Israel angered by UNESCO decision on holy site

[rooster59]

Israel angered by UNESCO decision on holy site

 

 

UNESCO has renewed a resolution criticising Israel for restricting Muslim access to a holy site in east Jerusalem.

 

The draft text repeatedly refers to the site, known to Jews as Temple Mount and Muslim as al-Aqsa compound by its Muslim names.

 

It is a move which has angered Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who says it amounts to a denial of Jewish history.

 

“The theatre of the absurd at UNESCO continues and today the organisation adopted another delusional decision which says that the people of Israel have no connection to the Temple Mount and the Western Wall,” Netanyahu stated.

 

The holy site, which was taken by Israel in the 1967 six-day war has been the flash point of Israeli-Palestinian violence in recent years.

 

The motion, put forward by Arab states, was approved by 24 votes, six against and 26 abstentions. Palestinian delegate Mounir Anstas defended the cultural body’s decision.

 

“Israel pretends that in this decision Palestinians and the Arab group denies the historic and importance of the old city of Jerusalem to the Jewish people, actually if you read the third paragraph of the decision you will see that it starts by the recognition of the historic importance for the three monotheistic religions.”

 

The draft resolution will be dealt with by the executive board of UNESCO in the next week.

 

 

-- © Copyright Euronews 2016-10-15

 

[coma]

Dry your eyes Netanyahu. You were not awarded the temple when Israel was created by the UN. You stole it in 1967. It is not yours. You are the preeminent obstacle to peace. Please go away soon. Please.

[Ulysses G.]

Jordan occupied it until the Jews took it over in 1967 and the Arabs did not allow Jews to visit it at all. If they wanted it, the Palestinians should have accepted the UN deal in 1947 instead of refusing and declaring war.

[geriatrickid]

Ok, so 26 countries  which have historically always voted against Israel. What else is new? There wasn't one country in favour that has any semblance of respect for basic human rights.

 

I was more impressed by the fact that a majority of members  either abstained or voted against the motion.  Several members  stopped supporting the motion after the first vote in April.

 

This is how the members of UNESCO’s executive board voted on Thursday:

In favor: Algeria, Bangladesh, Brazil, Chad, China, Dominican Republic, Egypt, Iran, Lebanon, Malaysia, Morocco, Mauritius, Mexico, Mozambique, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Russia, Senegal, South Africa, Sudan and Vietnam.

Against: Estonia, Germany, Lithuania, Netherlands, United Kingdom and United States.

Abstaining: Albania, Argentina, Cameroon, El Salvador, France, Ghana, Greece, Guinea, Haiti, India, Italy, Ivory Coast, Japan, Kenya, Nepal, Paraguay, Saint Vincent and Nevis, Slovenia, South Korea, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sweden, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Uganda and Ukraine.

Serbia and Turkmenistan were absent.

The fact that a number of countres at the behest of jew hating muslim dictatorships voted against Israel does not change the fact that jews  had occupied the temple mount  when it was known as Mount Zion and the site of Solomon's Temple until the Babylonians aka Iraqis destroyed it. The Hebrews rebuilt it, and then the Roman pagans destroyed it. Under Judeo- Christian teaching, the third temple will be built on the temple mount. 

The joke is on the idiots who will now migrate to this thread to heap scorn on Israel and to gloat. They'll claim that Israel is  grabbing land for its own use.  What they don't understand is that  religious jews are forbidden from entering into much of the Temple mount because this is where their lord was present and left behind his presence. Jews are told not to go there by their own religious leaders. It's noti a land grab, but the preservation of a long standing relationship with a holy site that was jewish before Mohammed even came up with his religion.

 

 

[Enoon]

43 minutes ago, geriatrickid said:

Ok, so 26 countries  which have historically always voted against Israel. What else is new? There wasn't one country in favour that has any semblance of respect for basic human rights.

 

I was more impressed by the fact that a majority of members  either abstained or voted against the motion.  Several members  stopped supporting the motion after the first vote in April.

 

This is how the members of UNESCO’s executive board voted on Thursday:

In favor: Algeria, Bangladesh, Brazil, Chad, China, Dominican Republic, Egypt, Iran, Lebanon, Malaysia, Morocco, Mauritius, Mexico, Mozambique, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Russia, Senegal, South Africa, Sudan and Vietnam.

