Should Jerusalem be made an international city?

[ForeverYoung436]

You can start by explaining how you decided the "right of conquest" applies when Israel had Jerusalem handed to it in '48...

What are you talking about? The Partition Plan called for Jerusalem to become an international city. The Arabs rejected this, and decided that Jerusalem's fate would be decided by military action. As a result, Isreal captured "West Jerusalem" in 1948, and "East Jerusalem" in 1967.

When and how did Israel have Jerusalem "handed to it"?

And that's such a horrible idea today because.....?

Please, no discussion of "God" or a "promised land" in your answer. Appealing to religion is an excuse to throw any long-term peace plan out the window.

When Mecca and Vatican City become internationalized, then we'll talk.

 

[Wonky Pundit]

What are you talking about? The Partition Plan called for Jerusalem to become an international city. The Arabs rejected this, and decided that Jerusalem's fate would be decided by military action. As a result, Isreal captured "West Jerusalem" in 1948, and "East Jerusalem" in 1967.

When and how did Israel have Jerusalem "handed to it"?

And that's such a horrible idea today because.....?

Please, no discussion of "God" or a "promised land" in your answer. Appealing to religion is an excuse to throw any long-term peace plan out the window.

I'm guessing that you're someone's little brother.

Why?

Because when little brothers lose, they cry "do over!"

Unfortunately, the "do over" concept does not apply here. If the Arabs had accepted the Partition Plan, Jerusalem would be an international city today. Instead, they rejected the plan and attempted to take everything for themselves. They lost. You don't get a "do over" under those circumstances.

Considering all the pre-partition BS that Britain fed to the Arabs regarding who would get what, it's understandable that they were pissed off at the time. Do you consider that a justification for prolonging the conflict?

 

[HistoryBefore67]

Israel didn't prolong the conflict. They agreed to end it and accept the Partition Plan, notwithstanding that it was less than ideal.

The Arabs chose to prolong the conflict, and continue to do so to this day.

 

[Wonky Pundit]

Israel didn't prolong the conflict. They agreed to end it and accept the Partition Plan, notwithstanding that it was less than ideal.

The Arabs chose to prolong the conflict, and continue to do so to this day.

And if they were offered a treaty that returned Jerusalem to international status, would they accept it? Maybe not, but it makes no sense to take it off the table without testing it.

 

[HistoryBefore67]

Israel didn't prolong the conflict. They agreed to end it and accept the Partition Plan, notwithstanding that it was less than ideal.

The Arabs chose to prolong the conflict, and continue to do so to this day.

And if they were offered a treaty that returned Jerusalem to international status, would they accept it? Maybe not, but it makes no sense to take it off the table without testing it.

First of all, you can't "return" Jerusalem to international status, as its never had that status.

Second, how would this "international city" even work? Who would be in charge of it? Who would determine and control access (both for residents of Israel and the hypothetical Palestinian state, and for citizens of other countries? How would the preservation of antiquities be assured? What sanctions would be imposed upon those who interfere with the access of others, and who would impose those sanctions? How would the needs of residents be addressed? Who could move to the city, and under what circumstances?

You make it sound so simple... but simple solutions sometimes involve slicing a live baby in half so each "mother" can have a piece.

 

[skye]

Should Jerusalem be made an international city?



Of course not!

Jerusalem should remain the capital of israel, splitting it could be a disaster and should not even be considered. Just imagine the hypothetical case of any Arab control, in typical Muslim fashion they could quickly see to it that other religions would be expelled or diminished.

Jerusalem is the capital of Israel and will remain in that status forever.

 

[Wonky Pundit]

Israel didn't prolong the conflict. They agreed to end it and accept the Partition Plan, notwithstanding that it was less than ideal.

The Arabs chose to prolong the conflict, and continue to do so to this day.

And if they were offered a treaty that returned Jerusalem to international status, would they accept it? Maybe not, but it makes no sense to take it off the table without testing it.

First of all, you can't "return" Jerusalem to international status, as its never had that status.

Second, how would this "international city" even work? Who would be in charge of it? Who would determine and control access (both for residents of Israel and the hypothetical Palestinian state, and for citizens of other countries? How would the preservation of antiquities be assured? What sanctions would be imposed upon those who interfere with the access of others, and who would impose those sanctions? How would the needs of residents be addressed? Who could move to the city, and under what circumstances?

