Old City Jerusalem as an Independent Sovereignty

[Shusha]

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.

You are just the master of fake history, aren't you? Intentionally falsified to deny Jewish indigneity.

You render cultural and ethnic designations meaningless. What is a Canaanite? How can you tell that they are Canaanite? A Phoenician? An Amorite? How can you differentiate these people, one from another?

What is a Jew? How do you know?

What is an Arab? How do you know?

The Jewish people have lived on that territory for thousands of years. As Jews. They were invaded, conquered, colonized, cleansed, culturally erased, converted and genocided in successive waves by foreign people. They never "left". There were always those who stayed. Those who were forced from the territory retained their culture and identity and their ties to the territory.

As indigenous peoples, the Jewish people have every legal and moral claim to part of that territory. You trying to weasel around and deny them is reprehensible.

 

[MAGAman]

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

Why not? What is required to have a "claim" to a particular city?

Try to be objective in your answers. With criteria I could apply anywhere. Like America, or Canada for example.

Jerusalem is in Israel.

Is that objective enough?

 

[Shusha]

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

Why not? What is required to have a "claim" to a particular city?

Try to be objective in your answers. With criteria I could apply anywhere. Like America, or Canada for example.

Jerusalem is in Israel.

Is that objective enough?

Your objective criteria for claiming a city, territory or region is "because I said so"? Try to do better than that.

 

[Shusha]

It would be really great if some of us at least tried to have a more sophisticated discussion about this topic beyond, "the Jews have no rights" and, "Jerusalem is Israel's forever". Blah, blah, been there, done that, got the t-shirt.

The reality is that both Jews and Arabs live in the Old City, and unless you are planning on forcibly removing some of them, its going to stay that way. The Old City is also home to places of historical and religious significance for both Jews and Arabs (as well as Christians and others).

Can we just entertain the notion that maybe, perhaps, Jews and Arabs can live and function together there in peace? (Especially since they already do).

What are the potential benefits of this sort of plan for a sovereign, independent Old City? What are the potential problems?

 

[Indeependent]

It would be really great if some of us at least tried to have a more sophisticated discussion about this topic beyond, "the Jews have no rights" and, "Jerusalem is Israel's forever". Blah, blah, been there, done that, got the t-shirt.

The reality is that both Jews and Arabs live in the Old City, and unless you are planning on forcibly removing some of them, its going to stay that way. The Old City is also home to places of historical and religious significance for both Jews and Arabs (as well as Christians and others).

Can we just entertain the notion that maybe, perhaps, Jews and Arabs can live and function together there in peace? (Especially since they already do).

What are the potential benefits of this sort of plan for a sovereign, independent Old City? What are the potential problems?

Where do Muslims live as the majority and not force their authority upon others?

 

[Rigby5]

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.

Even the Torah says your are wrong.
Shem was a son of Noah, hundreds or even thousands of years before Yishmael and Avraham.
And anyone who prefers religious mythology over secular scholarship is just a raving fanatic who knows nothing of truth and is willing to make up anything they want.

And NO, it has nothing to do with Muslims or the Quran.
We are talking about the standard Old Testament shared by Jews and Christians alike.

 

[Rigby5]

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.

Wrong.
The owners of the Land of Canaan were the Canaanites, Akkadians, Urites, Chaldeans, etc., going back to 8000 BC.
The Hebrew tribes did not invade until around 1000 BC, and never held it very long.
The Jews clearly were the illegal invaders, and have no rights to the Land of Canaan.
Nor would they retain rights after leaving around 160 AD.
Those are the rules, and Israel is in violation.

 

[Rigby5]

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.

What is ironic is that the word "Semitic" means of an Arab language group.
It does not mean Jewish, although any Jews who comes from a Hebrew speaking group is likely Semitic.

 

[Rigby5]

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!

Muslims/Arabs ruled Jerusalem for over 2000 years after the Jews left, and ruled Jerusalem for over 5000 before the Hebrew invasion in the first place.

 

[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.

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.

Hate to break this to you, but the Hebrew tribes were of Arab origins.
The Arabs did not originate in the Arabian Peninsula, but the Land of Canaan.

 

[Rigby5]

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?

