Half a croissant, on a plate, with a sign in front of it saying '50c'
h a l f b a k e r y
Resident parking only.

idea: add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random

meta: news, help, about, links, report a problem

account: browse anonymously, or get an account and write.



Jerusalem as an Independent City-State

Kinda like Vatican City, only more difficult
  (+24, -9)(+24, -9)
(+24, -9)
  [vote for,

With all the recent mid-east nonsense in the news, it seems to me that time and again, who takes ownership of how much of Jerusalem seems to be one major sticking point. Well, I propose that the important parts of it be given to neither Israel nor any formed Palestinian state, but become an independent city-state, to be ruled by an outside party with Palestinian and Israeli representation subordinate to its rule. Also form a consortium representing the three religions in the city that would vote on matters of historical, religious, or archeological significance. Utilize the old city gates and walls to keep out trouble, and maintain a security force specific to the city.
RayfordSteele, Apr 03 2002

UN Resolution 181 http://www.mfa.gov....fa/go.asp?MFAH00ps0
Partition plans, which would have created the Jerusalem international zone. [waugsqueke, Apr 04 2002]

what the negotiations produced http://www.gush-sha...media/barak_eng.swf
have you ever seen a map of what was offered to the palestinians?
well here it is in a flash presentation.
note how far the negotiations went at taba (jan. 2001) [mihali, Apr 04 2002, last modified Oct 17 2004]

divided towns more stable? http://news.bbc.co....1917000/1917278.stm
yet another example. Mitrovica (Kosovo), Apr-8th [sappho, Apr 08 2002, last modified Oct 17 2004]

Understand the role of the media first http://education.gu...9865,684937,00.html
[sappho, Apr 16 2002, last modified Oct 17 2004]

History of sovereignty of Judea/Palestine/Israel etc. http://news.bbc.co....1931000/1931123.stm
"Next time you draft a treaty pay attention to the simplest English words that can say so much like "by" and "with" and "from" and "for" - and pay special attention to the definite article, the harmless word of three letters: T H E" [sappho, Apr 29 2002, last modified Oct 17 2004]

what's really going on there? http://www.sacbee.c...9891p-2860142c.html
[mihali, Apr 29 2002, last modified Oct 17 2004]

The Best peace deal ever offered http://www.palestin..._campdavid_2000.php
How can Palestine reject this, then call Barak the man who didn't want peace and claim they deserved Israel? [Germanicus, Apr 17 2005]

Brash, and stupid. http://news.bbc.co....le_east/4458295.stm
It's really simple. This land doesn't belong to you. Do you always thumb your noses at your benefactors who've taken such great pains for you? [RayfordSteele, Apr 18 2005]

Allah Islam http://www.youtube....watch?v=mJz4K3PIS0Q
Life in a Muslim neighborhood, Rosengarten in Melmo, Sweden, where police do not enter, and residents are terrified by the extremists, but together hate the Swedes. [pashute, Nov 07 2012]

Hadassah Jeruslam (Jewish established) Hospital in Arabic http://www.hadassah...al+Center+Campuses/
Click the Arabic to see... Largest Jerusalem hospital, at least half the staff and patients are Arab. Facilities set for all religions. Just showing what really goes on here. [pashute, Nov 08 2012]

The Sixth Crusade https://en.wikipedi.../wiki/Sixth_Crusade
Close, but no cigar. [DrBob, Jul 23 2014]

A day in the life https://www.nybooks...ife-of-abed-salama/
Is this Jerusalem? or Berlin in 1955? [RayfordSteele, Apr 12 2021]


       "Theme park..." I like it. Jerusa-land...   

       Between the various religious festivals, gatherings, holidays, etc., the city could make enough money to survive. The temple mount could become a multi-religious chapel with appropriate decor for the current holiday at hand.
RayfordSteele, Apr 04 2002

       pray for peace.
mihali, Apr 04 2002

       I'm for choosing sides, for the sake of a lasting peace. The present contenders should settle their differences now, with the world aside as referee.   

       As an ancient attempt to establish 'holy ground' and to extend the domain, Jerusalem has been without equal as a warren for the children of god. The true value of the city today is much like the value of the Smithsonian Institution to Western culture, it's history. When attempts were made in the past to sweep the country clean of its corrupt inhabitants, we note many successful exiles of the inhabitants. There were purges based on the ability of one's enemies to speak [Jdg 12:6], the ability of one's enemies to spy [Jos 2:14], the ability of one's enemies to bow under the yoke [Act 15:10], and the ability of one's enemies to oppress their own [Rev 3:19]. To allow a group of one's enemies to coexist with you as they hide their weapons 'under a bushel' [2Ki 7:8] historically naive and therefore stupid .   

       Way long commentary, but I'm feeling a bit of the whimsy t'nite.
reensure, Apr 04 2002

       //The present contenders should settle their differences now, with the world aside as referee.//
That doesn't seem to be working, as Israel refuses to comply with UN resolutions.
Divided city? 'Coz it worked so well with Berlin?
angel, Apr 04 2002

       It did actually work quite well in berlin, once they got the wall up.
[ sctld ], Apr 04 2002

       Ask the guys who were shot crossing the wall.
angel, Apr 04 2002

       Disillusionment vis-a-vis the Old City once again being turned inside out by impassioned inhabitants in, on and around the Living Museum begs the question: Will their own personal God forgive them, let alone His supposed enemies for their transgressions in His name?

These various religious fanatics, leaders, zealots - indeed entire Governments seek absolution, redemption, if not martyrdom through acts of violence - and not that of pure faith. Their desire to walk on Holy Ground has the most fatal flaw in each side's fabric - The Devil mocks their every step. Each side believes the other to be the Poster Child of Damnation once they've departed this earth, if not while on it - and themselves bound for a heavenly paradise when their God calls them home.

While neither should take a laissez-faire approach to the time their God calls one of their own home at the hands of a "non-believer", they must accept this is the risk they - not God - chose by being in this region. If they base their life on being there, then they base their death on being there as well. It is they who do not understand that most important part of lifes equation who wail and gnash their teeth about the lives lost - whom they themselves jeopardized by bringing them into such an environment. And yet, they seek revenge for their own flawed logic in choosing living arrangements. The toll, as it always has - mounts upon The Mount where the figureheads of their respective faiths ascended into Heaven. Mourn, move on.