You make it sound so simple... but simple solutions sometimes involve slicing a live baby in half so each "mother" can have a piece.

It sounds to me from these questions that you're not interested in any kind of long term peace solution. If I'm wrong, why don't you list the concessions that both sides should make?

 

[Trajan]

You can start by explaining how you decided the "right of conquest" applies when Israel had Jerusalem handed to it in '48...

What are you talking about? The Partition Plan called for Jerusalem to become an international city. The Arabs rejected this, and decided that Jerusalem's fate would be decided by military action. As a result, Isreal captured "West Jerusalem" in 1948, and "East Jerusalem" in 1967.

When and how did Israel have Jerusalem "handed to it"?

And that's such a horrible idea today because.....?

Please, no discussion of "God" or a "promised land" in your answer. Appealing to religion is an excuse to throw any long-term peace plan out the window.

because this is not 48 or 67, and frankly I don't think this intl. city deal would have ever worked. As soon as the arabs felt strong enough they would have applied the pressure and the guarantors of the city would have fled, like they did in other areas several times...no UN force wants to die to keep the jews and arabs from each others throats.....


I think that after Munich all bets were off, there was a faction that Israel felt deep down they could never treat with in good faith, the only reason why Begin sat down and did what he did with Sadat was, Sadat had achieved what he needed to, he redeemed Egyptian honor on the battlefield while also realizing that peace was far better than a day to day war, and he was a unique individual in that respect and Begin recognized the war had changed them both.

Is there an arab leader of such stuff today and yes a fair question is, is there such a jewish leader out there today?

I think those questions answer themselves.

 

[Trajan]

And that's such a horrible idea today because.....?

Please, no discussion of "God" or a "promised land" in your answer. Appealing to religion is an excuse to throw any long-term peace plan out the window.

I'm guessing that you're someone's little brother.

Why?

Because when little brothers lose, they cry "do over!"

Unfortunately, the "do over" concept does not apply here. If the Arabs had accepted the Partition Plan, Jerusalem would be an international city today. Instead, they rejected the plan and attempted to take everything for themselves. They lost. You don't get a "do over" under those circumstances.

Considering all the pre-partition BS that Britain fed to the Arabs regarding who would get what, it's understandable that they were pissed off at the time. Do you consider that a justification for prolonging the conflict?

now you're getting closer. one antagonist was lied to another took what it given and could.....if you're a jew in 1946 after the war and the holocaust news is out and you're offered status and a state, you take it, if you're not ( and you have no real nat. or intl identity) , and you have the European powers drawing boundaries willy nilly over the decades, you get pissed, I don't blame them, they got fucked, no doubt of it....frankly they are mad at the wrong people, pragmatically they should understand Israels angst, so why get mad at someone who took what was given them and they built for the very same premise you wish to employ now?

 

[HistoryBefore67]

It sounds to me from these questions that you're not interested in any kind of long term peace solution. If I'm wrong, why don't you list the concessions that both sides should make?

Sure, no problem.

The "Palestinians," in the interest of securing a homeland for their people where they can prosper, should cease insisting upon Jerusalem as their capital. Jerusalem is Israel's capital, and that's not going to change.

Israel has provided access to Islamic holy sites since 1967, and will continue to do so. It might be appropriate to turn the duties of the Waqf over to a new Palestinian state, rather than keeping it with Jordan.

Israel will make other concessions. Jerusalem is not a bargaining chip.

That's my solution. The "Palestinians" might not like it. Too bad.

 

[ForeverYoung436]

And if they were offered a treaty that returned Jerusalem to international status, would they accept it? Maybe not, but it makes no sense to take it off the table without testing it.

First of all, you can't "return" Jerusalem to international status, as its never had that status.

Second, how would this "international city" even work? Who would be in charge of it? Who would determine and control access (both for residents of Israel and the hypothetical Palestinian state, and for citizens of other countries? How would the preservation of antiquities be assured? What sanctions would be imposed upon those who interfere with the access of others, and who would impose those sanctions? How would the needs of residents be addressed? Who could move to the city, and under what circumstances?

