Old City Jerusalem as an Independent Sovereignty

[Shusha]

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?

I am most looking forward to your reply.

 

[Rigby5]

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

You tell me if its viable

The Western Wall is definitely NOT of Hebrew construction.
The stones are much too large, giant monoliths, which come from a period at least 1000 years before the Hebrew invasion around 1000 BC.
The Hebrew tribes were nomadic shepherds, not masons, and they never built any large masonry work at all, anywhere.

 

[Rigby5]

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?

Tell us please then why the U.N. Didn’t intervene when they were denied by Jordan to access to their Religious Sites?


ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamization_of_East_Jerusalem_under_Jordanian_occupation

Because you are lying.
There are no Jewish religious sites in Palestine/Israel.
There is not a trace or even rumor where the first Temple of Solomon may have been, and the second Temple of Solomon was constructed and destroyed by the Romans, so really has no real significance to Jews.
Herod was a Roman who pretended to convert to Judaism, but was not actually Jewish by race or birth.
All the claims Jews make to the Land of Canaan are really totally invalid, starting with the invasion of the Land of Canaan by the Hebrew tribes around 1000 BC, and 3 diasporas by the Assyrians, Babylonians, and finally the Romans.

There can be some valid religious sites, like the Moslems are required by their religion to make the hajj to Mecca some time in their life. But most religions simply so not have any specific religious sites. For example, there is no place sacred to Christians or Jews. There is no analog for Lutherans, Protestants, Jews, or most religions, like the Vatican.
Most religions, like Judaism, do not require going to Jerusalem, much less any specific area. In fact, Jews are specifically forbidden to go to Palestine/Israel at all, and instead are supposed to be in a period of atonement, under the belief that atoning for past sins will cause the coming of the Messiah.
It is totally and completely against the tenents of Judaism for Jews to be in Palestine/Israel at this time.

 

[Rigby5]

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.

Jews are not allowed equal access. They are restricted. They are especially restricted in their ability to carry objects which are Jewish symbols, to pray, to worship, and to walk without being accosted by Muslims spewing hatred.

Further, the Holiest place in Judaism is NOT the Kotel. The Kotel is a substitute because Jews are not able to fully access their actual holy places.

There actually are no known holy places to Jews on the Temple Mount.
They do not know where even the Roman built second temple of Solomon was, and they are just guessing about the Wailing Wall. There has ever been even a remote guess as to where the actual Jewish Temple of Solomon may have been, if it even ever existed at all.

And it is just corruption for anyone to bring Jewish religious symbols to the Temple Mount because any religious Jew would still be atoning on some other land, waiting for the coming of the Messiah.

If you can’t dazzle with brilliance, baffle with bullshit.
You post so many lies it’s not worth getting dizzy over them.

After the defeat of the Jewish rebellion in 160 AD, did the Jewish religious leadership decree that Jews were supposed to atone for past sins, so that the Messiah would come, or not?
Were Jews told or not told to disperse to other lands and cultures, in order to help them, as a means of atonement for past sins by Jews that caused the destruction of the Temple of Solomon?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

How is Israel at all harmed by going back to Tel Aviv as its capital?

One could easily ask the same of Arab Palestine. How is Palestine harmed by having Ramallah as its capital?


(The answer, btw, to your question, is that Israel has proven its ability to secure shared equal access to holy and historical sites. Even to the extent of limiting its own to appease violent Muslims. Arabs and Muslims appear, to date, unable to entertain the idea of a shared holy site. In fact, they insist that Jews don't place their dirty feet in places now deemed "Muslim" because they took them by force of conquest.)

Palestine is not harmed by having Ramallah as its capital.
I think that Palestine likely should make Ramallah as its capital.
But clearly Israel can not make Jerusalem it capital.
That is way beyond any sense or reality.

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.

It is the Arab Muslims who control the Temple Mount.

They should ship that mosque to Mecca.
With all the pallies.

 

[Indeependent]

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.

Jews are not allowed equal access. They are restricted. They are especially restricted in their ability to carry objects which are Jewish symbols, to pray, to worship, and to walk without being accosted by Muslims spewing hatred.

Further, the Holiest place in Judaism is NOT the Kotel. The Kotel is a substitute because Jews are not able to fully access their actual holy places.

