Old City Jerusalem as an Independent Sovereignty

rylah

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2015
Messages
12,121
Reaction score
2,220
Points
290
I was reading a lengthy proposal for a peace agreement today. Mostly the same old same old. Whatever.

But! One intriguing idea which was presented is a self-governing, self-determining. independent State of Holy City Jerusalem. The proposal itself was rather messy in that it suggested that the Old City be "run by G-d", which I hope we all agree is ... well, *impractical* at best.

The idea is worth visiting, imo. (Not saying I agree with it, just that its an interesting topic of discussion).

The Old City becomes a separate, sovereign, independent State. Constitutional principles would include absolute guarantee of equality for people of all religions (or none), ethnicities, nationalities, etc to freely visit, pray, live, travel, worship, shop. The interior spaces of each religious faith's monuments would be under the guidance of that particular religious faith: Al Aqsa Mosque and Dome of the Rock governed by Muslims and Islamic law; the Churches governed by Christians, the Kotel (partitioned areas considered "interior space") by Jewish law. All exterior spaces would be open to anyone. A multi-faith monument would be opened, creating an interior space which could be utilized by people of all faiths and governed by an multi-faith body. Official languages would be Hebrew and Arabic. Family law would be based on individual's preference: sharia, halakha or secular (all three would be provided).

Government representation is based on equal consideration for the Jewish and Arab peoples, with each peoples having a set number of seats in Parliament, regardless of proportional population (10 seats for Arabs, 10 seats for Jews).

All normal rights of States are assumed.

Neither Israel, nor an eventual Palestine has authority or sovereignty. Nor do any other international actors.



Thoughts?
Shusha, this hurts on so many levels.
The complete opposite of tikkun olam.

How so?
This is tikkun 'olam:

We therefore hope in thee, Hashem our God, that we may speedily behold the glory of thy might, when thou wilt remove the abominations from the earth, and the idols will be utterly cut off, when the world will be perfected under the kingdom of the Almighty, and all the children of flesh will call upon thy name, when thou wilt turn unto thyself all the wicked of the earth. Let all the inhabitants of the world perceive and know that unto thee every knee must bow, every tongue must swear. Before thee, O Lord our God, let them bow and fall; and unto thy glorious name let them give honor; let them all accept the yoke of thy kingdom, and do thou reign over them speedily, and for ever and ever. For the kingdom is thine, and to all eternity thou wilt reign in glory; as it is written in thy Law, the Lord shall reign for ever and ever. And it is said, And the Lord shall be King over all the earth: in that day shall the Lord be One, and His name One."

Sure. That is one way to express the concept of tikkun olam.

Tell me, how is a sovereign Old City of Jerusalem incompatible with this vision?

What does a repaired world look like? What should we be striving for in our work?
Separation is not compatible with "A city that was joined together"
Idols in the Hall are not compatible with "Remove the abominations from the earth"
Foreign rule is not compatible with ""Rule over us You Hashem alone in justice"
Haters of Hashem and His nation dwelling in Jerusalem are not compatible with "All Your enemies and all Your haters quickly be cut off, and evil kingdom quickly to be uprooted broken ceased and capitulated"

"Rejoice will Tzadik for seeing revenge" (King David's Psalms).
 
OP
Shusha

Shusha

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2015
Messages
12,258
Reaction score
1,781
Points
290
Separation is not compatible with "A city that was joined together"
Idols in the Hall are not compatible with "Remove the abominations from the earth"
Foreign rule is not compatible with ""Rule over us You Hashem alone in justice"
Haters of Hashem and His nation dwelling in Jerusalem are not compatible with "All Your enemies and all Your haters quickly be cut off, and evil kingdom quickly to be uprooted broken ceased and capitulated"
I would encourage you to be very clear here, so I don't misunderstand you. Because I'm not liking where I think this is going.

The idea of a sovereign Old City of Jerusalem is unifying, not separating. It accepts everyone and demands equality for all. It creates a unified, safe haven for worship of HaShem in all His/Her manifestations. Is that not what is meant by "joined together"? Is that not HOW we are to heal the world? Are we not to accept all the nations of the world? Are not all the nations of the world to pray together in peace?

Explain what you mean by "idols in the Hall". Is the mere presence of others an "abomination"? Is the mere presence of other faith beliefs an "abomination"? Are we to literally rid the world of these "abominations"?

A sovereign Jerusalem, by definition, is not a "foreign rule" but a local one. One run by the residents of the Old City. Are you claiming that only Jews can participate in this? Are you suggesting dhimmi status for non-Jews?

