Jerusalem must be divided

[Albert Di Salvo]

Of course they are. But certainty has never been part of the human experience and, so long as the world has any dynamism, there will always be uncertainty.

Well said.

 

[Mika-El]

The idea did not originate with me. I read an interview with a former Israeli Chief of Staff. I think the article was in the WSJ.

Actually, it makes sense. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has said Israel is a one bomb country...meaning that it would take only one nuclear warhead to destroy the country. Most of Israel's strategic assets are on the coastal plain. One bomb could wipe out the State of Israel without touching the Muslim holy sites.

So move those assets around a site the Iranians won't attack. There is doubt that Iran can be deterred from attacking Israel with nuclear weapons based on the MAD Doctrine. But there is reasonable certainty that Iran will not destroy the Dome of the Rock and Al Aqsa mosque. In other words, Israel can protect itself by taking Muslim holy sites hostage.

I'm not approving of the strategy. I'm just explaining the complete logic of using Muslim holy sites to defend Israel. To me this is an intellectual exercise. In my version of America, Israel and Palestine don't matter. I'm a neo-isolationist.

I was sending an e-mail to state it was not your idea when I noticed yours. I back up what you say. I did read it coming from him and for that matter other non Israeli "security" experts as well.

Me personally, I am a bit skeptical about it. I can understand Leila's reaction. Whenone reads these scenarios on nuclear warfare they sound so surealistic but again I believe the Chief of Staff was engaging in an intellectual exercise and was not intending to be taken literally. There was more context to it. It was I believe stated in a way to show the absurdity of where the dialogue could go. The IDF and I think I am saying most Israelis and Palestinians are well aware there is no effective way to plan for survival against an incoming nuclear attack from Iran.

This is why most IDF scenarios are pro-active and I believe the IDF Chief of Staff was really presenting justification as to why it would make more sense to engage in preventative pro active scenarios first.

The reality is not just Israel, but the Gulf Arab States, Egypt, the Palestinian Authority, Jordan, Lebanon and Saudi Arabia all share Israel's same concern over a nuclear attack. They all have security concerns over such an attack.

I speculate Israel's real concern is Iran exporting its nuclear weapons capacity to terror cells all across the Middle East that want Israel wiped off the map and who view the killing of millions of Muslims to achieve this goal a minor collateral inconvenience and one that will simply have all such Muslims sent to heaven as martyrs anyways.

I think the US's concern is the havoc such an attack would cause on world oil prices. I think Saudi Arabia, Egypt and the Gulf Arab states fear Iran would topple them next. I believe in the case of Lebanon and Jordan its a purely physical problem of having most of its citizens wiped out from radioactive fall out. For that matter a bomb if sent into Israel would probably be aimed at Tel Aviv not Jerusalem and the fall out from Tel Aviv would spread as well into Saudi Arabia and Syria.

I think the European Union and Japan fret over what could happen to world oil prices and I believe China has the most to lose as Iran is a cheap source for its oil and gas supplies and retaliation against Iran could seriously cripple China's economic engine desperately addicted to these cheap resources.

Huge oil finds off the coast of Brazil are now going to see Brazil become a major oil player and therefore ally of Iran and Brazil's oil clout will offer China and India alternative oil supplies.

If I was Israel, the U.S. and Europe, I would be spending much more time developing non oil energy sources and water technology. That is the wave of the future. Building state of the art fighter jets to prop oil puppet states is very short sighted and stale dated.

The three largest needs of the future are water, then non oil energy sources, then food production capacity.

 

[Albert Di Salvo]

Mika-El,

Really good post. Very thorough.

America is too paralyzed politically to act effectively in the middle east or elsewhere. American political paralysis is not going to change any time soon.

Alternative and renewable energy may very well be the things to pursue, but we are too divided to act. Each side in America stymies the other.

 

[Paschendale]

The world would be a much better place if Jerusalem wasn't in it.

 

[Albert Di Salvo]

The world would be a much better place if Jerusalem wasn't in it.

The same could be truthfully said about Washington, D.C.

 

[Grant]

The same could be truthfully said about Washington, D.C.

Ah yes, those democracies are pure Hell!!

Makes you wonder why people would want them at all.

 

[Albert Di Salvo]

Ah yes, those democracies are pure Hell!!

Makes you wonder why people would want them at all.

Don't try to jump ugly with me. If you have something to say, then say it and I will respond.

 

[Paschendale]

The same could be truthfully said about Washington, D.C.

Really? I don't see anyone killing each other over who gets to live in DC. And nothing about whichever US policies you may or may not like have anything to do with where they are enacted. That maybe a decent attempt a joke, but it's shoddy political discourse.