There actually are no known holy places to Jews on the Temple Mount.
They do not know where even the Roman built second temple of Solomon was, and they are just guessing about the Wailing Wall. There has ever been even a remote guess as to where the actual Jewish Temple of Solomon may have been, if it even ever existed at all.

And it is just corruption for anyone to bring Jewish religious symbols to the Temple Mount because any religious Jew would still be atoning on some other land, waiting for the coming of the Messiah.

If you can’t dazzle with brilliance, baffle with bullshit.
You post so many lies it’s not worth getting dizzy over them.

After the defeat of the Jewish rebellion in 160 AD, did the Jewish religious leadership decree that Jews were supposed to atone for past sins, so that the Messiah would come, or not?
Were Jews told or not told to disperse to other lands and cultures, in order to help them, as a means of atonement for past sins by Jews that caused the destruction of the Temple of Solomon?

None of the above.
The Sanhedrin, after the destruction of the 2nd Temple, determined to continue Judaism regardless of where they wound up.
You have to keep up with your Jewish history.

 

[fncceo]

It is totally and completely against the tenents of Judaism for Jews to be in Palestine/Israel at this time.

Says the guy who never met a Jew who wasn't his boss, his landlord, or his court-appointed attorney.

 

[Rigby5]

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.

Eye roll. San Remo. Mandate for Palestine. Principles of self-determination for peoples.

The Treaty of San Remo gives absolutely no sovereignty to Jews or Jewish immigrants.
And by the way, it actually is the Treaty of Sevres that determined the legal fate of Palestine.
The British Mandate for Palestine is clearly explained by the Churchill Whitepaper as definitely precluding any Jewish sovereignty.
Jews are an immigrant minority, so get ZERO right to rule under principles of self determination of indigenous people.

The Jewish people are the indigenous peoples.

The Mandate for Palestine is clearly explained in the Mandate for Palestine. It specifically and exclusively invites Jewish participation in Jewish Self-government.

Sam Remo has the force of law.

And the Treaty of Sevres was never ratified and replaced by the Treat of Lausanne.

Nonsense.
According to Jewish beliefs, Jews had absolutely nothing at all to do with the Land of Canaan until around 1000 BC, when they invaded.
So they are NOT at all indigenous, and they never even stayed long.
They were kicked out by the Assyrians, Babylonians, and Romans, who finally kept them out for good.
There was no significant Jewish presence in Palestine until around the 1930s.

And it is a total like to claim the British Mandate for Palestine allowed for any Jewish participation in the government.
The Jewish homeland was to be an enclave within the Arab/Muslim Palestine.
Not only would the British have no authority to allow any Jewish sovereignty in Palestine, but the vast majority were Arab Muslims, and the Jews were never more than 30%, and in fact even now there are only 6 million Jews in Israel/Palestine, and there are 12 million Arab Muslims in Israel/Palestine.

The Treaty of Sevres was ratified, but the Treaty of San Remo also establishes an independent Arab Palestine, and give ZERO to Jews except facilitated immigration considerations.

The Treat of Lausanne did supercede the Treaty of Sevres, but that was ONLY regarding sovereignty within Turkey, and changed NOTHING regarding the fact Palestine was to be ensured independence as an Arab/Muslim state, in reward for the Arab aid to the Allies in WWI.
The Jews took no part in WWI, so would have absolutely no part in ANY treaty.

Again, read the facts, such as the Churchill Whitepaper of 1922 on the Balfour Declaration,
The Avalon Project : British White Paper of June 1922
{...
The tension which has prevailed from time to time in Palestine is mainly due to apprehensions, which are entertained both by sections of the Arab and by sections of the Jewish population. These apprehensions, so far as the Arabs are concerned are partly based upon exaggerated interpretations of the meaning of the [Balfour] Declaration favouring the establishment of a Jewish National Home in Palestine, made on behalf of His Majesty's Government on 2nd November, 1917.

