Replies

The Jews owned it first. Muzzies stole it.

The Hebrews captured it from the Philistines.
The Babylonians captured it from the Hebrews.
The Persians liberated the Hebrews and allowed them to return to the area.
Alexander the Great conquered the area and the Greeks held it until 165 BC.
There was a brief revival of Hebrew sovereignty from 165-63 BC.
The Romans conquered the area in 63 BC.
The Jewish Temple in Jerusalem was destroyed after the Great Jewish Revolt 73 AD
The Romans lost control around 330 AD as their empire disintegrated
The Greeks returned to control during the period 330-638 AD
The Arab Caliphate controlled the area from 638-1099 AD
Popes launched nine crusades and "Crusaders" held Jerusalem on and off from 1099-1244
Saladin captured Jerusalem in 1244 and held it until 1250
The Mamluks from Egypt held the area from 1250-1517.
The Ottoman Empire held the area from 1517-1917.
The British held the area as a madate from 1917-1948.
The State of Israel was founded in 1948 and holds the area to the present day.

One look at this miserable history makes me wish all the parties in the area would consider an entirely new approach.

Si vis pacem, para pacem

The Hebrews captured it from the Philistines.

Your Bible knowledge and your history is off. The Philistines were mainly coastal. They never owned any part of Jerusalem. The Jebusites had a city south of the present Temple Mount. Regardless, the Bible says that the Temple Mount was purchased by King David. It was not captured. It was bought for.

There are three sites in Israel where Scripture makes clear that a legal land purchase took place: Where the Patriarchs are buried, where Joseph is buried, and the Temple Mount. Ironically, all three are off limits to Jews today.

And the current fighting could be over the wrong location. I am not scholar on this, and know the topic has people supporting both sides, but here is a link stating the current temple mount may actually be the remains of Fort Antonia.

http://israel.cephasministry.com/who_moved_the_temple.html

The fact that it is much larger than the foundation required for the temple, and in line with the foundation of a Roman fort housing 3000 soldiers is a compelling argument. Not to mention reports from Josephus that the temple was completely destroyed. I believe Josephus also records a rebel that later died at Mosada as stating nothing but a grassy hill was left where the temple once stood. Hard to image that if the complete and massive foundation was still there. However, even after the temple was destroyed, Roman soldiers remained and would have needed Fort Antonia.

Just a thought.

Here is a link to a rebuttal, to be “fair and honest”: http://www.askelm.com/temple/t010513.htm