Trending Topics:

The UN can bring peace to Jerusalem by moving its headquarters there

Israel/Palestine
on 54 Comments

President Barack Obama recently surprised no one by observing that the Israel-Palestine status quo was not “sustainable.” Quite so. His own Secretary of State, John Kerry, has given up for the moment on his year-long effort to negotiate a solution to this long-festering conflict. But still, nothing would help us win ‘hearts and minds’ in our psychological battle with Salafist Islamic extremists like ISIS than if we could broker a real peace between Arabs and Israelis.

I first began to grapple with this issue nearly sixty years ago when the State Department assigned me to the Israel-Jordan desk. As a newly minted Foreign Service officer, I had studied in Sweden and written a Master’s thesis on the 1919 Curzon Line between Poland and Russia. I told my boss, Ambassador Parker Hart, that I knew nothing about the Middle East. “Well,” he gruffly replied, “Maybe that’s what we need around here, a fresh new mind.”

Soon after this exchange I was posted to Jerusalem where I lived for a time in the American Colony, a boutique hotel founded by Horatio Gates Spafford, a well-to-do Chicagoan lawyer who had migrated to the Holy City in 1881. Over the decades, such distinguished visitors as T.E. Lawrence, Lowell Thomas, Gertrude Bell and John D. Rockefeller spent time in the American Colony.

As I approach my tenth decade, I know a little more, and I firmly believe that much of our “peace process” diplomacy has repeatedly failed precisely because we have always assumed that it is wiser to put off the toughest issues to the end of the process. This is a bad strategy because it actually encourages both parties—the Israelis and the Palestinians—to resist compromises in the short term because they fear in the long term they will be asked to concede their key goal: Jerusalem.
The ancient city of Jerusalem is at the core of this conflict. And so it seems there is only one road to peace and it lies through Jerusalem. The Israelis annexed the entire city after the June 1967 war and they insist that the city can never again be divided. But the international community refuses to recognize Israeli sovereignty over East Jerusalem and insists that the annexation is illegal under international law. The Palestinians, of course, are determined to make East Jerusalem the capital of a Palestinian state comprising the West Bank and Gaza. Without East Jerusalem, they insist, there can be no real Palestinian self-determination. Without East Jerusalem, say the Palestinians, there will be no end to the 47-year occupation.
That is the stalemate. So Jerusalem remains at the core of the problem. And yet, the international community could unilaterally break this logjam. Here is my proposal: move the formal headquarters of the United Nations from New York to Jerusalem.

The United Nations already owns a piece of Jerusalem. It is known as Government House, a beautiful white-stone building sitting on sixteen acres overlooking the Old City. Built in 1933 to house the British High Commissioner, this property lies on the edge of the 1948 Armistice Line, the so-called Green Line, with access to both Israel and the West Bank. From this vantage point, one has a splendid view of both the Dome of the Rock and the Israeli Knesset in West Jerusalem. It is just large enough to house what would be a symbolic headquarters of the United Nations. And this in turn would be a giant step to transforming the status of Jerusalem into a truly international city.

Back in 1947 the United Nations passed a resolution calling for the internationalization of Jerusalem. After all, the Old City is sacred to three major religions. And if Jerusalem acquired “international” status this would facilitate the big compromises necessary for an over-all peace settlement. An international city could house both the Knesset of the Israeli republic and the parliament of a future Palestinian state. No one would “own” Jerusalem, everyone would.

Does anyone have a better idea?

About Eugene Bird

Eugene Bird, 90, a retired Foreign Service officer, has worked on Middle Eastern peace issues for nearly six decades—and he plans to stick around until this happens.

Other posts by .


Posted In:

54 Responses

  1. just
    just
    November 3, 2014, 2:44 pm

    It’s a splendid idea, Eugene! And no, I certainly don’t have a better one.

    And , thank you for your service.

  2. Nevada Ned
    Nevada Ned
    November 3, 2014, 3:27 pm

    Sounds like a good idea.

