Israel angered by UNESCO decision on holy site

[Ulysses G.]

11 hours ago, puipuitom said:

 

There can be peace between the Arabs and the Israelis in 5 minutes: stop trying to kill the Israelis, and accept a Jewish state.

 

That is it in a nutshell. 

[Morch]

14 hours ago, dick dasterdly said:

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.

 

You repeat the same question (which includes your premise), even after a answer with a linked source was provided.

One would have to be either obtuse or trolling in order to repeat the same comment as a reply. I don't think you're obtuse, hence troll.

 

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/948879-israel-angered-by-unesco-decision-on-holy-site/#comment-11245037

[Kasset Tak]

On 2016-10-15 at 9:27 AM, Ulysses G. said:

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.

Yea, the Brits and everyone else wanted the Jews out of Europe, that's why they already 1917 declared to make a Jewish state in Palestine (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balfour_Declaration) and thereby basically give away half of Palestine to make a Jewish home country without even considering talking to the Palestinians (700,000 Arabs and 55,000 Jews were living in Palestine by 1918) if they would accept the deal... which they didn't! So basically the 1947 deal was just another way to screw the Palestinians out of their land.

[Morch]

For the benefit of trolls, posters missing something, haters and overly ardent supporters of Israel - here's a mini-primer explaining the OP.

 

UNESCO, like most UN bodies is a political entity, regardless of its nominal function and purpose. Board members change periodically, and there is no particular requirement that a board member will represent the ideals of this body. Like other UN bodies, the agenda is often hijacked in support of this or that political cause. Voting is not always related to the merits of the proposal, but to political given and take among members. Unless mistaken, even UNESCO's chief, Irina Bokova, expressed her displeasure with regard to the form and tone of the resolution (not a first for her).

 

The current UNESCO decision is one sided in that it adopts the Palestinian position wholesale and without reservations. When it refers to uncoordinated archeological activities by Israel, it fails to mention related Palestinian uncoordinated (or even properly supervised) construction work on the site. When it refers to the presence and role of Israeli security forces, it fails to mention the site being repeatedly used as staging ground for Palestinian rioters. Not a word about the almost routine sights of Jewish worshipers on the Wailing Wall Plaza being pelted by stones form the mosque above.

 

Access restrictions? The only ones allowed to pray on site are Muslims. Jews pray at the adjacent Wailing Wall Plaza. Visitation to the site by non-Muslims is limited to specific times, and usually prohibited on Muslim holidays. While it is true that Israel restricts access to the site, it is very rarely that access is generally denied. The restrictions are more to do with security issues, and can be said to effect younger men, more likely to partake in violence. Israeli Muslims are afforded free access.

 

These restrictions are in place since circa 2000 (the 2nd Intifada). Prior to this access was regulated by the Waqf (mostly controlled by Jordan). The current resolution calls, as far as I understand, for a re-establishment of the former arrangement. It just fails to mention that the Waqf sings different tunes these days (more under Palestinian control, and hard line leaning).

 

It is also true that the UN partition plan of 1947 did not designate Jerusalem (or the Temple Mount) as belonging to either side. The half cooked notion (considering the reality back then) was that it would be co-managed or under international mandate. As things panned out post 1948, the site fell under Jordanian control. There wasn't that much of an international outrage over access denied to Jews (or Israeli Muslims), the general disrepair and desecration of Jewish religious sites, or even Jordanian occupation and annexation.  There is little to suggest that if the Palestinians were to assume control of the site, access to non-Muslims will be uncontested or even more severely restricted than nowadays.

 

Another way in which the resolution appears one sided is by referring to sites by their Arab names, which was perceived is Israel as a denial (or rejection) of their place in Jewish heritage and religion.

 

There are, of course, other related issues appearing in the resolution, quite a few of minor importance, bordering on nitpicking

 

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Aqsa_Mosque#Current_situations

http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0024/002462/246215e.pdf

[stevenl]

Morch, I don't always agree with you, but your insights on the Palestinian/Israeli question are much appreciated and well thought out.

Thanks.

[DaddyWarbucks]

Discounting Zionist propaganda offensives and Palestinian maneuvers to gain UN support, if either side succeeds in dominating the Al-Aqsa Mosque/Temple Mount area it will start another conflagration in the region.

The bloody cesspool that is the Middle East should be treated as a zone of contagion to be avoided and boycotted whenever and wherever possible.

[sirineou]

if you claim some one gave you something but you cant produce evidence that someone exists, how valid is your claim?

[Ulysses G.]

