Jerusalem is Mostly Pre-67 Lines, Mr. President

My Right Word

Just got off the phone with an American seeking out "perspective".


One point I made was that Obama, in fixing the '67 lines, then to be followed by Jerusalem doesn't make sense and is illogical. It hurts the entire peace process from an American standpoint (don't worry, I made other points regarding Yesha).

"Don't you grasp," says I, "that he's not only prejudging but he's telling the Arabs all of post-'67 Jerusalem goes to the Arabs and all that's left is to discuss 'arrangements' of getting to the Western Wall, the times of prayer, whether Hebrew U. can stay, if Hadassah can heal, etc.? Why should the Arabs not take advantage of that opening position given them?"

Not only prejudged but ripped Jerusalem out of Israel and is going head-to-head with the majority of the Jewish people.
Pinpointing final status as the 1967 lines awards Arab agression as there's not demand for any territorial compromise on their part.

^
Posted by YMedad at 12:44 PM
Labels: 1967 lines, Jerusalem
5 comments:

Morey Altman said...

I haven't tried working out the square dunams, but I have a feeling that if a Palestinian state ever came into being, with Israel retaining all of modern Jerusalem including built up Jewish neighbourhoods, the Palestinians would still retain half of the Corpus Seperatum from the Partition plan (1947). The other option would be to implement the plan's recommendation of a vote by Jews and Arabs within the Corpus Seperatum regarding the future of Jerusalem. My guess would be that the vast majority, including Palestinian Arabs in and around Bethlehem, would vote to incorporate the whole area into Israel. Now what would the UN think of THAT?

moreyaltman.blogspot.com
Sun May 22, 11:53:00 AM
YMedad said...

go here to see the land mass and make a call
Sun May 22, 01:04:00 PM
Morey Altman said...

To my eye, it would be a pretty fair split. We might owe them a dunam or two. Assuming they actually want to use UN resolution 242 as a starting point. Of course, it's an absurd idea.

"Hi, my grandfather was once a tenant in this building. He was offered a chance to buy his apartment for $25,000 in 1948 but he adamantly refused, and stormed out. So now I'd like the whole building, for the SAME price, and if you don't let me have it, I'll smash all your windows and threaten your family." Sound about right?
Sun May 22, 01:28:00 PM
Eliyahu m'Tsiyon said...

Morey, there were negotiations between Elias Freij, Christian mayor of Bethlehem before and after 1967, and Israeli officers with the purpose of annexing Bethlehem to Jerusalem [as it was part of the UN GA-proposed Jerusalem enclave, as you know]. Freij and many of his fellow Christian townsmen seem to have preferred being part of Israel with some sort of special status for Bethlehem [& maybe Beyt Sahur & Beyt Jallah too] to being part of an Arab Muslim state. But the State Dept got wind of these talks and shot them down. Since arafat took over Beyt Lehem in 12/1995, the Christian majority there has become a decided minority. Isn't peace wonderful?? Anyhow, I'm not sure that the present Muslim majority there would want to join Israel. Maybe you could suggest that the Christian emigrants from the town should be able to vote on its future as part of Greater Jerusalem.
Sun May 22, 03:12:00 PM