Old City Jerusalem as an Independent Sovereignty

[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.

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

Who cares.
It was Canaanites who created Jerusalem and lived there for over 5000 years before the Hebrew invasion.

 

[Shusha]

Since there are historic place in Jerusalem, it should not be conflicted by being a capital of anywhere.

Newsflash. That is what this thread is about. Care to keep up? Did you have any thoughts about the Old City as a sovereign independent State?

 

[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.

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?

What you are incorrectly assuming is that those who forced the Jewish disaporas then took over living in Jerusalem.
That is totally false and ignorant.
The Babylonians, Assyrians, and Romans who beat the Jews and made them leave, did NOT live in Jerusalem after they forced the Jews to leave.
They did not want to live there.
They just wanted to end the trouble making that the Jews were causing for everyone else.
Jews should be grateful they were not exterminated for their sins, and instead were only forced to leave.

 

[Rigby5]

Where does the majority NOT force their authority upon others?

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

The adoption and practice of human rights can not happen unless it is forced upon everyone, using the authority of the majority.
The majority establishing and enforcing legal and moral codes is what defines society.
The degree of blind justice and equality then can be examined within the codes established, but to not force the authority of the majority would be anarchy, not civilization.

 

[Rigby5]

Since there are historic place in Jerusalem, it should not be conflicted by being a capital of anywhere.

Newsflash. That is what this thread is about. Care to keep up? Did you have any thoughts about the Old City as a sovereign independent State?

Not at all, I was simply agreeing with you.

 

[Shusha]

Jews should be grateful they were not exterminated for their sins, and instead were only forced to leave.

Ah. There it is. Doesn't take much to reveal the rot under the veneer of falsified history.

 

[Shusha]

Since there are historic place in Jerusalem, it should not be conflicted by being a capital of anywhere.

Newsflash. That is what this thread is about. Care to keep up? Did you have any thoughts about the Old City as a sovereign independent State?

Not at all, I was simply agreeing with you.

I have suggested a topic of discussion. I have not in any way agreed that Jerusalem was not, is not, or should not be the capital of Israel.

If you have no thoughts on the subject of the thread, perhaps you should move on.

 

[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.

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.

These cultural groups identified themselves.
It is not up to us to identify them other than to use common language threads to determine how related they are.
But we know who the Hebrew tribes are due to their own claims of the Exodus.
We know the Hebrew tribes are NOT the Canaanites due to their own claims of invading the Land of Canaan and massacring Canaanites at Jericho.
And we can tell by language, that the invading Hebrew tribes around 1000 BC were not at all native, had absolutely no evidence of existing there before 1000 BC, and were not even literate.
Hebrew did not have a written script until around 100 BC.
And no, there was NEVER any genocide against Jews by Arabs.
It is only Christians who attempted genocide against Jews.
In contrast, Arabs/Muslims valued Jewish skills and employed them as Viziers and administrators.

And yes, Jews did leave.
It is well documented they moved to around Medina, due to Roman persecution.
It is well documented that Jews were ordered to leave and not return until a period of atonement caused the coming of the Messiah.
It would be sinful for any Jew to return before the Messiah, so any that did return could not have been believers really.

What you suggest is criminal, that some sort of historical presence some how justified current murder and theft.
No individual or any group retains any rights at all to land they abandoned.
They have to pay for and buy the land like anyone else.
There is no Chosen People or Promised Land for free to freeloaders.
That is utterly reprehensible.
It is the lowest gutter justification for murder and theft I have ever heard.

 

[Rigby5]

Jews should be grateful they were not exterminated for their sins, and instead were only forced to leave.

Ah. There it is. Doesn't take much to reveal the rot under the veneer of falsified history.

Nonsense.
The ancient Jews did horrible things, like massacring the Canaanites at Jericho, and being proud of it.
Back then people were often wiped out when defeated.
The fact the Jews were instead allowed to just leave, was incredibly magnanimous for that time period.

 

[Shusha]

Jews should be grateful they were not exterminated for their sins, and instead were only forced to leave.

Ah. There it is. Doesn't take much to reveal the rot under the veneer of falsified history.

