Should Israel repair the Temple.

[TNHarley]

1300 years or so isnt historic?

the temple mount is a lot older.

I know. But saying their is no history there for the muslims isnt correct

The Israelis aren't doing that, that's why Muslims AND Christians are free to worship at their sites. Do you prefer Muslims be in charge of some of the holiest sites in the Christian faith? I guaran-fuckin'-T you there won't be a single church or Christian holy site left standing.

The OP claimed that.
My gosh, am I the only one that read it?

 

[Roudy]

1300 years or so isnt historic?

the temple mount is a lot older.

I know. But saying their is no history there for the muslims isnt correct

The Israelis aren't doing that, that's why Muslims AND Christians are free to worship at their sites. Do you prefer Muslims be in charge of some of the holiest sites in the Christian faith? I guaran-fuckin'-T you there won't be a single church or Christian holy site left standing.

The OP claimed that.
My gosh, am I the only one that read it?

The OP is claiming that it's the Arabs, not the Jews, that are using the Temple site as a flashpoint. The bottom line is Muslims are upset that one of their "holy sites" is under Jewish control and in a Jewish governed state. That in essence is the core of the conflict from day one. Arab / Muslim intolerance and violence towards the non Muslims. A quick glance at what Muslims have done all over the region throughout history will confirm this.

 

[TNHarley]

1300 years or so isnt historic?

the temple mount is a lot older.

I know. But saying their is no history there for the muslims isnt correct

The Israelis aren't doing that, that's why Muslims AND Christians are free to worship at their sites. Do you prefer Muslims be in charge of some of the holiest sites in the Christian faith? I guaran-fuckin'-T you there won't be a single church or Christian holy site left standing.

The OP claimed that.
My gosh, am I the only one that read it?

The OP is claiming that it's the Arabs, not the Jews, that are using the Temple site as a flashpoint. The bottom line is Muslims are upset that one of their "holy sites" is under Jewish control and in a Jewish governed state. That in essence is the core of the conflict from day one. Arab / Muslim intolerance and violence towards the non Muslims. A quick glance at what Muslims have done all over the region throughout history will confirm this.

There goes that bickering LOL
Dude, they have been at it since the Jews rejected the pervert.
All I was commenting on was how Muslims have history at the temple mount.
You religious folk read more into my comments than my intent.
Frankly, I'm done defending my simple and correct post.
Good day.

 

[Eloy]

Not a single country in the world, including the Pacific Island of Nauru, accepts that Israel has any claim on East Jerusalem and the Noble Sanctuary.

1. International law is not a popularity contest. It matters not what bit what the "world" thinks. ...

International law is founded on principles accepted by other countries, including the Pacific island of Nauru.

 

[Eloy]

By international treaty, Jordan is responsible for the care of the Noble Sanctuary. The Israelis have no legal authority to be there.

Jordan renounced any claims or stewardship of the West Bank area long ago. Because they washed THEIR hands of any Palestinian problems. Doesn't WANT that job anymore. Which is part of the bigger issue here with the deposition of the "occupied" land.

You, and the person who agreed with you, are misinformed.
Since 1967, Jordan and Israel agreed that the Jordanian Waqf, which I explained in my post previous to this, would have control over matters inside the compound, while Israel would control external security. "The Waqf is entirely controlled and funded by the Jordanian government. It administers daily life on the Temple Mount, which includes the Al-Aqsa Mosque, Dome of the Rock, archaeological sites, museums and schools."
Amid Temple Mount tumult, the who, what and why of its Waqf rulers
Please give a citation to support your claim that Jordan has renounced the authority of its Waqf to control the Noble Sanctuary.

It's in your article. Jordan may contribute funds, but has no TITLE to the land. It's held by the Waqf. It was "donated".. Jordan provides no legal jurisdiction or security or ability to enforce the Waqf..

All other Jordanian claims to "occupied" land have been renounced. They will NOT lift a finger for the Palestinians. It's all bad blood now...

The trust is the Jordanian Waqf not the Israeli Waqf or whatever Modern Hebrew the Israelis might invent for waqf in order to pretend that Jordan has no business expressing an opinion on the Noble Sanctuary.

It's not that Jordan has "no business" expressing an opinion on the Mount. It's that Jordan has no INTENTION of enforcing any of it or any interest in working with Palestinians not already incorporated into Jordan.

