Israel/Palestine
Related: About this forumThe bane of Israel's existence
Few Israelis have friends in the settlements or have ever visited them, yet a lot of what happens to Israel, for the better but particularly for the worse are the product of the settlements.By Gideon Levy
A lot of what happens to Israel, for the better but particularly for the worse both in the international arena and on the domestic front, the country's image and its likeness are the product of the settlements. They have determined its fate: The ostracism, denunciations, boycotts in the offing, and the apartheid state that has already existed here for some time. They are because of the settlements, as are some of the country's economic ills in addition, of course, to the blood that has been shed.
That's a lot for such an out-of-the-way piece of land that most Israelis avoid. A large proportion of them have never visited there, and many others have no interest in the fate of its residents. A community is living on this piece of land, at least some of whom the hard-core of the settlers speak a different language. Their beliefs and culture are different, as are their laws and way of life. The thread connecting life in the settlement of Yitzhar and the upscale northern Tel Aviv neighborhood of Ramat Aviv is very thin, if it exists at all. Life in the settlement of Ofra is totally different from Haifa, as are the issues the residents of each face.
The ties between the two communities the secular majority in the State of Israel and the messianic minority in the Land of the Settlements are highly tenuous.
(snip)
Is the relocation of the minority community (which is less than a tenth of the country's population) to within the country's sovereign borders such a major disaster in the eyes of the majority that it thinks it justifies the continuation of the current situation? Or instead, does the portent of disaster lie in their continuing to live where they do? After all, not many people still seriously believe that the existence of the settlement of Ariel protects the Israeli town of Carmiel, or that Ma'aleh Adumin defends Ma'aleh Hahamisha, or Ateret to Mevasseret. At last, some Israelis finally understand that the opposite is the case: more than providing a defense, the settlements pose a risk.
(snip)
Source: http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-1.538291#Scene_1
shira
(30,109 posts)Israeli
(4,151 posts)settlers out .
Ref: http://972mag.com/one-by-one-israels-coalition-members-abandon-two-state-rhetoric/73829/
No Jordanian option shira , no annexation ....simple solution , the settlers move into Israel proper or become Palestinian nationals or go back to America or where ever .
shira
(30,109 posts)Selling yourselves as 1-state antizionists to your fringe Leftist international friends while portraying yourselves as 2-staters at home.
I don't see the problem with a Jordanian option, Israeli. If that's what the people want and Jordan's willing, then Israel will pull out of the WB regardless, settlers and all, to see that it happens. At least Jordan has a working peace with Israel.
Israeli
(4,151 posts)but as I have already told you I believe in a Two State Solution and always have ,
Same kind of post zionist as Uri Avnery ......see :
http://zope.gush-shalom.org/home/en/about/aims/
Its not what the people want shira , not the majority of Israelis or the Palestinians ... its what the settlers want .
shira
(30,109 posts)Israeli
(4,151 posts)and I posted his article because I agree with every word of it .
shira
(30,109 posts)Why don't you kindly explain to Scoot, from a post-zionist perspective, why 1-state is a bad idea?
Israeli
(4,151 posts)this thread is not about one state or two shira .... its about The bane of Israel's existence
.... ie the settlers .
also because I dont dance to the tune of the American Right wing ... if you want to start a thread on one state or two I might respond ... I might not .
In the meantime could we get back to the subject you are deflecting on ?
shira
(30,109 posts)Now WRT settlers, as I recall Barak and Olmert made 2 proposals within the last 13 years that the Palestinians rejected without making counter-offers. Each proposal would have ended the occupation and settlements, giving the Palestinians almost everything they claim they want. The conflict should have been over years ago, with 2 states side by side.
Problem of the settlers - solved.
End of story.
======================
Now why would you or anyone claiming to be for 2-states blame Israel for settlements given that the Palestinians obviously prefer them over having their own state on almost all their terms?
Israeli
(4,151 posts)" giving the Palestinians almost everything they claim they want. "
Really ? LOL.
