Negotiations are seem better than take-it-or-leave-it plans.
I agree, but I am somewhat partial to “take-it” plans. Instead of any negotiation, Israel would unilaterally withdraw from the West Bank (just like they did from the Gaza Strip) ,agree with the US on terms and basically say: “You have a state now, do what you want with it” (not unlike how Singapore became an independent country involuntarily) .
This has the benefit of simplifying issues, and solves an underappreciated problem on the Palestinian side: Any politician signing a deal that loses Jerusalem or other religiously significant land immediately becomes a prime target for assassination.
This applies to the Israeli side as well of course (it’s what happened to Rabin); to solve it one could appoint somebody with a terminal sickness as the responsible Prime Minister.
(NOTE TO SELF: I need to give myself a day between writing and publishing because I miss so many grammar errors).
This applies to the Israeli side as well of course (it’s what happened to Rabin); to solve it one could appoint somebody with a terminal sickness as the responsible Prime Minister.
This is honestly not a bad idea.
I had some horribly controversial ideas that I didn’t share (these are just ideas, not advocating for any of them).
What if Israel and Palestine mutually agreed to destroy the Old City? No one gets any of it. It would be awful and no one would be happy. But in the long run would it be less awful than decades of violent conflict? It’s it too taboo to even discuss? Of course, the parties that agreed to this would need to go in to a self-imposed exile to ensure their safety (at the very least some place like Tristan da Cunha, or a boat at Point Nemo… or Mars).
What if Israel decided to move the Western Wall back far enough to create a border space or “DMZ” between them and the Temple Mount? If God can hear your prayers at the Wall now, God could hear them from 100 feet away from where it is. It would be the same stones to the extent that their original.
If an internationalized Old City didn’t fly, what if there was an agreement to turn control of the Old City over it to a very disinterested but capable country to ensure maximum neutrality? Meaning a country where Abrahamic religions are negligible but that would have the resources to manage the area. Japan comes to mind, but there are probably others. It would be a big ask for whatever that country is, but maybe that’s offset by a “peace-keeping tax” on goods and services provided in the area. There is an awful lot of tourism there, so it may make fiscal sense. If it worked, they could be unlikely heroes that helped bring peace to region.
I suspect that is asking too much of the religiously zealous. A Buddist country with oversight of an internationalised quarter seems more likely to fly.
After reading Amos Elon’s “Jerusalem—City of Mirror” (good book for anyone wondering why this is so hard), I thought the best we could hope for would be a meteor strike cratering the whole of the temple mount for starters.
To understand the danger, think of the geopolitical implications of 4th temple nutters blowing up everything in the Al-Aqsa compound ( a serious proposition).
The Holy Sepulchre has been administered by a Muslim family for centuries because the Ottomans empire was fed up with the different Christian denominations endless fights to pray in the sanctuary.
I agree, but I am somewhat partial to “take-it” plans. Instead of any negotiation, Israel would unilaterally withdraw from the West Bank (just like they did from the Gaza Strip) ,agree with the US on terms and basically say: “You have a state now, do what you want with it” (not unlike how Singapore became an independent country involuntarily) .
This has the benefit of simplifying issues, and solves an underappreciated problem on the Palestinian side: Any politician signing a deal that loses Jerusalem or other religiously significant land immediately becomes a prime target for assassination.
This applies to the Israeli side as well of course (it’s what happened to Rabin); to solve it one could appoint somebody with a terminal sickness as the responsible Prime Minister.
(NOTE TO SELF: I need to give myself a day between writing and publishing because I miss so many grammar errors).
This is honestly not a bad idea.
I had some horribly controversial ideas that I didn’t share (these are just ideas, not advocating for any of them).
What if Israel and Palestine mutually agreed to destroy the Old City? No one gets any of it. It would be awful and no one would be happy. But in the long run would it be less awful than decades of violent conflict? It’s it too taboo to even discuss? Of course, the parties that agreed to this would need to go in to a self-imposed exile to ensure their safety (at the very least some place like Tristan da Cunha, or a boat at Point Nemo… or Mars).
What if Israel decided to move the Western Wall back far enough to create a border space or “DMZ” between them and the Temple Mount? If God can hear your prayers at the Wall now, God could hear them from 100 feet away from where it is. It would be the same stones to the extent that their original.
If an internationalized Old City didn’t fly, what if there was an agreement to turn control of the Old City over it to a very disinterested but capable country to ensure maximum neutrality? Meaning a country where Abrahamic religions are negligible but that would have the resources to manage the area. Japan comes to mind, but there are probably others. It would be a big ask for whatever that country is, but maybe that’s offset by a “peace-keeping tax” on goods and services provided in the area. There is an awful lot of tourism there, so it may make fiscal sense. If it worked, they could be unlikely heroes that helped bring peace to region.
I suspect that is asking too much of the religiously zealous. A Buddist country with oversight of an internationalised quarter seems more likely to fly.
After reading Amos Elon’s “Jerusalem—City of Mirror” (good book for anyone wondering why this is so hard), I thought the best we could hope for would be a meteor strike cratering the whole of the temple mount for starters.
To understand the danger, think of the geopolitical implications of 4th temple nutters blowing up everything in the Al-Aqsa compound ( a serious proposition).
The Holy Sepulchre has been administered by a Muslim family for centuries because the Ottomans empire was fed up with the different Christian denominations endless fights to pray in the sanctuary.