 

[Albert Di Salvo]

Really? I don't see anyone killing each other over who gets to live in DC. And nothing about whichever US policies you may or may not like have anything to do with where they are enacted. That maybe a decent attempt a joke, but it's shoddy political discourse.

No it was not an attempt at a joke.

Sitting in judgment constitutes an invitation to judge you. But there's nothing to gain from judging you, so I move on to address why Washington, D.C. is a very bad place.

Washington, D.C. is the home of a beast which the American Left rides as it tinkers with the balance between the ideal of individual liberty and the notion of equality of result.

Washington, D.C. is also the home of duplicity and corruption on an unimaginable scale. Babylon on the Potomac.

Jerusalem poses no threat to me. Washington, D.C. intends to transform my vision of America out of existence. Thus, the only danger is from the District of Columbia. That's where the people work who see me as livestock.

In this era, the federal govt. is a creature of the left. I have no use for it, and I would be so very pleased to debate that issue with you head to head.

 

[Grant]

No it was not an attempt at a joke.

Sitting in judgment constitutes an invitation to judge you. But there's nothing to gain from judging you, so I move on to address why Washington, D.C. is a very bad place.

Washington, D.C. is the home of a beast which the American Left rides as it tinkers with the balance between the ideal of individual liberty and the notion of equality of result.

Washington, D.C. is also the home of duplicity and corruption on an unimaginable scale. Babylon on the Potomac.

Jerusalem poses no threat to me. Washington, D.C. intends to transform my vision of America out of existence. Thus, the only danger is from the District of Columbia. That's where the people work who see me as livestock.

In this era, the federal govt. is a creature of the left. I have no use for it, and I would be so very pleased to debate that issue with you head to head.

So it's not just DC that's the subject of your wrath but the politicians and bureaucrats who live there.

Your earlier post didn't explain that.

I didn't intend to 'jump ugly' with you either, though I certainly reserve that right.

 

[Mika-El]

I didn't intend to 'jump ugly' with you either, though I certainly reserve that right.

Er don't boys. Sounds painful.

In any event just to muddy the waters Albert I love Washington, D.C. It has some great museums. I personally do not like the Greco-Roman architecture but man Georgetown is a great place and the museums and Library of Congress and National Geographic centre are there. I think the holocaust museum and native American museums and some of the other museums are incredible.

I will go back. It is like an open history text book with so much available to learn from. Its this huge learning centre.

Now politics wise I am Canadian so I defer to Americans on their own internal affairs. As a Canadian we do find American fears of medicare a bit strange and your love of hand guns and our Canadian bambi, Pamela Anderson.

We also indentify with Green Bay Packers fans. They are true Canadians.

Now everyone make nice or I send Celine Dione down to sing the Titanic song and make your brains explode.

 

[Mika-El]

The world would be a much better place if Jerusalem wasn't in it.

Me thinks our species would simply find another place to fight over. Personally I think we need to evolve a bit more past our primal homo sapiens behaviour patterns and our tendency to urinate and mark everything and get all uptight about territory we piss on and our need to fling feces at one another when we trespass. Dag nab it surely there are enough bananas for all.

 

[CJ 2.0]

As a Canadian we do find American fears of medicare a bit strange

off topic, of course, but I don't. Our system is pretty dysfunctional. While the US system has a different dysfunction in its own right, resuklting from insurance being tied largely to employment, universal comprehensive coverage with no co-payments is pretty ridiculous and the kind of rationing they need to introduce in Canada to make it affordable is wholly dysfunctional.

Now everyone make nice or I send Celine Dione down to sing the Titanic song and make your brains explode.

+1

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

Me thinks our species would simply find another place to fight over. Personally I think we need to evolve a bit more past our primal homo sapiens behaviour patterns and our tendency to urinate and mark everything and get all uptight about territory we piss on and our need to fling feces at one another when we trespass. Dag nab it surely there are enough bananas for all.

Of course they would and do


Kurds and Arabs fight over Kirkuk

Tamils (hindus) and Sinhalese (Bhuddists) fight over control over parts of Sri Lanka, Different ethnic groups fight in Burma, (all bhuddists)

Jerusalem just gets the most press in the west due to its connection with Christianity

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

off topic, of course, but I don't. Our system is pretty dysfunctional. While the US system has a different dysfunction in its own right, resuklting from insurance being tied largely to employment, universal comprehensive coverage with no co-payments is pretty ridiculous and the kind of rationing they need to introduce in Canada to make it affordable is wholly dysfunctional.