Against: Estonia, Germany, Lithuania, Netherlands, United Kingdom and United States.

Abstaining: Albania, Argentina, Cameroon, El Salvador, France, Ghana, Greece, Guinea, Haiti, India, Italy, Ivory Coast, Japan, Kenya, Nepal, Paraguay, Saint Vincent and Nevis, Slovenia, South Korea, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sweden, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Uganda and Ukraine.

Serbia and Turkmenistan were absent.

The fact that a number of countres at the behest of jew hating muslim dictatorships voted against Israel does not change the fact that jews  had occupied the temple mount  when it was known as Mount Zion and the site of Solomon's Temple until the Babylonians aka Iraqis destroyed it. The Hebrews rebuilt it, and then the Roman pagans destroyed it. Under Judeo- Christian teaching, the third temple will be built on the temple mount. 

The joke is on the idiots who will now migrate to this thread to heap scorn on Israel and to gloat. They'll claim that Israel is  grabbing land for its own use.  What they don't understand is that  religious jews are forbidden from entering into much of the Temple mount because this is where their lord was present and left behind his presence. Jews are told not to go there by their own religious leaders. It's noti a land grab, but the preservation of a long standing relationship with a holy site that was jewish before Mohammed even came up with his religion.

 

 

 

You are obviously not one of those people that thinks Religion is the ultimate evil, that decisions based upon it are primitive, stupid and repugnant, that human affairs should not be conducted according to its dictates, and that humanity should no longer allow itself to be "divided and ruled" by it. 

 

You wouldn't think that claiming right of ownership, of anything, because "God said so" (which, if you strip away the rhetoric is the fundamental, ancient argument in this case/region) has no place in our world.

[soalbundy]

2 hours ago, Enoon said:

 

You are obviously not one of those people that thinks Religion is the ultimate evil, that decisions based upon it are primitive, stupid and repugnant, that human affairs should not be conducted according to its dictates, and that humanity should no longer allow itself to be "divided and ruled" by it. 

 

You wouldn't think that claiming right of ownership, of anything, because "God said so" (which, if you strip away the rhetoric is the fundamental, ancient argument in this case/region) has no place in our world.

religion is not important to me but it is for a lot of people in the world, one has to respect that. I don't like the idea of same sex marriage but i know it is important for some so i have to respect that as you probably do so why make an exception for religion. Wars are mostly about power and land, religion is just a trimming, i don't think anybody went to war in the first or second world war or the Korean war or the Vietnam war for God

[Baerboxer]

2 hours ago, Enoon said:

 

You are obviously not one of those people that thinks Religion is the ultimate evil, that decisions based upon it are primitive, stupid and repugnant, that human affairs should not be conducted according to its dictates, and that humanity should no longer allow itself to be "divided and ruled" by it. 

 

You wouldn't think that claiming right of ownership, of anything, because "God said so" (which, if you strip away the rhetoric is the fundamental, ancient argument in this case/region) has no place in our world.

 

I'm not sure about him, but clearly most of the countries that voted for this resolution aren't and do see their religion as being fundamental to our world, how it is governed and ruled.

Russia and China usually go against Israel as they see Israel as being a close American ally. But look at those 24 countries. Really justice loving societies where all have freedom of expression and true democracy - not. Not in the slightest.

 

 

[hugh2121]

5 hours ago, coma said:

Dry your eyes Netanyahu. You were not awarded the temple when Israel was created by the UN. You stole it in 1967. It is not yours. You are the preeminent obstacle to peace. Please go away soon. Please.

Spoils of war which Israel did not start.

[hugh2121]

4 hours ago, geriatrickid said:

Ok, so 26 countries  which have historically always voted against Israel. What else is new? There wasn't one country in favour that has any semblance of respect for basic human rights.

 

I was more impressed by the fact that a majority of members  either abstained or voted against the motion.  Several members  stopped supporting the motion after the first vote in April.

 

This is how the members of UNESCO’s executive board voted on Thursday:

In favor: Algeria, Bangladesh, Brazil, Chad, China, Dominican Republic, Egypt, Iran, Lebanon, Malaysia, Morocco, Mauritius, Mexico, Mozambique, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Russia, Senegal, South Africa, Sudan and Vietnam.

