Jerusalem and what should be done with it?
Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: Regional History or Period History
Forum Name: Post-Classical Middle East
Forum Discription: SW Asia, the Middle East and Islamic civilizations from 600s - 1900 AD
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=23711
Printed Date: 28-May-2024 at 23:48
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Jerusalem and what should be done with it?
Posted By: Sun Tzu
Subject: Jerusalem and what should be done with it?
Date Posted: 05-Mar-2008 at 17:22
|
Jerusalem is the navel of the world, holy site for the three major religions, and a warzone. Since every one of these religions (Islam, Christianity, and Judaism) hold significant claim to the city what should be done? what could be done to satisfy all factions and create a sense of coexistance? ------------- Sun Tzu All warfare is based on deception - Sun Tzu |
Replies:
Posted By: Cryptic
Date Posted: 05-Mar-2008 at 19:31
| Status quo seems to be a good idea. Any changes, even the ones that can be agreed on, may lead to unforeseen concequences. |
Posted By: Balaam
Date Posted: 06-Mar-2008 at 01:17
|
total destruction of the city could work...
------------- |
Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date Posted: 10-Mar-2008 at 23:17
|
Saladin's system worked well until 1948. ------------- |
Posted By: konstantinius
Date Posted: 19-Apr-2008 at 23:40
|
The area needs to be under the auspices of a multi-ethnic empire. Roman, Persian, Ottoman, British, anything would work but this.
------------- " I do disagree with what you say but I'll defend to my death your right to do so." |
Posted By: Maharbbal
Date Posted: 20-Apr-2008 at 05:07
|
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. ------------- I am a free donkey! |
Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date Posted: 20-Apr-2008 at 07:56
|
The pope has never governed Jerusalem, except for the period where he tried to take it by force. The eastern churches - Greek, Syrian, Ethopian, Egyptian, Armenian etc, have collectively governed the Holy Churches since at least Saladin (possibly always or post Roman?) The problem is they are far to busy fighting each other to agree upon a gate keeper for the Holy Sepulchre let alone the ruler of the whole region. ------------- |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 20-Apr-2008 at 11:42
|
Are there any Jebusites around it could be given back to? ------------- |
Posted By: pekau
Date Posted: 21-Apr-2008 at 21:19
|
Serious international military supervision, and wait until Palestine and Israel recover their diplomatic, social and economic stability. Much of the violent religious movement is not caused by religious cause, but by the discontentment and frustations of people. ------------- http://swagbucks.com/refer/Malachi"> 
Join us. |
Posted By: Knights
Date Posted: 22-Apr-2008 at 03:21
|
Maharbbal: What makes you say that if Christians have the biggest claim to the city, then it is the Pope who automatically should assume control? Not all Christians are Catholics. And Gcle: I was thinking the exact same thing - they have the right to it above anyone else! The Jebusites built the city, only to have it taken off them by David. Any Jebusites around? ------------- |
Posted By: Akolouthos
Date Posted: 22-Apr-2008 at 04:00
Hm. We could launch into a discussion of why the popes claims to universal juridical authority are uncanonical and refuted by the early church, but we shall refrain, at this point. That said, we must note that the canonical patriarch of Jerusalem holds spiritual authority in the see of Jerusalem, and that the pope -- currently Benedict XVI -- is in schism with this hierarch -- currently Theophilus III. Thus, the pope cannot assume control of a city over which he holds neither secular nor spiritual authority. The essence of the above runs thus: the pope bears absolutely no spiritual authority within the Church so long as he refuses to follow the dictums of Christ.
As for the rest of it, we must note that if the sole criterion for determining who has a right to the city is that it is "importance", and the fact that it is the first holy city of that religion, the Jews would have equal claim with Christians. I would suggest that we attempt to determine the validity/invalidity of the doctrines before we attempted to dismiss their claims.
That said, I would note that I do respect your reasoning, and I think it is sound, rational, and effective. This is a rarety in the modern era, and we are greatly indebted to you for setting the tone of the conversation.
-Akolouthos
|
Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date Posted: 23-Apr-2008 at 07:29
Of course, we could do something really radical and give it to an ethnic group comprised of all three religions who have lived there since time immemorial.
Almost certainly their descendents are still living in Jerusalem despite the best efforts of others... ------------- |
Posted By: Julius Augustus
Date Posted: 23-Apr-2008 at 09:35
its been years since I have heard of the jebusites, are they still alive? |
Posted By: beorna
Date Posted: 23-Apr-2008 at 15:58
Perhaps they should act in the way of King Salomon. Destroy Jerusalem. Perhaps it will show who loves it and who not.
|
Posted By: Catalán
Date Posted: 25-Apr-2008 at 01:08
It should be given to King Juan Carlos I - therefore, Jerusalem is Spanish. One of his titles is 'King of Jerusalem', so it must be true. 
|
Posted By: pekau
Date Posted: 25-Apr-2008 at 10:15
|
Can't we just let the people in Jerusalem decide? It sounds unrealistic, but wouldn't it be logically sound for Jews and Palestines in Jerusalem city create their nation based on their self-determination? If we can impose some international force to preserve peace and economy of Palestine and Israel long enough, maybe they can set their differences aside and work as a Palestine-Jewish neutral society. Again, highly unrealistic... but history had some odd and bizzare moments before... ------------- http://swagbucks.com/refer/Malachi">
Join us. |
Posted By: beorna
Date Posted: 25-Apr-2008 at 11:43
| I think it's a question of power. On the Israeli side and the palestinian side the never ending war has advantages for some groups. And think of all the neighbours. Everybody has his interests in the trouble. It's the same in Northern Ireland. Should we believe it's a conflict between protestants and catholics? It's always a question of power, of economic influence, political influence and so on. If there is peace in Palestina what shall they do with all the soldiers, all those guys from Hamas and all the guys. What's with the billions for the weapon industry in Israel? The problems won't be solved, cause the political circles need it, that's my opinion. When ever there is a silver strip on the horizon one side starts to attack the other side. Peace is not what they really want. |
Posted By: Catalán
Date Posted: 25-Apr-2008 at 13:53
The issue is that orthodox Jews living in Jerusalem, such as my uncle, are fervent Zionist and are one of the major forces pulling strings, which is ultimately slowing the progress of establishing an independent Palestinian state in the Gaza Strip and West Bank [apart from Hamas, of course]. As a consequence, a large portion of Jews don't want to 'create their own state', because they already live in their own state. IMO, Jerusalem should be made an international city and governed by the UN. The Israeli capital should be moved to Tel A'viv. |
Posted By: Carpathian Wolf
Date Posted: 13-Jun-2008 at 08:26
|
Give it to the Eskimo.