Should some wish to peacefully exit the Old City for a time, and live to tell about it - let them. Should some wish to remain - let them. Whatever munitions they've got - let them be resupplied no more. Let those last bastions of Faith and Promise and Hatred do battle with each other until there is no man standing. Let those who wish to return and rebuild their precious City do so. It is nothing new under the Sun of Man, nor the Son of God. The revolution of the damned will be televised.
thumbwax, Apr 04 2002

       you just made me even more depressed than i already was.   

       i'm still hoping that cooler heads will prevail, but i'm losing faith every day.
mihali, Apr 04 2002

       what mihali said (the first time).
beauxeault, Apr 04 2002

       As much as I agree with your first statement, mihali, it is unlikely, if not altogether impossible, for this conflict ever to be sorted out.   

       Both parties have valid points, and valid claims. As Arafat correctly points out, Palestinians have lived those lands since before Abraham. And anyone who thinks Israel is acting heavy-handed, just imagine what the American response would be to daily terrorist bombings from Mexico.   

       I'm not defending either party. But the realism is that this area has _always_ been in conflict, and it's not about to stop now. The Palestinians will never settle for anything less than control of the entire city of Jerusalem. And they will never get it.   

       Rayford, this is a very old idea, and one that is still kicking around, most recently in a proposal by the US and France, whereby control of the Temple Mount would be given to the United Nations.   

       The UN wanted to 'internationalize" Jerusalem in 1947. (See link.)
waugsqueke, Apr 04 2002

       *reading link.* Cool. Then I really wasn't too far off. Should I run for UN Secretery General?
RayfordSteele, Apr 04 2002

       Angel: If they were allowed to cross the wall then the why would the city need to be divided?
[ sctld ], Apr 04 2002

       waugs: i don't think it's impossible. they were very close to a settlement by january 2001 (see link), and they could get there again, imho.
mihali, Apr 04 2002

       Remind me how this will stop suicide bombers from attacking whoever is the 'new' authority. A wall will not.
dag, Apr 04 2002

       dag: Like Angel said, if you cross the wall you get shot.
[ sctld ], Apr 04 2002

       mihali, I see what you're saying, but despite appearances, I don't believe they were close at all. Arafat has made it clear there would be no agreement without total control of Jerusalem, and that's about the only thing they were lacking in Jan 2001.   

       Close, perhaps, in the sense of meeting every condition but one, but that one condition is the most important one, and one that neither side will _ever_ concede.
waugsqueke, Apr 04 2002

       ¯angel: You bring an interesting and still more progressive idea to the table ref: \ … That (the world as referee) doesn't seem to be working, as Israel refuses to comply with UN resolutions. \

I apologize for creating the assumption that Israel, once created by UN resolution, was bound to abide by further resolutions. The United States is trying steadfastly to prove the superior nature of its constitutional governement as set in place and kept in check by the same title, and it would be hypocritical to assert that the resolutions of 1948 are as organic as the US Constitution. To do so would in effect create a simple puppet state in the Mideast (? like Iraq) and sever that Israel's link to historical sovereignty -- a link held other kingdoms and potentates in the Arabian peninsula.

¯waugsqueke: /… As Arafat correctly points out, Palestinians have lived those lands since before Abraham. … / In regard to the Palestinian claim to original title for occupancy of the area, dating to antiquity. I think that would be easy to refute, unless the title exists via some unknown and referent meaning of "Palestine" much like the stateside referring to themselves collectively as "American". I know nothing of this, but maybe I'll look into it in a day or two.
reensure, Apr 04 2002

       National Bar-b-q day? Yeah, but are you gonna serve halal, or kosher, or something else?   

       Maybe we should just stick to barbecuing veggies.
mattitude, Apr 05 2002

       and the other 10% would get themselves some guns.
sappho, Apr 05 2002

       We're currently banking on that 10% to become suicide bombers.
[ sctld ], Apr 05 2002

       who is this "we" ?
sappho, Apr 05 2002

       [sctld]: /If they were allowed to cross the wall then the why would the city need to be divided?/
Because the rules are not made by the people whom they affect.
[reensure]: I might suggest that, in this instance, the world (as referee) *dare not* work, as any UN decision which could be regarded as unfavourable to Israel could (and probably would) be interpreted by that country as anti-Semitic. I might also suggest that, were it not for the atrocities of the Holocaust and the almost universal feeling that some form of compensation must be made, there would be no state of Israel today. The creation of that state in 1948 represented a communal act of atonement, and had no other justification.
angel, Apr 05 2002

       A de-militarized Israel is a non-existant Israel.
RayfordSteele, Apr 05 2002

       Fact: Israel is surrounded by sworn enemies (Read: Muslim, Arab Countries by any other name) All - Including Israel and Palestinians - have weapons:

Proposal: Israel is surrounded by sworn enemies (Read: Muslim, Arab Countries by any other name) All - except Israel and Palestinans - have weapons:

Result: Israel is decimated by sworn enemies (Read: Muslim, Arab Countries by any other name) All including resupplied Palestinans - have weapons:

This is why Israel has weapons
thumbwax, Apr 05 2002

       ¯Mephista: The side I'd choose to disarm the Palestinians would be (no surprise) the Israelis -- and it is proving to be quite a task for them now -- going house to house with metal detectors if necessary. The parallels to an Afghani situation are stark, and the real possibility of guerrilla force of rogue Arabs operating out of an inaccessible featureless cityscape exists within present-day Palestine.

¯angel: To be understandable, I should have said ‘… the world, as armchair quarterback … ’. To remain Laissez Faire will avoid the twin pitfalls of acting as though statements backing any side made by US leaders carry a veiled threat of force, or acting as though Israel is one of the "interests" that the US is sworn to protect.

I feel that, under Israel, the region may develop into a cooperative society where, for example, an Arab society donates land and builds schools for only Hebrew students while, somewhere else, a Jewish settlement gives title of its land back to an Arab people in return for exclusive rights to build, maintain, and regulate roads within that area. How can this be possible with bomb-toting pond scum dropping by the bank?
reensure, Apr 05 2002

       [sctld] You're saying, if you cross the wall, you get shot? What about a bomber walking up to the checkpoint and *BOOM*, then the next two bombers behind him run pass the dead guard who was supposed to shoot the first guy, and *BOOM*, *BOOM*. Breach of security. There is no defense to a group of people willing blow themselves up, short of eliminating them, but that will only bring more. No matter what you do to Jerusalem, with the exception of encasing it in stone and letting nobody in, it will never be impervious to attack.   

       One exception, nobody wants to attack it. Peace has to be a thought, not an action. Forced peace will never last.
dag, Apr 05 2002

       We got through the cold war, didn't we?
RayfordSteele, Apr 05 2002

       There is a considerable amount of cold war left overs out there. Some are still greatly assisting western enemies. Yeah, we made it through it, but loose ends have brought on new threats. Only two ways lasting peace will work. Peace through total elimination or peace through changing the thoughts and perspectives of your enemy.
dag, Apr 05 2002

       True enough.
RayfordSteele, Apr 05 2002

       I read a very interesting article about Hamas last night. They're not your typical terrorist organization, kids. They're also a full-fledged political party that has so much public support, they would likely defeat Fatah if an election were called now. They run social organizations, they build and operate schools and medical facilities.   