    It might concentrate the discussion when Jewish extremists beat up UN delegates from all over the world on their way to the UN.

    Think I’m joking? In the early 1960’s many African countries gained independence and UN representation. The US govt was much embarrassed when the NYC police dept beat up African diplomats.

    Reference: NYC police beating were mentioned by Malcolm X in a communication with the OAU.

  3. Kay24
    Kay24
    November 3, 2014, 3:48 pm

    Excellent suggestion. This would prevent so much of the violence, false claims of ownership, and arrogant actions of Israel. I was surprised to see this covered on MSNBC just now, which started with the discussion of a Supreme Court case where the family of an American Jewish kid wanted his birth certificate to read Israel as the place he was born (Jerusalem), which would then officially be the green light I suppose for US recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s.
    We can only guess who is behind the parents, to push for this. Crafty, crafty.

    I was pleasantly surprised to see the discussion go over to Israel’s desperate attempt to make the US recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, and that the US still does not do so, despite the spineless zio bought congress passing many resolutions indicating that it should. I am glad the US Presidents have not buckled under zio pressure to do so. Ambassador Marc Ginsberg also criticized Chickenshit for being difficult and unable to stop the illegal settlements, and work with the President for peace. It was interesting.

    • just
      just
      November 3, 2014, 5:04 pm

      You can find the orgs, etc that filed ‘friend of the court’ briefs on behalf of Zivotofsky here:

      http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/zivotofsky-v-kerry/

      • Clif Brown
        Clif Brown
        November 3, 2014, 11:52 pm

        wow, that little list of friends says it all, thanks for the link, just. Not surprising that both the US House and Senate are there.

      • Kay24
        Kay24
        November 4, 2014, 7:00 am

        Thank you just very interesting. That makes a very interesting read.

        I hope the President stands his ground, and that the SCOTUS does the right thing.
        They are trying every trick in the book to make Jerusalem theirs, aided and abetted by the
        US Congress.

      • just
        just
        November 4, 2014, 7:54 am

        Congress engineered the ‘law’ after all.

        Our tax dollars at work……………..this is the 2nd time this has gone before the SCOTUS.

        ugh.

      • Kay24
        Kay24
        November 4, 2014, 8:02 am

        Just, ” Our tax dollars at work……………..this is the 2nd time this has gone before the SCOTUS.”

        They are desperate, they have tried all crafty means possible to own something that really is not theirs, a filthy habit, as we can see, short changing the Palestinian people, as they devour land, water, and everything their zionist souls desire, and must get.

        Shame on the Congress for aiding the criminals.

  4. Bumblebye
    Bumblebye
    November 3, 2014, 4:22 pm

    Hmmm. To really internationalize the city, wouldn ‘t it be a better idea to reinstate the 1947 city boundaries and declare all that ‘s within the line the UN’s own “Vatican City”? Then the Knesset buildings and Palestinian parliamentary buildings should be located in “Outer Jerusalem”.

  5. pabelmont
    pabelmont
    November 3, 2014, 4:30 pm

    If UN began to assert power over Jerusalem (this presupposes a lot of agreement among countries which might, some of them, oppose the idea; of a veto could nix the idea, the USA would veto it ), Israel would surely be in an interesting spot.

    Based on its ignoring of UN pronouncements (as what I call “mere words”) I’d expect Israel to tell the UN where to get off. UN would say that Israel’s claim to have annexed that part of what it today designates as “Jerusalem” which it captured in the 1967 war is a null&void claim. And it’d be off to the races.

    What fun!

    Would the nations — which have so far been too timid even to ask Israel to roll-back the settlement program in its entirety — be bolder for this move? Coming not so soon to theaters far away.

    • pineywoodslim
      pineywoodslim
      November 4, 2014, 9:03 pm

      Obviously, as you imply, there would have to be US approval–or at least no veto–of this move. But that sort of sea change on the part of the US would indicate that the US had already abandoned its role of diplomatic cover for Israel.

