A division of Jerusalem
Eric Joseph found this story and emailed it to me. It is indeed an incredible development. How do you respond to this. Here is an interesting letter to Hillary from a Jerusalem resident.
Eric Joseph found this story and emailed it to me. It is indeed an incredible development. How do you respond to this. Here is an interesting letter to Hillary from a Jerusalem resident.
posted by Muqtedar Khan @ 8:29 AM
35 comments
35 Comments:
This development could produce huge strides in the Palestinian-Israeli peace process. Israel has been unwilling to make any concessions in the recent past and the statement by the Israeli Prime Minister opens up a lot of questions. Why is Israel all of a sudden willing to make relatively significant negotiations? If this goes through and Palestinians do gain autonomy over their own people in a section of Jerusalem, will Israel loosen or end the occupation in other areas? Honestly, I am skeptical that a deal will get done because history is not on its side. However, this is very positive news from a region that does not have much and it will be interesting to see how this story develops.
Mike Kirby
If Israel transfers sovereignty of these neighborhoods over to the Palestinians, it is a huge milestone because it signifies a change in Israeli policy by recognizing the existence of a Palestinian State and the need for a Two-State Solution. However, the Israeli concession does nothing to address the state of the West Bank, its inhabitants, and the Israeli settlements within the West Bank. Also, the problems associated with a divided Jerusalem do not lie with how the land is divided, but by how these groups of people have yet to learn to treat each other as equals. Because the Israeli government will continue to treat Palestinians as second class citizens, a Palestinian government will most likely counter by not offering equal rights to Israelis. Ultimately, no lasting peace will ever be achieved if the governments in the area cannot universally treat their inhabitants as equals.
-Bob McGurk
Steven Gold
How would these Arab neighborhoods form a government? By this, would they be connected to one another like the continental 48 states make up the United States? Or would they have self-rule, each neighborhood ruling itself, scattered across the West Bank? The latter plan would not work in the short run, obviously, because they will not be united as one. In the long haul, if Israel makes more concessions, then maybe this could be the first step. Granted any step for peace, is the correct one. BUT the Palestinians need to have a united government to avoid the inevitable civil war, if they are separate 'states.'
I find it ironic that Israel is asking for international recognition in return, especially from the Arab states. This is a peace plan between Israel and the Palestinians; not Israel, Palestinian, Iraq, Iran, et al., or at least not yet. The Palestinians have no control over how other countries act towards Israel. The only way they do have control is to send a precedent, as in the Palestinians recognize the State of Israel with its current boundaries, whatever they might be over this peace plan. And Israel must do the same. This way, other states might follow.
--Steven Gold
I think a good way to approach this article is to look at it as a form of progression. Clearly dividing Jerusalem is not going to solve every aspect of the conflict and the policy does not address the Israeli settlements or the West Bank, but the fact that Israel is contemplating making any concession is a step in the right direction. Peace is something that will only be achieved over long periods of time, and it will take small compromises like this to help move it along. The Palestinians are really only in the position to take what they can get, and this tentative policy by Israel is something they should pay attention to. I do also have to ask why the Israel would be doing this. It seems like such a significant step in right direction that it almost sounds too good to be true.
Although Israeli may be willing to hand over Palestinian neighborhoods in east Jerusalem, I highly doubt this will take place. One of the main issues surrounding these neighborhoods is what Steven Gold pointed out, how will these neighborhoods be governed? These neighborhoods would most likely come under the control of the Palestinian National Authority because it is recognized by Egypt and other Arab States. This is important because Israel wants these Arab States’ official approval of its sovereign right over Jewish neighborhoods in the area and retaining Jerusalem as its capital. Would this then lead to fighting between Hamas and the Palestinian Nation Authority? Would Hamas claim to have a right to some of or all of the neighborhoods in east Jerusalem? In addition to this, I do not think Hamas or the Palestinian National Authority has the infrastructure to successfully improve these areas; however, I do believe they would be better off under Palestinian control.
