And it seems like many in the Middle East (and elsewhere) keep trying to push that ridiculous idea.

Maybe sometimes starting with an extreme position works in a negotiating process, but if you deny my right to exist I am going to regard terminating your corporeal existence as a viable option.

Likewise, anyone of any political or religious persuasion who expects Israel to give up Jerusalem is about as sane as someone expecting Saudi Arabia to give up Mecca.

the Palestinian historical connection to Jerusalem?

Does putting the Turkish capital in Ankara deny any Xian historical connection to Constantinople?

Does making Ionia part of Turkey deny any Greek connection to Ionia?

How about making the Hagia Sophia into a mosque? Does it mean they don't recognize it was originally a Xian place of worship? Of course not: In fact, the terror that the Turkish authorities demonstrate in forbidding even the Pope to say a Xian prayer in that place lest it be somehow claimed and taken back by the Xians shows that this connection is very much recognized. It's a repudiation of current Xian claims, not a denial of history.

They're distinct things: Where to base the seat of government and what you say about the history of that place.

their capital. It should be administered in a manner that will honor and recognize every faith's historical roots there.

First, it's a city, not a shrine. There are something like a million people living there, most of them Israelis. Second, there isn't an international organization that could be trusted with the job. Third, while there are multiple faiths that have religious ties to sites in the city, there isn't any other nation that has the historical, political, and cultural connection to Jerusalem as a whole that the Jews do. Fourth, the Israelis have done a pretty good job of running the city since 1967. Fifth, the Israelis have it, and they aren't giving it up without a fight.

First of all, the city is indeed a virtual shrine to three major faiths. The Orthodox Jewish population, who are the majority of the Jews in Jerusalem, will be the first to tell you that.

Roughly 850,000 people live in Jerusalem -- 37% are Arab and 61% are Jewish, according to the independent think tank Jerusalem Institute. Obviously "most of them" are not Jewish. The majority are. On the other hand, The vast majority of the Palestinian population lives in East Jerusalem.

I would rather have the Israelis running Jerusalem and making it available to all faiths, but I disagree with the idea that it is fair or historically appropriate for Israel to make Jerusalem her capital. Israeli policies to displace Palestinians with Jewish "settlers" approaches the criminal.

Sure, Israel is proud to fight for all the territory it can capture and control, but that doesn't make it right, or even to Israel's long-term advantage.

Of course, Trump agrees with you 100% for the sake of the Jewish and evangelical vote.

..............way off more like .

First, your claim that Jerusalem is a shrine is your opinion. I'm pretty sure that the Orthodox Jews I know don't share it. Given that you think that Hanukkah is a major holiday, you may not know as much about Jews and how we think as you believe that you do. Second, although the city per se has a smaller population, that of the metro area of Jerusalem is about 1.25 million. That's why it's important to understand that it's a city, not a shrine. Also, we have a difference of opinion os to how much is majority versus most, but that is a difference of opinion not fact. But we're not talking about Israel running the city, but about whether Jerusalem is Israel's capital. I don't see the conflict between the two. You understand that the Arab objection to Israel having Jerusalem as its capital is that they don't want Israel to be running Jerusalem at all. Their objection is not to Jerusalem being Israel's capital per se, so much as it is an objection to Israel at all. So if we set that aside, what is inconsistent in having Jerusalem as Israel's capital? Yes it's holy to many faiths, but what about that prevents the city from being the capital?

Seriously. Jerusalem has been the capital of every Jewish state going back over two thousand years. It was the site of the most important Jewish cultural and religious sites. It has been Jewish majority since at least the 1890's. What Palestinian political or cultural institutions have ever been in Jerusalem? None that I know of. Of course, it has the Al-Aqsa Mosque, but the importance of Jerusalem to Islam is the result of the construction of the mosque, not the cause of it. Essentially, the Caliphs built the mosque to compete with Mecca, and claimed that Jerusalem was the place of the ascension of Mohammed, even though there is no mention in the Koran of this. Nevertheless, the Mosque and surrounding area are now holy to Islam. But making Jerusalem the capital of Israel doesn't change that at all. http://www.meforum.org/7099/long-history-of-hypocrisy-about-jerusalem

Every faith has its political quarrels, such as the one that resulted in the ascension of Hanukah to a major holiday. Are you suggesting that Palestinians who lived in Jerusalem when the Israel state was declared have no moral or legal right to live there and be treated as equal citizens? Are you suggesting that the Palestinians do not have a right to a homeland such as the one the International community granted the Jews on the very territory already occupied by a significant population of Palestinians? If the answer to either question is "no", then Jerusalem should be reserved as a sanctuary city holy to three faiths, and not the capital of any country.

