How can we be sure Judaism's holy sites will be safe?

[patrickcaturday]

Hey !!! I have an idea and seeing as how Israel has already agreed to it there should be no problem with it. What say we make Jerusalem into a truely international enclave. I am sure at this point that could be included in the negotations ( sp ) that are taking pkace and I am pretty sure that the Palestinians would go along with it. A win win solution !!!

There are holy sites in other cities in the West Bank, and not in Jerusalem. These include Abraham's Tomb (85% of which is in Arab hands), Rachel's Tomb (with an ugly fortress to save it from the Arabs), Joseph's Tomb and an ancient synagogue in Jericho (both of which were destroyed by the Arabs previously).

Don't you think that if we were to start with Jerusalem and make that work that would be a good start. Maybe if that works out we can work our way out from there !!!

 

[Sweet_Caroline]

There are holy sites in other cities in the West Bank, and not in Jerusalem. These include Abraham's Tomb (85% of which is in Arab hands), Rachel's Tomb (with an ugly fortress to save it from the Arabs), Joseph's Tomb and an ancient synagogue in Jericho (both of which were destroyed by the Arabs previously).

Don't you think that if we were to start with Jerusalem and make that work that would be a good start. Maybe if that works out we can work our way out from there !!!

How about the Palestinians making the first overture for peace. You see, the way it comes across is that they have no intention of having peace at all. Their schoolkids are taught hate, that all the land belongs to the Muslims, that if and when the Jews give away the West Bank then that will be the end of Israel, etc. When they have a shake-up of their hate of the Jews, then we can progress from there. Until then you will have to forgive the Jews for not being so trustful of the Palestinians.

 

[Kondor3]

If the Israelis have an ounce of brains in their collective head, they will not budge an inch on Jerusalem, nor permit its conversion into some kind of half-assed so-called 'International City'.

Not after they spent 1,900 years waiting to get it back.

And, of course, they do, indeed, have some considerable grey-matter to bring to bear upon the situation.

They, at least, are, collectively, playing with a full deck, unlike their adversaries.

 

[RoccoR]

Kondor3, et al,

The idea of "internationalization" may not be so wrong, as it is extremely difficult --- if not impractical --- to implement.

If the Israelis have an ounce of brains in their collective head, they will not budge an inch on Jerusalem, nor permit its conversion into some kind of half-assed so-called 'International City'.

Not after they spent 1,900 years waiting to get it back.

And, of course, they do, indeed, have some considerable grey-matter to bring to bear upon the situation.

They, at least, are, collectively, playing with a full deck, unlike their adversaries.

(COMMENT)

Jerusalem has no value, from a tactical or strategic standpoint --- either militarily or economically. It is a Religious site, and thus, has some emotional value; sometime bordering on the irrational. Very few cities in the world have caused so much pain and suffering as has Jerusalem.

In the days of King Solomon, his logic would be to destroy city (cut the baby in half) and give half the rubble to the Jewish fanatics and the other half of the rubble to the Arab fanatics. All it is now --- is a black hole for conflict, in which each side of the sects that worship the God of Abraham are fighting over a worthless inheritance with no intrinsic value.

I don't think that either side of the conflict has exhibited wisdom over the struggle for Jerusalem. It is an ancient site of no particular importance; it is not the gates to Haven, nor the Seat of some Deity. The only mystic power it has to cause the local cultures to lose their mind and kill each other over it.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Sweet_Caroline]

Kondor3, et al,

The idea of "internationalization" may not be so wrong, as it is extremely difficult --- if not impractical --- to implement.

If the Israelis have an ounce of brains in their collective head, they will not budge an inch on Jerusalem, nor permit its conversion into some kind of half-assed so-called 'International City'.

Not after they spent 1,900 years waiting to get it back.

And, of course, they do, indeed, have some considerable grey-matter to bring to bear upon the situation.

They, at least, are, collectively, playing with a full deck, unlike their adversaries.

(COMMENT)

Jerusalem has no value, from a tactical or strategic standpoint --- either militarily or economically. It is a Religious site, and thus, has some emotional value; sometime bordering on the irrational. Very few cities in the world have caused so much pain and suffering as has Jerusalem.

In the days of King Solomon, his logic would be to destroy city (cut the baby in half) and give half the rubble to the Jewish fanatics and the other half of the rubble to the Arab fanatics. All it is now --- is a black hole for conflict, in which each side of the sects that worship the God of Abraham are fighting over a worthless inheritance with no intrinsic value.

I don't think that either side of the conflict has exhibited wisdom over the struggle for Jerusalem. It is an ancient site of no particular importance; it is not the gates to Haven, nor the Seat of some Deity. The only mystic power it has to cause the local cultures to lose their mind and kill each other over it.