See :
A Flash Presentation of Barak's "Generous Offers"
This will help you know the facts and thereby break the Myth.
@
http://zope.gush-shalom.org/home/en/channels/downloads/baraks_offers/barak_eng.swf
shira
(30,109 posts)It went through the Israeli cabinet and Arafat rejected it. He later regretted rejecting the Taba offer...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/jun/22/israel
Not generous? Tell Arafat who regretted not taking it!
Barak pulling the offer due to elections had nothing to do with it since Olmert made an even better offer in 2008 after many months of negotiations and Abbas rejected it. That propaganda you're pushing is complete shit.
You give about as many excuses supporting the occupation/settlements as the most crazed 1-state fanatics.
Israeli
(4,151 posts)Abbas did NOT reject it .... so instead of wasting my words on you I give you this :
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/07/10/dear-wapo-abbas-did-not-reject-olmert-s-offer.html
shira
(30,109 posts)Lame.
How many more excuses do you have for Palestinian rejectionism and their decision to continue the conflict, occupation, and settlements?
===========
But since you believe Abbas didn't say NO, there's a chance he'd say YES and you think he should, right?
Tough question for you, right?
Israeli
(4,151 posts)that Olmert's efforts fell through , he was sincere and he really tried and yes I think Abbas should take the offer Olmert made if it was on the table again .
Only shira ... Bibi is not Olmert .
shira
(30,109 posts)Thanks for your answer.
That's more than any of your "pro-Palestinian" colleagues are willing to admit, which goes to show they're not at all interested in a peaceful 2 state settlement.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)you know the one she claims to support as part of a 2 state solution being an apartheid state
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1134&pid=45443
Israeli
(4,151 posts)anyone who supports the Jordanian Option does not believe in a future Palestinian State
on the West Bank with East Jerusalem as its capital .
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)shira
(30,109 posts)It's obvious you support a totalitarian racist apartheid shit hole.....and better if that's what all the area b/w the river and the sea becomes in a 1-state nightmare.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)16. I honestly cannot think of 1 good reason for 1-state
The 2 peoples cannot get along. There's just too much bad blood...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/113445380#post16
so when you say it, it's all good but when an Arab say it
apartheid, racism, fascism...........
but I understand I really do
shira
(30,109 posts)...of 20% of the Israeli population (Palestinians).
It would help if "pro-Palestinians" like yourself actually held Abbas & others to account for their racism and hatred. Things might be very different today had that been happening the past few decades. Real peace could be possible, even within 1 big state, due to pro-peace "progressives" holding Palestinians accountable.
Personally, I think it's crazy for Jews to want to live within a future Palestinian state. But that should be a choice they should have.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)once again it's okay when Israel does it, but outrage when Arabs do
shira
(30,109 posts)You realize Palestinians are forbidden from selling land to Jews (not just Israelis)? It carries the death penalty.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)but thanks your posts here are most revealing, you support a 2 state solution someday.......... but for now???????
shira
(30,109 posts)....for its liberal western progressive democracy.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)there is no way you can claim to support a 2 state solution coming out of these negotiations, well you can claim but you reveal your actual opinions via these exchanges
shira
(30,109 posts)...of settlement.
You think the 2 sides are going to agree on real peace and an end to conflict during these negotiations? I'd like to see it, but I don't think it'll happen.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)16. I honestly cannot think of 1 good reason for 1-state
The 2 peoples cannot get along. There's just too much bad blood...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/113445380#post16
so you see if that special peace you so promote were to actually exist then what's in the way of a 1 state solution?
shira
(30,109 posts)azurnoir
(45,850 posts)or the utopian 2 state state solution where-in the settlements and settlers remain even without their IDF guards because the Palestinians welcome them? I can answer that but will you be as honest?
shira
(30,109 posts)In a 1-state solution, Israelstine could vote via majority against the wishes of most Palestinians or most Jews. In a 2 state scenario, the interests of each majority group is better ensured. Remember, Abbas' chief Palestinian representative to the USA said no Jews allowed in a future Palestine?
http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=2&x_outlet=53&x_article=2120
He also says the 2 people need complete separation. I agree about the separation, but not total. If Israel can get along with 20% of its population being Palestinian but still be separate from a Palestinian state, why can't a future Palestine do so with <5% Jews?