Seriously though I don't see such a discussion going anywhere. I think it's interesting though.
Someone said that the Eastern Orthodox Churches fought amongst themselves, no, they're one religion. Spiritually Christian Akolouthus got it right.
|
Posted By: Mughal e Azam
Date Posted: 18-Jun-2008 at 06:32
|
Make Jerusalem the center of the world. Move the United Nations into Jerusalem and make it an international city like Singapur or Hong Kong with enough autonomous control where they can govern themselves effectively. Of course this doesnt mean there wont be problems down the road, but with such a high profile real estate, expecting no problems is stupid in itself. ------------- Mughal e Azam |
Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date Posted: 18-Jun-2008 at 07:15
Since when did that stop anyone from fighting amongst each other? Even if we ignored the fact that they do have theological arguments all the time, that still leaves political arguments like who gets the key (admittable that one was solved centuries ago but you get the drift) ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 18-Jun-2008 at 07:40
I can remember even during the Caliphate the bishops meeting with their E. Roman counterparts to discuss Church matters. There were some periods where it was limited and localized, but also plenty of cooperation between the Caliph and the Emperor to allow the Bishops under him to maintain ties to Constantinople. ------------- |
Posted By: Leonidas
Date Posted: 18-Jun-2008 at 11:34
|
Posted By: Al Jassas
Date Posted: 18-Jun-2008 at 17:53
|
The problem with the Orthodox church is the complete compliance with Israeli policies that some high positioned greek born and raised bishops do. Remeber that two thirds of west jerusalem and much of the settlements around it are church property sold and/or taken with the full knowledge and cooperation of those greeks. This led the Arab christian to rightly demand a return of the church to Arab christians who ran it since the 9th century and never betrayed their duty. unfortunately the greek and the Jordanian governments (the latter is responsible for all non jewish holy sites) refuse to correct the mistake and continue to trust foreigners who more than once betrayed their duty.
Al-Jassas
|
Posted By: Carpathian Wolf
Date Posted: 18-Jun-2008 at 19:18
|
"Since when did that stop anyone from fighting amongst each other? Even if we ignored the fact that they do have theological arguments all the time, that still leaves political arguments like who gets the key (admittable that one was solved centuries ago but you get the drift)" Since when did they start? How is discussing "fighting amongst each other"? "The problem with the Orthodox church is the complete compliance with Israeli policies that some high positioned greek born and raised bishops do. Remeber that two thirds of west jerusalem and much of the settlements around it are church property sold and/or taken with the full knowledge and cooperation of those greeks. This led the Arab christian to rightly demand a return of the church to Arab christians who ran it since the 9th century and never betrayed their duty. unfortunately the greek and the Jordanian governments (the latter is responsible for all non jewish holy sites) refuse to correct the mistake and continue to trust foreigners who more than once betrayed their duty.
Al-Jassas"
They simply don't care to get involved. If Jews and Muslims want to kill each other, go for it. Not their problem. Why become involved in an issue that doesn't concern you?
You're going to have to give a source of Greeks taking land from Arabs. And are they both Orthodox? Of the Arabs are anything else then Orthodox well sorry but the Orthodox owned it first. And even if they are Arab Orthodox the Greeks owned that land first. So there is no point bringing in such long winded dates. |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 18-Jun-2008 at 20:06
|
1)Order everybody out.
2) Nuke it.
3) repeat step 2, oh like 150 times to make sure.
4) Throw radioactive waste all over.
5)tell the religious people to fight over it...... now.
And we can all have some peace.
------------- |
Posted By: Leonidas
Date Posted: 19-Jun-2008 at 00:28
The Church and the orthodox faithful are in a similar situation as the rest of the palistinians, including the conficastion of property
http://www.saintgeorgetaybeh.org/housing.htm - here a church is building homes for local orthodox families
Greek [Orthodox] POV on Isreal , its creation and how it has stolen land from the Church (my bolding)
just to show your the Orthodox predictament of the zionist state. Not all us westerners are the same
|
Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date Posted: 19-Jun-2008 at 00:35
Well Iraneous was recently deposed with the blessing of the whole Orthodox church and the Greek & Jordanian states for exactly that kind of behaviour. Of course when the Israelis see any Arab organisation (whether it is the Church, Fata or Lebanon) they try to put their stooges in place to control it.
About when James denouced Paul.
I have to wonder if you are even living in the same world as the rest of us. Israelis have been seizing Palestinian lands irregardless of whether they are owned by Christian or Muslim, Greek or Arab. Most of the Arab christians there are Greek Orthodox by the way, and are also Palestinian - meaning they have been there since before Christianity anyway. The christians are involved just as much as the muslims are and for exactly the same reason. Don't you remember when the Israelis attacked the Church of the Nativity in Bethleham a few years back? ------------- |
Posted By: Carpathian Wolf
Date Posted: 19-Jun-2008 at 07:09
|
"About when James denouced Paul."
What are you talking about? "I have to wonder if you are even living in the same world as the rest of us. Israelis have been seizing Palestinian lands irregardless of whether they are owned by Christian or Muslim, Greek or Arab. Most of the Arab christians there are Greek Orthodox by the way, and are also Palestinian - meaning they have been there since before Christianity anyway.