It would be interesting to see how these neighborhoods and 160,000 people would be divided. If the neighborhoods are not linked together to form one large area, it would be very problematic. These small neighborhoods would be cut off from each other and would still have to pass through check points to go to school or the hospital, as they do now. If the neighborhoods were not physically a cohesive unit, they would be just as problematic as the West Bank.
Finally, in order for Israel to hand over these neighborhoods, the U.S. would have to provide a lot of capital to develop them. The Palestinian National Authority would need the funding to build hospitals, schools, and public works facilities.
The relationship between Israel, the U.S., and the Palestinian Authority is not strong one representing trust and respect; therefore, it is highly unlikely an agreement could be reached to hand over these neighborhoods at this time.
Hopefully in the future these neighborhoods can be the first step in a major peace process, but before this can take place the issues concerning settlement in the West Bank must be resolved. I believe this issue must be resolved first for the Palestinians to trust the Israeli government enough to establish meaningful negotiations over these neighborhoods.
I agree this would be a major concession by Israel. It is actually consistent with what President Clinton was working towards in 2000. It however does not give Palestinians sovt. over the Dome of the Rock. And here is the response of the Zionist Organization of America. http://www.zoa.org/2007/10/zoa_opposes_olm_5.htm
I am a bit wary of this. I'm surprised that with such a huge concession, all that Israel wants in return is legitimate recognition of their state throughout the Arab world.
If this is or will be a legitimate offer, though, the Palestinian leaders would be foolish not to jump at the chance. True, they may not get the Dome of the Rock, but this can be the staging point of further legitimacy which may eventually lead to settling things permanently.
I feel that some of the more extreme Palestinian leaders have an "all or nothing" attitude, and while I believe that the Palestinians have a right to nearly everything that they have professed to want over the last few decades, the simple fact of the matter is that Israel is not going anywhere. This is a chance to actually build a Palestinian state with Israeli recognition of it.
The open letter to Hillary highlights many points, some of which are part of my wariness of giving half of Jersusalem to the Palestinians.
Israel's illegal wall, which has been declared illegal by the U.N. and which has been ordered by the U.N. to be dismantled, is one of the most obvious symbols of the occupation. It represents that disparity between the two peoples, it represents the mutual hostility, and it's physical placement on the land throughout the country represents Israel's desire to marginalize the Palestinians, but them off from the most basic of human needs (farms, hospitals, work and school), and the Israeli desire to annex as much Palestinian land as possible, heeding no international law.
While I do believe the PAlestinian leadership, split as it is, should jump the chance to reclaim part of Jerusalem, I am forced to wonder what immediate difference it will make in the day to day lives of the people. Surely it will be a huge victory for the Palestinian cause, but those neighborhoods will still be the same for decades to come.
I find the response of the Zionist Organization of America to be disturbing, especially President Morton A. Klein's comments. Just because Jerusalem plays a major role in Jewish history does not mean the Jewish people are the ONLY people entitled to possess the city. Jerusalem is significant for Christians, Muslims, and Jews. Even though it has never been a capital for Christians or Muslims, does not mean its religious importance was overlooked by them. President Klein's opinion, that Jerusalem belongs to the entire Jewish people, is immoral. The Palestinians in these neighborhoods of Jerusalem deserve their independence, especially if Israeli checkpoints have cut them off from hospitals and schools within their neighborhoods.
The Zionist Organization of America is trying to disrupt a concession that might, eventually, be the first step to peace. President Klein must recognize the violence will not diminish until Israel ends its role as an occupier. Concessions, such as this one, are a first step to obtaining this goal.
It will be interesting to see if the ZOA’s opinion on this issue will affect Olmert’s plans to hand over these neighborhoods to the Palestinians. In addition to this I highly doubt that Olmert would ever agree to give up control over the Temple Mount. This would be obvious political suicide.
This post has been removed by the author.
I agree with what wwilson wrote, I also find ZOA's response disturbing. Initially I found it interesting that ZOA compared Jerusalem to Mecca and the Vatican, and I wonder if these are logical comparisons.
