The author 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 (ignoring the Palestinian Christian minority) and that it should be put under exclusive Jewish jurisdiction for that very reason. Wiezel also alleges that the Palestinian authority, since Israel's 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). Admitting the importance of peace in the region and for Palestinians to have a decent and secure place to live, he though opposes to « peace at any price » and to a massive return of the 600 thousand Arab refugees, invoking that such a situation would be a threat to Israelis' security, « just as cutting Jerusalem from its roots [Judaism] would be spiritual suicide ».
Since it is a comment, this article is by definition biased. It is though very interesting concerning the purpose of the present essay, which is approaching the problem in a human, rather than a political angle.
[...] 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 ? [...]
[...] 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. II) Analysis: Visions of a new Jerusalem, by Michael Adams Summary: The key obstacle to effective negotiations between Israeli and Palestinian governments is each one's position concerning Jerusalem's status, especially the Israelis‘, who claim the city as their eternal and undivided capital Adams defines East Jerusalem's occupation by the Israelis as illegal, since it was taken by military action, and because the Palestinians have been given legitimate sovereignty on this part of the city by UN international law. [...]
[...] The ambiguous situation of Jerusalem clarified, Israeli and Palestinian governments could one more time sit a the table of negotiations and manage an arrangement to divide the rest of the land, arrangement that would of course need the approbation of the UN, let alone the United States. The Middle East conflict is one of the most complex situations that the 20th century has known, mainly because its foundations are rooted in centuries of common history. Both parties don't benefit from enough distance and objectivity to their own historical a religious beliefs (could it anyways ever be possible?) to be able to deal with the problem of Jerusalem on their own. This [...]
[...] It enlightens an interesting aspect that the present essay needs to deal with: Regardless of what each side's position is in the conflict, the need for a settlement is real and can by no means be avoided. III) Political analysis: The Intifada will continue and the occupation will end, by ? Summary: This anonym article enumerates terrorists attacks and constant aggressions perpetrated by the Zionists against the oppressed Palestinian people, describing their living conditions. It assents that the Intifada, with all its martyrs, bombings and assassinations, will relentlessly go on until Israelis withdraw from the whole region and give back the land to Palestinians. [...]
using our reader.