Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Sandwich on October 13, 2016, 11:09:35 am
-
In other news, UNESCO also just proved it has no connection with reality.
http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/1.747314
http://www.timesofisrael.com/unesco-backs-resolution-ignoring-jewish-link-to-temple-mount/
:wtf:
-
I'm not entirely sure what the problem is. The UN, an organization that was founded on the notion of that people should leave each other the **** alone, tends to care more about people's lives being made miserable then they do about claims based upon a 6000 year old text.
-
This (http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0024/002462/246215e.pdf)? Google brought up nothing useful.
-
I'm not entirely sure what the problem is. The UN, an organization that was founded on the notion of that people should leave each other the **** alone, tends to care more about people's lives being made miserable then they do about claims based upon a 6000 year old text.
...So we can get over the Native American nuisance claims as having any relevance, right?
-
I'm not entirely sure what the problem is. The UN, an organization that was founded on the notion of that people should leave each other the **** alone, tends to care more about people's lives being made miserable then they do about claims based upon a 6000 year old text.
There is exhaustive archeological evidence that Jews have lived in Israel going back thousands of years. Ignoring or denying historical facts does not get you brownie points.
-
I'm not entirely sure what the problem is. The UN, an organization that was founded on the notion of that people should leave each other the **** alone, tends to care more about people's lives being made miserable then they do about claims based upon a 6000 year old text.
There is exhaustive archeological evidence that Jews have lived in Israel going back thousands of years. Ignoring or denying historical facts does not get you brownie points.
You miss the point: The Unesco does not care all that much about who lived where thousands of years ago, beyond preserving that knowledge. The Unesco is about preserving archeological sites today. Ancestral claims (http://blog.ninapaley.com/2012/10/01/this-land-is-mine/) are not an excuse for... well, anything. If you actually look at the UNESCO piece the uproar is about, you'd read about how it considers Jerusalem the site of the three monotheïstic religions etc. It just refues to refer to the place as exclusively jewish, as the UN refers to the sites mentioned as being part of the nation of Jordan. This refers to an issue from the eighties (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_478).
...So we can get over the Native American nuisance claims as having any relevance, right?
Err, no? I'm quite sure that the native american's claim to the right of being treated as human beings supercedes manifest destiny.
-
Some facts:
1) The UNSECO executive board voted on the issue which is not a scientific institution per se, as such they are not bound by the historical or acheological evidence in their findings and the representatives on that board are also meant to represent the nations that appointed them.
2) The UNESCO exectutive board, appointed for the term of 2016-19, isn't exactly made up to make fair decisions on the historic claims concering heritage sites in the state of Israel; Iran on that board. (Source (http://www.unesco.org/new/en/general-conference-38th/elections/results-executive-board))
3) The UNESCO executive board votes by simple minority with no quota for either yay or nay to be filled for a motion to carry. (So all that countries that abstained were a rather phyrric victory)
So yeah, the current make-up of the UNESCO executive board made it possible for states, who have higher interest in pointing out the problems that exist currently around the Temple Mount and laying blame for them solely at the feet of Isreali governement in attempt to damage said government and/or to delegitimze the state it represents, to pass a resolution that does just that.
-
The Unesco ruling in question does not actually make any historic claims. It simply notes that parts of eastern jerusalem are being damaged and states as Israel, as the occupying force, is still responsible for ensuring that the Unesco heritage sites stay intact. It refers to these areas in their Jordan names as, according to International Law, Jordan still owns the region.
The UN is simply following it's rulebook.
-
The controversial resolution starts by affirming the “importance of the Old City of Jerusalem and its Walls for the three monotheistic religions,”
So Sandwich, even the sources you have provided prove that your original starting claim and the title of this entire thread is bull****. Can you actually make a coherent argument about why Jewish people are upset? Cause if you're deliberately misrepresenting the argument from the first post (and even your sources are deliberately misrepresenting the argument), I see no reason for anyone to pay any attention to this.
-
Experience with these threads has told me to assume that whenever Sandwich posts something about Israel, it's almost always slanted to the point of being ridiculous/flat out wrong. :doubt: Even reading the article seems not worth my time - just assume the opposite.
-
Oh please... :rolleyes:
You miss the point: The Unesco does not care all that much about who lived where thousands of years ago, beyond preserving that knowledge. The Unesco is about preserving archeological sites today. Ancestral claims (http://blog.ninapaley.com/2012/10/01/this-land-is-mine/) are not an excuse for... well, anything. If you actually look at the UNESCO piece the uproar is about, you'd read about how it considers Jerusalem the site of the three monotheïstic religions etc. It just refues to refer to the place as exclusively jewish, as the UN refers to the sites mentioned as being part of the nation of Jordan. This refers to an issue from the eighties (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_478).
