Tweet
[QUOTE] Originally posted by Ramo
No, I said because its already de facto divided.
You misunderstand me. I was not referring to civil control under Oslo. I was referring to the actual unity of the city as a living community, which is a thing of the past since the first intifadah.
No, its not a statement by Israeli politicos, its an assertion by many influential (and not particularly fringy) israeli pundits. Barak cant say it as a starting position, but its clearly something he understands and that conditions future negotiations.
Im not sure she want EVERYONE to assume that interpretation. Like every primary voter, for ex. But everyone who really has really followed the Jerusalem issues closely the last few years, is familiar with what Im talking about.
East Jerusalem was annexed in 1967. I take it you DONT follow the situation that closely, then.
No. And I didnt say that even the Center left would consider it to exclude any part of the old city. That would be dividing Jerusalem, even to them. But dividing Jerusalem isnt their starting position. Im assuming an aggressive starting position with Israel holding the old city, and the entire close-in-area to the East, and Pal sov over the eastern suburbs and villages. First fallback is Israeli sov over the Old City and the Holy area east of the OC (Mt of Olives, Kidron valley, etc) Final fallback would be a shared arrangement over the OC and Israeli sov over the holy area east of the OC.
More importantly, again, how do you think Pals interpret "undivided Jerusalem"?
US opinions effect the Israeli street as surely as they do the Pal street. A sense that Olmert is walking into a trap, where the US is advocating major Israeli concessions from the start, would strengthen the Likud position in the elections that are likely soon. Much of middle Israel is unwilling to go as far as Ive said above on Jerusalem. The idea is to make progress on negotiations first, and then present the Israeli electorate a package deal, including a final end to the conflict.
Uh, its never been the official position of the US govt wrt to the conflict. We are willing to help out in negotiations, but we are Israels ally. The Arabs have usually found us MORE useful as a mediator than the many "honest brokers" willing to put themselves forward for reasons closely related to our relationship with Israel.
No. Because A. Shes not saying the Israelis cant reach a compromise on Jerusalem in negotiations B. The Israeli center left has NOT adopted a divided Jerusalem (by whatever definition) as its public position C. The notion that the US, while pushing for negotiations and a peace settlement, is at least sympathetic to past Israeli red lines, to the Israeli opening position, makes negotiations and a settlement more enticing to middle Israel. It would only make Likud more enticing if Middle Israel actually believed Likud was serious about negotiations, but intended to be a little tougher in them. That was credible under Sharon - its not credible under Bibi and the Likud minus its moderate wing that went to Kadima.
Now if Kadima dissolves and ex-mod Likudniks go back to Likud that could change. But I dont see that anytime soon,
No, I said because its already de facto divided.
Not in terms of sovereignty. And there are still areas not under Pal jurisdiction that are going to be contested.
You misunderstand me. I was not referring to civil control under Oslo. I was referring to the actual unity of the city as a living community, which is a thing of the past since the first intifadah.
Its part of a discussion about what a united Jerusalem really means.
Even if she really meant to express exactly the opposite of what a literal reading of her words would imply, and instead used some bizarre phrasing by certain Israeli politicos (BTW, which ones use that phrasing? I don't suppose you could dig up a quote from Barak to that effect?)
No, its not a statement by Israeli politicos, its an assertion by many influential (and not particularly fringy) israeli pundits. Barak cant say it as a starting position, but its clearly something he understands and that conditions future negotiations.
, why should she assume that everyone else would use that bizarre interpretation?
Im not sure she want EVERYONE to assume that interpretation. Like every primary voter, for ex. But everyone who really has really followed the Jerusalem issues closely the last few years, is familiar with what Im talking about.
Does the Israeli right (you know, the guys who want to annex East Jerusalem)
East Jerusalem was annexed in 1967. I take it you DONT follow the situation that closely, then.
consider an "undivided Jerusalem" to specifically exclude East Jerusalem and parts of the Old City?
No. And I didnt say that even the Center left would consider it to exclude any part of the old city. That would be dividing Jerusalem, even to them. But dividing Jerusalem isnt their starting position. Im assuming an aggressive starting position with Israel holding the old city, and the entire close-in-area to the East, and Pal sov over the eastern suburbs and villages. First fallback is Israeli sov over the Old City and the Holy area east of the OC (Mt of Olives, Kidron valley, etc) Final fallback would be a shared arrangement over the OC and Israeli sov over the holy area east of the OC.
More importantly, again, how do you think Pals interpret "undivided Jerusalem"?
BTW, you do understand that discussions of Israeli concessions prior to peace talks undercuts Kadima and Labour, and helps Likud?
I don't see why. I must've missed the part where Olmert deputized Clinton as an official Israeli negotiator.
US opinions effect the Israeli street as surely as they do the Pal street. A sense that Olmert is walking into a trap, where the US is advocating major Israeli concessions from the start, would strengthen the Likud position in the elections that are likely soon. Much of middle Israel is unwilling to go as far as Ive said above on Jerusalem. The idea is to make progress on negotiations first, and then present the Israeli electorate a package deal, including a final end to the conflict.
As I wrote earlier, I don't see why an American Presidential candidate should be articulating the Israeli negotiating position. What ever happened to the idea of the US being an honest broker?
Uh, its never been the official position of the US govt wrt to the conflict. We are willing to help out in negotiations, but we are Israels ally. The Arabs have usually found us MORE useful as a mediator than the many "honest brokers" willing to put themselves forward for reasons closely related to our relationship with Israel.
And shouldn't it be exactly the opposite? Shouldn't the American Presidential frontrunner supporting the Israeli negotiating position help the Israeli right?
No. Because A. Shes not saying the Israelis cant reach a compromise on Jerusalem in negotiations B. The Israeli center left has NOT adopted a divided Jerusalem (by whatever definition) as its public position C. The notion that the US, while pushing for negotiations and a peace settlement, is at least sympathetic to past Israeli red lines, to the Israeli opening position, makes negotiations and a settlement more enticing to middle Israel. It would only make Likud more enticing if Middle Israel actually believed Likud was serious about negotiations, but intended to be a little tougher in them. That was credible under Sharon - its not credible under Bibi and the Likud minus its moderate wing that went to Kadima.
Now if Kadima dissolves and ex-mod Likudniks go back to Likud that could change. But I dont see that anytime soon,
Comment