Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2

[JoelT1]

Define immigration.

Define settler colonialism.

Right. This is where I thought you were heading with this.

The difference is self-determination and sovereignty. So, let's go back to what I said:

Restart the entire conflict with this thought in mind: The Jewish people have JUST AS MUCH RIGHT to be here as the Arab people do, if not more. The Jewish people are the indigenous people whose land has been stolen from them. It is their ancestral and historical home. Their sovereignty over their ancestral lands must be reconstituted and their Nation restored.

Its not enough for the Jewish people to be 'permitted' to live in the territory. The requirement is for sovereignty.

Nice duck.

Come on. How is that a duck? You would phrase it as:

Immigration is moving with the intention of assimilating into a place. Settler colonialism is taking over the place.

But, at its essence, the difference is self-determination and sovereignty.

You are saying that Jews should be permitted to be present but must not have self-determination or sovereignty.

Not so. Immigration means that you would share sovereignty with the existing population.

Nobody has the right to exclusive sovereignty.

Settler colonialism is claiming exclusive sovereignty.

Hey “genius”: Were Jesus, a devout Jew called King of Israel in the Bible, his devout Jewish Apostles and devout Jewish disciples, settlers in Israel? LOL

Most Israeli Jews are indigenous to Israel and to the region, birthplace of the Jewish People dating back thousands of years.

The ignorance in your posts is embarrassing

 

[rylah]

Originally posted by Shusha
No, I'm not confusing the issue. This IS the issue.

Do people have the rights to self-determination and sovereignty over territory or do they not?

Do the Serbs have this right or not?

For the most part you're a good, serious debater....

But you also like to play dumb and confuse the issues.

Right now, you're trying to create a false, pathetic equivalence between a genuine independence movement of the native peoples of Catalonia, Tibet, Kurdistan and a colonialist, ethnocratic movement where:

1 An european power occupied militarily a region in the Middle East, taking away by the force of arms the right of the native inhabitants to maintain their society and ethnic composition.

2 A colonialist movement created by europeans of jewish faith that, between 1880 and well into the 20th century, was supported by a TINY minority of the people/religious group they claimed to represent, was allowed by the invading european power to create a TOTALLY SEPARATED society from the existing native society (one of the defining traits of a colony).

3 After the war against the European Power that acted as a typical "metropolis" of the classic cases of colonialism in the Americas, protecting the colonization of the region for 30 years, the colonists drove the native inhabitants into ethnic enclaves where they are kept to this day under the threat of death.

Nice speech, nothing more. Factually wrong on most points.
I'll explain later in the evening.

In the meanwhile please explain, what is this "right to ethnic composition" ?

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2
※→ José, Shusha, et al,

I am not sure this is accurate at all.

1 An european power occupied militarily a region in the Middle East, taking away by the force of arms the right of the native inhabitants to maintain their society and ethnic composition.

(COMMENT)

To a degree this is true; but misleading.

• When the Joint Enemy Occupied Territory Administration (EOTA) (British and French), the Allied Powers had defeated the the Middle East which had been under the Sovereignty of the Ottoman Empire. There was no attempt, on the part of the EOTA, to deny the native inhabitants of their society; at least no more so than The Peace of Westphalia (1648) had in all previous wars relative to sovereignty and territorial integrity.

√ ( The Economic Policy That Made the Peace of Westphalia ) Similarly, it is only with a return to the Peace of Westphalia's principle of "forgiving the sins of the past," and of mutually beneficial economic development (see Treaty principles, the "benefit of the other''), that the current Israeli-Palestinian conflict could be solved on the basis of two mutually-recognized sovereign states.​

Nor was there any intent, more than any other previous war, to manipulate the Regional ethnic composition any more than necessary. For instance, one of the objectives of the Westphalia Treaty was to allow for the Independence of the Dutch Republic; which was intended to (with marginal success) provided a safe country for European Jews.

But the Peace of Westphalia did not prohibit territorial occupation by the victors over the defeated; not then and not through the era of WW II. The EOTA did not more than what was customary.

• The Occupation of the Jordanian Sovereign territory of the West Bank, whether it is argued by any quarter as legal or not, was a very typical outcome of establishing effective control, in the wake of an Army in rout, as in the case of the Jordanian Military; a defeat attended with disorderly flight. This would ultimately lead to the abandonment of the West Bank in the Hands of the Israelis.

