Influence of Jerusalem's religious symbolic in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict

Résumé du document

The author, Wiezel takes position against a Palestinian-controlled Old Jerusalem, where all the holy and historical sites of Judaism stand. He states that Jerusalem is 'holier' to Jews than to Muslims, and that it should be put under exclusive Jewish jurisdiction for that very reason. Wiezel also alleges that the Palestinian authority, since Israels foundation in 1948, did not show any will for peace, therefore its people should not be given the right to control the Arab quarter of the city (East Jerusalem). Since it is a comment, this article is by definition biased. It is though very interesting concerning the purpose of the essay, which is approaching the problem from a human, rather than a political angle.

Extraits

[...] He describes the complex situation of those second-class citizens, caught between their oppressed Palestinian brothers and their profound feeling of belonging to Israel. Ben-Ami asserts that a referendum- voted Jewish state could never be considered as a democratic one, the 20- percent Arab minority automatically being taken out of political life. The alternative of declaring Israel a democracy (with all that this system includes) would immediately rule out any kind of ethnic or religion-based government, since a democratic state is lay by definition. [...]

[...] I quote: Would giving most of the Old City of Jerusalem to Yasser Arafat and the extremists be a reward for their actions? This can't go without saying that Mr. Wiesel continues to claim the right to abstention when concerning excessive military actions against Palestinian civilians. The author, by its status of Holocaust survivor and Nobel Peace Prize winner, is a significant Jewish voice in the United States and around the world. He consequently bares great responsibility for his statements. [...]

[...] Influence of Jerusalem's religious symbolic In the Israeli-Palestinian conflict In the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the matter of Jerusalem's status is by far the one that raises the most tensions, that makes the timid, incipient dialog become two deafening monologues. How many times did the countless peace processes abort because of this delicate question? How many times is Yerushalaim mentioned, glorified in the Torah, the holy Book of Jews ? How many Palestinian songs chant the exile from the third most holy city in Islam, just behind Mecca and Medina ? [...]

[...] It goes without saying that they have a common history, dating from fourteen centuries ago. There is a cynical point of view claiming that all wars, especially religious and ethnic ones, are motivated by interest only, using the front cover of belief or race to galvanise the masses. The exact opposite is happening in the present conflict. The block of any dialog occurring every time Jerusalem is mentioned shows proof of it. There are few solutions that may content both parties. [...]

[...] One of the most suiting ones, though is quite utopian, would be of setting up a co-governmental institution, whose mission would consist in administrating an Israeli-Palestinian Jerusalem (Yerushalaim/Al-Qods). It would become the first city to be the capital of two countries or territories. This resolution, presided by the UN, would be, if not fully satisfying, at least one solution that could help renew a vain and moribund peace process. A coalition of police and military forces from both sides (benefiting from equal means partly financed by the UN) would considerably help reducing Palestinian terrorism against Israeli soldiers and civilians, as well as keeping Israelis from aggressing the Arab quarters. [...]