You make it sound so simple... but simple solutions sometimes involve slicing a live baby in half so each "mother" can have a piece.

It sounds to me from these questions that you're not interested in any kind of long term peace solution. If I'm wrong, why don't you list the concessions that both sides should make?

You asked specifically about Jerusalem, and concessions don't include that city. You just don't know what Jerusalem means to a Jew. It's enough that Palestinians have taken over every major Biblical city--Hebron, Bethlehem, Shechem, Jericho, Shiloh, etc. HistoryBefore67 brought up the Solomon analogy. If we give up half of Jerusalem, we're admitting that we're not the real "mothers" of Israel, and we don't belong there at all. I guess Jerusalem can best be exemplified by someone I know there personally. His name is Mordecai Machlis and he's my former Bar-Mitzvah teacher. Every Friday night he opens his house to about one hundred different guests--whoever is hungry physically and spiritually for a Sabbath meal.

 

[Sweet_Caroline]

Jerusalem is not mentioned even once in the Quran. It means nothing to the Muslims.

The site of the destroyed holy temple for the Jews is now desecrated with Muslim kids playing soccer there.

The Muslims pray facing Mecca, with their backs to the 'Dome of the Rock.'

Jews are even taken into Police custody for 'daring' to bow or silently mouth prayers, as actually happened today and on most days, such is the topsy-turvey world of the Israelis being scared of raising the ire of the Muslims.

 

[Wonky Pundit]

First of all, you can't "return" Jerusalem to international status, as its never had that status.

Second, how would this "international city" even work? Who would be in charge of it? Who would determine and control access (both for residents of Israel and the hypothetical Palestinian state, and for citizens of other countries? How would the preservation of antiquities be assured? What sanctions would be imposed upon those who interfere with the access of others, and who would impose those sanctions? How would the needs of residents be addressed? Who could move to the city, and under what circumstances?

You make it sound so simple... but simple solutions sometimes involve slicing a live baby in half so each "mother" can have a piece.

It sounds to me from these questions that you're not interested in any kind of long term peace solution. If I'm wrong, why don't you list the concessions that both sides should make?

You asked specifically about Jerusalem, and concessions don't include that city. You just don't know what Jerusalem means to a Jew. It's enough that Palestinians have taken over every major Biblical city--Hebron, Bethlehem, Shechem, Jericho, Shiloh, etc. HistoryBefore67 brought up the Solomon analogy. If we give up half of Jerusalem, we're admitting that we're not the real "mothers" of Israel, and we don't belong there at all. I guess Jerusalem can best be exemplified by someone I know there personally. His name is Mordecai Machlis and he's my former Bar-Mitzvah teacher. Every Friday night he opens his house to about one hundred different guests--whoever is hungry physically and spiritually for a Sabbath meal.

Since you replied without answering the previous question, I feel I have to ask it again:

What do you think is a fair set of concessions on both sides for a long-term peace?

 

[toastman]

It sounds to me from these questions that you're not interested in any kind of long term peace solution. If I'm wrong, why don't you list the concessions that both sides should make?

You asked specifically about Jerusalem, and concessions don't include that city. You just don't know what Jerusalem means to a Jew. It's enough that Palestinians have taken over every major Biblical city--Hebron, Bethlehem, Shechem, Jericho, Shiloh, etc. HistoryBefore67 brought up the Solomon analogy. If we give up half of Jerusalem, we're admitting that we're not the real "mothers" of Israel, and we don't belong there at all. I guess Jerusalem can best be exemplified by someone I know there personally. His name is Mordecai Machlis and he's my former Bar-Mitzvah teacher. Every Friday night he opens his house to about one hundred different guests--whoever is hungry physically and spiritually for a Sabbath meal.

Since you replied without answering the previous question, I feel I have to ask it again:

What do you think is a fair set of concessions on both sides for a long-term peace?

