Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (18180)	2/6/2002 3:21:35 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Jerusalem and the Temple Mount/Haram al-Sharif are very dear to both sides. Understood.. and all the more reason that the city should be made an international city, in order to take the partisanship out of the equation and making the entire city freely open to all of the faiths concerned, locking things in according to the present status quo (no building on the Temple Mount by either side.. etc). And again, this whole scenario is in the context of Friedman's outstanding analysis, dependent upon peace treaties between Israel and the Arab world. That just could never happen so long as Jerusalem remains under sole Israeli political control. So the proposal is to permit both Palestinians and Israelis to establish and maintain their distinct capitals within Jerusalem, which would also pacify both nations, in exchange of the parties agreeing to an all around peace. And I think UN would have the stomach, if the US and Europe stiffened its spine, and muslim troops are included in the international peacekeeping (police) force. Because US support for the Israelis and European support for the Palestinians is providing diplomatic friction that neither power really want between them. Hawk