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)however the demographic bomb is what I meant and it's odd how you seem not to recognize that Israel's 20% Arab population are Israeli citizens, Israeli is once again a nationality not an ethnic group
We have folks in this country that say the same about Blacks , Hispanics, and Asians we also have a name for such people
shira
(30,109 posts)...then at least they have a choice as to whether they'd wish to live in an independent Palestine that governs in a manner closer to how they'd vote.
As it is, the minorities in India and Pakistan have the choice of moving to a majority Hindu/Muslim nation if they wish.
And once more, many Israeli Arabs refer to themselves as Palestinians. Abbas, the PA, and Hamas do too. Are they wrong or are just your political opponents wrong and racist?
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)Israel love it or leave it
wow coming to this group is like being in a time machine -back to 1960's
shira
(30,109 posts)If things weren't going well there, at least they could choose to go to Israel rather than suffer there.
In one big state where one people will be disenfranchised, that's no longer a choice.
Save your fake concern and compassion abuse for the less knowledgable casual observers who might fall for it.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)are Israeli citizens who also happen to be none Jews with the as you so luv to tell us the same rights as Israeli citizens who are Jews
thanks for the oh so very revealing exchange, sometimes the truth comes out in strange ways
shira
(30,109 posts)The thing is, you and Abbas are for a Jew-free 100% ethnically cleansed Palestine, so that's not even an option.
I suppose yours is the most progressive, humane solution. If only I supported a racist apartheid Palestine like yourself...
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)even if the settlers were to become Palestinian citizens they would still be Israeli citizens too, or are you saying Israel will strip them of their citizenship, because only the Israeli government can do that
And in the event the Israeli government decides to allow them to remain Israeli citizens, will the Israeli government abandon them in what it considers hostile territory?
shira
(30,109 posts)If they're willing to give up their Israeli citizenship to become citizens of Palestine, why are you against it?
Why are you defending Abbas' racist apartheid views?
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)accusations, no surprises there
shira
(30,109 posts)...by Abbas to Jews willing to accept to be citizens of Palestine?
You're for racist apartheid; I'm at least agreeable to the choice.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)would remain Israeli citizens is key and you should know that, because it leads to the question would Israel use this as an excuse to keep it's occupation forces in a Palestinian State?
but I see you prefer finger pointing and accusation to discussion not to mention your choice of descriptors towards the Palestinians reveals perhaps more than you intend
shira
(30,109 posts)..in a future Palestinian state. Then Israel would be forced to respond to that.
Until then, you have no problem supporting a racist, apartheid Palestine.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)and to compensate all you seem to able to do is make empty accusations
shira
(30,109 posts)It hasn't happened yet, so how do you know what would happen? I don't know the answer to the question you asked. Do you have anything other than your opinion?
shaayecanaan
(6,068 posts)the East Bankers would never stand for it. Only someone who is fundamentally ignorant about Arab politics would seriously suggest it.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)How old are you, Shira? I imagine - I could be wrong - but i imagine that if you've been whacking around on DU as long as you have, you're at least late 20's? Older, perhaps? It's a rhetorical question, how old you are isn't actually important, except that I'm certain you're old enough to know what Levy says there is the honest-to-goodness truth. In fact he understates; the two-state solution as an acceptable idea is barely even two decades old. Prior to and even a little after the First Intifada, the notion of an Arab state west of the Jordan was pure heresy. An unthinkable, unacceptable proposition, a sacrilege, an idea only judenrat and their Nazi friends would ever dream up. No, the standard then was that all the land from the Mediterranean to the Jordan was Israel, and the Arabs could either surrender to that, or they could get expelled to Jordan / Lebanon. This is the mentality behind why Shimon Peres hired an invisible terminator robot to murder Rabin (You do still regard Nahum Shahaf as the mouthpiece of god, right? I tease )
Twenty years. Not much has gotten done on that situation, huh? See, it's sort of like a redneck's yard-car:
Sure it looked good when you invested... a little work here and there, you thought, she'd be good as new! So you put it on blocks and every now and then go out to tinker on it. But after twenty years, this damn thing's on blocks in your yard, rusting away... It's a big shambled heap now, more than it was when you bought it. It didn't run twenty years ago, and it sure as shit isn't going to run now. So do you keep sticking a wrench in it, or just admit you bought a wrecked lemon and turn your attention towards investing in something that might actually run?
