TED Conversations

This conversation is closed.

The Middle East

What should be done about Jerusalem? It's sacred to so many different people, and the issue needs to be resolved before we have a Nuclear Crusade on our hands. What is your standing on the importance of religious values? Which religion is more valuable? Who gets Jerusalem? Why?

Share:

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb
    Jul 13 2012: Paul, This question is rift with emotional, political, you name it problems. First you must go back in history to the 1947 resolution that gave the land to the Jews. The logic was, in my opinion, valid. There is no other group that has suffered the attempt to obliterate them to the extent of the Jews. This is a jahad, religious war, that is steeped in hate. Your concern of nuclear actions are directly infered by Iran that publicly states that Jews and non-believers must die.

    A discussion on the value of relious beliefs, which is more valuable, what is written, will not resolve anything as the countries involved have already established hard lines.

    The state of Isreal exists and is recognized by most of the world. Why should anything "be done" about Jerusalem?

    What are you looking for in this conversation? Is this really an "IDEA WORTH SPREADING".
    • Jul 13 2012: Interesting point. I'm mainly focused here on the fighting over such areas as the Dome of the Rock, which has religious significance for Christians, Jews, and Muslims. I personally enjoy a good argument, and hope that this debate does create emotional, political, and religious tension. The mention of nuclear weapons might have been a mistake. I do not mean to come across as a radical who believes that we are all doomed to nuclear war. I'm asking if people believe the religious conflicts in Israel will lead to another Crusade that might wind up involving nuclear weapons, and if not, why? What is your opinion on the importance of sacred sites to all religions, and who do you think should win the religious debate. It's more than asking what religion you believe in. Statements like the one from Iran definitely prompt the idea of holy global war. With religious values so rigid, we are on the verge of organizations of radicals starting a fight nobody can stop. I'm questioning your opinion on the three big monotheistic religions and what can be done to still the water before another crusade is started by somebody in the age of nuclear weapons.
      • thumb
        Jul 14 2012: As a visitor I was amazed to see that the Christians, Jews, and Muslims have a schedule for maintenance and visitation that allows each to enter independently.

        As long as radicals from any side are involved the issues will not be put to rest. From my view the Christians and the Jews seemed to play well together. But that could be on the surface as I was only there a short time. The Palistians and the Muslim community do not accept the Jews and wish them either gone or dead. They do nor accept Christians as they are non-believers and also must die. There is no love lost in that issue. I felt very uncomfortable in a place where love and peace should dwell.

        I also enjoy a good debate... however ... I was always taught to avoid arguments involving religion and politics as there can never be a agreement. With that said I will depart this conversation as I cannot see a end to the "argument" and feelings will be hurt.

        Bob.
        • Jul 14 2012: Sorry to see you go bob. I created this discussion to create a place where people could voice their different opinions about this subject. I actually have encountered very few people who do not share your reserves of politeness when it comes to religion and politics (especially when the two are intertwined). So, I have not had much experience from other's POV, so i feel that I cannot form a proper opinion on this matter. This is not a place to attack and argue, but to propose different POVs for other intellectuals to consider.
    • thumb
      Jul 14 2012: I disagree re 1947 splitting the land in two. Why not give half of New York to the Jews instead. What gives the UN security council the right to decide what happens to Palestine. Power. There is nothing right about what happened then. The correct response should have been reducing Christian intolerance and persecution of the Jews going back to when the Holy Roman empire kicked them out of the Levant.

      A Western/Eastern Christian human rights failure should not have been addressed as it was.

      The idea of a religious state is abhorrent to me.

      But we are where we are now.

      Who else has suffered. Maybe the Canaanites or other original inhabitants of the Levant that were obliterated by the Jews if you believe the bible.

      What about the Kurds. The Armenians.

      What about the Carthaginians obliterated by the Romans.

      Or so many indigenous peoples overrun by Western Powers. Native Americans.

      The industrial murder of Jews, slavs, gypsies, homosexuals etc is horrific. But many have suffered, some have disappeared. Many peoples are dispossessed of a land to call their own. The killing fields of Cambodia. Sending Irish prisoners to the gulag of Australia.

      Millions killed under British rule. The European take over of North America at the expense of the indigenous peoples.
      • Jul 14 2012: Interesting points. But this is mainly focused on the importance of Jerusalem and Israel to different religions who all have a rightful claim to it and what YOU think the outcome should be to the fight for the Holy Land.
        • thumb
          Jul 14 2012: I guess don't think any religion has a claim to land or a city. People might. But not a religion.

          I don't consider it the Holy land.

          It's just more blood soaked land, with religions firing up tribalism.

          The old books don't make it theirs. But the old books effect what people believe.

          It is a very good question how do you determine who controls a piece of land.

          I note the US South tried a 2 state solution but the North didn't agree.

          I think one secular state for both peoples perhaps, but unlikely to happen. In the end the Jews have the muscle and they will probably make Jerusalem theirs over time.
      • Jul 15 2012: In Reply to the above >>> comment,
        I just used religion as a word to mean the people who follow that religion.
        And whether or not you believe in the Holiness of the land, the name of that geographical location is The Holy Land. The name literally comes with the territory. What do you think the solution will be Obey?
        • thumb
          Jul 15 2012: Suggest it is the middle East or the Levant or Israel or Palestine.