I am worried about how the ZOA's response will affect the decision of Ehud Omert's government to make concessions. Surely this gesture is evidence that Omert feels a moral obligation to ease the conflict and the suffering of his cohabitators. But I wonder how this obligation he feels compares to the obligation he has to satisfy his own people and their desires.
I must express my opinion that if peaceful cohabitation is achieved, the 'heart of Jerusalem' will not be torn out, nor will the hopes and dreams of a thousand years be crushed. They said that they would not grant them access to the Holy mount. I understand that certain concessions may lead to more demands, and this is a legitimate concern... however I think that some step must be made in the direction of strategic concession and this seems like a logical move despite the uncertainty of its results.
-James Dorton
I do not believe for a second that Israel would ever relinquish any sovereignty in Jerusalem to the Palestinians. But, in a hypothetical situation, even if it were to do such a thing, how would the Palestinians fund it? I don’t know this for a fact, but I do believe that the Palestinians do not have the finances to support building key infrastructures, nor do they have a means of governing it. To top it all off, there are also too many Palestinian factions that would attempt to take power in the region such as Hamas, Fatah, and the Palestinian Authority.
Either way, this is clearly a big deal, and if such a concession was to be made by Israel, I do believe that some progress would be made in terms of peace. However I still believe that there is a long way to go. Palestinians would then also want complete authority over the neighborhoods, and if they were to eventually get their independent state, they would undoubtedly want Jerusalem to be their capital, in addition to control over the Dome of the Rock.
Furthermore, while this may seem as progress to some, there still exists the problem of Hamas wanting Israel destroyed. To them, I do not believe that this concession would mean anything. If it will show them anything at all, I believe it would show a sign of weakness on the part of the Israeli government. Nonetheless, in light of the aggressiveness of Israel in its attacks on Lebanon last summer and many other such incidences, I believe this would be a good diplomatic move, to show their efforts to bring peace in the region. Many nations have come to disagree with what they believe is Israel’s excessive aggression, and this would likely have a positive effect on the matter.
The willingness of the Israeli government to compromise has been apparent for a number of years now. While many contend that Israel is the major roadblock to peace in the region, Israel's unilateral disengagement from Gaza was a major step towards reconciliation; and this was met not with reciprocation but a takeover of the region by Hamas terrorists and further violence against Israel. Certainly compromise is something which has been lacking in this historical equation, however Israel's recent overtures to the Palestinian people have been met with little or no effort to facilitate a lasting peace. If Israel divides Jerusalem, will this become another Gaza, where Hamas declares it as a victory they never really achieved and manipulate this false declaration to foment their mission of terror? If this is the case then this division will produce no positive results. On the other hand, if courageous Palestinian leaders can stem the efforts of Hamas and other terrorists to identify Israeli peace overtures as successes of their violent campaigns and instead convince the Palestinian people that peace is possible without terrorism it may truly be a momentous development.
The response of the Christian Zionists is predictable but illogical. Knesset member Uri Ariel's statement that if the reports of concessions were true, “the Israeli government has stripped itself of any linkage to Zionism or its Jewish roots” exemplifies beautifully this position. The idea behind Zionism and creating Israel was to establish a largely secular Jewish homeland where Holocaust survivors and other Jews could be provided with a safe haven for freedom of religious expression. However, due to the hard line stance of Christian Zionists and conservative Israeli's, the Jewish people have been targeted time and time again by Palestinians and their sympathizers in their own Jewish “homeland.” By using political and not religious means to negotiate a peaceful compromise, the current Jewish leaders are showing themselves to be more in line with traditional Zionist (Herzl-esque) thinking than their opponents.
Jerusalem either needs to have the walls and barriers taken down or have the Palestinian sections come under Palestinian rule. Forget the religious importance of the city; people live here. And many of these people in the outlying/Palestinian neighborhoods are not being provided the basic everyday services. Gershom states that upon entering the Palestinian neighborhoods sidewalks disappear, buses try to make it up narrow streets, and "Trash lay on the sides of the street and covered a hillside." Unless the palestinians fall on the right side of the line they are not provided HMO services or schooling in the Jerusalem schools.
