Old City Jerusalem as an Independent Sovereignty

[Indeependent]

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.

Genesis, chapter 10...Shem settles what is later conquered by the grandchildren of Canaan.
The descendants of Shem took it back.

First of all, the Bible is a myth that can not be used to prove anything, and second is the fact that Arab also have descendants of Shem. The word Semitic comes from being descendants of Shem, and means those who speak a native Arab language. It does not mean Jewish, and Jews are only one of the descendants of Shem.

Muslims descend from Cham, not Shem.

Wrong.

PART THREE: THE LINEAGE OF SHEM
{...
(48) Shem

The progenitor of all the Semitic races. The name, Shem, is rendered as Sumu in the Akkadian inscriptions. At the time of the scattering of the nations from Babel, the descendants of Japheth (see 1) migrated to the north and north-west of Shinar, mainly towards Europe. They also migrated to the south-east towards the Indian sub-continent, and thence to the Far East. The descendants of Shem and Ham however, shared between them the southern and central regions of Asia Minor and Arabia, with Ham's descendants subsequently spreading onto the African continent.
...}

If Arab were not linked to Shem, then people of the Arab language group would not have been called Semitic.
While we should never take the Bible literally as a reference, it is clear that the Hebrew tribes are a member of the Arab language group, and therefore are the same people originally.
Hebrew were and are Arabs.
Muslims not only are of the same lineage, but since they share the same Old Testament, they are just a Jewish reformation.

I’ve got the Torah; I don’t need you cherry picked secular history.
Yishmael was kicked out by Avraham and shared no history with Shem from them on; yes, I am aware that Muslims rewrote this in their Koran.
Almost all of this history is conjured up by atheists and is worthless.

 

[Indeependent]

There is absolutely no fundamental difference between that insanity, and this idea that somehow Jerusalem should be controlled by any other country or group of countries, or United Nations of countries, than the nation of Israel alone.

Sure there is. Arabs have lived in Jerusalem for a really, really long time. You can't just ignore that fact. The question on the table is how to practically deal with that fact.

Correct.
In fact, Arabs have lived in Jerusalem for over 5000 years before the Hebrew invasion around 1000 BC.
The Palestinian Arabs are the Akkadians, Urites, Chaldeans, Canaanites, Philistines, Phoenicians, Nabatians, Amorites, etc.
And they were the only ones who never left.

The Chamites conquered it from the Shemites and we got it back.
Life is tough.

 

[Coyote]

I just saw this, but I think it is one of the best ideas ever!

I'm sure it would win the Antisemitic Housekeeping Seal.

Jerusalem is an Israeli city. Period.

You can't pacify Terrorists by slowly giving your land away.

And how exactly is it antisemitic?

Thank you.

 

[Indeependent]

I just saw this, but I think it is one of the best ideas ever!

I'm sure it would win the Antisemitic Housekeeping Seal.

Jerusalem is an Israeli city. Period.

You can't pacify Terrorists by slowly giving your land away.

And how exactly is it antisemitic?

Thank you.

Muslims murder Muslims and you think they should be allowed to prance about Jerusalem.
Real smart!

 

[Coyote]

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?

"Arabs" have no claim, historically, religiously, or ethnically, to the cite of Jerusalem, old or new.

Jerusalem, was, has always been, and still is, and always will be, the Capital city of Israel.

I'm always baffled by this idea. If Canada demanded that Washington DC be split into a "sovereign city-state", we would laugh hysterically at that, and then ignore them.

There is absolutely no fundamental difference between that insanity, and this idea that somehow Jerusalem should be controlled by any other country or group of countries, or United Nations of countries, than the nation of Israel alone.

Arabs have over a thousand years of history in that city. That is a claim.

 

[Coyote]

I just saw this, but I think it is one of the best ideas ever!

I'm sure it would win the Antisemitic Housekeeping Seal.

Jerusalem is an Israeli city. Period.

You can't pacify Terrorists by slowly giving your land away.

And how exactly is it antisemitic?

Thank you.

Muslims murder Muslims and you think they should be allowed to prance about Jerusalem.
Real smart!

they alrady and have for over a yhousand years.

 

[Indeependent]

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?

"Arabs" have no claim, historically, religiously, or ethnically, to the cite of Jerusalem, old or new.

Jerusalem, was, has always been, and still is, and always will be, the Capital city of Israel.

