The Fate of Jerusalem

Great Debates
1

I don’t know if this should be in GQ or here. If this is the wrong place feel free to move it mods.

Most of you are probably aware that Israel and the PLO and trying to hack out some sort of agreement up at Camp David for the past week. Through the news blackout we learn that things aren’t progressing too well. While there are many issues facing the two sides the fate of Jerusalem seems to be a perpetual sticking point for the two. Big surprise…the city is hugely important to both religions and neither can bear the thought of the other having control.

Try not to flame me if this seems an overly simplistic solution (ok…flame if you must). NUKE THE CITY! (Just kidding even if that would work.)

Seriously…why not turn it into a Principality (is that the correct term?) Basically, something along the same lines as the Vatican. A city that answers to no country or law but its own. Setup a coalition leadership of, say, four leaders. Two muslim and two jewish and draft a mini-constitution that essentially states that the leaders one PRIMARY goal is maintaining access equally for all who wish to visit the city without regard to religion or national origin. Retain the Swiss Guards (also used in the Vatican) or some other disinterested third party to maintain the peace and knock heads when required.

It might be hairy at first but if the initial leaders of the place established a no bullsh*t attitude making it clear to ALL that they are welcome but shenanigans won’t be tolerated the city might become a decent and safe place.

Why coudn’t this work? Why wouldn’t the other interested parties agree to such an arrangement?

2

This works for the Vatican because it’s a pretty monolithic place. It does not have all sorts of people struggling over it. There are millions of decisions that have an impact on the character of Jerusalem that are impossible for a “neutral” third party to decide. Do Jews have the right to buy property in Arab areas? Does the Muslim Waqf maintain control of the Temple Mount? Consider that huh? Huh? This is just for starts.

3

Quite frankly, there’s a simple reason why the Israelis don’t trust anyone but themselves to administer Jerusalem: history. From 1948 - 1967, when Jordan controlled the old city of Jerusalem, every synagogue in the old city was destroyed, and not a single Jew was allowed to visit the Jewish holy sites there. Israelis have no doubt that that would be true if it were in Arab hands again, and, from their experience with the way the United Nations votes (20+ Arab votes plus most non-Arab Muslim nations voting with the Arabs, versus Israel’s single vote), they’re unwilling to trust it to an international coalition as well.

The Israeli government has proven to be extremely sensitive to Muslim religious concerns, have allowed the Muslim religious authorities local control over the Muslim holy sites there, and have never blocked Muslims’ access to those sites (beyond a security check…which people approaching the Western Wall must pass as well, so it’s not a discriminatory-against-Muslims thing). Is there any reason to take control of the city away from Israel (beyond the Palestinians saying “we want it”)?

4

I don’t see why much of this couldn’t be agreed to ahead of time. Certainly they might tangle for months over the details that would still be easier to overcome than both outright refusing to allow the other control. Once the initial state was agreed to then that state would be maintained. Certainly some jews might be pissed that Temple Mount isn’t in their control but maybe some muslims would be pissed that the Wailing Wall is in a jewish sector (I don’t know that it is…just an example). As long as the Waqf and jews allowed access to those sites by anyone then the populace would just have to live with it. At first tensions might be high but over time what was once ‘unfair’ would become the status quo and people could get on with their lives.

As for the character of the city there’d be no ‘land grabs’ yanking some property away from one and giving to another. You want to move into the city? Great! Find someone willing to sell and be done with it. If you’re jewish and want to live on an exclusively muslim block then that’s your problem. As long as the previous owner sold the place and didn’t have it taken that’s good enough. Justice would have to be equitable so if the muslim neighbors burned down the jew’s house they’d get spanked for it. That’s the reasoning behind a disinterested third party maintaining the police force so there could be no accusations that the local muslim (or jewish) constable didn’t exactly bend over backwards to find the perpetrators of a crime.

5

CMKeller

I hear what you are saying which is why the government would be a ‘coalition’ of jews and muslims (and christians if it was felt necessary). The Israelis would know that there was someone who was on their side. Also note that I mentioned that the PRIMARY charter of the government would be to maintain access for ALL who wish to visit without regard to religion or citizenship.