From the Wikipedia page on UNESCO (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UNESCO) (emphasis mine):
UNESCO pursues its objectives through five major programs: education, natural sciences, social/human sciences, culture and communication/information. Projects sponsored by UNESCO include literacy, technical, and teacher-training programmes, international science programmes, the promotion of independent media and freedom of the press, regional and cultural history projects, the promotion of cultural diversity, translations of world literature, international cooperation agreements to secure the world cultural and natural heritage (World Heritage Sites) and to preserve human rights, and attempts to bridge the worldwide digital divide. It is also a member of the United Nations Development Group.
UNESCO is very much involved in cultural history, and hey, guess what! That has to deal with "who lived where thousands of years ago", which—if discarded—renders the entire point of archaeological sites moot. Please quit spouting nonsense.
#Butwaittheresmore!
It refers to these areas in their Jordan names...
Later on, in the Controversies section:
In October 2010, UNESCO's Executive Board voted to declare the sites as "al-Haram al-Ibrahimi/Tomb of the Patriarchs" and "Bilal bin Rabah Mosque/Rachel's Tomb" and stated that they were "an integral part of the occupied Palestinian Territories" and any unilateral Israeli action was a violation of international law.
Different date, different sites, different issue—but look at the names. Both are referred to in two ways - by their Arabic-in-English (i.e. Arabic transliterated into English letters) Islamic names as well as their English Jewish names (although the Hebrew-in-English Jewish names, such as "Me'arat HaMachpelah" and "Kever Rachel", respectively, are omitted for some reason, but whatever). So precedent exists for UNESCO acknowledging both the Jewish and Islamic historical significance of such locations (rendered language notwithstanding).
...according to International Law, Jordan still owns the region.
This is an aside, but I'd be very much interested in seeing how International Law gets translated to mean that Jordan has a legitimate claim to the region. After all, they captured and occupied that region in an offensive war they initiated to eradicate the newly-formed State of Israel in 1948.
But getting back to the issue of the thread, let's say that's why the names are as they are—because Jordan owns said region. What region are we referring to? What you call the "West Bank", or what was known for thousands of years as Judea and Samaria? Guess what—both "al-Haram al-Ibrahimi/Tomb of the Patriarchs" and "Bilal bin Rabah Mosque/Rachel's Tomb" are located in that same region, just like the Temple Mount/whatever-it's-called-in-Arabic. So why does UNESCO refer to the Temple Mount exclusively by its Islamic name, and exclude the Jewish name?
Finally, let's look a bit further on in Wikipedia, at the paragraph specifically referring to the issue of this thread (again, emphasis mine):
On 13 October 2016, UNESCO passed a resolution condemning Israel for purported "illegal aggression" against the Palestinian people, while subsequently denying that the Temple Mount had any connection to Judaism, referring to the holy site exclusively by its Islamic names. After receiving "vilification" from numerous Israeli politicians and diplomats, including Benjamin Netanyahu and Ayelet Shaked, Israel froze all ties with the organization. Netanyahu was quoted as saying, “To say that Israel has no link to the Temple Mount is like saying that China has no link to the Great Wall or that Egypt has no connection to the Pyramids”. On 14 October 2016, Ban ki-Moon and the Director-General of UNESCO highly criticized the draft-declaration, declaring that Judaism, Islam and Christianity have clear historical connections to Jerusalem and any attempt to deny the links between Judaism, the Temple Mount and the Western Wall were an affront to history and made the struggle for peace a more difficult one.
So please, quit your attempts at pretending this issue was illegitimate affronting history and making the struggle for peace a more difficult one. :rolleyes:
The controversial resolution starts by affirming the “importance of the Old City of Jerusalem and its Walls for the three monotheistic religions,”
So Sandwich, even the sources you have provided prove that your original starting claim and the title of this entire thread is bull****. Can you actually make a coherent argument about why Jewish people are upset? Cause if you're deliberately misrepresenting the argument from the first post (and even your sources are deliberately misrepresenting the argument), I see no reason for anyone to pay any attention to this.
Let's look at the context for that line:
The controversial resolution starts by affirming the “importance of the Old City of Jerusalem and its Walls for the three monotheistic religions,” but then goes on to accuse Israel — which it consistently calls “the occupying power” — of a long list of wrongdoings.
The text “firmly deplores the continuous storming” of the Al-Aqṣa Mosque/Al-Ḥaram AlSharif — Muslim names for the Temple Mount compound and the mosque located there — “by Israeli right-wing extremists and uniformed forces.”
It also decries Israeli works in the Western Wall Plaza, which it terms the al-Burak plaza after the Muslim name for the site.
The Western Wall, the outer retaining wall of the Second Jewish Temple, is the holiest site where Jews today can pray, and sits at the bottom of the Temple Mount, Judaism’s holiest spot.
