Origin of the conflict over Jerusalem

[lawwolf]

I'm hoping someone here that has done the research can help me understand the origins of the fight over Jerusalem. My understanding is that it is pretty well established that Jerusalem was the Jewish capital at least as far back as the 1st century through extra-biblical sources. I think (but could be mistaken) that there are extra-biblical sources that trace it back much farther than that. So I guess my question is what is the dispute over the control over Jerusalem. Is it

a.) The Palestinians trace their heritage back to the philistines/Canaanites/whoever was there before the Israelite got there
b.) That I'm wrong and there is no extra-biblical sources that confirm ancient Israelite control over the area
c.) That all of the ancient history is irrelevant. The Arab/Muslim interest was strong enough in 1947 to prevent the UN from making Jerusalem part of Israel due to their religious interest in the city and nothing before that matters.
d.) Something else entirely that I am missing (most likely the correct answer, please specify)

Thanks.

[Geoff R. Casavant]

1. I think it's more like an "all of the above" situation.

To one extent or another, each of the reasons you cited may be used by different groups to justify the conflict. I would add two more -- the religious significance of Jerusalem in Islam, and the outcomes of the various Arab-Israeli wars of the 1960s and 1970s.

[aranthus]

2. The origin is simple

Both the Jews and the Arabs want Jerusalem. Since there is only one Jerusalem, they are fighting about it. It seems to me that what you are really asking is on what is the Arab claim based. The answer is whatever sticks. They have tossed up any number of reasons in support of their claim. Among them are:

1. Jews aren't a nation entitled to a state so there shouldn't even be an Israel that has a claim to Jerusalem. (In my opinion this is a big part of the heart of the Arab claim).

2. The Palestinians are Canaanites story.

3. That Jews have no historical or religious connection to Jerusalem (this claim is made in contradiction to the historical evidence, but it appears that the Arabs mean it nonetheless.)

4. That the Arab/Muslim world has a strong interest in the Muslim religious places on the Temple Mount. (This is beyond question, but is it enough on it's own to confer sovereignty over all of East Jerusalem?).

5. That the majority population of East Jerusalem is Arab. (Certainly true after the Jews were expelled from East Jerusalem by the Jordanians in 1948, and up to 1967. However, Jews have been the majority in Jerusalem as a whole since the 1800's.)

6. Israel really wants East Jerusalem, and the Arabs just don't want the Israelis to have it. (Not one that the Arabs publicly rely on, but certainly a motivation, especially tied in with reason number 1.)

By the way, the UN did not make Jerusalem part of Israel. Under the Partition Plan, all of Jerusalem was to be an independent international city. Of course, when the Arabs rejected the Partition Plan that provision went bye-bye.

[lawwolf]

3. thank you

Yes, I think more properly put, my question was on what do the Palestinians base there claim. Thanks for the info.

[pelsar]

4. history and politics are both flexible

Last edited Sat Jul 27, 2013, 11:35 AM - Edit history (1)

history can be modified to fit the political needs. Whether or not there is any "hard evidence" of arab/Palestinian "ownership" of Jerusalem pre jewish "evidence" is not really relevant.

The claim is made, its now in the PA education/political system..it therefore exists and has since become part of the politics and cannot be dismissed. If your looking for evidence....well I'm sure its somewhere.....