I’ve read on Israel & Jewish websites that Obama attempted to apply pressure on the israeli prime minister to fly a United Nations flag at the wailing wall. For some strange reason I have been unable to find a single western media outlet that picked up the story.
Can anyone verify what the straight dope is on this story?
cite: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/131506
Don’t know of the accuracy of the report, or even the accuracy of the notion that one flag flew, and another one now does. For the general but attentive newsreader, including Haaretz and the Jerusalem Post, this would be a new issue.
But I can imagine that if there is a flag controversy, President Obama might have suggested, not demanded, that changing the flag might be a nice sign of Israeli intent. Given the issues involved (settlements, Jerusalem, water, etc. etc.) movement on a flag controversy (if one exists) is easy, it seems to me.
The more cynical view would be that one of the two sides has decided to add a flag issue to the mix, in order to make a solution more difficult. A more benign view (if there is, in fact, a controversy) would be that it allows the other side to make an easy message of their intent. Either is possible, make your own conclusion.
Bet this goes to Great Debates.
According to YNet, Al-Quds Al-Arabi claimed that Palestinian sources said that Arab nations are revising the Saudi peace plan at Obama’s request, and that part of the revised plan includes the UN flag flying over holy sites in Jerusalem.
Arutz Sheva is not necessarily the best choice for an unbiased source when it comes to settlement and Palestinian issues, btw.
Arutz Sheva is once more pulling stuff out of their ass. There’s nothing to this story.
OTOH, to those saying that it’s no big deal - imagine the reaction you’d see in the U.S. if Obama suggested flying the UN flag over the Capitol Building, and multiply it by 3. People are wary enough about him over here even without him making such a stupendously boneheaded comment.
I am not going to buy into the wider argument, but I think your analogy is inapt.
There’s a rational difference between suggesting that an international organisation’s flag should fly over sites that are holy to a number of religions and peoples, and a specifically nationalist site like the Capitol Building.
I’ve tried to follow some of the cites in here and get to the bottom of this story, but I’m just getting more muddled.
I suppose it is somewhat difficult to refute the legitimacy of a gossipy quasi-news story unless an authoritative news source covers the gossip and either confirms or deflates it?
Short of that, it seems it would be difficult to establish criteria for verification.
Why are they wary about Obama?
The Wailing Wall is a nationalist site for Israelis. They don’t see it as a site that is “holy to a number of religions and peoples”. They see it as an explicitly Israeli site, and any hint that control over the Wall is going to be turned over to an international organization is going to rub Israelis the wrong way.
People here feel he is putting too much pressure on us and not enough on the other side, and that his big peace plans may come at the expense of Israel’s long term security. I don’t really want to get into the subject, at least outside of GD (and please don’t take that as an invitation to open a thread).
Please note that very few people accuse him of being anti-Israel or antisemitic; he’s seen as a nice guy who’s been blinded by misguided idealism and is ignorant of Middle-Eastern realities.
The fact that other nationalities have some sort of interest in the area doesn’t make the Old City any less of a specifically nationalist site. Besides, rationality never really comes into the equation as far as Jerusalem is concerned.
I think Abdullah is suggesting that Obama proposed a final peace between Israel in the Arabs might include the UN taking control of the Temple Mount rather then have it under control of one side or the other, not that Israel just run a UN flag up the flagpole there (and I suspect Obama was talking about the Temple Mount as a whole, not just the wall).
No idea if its true or not, I imagine Abduallah is not the most reliable source, but international control over contested parts of Jerusalem isn’t really a unique or particularly outrageous idea.
Just on some very quick research, it seems that the wailing wall is within occupied territories? Yet a Israeli flag flies over it?
If this is so, what is the prospect of Israel ever turning it over to some form of “international rule”?
Sorry, but I reread the thread, and looked at the cites. Who is this “Abdullah” you’re referring to?
The same chance Mecca and the Vatican go over to some form of “international rule”.
That’s a spurious comparison.
is the Vatican under occupation by a conquering army?
Since when has Mecca been disputed by anybody?
No. Neither is Jerusalem.
Who cares?
I want your car. Therefore, your car is now disputed, and I have certain rights to it. Is that your logic?
Anyway, it’s a moot point. You asked what the chances were, and I answered. That you consider the comparison spurious is irrelevant. Israel will never willingly turn over the Western Wall, just as the Muslims will never willingly turn over the Kaaba. There’s no difference to the people actually involved.
Yeah well a quick glance at research (and I fully admit I am not as knowledgable as you about this) told stories about the conquering Israeli army reaching the wailing wall in the 60s - so it was always Israeli was it?
OR is this just another expansion on Israels divine destiny?
jeez, I don’t know why I even look at your posts anymore. Your attitude always makes me hate Israel, I guess I should stop.
It was occupied for a brief period of 2000 years. That situation was rectified in 1967.
Besides, so what if we took it by force? The Jordanians did the same, as did the British, the Ottomans, the Mameluks, the Crusaders, the Arabs and the Romans - and we have a much better claim to it than any of those. Jerusalem changes hands through conquest; that’s how it’s worked for thousands of years, and we’re not going to start apologizing for it now.
Unlike the rest of the West Bank, Israel annexed all of Jerusalem. It’s our capital, it has always been our capital - even when occupied by others - and we’re not going to give it up. Hell, I don’t even *like *the place, and I feel this way.
Based on *your *posts, I don’t think we lost our biggest supporter.
Sure, but how many other nations see the Capitol Building like that? The analogy is inapt because however the Israelis may view things, that view is hotly disputed. The idea of placing a hotly disputed place under neutral flag is one thing, the idea of placing a totally undisputed place that only has significance to one people is another. Thus **Alessan’s **analogy is inapt. And I say that without expressing any view on whether the hotly disputed place *should *be placed under neutral flag or not.
Bear in mind that I wasn’t referring to the site per se, I was referring to the public reaction. Whether you consider the analogy correct or not, Israelis would probably react worse to a UN flag on the Wall than Americans to a UN flag on the Capitol building.
Besides, “disputed” is a nebulous, subjective term that can be applied to anything.
Actually you said it was a “stupendously boneheaded comment”.
But not if rationality comes into the equation. Which you said it doesn’t but you were probably not speaking for everybody.