Yes, "haters of HaShem and His/Her people" are not compatible with peace and equality. But the residents of the Old City are already living compatibly, as far as I could see. Why can we not accept them as the beginning of a more healing path to a repaired world?


Do you understand my concerns here? I don't think it repairs the world to have the Jewish people commit the same errors of exclusive rule and control and superiority and conversion. Now, I'm somewhat playing devil's advocate here, but recognize there is a very fine line between the need to preserve Jewish history and culture and becoming that which is incompatible with HaShem's Intent.
 

rylah

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2015
Messages
12,121
Reaction score
2,220
Points
290
Separation is not compatible with "A city that was joined together"
Idols in the Hall are not compatible with "Remove the abominations from the earth"
Foreign rule is not compatible with ""Rule over us You Hashem alone in justice"
Haters of Hashem and His nation dwelling in Jerusalem are not compatible with "All Your enemies and all Your haters quickly be cut off, and evil kingdom quickly to be uprooted broken ceased and capitulated"
I would encourage you to be very clear here, so I don't misunderstand you. Because I'm not liking where I think this is going.

The idea of a sovereign Old City of Jerusalem is unifying, not separating. It accepts everyone and demands equality for all. It creates a unified, safe haven for worship of HaShem in all His/Her manifestations. Is that not what is meant by "joined together"? Is that not HOW we are to heal the world? Are we not to accept all the nations of the world? Are not all the nations of the world to pray together in peace?

Explain what you mean by "idols in the Hall". Is the mere presence of others an "abomination"? Is the mere presence of other faith beliefs an "abomination"? Are we to literally rid the world of these "abominations"?

A sovereign Jerusalem, by definition, is not a "foreign rule" but a local one. One run by the residents of the Old City. Are you claiming that only Jews can participate in this? Are you suggesting dhimmi status for non-Jews?

Yes, "haters of HaShem and His/Her people" are not compatible with peace and equality. But the residents of the Old City are already living compatibly, as far as I could see. Why can we not accept them as the beginning of a more healing path to a repaired world?


Do you understand my concerns here? I don't think it repairs the world to have the Jewish people commit the same errors of exclusive rule and control and superiority and conversion. Now, I'm somewhat playing devil's advocate here, but recognize there is a very fine line between the need to preserve Jewish history and culture and becoming that which is incompatible with HaShem's Intent.
In spite of having a lot of misconceptions, this is by far the most interesting conversation I've had on the forum. I really want to dwell into it, though please don't take it as a an attempt to evade the questions - but it's very late here, and I want to wake up for the sunrise prayer.

Give me a couple days and with God's help I'll answer them all to the best of my ability in this platform during the week.
 
Last edited:

ILOVEISRAEL

Gold Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2012
Messages
4,303
Reaction score
433
Points
160
What is the incentive for Israel to share jurisdiction over a place where it already has full control?

Compromise only makes sense where there is something to gain by it.
Well, Israel's jurisdiction is mediated by the necessity to appease the worldwide Muslim community. So to say Israel has "full control" is ... well, generous.
The worldwide Muslim community can't be appeased, only placated. So, if your damned if you do, damned if you don't, why commit to either?
How is Israel at all harmed by going back to Tel Aviv as its capital?
It is clear to everyone that the 1967 war where Israel captured Jerusalem, was totally illegal.
Israel has done well in wars in the past only because they were extremely short.
If Arab neighbors ever decide in a drawn out conflict, Israel would have to fold.
The small Jewish population can not fight a long war and maintain an economy.
Please tell us what Israel did that was " illegal" Jordan waged an Illegal War against Israel and they lost
 

fncceo

Platinum Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2016
Messages
24,578
Reaction score
8,062
Points
910
The small Jewish population can not fight a long war and maintain an economy.
They've been fighting a long war for over 70 years ... hasn't seemed to have much impact.

 

ILOVEISRAEL

Gold Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2012
Messages
4,303
Reaction score
433
Points
160
What is the incentive for Israel to share jurisdiction over a place where it already has full control?

Compromise only makes sense where there is something to gain by it.
Because Israel has no legal authority to any of Jerusalem.
The 1949 UN partition made Jerusalem a separate entity that is supposed to be controlled by the UN, not Israel or Palestine.
So do you want the Rule of Law, or the rule of the jungle, where might makes right?

181 is not law.
Well 181 is the best that Israel can claim, so if it is not law, then Israel has no legal existence at all.