The christians are involved just as much as the muslims are and for exactly the same reason. Don't you remember when the Israelis attacked the Church of the Nativity in Bethleham a few years back?" What is your point? I said me personally I don't care.
|
Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date Posted: 19-Jun-2008 at 12:16
No you said Arab Christians don't care which is just flat wrong. ------------- |
Posted By: Carpathian Wolf
Date Posted: 19-Jun-2008 at 20:50
|
"Ancient History of course. It is a history forum. You asked when Christians started disagreeing with each other, my answer was shortly after the not-death of Jesus"
Ah okay. Sorry I didn't read through that wahabi text which "explains" that. "No you said Arab Christians don't care which is just flat wrong."
Now my statement: "You're going to have to give a source of Greeks taking land from Arabs. And are they both Orthodox? Of the Arabs are anything else then Orthodox well sorry but the Orthodox owned it first. And even if they are Arab Orthodox the Greeks owned that land first. So there is no point bringing in such long winded dates."
Now show me where i said the Arab Orthodox don't care.
If you read religious texts the same way you read the words of people I can see where you get the idea that James denounced Paul. Be more careful it saves time sadiq. ;) |
Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date Posted: 20-Jun-2008 at 01:12
|
Now you're just being silly. You can see plain and recorded what I replied to above. Without question you know that as you quoted the wrong sentence. I suggest you do alot more reading too, especially if you think that christians (or orthodox christians) have agreed upon every single thing for the last 2000 years. ------------- |
Posted By: MengTzu
Date Posted: 20-Jun-2008 at 01:34
Even being the third, it's important enough that they won't concede. People usually would not concede religious principles. Even if a site is only the least important holy site of a religion like Islam, it is unlikely that the adherents of that religion would simply give in if they beleive that it would violate their religious precepts to do so. Sure, some religions are more flexible and might work out some kind of solutions, but this won't likely happen in this case, because Judaism believes God himself revealed the location for their Temple, and no one can change God's command (even God himself cannot change the Torah). For the Muslims, it is the Quran, Allah's revelation, that teaches them why Jerusalem is religiously significant, and a Muslim wouldn't change or undermine the Quran anymore than an Orthodox Jew would change or undermine the Torah. (I know some argue that it took sometimes before the Muslims turned Jerusalem into a holy site, but it doesn't matter: the fact is that it has become the third most important holy site, and in the minds of the Muslims, two of the reasons for its being a holy site are that Muhammed ascended to Heaven there, and Abraham attempted to sacrifice Ishmael there, and if I'm not mistaken, both incidents were recorded in the Quran.) Not only is Jerusalem holy to both religions, it is exactly the same lot of land within Jerusalem -- the Temple Mount, where the Dome of the Rock is located -- that is holy to both religions. I may be mistaken, but it seems like the rock in the Dome of the Rock is also what many believe to be the location of the Holy of Holies in the Jewish Temple! If their holy sites are located in two locations in different parts of Jerusalem, the problem wouldn't be nearly as great. Religious sentiment combined with nationalistic motivations and animosity result in almost no possibility for compromise. ------------- http://www.sloganizer.net/en/"> 
(Credit to Cwyr and Gubookjanggoon for first using the sloganizer.) |
Posted By: Carpathian Wolf
Date Posted: 20-Jun-2008 at 19:41
|
"Now you're just being silly. You can see plain and recorded what I replied to above. Without question you know that as you quoted the wrong sentence. "
Then quote the right one for me please.
" I suggest you do alot more reading too, especially if you think that christians (or orthodox christians) have agreed upon every single thing for the last 2000 years."
The Orthodox Christians have debated different topics but all jurisdictions are in communion and agree on the same theology. Paul was never denounced. This isn't Christian theology this is Mahomedan theology. Relevant to you maybe, not so much me.
|
Posted By: Spartakus
Date Posted: 23-Jun-2008 at 17:56
|
Half to the Israelis ,half to the Palestinians.
------------- "There are worse crimes than burning books. One of them is not reading them. " --- Joseph Alexandrovitch Brodsky, 1991, Russian-American poet, b. St. Petersburg and exiled 1972 (1940-1996) |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 24-Jun-2008 at 13:13
|
This is an interesting topic, and the one topic which i believe will go on and on and on... The problem we are currently facing will never be solved by either nuking it multiple times or by moving the UN in there.
In truth, the politcial enviroment of the area is influenced by other countries which have too much to loose if the otherside wins, but since thier countries are not directly involved really dont care much what happens either.
Why dont the rest of the world all get together and help, well simple most countries have nothing to gain from this, so why should they support it.
|
Posted By: azimuth
Date Posted: 28-Jun-2008 at 14:09
not fair, that "Israelis"are only Jews (mostly) while Palestinians are both Muslims and Christians also they are the majority not settlers.
so i would say
0% to the Zinionsts
10% to the Jews
90% to the rest.
 ------------- 
|
Posted By: Spartakus
Date Posted: 30-Jun-2008 at 18:03
Well, it is Palestinians who want a different State. Half for the State of Israel, half for the Palestinian State, if ever created. ------------- "There are worse crimes than burning books. One of them is not reading them. " --- Joseph Alexandrovitch Brodsky, 1991, Russian-American poet, b. St. Petersburg and exiled 1972 (1940-1996) |
Posted By: azimuth
Date Posted: 01-Jul-2008 at 08:27
|
now yes its seems to be the maximum they can ask for after their lands and rights of decent living is stolen by the zionist state.
but what they wanted was different, in 1940s Palestinians supported by Arabs wanted a one country with all Palestinians living it, the zionists with most advanced western weapons refused and prefered to have a country for the jews of the whole world. so the accurate statement will be the zionist jews ALWAYS wanted a different state, Palestinians wanted a united state, NOW the palestinians have no country, living in a land that is occupied by a foreign force, so since unity is out of the question they would like to have something called a country that is in depended (which wont be), thats how pathetic they become, thanks to many western powers. -------------
|
Posted By: Richard XIII
Date Posted: 01-Jul-2008 at 19:20
|
In 48 the big guy had two apples, a big one and a small one, Palestinians must choose between the small one or nothing, they choose nothing. Lack of intelligence. And Arabian states lost three wars. Arabians must accept that they lost forever (or few hundreds years) this land.