2 A colonialist movement created by europeans of jewish faith that, between 1880 and well into the 20th century, was supported by a TINY minority of the people/religious group they claimed to represent, was allowed by the invading european power to create a TOTALLY SEPARATED society from the existing native society (one of the defining traits of a colony).

(COMMENT)

As is very often the case, the protection and preservation of a small - minority culture. In the last half century, the role of human rights organizations as defenders to ensure that the rights of national or ethnic, religious and linguistic minorities like the Israelis represent, has been subverted by the cries of foul by the Arab Majority of the Middle East. The most vocal being the Arab Palestinians which have been the very violent Jihadist, Fedayeen, Hostile Insurgent, Radicalized Islamist, and Asymmetric Fighters.

The Arab Palestinian has proven totally uncooperative for more than a century in the Islamic 'vs' Jewish struggle as first sparked by the Mufti of Jerusalem and the Islamic Cleric that started the Palestinian Black Hand. As honest as the dogma of --- create a TOTALLY SEPARATED society --- might sound, it is important to remember that Israel (per capita) is more diverse than either the Gaza Strip or the West Bank.

Illiterate: Once the Arab Palestinian get some mantra stuck in their head (colonialism or apartheid), they absolutely refuse to look as the true definitions and intent of the terminology. You simply cannot have a meaningful discussion with them as they are embedded in the quicksand of propaganda.

The concept of the separation of cultures and societies did NOT come from the wisdom of the Allied Powers; but, was drawn upon in the opening post-War period (conveniently forgotten by the Arab Palestinians):

Written By: The Editors of Encyclopædia Britannica
"A millet was an autonomous self-governing religious community, each organized under its own laws and headed by a religious leader, who was responsible to the central government for the fulfillment of millet responsibilities and duties, particularly those of paying taxes and maintaining internal security."

Millet System in the Ottoman Empire --- By: Efrat Aviv LAST MODIFIED: 28 November 2016​

3 After the war against the European Power that acted as a typical "metropolis" of the classic cases of colonialism in the Americas, protecting the colonization of the region for 30 years, the colonists drove the native inhabitants into ethnic enclaves where they are kept to this day under the threat of death.

(COMMENT)

Yes, yes... Americans are always the bad guys. This mantra is so old as to have virtually no impact any more. The Arabs (through the Arab Higher Committee) have made this claim so often, some have set the mantra to music.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[JoelT1]

Originally posted by Shusha
No, I'm not confusing the issue. This IS the issue.

Do people have the rights to self-determination and sovereignty over territory or do they not?

Do the Serbs have this right or not?

For the most part you're a good, serious debater....

But you also like to play dumb and confuse the issues.

Right now, you're trying to create a false, pathetic equivalence between a genuine independence movement of the native peoples of Catalonia, Tibet, Kurdistan and a colonialist, ethnocratic movement where:

1 An european power occupied militarily a region in the Middle East, taking away by the force of arms the right of the native inhabitants to maintain their society and ethnic composition.

2 A colonialist movement created by europeans of jewish faith that, between 1880 and well into the 20th century, was supported by a TINY minority of the people/religious group they claimed to represent, was allowed by the invading european power to create a TOTALLY SEPARATED society from the existing native society (one of the defining traits of a colony).

3 After the war against the European Power that acted as a typical "metropolis" of the classic cases of colonialism in the Americas, protecting the colonization of the region for 30 years, the colonists drove the native inhabitants into ethnic enclaves where they are kept to this day under the threat of death.

Palestine, originally a name imposed on ancient Israel by the colonialist Roman Empire, was later the name of the colonialist British Mandate (British palestine) which eventuated in the restoration of the historical Jewish Homeland of Israel

 

[Shusha]

For the most part you're a good, serious debater....

But you also like to play dumb and confuse the issues.

Right now, you're trying to create a false, pathetic equivalence between a genuine independence movement of the native peoples of Catalonia, Tibet, Kurdistan and a colonialist, ethnocratic movement ...

I am neither confusing the issue nor playing dumb. Again, this IS the issue. And what I am doing is challenging the foundation of the majority of team Palestine's argument. It needs to be challenged.

The implication in your post, though you did not say it directly, is that you DO believe that all peoples do have a right to self-determination and sovereignty.