shira
(30,109 posts)The 2 people couldn't co-exist back in the 30's and 40's together. What makes you think the Hamasniks and Islamic Jihadists want to co-exist peacefully with the hated Jews?
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Twenty years without a success story really points the ol' eight ball towards "consider other options."
You think it makes any difference to them - or their counterparts among Kach, JDL, the Hilltop Youth, etc. - how many states there are? You're smarter than this, Shira. Come on. One state, two state, three states, no states, these motherfuckers aren't going to stop being motherfuckers. Stop using them as an excuse.
If anything, their continued motherfuckery is a good reason to seek a unified state. I want to do a little thought experiment here, Shira. Can you guess why I think this? Give it an honest effort, try to see things through my eyes. You don't have to agree, but I'm curious what you might come up with.
shira
(30,109 posts)Last edited Mon Jul 29, 2013, 04:09 PM - Edit history (1)
The Palestinians have been offered a state numerous times since 1937, to no avail. I'll answer you, but I'd appreciate your answer as to WHY you think they've rejected all offers since 1937.
I have no idea why you think a unified state is a good idea. The last time it was unified, there was a big civil war. The conflict isn't territorial in nature as much as it is religious. The lowly Jews defeated the Islamists not once but several times, and that's a major source of shame that can only be rectified via revenge, when the Jews are soundly defeated, killed, etc. The religious leaders and fanatics in charge of Hamas and Fatah are pretty clear about it, so in my view 1-state is a ginormous train wreck waiting to happen.
Response to shira (Reply #10)
Scootaloo This message was self-deleted by its author.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)shira
(30,109 posts)The 2 peoples cannot get along. There's just too much bad blood...
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Not as weak as your previous attempt to pretend that two states would suddenly make Islamic Jihad friendly while one state would keep them hostile, but still pretty weak.
Rather shamefully, your argument is simple segregationist advocacy. "The races don't get along so they should be kept separate!" Doesn't matter if we're talking whites and blacks, Arabs and Jews, or Chinese and Malay, the logic is the same... and it's bad logic. You do not resolve issues through separation. It's never worked, and I'll wager it never will.
Separation actually makes bad blood worse. It isolates groups from each other, narrowing or even closing off the flow of information and interaction between them. As a result, whatever sentiments caused by the pre-existing bad blood are allowed an echo chamber, bouncing around uninterrupted, growing in size and sentiment. Separation is thus a method of perpetuating or even increasing hostile sentiments, because there is no challenge to that hostility.
And of course you will always have the demagogues, those people and groups who use these hostile sentiments to climb to power. The likes of the John Birch Society, Hamas, Kach, or the National Socialists are fueled by such animosity, and it is in their goals to perpetuate and strength the hatred present, to drive the wedge deeper, and in so doing improve their own position in power. The more Israelis hated Arabs, the bigger the voting base for Kach - the more Palestinians hate Jews, the stronger Hamas gets. And with more power comes more ability and better positioning to pour more poison into the well.
The best solution to "bad blood" is integration. By putting the people together, they come to understand one another better, the echo chambers burst, the demagogues lose power as men and women forge relationships with "the other." Constant, open interaction is the best way to resolve problems of "bad blood."
