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: michael97123 who wrote (188664)	6/7/2006 1:14:07 PM
From: Elroy	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Jerusalem is the issue, not so much the land of Palestine/Israel. In any workable solution, jerusalem might need to become and internatinoal city in a sense where ayotollahs can visit. Ayotollahs would have to accept israeli sovereignty over the city and the israelis would need to bend over backwards to satisfy all three of the great religions--actually 4 if you split christians into west and east. All religions would have to agree that any fighting or violence in the city is verboten. Sounds reasonable, but why do you say Israel has to have sovereignity over Jerusalem? The Ayatollahs can just as easily (in theory) have sovereignity over Jerusalem and bend over backwards to satisfy the needs of the 3-4 great religions. Also, I;m not sure that only Jerusalem is the issue. I don't think the surrounding Muslims will evey accept the idea of a land mass which is surrounded by their land, yet by its charter (a Jewish homeland probably isn't a Muslim homeland as well....) excludes them. Americans would never accept a small communist "homeland" in the middle of, say, Maryland. It's not the best analogy, but it's pretty close to what the ME Muslims are being asked to accept in the existence of Israel.