I can’t understand why the focus is entirely on Jerusalem when, IMO, the real issue is the Jewish settlements on the West Bank. Sure Jerusalem has great symbolic importance to Muslims as well as Jews, but the Palestinians need a country, not a symbol.
It will be difficult enough to evict the settlers from all or virtually all of the West Bank. They, of course, claim that the land was given to them by God. While I disagree with this, I think the idea should be thrown a bone in the form of Jerusalem. Only a guarentee that Jerusalem will remain in Israeli hands can possibly asuage the settlers and their supporters in their religious perspective.
A West Bank for Jerusalem trade-off makes sense and is fair. The Arabs were promised the West Bank in the original UN partition plan but no such promise was made in regards to Jerusalem.
Dividing the city makes little sense since it is the Old City in East Jerusalem which is where the focus lies. I am intrigued by various schemes for international or third-party control of the city, but I am convinced that in the end the only solution lies in the Palestinians relenquishing their claim to Jerusalem in exchange for the West Bank and Gaza.
Got news for you, sqweels: The Israelis (or at least Barak and the Knesset; of course, the settlers are a bit more radical than average) would probably accept such a solution in a heartbeat. But just try convincing the Palestinians to gove up their hopes of having Jerusalem under their thumb.
<< I don’t see the Conservative Jewish element clamoring for peace either. They are as just as opposed as the Palestinians. >>
Well, the right-wing Jewish factions aren’t carrying signs that say “Death to the Palestinians.” They aren’t carrying signs that say, “No peace under any circumstances.”
And please be careful not to use the word “Conservative” which is a branch within Judaism. It’d be like using the term “Methodist” to describe right-wing Christians. It is, in fact, the right-wing ultra-Orthodox that are the biggest headache to peace on the Israeli side.
Grendel, I am confused as to why you accuse me of misrepesentation. You said, “The section of the PLO charter calling for the destruction of Israel was removed years ago.” I had said, " From 1948 until the last few years, the official Palestinian (PLO) policy was that Israel shouldn’t exist AT ALL." Are you saying that I have misrepresented because you said “years ago” and I said “the last few years”?
I have oversimplified, tis true. I have generalized. I have not tried to describe the situation for every single individual Palestinian. I’m focused on the vast majority, because I want to write a few paragraph post, not an encyclopedia. I want to focus on the 75% majority, not the 5% minority.
I just said this in another thread, so I guess, like history, I’m repeating myself.
What would happen if Barak unilaterally declared that Israel would withdraw from 100% of the West Bank (or perhaps 95% plus land from the Negev) but not Jerusalem and told the Palestinians to take it or leave it?
My guess is that Arafat would leave it. After standing his ground for this long, I doubt he’d be able to back down and take anything less than what he’s been publicly pushing for for years. Even if he did want to accept it, I don’t think the radicals among the Palestinians would allow him to accept it.
Zev Steinhardt
My guess - he would accept the offer of the West Bank as the starting point for the next round of negotiations, and continue pressing for Jerusalem. This seems to have happened with all previous Israeli concessions
Ok, perhaps I am oversimplifying this whole thing, and I ask that you all, please, don’t tease me. Don’t get me wrong; I’m by no means an intellectual idiot, but I have been thinking about the whole situation over there. I’m left with a few questions. I don’t understand why there is the need to push one another around over there. Do they not realize that people they kill are a person like themselves? Is it SO important to own ALL of Jerusalem that both sides will die for it? Why won’t they share the city? I understand that, in the past, a divided Jerusalem failed, but why won’t they try it now? It would seem that there is a desire by the leaders to work toward peace.
What purpose would holy wars/fighting serve? As I see it, fighting over one’s religion is just wrong. I count myself to be a faithful, God-fearing person, but I don’t want to go out and slaughter those who don’t share my beliefs. On the contrary, I want to learn about them so I better understand their POV. What is with all of the anger and hate over there? Sure, I understand a great deal of pain and suffering has happened to both sides in the past. I, too have had a great deal of pain in my past, but I’m not off shooting my abusive father. Instead, I have decided to let the past go and learn from the experience. I wonder if the people around there might be able to do the same?
Let’s try an analogy: “Yeah, baby, I know that when we lived together before I beat you up, but I’m a changed man. Sure, I can’t prove it, but just give me another chance, babe…”
Can’t speak for the Arabs, but the Israelis don’t want tom either. Every military action the state of Israel has ever taken has been in reaction to Arab belligerence.
Well, the Israelis have learned from their experiences that they can’t trust the Arabs. The Arabs have learned from their experience that they can’t destroy Israel.
The Jews believe that jerusalem is their land given them by God.
Obviously, this doesn’t quite cut it with the palestinians, so…
I see the pope coming in and trying to “work soemthing out”.