And no, I'm not preaching kumbuya. I have no delusions that suddenly people will clasp hands and dance through the streets like a Bollywood musical. There will be tension, there will be conflict, and yes, there probably will be some violence. But there is tension, conflict, and violence with separation as well - it's just that integration provides the society with the tools to overcome and lessen these problems, while separation perpetuates and encourages escalation.
I argue that Jews and Arabs absolutely can get along, that bad blood can be washed away. Not immediately, and it requires more effort than "You guys over nyah, you guys over hyuh!" but with longer-lasting results that improve conditions for all people involved. Well. Except for the demagogues, I suppose, but who cares about them?
shira
(30,109 posts)Sunni Conservatives vs. Jihadis vs. Shiites vs. Copts, Women, Bahai, Gays, etc...
Why can't they all get along nicely Scoot......better yet in 1-state?
And if they can't, what makes you think it'll work with the Jews?
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)And "can't" is a very different word from "don't."
shira
(30,109 posts)That doesn't bode well for your 1-state proposal, does it?
delrem
(9,688 posts)Giving reason for further "settlement projects".
shira
(30,109 posts)As someone who purports to be anti-racist, anti-apartheid, anti-fascist you should realize how wrong that is.
delrem
(9,688 posts)As if the occupation didn't exist!
As if Israel isn't making a big show of enlarging settlements right now!
As if this weren't about a threat to the very possibility of Palestinians having a life, and it was a blank slate.
You are making inroads where Pamela Geller hasn't been yet.
In one way I think "well, congratulations on some creativity".
In the opposing way I think "but people don't go those places because they're too cruel", as in "even for Pamela, as yet."
shira
(30,109 posts)Last edited Wed Jul 31, 2013, 08:53 AM - Edit history (1)
Is the reason there are no Jews there the same as for a future Palestine?
To keep evil Israeli settlers and occupying brutes out?
pelsar
(12,283 posts)ok...i have no problem with your belief...at lets assume unlike so many others its not a religious belief where no matter what happens, its always considered a step in the right direction. (as per Kens)
what would be the cost that you would revise your belief and decide that it was mistake, it didnt work
_____________
any belief that is not "religious' will always be able to acknowledge that it one can be wrong and that perhaps the other options (and there are always other options) were a better solution.
(example being: Zimbabwa, removing the apartheid govt while good, its replacement i would say is an utter failure, with the creation of a failed state and other options would have been better)
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Something where I have the numbers and facts plotted out so precisely that I can actually give a meaningful answer to your question? If so, I'm flattered by your faith in my technical skill and deductive reasoning ability... but I don't have such a chart and thus don't have a meaningful answer for you. And to be perfectly honest? It's not something that I'm going to "just throw together." That sort of effort requires a paycheck, even if i thought I had the technical (not to mention precognitive) talent to pull it off.
What I do have is the knowledge that barring a sudden, near-miraculous realignment of the board, the "two state solution" isn't going to see any more progress in the next twenty years than it has in the last twenty years. Right now, we're getting excited about having talks to negotiate having talks about negotiating, for fuck's sake. That's behind the starting line! This situation has turned the "peace process" into the diplomatic version of QWOP.
and I'll refrain from arguing Zimbabwe with you. I don't think it would be very pretty.
pelsar
(12,283 posts)Last edited Tue Jul 30, 2013, 11:12 AM - Edit history (2)
is the anything in a series of events that could happen that you could look back at the "one state solution and say: "well that didnt work out too well now did it?"
one could look at the way the europeans divided up africa or the middle east and conclude that they were some really stupid idea there.
as far your reasoning goes: that "two states" solution isn't working so lets go for the "one-state"....that has got to be one of the dumbest reasons that i've heard of.