The Al-Aqsa Mosque, regarded by Muslims as the third-holiest site in Islam, sits atop the Mount, known to Muslims as the Haram al-Sharif, along with the Dome of the Rock.
Or, as stated far more succinctly in even the left-wing, liberal Ha'aretz article (http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/1.747314):
The resolution asserted that Jerusalem is holy to the three monotheistic religions: Judaism, Islam and Christianity. However, it includes a special section dealing with the Temple Mount, which says the site is sacred only to Muslims and fails to mention that it is sacred to the Jews as well. In fact, it mentions neither the Hebrew term for the site – Har HaBayit – nor its English equivalent, the Temple Mount. The site is referred to only by its Muslim names – Al-Aqsa Mosque and Haram al-Sharif.
Do I need to spell the issue out for you any further?
Experience with these threads has told me to assume that whenever Sandwich posts something about Israel, it's almost always slanted to the point of being ridiculous/flat out wrong. :doubt: Even reading the article seems not worth my time - just assume the opposite.
Thanks - your thoughts and opinions mean SO much to me (hint: continue assuming the opposite).
-
The resolution asserted that Jerusalem is holy to the three monotheistic religions: Judaism, Islam and Christianity. However, it includes a special section dealing with the Temple Mount, which says the site is sacred only to Muslims and fails to mention that it is sacred to the Jews as well.
So can we get a link to the resolution and/or that specific quote from it? Because in the one I linked, there seems to be no such thing.
-
So this is about them not using the Hebrew names for a place? Sounds like one of the pettiest complaints I've seen yet. Does Israel not have any real anti-Semitism to deal with that they have to bother with this nonsense?
-
I know very little about the situation (and don't really want to get into it) but If I may I would say this to everyone involved (from a neutral standpoint); The UNESCO vote was arguably the latest political proxy move in a very long-running feud. It is a tainted move by a tainted party but (as seems to be the norm nowadays), the other side in the argument is just as tainted as the side making said proxy move. There is no good side to argue for, not anymore.
The 'truth' or 'facts' of any of these religious sites (which I am aware are sacred in both Judaism and Islam, and apparently Christianity too I heard recently) was arguably lost hundreds of year ago in a quagmire of bias, bad blood and revisionism between two partisan factions. I don't wish to get into it because I honestly think there's no point anymore; try to actually look into the problem and establish fairness you'll just get burned by both sides, or spun, or threatened, or slandered, or worse.
I appreciate this is quite a sore subject (especially to community members who are put directly at risk by the feud this is part of; It hurts a lot), but I fail to see how letting it rip apart HLP achieves anything. It's not my right to say lock the thread but I beg people try to avoid getting aggressive at others on here. Otherwise your only helping it continue, and letting it drag in more people.
Media like this vote or any article is written by someone, somewhere, sometime and for some reason; something worth thinking of regardless of the opinion one holds on one piece or another.
-
The resolution asserted that Jerusalem is holy to the three monotheistic religions: Judaism, Islam and Christianity. However, it includes a special section dealing with the Temple Mount, which says the site is sacred only to Muslims and fails to mention that it is sacred to the Jews as well.
So can we get a link to the resolution and/or that specific quote from it? Because in the one I linked, there seems to be no such thing.
The point of contentions, as it appears to me (raised Lutheranian-Christian, now atheist), the terminlogy imployed when it comes to construction projects near the Temple Mount, like in I.B.2 section 16, and the deliberate omissions in regards to their significance.
The Kedem Center referenced in that section is meant to be a visitor's centre displaying the archeological findings at the Western Wall Excavations, planned and run by the Israel Antiquities Authority.
Section 18 also mentions the construction of a Jewish Prayer Plattfrom at the street adress of Western Wall Plaza, which is basically the street adress of the Western Wall aka the Wailing Wall without context. Again I cannot claim to judge whetever or not the construction mentioned is violation of any internation agreement, but the omission of the local context of the site is there (as much as an omission can be there)
Someone with more intimate knowledge of geography and cityscape of Jerusalem might dig up more - I just used Google Maps to get an impression... Also someone with more time than me could run this past older statements of the same states against the Western Wall Excavation - again, I am not an expert on the Middle East but I am pretty sure that I've read/heard the Western Wall Excavations being liked to demolition work before in the context of anti-Israeli statements...
-
UNESCO is very much involved in cultural history, and hey, guess what! That has to deal with "who lived where thousands of years ago", which—if discarded—renders the entire point of archaeological sites moot.
You're conflating two different issues. Like I said, the Unesco cares about archeological sites only up to the opint to care about historical knowledge. It does not, and *should not*, care about claims made by Israel or any other nation based on those fondings, as people who lived thousands of years ago are now long dead and should not be used as an justification for any people claiming it's legacy.