      In that case, there would then already be UN enforced international sanctions against Israel, and the zionist project would already be on its last legs, and moving the UN wouldn’t be necessary, though I think the idea has a lot of appeal.

      Perhaps if and when justice is achieved in Palestine, Jerusalem would make an appropriate location for the UN.

    • Abierno
      Abierno
      November 10, 2014, 4:27 pm

      Jerusalem has the capacity to be in impressive international city. The failure of the Israelis
      to recognize what constitutes an truly international city is obvious when one compares the
      current status of Jerusalem to New York, London, Paris, Los Angeles, Vienna,
      Berlin etc. I have chosen US and European cities since Israel self identifies with the US and Europe. None of these cities experience the religious intolerance (think of the Haredi spitting
      on European females, western Christian ministers and priests), the level of strife and tension
      (young adolescent being kidnapped and burned alive, summary executions, beatings), and the lawlessness of the dominant culture. A secular, international city, open to persons of all
      persuasions of religious and political belief in the heart of Israel, with its own legal jurisdiction, would be an important model for the country which purports to be represent the “only” democracy in the Middle East. Was it not the case, that when Israel was created the vision was that Jerusalem be an international city? Wherein comes the documentation that it is reserved exclusively for those of Jewish ethnicity?

  6. MHughes976
    MHughes976
    November 3, 2014, 4:42 pm

    But it cannot be.

    • just
      just
      November 3, 2014, 4:53 pm

      Why not?

      • MHughes976
        MHughes976
        November 3, 2014, 5:21 pm

        Israel, the Zionist country, claims all Palestine and Jerusalem especially as the place where Jewish people, and they only, have a full claim to enfranchisement or share in sovereignty. Internationalisation in any form contradicts this. To use the UN as the instrument of international status would be quite a dramatic act and in proportion to the drama would come the resistance because it would amount to giving up a Zionist claim in the most dramatic, so most resented, way. No one – or no one with any power – is minded to force Israel even into minor and cosmetic withdrawals, so would be even less minded to force Israel into grand withdrawals. So it all won’t happen.
        I was for a moment tempted to try a joke about asking the Martians to help out by placing a flying saucer station in Silwan, distracting everyone from all the archaeology. But I knew Mooser could do a better sardonic reaction than me.

      • annie
        annie
        November 4, 2014, 12:48 am

        But it cannot be….Jewish people, and they only, have a full claim …No one – or no one with any power – is minded to force Israel even into minor and cosmetic withdrawals, so would be even less minded to force Israel into grand withdrawals. So it all won’t happen.

        so, are you speculating that between now and forever there will never be an entity with any power “minded to force Israel”? really? in effect you’re saying that you know what can and cannot be in terms of global or national power between now and the end of time. that’s pretty heady of you hughes. would this forethought of yours be as certain as say, gravity?

        or do you mean “i don’t think within my lifetime” or “i don’t believe”. but when you say “it cannot happen” it is as if you believe there’s some higher force endowed with preventing mankind from acting towards israel in the same way history has worked in the past. is that what you believe? some higher force. or just your superior intelligence or what?

        anyway, “it cannot be” is quite the messaging. frankly, i just don’t think you’re the one to be telling anyone what can and cannot be. you want to speculate on pigs flying have at it. but don’t try to pan off some stupid idea that at no time in the future will governments and people never have the power to make israel stop. you might as well resign yourself to the belief jews rule the world. they don’t. they are mortals like the rest of us and they can fall too. their little state is not all it’s cracked up to be, and frankly is teetering on implosion if you ask me. but, you didn’t.