You've decided that the two state is a failure, by using some parameters.... ok thats fine.
what are those parameters? We'll simply apply them to this "one state" and then we'll know if its a success or not?
clearly you have parameters if you believe the two state is a failure and zimbabwa isnt a failure...
personal security?
people killed for nationalistic reasons
civil rights?
land ownership?
nationalism?
freedom to travel?
and zimbabwa...wow i would love to hear what is your measure of what successful country is....by what parameter your using to define zimbabwa as anything but a failed state. (i get the feeling it has nothing to do with economics, personal security, nutrition, civil rights.....)
delrem
(9,688 posts)You project your own emotions, which explain why you "can't get along".
You don't listen to e.g. Israeli, who demonstrates a difference. You show no understanding of Israeli's arguments. Moreover, you show an inability to actually parse through such arguments.
In fact, you write like a bot. You write as if programmed to deny possibility of peace, and as if programmed to use the most extreme emotionally laden hatewords that have been generated after more than 40 yrs of war, and nothing else.
And you write like a bot designed to hijack threads. Like this one.
shira
(30,109 posts)There is zero effort within Palestinian society to be tolerant of their Israeli neighbors or work peacefully along with them. Their media, government, & educational institutions all preach war and hate.
Your challenge is to find one thing in Arabic (directed to fellow Arabs) from the leadership showing that they aspire for peace, tolerance, understanding, and cooperation with the Israelis.
Just one thing.
Take your time and let me know when you're ready. When you come to realize you can't find even one statement - and I guarantee you won't find one - you'll understand what the heck I'm talking about.
delrem
(9,688 posts)You don't have a clue as to how to respond to what Israeli actually says.
That's your problem: your hatred of Palestinians.
Israeli has posted *many times* articles which show a way to peace.
Articles which featured both Israeli and Palestinian people.
You do not listen. You can't comprehend.
shira
(30,109 posts)...from the Arab Press showing Palestinian leadership calling for peace, tolerance, & cooperation with Israel, could you?
So why are you having such a hard time finding it?
Just one statement!
delrem
(9,688 posts)shira
(30,109 posts)...showing the Palestinian leadership genuinely wants peace, and yet you argue the 2 peoples could get along in 1-state.
The cognitive dissonance must hurt you something fierce...
delrem
(9,688 posts)eta: I was talking to Pamela Geller here. Any similarity to other persons, living or dead, is entirely coincidental.
Israeli
(4,151 posts)dont put words into my mouth please .
I have never said I was against one state ... what will be will be , not up to me .
We agree on nada .
delrem.... you do realise that she is asking for the impossible ?
I cant read Arabic ... can you ?
Puts you in the hands of the translator .
Shira seems to think I am pro Palestinian ... I'm not , I'm pro peace and living together
this much arabic I understand :
shira
(30,109 posts)Nice video.
I wish the Palestinian Authority was constantly sending such a message out.
Israeli
(4,151 posts)Thanks.
I wish the settlers were constantly sending such a message out.
Here try another one .....
shira
(30,109 posts)Israeli
(4,151 posts)shira you are making no sense to me .
Two States for two people ... what dont you get about that ?
I'm Israeli Left .... I'm against our Right wing especially our religious Right wing .
In America do the Democrats love the Republicans ?
Whats our trade mark ...... Peace is better than a Greater Israel ...thats it in a nutshell.
Do you get that ??
If you dont then kindly read here :
Looking behind the curtain of ultra-nationalist zealotry
http://www.nif.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1574
Thank you , over and out .
shira
(30,109 posts)My question is whether you prefer the Hamas/PLO version of 1-state to the settler version of 1-state, that's all.
do you seriously believe that the Hamas/PLO version of 1-state has a chance over the settler version of 1-state ?
because if you do your not living in reality .
I prefer The State of Israel within the Green Line and without the messianic mad men of The Wild West Bank . ....... kinda think your President is more with me than with you shira .
shira
(30,109 posts)I'm puzzled why you believe their your political allies
Israeli
(4,151 posts)your not living in reality shira .... your living in America .
Reality is sending your son to defend messianic madmen in Hevron that spit on him because he does not wear a kippa .
Reality is our kids following orders in the Gush disengagement only to be called Nazis and Kapos and to be physically abused after years of defending them .
