Old City Jerusalem as an Independent Sovereignty

Shusha

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2015
Messages
12,258
Reaction score
1,781
Points
290
I was reading a lengthy proposal for a peace agreement today. Mostly the same old same old. Whatever.

But! One intriguing idea which was presented is a self-governing, self-determining. independent State of Holy City Jerusalem. The proposal itself was rather messy in that it suggested that the Old City be "run by G-d", which I hope we all agree is ... well, *impractical* at best.

The idea is worth visiting, imo. (Not saying I agree with it, just that its an interesting topic of discussion).

The Old City becomes a separate, sovereign, independent State. Constitutional principles would include absolute guarantee of equality for people of all religions (or none), ethnicities, nationalities, etc to freely visit, pray, live, travel, worship, shop. The interior spaces of each religious faith's monuments would be under the guidance of that particular religious faith: Al Aqsa Mosque and Dome of the Rock governed by Muslims and Islamic law; the Churches governed by Christians, the Kotel (partitioned areas considered "interior space") by Jewish law. All exterior spaces would be open to anyone. A multi-faith monument would be opened, creating an interior space which could be utilized by people of all faiths and governed by an multi-faith body. Official languages would be Hebrew and Arabic. Family law would be based on individual's preference: sharia, halakha or secular (all three would be provided).

Government representation is based on equal consideration for the Jewish and Arab peoples, with each peoples having a set number of seats in Parliament, regardless of proportional population (10 seats for Arabs, 10 seats for Jews).

All normal rights of States are assumed.

Neither Israel, nor an eventual Palestine has authority or sovereignty. Nor do any other international actors.



Thoughts?
 

fncceo

Platinum Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2016
Messages
24,598
Reaction score
8,108
Points
910
What is the incentive for Israel to share jurisdiction over a place where it already has full control?

Compromise only makes sense where there is something to gain by it.
 
OP
Shusha

Shusha

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2015
Messages
12,258
Reaction score
1,781
Points
290
What is the incentive for Israel to share jurisdiction over a place where it already has full control?

Compromise only makes sense where there is something to gain by it.
Well, Israel's jurisdiction is mediated by the necessity to appease the worldwide Muslim community. So to say Israel has "full control" is ... well, generous.
 

fncceo

Platinum Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2016
Messages
24,598
Reaction score
8,108
Points
910
What is the incentive for Israel to share jurisdiction over a place where it already has full control?

Compromise only makes sense where there is something to gain by it.
Well, Israel's jurisdiction is mediated by the necessity to appease the worldwide Muslim community. So to say Israel has "full control" is ... well, generous.
The worldwide Muslim community can't be appeased, only placated. So, if your damned if you do, damned if you don't, why commit to either?
 

Rigby5

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2017
Messages
5,550
Reaction score
720
Points
170
Location
New Mexico
What is the incentive for Israel to share jurisdiction over a place where it already has full control?

Compromise only makes sense where there is something to gain by it.
Because Israel has no legal authority to any of Jerusalem.
The 1949 UN partition made Jerusalem a separate entity that is supposed to be controlled by the UN, not Israel or Palestine.
So do you want the Rule of Law, or the rule of the jungle, where might makes right?
 

Rigby5

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2017
Messages
5,550
Reaction score
720
Points
170
Location
New Mexico
What is the incentive for Israel to share jurisdiction over a place where it already has full control?

Compromise only makes sense where there is something to gain by it.
Well, Israel's jurisdiction is mediated by the necessity to appease the worldwide Muslim community. So to say Israel has "full control" is ... well, generous.
The worldwide Muslim community can't be appeased, only placated. So, if your damned if you do, damned if you don't, why commit to either?
How is Israel at all harmed by going back to Tel Aviv as its capital?
It is clear to everyone that the 1967 war where Israel captured Jerusalem, was totally illegal.
Israel has done well in wars in the past only because they were extremely short.
If Arab neighbors ever decide in a drawn out conflict, Israel would have to fold.
The small Jewish population can not fight a long war and maintain an economy.
 
OP
Shusha

Shusha

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2015
Messages
12,258
Reaction score
1,781
Points
290
What is the incentive for Israel to share jurisdiction over a place where it already has full control?

Compromise only makes sense where there is something to gain by it.
Because Israel has no legal authority to any of Jerusalem.
The 1949 UN partition made Jerusalem a separate entity that is supposed to be controlled by the UN, not Israel or Palestine.
So do you want the Rule of Law, or the rule of the jungle, where might makes right?

181 is not law.
 
OP
Shusha

Shusha

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2015
Messages
12,258
Reaction score
1,781
Points
290
How is Israel at all harmed by going back to Tel Aviv as its capital?
One could easily ask the same of Arab Palestine. How is Palestine harmed by having Ramallah as its capital?


(The answer, btw, to your question, is that Israel has proven its ability to secure shared equal access to holy and historical sites. Even to the extent of limiting its own to appease violent Muslims. Arabs and Muslims appear, to date, unable to entertain the idea of a shared holy site. In fact, they insist that Jews don't place their dirty feet in places now deemed "Muslim" because they took them by force of conquest.)
 

Rigby5

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2017
Messages
5,550
Reaction score
720
Points
170
Location
New Mexico
What is the incentive for Israel to share jurisdiction over a place where it already has full control?

Compromise only makes sense where there is something to gain by it.
Because Israel has no legal authority to any of Jerusalem.
The 1949 UN partition made Jerusalem a separate entity that is supposed to be controlled by the UN, not Israel or Palestine.
So do you want the Rule of Law, or the rule of the jungle, where might makes right?

181 is not law.
Well 181 is the best that Israel can claim, so if it is not law, then Israel has no legal existence at all.
 

Rigby5

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2017
Messages
5,550
Reaction score
720
Points
170
Location
New Mexico
How is Israel at all harmed by going back to Tel Aviv as its capital?
One could easily ask the same of Arab Palestine. How is Palestine harmed by having Ramallah as its capital?


(The answer, btw, to your question, is that Israel has proven its ability to secure shared equal access to holy and historical sites. Even to the extent of limiting its own to appease violent Muslims. Arabs and Muslims appear, to date, unable to entertain the idea of a shared holy site. In fact, they insist that Jews don't place their dirty feet in places now deemed "Muslim" because they took them by force of conquest.)

Palestine is not harmed by having Ramallah as its capital.
I think that Palestine likely should make Ramallah as its capital.
But clearly Israel can not make Jerusalem it capital.
That is way beyond any sense or reality.

It is NOT Israel that secures shared equal access to the holy and historical sites.
It is the Arab Muslims who control the Temple Mount.
 

fncceo

Platinum Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2016
Messages
24,598
Reaction score
8,108
Points
910
What is the incentive for Israel to share jurisdiction over a place where it already has full control?

Compromise only makes sense where there is something to gain by it.
Because Israel has no legal authority to any of Jerusalem.
The 1949 UN partition made Jerusalem a separate entity that is supposed to be controlled by the UN, not Israel or Palestine.
So do you want the Rule of Law, or the rule of the jungle, where might makes right?
Something no one mentioned when Jordan kicked out the UN by force in 1948 and annexed the territory for nearly 20 years.
 
OP
Shusha

Shusha

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2015
Messages
12,258
Reaction score
1,781
Points
290
What is the incentive for Israel to share jurisdiction over a place where it already has full control?

Compromise only makes sense where there is something to gain by it.
Because Israel has no legal authority to any of Jerusalem.
The 1949 UN partition made Jerusalem a separate entity that is supposed to be controlled by the UN, not Israel or Palestine.
So do you want the Rule of Law, or the rule of the jungle, where might makes right?

181 is not law.
Well 181 is the best that Israel can claim, so if it is not law, then Israel has no legal existence at all.

Eye roll. San Remo. Mandate for Palestine. Principles of self-determination for peoples.
 
OP
Shusha

Shusha

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2015
Messages
12,258
Reaction score
1,781
Points
290
It is NOT Israel that secures shared equal access to the holy and historical sites.
It is the Arab Muslims who control the Temple Mount.
Um. You do realize that there is NO SHARED EQUAL ACCESS to the Temple Mount, right? And the reason there is no shared equal access to the Temple Mount is because, while Israel certainly does control it, in point of fact, Israel, for security reasons, must appease violent Muslims who are unwilling to share the holy place. Israel accomplishes this security need by intentionally restricting access to non-Muslims.

