Israel - Palestine discussion thread

[DLR_Mysterion]

I think it had something to do with the borders. Jerusalem is the site of the Dome of the Rock, which has significance to Judaism, Christianity and Islam. It contains the Foundation Stone and is believed to be the altar on which Abraham prepared to sacrifice his son; today, it is the holiest site in Judaism and regarded as the junction between heaven and earth. To Muslims, the Dome of the Rock is believed to be the temple Muhammad visited during the Night Journey; it is also said to be the Well of Souls, where the voices of the dead can be heard while they await judgement. The Dome of the Rock is one of the few - and maybe the only - holy sites common to all three religions. I'm pretty sure that the boundaries of the proposed Israeli and Palestinian states limited Palestinian access to the Dome of the Rock, effectively making it a de facto Jewish holy site.

Surely it was a Jewish holy site originally..

 

[Blitz24]

Surely it was a Jewish holy site originally..

Sadly, while one side believes it is, the other side does not, despite some of the historical finds. Some will say that the Jews of today are in no way associated or even descended from the Jews that lived in the region two millennia ago.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Surely it was a Jewish holy site originally..

You can't claim that. You're implying that one faith is more important than others simply because they got there first. Like I said, it's important to all three religions. You can't cut one of them out for political reasons. Today, the Dome of the Rock is regarded as having equal significance to all three religions.

It's also worth noting that a key part of the site's significance is what, if anything, is underneath the Foundation Stone. It is believed that there is a cavern or possibly a man-made chamber underneath, but if there was ever any record of this, it has been lost to history. Because of the religious, cultural, historic and political sensitivities in the region, any attempt to explore the space under the Foundation Stone is out of the question - even if it could offer answers.

 

[Sanji Himura]

You can't claim that. You're implying that one faith is more important than others simply because they got there first. Like I said, it's important to all three religions. You can't cut one of them out for political reasons. Today, the Dome of the Rock is regarded as having equal significance to all three religions.

Actually, yes he can. There is evidence of the Second Temple still standing today in the form of the Wailing Wall, or is the outer wall of the temple gates something of a historical insignificance?

Also, for the record, the Temple Mount itself isn't a holy site in Christianity. It is a misconception created by the fact that Christianity was created as an offshoot of Judaism, of which the Mount is the holiest site of that religion, and a bilateral declaration of the Pope, which isn't a recognized leader of Christianity, but rather the leader of Roman Catholicism.

 

[Blitz24]

Actually, yes he can. There is evidence of the Second Temple still standing today in the form of the Wailing Wall, or is the outer wall of the temple gates something of a historical insignificance?

Also, for the record, the Temple Mount itself isn't a holy site in Christianity. It is a misconception created by the fact that Christianity was created as an offshoot of Judaism, of which the Mount is the holiest site of that religion, and a bilateral declaration of the Pope, which isn't a recognized leader of Christianity, but rather the leader of Roman Catholicism.

While I do agree that the Western Wall is of historical significance, it only holds water if everyone agrees of it's significance. If Islam doesn't recognize that the wall is part of the Second Temple then it doesn't really make a difference there is a claim for it belonging to a religion or not.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Actually, yes he can.

As soon as you start saying that followers of one faith have more of a right to access a holy site than followers of another, you start saying that the first faith is more important than the other. Especially in this context, where that access is being governed by a purely political function.

 

[Sanji Himura]

While I do agree that the Western Wall is of historical significance, it only holds water if everyone agrees of it's significance. If Islam doesn't recognize that the wall is part of the Second Temple then it doesn't really make a difference there is a claim for it belonging to a religion or not.

That is because Islam as a religion didn't exist until 300 AD. Obviously, two things will happen:

1. Any historical significance of the Western Wall will be lost on a religion that didn't come from a time before Christ.

2. Islam forbids any idols. Obviously, any historical landmarks or artifacts that remotely resembles said religion has to be destroyed, or do you not remember ISIS destroying artifacts from Iraqi museums that dated back to Babylonian times.

As soon as you start saying that followers of one faith have more of a right to access a holy site than followers of another, you start saying that the first faith is more important than the other. Especially in this context, where that access is being governed by a purely political function.

Oh, so you don't think that there should be religious landmarks at all. Try telling that to the Muslims in Palestine right now who nearly murder anyone who tries to gain access to the Dome of the Rock without being a Muslim and who post sentries at the Western Wall to prevent the Jews who pray there from getting any bright ideas.

Because in an ideal world, that is what you are telling everyone.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Obviously, any historical landmarks or artifacts that remotely resembles said religion has to be destroyed, or do you not remember ISIS destroying artifacts from Iraqi museums that dated back to Babylonian times.

ISIS does not speak for Islam. You know that. They may claim to speak for Islam, but the overwhelming majority of Muslims reject them.

so you don't think that there should be religious landmarks at all

I don't think much of organised religion full stop. I appreciate the value of individual faith, but once you start bringing structure and organisation, faith is easily replaced by conviction; if faith is the belief in something you consider to be absolutely true, conviction is the belief that you are right. When left unchecked, it becomes the belief that you are right to the exclusion of all else, and that this somehow gives you the right to inflict that view of the world upon others.