+1

I would not suggest that the US move to the Canadian style or that Canada move to the US style as neither are among the best versions of health care. The french and australians have some of the highest rated health care systems both for functionality and price

 

[ido_]

Well of course Christians deserve a equal share in control as Muslims or Jews. Was that a serious question?

And who will be the one controling? Will Greece get a share for the orthodox church? mybe the Armenians? who gets the share for the Protestants?
If we go on with this line, what about Hebron and Nabulus? What about Istanbul which is holy for the orthodox church? should the turks give a peace of it?
Should Israel give a peace of land in Haifa and Acre to Iran because its holy to the Bahá'í ?

As a Brit, I shouldn't care but I still do

Can't see why you should, did Israel mistreated muslim Holy sites? I can't see how the Palestinian state is better fitted as gaurdian of the Muslim holy places than Israel.

 

[Mira]

And who will be the one controling? Will Greece get a share for the orthodox church? mybe the Armenians? who gets the share for the Protestants?
If we go on with this line, what about Hebron and Nabulus? What about Istanbul which is holy for the orthodox church? should the turks give a peace of it?
Should Israel give a peace of land in Haifa and Acre to Iran because its holy to the Bahá'í ?


Can't see why you should, did Israel mistreated muslim Holy sites? I can't see how the Palestinian state is better fitted as gaurdian of the Muslim holy places than Israel.

There were attempts in the 80s by Jewish extremists to blow up the Al-Aqsa mosque. They were arrested, condemned to life imprisonment and released 10 years later.
There have also been incidents where Jewish extremists spat on crosses during processions.

What guarantee can Israel provide the 2 other relisgions that their holy places will be protected ? They can be under threat from fundementalists and Israel can say "oh well, these were just independent fundementalist elements, sorry about that".

Jerusalem is holy for the three monotheistic religions. It should be an international zone. Just my opinion.

 

[ido_]

There were attempts in the 80s by Jewish extremists to blow up the Al-Aqsa mosque. They were arrested, condemned to life imprisonment and released 10 years later.
There have also been incidents where Jewish extremists spat on crosses during processions.

What guarantee can Israel provide the 2 other relisgions that their holy places will be protected ? They can be under threat from fundementalists and Israel can say "oh well, these were just independent fundementalist elements, sorry about that".

Jerusalem is holy for the three monotheistic religions. It should be an international zone. Just my opinion.

And the Palestinians didn't only attempted but succeeded in desecrating the tomp of Josef in Nabulus, so does that mean Israel should be the sovereign over the tomb?
Jerusalem have been since its foundation the Capital of the Jewish people, religion has nothing to do with borderlines, if so all of us atheists had no where to go.

 

[Mira]

And the Palestinians didn't only attempted but succeeded in desecrating the tomp of Josef in Nabulus, so does that mean Israel should be the sovereign over the tomb?
Jerusalem have been since its foundation the Capital of the Jewish people, religion has nothing to do with borderlines, if so all of us atheists had no where to go.

It's a shame that the tomb of Joseph was destroyed.
What intreagues me though is to what extent atheists are attached to religious sites.

 

[Mika-El]

Thr religious significance of Jerusalem to Judaism, Christianity and Islam is at the pith and substance of all debates as to what to do with it.

According to the Jewish religion Jerusalem is referred to as " ir ha'kodesh" ( the Holy City) and according to the Old Testament, King David built it as the first capital of Israel and the most holiest of its sites for religious Jews following the Old Testament is the Temple Mount where King Solomon built the first Temple and was intended as the spiritual center of Judaism and the worshipping of God at this site. For traditional Judaism, Jerusalem is the center of the earth, the place where God is supposedly closest to humans when praying.

In Christianity Jerusalem is also conceptualized as holy ground as of course Jesus was said to have taught and died there and his resurrection is said to have happened in the Old City of Jerusalem, which is of course where the Church of the Holy Sepulcher is.

Islam claims that Jerusalem is their third holiest city even though interestingly its not mentioned in the Koran. Mohammad is said to have ridden by horse miraculous from Mecca to the Temple Mount and from there they claim he went to heaven and the Dome of the Rock in the Old City is said to mark exact site from where he went to heaven.

As I mentioned in an earlier post there is political talk of drawing a line down Jerusalem and creating two capitals. That's a nice theory but in practicality Arab and Jewish communities are often mixed and wherever the border would be divided either Jews or Arabs are going to get misplaced not to mention deal with the impracticality of creating an international border line in a geographic space that is narrow, confined and often literally as little as 10 metres between Jewish and Arab areas.

That very real pragmatic reality of dealing with such confined and crowded areas sacred to all 3 religions makes dividing it neatly in 2, impossible without someone being caught in displacement.