Unauthorized statements have been made to the effect that the purpose in view is to create a wholly Jewish Palestine. Phrases have been used such as that Palestine is to become "as Jewish as England is English." His Majesty's Government regard any such expectation as impracticable and have no such aim in view. Nor have they at any time contemplated, as appears to be feared by the Arab deegation, the disappearance or the subordination of the Arabic population, language, or culture in Palestine. They would draw attention to the fact that the terms of the Declaration referred to do not contemplate that Palestine as a whole should be converted into a Jewish National Home, but that such a Home should be founded `in Palestine.' In this connection it has been observed with satisfaction that at a meeting of the Zionist Congress, the supreme governing body of the Zionist Organization, held at Carlsbad in September, 1921, a resolution was passed expressing as the official statement of Zionist aims "the determination of the Jewish people to live with the Arab people on terms of unity and mutual respect, and together with them to make the common home into a flourishing community, the upbuilding of which may assure to each of its peoples an undisturbed national development."

It is also necessary to point out that the Zionist Commission in Palestine, now termed the Palestine Zionist Executive, has not desired to possess, and does not possess, any share in the general administration of the country. Nor does the special position assigned to the Zionist Organization in Article IV of the Draft Mandate for Palestine imply any such functions. That special position relates to the measures to be taken in Palestine affecting the Jewish population, and contemplates that the organization may assist in the general development of the country, but does not entitle it to share in any degree in its government.

Further, it is contemplated that the status of all citizens of Palestine in the eyes of the law shall be Palestinian, and it has never been intended that they, or any section of them, should possess any other juridical status. So far as the Jewish population of Palestine are concerned it appears that some among them are apprehensive that His Majesty's Government may depart from the policy embodied in the Declaration of 1917. It is necessary, therefore, once more to affirm that these fears are unfounded, and that that Declaration, re affirmed by the Conference of the Principle Allied Powers at San Remo and again in the Treaty of Sevres, is not susceptible of change.
...}

Clearly there was never any valid authorization for any Jewish sovereignty in the Mideast.
Israel is an invasion that amounts to a war crime.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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?

Tell us please then why the U.N. Didn’t intervene when they were denied by Jordan to access to their Religious Sites?


ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamization_of_East_Jerusalem_under_Jordanian_occupation

Because you are lying.
There are no Jewish religious sites in Palestine/Israel.
There is not a trace or even rumor where the first Temple of Solomon may have been, and the second Temple of Solomon was constructed and destroyed by the Romans, so really has no real significance to Jews.
Herod was a Roman who pretended to convert to Judaism, but was not actually Jewish by race or birth.
All the claims Jews make to the Land of Canaan are really totally invalid, starting with the invasion of the Land of Canaan by the Hebrew tribes around 1000 BC, and 3 diasporas by the Assyrians, Babylonians, and finally the Romans.

There can be some valid religious sites, like the Moslems are required by their religion to make the hajj to Mecca some time in their life. But most religions simply so not have any specific religious sites. For example, there is no place sacred to Christians or Jews. There is no analog for Lutherans, Protestants, Jews, or most religions, like the Vatican.
Most religions, like Judaism, do not require going to Jerusalem, much less any specific area. In fact, Jews are specifically forbidden to go to Palestine/Israel at all, and instead are supposed to be in a period of atonement, under the belief that atoning for past sins will cause the coming of the Messiah.
It is totally and completely against the tenents of Judaism for Jews to be in Palestine/Israel at this time.

Dude!

 

[Rigby5]

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.

Jews are not allowed equal access. They are restricted. They are especially restricted in their ability to carry objects which are Jewish symbols, to pray, to worship, and to walk without being accosted by Muslims spewing hatred.

Further, the Holiest place in Judaism is NOT the Kotel. The Kotel is a substitute because Jews are not able to fully access their actual holy places.

There actually are no known holy places to Jews on the Temple Mount.
They do not know where even the Roman built second temple of Solomon was, and they are just guessing about the Wailing Wall. There has ever been even a remote guess as to where the actual Jewish Temple of Solomon may have been, if it even ever existed at all.

And it is just corruption for anyone to bring Jewish religious symbols to the Temple Mount because any religious Jew would still be atoning on some other land, waiting for the coming of the Messiah.