 

[LeMansAid]

Oh, so you don't think that there should be religious landmarks at all.

I don't see that at all lining up with what you quoted.

Though @prisonermonkeys' rationale is a prickly one. Dealing with, for example, the convergence of a site sacred to native Americans and a site sacred to Scientologists might make it feel a little difficult to apply the same principle.

 

[Johnnypenso]

ISIS does not speak for Islam. You know that. They may claim to speak for Islam, but the overwhelming majority of Muslims reject them.

Unless you're one of the one of the over 100 million people in the nuclear state of Pakistan that thinks ISIS is the shizzle.

 

[Scaff]

Unless you're one of the one of the over 100 million people in the nuclear state of Pakistan that thinks ISIS is the shizzle.

Odd that you don't mention the similar levels of favorable views from non-Muslim religions towards IS as from Muslims in a number of countries.

"Substantial support for ISIS also exists among Malaysia's Buddhist population, where more than one third of respondents either view ISIS favorably or do not have a negative or positive opinion. Non-negligible proportions of Christians in Burkina Faso (5 percent) and Nigeria (7 percent) have a favorable view of ISIS, with ISIS unfavorability ratings surprisingly low at just 66 and 71 percent, respectively, among this cohort.

Despite only minorities in each nation surveyed holding clear support for ISIS, the large total population of the region translates into a massive number of ISIS supporters. For these 11 nation-states alone, the favorability ratings for ISIS reported by the Pew poll are indicative of at least 63 million ISIS supporters – and potentially upwards of 287 million if the undecided are included in the calculation. These numbers suggest there are, at a minimum, hundreds of millions of ISIS supporters worldwide."

The overall percentages are however in the minority across the board in terms of those who are favorable regardless of religion (and that could well include a range of views from "they have a point but go about it the wrong way entirely" to "love them so much I want them around for tea").

Interestingly if I recall similar percentages of Americans thought the same way about the IRA and donated to support the terrorist campaign they waged. The current President elect even attended one such fundraiser, getting photographed alongside Gerry Adams, shortly before the IRA launched an attack.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp....-sinn-fein-terrorism?client=ms-android-google


Edited to add: Your maths is out as well, Pakistan has a population of around 200 million, your source states that 9% hold a favorable view, which would be 19 million (approx). Rather short of your claimed 100 million; or are you simply assuming that those who didn't hold a view need to be put in the same camp? Rather a large leap to try and prove a claim that ISIS speaks for all of Islam!

 

[Dotini]

I don't think much of organised religion full stop. I appreciate the value of individual faith, but once you start bringing structure and organisation, faith is easily replaced by conviction; if faith is the belief in something you consider to be absolutely true, conviction is the belief that you are right. When left unchecked, it becomes the belief that you are right to the exclusion of all else, and that this somehow gives you the right to inflict that view of the world upon others.

I'm reading a book about legendary OSS/CIA superspys Douglas Bazata, Lucien Conein and Rene Dussaq. These were physically large, strong-willed men who often wrote their own rules and changed the world through murder and assassination whether sanctioned or not. It makes the case to me that in the real world we live(d) in, it's individual intelligence, strength and power that actually inflicts its views upon the world. Structure and organization be damned.

 

[Imari]

I'm reading a book about legendary OSS/CIA superspys Douglas Bazata, Lucien Conein and Rene Dussaq. These were physically large, strong-willed men who often wrote their own rules and changed the world through murder and assassination whether sanctioned or not. It makes the case to me that in the real world we live(d) in, it's individual intelligence, strength and power that actually inflicts its views upon the world. Structure and organization be damned.

Except that without structure and organisation, an individual can only affect as many people as they can physically come in contact with. Not that many.

The reason individuals can have such a large impact is precisely because there is so much structure and organisation, and sometimes it can be rather precarious.

 

[Johnnypenso]

delete

 

[DLR_Mysterion]

Just so I'm following the logic, are we saying that if the arabs were given the Western Wall their would have been an acceptance of the 1948 borders....?

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Just so I'm following the logic, are we saying that if the arabs were given the Western Wall their would have been an acceptance of the 1948 borders....?

No, we're saying that if they had been given access to the Dome of the Rock, they might have been more willing to accept the borders. It wasn't a case of "Israel has it or we have it", but the 1948 borders would have given it to Israel entirely with no recognition that it is also an Islamic holy site.

 

[Blitz24]

No, we're saying that if they had been given access to the Dome of the Rock, they might have been more willing to accept the borders. It wasn't a case of "Israel has it or we have it", but the 1948 borders would have given it to Israel entirely with no recognition that it is also an Islamic holy site.

I'm not even sure if joint access would work. Both sides would want control of it.

