Anti-Semitic UN resolution upsets Israel (again) (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

hertz -> Anti-Semitic UN resolution upsets Israel (again) (10/30/2010 3:05:31 PM)

This time it's UNESCO, who have suggested that the Ibrahimi Mosque and Bilal Mosque, both in the occupied West Bank, should not have been added to Israel's 'National' heritage list - that's the list of stuff, some of it other people's, that Israel thinks belongs to it alone. Instead, UNESCO have suggested the sites should be recognised as significant to both sides of the Israeli wall of shame.

As usual, the US was the only country to vote against the resolution - no surprises there. 44 countries voted in favour of the resolution to tell Israel to share nicely, and 12 countries abstained.

Ben Netanyahu said: 'Yada, yada, yada - bias, anti-semitism etc. etc.'

I don't understand why people don't just leave the Israelis in peace...

Full story here.



KenDckey -> RE: Anti-Semitic UN resolution upsets Israel (again) (10/30/2010 4:47:06 PM)

I can understand why Christians, Muslims and Jews all believe these to be Holy sites.   I wonder if UNESCO must approve our historical locations whether or not we classify them as holy?   I would certainly hope not.  



DomKen -> RE: Anti-Semitic UN resolution upsets Israel (again) (10/30/2010 4:55:39 PM)

Funny spin.

The Tomb of the Patriarchs and Rachel's Tomb are both holy to the Jews and were venerated long before Islam existed. The mosques built on those sites were part of an islamification of the holy land that included creating the myth that Mohammed ascended to heaven from the site in order to build the Dome of the Rock over the jewish Holy of Holies. By clear historical facts we know these sites have no significance to islam beyond the significance made up to justify trying to erase judaism from the area.



FirmhandKY -> RE: Anti-Semitic UN resolution upsets Israel (again) (10/30/2010 11:03:42 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

Funny spin.

The Tomb of the Patriarchs and Rachel's Tomb are both holy to the Jews and were venerated long before Islam existed. The mosques built on those sites were part of an islamification of the holy land that included creating the myth that Mohammed ascended to heaven from the site in order to build the Dome of the Rock over the jewish Holy of Holies. By clear historical facts we know these sites have no significance to islam beyond the significance made up to justify trying to erase judaism from the area.


hmmm.

Would they qualify as "victory mosques"? [8|]

Fir



Real0ne -> RE: Anti-Semitic UN resolution upsets Israel (again) (10/31/2010 12:09:18 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: hertz
Israelis in peace...


now that was truly funny!



Politesub53 -> RE: Anti-Semitic UN resolution upsets Israel (again) (10/31/2010 4:52:25 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

hmmm.

Would they qualify as "victory mosques"? [8|]

Fir



No, because the Tomb Of The Patriarchs was destroyed by Persians not Muslims. Dont confuse your history since modern day Persia ( Iran ) is now an Islamic nation. Back then, it wasnt.



hertz -> RE: Anti-Semitic UN resolution upsets Israel (again) (10/31/2010 5:04:35 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: KenDckey

I can understand why Christians, Muslims and Jews all believe these to be Holy sites.   I wonder if UNESCO must approve our historical locations whether or not we classify them as holy?   I would certainly hope not.  



In an ideal world, UNESCO wouldn't need to get involved. But Israel has a nasty habit of making claims on lands and properties which do not, in any sensible view, belong to it. Israel making the claim that the sites are important to Judaism is not a problem. The problem is that they follow it up by denying everyone else access.



hertz -> RE: Anti-Semitic UN resolution upsets Israel (again) (10/31/2010 5:10:35 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

Funny spin.

The Tomb of the Patriarchs and Rachel's Tomb are both holy to the Jews and were venerated long before Islam existed. The mosques built on those sites were part of an islamification of the holy land that included creating the myth that Mohammed ascended to heaven from the site in order to build the Dome of the Rock over the jewish Holy of Holies. By clear historical facts we know these sites have no significance to islam beyond the significance made up to justify trying to erase judaism from the area.