Against: Estonia, Germany, Lithuania, Netherlands, United Kingdom and United States.

Abstaining: Albania, Argentina, Cameroon, El Salvador, France, Ghana, Greece, Guinea, Haiti, India, Italy, Ivory Coast, Japan, Kenya, Nepal, Paraguay, Saint Vincent and Nevis, Slovenia, South Korea, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sweden, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Uganda and Ukraine.

Serbia and Turkmenistan were absent.

The fact that a number of countres at the behest of jew hating muslim dictatorships voted against Israel does not change the fact that jews  had occupied the temple mount  when it was known as Mount Zion and the site of Solomon's Temple until the Babylonians aka Iraqis destroyed it. The Hebrews rebuilt it, and then the Roman pagans destroyed it. Under Judeo- Christian teaching, the third temple will be built on the temple mount. 

The joke is on the idiots who will now migrate to this thread to heap scorn on Israel and to gloat. They'll claim that Israel is  grabbing land for its own use.  What they don't understand is that  religious jews are forbidden from entering into much of the Temple mount because this is where their lord was present and left behind his presence. Jews are told not to go there by their own religious leaders. It's noti a land grab, but the preservation of a long standing relationship with a holy site that was jewish before Mohammed even came up with his religion.

 

 

Very well stated and historically accurate. Surprising really that so many non muslim Israel haters do not know this piece of history or even where Mount Zion is located.

[dick dasterdly]

I must be missing something here.

 

There's a site in Jerusalem sacred to both the Jewish population and the Palestinian/Moslem population, but the Israelis have 'blocked' it to those other groups?

[puipuitom]

The Temple Mountain was Jewish since the conquest by the troops of King David, around 1200 BC

Several times chased away, till finally after the revolt in 135 the Romans forbid any Jew in Jerusalem.

Later this was weakened, and during Byzantine reign Jews were just one of the many religions all over that area.

Mohammed used the name of Jerusalem in his "trip to heaven" story. Result: when the Muslims conquered the entire Middle East, a big most was built to hurt the Jews.

For many centuries several religions lives more-or-less side by side till the British conquered that area in WO1and got it as Mandate area called: Palestine.

In 1947 the UN came with a peace plan to divide parts of what is now Israel, the West-Bank (Arab Palestine) and Jordan, but the Arabs refused, and armies of the Arab countries invaded the just founded Jewish state of Israel, after they called all Arabs to leave the area. Result: 700.000 Arab refugees.

Pity for the Arabs, happy for the Israelis: the Israelis won the biggest part of the area. Result: Jews were expelled from the Arab occupied Jerusalem, even not allowed to pray at their holy sites. For the first time since over a millennium.

In 1967 the Israelis were  a few hours ahead of the Arab invasion, and - among others - conquered the entire West bank, inclusive Jerusalem. All religions were allowed to visit, see all as tourist or as worshippers. I visited it myself in 1971 and was happy to see such a mixture of people. Only , some hardliners at the Arab site liked war more seen their own interest. After quite some years, the Israelis had to defense themselves with a huge wall around their country, but.. included Arab Jerusalem, but especially the Temple Mountain at their side.

 

There can be peace between the Arabs and the Israelis in 5 minutes: stop trying to kill the Israelis, and accept a Jewish state. Borders: these are negotiable. Just as Israel absorbed approx. 6-700.000 Jews from the Muslim states, the majority of Palestinian Arabs have to be absorbed by the Muslim sites.

Remind: hundreds of thousands Muslims still live in Israel, even being member of Parliament. How many Jews are member of ANY government structure in the Muslim world ? NONE !

[thaibeachlovers]

3 hours ago, soalbundy said:

religion is not important to me but it is for a lot of people in the world, one has to respect that. I don't like the idea of same sex marriage but i know it is important for some so i have to respect that as you probably do so why make an exception for religion. Wars are mostly about power and land, religion is just a trimming, i don't think anybody went to war in the first or second world war or the Korean war or the Vietnam war for God

Religion, as opposed to FAITH is a sham and always has been. It has always been used to allow the men with silly hats to become rich at the expense of the gullible. The ultimate religious atrocity is to force observance at the risk of death if seeing the truth.

