Sorry but that sounds like a veiled threat.

I don't believe religion should be used as an excuse to remove what others consider undesirables.
If recreating a spiritual home is subjugates the lives of others with ties to the land can it be considered honourable?

Of course, Hamas never make veiled threats while they're fining their daily rockets off the top of schools and hospitals.

I'm sure if people told Muslims that Jews wanted to move in and live around Mecca you'd start a petition or something. Jerusalem is to Jews what Mecca is to Muslims.

When the the Arab Legion occupied the Jewish Quarter of the Old City of Jerusalem, buildings were destroyed and its residents expelled. Fifty-eight synagogues were looted and desecrated. Sites sacred to Jews were turned into animal accommodation. The cemetery on the Mount of Olives where the Jewish dead have been buried for 3000 years was ransacked, graves were desecrated, stone removed for building latrines for the Arab Legion army. They built the Intercontinental Hotel on the site of the cemetery and they turned the Western Wall into a slum. Small wonder they're not happy to share.

Jerusalem was the capital of King David’s Israel in the Hebrew Bible, as well as the city where David’s son Solomon built his temple. In biblical times, Jewish people who could not make a pilgrimage to the city were supposed to pray in the direction of it.

According to the Quran, Jerusalem was also the last place the Prophet Muhammad visited before he ascended to the heavens and talked to God in the seventh century.

Jerusalem has always been significant to Christians because of the places there where Jesus ministered and, most importantly, where he died and rose again. This is why Helen, mother of Constantine, built churches there in the 4th century that commemorated these events in the life of Jesus and is why Christians from every denomination on earth visit Jerusalem and these very churches and sites.

So who has more rights to Jerusalem? or should it be a shared religious city?

So we have a former capital, which is the place several historic buildings are and that a handful of historic figures have been to; and the muslims think it's where a paedo was before he flew into the sky? There's no prizes for guessing who has the weakest claim, at least.

Why are you making up hypotheticals? :/

We British have stomped around swallowing ancient lands for millennia and you've always appeared pretty much ok with that, which is why I find it hard to be sympathetic when it's impacting on an area that is of historical importance to you.

Personally I don't feel something that is so far in the past is important, it's time to move on. Can so much suffering in the name of a faith be considered reasonable?

A handful, more like many millions of religious people of three different faiths.

The earliest accounts of Jerusalem is, it was a dynasty of Egypt and remained so for 500 years. Since that period its been captured 44 times. The first owners of what is now called Jerusalem were Pagans.

If you believe that Jerusalem isn't a big deal to Christians and Muslims and that it should become Israels capital, then you agree with violation of international law and agree with the further annexation of Israel. You become apposed to the anti-Zionist Jews and support the Zionist.

I've been okay with the British stomping around swalling up ancient lands? for MILLENNIA? Do you know how long a millennium is?

I wasn't alive when the British Empire was flourishing. Neither were you, presumably. Half of my family were in a different country back then. And I never said it was of historical importance, it is of spiritual importance. But then you have no real faith, you don't agree with organised religion, you're "spiritual". So you don't understand people of faith... it's a waste of my time talking to you about this. All you want to do is argue and pick up on semantics when you've run out of steam.

There are lots of Christians living quite happily as Israeli citizens. There are lots of Muslims living quite happily as citizens. But the Muslim you are referring to, the ones who still treat their women like second class citizens (women can't vote in Palestine... they can in Israel). You're referring to the people who fire rockets daily into Jerusalem, hiding in amongst women and children. They're the ones who want a two state solution.... which is fine! Only THEY want Jerusalem as their capital. And that will never happen.

Berlin was a great example of how well a split city works :umm2:

Given that the city is within Israel at the present time, they are entitled to make whatever city is within their borders, their capital. If and when that situation changes, then it can be revised, but not before

It wasn't intended to be taken so literally, I simply meant a long time.

You weren't alive 3000 years ago and yet your argument is for a spiritual homeland, yes I consider myself spiritual I understand things are of spiritual importance.
What I don't understand is having that spirituality manifest as faith and be used as a basis for decisions which affect the lives of others in a wholly negative manner.