      • MHughes976
        MHughes976
        November 4, 2014, 7:46 am

        I do think that this terrible situation will come to end one day, though not in ways that I can foresee at the moment.
        Making Jerusalem international or interfaith is an idea that’s been around at least since 67 and I remember clearly and sadly how a friend of mine, a very sensible and humane person who really celebrated the Israeli victory, would tell me that an international Jerusalem was now very likely, bringing tolerance and religious mixture to a place that had previously been endlessly contested and painful.
        At the moment, I don’t see how the idea of ‘international Jerusalem’ would break the logjam either by winning over anyone in Israel who has previously been intransigent or by building up strong feelings around the world so strong that Israel had to concede. People may not see how making Jerusalem international conflicts with Zionism every bit as much as making Jerusalem part of a genuinely democratic Palestine, but it does. Strong feelings in politics have always built up, as far as I can see, around ‘my people, my group, my personal interests’ not around purely international or humane things.

      • MHughes976
        MHughes976
        November 4, 2014, 8:22 am

        I was interrupted – should say that there can be strong international feelings based on sympathy and identification with the oppressed. But I do not know of an example of strong international feelings behind a project on behalf of an organisation like the UN – an organisation which is not flesh and blood, not suffering.
        These features of the situation – that internationalism would not win Israel over and that it will not rally huge support; no form of internationalism ever has – are not temporary. So I do see an element of sheer fantasy in Mr. Bird’s idea.
        There is also a moral weakness in that idea. It is not true that Jerusalem belongs or in any way ought to belong, through the UN or otherwise, to everyone or to everyone of Abrahamic faith. I have no right to a share in sovereignty there because I’m a human being or because I’m a member of the Church of England. Jerusalem should be part of a sovereign state with enfranchised inhabitants, just like everywhere else should be, with people who have been unjustly excluded restored to normal rights. Religious and cultural traditions do not negate or trump those rights.

      • eljay
        eljay
        November 4, 2014, 8:46 am

        >> MHughes976: … It is not true that Jerusalem belongs or in any way ought to belong, through the UN or otherwise, to everyone or to everyone of Abrahamic faith. I have no right to a share in sovereignty there because I’m a human being or because I’m a member of the Church of England. Jerusalem should be part of a sovereign state with enfranchised inhabitants, just like everywhere else should be, with people who have been unjustly excluded restored to normal rights. Religious and cultural traditions do not negate or trump those rights.

        Very well said!

      • Mooser
        Mooser
        November 4, 2014, 10:18 am

        ” they don’t.”

        Really? Oh crap, I get screwed again.

  7. Mooser
    Mooser
    November 3, 2014, 5:01 pm

    Wait, you want to move the UN to a spot where Israel can more easily hold it hostage? Doesn’t seem smart.

    • Mooser
      Mooser
      November 3, 2014, 7:11 pm

      At any rate, make good and goddam sure the Israelis know it’s not an American Navy boat!

  8. Mooser
    Mooser
    November 3, 2014, 5:01 pm

    Move the UN to Gaza. That might help.

  9. Mooser
    Mooser
    November 3, 2014, 5:07 pm

    No, I’m taking too dismal a view of the proposal. But I am just a little nervous. So if the UN is moved to Jerusalem, make sure it is located next to an orphanage, hospital or elementary school, you know, just for insurance.

    • Kay24
      Kay24
      November 3, 2014, 6:06 pm

      Good point Mooser, that insurance is crucial.

      • Mooser
        Mooser
        November 3, 2014, 7:01 pm

        There must a measure of irony or something in the article I’m not getting.

  10. David Doppler
    David Doppler
    November 3, 2014, 6:05 pm

    What I like about this suggestion is that it would be a bold act of international leadership to change the subject from the intransigent eat-the-pizza-while-we negotiate-over-whose-pizza-it-is process. It could accompany bold statements of international support for the two state solution, bold offers of UN peacekeeping forces to maintain security, perhaps herald major economic development around the internationalization effort. Have a neutral, international zone, plus Palestinian and Israeli autonomous zones. Who knows, maybe Netanyahu and some of his colleagues could negotiate immunity in exchange for facilitating it. Likud and the right wing have painted themselves into a corner, and this might open a new doorway out.

