If you're voting, remember; vote your opinions, or others may continue to disagree.
The debate over the historical roots of Jerusalem is one which, for various reasons, has a vast political resonance. The competing claims of Judeo-Christian and Islamic history is one that seems to have enveloped any discussion of the modern political layout of the Middle East

Jewish sources, of course, have many disparate places in which "Jerusalem" is mentioned. Not couting Talmudic and Midrashic literature, which is replete with references, the Bible itself has many such references; "Abraham called that place 'Hashem Yireh'." (Genesis 22:14), which is etymologically very closely related to the name "Yeru-Shalayim," as Jerusalem is called in Hebrew.

Modern scholars, however, date the writing of the Five Books of Moses in it's modern form to only about 500 B.C.E. so they clearly do not accept that the 'mythical Abraham' actually called this spot Jerusalem. The Prophets and Writings, however, that date from the same time period and reference events that occurred either only decades, or no more than two to three centuries before, clearly reference Jerusalem by name, as the site on which God choose for the Jews to build Solomons temple, on which it stood, and on which it was destroyed and then rebuilt around 350BCE.

Christian sources, also, have a very clear connection to the land of Israel, based on the records of the rebuilt second temple of the Jews. This is based, of course, on Jerusalem being where both Jewish and Christian tradition have amazingly strong reason to beleive it is, that is to say, in the same place that modern Jerusalem stands.

There has been much said about the Holiness of the site of the Temple Mount to Muslims. There have been claims that the location of "historical" Judaism is not actually the religion that Israel claims, and that it is in any case irrelevant, as the Palestinian Muslim population have a historical right to the land, not as those who inherited the position from the Jews and Christians, but as the sole owners of it's heritage. (Clearly, the Palestinian claim is clearly the only one relevant, as they do not claim a sovreignty over the Temple mount in the name of Muslims Internationally, and have repeatedly rejected an internationalization of the disputed section of the old city, but rather to have national control over this religious location, mirroring the staus Mecca has attained.)

The Muslims claim that the Temple never stood on that location{1} (while simultaneously excavating on the mount without any recognized Archaological oversight{2},) and that it was always their land, and, also that they accept the Jewish and Christian bible as the word of God, albeit corrupted, and given to their ancestors, not the Christians and/or Jews.

Their pseudo-history, extending from their account of ancient history before the religion of Islam as such even existed, extending until the well past their denial of the holocaust having ever occurred, has almost no basis in reality;

Jerusalem is our holy city from the dawn of history, our forefathers built her…our forefathers were here generation after generation, and the invaders, they were erased, anyone who attacked this city or who tried to steal one stone from her, their fate was like that of the other invaders{4}…there was no existence in this city aside from the Arab existence, I, as a historian, challenge: is there a sign of any entity aside from us on this land? All the false Torah claims, the misleading and the distortion of history are lies, supported by false claims in order to achieve settlement colonialism… there was not found in the country one ancient Jewish coin of those that he the caller noted…Zionism planted the settlement plan, and they Jews are not at all connected to the land of prayer, they came from Khazar{3}…, we are not against Jews as Jews, we are against the theft of our land. Regarding ‘Israel’, this is a word which indicates tribal gathering, now it is known scientifically as well, that a homeland of all the Israeli tribes was in the Arab peninsula …King David captured “Zion” as his capital, which still exists today in Asir in the Arab Peninsula.” Dr. Isam Sebasallam, History lecturer at the Islamic University, PA TV, August 14, 1998.

So, accepting the claim that the Palestinian Muslims put forward, we must choose to believe either historical reality, or them. And maybe it's a forward, western thought foreign and forbidden to the Muslim's religious conception of the world, but most of the modern world has learned to live with reality.

{1} Yassir Arafat,in the London Arabic paper Al Hayat: "Archaeologists," he said, "have not found a single stone proving that the Temple of Solomon was there because historically the Temple was not in Palestine."
{2} Jewish Telegraphic Agency, (February 12, 2001).
{3} An idea that can be traced to Arthur Koestler, since discredited by both historians and geneological studies, that the Askenazi Jews are not related to the Sefardi Jews, and that the exodus from the land of Isreal depicted in the Talmud was only towards the Middle East. Much historical study has shown where the Jews wandered in the centuries between the destruction of what they called the second temple, and the modern day, and clearly contradicts this historically untenable explanation.
{4} A reference to the Christian Crusades