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.

Pastimes : THE SLIGHTLY MODERATED BOXING RING -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: one_less who wrote (9519)	4/17/2002 7:29:02 PM
From: MulhollandDrive	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21057

You are being most gracious, JOTW....I was making a most simple, basic point. That being said, I do agree with Neo that Jerusalem has been carefully managed by the Israelis wrt to allowing all parties, Jewish, Christian, Muslim, to have access....on a symbolic level though, relinquishing "control" might indeed serve the purpose of reconciliation.

To: one_less who wrote (9519)	4/18/2002 9:54:24 AM
From: Neocon	Respond to of 21057

It is a lovely thought. I do not see it occurring. I do take your point that the city is sacred to all three major monotheistic religions, but all that is needed, on that score, is the guarantee of protection of the holy sites, and equal access. After all, Bethlehem in on the West Bank, and was not only the city of David, but the birthplace of Christ, and no one is requiring its internationalization. I think one could get an international commission to oversee the sites, and perhaps to have a role in other aspects of administration, but my reading is that the Israeli government is intent on retaining Jerusalem as the capital. Also, the buffer between the Jordan River and Tel Aviv is almost nothing, if Israel relinquishes East Jerusalem and its suburbs, which is why I think that some settlements are likely to remain, and that the boat has sailed on partition of the city......