I mentioned that there would also have to be an even number of people in power which could obviously lead to stalemates when the two groups vote strictly on ‘party’ lines. Obviously some way would have to be found to break such stalemates. A third party would be difficult since one side or another would always scream favoritism. I have no idea how this could be resolved to the satisfaction of all parties. My only thought is to do something like what happens when a new Pope needs to be chosen. The Cardinals get bricked in (literally) to a building and don’t come out till a consensus has been reached. Maybe the leaders of Jerusalem should be locked in a bank vault or some such thing and not allowed to come out till their differences can be resolved. If after, say, a week they can’t agree then they ALL lose their jobs and new leaders are elected. This would also keep them away from the influence of special interest groups while deciding. They could talk to whomever they choose beforehand but once in that’s it. Basically it becomes a “Sh*t or get off the pot” situation.

6

Nice try Jeff,

This leads you straight into cmkeller’s post. World opinion does not back you on this, so third party control would not enforce your terms. One Jew (an American named Moskowitz)bought land in an Arab area, attempted to develop it and was roundly condemned world wide for offending the sensibilities of the arabs. The Israeli government, in fact, was blamed for allowing him to do it.

The opening of a archeological tunnel under the Temple Mount touched off rioting by Arabs, convinced it was a plot to destroy their mosque. World opinion held that the Israeli government, then headed by Netanyahu, had “deliberately provoked” the arabs.

As Chaim mentioned, when the Jordanians threw all the Jews out of the Old City of Jerusalem, when they destroyed all the synagogues in the city there was not too much international pressure exerted on them, if any. The idea that any third party now would be neutral is not reasonable.

7

cmkeller: It isn’t as clear cut as that. I hope you know that in your heart. I wouldn’t trust either side to fairly administrate Jerusalem. They both have been fairly impolitic when it comes to dealing with the others’ concerns.

I think the idea of a principality was acutally tossed around in a Tom Clancy novel, which is about as close as it will ever come to reality. The Muslims, Jews, and let’s not forget those Christians, all want to have have a measure of exclusivity over Jerusalme property. They would be just as adamant against a secular 3rd party (e.g. the U.N.) being the neutral overseer.

One idea that has been tossed around has been to expand the city and the re apportion territory, but that doesn’t deal with the holy sites, many of which are concentrated around each other.

8

Jeff_42, it sounds like you’re not really talking about third-party control so much as shared Israeli-Palestinian control. In that situation, I don’t think you need to find a way to end stalemate when the governing body votes. On the contrary, stalemate is your friend; you would want stalemate to be the default outcome anytime a bipartisan voting coalition couldn’t be achieved on an issue.

I have always assumed that the only peaceful solution possible will be an official acceptance of “the situation on the ground,” where Israel gets half the city, the Palestinian authority gets the other half, and both agree to permit access to religious sites.

9

Dumb Ox,

You are basically ascribing to the Palestinian position. But why do you call this “the situation on the ground”? Currently, the entire city is in Israeli hands. Arabs live there as well. But if the Cubans demand Miami, is this also “the situation on the ground”?

10

Both IzzyR and DumbOx have mentioned third party control and shared control. Neither is quite what I was getting at. Third party assumes someone from outside (e.g. the UN) comes in and administers the city. No way on that one. Shared control assumes Israel and Palestine (if there ever becomes one) would share. Obviously they can’t get around that idea currently.

What I am talking about is a ‘mini-state’ that does NOT answer either Israel or Palestine. The leaders of the city/principality are chosen by city residents only. Residents would have to be registered for either one side or the other much as you need to be registered as a democrat or republican to vote in the primaries for only ONE side. The leaders answer to the populace of Jerusalem…no one else. Some might claim they’d merely be puppets of Israel and Palestine but why would that have to be so? The leaders could ignore those two countries if they wished because there’d be little Israel or Palestine could do to them to put the screws on.