Best solution is for Israel to recognize (or be PRESSURED to recognize) the International nature of that Holy site to the world's top 3 religions. And to make a statement about coexistence by making it a safe place for ALL 3 religions to worship...

It was the intention of the United Nations that Jerusalem be an Open City under international sovereignty and neither part of an Arab nor Jewish state. That was and still is the best idea.

 

[TNHarley]

Jordan renounced any claims or stewardship of the West Bank area long ago. Because they washed THEIR hands of any Palestinian problems. Doesn't WANT that job anymore. Which is part of the bigger issue here with the deposition of the "occupied" land.

You, and the person who agreed with you, are misinformed.
Since 1967, Jordan and Israel agreed that the Jordanian Waqf, which I explained in my post previous to this, would have control over matters inside the compound, while Israel would control external security. "The Waqf is entirely controlled and funded by the Jordanian government. It administers daily life on the Temple Mount, which includes the Al-Aqsa Mosque, Dome of the Rock, archaeological sites, museums and schools."
Amid Temple Mount tumult, the who, what and why of its Waqf rulers
Please give a citation to support your claim that Jordan has renounced the authority of its Waqf to control the Noble Sanctuary.

It's in your article. Jordan may contribute funds, but has no TITLE to the land. It's held by the Waqf. It was "donated".. Jordan provides no legal jurisdiction or security or ability to enforce the Waqf..

All other Jordanian claims to "occupied" land have been renounced. They will NOT lift a finger for the Palestinians. It's all bad blood now...

The trust is the Jordanian Waqf not the Israeli Waqf or whatever Modern Hebrew the Israelis might invent for waqf in order to pretend that Jordan has no business expressing an opinion on the Noble Sanctuary.

It's not that Jordan has "no business" expressing an opinion on the Mount. It's that Jordan has no INTENTION of enforcing any of it or any interest in working with Palestinians not already incorporated into Jordan.

Best solution is for Israel to recognize (or be PRESSURED to recognize) the International nature of that Holy site to the world's top 3 religions. And to make a statement about coexistence by making it a safe place for ALL 3 religions to worship...

It was the intention of the United Nations that Jerusalem be an Open City under international sovereignty and neither part of an Arab nor Jewish state. That was and still is the best idea.

How close of a relationship does religion and diplomacy have?

 

[Shusha]

Not a single country in the world, including the Pacific Island of Nauru, accepts that Israel has any claim on East Jerusalem and the Noble Sanctuary.

1. International law is not a popularity contest. It matters not what bit what the "world" thinks. ...

International law is founded on principles .....

Yes. Yes, it is. And those principles should be followed. NONE of those principles allow for a popular vote on where borders between nations are. Only the nations involved have a right to determine borders.

 

[Eloy]

Not a single country in the world, including the Pacific Island of Nauru, accepts that Israel has any claim on East Jerusalem and the Noble Sanctuary.

1. International law is not a popularity contest. It matters not what bit what the "world" thinks. ...

International law is founded on principles .....

Yes. Yes, it is. And those principles should be followed. NONE of those principles allow for a popular vote on where borders between nations are. Only the nations involved have a right to determine borders.

You are incorrect; borders are not decided by belligerent states but by international treaty. The border of Israel was decided by the United Nations in 1948. It did not nor does it include Judea and Sumeria, including East Jerusalem nor Gaza.

 

[Shusha]

It was the intention of the United Nations that Jerusalem be an Open City under international sovereignty and neither part of an Arab nor Jewish state. That was and still is the best idea.

THAT, alone, is a drastic departure from customary international law.

 

[Shusha]

You are incorrect; borders are not decided by belligerent states but by international treaty. The border of Israel was decided by the United Nations in 1948. It did not nor does it include Judea and Sumeria, including East Jerusalem nor Gaza.

You are woefully ignorant about international law. Borders are formed BY TREATY between States. It is the TREATY between States which creates the borders. Others, including the UN, do not have the right to determine borders between two States. Therefore, the border of Israel COULD NOT have been created by the UN.

There is NO TREATY which defines a border between Israel and "Palestine".

 

[Eloy]

It was the intention of the United Nations that Jerusalem be an Open City under international sovereignty and neither part of an Arab nor Jewish state. That was and still is the best idea.

THAT, alone, is a drastic departure from customary international law.

