It would have been, if Obama had actually said it, which he didn’t. It would have infuriated the Israeli public for no reason and for no real gain.
BTW, this is a plot point in one of Tom Clancy’s books, as the genius solution to the Mideast troubles.
And what’s that? Is this going to be a story about an invisible man in the sky?
From the article in the OP:
That seems to be the source of the idea that Obama proposed UN control of the Temple Mount.
I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s true that Obama at least mentioned the idea. I suspect basically everyone trying to mediate a solution to Israel’s borders has floated that idea as a compromise at one point or another. I believe it was actually the original plan for the city during the partition of Palestine when the Brits withdrew.
The fact that Israel would never agree to an idea doesn’t make the idea not worth pursuing. The reason this dispute has lasted so long is that both sides have a long list of things that they would never agree to that happen to be mutally exclusive. In order for a peace agreement to be reached both sides will need to agree to things that they thought they would never agree to. That is the only way these things work.
I think we should explode a dirty bomb at the Temple Mount. That way, there would be nothing to fight over and God can have the place to Himself.
And anyone who dares visit had better pray really hard.
Looking at pictures of the Wailing Wall, I can’t see any flagpoles anywhere in the vicinity. It’s the remaining wall of a temple from 2000 years ago, facing a big open square. Just on the other side of the is the Dome of the Rock, with it’s big gold dome sticking up in the air. But no flagpole visible at the top of that dome, either.
And that’s rather typical of most religious sites I’ve seen – they don’t have flagpoles with national flags around them.
So I have to wonder at the accuracy of this story.
Yea, that’s why I’m pretty certain “raise the UN flag over the wailing wall” is a euphemism for “grant UN some sort of authority over the Temple Mount”. Bibi was trying to rile up some Yeshiva students, hence the dramatic language.
From googling, it appears that the only modern day symbol of Israeli sovereignty over the Mount is a 10cm flag on the desk of the Chief of Security for the Mount. Whatever the ultimate fate of the site, I suspect actual flags there will be similarly restrained.
No you haven’t lost your biggest supporter. And even if you had, one person is hardly going to make a difference.
But the attitude you are displaying here absolutely does not help your cause it all. It puts you on a par with the looney hate spewing right in America that still want to see Obama’s birth cert.
Occupied for 2000 years and we just liberated it? Its our captial and we have every right to take it back any way we wish? WTF? Do you really believe this or are you just trying to bait me?
I am really surprised that somebody with your very obvious intellect, debate skills, research expertise and cosmopolitanism (is that a word?) could believe such a thing. the only conclusion that I am left to draw is that either there is some serious propaganda happening in Israel or you are being deliberately hawkish to elicit a response.
The Temple of Solomon is kinda sorta important to Judaism.
I think it’s time for this to move from GQ to Great Debates.
Colibri
General Questions Moderator
Is it my fault, already?
Thanks, Simplicio, I guess I’d missed that one.
I’ve got to say, the real two outstanding issues, it seems to me, are Jerusalem and the right of return. Water, communications–both electronic and physical–, land exchange, etc can be solved, if the last two can be solved.
At the end of the day, the Palestinians must agree that the right of return doesn’t include return to the territory the negotiants agree is Israel, and the Israelis must agree that Jerusalem will be the capital of both entities (we’ve read Alessan’s views on that point). The rest of the deal has been pretty clear since 2000, it seems to me. (Ask Ehud Barack.) So take Alessan’s statements with that in mind, in my view.
Of course, the longer it takes, with the Israeli settlements policy in the West Bank, the less likely any settlement at all is possible. Thus, in my view, the Obama administration’s vigorous position about settlements. And the position of the Israeli hard liners. But I’m convinced Israel will never live in safety without a deal. If no deal, Israel will have to live with semi-permanent intifadas. I’m not recommending it, I’m only predicting it. Does Israel prefer that?
Well OK, if that is how the game is played. Good for the goose, sauce for the gander and all that.
Pretty good analysis, Notassmartasithought. I think it’s telling that while the entire Israeli political spectrum with the exception of the far right has agreed, in principle, to the existence of a Palestinian state, not a single Palestinian leader has ever stood up and said that the refugees will never be returning to their ancestors’ homes in Haifa and Jaffa. I think that epitomizes what I consider a moral imbalance in the conflict. That said, I personally would probably accept, under certain circumstances, the division of Jerusalem into Israeli and Palestinian halves, so long as the Old City stays on the Israeli side. I think that’s a perfectly reasonable compromise.
What I don’t understand, however, is how people like **bengangmo **can be so ignorant of of the Jewish connection to the city. Have they no understanding or awareness of history? Are they ignorant of the Temple, the Kingdom of Judah, and the constant Jewish presence in the city from the Bronze Ager until the Jordanian Army exiled it in 1948? Has he never heard the phrase “If I forget thee, O Jerusalem, may my right hand be forgotten”? Or does he consider these things irrelevant - mere historical frippery?