       And they also blow themselves up. The lines are long, the number of martyr wanna-be's grows every day.   

       The central belief of Hamas, the goal they seek, is the total destruction of Israel, and the return of every inch of land to the Palestinians. They will accept nothing less than this.   

       Arafat does not and cannot control Hamas. It seems that as long as Hamas and Israel both exist, there can be no peace.
waugsqueke, Apr 05 2002

       "guerilla force of rouge arabs" (reensure)...What gems there be among the scattered typos.   

       (We now return you to the foregoing serious discussion.)
beauxeault, Apr 06 2002

       dag: I was actually quoteing angel. Bsides if every plestiniandecides to kill his/herself, then eventually there won't be any more palestinians. Problem solved.
[ sctld ], Apr 06 2002

       How about we do what parents do when kids fight over a toy and take it away? Nuke Jerusalem and tell them to get over it.
StarChaser, Apr 06 2002

       dag: //Only two ways lasting peace will work. Peace through total elimination or peace through changing the thoughts and perspectives of your enemy.//   

       There's the problem - each side will require that the other changes *their* thoughts and perspectives. A truly peaceful settlement of any problem requires both sides changing their thoughts and perspectives.
calum, Apr 06 2002

       But if both sides change their perspectives, won't you be back to where you started just with each side now believing what the other side originally believed?   

       Just kidding. You have it right. Like it will ever happen though.
dag, Apr 06 2002

       StCh: Best case scenario for your suggestion (and assuming you meant "nuke" figuratively and not literally): now both sides hate us as well as each other.
magnificat, Apr 06 2002

       Reensure: //In regard to the Palestinian claim to original title for occupancy of the area, dating to antiquity. I think that would be easy to refute, unless the title exists via some unknown and referent meaning of "Palestine" much like the stateside referring to themselves collectively as "American".//   

       'Palestine' is a derivative of 'Philistine', you know.   

       Bereshit 21:34... "And Abraham stayed in the land of the Philistines for a long time." (first mention in the Torah)   

       If you go by the Torah, Abraham was an immigrant from Babylonia (Ur of the Chaldeas) by way of Haran (which was under Hittite control at that time). At around the time that Abraham is normally dated, as I understand, a mixture of Hittite and 'Habiru' or 'Khabiru' invaders decimated the Canaanite city-states - Byblos, Sidon, Tyre - lending credence to the idea that this was when the 'Hebrews' arrived in the area. Given the influence of Babylonian mythology on Genesis (or vice-versa, if you want to be Creationist about it), all indications are that the Jewish people / faith has its earliest roots in Iraq. Only after the Exodus from Egypt do we get God *giving* a homeland to an at-that-time semi-nomadic people. So Joshua, Gideon, etc., all the way up through Saul and David, wage a war based on territory and ideology with the indigenous people, justifying this on the basis of 'divine right'. Funnily enough, the Philistines didn't quite see the validity of that claim, just like the modern-day Palestinians don't quite see the validity of Israel's claim. We want to expiate our guilt for the Holocaust and that makes it right to carve up someone else's property? Then again, most of the Middle East had already been carved up, bought, sold, stolen and thoroughly shafted by the various players in the Great Game by that point anyway; so it was ours to give away, of course.   

       Hey, here's an idea. Let's kill two birds with one stone. We ethnically cleanse Iraq, getting rid of all those nasty terrorists and their support, and relocate Israel back in Abraham's original homeland. And that'll give us a base for attacking Iran - one of the countries Dubya has mentioned as a threat, despite its tentative movement towards a moderate regime and dialogue with the West. Let's get them now before they go all soft and democratic on us. Cause everything else we've done in the Middle East has really done the region the power of good. You know... supporting the Shah, selling arms to any maniac with money... where do we start?   

       Sorry - didn't mean that to sound as bitter and bleak as it came out but as far as I can see the Israelis abandoned reason when they voted in Ariel Sharon, the Palestinians are abandoning hope as Yasser Arafat is sidelined in favour of Hamas and suicide bombings, and we're the ones who created the situation in the first place. And I don't see much of a solution in this climate; if Bush backed up his call for Israel to return to its 1967 borders with the threat of an arms embargo, that might help, but frankly I think we're going to be reaping the whirlwind of the 20th Century for quite a while.   

       Human beings, eh. We deserve each other.
Guy Fox, Apr 06 2002

       Here's another plan. Move the most religious of the Palestinian terrorists to Iraq and let them terrorize Saddam's secular state. Put Arafat in charge. Then nuke the place.
RayfordSteele, Apr 06 2002

       Magnificat: No, I meant it literally, ie a glass paved parking lot. Nothing would change; both sides already hate us. But at least they'd quit fighting over a useless city.
StarChaser, Apr 06 2002

       Every race and nation, stand up! Yes, you. Come on. right, now I want all of you to walk the globe until the music stops. When the music stops, sit down. Where you are sitting down, yeah, that is your new homeland. Stay there, shut the hell up and get on with it.
calum, Apr 07 2002

       Calum, you going to remove one of the chairs?
RayfordSteele, Apr 08 2002

       Guy Fox, excellent and well written post.   

       I'd add that a quick perusal of Genesis 10 shows that the Philistines originated from a fellow named Casluhites ("from whom the Philistines came"), the grandson of Ham, who of course was brother of Shem (father of the Semites). Genesis 11 shows you have quite a number of generations to go before you get to Abram.
waugsqueke, Apr 08 2002

       Wait a minute, doesn't that mean that Palestinians and Israelis are related?
[ sctld ], Apr 08 2002

       Actually, I think the best idea was published in a scifi book last year - removing Jerusalem to another dimension altogether until everyone in the area learns to get on like adults! In the abscence of the technology, I give this a croissant =^_^=
suzzicat, Apr 08 2002

       We're all part of one big incestuous family if you believe those Christians (or Jews) sctld.
mcscotland, Apr 08 2002

       Actually, the bible doesn't say that Adam was the first man. He was actually a bit late, because humans wer made on the sixth day, and he was made 'bout a week later. He could claim to be the first Jew though.
[ sctld ], Apr 08 2002

       Always a problem when a religion takes most of it's work from other sources, you end up with contradictory stories.   

