“Demilitarized” Palestinian state with “East” Jerusalem as its capital and the Old City as an international city.
He formulated this with the King of Jordan.
The US president’s initiative, which was formulated in consultation with Jordan’s King Abdullah II during the two leaders’ recent meetings at the White House, reportedly does not significantly stray from the pan-Arab peace initiative proposed in 2002. Rather, it bolsters certain details within the Saudi-proposed plan.
…
The matter of borders would be solved with territorial exchanges between Israel and the Palestinians, and the Old City of Jerusalem would be established as an international zone.
The initiative would require the Palestinians to give up their claim of a “right of return,” according to Yediot, and Europe and the US would arrange compensation for refugees, including foreign passports for those residing abroad.
I’d agree to this if I lived in Israel, especially if the Arab League guaranteed the peace and acceptance promised in the 2002 Saudi plan and as long as UNGAR 194 isn’t part of the agreement.
If I were Bibi, I’d say, “Sure, and Chicago can be the new US capital with Wrigleyville as an international city for the Chippewa Indians!.” Or he can just say, “Go get bent, f****** amateur clown Messiah”.
Now this is my kind of guy: http://www.weaselzippers.net/blog/2009/05/israeli-vice-premier-jerusalem-will-not-be-divided.html
See, Israel has finally got the memo. Obama has demonstrated that he is weak and a paper tiger by running around apologizing to terrorists and commies, and by weakening the US by publishing military secrets. Israel understands and rightly isn’t buying anything he’s selling. Maybe you American Jews were right after all, a vote for Obama was a vote for Israeli strength!
Fuck you, Obama. Kiss my skinny Jewish ass, you anti-Semitic prick.
“Sure, we’ll take Yerushalayim and the Har ha Bait off your hands, Jews. We’ll see to it that your rights in your holy sites are respected, just like we always have.”
I can’t believe the cocksucking SOB had the chutzpah to endorse something like this. Just who the fuck does he think he is?
Oh, right, he’s the Omamessiah. I forgot.
See you in hell first, motherfucker.
Wow! I’m so happy that someone else shares in my deep disdain for NOTUS. Thanks Ephriam for reminding me that being a minority within a minority is a privilege. Oh, and in case someone comes across this site looking for Jewish opinion on The One, let me add: F*** Obama!
Bush is so evil. Why didn’t he think of this?
Jerusalem an international city? Hey, it worked for Danzig, right?
Better yet, Berlin.
According to a sometimes delinquent online source, the first worthy to propose making Jerusalem an international city was (drum roll, please). . . Pope Pius XII.
Yeah, Tom, and look how well that worked!
Plus ca change, plus c’est la meme chose, IIRC.
Geez guys, the idea of Jerusalem being an international city is actually an old one and historically relevant.
United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181
AKA The Partition Plan
November 29, 1947
Here are the relevant passages regarding Jerusalem in the Partition Plan. It is actually quite visionary.
Oh, please, Middle. Can you imagine anybody less qualified to oversee something like this than the UN?
I mean, really: do you seriously think that it is advisable to entrust Jewish access to the Kotel to the UN? You know, the people who put on Durban and all the rest of it?
If you do, you’re delusional.
Didn’t the UN pass a resolution stating that Zionism = Racism? Was it that same UN? So why do we care again what and when some bureaucrat decided what to do with our Homeland again? Damn, Middle, you really have this hope and changy thing real bad don’t you? You really are an optimist if I’ve ever seen one. F*** Barack Obama and f*** the UN.
themiddle – you based your whole “Leaving the West Bank” post on a rationale of demographics and the undesirability of Jewish rule over millions of Arabs, not to mention the possibility of a Jewish minority in Israel.
Jerusalem has nothing to do with that. Not only does Israel have no reason to trust anything the UN (not to mention the Arab League) says regarding the conflict, ceding the very heart of Israel (EASTERN Jerusalem – the Old City, and its heart Temple Mount) would mean the end to Zionism.
You advocated unilateral withdrawal. How does this work with that? I don’t understand.
First of all, I’m not suggesting the UN should administer Jerusalem in 2009. I’m pointing you to where the idea originated. The UN of 1947 was very different than the UN of 2009. Check out the membership rolls and you’ll see that the automatic Arab-Islamic-Africa block which has existed since the ’60s/’70s was not yet in place.