United Nations Security Council | History & Members

The Arabs rejected it; Israel is under no legal obligation to abide by it
 

ILOVEISRAEL

Gold Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2012
Messages
4,303
Reaction score
433
Points
160
What is the incentive for Israel to share jurisdiction over a place where it already has full control?

Compromise only makes sense where there is something to gain by it.
Because Israel has no legal authority to any of Jerusalem.
The 1949 UN partition made Jerusalem a separate entity that is supposed to be controlled by the UN, not Israel or Palestine.
So do you want the Rule of Law, or the rule of the jungle, where might makes right?

Islamization of East Jerusalem under Jordanian occupation - Wikipedia

You refer to the U.N.? So maybe you can explain this. There will be no response; there never is
 

ILOVEISRAEL

Gold Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2012
Messages
4,303
Reaction score
433
Points
160
It is NOT Israel that secures shared equal access to the holy and historical sites.
It is the Arab Muslims who control the Temple Mount.
Um. You do realize that there is NO SHARED EQUAL ACCESS to the Temple Mount, right? And the reason there is no shared equal access to the Temple Mount is because, while Israel certainly does control it, in point of fact, Israel, for security reasons, must appease violent Muslims who are unwilling to share the holy place. Israel accomplishes this security need by intentionally restricting access to non-Muslims.

The CAUSE of the inequality is Muslim inability to share a holy site, backed up with violence.
Wrong.
Israelis are allowed equal access, but the only part that could possibly be of interest to Jews is the Wailing Wall, not the shrine at the top.
But Jews are also allowed full access to all of the Temple mount except the mosque.

{...
When visiting Jerusalem, many people have a desire to visit the Temple Mount and the Dome of the Rock. The Temple Mount is a holy site within the Old City for Jewish, Christian and Muslim people. All visitors are able to tour the compound and the Al-Aqsa Mosque, with the exception of the Dome of the Rock. The best way to visit the site is with a guided Temple Mount tour which we are pleased to offer with guaranteed departures.

The Temple Mount is the third holiest site for Muslims behind Mecca and Medina. In Muslim tradition, this is where the Prophet Mohammed made his “Night Journey” to the throne of God. In the seventh century, when the Muslims conquered Jerusalem, they built the Dome of the Rock, the gold-topped Islamic shrine seen in many iconic photographs of the Old City, as well as the Al-Aqsa Mosque.

Today, within the area of the Temple Mount, there are about 100 different structures to see spanning from various time periods. These include prayer spots, arches and fountains. It is definitely worth the visit.

As there are certain restrictions for visitors, it is important to understand these rules before you go.

Visiting the Temple Mount
Visitors enter the complex through the Mughrabi Gate near the Western Wall. Many people will see the entrance as they walk through the Western Wall plaza on a tour of the Old City.

While admission is free, the site is only open during very specific times. Because of this, the line can be very long to enter. It’s best to arrive early to access this unforgettable site.
...}

Visiting the Temple Mount and Dome of the Rock
Wrong again

PA officials: Jews have ‘no right to pray’ at Western Wall
 

Ria_Longhorn

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2017
Messages
608
Reaction score
205
Points
180
As a gentile, where will I get my spiritual sustenance? I certainly could not have gotten it under the Seleucids, the Romans; certainly not during the Byzantine period (330-640 CE); not under the Muslims ,the Crusaders -- nor the Turks!

"For from out of Zion will come the Torah, and the word of Adonai from Jerusalem. Blessed is G-d who in holiness gave the Torah to the people Israel."
 

ESay

Silver Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2015
Messages
2,393
Reaction score
161
Points
95
How viable is the idea of two state solution in the first ran?
 

ESay

Silver Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2015
Messages
2,393
Reaction score
161
Points
95
I think that two states solution doesn't have many perspectives. In this case the international status of Jerusalem is meaningless.
 

rylah

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2015
Messages
12,121
Reaction score
2,220
Points
290
Shusha don't get it as if I'm trying to evade answering.
You gave me a good challenge, and though I knew the answers intuitively in the guts, just couldn't find the words or form. So I needed time to think and reread several chapters to not lose track in the many details and width of subject, when we paralleled a political discussion with one about the fixed world.

Have it already written down, last stages of editing...in the meantime, did You have any new thoughts or revisions regarding the proposition, I'm totally opposed, and while You gonna see my reasoning, can You maybe try play my side and answer Yourself why this proposition is incompatible with the most basic intuitions of monotheism?
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top