The idea that people of faith are intrinsically different is troubling, essentially what you're suggesting is that people of faith are willing to forgo the idea that we are all spiritual beings and instead those who have faith have superiority as their needs take precedence.

It's not a waste of time, you have no logical argument that would explain this rationally as it is essentially an irrational argument, to kill in the name of faith is an affront to that faith...whichever faith it may be.

There are extreme factions of the Jewish Faith too that subjugate women, it's not exclusive remember.
Those issues in the main culture not faith based and have in the past been more moderate, what we see is a bastardisation of a culture and faith to create the normalisation of extremism.
This can happen in any faith.

The idea that any military retaliation avoids women and children is of course wrong, as with any conflict it's always the innocent that suffer.

I work in Israel quite a bit and I have relatives there, so I suppose I'm closer to it, see things that never gets in the paper, hear things that I couldn't discuss, know things that I can't talk about for professional reasons... so it's hard for me to respond to the stuff you're reacting to. And we will always be singing from two different hymn sheets as far as faith is concerned. So I'll leave you with all your opinions.

The Palestinians don't want a split city either. They want their own state, which is a great idea. But they want Jerusalem as its capital. It's always going to be the sticking point for a peace process.

Maybe if you worked in Palestine in a similar capacity you'd have the opposite view?

You think so? You have formed a view that you're very happy with without ever going near either place. I have been into Palestine. And some of my work is linked to Palestine.

Anyhoo, I refer you to a previous post where I said I'd leave you to those opinions of yours.

I said maybe Livia, as in there are two sides to every conflict, even faith based conflict.

Zionism is not the establishment of the true Zion. The true Zion reconciles all Semitic religions… Jews, Arabs and Christians and the true Zion can never be nationalistic. Now I totally understand why the Jews wanted a land, a place for political independence, the problem I have is, they stole that state from someone else and they did that under the name 'Zionism' the very thing Zion isn't.

I was looking for a video by Miko Peled the son Jewish of an Israeli Generals. There's a lot of stuff by him out there and he wrote a book which is worth reading called, 'The Generals Son'.

This particular video is fairly long (about 28 minutes) but well worth watching.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oCKWDarNdGw

One of the things he talks about towards the end of the video is the 'The none violent resistance movement in Palestine'. This resistant movement is mainly made up of Jews and Arabs and its getting bigger by the day.

The Democrats,Obama and Hilary support this move
 

Sorry for posting this clown but he sometimes makes sense

America have been blocking UN Security Council resolutions since the Cold War ended because it relies on everything they do to the Middle East and contains Russia, which in turn protects global oil... which America see as theirs. Israel is used time and again as the impending threat.

$38 billion sent to fund free health aid when America don't even have such a thing?!?! One thing for sure, when it comes to foreign policy America is not a neutral broker.

Is it like us with Saudi... We don't officially support what they are doing in Yemen but unoffically we do?

So if we were to say that was ok now officially it would be us 'doing a trump'?

Our very blatant support for Riyadh’s campaign is sickening.

The situation between Israel and Palestine will never be resolved, especially with outside agitators like Trump adding fuel to the fire. The best thing foreign nations can do is to try to stay out of situations like that, international interference rarely helps volatile situations improve. Situations like Israel/Palestine and North/South Korea have a lot of potential for escalation and we should leave them to it, the UN can impose sanctions on either side if they break international law but aside from that, actions like Trump's are just lighting a fuse that is going to result in a loss of innocent life on both sides.

I think it will be resolved but it will be on a humanitarian level. As Miko Peled says, peaceful resistance movements are growing by the day. Awareness and truth, especially amongst younger Israeli people is growing by the day. There are peace activists in Israelis who send messages of love to Iran and Iranians sending messages of love back to Israel. You don't have to look far to find it. Its very much a thing.

But then you'll get irritants like Donald Trump who will keep putting back the peace process.

I don't think it'll be something that will end in our lifetimes.