He started by stating:
There are about 200 countries in the world, but it seems that there are only two that attribute holiness to their capital: Israel and Palestine ... [and] three if we count the Vatican as a state.
Most states selected their capitals because of tradition, history, culture, geography, politics and convenience. The capitals serve as seats of government, the parliament and the Supreme Court, as well as the institutions of public governance. Some of the capitals are also the countries' largest cities, or commercial and cultural centers. Some countries moved their capitals (Germany from Bonn to Berlin, and Turkey from Istanbul to Ankara), or built new cities as capitals (like Brazil and Kazakhstan).
Most capitals contain religious symbols: cathedrals, mosques, temples, but they were not selected as capitals because of these. Even Saudi Arabia did not select Mecca or Medina, holy cities to Muslims, but Riyadh as its capital. Conclusion: The attitudes attributing holiness to a city were, in most countries, isolated from the political considerations that govern and shape day-to-day life.
Perhaps it is desirable that Israelis and Palestinians consider this possibility. Jerusalem has always been an obstacle to a settlement. … The Palestinians are willing for Jerusalem to be declared capital of Israel on condition that it is also their capital … The leaders on both sides, not only the religious leadership but also secular politicians, consider Jerusalem not merely their 'eternal capital' but attribute holiness to its stones, its homes and its symbols.
He later goes on to state:
It is hard to understand how two peoples, in the modern era, are willing to die for the religious symbolism of stones and places of worship. Morever, this "holiness" is preventing any chance of acheiving a settlement to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
If, as expected, the Israelis and Palestinians fail to reach agreement on Jerusalem, it might be better if they agreed on the following: Israel would announce temporarily it would move its capital to a different city...[and] the Palestinians will agree that Jerusalem will not be decalred their capital...This suspension will continue until the wounds are healed...Forty-two years of Israel rule over a united city has not been good for it. It has become one of the poorest, dirtiest and failed cities in Israel...
Maybe Israel should relinquish its right to Tel Aviv as well, since it was forcibily taken away from the Arab Jaffa? Maybe Israel should "temporarily" move its capital to Kiryat Malachi? Afterall, it already has name a good name--"City of Angels" (because it was associated with Los Angeles, CA in the early 1950s as the North African immigrants were coming to Israel and warehoused in development towns). I doubt, any foreign country would express objections to this. And, besides, the area could really use as infusion of government funds and positive publicity. Maybe, it'll help the entire Negev region to become a fully functioning region in Israel instead of an economically disadvantaged region.
Then there are 'factual' and assumptive errors.
- The idea that Jerusalem is poorer because of the unification is silly. Young and secular people are fleeing Jerusalem because of lack of real economic opportunity and the growing haredi influence in city affairs. Neither have anything to do with unification. Jerusalem has a negligible commercial/industrial base, so young need to look for work outside of Jerusalem which may necessitate also moving closer to work.
- Jerusalem was declared the capital of Israel immediately upon the declaration of the state. Government offices were moved to Jerusalem when it was deemed safe (after the 1948 war). All this was well before 1967. The same can't be said for the Palestinian claim on Jerusalem.
- The conflict over Jerusalem is not a religious one. Certainly, there are numerous conflicts over and in religious sites. Most, with the exception of The Temple Mount area, are internal conflicts between different sects/denominations of the specific religions.
- That in the past--prior to the establishment of Israel--there were different proposals for dealing with Jerusalem, is at this point in history is immaterial. In 1948, the Arabs rejected that model, along with the UN Partition Plan both outrightly/de jure (Arab states voted NO on Oct 29, 1947 for the UN Partition Plan and the Arab League [Palestinian Arab representatives] also announced its rejection) as well as de facto by launching war on the newly declared State of Israel. 61 years later, is IMHO, too late to attempt to turn back the clock. Too much water (and blood) have passed under the bridge.
What Jerusalem does represent is a flash point for demonstrating the complexity and depth of feelings on both sides of the justice and validity of their sole claim to "ownership" of the land of Israel/Palestine. The idea of sharing is almost anthema to some (and IMHO a large number of the Arab and Palestinian elites and publics) on both sides.
Personally, I'm in favor of having two states living side by side in the Israeli portion of Mandatory Palestine. My two 'conditions' are: (a) the Palestinian/Arab portion needs to be demilitarized for an extended period of time and (b) that Israel maintain administrative control of the Old City (inlcuding the Temple Mount region) and the Jewish portions of Jerusalem. The peace process--"land for peace"--needs also to be a gradual but steady process. Trust needs to be secured to ensure a lasting and real peace is maintained.
