Make Jerusalem the capital of the world

A recent article by Rachel Patron, "Time to divide Jerusalem," leaves the current situation in the area in the same predicament as it always is.

[Max]

The original British proposal to the UN in 1947 was for Palestine to have a Jewish State and a Palestinian State in a single sovereign nation, with Jerusalem being an international city governed by the UN.

That proposal was shattered when the Jews in Palestine unilaterally declared an independent, sovereign nation - Israel - in 1948, quickly followed by a US-led coalition that granted UN recognition. The British abstained in that vote.

[Rick Moss]

Max wrote:

The original British proposal to the UN in 1947 was for Palestine to have a Jewish State and a Palestinian State in a single sovereign nation, with Jerusalem being an international city governed by the UN.
That proposal was shattered when the Jews in Palestine unilaterally declared an independent, sovereign nation - Israel - in 1948, quickly followed by a US-led coalition that granted UN recognition. The British abstained in that vote.

It seems someone didn't read their history lessons. In fact, Jerusalem WAS under UN control as an "International City" until the Arabs invaded Israel in May of '48. The UN abandoned Jerusalem very quickly when faced with Jordanian tanks and infantry and the city was controlled by Jordan until it was liberated by Israel in '67.

COMPARE AND CONTRAST

During the nearly 20 years that Jordan controlled Jerusalem -- it was forbidden for Jews to enter. Jews who traditionally lived there were expelled and their property confiscated. Hundreds of ancient synagogues and Jewish holy places were defiled or completely destroyed in a systematic attempt remove any trace of a Jewish history in Jerusalem

After the liberation of Jerusalem by Israel -- the city remains open to people of all faiths and the Islamic holy places (the Temple Mount) are under the total control of the Islamic Waqf.

[Marty]

What a bad idea. The catholic church wanted to internationalize the city if only to keep Jews from controlling it. Does anyone seriously believe that Muslims would want Jerusalem internationalized? They would have to abandon any thoughts of slaughtering its Jewish residents. Jerusalem is actually the capital of Israel and it is only under Israeli jurisdiction that people of all faiths can worship as they please, a level of toleration that did not exist when the city was divided during 1948-1967. Anyway, Jerusalem is already internationalized: there are Jews from a hundred nations living there plus a large contingent of Arabs who get to participate in the city's governance, a practice they never enjoyed before Israel annexed East Jerusalem.

[Max]

Rick Moss wrote:

<quoted text>
It seems someone didn't read their history lessons. In fact, Jerusalem WAS under UN control as an "International City" until the Arabs invaded Israel in May of '48. The UN abandoned Jerusalem very quickly when faced with Jordanian tanks and infantry and the city was controlled by Jordan until it was liberated by Israel in '67.
COMPARE AND CONTRAST
During the nearly 20 years that Jordan controlled Jerusalem -- it was forbidden for Jews to enter. Jews who traditionally lived there were expelled and their property confiscated. Hundreds of ancient synagogues and Jewish holy places were defiled or completely destroyed in a systematic attempt remove any trace of a Jewish history in Jerusalem
After the liberation of Jerusalem by Israel -- the city remains open to people of all faiths and the Islamic holy places (the Temple Mount) are under the total control of the Islamic Waqf.

You're not paying attention. My "history" is exactly correct. I said the entire British proposal was nullified by the unilateral declaration of the Jews in Palestine. There was no chance for Jerusalem to remain under UN control when the UN granted recognition to Israel because everyone knew, most importantly the US and Britain, that the recognition would lead to immediate war in the region. All you have done in your subsequent text is describe what happened during the war.

[Rick Moss]

Max wrote:

<quoted text>
.. There was no chance for Jerusalem to remain under UN control when the UN granted recognition to Israel because everyone knew, most importantly the US and Britain, that the recognition would lead to immediate war in the region...

A war STARTED by the Arab States that somehow you choose to blame on Israel. I'm curious -- who declared war on Jordan, Syria and the other Arab states when they unilaterally declared their independence from British rule?

[Omni]

There was no IsReal before 1948 and it belonged to Arabs.

[Old Man Charlie]

Yep, the POPE would sure like to have Jerusalem be the capitol of the world . . . with HIM AS RULER. He's just letting the Jews and the Islamists fight it out among themselves first.

[FLZapped]

Omni wrote:

There was no IsReal before 1948 and it belonged to Arabs.

Really, then where were they talking about in the Old Testament?

[Max]

Rick Moss wrote:

<quoted text>
A war STARTED by the Arab States that somehow you choose to blame on Israel. I'm curious -- who declared war on Jordan, Syria and the other Arab states when they unilaterally declared their independence from British rule?

