Jerusalem - Who has the right?

[JeremieCompNerd]

I watched a documentary this morning on Jerusalem, which pointed to a massive and controversial object as the primary reason the city is so important. The object in question? A rock. Let's take a look at why this rock is important to so many people. If I misrepresent or misspell anything from your religion, I apologize in advance.
Muslims believe the rock is where Mohammed ascended directly to heaven.
Jewish faith claims it as the location where God started work on the production of Earth, the first land mass created.
It is also claimed to be the spot where Solomon's temple was built, where the Ark of the Covenant was hidden, and where Issac almost sacrificed his son to God.
This location, this rock, is holy to a great many people. That status has produced a great deal of bloodshed over a very (comparatively) small location.
So, I'm asking you, what should be done about this location to ensure future peace? Who do you think has the right to be there? Only one group, equal reign for all with claim, or should the place be left by everyone involved?
Though it sounds rude, and would be very inconvenient and expensive for all involved, I personally think the rock should be isolated and sequestered. A structure could be built to protect it completely, sealed off from everyone. No one group would be worried about the other group(s) disturbing their sacred rock. If nobody can play nice with the sacred rock, it goes up on the shelf until we learn to share, kiddos.This of course is the more extreme approach to what I think would be a much less volatile situation if everyone would just agree to share it peacefully.
Please, no flaming or obviously biased opinions in this thread, I'd like reasonable and thought out answers ONLY. This is NOT the place to discuss your religious viewpoints as a means of trying to convert or demean others, it is a thought experiment for finding a peaceful solution to a generations old property rights issue.

[kamil-fucker]

I doubt all the different parties involved would allow the rock to be sealed off completely, I think you can rule that one out. I think there always be conflict over the city of Jerusalem, probably untill those religions sieze to excist, and if its not about Jerusalem they'll find something else to war about.

[Tony-DarkGrave]

its belongs to the jews. they have been there 2600 years before muhhammed started his crazy religion.

[Lidov]

At 6/8/10 03:16 PM, JeremieCompNerd wrote: yada yada yada, a rock yada yada yada.

As an Israeli, I can assure you that no-one in Israel cares about this stupid rock. Not even the religious guys. Really, nobody cares about it, nobody speaks of it, and I have only heard of it several times. The Jews think Jerusalem is important for a different reason, the western wall, and temple mount.
The western wall, is allegedly the surviving remains of the temple of Jerusalem, but now we know it is not true. The temple mount is where the Temple was built, but now there is only a mosque there. It is called Al-Aqsa mosque, and it is one of the holiest places to the Muslims. I think it is the third holiest place after the kaaba and Medina, but I am not sure.

Anyway, if you ask me, the only solution there is to the Jerusalem issue was already suggested in 1947, the holy city of Jerusalem should be under an international rule. The actual city of Jerusalem, should be divided between Israel and the new Palestinian state, that I hope would be established. This means that the border will split Jerusalem. I think eventually it is the only solution there is to this problem, even if it isn't a good one.

[Camarohusky]

Would not the best solution to be just have everyone share the city? Why does any one religion/group/race/ethnicity need to have control?

[Patton3]

At 6/8/10 05:39 PM, Camarohusky wrote: Would not the best solution to be just have everyone share the city? Why does any one religion/group/race/ethnicity need to have control?

Try to imagine for a minute if three different religious groups were to share a city that they all consider sacred for different reasons, they have fought over for millenia, and which sits in the volatile Middle East.

[Lidov]

At 6/8/10 05:39 PM, Camarohusky wrote: Would not the best solution to be just have everyone share the city? Why does any one religion/group/race/ethnicity need to have control?

Yes, the world would be a better place if everyone just learned how to share, wouldn't it? I learned it on "Barney the last Dinosaur".

[SolInvictus]

At 6/8/10 04:22 PM, Lidov wrote: As an Israeli, I can assure you that no-one in Israel cares about this stupid rock.

obviously i can't speak from experience, but when certain citizens strongly feel that those who work on the Sabbath should be put to death, i wouldn't be surprised if at least a few would be interested in who has the rights to such a spot.

[Warforger]

The pro-Israel argument "BUT THEY WERE DAR THOUSANDS OF YEARS BEFORE" is pointless because most ethnicity's with their own countries didn't even exist before Christ, take Slovenia, it wasn't an independent state until 1991. There were many nations thousands of years ago which aren't around today as well because the ethnic groups changed and combined into new ones.