If you're going to comment on this Board, at least know some history and archaeology, and also know what you're talking about. First of all, Solomon's Temple was a different structure than the Second Temple. Although there is less evidence for the First Temple than for the Second, it's still highly unlikely that its existence was simply made up completely.
Secondly, the evidence for the Second Temple is overwhelming, thanks to Josephus and other historians of that era, the New Testament, the Arch of Titus in Rome, and archaeological artifacts found on the Temple Mount (which the Arabs try to cover up and destroy). In fact, the only reason the Dome of the Rock is there at all, is because Muslims always try and appropriate the holy sites of other faiths. The Arabic name for Jerusalem, al-Quds, means the place of the Temple. King Herod's Temple is well-documented, and so is its position on the Temple Mount. Its style was Herod's building style as can be seen by Herodian, Masada and the Tomb of the Patriarchs in Hebron. The Western Wall was a retaining wall of the Temple's enclosure. Furthermore, you say the Romans built the Second Temple, but that's not actually true. It was built by the Jews after their return from Babylon. King Herod, who was a puppet of the Romans, merely enlarged and beautified it. The Temple Mount has always been the holiest site for Jews, and they know exactly where it is. Let me end this post by saying that the State of Israel without Jerusalem would be like a body without a heart or soul. There would be almost no reason for Israel's very existence if she were to lose Jerusalem in its entirety.

I see you are unfamiliar with reading English.
I clearly differentiated between the first Temple of Solomon built by King David around 950 BC, and the second Temple of Solomon built around 50 BC by the Romans.
There is ZERO evidence where the first temple was, and the second temple was built by Romans, not Jews.

You lie when you claim the Dome of the Rock deliberately appropriated any previous site.
When the Dome of the Rock was built, there was nothing around it at all.
In fact, there was absolutely NO Jewish presence in Palestine at all during that time period.

And you lie again when you claim the Jews rebuild the Temple of Solomon after returning from Babylon.
Jews did not rule when they returned from Babylon, and could not rebuild anything.

No one knows where the Temple Mount ever was, and the Western Wall is just old masonry that Jews have appropriated.

Whether or not Jerusalem is important to the history of Jewish culture, you do NOT take it by force.
If you want something, then instead you buy it or trade for it.
That is the ONLY way that Israel could become legitimate.
Illegally annexing Jerusalem makes Israel totally illegal.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

Eye roll. San Remo. Mandate for Palestine. Principles of self-determination for peoples.

The Treaty of San Remo gives absolutely no sovereignty to Jews or Jewish immigrants.
And by the way, it actually is the Treaty of Sevres that determined the legal fate of Palestine.
The British Mandate for Palestine is clearly explained by the Churchill Whitepaper as definitely precluding any Jewish sovereignty.
Jews are an immigrant minority, so get ZERO right to rule under principles of self determination of indigenous people.

The Jewish people are the indigenous peoples.

The Mandate for Palestine is clearly explained in the Mandate for Palestine. It specifically and exclusively invites Jewish participation in Jewish Self-government.

Sam Remo has the force of law.

And the Treaty of Sevres was never ratified and replaced by the Treat of Lausanne.

Nonsense.
According to Jewish beliefs, Jews had absolutely nothing at all to do with the Land of Canaan until around 1000 BC, when they invaded.
So they are NOT at all indigenous, and they never even stayed long.
They were kicked out by the Assyrians, Babylonians, and Romans, who finally kept them out for good.
There was no significant Jewish presence in Palestine until around the 1930s.

And it is a total like to claim the British Mandate for Palestine allowed for any Jewish participation in the government.
The Jewish homeland was to be an enclave within the Arab/Muslim Palestine.
Not only would the British have no authority to allow any Jewish sovereignty in Palestine, but the vast majority were Arab Muslims, and the Jews were never more than 30%, and in fact even now there are only 6 million Jews in Israel/Palestine, and there are 12 million Arab Muslims in Israel/Palestine.

The Treaty of Sevres was ratified, but the Treaty of San Remo also establishes an independent Arab Palestine, and give ZERO to Jews except facilitated immigration considerations.

The Treat of Lausanne did supercede the Treaty of Sevres, but that was ONLY regarding sovereignty within Turkey, and changed NOTHING regarding the fact Palestine was to be ensured independence as an Arab/Muslim state, in reward for the Arab aid to the Allies in WWI.
The Jews took no part in WWI, so would have absolutely no part in ANY treaty.

Again, read the facts, such as the Churchill Whitepaper of 1922 on the Balfour Declaration,
The Avalon Project : British White Paper of June 1922
{...
The tension which has prevailed from time to time in Palestine is mainly due to apprehensions, which are entertained both by sections of the Arab and by sections of the Jewish population. These apprehensions, so far as the Arabs are concerned are partly based upon exaggerated interpretations of the meaning of the [Balfour] Declaration favouring the establishment of a Jewish National Home in Palestine, made on behalf of His Majesty's Government on 2nd November, 1917.