Reality ... in your face ... is that you and yours shot Rabin in the back ... and murdered Peace .
Thats my reality .
So excuse me if your puzzled..... I'm not .
sabbat hunter
(6,829 posts)of Israel living within the green line does that include the old city of Jerusalem? If so why?
Israeli
(4,151 posts)40 years ago .
The old city of Jerusalem is great for tourism sabbat hunter but is it worth the price of losing a child ?
Its a pile of old stones soaked in blood ... and if the Palestinians want it in exchange for peace .... as far as I am concerned they can have it .
I would rather keep my son .
sabbat hunter
(6,829 posts)that want to keep it? Why does Palestine have any greater right to it?
You may call it a pile of old stones, but many many people of different religions look to it as the birthplace or significant places of their religions.
Not to mention the historical significance it has, in a purely secular form to Judea from the time of Cyrus the great thru Roman times, to many people.
I find no reason historically why the Palestinians have any political claims over the old city.
IT seems like you are of the peace at any cost crowd. Unfortunately that route rarely works out for anyone involved.
Israeli
(4,151 posts)I gave you my reasons and you give me religion and history .
I'm an atheist sabbat hunter and I care about tomorrow and the future of my children and grandchildren more than I do all of our yesterdays .
I suggest you read this :
http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2013/aug/03/men-kill-children-middle-east-israel-palestine
sabbat hunter
(6,829 posts)and I am a pagan, but I take in to consideration others, their history and beliefs. That is what I use to figure out what is best.
Israeli
(4,151 posts)The wall ?
or The Dome of the Rock ?
To each his own ...... split it ...give them their Masjid Qubbat As-Sakhrah and the " others, their history and beliefs " the wailing wall to wail on to their hearts consent .
I could not care less sabbat hunter.
sabbat hunter
(6,829 posts)all of the various religions are not allowed access to their holy sites.
Right now Jews are allowed to the wailing wall, Muslims to the dome of the Rock and Al-Asqa mosque and Christians to the church of the holy sepulchral.
This was not always true. pre 1967 (when the old citywas controlled by Jordan) Jews were not allowed in to the old city and it was cleansed of jews living there.
you cannot have a city dually controlled politically, it just does not work out, unless you want armed camps running thru the old city.
When Beirut was 'divided' it was an armed camp.
Leave the old city as it is politically. Under Israel control. Leave the holy sites as they are, under the religious control of the various religions.
Israeli
(4,151 posts).......dont you get ?
sabbat hunter
(6,829 posts)about others?
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)other than it suits your political angle which it seems would be that Israel keeps the old city, but alas times have changed including in case it slipped by you the fact that while in 1967 Israel and Jordan were in a state of war they have since signed a Peace treaty.
In any negotiation I can not imagine that use of the Old City would not be guaranteed to all religions in a final status agreement , as it stands now Palestinian Muslims have only partial freedom of use of their religious sites in the old city, factors such as age and gender restrict which Palestinians can and can not access the site(s), this is bvy Israeli law which BTW also allows Rightist settlers and other access to Muslim sites but does not reciprocate when it comes to Jewish sites or can Muslims freely access the Wailing Wall?
sabbat hunter
(6,829 posts)ie Rachel's tomb, are also holy to Jews.
The wailing wail is not holy to Muslims.
I use pre 1967 jordan as an example because it shows that the UN will not live up to its obligations to keep the old city open.
Additionally as I pointed out you cannot simply divide a city otherwise it becomes an armed camp.
Israel should however make it far easier for non Israeli Muslims to visit the Dome of the Rock and Al Asqa mosques.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)but in the event that the old city became the Palestinian capital it would not be the UN who was 'obligated' it would in fact be the Palestinian government who was obligated to ensure that all religions had access to their respective holy sites, in the old city
sabbat hunter
(6,829 posts)Under them all religions already have access to their holy sites.
And the UN obligation was to defend the city, force out Jordan in 48. They wanted it to be an international city under their auspices. They failed miserably to do so.