Should Israel repair the Temple.

[K9Buck]

I can see why you might be sick, given that you did not get a single point you made --- correct.
R

That idiot never gets anything correct. In another thread he said Israel started the "six-day" war. I laughed so hard I was rolling on the floor and my wife asked me if I was ok. When I recovered, I asked him to explain how Israel started that war. Of course, he didn't respond.

 

[Eloy]

RE: Should Israel repair the Temple.
SubRef: Posting #363
※→ Eloy, et al, (and those who are sick)...

I think you might want to revisit your comment here. But, you may pke all you want, you still have it wrong, and I'll explain only one reason you blundered.

If your posts were a little less respectful to the members of USMessageBoard and more respectful of the truth about the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian Territories, they would be easier to read without puking. The Israelis are not a legitimate power in the Occupied Territories because it is prohibited by international law to acquire territory through war. They should go home.

(PRINCIPLE REFERENCES)

• Article 10, Covenant League of Nations (1919)

"The Members of the League undertake to respect and preserve as against external aggression the territorial integrity and existing political independence of all Members of the League. In case of any such aggression or in case of any threat or danger of such aggression the Council shall advise upon the means by which this obligation shall be fulfilled."​

• Chapter I, Article 2(4), Charter - United Nations (1945)

"All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations."​

• Chapter VII, Article 51, Charter - United Nations (1945)

"Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations"​

• Emphasis, UN Security Council Resolution 242 (S/RES/242) (1967)

"Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in which every State in the area can live in security,"​

• Principle #1: Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States, UN Resolution 2625 (XXV) (A/RES/25/2625) (1970)

"The principle that States shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations,"​

• Article 5(3), UN Resolution 3314 (XXIX) (A/RES/29/3314) (1974)

"3. No territorial acquisition or special advantage resulting from aggression is or shall be recognized as lawful."​

• Article 3(d), UN Resolution 3314 (XXIX) (A/RES/29/3314) (1974)

"(An)act of aggression: An attack by the armed forces of a State on the land, sea or air forces, or marine and air fleets of another State;"​

(COMMENT)

There is a very key phrase that dates back to the Great War (WWI), and the Covenant: "any threat or danger of such aggression." Today, that is more often states under the Rule of Law as: "threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence."

What constitutes a threat of set of threats. Surely, in May 1948, when the several member nations of the Arab League notified the Secretary General that they intended to mount military operations against Israel if they declared independence, and did so on 15 May, that constituted a "threat." In May 1967, when Egypt ordered the UN Emergency Force (Peace Keepers) to leave the Sinai and then rushed nearly a 100,000 troops, 900 tanks and a like number of field artillery pieces to the Israeli front, that constituted a threat. When, in June 1967, the Jordanian opened an artillery bombardment on Israel, that constituted a threat.

In the case of the territory that came under the control of the Israelis in 1967, that control was made through the lawful use of force under Chapter VII of the UN Charter (self-defense) to protect and defend the State of Israel under Article 2(4) and Principle #1 of International Law.

In addition: The acquisition of sovereign territory is not (remotely) the same as the occupation of territory secured during the pursuit of retreating aggressor Arab Forces.

Additionally: In 1988, when Jordan cut all ties with the West Bank and Jerusalem, Jordan abandon that territory in the hands of Israel which held effective control." What make this significant is that this very same action created the condition known as:

View attachment 150884
​

This is the case where Jordan was the "prior sovereign" that "expressly and implicitly relinquished sovereignty." That placed the territory in the hands of Israel, having effective control.

You made the accusation that: "The Israelis are not a legitimate power in the Occupied Territories because it is prohibited by international law to acquire territory through war." While many people believe that the Hostile Arab Palestinians are owed some special privileged relative to the territory, the fact of the matter is that the conditions seen today are a direct result of Arab League Members, in collusion with the HoAP, demonstrated an aggressor threat and lost territory while in retreat. THEN, they relinquished sovereignty over the territory.

I can see why you might be sick, given that you did not get a single point you made --- correct.

Most Respectfully,
R

Palestinian children massacred in Gaza and terrorized in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, are not a threat to Israel.

 

[Sixties Fan]

This is a strong case that Jews continued to ascend to the Temple Mount to pray up through the 13th century, and when that was not possible only then would they pray at whatever site afforded them proximity or a view of the holy spot on the Temple Mount.

The Kotel is just as holy as any other part of the retaining wall of the Second Temple, although the western part is closer to the Holy of Holies and therefore more desirable. This is why so many (usually women) are found reading Psalms all day at the site of the Western Wall tunnels nearest the Holy of Holies.