Nonsense.
The ancient Jews did horrible things, like massacring the Canaanites at Jericho, and being proud of it.
Back then people were often wiped out when defeated.
The fact the Jews were instead allowed to just leave, was incredibly magnanimous for that time period.

To be clear, the term "rot" was code for virulently antisemitic.

 

[Indeependent]

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.

Because Mohammed didn’t murder 10s of millions and you’re not still murdering each right now.

 

[Indeependent]

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?

What you are incorrectly assuming is that those who forced the Jewish disaporas then took over living in Jerusalem.
That is totally false and ignorant.
The Babylonians, Assyrians, and Romans who beat the Jews and made them leave, did NOT live in Jerusalem after they forced the Jews to leave.
They did not want to live there.
They just wanted to end the trouble making that the Jews were causing for everyone else.
Jews should be grateful they were not exterminated for their sins, and instead were only forced to leave.

No one took over Jerusalem for long because God made sure you non-Jewish idiots would keep murdering each other for it.

 

[Indeependent]

Jews should be grateful they were not exterminated for their sins, and instead were only forced to leave.

Ah. There it is. Doesn't take much to reveal the rot under the veneer of falsified history.

Nonsense.
The ancient Jews did horrible things, like massacring the Canaanites at Jericho, and being proud of it.
Back then people were often wiped out when defeated.
The fact the Jews were instead allowed to just leave, was incredibly magnanimous for that time period.

The Canaanites shouldn’t have been having sex with their animals.

 

[ForeverYoung436]

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.

No Jew that's alive today is responsible for what their ancestors might or might not have done thousands of years ago.

 

[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.

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.

Actually when Abraham Avinu A"H came to the land all the places still carried Hebrew names.
So was during the conquest, locals spoke Hebrew.

 

[ForeverYoung436]

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.

According to the Midrash (legend) that Shem and Malkitzedek were the same person.

 

[member]

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.

stop pretending you "don't understand" (you antisemite...lol)....

 

[Rigby5]

Since there are historic place in Jerusalem, it should not be conflicted by being a capital of anywhere.

Newsflash. That is what this thread is about. Care to keep up? Did you have any thoughts about the Old City as a sovereign independent State?

Not at all, I was simply agreeing with you.

I have suggested a topic of discussion. I have not in any way agreed that Jerusalem was not, is not, or should not be the capital of Israel.

If you have no thoughts on the subject of the thread, perhaps you should move on.

That is not at all true.
This thread is about Jerusalem being an separate sovereign entity of its own, which definitely DOES preclude it from being the capital of Israel.
And that is not only my opinion, but also the opinion of the UN when they partitioned Palestine in 1948.

 

[Rigby5]

Jews should be grateful they were not exterminated for their sins, and instead were only forced to leave.

Ah. There it is. Doesn't take much to reveal the rot under the veneer of falsified history.

Nonsense.
The ancient Jews did horrible things, like massacring the Canaanites at Jericho, and being proud of it.
Back then people were often wiped out when defeated.
The fact the Jews were instead allowed to just leave, was incredibly magnanimous for that time period.

To be clear, the term "rot" was code for virulently antisemitic.

Again you need to learn more about language.
The word "Semitic" means of an Arab language group.
The Hebrew tribes were Semitic only because Hebrew belongs to the Arab language group.
Ashkenazi Jews have Yiddish as our native language, which is Germanic, so are not Semitic.
Calling someone anti-Semitic when they mean anti-Jew, is misappropriation of the Arab language meaning of the word.
And I have never heard rot to refer to anything other than a general disparaging nature, not something specific.
Nor was there anything inaccurate or bigoted in what I wrote.

 

[Rigby5]

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.

Because Mohammed didn’t murder 10s of millions and you’re not still murdering each right now.

I can't begin to figure out what you are trying to say there, at all?
Mohammad wrote strong restrictions on murder, and did not murder anyone I am aware of.
Mohammad just barely survived all the attacks and assassination attempts, and ended the war by defeating the Meccans.
That is about all the history wrote for Mohammad.
If you are referring to the Mongols, Moguls, Moors, Mamelukes and Turks who later claimed to be Muslim, that is a whole different story.