This is an aside, but I'd be very much interested in seeing how International Law gets translated to mean that Jordan has a legitimate claim to the region. After all, they captured and occupied that region in an offensive war they initiated to eradicate the newly-formed State of Israel in 1948.
The state of Israel was formed during a civil war that raged in the British Mandate of Palestine (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Partition_Plan_for_Palestine). Before the war, all the territory was British, and in effect the entire area was captured and occupied by another power. Jordan's legitimacy to the territory is recognized in the same way that Israel's legitimacy to it's own territory has been: Via the 1949 armestice agreements (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1949_Armistice_Agreements) and accompanying Tripartite decleration (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tripartite_Declaration_of_1950). This is why many peace talks talk about returning to the pre-1967 borders, as they are the the borders which were at the time agreed upon by all parties. It should be noted that this war predates the 4th geneva conventions (which also happened in 1949) which has those specific outlines regarding the occupation of another nation's territory. Anything that happened before 1949 is effectively rendered moot by this: The state of Israel is a thing that was created in 1948 as the result of both a civil war and a not-so-civil war. It bears no relation to the Kingdom of David, whilst Israel's many kertuffles regarding archeological sites are all about trying to establish a link to the Kingdom of David (for which archeological evidence is rather shaky) and deriving legitimacy from that.
But getting back to the issue of the thread, let's say that's why the names are as they are—because Jordan owns said region. What region are we referring to?
I thought it was specifically about East Jerusalem?
On 13 October 2016, UNESCO passed a resolution condemning Israel for purported "illegal aggression" against the Palestinian people, while subsequently denying that the Temple Mount had any connection to Judaism, referring to the holy site exclusively by its Islamic names. After receiving "vilification" from numerous Israeli politicians and diplomats, including Benjamin Netanyahu and Ayelet Shaked, Israel froze all ties with the organization. Netanyahu was quoted as saying, “To say that Israel has no link to the Temple Mount is like saying that China has no link to the Great Wall or that Egypt has no connection to the Pyramids”. On 14 October 2016, Ban ki-Moon and the Director-General of UNESCO highly criticized the draft-declaration, declaring that Judaism, Islam and Christianity have clear historical connections to Jerusalem and any attempt to deny the links between Judaism, the Temple Mount and the Western Wall were an affront to history and made the struggle for peace a more difficult one.
So please, quit your attempts at pretending this issue was illegitimate affronting history and making the struggle for peace a more difficult one. :rolleyes:
Sigh, it's the thin-skinnedness in which the various sides involved talk about this being OUR LAND(tm) that makes the struggle for peace more difficult. That Ban ki-Moon has to be summoned to resolve an issue that is simply about a ****ing name should give you a clear indication of how ridickilous this looks.
-
Would the next move in this topic be that the holocaust never happened or reduce it to a matter of insignificance?
That is rhetorical. But, my understanding is that when people start calling other's belongings theirs is that it is in fact a play to usurp ownership.
So this is about them not using the Hebrew names for a place? Sounds like one of the pettiest complaints I've seen yet. Does Israel not have any real anti-Semitism to deal with that they have to bother with this nonsense?
"Move along, nothing to see here", is a dangerous precedent as is, "It's not as bad as it seems". This kind of ignorance is unfortunately a powerful down play that furthers ignorance out of popularity. This is one of the mindsets that simply lets bad things happen by convincing others that what is happening will not come to fruition.....until it does.
If i owned a car, and one person started calling it theirs with their own name for it, then got back up from other people who believed the lie; they will all be pissed when i produce the car title with my name on it. But, they will still try to take what is mine even after that, and then comes the fight. God forbid any of you would simply let someone claim false ownership over any of your items; i am very certain that when "move along, nothing to see here" and, "it's not as bad as it seems" applies to any of your belongings and resources, guarantee you will think differently. I suppose no one cares until it's happening to them. However, the morality behind the tenth commandment, "thou shalt not covet" has a lot to do with what one should not do, since the aftermath is what you wrongfully take from others will be taken from you (you reap what you sew). And yes, personally i don't like to lie, cheat, and steal because of reaping what i sew.
Naming parts of israel with islamic and jordanian names is nothing more than to lay false claim and cause confusion in an attempt to make a steal.
Last i remember, when you conquer, you keep the spoils of war, you don't give it back to your enemy that is found wanting. Otherwise what is the point of the conflict in the first place?
To conclude since i know i will get backlash from atheists claiming that I cannot possibly be an intellectual, and that there is no such thing as morality. I not only disagree with these false assertions, but know that i am on a pecking plate like sandwich, and that it takes a real warped mind to find the simple truth i explained as wrong.
-
I'm not entirely sure what the problem is. The UN, an organization that was founded on the notion of that people should leave each other the **** alone, tends to care more about people's lives being made miserable then they do about claims based upon a 6000 year old text.