Most Respectfully,
R

Perhaps not in your opinion, but it is of vital importance to Judaism. Vital.

 

[Kondor3]

Well, Rocco, even though we are oftentimes on the same page about a variety of issues, we (temporarily) part company concerning the perceived relative importance of Jerusalem.

Your same observations could be held up as truisms for Mecca or Medinah or Rome or Constantinople-Istanbul, in equal measure, vis a vis Jerusalem.

You are correct in labeling it as having more Religious value than practical or strategic or tactical or economic value.

But, to The Faithful (in connection with any of those aforementioned cities), possession of those cities (and custody of their holy places) is the stuff bloody wars are made of.

It doesn't matter whether you or I view such perceptions as rational or irrational.

All that truly signifies is the emotional attachment that The Faithful have for those places.

An emotional attachment sufficient to lure men to their deaths in the scores and hundreds of thousands.

In this, the Jewish affinity for and insistent hold upon Jerusalem is no less fierce nor less comprehendable than those other environs I've referenced.

Propose to the Israeli Jews the surrender of a Holy City that they already possess - with much of it designated as the Spoils of Victory in the 1967 War that their antagonists provoked - and which they have been pursuing as a People for some 1,900 years before winning it back - and propose to them that they entrust their Holy-of-Holies to some half-assed International Authority for as long as that stays on its feet, anyway - and the Proposer is likely to be laughed off the podium and ridden out of Dodge on a rail.

That one's not gonna fly, I fear... not a snowball's chance in hell.

That's their call... not mine... but the position I've just articulated is the odds-on favorite to be paraphrase-echoed by the folks to DO make such decisions over there.

 

[RoccoR]

Kondor3, et al,

As usual, there is truth in what you say. I'm just not sure it is some universal truth.

But, to The Faithful (in connection with any of those aforementioned cities), possession of those cities (and custody of their holy places) is the stuff bloody wars are made of.

(COMMENT)

Yes, we agree. The question becomes --- how do you break the cycle of violence?

It doesn't matter whether you or I view such perceptions as rational or irrational.

All that truly signifies is the emotional attachment that The Faithful have for those places.

An emotional attachment sufficient to lure men to their deaths in the scores and hundreds of thousands.

(COMMENT)

I agree. At least my perceptions doesn't count. But I would have thought that in the last two Millennium, man would have learned just a little about the reasonableness of this sort of attachment.

"Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's"
......................................................................................................Synoptic Gospels
​

In this, the Jewish affinity for and insistent hold upon Jerusalem is no less fierce nor less comprehendable than those other environs I've referenced.

Propose to the Israeli Jews the surrender of a Holy City that they already possess - with much of it designated as the Spoils of Victory in the 1967 War that their antagonists provoked - and which they have been pursuing as a People for some 1,900 years before winning it back - and propose to them that they entrust their Holy-of-Holies to some half-assed International Authority for as long as that stays on its feet, anyway - and the Proposer is likely to be laughed off the podium and ridden out of Dodge on a rail.

That one's not gonna fly, I fear... not a snowball's chance in hell.

That's their call... not mine... but the position I've just articulated is the odds-on favorite to be paraphrase-echoed by the folks to DO make such decisions over there.

(COMMENT)

Remember, the Tabernacle in the (First) Temple of Jerusalem is no more; long since destroyed. There was no Divine Presence in the reproduction of the Second Temple; which is not exactly a known location today. Because the Third Temple is not built yet, the reproduction is a void; the actual Holy of Holies will not be restored until the Temple is rebuilt; and there will still be no Divine Presence (no Ark of the Covenant).

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[ForeverYoung436]

Kondor3, et al,

As usual, there is truth in what you say. I'm just not sure it is some universal truth.

But, to The Faithful (in connection with any of those aforementioned cities), possession of those cities (and custody of their holy places) is the stuff bloody wars are made of.

(COMMENT)

Yes, we agree. The question becomes --- how do you break the cycle of violence?

It doesn't matter whether you or I view such perceptions as rational or irrational.

All that truly signifies is the emotional attachment that The Faithful have for those places.

An emotional attachment sufficient to lure men to their deaths in the scores and hundreds of thousands.

(COMMENT)

I agree. At least my perceptions doesn't count. But I would have thought that in the last two Millennium, man would have learned just a little about the reasonableness of this sort of attachment.

"Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's"
......................................................................................................Synoptic Gospels
​

In this, the Jewish affinity for and insistent hold upon Jerusalem is no less fierce nor less comprehendable than those other environs I've referenced.