I'm always baffled by this idea. If Canada demanded that Washington DC be split into a "sovereign city-state", we would laugh hysterically at that, and then ignore them.

There is absolutely no fundamental difference between that insanity, and this idea that somehow Jerusalem should be controlled by any other country or group of countries, or United Nations of countries, than the nation of Israel alone.

Arabs have ovet a thousands of history in thatcity. That is a claim.

Arabs have a lot of history...committing murder.
The Muslim Uber drivers see my yalmulka and start telling me how wonderful Israel is and how they got visas to come to America.
Israel allows Arabs to escape from their Muslim nations and come here.

 

[Indeependent]

I just saw this, but I think it is one of the best ideas ever!

I'm sure it would win the Antisemitic Housekeeping Seal.

Jerusalem is an Israeli city. Period.

You can't pacify Terrorists by slowly giving your land away.

And how exactly is it antisemitic?

Thank you.

Muslims murder Muslims and you think they should be allowed to prance about Jerusalem.
Real smart!

they alrady and have for over a yhousand years.

And how many villages and restaurants have they blown up?

 

[Coyote]

There is absolutely no fundamental difference between that insanity, and this idea that somehow Jerusalem should be controlled by any other country or group of countries, or United Nations of countries, than the nation of Israel alone.

Sure there is. Arabs have lived in Jerusalem for a really, really long time. You can't just ignore that fact. The question on the table is how to practically deal with that fact.

The idea of city states, like the Vatican for instance has an appeal. It would not be split.

 

[Coyote]

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?

"Arabs" have no claim, historically, religiously, or ethnically, to the cite of Jerusalem, old or new.

Jerusalem, was, has always been, and still is, and always will be, the Capital city of Israel.

I'm always baffled by this idea. If Canada demanded that Washington DC be split into a "sovereign city-state", we would laugh hysterically at that, and then ignore them.

There is absolutely no fundamental difference between that insanity, and this idea that somehow Jerusalem should be controlled by any other country or group of countries, or United Nations of countries, than the nation of Israel alone.

Arabs have ovet a thousands of history in thatcity. That is a claim.

Arabs have a lot of history...committing murder.
The Muslim Uber drivers see my yalmulka and start telling me how wonderful Israel is and how they got visas to come to America.
Israel allows Arabs to escape from their Muslim nations and come here.

That is fine. But has what to do with the OP's idea for a soveriegn city
?

 

[Indeependent]

There is absolutely no fundamental difference between that insanity, and this idea that somehow Jerusalem should be controlled by any other country or group of countries, or United Nations of countries, than the nation of Israel alone.

Sure there is. Arabs have lived in Jerusalem for a really, really long time. You can't just ignore that fact. The question on the table is how to practically deal with that fact.

The idea of city states, like the Vatican for instance has an appeal. It would not be split.

Let’s try filling Vatican City with a million Muslims and see how the Pope reacts.

 

[Indeependent]

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?

"Arabs" have no claim, historically, religiously, or ethnically, to the cite of Jerusalem, old or new.

Jerusalem, was, has always been, and still is, and always will be, the Capital city of Israel.

I'm always baffled by this idea. If Canada demanded that Washington DC be split into a "sovereign city-state", we would laugh hysterically at that, and then ignore them.

There is absolutely no fundamental difference between that insanity, and this idea that somehow Jerusalem should be controlled by any other country or group of countries, or United Nations of countries, than the nation of Israel alone.

Arabs have ovet a thousands of history in thatcity. That is a claim.

Arabs have a lot of history...committing murder.
The Muslim Uber drivers see my yalmulka and start telling me how wonderful Israel is and how they got visas to come to America.
Israel allows Arabs to escape from their Muslim nations and come here.

That is fine. But has what to do with the OP's idea for a soveriegn city
?

It would attract millions of Muslims and Israel would be insane to allow that to happen.

 

[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'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.

1) The First Temple was built by Solomon. King David did not build the Temple, but he did make Jerusalem his capital.

2) The Second Temple is usually called Herod's Temple because he enlarged and beautified it. He did not build it though. King Cyrus of Persia let the Jews return to Judea from Persia and rebuild their Temple. But let's say, just for the sake of argument, that Herod actually built the Temple. It was still not the Romans that built a Jewish Temple. That is ridiculous.

2) The Western Wall was a retaining wall of the Second Temple.

