Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Israel Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Dividing Jerusalem
HoundOfHello    10/8/2007 12:43:55 PM
Israeli leader's party will divide Jerusalem Revelation follows fierce denials of split in 'eternal Jewish capital' Posted: March 24, 2006 10:34 a.m. Eastern By Aaron Klein © 2006 WorldNetDaily.com JERUSALEM – Just five days before national elections here, acting Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's Kadima party revealed yesterday it would divide Jerusalem and allow a Palestinian state to be established in parts of Israel's "eternal capital." The revelation follows months of denials by top Kadima officials that the party would advocate withdrawing from Jerusalem. "The Old City, Mount Scopus, the Mount of Olives, the City of David, Sheikh Jarra will remain in our hands, but [regarding] Kafr Akeb, Abu-Ram, Shuafat, Hizma, Abu-Zaim, Abu-Tur, Abu Dis, in the future, when the Palestinian state is established, they will become its capital," said Otniel Schneller, a Kadima member who represented the party at a debate yesterday on dividing Jerusalem. The neighborhoods Schneller listed are located on Jerusalem's periphery near the city's border with the West Bank. Schneller said Kadima supports "separation between us and the Palestinians who don't live in the heart of Jerusalem," claiming there would be "no concessions" on sites that are sacred to Jews. Several Kadima officials and leaders associated with the party's now comatose founder, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, previously made statements about dividing Jerusalem that immediately were denied by the party. In December, Sharon's senior campaign pollster Kalman Gayer said in an interview with Newsweek the Israeli prime minister would give up parts of Jerusalem in a peace agreement. Immediately following the publication of Gayer's remarks, Sharon appeared on state-run Israeli television and denied his vision for a Palestinian state includes Jerusalem. Olmert, who served as mayor of Jerusalem from 1993-2003, said in a June 2004 interview with the Jerusalem Post that Israel is contemplating turning parts of Jerusalem over to Palestinian control. "Jerusalem is dear to me, but one must not lose sight of proportions over peripheral areas we do not need," said Olmert, who served as deputy prime minister at the time. He claimed ceding control of eastern Jerusalem neighborhoods to the Palestinians is "needed to maintain a Jewish majority in the Holy City." Government officials immediately denied Olmert's statements implied a Jerusalem withdrawal. Kadima's claims yesterday of "only" withdrawing from peripheral sections of Jerusalem worry many here. The Israeli government has denied previous withdrawal plans only to carry them out later, followed by announcements of more withdrawals in larger magnitudes from areas it pledged not to vacate. Olmert was the first Sharon deputy to go public with Israel's plan to evacuate its Jewish communities from the Gaza Strip and four small West Bank communities. That plan was at first denied but later announced by Sharon. Israel withdrew from Gaza and the West Bank towns this past August, claiming there would be no further West Bank withdrawals. Following the Gaza withdrawal, Olmert made statements about withdrawing from large sections of the West Bank. His statements immediately were denied by Sharon. Olmert in February announced if his Kadima party wins upcoming elections his administration will seek to "change Israel's borders" by withdrawing from the vast majority of the West Bank. Israel's left-wing Labor and Meretz parties have in the past discussed dividing Jerusalem. Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak in 2000 offered the Palestinians a state in the West Bank, Gaza and eastern sections of Jerusalem. Barak's proposal was rejected by the late Palestinian Liberation Organization leader Yasser Arafat. Jerusalem first was divided into eastern and western sections when Jordan invaded and occupied Jerusalem and the Old City in 1947, expelling all Jewish inhabitants. Israel built its capital in the western part of the city, while the eastern quarters remained under Jordanian control until Israel captured it, along with the Old City, in 1967 after Jordan's King Hussein ignored Israeli pleas for his country to stay out of the Six Day War. During the 19 years of Arab sovereignty, the ancient Jewish Quarter of the Old City was ravaged, 58 synagogues – some centuries old – were destroyed and slum dwellings were built abutting the Western Wall. Jews were not allowed to visit their holy places and Israeli Christians were subjected to many restrictions, with only limited numbers allowed to visit the Old City and Bethlehem at Christmas and Easter. _______________________________________________________________________ Wow WTF. Is there any support at all for this among Israelis? -HoH
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: 1 2 3 4   NEXT
battar    The other side   10/8/2007 3:06:37 PM
Some Israelis support the idea, some object to it.
But if the Palestinians don't support the idea then the plan is irrelevant. And since it's not only Israel but also the Palestinians who will end up with a divided Jerusalem, I think there will be enough disagreement on both sides to make the plan unworkable.
But it does get headlines, and that might be the motive.
 
Quote    Reply

Hugo    Question   10/10/2007 4:32:15 AM
I'd like to ask a question that some might find preposterous but I'm going to do so anyway.
 
Would it have been possible, after 1967, to have dismantelled the Dome of the Rock and say, rebuilt it in Gaza or some other God forbidden place (more in keeping with Islam's other holy sites) that would act to reduce the claim that those of the Arab faith have on Jerusalem?  It seems to me that building that enormous complex was fairly provocative to begin with and its existence smack bang on top of the holiest site for Jews makes achieving peace in Israel almost impossible. 
 
I am aware that the site is inconveniently, according to the Arab faith, also the place of Mohammad's rise to the heavens (or something) which makes removal difficult.  Nevertheless, I can't help feel that removing this place of religious and cultural significance to the Palestinians would have been prudent immediately following 1967.  Indeed a removal would itself contrast to the usual Arab modus operandi of destroying/desecrating/re-consecrating of Christian places of worship.
 