------------- "I want to know God's thoughts... ...the rest are details." Albert Einstein |
Posted By: Donasin
Date Posted: 01-Jul-2008 at 19:27
|
Maybe the UN could just unify Canaan (the parts that are causing trouble at least) and make it have no state religion. Would Canaan translate into something both sides could see as their homeland? |
Posted By: Al Jassas
Date Posted: 01-Jul-2008 at 19:45
|
Hello Richard
The problem in 48 (47 actually) was that the Jews also didn't like the big apple they got, they wanted more and their militias, since there wasn't an actual state of Israel yet and those militias were considered "terrorist" by the Brits, started some intimidations and attacks against Arabs in an effort to drive them, Arab nations, most of which were colonised or their armies commanded by British officers only sent 40k men to salvage what they can from the 150k strong new Israeli army most of them American and British veteran of WWII with state of the art weapons and most importantly airforce which non of the Arab armies had. They managed to save 27% of the historical land of Palestine.
As for establishing a unified secular federal country based on the swiss model, it was suggested before, a slight majority of Palestinians want it but the majority of Israelis still want to kick Arabs out of the rest of Palestine if given the choice, a third of the Israeli MPs publically advocate the transfer of all Arabs, including citizens Israel to Jordan, the real Palestine as they say.
AL-Jassas
|
Posted By: Donasin
Date Posted: 01-Jul-2008 at 20:06
|
The secular country model may be the best alternative. I am not trying to say we should ignore the opinion of the Israelis but would people are pushed to the brink enough as to go unarmed against tanks then something must change. Also I read in Newsweek (not the foremost expert in ME affairs I realize but their articles are for the most part reliable) that many of youth in Israel are much more open to compromise than their elders. For the region wouldn't the unified country be the best way? Turkey would support it due to its secularity and maybe even the new Iraqi republic, although I'm not sure if its secular. Saudi Arabia may see it as the next best thing and since they have close ties to the US it would be beneficial to get the Israel issue out of their hair. That may even go for Egypt as well. Sure it would be a pain stanking process but at least it may bring some long term stabilization to the region something that neither side seems to advocate if it compromises their goals. |
Posted By: Al Jassas
Date Posted: 01-Jul-2008 at 22:19
|
Actually all Arab states want to get rid of the Palestinian problem once and for all and a unified state is accepted by all, even most religious people who have no political agenda of their own. Only countries with Palestinian refugees will not be happy because this will mean they have to settle all the refugees inside their own territory which no one wants and nor do the refugees. Most refugees however will accept some form of compensation and resettlement but no country wants them which makes matters harder.
As for the Israelis, there are a lot of them who support this view as well so do many Palestinian, both in principle but the devil is in the details, when elections come those same guys support ultra religious groups that call for the transfer of the Palestinian population or are passive about politics. In either case the cause for peace is not helped. The current leftist Labour party is much more extreme in its politics of peace than the right wing Likud of the 1970s and early 80s. Most Palestinians only started suporting Hamas after the failure of Fatah but the fact is that most of them just want to live and let live but there are also people who are as extreme as the Israelis.
AL-Jassas
|
Posted By: rider
Date Posted: 02-Jul-2008 at 10:58
|
Has anyone thought of nuking it? ------------- |
Posted By: Spartakus
Date Posted: 04-Jul-2008 at 17:43
Israeli-Jews earned their right to have a different State, by defeating the Arabs 4 times. Concerning the military equipment used in the Arab-Israeli wars, do not forget that the Arab States were also receiving support from the other side of the fence, the USSR.The significance of Soviet military contribution appeared in the Yom Kipur war , when the Arabs appeared as prepared as ever. The issue of unity in one State is very complicated. A few months ago i made a paper (literally it was a presentation of a book, which i highly recommend you to read: Virginia R. Dominguez, People as Subject, People as Object ,Selfhood and Peoplehood in Contemporary Israel,1989)about the problem of defining the Israeli collective self, during the first decades of it's existence. I also read an article of Ottolengui (do not try it in google scholar, cause i do not remember the entire name and it has quite a few Ottolenguis there). In a few words, the Israeli-Jews had to face a huge dilemma , based on the problem of principles which the State of Israel was supposed to have : Democratic and Jewish character. If they accepted the Palestinians, after the 1967 war, as citizens of the State, then the Jewish character would be lost, since the Arabs would be the majority of the population. If they denied that right to the Palestinians , then they were in danger of loosing their democratic character and becoming an Aparcheid. As history shows, they chose the second way, treating the Palestinians as second or no-class civilians. To add some information here: the term Palestine or Palestinian do not exist in Israeli "Statal vocabulary". They use the terms Judaia and Samareia for Palestine, and Israeli-Arabs for Palestinians. ------------- "There are worse crimes than burning books. One of them is not reading them. " --- Joseph Alexandrovitch Brodsky, 1991, Russian-American poet, b. St. Petersburg and exiled 1972 (1940-1996) |
Posted By: azimuth
Date Posted: 05-Jul-2008 at 09:50
lets see my statment the accurate statement will be the zionist jews ALWAYS wanted a different state, Palestinians wanted a united state as a replay to your statement that palestinians are the one who wants a different state. the rest of the talk about why they refused a united country? and how they won the wars? and books , articles studies about the issues supporting whats called israel and how it should defend itself and how they must survive with savage countries around are all came after Palestine was occupied many people who lived in that land were replaced by people from somewhere else, its simple no need for all this complications to justify whats happening till this day. i was talking about what palestinians wanted and my statement about the 1940s, that pathatic war came after that is a play, who wins and who loses aready known before the war even started. Arabs they wanted a united country for people of that land muslims christians and jews. about jews being scared that a united country may not be fair to them is just not true, they had the power that makes them give zero compromise to any one. and take what they want is what they are doing, the only part remaining is to make every step as possible a legitimate one by saying we fought a war and we won, a war they wanted to happen a war they knew they will win, a war to gaurantee more land. so as a summary, i think Jerusalem should be 0% for zionists 10% for jews of palestine 90% for the rest of the palestinians.  -------------
|
Posted By: Spartakus
Date Posted: 07-Jul-2008 at 17:40
You also stated: now yes its seems to be the maximum they can ask.