Propose to the Israeli Jews the surrender of a Holy City that they already possess - with much of it designated as the Spoils of Victory in the 1967 War that their antagonists provoked - and which they have been pursuing as a People for some 1,900 years before winning it back - and propose to them that they entrust their Holy-of-Holies to some half-assed International Authority for as long as that stays on its feet, anyway - and the Proposer is likely to be laughed off the podium and ridden out of Dodge on a rail.

That one's not gonna fly, I fear... not a snowball's chance in hell.

That's their call... not mine... but the position I've just articulated is the odds-on favorite to be paraphrase-echoed by the folks to DO make such decisions over there.

(COMMENT)

Remember, the Tabernacle in the (First) Temple of Jerusalem is no more; long since destroyed. There was no Divine Presence in the reproduction of the Second Temple; which is not exactly a known location today. Because the Third Temple is not built yet, the reproduction is a void; the actual Holy of Holies will not be restored until the Temple is rebuilt; and there will still be no Divine Presence (no Ark of the Covenant).

Most Respectfully,
R

Traditionally, most Rabbis agree the Shechina/Divine Presence will indeed rest on the Third Temple one day. I'm not sure if the missing Ark of the Covenant will be restored or not. (BTW, the Ark of the Covenant is not the same thing as the Tabernacle. Inside the Ark were the Tablets of the Ten Commandments. The Tabernacle, as a structure, was only in use until the First Temple was built.)

 

[Bloodrock44]

Kondor3, et al,

As usual, there is truth in what you say. I'm just not sure it is some universal truth.

But, to The Faithful (in connection with any of those aforementioned cities), possession of those cities (and custody of their holy places) is the stuff bloody wars are made of.

(COMMENT)

Yes, we agree. The question becomes --- how do you break the cycle of violence?

It doesn't matter whether you or I view such perceptions as rational or irrational.

All that truly signifies is the emotional attachment that The Faithful have for those places.

An emotional attachment sufficient to lure men to their deaths in the scores and hundreds of thousands.

(COMMENT)

I agree. At least my perceptions doesn't count. But I would have thought that in the last two Millennium, man would have learned just a little about the reasonableness of this sort of attachment.

"Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's"
......................................................................................................Synoptic Gospels
​

In this, the Jewish affinity for and insistent hold upon Jerusalem is no less fierce nor less comprehendable than those other environs I've referenced.

Propose to the Israeli Jews the surrender of a Holy City that they already possess - with much of it designated as the Spoils of Victory in the 1967 War that their antagonists provoked - and which they have been pursuing as a People for some 1,900 years before winning it back - and propose to them that they entrust their Holy-of-Holies to some half-assed International Authority for as long as that stays on its feet, anyway - and the Proposer is likely to be laughed off the podium and ridden out of Dodge on a rail.

That one's not gonna fly, I fear... not a snowball's chance in hell.

That's their call... not mine... but the position I've just articulated is the odds-on favorite to be paraphrase-echoed by the folks to DO make such decisions over there.

(COMMENT)

Remember, the Tabernacle in the (First) Temple of Jerusalem is no more; long since destroyed. There was no Divine Presence in the reproduction of the Second Temple; which is not exactly a known location today. Because the Third Temple is not built yet, the reproduction is a void; the actual Holy of Holies will not be restored until the Temple is rebuilt; and there will still be no Divine Presence (no Ark of the Covenant).

Most Respectfully,
R

Just curious. What is your source there will be no Ark?

 

[Billo_Really]

Sure you can.

Nations do it all the time.

Right up to the present day.

It may be done...

The right of conquest is the right of a conqueror to territory taken by force of arms. It was traditionally a principle of international law which has in modern times gradually given way until its proscription after the Second World War when the crime of war of aggression was first codified in the Nuremberg Principles and then finally, in 1974, as a United Nations resolution 3314.

The completion of colonial conquest of much of the world, the devastation of World War I and World War II, and the alignment of both the United States and the Soviet Union with the principle of self-determination led to the abandonment of the right of conquest in formal international law. The 1928 Kellogg-Briand Pact, the post-1945 Nuremberg Trials, the UN Charter, and the UN role in decolonization saw the progressive dismantling of this principle. Simultaneously, the UN Charter's guarantee of the "territorial integrity" of member states effectively froze out claims against prior conquests from this process.

...but it has been illegal since the end of WWII.

Whoever "we" is, can always try taking it...

The "we" in this case, would be the world community.

There isn't a single country on this planet that recognizes Israel's right to that land (including Israel).

 

[Billo_Really]

For one who purports to have respect for 'law', Billo - you certainly are displaying a disdain for it above.

How so? Care to explain that in a little more detail?