This is a completely inappropriate way of life to subject a population to. People should not be forced to set a dumpster on fire simply because the trash is not picked up often enough. Especially when not far away the trash is picked up on a regular basis. So forget that this is a city of religious significance and simply think about the standard of life the people who live here should be able to expect. And then find a way to provide it.
These new strides are deffinatly a step in the right direction for peace between these two people. Although this if a positive step I believe that there is a larger problem that lumes in the horizon. There is no discussion of the West Bank. Also the biggest problem these two groups of people have is that they truly seem to hate each other. In the future it will be vitale for both the Palestinians and Israelis to be able to accept each other as people. Only at this point will they be able to co exist and will there truly be peace. I just hope that these small steps will help to aid in the ability for both groups to forgive each other for the mistakes both sides have maid. Although there are still so many problems, any step in the right direction is a positive.
The fact that the Israeli's are even willing to consider dividing Jerusalem has to be considered a step in the right direction even though there is still a lot more to work out between the Israeli's and Palestinians. Willingness on the part of the Israeli's to divide Jerusalem is in no way a guarantee that peace is on the way especially since the division wouldn't give the Palestinians control over the Dome of the Rock but it is a sign that some progress in peace negotiations between the Israeli's and Palestinians could be made. I think ultimately in order for there to be peace in the region concessions are going to need to be made on both sides and Israel's willingness to give the Palestinians autonomy over their own people is a step in the right direction.
If Israeli were to support a division of Jerusalem it would be a huge step towards ending the conflict between the two. The support of such a division of Jerusalem comes at a great time as the U.S.-sponsored Mideast peace conference approaches next month. I believe Israeli’s declaration of a division of Jerusalem prior to the conference will help ease the tension at the beginning of the conference. Jerusalem is of utmost importance to the Israeli state as they hope to one day establish their capital there. For them to offer control of the Arab neighborhoods of East Jerusalem to the Palestinians and declaration of a possible Palestinian capital in this sector of the city shows that Israel is committed to finding a peace to this conflict. In return for these settlements, Israel would be granted one of major request for peace; the recognition of the international community of its sovereignty over Jewish neighborhoods and its existence of its capital there. Therefore, if Israel’s proposal for a divided Jerusalem was agreed upon and the terms listed above agreed upon, both sides would benefit greatly and the movement towards peace begins to appear more possible.
Megan Lyons
As far as concessions go, Israel’s history is generally void of them – usually demanding, rather than ceding. This statement made that Israel is willing to divide Jerusalem is both new and interesting – and also a bit dubious. I think I’m on board of some of the other bloggers here – it just looks like something to indeed be wary about. A strong cynical comment would be that Israel is simply doing this just to pat themselves on the back, and gain some strength in negiotations with the Palestinians over land in West Bank. An easy argument for Israel to make now is “Well, we GAVE you Jerusalem, wasn’t that enough?” (No, not quite.) At the same time, this division of Israel definitely, as everyone is mentioning, opens up so many more questions. What do you mean by this division? Are we talking about the wall that’s already there? Because from what I hear (as mentioned in the following letter), this division pretty much sucks.
I think this article and letter is an excellent example of politicians quite literally talking out of their… well, you know where I’m going. They make up a policy, they propose grandiose sweeping changes that look excellent on paper but reflect nothing of reality in real life. As the “Open letter to Hillary” makes perfectly clear, an undivided Jerusalem is simply naive and stupid. It’s divided by walls and checkpoints and blue and orange ID cards. Just like the North and South were (are?) divided by slavery, Jim Crow laws, segregation and nooses. You can’t simply throw down on a piece of paper that you want there to be an undivided Jerusalem without some thought behind it – everybody knows that not much can happen in this conflict with intense negiotiating and everyone coming to agreement.