Unauthorized statements have been made to the effect that the purpose in view is to create a wholly Jewish Palestine. Phrases have been used such as that Palestine is to become "as Jewish as England is English." His Majesty's Government regard any such expectation as impracticable and have no such aim in view. Nor have they at any time contemplated, as appears to be feared by the Arab deegation, the disappearance or the subordination of the Arabic population, language, or culture in Palestine. They would draw attention to the fact that the terms of the Declaration referred to do not contemplate that Palestine as a whole should be converted into a Jewish National Home, but that such a Home should be founded `in Palestine.' In this connection it has been observed with satisfaction that at a meeting of the Zionist Congress, the supreme governing body of the Zionist Organization, held at Carlsbad in September, 1921, a resolution was passed expressing as the official statement of Zionist aims "the determination of the Jewish people to live with the Arab people on terms of unity and mutual respect, and together with them to make the common home into a flourishing community, the upbuilding of which may assure to each of its peoples an undisturbed national development."

It is also necessary to point out that the Zionist Commission in Palestine, now termed the Palestine Zionist Executive, has not desired to possess, and does not possess, any share in the general administration of the country. Nor does the special position assigned to the Zionist Organization in Article IV of the Draft Mandate for Palestine imply any such functions. That special position relates to the measures to be taken in Palestine affecting the Jewish population, and contemplates that the organization may assist in the general development of the country, but does not entitle it to share in any degree in its government.

Further, it is contemplated that the status of all citizens of Palestine in the eyes of the law shall be Palestinian, and it has never been intended that they, or any section of them, should possess any other juridical status. So far as the Jewish population of Palestine are concerned it appears that some among them are apprehensive that His Majesty's Government may depart from the policy embodied in the Declaration of 1917. It is necessary, therefore, once more to affirm that these fears are unfounded, and that that Declaration, re affirmed by the Conference of the Principle Allied Powers at San Remo and again in the Treaty of Sevres, is not susceptible of change.
...}

Clearly there was never any valid authorization for any Jewish sovereignty in the Mideast.
Israel is an invasion that amounts to a war crime.

in fact even now there are only 6 million Jews in Israel/Palestine, and there are 12 million Arab Muslims in Israel/Palestine.

Wow! That's some bad math you got there.

Israel is an invasion that amounts to a war crime.

Your Muzzie friends should try to stop them if they try to declare independence.
Don't cry to me when you get your asses kicked...over and over and over and over.

 

[Rigby5]

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.

Jews are not allowed equal access. They are restricted. They are especially restricted in their ability to carry objects which are Jewish symbols, to pray, to worship, and to walk without being accosted by Muslims spewing hatred.

Further, the Holiest place in Judaism is NOT the Kotel. The Kotel is a substitute because Jews are not able to fully access their actual holy places.

There actually are no known holy places to Jews on the Temple Mount.
They do not know where even the Roman built second temple of Solomon was, and they are just guessing about the Wailing Wall. There has ever been even a remote guess as to where the actual Jewish Temple of Solomon may have been, if it even ever existed at all.

And it is just corruption for anyone to bring Jewish religious symbols to the Temple Mount because any religious Jew would still be atoning on some other land, waiting for the coming of the Messiah.

If you can’t dazzle with brilliance, baffle with bullshit.
You post so many lies it’s not worth getting dizzy over them.

After the defeat of the Jewish rebellion in 160 AD, did the Jewish religious leadership decree that Jews were supposed to atone for past sins, so that the Messiah would come, or not?
Were Jews told or not told to disperse to other lands and cultures, in order to help them, as a means of atonement for past sins by Jews that caused the destruction of the Temple of Solomon?

None of the above.
The Sanhedrin, after the destruction of the 2nd Temple, determined to continue Judaism regardless of where they wound up.
You have to keep up with your Jewish history.

Of course Judaism continued.
But the defeat by the Romans left a choice of only 3 alternatives.
One was that God was not all powerful or did not even exist.
The second was that the Jews were not the Chosen People.
So they took the third alternative, which is that God was angry at the Jews for sins of arrogance and pride.
And all real Jews know that they are supposed to be atoning for those sins, so that the Messiah will come, and they will be returned to the grace of Zion on Earth.
If you do not know that, you are not Jewish.

