Over at WorldMagBlog, Lynn Vincent asks, “Would returning East Jerusalem to the Palestinians — but not the Muslim holy site, the Dome of the Rock — quell this type of violence?”
If there is an historical basis for a positive answer, I would like to know it.
Vincent asks the question because of this:
| Parsing Jerusalem
A confidant of Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert told the Associated Press today that his government would support a division of Jerusalem in which key eastern neighborhoods would be turned over to the Palestinians. |
This plan isn’t about giving peace a chance.
It’s about giving pieces a chance. The rationale seems to be that if we give them a piece now, maybe that’ll satisfy them. And if that piece won’t do it, we’ll give them another piece. And another piece.
How many pieces are there to give?
The hope of giving pieces a chance is based on a hope for reciprocity.
Both hopes already have a history of vanity.
Why continue to gives those hopes further chances?
By the way, the Captain observes:
| The question for Israelis is whether the people across the table from them are actual partners in peace, or Yasser Arafat under another guise. |
We shall see.