The only ‘third party’ I’m talking about in my proposal is for the police force. If the city recruited from the local population you’d soon have a force dominated by one side or the other and that would ultimately tear the city apart. Instead, the city hires something akin to the Swiss Guard who patrol the Vatican. They have no loyalty to anything but their job and couldn’t give a crap distinguishing an Israeli from a Palestinian.

11

IzzyR,

My mistake. Thanks for setting me straight.

12

Jeff, that’s an interesting idea, and I’m not saying it wouldn’t work, but it’s not going to happen. Jerusalem is just incredibly important to Israel. Jerusalem Day, the day commemorating the recapturing of the Old City during the Six Day War is a holiday. Most Israelis are tired of the conflict with the Palestinians, and many would happily give back the West Bank and see Palestine declare independence (no statistics, just gathering this from experience), but I doubt that any significant number would agree to give up Jerusalem to anything, even an independent principality.

Newsweek has an interesting article on the subject this week. URL: http://www.msnbc.com/news/433586.asp?cp1=1

13

Just echoing the sentiments of others. A divided Jerusalem was tried, from 1948 to 1967, and the results were horrible for the Jews. Under Israeli control, access to holy sites is guaranteed to ALL religions.

Basic underlying history: From 1948 until the last few years, the official Palestinian (PLO) policy was that Israel shouldn’t exist AT ALL. Not Jerusalem, not Tel Aviv, not nothing. Only lands that were held by Jews before 1915 (IIRC).

The PLO’s goal (and the goal of all the Arab states) was to destroy Israel. The general Israeli suspicion: The Palestinians have finally taken that goal out of their charter, but have they taken it out of their hearts?

The primary reason there are Palestinian refugees is that in 1948, when the State of Israel was founded, the Arab nations told the Palestinians to flee – and when the Arab armies had killed all the Jews, the Palestinians could come back and take over the whole area, Jew-free.

Personal opinion: It may be that the ultimate solution to Jerusalem is some sort of coalition rule. However, Israel isn’t going to let that happen until the Palestinians show SOME indication that they have abandoned their hopes for the destruction (or conquest) of Israel. I still see news reports of demonstrations by Palestinians clamoring for “NO PEACE WITH ISRAEL.” Not for “No peace without East Jerusalem,” but no peace at all.

In such an environment, it is little wonder that Israel stands fast on matters essential to its self-defense and its heart as a nation.

Americans, with no memory and no appreciation of history, are always ready to forgive and forget. Except the Alamo, of course. But America has not suffered the way that Israel has. And while Christianity may say, “Turn the other cheek,” Judaism says stand up for yourself, you wimp.

One last thought: Don’t be fooled by the news media. It’s a story if people make peace; it’s a story if negotiations seem to break off. An ongoing process (and a slow one) is not news-worthy.

I am a firm believer in economic determinism. It is clearly to the best interests of both sides to come to an understanding. But the issues are deep-rooted and involve safety and security. The process that is going on (and has been for some years) is typical Middle Eastern haggling and posturing. “My children will starve if I accept anything less than full control over East Jerusalem.” “This is highway robbery, I can make a deal with Jordan for half of what you’re asking.” “That’s outrageous, I’m leaving your shop.” “No, wait, come back, I’ll let you have it for a 10% discount.” The process will continue, it may be slow, and the press may only report the dramatic moments, but we will see some agreement in the next few years.

[Edited by CKDextHavn on 07-21-2000 at 07:40 AM]

14

That is an interesting idea about a balanced ethnic board of Jews and Arabs to govern Jerusalem. But why not try using another ethnic group, white males of west European descent. These people seem to have almost an inate ethnic ability to manage things. Somehow they seem to learn organizational skills at their mother’s feet. Running governments and making profits are revered customs of these people and have been for many centuries. Part of their cultural history actually includes a period when they ran a number of other peoples’ country for them.

The Arab-Isreali conflict/argument has just broken into the Top Ten List For Why the Western Powers Should Reinstitute Colonialism.