3) There was always a Jewish presence in Israel, even if it was small. It is true that when the Muslims built the Dome of the Rock there, no Temple stood at that time. But the Muslims knew from tradition where the Temple had stood, and that is why the area was holy to them too. Please re-read my earlier post for the translation of their name for Jerusalem, which is al-Quds.

4) It was the Arabs, specifically Jordan, that took East Jerusalem from the Jews by force. They bombarded the Old City in 1948, drove out the Jews, and destroyed the ancient Jewish Quarter there. They converted Jewish headstones into latrines. Israel merely took back what was rightfully hers to begin with.

No one can be sure that King David, King Solomon, or the first temple, even existed.
There is not a single physical trace, including any writing from that period.

When the Persians allowed the Jews return from Babylon, they were refugees who could not have rebuilt a temple.
Besides, it was not their land any more at all, since they had stolen it originally from the Canaanites, and it was Canaanites and others who reclaimed it when the Jews were forced out.
It is clear the Western Wall for example, is an ancient foundation far preceding the Hebrew invasion around 1000 BC.
There can be absolutely no doubt the Wailing Wall is NOT at all of Hebrew construction.

And yes most definitely it WAS the Romans who built the second Temple of Solomon.
The Romans picked the Jews as their local surrogates because they were the weakest minority and the Romans thought they would be the least likely to cause problems in the future. So they built the temple and propped up the Jews, as a means of reducing the Romans being targeted for any government excesses. The Jews would be the scapegoats.
Look at the history books. The Jews were not leaders in Jerusalem until after the Romans took over and set them up.

The Western Wall is NOT a retaining wall, but an ancient foundation going back to even before the temples to Baal.

And no, al-Quds is NOT at all a translation for Jerusalem, but just means "holy city" which is because of the Dome of the Rock. When Muslims first came to Jerusalem, there were no Jews there at all. The Jews in fact were living mostly in Medina and Mecca by then. It was the Muslims who brought Jews BACK to Jerusalem.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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!

The historic census data was to show that Jews were not a significant presence until around 1930s.

I already gave you links proving that the Palestinians were promised and given independence in 1920.
The Churchill Whitepaper of 1922.
International law requires allowing those who left war zones to escape the violence, to return.
Israel has not allowed Arab refugees to return to their homes, so is in violation of international law.

You claimed, today, 12 million Muslims versus 6 million Jews.

Were you lying or just stupid?

Those are the correct figures when you confine the area to just Palestine and Israel.
There are only 6 million Jews in Israel, and when you count the Palestinian refugees in places like Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt, etc., it adds up to 12 million.

and when you count the Palestinian refugees in places like Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt, etc., it adds up to 12 million.

They're never going to live in Israel, so who cares how many there are in other countries?

 

[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?

"Arabs" have no claim, historically, religiously, or ethnically, to the cite of Jerusalem, old or new.

Jerusalem, was, has always been, and still is, and always will be, the Capital city of Israel.

I'm always baffled by this idea. If Canada demanded that Washington DC be split into a "sovereign city-state", we would laugh hysterically at that, and then ignore them.

There is absolutely no fundamental difference between that insanity, and this idea that somehow Jerusalem should be controlled by any other country or group of countries, or United Nations of countries, than the nation of Israel alone.

Just out right lies.
Until the Hebrew invasion around 1000 BC, clearly Jerusalem was a Canaanite city.
The whole area, was and is known as the Land of Canaan.
And the Hebrew did not rule long, but were defeated and driven out by the Assyrians, Babylonians, and Romans periodically. The Jews then only ruled for a few hundred years, having left for good around 160 AD.

If you go back before the Zionist movement before 1900, you find less then 3% of the population of Palestine was Jewish, and less then 10% of Jerusalem was Jewish.
And since Jerusalem was under Arab/Moslem rule for over 2000 years, clearly the claims people make of Arabs/Muslims hating Jews is just a lie.

Jerusalem is not and never legally was Jewish.
In fact, Jews were named from Jerusalem, and not the other way around.
Jerusalem existed for 5000 years before the invading Hebrew tribes took on the name Jews.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I just saw this, but I think it is one of the best ideas ever!

I'm sure it would win the Antisemitic Housekeeping Seal.

Jerusalem is an Israeli city. Period.

You can't pacify Terrorists by slowly giving your land away.

It is a war crime for a country like Israel to invade and annex land they have no legal right to, like Jerusalem.
If Israel wants Jerusalem so badly, then buy it or trade other land for it.
Like giving back all the land illegal confiscated from refugees that Israel would not allow to return home.,

It is a war crime for a country like Israel to invade and annex land they have no legal right to, like Jerusalem.