Everyone in Jewish Palestine, including David Ben-Gurion, knew that the unilateral declaration of an independent Jewish nation on land the Arabs believed was rightly theirs (you can dispute whether or not the Arab belief fits your definition of history, but you can't dispute that at the time they believed the land was theirs)would lead instantly to war. But Ben-Gurion and most Jews there felt that the longer the UN debated the issue, the less likely the decision would be for two independent sovereign nations, which was always the Zionist intent. Thus, the Zionist forced the issue with their declaration.

So it is a problematic discussion as to who "started" the war. Provocation frequently leads to war. Needless to say, the future Israelis felt they were well prepared for the eventuality of the war. And indeed they were.

Neither Jordan nor Syria unilaterally declared independence from Britain. They were officially granted independence from Britain in 1946. Thus, I do not understand your question.

[Max]

FLZapped wrote:

<quoted text>
Really, then where were they talking about in the Old Testament?

The Old Testament is not a recognized authentic history book, nor does it have any legal standing in international law. Neither does the Koran.

[Rick Moss]

Omni wrote:

There was no IsReal before 1948 and it belonged to Arabs.

Actually -- at that time -- it belonged to the British -- before that, the Turks, before that, an endless parade of Byzantines, Seljuks, Franks, Romans... the list goes on

[Realist]

Max wrote:

<quoted text>
The Old Testament is not a recognized authentic history book, nor does it have any legal standing in international law. Neither does the Koran.

The Romans, 1000 years before Christianity, recognized the Jewish Kingdom of Judea, as did the Egyptians and Persians. Your denial of Jewish history proves both your ignorance and bias.

[Max]

Realist wrote:

<quoted text>
The Romans, 1000 years before Christianity, recognized the Jewish Kingdom of Judea, as did the Egyptians and Persians. Your denial of Jewish history proves both your ignorance and bias.

I am not denying any Jewish history. I'm simply making the point that if one attempts to use the Torah as an international legal document, then one can not object if others use the Koran for similar purposes. Oh, and don't forget the New Testament, or any other sacred religious text in all of the world. Civilized nations have moved beyond the chaos of such thinking.

Take your accusations of ignorance and bias elsewhere.

[Max]

Rick Moss wrote:

<quoted text>
Actually -- at that time -- it belonged to the British -- before that, the Turks, before that, an endless parade of Byzantines, Seljuks, Franks, Romans... the list goes on

It's interesting the you seem find all historical claims to Arab lands by foreigners legitimate, but you reject any claims by Arabs for those lands. Arabs have been the predominate population of Palestine for over 1000 years, far longer than, say, the British or the Turks. So just what is your point here? That Arabs have no legitimate claim to any of Palestine?

[Realist]

Max wrote:

<quoted text>
I am not denying any Jewish history. I'm simply making the point that if one attempts to use the Torah as an international legal document, then one can not object if others use the Koran for similar purposes. Oh, and don't forget the New Testament, or any other sacred religious text in all of the world. Civilized nations have moved beyond the chaos of such thinking.
Take your accusations of ignorance and bias elsewhere.

No, you attempted to nullify the legitimate and accepted rights of the Jews to their historic homeland in Israel (as the Arabs have tried to do since 1948). Since that effort was for nothing you try to justify your justification for supporting Arab claims (note they are from Arabia, historically known as Persia) and yet again fail.

[Rick Moss]

Max wrote:

<quoted text>
It's interesting the you seem find all historical claims to Arab lands by foreigners legitimate, but you reject any claims by Arabs for those lands. Arabs have been the predominate population of Palestine for over 1000 years, far longer than, say, the British or the Turks. So just what is your point here? That Arabs have no legitimate claim to any of Palestine?

Who owns a land isn't he who claims it -- it's he who controls it and the sad fact is -- Arabs only held control of various parts of the region for about 400 years from around 600CE to 900CE.

In 1948 -- Sovereignty over the territory was British (the Ottoman Turks having given up the territory as a concession for losing WW1). The British had the right (historical and legal) to divide up their territory as they saw fit and they gave a portion of it to the Jewish inhabitants who declared their own sovereign state.

Interesting note: The British did PRECISELY the same thing to their territories in India -- creating the modern states of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. Is it your assertion that those states are illegitimate as well?

[Max]

Realist wrote:

<quoted text>
No, you attempted to nullify the legitimate and accepted rights of the Jews to their historic homeland in Israel (as the Arabs have tried to do since 1948). Since that effort was for nothing you try to justify your justification for supporting Arab claims (note they are from Arabia, historically known as Persia) and yet again fail.

