‘Holy’ Jerusalem to stay Israeli for ever: Olmert

[eurekaa]

‘Holy’ Jerusalem to stay Israeli for ever: Olmert


http://www.onlines.ws/wp-content/img/jerusalem2.jpg




Says returning Jerusalem is out of the question

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said Monday that Israel would retain permanent sovereignty over “historic and holy Jerusalem” as his country commemorated its 1967 occupation of the city’s Arab eastern sector.


His comments came as he prepared to head for talks in Washington amid U.S. and U.N. criticism of his government’s plans to expand Jewish settlements in east Jerusalem.


“Israeli sovereignty over historic and holy Jerusalem will last for eternity. Jerusalem constitutes the heart of the Jewish people,” Olmert said in a Jerusalem Day speech.


“Forty-one years ago, during a war that was imposed on us, Jerusalem was liberated and unified,” the Israeli premier said.


“After thousands of years, Jerusalem resumed its position as the center for the Jewish people. It’s a return that is not going to be thrown into question.”


Israel captured east Jerusalem on June 7, 1967. Monday was the anniversary according to the Jewish calendar.


In 1980, Israel adopted a basic law making the city its “eternal, undivided capital” but the move has never been recognized by the international community, which regards all settlements on occupied Palestinian land as illegal.


Olmert reassures Abbas

Meanwhile, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas protested Jewish settlement growth near Jerusalem in talks on Monday with Olmert, who sought to show it was business-as-usual despite a corruption probe.


“Differences were deep and strong in this area,” Abbas aide Saeb Erekat said of the settlement issue, which has dogged U.S.-sponsored peace talks since they were launched in November.


Abbas’s prime minister, Salam Fayyad, stepped up the pressure, calling on the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) in a letter to deny Israel membership over building on occupied land, a Palestinian official said.


Olmert’s spokesman, Mark Regev, said Fayyad’s lobbying efforts with the OECD were “simply unproductive” and that the prime minister raised the issue during his two-hour meeting with Abbas in Jerusalem. Olmert will fly later on Monday to Washington, where he will meet President George W. Bush.


“This process will continue,” Regev said of the talks with the Palestinians, adding that Olmert recommitted himself during the meeting to trying to reach a deal on Palestinian statehood by the end of the year.
“We’re hopeful, still, that it will be possible to reach such an agreement,” Regev said. “I can say unequivocally that there was progress reached in this meeting today.”


Plans announced by Olmert’s government to build 884 new homes in two Jewish settlements in east Jerusalem to mark the anniversary drew new criticism from both the United Nations and key ally the United States.
U.N. chief Ban Ki-moon said Israel’s planned expansion of the two settlements was both “contrary to international law and to its commitments” under the peace process with the Palestinians resumed at a U.S.-hosted conference last November.


But Olmert insisted that he saw “no contradiction between the complete dedication of the Jewish people to Jerusalem and our aspirations for peace” with the Palestinians.


The Palestinians insist that any peace deal must be based on the 1967 borders and demand east Jerusalem as the capital of their promised state.



Source: ( onlines news ) (http://www.onlines.ws/?p=607)


Well , Remind me Again ,

So what the Peace Talks is about !!!

I mentioned in another thread and I'm repeating it again here :
" There is NO PEACE Without Fair solution for Jerusalem"

Either this or the hostility/war between moslems/jews will last FOR EVER .

When You talk about Jerusalem you do not talk about peace with Palestinians , but with the whole moslems world , more then 1 Billion moslem wont accept their AQSA Mosque under Isreali / Jewish sovereignty For EVER .

There is no question about this for moslems either , So Mr.Olmer and any one who DREAMS about Jewish unified Jerusalem most know that these haughtiness statements wont work if you want real peace ..

Otherwise you can keep dreaming about the unified Israeli Jerualem for the next 60 years and it'll never happened on your SELFISH CONDITIONS !

WHY !

Simply because Jerusalem its not an Palestinian ISSUE so you can settle it only with them ( and also this will never happened ) , but you have to settle it with the whole moslem's world ..

THE PEACE means : to open your borders with your neighbors, start real normalization with them and every one is happy ..

Lets assume that you settle this issue on the political level with your neighbor due to your terms about unified Jewish Jerusalem which either will never happened , so tell me how you`ll settle it with one billion moslem around the world !

You'll never ever be able to open your borders or to travel to their countries safely with out hiding you Israeli identity , otherwise you get thousands of suicidal Bombs from the first day ..

Back To reality Sir ,

Jerusalem must be divided between Moselms and Jews and Christians also why not which I do not recommend , or to set Jerusalem as ONE separate state for all world all religions without any unilaterally religious sovereignty !

Or any other Fair Solution ..

If you really want real peace , you'll find Fair solution for Jerusalem , but with the above statement , you'll get peace only in your dreams .. Just selfish irresponsible statements to cover your last scandal that every one knows ..

YES ,

No more hostility ,
No more wars ,
Lets live together Peacefully
Lets start to love the human being inside us

God knows what comments i`ll see below , but I know that not all Arabs or all Jews with the same radical mentality , and this is my hand to every Israeli / Jews peace propagandists who really wants real peace .. with fair solutions

lets start with stopping the bully selfish language that lead us no where but increasing the hates ..

and to say helo , my name is: " ** " , I want peace and I want to know you and your culture more .

why not , at the end we are semitics and COUSINS - Aren't we !

any way , every one thinks the way he likes ,, but its one word

You want peace you'll get peace
You want hostility , you' get what you want

and

No Peace without real solution for Jerusalem that ll of us accept it ..

Again ,

No peace without Jerusalem , there is no question about that !

We either work on fair solution for Jerusalem , or to keep collecting more weapons waiting for the day that settle every thing its way ..

Sincerely ,
Eurekaa
A Friend who wants unconditional peace

[Calanen]

The problem seems to be this. The Israelis would live with the UN running Jerusalem, they unfortunately can't, because, the UN has a habit of ignoring Hezbollah or Hamas or Al-Fatah when it uses these corridors of UN administration to move weapons and fire rockets into Israel.

So what to do. Is there another agency or group that can run Jerusalem, and not let Hamas et al turn it into another place to launch rockets from? I dont think so. The EU? Probably not. America would do it, but that would cause its own difficulties.

If the peace deal was such that the UN put a taskforce with teeth (like the Korean War) that had a mandate to annihilate anyone who started up terror or rocket firing in Jerusalem than that might work and the city became a free city under the UN on the provision that there would be no terror, nothing at all..it is possible. But the UN has been so pathetic at preventing this sort of thing in the past, Israel can have no confidence that it will do a better job if given another chance.

Israel wants peace, it just doest not want to create a new Taliban style staging area. Hamas and Al-Fatah don't want peace. They want Israel wiped out.

[eurekaa]

The problem seems to be this. The Israelis would live with the UN running Jerusalem, they unfortunately can't, because, the UN has a habit of ignoring Hezbollah or Hamas or Al-Fatah when it uses these corridors of UN administration to move weapons and fire rockets into Israel.

So what to do. Is there another agency or group that can run Jerusalem, and not let Hamas et al turn it into another place to launch rockets from? I dont think so. The EU? Probably not. America would do it, but that would cause its own difficulties.

If the peace deal was such that the UN put a taskforce with teeth (like the Korean War) that had a mandate to annihilate anyone who started up terror or rocket firing in Jerusalem than that might work and the city became a free city under the UN on the provision that there would be no terror, nothing at all..it is possible. But the UN has been so pathetic at preventing this sort of thing in the past, Israel can have no confidence that it will do a better job if given another chance.

Israel wants peace, it just doest not want to create a new Taliban style staging area. Hamas and Al-Fatah don't want peace. They want Israel wiped out.

When we say eternal Real Peace , it means there are NO MORE HAMAS , Hezbollah , or even Qaeda .. NONE

There is no even reason for their existence ..

Believe me or not and you may call me ignorant , but let me dare to tell you that all wars in the middle east area somehow its related to Palestinian/Israeli Issue ( In IRAQ , Afghanistan .. etc )

If we resolve the Jerusalem Issue it means we resolved the Israeli /Palestinian issue and Jewish with all Moslems relationship as well ..

And if we Resolved the Palestinian issue we`ll hear no more about Iraq/Afghanistan .. etc

All ruinations in the middle east has something related to Israeli/Palestine Issue ..

You can see this obviously when remember the disastrous event at the time the Qaeda attack NY Trade center on 9/11 ..there was no real reason for this crisis/shambles since we always had good relationship with United states , USA was not the enemy of middle east at this time ..

but it was because of Unites States tendentious statements/decisions at U.N using the VETO right unfairly against Arabians ..

9/11 was related to Israeli / Palestinians Issue
Iraq also is the same
Afghanistan also the same .. etc

YES , I dare to say that today most of Moslem's wars & troubles on the earth are related somehow to Middle east issue ..

If its resolved we'll not hear about wars in Iraq , Afghanistan , Somalia , Lebanon and Syria etc ... And for sure we'll not hear about HAMAS , Hezbulla and Qaeda etc , because simply there is no need for their existence since there is no reason for them to fight for ..

And no one from Moslems world will support them at this time , this is only will happened at this day when we resolve our ME issue FAIRLEY ..

But NOT TODAY with such showy and outrageous statements we hear everyday from our politicians either in Israel like the statement above by Mr.Olmert , or from Ahmed Najad and Syria .. etc

[Moledet]

You don't understand do you? Jerusalem and the right of return will never happen. It's negotiations not blackmailing, you give up on some stuff and we give up on some stuff, don't expect to get everything.

[Calanen]

believe me or not and you may call me ignorant , but let me dare to tell you that all wars in the middle east area somehow its related to Palestinian/Israeli Issue ( In IRAQ , Afghanistan .. etc )



You are ignorant. Did Mohammed need Israel to run around the Middle East conquering people in the name of Jihad? Did the Ottoman Empire? Did Saladin? So, according to you, the last 1000 years or so of warlords running around Europe and the Middle East attacking the infidels was all somehow related to their premonition of Israel.

Islam managed to find a reason to conquer all the way up to France and Spain in the Middle Ages, and then up to Vienna in 1683. No Israel involved.

One may well wonder how the peace loving muslims had somehow moved from Medina and Mecca to the Holy Land (hint it wasnt through land purchases).

So there is a long history of conflict. You are delusional if you think that Israel or Palestine or solving anything there will prevent Islamic terror. It will not make one bit of difference.

[eurekaa]

You don't understand do you? Jerusalem and the right of return will never happen. It's negotiations not blackmailing, you give up on some stuff and we give up on some stuff, don't expect to get everything.

Hi Moledet ,

Okay , What you are saying is exactly the same your antagonists do say .. nothing less nothing more

We'll stay for the next decades or god knows how long both of us keep saying the same words on negotiating tables like we used to do last 40 years with more wars and more bloods to give .

And actually If Moslems give up the right of return ( which easily can be resolved by the way ) and Jerusalem issue , it means there is absolutely nothing else to negotiate about ..

Yes , lets go home and every one is happy, there is nothing to talk about really .

Sir , You said ::


It's negotiations not blackmailing, you give up on some stuff and we give up on some stuff

So tell me now what are the stuffs these you are going to give up and offering on for peace except the right of return and settling Jerusalem issue ?

Because I know for sure there is nothing else left to negotiate about .. :)

And do not tell me you are offering us the Peace , because we are offering the same to you ..

Do not forget that most of Moslems till today do not mentioned the word ISRAEL , they still write Palestine on the map and teach their children that there is nothing called Israel , only Palestine

Sir , the more this issue stays the more the hostility increased

[LRPV]

"THE PEACE means : to open your borders with your neighbors, start real normalization with them and every one is happy .. "


You have just shown how juvenile you are with a complete and comprehensive lack of understanding of this situation. Your Utopian dreaming might play at Uni but in the real world it is hollow rhetoric.