15

Jeff_42

I don’t see what would be accomplished by doing this. What makes you think the Jews and Arabs in Jerusalem will get along any better than the Jews and Arabs in the rest of the country. You seem to be suggesting that any conflict would only come about through outside pressure from Israel and Palestine. Why would this be?

16

IzzyR

Absolutely no reason they’d get along any better than anywhere else. Why should it be any worse? How does maintaining the status quo currently benefit either side?

I never said that this was perfect. That my oh so brilliant idea would in one fell swoop cure the ills of the middle east peace process. I think the question is why are you so opposed to any proposals? Flawed my ideas may be but that what this forum is for…to cut and polish ideas till you get as near to a shiny gem as possible (that’s the theory anyway).

Personally I find doing nothing as doing something…just worse. Maintain the current system because no one can agree on a solution that is picture perfect out of the box for all sides? You’ll NEVER get that. Instead start somewhere and continue to refine over years to make it better and better. You’ll never achieve perfection but maybe something livable for all sides can be maintained.

Instead of being a naysayer try some counter proposals…maybe between us and the others on this board a reasonable sounding proposal can be achieved. Then we can fax it to Camp David and be heroes! (or not)

17

CKD: Like I said before, bias and misrepresentation of the facts will not get anyone anywhere.

The PLO has been on the bad side of the general populace of Palestinians for more than a decade. Part of the impetus for the Intifadah of the late 80’s was a general disgust with the way the PLO was doing things.

The section of the PLO charter calling for the destruction of Israel was removed years ago. Pro-Israeli groups attempt to claim that this is not so, but their claims rely upon a bureaucratic snafu. This argument is usually thrown out only by the most irrational parties and is never taken seriously by either side.

QUOTE:
“The primary reason there are Palestinian refugees is that in 1948, when the State of Israel was founded, the Arab nations told the Palestinians to flee – and when the Arab armies had killed all the Jews, the Palestinians could come back and take over the whole area, Jew-free.”

This is the most simplified, revisionist opinion I have heard in a while. The issue was much more complicated. Israeli forces committed many atrocities against innocent non-combatant Palestinian villagers. Murder, torture, rape, etc.

One case: http://www.deiryassin.org/

http://www.careers.news-observer.com/newsroom/ntn/voices/041798/voices10_7002_noframes.html

QUOTE:
“However, Israel isn’t going to let that happen until the Palestinians show SOME indication that they have abandoned their hopes for the destruction (or conquest) of Israel. I still see news reports of demonstrations by Palestinians clamoring for “NO PEACE WITH ISRAEL.” Not for “No peace without East Jerusalem,” but no peace at all.”

Seriously. Let’s not try to be unbiased shall we. I don’t see the Conservative Jewish element clamoring for peace either. They are as just as opposed as the Palestinians.

The lesson folks…BOTH sides will distort the truth. BOTH sides need to accept the fact that there must be compromise. BOTH sides need to elect new leaders who can accurately transmit their desires into effective action. Anytime you read an article that lays the blame solely upon one side with cursory admissions of guilt of their own, they aren’t telling the truth. Muslim or Jew, peace is peace.

18

Sorry. I posted the wrong address. It still contains info, but here is the one I meant to post originally.

http://www.ariga.com/peacewatch/dy/

19

As a Jew, it’s my opinion that neither side wants peace.
They just want to postpone war until they can be sure of total victory. If they could be sure of military victory, acceptable casualties, minimal political backlash etc-the other side would literally be wiped off the map. The Arab states have already tried it once.

Ther may be some moderates who truly wish to exist peacefully. I maintan that the majority expect a final holy war.

20

Jeff_42:

Well, it certainly benefits Israel. With the status quo, Israelis have guaranteed access to and protection for Jewish holy sites, which they have historically lacked when Israel was under Arab rule. And they fear that “international” rule will only cave to Arab interests, as so often occurs in the U.N.

Grendel69:

There’s a difference between the “no peace” of not wanting the opponent to continue to live and the “no peace” of not wanting the opponent to have an independent state with one’s own holiest sites as part of its capital.

Chaim Mattis Keller