded the Jews and Judaism. Did they then usurp it?

You are a reasonable person, so you can not possibly be arguing that the Arab Muslims "owned" the Temple Mount prior to their migration to/invasion of the territory or prior to the revelation in which Islam was created. /

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.

During its lifetime the Al Aqsa mosque was ruins at least 4 times, so does that mean the muslims lost it as a holy place

 

[Phoenall]

You are again distorting my position. I have consistently said that the Palestinians are descendents of original people's in that region combined with successive waves of migrations and conquests much as Jews, today, are descendents of original people's in that region combined with the people's of the regions they spread out out into. You seem to think that Jews have some special rights other "First Nation" peoples in that region and they don't - they have the same rights.

Of course they have the same rights. When have I EVER said that they didn't? I'm the one arguing for the rights of both peoples, remember?

But they can not both be First Nations for the term to have any meaning. The Jewish people, being the culture which has had the longest, recognizable, continuing culture in that territory were "first". Making them the First Nation. What happened afterwards is all eggs which can't be unscrambled. All the eggs have rights at this point.

Yes, they can both be First Nations. The United States has multiple First Nations peoples. There is nothing that says there can only be one.

Apart from the actual definition of the term First Nations, which means those who came first. Not those who came second ( Pilgrim Fathers ) or third or 1,0000th

 

[Phoenall]

The people that have always lived in an area, regardless of the languages, cultural changes or changes in religion remain the native people. Just because native americans may have become Roman Catholics, may speak Spanish and may have adopted much of the Hispanic (Spanish) culture, does not somehow change their status as the native people of America.

By definition, Arab Muslims have NOT "always lived there".

By definition, Spanish cultures are NOT the indigenous cultures of the Americas.

By definition, I (Canadian of Irish/Scots/German descent) am from an immigrating (invading) culture and am not First Nations. Nor will my descendants EVER be.

By definition invading, colonizing cultures are not First Nations cultures.

I totally disagree. You call them "Arab Muslims" - a term I'm assuming you've now chosen to use because it implies an invading Arab people. They aren't. Some are. Many are the same people as the Jews who had been there prior to Islam, but converted over time.

Spanish cultures aren't indiginous - but, the people who assumed aspects of those cultures may very well be indiginous. Even Jews - when they spread out over the world, took on the cultural attributes of the countries they resided in.

The PURPOSE of identifying and protecting First Nations cultures is to preserve the cultures of those who were invaded and conquered.

Can a First Nations person learn to speak a foreign language and still be First Nations? Duh. Of course, they can. Can a First Nations culture entirely adopt an invading culture so that there is no trace of their First Nations culture and still be First Nations. Uh. No.

Yes. They can. Jews, who have lived over a thousand years in European countries are essentially European in culture - not Middle Eastern.

We invaded a really, really long time ago does not confer First Nations status on people. Though it might give them claims to sovereignty and self-determination.

Ironically, "First Nations" has only ever been used to apply to Native American tribes, most specifically Canadian, where conquest is relatively recent and the cultures still quite clear. When you are talking about a people who dispersed some three thousand years ago - does it really apply in the same way? 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?

That is what they call themselves, so how is it wrong ? Look at my links from

Arab Immigration To Palestine | Cherson and Molschky
and see that they are invaders and forced conversion on some of the first nations people



You know that collectively you second to 1000th nation Americans are wrong as you keep the Amerindians in concentration camps and apply different laws to them. What do you have to say about your own hypocrisy in light of your attacks on the Jews over their use of International laws.

 

[Phoenall]

This is interesting - reading about the Temple Mount.

Jews worshipping there is not only controversial with the Muslims, but also among the Jews.

Ultra-Orthodox war against Jews ascending Temple Mount - Al-Monitor: the Pulse of the Middle East

Only a very tiny minority isn't it, not the majority of religious Jews see it that way.

That's like the Branch Davidians complaining about women worshipping with men in the same building

 

[RoccoR]

Humanity, Phoenall, et al,

Clearly, there was an intention adopted by the UN General Assembly that the City of Jerusalem, and the greater Municipal Area, should be under a special international regime --- administered by the United Nations; Trusteeship Council designated the Administering Authority. This was the UN intention all the way through 1949 and General Assembly Resolution 303 (IV).