"Because I know for sure there is nothing else left to negotiate about .. :-)"

You know sweet fvck all.

[eurekaa]

"THE PEACE means : to open your borders with your neighbors, start real normalization with them and every one is happy .. "


You have just shown how juvenile you are with a complete and comprehensive lack of understanding of this situation. Your Utopian dreaming might play at Uni but in the real world it is hollow rhetoric.


"Because I know for sure there is nothing else left to negotiate about .. :-)"

You know sweet fvck all.

ah , Sorry LRPV , its my mistake ...

I forgot to say also in addition to what you quoted :

" and no more WARS "

This what Peace means .. and Im not sure if this what you really want or ready for , but please when it comes to talk about WARS talk only about yourself not all people in Israel , because for me this is not what I want .. because today I'm Peace propagandist I claim

But if it was the only choice , then its the only choice

And please not to use such words ( Fvck all ) , it does not show me your courage or proofing for something , its not more then improper meaningless word .

These words means you support the war solution by showing some courage , and I guess you know very well that your antagonist ( Moslems / Arabs ) are not checkins or cowards and they are also courgaes enough when it comes to war ..

Common , My people are Bomb suicidal , aren't they ! :) , certainly they are not cowards

God , Please no need to show our violence with words here in forum , we are just talking and chatting , we do not know each other yet .. maybe if you know me in person you`ll see that I'm very friendly and nice guy , and the same to you as well ..

lets have some a breack to breath and think and to know each other , not to fight ..

[Moledet]

Hi Moledet ,

Okay , What you are saying is exactly the same your antagonists do say .. nothing less nothing more

We'll stay for the next decades or god knows how long both of us keep saying the same words on negotiating tables like we used to do last 40 years with more wars and more bloods to give .

And actually If Moslems give up the right of return ( which easily can be resolved by the way ) and Jerusalem issue , it means there is absolutely nothing else to negotiate about ..

Yes , lets go home and every one is happy, there is nothing to talk about really .

Sir , You said ::



So tell me now what are the stuffs these you are going to give up and offering on for peace except the right of return and settling Jerusalem issue ?

Because I know for sure there is nothing else left to negotiate about .. :)

And do not tell me you are offering us the Peace , because we are offering the same to you ..

Do not forget that most of Moslems till today do not mentioned the word ISRAEL , they still write Palestine on the map and teach their children that there is nothing called Israel , only Palestine

Sir , the more this issue stays the more the hostility increased

Let's see: Independence in most of the land in Judah and Samaria and in Gaza strip, international recognition, open borders (including air corridor with Israel, Jordan and Egypt), economical aid and cooperation in all fields, military aid and the ability to form a defense force, return of the refugees to the new country, probably more but I don't feel like thinking about it.

I agree that it's a real problem that you teach your kids only hate.

[Zeev]

You don't understand do you? Jerusalem and the right of return will never happen..

realistic people do understand that, at least, they should.

[seraosha]

Jerusalem is for Jews. Any claim on the Holy city by other religions is just opportunism. Arabs were polytheists and animists when the first stones were laid, and Christian Crusaders hardly have a leg to stand on.

Both Christians and Muslims need to realize that Jerusalem is not theirs, but is a shared holy place in the care of the Jews. With access to the Dome of the rock, and with access to the Church of the Holy Sepulchre and other sites of religious importance to the different faiths being allowed, there really isn't a reason to "own" it.

Be realistic, the caliphate isn't coming back, Islam can barely keep pilgrims from trampling themselves during the Haj, and if the UN tried it's hand at it, it would be a mistake of galactic scale.

[Ariha]

it would be a mistake of galactic scale.
But it will happen.

[Zeev]

Jerusalem is for Jews. Any claim on the Holy city by other religions is just opportunism. Arabs were polytheists and animists when the first stones were laid, and Christian Crusaders hardly have a leg to stand on.

Both Christians and Muslims need to realize that Jerusalem is not theirs, but is a shared holy place in the care of the Jews.

amen, don't they already have places like Mecca and Roma?

[PeterRJG]

amen, don't they already have places like Mecca and Roma?

True, but there's this small matter of Jesus not being born in Rome. Legend has it he was born down your way somewhere.

[eurekaa]

Let's see: Independence in most of the land in Judah and Samaria and in Gaza strip, international recognition, open borders (including air corridor with Israel, Jordan and Egypt), economical aid and cooperation in all fields, military aid and the ability to form a defense force, return of the refugees to the new country, probably more but I don't feel like thinking about it.

I agree that it's a real problem that you teach your kids only hate.

What you said is not interested for all of Moslem's world , I'm A Moslem and I know what I'm saying to you ..

And Palestinain do not need international recognition , since we Arabs and Moslem world are always their for them . . always

As for Opened Borders :)

Actually you need it more then us , you do not have any borders with country that have real PEACE with you ..

As for economical aid and cooperation in all feilds , I have no more comment then that you know exactly what economic we have specially gulf countries and that you need us more then what we may get from you .

Actually Im not sure also what economic you'r talking about .
We know that you do not have real economic and its just USA aids

And also your USA economical aid wont last for ever , today they start to burn their 1/3 of their food and crops just to get OIL .

But even so , trying to covenant my self that that we may get good profit of your so-called high progressed economical aid , its the same answer which is :

NOT INTERESTED

ITS NOT THE PRICE FOR JERUSALEM SIR ..

Its not even to think about .. why you think all negotiations failed last 40 years !

And actually this is what we are offering for you for peace ,

WOW ,
Our politician maybe brainwashed our brains with the same things and theories , I thought these stuffs are what you need it for peace , they are telling us in Arabia the same things your politician telling you in Israel .


By the way , really I like talking to you Moledet , honest without showy words .

[LRPV]

True, but there's this small matter of Jesus not being born in Rome. Legend has it he was born down your way somewhere.

He tried, but all the Inns were full...

[seraosha]

amen, don't they already have places like Mecca and Roma?

Well Catholics hold Rome in high esteem, but Jerusalem is the crowning jewel for all shared Christian faiths. Mecca and Medina are held in higher esteem than Jerusalem on the Islamic side of the fence, but it's important as well.

The largest reason for the conflict from the Muslim side is that Islam is apparently under the impression that any territory that was once controlled by Muslims, should remain under their control forever and ever...former inhabitants, present inhabitants, future inhabitants are all under Islamic jurisdiction.

But it's interesting that you don't hear a lot of noise about the Caliphate reclaiming Spain.

[Zeev]

True, but there's this small matter of Jesus not being born in Rome. Legend has it he was born down your way somewhere.

thats right, and did we fobid to your pilgrims to come and visit these holy places? ;)

[Zeev]

The largest reason for the conflict from the Muslim side is that Islam is apparently under the impression that any territory that was once controlled by Muslims, should remain under their control forever and ever...former inhabitants, present inhabitants, future inhabitants are all under Islamic jurisdiction.

But it's interesting that you don't hear a lot of noise about the Caliphate reclaiming Spain.

absolutely...

[seraosha]

thats right, and did we fobid to your pilgrims to come and visit these holy places? ;)

Agreed. I'd much rather have the sites looked after by the Israelis than any current predominant Christian sect, or Islamic sect. Could you imagine the internal conflicts between Catholics and Protestants? Or the Shia vs Sunni?

Yeah, no thanks.

I'll trust the Jews, thank you very much.

[PeterRJG]

thats right, and did we fobid to your pilgrims to come and visit these holy places? ;)

My pilgrims? Ask a Christian. p-)

[Moledet]

What you said is not interested for all of Moslem's world , I'm A Moslem and I know what I'm saying to you ..

And Palestinain do not need international recognition , since we Arabs and Moslem world are always their for them . . always

As for Opend Borders :)

Actually you need it more then us , you do not have any borders with country that have real PEACE with you ..

As for economical aid and cooperation in all feilds , I have no more comment then that you know really what we have specially gulf countries and that you need us more then what we may get from you , and also your USA economical aid wont last for ever , today they start to burn their 1/3 of their food and crops just to get OIL .

Short answer , NOT INTERESTED

ITS NOT THE PRICE FOR JERUSALEM SIR ..

Its not even to think about .. why you think all negotiations failed last 40 years !

And actually this is what we are offering for you for peace ,

WOW ,
Our politician maybe brainwashed our brains with the same things and theories , I thought these stuffs are what you need it for peace


By the way , really I like talking to you Moledet , honest without showy words .
This is exactly the Palestinians' problem, the Muslim world is using their blood to fight for unachievable goals. We are not negotiating with the Muslim world, the Palestinians want a country and we can give them one and not just some 3rd world Arab country, we can give them a democracy with advanced technological market and a lot of tourism if they only go for it.

The Arab countries have zero respect from me (no democracy, no technological achievements, no cultural achievements, zero donation to the world) and overall their influence is not that great, if need be the western world will slaughter Arabs for oil but it will most likely find an alternative sooner and the little influence these countries have will cease.
So what exactly are the Arabs going to give them? More money so their leaders can live in castles in France? We can give them technology, education things that will actually help them become an independent country and connect them to the western world through science instead of through a substance that will soon no longer be available or needed.
We don't need the open borders because we control them, we are doing fine economically without officially trading with the Arab world (there's trade done with Arab countries that are boycotting us through EU companies), to say that we need any type of trade with the Arab world is laughable at best. There will be no real Palestinian economical growth without open borders no matter how much oil money you pour in (and we can stop that money too BTW).

[eurekaa]

This is exactly the Palestinians' problem, the Muslim world is using their blood to fight for unachievable goals. We are not negotiating with the Muslim world, the Palestinians want a country and we can give them one and not just some 3rd world Arab country, we can give them a democracy with advanced technological market and a lot of tourism if they only go for it.

The Arab countries have zero respect from me (no democracy, no technological achievements, no cultural achievements, zero donation to the world) and overall their influence is not that great, if need be the western world will slaughter Arabs for oil but it will most likely find an alternative sooner and the little influence these countries have will cease.
So what exactly are the Arabs going to give them? More money so their leaders can live in castles in France? We can give them technology, education things that will actually help them become an independent country and connect them to the western world through science instead of through a substance that will soon no longer be available or needed.
We don't need the open borders because we control them, we are doing fine economically without officially trading with the Arab world (there's trade done with Arab countries that are boycotting us through EU companies), to say that we need any type of trade with the Arab world is laughable at best. There will be no real Palestinian economical growth without open borders no matter how much oil money you pour in (and we can stop that money too BTW).

Sir ,

You did not occupy and divide Palestine to replace it with Israel with these beautiful words you are saying , it cost us a lot of bloods that we are still loosing every day , so , please this language wont work ..

Also Palestine and Palestinians are indivisible part of Arabian nations and soul , do not think there is different between Palestine and the 3rd Arab , Moslem world

and we are not teaching our children how to hate , but we teach them their history , hmm you can say we teach them exactly what you do teach your children regarding their religion , nation and history ,

Today , we are talking and negotiating only about how to resolve issue of Jerusalem fairly , so to take real step toward peace

Im not saying it should be only for Moslems , Jews or Christians , No , Im saying all nations has their religious right in Jerusalem .. But when it comes to war you do not know what you bit and will negotiate on at the future .

And the price will be very high and expensive maybe it`ll lead to that one of the 2 nations will be wiped off the map , our nation or your nation .. Is that what you want Just because you do not want to share Jerusalem with others ..

I do not think so ..

Moledet , We'll not give up Jerusalem for simple reason , Because Aqsa Mosque and other holies are indivisibles parts of our religion which are not negotiable on the conditions you'r saying and for sure it has NO PRICE to talk about it .

If you can value your religion , holies and sanctuaries then maybe we'll pay you the price for it ,

but unfortunately there is no price for it also .. and its the same for us we can not value our holies with any price ..

So the only solution is what I mentioned .. This the only way and there is no other way else if you want to settle this issue and get the peace we all want

[phoebus]

As much right of return the Jews had in Palestine in the '40s the same right have the Palestinians, none of them are superior beings to another.