The Catalans have a right to self-determination. The Serbs have a right to self-determination. The Croats, the Macedonians, the Montenegrins, the Bosnians, the Slovenians. Czechs have the right to self-determination, as do the Slovaks. So do the Kurds. The Tibetans. The Cypriots. The Hawaiians. The First Nations Peoples of the Americas.

The Palestinians.

And so then I say, the Jewish people have the right to self-determination. And suddenly, team Palestine is all, "whoa, whoa, whoa. No they don't."

Why is that, Jose? Why is it that when it comes to the Jewish people, suddenly there are all sorts of excuses about why that particular people should not have self-determination?

The reason you gave is that the Jewish people don't fall into the category of "genuine independence movements". Every other people who has a desire for self-determination and sovereignty is put into the category of "genuine independence movements", except the Jewish people. Tell me what to make of that. Why is the self-determination of the Jewish peoples, alone of all the peoples of the world, not valid?.

Forget about the events of the past 100 years. Just for a moment. (We'll come back to them.) Go back to 1916. Jews are about 10% of the total population of the territory. They are a majority in Jerusalem. They would like to have self-determination and sovereignty. Should they be prevented from having it? If yes, why?

 

[Ventura77]

The Arab Palestinians were not a Party to the agreement.

Neither was Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, or Iraq.

Why are you trying to confuse the issue?

The Arab Palestinians were not a Party to the agreement.

Neither was Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, or Iraq.

Why are you trying to confuse the issue?

You clearly show that you do not know the issue and do not care to know it.

There were FOUR Mandates after WWI out of the Ottoman Empire.
The ARABS/Muslims got 99% of the land, which was not theirs, but had been conquered over a period of 1300 years by Arab Muslims, Christians and the Ottoman Turks.

Lebanon and Syrian were under French management. Iraq and Palestine/Israel were under the British.

Jordan is part of the Mandate for Palestine. It was known as TransJordan. It was to be part of the Jewish homeland until 1922 when the British decided that the Jews did not need that land, without asking them, and gave it to descendants of Mohammad who had just been kicked out of Arabia, their very ancient homeland.

The British decided that the Jews did not, after all, need a sovereign homeland, and they decided to keep the rest for themselves.
That upset the Jews and the Arabs living on the land.

You confuse the Mandate for Palestine with the other three Mandates for some reason.
You do not specify what agreement that was.
Who was supposed to agree about it and for what purpose.

The Ottomans LOST the war for siding with Germany.

It was up to the Allies to decide what to do with it.
No complaints from the Muslim Arabs in Lebanon, Iraq and Syrian.
But then, the minority indigenous of those lands were not allowed to have any voice and had no power to stop the Allies from cutting the land as they did.
Not the Kurds, the Yazidis, the Assyrians, etc, etc, etc

So, as long as those three mandates ended up fully in Arab Muslim hands, the Muslims were happy.

Jews win sovereignty over just a little 20% of what had been promised them on their traditional Ancient Homeland , and all hell breaks lose.

And you cannot see where the issue is.

You cannot explain why the indigenous people of the land should have less of a right to sovereignty to the land then the Arabs who invaded, or the Turks who invaded, or any other invader to the land of Israel.

The explanation to the refusal to allow Jews to have sovereignty on their ancient homeland is easy to know. It can be found very easily in the writings by Christians and Muslims of the first 7 centuries of the modern era.

Jews did not attack Arabs when the were expelled from Gaza in 1920.
Jews did not attack Arabs when they were expelled from TranJordan in 1925.
Jews did not attack Arabs when they were expelled from Hebron and Sfad in 1929.
Jews did not attack Arabs when they were expelled from the very Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem or from all of Judea and Samaria in 1948.

And I am talking about firing rockets, suicide belts, or any other out of this world way of attacking Arabs which would have forced them to give up those areas, as Arabs have been doing in order to force Jews to give up more and more of what is sovereign or historically important to them as the indigenous people of the land.

Be it the Temple Mount, Jerusalem, Hebron, the Cave of the Patriarchs, the Arabs have refused to share. Be it any place where Jews consider it important to their history, culture or religion, the Muslims, for 1400 years, have found a way to deny the Jews any rights to them.

