I agree with you Laila that Sharon's visit was inflammatory. Certainly it was. But prior to that there were many inflammatory actions done by Jordanians and Palestinians. A lot of rhetoric and intense emotional displays have been expressed by Christians, Jews, Muslims, Palestinians, Israelis, citizens of other nations, etc. It is the nature of Jerusalem. It brings out the worst emotions in people.
The fact is most of us end up expressing emotional bias in our discourse on it and yes Laila I criticize myself for the exact reason I did you in the previous post.
Here is what I would like to say. In an ideal world, no one's religion is better then another. In Jerusalem all three mono-theistic religions should have equal access to their sites which of course overlap.
On one level, the religious councils of the Christians, Jews and Muslims have cooperated and got along relatively well considering the plethora of religious historic issues, but the practical reality is there are terrorists, extremists, politicians, fundamentalists, of all three faiths and many nations, who have agendas that will fuel the conflict for Jerusalem.
The practical reality is as well, there has never been a city where an international border would seperate people by tens of metres which the division of Jerusalem would have to do.
The fact is the Muslims built their third holiest shrine smack dab on the holiest Jewish shrine. That is not an easily resolveable conflict. Neither is the fact that most of Jerusalem is under the legal title of individual Christian churches of many denominations which the state of Israel recognizes and pays rent to, but the Palestinian Authority has stated it will not recognize.
Ah crap, you have gone all sane on me.
You are right, there was a certain emotional attachment to Jerusalem in my posts. I think that same attachment would be the same for any religious person who views Jerusalem as sacred.
I am not above bias in regards to this issue, I am probably more than others likely to fall into that trap but I hope I haven't changed so much over my years on the forum to not recognise when I am being unfair.
The issue of Jerusalem sovereignty is, in my experience dependent on the Muslims background. My observation from being in contact with Arabs in particular is that Jerusalem importance has increased over the last few decades - coinciding naturally from when Israel regained it back and any talk of handing it all over to Israel as a capital would be seen to many Arabs as a defeat. The importance of Jerusalem has been hyped up in some regards, when Israel did not control it. Palestinians and Jordan were left to their own devices in regards to the Muslim sites. I think it is fair to acknowledge that Jerusalem has fared and perhaps flourished under Israel's control. There are still many problems that remain
But the issue I think for many Arabs and Palestinians is that ... fear that Israel is trying to remove their claim to Jerusalem. This view has only increased by the fact Israel has such a strong hand which can help explain the over reaction by Muslims worldwide whenever Israel does anything near Jerusalem. Recall the excavation works, something I have no issue with generally speaking but was seen by Palestinians as a attempt to destabilise the foundations of Al Asqa. The uncertainty and I suppose powerless position of Arabs could explain the lack of willingness to negotiate
There is, although many Muslims will refuse to acknowledge historically a sense of domination. Arabs have been too used to controlling Jerusalem and being in power and I don't think have come to terms with the change. Perhaps partly due to it's history, Christians also took Jerusalem from Muslim control for a century before it was returned.
A contributor is naturally the lack of recognition of Israel is a underlying factor and is usually ignored as a cause. Muslim countries are in denial phase over the fact Israel is there to stay. Muslims also refuse to recognise the 'Jewish' State of Israel for a similar reason. That fear that in doing so, they have in effect destroyed their own claim to Jerusalem and will be forced to accept the final acts of European colonialism of Arab land.
I suppose all of that is just so you can better understand one Muslims point of view, I do not speak for all Muslims nor would I say my observations are set in stone.
Should ideally Jerusalem be divided, no. But what other option apart from splitting it, is there? The only other option is for it to be under International law with a body of all 3 faiths control it. Equal number of seats. But for that to happen both Muslims and Jews need to come to a realistic position and maybe let go a bit of history.
