Jerusalem

Now that Hamas has claimed victory in the face of Israeli withdrawal from Gaza, maybe people will finally start to catch on that this problem is never going to be solved, at least not within the lifetimes of any of us living now, if ever.

Oh, it could be solved, but there are a very few limited ways in which this could be accomplished, none of which is feasible.

1. The world communities establish a separate nation for the Palestinians away from Israeli borders. My idea would be for donated land-preferably with a coastline to facilitate trade-somewhere in an area of land somewhere near Oman or Yemen, with Saudi Arabia contributing a share of the land as well. They and the international community could help develop it. A further compensation package for Palestinian heads of households of families who are descended from those who lost property at the formation of the state of Israel in 1948 could be added. Though it might seem inordinately expensive, it would pay for itself in a decades time if it produced the desired result-peace, at long last.

The problem-The world community would never go along with this, and in fact I have been accused of promoting ethnic cleansing. So, there's one potential solution more or less out the window. What's next?

2. Hand Jerusalem over to the Palestinians. Not just the eastern part of it, all of it. Although it might seem radical, I am reasonably certain a deal could be arranged to insure the rights of Jews and Christians. The problem would be finding a significant number of them who would be willing to stay aside from Christian Arabs. It might help if Jews were allowed to rebuild the Temple, though of course they would not be able to do so on the original spot, which is now occupied by the Dome Of The Rock.

The problem-Israel is highly unlikely to accede to handing all of Jerusalem over to become the capitol of a proposed Palestinian state. It galls them beyond belief that they might have to hand over East Jerusalem back to Arab control, but most Israeli politicians seem reluctantly amenable to that in theory. Unfortunately, I seriously doubt that East Jerusalem on its own will be enough. If it is ceded to the Palestinians, or to the care of the Jordanians as a protectorate much like Lichtenstein or Andorra, or even if it becomes a state in its own right like the Vatican (which would probably be impractical) it would still be a useless gesture if the entire city was not included in the package.

Why is Jerusalem such an important piece of the puzzle? Simply put, Jerusalem is the only reason this controversy continues on, and has for the last sixty years. All other issues are sideshow distractions at the least, but more to the point, they are tactical maneuvers.

Consider-if upon the formation of the state of Israel in 1948, the city of Jerusalem, all of it, were not included, but instead was given over entirely to the proposed Palestinian entity at that time, yet every single square inch of Israel was otherwise the same-this would not be such an issue, if indeed it were an issue at all.

Certainly there would have been objections, possibly even war. It might have dragged on for a decade or two, conceivably even three. But it would not have dragged on for sixty years. It would not be dragging on now, with no conceivable end in sight.

If Israel would simply give up all of Jerusalem and vacate the premises, the problem would be solved. Such non-relevant issues as the so-called "right of return" and even objections to the "apartheid wall" would vanish like the morning dew, only unlike that phenomenon, they would never be heard from again. All of the other cities lost in the formation of Israel, such as Haifa, Joppa, Tel Aviv, etc., would suddenly become distant memories in the minds and hearts of the Palestinians. And really, think about it. What is the real connection of the average Palestinian living today to those places? For the most part, their sole connection to them is through old weathered photos of a great-grandparent and in some cases a few land deeds. The vast majority of Palestinians living today have never set foot in these places, let alone lived there. Their emotional connection is hyperbolic sentimentality manufactured and encouraged by a manipulative power structure in the form of such political and religious entities as Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and Fatah.

All of these entities receive their funding, what doesn't come from the international community, by way of donations from corrupt secular Arab rulers and from religious Islamic charities who draw heavily on upper middle class and upper class Muslims who adhere to a very conservative view of the Koran and Islam. Let me make it clear, this is not to say that they are all radical extremists, though some are, but for the most part they are just very conservative and orthodox in their religious views, and to them the Palestinians are a just cause. But that cause has next to nothing to do with Haifa. It has everything to do with Jerusalem.

Even Saddam Hussein, though a secular tyrant, donated money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. He did this not because he thought they were a legitimate threat to the Israeli state, nor did he do so as a means of sticking his thumb in the eye of the Zionists and their American allies. He did so because he sought to curry favor with the average Muslim not only in his country, but on an international basis.

So what is the reason that this would be such a popular issue that a blood-thirsty dictator like Saddam would use it to curry favor? The idea that Palestinian youths have been deprived of a home in Haifa taken from their great-grandparents fifty years before they were born just doesn't fly with me. Nor does anti-Jewish sentiment even serve to explain it, as Jews had lived in the area for centuries, in all parts of the Arab world, and for the most part got along seemingly well-every bit as much as they did in the hell hole for Jews that was Europe, for the most part, and when you get right down to it, probably better on the average.

Again, all of these other issues are sideshow issues and tactical maneuvers. Jerusalem is now and always was the key. It is, after all, the third holiest city of the Muslim faith.

Of course there is one third and final option for a lasting and permanent peace, aside from the two I have mentioned, and that is, as I see it, a final war resulting in the loss of hundreds of thousands of lives and ending in one side or the other going down to a crushing, humiliating, and undeniable defeat. "You should see the other guy" will not be a reasonable retort.

Naturally, the international community does not want this, and will do everything in their power to prevent it, while inadverdantly serving to keep the hostilities smoldering. The real problem with that is, they might not always be in the position to forestall the inevitable. The way it stands now, the international community can barely keep its collective heads above water from an economic standpoint.

How much longer can they possibly keep the lid on this ever-boiling pot of anger, resentment, and hatred? If and when it finally blows, it's going to be a mess, but at least maybe then it will finally all be over with.

UPDATE-

Just as an afterthought, as one indication of how emotionally charged this issue is, you can go to the blog of Renegade Eye, where this has been over the course of the last month an on-going topic of discussion. It would seem that the more the topic is hashed out, the more vitriolic it becomes-

here, here, here, and here.

It would seem as though there is no realistic hopes for any kind of genuinely peaceful solution in sight-even among those of us sitting in relative comfort half a world away. What must it be like among those for whom this is more than a mere ideological concept and ideal, but instead is a day-to-day reality of life, a reality over which for the most part they have little if any control.