Israel keeps the land because they won some battles, but the war is not over yet. Whenever Israel complains (rightfully) for Palestinian terrorism, they need to consider that much of what they have is occupied lands since the 60's. If they want to keep them they should quit whinning and keep fighting until the war comes to an end (ie they eliminate all Palestinian resistance).

On the other side of the hill, palestinians are currently so much uneducated and impoverised (no US-aid for them) that whatever Hamas or other terrorits sell them, they'll buy it. They live in the Middle Ages, they get what they deserve for firing rockets at civilian neighbourhoods. War is not nice indeed..

And because it's an ongoing conflict, both sides need to stop claiming everything for themselves in the UN or even act as victims to the international community. Somebody has to win this for good (I couldn't care less who would that be) and save us from all the troubles. When the Allies won WWII, they won it for good and humanity moved on.

[Moledet]

eurkeeka, why do you need control over Jerusalem in order to visit and worship in the Aqsa mosque? It's anyway fully independent of Israel and under the control of the Waqf.

[seraosha]

And the price will be very high and expensive maybe it`ll lead to that one of the 2 nations will be wiped off the map , our nation or your nation .. Is that what you want Just because you do not want to share Jerusalem with others..



ROFLMFAO...you asshats and your empty threats.
"unconditional peace" indeed.

[eurekaa]

eurkeeka, why do you need control over Jerusalem in order to visit and worship in the Aqsa mosque? It's anyway fully independent of Israel and under the control of the Waqf.

Its not me Moledet ,

Its the same reason Europe keeps sending Christina's crusades for centuries only for Jerusalem , and its for the same reason you want to keep it controlled under Israeli/Jewish authority .

As a matter of fact Jerusalem is the martyrs' cemetery of all religions followers those get the honor to bury them self in its land just to set it free , this is what the history tells ..

Why not to stop this river of blood if we can Moledet , more then 2000 years and all nations who took over Jerusalem before did try to control this land on the same conditions your politician are offering today ..

well , Its not working ..

Did not you think that last 2000 years they were also negotiating the same way , saying that Jerusalem according to our rules and conditions ...

There is hope to end this issue civilized way , the unconditional way that suit every one ..


You know what Moledet !

I do not blame you for your Peace offer regarding Jerusalem , that it`ll stay Jewish city for ever and every one of other religions is welcome to visit it .. etc

And to be more specific and honest , Maybe if I was in your place and Jerusalem was under Arabians control and sovereignty I would say the same that : "We Won the war and now we have Jerusalem and we offer you the peace according to our terms and every one is welcome to the holy city .. "

But is I said before , It wont work either

[Rakki]

ROFLMFAO...you asshats and your empty threats.
"unconditional peace" indeed.

The irony is that Palestinians would rather live in Israel if they could...

[eurekaa]

ROFLMFAO...you asshats and your empty threats.
"unconditional peace" indeed.

Please try to spend some time and say something informative that we can discuss . We also have millions of asshats rubbish people who can use the same language you are using and they can talk to you the same way , find them on another forum please .

You'll feel satisfied with them ..

[Hollis]

Please try to spend some time and say something informative that we can discuss . We also have millions of asshats rubbish people who can use the same language you are using and they can talk to you the same way , find them on another forum please .

You'll feel satisfied with them ..


I would not recommend that you play MOD on this forum.

[Moledet]

Its not me Moledet ,

Its the same reason Europe keeps sending Christina's crusades for centuries only for Jerusalem , and its for the same reason you want to keep it controlled under Israeli/Jewish authority .

As a matter of fact Jerusalem is the martyrs' cemetery of all religions followers those get the honor to bury them self in its land just to set it free , this is what the history tells ..

Why not to stop this river of blood if we can Moledet , more then 2000 years and all nations who took over Jerusalem before did try to control this land on the same conditions your politician are offering today ..

well , Its not working ..

Did not you think that last 2000 years they were also negotiating the same way , saying that Jerusalem according to our rules and conditions ...

There is hope to end this issue civilized way , the unconditional way that suit every one ..

You know what Moledet !

I do not blame you for your Peace offer regarding Jerusalem , that it`ll stay Jewish city for ever and every one of other religions is welcome to visit it .. etc

And to be more specific and honest , Maybe if I was in your place and Jerusalem was under Arabians control and sovereignty I would say the same that : "We Won the war and now we have Jerusalem and we offer you the peace according to our terms and every one is welcome to the holy city .. "

But is I said before , It wont work either
Europe is passed that and so are all Christians world wide I am sure you can get over it too if you stop educating for hatred and war. Every second word you write on the forum talks about some dooms day scenario of Muslims eradicating the evil Jews that took Jerusalem from the world and from Muslim children and babies.
Fact is that Jerusalem is, was and will forever be an important religious Jewish center not just because it was David's and Solomon's city and the capital of Judeah (the tribe that Jews are from), not just because the temple was there and the western wall still it but also due to it being the center of Torah and Judaism studies during the diaspora time and today. In addition, its rise from a small insignificant city to the expanded city you see today was thanks to the Jewish pioneers so it even holds great importance to the most secular Jews.

You are more than welcome to visit and worship your holy sites but some mosque or some church doesn't grant you (or the world) any type of ownership over it just like graves and synagogues in Europe don't give Israel any ownership over land there as important they are to Israelis and Jews.

It was under Jordan's control and in that time apart of the vast destruction of the Western wall and the neglect of the Church and the city overall they also didn't allow Jews to worship or live there.

P.S. if it's so important to Muslims how come Jordan that controlled east Jerusalem for 29 years didn't make it its capital city?

[Ariha]

There is hope to end this issue civilized way , the unconditional way that suit every one ..

There´s only one hope, to finish this the unilateral way, either your way, the traditional muslum way, or our way, putting you to the other side of the frontier we trace. In the meantime, there are snake enchanters like you whose only aim is to prevent the other part to act if ever they realise your strategy which is none other than to drown Israel in a bloodbath once you feel you can do it with all the guarantees.

[eurekaa]

There´s only one hope, to finish this the unilateral way, either your way, the traditional muslum way, or our way, putting you to the other side of the frontier we trace. In the meantime, there are snake enchanters like you whose only aim is to prevent the other part to act if ever they realise your strategy which is none other than to drown Israel in a bloodbath once you feel you can do it with all the guarantees.

No comment Ariha except that I did not expect or wait to hear that from you ..

Thanks for your analyzing reading our intentions and whats in our hearts ..

[Martel]

Jerusalem was to be an "international city" (ruled by UN ?) in 1948 plan, arab countries chose to ignore that and now complain ...

[Mr.Flint]

I find the whole muslim claim to Jerusalem highly insulting, because according to them, its a place where Muhammad mhrih tied his horse (thus violating the sanctity of the place), and ascended.
Muslim holiness of it is an insult to jews, that they keep repeating... Christians at least tried to abolish and apologize for the "christkillers" libel...
But muslims insist on insulting... Palestine? insult. Jerusalem? insult. Hebron? insult. etc.

How we didnt blow up yet with righteous anger, like they do because of measly cartoons?

[seraosha]

Please try to spend some time and say something informative that we can discuss . We also have millions of asshats rubbish people who can use the same language you are using and they can talk to you the same way , find them on another forum please .

You'll feel satisfied with them ..

Feel free to respond to my other numerous posts on this specific topic, or on any of my other posts on this forum. In the meanwhile, I'm laughing at you and your pathetic attempts to threaten a people that can annihilate any external aggressor, yet chooses to walk the humanitarian path.

[nu4idf]

When we say eternal Real Peace , it means there are NO MORE HAMAS , Hezbollah , or even Qaeda .. NONE

No more Fatah, PFLP, al aksa martyrs brigade, black september and Tanzim

And whats this right of return. They have no right to return. No one "evacuated them", they left. Your own arab leaders told them to leave.

Yerushalim will be in Israel. the Kotel will remain in Israel. :bash:

[eurekaa]

Feel free to respond to my other numerous posts on this specific topic, or on any of my other posts on this forum. In the meanwhile, I'm laughing at you and your pathetic attempts to threaten a people that can annihilate any external aggressor, yet chooses to walk the humanitarian path.

No , I`ll not
I already got warning :)


No more Fatah, PFLP, al aksa martyrs brigade, black september and Tanzim

And whats this right of return. They have no right to return. No one "evacuated them", they left. Your own arab leaders told them to leave.

Yerushalim will be in Israel. the Kotel will remain in Israel. :bash:

What you mean by " No one evacuated them " , You really believe that .. ! , Yahh , they left their homes after they got chased by peace pigeons ..

I'm not going to talk about the massacre of "Deer Yassin" , or the history of your "hajana" etc because its not our topic and how you forced Palestinians to leave their homes and lands and to steal their properties which I believe they did not get paid for it .. We need another thread to discuss that ..

[Martel]

the history of your "hajana" etc because its not our topic and how you forced Palestinians to leave their homes and lands and to steal their properties which I believe they did not get paid for it ..
Another Pallywood movie ?

http://img377.imageshack.us/img377/1333/lyingdv4.jpg

[Ariha]

No comment Ariha except that I did not expect or wait to hear that from you ..

Thanks for your analyzing reading our intentions and whats in our hearts ..

You welcome buddy, you can expect from me to hear what I believe is the truth, without political correctness. In this case it is a crytal clear intention from your part, there are thousands of sources where you can read, hear, from the arabs and muslums what they want to do to Israel and the rest of the non-Islamic world. A lot of Israelis who leave door to door with arabs cannot believe, after all this blodshed and cruelty from the arabs, what the "normal" people think and can do. They can not understand the process of dehumanization the "other" suffers in your mosques, in your schools, and in your families, because they think they (your elites) would not "succeed brainwashing me nor can with the ordinary arab who is a person like me".

I lived for 13 years in a place north of Jerusalem on the way to RamYallah, I interacted with the arab-muslums, I assisted to the mosque and heard the general preaching and the not so general,but equally crowded preaching. They came to my house, I visited theirs, my grandpa was a commerce arbitrator somewhere and read the arab-muslum mentality like a book.

I always felt when talking with them/you had a "room" in your heart and in your brain that never opened to a yahood or any other kufr. And I saw what this room was about in the practice.

The better is split ways a.s.a.p, and one day, as Ibn Rumi said, when you´ll throw the rotten corpse of Islam to the ground, and icnorporate yourselves to the rest of the humanity we will have normal relations.

[eurekaa]

You welcome buddy, you can expect from me to hear what I believe is the truth, without political correctness. In this case it is a crytal clear intention from your part, there are thousands of sources where you can read, hear, from the arabs and muslums what they want to do to Israel and the rest of the non-Islamic world. A lot of Israelis who leave door to door with arabs cannot believe, after all this blodshed and cruelty from the arabs, what the "normal" people think and can do.

" Blodshed and crulty from the arabs " !! ..

Lady , First of all its called WAR , and this is what we get from the war .. the ruinations and destructions ..

2nd , I'm not sure what news you hear in your place , but COMME ON , do not they mention in your country's news how many unarmed Palestinian civilians ( women , children etc ) your innocent army kills / murders every day , how many bloody barbarian mascaras your holy army do in the name of god , day and night , blockade on Gaza using policy of displacing and hunger to force them to give up their rights that they demand ..

You people living in the past to continue the scenario of your book trying to revenge for your Jewish history from people had nothing with it ..

Read the history again and you`ll see that we ( the Arabs ) your cousins one day in the past did protect your Jewish nation from the European persecution .. When they start to persecute Moslems and Jews at the same time and expelled them out of Europe at this time the Muslim sultan of the Ottoman Empire sent ships to Spanish ports to rescue the 100,000 to 200,000 expelled Jews. They were welcomed in Muslim lands in North Africa, Egypt and the Middle East as brothers in monotheism.

You can not disbelieve that in our common history , and its too sad that all you know about the moslems and arabs that they are blodshed & cruelty etc..