Just as clearly, this did not happen. While we often think of the unauthorized Arab League Military intervention to defy the resolution of the General Assembly and engage in a deliberate effort to alter by force the implementation of General Assembly Resolution 181 (II) - The Partition Plan, it did accomplish a number of its secondary objectives. One of the political-military (POL-MIL) objectives was for the Jordanian Army (the Arab Legion, trained and led by British officers) took the Jewish quarter of Old Jerusalem and seized control of the West Bank area on the western side of the Jordan River.

Furthermore, has you bothered to keep up with this post you would see that I called for a 'free' Jerusalem for all!

(COMMENT)

The "Free Jerusalem Movement" was actually a mantra and organization substructure behind the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO). This cost the Hashemite King his life when he was assassinated by Arab militants (the proto-PLO gunmen) entering the Al-Aqsa Mosque in the Old City of Jerusalem. A faction of Fedayeen Arab Militants opposed to Jordanian rule was becoming popular emerging lands rath in 360º (Fortification).

Prior to the general outbreak of hostilities in 1947 and War in 1948 The Old City of Jerusalem was divided into four separate quarters:

• Jewish,
• Christian,
• Arab and
• Armenian.
​

From 1949 and until 27 June 1967, Jerusalem was divided in two distinct sectors:

• West Jerusalem was under Israeli control and covered about 38 square kilometers, and
• East Jerusalem was under Jordanian control and covered about 6 square kilometers.
​

After annexation, Israel attempted to (as best they could) provide all groups free access to holy sites.

The PLO would eventually rise to be the most generally recognized faction of Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP), and becomes the "the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people (1974) in any Palestinian territory that is liberated." In the 1988 PLO Declaration of Independence, Jerusalem is declared its capital. Recognized as they (the PLO) are, the decision on Jerusalem goes unchallenged; although a political concern to Israel.

While the Internationalization of The City of Jerusalem was propably the best solution, it has been overtaken by events --- largely in part to very slow reaction times on the part of the UN to put the plan into action.

Just My Take ---

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[aris2chat]

I researched land claims of palestinians in Ottoman records. 1 in 20 had at any times had claim to the property, but the family sold it to jews.

 

[Humanity]

The people that have always lived in an area, regardless of the languages, cultural changes or changes in religion remain the native people. Just because native americans may have become Roman Catholics, may speak Spanish and may have adopted much of the Hispanic (Spanish) culture, does not somehow change their status as the native people of America.

By definition, Arab Muslims have NOT "always lived there".

By definition, Spanish cultures are NOT the indigenous cultures of the Americas.

By definition, I (Canadian of Irish/Scots/German descent) am from an immigrating (invading) culture and am not First Nations. Nor will my descendants EVER be.

By definition invading, colonizing cultures are not First Nations cultures.

The PURPOSE of identifying and protecting First Nations cultures is to preserve the cultures of those who were invaded and conquered.

Can a First Nations person learn to speak a foreign language and still be First Nations? Duh. Of course, they can. Can a First Nations culture entirely adopt an invading culture so that there is no trace of their First Nations culture and still be First Nations. Uh. No.

We invaded a really, really long time ago does not confer First Nations status on people. Though it might give them claims to sovereignty and self-determination.

The people of Palestine, whatever religion they converted to are still descendants of the native people. Irish Catholics are the descendants of the original Irish although they may have worshipped trees or rocks before.

So you are saying that a person that converts from English Christian to islam becomes an arab muslm now. Care to provide the evidence to back this up.

The evidence showed that the inhabitants took on the arab culture only, but kept their own religion and culture with it.




Arab Immigration To Palestine | Cherson and Molschky


First Wave(7TH Century)

The first wave was after the occupation of the country by the Arabs in the 7th century A.D. The Arab – Muslim occupation of Palestine lasted about 400 years (640 – 1099). Most scholars agree that the ethnic- religious structure of the population remained essentially unchanged from the days of the Byzantine occupation (324CE – 640CE), and the majority of the population consisted of Greek Orthodox Christians and 2 minorities: Jews and Samaritans. The number of Arabs settled in Palestine was negligible.