Jews must keep the sovereignty of their land. As much of it as possible. They do share it with the Arabs. They do not attack Arabs if they come to visit or work for them or with them.
The same is not true almost every time a Jew accidentally ends up on Areas A or B or Judea/Samaria.
No Jew works in Areas A or B. They are not allowed.
Many Arabs work in Area C or in Jerusalem.

You, and quite a few others are indeed very confused about all the issues. You do the confusing all on your own.

You clearly grasp of basic cause-n-effect moron...unfortunately your argument is with people like Hiam Weitzman...Theodore Herzl...Begin...Dyan...Ben Gurion...etc. These individuals were quite candid in what they planned and executed...by contrast your crude Jew lies propose to contradict the stated aims and conspiracies that all of these men admitted to many times...

 

[Shusha]

... maintain their society and ethnic composition ...

... TOTALLY SEPARATED society ...

... ethnic enclaves ...

Did Serbia maintain its society and ethnic composition? Is Serbia totally separated? Is Serbia an "ethnic enclave"?

What about Catalan? When it separates from Spain, will it be "totally separated"? Will it be an "ethnic enclave"? Or, I guess the correct question to ask is if Spain will be an "ethnic enclave"?

I guess my question is what makes something the bad thing which is an "ethnic enclave" as opposed to a good thing like a successful independence movement?

 

[Sixties Fan]

DCI-P Claims
“International law is clear: children should only be detained as a last resort, for the shortest appropriate period of time, and under absolutely no circumstances should they be subjected to torture or ill-treatment,” said Khaled Quzmar, DCIP general director. “And yet, year after year, we see Palestinian children experiencing widespread ill-treatment and the systematic denial of their due process rights by Israeli forces and the military law framework.”

NGO Monitor Analysis
Israel does not question that children should only be detained as a last resort and, like adults, should never be the subject of torture or ill treatment. At the same time, individuals committing violent crimes, including assault and murder, are not immune from accountability simply because they are minors.

In order to ensure that fundamental rights are granted to all suspects, including Palestinian minors, Israel operates multi-faceted law enforcement systems both within its recognized boundaries and in the areas controlled by the Israeli Military pursuant to the mutually agreed to and internationally guaranteed Oslo Accords. These systems provide comprehensive rights for all those who violate the law.

(full article online)

No Way to Represent a Child: Defense for Children International Palestine’s Distortions of the Israeli Justice System

 

[abi]

You have an area that contains holy sites importent to three closely intertwined world religions. The same archaeologists that dispute which is the right wall don't dispute the evidence of Jewish history in that place and it sounds like you are. Are you?

NO! OK? You are reading what Shusha claims I say. She does this to repeat her nonstop argument. She does this on multiple threads. This is known as creating a straw man. It is the cause of all these same circular debates on nearly every thread. As a mod, you should already know this. And if "the 3 strike rule" was actually implemented, we could probably have some decent discussion and actually find out what points all sides agree on, which I believe to be many.

Places like these must be preserved and acess by all relevent faiths protected. I do think Israel has done a decent job there. Can you grant them that?

A) If they are wailing at the wrong wall, they are wailing at the wrong wall, period. B) They are running around with guns after removing them from all Christians and Muslims. The incitement that this causes along with Israel's ability to close the area off to anyone they choose and whenever they choose is probably difficult for any of us to understand. So, no, the whole Mount situation needs to be seriously rethought.

 

[JoelT1]

DCI-P Claims
“International law is clear: children should only be detained as a last resort, for the shortest appropriate period of time, and under absolutely no circumstances should they be subjected to torture or ill-treatment,” said Khaled Quzmar, DCIP general director. “And yet, year after year, we see Palestinian children experiencing widespread ill-treatment and the systematic denial of their due process rights by Israeli forces and the military law framework.”

NGO Monitor Analysis
Israel does not question that children should only be detained as a last resort and, like adults, should never be the subject of torture or ill treatment. At the same time, individuals committing violent crimes, including assault and murder, are not immune from accountability simply because they are minors.

In order to ensure that fundamental rights are granted to all suspects, including Palestinian minors, Israel operates multi-faceted law enforcement systems both within its recognized boundaries and in the areas controlled by the Israeli Military pursuant to the mutually agreed to and internationally guaranteed Oslo Accords. These systems provide comprehensive rights for all those who violate the law.