 

[Rigby5]

It is totally and completely against the tenents of Judaism for Jews to be in Palestine/Israel at this time.

Says the guy who never met a Jew who wasn't his boss, his landlord, or his court-appointed attorney.

Obviously I am Jewish, and that is why I know more about Judaism than anyone else on this board, so far.
My mother was Jewish, and you can't change that.

 

[Rigby5]

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

Eye roll. San Remo. Mandate for Palestine. Principles of self-determination for peoples.

The Treaty of San Remo gives absolutely no sovereignty to Jews or Jewish immigrants.
And by the way, it actually is the Treaty of Sevres that determined the legal fate of Palestine.
The British Mandate for Palestine is clearly explained by the Churchill Whitepaper as definitely precluding any Jewish sovereignty.
Jews are an immigrant minority, so get ZERO right to rule under principles of self determination of indigenous people.

The Jewish people are the indigenous peoples.

The Mandate for Palestine is clearly explained in the Mandate for Palestine. It specifically and exclusively invites Jewish participation in Jewish Self-government.

Sam Remo has the force of law.

And the Treaty of Sevres was never ratified and replaced by the Treat of Lausanne.

Nonsense.
According to Jewish beliefs, Jews had absolutely nothing at all to do with the Land of Canaan until around 1000 BC, when they invaded.
So they are NOT at all indigenous, and they never even stayed long.
They were kicked out by the Assyrians, Babylonians, and Romans, who finally kept them out for good.
There was no significant Jewish presence in Palestine until around the 1930s.

And it is a total like to claim the British Mandate for Palestine allowed for any Jewish participation in the government.
The Jewish homeland was to be an enclave within the Arab/Muslim Palestine.
Not only would the British have no authority to allow any Jewish sovereignty in Palestine, but the vast majority were Arab Muslims, and the Jews were never more than 30%, and in fact even now there are only 6 million Jews in Israel/Palestine, and there are 12 million Arab Muslims in Israel/Palestine.

The Treaty of Sevres was ratified, but the Treaty of San Remo also establishes an independent Arab Palestine, and give ZERO to Jews except facilitated immigration considerations.

The Treat of Lausanne did supercede the Treaty of Sevres, but that was ONLY regarding sovereignty within Turkey, and changed NOTHING regarding the fact Palestine was to be ensured independence as an Arab/Muslim state, in reward for the Arab aid to the Allies in WWI.
The Jews took no part in WWI, so would have absolutely no part in ANY treaty.

Again, read the facts, such as the Churchill Whitepaper of 1922 on the Balfour Declaration,
The Avalon Project : British White Paper of June 1922
{...
The tension which has prevailed from time to time in Palestine is mainly due to apprehensions, which are entertained both by sections of the Arab and by sections of the Jewish population. These apprehensions, so far as the Arabs are concerned are partly based upon exaggerated interpretations of the meaning of the [Balfour] Declaration favouring the establishment of a Jewish National Home in Palestine, made on behalf of His Majesty's Government on 2nd November, 1917.

Unauthorized statements have been made to the effect that the purpose in view is to create a wholly Jewish Palestine. Phrases have been used such as that Palestine is to become "as Jewish as England is English." His Majesty's Government regard any such expectation as impracticable and have no such aim in view. Nor have they at any time contemplated, as appears to be feared by the Arab deegation, the disappearance or the subordination of the Arabic population, language, or culture in Palestine. They would draw attention to the fact that the terms of the Declaration referred to do not contemplate that Palestine as a whole should be converted into a Jewish National Home, but that such a Home should be founded `in Palestine.' In this connection it has been observed with satisfaction that at a meeting of the Zionist Congress, the supreme governing body of the Zionist Organization, held at Carlsbad in September, 1921, a resolution was passed expressing as the official statement of Zionist aims "the determination of the Jewish people to live with the Arab people on terms of unity and mutual respect, and together with them to make the common home into a flourishing community, the upbuilding of which may assure to each of its peoples an undisturbed national development."

