The issue of Jerusalem as the eternal, indivisible capital of Israel, comprising the Arab-populated East Jerusalem as well, has always made me feel shy and inadequate. What is it that makes me incapable of understanding the big, lofty logic of this assertion? I love Israel, I love Jerusalem, I am as Jewish as you can be and feel, and yet, that idea always escaped me. But since it was declared so often and pompously, I imagined something must be very wrong with me. I must be an am haaretz (an ignoramous). I figured that since I never experienced the Jordanian siege, the misery of 1948 - 1967, when Jews couldn't reach the Old City with all its Jewish holy sites, it's my fault. But then, I thought, that tragic past doesn't have to return: Why does East Jerusalem, as the capital of Palestine, which is inhabited by Arabs, their markets and mosques, has to thwart Israel's every right to the Old City? Why does indivisible have to mean Israeli sovereignty over the 300 thousand Arabs (is the figure right?) as well? Why would Israel want to have an open gate for the terrorists into Israel, as opposed to the WAQF arrangement, and grant the Arab East Jerusalemites their being part of Palestine, not Israel? Isn't it what Lieberman outrageously wants for Umm-el-Fahm anyway? What about King David gets lost in such an arrangement? What is so terrible about Arabs being in the East and Jews in the West? Granted. It is complicated, and the line is blurred and snakes its way at best. Granted, Gilo, the Hebrew University and so on, are east. But what about the overwhelmingly Arab neighborhoods of East Jerusalem having contiguity with Palestine would be so terrible, devastating catastrophic? I study, I read, I have been in Jerusalem and seen it. But I still fail to see why? Can anybody tell me what's wrong with my understanding?
U.S. Sen. Carper (D-DE) says will support the nuclear deal with Iran in editorial (Reuters)
from the article: European Parliament: East Jerusalem should be Palestinian capital