The Muslim army emerging from the Arabian Peninsula was comprised of Bedouin warriors who moved along with their families and flocks. Prof Moshe Sharon, rejects the theory that the 7th century Arabic conquest was immediately accompanied by massive Arabic settlement in the country. He gives several reasons for the absence of massive Arabic penetration into the Land of Israel prior to the 9th century…

An Arabic 9th century source attests to the composition of the coastal cities population, which included Jews, Samaritans, Persians, Greeks, and a few Arabs.

At a later stage, soldiers released from the Caliph’s Muslim army settled in villages and towns that had been deserted by Christians fleeing ahead of the Arab conquerors, but no numerical data is available.

WTF has nationality got to do with religion?

 

[Hollie]

The people that have always lived in an area, regardless of the languages, cultural changes or changes in religion remain the native people. Just because native americans may have become Roman Catholics, may speak Spanish and may have adopted much of the Hispanic (Spanish) culture, does not somehow change their status as the native people of America.

By definition, Arab Muslims have NOT "always lived there".

By definition, Spanish cultures are NOT the indigenous cultures of the Americas.

By definition, I (Canadian of Irish/Scots/German descent) am from an immigrating (invading) culture and am not First Nations. Nor will my descendants EVER be.

By definition invading, colonizing cultures are not First Nations cultures.

The PURPOSE of identifying and protecting First Nations cultures is to preserve the cultures of those who were invaded and conquered.

Can a First Nations person learn to speak a foreign language and still be First Nations? Duh. Of course, they can. Can a First Nations culture entirely adopt an invading culture so that there is no trace of their First Nations culture and still be First Nations. Uh. No.

We invaded a really, really long time ago does not confer First Nations status on people. Though it might give them claims to sovereignty and self-determination.

The people of Palestine, whatever religion they converted to are still descendants of the native people. Irish Catholics are the descendants of the original Irish although they may have worshipped trees or rocks before.

So you are saying that a person that converts from English Christian to islam becomes an arab muslm now. Care to provide the evidence to back this up.

The evidence showed that the inhabitants took on the arab culture only, but kept their own religion and culture with it.




Arab Immigration To Palestine | Cherson and Molschky


First Wave(7TH Century)

The first wave was after the occupation of the country by the Arabs in the 7th century A.D. The Arab – Muslim occupation of Palestine lasted about 400 years (640 – 1099). Most scholars agree that the ethnic- religious structure of the population remained essentially unchanged from the days of the Byzantine occupation (324CE – 640CE), and the majority of the population consisted of Greek Orthodox Christians and 2 minorities: Jews and Samaritans. The number of Arabs settled in Palestine was negligible.

The Muslim army emerging from the Arabian Peninsula was comprised of Bedouin warriors who moved along with their families and flocks. Prof Moshe Sharon, rejects the theory that the 7th century Arabic conquest was immediately accompanied by massive Arabic settlement in the country. He gives several reasons for the absence of massive Arabic penetration into the Land of Israel prior to the 9th century…

An Arabic 9th century source attests to the composition of the coastal cities population, which included Jews, Samaritans, Persians, Greeks, and a few Arabs.

At a later stage, soldiers released from the Caliph’s Muslim army settled in villages and towns that had been deserted by Christians fleeing ahead of the Arab conquerors, but no numerical data is available.

WTF has nationality got to do with religion?

A great deal in many Islamist nations. The KSA, for example is 100% moslem.

 

[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.

 

[Humanity]

Humanity, Phoenall, et al,

Clearly, there was an intention adopted by the UN General Assembly that the City of Jerusalem, and the greater Municipal Area, should be under a special international regime --- administered by the United Nations; Trusteeship Council designated the Administering Authority. This was the UN intention all the way through 1949 and General Assembly Resolution 303 (IV).