Its nice in theory to argue that the Palestinians should have control over the areas where Arabs live and pray, and Israel the same. We then must ask, and what happens with all the Christian sites of which about 80% of Jerusalem's land titles in the Old City are held by Christian churches?

In the real world, on the ground most Jews of Jerusalem live in West Jerusalem, and the Arabs live in East Jerusalem. In the Arab sectors of Jerusalem, they in fact already run their own bus system and hospitals which are independent from the Israel health system. They also get their electricity from their own Palestinian controlled electric company and their schools follow a Palestinian curriculum which of course most people have no clue about.

If people did, they would know from a practical perspective there are already two solitudes in Jerusalem and the reality is not too many Arabs go into Western Jerusalem, and vice versa with Jews in East Jerusalem.

Israeli Jews no longer shop in the old Arab quarter because of all the attacks they experienced.

As well as another poster already mentioned, the Temple Mount area, where the First and Second Temples once stood and is the site of both the Dome of the Rock and the El Aqsa Mosque, is managed day by day by the Waqf (Muslim religious council). After Israel conquered the Old City in 1967, Moshe Dayan, assured the Waqf, remain the authority over the El Aqsa Mosque and the Dome of the Rock.

So what I am saying is people who wade in on the Jerusalem issue must do their homework and realize dividing the city geographically would not be easy but in practical day to day life is already divided.

I would remind you from a purely pragmatic perspective, if the city were to be divided necessarily the argument will come down to who controls the old City of Jerusalem as the rest of the city is already in practicality divided and seperated.

It is the old city where the division would prove the most contentious because of its religious significance to all 3 religions.

It would be possible to for example place the West in Israel, the East in a Palestine state, and then the question becomes could the old City be placed under a neutral administrator?

When the UN first proposed making Jerusalem an international city, the Arab League of Nations said never and then declared war to rid the remaining portion of Palestine (70% was unilaterally seized by Britain and turned into Jordan a jew free Arab Palestinian state) of Jews.

After this war in which the Jews held off the Arab invasion, de facto borders came about at the armistice line where the Arab armies simply gave up and left.

These demarkation lines drove a line down Jerusalem and until 1967 Jordan administered the Eastern part of Jerusalem with all the holy sites of the old city and this is where openly jewish religious sites were urinated and defecated on repeatedly and vandalized as chunks were taken out and sold to tourists as souvenirs. These bitter memories will not be soon forgotten.

Unlike Jordan when it administered the holy sites, Israel chose to have a religious council of all three religions administer the sites, which still exists. It did not directly have its government or army administer the sites and leave them to soldiers who would urinate and defecate on them as the Jordanian army did and allowed the people under its control to do.

Whether an international protectorate could administer the old city and prevent crime and terrorism remains to be seen.

Some would argue it makes more sense to have the religious council continue and security on the ground remain with the IDF.

Some fear a UN police force would not be able to prevent terrorism and crime effectively and base that conclusion on for example the UN's track record in Syria and Lebanon where it was set up to monitor terrorist attacks and did not and in fact Chinese "peace-keeping" troops were shown on satellite building bridges and rail road tracks and transporting weapons for the Syrians and Hezbollah and of course the UN monitoring force abandoned its very role of preventing Hezbollah from remaining armed.

 

[Gardener]

They were arrested, condemned to life imprisonment and released 10 years later.

Which, of course, stands in stark contrast to the Palestinians, which would have glorified them if they were targeting Jews.

 

[ido_]

It's a shame that the tomb of Joseph was destroyed.
What intreagues me though is to what extent atheists are attached to religious sites.

I can tell you that I couldn't care less - thats why I'm saying dividing Jerusalem because of religious reasons is ideotic.
The old city does hold value as a herritage site of the Jewish people though, this is why I believe it should not be given totally to the Palestinians.

 

[Mira]

I can tell you that I couldn't care less - thats why I'm saying dividing Jerusalem because of religious reasons is ideotic.
The old city does hold value as a herritage site of the Jewish people though, this is why I believe it should not be given totally to the Palestinians.

But Jews as well as Christians and Muslims are attached to Jerusalem for its Biblical history.

 

[Paschendale]

If I were going to fight over a piece of real estate, I wouldn't pick a spot in the middle of the desert. Maybe someplace where it's a bit easier to grow food...

 

[Djoop]

If I were going to fight over a piece of real estate, I wouldn't pick a spot in the middle of the desert. Maybe someplace where it's a bit easier to grow food...

Clearly, the concept of a Creator who wants you to fight over 'holy land' wasn't sarcastic enough.