Hanukkah is not a major Jewish holiday. The majors are things like Passover, Rosh Hashana, Yom Kippour, and a few others. The only reason that non-Jews think Hanukkah is major is because it comes at Christmas. Second, I am not suggesting any of the things that you attribute to me. Further, the International Community did not grant the Jews a state. In fact, the Partition Resolution was much more intended as screen for the fact that the International Community was abandoning the Jews to be slaughtered by the Arabs. So let's all assume that the Palestinians have a right to live in Jerusalem, that Palestinians have a right to a state. And let's also assume that the Jews have a right to a state independent of the say so of anyone else. All of that has nothing to do with whether Jerusalem should be Israel's capital.

I pointed to it as an example of how religions get involved in politics.

Secondly, I attributed nothing to you. I asked you two questions.

Thirdly, you seem blind and deaf to the fact that if Jerusalem becomes Israel's capital, it will politicize a city that is holy to three faiths. But go ahead. Assist the American evangelical right, who need Jerusalem to become Israel's capital as a sign that their ridiculous end-of-the-world prophecy is coming to pass. Do you really want a right-wing American government to have the opportunity to make Armageddon a self-fulfilling prophecy? You are playing with nuclear fire and the lives of millions.

You wrote, "Every faith has its political quarrels, such as the one that resulted in the ascension of Hanukah to a major holiday." (underlined by me for emphasis). Second, the questions assumed that I believed the things you stated, or that it was necessary to believe those things to want Jerusalem to be Israel's capital. Third, Jerusalem is already politicized by the mere fact that Jews control it. Moreover, it is Israel's capital. The problem is that the Arabs don't want to recognize that, because they don't want to recognize Israel. Fourt, I don't give a rat's patootie for what the Evangelical want. I care about truth and history. Is it really your fear that some right wing nut group is going to start a nuclear war over Jerusalem? That's hysterics.

I must point out, however, that you are still jumping to conclusions when you write, "the questions assumed that I believed the things you stated." On the contrary, I asked the two questions in good faith. I confess I thought I might know the answer, but I still had my mind open for either a yes or a no.

Hysterics? Have you noticed who our president is? The president who holds the power to launch a nuclear attack with no consultation whatsoever with the military or the government? Have you noticed that he is not quite right in the head, and does most things to get attention? Do you understand that the right wing evangelical vote is the primary base of his remaining support? That he doesn't think things through before acting?

He is many unpleasant and obnoxious, and even evil things, but he isn't crazy. And the government of the US and its military establishment is bigger than the one man, and it isn't crazy. Could Trump do something to get us into a war? I fear that everyday with regard to Korea. Not so much with regard to Russia, China, or the Middle East. And the Evangelicals aren't going to start a war to bring about the end times. They aren't crazy either, and they know that God would be seriously pissed if they did something like that. So, if that is your true reason for your position, then I think it's overblown.

is not getting enough oxygen to the brain for some other reason. He slurs his words, his vocabulary has decreased (listen to a video from 15 years ago), and he reaches for words and concepts that he just can't remember. That on top of what are clearly some serious symptoms of pathological narcissism and sociopathy.

Remember, this is the man who said this string of nonsequiteurs and nonsense:

"I think our biggest form of climate change we should worry about is nuclear weapons. The biggest risk to the world, to me – I know President Obama thought it was climate change – to me the biggest risk is nuclear weapons. That’s – that is climate change. That is a disaster, and we don’t even know where the nuclear weapons are right now. We don’t know who has them. We don’t know who’s trying to get them. The biggest risk for this world and this country is nuclear weapons, the power of nuclear weapons."

he is still smart enough to pander to Evangelicals without being one.

He does know how to manipulate. I'd say that's more of an instinct than intelligence.

outside the old city are going to stay with Israel even if Israel withdraws from every square inch of the West Bank. A country has a right to decide what its capital is going to be.
When a Palestine is formed, if they want to have their capital in the eastern sections (not old city) of Jerusalem, great, more power to them.
The old city was supposed to be an international city under UN control, but the UN long ago abrogated that duty.


I see no reason why the old city should not remain under Israel political control, but the various areas taken care of by the various religious bodies as they do now.