In 1896, the founder of political Zionism, the worldly journalist Theodor Herzl, published The Jewish State, electrifying Europe. He soon began meeting high officials to try to sell the idea. From The Diaries of Theodor Herzl:
May 7, 1896: Herzl's intermediary to Sultan Abdulhamid II of the Ottoman Empire tells Herzl that the Sultan "would never give up Jerusalem. The Mosque of Omar must remain forever in the hands of Islam."
"We can get around that difficulty," I said. "We shall extraterritorialize Jerusalem, so that it will belong to nobody and yet everybody; and with the the Holy Places, which will become the joint possession of all Believers–a great condominium of culture and morality."
May 19, 1896: Herzl meets the Papal Nuncio Antonio Agliardi in Vienna and offers him the same assurance.
"We require only the consent of the Great Powers, and in particular that of His Holiness the Pope; then we shall establish [a republic] ourselves–with the extraterritorialization of Jerusalem understood.."
Agliardi smiled: "He will be highly pleased. You propose, then, to exclude Jerusalem, Bethlehem, and Nazareth, and set up the capital, I take it, more to the north?"
"Yes," I said.
June 17, 1896: Herzl recounts a meeting with a high Turkish official in Constantinople, where the visionary has gone to offer money to Sultan Abdulhamid II in exchange for Palestine.
His objections were: the status of the Holy Places. Jerusalem must unconditionally remain under the guardianship of Turkey. It would run counter to the most sacred feelings of the people if Jerusalem were given up. I promised a far-reaching extraterritoriality. The Holy Places of the civilized world should belong to no one but must belong to all.
A zionist lied. Oh my god, I am in state of shock.
RE: "Zionism's founder promised Catholic and Muslim officials he'd leave Jerusalem outside of Jewish state" HASBARA RATIONALIZATION: That's ancient history!
Herzl didn't get to force his will on the Jewish people? Why not? Wasn't he the Jewish Arafat? He wasn't? He believed in democracy? Regardless, Britain defeated Turkey and it would be assumed that England could care less about any promises made by Herzl to the Ottomans. By the way, was this promise conditional? Did the Ottoman's live up to their side of the bargain?
It would have been wonderful if the sentiment "The Holy Places of the civilized world should belong to no one but must belong to all." would have been agreed by the Muslim and Arab officials as well. Jerusalem was a UN protectorate under the original 1947 UN mandate. Jordan conquered it and annexed it. Now, BOTH Israel and Palestine claim Jerusalem as their political capital. It may be possible for West Jerusalem to be Israel's, East Jerusalem to be Palestine's. What is intended by each community?
What a pity Richard, you didn't stop after the first paragraph and leave it at that. While you at least stick to the subject, your response reminds me of another standard that surfaces often lately. Kindergarten, kids games. Do you remember the urge to defend yourself when being admonished by mother or other elders, the but he/she did this or that it triggered?
Shit, I didn't close the tag. Did I?
I suspect that this is the undivided Jerusalem that Obama was referring to when he addressed AIPAC before his election. Undivided – open city – under the UN control.
Why do you use Britain and England interchangeably? They're not the same thing. I can overlook it a couple of times but now it's getting really annoying. Seeing as the origins of Modern Zionism lay with Herzl, it does matter. And Britain was too busy making (false) promises to the Arabs AND Zionists to care about Herzl's promises
Food for a novel. The aliens from outer space zap Jerusalem; in the ending it turns out that was the best thing that could have happened to the humans.
I trust we're all aware that Der Judenstaat was originally titled Letter to the Rothschilds.