Learn it! Speak it! Live it!
Bring Christmas to a child in need!
An 'urgency': Sensing threats to institutions of society, church leaders make declaration 
Click to Print
Include Comments
Parsing Jerusalem
A confidant of Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert told the Associated Press today that his government would support a division of Jerusalem in which key eastern neighborhoods would be turned over to the Palestinians. The plan is reportedly a key component of an Israeli-Palestinian declaration to be made at a U.S.-sponsored Mideast peace conference next month. According to the AP, Deputy Vice Prime Minister Haim Ramon has said the Palestinians could establish the capital of a future state in that sector of the city, which Israel captured from Jordan in 1967. The Jerusalem Post reports:
Ramon’s controversial plan was first stated last month when Jerusalem City Council opposition leader Nir Barkat of Kadima asked Ramon to clarify his position on the capital. Ramon responded in a letter to Barkat that the capital’s Jewish neighborhoods would remain under Israeli sovereignty, and the Arab neighborhoods would be Palestinian. Ramon said there would be ’special sovereignty’ over the city’s holy sites, and that the Western Wall, the Jewish Quarter and other holy sites in the Jerusalem vicinity would remain under Israeli sovereignty ‘forever.’
According to the Post, Israeli intelligence agencies foiled seven suicide bombing attacks in the city over the past month. Meanwhile, the number of rockets fired into Jerusalem fell from 110 in August to 85 in September. Would returning East Jerusalem to the Palestinians — but not the Muslim holy site, the Dome of the Rock — quell this type of violence?
back to top10 Comments to “Parsing Jerusalem”
Short answer: no. The Arabs want all of Jerusalem and they’ve said it many, many times. While many of us would agree that a compromise would be a good thing, even the logical thing, you’d have to convince the Muslims as a whole, not just the Palestinians, to resolve their problems without violence and accept a compromise. As long as they are teaching their children (young adults) to kill themselves by strapping on bombs and blowing themselves up, I can’t seem them making a common-sense compromise. They don’t even value the lives of their children.
Report comment to moderator
So lets see. If we accept that:
1) continuing never ending violence is unacceptable
2) that we will not fully eliminate all Palestinians
3) that we will not fully eliminate all Jewish Israelis
4) that we will not eliminate the Jewish state
then pray tell what option is there but some form of compromise?
The status quo is simply not acceptable and it is clear that the vilolence of the last 58 years has not resolved the issue.
Report comment to moderator
1. Musing, you’re begging the question in point one. When you say “continuing never-ending violence is unacceptable,” and, jumping down, that’s why compromise must be made, you’re beginning with the assumption that violence continues because of insufficient compromise. Whether violence is “acceptable” or not is a curious way of putting it. Surely you don’t assert that the Israelis find the blowing up of their busses and coffee shops acceptable? Only Islamists and their fellow travelers think such activity acceptable, and they are not susceptible to sweet reason or conscience.
2. No “we”–not even hard-pressed Israeli Jews– proposes to mow down (”eliminate”) innocent Palestinians. Nor are all Palestinians a threat to life and liberty. This is a red herring.
3,4. Some people (some of them quite prominent) DO propose to eliminate the Jewish state and indeed, all Jews. Is it regrettable for world peace that experiments have shown such an effort to be impracticable? How does one compromise with murderers on who will be their victims?
You ask what other option is available in dealing with murderers and madmen besides giving them what they want. Well, there’s disabling the threat–either keep it away via a wall or other protective/filtering means, or fight and kill the murderers. Or, as Ann Coulter had the temerity to suggest, change their hearts and eliminate the motivation. But only God can do that.
Throwing a wolf a piece of meat will only distract him a little while. Eventually you run out of meat.
Report comment to moderator
“…then pray tell what option is there but some form of compromise?”
So why is it that Israel is the one having to do all the compromising?
Report comment to moderator
Raise your hand if you think that the Palestinians will be happy with just the eastern neighborhoods of Jerusalem?
Raise your hand if you think that the Palestinians are more likely to accept a compromise than the Israelis?
Musing, it’s about the Temple Mount, and there simply CANNOT be compromise. How would you affect a compromise over that area?
Report comment to moderator
Peace is easily attainable in Jerusalem. Peace will come the day Palestinians stop fighting. Jews have bent over backwards agreeing to every compromise, but Palestinians refuse to cooperate.
Unilateral concessions to Palestinians always increases violence. Gaza was unilaterally returned. Violence increased. Why? Because Palestinians interpret every concession as a victory obtained through violence. Therefore, it is thought, that increased violence will bring increased victory.
Handing part of Jerusalem over to Palestinians will increase violence in Jerusalem.
Report comment to moderator
Giving Pieces a Chance…
Over at WorldMagBlog, Lynn Vincent asks, “Would returning East Jerusalem to the Palestinians — but not the Muslim holy site, the Dome of the Rock — quell this type of violence?”
If there is an historical basis for a positive answer, I…
Report comment to moderator
It will not quell the violence. It will fuel more/greater violence.
If one rewards behavior, one gets more of that behavior. The Arabs’ goal is not to gain one small partof Israel – it is to get all of Israel.
Report comment to moderator
#7 The Dome of the Rock is not really a Muslim holy site at least according to the pronouncements of Islam. However, much like school children, Arabs always want what others have. So the temple mount was made Muslim in 638 AD, six years after the death of Muhammad, by the conquests of Caliph Umar.
Muhammad never mentioned it. Yet an obscure passage in the Quran about the far temple was co-opted to mean the temple on Mt. Moriah. Because of jealousy about the Christian churches, Muslims tried to build a more spectacular temple on the temple mount. Even so, this has nothing whatsoever to do with Islam. Of course, if you tell a Muslim this, he may kill you. Such petty thieving, conquest and violence is the way of the religion of peace.
Report comment to moderator
The Quran doesn’t mention Jerusalem even ONCE –
It jealousy goes back to the time of Abraham – Sarah telling him to take her maid Hagar, who had a child with Abraham named ‘Ishmael’ –
Ishmael mocked and insulted, so Sarah asked Abraham to send them away, and he did –
9 And Sarah saw the son of Hagar the Egyptian, which she had born unto Abraham, mocking.
10 Wherefore she said unto Abraham, Cast out this bondwoman and her son: for the son of this bondwoman shall not be heir with my son, even with Isaac. Genesis 21
Ishmael had twelve sons, who were the head of many Arab tribes –
Today we still see the jealousy of the Arabs against the Jews - Although Jerusalem is not mentioned in the Quran, they want Jerusalem because that is the city of David –
Nevertheless David took the strong hold of Zion: the same is the city of David. 2 Samuel 5:7
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!