Jerusalem and what should be done with it?

Hello menu

Josephus is hardly a credible source, I read his account long ago and I wasn't impressed. I fully doubt that a force of just 10 legions could defeat a million and a half people. Also there is no other source to verify that, all are supportive of Josephus's account.

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Jerusalem

Edited by Hebrewtext - 01-Aug-2008 at 09:38

Originally posted by Maharbbal I'm sorry but the three religion do not hold a similar claim to the city. For Islam it is only (at best) the third one. So Muslims do not have the same claim. Then for many Jews, despite the presence of the Temple, only God is supposed to restore Israel, so once more religiously Judaism is not supposed to hold Jerusalem. Only the Christians have a clear claim for the temporal government of the city. It is their #1 city. As such the pope should govern the city.

Sorry Wladyslaw, the crusades ended 700 years ago and it was they who invaded the country and were eventually defeated. The only rightful heir to the Levant was the old Byzantine empire which means that the current republic of Turkey, the heir of the Ottoman empire, is the rightful owner of the levant countries because the Sultan was the Empror of rome and Byzantium!

Originally posted by Al Jassas Sorry Wladyslaw, the crusades ended 700 years ago and it was they who invaded the country and were eventually defeated. The only rightful heir to the Levant was the old Byzantine empire which means that the current republic of Turkey, the heir of the Ottoman empire, is the rightful owner of the levant countries because the Sultan was the Empror of rome and Byzantium!   AL-Jassas

Well, it depends how you want to determine who qualifies as an heir. Simply occupying a territory that was previously occupied is one way of doing it, but definitely not the most common. Still, if we are speaking of being the "heir" of the Roman Empire in the conventional sense, why not investigate the strongest claim: that of Russia? As I recall, in addition to the "Third Rome" theory (which speaks of their adoption of elements of Byzantine administration and the Orthodox faith), the Tsars also had a connection or two to the Byzantine royal family. The problem is, the Tsars no longer govern Russia; the tragedy of the Russian Revolution and the triumph of the Bolsheviks broke that chain. Then, of course, the modern Russian government could also lay claim along the same lines. Or perhaps we should say that the modern Communist party is the true heir to the glory of Rome and, consequently, her ancient territorial claims? And if they are not, perhaps we should look to those who wish to restore the monarchy? What of Spain? As I recall, the Spanish royal house at once had some claim to a connection with the Byzantine royal family, and there is still a king of Spain. Now I'm not up on my Spanish history as much as I should be, but haven't there been several dynasties since then?

Of course, if we are to follow the reasoning you used in assigning the status to Turkey one step further -- to its logical conclusion -- we should say that the modern state of Israel is the true heir to the particular area which once composed the Roman province of Judaea. Then again, I fail to understand why we, in this particular scenario, have completely omitted the Latin claims on the region from the historical record -- and followed them down through the ages to modern France, Britain, Italy, Spain and Germany.

The point is that it is largely fruitless to base claims to be heirs of this or that ancient kingdom without taking the broader historical narrative into account. It is impossible to excise our brains from our modern political beliefs; things like self-determination, modern nationalism, and cultural pride. And this is why it is frustrating to see so many violent and unreasonable threads spring up in certain sections of this forum on precisely this subject.

-Akolouthos


Edited by Akolouthos - 01-Aug-2008 at 18:54

Originally posted by Al Jassas Sorry Wladyslaw, the crusades ended 700 years ago and it was they who invaded the country and were eventually defeated. The only rightful heir to the Levant was the old Byzantine empire which means that the current republic of Turkey, the heir of the Ottoman empire, is the rightful owner of the levant countries because the Sultan was the Empror of rome and Byzantium!   AL-Jassas

"Sorry man but religion has nothing to do with the argument at hand, religion owns nothing because what is religion? it is a concept not a state. The land was the property of its people and the people are now majority muslims and descendents of converts and/or immigrants period. "Christians" of Europe have as much claim on the levant as I do to Windsor. "

The ottomans really did continue the Byzantine Empire in many respects, especially in secular and cultural respects. Russia's claim to being the 3rd Rome is purely religious idealism. They only claimed that because they were the only powerful independent orthodox state at the time.
The ottomans on the other hand ruled the same people, the same land, in a similar manner, fought the same enemies. Prayed in the same buildings, payed their taxes to the same place etc etc

Furthermore, I don't believe that the majority of people currently in Jerusalem are Muslim -- feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. And if you are speaking of the demographics at a particular point in history, I would simply point out that I could just as easily say that the land belonged to the Christians, or the Jews, or the Baal worshiping Canaanites on the same grounds.

But whether Christian, Jewish, Muslim, or Baal worshipping they were always Palestinian.

Really? Where is the Roman/Greek culture in Turkish Empire? I missed it Omar. I don't see it from papuc to fez.

Clearly you aren't looking. Lets start with the role of the Ayia Sofia and end with food and coffee. The only difference is the religion of the state!

And they did NOT fight the same enemies.

Persians, Latins, Slavs, Germans and Turks? Hmmm, that's the same list to me....

The Ottoman Empire was the islamic caliphate that conquored a weakened and besieged eastern Roman Empire.

Wrong. The Ottoman Empires was not a Caliphate until 60 years after the fall of the Roman Empire. Nor was the pre Caliphate Empire particularly Islamic, the ruling class were muslims, but the state wasn't an islamic state, and the majority of the population was christian

Mehmed's claim is more political idealism.

Mehmeds claim to be Roman Emperor was an attempt to pre-empt this conversation basically (A political stunt). It didn't work.