          It is important to some cultures and religious groups..

          Man made religious beliefs and don't make anything holy unless you you believe in divine power. I don't.

          Religion just reinforces the tribalism and brings in absolute and fundamentalist beliefs.

          You/others can call it Holy if you like. I choose not to attribute more to it then there is. I prefer more precise language with less superstitious baggage.

          Also Its not holy to Asia, Pacific, Amercias, Africa etc pre European/Christian and Muslim colonisation/Conquest. Not sacred to me..

          There are more religions than the Abrahamic traditions. And also some of us with no religion.

          What is your desired outcome? How do you want to see the issue resolved? Then you can suggest a roadmap.

          RE: What is your standing on the importance of religious values? I prefer 21st century secular human values and human rights. Not those based on old books and backwards cultural traditions.

          RE: Which religion is more valuable? None to me. Equal for the believers of each I guess.

          Who gets Jerusalem? Usually the strongest, or those with the strongest friends get the land.

          The British stuffed it up for the Palestinians after kicking out the Ottomans. Go back to 1918 and the Jew had no rights to the land.

          You know some Israelis and Palestinians may not believe in gods or goddesses. To label every one according to a religion is making the problem binary. There are many different sects of people with Jewish ancestor. They are not monolithic in their views. Same for people from so called Muslim or Christian counties. Binary thinking is perhaps part of the problem
      • Jul 16 2012: Im not labeling people based on their beliefs, nor am I imposing any belief on you. The fact is that there are large groups of people out there who do believe, and those are the people I'm focusing on. What I'm asking for here is not who will "get" Jerusalem based on politics, but who YOU think deserves it based on ethics and philosophy. I'm not a deeply religious person myself, Obey. But I feel like you're avoiding actually answering the question I'm asking and instead denying everything and talking about humanistic ideas. That's fine, but not what this thread is about. I'd appreciate a straight answer to come from one of the most interesting minds I've seen so far on this forum. From your comment "some of US with no religion" I'm guessing that you are an atheist. That's fine. I'm not asking you to pick a religion. I'm asking you to look at the religious backgrounds of the people, and make your decision based on what THEY believe, not you. Think of what religion means to them, and think of how the dispute could be resolved with the least loss on all sides. And the big three Monotheistic Religions (Islam, Christianity, and Judaism) are the ones that have claim to Jerusalem on Holy terms, so they ARE the ones that we need to focus on. Superstitious baggage? So many wars have been fought (actual wars and just private disagreements) over religion. The world isn't going to forget religion, regardless of what you or I believe and say on this thread. So, drop the atheistic force-field and please, answer my question with as much empathy as you can muster. Otherwise, you might be as close-minded and brainwashed as those religious fools who believe in "divinity," just opinionated differently. I'm asking EVERYONE to be open-minded and look at the values of all parties involved. Stop picking apart and re-arranging the question to fit the answer you already had in your head. Answer MY question, I'm eager to hear what you have to say.
        • thumb
          Jul 16 2012: I'll try.

          In 1850 85% Muslim. 11% Christian, 4% Jewish. It wasn't Jewish. It wasn't Christian.

          1918 when the Ottomans were replaced by the British, still a great majority Muslim.

          To say that Christians and Jews had a serious claim to the land for most of the last 1,000 years is frankly ridiculous in my view. It's such a bible Judeo Christian centred view and ignores so much of the history of the place.

          The Jewish peoples only controlled that land for a small % of the last 4000 years. The religious view distorts history in my view.

          At some stage the population demographics equalled out and now those of Jewish heritage are the majority. So we are where we are. However I suggest the claims of the Palestinians have more validity to be considered given the history of the last 1000 years, compared to going back 2700 years to when the Jewish people ruled.

          So going back before70 years for over a 1,000 years people of Muslim descent had a major claim.

          I don't think Christians have any claim to the land. The Jews have the numbers now, but the Muslims are a sizable minority and have been poorly treated by the Western Powers.

          What values do 7 million Jews and 2.5 million Muslims have. I'm not going to generalise. Irrelevant to land claims like religion.

          I just don't think religious beliefs have any place in deciding who is more entitled to govern some land. Its just not a valid criteria to me. Religious analysis is not going to solve the problem and is not valid to impartial assessment of right to govern or citizenship. This is the wrong path. I suggest it is not close minded to challenge assumptions lying behind a question.

          Not the answer you were looking for, but I honestly tried.

          Giving credence to any religious claims to this land is the making it worse.

          My ideal is a secular state for all. 2 States is next best.

          Imagine if the Palestinians had border control from WW1. It would be theirs
      • Jul 19 2012: THAT'S what I'm looking for! Obey I LOVE this response! Way to go man! Break down the situation and form your own opinion on who deserves it by examining the facts! Everyone look at the above comment and model your responses on that!

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.