Just as clearly, this did not happen. While we often think of the unauthorized Arab League Military intervention to defy the resolution of the General Assembly and engage in a deliberate effort to alter by force the implementation of General Assembly Resolution 181 (II) - The Partition Plan, it did accomplish a number of its secondary objectives. One of the political-military (POL-MIL) objectives was for the Jordanian Army (the Arab Legion, trained and led by British officers) took the Jewish quarter of Old Jerusalem and seized control of the West Bank area on the western side of the Jordan River.

Furthermore, has you bothered to keep up with this post you would see that I called for a 'free' Jerusalem for all!

(COMMENT)

The "Free Jerusalem Movement" was actually a mantra and organization substructure behind the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO). This cost the Hashemite King his life when he was assassinated by Arab militants (the proto-PLO gunmen) entering the Al-Aqsa Mosque in the Old City of Jerusalem. A faction of Fedayeen Arab Militants opposed to Jordanian rule was becoming popular emerging lands rath in 360º (Fortification).

Prior to the general outbreak of hostilities in 1947 and War in 1948 The Old City of Jerusalem was divided into four separate quarters:

• Jewish,
• Christian,
• Arab and
• Armenian.
​

From 1949 and until 27 June 1967, Jerusalem was divided in two distinct sectors:

• West Jerusalem was under Israeli control and covered about 38 square kilometers, and
• East Jerusalem was under Jordanian control and covered about 6 square kilometers.
​

After annexation, Israel attempted to (as best they could) provide all groups free access to holy sites.

The PLO would eventually rise to be the most generally recognized faction of Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP), and becomes the "the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people (1974) in any Palestinian territory that is liberated." In the 1988 PLO Declaration of Independence, Jerusalem is declared its capital. Recognized as they (the PLO) are, the decision on Jerusalem goes unchallenged; although a political concern to Israel.

While the Internationalization of The City of Jerusalem was propably the best solution, it has been overtaken by events --- largely in part to very slow reaction times on the part of the UN to put the plan into action.

Just My Take ---

Most Respectfully,
R

Mr Rocco

As you are aware, I am sure, Israel did not include Jerusalem within the bounds of Israel at the formation of state. "Annexation" is a clear indicator of this.

Ben-Gurion, declared, at the end of 1949, Jerusalem as an "inseparable part of the State of Israel", he also declared Israel is no longer bound by Resolution 181 and the corpus separatum null and void...

In July 1980, Israel passed the Jerusalem Law, the law declared Jerusalem the "complete and united" capital of Israel... Still not recognised by virtually every country in the world, except Israel.

Declaring exclusivity over Jerusalem is not acceptable to Muslims, Christians NOR Jews... Nor is it acceptable, by most of the international community for one party or other to maintain exclusivity within Jerusalem...

IMHO there needs to be a concerted effort to remove Jerusalem from the 'expectations' of ALL potential 'owners' and maintain that Jerusalem should be placed under a special international regime...

This, in my opinion, can be the only solution to the arguments over Jerusalem. A holy city to many more than just Jews, Muslims and Christians...

 

[Coyote]

Jerusalem corpus separatum... A solution to peace?

Taking Jerusalem out of the control of Jews AND Muslims has got to be a good solution...

Why don't we try giving it to the First Nations people to whom it belongs, who by all rights should be in control of their own monuments?

Because it's not just theirs. It's a monument for other people's as well. They are no more First Nations than the people who have been there just as long but converted to other religions.

How is it Christian and muslim when they have no ties to the place other than through their links to Judaism. Shown one link that is not based on Judaism or a lie and I will fight alongside you for the rights of the muslims to do as they want in Jerusalem

For the Muslims - it's part of Mohammed's Night Journey and where Mohammed ascended to Heaven.
For Christians - it's where Jesus had his last Last Supper, where he was crucified, and resurrected.

Pretty important for those two religions.

 

[Coyote]

Because it's not just theirs. It's a monument for other people's as well. .

Sure. Because it was usurped (stolen). Someone built a mosque on another culture's holy place. You've already said that is an atrocity.

And as I've said before that does not preclude sharing. Sharing fits well with Jewish faith traditions (as opposed to not fitting well with Muslim faith traditions).