       Mephista, I suggest you look up 'humor'.
StarChaser, Apr 08 2002

       ¯[ sctld ]: I don't have a reference in mind to quote, but my understanding is that Jews and Palestinians are ancestrally common Semitic people, as ¯waugsqueke delineated them in a previous annotation.
reensure, Apr 08 2002

       Surely such a finding could be used as some sort of helping hand in the peace process?
[ sctld ], Apr 08 2002

       reensure, if you take Genesis at face value, the common ancestor is one level above "Semitic" - that being Shem and Ham's dad, Noah (of ark fame). Yep, they go right back to the boat.
waugsqueke, Apr 08 2002

       The Gentiles get stuck owning up to those that don't go back -- bum rap, in my opinion.   

       The Middle East needs to get serious about their differences in the way of the United Kingdom -- I heard that soccer was created to give the clashing religions in the UK somewhere to act out their conflicts.
reensure, Apr 08 2002

       It wasn't create dto do that. It was just a happy coincidence.
[ sctld ], Apr 08 2002

       Do you read preceding posts *at* *all* UnaBubba?
[ sctld ], Apr 08 2002

       [sctld], your post about Adam being made a week later confuses me. Care to elaborate?
RayfordSteele, Apr 08 2002

       How does the church reconcile the fact that "Y" chromosomes are not all identical with the biblical implication that all people are decendants of Noah (Noah and his sons--all decendants of Noah--were the only men on the ark).
supercat, Apr 08 2002

       "It's" Great, "a" now "small" I "world" can't "after" get "Allah" that "It's" tune "a" out "small" of "world" my "after" head "Allah"...
thumbwax, Apr 09 2002

       RayFordSteele: In the story of creation, the good news bible states in Genesis Ch1 V26 "Then God said, 'And now we will make make human beings; they will be like us and resemble us...He created them, male and female" These two anonymous people, according to the Bible, were the first humans. Before you say, hang on, couldn't these people be Adam and Eve? Well they can't be because in Genesis Ch2 V7 (entitled the garden of eden) it says "...the Lord God took some soil from the ground and formed a man out of it;". This was the creation of Adam, the first Jewish man. That is why, despite Adam and Eve having two sons only (Cain and Abel), Cain was able to marry an 'outsider', i.e someone begotten from these first humans. Does that clear it up?
[ sctld ], Apr 09 2002

       After thought - It says 'we' and 'us'. Thus there must bemore than one 'god' present at the time of creation. Hmmm, to the Holy See!
[ sctld ], Apr 09 2002

       A Bible, Torah, Quran, whatever by any other name is primarily to keep believers in line - best behavior, and all that.
Believers of one have difficulty mustering the ability or strength to acknowledge the belief of another, let alone living side by side.
Interpretation of any one Text from any one Holy Book also has differences.
Witness all the various factions or sects of Buddhists, Christians, Jews, Muslims. Witness all the varying opinions amongst people within each sect of Religion.
Suggested solution: All of mankind watch the film "Beneath The Planet Of The Apes"
thumbwax, Apr 09 2002

       StCh: If you meant it literally, that's worse, because, in addition to the above, the entire world hates us, hundreds of thousands of people are dead and hundreds of thousands more radiation-sick, and fall-out is strewn all over the place.
magnificat, Apr 09 2002

       [sctld] you're missing the point of the story. It's easily resolved because Genesis 2 is more detailed story, whereas Genesis 1 is simply the creation tale. It's not meant to imply some sort of linear chronology from chapter 1 to chapter 2. Chapter 2 is a 'zoom lens.'
RayfordSteele, Apr 09 2002

       None of the Holy Books goes into fantastic detail. One must bear in mind, writings were by those who principally had visions, or prophecies. Also the disclaimer: A day is as a thousand years, etc.. And what is read by most is a translation of an ancient language. Details get lost, abandoned without ever being written, etc.. Even the goings-on of Jesus are lacking in overall biographical perspective. Creationists say Adam was made from the proverbial mud, just like the Evolutionists claim. All told, If someone wants to believe something - whoop-te-doo, let 'em. Belief in one or another or none at all comes by faith, choice, reasoning, cultural whatever. Live and die and let live and die, but don't kill in the name of _____.
thumbwax, Apr 10 2002

       Back to the topic at hand for a moment, I am convinced now that the situation has formed a dangerous closed loop. The latest US involvement is not going to have the effect Bush wants.   

       Bush needs to maintain favo(u)r with Arab nations to progress with his "War on Terrorism Part II: Let's Get Saddam," so he's forced into pressuring Ariel Sharon to pull back his forces. Meanwhile, daily (and sometimes twice/thrice-daily) suicide bombings continue on, forcing Sharon to respond. Those crazy Hamas kids have to be thanking the US for getting into this latest round, because now they can keep poking and prodding Sharon, just as they are doing, and forcing him to make a decision to continue using force in response, or to succumb to the US demands. Either way, Hamas wins.   

       If you ask me, US involvement now guarantees the violence will continue.
waugsqueke, Apr 10 2002

       <off topic> Guy Fox, I am really glad to see you back! I, for one have missed you! </off topic>
salachair, Apr 10 2002

       I don't think the other Arab states really like Palestine. They give Palestine money for "suicide bombers", but I don't think they have Palestine's interests at all at heart. Every Palestinian could blow himself up and the other countries wouldn't shed a tear except insofar as the Palestinians failed to destroy Israel.   

       If the other Arab states really had the Palestinians' best interests at heart, they could offer them a place to live. After all, many Palestinians are, or are decendants of, people who were kicked out of other Arab countries. It seems, though, that other Arab nations would rather have the Palestinians hate the Israelis than have them settle down peacefully somewhere.
supercat, Apr 29 2002

       supercat, I think you have misunderstood something (and I want to correct your misunderstanding but I really don't think I know much at all about this issue, but I am really sure of only the small amount that I'll indicate now - please nobody flame me, I'm trying to be multi-sided about this)
Firstly you wrote "many Palestinians are, or are decendants of, people who were kicked out of other Arab countries" This isn't actually true - the Palestinians in Israel were there before almost all the Israelis. 'The Occupied Territories' refers to Israel's military occupation of what were supposed to be safe havens for indigenous Palestinians.
Secondly, "It seems, though, that other Arab nations would rather have the Palestinians hate the Israelis..." Yes, in a sense you have uncovered an interesting nuance of the relative inaction by other Arab states; they are not really doing much for the Palestinians. However, isn't this because they are shit scared of what the USA will do to them if they back up the Muslim side of this holy-land war?
"...than have them settle down peacefully somewhere" They are - by and large, the Palestinian population of the West Bank and Gaza are entirely peaceful, but it is a quirk (a big quirk) of their religion that fighting solo to the death for your land and your god is an honourable thing to do. Never forget that only fifty years ago the place was called Palestine. Then the UN resolved that the Jewish displaced from various places in Europe should have a homeland, but failed to define it properly. (I will see if there is a transcript of 'Letter From America' on Radio 4 where this was discussed very clearly) ...FOUND, see link 'history of sovereignty..'
Lastly, we have no hope of debating this clearly because we cannot see what we're *not* being told. See link I added above; 'Understand the role of the media'.
Sometimes we make the wrong assumptions about who the bad guys are. It's very sad, in any case - if this was just a fight over some land, it would trouble me less than it does now, where there are too many vested interests and selfish partnerships. p.s. what mihali said first.
sappho, Apr 29 2002