10 hours ago, Kasset Tak said:

 So basically the 1947 deal was just another way to screw the Palestinians out of their land.

 

They did not HAVE any land. It was owned by absentee landlords from the Ottoman Empire. The 1947 deal would have given them their own country for the first time ever, but they refused and declared war on Israel - who were intelligent enough to accept the UN deal.

[Ulysses G.]

3 hours ago, sirineou said:

if you claim some one gave you something but you cant produce evidence that someone exists, how valid is your claim?

 

Pretty valid when you have possession of the land, a thriving economy and one of the best armies in the world.

[Johpa]

10 hours ago, Kasset Tak said:

Yea, the Brits and everyone else wanted the Jews out of Europe, that's why they already 1917 declared to make a Jewish state in Palestine (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balfour_Declaration) and thereby basically give away half of Palestine to make a Jewish home country without even considering talking to the Palestinians (700,000 Arabs and 55,000 Jews were living in Palestine by 1918) if they would accept the deal... which they didn't! So basically the 1947 deal was just another way to screw the Palestinians out of their land.

 

As you note, the major objective was not to screw the Palestinians out of their land but to rid themselves of unwanted Jews.  The Palestinians were collateral damage.  Such sentiments and actions would not happen today.  But history is always brutal and irreversible.

[sirineou]

7 hours ago, Ulysses G. said:

 

Pretty valid when you have possession of the land, a thriving economy and one of the best armies in the world.

not valid at all,

might does not make right, if that was so every bully in the world would have a valid claim to everything you own. I cant believe you got a" like " on that response.

 

[Ulysses G.]

Just now, sirineou said:

not valid at all,

might does not make right, if that was so every bully in the world would have a valid claim to everything you own. I cant believe you got a" like " on that response.

 

 

The Palestinians started the violence initially and carried it on for decades. Might makes right when you are defending yourself and that has been the case from long before modern Israel was born.

[sirineou]

1 minute ago, Ulysses G. said:

 

The Palestinians started the violence initially and carried it on for decades. Might makes right when you are defending yourself and that has been the case from long before modern Israel was born.

who started what is debatable , what is not debatable is that might makes right.

[Ulysses G.]

2 minutes ago, sirineou said:

who started what is debatable , what is not debatable is that might makes right.

 

The Allies won WW2 because of military might, so you might reconsider that.

 

Anywsy, you are about 70 years too late. Israel is not going away.

Edited October 16, 2016 by Ulysses G.

[Jingthing]

Just now, Ulysses G. said:

 

The Palestinians started the violence initially and carried it on for decades. Might makes right when you are defending yourself and that has been the case from long before modern Israel was born.

What's also not debatable is that the Jewish people are INDIGENOUS to Israel and the ties of the Jewish people (and religion of course) to the LAND of Israel goes back thousands of years

 

Unesco wants to deny that and erase that. I won't work. 

 

 

 

[sirineou]

1 minute ago, Ulysses G. said:

 

You are about 70 years too late. Israel in not going away.

in an area where history is counted in the thousands of years , 70 years is but a blip.

But regardless of whether Israel goes away or not, does not change the fact that might does not make right.

[sirineou]

3 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

What's also not debatable is that the Jewish people are INDIGENOUS to Israel and the ties of the Jewish people (and religion of course) to the LAND of Israel goes back thousands of years

 

Unesco wants to deny that and erase that. I won't work. 

 

 

 

it is certainly  debatable, not saying right or wrong, but certainly debatable. People have being debating it for years, Just because you spelled indigenous in Caps does does not win you the debate.

Sorry shouting is not a valid debating technique.

[Jingthing]

A poetic comment relating to this topic from NOBEL prize winner, Bob Dylan:

 

Fully lyrics here:

http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/bobdylan/neighborhoodbully.html

Quote

 

The neighborhood bully been driven out of every land
He’s wandered the earth an exiled man
Seen his family scattered, his people hounded and torn
He’s always on trial for just being born
He’s the neighborhood bully

 

Every empire that’s enslaved him is gone
Egypt and Rome, even the great Babylon

What has he done to wear so many scars?
Does he change the course of rivers? Does he pollute the moon and stars?

 

 

 

 

 

Edited October 17, 2016 by Jingthing

[Ulysses G.]

4 hours ago, Jingthing said:

A poetic comment relating to this topic from NOBEL prize winner, Bob Dylan:

 

Fully lyrics here:

http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/bobdylan/neighborhoodbully.html

 

 

 

It is a PRO Israel song supporting Israel. The "bully" reference is sarcastic. 

Edited October 17, 2016 by Ulysses G.

