Wednesday, June 1, 2011
Why (East) Jerusalem Doesn't Matter
East Jerusalem is not important. It's not the historical site of Jerusalem (except maybe the edge of Silwan), nobody goes there, and if it will seal the (Peace) deal then we should give it up. Of course if there's no deal to be had, then there's no point in giving up anything at all, in fact it would be counterproductive. But if there can be a deal, and East Jerusalem is the sticking point, then give it up immediately. Build a big wall and we're done. Clearly this would exclude the Jewish Quarter and Kotel Plaza, I don't think anyone would expect that to be given up. And there would have to be some kind of 'arrangement' for the Temple Mount. But in principle the city can be divided. I just don't get the whole 'Jerusalem can never be divided' thing. Sounds like a bunch of stupid rhetoric to me.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
26 comments:
You're just jealous that he gets more comments than you do. Admit it.
No we'll never given up Jerusalem. Not in a million years. But it's not an issue because those Palestinians are so inflexible there's no peace partner.
All I can say is a million years is a LONG time. Won't mashiach come first?
Xgh - What is your timeframe for historic j-lem? Only through bayit rishon? Bayit sheini? 1800s? What about perpetual yerushalmi families whose homes were in what is today the Muslim quarter?
When they say "East Jerusalem", they don't mean "East", they mean everything before '67. That means the old city, Gilo, Har Hazofim, Ramot, Har Hazeitim, Givat Hamivtar, Talpiot Mizrach, Pisgat Zeev, Neve Yaakov, etc.
Basically they mean North Jerusalem, East Jerusalem, and South Jerusalem.
Huh? The Temple Mount is in East Jerusalem (as is the whole Old City). How can you say that that isn't the historical site of Jerusalem?
Walls don't prevent rockets from being shot over them. Too close for comfort when you're talking about a foreign terrorist country one block from the Kotel or Jewish neighborhoods.
To the first commentor....and he doesnt even post all of his comments!!!!!
Jerusalem is just another red herring in this debate. If you believe that Palestine will be a launchpad for terrorists and a first step towards the destruction of Israel, then you don't want to give up Jerusalem (or anything else). If you think that peace can be achieved, or at least greater security and better living for both sides than exists now, even in the absence of complete peace, then making a deal that includes giving up some of Jerusalem sounds reasonable.
Duh, because giving them East Jerusalem pushes Israel about six blocks closer to the sea.
I agree with you in concept. Just be careful when you say "East Jerusalem" as that also technically includes Ramat Eshkol, French Hill, Gilo, etc. And of course as you mentioned the old city and Kotel.
Clearly we would never countenance throwing a couple of hundred thousand people out of their homes and giving back the kotel. However, the idea of not giving any part of what is now municipal Jerusalem away creates an unnecessary block. There are place in Jerusalem that no Jew would enter, Shuafat, A-Tur, etc.
"You're just jealous that he gets more comments than you do. Admit it."
Yes, my views on East Jerusalem are entirely predicated on comment counts. If I had more comments, I would never give it back.
What Michael said.
XGH, if you are saying what Michael is saying, then neither of you are talking about "east Jerusalem"
However, most residents of east Jeruselem don't want to be sent into a Dictatorship instead of the democracy they currently live in. Jews and non-Jews alike.
Some Arab residents of East Jerusalem have been requiting Israeli citizenship. Life under Israeli "occupation" is better than self determination under the Palestinian authority.
And if we do give East Jerusalem back, will the Jews who live there now have to be expelled? Or will they remain as Jewish citizens of a Palestinian State? We all know how things owrk out when non-Arabs try to live with Arabs.
It's almost like you are having a conversation with someone else.
How breathtakingly naive
Build a wall? The Israelis did that and look at how the world condemned them. Imagine what would happen if they build one straight through Yerushalayim?
Give them the eastern half of the city and 3/4 of the Old City? How do you guarantee access to the Kotel? After all, the Jordanians in 1949 also guaranteed freedom of access to the Kotel and then sealed the place us.
And this is all assuming you're not taking Mahmood Abbas seriously when he openly states that his definition of East Jerusalem stretches west to the edge of Mevaseret Tzion.
The Geneva Initiative has a bunch of maps that outline the complex proposed borders of a divided Jerusalem:
http://www.geneva-accord.org/mainmenu/static-maps/
All GH is saying is that if the only barrier to peace was giving up East Jerusalem, and all the other stuff had been worked out, we would be nuts to walk away from the deal. Why would anyone disagree with that??? Now, I understand that you don't begin negotiations with your best offer but there is a difference between using East Jerusalem as part of your bargaining chips and taking it entirely off the table.
If the only thing preventing world peace was that America should kick out all the Jews living there, then we would be stupid not to suggest that Jews get kicked out of America. So why are people getting all upset when people ask for all the Jews to get out of America? It's not that big of a deal.
>So why are people getting all upset when people ask for all the Jews to get out of America? It's not that big of a deal.
Yep, this actually makes sense. If world peace was at stake, I would move to Canada.
So you use my exact words and switch a more minor concession (giving arabs east jerusalem) for a more major one (all Jews leaving America)??? How is this an argument????
eLamdan, for the people affected, both are major.
But Vox Populi sees the point. It is the same argument, and both are agreeable...
They are both equally hypothetical and unrealistic.
This is GH's exact point -- how much does giving away East Jerusalem really affect us??? Or, is it mostly in our heads???
Again, I agree it's a big concession and we shouldn't give it away and get nothing in return. Heck, we should even get something significant in return. But is it a dealbuster?? That is his point.
Also, the post isn't about giving it away for a "fake peace". We are talking about a real peace with real positive gains - similar to the peace between Israel, Egypt, and Jordan. Few Israelis want to go back to how things were before those agreements. And, those who do, probably don't remember what it was like.
If the Palestinians and Israel ever make an agreement (a true agreement), my guess is most of us who remember how it has been until now won't want to go back either.
Peace with Egypt is not a real peace as can be seen now, from Egypt who keeps saying the peace deal should be removed.
And yes, Obama and everyone else in the world is proposing a "fake peace".. I.e., some peace now, and we will discuss the real issues of conflict at some point in the future, and hope we solve them then. In the meantime, give up land.
It might be what Obama is discussing, but it's not what the post was discussing.
As for Egypt's peace it was real, however it was made with a dictator who has been overthrown. That's not a weakness in the peace agreement, it's a weakness in the regime the deal was made with.Besides, we got a lot of peaceful years out of it so far.
Post a Comment