Regardless, whoever has the idea they can diffuse this serious point of contention without some sort of sharing plan is dreaming. On the other hand, what is wrong with sharing? I’m not talking about the eastern or western part of Jerusalem but about the Old City and holy places. Make them international and give respective control over holy sites. Keep the area entirely disarmed except for the international force and let everybody live their lives. If Jews want to move into the Jewish Quarter, they can. If they want to pray at the Western Wall, they can. The Muslims can enjoy their holy places and the Muslim Quarter. Have an Administrator manage growth and permits for construction with an understanding that growth must be balanced. Restrict sales of property outside groups’ natural Quarter to avoid creating tensions. Prevent construction on any holy site without committee of both sides agreeing. Punish crimes by sending the perpetrator to the government of the opposing regime…
LB, I didn’t say anywhere that Jews should leave Jerusalem. I don’t consider Jerusalem the West Bank or under discussion in the same way Judea and Samaria are. I think that sharing the Old City with an international administration will ensure the sanctity of ALL holy places, the right of EVERYBODY to worship peacefully and most important, it will foster the concept of peace and co-existence. Without taking care of this issue properly, there will be no peace in the long run. Sharing IS a solution for the long run.
themiddle – If it was understood from what I said that you implied Jews should leave Jerusalem – then I’ll say now I did not mean to express that at all. Nevertheless, leaving also means ceding control, even if resident remain in place.
And so, the question is – Is Zionism about simply Jewish presence or sovereignty? Sharing the Old City does ensure Jewish control over the ultimate Jewish city. Furthermore, Israel has ensured more freedom to all religious places to all – with one exception – Jews (pray publicly on Temple Mount recently?). Zionism is not just about freedom and access – it’s about asserting self-rule at home, and if the main room of our house is under someone else’s control – what have we achieved?
You’re crazy, Middle. Who is going to run this Utopia of yours? That is the ONLY relevant or important question.
History has shown that the only way for Jews to safeguard their rights in Jerusalem is for them to control it. Any time the goyim get their hands on Jerusalem it is Juden raus. Why do you think it would be any different this time?
And if not the UN, who will run it? The EU (soon to be Eurabia in all but name)?
And what do you think will happen the first time there is an argument between Jews and Muslims about whose holy place it is? The Arabs don’t recognize any Jewish rights to any Jewish holy places anywhere. They say that even the Kotel doesn’t belong to us but is an Islamic waqf because of Mohammed and his flying peacock horse.
You’re out of your mind.
Oh, yeah: everybody can worship freely at their holy sites already. Israel has proven that it is the only entity capable or willing to allow this to happen.
You insult Israel by saying that an international regime is necessary to ensure fair access to the holy places when such free access is already a reality and when it is precisely only under Jewish rule that this has ever happened.
So, where is the UN going to set up Checkpoint Charlie? Count me as an Obama supporter who absolutely hates this idea. If he goes through with this, he will lose all goodwill he built up with Jews, maybe even lose the Jewish vote to the Republican Party for a generation. Then again, as I’m a Democrat with respect to everything else and moreover a scientist who depends on a strong NIH, I could NEVER vote for the Republican Party. My Republican girlfriend is gonna have a good time rubbing this in my face, even as I don’t like talking politics with her.
Yes, Ephraim, I’m crazy.
Is your son serving in the IDF right now? Somebody’s son is and it’s better to have peace, especially a lasting peace, than war.
LB, early Zionism and even Israel’s Independence declaration all speak about friendly relations with neighboring countries. We are talking about a solution that brings Israel peace. True peace. That means its borders are secure and its territory is secure. If the price for that is to make the Old City into an international zone, then that’s a reasonable price to pay. Don’t forget that the Yishuv accepted the Partition Plan where all of Jerusalem is considered international. Is Ephraim really smarter than Ben Gurion? I don’t think so.
“Ceding control” in this case is a good thing because it ensures control in all places except the Old City and that area is controlled by an international group whose mandate – as will be dictated in any agreement and signed on by the UN Security Council to make it international law – will be to ensure that all groups have equal status and the right to pray and control their respective holy places. Yes, Israel offers that right now, but its control precludes the compromise that would bring about peace.
On the other hand, TM, how can you trust the same organization that skipped the Sinai in 1967, allows Hezbollah to arm to the teeth, and denies Israel representation on nearly all committees? I don’t, and I suspect many, many Israelis would agree with me.
That’s just the problem, Middle. Your plans won’t bring peace at all. They’ll only bring more war, G-d forbid, and with Israel in a fatally weakened state, G-d forbid.
Show me one, just one, genuine indication that the Arabs with the guns, who are the only people who dictate what Arab policy will be towards Israel, desire peace with a Jewish Israel. There isn’t one.
