Posted on 01/28/2009 8:39:17 AM PST by SJackson
If you'd like to be on or off, please FR mail me.
..................
Probably political posturing on Bibi's part. If Obama thinks he's going to create an international city in Jerusalem, he's smoking something other than tobacco.
We know what to ‘internationalize’ means in the modern lexicon.
Don’t take this the wrong way, but that’s some of the best news I’ve heard yet.
The biggest obstacle to Mid East peace (beyond psychotic Muslims) is the issue of Jerusalem.
The best solution, if anyone would consider it, would be to make the whole of the old city an international zone governed equally by the three religions who have claims there. Kind-of like a Troika Vatican.
Wasn’t that Tom Clancy’s - Jack Ryan’s idea?
“The best solution, if anyone would consider it, would be to make the whole of the old city an international zone governed equally by the three religions who have claims there.”
So that means the Jewish people can build their Temple on the Temple Mount? You are so naive.
It is a horrible idea. Kinda like putting the UN in charge of enforcing human rights.
Are you a U.N. troll?
You’re absolutely right. The thing we would need at least would be another crusade. So turn that cairn into a international site under control of the UN.
Having said that, I'm not sure what exactly this would accomplish in the long run. Such a move to "internationalize" Jerusalem would basically give it the same legal status as Antarctica and outer space.
“The best solution, if anyone would consider it, would be to make the whole of the old city an international zone governed equally by the three religions who have claims there. Kind-of like a Troika Vatican.”
Uh huh...
And when the muzzies start killing everyone in site and take it over, who will stop them since it will be monitored by the UN?
That is far from being a new idea. It has been rejected countless times by both sides.
But the declaration does not include the temple mount and east Jerusalem. Ever heard of the 67’ green line ?
Never work. When first suggested in 1948 Israel accepted the concept, the Arabs refused as they have since. As it stands right now, each of the religions largely control their own Holy sites, that’s no change. However international control would mean a governing presence. Israel isn’t going to abandon hundreds of thousands of Jews to the world community. Or to abandon land which has been part of Israel since 1948. It’s a non starter, and only a fool (BHO not you) with no knowledge of the region or issues would suggest it. I admit, it sounds simple.
Actually, there were a lot of things left completely unresolved after 1947. My point was that — for better or worse — there is a long-standing precedent for extensive international involvement in what is now Israel.
But...but... according to 0bama they're misunderstood. Stupid American ;).
UK position on Jerusalem
The UK position on Jerusalem – a key issue in the Israeli / Palestinian Peace Process and an important concern to Muslims, Christians and Jews around the world.
Jerusalem was supposed to be a ‘corpus separatum’, or international city administered by the UN. But this was never set up: immediately after the UNGA resolution partitioning Palestine, Israel occupied West Jerusalem and Jordan occupied East Jerusalem (including the Old City). We recognised the de facto control of Israel and Jordan, but not sovereignty. In 1967, Israel occupied East Jerusalem, which we continue to consider is under illegal military occupation by Israel. Our Embassy to Israel is in Tel Aviv, not Jerusalem. In East Jerusalem we have a Consulate General, with a Consul General who is not accredited to any state: this is an expression of our view that no state has sovereignty over Jerusalem
The UK position was formally expressed in April 1950, when HMG extended simultaneous de jure recognition to both Jordan and Israel. However, the statement withheld recognition of the sovereignty of either Jordan or Israel over the sectors of the city which each then held within the area of the corpus separatum as stipulated in UN General Assembly Resolution 303 (IV) of 1949. In the British view, no such recognition was possible before a final determination of the status of this area, although HMG did recognise that both Jordan and Israel exercised ‘de facto authority’ over those parts of the city and area which each held.
In the 1967 war, Israel occupied the whole city, taking possession of the Jordanian (East) sector to add to West Jerusalem, which it already held. The Israeli government immediately extended its civil law to the whole city, simultaneously greatly enlarging the municipal boundaries into the West Bank. This purported annexation of East Jerusalem was reaffirmed in 1980 when Israel enacted its ‘Jerusalem Law’ formally declaring East and West Jerusalem together, ‘whole and united’ to be ‘the capital of Israel’.
The UK rejects these Israeli measures to change the status of Jerusalem. The UN Security Council unanimously adopted Resolution 478 of 1980 in response to the Israeli annexation, declaring it to be a violation of international law; the British Government has reiterated and amplified this position many times since.
HMG’s formal position is based on the 1950 statement: it recognises that Israel exercises de facto authority in West Jerusalem and , from 1950 to 1967, recognised that Jordan exercised de facto authority in East Jerusalem. Since the war of 1967, HMG has regarded Israel as being in military occupation of East Jerusalem, and in this connection subject to the rules of law applicable to such an occupation, in particular the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949. HMG also holds that the provisions of Security Council Resolution 242 on the withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the 1967 war applies to East Jerusalem. The Venice Declaration and subsequent statements (both by the UK alone and with EU partners) have made clear that no unilateral attempts to change the status of Jerusalem are valid.
The UK believes that the city’s status has yet to be determined, and maintains that it should be settled in an overall agreement between the parties concerned, but considers that the city should not again be divided. The Declaration of Principles and the Interim Agreement, signed by Israel and the PLO on 13 September 1993 and 28 September 1995 respectively, left the issue of the status of Jerusalem to be decided in the ‘permanent status’ negotiations between the two parties.
No, Obama will help his muslim brothers destroy Israel.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.