Till today your government still keep evacuating Palestinians as possible as they can to steal their homes and lands . Donot you watch the news , or you people lessen only to what you want to hear ..

If Hamas killed one Israeli your Army kills hundreds of civilians in return and I believe that its fine and fair enough for a lot of your people inside Israel this is the justice they teach and brainwash you ..

When I wrote my comment on this thread I was looking for Israeli and Jewish People who agree with me to stop this hostility , people who wants real peace to talk to them , to understand their culture and what we want for our future .. I told you before on other thread , people those we call them " THE OTHERS " , All I know about you and that you know about me comes from our media which usually influenced by our governments policy and guide lines ..and do mislead and brainwash us .

But here on internet / Forums we have the chance to know each other more , there is no profit for me or you if we just TALK ..

Why its so difficult ! .. can't we even talk without judging other people intentions / aims ! .. stop this phobia ( the OthersPobia ) , Im not afraid to talk even if Im not that good as you are with English , Im doing my best to take and communicate , doing so many STEPS toward you waiting for only one step from your side ..

and again back to BLodshed and cruelty arabs !

Do you want me to send you links for mascaras made by your holy army starting from Deer Yassine to sabra/shatila and Qana etc ..

I can not deny that we ( ARABS ) made big mistakes in this war , 9/11 event for example , but what your army did was worse and you can not deny it and you come today with your claims above to falsify the facts as you want to justify the crimes of your so-call innocent holy army/Israel People , the whole world knows about the crimes you did .

Lady , I'm brave enough to tell you this I do not deny that there is crimes happened from our end ( bloodshed , mascarsa ) , but this is does not mean that you are that innocent while you are worse ..

Lie as much as you want It'll not change this fact ..

Its a war , and in the war usually there are no values and principles , they can tell the world about their merciful humanity but the fact we see on the land that they are CRIMINALS /SLAUGHTERERS , they do not distinguish millitarian from civilian , or children from adults , we see how your army shoot the hospitals /Schools , and do not care for their humanity !

And this what you get in return in the war , your opponent will respond with the same language you understand ..

Yes this is wrong and im not defending them for that but I wounder when I read your comment above whining and talking about the Palestinains blodshed and cruelty arabs .. and how you DARE to show yourself ( mean army/government ) so innocent

NO LADY ..

YOU ARE NOT INNOCENT ,

I think this enough so far , and no need to comment on the rest of your post , but I can tell you Ariha you are taking its personally ..

Last thing to say to you ..

We still have some hope , only if you believe in it , only if you want peace , other wise its not here to change the world mentality , try to think about the beutiful things in our history as much you read about the things that your media and ours feed us with to increase the quality of wishing evil or harm each other ..

Its your choice ..

[Ordie]

Jerusalem is for Jews.

Jerusalem is a city that belongs to God.

What the Christians and Muslims believe in they got through Judism.

Ironically the largest landlord within greater Jerusalem is the Greek Orthodox Church. Including the land underneath the Kenesset.

[Atlantic Friend]

But it's interesting that you don't hear a lot of noise about the Caliphate reclaiming Spain.

But we do ! I keep reading stuff about Christian Conservatives claiming "Eurabia" for the Muslims ! ;)

[Atlantic Friend]

Jerusalem is for Jews.

This does sound strange. As it would if the Pope said "Rome is for Christians". When you say that, it's like when my Saudi friend Turki tells me the Mecca is for the faithful Muslims and nobody else. Does not compute.


Both Christians and Muslims need to realize that Jerusalem is not theirs, but is a shared holy place in the care of the Jews.

This I could happily live with. It's shared - under one temporal power, Israel's, who makes sure the place remains what it is, a central place for three major religions. Buildings and locations important for either one of the three religions are preserved. Ultimately, I guess, Jerusalem is for God under whatever name we choose to give Him, and it's even for Godless scum like me to whom it is a city crucial to the History of mankind.

[annihilation]

I am no fan of Israel, but they won the wars so I see no reason why they should give any piece of jerusalem up. I do think though they have to give up the settlements they are making if a 2 state solution will work. Or they don't if they plan to have a 1 state solution and give pals an equal right. Which would be just as much as suicide.

[annihilation]

But it's interesting that you don't hear a lot of noise about the Caliphate reclaiming Spain.


They are reclaiming spain slowly :(.

[Calanen]

This I could happily live with. It's shared - under one temporal power, Israel's, who makes sure the place remains what it is, a central place for three major religions.


I agree with that, except for this, there will never be peace unless Jerusalem comes off the table and goes to a neutral third party. That is the hard bit however, finding the trustworthy neutral party - and the UN has dropped the ball before. I'm not saying Hamas or Al-Fatah deserve Jerusalem, or that Israel does not. But the one intractable sticking point is Jerusalem.

In litigation, they say that a good settlement is only one where both parties come away unhappy. I know that for Israel, they feel as if they are always the ones giving and Hamas and Al-Fatah just resort to terror. I can accept the truth in that perception.

But the world community has got to stop whitewashing suicide bombers as 'militants' or 'resistance fighters' and see them for what they are - angry men who want power and are prepared to kill innocent people to get it.

But who can the third party be that can rule Jerusalem with an iron fist when it comes to zero tolerance for terrorism? I am not sure.

And as for Hamas letting Christians go to Jerusalem, that is just fricking nuts. Hamas is overseeing a hate campaign on all the Christians in Gaza at the moment. Churches bombed, Christians killed. Its not fun being Christian in the Gaza right about now. At least under Al Fatah they were perhaps hated, but mostly ignored.

[Hollis]

I agree with that, except for this, there will never be peace unless Jerusalem comes off the table and goes to a neutral third party. That is the hard bit however, finding the trustworthy neutral party - and the UN has dropped the ball before.


I don't think that out side of propaganda, Jerusalem really does not have a value to the those who would war with Israel. Jerusalem is nothing but a excuse. Peace will happen in the ME when the Arab league and the Iranis decide that allowing Israel to exist is the best solution for all around.

[Moledet]

Is there any "international" city anywhere on this planet? I am sorry but this concept sounds so ridiculous. Who does the residents pay taxes to? Who connects the city by roads and public transportation? Who takes care of unemployed, homeless, sick, pensioners? Who funds the education system (universities, high schools, kindergartens, etc...)? Who takes care of teens/kids sport teams? How can there be any type of economy is there's no country to back it?
As far as I see it this will be a disaster to Jerusalem and everything we've built will simply be destroyed and the city will return to be a place where people either come to study about religion or die.

[Ordie]

Is there any "international" city anywhere on this planet?

Queens, New York

[Rakki]

This article might be useful:




http://www.cnn.com/2008/LIVING/personal/06/03/o.awful.shut.up/index.html

Self-pity, a dominant characteristic of sociopaths, is also the characteristic that differentiates heroic storytelling from psychological rumination. When you talk about your experiences to shed light, you may feel wrenching pain, grief, anger, or shame. Your audience may pity you, but not because you want them to.

Obsessing aloud, on the other hand, is a way of fishing for pity, a means of extorting attention. Healthy people instinctively resist this strategy. When you grieve, they will yearn to comfort you. When you demand pity, they will yearn to smack you.

[Calanen]

Is there any "international" city anywhere on this planet? I am sorry but this concept sounds so ridiculous. Who does the residents pay taxes to? Who connects the city by roads and public transportation? Who takes care of unemployed, homeless, sick, pensioners? Who funds the education system (universities, high schools, kindergartens, etc...)? Who takes care of teens/kids sport teams? How can there be any type of economy is there's no country to back it?
As far as I see it this will be a disaster to Jerusalem and everything we've built will simply be destroyed and the city will return to be a place where people either come to study about religion or die.

Not anymore I don't think, there was the Free city of Danzig according to the Treaty of Versailles that was administered by the League of Nations. The other details that you are talking about are just that, details, but important ones. The UN could do all that.

I hear what Hollis says about it being an excuse - but - I cant see that it is ever an excuse that can be fixed without compromise.

It was also what the UN originally intended in part for the Arab and Jewish state partition in 1948. Have a look at the text of it, all those sorts of details can be taken care of. This is what the UN originally decided, and although the Arabs ignored all of that to their great defeat - its perhaps sensible to bring them back to that as an option.

http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Peace%20Process/Guide%20to%20the%20Peace%20Process/UN%20General%20Assembly%20Resolution%20181

[MichaelF]

Its the same reason Europe keeps sending Christina's crusades for centuries only for Jerusalem ,

Actually, it had more to do with the Pope simultaneously trying to one-up the Byzantine Emperor AND trying to find make-work for all the bored and underemployed knights and nobles (so they wouldn't start slaughtering each other at home).

Hit the books before you "tell us how it is".

[LRPV]

The Holy See/Vatican has a special and independant status, however its fully owned by one religion. I can't see that model working on a share basis.

[Calanen]

The Holy See/Vatican has a special and independant status, however its fully owned by one religion. I can't see that model working on a share basis.

It can't work on a shared basis. Only with some third party running the place properly, and preventing all terror, and terror build up or anything like it. The partition of the British Mandate of Palestine was a workable solution, however, the Arabs decided to go against the UN Resolution 181 - and have been whining about that ever since.

If you pick a fight and get slammed, its a bit hard to understand why your are deserving of sympathy.

[epictetus]

If you pick a fight and get slammed, its a bit hard to understand why your are deserving of sympathy.

So true. The problem is the dead on both side of the wall. It's hard to forgive the blood lost, much easier to keep shedding new one.

[LRPV]

I can't see that model working on a share basis.

[quote=Calanen;3293340]It can't work on a shared basis. quote]

Exactly...

[gilgoul]

Let's make it clear, since 1967, all religions have had a complete freedom of access to the holy sites under Israeli supervision, while all the religious institutions have retained or regained their autonomy.
This policy is unprecedented, and is even SO liberal that the muslim waqf of the "haram al Sharif", or Temple mount as christians and Jews call it, can bar at will it's visit for tourists and pilgrims, let visits occur in a ridiculously limited amount of time (from 0800 to 1100 and not everyday), imposes absolutely freedom depriving rules, forbidding anyone who isn't muslim to access the Mughrabi gate with any kind of printed material for people looking obviously jews, and any kind of bible, prayer book or things looking like prayers (I was once bared entrance for having a book of poetry in my bag!).
Once there, you are subject to the suspicious eye of the local "security service" that will jealously prevent you to pray, even silently, even at the far end of the esplanade.
Should I continue???
Or should I mention also that jewish tomb stones from the mount of Olives had been used by the Jordanians to pave latrines?
That every single synagogue of the Old city had been blown up and burnt to the ground?
That the Holy Sepulcher was opened only for major festivals during most of the Ottoman rule?

Or should I mention that if the mandatorial "palestine" had a muslim majority, Jerusalem had a Jewish absolute majority by 1860, and that jews and christians counted together for more than 80% of Jerusalem Intra muros.

Unlike any other ethnic or religious group that took control of Jerusalem, we didn't destroy or belittle other religious groups possessions and holy sites, we even didn't take control of the holy of holy for us, the Temple Mount, and left it under the Jordanian wakf authority, giving it some status of extra territoriality de facto, since our police is unable to even enforce the law on the preservation of antiquities that would prevent the waqf to conduct construction projects and systematic destruction of archaeological artifacts and remains on the esplanade and in it's depth.

We have been longing for Jerusalem for more than 2500 years, since the first exile in Babylon, before the second temple was rebuilt on the ruins of the Salomon temple, wrecked by Nabuchednezar turning to her 3 times a day during our prayers, recalling her at every possible occasion, even at the happiest moment of a man's life, his wedding, does he recall the longing for Jerusalem and it's reconstructed temple, by saying this phrase before he breaks the glass:



"If I forget thee, O Jerusalem, let my right hand wither, let my tongue cleave to my palate if I do not remember you, if I do not set Jerusalem above my highest joy." (137, 5-7).