You can't usurp - or steal - something that you are part owner of. And no, I did not say that THAT was an atrocity - you are distorting my words.

If you want to be philosophical about it: no one owns the land beneath the structures, two faiths built upon the same site. Each owns the structures.

So I have just claimed part ownership of your home and car when can I take possession ?

That is the only part ownership the Christians and muslims have to the whole of Jerusalem, because they say so.

If you want to be pedantic the Jews own the land under International law of 1923, and the muslims have no right to claim it as theirs.

When you travel back in time a thousand years, ascend to heaven and get a structure built over it.

 

[Coyote]

You are again distorting my position. I have consistently said that the Palestinians are descendents of original people's in that region combined with successive waves of migrations and conquests much as Jews, today, are descendents of original people's in that region combined with the people's of the regions they spread out out into. You seem to think that Jews have some special rights other "First Nation" peoples in that region and they don't - they have the same rights.

Of course they have the same rights. When have I EVER said that they didn't? I'm the one arguing for the rights of both peoples, remember?

But they can not both be First Nations for the term to have any meaning. The Jewish people, being the culture which has had the longest, recognizable, continuing culture in that territory were "first". Making them the First Nation. What happened afterwards is all eggs which can't be unscrambled. All the eggs have rights at this point.

Its like saying the Pilgrim Fathers were first nations people because they claim the land as theirs

Not at all. We're talking about events several thousand years ago, not several hundred.

 

[Coyote]

You can't usurp - or steal - something that you are part owner of. And no, I did not say that THAT was an atrocity - you are distorting my words.

I don't think I am. I asked you if it was morally acceptable for one culture to build on top of another culture's holy place. You said that it would be an atrocity if it happened today. I take that to mean that it is morally unacceptable (an atrocity), in your opinion, to usurp another's holy site by building a structure on top of it and then laying claim to it.

You absolutely are distorting my words by stripping them of their context. When you talk about it in the context of cultures a thousand or more years ago - the ethics don't apply. The ethics were developed in today's world, by today's cultures. You don't simply go backwards and start condemning based on a newly found ethic because it suits your present position. It's not an atrocity - it's history and it's the way history evolves.

Secondly, no holy site was "usurped". It was a pile of ruins. Another culture built their own holy site on it. They didn't usurp anything, they made their own. Given the considerable expanse of time, it's hard to make a legitimate argument that they are "usurping" anything. Jerusalem preceded the Jews and Judaism. Did they then usurp it?

You are a reasonable person, so you can not possibly be arguing that the Arab Muslims "owned" the Temple Mount prior to their migration to/invasion of the territory or prior to the revelation in which Islam was created. /

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.

During its lifetime the Al Aqsa mosque was ruins at least 4 times, so does that mean the muslims lost it as a holy place

Nope. Even ruins can still be revered. Like the Temple Mount.

 

[Coyote]

You are again distorting my position. I have consistently said that the Palestinians are descendents of original people's in that region combined with successive waves of migrations and conquests much as Jews, today, are descendents of original people's in that region combined with the people's of the regions they spread out out into. You seem to think that Jews have some special rights other "First Nation" peoples in that region and they don't - they have the same rights.

Of course they have the same rights. When have I EVER said that they didn't? I'm the one arguing for the rights of both peoples, remember?

But they can not both be First Nations for the term to have any meaning. The Jewish people, being the culture which has had the longest, recognizable, continuing culture in that territory were "first". Making them the First Nation. What happened afterwards is all eggs which can't be unscrambled. All the eggs have rights at this point.

Yes, they can both be First Nations. The United States has multiple First Nations peoples. There is nothing that says there can only be one.

Apart from the actual definition of the term First Nations, which means those who came first. Not those who came second ( Pilgrim Fathers ) or third or 1,0000th

Then the real "First Nations" of that region might be Egyptian...

 

[Coyote]

The people that have always lived in an area, regardless of the languages, cultural changes or changes in religion remain the native people. Just because native americans may have become Roman Catholics, may speak Spanish and may have adopted much of the Hispanic (Spanish) culture, does not somehow change their status as the native people of America.