It is also necessary to point out that the Zionist Commission in Palestine, now termed the Palestine Zionist Executive, has not desired to possess, and does not possess, any share in the general administration of the country. Nor does the special position assigned to the Zionist Organization in Article IV of the Draft Mandate for Palestine imply any such functions. That special position relates to the measures to be taken in Palestine affecting the Jewish population, and contemplates that the organization may assist in the general development of the country, but does not entitle it to share in any degree in its government.

Further, it is contemplated that the status of all citizens of Palestine in the eyes of the law shall be Palestinian, and it has never been intended that they, or any section of them, should possess any other juridical status. So far as the Jewish population of Palestine are concerned it appears that some among them are apprehensive that His Majesty's Government may depart from the policy embodied in the Declaration of 1917. It is necessary, therefore, once more to affirm that these fears are unfounded, and that that Declaration, re affirmed by the Conference of the Principle Allied Powers at San Remo and again in the Treaty of Sevres, is not susceptible of change.
...}

Clearly there was never any valid authorization for any Jewish sovereignty in the Mideast.
Israel is an invasion that amounts to a war crime.

in fact even now there are only 6 million Jews in Israel/Palestine, and there are 12 million Arab Muslims in Israel/Palestine.

Wow! That's some bad math you got there.

Israel is an invasion that amounts to a war crime.

Your Muzzie friends should try to stop them if they try to declare independence.
Don't cry to me when you get your asses kicked...over and over and over and over.

Here is census data from Palestine in history.
Demographic history of Palestine (region) - Wikipedia
{...
1800: 7000 Jews, 246,000 Muslim
1890: 43,000 Jews, 432,000 Muslims
1914: 94 Jews, 525,000 Muslims
1922: 84 Jews, 589,000 Muslims
1931: 175 Jews, 760,000 Muslims
1947: 630 Jews, 1,181,000 Muslims
...}

The Palestinians were promised and given independence in 1920.
No one can legally change that.
Israel is in violation of international law.

 

[MAGAman]

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?

Bad idea. Why would Israel give up one of its major cities?

 

[Rigby5]

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?

Bad idea. Why would Israel give up one of its major cities?

Because Israel has no legal rights to Jerusalem, has never purchased any of the land, and all the religious sites there are either Christian or Moslem.

 

[MAGAman]

Because Israel has no legal rights to Jerusalem, has never purchased any of the land, and all the religious sites there are either Christian or Moslem.

Your opinion.

 

[francoHFW]

I said before Jerusalem should be a theme park run by Buddhists....

 

[Rigby5]

Because Israel has no legal rights to Jerusalem, has never purchased any of the land, and all the religious sites there are either Christian or Moslem.

Your opinion.

When it comes to law, really only an Arab/Moslem Palestine has any authorized existence, based on the Treaty of San Remo, the Treaty of Sevres, etc.
The UN did partition Palestine in 1948, but that did not include Jerusalem in the Israeli side of the partition.
So what other opinion could anyone have?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Eye roll. San Remo. Mandate for Palestine. Principles of self-determination for peoples.

The Treaty of San Remo gives absolutely no sovereignty to Jews or Jewish immigrants.
And by the way, it actually is the Treaty of Sevres that determined the legal fate of Palestine.
The British Mandate for Palestine is clearly explained by the Churchill Whitepaper as definitely precluding any Jewish sovereignty.
Jews are an immigrant minority, so get ZERO right to rule under principles of self determination of indigenous people.

The Jewish people are the indigenous peoples.

The Mandate for Palestine is clearly explained in the Mandate for Palestine. It specifically and exclusively invites Jewish participation in Jewish Self-government.

Sam Remo has the force of law.

And the Treaty of Sevres was never ratified and replaced by the Treat of Lausanne.

Nonsense.
According to Jewish beliefs, Jews had absolutely nothing at all to do with the Land of Canaan until around 1000 BC, when they invaded.
So they are NOT at all indigenous, and they never even stayed long.
They were kicked out by the Assyrians, Babylonians, and Romans, who finally kept them out for good.
There was no significant Jewish presence in Palestine until around the 1930s.

And it is a total like to claim the British Mandate for Palestine allowed for any Jewish participation in the government.
The Jewish homeland was to be an enclave within the Arab/Muslim Palestine.
Not only would the British have no authority to allow any Jewish sovereignty in Palestine, but the vast majority were Arab Muslims, and the Jews were never more than 30%, and in fact even now there are only 6 million Jews in Israel/Palestine, and there are 12 million Arab Muslims in Israel/Palestine.