It is also why the "Kotel HaKatan," the "Little Western Wall" to the north of the Kotel, is actually a holier spot than the Kotel itself. But that wasn't available for prayer, apparently, until much more recently, while the Kotel was been a gathering spot for prayer since the 16th century.

This article, rather than taking away from the holiness of the Kotel, actually proves the holiness to Jews of the entire surrounding areas of the Temple Mount in all directions, and how the scores of existing Muslim structures on those holy walls are actually a desecration of the Jewish holy site. The article shows the veneration that Jews have always shown towards the Temple Mount.

(full article online)

"Pro-Palestinian" Jews inadvertently make case for Jewish prayer on Temple Mount ~ Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

 

[Roudy]

RE: Should Israel repair the Temple.
SubRef: Posting #363
※→ Eloy, et al, (and those who are sick)...

I think you might want to revisit your comment here. But, you may pke all you want, you still have it wrong, and I'll explain only one reason you blundered.

If your posts were a little less respectful to the members of USMessageBoard and more respectful of the truth about the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian Territories, they would be easier to read without puking. The Israelis are not a legitimate power in the Occupied Territories because it is prohibited by international law to acquire territory through war. They should go home.

(PRINCIPLE REFERENCES)

• Article 10, Covenant League of Nations (1919)

"The Members of the League undertake to respect and preserve as against external aggression the territorial integrity and existing political independence of all Members of the League. In case of any such aggression or in case of any threat or danger of such aggression the Council shall advise upon the means by which this obligation shall be fulfilled."​

• Chapter I, Article 2(4), Charter - United Nations (1945)

"All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations."​

• Chapter VII, Article 51, Charter - United Nations (1945)

"Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations"​

• Emphasis, UN Security Council Resolution 242 (S/RES/242) (1967)

"Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in which every State in the area can live in security,"​

• Principle #1: Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States, UN Resolution 2625 (XXV) (A/RES/25/2625) (1970)

"The principle that States shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations,"​

• Article 5(3), UN Resolution 3314 (XXIX) (A/RES/29/3314) (1974)

"3. No territorial acquisition or special advantage resulting from aggression is or shall be recognized as lawful."​

• Article 3(d), UN Resolution 3314 (XXIX) (A/RES/29/3314) (1974)

"(An)act of aggression: An attack by the armed forces of a State on the land, sea or air forces, or marine and air fleets of another State;"​

(COMMENT)

There is a very key phrase that dates back to the Great War (WWI), and the Covenant: "any threat or danger of such aggression." Today, that is more often states under the Rule of Law as: "threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence."

What constitutes a threat of set of threats. Surely, in May 1948, when the several member nations of the Arab League notified the Secretary General that they intended to mount military operations against Israel if they declared independence, and did so on 15 May, that constituted a "threat." In May 1967, when Egypt ordered the UN Emergency Force (Peace Keepers) to leave the Sinai and then rushed nearly a 100,000 troops, 900 tanks and a like number of field artillery pieces to the Israeli front, that constituted a threat. When, in June 1967, the Jordanian opened an artillery bombardment on Israel, that constituted a threat.

In the case of the territory that came under the control of the Israelis in 1967, that control was made through the lawful use of force under Chapter VII of the UN Charter (self-defense) to protect and defend the State of Israel under Article 2(4) and Principle #1 of International Law.

In addition: The acquisition of sovereign territory is not (remotely) the same as the occupation of territory secured during the pursuit of retreating aggressor Arab Forces.

Additionally: In 1988, when Jordan cut all ties with the West Bank and Jerusalem, Jordan abandon that territory in the hands of Israel which held effective control." What make this significant is that this very same action created the condition known as:

View attachment 150884
​

This is the case where Jordan was the "prior sovereign" that "expressly and implicitly relinquished sovereignty." That placed the territory in the hands of Israel, having effective control.

You made the accusation that: "The Israelis are not a legitimate power in the Occupied Territories because it is prohibited by international law to acquire territory through war." While many people believe that the Hostile Arab Palestinians are owed some special privileged relative to the territory, the fact of the matter is that the conditions seen today are a direct result of Arab League Members, in collusion with the HoAP, demonstrated an aggressor threat and lost territory while in retreat. THEN, they relinquished sovereignty over the territory.

I can see why you might be sick, given that you did not get a single point you made --- correct.

Most Respectfully,
R

Palestinian children massacred in Gaza and terrorized in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, are not a threat to Israel.

E-slow forgets all the crimes against humanity and terrorism such as shooting missiles from schools, suicide bombings, stab attacks, running over people with vehicles that Palestinians regularly engage in.