If there is sth history teaches, nothing is simple.
Pathetic or not, it was a war the Israelis won. And it was not only the help of the West, but also the incompetence of the Arabs to defeat them.
It is not a matter of being fair or not, but a matter of the Israeli identity.
Wishful thinking. ------------- "There are worse crimes than burning books. One of them is not reading them. " --- Joseph Alexandrovitch Brodsky, 1991, Russian-American poet, b. St. Petersburg and exiled 1972 (1940-1996) |
Posted By: azimuth
Date Posted: 07-Jul-2008 at 19:00
|
so all you got is they won they deserve it, live with it, right?
i was not arguing facts that they are controlling that land and supported and recognized by many countries in the UN, i already know that and i did not say otherwise in another simpler words for you , i am saying whats Israel doing is wrong , bad thing, very bad. and with Arabs or without Arabs one day this country will be history as the Crusaders states. my wishful thinking is easier than Zionists wishing to have their `jew-only promised land from Iraq till Egypt. 
-------------
|
Posted By: Spartakus
Date Posted: 30-Jul-2008 at 19:19
No, just do not have unrealistic demands. Israel is way too powerful, in terms of military power, to give away to all Arab demands. Also , the Jewish population is quite big .According to the Statistical Abstract of Israel for the year 2007: Population by Population Group Average population (in thousands), 2006: Arabs 1,395.2 Jews 5,353.6 Total 7,053.7 Population at the end of the year (in thousands), 2006: Arabs 1,413.3 Jews 5,393.4 Total 7,116.7 The majority of the population in Israel, excepting the West Bank and the Gaza Strip were Arabs dominate, is Jewish.
Of course what Israel doing is wrong. It's an Apartheid. But do world politics go with good or wrong? In the end they will have to recognize a State for the Palestinians, no doubt, but they will not give anything more than what Palestinians currently have : The West Bank and the Gaza Strip.
Zionists are a portion of the Jewish population. There are other categories are well. Israeli nationalists would be a better term. ------------- "There are worse crimes than burning books. One of them is not reading them. " --- Joseph Alexandrovitch Brodsky, 1991, Russian-American poet, b. St. Petersburg and exiled 1972 (1940-1996) |
Posted By: Menumorut
Date Posted: 30-Jul-2008 at 19:39
|
Jerusalem is the heart of Jewish people, their capital for more than 1000 years.
The Palestinians are not a people, this term is modern, appeared in 20th century to denominate the Arab population of Palestine which was having a heteroclite origin (from all surrounding Arab countries). -------------  |
Posted By: Spartakus
Date Posted: 30-Jul-2008 at 19:43
You do realize that Jews came into Palestine only in the early 20th century? ------------- "There are worse crimes than burning books. One of them is not reading them. " --- Joseph Alexandrovitch Brodsky, 1991, Russian-American poet, b. St. Petersburg and exiled 1972 (1940-1996) |
Posted By: Menumorut
Date Posted: 30-Jul-2008 at 19:48
|
There allways was a Jewish community in Palestine:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_Jew - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_Jew Anyway, even not one Jew would have remained there, all their tradition is linked to Jerusalem. Is like taking off the Rome to Italians, Paris to French etc. ------------- |
Posted By: Al Jassas
Date Posted: 30-Jul-2008 at 20:20
|
Certain people from my tribe lived in Spain for several hundreds of years and there are about 7 million Andalusians, most of them were originally muslim converts not Berber or Arab, living in Spain, should we demand to return there since at some point in history we used to live there?
If the Palestinians came to this land so did the jews, if the bible is to be believed the homeland is Iraq (Ur) not Palestine, Palestines was for the Canaanites and philistines and many Palestinians actually hail from them.
Al-Jassas
|
Posted By: Carpathian Wolf
Date Posted: 30-Jul-2008 at 20:43
|
"Palestines was for the Canaanites and philistines and many Palestinians actually hail from them."
Go ahead and prove that for us. I'd be interested.
|
Posted By: Menumorut
Date Posted: 30-Jul-2008 at 21:09
Living is one thing, belonging is another. I sayed Jerusalem should belong to Jewish people, that doesn't mean other people should be chased away from their homes. I don't know about the Ur origin, I have read that the Hebrew language is of the Canaanite group together with the languages spoken in Jordan and Lebanon. ------------- |
Posted By: Spartakus
Date Posted: 30-Jul-2008 at 21:36
In Syria yes, not in Palestine. ------------- "There are worse crimes than burning books. One of them is not reading them. " --- Joseph Alexandrovitch Brodsky, 1991, Russian-American poet, b. St. Petersburg and exiled 1972 (1940-1996) |
Posted By: Al Jassas
Date Posted: 30-Jul-2008 at 21:43
|
Hello to you all
First, by which law on earth should it be theirs? Tell me by which law and don't say the bible because 60% of the people of the earth don't recognise the existance of the Abrahamic God or else the entire planet should the property of the jews based on biblical logic. At one time in history jews ruled Palestine (2000 years ago) and then they were kicked out and then greeks and Romans came and Arabs lived in the region even before that, mostly in the Negev which never was under the control of jewish states. Many peoples were kicked out of their traditional lands very recently, like the Greeks of Anatolia, and were never compensated nor were they consulted and much of their villages are still abandoned, these people have more credible right for returning than jews yet nobody is calling for it and everyone accept what happened in 1923 despite the fact that greek presence in Anatolia is older than the jewish supposed presence in Palestine by over a thousand years!
as for proofs about the origin of the current palestinian population, well, archaelogical, historical, cultural and genetic evidence support that.