It was Zionists who invented terrorism.
Like blowing up the King David Hotel, murdering about 100 innocents.
Assassinating the UN moderator, Count Folke Bernadotte.
Massacring Arab villages like Dier Yassin.
Etc.
It is well documented.
Menachim Begin himself set the charges that murdered those in the King David Hotel.
And he had tied up the kitchen staff in the same room as the 12 milk canister bombs, so don't give us any lies about calling in warnings.

 

[Shusha]

Where do Muslims live as the majority and not force their authority upon others?

Fair point. Not finding recent population figures, but older figures suggest 30,000 Arabs vs only 3,000 Jews.

How might we mitigate this issue in order to support a fair and balanced representation of both Arab and Jewish, as well as Muslim, Jewish, Christian and secular, interests. In the OP, I suggested a government based on equal representation of Arabs and Jews, say 5 seats each, regardless of proportion of population. Thoughts on that?

 

[Rigby5]

It would be really great if some of us at least tried to have a more sophisticated discussion about this topic beyond, "the Jews have no rights" and, "Jerusalem is Israel's forever". Blah, blah, been there, done that, got the t-shirt.

The reality is that both Jews and Arabs live in the Old City, and unless you are planning on forcibly removing some of them, its going to stay that way. The Old City is also home to places of historical and religious significance for both Jews and Arabs (as well as Christians and others).

Can we just entertain the notion that maybe, perhaps, Jews and Arabs can live and function together there in peace? (Especially since they already do).

What are the potential benefits of this sort of plan for a sovereign, independent Old City? What are the potential problems?

Since there are historic place in Jerusalem, it should not be conflicted by being a capital of anywhere.
It has no significance as a Jewish capital because there were 3 different Jewish states back before the Jewish Diaspora. Judea, Israel, and Samaria. And Jerusalem never had a Jewish majority.
No one should be able to take land from the private land owners, and it is Arabs who legally own ALL of Jerusalem.
You can not legally change that by invading.

 

[Rigby5]

It would be really great if some of us at least tried to have a more sophisticated discussion about this topic beyond, "the Jews have no rights" and, "Jerusalem is Israel's forever". Blah, blah, been there, done that, got the t-shirt.

The reality is that both Jews and Arabs live in the Old City, and unless you are planning on forcibly removing some of them, its going to stay that way. The Old City is also home to places of historical and religious significance for both Jews and Arabs (as well as Christians and others).

Can we just entertain the notion that maybe, perhaps, Jews and Arabs can live and function together there in peace? (Especially since they already do).

What are the potential benefits of this sort of plan for a sovereign, independent Old City? What are the potential problems?

Where do Muslims live as the majority and not force their authority upon others?

Where does the majority NOT force their authority upon others?

 

[Shusha]

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.

Wrong.
The owners of the Land of Canaan were the Canaanites, Akkadians, Urites, Chaldeans, etc., going back to 8000 BC.
The Hebrew tribes did not invade until around 1000 BC, and never held it very long.
The Jews clearly were the illegal invaders, and have no rights to the Land of Canaan.
Nor would they retain rights after leaving around 160 AD.
Those are the rules, and Israel is in violation.

So, your objective criteria for retaining rights to a territory, going back to antiquity, are:

1. invaders have no rights and 2. being ethnic cleansed of a territory ("leaving") ends rights to a territory.

And you don't see that as problematic on a number of levels?

 

[Rigby5]

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?

Palestine was established as a country by the Treaty of Sevres and the Treaty of San Remo before 1920.
The Zionists invaded mostly from Poland, Russia, and Germany.
Jerusalem was always the capital of Palestine.
There was never a legal authorization of Israel.

Israel can not trade Saudi Arabia for Jerusalem because Israel does no own Saudi Arabia.

 

[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.

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.

The Land of Canaan was settled by Canaanites, before 7000 BC.
The lowest of mankind is whomever would massacre women and children, like Joshua was claimed to have done to the Canaanites at Jericho.
There is nothing lower than that, and Jews should all still be atonement for that horrendous crime.

 

[Rigby5]

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.

That is a lie.
We have more than adequate historic proof that the Canaanites were no Hebrew, and they ruled until the Hebrew invasion around 1000 BC.

 

[Shusha]

Where does the majority NOT force their authority upon others?

Um. How about any place which adopts and practices human rights.

 

[Rigby5]

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.

Prove there even was an Ishmael, much less that they were not his descendants.