Yeah - that's not an unusual view. The Jews were there 3000 years ago, therefore they have absolute priority over anyone and everyone who has been there in the years between then and now. Your claim that the sites have no significance to Islam given the fact that there have been Mosques on the sites for about 2000 years is crass and, quite honestly, ridiculous.



hertz -> RE: Anti-Semitic UN resolution upsets Israel (again) (10/31/2010 5:11:53 AM)

I'm missing my stalker...



DomKen -> RE: Anti-Semitic UN resolution upsets Israel (again) (10/31/2010 5:52:40 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: hertz

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

Funny spin.

The Tomb of the Patriarchs and Rachel's Tomb are both holy to the Jews and were venerated long before Islam existed. The mosques built on those sites were part of an islamification of the holy land that included creating the myth that Mohammed ascended to heaven from the site in order to build the Dome of the Rock over the jewish Holy of Holies. By clear historical facts we know these sites have no significance to islam beyond the significance made up to justify trying to erase judaism from the area.


Yeah - that's not an unusual view. The Jews were there 3000 years ago, therefore they have absolute priority over anyone and everyone who has been there in the years between then and now. Your claim that the sites have no significance to Islam given the fact that there have been Mosques on the sites for about 2000 years is crass and, quite honestly, ridiculous.


Islam was founded in 610CE that's precisely 1400 years ago. The first islamic buildings are 50 or so years younger than that. Therefore no mosque has been on any site for 2000 years.



DomKen -> RE: Anti-Semitic UN resolution upsets Israel (again) (10/31/2010 6:16:16 AM)

I think it also important to point out that Israel has not torn down any of the mosques in question and that prior to Israel taking the West Bank in the 1967 war, a war in which they were the attacked party, they were not permitted into the Tomb of the Patriarchs. To this day Jews can only appoach the cenotaphs of Isaac and Rebecca on 10 days out of the year, the rest of the time Muslims control the only entrance to the cave. Even this limited access by Jews has resulted in repeated attacks by Muslims on Jews at the site.

The Tomb of Rachel is unquestionably a Jewish site. The Pasha of Jerusalem in 1615 ceded control of the Tomb to Jews and the building exists today because Jews paid for it. The Muslims have so little regard for the site that they have fired at it and hurled explosives at it. They recently have created a myth that it is the tomb of the first muezzin, despite him having a well known tomb in Damascus.



dreamysubmale -> RE: Anti-Semitic UN resolution upsets Israel (again) (10/31/2010 6:33:16 AM)

From Wikipedia

The Cave of the Patriarchs or the Cave of Machpelah "Cave of the Double Tombs” called by Muslims the Sanctuary of Abraham or Ibrahimi Mosque.

The compound, located in the ancient city of Hebron, is the second holiest site for Jews.

Herod the Great built a large, rectangular enclosure over the caves. Under Byzantine rule, a simple basilica was constructed at the southeastern end.

In 614, the Persians conquered the area and destroyed the church, leaving only ruins; but in 637, the area came under the control of the Muslims and the building was reconstructed as a roofed mosque.

In 1100, after the area was captured by the Crusaders the enclosure once again became a church and Muslims were no longer permitted to enter. In 1188, however, Saladin conquered the area, reconverting the enclosure to a mosque but allowing Christians to continue worshipping there. Saladin also added a minaret at each corner — two of which still survive — and the minbar.

From the time of the Arab-Islamic conquest of Hebron in the 7th century until the present, the holy site has been used as a mosque. Until June 1967 Jews were forbidden from entering the site, and were not allowed past the seventh step leading up to the tombs.



hertz -> RE: Anti-Semitic UN resolution upsets Israel (again) (10/31/2010 7:04:10 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

Islam was founded in 610CE that's precisely 1400 years ago. The first islamic buildings are 50 or so years younger than that. Therefore no mosque has been on any site for 2000 years.



You seriously sat down and bothered to work out that it isn't  two thousand years, but 'just' one thousand, three hundred and fifty? Blimey - you're serious about your numbers and no mistake! You haven't really answered my point though, have you? So tell me DomKen, in your estimation, is one thousand three hundred and fifty years worth of Islamic history completely discounted because the Jews were there a few hundred years earlier?

