UNESCO passes controversial Jerusalem resolution

[notmyself]

The Bible? What does that have to do with it?

[Jingthing]

As I expected, because it does not exist, nobody here can offer a (non-hateful) reason why UNESCO or any legit international organization can credibly refer to this site in question and ONLY acknowledge the Muslim connection, INTENTIONALLY erasing and not mentioning the JEWISH connection. It's Jerusalem! As said on another thread, it's as absurd as denying a connection of Christianity to the VATICAN. 

Edited October 19, 2016 by Jingthing

[Johpa]

2 hours ago, notmyself said:

If a historical claim is made that dates back a couple of thousand years then there is no reason not to include the Amalekites  Don't get me wrong, I think that only using Arabic names in the UNESCO resolution is a disgrace because it wipes out thousands of years of history... can't just ignore history.

 

Amalekites?!?  Really? Now you are opening up a real can of worms in a dung filled environment.  ; )

[Thorgal]

The Christians didn't occupy or annexed the Vatican.

For shure the Holy site in Jerusalem is occupied by Israel since 1967.

The text of the new resolution of the UNESCO mentioned multiple times Israel as the Occupying Power. Thus, Israel was not ignored in this resolution.

http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0024/002443/244378e.pdf


Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect

[Ulysses G.]

1 hour ago, Thorgal said:

For shure the Holy site in Jerusalem is occupied by Israel since 1967.

 

 

Since it was occupied by Jordan. It was never the Palestinians.

[Jingthing]

1 hour ago, Ulysses G. said:

 

Since it was occupied by Jordan. It was never the Palestinians.

Whether the site in question that is of importance to all the monotheistic religions (NOT ONLY ISLAM!) is so called "occupied" by Israel or part of another nation, mandate, or empire, the connection of Jews to the Temple Mount in Jerusalem is still very real as it has been for thousands of years. UNESCO needs to clean up their act -- erasing Jewish history will not stand. 

[Scott]

Off-topic posts removed along with replies.   Continued off-topic trolling will result in suspensions.   Please re-read the OP if you are unsure what the thread is about.  

 

You have been warned.  

[Thorgal]

 

Since it was occupied by Jordan. It was never the Palestinians.

Under the terms of the Status Quo on holy sites, a decree fixed by decree of the Ottoman Sultan in 1757 and codified in more detail by a British government Commission in 1922, the Wall is technically Muslim property, belonging to the Waqf, who also own the synagogue area in front of it.

Jews however, have the right to stand on the pavement in front of it and pray.

See pictures from before 1967 period...

One of the first acts of the Israelis, upon taking over East Jerusalem during the 1967 war was to give the 619 Palestinian inhabitants of the Maghribi Quarter just a few hours to evacuate their homes.

Then the bulldozers came in and destroyed this historic district. This act, in contravention of the Geneva Convention was done in order to create a plaza big enough to accommodate the thousands of pilgrims who were expected to flock to the Western Wall.

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect

[Morch]

4 hours ago, Thorgal said:

Under the terms of the Status Quo on holy sites, a decree fixed by decree of the Ottoman Sultan in 1757 and codified in more detail by a British government Commission in 1922, the Wall is technically Muslim property, belonging to the Waqf, who also own the synagogue area in front of it.

Jews however, have the right to stand on the pavement in front of it and pray.

See pictures from before 1967 period...

One of the first acts of the Israelis, upon taking over East Jerusalem during the 1967 war was to give the 619 Palestinian inhabitants of the Maghribi Quarter just a few hours to evacuate their homes.

Then the bulldozers came in and destroyed this historic district. This act, in contravention of the Geneva Convention was done in order to create a plaza big enough to accommodate the thousands of pilgrims who were expected to flock to the Western Wall.

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect

 

You are (again) copy pasting from a source without linking.

 

Also, the narrative above glosses over the period between 1948 to 1967. In the aftermath of the 1948 war, Jordan took control of Eastern Jerusalem, which include the Tempe Mount and the Old City.

 

All residents of the Jewish Quarter were forced to leave after their surrender. Many of the buildings were destroyed in the fighting, and what remained of the synagogues and many other Jewish religious buildings were demolished later on. The post-war agreement which provided Jews access to the Western Wall was not upheld by the Jordanians. The ban effected Israel's Muslims citizens as well.

 

Describing the pics included as "before 1967 period" is not an outright lie, but simply the usual attempt at misleading: "before 1948 period" would be a much more accurate description.

 

Israel did destroy the Mughrabi Quarter, and granted, it was not in line with international norms, treaties and such. The point made is that these sort of things were done by both sides. Your post is another example of a one-sided account, set to promote a political agenda - pretty much the same as the UNESCO resolution.

[Morch]

10 hours ago, Thorgal said:

The Christians didn't occupy or annexed the Vatican.

For shure the Holy site in Jerusalem is occupied by Israel since 1967.

The text of the new resolution of the UNESCO mentioned multiple times Israel as the Occupying Power. Thus, Israel was not ignored in this resolution.

http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0024/002443/244378e.pdf


Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect

 

Were there many UNESCO resolutions discussing Jerusalem during the time of the Jordanian occupation?

 

[Ulysses G.]

4 hours ago, car720 said:

I must admit that this makes for interesting reading although it does sound a little tainted by bias.

 

http://www.indaweb.com/oil/editorialopinion/tzemach.news.service01l.htm

 

 

 

Bias for the truth. I only glanced at it vey quickly, but it looked pretty accurate.

Edited October 20, 2016 by Ulysses G.