By definition, Arab Muslims have NOT "always lived there".

By definition, Spanish cultures are NOT the indigenous cultures of the Americas.

By definition, I (Canadian of Irish/Scots/German descent) am from an immigrating (invading) culture and am not First Nations. Nor will my descendants EVER be.

By definition invading, colonizing cultures are not First Nations cultures.

I totally disagree. You call them "Arab Muslims" - a term I'm assuming you've now chosen to use because it implies an invading Arab people. They aren't. Some are. Many are the same people as the Jews who had been there prior to Islam, but converted over time.

Spanish cultures aren't indiginous - but, the people who assumed aspects of those cultures may very well be indiginous. Even Jews - when they spread out over the world, took on the cultural attributes of the countries they resided in.

The PURPOSE of identifying and protecting First Nations cultures is to preserve the cultures of those who were invaded and conquered.

Can a First Nations person learn to speak a foreign language and still be First Nations? Duh. Of course, they can. Can a First Nations culture entirely adopt an invading culture so that there is no trace of their First Nations culture and still be First Nations. Uh. No.

Yes. They can. Jews, who have lived over a thousand years in European countries are essentially European in culture - not Middle Eastern.

We invaded a really, really long time ago does not confer First Nations status on people. Though it might give them claims to sovereignty and self-determination.

Ironically, "First Nations" has only ever been used to apply to Native American tribes, most specifically Canadian, where conquest is relatively recent and the cultures still quite clear. When you are talking about a people who dispersed some three thousand years ago - does it really apply in the same way? 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?

That is what they call themselves, so how is it wrong ? Look at my links from

Arab Immigration To Palestine | Cherson and Molschky
and see that they are invaders and forced conversion on some of the first nations people



You know that collectively you second to 1000th nation Americans are wrong as you keep the Amerindians in concentration camps and apply different laws to them. What do you have to say about your own hypocrisy in light of your attacks on the Jews over their use of International laws.

Like the Christians did before them...glad to see you admitting that the Palestinians are indeed First Nations who converted.

 

[Coyote]

This is interesting - reading about the Temple Mount.

Jews worshipping there is not only controversial with the Muslims, but also among the Jews.

Ultra-Orthodox war against Jews ascending Temple Mount - Al-Monitor: the Pulse of the Middle East

Only a very tiny minority isn't it, not the majority of religious Jews see it that way.

That's like the Branch Davidians complaining about women worshipping with men in the same building

Is it?

 

[Humanity]

The people that have always lived in an area, regardless of the languages, cultural changes or changes in religion remain the native people. Just because native americans may have become Roman Catholics, may speak Spanish and may have adopted much of the Hispanic (Spanish) culture, does not somehow change their status as the native people of America.

By definition, Arab Muslims have NOT "always lived there".

By definition, Spanish cultures are NOT the indigenous cultures of the Americas.

By definition, I (Canadian of Irish/Scots/German descent) am from an immigrating (invading) culture and am not First Nations. Nor will my descendants EVER be.

By definition invading, colonizing cultures are not First Nations cultures.

The PURPOSE of identifying and protecting First Nations cultures is to preserve the cultures of those who were invaded and conquered.

Can a First Nations person learn to speak a foreign language and still be First Nations? Duh. Of course, they can. Can a First Nations culture entirely adopt an invading culture so that there is no trace of their First Nations culture and still be First Nations. Uh. No.

We invaded a really, really long time ago does not confer First Nations status on people. Though it might give them claims to sovereignty and self-determination.

The people of Palestine, whatever religion they converted to are still descendants of the native people. Irish Catholics are the descendants of the original Irish although they may have worshipped trees or rocks before.

So you are saying that a person that converts from English Christian to islam becomes an arab muslm now. Care to provide the evidence to back this up.

The evidence showed that the inhabitants took on the arab culture only, but kept their own religion and culture with it.