No more concessions from Israel. We've made too many without and peace. If it was me, the first concession would be the COMPLETE cessation of ALL rocket attacks on Israel for one year. Then we can talk

 

[Sweet_Caroline]

You asked specifically about Jerusalem, and concessions don't include that city. You just don't know what Jerusalem means to a Jew. It's enough that Palestinians have taken over every major Biblical city--Hebron, Bethlehem, Shechem, Jericho, Shiloh, etc. HistoryBefore67 brought up the Solomon analogy. If we give up half of Jerusalem, we're admitting that we're not the real "mothers" of Israel, and we don't belong there at all. I guess Jerusalem can best be exemplified by someone I know there personally. His name is Mordecai Machlis and he's my former Bar-Mitzvah teacher. Every Friday night he opens his house to about one hundred different guests--whoever is hungry physically and spiritually for a Sabbath meal.

Since you replied without answering the previous question, I feel I have to ask it again:

What do you think is a fair set of concessions on both sides for a long-term peace?

No more concessions from Israel. We've made too many without and peace. If it was me, the first concession would be the COMPLETE cessation of ALL rocket attacks on Israel for one year. Then we can talk

And a building freeze in the 'West Bank' is in force. When will Israel realize that pandering to the Pals is futile. Next they will ask Israel to release the terrorists in the jails.

 

[toastman]

Since you replied without answering the previous question, I feel I have to ask it again:

What do you think is a fair set of concessions on both sides for a long-term peace?

No more concessions from Israel. We've made too many without and peace. If it was me, the first concession would be the COMPLETE cessation of ALL rocket attacks on Israel for one year. Then we can talk

And a building freeze in the 'West Bank' is in force. When will Israel realize that pandering to the Pals is futile. Next they will ask Israel to release the terrorists in the jails.

They did ask that, just a few weeks ago ! Abbas said any peace talks must include the release of all Palestinian Prisoners !

 

[Sweet_Caroline]

No more concessions from Israel. We've made too many without and peace. If it was me, the first concession would be the COMPLETE cessation of ALL rocket attacks on Israel for one year. Then we can talk

And a building freeze in the 'West Bank' is in force. When will Israel realize that pandering to the Pals is futile. Next they will ask Israel to release the terrorists in the jails.

They did ask that, just a few weeks ago ! Abbas said any peace talks must include the release of all Palestinian Prisoners !

As if!!!

If Israel has to talk with the Pals, then certainly no more terrorists should be released. Releasing the hundreds in exchange for Shalit was wrong, but that is my personal opinion, and I know others wouldn't agree with me. Certainly no terrorist releases. It is bad enough Israel has capitulated to a building freeze with the dreadful shortage of homes. The last of the citizens from the Gazan disengagement eight years ago are still not permanently rehoused.

 

[Lipush]

And if they were offered a treaty that returned Jerusalem to international status, would they accept it? Maybe not, but it makes no sense to take it off the table without testing it.

First of all, you can't "return" Jerusalem to international status, as its never had that status.

Second, how would this "international city" even work? Who would be in charge of it? Who would determine and control access (both for residents of Israel and the hypothetical Palestinian state, and for citizens of other countries? How would the preservation of antiquities be assured? What sanctions would be imposed upon those who interfere with the access of others, and who would impose those sanctions? How would the needs of residents be addressed? Who could move to the city, and under what circumstances?

You make it sound so simple... but simple solutions sometimes involve slicing a live baby in half so each "mother" can have a piece.

It sounds to me from these questions that you're not interested in any kind of long term peace solution. If I'm wrong, why don't you list the concessions that both sides should make?

What is peace without Jerusalem?

 

[Lipush]

No more concessions from Israel. We've made too many without and peace. If it was me, the first concession would be the COMPLETE cessation of ALL rocket attacks on Israel for one year. Then we can talk

And a building freeze in the 'West Bank' is in force. When will Israel realize that pandering to the Pals is futile. Next they will ask Israel to release the terrorists in the jails.

They did ask that, just a few weeks ago ! Abbas said any peace talks must include the release of all Palestinian Prisoners !

When they bring me a purple unicorn, I will bring them their prisoners.

How's that for a good deal, eh?

 

[syrenn]

Considering that three major religions claim holy sites there?

the jews have no problem with Jerusalem being the Israeli capitol or in jewish control.
the christians have no problem with Jerusalem being the Israeli capitol or in jewish control.

I would say the muslims are out voted 2 to 1

fuck um if they dont like it.... they can go to mecca, THE muslim holy site and pray there