I only ask, because I still maintain that your earlier claim:

quote:

By clear historical facts we know these sites have no significance to islam beyond the significance made up to justify trying to erase judaism from the area.


Is bullshit.



DomKen -> RE: Anti-Semitic UN resolution upsets Israel (again) (10/31/2010 7:31:02 AM)

You are welcome to do the research yourself.

Precisely which verse in the Koran mentions the Tomb of the Patriarchs? Rachel's Tomb? The Foundation Stone?

When exactly did muslims come to believe those sites were holy to them? Before or after the conquest of the area? Did early Islamic leaders pursue a policy of building mosques on sites holy to other faiths with extremely questionable importance to Islam?



hertz -> RE: Anti-Semitic UN resolution upsets Israel (again) (10/31/2010 8:57:23 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

You are welcome to do the research yourself.

Precisely which verse in the Koran mentions the Tomb of the Patriarchs? Rachel's Tomb? The Foundation Stone?

When exactly did muslims come to believe those sites were holy to them? Before or after the conquest of the area? Did early Islamic leaders pursue a policy of building mosques on sites holy to other faiths with extremely questionable importance to Islam?


If I wanted a master class in avoiding the point, I would have asked for one. Both the Ibrahimi Mosque and Bilal Mosque have been around for a very, very long time. You claimed that they were of no significance to Islam, and you claimed that any significance ascribed to them by Palestinians (or whoever) was 'made up to justify trying to erase judaism from the area'.

Since you are making the bullshit claims, I think it falls upon you to back them up by explaining why 1350 years of history is insignificant, and how the presence of two Mosques with 1350 years worth of history behind them is a justification for erasing Judaism from the area. Whilst you are at it, you might also answer the initial point, which is why you believe that Israel has the right to lay claim on these properties that are on land that does not belong to it.



DomKen -> RE: Anti-Semitic UN resolution upsets Israel (again) (10/31/2010 10:43:51 AM)

Way to evade the point.

You refuse to acknowledge historical facts about the sites in question. You even buy into the recently coined lies that the Tomb of Rachel is somehow the tomb of Bilal ibn Rabah, despite another tomb for him being in Damascus and no historical evidence existing that he was ever anywhere near Jerusalem. You further evade the point that the Islamic authority in Jerusalem returned full control of Rachel's Tomb to Jews 395 years ago, a strange decision if it is the resting place of the first muezzin and not that of a Jew.




Anaxagoras -> RE: Anti-Semitic UN resolution upsets Israel (again) (10/31/2010 10:43:53 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: hertz

I'm missing my stalker...


No doubt the “stalker” reference is again pointed at me. I hope others see how this guy thinks others are not really entitled to disagree, reports others for name calling while often doing it himself etc.

Sorry for the long post but I wanted to put this stuff in context since Hertz is trying to besmirch Israel’s reputation yet again. It is funny how he is the only one on here starting threads to attack the state.

The point here is not so much that UNESCO recognises the sites are important to Muslims too but they put it on an equal footing or over-emphasise the Islamic importance of the sites. UNESCO actually went as far as to ask Israel to remove these sites which are extremely important to Judaism from their catalogue of heritage sites. UNESCO referred to both sites primarily by their Muslim names and then Jewish ones. The Cave of the Patriarchs is a highly important site for Judaism that has clear primacy over a minor mosque built on the site over a thousand years later (not a few hundred as Hertz claims).

UNESCO showed its political bias by also adding fuel to the frequent Islamicist claims that Israel is going to destroy the Mosque on the Temple Mount. Israel actually limits Jewish access to this site according to Muslim wishes which many Jews find objectionable and have legally challenged. Its fairly well known that the Mosque destruction conspiracy theory which has been around since 1967 is used to stir up hostility to Israel and Judaism around the world so UNESCO doing this is pretty astonishing.