Quote    Reply

battar    Hard work   10/10/2007 2:34:05 PM
If you were to ask me personally, I couldn't care less.
Now take your idea to those who truly believe in the Islamic faith, and see how far you get. 
This is a "holy" place, you can't muck around with anything labled "holy".  You will only make people angry.
 
Quote    Reply

Hugo       10/10/2007 11:51:33 PM

If you were to ask me personally, I couldn't care less.

Now take your idea to those who truly believe in the Islamic faith, and see how far you get. 

This is a "holy" place, you can't muck around with anything labled "holy".  You will only make people angry.



I understand where you're coming from but I think that removal is the best compromise possible.  Not "mucking around" with things labelled holy causes difficulties because only one side has historically adhered to those rules.  Destruction is another issue entirely but the fact that one group is using the presence of a religious building to make a territorial claim is creating great difficulties in determining the future ownership of Jerusalem.
 
If you were to play by the same rules as the Arabs, why not then have the Jews renounce all claim to East Jerusalem, point to the Great Synagogue in Bagdad which precedes Islam in that city, and I believe legend has it that it is built partly from the ruins of the Jerusalem Temple, and declare that city to be the second holiest city (something to do with exile etc) in Jewish spiritual life and kindly demand the Arab citizens to leave as that city has no spiritual significance to them and that the city will hence forth be annexed to Israel.
 
Quote    Reply

jastayme3       10/11/2007 4:33:51 AM




If you were to ask me personally, I couldn't care less.



Now take your idea to those who truly believe in the Islamic faith, and see how far you get. 



This is a "holy" place, you can't muck around with anything labled "holy".  You will only make people angry.





I understand where you're coming from but I think that removal is the best compromise possible.  Not "mucking around" with things labelled holy causes difficulties because only one side has historically adhered to those rules.  Destruction is another issue entirely but the fact that one group is using the presence of a religious building to make a territorial claim is creating great difficulties in determining the future ownership of Jerusalem.

 

If you were to play by the same rules as the Arabs, why not then have the Jews renounce all claim to East Jerusalem, point to the Great Synagogue in Bagdad which precedes Islam in that city, and I believe legend has it that it is built partly from the ruins of the Jerusalem Temple, and declare that city to be the second holiest city (something to do with exile etc) in Jewish spiritual life and kindly demand the Arab citizens to leave as that city has no spiritual significance to them and that the city will hence forth be annexed to Israel.

For the matter of that, what in the world are the perfedious Saracens doing in Bethlehem? I think we should launch a crusade!

 
Quote    Reply

battar    Facing east   10/11/2007 3:02:41 PM
I didn't know there were saracens in Bethlehem.
 
How about we take the opposite route, dismantle the Western Wall and rebuild it in Tel-Aviv?  If that sounds silly to you (it does to me), then you should realize that transporting a mosque from Jerusalem to Gaza (or Ramallah) sounds just as silly to a Moslem.
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

jastayme3       10/13/2007 2:15:20 AM

I didn't know there were saracens in Bethlehem.

 

How about we take the opposite route, dismantle the Western Wall and rebuild it in Tel-Aviv?  If that sounds silly to you (it does to me), then you should realize that transporting a mosque from Jerusalem to Gaza (or Ramallah) sounds just as silly to a Moslem.

 

 


Saracen is an anachronism for Moslem. Get into the spirit!
 
Quote    Reply

Hugo    Battar   10/15/2007 4:24:11 AM

I didn't know there were saracens in Bethlehem.

 

How about we take the opposite route, dismantle the Western Wall and rebuild it in Tel-Aviv?  If that sounds silly to you (it does to me), then you should realize that transporting a mosque from Jerusalem to Gaza (or Ramallah) sounds just as silly to a Moslem.

 

 


Couldn't respond earlier as my *!§ß#  internet wasn't working.
You raise a good point however I maintain my disagreement with you on account of you understanding your foe as you see yourself.  I see no modern precedent for any religious minority living in peace with moslem neighbours and I see even less hope in Jerusalem.  A division of the city is hindered by the location of holy sites and I can't help but feel that the situation would have been improved if one of those sites had been removed delicately sometime after 1967. 
 
I think Israelis are making a critical error in rejecting cold rationality in their strategic confrontation of their enemies.
 
Quote    Reply

battar    Next door neighbours   10/15/2007 3:59:22 PM
Can you think of a precedent of a religious majority living peacably with Moslem neighbours? I can't.
 
You want the cold rational approach? Here it comes. Blow up the Mosque and the western wall at the same time. Then no-one has anything to argue about in Jerusalem.
 
You could build a shopping mall on the vacated sites.
 
Of course, I'm only joking, but the funniest jokes are those closest to the truth.
 
Quote    Reply

SGTObvious       10/15/2007 4:06:04 PM

. Blow up the Mosque and the western wall at the same time. Then no-one has anything to argue about in Jerusalem.

 

The error here, Battar, is you are equating a mere ordinary mosque with the spiritual equivalent of the kaaba or the vatican.  So, relocating it would be nothing more than relocating any ordinary Jewish temple or Christian church.  It's just a mosque, after all.  yes, I know how they howl about it being a holy place, but they do that everytime, everywhere they need an excuse to get their dander up- Iraq seems to be crawling with Shi'ia holy places.  But "The Wall" isn't just another holy place to the Jews, it is THE holy place.  Remember, Jerusalem is mentioned in the Q'uran about as often as Mecca is mentioned in the Bible.
 
SGTObvious
 
Quote    Reply
1 2 3 4   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics