The jewish people that Olmert is obviously most worried about are those who's opinion actually carries influence. Influence over the U.S., who he will of course need on his side if he is to push an agreement through. These people are the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.

Its easy to strike a hard-line against foes when you're on a different continent than the conflict, and this tends to be what the committee does.

I'm not sure about the depth of their religious affiliation, but I think its a safe bet to say that it attracts the support of religious conservatives. Who owns Jureusalem? That question, when discussed by politicians should not give a shred of ground to those who claim religious mandates for their opinion. I'm not going to draw the line of who can law claim to partial "ownership" of a city, but her's a start: not people who live on a different continent.

jwschmidt:

Who owns Jureusalem? That question, when discussed by politicians should not give a shred of ground to those who claim religious mandates for their opinion. I'm not going to draw the line of who can law claim to partial "ownership" of a city, but her's a start: not people who live on a different continent.

Without people who claim religious mandates, that part of the Middle East would be practically depopulated. Which is not a bad idea, perhaps, but my own semi-serious modest proposal for a Jerusalem solution takes that into account:

Since it's a "world heritage site," or some such nonsense, and is claimed as a holy city by the three big desert religions, why not just make the place a UN protectorate separate from all other countries and turn it into a kind of religious Disneyland? It could belong to everyone and no one.

Barring that, of course, the world could do a kind of Solomonic decision and carpetbomb the place into rubble so that it would be of no use or value to anybody anyway. But being a pacific sort of guy, I prefer my "Disneyland" option....

o_hellenbach:

Since it's a "world heritage site," or some such nonsense, and is claimed as a holy city by the three big desert religions, why not just make the place a UN protectorate separate from all other countries and turn it into a kind of religious Disneyland? It could belong to everyone and no one.

Yeah, that was Tom Clancy's solution in The Sum of All Fears.

Fitzpatrick:

Yeah, that was Tom Clancy's solution in The Sum of All Fears.

Tom Clancy? Okay, I now officially repudiate the idea. Sorry, Jerusalem, it looks like carpetbombing for you.

"Who owns Jureusalem? That question, when discussed by politicians should not give a shred of ground to those who claim religious mandates for their opinion."

If this is true, then neither the Christians nor the Muslims have much ground to stand upon. Israel "owns" Jerusalem, and the very fact that Israel is a Jewish state is the "thumb in the eye".

" Who owns Jureusalem? That question, when discussed by politicians should not give a shred of ground to those who claim religious mandates for their opinion."

If this is really your position, then neither the Muslims nor the Christians have any ground(s) or claim(s) to ownership. Jerusalem "belongs" to Israel, as it has political and actual possession and control of the territory. The fact that Israel is a Jewish state is the "finger in the eye."

mrachmuth, your misinterpreting my point in two ways.

1. I'm acknowledging that the question of ownership is still open. I'm not saying that I'm against the the debate itself. (Even though Israel does literally own it now, they are clearly considering negotiations over that status).

2. Muslims and Christians and Hindus and Jews and whoever are not excluded because of their faith, rather, (in my opinion) I consider you excluded from the debate if your reason for engaging in it in the first place is none other than your religious identity. I meant to indicate that geography should matter more than religious identity.

So muslims aren't excluded because they're muslims, but I would see fit to ignore their claim if the only reason they could give is "god said so." Now, of course there are lots of additional reasons that Jews and Palestinians cite for their claim in addition to religious ones. My ultimate point is to focus on the reasons OTHER than religion, and do our best to ignore people who stake a greater claim than they should, simply because they identify with a group of people on the other side of the planet. This goes for Muslims and Jews equally.

And, I'm saying that AIPAC isn't the problem. AIPAC is a characteristice of the problem, which, it seems, we agree upon. I don't think that I, as not a resident of Israel, should decide who "owns" Jerusalem. However, AIPAC is no more, or less, a characteristic of the problem, than is any other religious or ethnic claim, to Jerusalem. Remember, prior to 1967, Israel functioned politically and socially without ownership, or even access to Jerusalem. Yet, when Israel become the possessor of that important piece of real estate, it became a problem for so many people of so many different ethnic and religious groups.

I reiterate: AIPAC is not the problem; and Israel "owns" Jerusalem.

No AIPAC is not the problem, though it plays a role in the problem. In my opinion, the net affect of that role is negative.

Yes, Israel owns jereusalem right now, but the debate is open as to who will own it in purpetuity. Negotiations on that issue are now part of Olmert's policy. Otherwise why would this article have been written?

You mean like the original UN Partition plan/GA Res. 181? Called for Jerusalem to be an Open City, international zone. The Zionists--while claiming victory in the rigged (US money bought a lot of "abstentions"), non-binding partition vote and then unilateral authority to implement their own version after Arabs sensibly rejected the plan--would never, in any event, have countenanced an internationalization of Jerusalem. Read letters, journals, speeches etc.--from Herzl (re-build the temple) to Ben Gurion (Feb. 1949 advocates for moving all govt offices to Jerusalem and annexing it) to whomever: Zionism opposes a free Jerusalem. Plain and simple. How much longer can Israel game the system?

Have any of the participants here ever been to jerusalem? there are three jerusalems. the new jerusalem is an israeli city, built by israelis in the past few decades, inhabited by israelis (jewish and arab). on the other hand, east jerusalem is as palestinian as harlem is african-american. israelis don't go there. and the old city; which the jordanian administration 1947-1968 handled with a policy of judenrein compared to the israeils' pretty openhanded policy since.

Jews and Palestinians are one and the same people. Palestine is an area not a nation or state or race.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Palestine (from Greek: Παλαιστίνη; Latin: Palaestina; Hebrew: ארץ־ישראל‎ Eretz Yisrael, formerly also פלשתינה Palestina; Arabic: فلسطين‎ Filasṭīn, Falasṭīn, Filisṭīn) is one of several names for the geographic region between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River and various adjoining lands.

The name Palestine refers to a region of the eastern Mediterranean coast from the sea to the Jordan valley and from the southern Negev desert to the Galilee lake region in the north. Palestine is included between two lines drawn from the Mediterranean eastward—the lower from the southeast corner of the Mediterranean through the southern end of the Dead Sea, and the upper from Tyre to the southern foot of Mount Hermon. Palestine has certain natural boundaries to justify its historical individuality[1]. Palestine embraces the current state of Israel and the Palestinian territories of the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

Other English names for this region include Canaan, Land of Israel, and Holy Land.

Playing semantic games is a pointless exercise.

The terms "Jews", "Israelis," "Palestinians," and "Arabs" have well-defined, broadly accepted, and non-conjoint referents.

In other words, there are real differences between real people, and pretended that there are not doesn't help anyone.

jwschmidt:

No AIPAC is not the problem, though it plays a role in the problem. In my opinion, the net affect of that role is negative.

Yes, Israel owns jereusalem right now, but the debate is open as to who will own it in purpetuity. Negotiations on that issue are now part of Olmert's policy. Otherwise why would this article have been written?

which jerusalem? the bustling modern city which was built by Israelis since 1947? the middle eastern slum which Jordan had possession of 1947-1967 and which contains not much interesting for anyone other than the Arabs who live there? The "Old City" of interest to tourists, pilgrims, etc. which was under Jordanian rule from 1947-1967 during which time tourism was prohibited and various holy sites and archaelogical sites were systematically destroyed, but now is the center of a bustling tourism/pilgrimage/antiquities­/archaelogical life?

let the israelis keep the new jerusalem, let the arabs have east jerusalem as they want, and let the israelis keep the old city since they're doing just fine with it including allowing access to the dome of the rock, whereas the previous landlords really ran it into the ground.

No nation owns anything "in purpetuity. That is one of the major problems. Israel, when it was created and declared its independence, didn't own or control Jerusalem (Old City/Temple Mount), and I believe that, while it dreamed of once more being in control of that territory, really didn't base its existence or policy on such a circumstance.

Now, Israel has control. Whether it really is negotiating that continued control is a policy for Israel to deal with, not me.

However, I was arguing that no other state, now or in the past, has given control over its capital, to an international power. Muslims don't accept Mecca as an international city, nor does the Vatican accept such characterization for the Holy See in Rome. (In fact, Muslims argue that once they have had control over a region, whether control is politically viable, they never relinquish it. Thus the radical claim for the right of Muslims to take back and control, not only Jerusalem, but those parts of the Iberian peninsula, as well as the Indian sub-continent once controlled by Muslim rulers.)

Israel's claim to Jerusalem is both historical as well as religious. However, its claim only became reality after 1967. If it wants to negotiate that, that is for Israelies to decide. That is all I'm saying.