Which country did they invade? What country did they invade from?
What country was Jerusalem in when Israel invaded?
Can you post a map that backs your claims?

If Israel wants Jerusalem so badly, then buy it or trade other land for it.

Muslims can have Saudi Arabia in exchange for Jerusalem. Deal?

 

[Indeependent]

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?

"Arabs" have no claim, historically, religiously, or ethnically, to the cite of Jerusalem, old or new.

Jerusalem, was, has always been, and still is, and always will be, the Capital city of Israel.

I'm always baffled by this idea. If Canada demanded that Washington DC be split into a "sovereign city-state", we would laugh hysterically at that, and then ignore them.

There is absolutely no fundamental difference between that insanity, and this idea that somehow Jerusalem should be controlled by any other country or group of countries, or United Nations of countries, than the nation of Israel alone.

Just out right lies.
Until the Hebrew invasion around 1000 BC, clearly Jerusalem was a Canaanite city.
The whole area, was and is known as the Land of Canaan.
And the Hebrew did not rule long, but were defeated and driven out by the Assyrians, Babylonians, and Romans periodically. The Jews then only ruled for a few hundred years, having left for good around 160 AD.

If you go back before the Zionist movement before 1900, you find less then 3% of the population of Palestine was Jewish, and less then 10% of Jerusalem was Jewish.
And since Jerusalem was under Arab/Moslem rule for over 2000 years, clearly the claims people make of Arabs/Muslims hating Jews is just a lie.

Jerusalem is not and never legally was Jewish.
In fact, Jews were named from Jerusalem, and not the other way around.
Jerusalem existed for 5000 years before the invading Hebrew tribes took on the name Jews.

Why does Tanach refer to the land as the Land of Canaan?
Because without the presence of God Fearing Jews, the land may as well be settled by the lowest mankind has to offer...the Canaanites.

 

[rylah]

There is absolutely no fundamental difference between that insanity, and this idea that somehow Jerusalem should be controlled by any other country or group of countries, or United Nations of countries, than the nation of Israel alone.

Sure there is. Arabs have lived in Jerusalem for a really, really long time. You can't just ignore that fact. The question on the table is how to practically deal with that fact.

Correct.
In fact, Arabs have lived in Jerusalem for over 5000 years before the Hebrew invasion around 1000 BC.
The Palestinian Arabs are the Akkadians, Urites, Chaldeans, Canaanites, Philistines, Phoenicians, Nabatians, Amorites, etc.
And they were the only ones who never left.

The Chamites conquered it from the Shemites and we got it back.
Life is tough.

They did,
but at the time of Abraham Avinu A"H it was Shem ben Noah himself who ruled Jerusalem.

 

[Andylusion]

There is absolutely no fundamental difference between that insanity, and this idea that somehow Jerusalem should be controlled by any other country or group of countries, or United Nations of countries, than the nation of Israel alone.

Sure there is. Arabs have lived in Jerusalem for a really, really long time. You can't just ignore that fact. The question on the table is how to practically deal with that fact.

Correct.
In fact, Arabs have lived in Jerusalem for over 5000 years before the Hebrew invasion around 1000 BC.
The Palestinian Arabs are the Akkadians, Urites, Chaldeans, Canaanites, Philistines, Phoenicians, Nabatians, Amorites, etc.
And they were the only ones who never left.

Jews have always lived in the land of Israel, consistently since Israel left the land of Egypt.

None of those people you listed, were descendants of Ishmael.

 

[rylah]

There is absolutely no fundamental difference between that insanity, and this idea that somehow Jerusalem should be controlled by any other country or group of countries, or United Nations of countries, than the nation of Israel alone.

Sure there is. Arabs have lived in Jerusalem for a really, really long time. You can't just ignore that fact. The question on the table is how to practically deal with that fact.

Correct.
In fact, Arabs have lived in Jerusalem for over 5000 years before the Hebrew invasion around 1000 BC.
The Palestinian Arabs are the Akkadians, Urites, Chaldeans, Canaanites, Philistines, Phoenicians, Nabatians, Amorites, etc.
And they were the only ones who never left.

Jews have always lived in the land of Israel, consistently since Israel left the land of Egypt.

None of those people you listed, were descendants of Ishmael.

And even if descendants of Ishmael, did he ever live in Jerusalem?