If so, he’d best disabuse himself of the notion. Symbols have value, and Jerusalem is the biggest, oldest symbol out there - the Ur-Symbol, if you will. It’s the kind of symbol that defines a nation, its history, its goals and its sense of self. Nations fight for what’s important for them - some of them (land, money, water) objectively important, and some of them subjective. Either way, outsiders like bengangmo don’t get to tell people what to care about.
Now, I know what some of you are going to say: “But Alessan, these things are important to the Arabs as well!” That may be true, although I’d like to think that we’ve invested a few more Yearning Hours in the subject. But the fact of the matter is that two nations can’t hold the Old City of Jerusalem (and don’t even suggest a committee of UN apparatchiks). We have it now, and we’re going to keep it: possession may be nine points of the law, but it’s ten points of realpolitik. If the Palestinians want a nation of their own then this is one symbol they’ll have to give up. And who knows? Maybe, 2,000 years from now, their turn will come round. We waited that long; they can too.
Oh, and **Paul **- we never had any illusions otherwise. The reason they haven’t taken it back is because they can’t, not becasue they believe doing so would be wrong. The only people who believe the game is played in any other way are outsiders and the willfully ignorant.
Well a few points to note there, considering that I am neither Jewish, or indeed religious at all nor come from the region I have little reason to learn the history of the region. I am not a scholar of history in any way shape or form, I do have a passing familiarity with “my” (read my country’s) history, and the forces that developed it. However my understanding does not approach yours.
I just don’t buy into the argument of “its important to my religion, therefore I am allowed to annex it and everybody else can bite me”. There was a certian area that was allocated as being the state of Israel. Rightly or wrongly. It is not right for Israel to now assert that they can just take more as and when they see fit.
The history of “my” people is also not so founded in religion (or at least not so much the way I was brought up), so I have trouble understanding the emotional argument for the assertion of “ownership” in this sense.
I suspect that if we took a tour around the world there are any number of people, groups, religions or movements that could assert an argument for a claim to different parts of the world just as strong as the Israeli Jew’s claim to the Wailing Wall. What makes your claim so special that you get to annex territory to fulfill it?
And also quite frankly, while I abhor what the Palestinians are doing I do understand the motivation. We hear again and again that the Palestinians are not doing enough. Probably not. However at the same time I think that Israel has far greater capacity, means and resources to act than the Palestinian authority does. I think this places upon you a greater responsibilty to do more. That’s simply my opinion, FWIW
Missed the edit window - my first paragraph sounds horrible on reread. What I mean to say is that history is so vast I can’t hope to scratch the surface. I do know a little about stuff directly relevant to me, but I have not studied history beyond that.
-
Would you please stop bringing religion into this discussion?
-
Nobody “allocated” anything to anyone. We weren’t given this country, we won it - just as *your *ancestors won yours.
-
What makes the Palestinians’ claim to Jerusalem so special that they get to refuse peace in order to fulfill it?
Uhmm…can you please explain to me the significance of the wailing wall if it is not religious. Is it, or is it not the wall of a temple? What is a temple if it is not religious.
Maybe “allocated” is not the best choice of word. But can I ask who won Israel from whom?
And in reply to point 3, what makes your claim so special that you get to annex it and keep it just because you have the military might to do so?
Isn’t that a bit difficult, since all factions existing in Israel today seem to claim Jerusalem as a holy site containing extremely important religious locations?
This is a ridiculously martial point of view. “Might makes right”. Aside from being a prehistoric approach to a delicate and complex modern problem, I must note that it hasn’t always worked out so well for countries or leaders who have tried it in recent times (except superpowers or at least considerable powers). Saddam Hussein won Kuwait from Kuwaitis, until the world stepped in. Milosevic would have finished winning Kosovo back from ethnic Albanians, had NATO not prevented it. The Kosovo example is particularly interesting because Kosovo is indisputably Serbian territory very rich in religious, historical, and cultural significance. And yet the biggest losers in the history of Kosovo are the technically rightful owners of the territory, who thought that “winning” the land was all there was to the problem.
Besides, it is easy to argue that the reason Israel exists today is thanks to the international community, who laid important groundwork for what would become Israel.
Following the horrors of the holocaust, there was even more political goodwill towards Jews and towards the idea of establishing a homeland for them, leading to the 1947 United Nations resolution to partition Palestine into Jewish and Arab states, and UN-administered Jerusalem.
Without such motions (and of course critical foreign assistance and intervention) it is doubtful there would be an Israel at all resembling the state that has emerged since the 1940s. So please, ease up a little on the tough talk.
This looks like a clear case of poisoning the well with loaded questions. On the other side of the argument you have the fact that the Arabs living in Palestine up until the Israeli declaration of independence witnessed a steady influx of millions of Jews into Palestine (again, the similarities to Kosovo are noteworthy). They did not want this new population on what they considered to be their rightful land. You could make up any number of well-poisoning questions based on that fact alone, never mind for the entire history of Israel to present day. There are plenty of opportunities to pose glib questions on both sides, and an intelligent and productive discussion would do well to steer clear of them IMO.