I'd be all for a two state plan, the problem is that the Palestinians don't often see it the right way, i.e. Hamas was firing rockets from schools at Israeli forces, then the Israeli planes fire at the battery and then the Palestinians blame Israel for attacking rather then Hamas for firing the missiles at Israel in a school.

[kmau]

My honest serious opinion:

- kidnap rock
- shoot it into space
- watch people calm down

[Metal-Loving-Medic]

At 6/8/10 04:08 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: its belongs to the jews. they have been there 2600 years before muhhammed started his crazy religion.

The Jews...?

Who cares about them, amiright?

[SteveGuzzi]

At 6/8/10 03:16 PM, JeremieCompNerd wrote: I personally think the rock should be isolated and sequestered. A structure could be built to protect it completely, sealed off from everyone.

yeah maybe someone should like, build a dome around it or something...

[JeremieCompNerd]

At 6/8/10 03:48 PM, kamil-fucker wrote: I doubt all the different parties involved would allow the rock to be sealed off completely, I think you can rule that one out. I think there always be conflict over the city of Jerusalem, probably until those religions seize to exist, and if its not about Jerusalem they'll find something else to war about.

Actually, from what I saw it didn't look like anyone was allowed down to see the rock very often anyways. Sealing it may be much more culturally acceptable than one might expect if they each want to protect it, rather than using it as a sight of public worship. Thoughts?

At 6/8/10 10:14 PM, SteveGuzzi wrote:

At 6/8/10 03:16 PM, JeremieCompNerd wrote: I personally think the rock should be isolated and sequestered. A structure could be built to protect it completely, sealed off from everyone.

yeah maybe someone should like, build a dome around it or something...

Actually, I knew that was there. That's a building, with entrances and guards and under the jurisdiction of only one of the religions. I mean a big upside down steel bowl with no way anybody can screw around with the rock.
Let's avoid extreme and unproductive amounts of sarcasm, aye?

At 6/8/10 04:22 PM, Lidov wrote: As an Israeli, I can assure you that no-one in Israel cares about this stupid rock. Not even the religious guys. Really, nobody cares about it, nobody speaks of it, and I have only heard of it several times. The Jews think Jerusalem is important for a different reason, the western wall, and temple mount.
The western wall, is allegedly the surviving remains of the temple of Jerusalem, but now we know it is not true. The temple mount is where the Temple was built, but now there is only a mosque there. It is called Al-Aqsa mosque, and it is one of the holiest places to the Muslims. I think it is the third holiest place after the kaaba and Medina, but I am not sure.

Anyway, if you ask me, the only solution there is to the Jerusalem issue was already suggested in 1947, the holy city of Jerusalem should be under an international rule. The actual city of Jerusalem, should be divided between Israel and the new Palestinian state, that I hope would be established. This means that the border will split Jerusalem. I think eventually it is the only solution there is to this problem, even if it isn't a good one.

So, one vote for sharing and new info on the region. Now we've got a bit of progress... So, is it the specific location that makes that temple holy, or would any temple built that way be equally important? As a thought experiment, not a practical concept, could the temple be moved without offending anyone?

It seems we've got a decent run of comments here, hopefully we'll have a few more diverse viewpoints and some serious thought on the subject, then this can fade into the background before any serious flame wars start...

[Lidov]

At 6/9/10 03:01 PM, JeremieCompNerd wrote: So, one vote for sharing and new info on the region. Now we've got a bit of progress... So, is it the specific location that makes that temple holy, or would any temple built that way be equally important? As a thought experiment, not a practical concept, could the temple be moved without offending anyone?

The temple is holy not because of its location, and the location isn't holy because of the temple. The are both holy because (some might say) god has told Solomon to build the Temple there, and nowhere else. It was god who made this place holy, and not man (as the religious people believe).

[SteveGuzzi]

At 6/9/10 03:01 PM, JeremieCompNerd wrote: Actually, I knew that was there. That's a building, with entrances and guards and under the jurisdiction of only one of the religions. I mean a big upside down steel bowl with no way anybody can screw around with the rock.

well then wouldn't that require the destruction of what's already there? y'know, like how the current religious building couldn't have been constructed there until the previous religious building(s) was destroyed? the previous one wasn't destroyed voluntarily, so what makes you think the current one could be? and wouldn't your big steel bowl still require guards of its own to prevent anyone from eventually cutting their own entrances into it, or tunneling under it, etc etc etc?

so apparently, the entire effort would have to be done by either -- a) a coalition representing the different religions and states, or b) a group that is completely foreign to the land -- so as not to appear biased. but do you really see a coalition voluntarily doing that? or Muslims voluntarily allowing a foreign power to raze their mosque and construct some ugly steel bowl in it's place?

i mean, not only is the idea (as you admitted) "rude, inconvenient and expensive"... but more to the point, it's entirely unrealistic. not only would no one support it, but it wouldn't even alleviate all the different problems surrounding it. i don't think it'd alleviate ANY problems, actually.