Where is Zion?
Why do we call our national movement "Zionism"

"By the waters of Babylon, there we sat down and wept when we remembered Zion. On the willows there we hung up our lyres" (137, 1-2).
"Praise the Lord, O Jerusalem! Praise your God, O Zion!" (147, 12)

Considering the record of "danzig" mentioned before, and the track record of every single UN operation, an our own track record on the matter, nobody will take Jerusalem away from us, and even it's arab residents aren't that thrilled of becoming full time "palestinians", since the beginning of the negotiation with Abbas, they have been flocking en masse to the administration to obtain or renew their Israeli ID.

[gilgoul]

Daniel Pipes is sometimes viewed as controversial, but this work is well documented, so I think it can add a bit to the debate:




The Camp David II summit and the "Aqsa intifada" that followed have confirmed what everyone had long known: Jerusalem is the knottiest issue facing Arab and Israeli negotiators.
In part, the problem is practical: the Palestinians insist that the capital of Israel serve as the capital of their future state too, something Israelis are loathe to accept. But mostly, the problem is religious: the ancient city has sacred associations for Jews and Muslims alike (and Christians too, of course; but Christians today no longer make an independent political claim to Jerusalem), and both insist on sovereignty over their overlapping sacred areas.
In Jerusalem, theological and historical claims matter; they are the functional equivalent to the deed to the city and have direct operational consequences. Jewish and Muslim connections to the city therefore require evaluation.
Comparing Religious Claims

http://www.danielpipes.org/pics/new/large/422.jpgAn aerial view of the Temple Mount.


The Jewish connection to Jerusalem is an ancient and powerful one. Judaism made Jerusalem a holy city over three thousand years ago and through all that time Jews remained steadfast to it. Jews pray in its direction, mention its name constantly in prayers, close the Passover service with the wistful statement "Next year in Jerusalem," and recall the city in the blessing at the end of each meal. The destruction of the Temple looms very large in Jewish consciousness; remembrance takes such forms as a special day of mourning, houses left partially unfinished, a woman's makeup or jewelry left incomplete, and a glass smashed during the wedding ceremony. In addition, Jerusalem has had a prominent historical role, is the only capital of a Jewish state, and is the only city with a Jewish majority during the whole of the past century. In the words of its current mayor, Jerusalem represents "the purist expression of all that Jews prayed for, dreamed of, cried for, and died for in the two thousand years since the destruction of the Second Temple." What about Muslims? Where does Jerusalem fit in Islam and Muslim history? It is not the place to which they pray, is not once mentioned by name in prayers, and it is connected to no mundane events in Muhammad's life. The city never served as capital of a sovereign Muslim state, and it never became a cultural or scholarly center. Little of political import by Muslims was initiated there.
One comparison makes this point most clearly: Jerusalem appears in the Jewish Bible 669 times and Zion (which usually means Jerusalem, sometimes the Land of Israel) 154 times, or 823 times in all. The Christian Bible mentions Jerusalem 154 times and Zion 7 times. In contrast, the columnist Moshe Kohn notes, Jerusalem and Zion appear as frequently in the Qur'an "as they do in the Hindu Bhagavad-Gita, the Taoist Tao-Te Ching, the Buddhist Dhamapada and the Zoroastrian Zend Avesta"—which is to say, not once.
The city being of such evidently minor religious importance, why does it now loom so large for Muslims, to the point that a Muslim Zionism seems to be in the making across the Muslim world? Why do Palestinian demonstrators take to the streets shouting "We will sacrifice our blood and souls for you, Jerusalem" and their brethren in Jordan yell "We sacrifice our blood and soul for Al-Aqsa"? Why does King Fahd of Saudi Arabia call on Muslim states to protect "the holy city [that] belongs to all Muslims across the world"? Why did two surveys of American Muslims find Jerusalem their most pressing foreign policy issue?
Because of politics. An historical survey shows that the stature of the city, and the emotions surrounding it, inevitably rises for Muslims when Jerusalem has political significance. Conversely, when the utility of Jerusalem expires, so does its status and the passions about it. This pattern first emerged during the lifetime of the Prophet Muhammad in the early seventh century. Since then, it has been repeated on five occasions: in the late seventh century, in the twelfth century Countercrusade, in the thirteenth century Crusades, during the era of British rule (1917-48), and since Israel took the city in 1967. The consistency that emerges in such a long period provides an important perspective on the current confrontation.
I. The Prophet Muhammad
According to the Arabic literary sources, Muhammad in A.D. 622 fled his home town of Mecca for Medina, a city with a substantial Jewish population. On arrival in Medina, if not slightly earlier, the Qur'an adopted a number of practices friendly to Jews: a Yom Kippur-like fast, a synagogue-like place of prayer, permission to eat kosher food, and approval to marry Jewish women. Most important, the Qur'an repudiated the pre-Islamic practice of the Meccans to pray toward the Ka`ba, the small stone structure at the center of the main mosque in Mecca. Instead, it adopted the Judaic practice of facing the Temple Mount in Jerusalem during prayer. (Actually, the Qur'an only mentions the direction as "Syria"; other information makes it clear that Jerusalem is meant.)
This, the first qibla (direction of prayer) of Islam, did not last long. The Jews criticized the new faith and rejected the friendly Islamic gestures; not long after, the Qur'an broke with them, probably in early 624. The explanation of this change comes in a Qur'anic verse instructing the faithful no longer to pray toward Syria but instead toward Mecca. The passage (2:142-52) begins by anticipating questions about this abrupt change:
The Fools among the people will say: "What has turned them [the Muslims] from the qibla to which they were always used?"God then provides the answer:
We appointed the qibla that to which you was used, only to test those who followed the Messenger [Muhammad] from those who would turn on their heels [on Islam].In other words, the new qibla served as a way to distinguish Muslims from Jews. From now on, Mecca would be the direction of prayer:
now shall we turn you to a qibla that shall please you. Then turn your face in the direction of the Sacred Mosque [in Mecca]. Wherever you are, turn your faces in that direction.The Qur'an then reiterates the point about no longer paying attention to Jews:
Even if you were to bring all the signs to the people of the Book [i.e., Jews], they would not follow your qibla.Muslims subsequently accepted the point implicit to the Qur'anic explanation, that the adoption of Jerusalem as qibla was a tactical move to win Jewish converts. "He chose the Holy House in Jerusalem in order that the People of the Book would be conciliated," notes At-Tabari, an early Muslim commentator on the Qur'an, "and the Jews were glad." Modern historians agree: W. Montgomery Watt, a leading biographer of Muhammad, interprets the prophet's "far-reaching concessions to Jewish feeling" in the light of two motives, one of which was "the desire for a reconciliation with the Jews." After the Qur'an repudiated Jerusalem, so did the Muslims: the first description of the town under Muslim rule comes from the visiting Bishop Arculf, a Gallic pilgrim, in 680, who reported seeing "an oblong house of prayer, which they [the Muslims] pieced together with upright plans and large beams over some ruined remains." Not for the last time, safely under Muslim control, Jerusalem became a backwater.
This episode set the mold that would be repeated many times over succeeding centuries: Muslims take interest religiously in Jerusalem because of pressing but temporary concerns. Then, when those concerns lapse, so does the focus on Jerusalem, and the city's standing greatly diminishes.
II. Umayyads
The second round of interest in Jerusalem occurred during the rule of the Damascus-based Umayyad dynasty (661-750). A dissident leader in Mecca, ‘Abdullah b. az-Zubayr began a revolt against the Umayyads in 680 that lasted until his death in 692; while fighting him, Umayyad rulers sought to aggrandize Syria at the expense of Arabia (and perhaps also to help recruit an army against the Byzantine Empire). They took some steps to sanctify Damascus, but mostly their campaign involved what Amikam Elad of the Hebrew University calls an "enormous" effort "to exalt and to glorify" Jerusalem. They may even have hoped to make it the equal of Mecca.
The first Umayyad ruler, Mu‘awiya, chose Jerusalem as the place where he ascended to the caliphate; he and his successors engaged in a construction program – religious edifices, a palace, and roads – in the city. The Umayyads possibly had plans to make Jerusalem their political and administrative capital; indeed, Elad finds that they in effect treated it as such. But Jerusalem is primarily a city of faith, and, as the Israeli scholar Izhak Hasson explains, the "Umayyad regime was interested in ascribing an Islamic aura to its stronghold and center." Toward this end (as well as to assert Islam's presence in its competition with Christianity), the Umayyad caliph built Islam's first grand structure, the Dome of the Rock, right on the spot of the Jewish Temple, in 688-91. This remarkable building is not just the first monumental sacred building of Islam but also the only one that still stands today in roughly its original form.
The next Umayyad step was subtle and complex, and requires a pause to note a passage of the Qur'an (17:1) describing the Prophet Muhammad's Night Journey to heaven (isra'):
Glory to He who took His servant by night from the Sacred Mosque to the furthest mosque. ([I]Subhana allathina asra bi-‘abdihi laylatan min al-masjidi al-harami ila al-masjidi al-aqsa.)When this Qur'anic passage was first revealed, in about 621, a place called the Sacred Mosque already existed in Mecca. In contrast, the "furthest mosque" was a turn of phrase, not a place. Some early Muslims understood it as metaphorical or as a place in heaven. And if the "furthest mosque" did exist on earth, Palestine would seem an unlikely location, for many reasons. Some of them:
Elsewhere in the Qur'an (30:1), Palestine is called "the closest land" (adna al-ard). Palestine had not yet been conquered by the Muslims and contained not a single mosque.
The "furthest mosque" was apparently identified with places inside Arabia: either Medina or a town called Ji‘rana, about ten miles from Mecca, which the Prophet visited in 630.
The earliest Muslim accounts of Jerusalem, such as the description of Caliph ‘Umar's reported visit to the city just after the Muslims conquest in 638, nowhere identify the Temple Mount with the "furthest mosque" of the Qur'an.
The Qur'anic inscriptions that make up a 240-meter mosaic frieze inside the Dome of the Rock do not include Qur'an 17:1 and the story of the Night Journey, suggesting that as late as 692 the idea of Jerusalem as the lift-off for the Night Journey had not yet been established. (Indeed, the first extant inscriptions of Qur'an 17:1 in Jerusalem date from the eleventh century.)
Muhammad ibn al-Hanafiya (638-700), a close relative of the Prophet Muhammad, is quoted denigrating the notion that the prophet ever set foot on the Rock in Jerusalem; "these damned Syrians," by which he means the Umayyads, "pretend that God put His foot on the Rock in Jerusalem, though [only] one person ever put his foot on the rock, namely Abraham."
Then, in 715, to build up the prestige of their dominions, the Umayyads did a most clever thing: they built a second mosque in Jerusalem, again on the Temple Mount, and called this one the Furthest Mosque (al-masjid al-aqsa, Al-Aqsa Mosque). With this, the Umayyads retroactively gave the city a role in Muhammad's life. This association of Jerusalem with al-masjid al-aqsa fit into a wider Muslim tendency to identify place names found in the Qur'an: "wherever the Koran mentions a name of an event, stories were invented to give the impression that somehow, somewhere, someone, knew what they were about." Despite all logic (how can a mosque built nearly a century after the Qur'an was received establish what the Qur'an meant?), building an actual Al-Aqsa Mosque, the Palestinian historian A. L. Tibawi writes, "gave reality to the figurative name used in the Koran." It also had the hugely important effect of inserting Jerusalem post hoc into the Qur'an and making it more central to Islam. Also, other changes resulted. Several Qur'anic passages were re-interpreted to refer to this city. Jerusalem came to be seen as the site of the Last Judgment. The Umayyads cast aside the non-religious Roman name for the city, Aelia Capitolina (in Arabic, Iliya) and replaced it with Jewish-style names, either Al-Quds (The Holy) or Bayt al-Maqdis (The Temple). They sponsored a form of literature praising the "virtues of Jerusalem," a genre one author is tempted to call "Zionist." Accounts of the prophet's sayings or doings (Arabic: hadiths, often translated into English as "Traditions") favorable to Jerusalem emerged at this time, some of them equating the city with Mecca. There was even an effort to move the pilgrimage (hajj) from Mecca to Jerusalem.
Scholars agree that the Umayyads' motivation to assert a Muslim presence in the sacred city had a strictly utilitarian purpose. The Iraqi historian Abdul Aziz Duri finds "political reasons" behind their actions. Hasson concurs:
The construction of the Dome of the Rock and al-Aqsa mosque, the rituals instituted by the Umayyads on the Temple Mount and the dissemination of Islamic-oriented Traditions regarding the sanctity of the site, all point to the political motives which underlay the glorification of Jerusalem among the Muslims.Thus did a politically-inspired Umayyad building program lead to the Islamic sanctification of Jerusalem.
Source: Daniel pipes (http://www.danielpipes.org/article/84)