       //Never forget that only fifty years ago the place was called Palestine//
thumbwax, Apr 29 2002

       Was that wrong? well, 55 years ago it certainly wasn't called Israel.
sappho, Apr 29 2002

       Israel became a nation in 1312 B.C., two thousand years before the rise of Islam. A national language and distinct civilization have been maintained by Jews in Jerusalem even after the destruction of the second Temple. Despite the exile, Jewish life in Israel continued and often flourished.

The term Palestinian is derived from the word Philistines, an Aegean people who, in the 12th century B.C.E., settled in the Mediterranean costal plain of what is named Israel and the Gaza Strip. In the 2nd century C.E., after crushing the last Jewish revolt, the Romans first applied the name Palestinia to Judea (the southern portion of what is now called the West Bank) in an attempt to eradicate Jewish identification with the land of Israel. It was a way for the Romans to add insult to injury. They also tried to change the name of Jerusalem to Aelia Capitolina but that had even less staying power. Palestine has never before, or since, had an autonomous entity. It was ruled by the Persians, Hellenists, Romans, Byzantine, Islam, Christian crusaders, as well as by the Mamluks and the Ottoman Empire and, briefly, by the British, after World War I. The Arab conquest of the Land came four years after the death of the prophet Muhammad (632 C.E.) and lasted more than four centuries, with caliphs ruling from Damascus, Baghdad, and then Cairo. Restrictions against non-Muslims affected the Jews’ religious observances and legal status. Increasing social and economic discrimination forced many to leave the country. By the end of the 11th century, the Jewish community had diminished considerably and lost some of its organizational and religious cohesiveness. During the 12th century, the crusaders massacred many Jews, but again the Jewish community rebounded, in the next two centuries, as large numbers of Jewish pilgrims emigrated to Jerusalem and the Galilee, establishing communities in Saffad and elsewhere, during the next three hundred years.

Jerusalem is mentioned 700 times in the Old Testament, whereas Palestine is not mentioned, even once, in the Koran. Until 1967, the Palestinian Arabs did not view themselves as being a separate entity. Palestinians are Arabs indistinguishable from Jordanians (another recent invention of the British Empire), Syrians, or Lebanese. Since time immemorial, the Jewish population in Jerusalem has almost continuously been larger than that of any other people, including the Arabs. Jerusalem has been Israel’s capital since the time of King David and has been regarded for 3,000 years to be the capital of the Jewish People, who yearn for it, and for Israel, in prayers while facing east towards Jerusalem, three times each and everyday. Jerusalem has never been the capital of any Arab or Muslim entity. It’s remarkable that even when the Jordanians occupied Jerusalem (between 1948 and 1967), they never sought to make it their capital, nor did the Arab Palestinians, at that time, request to be regarded as an entity on their own or, for that matter, have Jerusalem as their capital. In the years of Jordanian occupation, Jews were not allowed access to their Temple Mount. Forty-eight Jewish synagogues, in the old city of Jerusalem, were burnt, and most of the tombstones in the Jewish Mount of Olives cemetery were used to pave the Jordanian Army’s camp roads.

Let me give you some quotes, which would shed some more light on what I described above:

When the first Congress of the Moslem-Arab Association met in 1915, they adopted the following resolution:

"We state that Palestine is part of Syria as it’s never been separate from it at any time."

In 1937, a local Arab leader, Abdul Hadi, told the Peel Commission (this was the Commission, established by the League of Nations, which ultimately called for the partition of Palestine). "There is no such country as Palestine. Palestine is a term the Zionists invented. There is no Palestine in the Bible. Our country was for centuries part of Syria." Romans, really.

When a distinguished Arab-American and Princeton graduate, Phillip Hitte, testified against partition in 1946, he said, "There was no such thing as Palestine in history. Absolutely not."

As World War II ended, the magnitude of the Holocaust became apparent (a separate topic is the disheartening fact that in these very days, many in the Arab world, and elsewhere, are denying the Holocaust ever existed). Accelerated demands arose for the survivors of Hitler’s "Final Solution" to find sanctuary in the homeland of their forefathers. The British worked out an arrangement for both Arabs and Jews but their insistence on receipt of an Arab approval guaranteed failure and subsequently the issue was turned over to the U.N. in November 1947. The U.N. established a Special Commission on Palestine to devise a solution. Delegates from 11 nations went to Palestine and found what has long been apparent - the conflicting national aspirations could not be reconciled. The outcome of the Commission’s inquiry was a recommendation drafted by seven nations (incidentally those including Canada) for the establishment of two separate states, Jewish and Arab, to be joined by economic union, with Jerusalem as an international enclave. The Jews were not satisfied with the small territory allotted to them by the Commission, nor were they happy that Jerusalem was severed from the Jewish State. Nevertheless, they welcomed the compromise. But, the Arabs rejected it outright. The U.N. General Assembly rejected, on November 29th, 1947, the Arab demand for a unitary Arab State and recommended partition. Alas, thereafter, five Arab armies stormed into Israel, forcing a war upon us that claimed 6,000 casualties (1% of the population), just a few short years after the Holocaust.