The criticism is that this is the first time intense political language was used by UNESCO about Rachel’s Tomb. The resolution referred to the tomb as “Bilal bin Rabah Mosque/Rachel’s Tomb.” UNESCO said that the site was “an integral part of the occupied Palestinian territories and that any unilateral action by the Israeli authorities is to be considered a violation of international law.” This was clearly another UN threat. In fact Israel has more legal claim to that land than any other party for it was part of the League of Nations mandate which the UN does not have any right to over-ride according to its own charter. That isn’t to say Israel should take the land but their presence clearly isn’t illegal as a quick look at the issue establishes. Thus UNESCO is adopting a popular facet of the pro-Palestinian “lawfare” or should it be “liefare”. If this doesn’t smack of political bias then I don’t know what does.

It was a resolution put forward by Arab powers hostile to Israel. It can be no coincidence that in March (revealingly a few months before the Flotilla Incident) Erdogan, the Turkish Prime Minister, said to a Saudi newspaper that the Cave of the Patriarchs, Rachel’s Tomb and the Al-Aqsa Mosque were always Islamic sites and never Jewish. The area of Rachel’s Tomb did contain a mosque and a Muslim cemetery but they are minor in comparison to the import of the site to Jews and were part of a common trend to claim these sites as their own not just for triumphal militaristic reasons but in an effort to assimilate Jews, Christians, Hindu’s etc., unless of course people are daft enough to think the building of thousands and thousands of mosques throughout the world on sites important to other religions is er… purely coincidental. Today it would be akin to building a synagogue near a big site like St. Peters in Rome and claiming the site was principally Jewish. It is important to note Muslims themselves recognised the site as principally Jewish as they called it Rachel’s Tomb or “Qubat Rachel”. The name “Bilal bin Rabah Mosque” dates only as far back as 1996 when Palestinian riots caused the name to be changed for political purposes. It is clearly part of an Islamicist effort to rewrite history and trump any Jewish claim to its most important sites: http://www.shalomlife.com/eng/14059/article

Netanyahu said Israel continues to preserve freedom of religion at these sites in contrast to their Arab neighbours which is clearly correct despite what pro-Palestinians try to say. Jordan destroyed a huge number of synagogues when they took that region and expelled or massacred the Jewish populace but little is ever said of that. This is partly why places like Hebron are important to the stubborn Jewish settlers there today because the Jewish populace was massacred at numerous intervals since they started to move back to the area in the 1600’s due to the importance of the Cave of the Patriarchs. Yet ironically enough places like Hebron are commonly used by pro-Palestinians to attack Israel, when they should really be symbolically representative of aggressive Islamicism and associated colonialism.



popeye1250 -> RE: Anti-Semitic UN resolution upsets Israel (again) (10/31/2010 10:47:39 AM)

The "U.N.?" Anti-Semitic?
Noooooo! Say it ain't so Joe!



Aneirin -> RE: Anti-Semitic UN resolution upsets Israel (again) (11/2/2010 5:04:01 PM)

I just wonder what this world would be like if there were no Jewish, no Christian and no Islamic religions, for it is these three that are upsetting the world of today and looking at history, the very same lot. What is the common factor, a belief in the one god, the only god, well if the only god can create religions such as these, I am glad I am not part of them. Yes man creates religions but what sort of man creates the kind that says one thing then does the complete opposite. Are we sure God almighty was not an ancient war god ? If not, it bloody well should be, for the blood that has been spilled in his name makes me sick.

I see God, the Jewish, Christian and Islamic god as a god of strife and disharmony, for in its name men do the worst to men.

Take away these religions, ban them from the minds of men and see what happens, would these holy places that people fight over be of any significance then, hey people might just get on with living their lives in the present instead of  an ancient past that has long gone.

Maybe the communist regime of the former soviet union had a point when it banned deity worship, for religion divides men not brings men together.



nephandi -> RE: Anti-Semitic UN resolution upsets Israel (again) (11/2/2010 7:24:44 PM)

Greetings

quote:

I can understand why Christians, Muslims and Jews all believe these to be Holy sites.   I wonder if UNESCO must approve our historical locations whether or not we classify them as holy?   I would certainly hope not.


It is not whatever or not a site is holy which is in question, but whatever or not it had cultural significance to the various people involved. It is like the Notre Dame in Paris, it had a cultural significance to most French people not just the Christians. Which is the reason why the Jews and the Muslim and Christian groups should share such sites, whoever might have had them first, they are now historically important to all three groups.

I wish you well



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875