There is exhaustive archeological evidence that Jews have lived in Israel going back thousands of years. Ignoring or denying historical facts does not get you brownie points.
Are others supposed to please the Jews? Are we (as in the world) looking for brownie points from Israel now?
The Jewish people have historical ties to the Temple Mound - everyone does. That's the whole point. I think the people at UNESCO might be trying to force people to get along - which won't work. But Israel and the Western Democracies need to stop turning blind eyes to corruption of justice. In Israel, it's the permanent citizenship limbo a large portion of uneducated, angry non-Jews within their borders. They also need to chill the **** out about the religion thing. Everyone does. Seriously in what holy text anywhere does it not say something to the effect of "we're all a big family, so be nice to each other".
-
If i owned a car, and one person started calling it theirs with their own name for it, then got back up from other people who believed the lie; they will all be pissed when i produce the car title with my name on it. But, they will still try to take what is mine even after that, and then comes the fight. God forbid any of you would simply let someone claim false ownership over any of your items;
And suppose that you own that car cause you stole it from someone else and then said it was yours because you had legally owned it years ago and the fact that it got impounded and legally stopped being your property doesn't count.
Cause that is much closer to what actually happened than your argument.
-
And except that it's not a car that someone paid for but rather a geographical and archeological feature that predates everyone involved by a thousand years.
Would the next move in this topic be that the holocaust never happened or reduce it to a matter of insignificance?
**** no. The near-annihilation of the jewish population in several countries is a testimony to the absolute worst humanity is capable of. Anything one can think of pales in it's comparison. This includes squabbles over the names of really old things.
-
And except that it's not a car that someone paid for but rather a geographical and archeological feature that predates everyone involved by a thousand years.
A car, a geographical area, a belonging either way to whoever has it (you can gift cars to people, money need not always matter). Ownership changed many times. But, now it's back in the hands of the jews. For unesco to claim that there's no jewish ties to this location is still absurd. It only became a temple mount once israel turned the top of a hill into one.
Would the next move in this topic be that the holocaust never happened or reduce it to a matter of insignificance?
**** no. The near-annihilation of the jewish population in several countries is a testimony to the absolute worst humanity is capable of. Anything one can think of pales in it's comparison. This includes squabbles over the names of really old things.
At least we can agree upon the holocaust, we can also agree that many in the middle east at the government and education system levels deny it ever happened. It is worth rethinking the squabbles over the names and ownership of said land so as not leave them at this minimized face value, but to uncover the motivations for all to see of which I will call the victors being thought as thieves (israel currently owns the land). And who do these squabbles reinforce? I'd be more concerned with the people that want the land back rather than those who control it currently.
If i owned a car, and one person started calling it theirs with their own name for it, then got back up from other people who believed the lie; they will all be pissed when i produce the car title with my name on it. But, they will still try to take what is mine even after that, and then comes the fight. God forbid any of you would simply let someone claim false ownership over any of your items;
And suppose that you own that car cause you stole it from someone else and then said it was yours because you had legally owned it years ago and the fact that it got impounded and legally stopped being your property doesn't count.
Cause that is much closer to what actually happened than your argument.
Your simplification is missing one thing. I was very careful to not forget to include the idea of a fight. After war, you typically keep what you conquer, in the least establishing ownership and governance (conflicts where this does not happen are strange). We must not forget that in 1948, Israel had an opportunity to declare independence, they took it, and they won.
Definitely related, several thousand people have signed a petition that involves giving alaska back to russia. There's two convenient little facts here though, russia was trying to sell alaska to america in the past, and that america finally purchased alaska for 7.2 million dollars (2 cents an acre); these two facts are conveniently omitted. Now you have here in 1867 with the american purchase of alaska, ownership and governance established through a financial transaction as opposed to war (war is not the only way to establish ownership and governance).
I wonder what would happen If england asked for any of 13 colonies back for free with nothing to back up their claim except a hissy fit, then you can bet ownership and governance isn't going to change. Another fun fact, the colonists did win independence from england in 1783.
In these affairs, if your the disgruntled party wanting something back, you're going to have to fight. England doesn't care about there previous 13 colonies (as far as we're aware), america is never giving alaska away (high military value and full of natural resources), and jews find that truth is not subjective.
AND OF COURSE...
We laughingly can't forget that unesco de-legitimized themselves when they tried to claim jews had no ties to the temple mount; who cares who owns what currently, this is an attempt to lazily re-write history. In the mean time, there is still that islamic win; the temple mount is used to worship the god of islam; this is a perversion since that is not who this location was originally intended to worship.
-
Actually it's exactly who it was supposed to worship. Just by a different name. I guess the irony of your statement was lost on you.