I will only comment here on historical and cultural evidence, historically, non-jews still made a considerable minority or even a majority even according to the bible. Arab tribes didn't widely settle in Palestine and most of the people couldn't trace their ancestry to Arab tribes unlike Lebanon or Syria. Most family surnames are not of Arab origin or not in the Arab style, their etymology is more aramaic than Arabic. Genetically, according to human genetics most Palestinian muslims are very close genetically to christians and jews, particularly the Samaritans who still exist today as they existed for nearly 2500 years. Here is a link to the abstract of the article since it is copyrighted:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11153918 - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11153918
Culturally, the names of towns and villages even the new ones are not on the Arabic style but the Aramaic styles and many customs and legends can be traced to other semitic non-Arab sources.
Al-Jassas
|
Posted By: Menumorut
Date Posted: 31-Jul-2008 at 05:36
You can find tables of demographics about the Jewish, Christian and Muslim population in Antiquity, Middle Age and Modern period here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine#Demographics - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine#Demographics
I repeat: all the Jewish tradition and identity is relaed to Jerusalem and Palestine. The Greeks from Anatolia were indigenous people Hellenized at some point and the fact they are expelled from there is an injustice from moral point of view.
OK, I was wrong saying they are from surrounding countries. ------------- |
Posted By: Al Jassas
Date Posted: 31-Jul-2008 at 07:09
|
Hello Meu
If you are going to tell me you believe the insanity published in Wikipedia saying Palestine had more people than Italy or Gaul, I see no point in arguing with you. come on man 5 million in the 1st century AD that is total ** man. The most probable number is possibly 1 million but even this number is still high.
Al-Jassas
|
Posted By: Menumorut
Date Posted: 31-Jul-2008 at 07:38
|
It says "There is no consensus on the population of Palestine in the first century of the Common Era; estimates range from under 1 million to 6 million."
The population was big, as 1,1 million Jews perished in the revolt against Romans in 66 and 97.000 have been taken captives: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_the_Land_of_Israel#The_Hasmonean_Kingdom_and_Roman_rule - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_the_Land_of_Israel#The_Hasmonean_Kingdom_and_Roman_rule ------------- |
Posted By: Al Jassas
Date Posted: 31-Jul-2008 at 09:00
|
Hello menu
Well even that number is too large, I think a number of around half a million is much more credible.
As for the population of islamic Palestine, well I returned to tax recods summaries of the 9th century published by Zaidan et al and it mentions that the total surplus of jund Filasteen (the province of Palestine) which is roughly most, but not all, present day Palestine, was 1.1 million golden Dinars including poll taxes. This is about half of what entered the Abbasid treasury from Egypt, roughly 2 million, and a fifth of what entered from Iraq, roughly 5 million. we know for certain that there were 600 thousand working male non muslims who were eligibale for paying the poll tax in Iraq and since Iraq was already well Islamized by the 9th century a rough estimate of the non muslim working male population of Palestine is between 100-150k people. This makes the total population of Palestine in the order of 800k, assuming the same number of working male and female and same number of muslims and non muslims.
Another note about estimates during the Ottoman empire, one thing the Ottoman records don't take into account is the bedouin population which would add about 100 thousand more people making Palestine roughly 500 thousand. Wales during that time had less than that figure though it is much bigger which means that all the talk about empty land is BS.
AL-Jassas
|
Posted By: Menumorut
Date Posted: 31-Jul-2008 at 09:25
|
Search the web, you'll find that in the Great Revolt over 1 million Jews have been killed.
Together with abandonment, this lead to the depopulation of Palestine over the centuries. ------------- |
Posted By: Al Jassas
Date Posted: 31-Jul-2008 at 10:10
|
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.
on the other hand, we have a lot more detailed population from Arab sources, there were several censuses, mostly of the non muslim population. We have detailed censuses of certain cities, like Jerusalem, and we have detailed tax records of Poll tax and land revinues and all point to the fact that Palestine had the best of its time during the Islamic era between c.700 and c.1000 AD and that the population was about or even more than 1 million.
Al-Jassas
|
Posted By: Menumorut
Date Posted: 31-Jul-2008 at 11:19
|
I don't know if the estimation is after Josephus' records, I think is rather a modern estination.
I believe that ~2,5 million was the population of Palestine before the Great Revolt. The gospels presents a densely populated Judea, with complex organized society. ------------- |
Posted By: Hebrewtext
Date Posted: 01-Aug-2008 at 09:25
|
the Jews live in Jerusalem for the past 3000 years, the Jews made Jerusalem a significant cultural/civilization/religious center, that was copied inherited and used by Christianity and Islam .
if king David declared Gaza to be his capital (and the stories of Issac sacrifition/Jacob ladder happaned on mt. Moriah) than Jesus crusifiction and Muhamad climbing the sky on al Buraq would take place in Gaza too. Jerusalem population till 1945
http://www.mideastweb.org/palpop.htm - http://www.mideastweb.org/palpop.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Jerusalem -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Jerusalem
|
Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date Posted: 01-Aug-2008 at 10:12
|
Your source undermines your argument. Plus no-one has ever suggested that Palestinian Jews didn't make up a significant percentage of the population of either Jerusalem or Palestine at any point post-Moses. So showing that Jerusalem was 45% Jewish in 1844 is meaningless.