  11. JLewisDickerson
    JLewisDickerson
    November 3, 2014, 6:50 pm

    RE: “Here is my proposal: move the formal headquarters of the United Nations from New York to Jerusalem. . . Back in 1947 the United Nations passed a resolution calling for the internationalization of Jerusalem.” ~ Eugene Bird

    MY COMMENT: Needless to say, I concur! Jerusalem should be made an ‘international city’ pursuant to General Assembly resolution 181 (II) November 29, 1947, which provided for the full territorial internationalisation of Jerusalem: “The City of Jerusalem shall be established as a corpus separatum under a special international regime and shall be administered by the United Nations.”
    Netanyahu recently made it clear (albeit speaking only in Hebrew) that as far as he is concerned there will never be a sovereign nation-state of Palestine in the West Bank (with, or without, E. Jerusalem as its capital). Consequently, unless Jerusalem is protected by virtue of its being made an ‘international city’ administered by the UN, it is just a matter of time before the Dome of the Rock, the Al-Aqsa mosque and numerous other historic sites come under existential threat as Israel’s radical, extremist nationalists (like Yehuda Glick and Moshe Feiglin of the Temple Institute) become more and more determined to completely “Judeaize” the city.

  12. Horizontal
    Horizontal
    November 3, 2014, 8:22 pm

    Once the British bugged out, the UN should have moved troops there back in 1947 to ensure that Israel stayed where they were put. It was irresponsible for the world’s powers to stand back and let the Zionists enact their land-acquisition schemes. Anyone reading their writings should have been warned of their obvious goals.

    Still, it’s not too late. Send UN troops into Israel and force them to abide by their stated 1947 borders. Jerusalem was meant from the beginning to be an Open City, since it has historically been important to both Arabs & Jews; it is wrong to allow the Jews to now swallow it piecemeal.

    I may also help to have Superman fly backwards so that time reverses and this can all be done more easily.

  13. annie
    annie
    November 4, 2014, 12:54 am

    Mr. Bird, this is one of the wisest most refreshingly articles i have read in a very very long time. thank you so much and i hope we hear more from you in the future.

    • Kathleen
      Kathleen
      November 4, 2014, 11:01 am

      Yes indeed. Experience in the region and wisdom…all mixed together. Hope we hear from Eugene more!

  14. TwoRedDogs
    TwoRedDogs
    November 4, 2014, 1:15 am

    Meanwhile, NYT has gone from Occupied, to Disputed, and now Contested. Recent articles referred to Jerusalem and Temple Mount as ‘contested’.

    • talknic
      talknic
      November 5, 2014, 8:32 am

      No UN/UNSC resolutions or legal documents on the Question of Palestine use the words ‘disputed’ or ‘contested’. They do however use the word “occupied”

      “disputed” and “contested” are Ziopuke weasel words

  15. Brewer
    Brewer
    November 4, 2014, 1:43 am

    I was delighted to see Gertrude Bell mentioned in the article. She is my go-to gal when dealing with Islamophobes. A typical response to this sort of nonsense reads like the post I put up today on my local political blog:

    Another question might be “where have all the good guys in the Middle East gone?”.

    Imagine, if you will, a Middle East in which a white woman could roam at will, often-times alone and become the confidant and advisor to Arab chieftains and leaders.
    Those simple souls who swallow the line that Islam, is inherently violent and misogynistic should give a little thought to Gertrude Bell.

    Gertrude Margaret Lowthian Bell, CBE (14 July 1868 – 12 July 1926) was an English writer, traveller, political officer, administrator, archaeologist and spy who explored, mapped, and became highly influential to British imperial policy-making due to her skill and contacts, built up through extensive travels in Greater Syria, Mesopotamia, Asia Minor, and Arabia. Along with T. E. Lawrence, Bell helped establish the Hashemite dynasties in what is today Jordan as well as in Iraq.

