Anonymous
Anonymous asked in TravelAfrica & Middle EastIsrael · 1 month ago

Who would Jerusalem go to in a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?

4 Answers

Relevance
  • TNO
    Lv 7
    1 month ago

    It really depends on how the conflict is resolved. It's a major issue in ANY negotiation. 

    One thing to note is that, in a two-state solution, most agree that West Jerusalem will remain Israel's. For one thing, it's people are unquestionably Israeli. That section of the city was really built up by proto-Israelis and Zionists anyway, especially when it came under full Israeli control in 1948. And besides, it's where the seat of Israel's government lies. In a two-state solution, it'll be unreasonable to demand Israel evict themselves from this undeniably Israeli part of the city. 

    Debates concern the Eastern section of the city, which Palestinians talking about the two-state solution argue is theirs and will be the future seat of their government. Israel disagrees, and views Jerusalem as a city that should not be divided once more. The population of East Jerusalem is much more diverse, with large populations of Arabs and Jews. However, they tend to stick to certain areas of the city, so some others argue that East Jerusalem should be carved up; but, that comes with its own issues, especially when you consider it won't be a clean cut. And when you have things like the Dome of the Rock being so close to the Kotel (the Western Wall), it makes things rather delicate when the areas basically overlap.

    Israel currently has control of the unified city, and affords Arab residents of Jerusalem citizenship. Some accept it, others reject it, so looking at who it should go to can't easily be determined that way. 

    Now, I should probably mention my own bias - I'm far more pro-Israel than pro-Palestine - so there should be no surprise that I think that Israel should maintain hold on East Jerusalem, or at least most of it. However, I should point out that I do have a more neutral justification for my beliefs: Simply, we've seen Jerusalem under Israeli administration and under Arab administration and it's been better run by the Israelis. Israel has done a better job maintaining and allowing access to religious sites, which is a HUGE concern for both sides. I'll grant that Israel does impose restrictions at times on people who want to ascend al-Aqsa, but this is in response to riots that the Imams there instigate. That's unfortunate, but better and more reasonable than the full-on Jew ban that Jordan imposed on the Kotel. Furthermore, Israel has devoted more time, energy, and money to preserving the religious sites whereas the previous Arab owners desecrated Jewish graves at the Mount of Olives and left the Kotel in a squalid condition. Not to mention, nearly all of the synagogues were destroyed in the 19 years that the city was made Judenrein. I'll grant that this was done under Jordanian administration, not something uniquely Palestinian...however, the Palestinian residents didn't have an issue with this and current polling from Palestinian officials and citizens doesn't assuage concerns. Religious sites are a huge issue for many, and given Israel's record vs. their neighbors I do think that if it had to remain in one person's hands, that should be Israel. Not to mention, of course, that current residents are getting along just fine under Israeli rule, of course.

    But as I've said, this is an issue that they're talking about. Neither side agrees, so who takes what parts of the city is really up for debate. There are other issues which hold up the peace process, but this is a very notable one and one where Israeli and the Palestinian authorities just don't agree on. If a two-state solution is ever realized, it means one side has acquiesced and who knows which side that'll be.  

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 1 month ago

    Jerusalem and any other place IS NOT MOVING anywhere.

    GET OVER IT.

    The political lines on a map can move around as the parties of concern fight over it.

    The area in and around the city and in particular the very old places of significant religious attention have been disputed for CENTURIES do not expect an agreeable solution in the near future for ALL concerned.

    Muslims are already living there and have for a very long time.

    In 2016, Jerusalem had a population of 882,700, of which Jews comprised 536,600 (60.8%), Muslims 319,800 (36.2%), Christians 15,800 (1.8%), and 10,300 unclassified (1.2%)

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 1 month ago

    Al-Kuds is an Arab city, Zionists will not accept to split it because they have a plan to invade the middle east and create the "greater Israel from Nile to Euphrates" so don't dream to see that Zionists accepted the split.

    The only solution is that the Zionist state disappear and return the land to Palestinians from all faiths.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • Anonymous
    1 month ago

    lt wouId probabIy be spIit down the middIe or remain a special city, kind of like it is now.

    • Login to reply the answers
Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.