[gilgoul]

Abbasid Rule
Then, with the Umayyad demise in 750 and the move of the caliph's capital to Baghdad, "imperial patronage became negligible" and Jerusalem fell into near-obscurity. For the next three and a half centuries, books praising this city lost favor and the construction of glorious buildings not only came to an end but existing ones fell apart (the dome over the rock collapsed in 1016). Gold was stripped off the dome to pay for Al-Aqsa repair work. City walls collapsed. Worse, the rulers of the new dynasty bled Jerusalem and its region country through what F. E. Peters of New York University calls "their rapacity and their careless indifference." The city declined to the point of becoming a shambles. "Learned men are few, and the Christians numerous," bemoaned a tenth-century Muslim native of Jerusalem. Only mystics continued to visit the city.
In a typical put-down, another tenth-century author described the city as "a provincial town attached to Ramla," a reference to the tiny, insignificant town serving as Palestine's administrative center. Elad characterizes Jerusalem in the early centuries of Muslim rule as "an outlying city of diminished importance." The great historian S. D. Goitein notes that the geographical dictionary of al-Yaqut mentions Basra 170 times, Damascus 100 times, and Jerusalem only once, and that one time in passing. He concludes from this and other evidence that, in its first six centuries of Muslim rule, "Jerusalem mostly lived the life of an out-of-the-way provincial town, delivered to the exactions of rapacious officials and notables, often also to tribulations at the hands of seditious fellahin [peasants] or nomads. . . . Jerusalem certainly could not boast of excellence in the sciences of Islam or any other fields."
By the early tenth century, notes Peters, Muslim rule over Jerusalem had an "almost casual" quality with "no particular political significance." Later too: Al-Ghazali, sometimes called the "Thomas Aquinas of Islam," visited Jerusalem in 1096 but not once refers to the Crusaders heading his way.
III. Early Crusades
The Crusader conquest of Jerusalem in 1099 initially aroused a very mild Muslim response. The Franks did not rate much attention; Arabic literature written in Crusader-occupied towns tended not even to mention them . Thus, "calls to jihad at first fell upon deaf ears," writes Robert Irwin, formerly of the University of St Andrews in Scotland. Emmanuel Sivan of the Hebrew University adds that "one does not detect either shock or a sense of religious loss and humiliation."
Only as the effort to retake Jerusalem grew serious in about 1150 did Muslim leaders seek to rouse jihad sentiments through the heightening of emotions about Jerusalem. Using the means at their disposal (hadiths, "virtues of Jerusalem" books, poetry), their propagandists stressed the sanctity of Jerusalem and the urgency of its return to Muslim rule. Newly-minted hadiths made Jerusalem ever-more critical to the Islamic faith; one of them put words into the Prophet Muhammad's mouth saying that, after his own death, Jerusalem's falling to the infidels is the second greatest catastrophe facing Islam. Whereas not a single "virtues of Jerusalem" volume appeared in the period 1100-50, very many came out in the subsequent half century. In the 1160s, Sivan notes, "al-Quds propaganda blossomed"; and when Saladin (Salah ad-Din) led the Muslims to victory over Jerusalem in 1187, the "propaganda campaign . . . attained its paroxysm." In a letter to his Crusader opponent, Saladin wrote that the city "is to us as it is to you. It is even more important to us."
The glow of the reconquest remained bright for several decades thereafter; for example, Saladin's descendants (known as the Ayyubid dynasty, which ruled until 1250) went on a great building and restoration program in Jerusalem, thereby imbuing the city with a more Muslim character. Until this point, Islamic Jerusalem had consisted only of the shrines on the Temple Mount; now, for the first time, specifically Islamic buildings (Sufi convents, schools) were built in the surrounding city. Also, it was at this time, Oleg Grabar of Princeton's Institute of Advanced Study notes, that the Dome of the Rock came to be seen as the exact place where Muhammad's ascension to heaven (mi‘raj) took place during his Night Journey: if the "furthest mosque" is in Jerusalem, then Muhammad's Night Journey and his subsequent visit to heaven logically took place on the Temple Mount—indeed, on the very rock from which Jesus was thought to have ascended to heaven.
IV. Ayyubids
But once safely back in Muslim hands, interest in Jerusalem again dropped; "the simple fact soon emerged that al-Quds was not essential to the security of an empire based in Egypt or Syria. Accordingly, in times of political or military crisis, the city proved to be expendable," writes Donald P. Little of McGill University. In particular, in 1219, when the Europeans attacked Egypt in the Fifth Crusade, a grandson of Saladin named al-Mu‘azzam decided to raze the walls around Jerusalem, fearing that were the Franks to take the city with walls, "they will kill all whom they find there and will have the fate of Damascus and lands of Islam in their hands." Pulling down Jerusalem's fortifications had the effect of prompting a mass exodus from the city and its steep decline.
Also at this time, the Muslim ruler of Egypt and Palestine, al-Kamil (another of Saladin's grandsons and the brother of al-Mu‘azzam), offered to trade Jerusalem to the Europeans if only the latter would leave Egypt, but he had no takers. Ten years later, in 1229, just such a deal was reached when al-Kamil did cede Jerusalem to Emperor Friedrich II; in return, the German leader promised military aid to al-Kamil against al-Mu‘azzam, now a rival king. Al-Kamil insisted that the Temple Mount remain in Muslim hands and "all the practices of Islam" continued to be exercised there, a condition Friedrich complied with. Referring to his deal with Frederick, al-Kamil wrote in a remarkably revealing description of Jerusalem, "I conceded to the Franks only ruined churches and houses." In other words, the city that had been heroically regained by Saladin in 1187 was voluntarily traded away by his grandson just forty-two years later.
On learning that Jerusalem was back in Christian hands, Muslims felt predictably intense emotions. An Egyptian historian later wrote that the loss of the city "was a great misfortune for the Muslims, and much reproach was put upon al-Kamil, and many were the revilings of him in all the lands." By 1239, another Ayyubid ruler, an-Nasir Da'ud, managed to expel the Franks from the city.
But then he too ceded it right back to the Crusaders in return for help against one of his relatives. This time, the Christians were less respectful of the Islamic sanctuaries and turned the Temple Mount mosques into churches.
Their intrusion did not last long; by 1244 the invasion of Palestine by troops from Central Asia brought Jerusalem again under the rule of an Ayyubid; and henceforth the city remained safely under Muslim rule for nearly seven centuries. Jerusalem remained but a pawn in the Realpolitik of the times, as explained in a letter from a later Ayyubid ruler, as-Salih Ayyub, to his son: if the Crusaders threaten you in Cairo, he wrote, and they demand from you the coast of Palestine and Jerusalem, "give these places to them without delay on condition they have no foothold in Egypt."
The psychology at work here bears note: that Christian knights traveled from distant lands to make Jerusalem their capital made the city more valuable in Muslim eyes too. "It was a city strongly coveted by the enemies of the faith, and thus became, in a sort of mirror-image syndrome, dear to Muslim hearts," Sivan explains. And so fractured opinions coalesced into a powerful sensibility; political exigency caused Muslims ever after to see Jerusalem as the third most holy city of Islam (thalith al-masajid).
Mamluk and Ottoman Rule
During the Mamluk era (1250-1516), Jerusalem lapsed further into its usual obscurity – capital of no dynasty, economic laggard, cultural backwater—though its new-found prestige as an Islamic site remained intact. Also, Jerusalem became a favorite place to exile political leaders, due to its proximity to Egypt and its lack of walls, razed in 1219 and not rebuilt for over three centuries, making Jerusalem easy prey for marauders. These notables endowed religious institutions, especially religious schools, which in the aggregate had the effect of re-establishing Islam in the city. But a general lack of interest translated into decline and impoverishment. Many of the grand buildings, including the Temple Mount sanctuaries, were abandoned and became dilapidated as the city became depopulated. A fourteenth-century author bemoaned the paucity of Muslims visiting Jerusalem. The Mamluks so devastated Jerusalem that the town's entire population at the end of their rule amounted to a miserable 4,000 souls.
The Ottoman period (1516-1917) got off to an excellent start when Suleyman the Magnificent rebuilt the city walls in 1537-41 and lavished money in Jerusalem (for example, assuring its water supply), but things then quickly reverted to type. Jerusalem now suffered from the indignity of being treated as a tax farm for non-resident, one-year (and very rapacious) officials. "After having exhausted Jerusalem, the pasha left," observed the French traveler François-René Chateaubriand in 1806. At times, this rapaciousness prompted uprisings. The Turkish authorities also raised funds for themselves by gouging European visitors; in general, this allowed them to make fewer efforts in Jerusalem than in other cities to promote the city's economy. The tax rolls show soap as its only export. So insignificant was Jerusalem, it was sometimes a mere appendage to the governorship of Nablus or Gaza. Nor was scholarship cultivated: in 1670, a traveler reported that standards had dropped so low that even the preacher at Al-Aqsa Mosque spoke a low standard of literary Arabic. The many religious schools of an earlier era disappeared. By 1806, the population had again dropped, this time to under 9,000 residents.
Muslims during this long era could afford to ignore Jerusalem, writes the historian James Parkes, because the city "was something that was there, and it never occurred to a Muslim that it would not always be there," safely under Muslim rule. Innumerable reports during these centuries from Western pilgrims, tourists, and diplomats in Jerusalem told of the city's execrable condition. George Sandys in 1611 found that "Much lies waste; the old buildings (except a few) all ruined, the new contemptible." Constantin Volney, one of the most scientific of observers, noted in 1784 Jerusalem's "destroyed walls, its debris-filled moat, its city circuit choked with ruins." "What desolation and misery!" wrote Chateaubriand. Gustav Flaubert of Madame Bovary fame visited in 1850 and found "Ruins everywhere, and everywhere the odor of graves. It seems as if the Lord's curse hovers over the city. The Holy City of three religions is rotting away from boredom, desertion, and neglect." "Hapless are the favorites of heaven," commented Herman Melville in 1857. Mark Twain in 1867 found that Jerusalem "has lost all its ancient grandeur, and is become a pauper village."
The British government recognized the minimal Muslim interest in Jerusalem during World War I. In negotiations with Sharif Husayn of Mecca in 1915-16 over the terms of the Arab revolt against the Ottomans, London decided not to include Jerusalem in territories to be assigned to the Arabs because, as the chief British negotiator, Henry McMahon, put it, "there was no place … of sufficient importance … further south" of Damascus "to which the Arabs attached vital importance."
True to this spirit, the Turkish overlords of Jerusalem abandoned Jerusalem rather than fight for it in 1917, evacuating it just in advance of the British troops. One account indicates they were even prepared to destroy the holy city. Jamal Pasha, the Ottoman commander-in-chief, instructed his Austrian allies to "blow Jerusalem to hell" should the British enter the city. The Austrians therefore had their guns trained on the Dome of the Rock, with enough ammunition to keep up two full days of intensive bombardment. According to Pierre van Paasen, a journalist, that the dome still exists today is due to a Jewish artillery captain in the Austrian army, Marek Schwartz, who rather than respond to the approaching British troops with a barrage on the Islamic holy places, "quietly spiked his own guns and walked into the British lines."
V. British Rule
In modern times, notes the Israeli scholar Hava Lazarus-Yafeh, Jerusalem "became the focus of religious and political Arab activity only at the beginning of the [twentieth] century." She ascribes the change mainly to "the renewed Jewish activity in the city and Judaism's claims on the Western Wailing Wall." British rule over the city, lasting from 1917 to 1948, then galvanized a renewed passion for Jerusalem. Arab politicians made Jerusalem a prominent destination during the British Mandatory period. Iraqi leaders frequently turned up in Jerusalem, demonstrably praying at Al-Aqsa and giving emotional speeches. Most famously, King Faysal of Iraq visited the city and made a ceremonial entrance to the Temple Mount using the same gate as did Caliph ‘Umar when the city was first conquered in 638. Iraqi involvement also included raising funds for an Islamic university in Jerusalem, and setting up a consulate and an information office there.
The Palestinian leader (and mufti of Jerusalem) Hajj Amin al-Husayni made the Temple Mount central to his anti-Zionist political efforts. Husayni brought a contingent of Muslim notables to Jerusalem in 1931 for an international congress to mobilize global Muslim opinion on behalf of the Palestinians. He also exploited the draw of the Islamic holy places in Jerusalem to find international Muslim support for his campaign against Zionism. For example, he engaged in fundraising in several Arab countries to restore the Dome of the Rock and Al-Aqsa, sometimes by sending out pictures of the Dome of the Rock under a Star of David; his efforts did succeed in procuring the funds to restore these monuments to their former glory.
Perhaps most indicative of the change in mood was the claim that the Prophet Muhammad had tethered his horse to the western wall of the Temple Mount. As established by Shmuel Berkowitz, Muslim scholars over the centuries had variously theorized about the prophet tying horse to the eastern or southern walls—but not one of them before the Muslim-Jewish clashes at the Western Wall in 1929 ever associated this incident with the western side. Once again, politics drove Muslim piousness regarding Jerusalem.
Jordanian Rule
Sandwiched between British and Israeli eras, Jordanian rule over Jerusalem in 1948-67 offers a useful control case; true to form, when Muslims took the Old City (which contains the sanctuaries) they noticeably lost interest in it. An initial excitement stirred when the Jordanian forces captured the walled city in 1948 -- as evidenced by the Coptic bishop's crowning King ‘Abdullah as "King of Jerusalem" in November of that year—but then the usual ennui set in. The Hashemites had little affection for Jerusalem, where some of their worst enemies lived and where ‘Abdullah was assassinated in 1951. In fact, the Hashemites made a concerted effort to diminish the holy city's importance in favor of their capital, Amman. Jerusalem had served as the British administrative capital, but now all government offices there (save tourism) were shut down; Jerusalem no longer had authority even over other parts of the West Bank. The Jordanians also closed some local institutions (e.g., the Arab Higher Committee, the Supreme Muslim Council) and moved others to Amman (the treasury of the waqf, or religious endowment).
Jordanian efforts succeeded: once again, Arab Jerusalem became an isolated provincial town, less important than Nablus. The economy so stagnated that many thousands of Arab Jerusalemites left the town: while the population of Amman increased five-fold in the period 1948-67, that of Jerusalem grew by just 50 percent. To take out a bank loan meant traveling to Amman. Amman had the privilege of hosting the country's first university and the royal family's many residences. Jerusalem Arabs knew full well what was going on, as evidenced by one notable's complaint about the royal residences: "those palaces should have been built in Jerusalem, but were removed from here, so that Jerusalem would remain not a city, but a kind of village." East Jerusalem's Municipal Council twice formally complained of the Jordanian authorities' discrimination against their city.
Perhaps most insulting of all was the decline in Jerusalem's religious standing. Mosques lacked sufficient funds. Jordanian radio broadcast the Friday prayers not from Al-Aqsa Mosque but from an upstart mosque in Amman. (Ironically, Radio Israel began broadcasting services from Al-Aqsa immediately after the Israel victory in 1967.) This was part of a larger pattern, as the Jordanian authorities sought to benefit from the prestige of controlling Jerusalem even as they put the city down: Marshall Breger and Thomas Idinopulos note that although King ‘Abdullah "styled himself a protector of the holy sites, he did little to promote the religious importance of Jerusalem to Muslims."
Nor were Jordan's rulers alone in ignoring Jerusalem; the city virtually disappeared from the Arab diplomatic map. Malcolm Kerr's well-known study on inter-Arab relations during this period (The Arab Cold War) appears not once to mention the city. No foreign Arab leader came to Jerusalem during the nineteen years when Jordan controlled East Jerusalem, and King Husayn (r. 1952-99) himself only rarely visited. King Faysal of Saudi Arabia spoke often after 1967 of his yearning to pray in Jerusalem, yet he appears never to have bothered to pray there when he had the chance. Perhaps most remarkable is that the PLO's founding document, the Palestinian National Covenant of 1964, does not once mention Jerusalem or even allude to it.
Source: Daniel Pipes (http://www.danielpipes.org/article/84)

