Israel doesn’t to be given more rights in the Old City. The point is that in the history of Jerusalem, there has probably never been more religious/cultural security and freedom for ALL peoples than there is right now, and it’s been that way since 1967. Israel and the Western should think more about this and less about trying to score propaganda points with Muslim leaders who are the masters of playing propaganda games.

However, both you and LB are acknowledging that a certain status quo already exists anyway. Why do you suppose both the Israeli government and the IAA have demurred when faced with Waqf obstructionism over these many years? Because they are afraid of the consequences of appearing to harm Muslim interests. It’s not a propaganda move, it’s a security move.

Changing this status quo in a direction that gives Israel more protection is not going to happen by giving Israel more rights there. You cannot change the fact that for many Muslims, this is an important site.

And I don’t trust the government. The ‘disengagement’ was carried out in very anti-democratic fashion – the system allows it. The only way to truly decide on the basis of what people think about an issue such as this is to carry out a referendum (as was promised in 2005 btw…). I have no hard data, but I would be very surprised if it would be anything but an overwhelming majority against this idea.

In any case, the feasibility of any plan needs to be taken into consideration before adopting it. Just like Jerusalem wasn’t taken in 1947-49 because of tactical concerns (as well as a cost in lives during a very precariously won war), so should any other factors that will be in existence be considered. One can’t just ignore what will happen. Or, to put in your terms – replacing external friction by ignoring the (potential?) internal friction is foolhardy.

And the argument that compares what I’m advocating to creating a binational state doesn’t hold water. It didn’t in the eyes of the UN in 1947 either. The Old City IS different.

Finally, I realize you’re not advocating violence but I want to be clear that if an Israeli majority of voters supports an outcome such as Olmert offered and that I’ve been prescribing, then the fear of those who might raise arms should not play any role here. Israel is a democracy.

True. First and foremost in Jerusalem. And self-determination contradicts sharing Jerusalem. Jerusalem would not be part of the Jewish state.

And “removing a major source of friction” in the manner which you are advocating is giving to terrorism. If they would not attack – there would be no friction, no reason to even discuss Jerusalem.

“Why not let this pocket of Earth, which is indeed so important to three religions, not just ours, become a shared space?”

That is exactly the language others use in favor of a binational state.

And it’s not about religion – it’s about national self-determination. Self-determination and sharing, in this case, are mutually exclusive.

More than anything else – Jerusalem is a red line. No, I don’t mean Wadi Joz and Abu Dis. I mean the Old City and Mount of Olives. People gave their lives for that – and if a PM would dare to propose taking a step back on Jewish sovereignty over that area – more people will lose their lives in opposition. As I said, remember Amona? Now multiply that by thousands.

Holy sites are under official control of other religions – not respective religions. If that were the case, Jews would control Temple Mount. But the next step is not further relinquishment of these sites – but to RESTORE Jewish sovereignty. Management other religions’ sites (e.g. Church of Holy Sepulchre) is a possibility.

All of this not to mention that I don’t trust ANYONE else in the least. Even under the Israel the Waqf has been digging and destroying evidence of Jewish presence far before Mohamed allegedly took off to the heavens from a part of the world that was not under Muslim control while he was still alive. So I should trust the Waqf to have full control with not even a semblance of oversight? No, thanks.

As for the goal of Zionism, it is the establishment of a Jewish state for the Jewish people. That is its primary goal. Goal 1A is to do so in the Land of Israel, the historic homeland of the Jewish people. Goal 1B is to make it a democratic state where the Jewish nation enjoys its self-determination thanks to its majority vote. None of those goals contradict sharing the Old City of Jerusalem. We have not said for 2000 years, “Next year we control Jerusalem.” We have said, “Next year in Jerusalem” or “Next year in Jerusalem the rebuilt.”

Again, I ask you to consider that the holy sites are already under the official control of their respective religions. Jews live in their Quarter, Muslims in theirs and to a lesser degree Christians in theirs. Why must we control this? Why not let this pocket of Earth, which is indeed so important to three religions, not just ours, become a shared space?

Sharing? No. The goal of Zionism is Jewish sovereignty, true independence (which has not yet been achieved, btw). According to what you’re saying, what’s wrong with a binational state, in theory? After all, we’d be sharing the land.

And for this you get to have peace. Tell me exactly what the problem is. That we can’t say “it’s ours?” Right. It’s everybody’s.

So it may be that Olmert isn’t the person who is going to sell this, but Livni sat by his side and must have given her consent to this plan as did Mofaz (blast him!) and possibly even Barak. Netanyahu is soon going to discover that Obama is going to dispense with some of his untenable positions and push him back to where Olmert was. He may balk and prefer to fight, but that is where this is headed. Obama is not planning to sit around and let time pass, he is on this while he’s got the political capital and Israel will have to play along. The Palestinians may not, but Israel does not have much choice.