What blows my mind about the ZOA’s statement is the part where ZOA’s president Klein says “Jerusalem is the religious, historical and cultural heart of the Jewish people. mentioned hundreds of times in the bible but never once in the Quran” Yes, true, and of Christians, and of Muslims – the fact is that the Dome of the Rock is an important place for Muslims – just because its mentioned in the Bible for Jews more often, that gives them more legitimacy? If something is sacred to an individual, it is sacred to that individual, no more or less so because of its location or derivation of sacredness. Klein’s statement invoking the bible that Jerusalem will be “forgotten” is to me, just sacrilegious in this time when the world is desperately trying to work towards peace – who said anything about Jerusalem being forgotten? Although not the best plan, this proposal of division is the first serious attempt to try and give everybody just a little bit of what they want. Invoking the bible and trying to rally everyone against the first serious compromise on the part of Israel is, in my humble opinion, detrimental to the peace process and will lead further hostility and anger.
Allison Schwier
It seems that Israel is a lot more dedicated to moving forward to some sort of peace with the Palestinians with this proposal. It seems that Israel has recognized the need to make some sort of concessions in order to gain a sustainable peace. This proposal is one of the most serious that has been offered in the 60 plus year conflict. However, it must be taken with a grain of salt. Will Israel tighten control of other areas? Will they force Palestinians out of the areas they retained control of? There are many questions raised and time will tell us the answers. To say the least, the happenings of the past few months up to now have been very intriguing and I wait to see how everything will play out, Hopefully it will involve a lasting peace between the Arabs and Israeli's.
From looking at what is said by Gershom Gorenberg is appears that security issues are of utmost importance, though security does not necessarily warrant the complete alienation and subjugation of the Palestinian people. In dividing the city and granting Palestinians' control, as Olmert suggests would allow the Palestinian people the chance to take full responsibility for their neighborhoods, but as the letter suggested in speaking about the road conditions and waste removal services, that Israeli aid is still in the best interest of the Palestinians. Looking back at the simulation, it was universally agreed upon that Israel was to be a major player in the modernization of the Palestinian state, and the Roadmap set forth by the Quartet strongly encourages Israel to help build Palestinian infrastructure. By allowing Palestinian control of East Jerusalem the Israeli's and international community could use East Jerusalem as a testing ground for future modernization. The letter shows the complete poverty, and suppression of the Palestians at the hands of the Israeli's, and if there are to be two states sharing one city, something must be done now, as both states will either prosper or fall if Jerusalem cannot be agreed upon. The ZOA's press release is reactionary and counter to the peace process that Gorenberg and presumably many other Israeli's agree on. The arguments made by Uri Ariel and Eli Yishai both hinge on the validity of the Torah, and both invoke religion. This type of argument is of no use in the twenty-first century, and cannot be refuted. Secondly, the holy land is not only the land of the Jewish people as Mr. Klein seems to suggest. Even if he is correct in stating that the Quran never mentions Jerusalem, as an individual baptized Christian, I should also be able to make a biblical claim to Jerusalem. At some point the biblical arguments made by all three major monotheistic religions will have to cease, and then peace can be made. Eastern Jerusalem must, as Olmert suggests, be handed over to the Palestinians, if only so that the residents of the Palestian communities can live in hospitable conditions.
As the first Israeli leader to ever officially state that the division of Jerusalem is open for discussion, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has made a huge step in the direction of peace. The Prime Minister deserves much credit for taking this political risk in search of an end to the bloody Arab-Israeli conflict. I am quite shocked that so many bloggers have decided to read Israeli ulterior motives into this bold move which should be lauded. The division of Jerusalem would be an extremely painful concession for Israelis. Olmert’s most recent comments seem to indicate how desperately the Israeli people want peace.
