Old City Jerusalem as an Independent Sovereignty

[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.

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

So you are claiming the Hebrew invaded Canaan and massacred women and children out of a sense of sexual modesty?
It could not have been the land, orchards, fields, gold, iron, etc.?

 

[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.

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

Agreed.
But also no one today can make claim to that which his ancestors abandoned long ago.

 

[Rigby5]

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.

Nonsense.
There is no record of any Jewish names for anywhere in the region.
Hebrew is a member of the Arab language group, but not only are there Canaanite distinctions, but there is NO written Hebrew at that time. There was no Hebrew script until around 100 BC.

 

[rylah]

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.

Nonsense.
There is no record of any Jewish names for anywhere in the region.
Hebrew is a member of the Arab language group, but not only are there Canaanite distinctions, but there is NO written Hebrew at that time. There was no Hebrew script until around 100 BC.

If so then why does the word 'Palestine' has only meaning in Hebrew,
and none in Arabic, let alone even be pronounce properly in Arabic?

 

[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.

So you are claiming the Hebrew invaded Canaan and massacred women and children out of a sense of sexual modesty?
It could not have been the land, orchards, fields, gold, iron, etc.?

Moron.
The Canaanites knew they were going to be invaded for 40 years while the Jews were in the desert.

 

[Rigby5]

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.

Nonsense.
There is no record of any Jewish names for anywhere in the region.
Hebrew is a member of the Arab language group, but not only are there Canaanite distinctions, but there is NO written Hebrew at that time. There was no Hebrew script until around 100 BC.

If so then why does the word 'Palestine' has only meaning in Hebrew,
and none in Arabic, let alone even be pronounce properly in Arabic?

Because you are wrong.
There are many possible origins for Palestine, but the word Pelesh was used by both Egyptians and Greeks to refer to the People of the Sea, who may have been the Hyksos or the Minoans, but definitely were NOT Hebrew shepherds.
It is most likely Palestine was a reference to the Philistines, who definitely were not at all Hebrew. They were Semitic, but seafaring and with strong Greek influence. Hebrew were never seafaring and had no Greek connection or influence of any sort.

Again, it is silly for someone to claim something is Hebrew but not Arab, when Hebrew is of Arab origin.

 

[rylah]

Maybe we should start forming a counter proposition.

How about we start with declaring a return of the dress code to Jerusalem?

 

[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.

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

So you are claiming the Hebrew invaded Canaan and massacred women and children out of a sense of sexual modesty?
It could not have been the land, orchards, fields, gold, iron, etc.?

Moron.
The Canaanites knew they were going to be invaded for 40 years while the Jews were in the desert.

That is ridiculous.
The Hebrew were not just in the Sinai desert for 40 years, but an additional 400 years in Egypt.
After 440 years absence, the Hebrew would have no knowledge or rights to anywhere.
And clearly the Hebrew who went to Egypt voluntarily to escape a drought, could not possibly have come from the Land of Canaan. There was no drought in the Land of Canaan, and the Canaanites, Akkadians, Urites, Amorites, Chaldeans, etc., never left. They did not have to, because there was no drought.
The ONLY place known to have had a drought around the time the Hebrew were supposed to have gone to Egypt, was the Sinai. And why do you think the Hebrew returned to the Sinai after leaving Egypt?
If they had come from the Land of Canaan, would not they have wanted to return home, to connect with relatives they had left behind?

 

[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.

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

Stop pretending the OP’s suggestion is antisemitic if you can’t show that is.

 

[Coyote]

We are getting side tracked from the topic and into ancient history. There are other topics for that, get back on topic please.

 

[rylah]

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.

Nonsense.
There is no record of any Jewish names for anywhere in the region.
Hebrew is a member of the Arab language group, but not only are there Canaanite distinctions, but there is NO written Hebrew at that time. There was no Hebrew script until around 100 BC.

If so then why does the word 'Palestine' has only meaning in Hebrew,
and none in Arabic, let alone even be pronounce properly in Arabic?

Because you are wrong.
There are many possible origins for Palestine, but the word Pelesh was used by both Egyptians and Greeks to refer to the People of the Sea, who may have been the Hyksos or the Minoans, but definitely were NOT Hebrew shepherds.
It is most likely Palestine was a reference to the Philistines, who definitely were not at all Hebrew. They were Semitic, but seafaring and with strong Greek influence. Hebrew were never seafaring and had no Greek connection or influence of any sort.

Again, it is silly for someone to claim something is Hebrew but not Arab, when Hebrew is of Arab origin.

That word has a clear Hebrew root,

but it doesn't matter how Africans or Greeks called it, rather how they were called in the language of the place and what the word actually means. I'm still waiting for You to show a different origin that has an actual meaning besides a mere name.

The Arabic origin is out option, it doesn't even have the letter P to begin with.

 

[Shusha]

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)....

Stop pretending the OP’s suggestion is antisemitic if you can’t show that is.

I assure you the OP's suggestion is not antisemitic, in the slightest. How could the suggestion that the people who actually live in the Old City have sovereignty over it in any way be considered antisemitic?

Unless someone is suggesting that 30,000 Arabs be forcibly removed from the Old City in favour of Jews (which is an utterly abhorrent suggestion), the Arabs are there to stay.

And, btw, I agree that you can't pacify terrorists away by giving them land. This is why we need better solutions.

 

[Shusha]

[
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.

Well, the UN doesn't get a say in domestic matters, but whatever.

You agree that Jerusalem should not be the capital of either Israel or an eventual Palestine. Cool. Do you have any suggestions as to how to make that work? Or what protections should be put in place for various peoples, especially minorities? How tourism could be carefully, respectfully and properly implemented? How coveted apartments in the Old City could be transferred? How its should be governed? Or any of the other points of discussion brought up in the OP?

 

[rylah]

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)....

Stop pretending the OP’s suggestion is antisemitic if you can’t show that is.

I assure you the OP's suggestion is not antisemitic, in the slightest. How could the suggestion that the people who actually live in the Old City have sovereignty over it in any way be considered antisemitic?

Unless someone is suggesting that 30,000 Arabs be forcibly removed from the Old City in favour of Jews (which is an utterly abhorrent suggestion), the Arabs are there to stay.

And, btw, I agree that you can't pacify terrorists away by giving them land. This is why we need better solutions.

It's antisemitic because it separates Jerusalem from the rest of Israel,
to not only give Israel's adversaries to govern it as a majority,
but also force their religious law over much of Jerusalem.

Not only let them police much of the city according to their religious law,
but especially choose to publicly submit Jews to Sharia on mount Zion.

Hey, Israel even get to commit to THEIR freedom of worship, of those who propose.

Call that capitulation, but to call that "equality" is highest form of hypocrisy that closely resembles Israel hatred. And this proposition is nothing but.

 

[Coyote]

[
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.

Well, the UN doesn't get a say in domestic matters, but whatever.

You agree that Jerusalem should not be the capital of either Israel or an eventual Palestine. Cool. Do you have any suggestions as to how to make that work? Or what protections should be put in place for various peoples, especially minorities? How tourism could be carefully, respectfully and properly implemented? How coveted apartments in the Old City could be transferred? How its to be governed? Or any of the other points of discussion brought up in the OP?

Those are difficult questions.

For example,apartments, two things drive conflict : affordability and ethnicity.

In an ideal world:

Governance...a city council, with a mayorship that rotates between the Jews and the Muslims (but there are other communities too, such as Christians.

Maybe something kind of like the Swiss have : Politics of Switzerland - Wikipedia

 

[Shusha]

It's antisemitic because it separates Jerusalem from the rest of Israel,
to not only give Israel's adversaries to govern it as a majority,
but also force their religious law over much of Jerusalem.

Not only let them police much of the city according to their religious law,
but especially choose to publicly submit Jews to Sharia on mount Zion.

Call that capitulation, but to call that "equality" is highest form of hypocrisy that closely resembles Israel hatred.

Hey now, I have not suggested in any way that Old City would be governed under Muslim rule (majority or not) nor that Sharia will become the law of the land. That is blatantly disregarding my actual posts. Not just on this thread, but over years.

Are you seriously suggesting that separating any part of "Greater Israel" and acknowledging and respecting the long residency of Arabs in Israel/Palestine is antisemitic?!??!

 

[Shusha]

[
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.

Well, the UN doesn't get a say in domestic matters, but whatever.

You agree that Jerusalem should not be the capital of either Israel or an eventual Palestine. Cool. Do you have any suggestions as to how to make that work? Or what protections should be put in place for various peoples, especially minorities? How tourism could be carefully, respectfully and properly implemented? How coveted apartments in the Old City could be transferred? How its to be governed? Or any of the other points of discussion brought up in the OP?

Those are difficult questions.

For example,apartments, two things drive conflict : affordability and ethnicity.

In an ideal world:

Governance...a city council, with a mayorship that rotates between the Jews and the Muslims (but there are other communities too, such as Christians.

Maybe something kind of like the Swiss have : Politics of Switzerland - Wikipedia

Thank you for participating.

I would shy away from the religious designations and make it an ethnic/cultural division between Jews and Arabs. I don't think its a good idea to make this about religion. Its about the ethnic and cultural peoples who are resident in the City.

I definitely think a city council with equal weight given to Jews and Arabs would be the best way to go.

You read my mind on the affordability aspect. Because it is such sought after property, we wouldn't want to make it driven by wealth. That just seems to me to be a bad idea.

 

[Coyote]

[
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.

Well, the UN doesn't get a say in domestic matters, but whatever.

You agree that Jerusalem should not be the capital of either Israel or an eventual Palestine. Cool. Do you have any suggestions as to how to make that work? Or what protections should be put in place for various peoples, especially minorities? How tourism could be carefully, respectfully and properly implemented? How coveted apartments in the Old City could be transferred? How its to be governed? Or any of the other points of discussion brought up in the OP?

Those are difficult questions.

For example,apartments, two things drive conflict : affordability and ethnicity.

In an ideal world:

Governance...a city council, with a mayorship that rotates between the Jews and the Muslims (but there are other communities too, such as Christians.

Maybe something kind of like the Swiss have : Politics of Switzerland - Wikipedia

Thank you for participating.

I would shy away from the religious designations and make it an ethnic/cultural division between Jews and Arabs. I don't think its a good idea to make this about religion. Its about the ethnic and cultural peoples who are resident in the City.

I definitely think a city council with equal weight given to Jews and Arabs would be the best way to go.

You read my mind on the affordability aspect. Because it is such sought after property, we wouldn't want to make it driven by wealth. That just seems to me to be a bad idea.

I agree with with you on ethnicity vs religion good point.

Affordable housing is a huge issue in any area, and a crisis in many US cities. How would Jerusalem deal with it? Rent control?

 

[Shusha]

[
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.

Well, the UN doesn't get a say in domestic matters, but whatever.

You agree that Jerusalem should not be the capital of either Israel or an eventual Palestine. Cool. Do you have any suggestions as to how to make that work? Or what protections should be put in place for various peoples, especially minorities? How tourism could be carefully, respectfully and properly implemented? How coveted apartments in the Old City could be transferred? How its to be governed? Or any of the other points of discussion brought up in the OP?

Those are difficult questions.

For example,apartments, two things drive conflict : affordability and ethnicity.

In an ideal world:

Governance...a city council, with a mayorship that rotates between the Jews and the Muslims (but there are other communities too, such as Christians.

Maybe something kind of like the Swiss have : Politics of Switzerland - Wikipedia

Thank you for participating.

I would shy away from the religious designations and make it an ethnic/cultural division between Jews and Arabs. I don't think its a good idea to make this about religion. Its about the ethnic and cultural peoples who are resident in the City.

I definitely think a city council with equal weight given to Jews and Arabs would be the best way to go.

You read my mind on the affordability aspect. Because it is such sought after property, we wouldn't want to make it driven by wealth. That just seems to me to be a bad idea.

I agree with with you on ethnicity vs religion good point.

Affordable housing is a huge issue in any area, and a crisis in many US cities. How would Jerusalem deal with it? Rent control?

I was thinking more outside the box. Lottery? Community ownership? Limited time shares or leases?

Also, how about thinking more tribal government? Two Councils? One which handles all the religious and cultural issues and another which deals with the practical, day-to-day matters.

 

[rylah]

It's antisemitic because it separates Jerusalem from the rest of Israel,
to not only give Israel's adversaries to govern it as a majority,
but also force their religious law over much of Jerusalem.

Not only let them police much of the city according to their religious law,
but especially choose to publicly submit Jews to Sharia on mount Zion.

Call that capitulation, but to call that "equality" is highest form of hypocrisy that closely resembles Israel hatred.

Hey now, I have not suggested in any way that Old City would be governed under Muslim rule (majority or not) nor that Sharia will become the law of the land. That is blatantly disregarding my actual posts. Not just on this thread, but over years.

Are you seriously suggesting that separating any part of "Greater Israel" and acknowledging and respecting the long residency of Arabs in Israel/Palestine is antisemitic?!??!

Have You seen the amount of "interior spaces" around the city?
I'm not yet talking about sites like the tomb of King David A"H, but actual mosques, churches with all their courts and gardens where they expect to guard the place.