Seriously though, your entire argument is predicated on your rather blinkered view that anything you can conquer you can keep. Which of course is not true and is one of the major reasons for having a UN in the first place.
-
Religious similarism is a deception.
Before the UN, you still kept the spoils of war. And it is in fact still like that.
You are deceived.
-
Religious similarism is a deception.
Before the UN, you still kept the spoils of war. And it is in fact still like that.
You are deceived.
"You're wrong. You're wrong. You're wrong." does not a compelling argument make. For anything, let alone something controversial.
-
For unesco to claim that there's no jewish ties to this location
unesco de-legitimized themselves when they tried to claim jews had no ties to the temple mount
Citation still needed.
-
Seriously though, your entire argument is predicated on your rather blinkered view that anything you can conquer you can keep. Which of course is not true and is one of the major reasons for having a UN in the first place.
So... Putin is going to give Crimea back to Ukraine anytime now, right?
Seriously, it's always been that way. Anything you can conquer and hold, you can keep, UN or not. Borders everywhere are only an agreement between everyone involved and if you've got enough firepower to keep this agreement from being enforced, or if you know the people supposed to enforce it can't be bothered to do so, you can take everything you want.
In theory, of course, UN is supposed to prevent that sort of thing. In practice, Israel, Russia and China, for example, are sitting on territories which they are not supposed to be sitting on. There are some sanctions and other finger wagging going on, but as long as they can handle whatever UN, their neighbors and the oppressed population can throw at them, nobody's going to stop them. It's been that way since cavemen started thwacking each other with clubs and throwing rocks over their tribes' pieces of land. If a big guy with a club came over to your field and told you it's his field now, the only ways of objecting were either whacking him with a bigger club (if you were stronger) or impaling him with a spear (if you were smarter and knew how to make a spear). We've got bigger tribes and better spears now, but the game hasn't changed, only escalated.
Of course, conquering something doesn't give you the moral right to it. Israel is annoying me because it keeps preaching that (among its other hypocrisies). If it said "OK, you've had it, but vae victis, we're your masters now." it would be (slightly) more agreeable. Modern Jews are not Israelites and the modern Temple Mount has been Muslim for longer than it was Jewish. IMO, Jews should give up Zionism and make Israel a truly modern, secular and fair country. There's no returning to the past, ancient ruins and memorabilia do not help you move forward and economically speaking, Israel could do just fine without any part of Jerusalem. What they're currently doing there only serves to foster religious conflict. Naming a mountain this or that does precisely nothing to the quality of life in neither Israel nor Palestine .
-
what would solve this is hereditary absolute monarchy
-
Seriously though, your entire argument is predicated on your rather blinkered view that anything you can conquer you can keep. Which of course is not true and is one of the major reasons for having a UN in the first place.
Of course it's true. It's what almost every country in existence is built on, and just because it's seen as immoral now doesn't change the fact. Sure, the UN was made to stop it, but it's never been terribly effective at it because the major players aren't required to give a ****.
-
You do realise that S-99 is complaining about the UN, right?
I find it quite humorous that both you and Dragon have admitted that the UN was created to stop this kind of thing and yet don't see the irony.
-
Religious similarism is a deception.
Before the UN, you still kept the spoils of war. And it is in fact still like that.
You are deceived.
"You're wrong. You're wrong. You're wrong." does not a compelling argument make. For anything, let alone something controversial.
I base my fact on the bible that religious similarism (all religions go to the same heaven) is a deception.
I base my fact on what you conquer you now own on reality. Wars have been fought that demonstrate this time and again. If i fought a war for control of your spice trade route, and i won it, that means it's mine.
I determined he is deceived.
But i in no way replied in the nature you are describing.
Actually it's exactly who it was supposed to worship. Just by a different name. I guess the irony of your statement was lost on you.
Seriously though, your entire argument is predicated on your rather blinkered view that anything you can conquer you can keep. Which of course is not true and is one of the major reasons for having a UN in the first place.
Yay, watch the UN potentially be effective. Kara gave me a blatantly informationless statement that was hardly a reply. I'm young enough to know that life isn't fair and that the UN isn't exactly stopping conquest (hi isis and boko haram!!!! and russia annexing places). He's not fit for the conversation if he can't add anything more than spoon fed popular ideals making one unable to consider any of the things i have mentioned hardly. Quite frankly, what you conquer you own. And if you are still wondering while people from different religions are still killing each other over religion, it's because all religions know they don't all worship the same god. And quite frankly, if you are an atheist, there being no god is a contradiction to all religions believing in the same god. The world is a mess of deception, but there is still truth that is not subjective.