Nevertheless, it was the plan which neither Arabs nor Jews have honored.

 

[Shusha]

It was the intention of the United Nations that Jerusalem be an Open City under international sovereignty and neither part of an Arab nor Jewish state. That was and still is the best idea.

THAT, alone, is a drastic departure from customary international law.

Nevertheless, it was the plan which neither Arabs nor Jews have honored.

It was a plan which neither the Arabs nor the Jewish people agreed to -- which is the customary requirement of international law.

There has never BEEN a territory under some sort of international sovereignty. Both the Arabs and the Jews have good reason to question that concept.

 

[Eloy]

You are incorrect; borders are not decided by belligerent states but by international treaty. The border of Israel was decided by the United Nations in 1948. It did not nor does it include Judea and Sumeria, including East Jerusalem nor Gaza.

You are woefully ignorant about international law. Borders are formed BY TREATY between States. It is the TREATY between States which creates the borders. Others, including the UN, do not have the right to determine borders between two States. Therefore, the border of Israel COULD NOT have been created by the UN.

There is NO TREATY which defines a border between Israel and "Palestine".

Open a book or read a newspaper sometime. When Israel was recognized by the United Nations and admitted as a member, its border was determined. It cannot be changed by an act of war. Israel's occupation for the past half century of the rest of Palestine is illegal.

 

[Eloy]

It was the intention of the United Nations that Jerusalem be an Open City under international sovereignty and neither part of an Arab nor Jewish state. That was and still is the best idea.

THAT, alone, is a drastic departure from customary international law.

Nevertheless, it was the plan which neither Arabs nor Jews have honored.

It was a plan which neither the Arabs nor the Jewish people agreed to -- which is the customary requirement of international law.

There has never BEEN a territory under some sort of international sovereignty. Both the Arabs and the Jews have good reason to question that concept.

I wrote the Jews, not the "Jewish people".

 

[Shusha]

Open a book or read a newspaper sometime. When Israel was recognized by the United Nations and admitted as a member, its border was determined. It cannot be changed by an act of war. Israel's occupation for the past half century of the rest of Palestine is illegal.

International law is not formed by people writing books or newspaper articles. International law, as you pointed out, is formed by TREATY. What treaty, between which people, determines Israel's border with the as yet non-state of "Palestine"?

 

[Shusha]

It was the intention of the United Nations that Jerusalem be an Open City under international sovereignty and neither part of an Arab nor Jewish state. That was and still is the best idea.

THAT, alone, is a drastic departure from customary international law.

Nevertheless, it was the plan which neither Arabs nor Jews have honored.

It was a plan which neither the Arabs nor the Jewish people agreed to -- which is the customary requirement of international law.

There has never BEEN a territory under some sort of international sovereignty. Both the Arabs and the Jews have good reason to question that concept.

I wrote the Jews, not the "Jewish people".

Your point being?!

 

[Eloy]

Open a book or read a newspaper sometime. When Israel was recognized by the United Nations and admitted as a member, its border was determined. It cannot be changed by an act of war. Israel's occupation for the past half century of the rest of Palestine is illegal.

International law is not formed by people writing books or newspaper articles. International law, as you pointed out, is formed by TREATY. What treaty, between which people, determines Israel's border with the as yet non-state of "Palestine"?

Everyone knows what Israel's border was in 1948. That border has never been changed by international treaty.

 

[Shusha]

It was the intention of the United Nations that Jerusalem be an Open City under international sovereignty and neither part of an Arab nor Jewish state. That was and still is the best idea.

THAT, alone, is a drastic departure from customary international law.

Nevertheless, it was the plan which neither Arabs nor Jews have honored.

It was a plan which neither the Arabs nor the Jewish people agreed to -- which is the customary requirement of international law.

There has never BEEN a territory under some sort of international sovereignty. Both the Arabs and the Jews have good reason to question that concept.

I wrote the Jews, not the "Jewish people".

So? International law is based on the premise of consent between Parties.

 

[Shusha]

Everyone knows what Israel's border was in 1948. That border has never been changed by international treaty.

Really? What treaty delineates a border between Israel and the not-yet-state of Palestine. Come on. If "everyone" knows it -- it should be really easy to name it.

 

[Shusha]

That border has never been changed by international treaty.

We agree. The border of Israel has NEVER been changed by international treaty.