[gilgoul]

VI. Israeli Rule
This neglect came to an abrupt end after June 1967, when the Old City came under Israeli control. Palestinians again made Jerusalem the centerpiece of their political program. The Dome of the Rock turned up in pictures everywhere, from Yasir Arafat's office to the corner grocery. Slogans about Jerusalem proliferated and the city quickly became the single most emotional issue of the Arab-Israeli conflict. The PLO made up for its 1964 oversight by specifically mentioning Jerusalem in its 1968 constitution as "the seat of the Palestine Liberation Organization."
"As during the era of the Crusaders," Lazarus-Yafeh points out, Muslim leaders "began again to emphasize the sanctity of Jerusalem in Islamic tradition." In the process, they even relied on some of the same arguments (e.g., rejecting the occupying power's religious connections to the city) and some of the same hadiths to back up those allegations. Muslims began echoing the Jewish devotion to Jerusalem: Arafat declared that "Al-Quds is in the innermost of our feeling, the feeling of our people and the feeling of all Arabs, Muslims, and Christians in the world." Extravagant statements became the norm (Jerusalem was now said to be "comparable in holiness" to Mecca and Medina; or even "our most sacred place"). Jerusalem turned up regularly in Arab League and United Nations resolutions. The Jordanian and Saudi governments now gave as munificently to the Jerusalem religious trust as they had been stingy before 1967.
Nor were Palestinians alone in this emphasis on Jerusalem: the city again served as a powerful vehicle for mobilizing Muslim opinion internationally. This became especially clear in September 1969, when King Faysal parlayed a fire at Al-Aqsa Mosque into the impetus to convene twenty-five Muslim heads of state and establish the Organization of the Islamic Conference, a United Nations-style institution for Muslims. In Lebanon, the fundamentalist group Hizbullah depicts the Dome of the Rock on everything from wall posters to scarves and under the picture often repeats its slogan: "We are advancing." Lebanon's leading Shi‘i authority, Muhammad Husayn Fadlallah, regularly exploits the theme of liberating Jerusalem from Israeli control to inspire his own people; he does so, explains his biographer Martin Kramer, not for pie-in-the-sky reasons but "to mobilize a movement to liberate Lebanon for Islam."
Similarly, the Islamic Republic of Iran has made Jerusalem a central issue, following the dictate of its founder, Ayatollah Khomeini, who remarked that "Jerusalem is the property of Muslims and must return to them." Since shortly after the regime's founding, its 1-rial coin and 1000-rial banknote have featured the Dome of the Rock (though, embarrassingly, the latter initially was mislabeled "Al-Aqsa Mosque"). Iranian soldiers at war with Saddam Husayn's forces in the 1980s received simple maps showing their sweep through Iraq and on to Jerusalem. Ayatollah Khomeini decreed the last Friday of Ramadan as Jerusalem Day, and this commemoration has served as a major occasion for anti-Israel harangues in many countries, including Turkey, Tunisia, and Morocco. The Islamic Republic of Iran celebrates the holiday with stamps and posters featuring scenes of Jerusalem accompanied by exhortative slogans. In February 1997, a crowd of some 300,000 celebrated Jerusalem Day in the presence of dignitaries such as President Hashemi Rafsanjani. Jerusalem Day is celebrated (complete with a roster of speeches, an art exhibit, a folkloric show, and a youth program) as far off as Dearborn, Michigan.
As it has become common for Muslims to claim passionate attachment to Jerusalem, Muslim pilgrimages to the city have multiplied four-fold in recent years. A new "virtues of Jerusalem" literature has developed. So emotional has Jerusalem become to Muslims that they write books of poetry about it (especially in Western languages). And in the political realm, Jerusalem has become a uniquely unifying issue for Arabic-speakers. "Jerusalem is the only issue that seems to unite the Arabs. It is the rallying cry," a senior Arab diplomat noted in late 2000.
The fervor for Jerusalem at times challenges even the centrality of Mecca. No less a personage than Crown Prince ‘Abdullah of Saudi Arabia has been said repeatedly to say that for him, "Jerusalem is just like the holy city of Mecca." Hasan Nasrallah, the leader of Hizbullah goes further yet, declaring in a major speech: "We won't give up on Palestine, all of Palestine, and Jerusalem will remain the place to which all jihad warriors will direct their prayers."
Dubious Claims
Along with these high emotions, four historically dubious claims promoting the Islamic claim to Jerusalem have emerged.
The Islamic connection to Jerusalem is older than the Jewish. The Palestinian "minister" of religious endowments asserts that Jerusalem has "always" been under Muslim sovereignty. Likewise, Ghada Talhami, a polemicist, asserts that "There are other holy cities in Islam, but Jerusalem holds a special place in the hearts and minds of Muslims because its fate has always been intertwined with theirs." Always? Jerusalem's founding antedated Islam by about two millennia, so how can that be? Ibrahim Hooper of the Washington-based Council on American-Islamic Relations explains this anachronism: "the Muslim attachment to Jerusalem does not begin with the prophet Muhammad, it begins with the prophets Abraham, David, Solomon and Jesus, who are also prophets in Islam." In other words, the central figures of Judaism and Christianity were really proto-Muslims. This accounts for the Palestinian man-in-the-street declaring that "Jerusalem was Arab from the day of creation."
The Qur'an mentions Jerusalem. So complete is the identification of the Night Journey with Jerusalem that it is found in many publications of the Qur'an, and especially in translations. Some state in a footnote that the "furthest mosque" "must" refer to Jerusalem. Others take the (blasphemous?) step of inserting Jerusalem right into the text after "furthest mosque." This is done in a variety of ways. The Sale translation uses italics:
from the sacred temple of Mecca to the farther temple of Jerusalemthe Asad translation relies on square brackets:
from the Inviolable House of Worship [at Mecca] to the Remote House of Worship [at Jerusalem]and the Behbudi-Turner version places it right in the text without any distinction at all:
from the Holy Mosque in Mecca to the Al-Aqsa Mosque in Palestine.If the Qur'an in translation now has Jerusalem in its text, it cannot be surprising to find that those who rely on those translations believe that Jerusalem "is mentioned in the Qur'an"; and this is precisely what a consortium of American Muslim institutions claimed in 2000. One of their number went yet further; according to Hooper, "the Koran refers to Jerusalem by its Islamic centerpiece, al-Aqsa Mosque." This error has practical consequences: for example, Ahmad ‘Abd ar-Rahman, secretary-general of the PA "cabinet," rested his claim to Palestinian sovereignty on this basis: "Jerusalem is above tampering, it is inviolable, and nobody can tamper with it since it is a Qur'anic text." Muhammad actually visited Jerusalem. The Islamic biography of the Prophet Muhammad's life is very complete and it very clearly does not mention his leaving the Arabian Peninsula, much less voyaging to Jerusalem. Therefore, when Karen Armstrong, a specialist on Islam, writes that "Muslim texts make it clear that … the story of Muhammad's mystical Night Journey to Jerusalem … was not a physical experience but a visionary one," she is merely stating the obvious. Indeed, this phrase is contained in an article titled, "Islam's Stake: Why Jerusalem Was Central to Muhammad" which posits that "Jerusalem was central to the spiritual identity of Muslims from the very beginning of their faith." Not good enough. Armstrong found herself under attack for a "shameless misrepresentation" of Islam and claiming that "Muslims themselves do not believe the miracle of their own prophet."
Jerusalem has no importance to Jews. The first step is to deny a Jewish connection to the Western (or Wailing) Wall, the only portion of the ancient Temple that still stands. In 1967, a top Islamic official of the Temple Mount portrayed Jewish attachment to the wall as an act of "aggression against al-Aqsa mosque." The late King Faysal of Saudi Arabia spoke on this subject with undisguised scorn: "The Wailing Wall is a structure they weep against, and they have no historic right to it. Another wall can be built for them to weep against." ‘Abd al-Malik Dahamsha, a Muslim member of Israel's parliament, has flatly stated that "the Western Wall is not associated with the remains of the Jewish Temple." The Palestinian Authority's website states about the Western Wall that "Some Orthodox religious Jews consider it as a holy place for them, and claim that the wall is part of their temple which all historic studies and archeological excavations have failed to find any proof for such a claim." The PA's mufti describes the Western Wall as "just a fence belonging to the Muslim holy site" and declares that "There is not a single stone in the Wailing-Wall relating to Jewish history." He also makes light of the Jewish connection, dismissively telling an Israeli interviewer, "I heard that your Temple was in Nablus or perhaps Bethlehem." Likewise, Arafat announced that Jews "consider Hebron to be holier than Jerusalem." There has even been some scholarship, from ‘Ayn Shams University in Egypt, alleging to show that Al-Aqsa Mosque predates the Jewish antiquities in Jerusalem – by no less than two thousand years.
In this spirit, Muslim institutions pressure the Western media to call the Temple Mount and the Western Wall by their Islamic names (Al-Haram ash-Sharif, Al-Buraq), and not their much older Jewish names. (Al-Haram ash-Sharif, for example, dates only from the Ottoman era.) When Western journalists do not comply, Arafat responds with outrage, with his news agency portraying this as part of a "constant conspiracy against our sanctities in Palestine" and his mufti deeming this contrary to Islamic law.