Keep in mind that the Arabs control 99.9% of the Middle East lands while Israel takes up only 0.1% of the region and that no Arab country wants to take Palestinians as their own, though Palestinians are Arab, and always have been. And a leading Arab nationalist, Sherif Hussein, the guardian of the Islamic holy places in Arabia, wrote in 1918, "The return of the Jewish exiles to their homeland will prove, materially and spiritually, to be an experimental school for their Arab brethren."
thumbwax, Apr 29 2002

       sigh... people and their 'categories of eachother.'
RayfordSteele, Apr 29 2002

       tw: assuming all that to be true, (i have a problem with some of the "facts" that you have written), the israeli government still has no right to force people off of the land that their families have owned for generations. imagine if the tables were turned and it was your house being repossesed by, oh for argument's sake, let's say canadians. these canadians say that they lived where you do thousands of years ago, and now they want the land back. are you going to just roll over and say "yeah sure, take it."? i don't think so. so it will be taken by force since the canadians are being funded to the tune of $3 billion a year of a superpower's tax base.   

       the point i'm trying to make is, that in 1993, a so-called agreement was reached that by 4 may, 1999 the country of palestine would be established. an integral part of that agreement was that the israeli government would stop building and even dismantle many of its settlements. what happened? the number of settlers doubled, and the number of settlements grew as well, with mr. barak's (the "generous offer" guy) government setting new records for settlement building. the now-forgotten mitchell report named the settlements as the main obstacle in reaching a peace deal. it is obvious to anyone who takes even a slight interest in the situation that the current government has no interest in peace, dismantling settlements, and giving the palestinians/arabs/christians whatever you want to call them a homeland of their own. it makes me sick the way israelis (i hesitate to say jews, because i like to think that true jews believe in peace and social equality for all) treat their neighbours and, indeed, 1 million of their own citizens (13 of which were the first to die in this uprising). has everyone forgotten that just before all the latest crap (i.e. the destruction of the palestinian government) that the arab league offered to accept the existence of israel in exchanged for a small country of palestine to be created? it's amazing how short some memories are.   

       see link.
mihali, Apr 29 2002

       TW, come quick! Vernon's using your account!
RayfordSteele, Apr 29 2002

       It may seem I'm as pro-Israel as a rabbi if one reads that post, but I'm most definitely not. Especially now that they've r_e_a_l_l_y screwed up this time. The post was primarily to clear up any confusion about how long Israel has existed in that geographical region, how long this has been going on, a bit about the origins of Palestine, and that's all. However much I'd like to see Palestinians find a place to call home so they can just BE, that ain't the place. What we see today is the result of the implemented plan of Romans of the 2nd century C.E. who tried to make the West Bank into Palestine - just to piss off Israel.
thumbwax, Apr 30 2002

       Independent city-state? Worst idea ever. You'd feel differently if a foreign country were playing with the idea of doing this to one of your cities. Okay for a light-hearted website such as this one, but an idea that never should be baked.
tharsaile, Jun 19 2002

       If you agree with the idea, read "Sum of All Fears"
If you disagree, or don't care much, see the movie.
reensure, Jun 19 2002

       missing completely, so far as a fairly close read could discover, is any rational discussion about why Americans should even care. Why should our sons and daughters die in the Mideast to support a corrupt European (Balfour Agreement 1923) and ignorant president (Truman, 1948) actions that first acquiesed to the Zionist theft and then legitimized it with recognition of Israeli's statehood? Unless there's a compelling interest other than the evangelical acceleration of the second coming - not exactly qualifying under the separation of church and state mandated by the US Constitution - it is difficult to see how any US involvement - including financial support in the region, diplomatic involvement and of course military support - is morally justifiable in the context of American self interest.
Whaaaat, Jan 13 2004

       Have you ever heard of genocide?
thumbwax, Mar 26 2004

       The Knights of Malta are currently without a country. I seem to recall that they had a pretty fierce Jerusalem jones going on about 700 years ago. I bet they would run the city for you.
bungston, Mar 26 2004

       Independent city states are the bedrock upon which civilization is built. What other forum grants citizens as much access to the socio-cultural-politico matrix of their lives? It would be in the inherent economic interest of Jerusalem to maintain Judaism, Christianity and Islam simply for the tourist traffic. Bravo. A big fat bun. Naysayers can burn in hell for all eternity.
Mungo, Mar 26 2004

       [mihali] Right, cos that's always worked in the past.
simonj, Mar 27 2004

       Some ideas are working still, like the supremacy of the US's atheistic, non-neutral, and popularly defended government.
Corrupt ... corrupter .... corruptest alternatives:
Monarchies that claim some divine attributes
Countries conquered or made new by aforementioned monarchies
Sect, or cult-based colonies of monarchies
Monarchical style city-states like the Vatican
Extortionist or terrorist fanatic nations led by heretic monarchical idolaters.
dpsyplc, Mar 27 2004

       The US should've abandoned support for Israel in return for allies with arab oil to begin with, just as it bought the right to colonize from native Americans for, mmm, $24 in jewelry. That jewelry is less esteemed today, as would be the Zionist movement.   

       Seriously, though, isn't all that is required of an indian nation to reclaim land in the US a discovery that its ancestors are buried there? Newly discovered native American burial sites aren't common, but I'd say many are simply recovered rather than risk a stuggle over rights to antiquities; besides, support is thin for a social order that scarcely escapes suspicion of the eating of its young. Obviously, evidence of perversion is tenuous but may yet be found, maybe even from a high source. Similarly, we may some day be treated by the Vatican to a viewing of the essays and letters of the former Catholic Mohammed before he abandoned his studies to pursue his dream of uniting the desert tribes under his revelations concerning Islam.
dpsyplc, Apr 07 2004

       1. Rant 2. Baked. 3. Fishbone
etherman, May 11 2004

       Baked unsuccessfully.   

       Anyway, not to get into too much controversy here, but for the Jews there is no land but Jerusalem. From the time we know how, to the day we enter our graves, we pray for return to Jerusalem, for it is the land of our fathers and mothers. I went there this winter and it was utterly mind-blowing.   

       The Western Wall, the last standing piece of the First Jewish Temple (where Jews from all over the world came all at once to pray) surges with Jewish spirituality and the power of God, strong enough to induce incredibly intense spiritual hallucination without drugs (at least for me, although I've heard that various scientific studies have established that spiritual experiences stimulate the same parts of the brain as psychedelic drugs). I've never experienced that anywhere else, but each religion has its places like that. Jerusalem is a holy place for all three religions, but I can tell you that there is nothing nowhere for the entire Jewish people if there is not a Jewish Jerusalem. As it is, parts of Jerusalem with significance to Islam are (as I understand it) controlled by the Muslims. And anyway, it's hard enough for Jews to visit our holiest place without anti-Semites controlling the town, and international Jews praying at the Wailing Wall have developed permanent brain damage from heavy stones thrown by Palestinians from above, before (not exactly often, but still!).   

       Islam has the rest of the Middle East. Catholicism has Italy/Vatican City. Protestantism/Lutheranism has Germany. All we want is a home of our own in the holiest land of our people.
disbomber, Apr 17 2005

       For that matter, why not close Vatican City and move the Pope & Co. nearer to the center of things... Might save some money, grandeur-wise, and internationalize the Church some (more).
cloudface, Apr 17 2005

       I may be wrong, but didn't the surrounding countries void any claim to the land when they invaded it the day it was formed (1948), the Six day War (1967) (which was not Israels fault as the attack was clearly pre-emptive and Egypt had technicaly (sp) already declared war by blocking the Straits of Tiran which was against UN law after 1956) and The Yom Kippur War (one of the most underhand attacks in history to attack on one of the 2 most holy days in our jewish calandar, just imagine an invasion of the Vatican on Christmas).   