But they didn't. So that sentence is pointless too. (But on another subject. Its very good to have an Israeli on AE! I look forward to reading your opinions - so make them good )------------- |
Posted By: Władysław Warnencz
Date Posted: 01-Aug-2008 at 16:06
Very true.Not just Jerusalem,but all "Holy Lands" should be christian.The crusader states of Jerusalem,Antioch and all principalities should be rebuild.
BTW:Although i'm catholic,i believe the Byzantine Empire should've also prevailed,instead of the Ottoman Empire and today's Turkey.
 ------------- |
Posted By: Illirac
Date Posted: 01-Aug-2008 at 17:15
Why is that? Does Christians have more claim then others? Why would that be so? All have the same claim to the city, thus they should make it (as someone suggested before) an international city. The reasons posted by Maharbbal are nonsense, perhaps for me they are not enough. Because if we look the teachings of the Bible (the new testament) then that city should be of no one. ------------- For too long I've been parched of thirst and unable to quench it. |
Posted By: Al Jassas
Date Posted: 01-Aug-2008 at 18:08
|
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
|
Posted By: Władysław Warnencz
Date Posted: 01-Aug-2008 at 18:30
Turks have nothing to do with the Byzantine Emprie.Turks emerged many centuries after the Byzantine Empire was created and simply conquered the remains of it.They didn't create it so they have no claim on its cultural and archeological heritage.Turks destroyed that Emprie and turned it into somethin very different.
And about the crusades,it was not the christians who attacked - it was the muslims that got out of the Arabian deserts with thousands and invaded the christian world,conquering everything on their way.The crusaders did not attack - they counter-attacked (a bit too late and too disorganised unfortunately).
And every historian knows however,that history repeats.(hopefully this time we'll do better). ------------- |
Posted By: Akolouthos
Date Posted: 01-Aug-2008 at 18:52
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 |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 01-Aug-2008 at 20:17
|
Douglas Addams had the answer to who should rule the world - someone who doesn't believe the world exists, because evidently anyone who wishes to rule is thereby disqualified from being suitable. So the ideal ruler of Jerusalem would be someone who doesn't think there really are such things as Muslims, Christians and Jews.
Alternatively everyone could listen to Blake and build their own Jerusalem:
(vociferously sung with much waving of union flags or Crosses of St George for purists.)
Fill in your own replacement for England, and make other changes as appropriate.
PS: I might start a military history thread with a three way poll on bows of burning gold vs arrows of desire vs chariots of fire.
------------- |
Posted By: Carpathian Wolf
Date Posted: 01-Aug-2008 at 20:50
 Yea...no.
If we take it by religion all of the 3 faiths and its branches consider the others wrong. For example I consider Orthodox Christianity the contiunuation of the Jewish Faith. Why? We maintained the original old testament while the jews today use the redition of the Mesoretic texts. The Jews of today see it differently as do the Muslims and so on and so forth.
If we go by race again similar arguements.
I think Jerusalem should be given to the peaceful. It should be its own administrated mini state with no loyalty but its people, made up of a council of members from all groups living in the city. The city should belong to those who uphold peace in it. Those who do not are the enemy and do not belong. Christian, jew and muslim should live in peace as equals.
|
Posted By: Al Jassas
Date Posted: 01-Aug-2008 at 22:04
|
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.
as for heirs to Byzantium, well Muhammad II took the title of Caesar of Rome and Empror of Byzantium after the conquest of constantinople and If I am not mistaken the church accepted him as such because he had the power to appoint bishops and interfer in church matters which make the ottomans the last of the Caesarian dynasties. This means that my logic is actually correct.
Al-Jassas
|
Posted By: Carpathian Wolf
Date Posted: 01-Aug-2008 at 23:18
|
"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. "
If you'd care to read my comment carefully I didn't say anything different. Religion is pointless to use to judge who it belongs to.
"as for heirs to Byzantium, well Muhammad II took the title of Caesar of Rome and Empror of Byzantium after the conquest of constantinople and If I am not mistaken the church accepted him as such because he had the power to appoint bishops and interfer in church matters which make the ottomans the last of the Caesarian dynasties. This means that my logic is actually correct."
"as for heirs to Byzantium, well Muhammad II took the title of Caesar of Rome and Empror of Byzantium after the conquest of constantinople and If I am not mistaken the church accepted him as such because he had the power to appoint bishops and interfer in church matters which make the ottomans the last of the Caesarian dynasties. This means that my logic is actually correct."
The Church may have accepted his little non sense under threat. I doubt they were jumping for joy at mehmed II. If he did have the power to appoint bishops it is irrelevant as the only purpose that had was to keep the Orthodox population calmed. In any case there is also Russia who claims to be heirs of Byzantium as well Greece today and even Romania who's Mihai was part of the Cantacuzino royal family of Constantinople. In any case ALL of these are irrelevant because someone jewish can say "Well we were there before the Romans." So again it doesn't matter in any case. I stick by my proposal.
|
Posted By: Akolouthos
Date Posted: 02-Aug-2008 at 00:31
With respect, my objection to your reasoning still stands. The Tsars claimed to be heirs to the Byzantines as well. Furthermore, your reasoning, if followed consistently to the present, would lead us to conclude that the modern nation-state of Israel is the proper "heir" to Jerusalem and the immediate surrounding area. All you have done is to appeal to continuity -- ignoring the fact that there are many breaks, both dynastic and territorial -- and then arbitrarily select a state that, quite frankly, doesn't even have the strongest claim according to your method of determining historical ownership or "heirdom". The point of my earlier post was not to say that the Europeans have any claim -- indeed I mentioned them as an afterthought. It was simply to point out the futility of the particular proposed method of determining rightful ownership. 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. -Akolouthos |
Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date Posted: 02-Aug-2008 at 02:09
|
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
But whether Christian, Jewish, Muslim, or Baal worshipping they were always Palestinian. ------------- |
Posted By: Carpathian Wolf
Date Posted: 02-Aug-2008 at 02:19
| Really? Where is the Roman/Greek culture in Turkish Empire? I missed it Omar. I don't see it from papuc to fez. And they did NOT fight the same enemies. The Ottoman Empire was the islamic caliphate that conquored a weakened and besieged eastern Roman Empire. Mehmed's claim is more political idealism. |
Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date Posted: 02-Aug-2008 at 03:29
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!