(full article online)

No Way to Represent a Child: Defense for Children International Palestine’s Distortions of the Israeli Justice System

Palestinian minors? Do they speak palestinian? Nope, Arabic is their native language. Is their religion palestinian? Nope, mostly Muslim, a few Christian Arabs

 

[abi]

And so then I say, the Jewish people have the right to self-determination. And suddenly, team Palestine is all, "whoa, whoa, whoa. No they don't."

Self-determination stops where war criminality and crimes against humanity begins. You don't seem to understand that even though every sane person on earth does.

 

[JoelT1]

And so then I say, the Jewish people have the right to self-determination. And suddenly, team Palestine is all, "whoa, whoa, whoa. No they don't."

Self-determination stops where war criminality and crimes against humanity begins. You don't seem to understand that even though every sane person on earth does.

22 Arab countries, 57 Islamic countries are inadequate self-determination

 

[Shusha]

Self-determination stops where war criminality and crimes against humanity begins. You don't seem to understand that even though every sane person on earth does.

So, the Serbs, the Croats, the Macedonians, the Montenegrins, the Bosnians and the Slovenians lost their rights to self-determination because they fought a nasty war? Odd, since they seem to have it now. Should it be taken away from them?

Should the people of Gaza be denied any sort of self-determination because of their illegal attempts to murder Israelis with rockets and suicide bombs?

Should the Palestinians be denied self-determination because several of them blew up a pizza parlour? Or murdered Olympic athletes?

 

[Shusha]

A) If they are wailing at the wrong wall, they are wailing at the wrong wall, period. B) They are running around with guns after removing them from all Christians and Muslims. The incitement that this causes along with Israel's ability to close the area off to anyone they choose and whenever they choose is probably difficult for any of us to understand. So, no, the whole Mount situation needs to be seriously rethought.

A. The article you posted proves there is no wrong wall. All the walls are the right walls. As are all the gates. And all the courtyards. Even the surrounding hillsides are the "right" places.

B. Are you arguing that there should be NO SECURITY on the Temple Mount? Security is incitement?! You know, as opposed to the storing of weapons by Muslims in holy places?!

Out of curiosity, what would you do to "rethink" the whole Mount situation? What is your solution?

 

[Coyote]

You have an area that contains holy sites importent to three closely intertwined world religions. The same archaeologists that dispute which is the right wall don't dispute the evidence of Jewish history in that place and it sounds like you are. Are you?

NO! OK? You are reading what Shusha claims I say. She does this to repeat her nonstop argument. She does this on multiple threads. This is known as creating a straw man. It is the cause of all these same circular debates on nearly every thread. As a mod, you should already know this. And if "the 3 strike rule" was actually implemented, we could probably have some decent discussion and actually find out what points all sides agree on, which I believe to be many.

Places like these must be preserved and acess by all relevent faiths protected. I do think Israel has done a decent job there. Can you grant them that?

A) If they are wailing at the wrong wall, they are wailing at the wrong wall, period. B) They are running around with guns after removing them from all Christians and Muslims. The incitement that this causes along with Israel's ability to close the area off to anyone they choose and whenever they choose is probably difficult for any of us to understand. So, no, the whole Mount situation needs to be seriously rethought.

How would you change it?

 

[JoelT1]

You have an area that contains holy sites importent to three closely intertwined world religions. The same archaeologists that dispute which is the right wall don't dispute the evidence of Jewish history in that place and it sounds like you are. Are you?

NO! OK? You are reading what Shusha claims I say. She does this to repeat her nonstop argument. She does this on multiple threads. This is known as creating a straw man. It is the cause of all these same circular debates on nearly every thread. As a mod, you should already know this. And if "the 3 strike rule" was actually implemented, we could probably have some decent discussion and actually find out what points all sides agree on, which I believe to be many.

Places like these must be preserved and acess by all relevent faiths protected. I do think Israel has done a decent job there. Can you grant them that?

A) If they are wailing at the wrong wall, they are wailing at the wrong wall, period. B) They are running around with guns after removing them from all Christians and Muslims. The incitement that this causes along with Israel's ability to close the area off to anyone they choose and whenever they choose is probably difficult for any of us to understand. So, no, the whole Mount situation needs to be seriously rethought.

How would you change it?

Reality Check: Jerusalem has zero legitimate religious sanctity in Islam. It’s not even mentioned in the Koran Not even once

Jerusalem is the Jewish National Capital since antiquity

 

[Coyote]

And so then I say, the Jewish people have the right to self-determination. And suddenly, team Palestine is all, "whoa, whoa, whoa. No they don't."