       And didn't the Palestinians void their claim to Israeli land when they 'uprose' multiple times an refused any peace offer including the Camp David deal of 2000(see link) in which Barak offered:   

       *Israeli redeployment from 95% of the West Bank and 100% of the Gaza Strip   

       *The creation of a Palestinian state in the areas of Israeli withdrawal   

       *The removal of isolated settlements and transfer of the land to Palestinian control   

       *Other Israeli land exchanged for West Bank settlements remaining under Israeli control   

       *Palestinian control over East Jerusalem, including most of the Old City   

       *"Religious Sovereignty" over the Temple Mount, replacing Israeli sovereignty in effect since 1967.   

       Whilst I may be bias and pro-israel all this is documented fact.
Germanicus, Apr 17 2005

       Oh, but don't they deserve a second chance? After all, all the Palestinians, Syria, etc. have ever done to Israel is commit (after population is adjusted) 9/11-scale attacks regularly for years. Of course, when *just one* of those happens here, we can take over two countries. But in Israel, if they don't just let Palestine and Syria take over all of their land, they're being naughty, naughty little Jews and we need to punish them!
disbomber, Apr 17 2005

       It should also be noted, BTW, that the Muslim, Christian etc. right to worship freely and openly in any style they choose has *never* been infringed upon by the Jewish government of Israel, and Israel allows the Arabs to speak their peoples' language (Arabic/Farsi) and speak ill of the government and the Jewish race/religion freely without fear of any kind of government retribution. This doesn't sound like much in the US and Europe, but in the Middle East that kind of freedom is a *big fucking deal* and is VERY unique. With the exception of more free nations like Egypt and Jordan, many/most Arabic states in the Middle East--which, by the way, mostly rest on land on which Jews have lived for eternity--have forbidden throughout their history the practice of Judaism, the Hebrew language, and especially protest and free speech against the government.   

       It's funny how it's "in vogue" for American liberals (of which I am one) to hate Israel and the Israeli way of life, yet it's the most (and has at times been basically the only) truly free and democratic nation in the region, where *all citizens*, regardless of race and religion, are protected by rights similar to those granted to Americans by the Constitution. Although they don't know it, those who hold truly liberal and democratic ideals stand with Israel.
disbomber, Apr 17 2005

       With freedom in hand, citizens accede to letting others speak for them. That may be their elected representatives, union or political appointees, or just a proxy de facto. In less free societies, anyone with an agenda speaks while all individual opinions are silent. Most of the seats of powerful hate groups are noted for this presence and all will someday be ruined for their lack of support, because they do not speak "for" any constituency but only lay claim to anxiety that is fanned momentarily by their paranoid assertions.
reensure, Apr 17 2005

       Gee, [db], with all of those good points you'd wonder why it wasn't settled long ago. Why? Because for every intelligent thing the Israeli government has done, they've done some rather brash and stupid things as well that would inflame any underdeveloped society to the point of rebellion. Look at the occupied territories. Iraq has better infrastructure.   

       There's nothing left that it 'holy' about this wasteland, as both sides have defiled it by their refusal to respect eachother or show any mercy at all to their enemies.
RayfordSteele, Apr 18 2005

       Defiled it? As opposed to the Greeks, Romans, crusaders, ottomans, French generals taking practice shots at the sphynx and the British soldiers shooting at refugee boats? Get off it.   

       The only two cities I'd vote for as city states are New York and Vegas.
theircompetitor, Apr 18 2005

       All of which occured in the rather distant past. Point still stands: neither government deserves the land, and to claim that some random place is somehow 'holy' while being essentially at war with and effectively repressing the people who currently reside there is the height of hypocrisy. Hell, Pakistan and India have managed to start getting somewhere over Kashmir in much fewer years than this god-forsaken place has, or ever will at this rate.   

       Compare to our recent invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan, (since [db] brought it up). Regardless of the media's focus on all of the bad news and the admittedly rampant corruption during construction, the majority of the population rather *wants* us there. Israel could learn a lesson simply by the example of Afghanistan of how to try to treat lands it presently occupies.
RayfordSteele, Apr 18 2005

       Ray, as you know I supported those actions, but that's rather besides the point.   

       There's no distant past there -- everyone is living it. The economic situation in the territories is a result of the Intifada -- but this will simply get us back into the who begat whom discussion.   

       Bottom line, situation is improving and a compromise will likely come within the next couple of years.
theircompetitor, Apr 18 2005

       Afghanistan was rather was the point I was making. There's an intifada going on there, as well, hell the whole nation has known nothing but war for a generation, but with some continued efforts at keeping the populace on the right side of the equation and visibly taking an interest in rebuilding the place and its culture, "the intifada" is losing ground, and as a result, they *want* us there, even when their last experience at foreign intervention was a total disaster. Compare and contrast with Israel's policy towards the palestinians and their reactions as you see fit.   

       Iraq suffered under a lousy dictator, genocide, and all out war for 2 generations and it *still* doesn't resemble the cesspool that is either Gaza or the West Bank in infrastructure. Moreover, it has been in open rebellion during the period of time in which we've been trying to rebuild it. It's been tough, but there is progress. Israel *could* do the same if it ever actually tried.   

       Who begat whom is irrelevant and always has been; the only ones who insist on bringing it up are the warring parties themselves in order to avoid taking responsibility. Who can do something about it is the only question worth asking, and when they wake up and realize that it'll be a great day for us all.   

       There *is* a distant past, because for the most part all of the parties you've named are now effectively allies and trading partners after centuries of their own conflicts, without having been wiped off the planet, (with possible exception of the Ottomans). It only happens when people decide it's in their best interests to actually practice the best tenets of their respective religions: forgive and forget.
RayfordSteele, Apr 18 2005

       Would anyone agree that the world would probably be a much better place if people stopped following the concept of religion?
hidden truths, Apr 18 2005

       No, but we would agree that the bakery isn't the place to talk about it.
RayfordSteele, Apr 18 2005

       Fair comment
in order to reconcile the two sider, hallmark should invent a new holiday. "Happiness day" or something equally as patronising. It would be multi-national and on that day everyone would be expected to be nice to everyone else. Once both sides realise that they can peacefully coexist, then progress can be made. I see absolutely no reason why this isn't completely practical.
hidden truths, Apr 19 2005

       Baked by soldiers (WWI? WWII?) on Christmas.   