But, lets make it real basic what i meant by the ideal that it's a perversion of the temple mount to worship any other god other than the god of abraham (the founder of the israelites through covenant with god). Through time, that temple mount has been used to worship other gods when israel was conquered in the past by their victors. When you worship a god on the grounds of someone else's god, this is a perversion of the institute. One such example being catholics letting muslims worship in their churches being a new thing (talk about not considering one of their supposedly corner stone books being the bible). I know it's that catholics letting muslims worship in their churches is not on the jewish temple mount, but even idiots point out the same thing questioning what the place of worship is actually for if anything but worship for who the structure was built as a place of worship for.
For unesco to claim that there's no jewish ties to this location
unesco de-legitimized themselves when they tried to claim jews had no ties to the temple mount
Citation still needed.
Well sure it would de-legitimize unesco out of principle. Jewish ties to the temple mount are established in the least by the fact that the jews built the temple mount. Whoever had it longest doesn't cancel out the ties of the creators. That would be stupid. Idk what you want a citation on? The jews having built the temple mount, or unesco being de-legitimized. Which trap do you want me to set off so you or others can call me a bible believing faggot along with the passive aggressive anti-jewish sentiment? No one's trying to gain brownie points with the jews. This is about fact and reality; jews built the temple mount for worship of their god, also to the victor go the spoils regardless of the UN.
All in all, it is obvious that this thread is full of anti-jew sentiment, my question is why? Guess what, israel has their temple mount that they built back, and they wont let go of it.
I wouldn't give the temple mount back for three reasons.
One is that jews do have ties to it.
Two is that through conquest they have an old site back.
Three is because those butt hurt found wanting are going to ask for more and more and more with nothing to provide but reasoning through nothing more than idiotic deliberation and deception. It seems that the people group that built the temple mount, know that they built the temple mount.
Modern Jews are not Israelites and the modern Temple Mount has been Muslim for longer than it was Jewish. IMO, Jews should give up Zionism and make Israel a truly modern, secular and fair country. There's no returning to the past, ancient ruins and memorabilia do not help you move forward and economically speaking, Israel could do just fine without any part of Jerusalem. What they're currently doing there only serves to foster religious conflict. Naming a mountain this or that does precisely nothing to the quality of life in neither Israel nor Palestine .
I only wonder why jews that are citizens of israel even call the nation israel still and them in it's borders that live there israeli. Wow you flip flopped there, russia is ok with keeping what they conquered, but israel would be better if they were more modern and progressive so as to give up a portion of jerusalem to the people who claim that the site has no jewish ties :lol:
I can only conclude that is it a mistake to give to those that are wanting and not deserving.
You do realise that S-99 is complaining about the UN, right?
I find it quite humorous that both you and Dragon have admitted that the UN was created to stop this kind of thing and yet don't see the irony.
Didn't realize I was complaining about the UN. I guess one of my main points was that to the victor goes the spoils and you keep mentioning the UN.
-
Well sure it would de-legitimize unesco out of principle.
You're missing the point: Have you read Unesco's actual statement? It's linked upthread.
But, lets make it real basic what i meant by the ideal that it's a perversion of the temple mount to worship any other god other than the god of abraham (the founder of the israelites through covenant with god).
Muslims also worship the God of Abraham (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_of_the_Book). It should also be noted that the isreali government does not permit non-muslims praying on the site (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temple_Mount_entry_restrictions#Israeli_restriction_policy).
-
Didn't realize I was complaining about the UN. I guess one of my main points was that to the victor goes the spoils and you keep mentioning the UN.
I keep mentioning the UN because this entire thread is about the UN. Had you really not figured out what the UN in UNESCO stood for?
-
For unesco to claim that there's no jewish ties to this location
unesco de-legitimized themselves when they tried to claim jews had no ties to the temple mount
Citation still needed.
Well sure it would de-legitimize unesco out of principle. Jewish ties to the temple mount are established in the least by the fact that the jews built the temple mount. Whoever had it longest doesn't cancel out the ties of the creators. That would be stupid. Idk what you want a citation on? The jews having built the temple mount, or unesco being de-legitimized.
As Joshua pointed out, you don't seem to have been reading the thread at all. I've now bolded the parts I want a citation on, above. It's the claim which this whole thread was built on but for which both Sandwich and you have refused to provide any evidence for.
-
I keep mentioning the UN because this entire thread is about the UN. Had you really not figured out what the UN in UNESCO stood for?
No this is not some dawn of revelation for me that unesco is an agency of the UN. My focus was just on "the spoils go to the victor" perhaps a little too strictly (the UN does get ignored a lot).
Muslims also worship the God of Abraham (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_of_the_Book). It should also be noted that the isreali government does not permit non-muslims praying on the site (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temple_Mount_entry_restrictions#Israeli_restriction_policy).