 

[Sanji Himura]

No, we're saying that if they had been given access to the Dome of the Rock, they might have been more willing to accept the borders. It wasn't a case of "Israel has it or we have it", but the 1948 borders would have given it to Israel entirely with no recognition that it is also an Islamic holy site.

Excuse me? Did what I just say go in one ear and out the other? Arabs already have control of the Dome of the Rock. No Jews or Christians are allowed access to the building, let alone the perimeter, without getting killed. The issue is that the city that it is in is under Israeli control.

Would you rather have Israel give up its historic capital, a city that was in their control for thousands of years before the Romans drove them out in 70 AD?

 

[mustafur]

Excuse me? Did what I just say go in one ear and out the other? Arabs already have control of the Dome of the Rock. No Jews or Christians are allowed access to the building, let alone the perimeter, without getting killed.

Biggest lie if I ever heard of it, Israeli Police control the Building you literally have no idea what your talking about.

The way you talk about Arabs is as if you don't realise they are all living on Israeli controlled land and thus are living in an apartheid state as secondary citizens.

So long as the State of Palestine does not exist, the Palestinians are second Class Israelis.

 

[Scaff]

Excuse me? Did what I just say go in one ear and out the other? Arabs already have control of the Dome of the Rock. No Jews or Christians are allowed access to the building, let alone the perimeter, without getting killed. The issue is that the city that it is in is under Israeli control.

Not correct.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dome_of_the_Rock#Accessibility
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temple_Mount_entry_restrictions#Israeli_restriction_policy

Would you rather have Israel give up its historic capital, a city that was in their control for thousands of years before the Romans drove them out in 70 AD?

Not accurate either.

Prior to the Roman occupation it wasn't under the control of 'Israel' for thousands of years. Rather it changed between the rules of Egyptian, Persian, Jewish, Greek, Alexander the Great (and a few others) before the Roman's installed a puppet Jewish state (under Herod) before taking control themselves. Even a thousand years would be being very generous, as direct Jewish rule ran from circa 1010 BCE to 740 BCE, making the reality around 270 years.

After the Roman rule ended it wasn't a Jewish city until 1948 (in part - half was run by Jordan and half by Israel) and entirely from 1967.

Its ownership (as a population centre) has been non-Jewish for far longer that its ever been Jewish, which is exactly why its heritage and significance to the three Abrahamic faiths is so complex and problematic.

You appear to be mixing its importance as a religious location to the Jewish faith (which has been continuous from 1010 BCE) with it being under Jewish control (which is less than 400 years since its first establishment as a population centre in the early Bronze age).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerusalem#Ancient_period

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_Jerusalem

 

[mustafur]

Not exactly on topic but this is the only Thread to do with Israel, they might be getting a new leader very soon as Netanyahu has been cought accepting Gifts for favours: http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-1.763607

 

[Carbonox]

I guess it's best to note that there's been, surprise surprise, a terrorist attack with a truck, directed at off-duty soldiers.

 

[Blitz24]

I guess it's best to note that there's been, surprise surprise, a terrorist attack with a truck, directed at off-duty soldiers.

Based on recent news, that terrorist's body will not be returned to his family. Israel does not want the "deification" of terroristic acts.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

I guess it's best to note that there's been, surprise surprise, a terrorist attack with a truck, directed at off-duty soldiers.

And I guess it's best to note that Benjamin Netanyahu wants a full pardon for Elor Azaria, the soldier convicted of the manslaughter of an unarmed and incapacitated militant.

 

[xyloscissor]

Bodies should be returned if reasonable to do so, I don't know if the way the U.S. handled Osama was good enough but hey, they tried to give some respect.

 

[Carbonox]

And I guess it's best to note that Benjamin Netanyahu wants a full pardon for Elor Azaria, the soldier convicted of the manslaughter of an unarmed and incapacitated militant.

How classy. You could've made that a news post (and included a link, for the record), but instead you decide to come across as purposefully diverting the discussion the other way just after a terrorist attack has been committed.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

you decide to come across as purposefully diverting the discussion the other way just after a terrorist attack has been committed

And you would willingly and blindly ignore such a story because it's not about an Islamic terror attack.

http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2017-...convicted-over-killing-of-palestinian/8162410

 

[Carbonox]

And you would willingly and blindly ignore such a story because it's not about an Islamic terror attack.

http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2017-...convicted-over-killing-of-palestinian/8162410

Now how exactly would it change my current stance on the conflict? I'm not particularly pro-Israel, just anti-Palestine.

Also, 🤬 me for being mainly concerned about the trend of Muslim terrorists driving trucks into crowds in multiple large cities over the span of just half a year, I guess.

 

[Blitz24]

The case brings up an interesting question as to what rights do militants have. It is definitely a thorny issue.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

The case brings up an interesting question as to what rights do militants have.

It depends on the circumstance. In this case, the militant was disarmed and incapacitated and had been for several minutes. He posed no immediate threat to anybody.