       Anyway, attempts to establish a day of sanctity and peace apparently end up just providing someone with a great time to launch a sneak attack (see Yom Kippur--and wasn't there a predominantly Muslim country that was invaded during Ramadan fasting? that's some bad news!).
disbomber, Apr 19 2005

       Yes but while invading a country on a day considered important to the inhabitants could be strategic, if the day was important to everyone nobody would want to do any attacking. Can you imagine George Bush invading a country on Christmas day?   

       It would have been a lot easier for soldiers in the world wars as they had no personal greivances against each other. They were each being pushed into battle. Convincing all, including leaders and extremists to set aside a day of total peace would be far harder and is definitely not baked.
hidden truths, Apr 19 2005

       Then it's magic.
disbomber, Apr 19 2005

       Not magic but definitely WIBNI.
\\ it's the most (and has at times been basically the only) truly free and democratic nation in the region\\. Democracy does not equal freedom. It is far too easy to equate the two. True freedom is answering to nobody. Democracy is everyone getting an equal say in who controls them.
hidden truths, Apr 19 2005

       Wonder if you ever heard of King Abdallah Hussein and his fate.   

       "Afghanis actually want us there" - your in for a big surprise. Youtube for Afghanistan 2012.   

       Find the video with: "He's my nephew. He was forced to fight. They give you a gun and you shoot." Then: "The guy was well trained. Probably by us".
pashute, Nov 07 2012

       Why did this come up again?   

       I'll repeat what I said above: Who started what is irrelevant and always has been; the only ones who insist on bringing it up are the warring parties themselves in order to avoid taking responsibility. Who can do something about it is the only question worth asking, and when they wake up and realize that it'll be a great day for us all.   

       There *is* a distant past, because for the most part all of the parties you've named are now effectively allies and trading partners after centuries of their own conflicts, without having been wiped off the planet, (with possible exception of the Ottomans). It only happens when people decide it's in their best interests to actually practice the best tenets of their respective religions: forgive and forget.
RayfordSteele, Nov 07 2012

       You seem to be missing the point. One of these religions is waging a holy war in their language called Jihad, against anyone who does not accept their religion (and the particular sect of that religion). And "anyone" means atheists, Christians, Lutherans, Jews, Hindus, Budhists, men or women.   

       The Jewish settlements, which have been designated "illegal" by the Sasson committee in the Israeli courts, have done so after the buyers generously paid the Arab title owners and their neighboring towns, but had to sign a secret contract in order to save the life of the sellers because there is was a fatwa death sentence to anyone who sold to Jews. And, contrary to common knowledge, their are strong friendships between "settlers" and "Palestinians" (or more correctly Jews and Muslims, or Jews and Arab Christians). We (Arabs and Jews alike) are suffering from extremist Jihadist Muslims, without ANY regard to the question of settlements OR the question of Jerusalem.   

       Our "Jewish" hospitals are packed with Arab patients and Arab doctors and Arab nurses. Our "Jewish" phone companies, and tax agencies, and even our army has Arabs and Muslims working together with the Jews.   

       It is definitely NOT a question of who started it, or who was here first (although disregarding the Roman and Byzentine conquests, and then the Arab conquest in year 760 not so long ago, is a bit sad when discussing history).   

       But you cannot disregard what currently is being said and done in the name of one religion, and that is the Jihad teachings of the Hamas regime. The Jihad teachings of the Pakistani Lashkar-e-Taiba, and those of the Masjeed ibn-Taymeeya (Brixton Mosque). Please see link.   

       Somehow you think a peaceful resolution can be found for this. I beg to defer with that opinion. Fortunately, I have some Arab friends who see the truth as I do. Meanwhile we live and work side by side, thinking of creative and mostly halfbaked ways to change the situation (like using paintball guns), and preserve our lives, while enjoying them fully, without resolving to give in to criminal death wishing people.   

       Oh, and King Abdallah was the Jordanian King father to Hussein and grandfather to current Abdulla II. He was the Arab and Muslim leader presiding over East Jerusalem. He was murdered ON the temple mount. So much for the holy regard of that location by Muslim extremists. Oh yes I forgot... They are against animal sacrifice.
pashute, Nov 07 2012

       Frankly I'm so annoyed that this 10-year old post came up again that I'm tempted to delete anything else posted beyond this annotation. For my feelings on the entire matter, read mihali's excellent discussion above. Good day.
RayfordSteele, Nov 07 2012

       I might be a little prickly but consider me entirely sick of politics at the moment. I've had it up to here* with misguided ranting ideologues basically everywhere, none the least middle-eastern zealots on either side who cannot recognize their own faults nor want to learn how to treat their opponents, and I have right now very little patience for engaging with either of you two.   

       *a very high place indeed   

       And yes, I am quite familiar with Hussein.
RayfordSteele, Nov 07 2012

       //who takes ownership of how much of Jerusalem seems to be one major sticking point//   

       I've seen Jerusalem, and it's pants. We should organize day trips for the combatants to places like Paris, New York or London, to show them that it's not really worth all the fighting.
MaxwellBuchanan, Nov 07 2012

       That gives me an idea...
Alterother, Nov 07 2012

       Cool those balls down.
rcarty, Nov 07 2012

       Send Marmite.
MaxwellBuchanan, Nov 07 2012

       It really doesn't seem implausible for it to be the capital city to both in some fashion.
RayfordSteele, Nov 08 2012

       — RayfordSteele   

       I agree, its not like the Palestinians will be willing to give up their half of Jerusalem to Israel, and its not likely that Israeli would give up their half as well.   

       I know everyone has their own justification as to why other guys should relinquish their half, but seeing the pathetic never ending half baked arguments in this post(which tends to border on racism and insults), as well as in other websites; I am inclined to think that Jerusalem belongs to no sides in that area.   

       Jerusalem has its own cultural identity, distinct from the outside world. I think it can survive on its own, without being forced to 'belong' to anybody. Don't be arrogant.   

       You guys, have already shed enough blood on that land. Let it be its own agency, and relinquish control not to the 'other side', but rather to Jerusalem itself.   

       Do the right thing.   

       Lets bring the holy, back into the 'holy land'.
mofosyne, Nov 09 2012

       I've personally abandoned the mentality of adulthood for a much younger time.
rcarty, Nov 09 2012

       2002... 2014...   


       Hey RayfordSteele, how's life going?
mofosyne, Jul 22 2014


back: main index

business  computer  culture  fashion  food  halfbakery  home  other  product  public  science  sport  vehicle