Should Jerusalem be divided (approximately) based on ethnic lines?

Should Jerusalem be divided (approximately) based on ethnic lines?


  • Total voters
    37

Otranto

Ad Honorem
May 2013
2,083
Netherlands
#21
As for me, I voted Yes since I don't think that it is in Israel's interests to continue ruling over 200,000+ poor Arabs who don't even have Israeli citizenship.
Somewhat off-topic, but I've been wondering about this for a while. In many threads you seem to attach value to ethnicity as if it's a decisive binding force, but surely culture and religion are much more decisive? Speaking for myself, I consider anyone of my culture much closer to myself than anyone of my own race or ethnicity who isn't. And anyone of my religion much closer than anyone of my culture who isn't. Observing other people I've also noticed that politics, religion and culture usually take precedence over ethnicity or race.

As for Jerusalem, I'd prefer East Jerusalem to be / remain part of Palestine. I fail to see the justification for the occupation, but in the end I'm primarily concerned for the situation of the ancient Christian community and pilgrims. Whoever can better guarantee their peace and safety has my support.
 
Last edited:

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
21,007
SoCal
#22
Somewhat off-topic, but I've been wondering about this for a while. In many threads you seem to attach value to ethnicity as if it's a decisive binding force, but surely culture and religion are much more decisive? Speaking for myself, I consider anyone of my culture much closer to myself than anyone of my own race or ethnicity who isn't. And anyone of my religion much closer than anyone of my culture who isn't. Observing other people I've also noticed that politics, religion and culture usually take precedence over ethnicity or race.
Honestly, it depends on the specific case. After all, I would think that Germans' common ethnicity united them even if they had different religions. However, in a country such an India, religion might be much more of a unifying factor.

As for Jerusalem, I'd prefer East Jerusalem to be / remain part of Palestine.
Please keep in mind, though, that some neighborhoods of East Jerusalem are majority Jewish.

I fail to see the justification for the occupation, but in the end I'm primarily concerned for the situation of the ancient Christian community and pilgrims. Whoever can better guarantee their peace and safety has my support.
Wouldn't Israel be best suited for this role, though?
 

Otranto

Ad Honorem
May 2013
2,083
Netherlands
#23
Please keep in mind, though, that some neighborhoods of East Jerusalem are majority Jewish.
And thousands of neighborhoods in Europe are majority Muslim. That doesn't change the fact that they're ours. If East Jerusalem belongs to the State of Palestine, then its demographics should be irrelevant.

Wouldn't Israel be best suited for this role, though?
I'm inclined to think Israel is not only more capable but more competent, but is Israel also better suited? On the one hand, I expect Israel to fulfill this role competently even if only to keep up good relations internationally. On the other hand, I don't know of any Palestinian Christians (including those living in the West) that support Israel over Palestine. Israeli policies often negatively affect Palestinian Christians (setting up check points on Christian holy days of obligation, for example. This is easily interpreted as a hostile act towards Christians.) If Christians from the region don't favor Israel over Palestine, then Israel must be doing something wrong or Palestine something right or both.
 
Mar 2012
18,030
In the bag of ecstatic squirt
#24
Isn't the most important part of Jerusalem the Old City of Jerusalem? If so, then why not simply internationalize the Old City of Jerusalem?
That is also in order to avoid conflicts among claimanst like the Palestinians and the Israelis. But you are right about the Old City being the core of it.
 

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
21,007
SoCal
#25
And thousands of neighborhoods in Europe are majority Muslim. That doesn't change the fact that they're ours. If East Jerusalem belongs to the State of Palestine, then its demographics should be irrelevant.
False analogy, considering that these neighborhoods certainly aren't contiguous to any Muslim-majority countries.

I'm inclined to think Israel is not only more capable but more competent, but is Israel also better suited? On the one hand, I expect Israel to fulfill this role competently even if only to keep up good relations internationally. On the other hand, I don't know of any Palestinian Christians (including those living in the West) that support Israel over Palestine. Israeli policies often negatively affect Palestinian Christians (setting up check points on Christian holy days of obligation, for example. This is easily interpreted as a hostile act towards Christians.) If Christians from the region don't favor Israel over Palestine, then Israel must be doing something wrong or Palestine something right or both.
Good point! Thus, what about having the U.N. fulfill this role instead?
 

Otranto

Ad Honorem
May 2013
2,083
Netherlands
#26
False analogy, considering that these neighborhoods certainly aren't contiguous to any Muslim-majority countries.
Let's say they were contiguous, you wouldn't blame us for not accepting their occupation or annexation by a foreign state. And we wouldn't blame you for not accepting Mexico's annexation of Hispanic neighborhoods on your side of the border. :) Therefore, we shouldn't blame the Palestinians either.

Good point! Thus, what about having the U.N. fulfill this role instead?
That would be a solution, but Israel will never accept UN involvement. This would require Israel to 1. end the occupation, 2. end the illegal settlements, and 3. respect the borders under international law. None of this is in Israel's interest and all of this is in Palestine's interest, so it's not going to happen.

I can't think of any solution acceptable to both parties.
 

Similar History Discussions