The second step is to deny Jews access to the wall. "It's prohibited for Jews to pray at the Western Wall," asserts an Islamist leader living in Israel. The director of the Al-Aqsa Mosque asserts that "This is a place for Muslims, only Muslims. There is no temple here, only Al-Aqsa Mosque and the Dome of the Rock." The Voice of Palestine radio station demands that Israeli politicians not be allowed even to touch the wall. ‘Ikrima Sabri, the Palestinian Authority's mufti, prohibits Jews from making repairs to the wall and extends Islamic claims further: "All the buildings surrounding the Al-Aqsa mosque are an Islamic waqf."
The third step is to reject any form of Jewish control in Jerusalem, as Arafat did in mid-2000: "I will not agree to any Israeli sovereign presence in Jerusalem." He was echoed by Saudi Arabia's Crown Prince Abdullah, who stated that "There is nothing to negotiate about and compromise on when it comes to Jerusalem." Even Oman's Minister of State for Foreign Affairs Yusuf bin ‘Alawi bin ‘Abdullah told the Israeli prime minister that sovereignty in Jerusalem should be exclusively Palestinian "to ensure security and stability."
The final step is to deny Jews access to Jerusalem at all. Toward this end, a body of literature blossoms that insists on an exclusive Islamic claim to all of Jerusalem. School textbooks allude to the city's role in Christianity and Islam, but ignore Judaism. An American affiliate of Hamas claims Jerusalem as "an Arab, Palestinian and Islamic holy city." A banner carried in a street protest puts it succinctly: "Jerusalem is Arab." No place for Jews here.
Anti-Jerusalem Views
This Muslim love of Zion notwithstanding, Islam contains a recessive but persistent strain of anti-Jerusalem sentiment, premised on the idea that emphasizing Jerusalem is non-Islamic and can undermine the special sanctity of Mecca.
In the early period of Islam, the Princeton historian Bernard Lewis notes, "there was strong resistance among many theologians and jurists" to the notion of Jerusalem as a holy city. They viewed this as a "Judaizing error—as one more among many attempts by Jewish converts to infiltrate Jewish ideas into Islam." Anti-Jerusalem stalwarts circulated stories to show that the idea of Jerusalem's holiness is a Jewish practice. In the most important of them, a converted Jew, named Ka‘b al-Ahbar, suggested to Caliph ‘Umar that Al-Aqsa Mosque be built by the Dome of the Rock. The caliph responded by accusing him of reversion to his Jewish roots:
‘Umar asked him: "Where do you think we should put the place of prayer?" "By the [Temple Mount] rock," answered Ka‘b.
By God, Ka‘b," said ‘Umar, "you are following after Judaism. I saw you take off your sandals [following Jewish practice]."
"I wanted to feel the touch of it with my bare feet," said Ka‘b.
"I saw you," said ‘Umar. "But no … Go along! We were not commanded concerning the Rock, but we were commanded concerning the Ka‘ba ."
Another version of this anecdote makes the Jewish content even more explicit: in this one, Ka‘b al-Ahbar tries to induce Caliph ‘Umar to pray north of the Holy Rock, pointing out the advantage of this: "Then the entire Al-Quds, that is, Al-Masjid al-Haram will be before you." In other words, the convert from Judaism is saying, the Rock and Mecca will be in a straight line and Muslims can pray toward both of them at the same time. That Muslims for almost a year and a half during Muhammad's lifetime directed prayers toward Jerusalem has had a permanently contradictory effect on that city's standing in Islam. The incident partially imbued Jerusalem with prestige and sanctity, but it also made the city a place uniquely rejected by God. Some early hadiths have Muslims expressing this rejection by purposefully praying with their back sides to Jerusalem, a custom that still survives in vestigial form; he who prays in Al-Aqsa Mosque not coincidentally turns his back precisely to the Temple area toward which Jews pray. Or, in Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's sharp formulation: when a Muslim prays in Al-Aqsa, "his back is to it. Also some of his lower parts."
Ibn Taymiya (1263-1328), one of Islam's strictest and most influential religious thinkers, is perhaps the outstanding spokesman of the anti-Jerusalem view. In his wide-ranging attempt to purify Islam of accretions and impieties, he dismissed the sacredness of Jerusalem as a notion deriving from Jews and Christians, and also from the long-ago Umayyad rivalry with Mecca. Ibn Taymiya's student, Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziya (1292-1350), went further and rejected hadiths about Jerusalem as false. More broadly, learned Muslims living after the Crusades knew that the great publicity given to hadiths extolling Jerusalem's sanctity resulted from the Countercrusade—from political exigency, that is—and therefore treated them warily.
There are other signs too of Jerusalem's relatively low standing in the ladder of sanctity: a historian of art finds that, "in contrast to representations of Mecca, Medina, and the Ka‘ba, depictions of Jerusalem are scanty." The belief that the Last Judgment would take place in Jerusalem was said by some medieval authors to be a forgery to induce Muslims to visit the city.
Modern writers sometimes take exception to the envelope of piety that has surrounded Jerusalem. Muhammad Abu Zayd wrote a book in Egypt in 1930 that was so radical that it was withdrawn from circulation and is no longer even extant. In it, among many other points, he
dismissed the notion of the Prophet's heavenly journey via Jerusalem, claiming that the Qur'anic rendition actually refers to his Hijra from Mecca to Madina; "the more remote mosque" ([I]al-masjid al-aqsa) thus had nothing to do with Jerusalem, but was in fact the mosque in Madina.That this viewpoint is banned shows the nearly complete victory in Islam of the pro-Jerusalem viewpoint. Still, an occasional expression still filters through. At a summit meeting of Arab leaders in March 2001, Mu‘ammar al-Qadhdhafi made fun of his colleagues' obsession with Al-Aqsa Mosque. "The hell with it," delegates quoted him saying, "you solve it or you don't, it's just a mosque and I can pray anywhere." Conclusion
Politics, not religious sensibility, has fueled the Muslim attachment to Jerusalem for nearly fourteen centuries; what the historian Bernard Wasserstein has written about the growth of Muslim feeling in the course of the Countercrusade applies through the centuries: "often in the history of Jerusalem, heightened religious fervour may be explained in large part by political necessity." This pattern has three main implications. First, Jerusalem will never be more than a secondary city for Muslims; "belief in the sanctity of Jerusalem," Sivan rightly concludes, "cannot be said to have been widely diffused nor deeply rooted in Islam." Second, the Muslim interest lies not so much in controlling Jerusalem as it does in denying control over the city to anyone else. Third, the Islamic connection to the city is weaker than the Jewish one because it arises as much from transitory and mundane considerations as from the immutable claims of faith.
Mecca, by contrast, is the eternal city of Islam, the place from which non-Muslims are strictly forbidden. Very roughly speaking, what Jerusalem is to Jews, Mecca is to Muslims – a point made in the Qur'an itself (2:145) in recognizing that Muslims have one qibla and "the people of the Book" another one. The parallel was noted by medieval Muslims; the geographer Yaqut (1179-1229) wrote, for example, that "Mecca is holy to Muslims and Jerusalem to the Jews." In modern times, some scholars have come to the same conclusion: "Jerusalem plays for the Jewish people the same role that Mecca has for Muslims," writes Abdul Hadi Palazzi, director of the Cultural Institute of the Italian Islamic Community.
The similarities are striking. Jews pray thrice to Jerusalem, Muslims five times daily to Mecca. Muslims see Mecca as the navel of the world, just as Jews see Jerusalem. Whereas Jews believe Abraham nearly sacrificed Ishmael's brother Isaac in Jerusalem, Muslims believe this episode took place in Mecca. The Ka‘ba in Mecca has similar functions for Muslims as the Temple in Jerusalem for Jews (such as serving as a destination for pilgrimage). The Temple and Ka‘ba are both said to be inimitable structures. The supplicant takes off his shoes and goes barefoot in both their precincts. Solomon's Temple was inaugurated on Yom Kippur, the tenth day of the year, and the Ka‘ba receives its new cover also on the tenth day of each year. If Jerusalem is for Jews a place so holy that not just its soil but even its air is deemed sacred, Mecca is the place whose "very mention reverberates awe in Muslims' hearts," according to Abad Ahmad of the Islamic Society of Central Jersey.
This parallelism of Mecca and Jerusalem offers the basis of a solution, as Sheikh Palazzi wisely writes:
separation in directions of prayer is a mean to decrease possible rivalries in management of Holy Places. For those who receive from Allah the gift of equilibrium and the attitude to reconciliation, it should not be difficult to conclude that, as no one is willing to deny Muslims a complete sovereignty over Mecca, from an Islamic point of view - notwithstanding opposite, groundless propagandistic claims - there is not any sound theological reason to deny an equal right of Jews over Jerusalem.To back up this view, Palazzi notes several striking and oft-neglected passages in the Qur'an. One of them (5:22-23) quotes Moses instructing the Jews to "enter the Holy Land (al-ard al-muqaddisa) which God has assigned unto you." Another verse (17:104) has God Himself making the same point: "We said to the Children of Israel: ‘Dwell securely in the Land.'" Qur'an 2:145 states that the Jews "would not follow your qibla; nor are you going to follow their qibla," indicating a recognition of the Temple Mount as the Jews' direction of prayer. "God himself is saying that Jerusalem is as important to Jews as Mecca is to Moslems," Palazzi concludes. His analysis has a clear and sensible implication: just as Muslims rule an undivided Mecca, Jews should rule an undivided Jerusalem.

Source Daniel Pipes (http://www.danielpipes.org/article/84)