Any division of Jerusalem should be based roughly on the principle of Israeli sovereignty over primarily Jewish areas, and Palestinian sovereignty over primarily Arab areas. This will undoubtedly be difficult to implement, as Jewish and Arab neighborhoods are not neatly arranged. Further, any division must ensure that the everyday administrative and civil needs of citizens, both Israelis and Palestinians, are met. This may require joint control over basic administrative functions typically provided by municipal governments. Ultimately, Jerusalem should be an open city which guarantees access to people of all faiths especially to the Old City. Of utmost importance is the security of all living or worshipping in Jerusalem which perhaps may only be achieved with the help of an international anti-terrorism or peacekeeping force.
Though Israel remains far from perfect, Olmert’s most recent comments represent a genuine effort to achieve peace and move the peace process in the right direction. With rare exceptions, Israel has remained extremely devoted to peace and open to making broad concessions of land in the hopes of an end to bloodshed. It is important to remember that Israel’s occupation of Gaza and the West Bank were the result of Arab aggression, though Israel technically fired the first shots of the Six Day war. Who started the Six Day war is irrelevant, however. I want to see an end to the death of Israeli and Palestinian men, women, and children right away. I want Peace Now.
While I commend Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert for taking such a bold step in the name of peace, Israel must do more to demonstrate its good faith commitment to peace. In order to build trust, Israel should start by declaring a complete freeze on all settlement expansion, for example. Palestinians and their fellow Arabs should also not squander the current golden opportunity for peace—they must mount a vigorous campaign to rein in Palestinian extremists and terrorists bent on derailing the peace process through continued violence and provocation of Israel. They must also be realistic about what Israel can be expected to give in any final status agreement.
Lastly, I want to state that while I am an American, I feel a deep devotion and solidarity with Israel and her people. I only criticize Israel because I love Israel and want to see her live in peace and prosperity, devoted to the values that make Judaism great. It is only through peace that the dream that is Israel can be truly secured.
For more information on the American-Israeli peace lobby, visit http://www.peacenow.org/
It's Olmert's funeral.
No, really it is. I mean I hate to sound so pessimistic, but look what happened when Rabin signed the Oslo accords. All it takes is one right wing extremist with an assault rifle and enough luck, and any concessions that Olmert made will be blown out of the water.
On the other hand, maybe this is a legitimate step towards peace. I went to six years of Hebrew School, and during that time it was beaten into my head that Israel will give up any land for peace, except Jerusalem. My teachers insisted to me that no Jew in the world would ever give up any part of Jerusalem, that it was holy and must remain completely undivided at all costs.
So this really is a huge turnaround for Israel, something that I never would have dreamed would be put on the table. I suppose all we can do is wait and see how this plays out.
-Jeff Conrad
If I have learned one thing in this class, it is the fact that Jerusalem must be a major element in any lasting peace agreements. With that said, I firmly believe that Israel has internally recognized the fact that they would have divide JErusalem in some way for many years now. It is only now that they have gone public with it.
However, as we have seen in our simulation, we as a class could not come up with an agreement for the division of Jerusalem. Its one thing for Israel to say that they are willing to do this, however it is another thing for them to produce in way that is fair for the Palestinians.
In all, this development does not mean much for the peace talks. I firmly believe that all parties already know the importance of JErusalem, and thus, realize it will have to be divided in some way for any lasting peace to be reached. This is just them coming out into public and admitting this.
This is mile stone development in the Arab-Israeli conflict, and may be the key to future peace talks. The key to this working will be in keeping extremist parties on both sides of the fence in line. My guess is that noticeable groups will be against even considering a division of Jerusalem, but it is key to a comprehensive peace plan.
What does this single in terms of the Annapolis peace talks? Mainly that Israel is serious about making the effort. There are still a large number of issues that will have to be dealt with before peace is even close. But this is a positive, and necessary, development.
This development of a potential division of Jerusalem is one of the most positive and historic events in the Arab/Israeli conflict. The incentives that Israel would receive from this division would be the recognition that Israel is a legitimate country. This is a huge milestone towards peace. Although it will be difficult to separate neighborhoods the division of Jerusalem is necessary to fascillitate peace. It will be interesting to see the progress from the Annapolis Conference and the events that occur in the upcoming year
As has been seen in class I am a big supporter of the State of Israel but even I am willing to admit thier idea of peace had been you stop violence and we'll continue with our lives. This to me seems the first true "olive branch" afforded. Just the fact that they are willing to discuss it I believe is a huge step in the direction of peace and could start everything moving.