 

[Billo_Really]

Nope.

They're nearly done, re-acquiring (annexing) those old lands of theirs (see maps).

Rump-Palestine is nearly invisible now - confined to a few slivers and scraps of land - and that won't last long.

The League of Nations Mandate vision of 1922 is almost a reality.

No stopping it now.

The two-minute end-of-game clock is running down... tick, tick, tick.

The League of Nations Mandate required zionists to respect the inherent rights of the indigenous, non-jewish population that had been living in that area for generations.

“His Majesty’s Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.”
- Arthur James Balfour [Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs], November 2nd, 1917

Zionists didn't do that.

So the Mandate's "vision", is not becoming a reality.

 

[Kondor3]

"...So the Mandate's "vision", is not becoming a reality."

True.

The 'comprehensive' vision, anyway, which - given that it counted upon complete Arab consent - was never a serious and realistic prospect anyway - comprehensively.

But the 1922 League of Nations Mandate 'vision' for a Partition of Palestine into Jewish and Arab Palestine is nearly a fait accompli with respect to dividing-up the land.

Mind you, the land-division aspect is being accomplished by force of arms, but it is, indeed, being accomplished.

The end-result is the same, albeit only slowing materializing, insofar as the Jewish element is concerned.

 

[Kondor3]

"...The 'we' in this case, would be the world community. There isn't a single country on this planet that recognizes Israel's right to that land (including Israel)."

The so-called 'world community' has not done bopkess in the past 65 years.

The so-called 'world community' will not do bopkess in the next 65 years.

And, by then, The Annexation will long-since be a fait accompli and a moot point.

The so-called 'legality' of the thing can be counterpointed by examining the dozens of examples of retaining land after conquest by force-of-arms that have occurred since the end of WWII and for which the so-called 'world community' has also not done bopkess.

Possession is nine-tenths of the law.

Israel need only concern itself with the next 3-1/2 years of a somewhat hostile Obama Administration before things go back to normal again, regardless of whether a Dummycrat or a Repugnikan gains the Oval Office.

And they'll do it; if they can ride-out Nassar and Hussein and Asssad and the Grand Mufti and that bunch, they can ride-out a greatly-hobbled (by a Republican House) US President who is strongly suspected (rightly or wrongly) of Muslim-sympathetic leanings.

Piece 'o cake.

IMHO, you put far, far too much faith and stock in an ethereal, gutless, nutless 'world community'. In this context, some pragmatism and pessimism (in connection with your own hopes and aspirations) would serve you in better stead.

'Cause nuthin's gonna happen along those lines.

'Nuthin.

 

[Billo_Really]

The so-called 'world community' has not done bopkess in the past 65 years.

The so-called 'world community' will not do bopkess in the next 65 years.

And, by then, The Annexation will long-since be a fait accompli and a moot point.

The so-called 'legality' of the thing can be counterpointed by examining the dozens of examples of retaining land after conquest by force-of-arms that have occurred since the end of WWII and for which the so-called 'world community' has also not done bopkess.

Possession is nine-tenths of the law.

Israel need only concern itself with the next 3-1/2 years of a somewhat hostile Obama Administration before things go back to normal again, regardless of whether a Dummycrat or a Repugnikan gains the Oval Office.

And they'll do it; if they can ride-out Nassar and Hussein and Asssad and the Grand Mufti and that bunch, they can ride-out a greatly-hobbled (by a Republican House) US President who is strongly suspected (rightly or wrongly) of Muslim-sympathetic leanings.

Piece 'o cake.

IMHO, you put far, far too much faith and stock in an ethereal, gutless, nutless 'world community'. In this context, some pragmatism and pessimism (in connection with your own hopes and aspirations) would serve you in better stead.

'Cause nuthin's gonna happen along those lines.

'Nuthin.

It's unfortunate that I can't disagree with what you just said.

 

[P F Tinmore]

"...So the Mandate's "vision", is not becoming a reality."

True.

The 'comprehensive' vision, anyway, which - given that it counted upon complete Arab consent - was never a serious and realistic prospect anyway - comprehensively.

But the 1922 League of Nations Mandate 'vision' for a Partition of Palestine into Jewish and Arab Palestine is nearly a fait accompli with respect to dividing-up the land.

Mind you, the land-division aspect is being accomplished by force of arms, but it is, indeed, being accomplished.

The end-result is the same, albeit only slowing materializing, insofar as the Jewish element is concerned.

Mind you, the land-division aspect is being accomplished by force of arms,..

Indeed, the negotiations should start at the 1948 borders not the 1967 borders.

 

[Kondor3]

"...It's unfortunate that I can't disagree with what you just said."