[TooPoopedToPop]

24 minutes ago, Ulysses G. said:

 

It is a PRO Israel song supporting Israel. The "bully" reference is sarcastic. 

Was he really being sarcastic?

If so, maybe he was trying to squelch the rumors that he was baptized in Pat Boone's swimming pool.

[Jingthing]

49 minutes ago, Ulysses G. said:

 

It is a PRO Israel song supporting Israel. The "bully" reference is sarcastic. 

Of course, it is a very pro Israel and pro Jewish song. But really I think calling it sarcastic is too simplistic for the beautiful and poetic complexity of those lyrics.

Not saying you're wrong at all calling the title sarcastic -- just that there is a lot more to what he is saying in those lyrics. 

 

Nobel prize well deserved.

 

http://religionnews.com/2016/10/13/bob-dylan-nobel-prize-literature/

• Quote

  “Neighborhood Bully.” A barely disguised love song to the state of Israel, doing what it must do to survive in a hostile neighborhood. And still, she is called the “neighborhood bully.” One of the greatest affirmations of a Jewish idea that has ever appeared in popular musical culture.

   

Edited October 17, 2016 by Jingthing

[Jingthing]

22 minutes ago, TooPoopedToPop said:

Was he really being sarcastic?

If so, maybe he was trying to squelch the rumors that he was baptized in Pat Boone's swimming pool.

He's an artist. He went through phases. He's an observant Jew now and there are Jewish themes in many of his lyrics.

Edited October 17, 2016 by Jingthing

[Johpa]

9 minutes ago, TooPoopedToPop said:

Was he really being sarcastic?

If so, maybe he was trying to squelch the rumors that he was baptized in Pat Boone's swimming pool.

 

Can't speak to the lyrics, but such an event would indeed be dripping in sarcasm.

[Ulysses G.]

4 hours ago, TooPoopedToPop said:

Was he really being sarcastic?

 

 

Yep.

 

Well, the neighborhood bully, he's just one man
His enemies say he's on their land
They got him outnumbered about a million to one
He got no place to escape to, no place to run
He's the neighborhood bully.

The neighborhood bully he just lives to survive
He's criticized and condemned for being alive
He's not supposed to fight back, he's supposed to have thick skin
He's supposed to lay down and die when his door is kicked in
He's the neighborhood bully.
 

[Galactus]

 

good move from UNESCO and classic Israel.

you restrict Palestinian people to enter their holy places, steal their land, oppress them and once an organization reminds the real facts, Israel gets angry! oh my...

why angry? bc reality bites their as...es? of course.

 

 

 

[Galactus]

On 10/15/2016 at 7:08 PM, Ulysses G. said:

 

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

 

 Palestinians can enter wneh Israle wants of course. but at their own risk! they can get shot for nothing.

 

On 10/15/2016 at 8:34 PM, Gary A said:

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?

 

you get misinformed by your Zionists friends. it is Israel stole and still stealing Palestinian land and do not go through international laws.

so yes, how can Palestinians can have peace with invader Israeli army or settlers when their land is still getting occupied as we speak.

and what i see ,it is Israel wants to remove Palestinians from the face of the earth by what? land stealing, phosphorus bombs, extra judical killings and more.

 

On 10/17/2016 at 4:56 AM, Ulysses G. said:

 

The Palestinians started the violence initially and carried it on for decades. Might makes right when you are defending yourself and that has been the case from long before modern Israel was born.

 

ho hum. Jews have been inserted by Brits and some international forces and they constantly occupied lands belongs to muslims there and changed the demographics of the land and they still do the same.

it is Israelis started this and they are not stopping any time soon.

[Grouse]

Why don't the Jews just charge for entry? ?

[Jingthing]

Consider the facts before spewing such unfair anti Israel hatred. The facts are that Israel restricts Jews at this site much more than Muslims. Jews are never allowed to pray there at a massively important site to religious Jews. Any restrictions on Muslims are about temporary and legitimate security concerns. Yes this is a site of enormous importance to so many people. Failing to include the name Temple Mount is deeply insulting to many Jews.

Is it fait that Jews aren't allowed to pray there? I don't think so but that is what Israel is enforcing on Jews because the consequences of allowing that would just be too severe in the Muslim world which Israel is located surrounded by. Neighborhood bully indeed.

[Morch]

42 minutes ago, Grouse said:

Why don't the Jews just charge for entry? ?

 

And that would be relevant...how?

 

 

[Jingthing]

 
And that would be relevant...how?
 
 

It's relevant as an antisemitic trope suggesting that Jews only care about money.