Arab Immigration To Palestine | Cherson and Molschky


First Wave(7TH Century)

The first wave was after the occupation of the country by the Arabs in the 7th century A.D. The Arab – Muslim occupation of Palestine lasted about 400 years (640 – 1099). Most scholars agree that the ethnic- religious structure of the population remained essentially unchanged from the days of the Byzantine occupation (324CE – 640CE), and the majority of the population consisted of Greek Orthodox Christians and 2 minorities: Jews and Samaritans. The number of Arabs settled in Palestine was negligible.

The Muslim army emerging from the Arabian Peninsula was comprised of Bedouin warriors who moved along with their families and flocks. Prof Moshe Sharon, rejects the theory that the 7th century Arabic conquest was immediately accompanied by massive Arabic settlement in the country. He gives several reasons for the absence of massive Arabic penetration into the Land of Israel prior to the 9th century…

An Arabic 9th century source attests to the composition of the coastal cities population, which included Jews, Samaritans, Persians, Greeks, and a few Arabs.

At a later stage, soldiers released from the Caliph’s Muslim army settled in villages and towns that had been deserted by Christians fleeing ahead of the Arab conquerors, but no numerical data is available.

WTF has nationality got to do with religion?

A great deal in many Islamist nations. The KSA, for example is 100% moslem.

Whoosh...

Did you see that?

It went right over your head didn't it! LOL

Best leave comments to someone else's post, to that person to respond rather than looking like a complete plonker!

 

[Hollie]

By definition, Arab Muslims have NOT "always lived there".

By definition, Spanish cultures are NOT the indigenous cultures of the Americas.

By definition, I (Canadian of Irish/Scots/German descent) am from an immigrating (invading) culture and am not First Nations. Nor will my descendants EVER be.

By definition invading, colonizing cultures are not First Nations cultures.

The PURPOSE of identifying and protecting First Nations cultures is to preserve the cultures of those who were invaded and conquered.

Can a First Nations person learn to speak a foreign language and still be First Nations? Duh. Of course, they can. Can a First Nations culture entirely adopt an invading culture so that there is no trace of their First Nations culture and still be First Nations. Uh. No.

We invaded a really, really long time ago does not confer First Nations status on people. Though it might give them claims to sovereignty and self-determination.

The people of Palestine, whatever religion they converted to are still descendants of the native people. Irish Catholics are the descendants of the original Irish although they may have worshipped trees or rocks before.

So you are saying that a person that converts from English Christian to islam becomes an arab muslm now. Care to provide the evidence to back this up.

The evidence showed that the inhabitants took on the arab culture only, but kept their own religion and culture with it.




Arab Immigration To Palestine | Cherson and Molschky


First Wave(7TH Century)

The first wave was after the occupation of the country by the Arabs in the 7th century A.D. The Arab – Muslim occupation of Palestine lasted about 400 years (640 – 1099). Most scholars agree that the ethnic- religious structure of the population remained essentially unchanged from the days of the Byzantine occupation (324CE – 640CE), and the majority of the population consisted of Greek Orthodox Christians and 2 minorities: Jews and Samaritans. The number of Arabs settled in Palestine was negligible.

The Muslim army emerging from the Arabian Peninsula was comprised of Bedouin warriors who moved along with their families and flocks. Prof Moshe Sharon, rejects the theory that the 7th century Arabic conquest was immediately accompanied by massive Arabic settlement in the country. He gives several reasons for the absence of massive Arabic penetration into the Land of Israel prior to the 9th century…

An Arabic 9th century source attests to the composition of the coastal cities population, which included Jews, Samaritans, Persians, Greeks, and a few Arabs.

At a later stage, soldiers released from the Caliph’s Muslim army settled in villages and towns that had been deserted by Christians fleeing ahead of the Arab conquerors, but no numerical data is available.

WTF has nationality got to do with religion?

A great deal in many Islamist nations. The KSA, for example is 100% moslem.

Whoosh...

Did you see that?

It went right over your head didn't it! LOL

Best leave comments to someone else's post, to that person to respond rather than looking like a complete plonker!

It seems you were not prepared for what your comment suggested. Learn from this lesson.

 

[Coyote]

hmmmm....let's get back to the topic before we see what could become a popcorn-worthy interaction.