This being one of the huge sticking points for so long, I'm optimistic this can have a "Jenga" effect. One road block falls they all fall. Obviously there is still a ways to go but this proves a great indication to Israel's committment of a peace settlement.
For many years the PA has tried to thrive on very small victories, but this is a big one they can be proud of and use to gain the support of the people and weaken Hamas.
My feeling is there is a little more that needs to be done on the issue as the PA I believe still wants some control over the Holy City but this a huge leap going into the future.
Dave Hanna
When I first heard about this development I was amazed. The fact that the Israelis would be willing to make concessions shows that they are willing to take steps toward a peaceful solution. I was especially intrigued by the fact that the hardliners in Olmert's government have endorsed seperating Jerusalem. It appears that the Israelis are tired of the violence and are ready focus on more specific issues such as Jerusalem. However in recent days it appears that maybe there is pressure coming from people inside Olmert's government not to give up too much too quickly. The Israeli government has just released some 400 Palestinan prisoners. Olmert recently said, after the Annapolis Conference that they do not have to have a timetable for a peaceful soulution to the Israeli Palestinian conflict. Originally they were supposed to be working towards a two-state solution by the end of 2008. The religious significance to both the Israelis and Palestinians, makes Jerusalem a heated issue. The fact that it is already divided, with certain populations on either side, would seem to make the process of dividing it a little easier. If the peace intitiatve is ever to move forward, both sides need to take good faith initiatives, even if their is resistance. As we have seen from Pat Robertson, cedeing any land whether it be part of Jerusalem or the West Bank, it will be met with resitance. In the end if soverignty is given to the Palestinians over even part of Jerusalem, it will legitimize their state. This is defintely a step forward, and good news for the 60 year old conflict.
The letter to Hillary bothered me, it seems as president maybe she would not be so receptive to a too state solution. Maybe it would be better to move forward in the peace process now. An unfettered support, without listening to Palestinan ideas is dangerous in these times
Yes, this clearly is a milestone development and a major concession on Israel’s side. However, I do not see where this in any way could be seen as a problem (unless, of course, you are Pat Robinson). The Israeli prime minister offered to share their capital city with the Palestinians – that is a huge development! Personally, I think if this offer were to be accepted on both sides, it should remain a Palestinian and Israeli issue. In short, there should be no US or any other country’s involvement. Thus, even though presidential candidate Hillary Clinton supports an "undivided Jerusalem," at the end of the day, it’s not really up to her to decide. In fact, in the note to Hillary, the Jerusalem resident makes an excellent point in saying, “The greatest contribution that America can make to Israeli security is to help it reach peace with the Palestinians.” A decreased U.S. involvement in the conflict will help further the peace talks along, even including the sharing of the city of Jerusalem. It is clear from the letter and Olmert’s statement that Israel’s desire to receive the recognition of the international community is strong. This is why a major concession like dividing Israel would benefit all sides. Clearly, this would not upset the current Jewish settlers in Israel, because under Olmert’s proposal, “Israel would not transfer control of the Holy City and neighborhoods around it to the Palestinians”. Thus, though this proposal is only in the preliminary stages, it is most definitely a step in the right direction towards peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians.