    She played a major role in establishing and helping administer the modern state of Iraq, utilising her unique perspective from her travels and relations with tribal leaders throughout the Middle East. During her lifetime she was highly esteemed and trusted by British officials and given an immense amount of power for a woman at the time. She has been described as “one of the few representatives of His Majesty’s Government remembered by the Arabs with anything resembling affection”.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gertrude_Bell
    – See more at: http://thedailyblog.co.nz/2014/11/03/who-are-the-good-guys-in-the-middle-east-prime-minister/#sthash.NnPiRb3D.3BDrFjyT.dpuf

    They should then ask themselves what happened to create the current mess and whether more violence will fix it.

    You all know what happened.

  16. Walid
    Walid
    November 4, 2014, 6:30 am

    ““Maybe that’s what we need around here, a fresh new mind.”

    Evidently this didn’t work either. What about the lion’s share of the UN’s operating expenses that are being currently picked up by the US because it’s located in NYC and so on; would Israel jump in and pick up the tab in consideration of the economic fallout as the US is now doing? The US and Israel have already jumped off the UNESCO bus and Canada off the UNRWA one. Relocating the UN to the heart of Zioland is absurd.

    • Mooser
      Mooser
      November 4, 2014, 10:26 am

      It’ll be expensive. Won’t they need to put in a military airfield, barracks and facilities for NATO troops? Or will they be using the IDF and Israeli security forces to protect them from the IDF and Israeli security forces?

      I’ve been racking my brain all night (…okay, it took about five minutes for a complete brain-rack, no more.) to see how sending the UN to babysit Jerusalem can be seen as other than an endorsement and validation of Zionist sovereignty.

      • Horizontal
        Horizontal
        November 4, 2014, 5:36 pm

        But think how much easier it will be for Netanyahu to travel to for his annual snubbing.

  17. American
    American
    November 4, 2014, 8:18 am

    ”Does anyone have a better idea?”

    Yes.
    Quit writing as if Israel has any intention of allowing any peace and that plunking the UN down in Jerusalem is a magic wand that would bring that about.

    It might interest people to know that the nazi zio bots of the Jerusalem Summit have suggested the the same thing………http://www.jerusalemsummit.org/eng/index.php?print=1&

    • Mooser
      Mooser
      November 4, 2014, 5:47 pm

      Holy Mackerel! That “Jerusalem Summit” website is outrageous!

  18. merlot
    merlot
    November 4, 2014, 9:51 am

    Call me a cynic but I don’t see this as a good idea. How in the world is the UN supposed to take over Jerusalem? Superficially attractive but in reality how is this practical? I also have a problem with the idea that the heart of the problem is Jerusalem. This seems to presuppose that the conflict is religious in nature and about control over holy sites. This is not reality. Rather the heart of the conflict is the historic and ongoing dispossession of Palestinians and the Jewish Israeli insistence on maintenance of ethnic privilege for themselves which includes political and social supremacy. Internationalizing Jerusalem will not challenge the ethno-supremacist policies that undergird Israeli decision making. This will only reinforce pushes for a completion of the 1947 partition process which focused on ethnic separation and pushed forward the conflict. Rather than calling for the internationalization of the conflict through UN intervention and control of a unified Jerusalem, challenge and demand an end to the racism inherent in idea that states should have ethnic identities.

  19. Kathleen
    Kathleen
    November 4, 2014, 11:00 am

    Makes so much sense. Would think Palestinians would agree but how in the hell would anyone ever get Israel to agree? Guess such a proposal would expose Israel’s unwillingness to truly negotiate fairly even more. But where would it go after more exposure of Israel’s unwillingness to play fair…once again?

  20. mondonut
    mondonut
    November 4, 2014, 12:55 pm

    UN owns a house –> Magic Happens –> Jerusalem is an International City

    • talknic
      talknic
      November 6, 2014, 5:58 am

      @ mondonut “UN owns a house –> Magic Happens –> Jerusalem is an International City”

      If you say so. No one else has … In fact the author says

      “And this in turn would be a giant step to transforming the status of Jerusalem into a truly international city.”