Does anyone seriously think the pope represents the carpenter that threw the money changers out of the temple? If Jesus came back now he'd throw the entire papal class into the street, take all their money and give it to the poor.

People that seek leadership in matters of faith have been used ever since the first man pretended to know what God says.

That Israelis use the "Word of God" to justify their occupation of land outside Israel just proves what a joke the whole sham is.

 

 

[dick dasterdly]

48 minutes ago, puipuitom said:

The Temple Mountain was Jewish since the conquest by the troops of King David, around 1200 BC

Several times chased away, till finally after the revolt in 135 the Romans forbid any Jew in Jerusalem.

Later this was weakened, and during Byzantine reign Jews were just one of the many religions all over that area.

Mohammed used the name of Jerusalem in his "trip to heaven" story. Result: when the Muslims conquered the entire Middle East, a big most was built to hurt the Jews.

For many centuries several religions lives more-or-less side by side till the British conquered that area in WO1and got it as Mandate area called: Palestine.

In 1947 the UN came with a peace plan to divide parts of what is now Israel, the West-Bank (Arab Palestine) and Jordan, but the Arabs refused, and armies of the Arab countries invaded the just founded Jewish state of Israel, after they called all Arabs to leave the area. Result: 700.000 Arab refugees.

Pity for the Arabs, happy for the Israelis: the Israelis won the biggest part of the area. Result: Jews were expelled from the Arab occupied Jerusalem, even not allowed to pray at their holy sites. For the first time since over a millennium.

In 1967 the Israelis were  a few hours ahead of the Arab invasion, and - among others - conquered the entire West bank, inclusive Jerusalem. All religions were allowed to visit, see all as tourist or as worshippers. I visited it myself in 1971 and was happy to see such a mixture of people. Only , some hardliners at the Arab site liked war more seen their own interest. After quite some years, the Israelis had to defense themselves with a huge wall around their country, but.. included Arab Jerusalem, but especially the Temple Mountain at their side.

 

There can be peace between the Arabs and the Israelis in 5 minutes: stop trying to kill the Israelis, and accept a Jewish state. Borders: these are negotiable. Just as Israel absorbed approx. 6-700.000 Jews from the Muslim states, the majority of Palestinian Arabs have to be absorbed by the Muslim sites.

Remind: hundreds of thousands Muslims still live in Israel, even being member of Parliament. How many Jews are member of ANY government structure in the Muslim world ? NONE !

In short, the site is important to both the Jewish and Moslem population - but its been closed off by the Israelis to the Moslem population?

[Jingthing]

Get real, please:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temple_Mount_entry_restrictions#Israeli_Government_Restriction_policy

 

Quote

 

Israeli restriction policy[edit]

Jewish prayer on Temple Mount is completely forbidden. Jews may enter only to visit the place, and only at limited times. Muslims are free to pray on Temple Mount, however, Christians and Jews may only visit the site as tourists. They are forbidden from singing, praying, or making any kind of "religious displays".^[13] During times of political tension and fear of riots, on Fridays and some Jewish or Muslim Holy Days entry to the Haram area is restricted to Muslim men over a certain age, which varies according to decisions taken by security officials. The restrictions do not concern Muslim women, who can enter regardless of their age.

 

 

 

Edited October 15, 2016 by Jingthing

[dick dasterdly]

8 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Get real, please:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temple_Mount_entry_restrictions#Israeli_Government_Restriction_policy

 

 

 

So the sacred site is off limit to Moslems?  But they are allowed to pray on the outskirts?

[Jingthing]

37 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

So the sacred site is off limit to Moslems?  But they are allowed to pray on the outskirts?

That's your absurd and twisted response to the info I provided? OMG. 

[Ulysses G.]

2 hours ago, dick dasterdly said:

In short, the site is important to both the Jewish and Moslem population - but its been closed off by the Israelis to the Moslem population?

 

A blatant lie. Muslims are allowed to visit. Jews are the ones who are restricted.

[dick dasterdly]

1 hour ago, Jingthing said:

That's your absurd and twisted response to the info I provided? OMG. 

Not really.  I'm trying to figure out what this is about.