That is why your ideas are crazy and dangerous. Who is going to enforce this peace? The “international community”? That is as good as signing Israel’s death warrant. You think you’re for “peace” but there is no good reason to think that is what would happen if Israel were foolish enough to adopt your pie-in-the-sky narrishkeit.
If you believe that your hare-brained schemes will bring “peace”, I’ve got some beachfront property in Kansas I can sell you.
Cheap.
C’mon, trust me. What have you got to lose?
themiddle – first, I don’t care about Ben Gurion’s intelligence vis-a-vis anyone else (I don’t think he was that brilliant compared to others of his time, but that’s an entirely different discussion).
Second, as many have mentioned – do you really have faith in ANY organization that would control the Old City?
Third, also as others have said – there is more religious freedom than ever before.
Which leads me to fourth – what you’re saying sounds to me like capitulation to the enemy’s demands (and to those object to the word enemy – how else would describe what they are now?).
And fifth – peace? Really? What leads you to believe any such plan will mean “true peace”?
Finally, you say peace in which Israel’s “borders are secure and its territory is secure” – with another state I have no reason to believe would be friendly in the heart of modern Israel – how is that secure?
I’m with Ephraim, Middle, the only place your idea would work would be on another planet, without humans on it. No offense of course, but you can’t point to one example of what you are pitching that has worked anywhere, especially in the non-First World.
And Joshua, you are halfway through the trip I came through my brotha, now you just have to do your own research about conservatives rather than listen to the misnomers Jon Stewart and Sarah Silverman feed you. The GOP is a joke. I won’t argue with you there. But do you really think ardent Atheists and Physicians like my mother and her colleagues would really try to squelch science? Really? You, see, there is a fight for the conservative movement and social cons are losing. I suggest you join with people like me, fiscal neocons and turn this party around!
Well folks, we disagree.
And I’ll tell you, having the Palestinians as a sole enemy is fine if you can sign peace agreements with Lebanon, Syria, Saudi Arabia, the Emirates and all the other members of the Arab League. Any of you who don’t realize how critical this would be are kidding yourselves. Who is Egypt closer to today, Israel or the Palestinians? Israel. Because many interests are aligned. And that’s where this is headed. Saudi’s interests are aligned with Israel as long as Iran is a threat. That will buy peace because if the only supporter around is Iran, the Palestinians will be much weaker than today.
Well, that didn’t take long:
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1242212428732&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
Abbas thinks Obama’s plan is shit, too. Why?
They’re insisting on the “right” of “return” and all of “east Jerusalem”, ix-nay the “international regime” thing.
Nice of that manky terrorist fuck to let Bibi off the hook.
An idiot in addition to everything else. Thank G-d Israel is blessed with such stupid enemies.
Man, does that Obama have a knack or what? I think he’s pissed off pretty much everybody.
I found this line telling
“He shall not, however, be a citizen of either State in Palestine.” The gov of J-town that is.
So we can have some Eurocrat or Youencrat? Some Arableaguecrat?
And why does Jerusalem have to go International? Belfast isn’t.
Nah this plan has no chance with most Israelis or Arabs.
I love to occasionally see Rabbi Yonah acknowledging reality, even if it does conflict with his man crush on The One. just kidding of course :0
Rabbi Yo is right, Middle and Obama propose that the Jewish People’s holiest site be “administered” by some goy outsider, preferably from some high brow NGO that refers to Israel as “that shitty little country”. Whoever that guy is, Obama, and Abbas can all go f*** themselves with a 2×4.
the main problem with accepting the saudi plan, or this mutated version, is that the people who engage in terrorism are not friends with the kings of either jordan or saudi and are not bound by any such promises of peace put out by them. The logic is the sort of dumb victim disarmament logic that anti-gun folks in the US have, assuming that gun control means that criminals will suddenly say, “oh yeah, I’ll stop using a gun to commit crime.”
It doesn’t parse.
Mike, you bring up what I think the biggest problem and mythology within liberalism is: The belief that your actions affect everyone else on the planet and that if you can be the most righteous, you will set an example, and everyone will follow suit, because, in your mind, that is how the world SHOULD work.
Is the foundation of your premise based on the supposition that governments operate responsibly and can exercise self-restraint? ,
No, that governments operate out of self-interest. Self interest can mean the politician’s self interest in some cases but can certainly mean the national self-interest. In these cases, the “self-restraint” is merely a way of ensuring those interests are protected.
But after Goldstone I have to wonder whether there will ever be confidence in an agreement with the Palestinians if Israel were to leave any area again.