---
let's say your hypothetical steel dome gets built. first off, no one is going to be happy about it (which i am to guess... is your goal?) just like a kid isn't happy when you put his toy on the high shelf. second, no one is going to let the matter lay to rest there -- the dome exists right in the middle of where people live and work, it's not like anyone is going to up and forget about it. i mean, Jews still talk about the destruction of their temples and that occurred ages ago.

so anyway, here's what i see happening: supposedly no one can get in, but that isn't going to prevent folks from trying anyway. maybe they get in, maybe they don't. if they DO, then the whole operation was useless. if they don't, they will resort to some type of alternative -- for example, painting the dome. and then? you'll just have a situation where people are fighting over how much space their murals take up, or who painted over who's mural and disrespected them, etc etc etc.
---

your idea wouldn't accomplish ANYTHING positive, so, to hell with it.

Let's avoid extreme and unproductive amounts of sarcasm, aye?

let's not, and say we did.

[Lidov]

At 6/8/10 08:32 PM, SolInvictus wrote: obviously i can't speak from experience, but when certain citizens strongly feel that those who work on the Sabbath should be put to death, i wouldn't be surprised if at least a few would be interested in who has the rights to such a spot.

Wait, what? I don't think there are people in Israel who think I should be put to death for working on a Sabbath. They certainly would be happier if I didn't, and if they could, they'd probably put me in jail for it, but they won't kill me. At least I hope they won't, because I work a lot on sabbath...

[Light]

At 6/8/10 04:08 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: its belongs to the jews. they have been there 2600 years before muhhammed started his crazy religion.

I'll have to say that I'm pro-Israel and pro-zionism and all of that related stuff, so yeah, what this guy said.^^

[Luxury-Yacht]

At 6/9/10 10:03 PM, jedi-master wrote:

At 6/8/10 04:08 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: its belongs to the jews. they have been there 2600 years before muhhammed started his crazy religion.

I'll have to say that I'm pro-Israel and pro-zionism and all of that related stuff, so yeah, what this guy said.^^

By that logic, Americans should give Native Americans their land back.

You can argue all fucking day about who was there first, but it doesn't matter in the end because all that matters is who is living where in the present. Displacing Palestinians when Israel was established was not right in my opinion, but that doesn't matter now because the Jews are already there. The Palestinians who were displaced didn't take any land from anyone, it happened ages before they were born. Similarly, you can't exactly just ask the Israelis to pack up and leave, because many of them were born there or moved there without displacing anyone after Israel was already established.

The world has seen so many different peoples and tribes displaced by other groups over the course of history that it's absolutely ludicrous to think that the descendants of a people who were in a particular place "first" thousands of years ago should be able to have that land and directly fuck over the people who live there in the present who had nothing to do with it.

I'm not saying that Jews have no place in Israel, they should be able to be there just as much as anyone. But to establish an entire country based on the whole "we were here first thousands of years ago" argument is ridiculous.

[Entice]

Wikipedia:
"In November 1947, the United Nations voted in favor of the partition of Palestine, proposing the creation of a Jewish state, an Arab state, and a UN-administered Jerusalem. Partition was accepted by Zionist leaders but rejected by Arab leaders, leading to civil war."

Hey, lets form a new Jewish state. I think we should put it in the middle east- right in the middle of a spot that is considered sacred by like 3 different religions for 200 different reasons. While were at it, we'll kick the Muslims out, 'cause no one likes them lol.

[Lidov]

At 6/10/10 02:41 AM, bgraybr wrote: Wikipedia:
"In November 1947, the United Nations voted in favor of the partition of Palestine, proposing the creation of a Jewish state, an Arab state, and a UN-administered Jerusalem. Partition was accepted by Zionist leaders but rejected by Arab leaders, leading to civil war."

Hey, lets form a new Jewish state. I think we should put it in the middle east- right in the middle of a spot that is considered sacred by like 3 different religions for 200 different reasons. While were at it, we'll kick the Muslims out, 'cause no one likes them lol.

