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

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


  • Total voters
    37

AlpinLuke

Forum Staff
Oct 2011
26,598
Italy, Lago Maggiore
#44
This poll shows a certain understanding of the core of the matter: a symbolic city cannot be divided. At the end we had to deal with a similar question about Rome: had the Church some right on Rome? Had Italy to divide the "eternal city" with the Roman Church?

Substantially Italy didn't and Italy didn't. But ... Italy left a little piece of Rome to the Church [the Vatican State].

So that, to divide Jerusalem is difficult to imagine, less problematic would be to imagine an area of the city with special status.

P.S. well "we", they ... the German roots of my family were still in Germany.
 
Aug 2014
1,832
Huntington Beach CA
#45
This poll shows a certain understanding of the core of the matter: a symbolic city cannot be divided. At the end we had to deal with a similar question about Rome: had the Church some right on Rome? Had Italy to divide the "eternal city" with the Roman Church?

Substantially Italy didn't and Italy didn't. But ... Italy left a little piece of Rome to the Church [the Vatican State].

So that, to divide Jerusalem is difficult to imagine, less problematic would be to imagine an area of the city with special status.

P.S. well "we", they ... the German roots of my family were still in Germany.
About the only place in the world I can think of where dividing a city reduced instead of increased tensions (after a fashion, since North Cyprus remains unrecognised) is Nicosia, Cyprus.
 
Dec 2011
2,291
#47
Implicit in the OP is the assumption that dividing Israel can change the situation. Neither side wants peace-they want control.
Both sides want to have their own state and, yes, be in full control of it.

Israel has its own state which it is in full control of.

Palestinians do not have a contiguous state which they are allowed to govern: they are occupied by the Israeli army.

A philosopher wrote that, when there is a dispute between 2 parties, the best solution is to set up a committee of disinterested outsiders, who have the task of reading the proposals of the disputants, deciding which is the most fair to everyone, then ruling that proposal be implemented. The advantage of this is that the 2 parties will see that it is in their best interest to offer the most reasonable proposals that will persuade the committee.

The UN could set up a committee of maybe 3 democratic countries which have never been involved in the Middle East, and which have very few Jews or Muslims in them, for example Brazil, Japan and Botswana.
 
Last edited:

Similar History Discussions