When different religions have different practices and some slightly similar beliefs, I don't care if it's in writing or word when they say they worship the same god when they clearly don't. Christians follow god's son jesus (who was one in the same as god) with a very different system called the new testament (no more keeping the sabbath, no more bound by 10 commandments and old testament laws found in exodus, etc). Jews follow the old testament (torah) the ten commandments and the rest of the laws found in the exodus and genesis and all over the rest of the books, etc. set up by the god of abraham. Islam is an alien one, it has more in common with christianity than judaism, and basically relegates the prophet muhammed above jesus and considers jesus just a prophet (not the son of god). There are similarities and many differences, i only find that they worship the same god in name, not practice (sorry if this was rough, but i tried to keep it short).
Also, I know about the non-muslim prayer ban, after all the temple mount is still an islamic holy site even after israeli independence (i guess it made sense to the jews to keep it as such).
As Joshua pointed out, you don't seem to have been reading the thread at all. I've now bolded the parts I want a citation on, above. It's the claim which this whole thread was built on but for which both Sandwich and you have refused to provide any evidence for.
And now i will provide the link to the text of the resolution itself found here (http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/1.747982). A citation out of unesco's mouth that it de-legitimize them; you wont find it. You will however find a resolution that is very anti-israel. By calling certain sites by only foreign names and titles, referring to israel as an occupying force, performing archeology on historic sites being frowned upon, use of certain names for israel's sites (names were used intending ownership) and more. It does mention christianity, judaism, and islam; it heavily refers to islam a lot while minimizing christianity and judaism.
This is a resolution that is very preferential to muslims, all too much preferential. We don't wonder much why jews don't like it; it has more than just dictation of what they can and cannot do in their country. How jewish ties are nullified, has yet to be seen. But, unesco is much too biased, or israel is just that lucky to have such contested historical sites. I think a tad both.
It seems to me the area where people believed that it nullifies jewish connection to the historical site was by how much the resolution preferred islam in what the resolution said and demanded. And it's not necessarily knee jerk, it's a blurry area. Through out all of this, i am certain the israeli government is irritated if you read the whole resolution (it's not a very long read) and think from their shoes about maintaining control over what you currently control.
-
Point out where in that text it claims that Jews have no connection to Temple Mount. I'm not about to read that entire wall of text for something that probably isn't there.
-
This is a resolution that is very preferential to muslims, all too much preferential. We don't wonder much why jews don't like it; it has more than just dictation of what they can and cannot do in their country. How jewish ties are nullified, has yet to be seen. But, unesco is much too biased, or israel is just that lucky to have such contested historical sites. I think a tad both.
It seems to me the area where people believed that it nullifies jewish connection to the historical site was by how much the resolution preferred islam in what the resolution said and demanded. And it's not necessarily knee jerk, it's a blurry area. Through out all of this, i am certain the israeli government is irritated if you read the whole resolution (it's not a very long read) and think from their shoes about maintaining control over what you currently control.
I covered that.
EDIT: click here (http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/1.747982) for the resolution. It wasn't necessarily easy finding it. Most of google pops up with reactions stories published.
-
So in other words, when push comes to shove, you can't actually prove that the resolution does anything more than call Israel the occupying power and uses non-Hebrew names for a place.
Yeah, it's pretty hard to care about that.
-
unesco to claim that there's no jewish ties to this location
[unesco] tried to claim jews had no ties to the temple mount
Really?
No, not really.
Got it. :doubt:
-
Those of you whining about not being able to find where in the UNESCO resolution is says what, I posted a pretty thorough analysis earlier in the thread. Read the entire post, please: http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=92664.msg1832474#msg1832474
Then come back and complain you can't see it. I'll send you to an eye doctor. Or back to 1st grade for reading comprehension.
-
Those of you whining about not being able to find where in the UNESCO resolution is says what, I posted a pretty thorough analysis earlier in the thread. Read the entire post, please: http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=92664.msg1832474#msg1832474
Then come back and complain you can't see it. I'll send you to an eye doctor. Or back to 1st grade for reading comprehension.
I read the entire post. I still can't see it.
But really, since you bring up reading comprehension: if someone makes a claim like "UNESCO denies Jewish connection to Temple Mount" which is obviously intended to make the reader think that that's actually factually correct instead of just empty rhetoric, then they don't get to skirt demands for a citation with an analysis which concludes that if you interpret this thing this way and that thing that way and then make some supporting assumptions, then it's possible that the claim might be factually correct even though we can't know it. That's nonsense.
Should someone instead claim that "UNESCO is a bunch of poo poo heads and meanies because they're not using all the proper names" then sure, that's fine, as it's clearly an opinion and not a gross misrepresentation of facts.
-
Is anybody else getting déjà vu? I swear there was a ruckus over UNESCO not using every alternative name for something like this years ago.
-
Israelis found to have world's largest persecution complex; news at 11.