I am confused, since I can here the sarcasm in your voice, yet it doesn't follow your Wikipedia quotation. The Jews didn't arrive to Israel after the UN decided that two states should be established on the land, Jews came there a lot before. And the Palestinians stated the "civil war" (of course it wasn't a civil war, because the Jews and the Palestinians are two different civilizations) right after the decision was made.

[JeremieCompNerd]

Okay, day one showed new viewpoints and some insight to the region... Day two shows... *Looks* This is already degenerating, isn't it? I'm tempted to call for the lock already before this gets out of hand.

And yes, the idea with the big steel bowl is that nobody would be happy. It was never intended as an actual solution but rather as a thought experiment.

[SteveGuzzi]

At 6/10/10 01:32 PM, JeremieCompNerd wrote: And yes, the idea with the big steel bowl is that nobody would be happy. It was never intended as an actual solution but rather as a thought experiment.

obviously.

At 6/8/10 03:16 PM, JeremieCompNerd wrote: it is a thought experiment for finding a peaceful solution to a generations old property rights issue.

"peaceful solution" huh.

yep, pissing off everyone in the region... that's what's gonna lead to peace.

sorry homeboy but this here seems more like a lack-of-thought experiment to me. just sayin.

[4urentertainment]

At 6/8/10 04:08 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: its belongs to the jews. they have been there 2600 years before muhhammed started his crazy religion.

You do realize that the Arabs inhabited the very same place thousands of years before the Jews arrived right?

[datagital]

At 6/8/10 04:08 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: its belongs to the jews. they have been there 2600 years before muhhammed started his crazy religion.

The thing is is that they weren't jewish back then, or rather the muslims there are the direct decendents of the "jews" of that time and the modern jews are at best the direct descendends of those that chose to go into exile rather than go muslim. It's sort of like the modern situation in with China and taiwon, and saying that the taiwonese should own some statue in beijing or something coz it's "theirs" even tho they are the ones that went into exile and would be taking from the greater majority who are still there.

[Lidov]

At 6/16/10 04:35 AM, datagital wrote: The thing is is that they weren't jewish back then, or rather the muslims there are the direct decendents of the "jews" of that time and the modern jews are at best the direct descendends of those that chose to go into exile rather than go muslim. It's sort of like the modern situation in with China and taiwon, and saying that the taiwonese should own some statue in beijing or something coz it's "theirs" even tho they are the ones that went into exile and would be taking from the greater majority who are still there.

Wow! That is one big load of bullshit there.
The Muslims who inhabited in Israel only came in about the 8th or even the 9th century AD, after the Muslim revolution of the 7th century AD. They came from Saudia Arabia and conquered all of the middle east, including Egypt, Jordan, Syria and so on. The Jews inhabited Israel thousands of years before that, and I can assure you that they are not the direct descendants of the Muslims whom inhabited there afterward.
But I like your sense of creativity, maybe you should write a science fiction book, about how the Jews and the Arabs are actually two different tribes of the same people. It could be a hit! Maybe after that it would turn into a comedy starring Adam Sandler, and Jeniffer Lopez.

[satanbrain]

At 6/16/10 05:33 AM, Lidov wrote: They came from Saudia Arabia and conquered all of the middle east, including Egypt, Jordan, Syria and so on. The Jews inhabited Israel thousands of years before that, and I can assure you that they are not the direct descendants of the Muslims whom inhabited there afterward.

exactly. and there is even a genetic proof jews are descendants of the same tribe. but palestinians also share genetic relation. assimilation?

[Lidov]

At 6/16/10 06:12 AM, satanbrain wrote: but palestinians also share genetic relation. assimilation?

I don't know, never heard of it. I guess it makes sense though. When the Muslims conquered Israel, the Arabs probably mated with the Jews who lived there, and vice versa.

[Korriken]

whoever is strong enough to hold onto it has the right to it. simple as that. If the muslims can beat Israel and its allies, take it, and hold it, then they have the right to it. If the Jews can beat them back and stop them from taking it, then they have the right to it.

no one inherently owns anything as it can be taken away by someone/something stronger.

[RedFlames]

Jerusalem has holy sites of Islam, Christianity, and Judaism. They all have the right to go and worship their respective creeds but not at the loss of others. However, the current group that i believe should have jurisdiction of the area is the Palestinians (the secular government not Islam). This is not possible because of nationalism and racism in the reigion so Jerusalem should be a DMZ protected by the UN (if possible) all are welcome who do not have violent intentions.
This is the best case scenario which has little chance of happening any improvements on this idea?