Persians, Latins, Slavs, Germans and Turks? Hmmm, that's the same list to me....
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
Mehmeds claim to be Roman Emperor was an attempt to pre-empt this conversation basically (A political stunt). It didn't work. ------------- |
Posted By: Carpathian Wolf
Date Posted: 02-Aug-2008 at 04:00
|
"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!"
The cathedral was turned into a mosque and the Orthodox weren't even allowed to ring their bells. "Turkish" coffee is Armenian by the way. The difference wasn't just religion, which Orthodoxy provides quite a different mentality as a whole concerning all aspects of life, you also forget language, military, goals. Much of the Orthodox that could, fled. But yes I admit a "turk" from Turkey today is much more different then a turk from say turkmenistan.
"Persians, Latins, Slavs, Germans and Turks? Hmmm, that's the same list to me...."
This is just silly.
"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"
I didn't specify a time. As for the majority of the Turkish Empire being Christian, probably, at least until the Turkish way of rule changed that.
"Mehmeds claim to be Roman Emperor was an attempt to pre-empt this conversation basically (A political stunt). It didn't work."
Nope, didn't work then, won't work now.
|
Posted By: Akolouthos
Date Posted: 02-Aug-2008 at 08:09
I was not disputing their "Palestinianess"; simply pointing out a few absurdities in the attempt to determine rightful ownership of Jerusalem based upon pre-modern/early modern dynastic claims.
With regard to the Third Rome theory, it was religious idealism, but no less powerful an argument for that; we should note that the "Second Rome" theory was largely religious idealism as well, but it still holds sway today. When we look at Tsarist Russia, we must admit that she actually did continue the tradition of the Roman Emperors much more than Mehmed. By the early Byzantine period, religion was so much a part of the culture that it would be hard to imagine a Byzantine culture without it. Indeed, this remained so in Russia on an official level until the reign of Peter the Great, and on a popular level far after that. The Ottoman Empire may have claimed the territorial mantle of Rome, but that was it.
-Akolouthos
|
Posted By: Al Jassas
Date Posted: 02-Aug-2008 at 11:44
|
Actually the Ottomans didn't claim the Caliphate till the 19th century, there is no proof whatosever that Selim I officially took the title caliph or behaved as one, the caliphate was cancelled and ressurected later.
As for Ottomans being the newst Roman dynasty, well, it was just a joke mixed with reality. The Sultan did have the title Caesar and the Russians accepted that in the official documents, before Cathrine the great. The was no official claim nor a declaration by the russians and all in all Russia as it existed had nothing in common with Byzantium while the Ottoman institutions are largely based on the Byzantine model. The Church acknowledged Muhammad II's title and for me that is enough because the main orthodox church is in Constantinople not Moscow.
Al-Jassas
|
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 02-Aug-2008 at 12:22
Rather depends on what you mean by the 'modern nation-state' of Israel. That only owes its legitimacy to the UN grant, which only awarded part of Jerusalem to Israel. ------------- |
Posted By: Leonidas
Date Posted: 02-Aug-2008 at 15:25
...so this ....
The sultan was never the new emperor, since he was not continuing the same civilization or the same political entity. That makes as much sense as the Mayor of Athens to also be its Bey. He created something different from the left overs of Rome. Despite what the Russians or the captive Patriarch will say. The sultan was the death of Rome and I have little time for the Russian claims either.
The Greek language, Church and Roman identity was not front and center to the offical identity anymore. It was superseded. Everything else; the food, music and other stuff is regional. You can convert and change in many other ways (inc identity) but still remain the same on the basics. |
Posted By: Al Jassas
Date Posted: 02-Aug-2008 at 16:08
|
Hello Leonidas
It seems that people here took my mockery quite seriously so again. Mr Wladyslaw wrote nonsense so I returned on him with a similar nonsensical reply but it seems people here took it beyond what it meant.
As for Ottomans not being a continuation of the Byzantines, well were the Byzantines a continuation of the Romans in the first place for your initial argument to be correct? no, the byzantines were a totally new empire in many things but none the less it retained certain institution under different names, same can be said for the Ottomans who also retained certain Byzantine institution and made them distinctively Ottoman.
Al-Jassas
|
Posted By: Akolouthos
Date Posted: 02-Aug-2008 at 17:46
Interesting. I was not aware of that. Really it just goes to show what I've been saying all along: it is impossible to say that this group of people has a claim to such and such a region because they lay claim to the heritage of this or that earlier people. Any argument made along these lines will dissolve into a mass of arbitrary discontinuity and contradiction.
-Akolouthos
|
Posted By: Carpathian Wolf
Date Posted: 02-Aug-2008 at 22:57
It's enough for you for a whole bag of other reasons.
 |
Posted By: Carpathian Wolf
Date Posted: 02-Aug-2008 at 22:59
But the term Byzantine was never used during the Empire's existance. It very much was the contiunation of the Roman empire. From Britania to the middle east was Roman. Simply because the west was lost does not mean those people were not Roman anymore. They weren't a totally new empire. The byzantine empire didn't conquor the roman empire or some non sense like that. It didn't start, it simply continued.
What certain byzantine institutions made the Ottomans the continuation of the empire?
This is just silly
|
Posted By: Władysław Warnencz
Date Posted: 05-Aug-2008 at 19:09
In the end the Roman Empire was chrisitan and the new Byzantie Empire was also christian.In fact Christianity was a huge part of byzantine culture,so if you replace Christianity with something else you leave almost nothing from byzantine culture.
When replacing Christianity with islam the Ottomans created a totaly new - ottoman culture and thus a new Empire,having nothing to do with the old Byzantine empire. ------------- |