(12-17-2017, 06:16 PM)Grace Wrote: I don't see anything the U.N. says as binding because it relies on willing participation .. in this case, the two affected countries are not willing participants as to the UN's opinion where concerns Jerusalem - unless or until that opinion seems to favor their interests and might someday go toward their ultimate goal where concerns the city.
Personally, I couldn't care any less who controls it, it's rather going to be in the hands of whomever wins this fight.
At current moment, that makes possession 9/10ths of the law and makes Israel in control of the city - therefore, what Israel calls it, whether capital or not, and who may or may not decide to follow suit with what the possessor decides, is just a thing.
What the U.N. decides is meaningless, unless or until those in possession of the city decide to concede control to the U.N. (i don't see that happening on either side, at least not longer than it takes to gain control - and if you dont possess something conceding control is meaningless)
Whenever willing participation is involved, then it's rather up to the individuals involved and not up those on the outside giving opinion.
Partially correct. Israel is in control of parts of Jerusalem, but the Palestinian Authority claims East Jerusalem as IT'S capitol, which I suspect is what this ruckus is all about - they don't want to give up their claim, and if "Jerusalem" is the capitol of Israel, then "East Jerusalem" might be denied them for THEIR capitol.
Furthermore, Mount Zion, the Temple Mount, is administered entirely by the Jerusalem Islamic Waqf, even though it is in Jerusalem. Israel has no authority there, which is why Jews have to limit themselves to praying at the Wailing Wall, OUTSIDE the Temple Mount.
For grins and giggles, if you ever get to go to the Temple Mount, try carrying a Cross or a Bible there, and see how long that lasts. Same for a Star of David or a Torah. I'll bet you dollars against donuts that you don't even get through the gate with any of those, and if you do and it's seen in your possession while on the Temple Mount, you are going to have a very bad day.
It's dangerous to even be seen or overheard muttering a Christian or Jewish prayer there.
So, Israel is not entirely in possession of Jerusalem - not even the most important part that makes it "Jerusalem".
Fun Fact: when I was a Muslim, right after I converted and long before I apostatized, a young sheikh offered me a free trip to "The Holy Land", which included access to al-Haram esh-Sharif (which us infidels call "the Temple Mount") and the Dome of the Rock and al-Aqsa Mosue - which are two places, like Mecca, that are "Access denied" to any but Muslims. I didn't go, and I still don't regret it. He seemed a little confused that I had no hankering to see Mohammed's footprint on the rock under the dome. Even tried to bait me in by promising access to the chamber under the rock, but I wasn't buying because I smelled a rat there - not in the chamber, but in the whole offer overall.
God has abandoned Jerusalem, and the Temple Mount or "Mount Zion" in particular. God doesn't live there any more. I think he saw the neighborhood going to the dogs in 638 AD, and left for the coast. Exactly which coast I don't know.
Jerusalem is just a political football now, and God doesn't play politics OR football.
.
Diogenes was eating bread and lentils for supper. He was seen by the philosopher Aristippus, who lived comfortably by flattering the king.
Said Aristippus, ‘If you would learn to be subservient to the king you would not have to live on lentils.’ Said Diogenes, ‘Learn to live on lentils and you will not have to be subservient to the king.’
Said Aristippus, ‘If you would learn to be subservient to the king you would not have to live on lentils.’ Said Diogenes, ‘Learn to live on lentils and you will not have to be subservient to the king.’