Self-determination stops where war criminality and crimes against humanity begins. You don't seem to understand that even though every sane person on earth does.

22 Arab countries, 57 Islamic countries are inadequate self-determination

How many European countried are there?

How many Christian countries?

Apparently self determination is dependent on the number of countries with similar ethnic and religious attributes...

 

[Shusha]

You have an area that contains holy sites importent to three closely intertwined world religions. The same archaeologists that dispute which is the right wall don't dispute the evidence of Jewish history in that place and it sounds like you are. Are you?

NO! OK? You are reading what Shusha claims I say. She does this to repeat her nonstop argument. She does this on multiple threads. This is known as creating a straw man. It is the cause of all these same circular debates on nearly every thread. As a mod, you should already know this. And if "the 3 strike rule" was actually implemented, we could probably have some decent discussion and actually find out what points all sides agree on, which I believe to be many.

Places like these must be preserved and acess by all relevent faiths protected. I do think Israel has done a decent job there. Can you grant them that?

A) If they are wailing at the wrong wall, they are wailing at the wrong wall, period. B) They are running around with guns after removing them from all Christians and Muslims. The incitement that this causes along with Israel's ability to close the area off to anyone they choose and whenever they choose is probably difficult for any of us to understand. So, no, the whole Mount situation needs to be seriously rethought.

How would you change it?

Reality Check: Jerusalem has zero legitimate religious sanctity in Islam. It’s not even mentioned in the Koran Not even once

Reality check.

Al-Aqsa Mosque. Dome of the Rock.

 

[Coyote]

You have an area that contains holy sites importent to three closely intertwined world religions. The same archaeologists that dispute which is the right wall don't dispute the evidence of Jewish history in that place and it sounds like you are. Are you?

NO! OK? You are reading what Shusha claims I say. She does this to repeat her nonstop argument. She does this on multiple threads. This is known as creating a straw man. It is the cause of all these same circular debates on nearly every thread. As a mod, you should already know this. And if "the 3 strike rule" was actually implemented, we could probably have some decent discussion and actually find out what points all sides agree on, which I believe to be many.

Places like these must be preserved and acess by all relevent faiths protected. I do think Israel has done a decent job there. Can you grant them that?

A) If they are wailing at the wrong wall, they are wailing at the wrong wall, period. B) They are running around with guns after removing them from all Christians and Muslims. The incitement that this causes along with Israel's ability to close the area off to anyone they choose and whenever they choose is probably difficult for any of us to understand. So, no, the whole Mount situation needs to be seriously rethought.

How would you change it?

Reality Check: Jerusalem has zero legitimate religious sanctity in Islam. It’s not even mentioned in the Koran Not even once

Jerusalem is the Jewish National Capital since antiquity

It does not have to be mentioned in the Koran to have legitimacy.

 

[JoelT1]

You have an area that contains holy sites importent to three closely intertwined world religions. The same archaeologists that dispute which is the right wall don't dispute the evidence of Jewish history in that place and it sounds like you are. Are you?

NO! OK? You are reading what Shusha claims I say. She does this to repeat her nonstop argument. She does this on multiple threads. This is known as creating a straw man. It is the cause of all these same circular debates on nearly every thread. As a mod, you should already know this. And if "the 3 strike rule" was actually implemented, we could probably have some decent discussion and actually find out what points all sides agree on, which I believe to be many.

Places like these must be preserved and acess by all relevent faiths protected. I do think Israel has done a decent job there. Can you grant them that?

A) If they are wailing at the wrong wall, they are wailing at the wrong wall, period. B) They are running around with guns after removing them from all Christians and Muslims. The incitement that this causes along with Israel's ability to close the area off to anyone they choose and whenever they choose is probably difficult for any of us to understand. So, no, the whole Mount situation needs to be seriously rethought.

How would you change it?

Reality Check: Jerusalem has zero legitimate religious sanctity in Islam. It’s not even mentioned in the Koran Not even once

Jerusalem is the Jewish National Capital since antiquity

It does not have to be mentioned in the Koran to have legitimacy.

Jerusalem’s total absence in the Koran reflects its total lack of holiness in Islam.

Now you know