These are interesting claims you are making. Please provide the documentation to support the "legitimate and accepted right of the Jews to their historic homeland". Does the documented claim include the West Bank and Gaza? If not, what boundaries does this documentation specify?

Also, please provide the documentation that supports your claim that Arabia is "historically known as Persia". My history books, including this month's issue of National Geographic, don't seem to reflect that. I'm sure some Arabs and Persians (AKA Iranians) are going to be surprised by this claim.

[Max]

Rick Moss wrote:

<quoted text>
Who owns a land isn't he who claims it -- it's he who controls it and the sad fact is -- Arabs only held control of various parts of the region for about 400 years from around 600CE to 900CE.
In 1948 -- Sovereignty over the territory was British (the Ottoman Turks having given up the territory as a concession for losing WW1). The British had the right (historical and legal) to divide up their territory as they saw fit and they gave a portion of it to the Jewish inhabitants who declared their own sovereign state.
Interesting note: The British did PRECISELY the same thing to their territories in India -- creating the modern states of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. Is it your assertion that those states are illegitimate as well?

Let's get some facts clarified here. First, you assert, but can't prove, in any international legal context, that "who owns a land isn't who claims it" but who "controls it". Therefore, for example, the Israelis control Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza, but they do not own it by any recognized international legal authority.

The British did indeed have political control over Palestine as a result of the defeat of the Ottoman-Turk empire at the end of WWI. Of course, the authority was issued by the League of Nations, to which no Arab country belonged. The Balfour Memorandum (an internal British document) of 1917 was included in some treaties, but never promised the Zionists an independent sovereign nation in Palestine. In fact, by the end of WWII, the British were adamantly opposed to such action.

The key issue in 2008 is not whether Israel is a legitimate nation - it most certainly is - but rather the issue is what are the national boundaries of Israel. We can recite the history of the region over and over, but the fact is there are no legitimate documents, agreements, or treaties, that extend the boundaries of Israel to include the West Bank and Gaza, and all of Jerusalem.

[Realist]

Max wrote:

<quoted text>
Let's get some facts clarified here. First, you assert, but can't prove, in any international legal context, that "who owns a land isn't who claims it" but who "controls it". Therefore, for example, the Israelis control Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza, but they do not own it by any recognized international legal authority.
The British did indeed have political control over Palestine as a result of the defeat of the Ottoman-Turk empire at the end of WWI. Of course, the authority was issued by the League of Nations, to which no Arab country belonged. The Balfour Memorandum (an internal British document) of 1917 was included in some treaties, but never promised the Zionists an independent sovereign nation in Palestine. In fact, by the end of WWII, the British were adamantly opposed to such action.
The key issue in 2008 is not whether Israel is a legitimate nation - it most certainly is - but rather the issue is what are the national boundaries of Israel. We can recite the history of the region over and over, but the fact is there are no legitimate documents, agreements, or treaties, that extend the boundaries of Israel to include the West Bank and Gaza, and all of Jerusalem.

If you, as you state, accept Israel and then it's treaties with its neighbors (Egypt and Jordan) which had previously controlled Gaza and the West Bank, should also hold. Since these nations specifically abdicated their claim to these territories and established borders with Israel which eliminated these territories from their control, should not Israel, as the only accepted nation in the area, by default, control these areas?

The reality is stated by the Palestinian leadership themselves, in an interview discussing their strategy toward destroying Israel...

Zuheir Mohsen (Arabic: &#1586;&#1607;&#16 10;&#1585; &#1605;&#1581;&#15 87;&#1606;, also transcribed Zuhayr Mu&#295;sin or Zahir Muhsein)(b. 1936, d. 1979) was a Palestinian leader of the Syria-sponsored as-Sa'iqa faction of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) between 1971 and 1979.

In 1976, Zuheir Mohsen gained notoriety for being the commander of the Arab forces that invaded the Lebanese Christian town of Damour, which resulted in the massacre of hundreds of Christian citizens, known as the Damour massacre.

Zuhair Mohsen is widely known for having made the following statement in a March 1977 interview with the Dutch newspaper Trouw:

'The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct 'Palestinian people' to oppose Zionism.
For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan.'

[I O_o I]

Good conversation. I love people trying to hold Israel to a 61 year old armistice agreement.

It is the year 2008, let's try a viable solution.... not dig up dusty Arab hopes. That job is for anthropologists and apologists alike.