-Andrew Shine
This development by Olmert and the major parties within the state of Israel is amazing. Jerusalem is one of the most sought after prizes in the Arab-Israeli conflict and if the Palestinians were able to have sovereignty over some of the land it would be a very large step in the positive direction for them. It is also good because Israel recognizes that those areas are heavily populated with Palestinians (~170,000) and should be not be under Jewish control. In return Israel would be recognized by the international community, most notably the Arab states. It would also be interesting because both areas would most likely be capitals of their respective states so it could be good for diplomatic relations in the future. The only possible downside for the Palestinians is that the Israelis would still control Jerusalem, but getting something is still better than getting nothing. I do not know how this will work in practice because I know that there have been many great agreements on paper that rarely, if best, work in real life situations. I also think though that the Palestinians may be getting the short side of the stick here. Olmert is making great PR by deciding to give up this land. He looks great. Israel looks like it is leaning towards peace. Nothing much is changing other than a small area of land. I believe that the true solution is an international city with different controlled sections, as mentioned in our simulation. I think that although Olmert’s proposal is nice and beneficial, that it could be much better. I still applaud both sides.
This development could be the forshadowing of peace in the future. Never before has Israel publicly announced a willingness to make concessions regarding Jerusalem. Furthermore, this development signifies Israel's understading that peace and international recognition will only come by means of concession in certain areas. In addition, this development also shows that Israel values the existence, recognition and security of Israel more than she values the size of the territory under her control. I could only imagine after this degree of concession on the behalf of Israel that she would only expect the same in return from Palestine and the Arabs.
I agree with Kirby. I am extremely skeptical of this alleged division of Jerusalem. I know this sounds very pessimistic, but I truly believe that these "open-minded" negotiations are not a result of progress in the Arab-Israel conflict, but rather manipulation. I feel the Bush administration is pushing Israel to make these public gestures of suggestive negotiations purely to increase American credibility, positive sentiment, and hopes of Reps maintaining seats in 2008. I feel the letter written to Hilary was right on point: she has not educated herself enough on this conflict, or, she is ignoring better judgement in hopes of getting Jewish votes. Even if Palestinians gain autonomy of these areas, many problems will still exist: narrow streets, lack of public parks for children to safely play, and lack of effective waste management. This requires extreme financial investment, and this is just one city. Think about all the other regions that need the same things. I'm very doubtful that these negotiations will be realized in the near future, but of course, for the benefit of Israelis and Palestinian civilians, I hope I'm wrong.
This verbal agreement to grant Palestinian sovereignty over Palestinian neighborhoods is a great concession from the Israeli government and shows willingness to create a more peaceful and fair peace process. However, the more separate the two groups become the more animosity and intolerance I feel will form between them. But, again, this represents a trust in the Palestinian authorities and recognizes their leadership over their own people but how will these neighborhoods be governed? This plan will give the Palestinian neighborhoods their own autonomy but has a high risk of being only talk and no action.
The letter to Hilary Clinton I found the most interesting. It basically drives in the point that Americans, especially presidential presidents, do not have truly know what is going on in this conflict. Hilary should focus on the peace process and let Israeli and Palestinian leaders discuss the details they have experienced personally.
I really enjoyed reading the letter by the citizen of Jerusalem. It put a personal touch on this debate that for the most part has been shown by outsiders or politicians. We can sit all day and listen to the leaders of all parties discuss the "real situation" in the city and crisis but never truly understand it until we hear from a citizen who lives in the city every day. I wish we knew who the person exactly was and what position he held in society and such as that could help to explain as well. Regardless, he paints a picture that also reflects on American politics by calling her out and saying that she is pretty much just spitting out what her advisors told her. Has Hilary ever been to the Holy City? The letter reminded me of the Hamas video that we watched earlier this semester with the whole citizen perspective to the conflict. Hopefully Hilary and other candidates will read this letter and do some research into the situation in order to truly help the world.
Though the Hillary letter didn't add much the mention of Hillary did. You know how people say only Nixon could go to China because he had such a strong anti-communist record? I think only Bush can make these demands of Israel because he has such a strong pro-Israel record. If this peace conference lasts into the next administration should we expect the Israelis to be as open? I think we should expect a more conservative deal if this conference lasts into 2009. Right now Olmert is negotiation from a position of strength, if a change of administration is perceived to have weakened that position I think we will see things like the Jerusalem offered scaled back or rescinded all together.
Post a Comment
<< Home