      One step, albeit a “giant’ one step, to transforming.

  21. Mooser
    Mooser
    November 4, 2014, 1:58 pm

    Do Google Eugene Bird, he is still quite active. Googling “Eugene Bird Zionism” and “Eugene Bird Palestine” yield interesting results.
    Zionists have disliked Mr. Bird, his wife, and their son Kai Bird (who wrote “Crossing Mandelbaum Gate”) for quite some time.

  22. 666
    666
    November 4, 2014, 4:21 pm

    brill just brill………… no shortage of feathers for a quill….from the wiki

    Other officials involved with CNI over the years include long-time president Eugene Bird, a retired career foreign service officer;

    The Council for the National Interest (“CNI”) is a 501 (c)4 non-profit, non-partisan organization in the United States that works for “Middle East policies that serve the American national interest.”

    so eugene bird …..how will moving the un to israel serve america,s national interests….

    • talknic
      talknic
      November 5, 2014, 8:39 am

      @ 666 ” The Council for the National Interest (“CNI”) is a 501 (c)4 non-profit, non-partisan organization in the United States that works for “Middle East policies that serve the American national interest.”

      so eugene bird …..how will moving the un to israel serve america,s national interests…”

      http://archive.adl.org/main_anti_israel/cni.html#.VFonsxb4J1E

      In CNI’s statement announcing the new appointment, Weir charged that American support for Israel “fuels violence, causes massive damage and instability in the region, profoundly undermines U.S. interests nationally and at home, endangers our citizens, and entangles our nation in unnecessary, futile, and tragic wars.”

      • just
        just
        November 5, 2014, 9:42 am

        CNI was/is right in that statement.

        So few will even countenance the very idea, but it is verifiably true.

      • September 21, 2016, 3:32 pm

        I was trying to get a hold of ‘666’. I know it has been a couple of years since he posted or since anyone posted on this particular article. The issue of the internationalizing of Jerusalem interests me.

        International cities have existed in the past. They came about after World Wars 1 and 2 and have usually not lasted more than 20 years. Ever since 1948 there has been an international effort to internationalize the city of Jerusalem and make it a “holy city” for people of all faiths. The Vatican has largely been behind this effort, and I do know the Vatican would like to see a Palestinian state.

        I’ll ask you the same question I asked ‘666’, and that is given Israel’s unwillingness to give up Jerusalem (In 1980 Israel declared Jerusalem its eternal capital), how would Israel go about letting Jerusalem fall under international control. Certainly it can’t just be taken from Israel, that would be wrong. How would Israel ever be in a position where it is willing to allow Jerusalem to fall under international control?

  23. 666
    666
    November 5, 2014, 4:51 am

    on second thoughts the UN could open a branch office……..nice word branch office

    a middle east branch office in jerusalem,not a bad idea,for middle eastern countries only,each year or so a rotating head to represent on the security council

    15 members on the security council and one has to come from the branch office in jerusalem

    m
    l

    • Mooser
      Mooser
      November 7, 2014, 8:21 pm

      “a middle east branch office in jerusalem,not a bad idea,for middle eastern countries only,each year or so a rotating head to represent on the security council”

      Everybody would surely turn over a new leaf, and stop barking up the wrong tree.

    • September 21, 2016, 3:26 pm

      I am curious what your thoughts are on this? International cities have existed in the past. They came about after World Wars 1 and 2 and only lasted no more than 20 years. There has been an international attempt ever since 1948 to make Jerusalem an international city and a “holy city” for all faiths. The Vatican has largely been behind this effort.

      Given the unwillingness of Israel to give up Jerusalem (in 1980 Israel declared Jerusalem to be its eternal capital), realistically how would Israel be ‘willing’ to allow Jerusalem to be internationalized?

Leave a Reply