The CAUSE of the inequality is Muslim inability to share a holy site, backed up with violence.
 
OP
Shusha

Shusha

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2015
Messages
12,258
Reaction score
1,781
Points
290
Also, if Israel decided to enforce true equality on the Temple Mount (and, imo, she should) she would be able to do so with a day's notice. Easily.
 

Rigby5

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2017
Messages
5,550
Reaction score
720
Points
170
Location
New Mexico
What is the incentive for Israel to share jurisdiction over a place where it already has full control?

Compromise only makes sense where there is something to gain by it.
Because Israel has no legal authority to any of Jerusalem.
The 1949 UN partition made Jerusalem a separate entity that is supposed to be controlled by the UN, not Israel or Palestine.
So do you want the Rule of Law, or the rule of the jungle, where might makes right?
Something no one mentioned when Jordan kicked out the UN by force in 1948 and annexed the territory for nearly 20 years.
Totally incorrect.
The UN took no part at all in any of the 1948 events.
And clearly the IDF was illegally attempting to attack and invade the West Bank, and had pierced deeply into the Palestinian side of the UN partition.
The Israeli side of the UN partition was not at all including or even near to the West Bank.
Jordan was forced to intervene in order to prevent capture of Jerusalem by the Israelis, and the Jordanians won.
Israel was defeated, and did not occupy Jerusalem until their invasion in 1967.
If Israel has not tried to invade, then Jordan would not have had to defend Jerusalem.
It was all Israel's fault.
You can not blame Jordan.

Jordanian annexation of the West Bank - Wikipedia
 

Rigby5

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2017
Messages
5,550
Reaction score
720
Points
170
Location
New Mexico
What is the incentive for Israel to share jurisdiction over a place where it already has full control?

Compromise only makes sense where there is something to gain by it.
Because Israel has no legal authority to any of Jerusalem.
The 1949 UN partition made Jerusalem a separate entity that is supposed to be controlled by the UN, not Israel or Palestine.
So do you want the Rule of Law, or the rule of the jungle, where might makes right?

181 is not law.
Well 181 is the best that Israel can claim, so if it is not law, then Israel has no legal existence at all.

Eye roll. San Remo. Mandate for Palestine. Principles of self-determination for peoples.
The Treaty of San Remo gives absolutely no sovereignty to Jews or Jewish immigrants.
And by the way, it actually is the Treaty of Sevres that determined the legal fate of Palestine.
The British Mandate for Palestine is clearly explained by the Churchill Whitepaper as definitely precluding any Jewish sovereignty.
Jews are an immigrant minority, so get ZERO right to rule under principles of self determination of indigenous people.
 
OP
Shusha

Shusha

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2015
Messages
12,258
Reaction score
1,781
Points
290
What is the incentive for Israel to share jurisdiction over a place where it already has full control?

Compromise only makes sense where there is something to gain by it.
Because Israel has no legal authority to any of Jerusalem.
The 1949 UN partition made Jerusalem a separate entity that is supposed to be controlled by the UN, not Israel or Palestine.
So do you want the Rule of Law, or the rule of the jungle, where might makes right?
Something no one mentioned when Jordan kicked out the UN by force in 1948 and annexed the territory for nearly 20 years.
Totally incorrect.
The UN took no part at all in any of the 1948 events.
And clearly the IDF was illegally attempting to attack and invade the West Bank, and had pierced deeply into the Palestinian side of the UN partition.
The Israeli side of the UN partition was not at all including or even near to the West Bank.
Jordan was forced to intervene in order to prevent capture of Jerusalem by the Israelis, and the Jordanians won.
Israel was defeated, and did not occupy Jerusalem until their invasion in 1967.
If Israel has not tried to invade, then Jordan would not have had to defend Jerusalem.
It was all Israel's fault.
You can not blame Jordan.

Jordanian annexation of the West Bank - Wikipedia

Don’t be ridiculous. Jordan had absolutely no right to cross an international boundary and take control of territory not under her sovereignty.

No country has a right to take control of non-sovereign territory using violence.
 

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top