Re: the likely outcome... agreed. This is a crappy piece of common ground but that's the Reality that we live in.

Kudos for having the presence of mind and courage to recognize that, despite your strong inclinations and hopes to the contrary.

 

[Kondor3]

"...Indeed, the negotiations should start at the 1948 borders not the 1967 borders."

Tinny... the Palestinians are almost out of time.

If they don't get their heads out of their backsides about such old and now-meaningless legal standings, and that damned-soon, and if they don't come to the negotiating table hat-in-hand and begging for scraps, then the only thing that they will be negotiating about is the amount of Compensation-per-Capita to cover their costs for moving and setting-up elsewhere...

After they've been ejected from Rump-Palestine and the Israelis have annexed the rest of that land and moved Jewish settlers into the vacuum in order to consolidate and finalize their hold upon that land and their new and permanent National Borders...

There is very little time left, and they (and you) are burning-up calendar time worrying about old shit that is never, ever going to see the light of day as operative policy.

Better to save what little is left rather than to lose it all...

But, they (and you) won't listen, and they will continue to rush headlong towards their doom (Expulsion and Scattering) like moths drawn to a flame.

Even in the end-game, the Palestinians never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.

Oh, well... at least they're 'consistent' in this respect...

Perhaps Nature has de-selected them, after all.

Only the more intelligent and pragmatic survive such periods intact.

That does not seem to be the case here.

Pity.

 

[P F Tinmore]

"...Indeed, the negotiations should start at the 1948 borders not the 1967 borders."

Tinny... the Palestinians are almost out of time.

If they don't get their heads out of their backsides about such old and now-meaningless legal standings, and if they don't come to the negotiating table hat-in-hand and begging for scraps, they only thing that they will be negotiating about is the amount of Compensation-per-Capita to cover their costs for moving and setting-up elsewhere...

After they've been ejected from Rump-Palestine and the Israelis have annexed the rest of that land and moved Jewish settlers into the vacuum in order to consolidate and finalize their hold upon that land and their new and permanent National Borders...

There is very little time left, and they (and you) are burning-up calendar time worrying about old shit that is never, ever going to see the light of day as operative policy.

Better to save what little is left rather than to lose it all, but, they (and you) won't listen, and they will continue to run headlong towards their Expulsion and Scattering.

Even in the end-game, the Palestinians never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.

Oh, well... perhaps Nature has de-selected them, after all.

Only the more intelligent and pragmatic survive such periods intact.

That does not seem to be the case here.

Pity.

It is inadmissible to acquire land through the threat or use of force.

Israel has acquired all of its land at the point of a gun. Consequently, Israel has yet to legally acquire any land. It still has no borders.

This could be a problem down the road.

 

[Kondor3]

"...It is inadmissible to acquire land through the threat or use of force. Israel has acquired all of its land at the point of a gun. Consequently, Israel has yet to legally acquire any land. It still has no borders. This could be a problem down the road."

Tinny, I cannot emphasize this often enough.

Perhaps, one of these days, the truth of what I'm trying to convey to you will sink-in.

None of that old shit matters anymore.

The time for that is long past.

Possession matters... military power matters... reality matters.

You (and the Palestinians living there) are living in a dream world and state of denial.

Looking at the map, and the few slivers of land left to you, and the rapid and accelerating pace of Palestinian land-control shrinkage, and the rapid and accelerating pace of annexation and settlement and barrier-building, you are running out of time.

You can either continue down the path that you have have been pursuing for the past 65 years (to no avail) and continue to cling to the past and to old and useless and inoperative legal standings and assumptions; thereby wasting whatever small amount of precious time still remains to you before The End...

Or you can rejoin the Reality that the rest of the world inhabits, and recognize just how close to the brink of the abyss you are, with respect to Annexation and Expulsion, and spend your remaining time more wisely, trying to preserve what little is left, or making arrangements to get the hell outta Dodge and set up in Lebanon and Jordan while there is still time, and cutting the Best Bad Deal that you still can - before they're forcibly packed-up and put on the road to Amman and Beirut and Damascus and Cairo.

Under such circumstances, how would intelligent people spend what little time is left?

Pointlessly moaning and bitching about the past, or taking care of business in the here-and-now, cutting the best deal they can, from an increasingly weak and fluff poker-hand?

Smart Vegas Money is on Reality, not dwelling in the past.

But I doubt that your 'brethren' will be able to get their heads out of their backsides long enough to make that transition; at least until it's too late and they find themselves driving away with their luggage tied to the top of their cars with amazement in their eyes and their jaws wide-open and stupidly asking themselves 'what the hell just happened?'.