The Treaty of Sevres was ratified, but the Treaty of San Remo also establishes an independent Arab Palestine, and give ZERO to Jews except facilitated immigration considerations.

The Treat of Lausanne did supercede the Treaty of Sevres, but that was ONLY regarding sovereignty within Turkey, and changed NOTHING regarding the fact Palestine was to be ensured independence as an Arab/Muslim state, in reward for the Arab aid to the Allies in WWI.
The Jews took no part in WWI, so would have absolutely no part in ANY treaty.

Again, read the facts, such as the Churchill Whitepaper of 1922 on the Balfour Declaration,
The Avalon Project : British White Paper of June 1922
{...
The tension which has prevailed from time to time in Palestine is mainly due to apprehensions, which are entertained both by sections of the Arab and by sections of the Jewish population. These apprehensions, so far as the Arabs are concerned are partly based upon exaggerated interpretations of the meaning of the [Balfour] Declaration favouring the establishment of a Jewish National Home in Palestine, made on behalf of His Majesty's Government on 2nd November, 1917.

Unauthorized statements have been made to the effect that the purpose in view is to create a wholly Jewish Palestine. Phrases have been used such as that Palestine is to become "as Jewish as England is English." His Majesty's Government regard any such expectation as impracticable and have no such aim in view. Nor have they at any time contemplated, as appears to be feared by the Arab deegation, the disappearance or the subordination of the Arabic population, language, or culture in Palestine. They would draw attention to the fact that the terms of the Declaration referred to do not contemplate that Palestine as a whole should be converted into a Jewish National Home, but that such a Home should be founded `in Palestine.' In this connection it has been observed with satisfaction that at a meeting of the Zionist Congress, the supreme governing body of the Zionist Organization, held at Carlsbad in September, 1921, a resolution was passed expressing as the official statement of Zionist aims "the determination of the Jewish people to live with the Arab people on terms of unity and mutual respect, and together with them to make the common home into a flourishing community, the upbuilding of which may assure to each of its peoples an undisturbed national development."

It is also necessary to point out that the Zionist Commission in Palestine, now termed the Palestine Zionist Executive, has not desired to possess, and does not possess, any share in the general administration of the country. Nor does the special position assigned to the Zionist Organization in Article IV of the Draft Mandate for Palestine imply any such functions. That special position relates to the measures to be taken in Palestine affecting the Jewish population, and contemplates that the organization may assist in the general development of the country, but does not entitle it to share in any degree in its government.

Further, it is contemplated that the status of all citizens of Palestine in the eyes of the law shall be Palestinian, and it has never been intended that they, or any section of them, should possess any other juridical status. So far as the Jewish population of Palestine are concerned it appears that some among them are apprehensive that His Majesty's Government may depart from the policy embodied in the Declaration of 1917. It is necessary, therefore, once more to affirm that these fears are unfounded, and that that Declaration, re affirmed by the Conference of the Principle Allied Powers at San Remo and again in the Treaty of Sevres, is not susceptible of change.
...}

Clearly there was never any valid authorization for any Jewish sovereignty in the Mideast.
Israel is an invasion that amounts to a war crime.

in fact even now there are only 6 million Jews in Israel/Palestine, and there are 12 million Arab Muslims in Israel/Palestine.

Wow! That's some bad math you got there.

Israel is an invasion that amounts to a war crime.

Your Muzzie friends should try to stop them if they try to declare independence.
Don't cry to me when you get your asses kicked...over and over and over and over.

Here is census data from Palestine in history.
Demographic history of Palestine (region) - Wikipedia
{...
1800: 7000 Jews, 246,000 Muslim
1890: 43,000 Jews, 432,000 Muslims
1914: 94 Jews, 525,000 Muslims
1922: 84 Jews, 589,000 Muslims
1931: 175 Jews, 760,000 Muslims
1947: 630 Jews, 1,181,000 Muslims
...}

The Palestinians were promised and given independence in 1920.
No one can legally change that.
Israel is in violation of international law.

Here is census data from Palestine in history.

I don't see your 12 million Muslim claim in that link.

The Palestinians were promised and given independence in 1920.

Link?

Israel is in violation of international law.

LOL!