That’s not true. Each side going into a negotiation will have points that they’re willing to give up or modify and points they’re not willing to give up or modify. Each side will come in with certain non-negotiable demands, and the indivisibility of Jerusalem is one for the Israelis.
Now, if ownership of East Jerusalem is also a non-negotiable demand for the Palestinians, then there won’t ever be a treaty. If it isn’t, there very well could be. So, Malthus is right, Israelis moving into East Jerusalem won’t scuttle the peace treaty. Israel maintaining ownership of East Jerusalem might.
There you go. Perhaps you’ve heard of the Dome of the Rock? Why do you even ask?
And that’s where there has to be enough determination to reach an agreement that the negotiators can be more creative than simply drawing a line. Impasses have to be gone around if they cannot be resolved. No, that’s not easy, but it’s possible if both sides are sincere about wanting it.
Saying “Mineminemine, you can’t have it” is an automatic fail, but saying “We’re always going to be neighbors, let’s see if we can address each others’ underlying interests so we can live together peacefully” does. Each side’s claim is based on the presence of holy sites of each’s dominant religion, no? If arrangements for full access and full mutual respect for those sites can be assured by a treaty, can that be the basis for resolving the Jerusalem impasse and creating a true two-state solution?
Now where is the evidence of anybody wanting to work something out in good faith?
This sort of cynical positional bargaining is part of what pisses people off. Some people feel taht Israel is deliberately creating settlements for advantage in future negotiations. As a claim on territory that can be used to extract more favorable borders in an eventual resolution. I do not ge the impression that the suicide bombers don’t seem like a Palestinian strategy to try to obtain a better bargaining position.
I think its probably a lot easier to demolish buildings than to stop terrorist activity. I don’t know that Abbas has the ABILITY never mind the willingness to stop terrorism in the absence of a compromise that is generally acceptable to the palestinian population and as time goes by and the offenses stack up, the price of compromise goes up as well.
Because they would have been born in Israel but for that fact.
Interesting that you mention the Dome of the Rock - it is, in point of fact, not under Israeli authority: none of the Muslim holy places in Jerusalem are.
The conflict there is between Jordanian and Palestinian control, not Israel and Palestinian control. The Israelis gave up control over the Dome right after they took in in '67 (non-Muslims are not allowed to pray there, actually).
Jews weren’t just treated "slightly better’ than they were treated in Europe. Remember the Ottoman genocide of Armenians? Well there was a long list of people the Ottomans genocided, Jews were one of the few minorities NOT on that list. Besides are you saying that tehre are no safe harbors for Jews in this world if not for Israel?
With all that said, I think the Jewish desire for a nation is understandable and as much as i think Israel was a bad place to put it, I don’t see how it wouldn’t be an even greater disaster to change that today. BUT, the fanatic obession with “keep Israel Jewish” to the point where Israel engages in some really despicable behaviour is not something that needs to continue.
No. Israel’s claim to East Jerusalem is based on Jerusalem being the capital of Israel, that Jerusalem has historically been a Jewish city and that it doesn’t make sense for the city to be divided between two countries. The Palestinian claim to East Jerusalem is based on the fact that East Jerusalem is behind the Green Line, that Israel didn’t have any control over it until the '67 War when they conquered it along with the rest of the West Bank, and that East Jerusalem should be the capital of a Palestinian state.
Negotiation over control of the holy places and full access to religious sites is, by comparison, really easy to negotiate, and both the Israeli and Palestinian sides will be perfectly willing to negotiate those, I have no doubt.
Disagree. Not everything has to be open for negotiation. No negotiations in the world I’ve ever seen take place without either side having certain positions they simply will not agree to.
Should it? Is that an interesting technicality or a basic issue? We are discussing, or should be, what both nations perceive their fundamental interests to be, and what could be the nature of an agreement that would make both nations accept that their interests are satisfied. Or are you really saying that Palestinians don’t consider Al Aqsa part of their homeland (it doesn’t matter whether or not you think they should, btw)?
Now where is the evidence of that willingness? Who could be this generation’s Begin? Can a new Sadat arise in the conditions Israel has imposed upon Palestine?
Where is YOUR willingness to explore how something could be worked out rather than to merely throw out objections, for that matter?
That’s an exaggeration. There were expulsions and massacres of Jews by the Ottomans, and if you extend the question to the middle east or Arab world generally, there certainly was a good deal of persecution against Jews. There was violence against Jews even in Mandate Palestine before Israel was founded. Most famously, in 1929, in addition to riots elsewhere, almost the entire Jewish population of Hebron was killed, with the survivors evacuated elsewhere.
Well, in the ideal world, learning a new set of facts that completely undermines what you’ve been arguing ought to change your opinion.
You said:
I provided the exact “evidence” you requested: in point of fact, Israel had handed over control of the holy sites in 1967. Acccording to you, that sort of “arrangement for full access and full mutual respect for those sites” would, presumably, be “evidence” of Israel “wanting to work something out in good faith”.
Which, one would assume, ought to affect your opinion of the conflict, no? Unless you are simply impervious to facts.
Right. Could you actually tell me why you think Israeli Arabs are second class citizens instead of just giving me a google link? Other than the army stuff, which we’ve discussed, what rights don’t Arab Israelis have Israeli Non Arabs have that you think Israeli Arabs should have.