[dick dasterdly]

12 minutes ago, Ulysses G. said:

 

A blatant lie. Muslims are allowed to visit. Jews are the ones who are restricted.

So why is Israel annoyed by the UNESCO decision?

 

As I said in my first post, I'm missing something here.

[Ulysses G.]

3 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

 

As I said in my first post, I'm missing something here.

 

Yes you are.

[dick dasterdly]

10 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

So why is Israel annoyed by the UNESCO decision?

 

As I said in my first post, I'm missing something here.

 

6 minutes ago, Ulysses G. said:

 

Yes you are.

Thanks for that explanatory post.

 

Hopefully someone else will be able to explain things more clearly in a way that makes sense.

[Ulysses G.]

Hopefully you will stop posting hateful, dishonest comments on subjects that you do not understand.

[Morch]

4 hours ago, dick dasterdly said:

I must be missing something here.

 

There's a site in Jerusalem sacred to both the Jewish population and the Palestinian/Moslem population, but the Israelis have 'blocked' it to those other groups?

 

3 hours ago, dick dasterdly said:

In short, the site is important to both the Jewish and Moslem population - but its been closed off by the Israelis to the Moslem population?

 

3 hours ago, dick dasterdly said:

So the sacred site is off limit to Moslems?  But they are allowed to pray on the outskirts?

 

The answer is simple: less time trolling, more time reading.

JT provided you with a link detailing access arrangements.

There were more than one topic on TVF relating the same issues.

 

 

[dick dasterdly]

Just now, Morch said:

 

 

 

The answer is simple: less time trolling, more time reading.

JT provided you with a link detailing access arrangements.

There were more than one topic on TVF relating the same issues.

 

 

I hate to derail your 'trolling' idea about me, as I'm doing nothing of the sort.

 

I was asking for a simple answer to a simple question on this subject.

 

To make it clearer I'll repeat myself.  Unesco has angered Israel (according to the OP) by declaring that Israel should allow others to the 'holy site'?

 

I gather its a 'holy site' for Israelis and Moslems, and assume that Moslems are not allowed the same access - otherwise UNESCO wouldn't have got involved?

 

But feel free to call me a troll again for daring to ask simple questions on the current topic.

[Jingthing]

Not really.  I'm trying to figure out what this is about.

It's about the U.N. irrationally dissing Israel as they do.

[Gary A]

I'm not Jewish but I do have a lot of sympathy for them. They never know when the next attack will come, they only know that there will be more attacks.

 

How would you feel if your neighboring countries insisted that YOUR country had no right to exist and continually threatened to remove it from the face of the earth? How would you ever negotiate a peace agreement with an attitude like that?

[up-country_sinclair]

Israeli policies restricting Muslim access to the al Aqsa compound in occupied Jerusalem are despicable.  UNESCO is to be praised for its decision.

 

 

[geriatrickid]

8 hours ago, dick dasterdly said:

I must be missing something here.

 

There's a site in Jerusalem sacred to both the Jewish population and the Palestinian/Moslem population, but the Israelis have 'blocked' it to those other groups?

 

Actually, jews are discouraged from going and if they go, they are only allowed at certain times and under supervision of the muslim guards and  Israeli border police. Israel has historically, blocked jews from entering the area. It was part of a long standing  tacit agreement with muslims. As I understand it, free access was allowed under the Ottoman Empire, the segregation took hold during the British mandate and the exclusion of all non muslims started with the Jordanian occupation. Interesting to note that it was under the Sultan's control back in 600 BC (I believe) that permission was given to the jews for the construction of the 3rd Temple. All this conflict and fighting is a byproduct of the  leftover remnants of the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, and the creation of previously non existant Arab countries and their own politics.  This wasn't an issue 100 years ago.

 

 

 

 

[geriatrickid]

2 hours ago, up-country_sinclair said:

Israeli policies restricting Muslim access to the al Aqsa compound in occupied Jerusalem are despicable.  UNESCO is to be praised for its decision.

 

 

It isn't restricting muslim access. The restrictions are more draconian in respect to non muslims. Get your facts straight.

[Ulysses G.]

2 hours ago, geriatrickid said:

Get your facts straight.

 

There is a first time for everything.