Abbas: Abu Dis offered as Palestinian capital

[sabbat hunter]

http://www.cnn.com/2018/01/14/middleeast/abbas-jerusalem-plo-meeting-intl/index.html

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas appears to have confirmed reports that the Trump administration has earmarked Abu Dis, a town adjacent to Jerusalem, as the capital of a future Palestinian state, during a speech to the PLO Central Council.

"Jerusalem is the eternal capital of the state of Palestine," Abbas told delegates at a meeting on Sunday called to discuss the United States' recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. "We are at a critical moment and our future is in danger ... we are currently being offered Abu Dis as our capital."

Simple solution, merge Abu Dis into Jerusalem, and poof you have Jerusalem as the capital of Palestine.

If Abbas thinks the Palestinians are going to get political control over the old city, well then we might as well forget about any chance of a two state solution in his lifetime.

[no_hypocrisy]

1. That won't work. Dome of the Rock located on the Temple Mount is in Jerusalem.

It's the third holiest site in Islam. The Palestinians will want Jerusalem (or part of it) or nothing.

[Igel]

2. And yet that was the Israeli solution to the problem.

Soon after the war that secured Israel's independence and status ended the country moved its government to the western portions of Jerusalem under its control and declared its capital to be Jerusalem, where it remains to this day. It didn't matter that Jordan occupied much of Jerusalem. The central government buildings and staff were located in Jerusalem, just not in the occupied section. They didn't have what they wanted; they settled for what they had.

The primary problem is that one little raised bit of ground is the first holiest site in Judaism. And after the Jordanians agreed to equal access for Jews, they reneged and didn't let Jews near the Temple Mount. Rhetoric out of the Palestinian side, Arab capitals, and even the UN deny any connection between Judaism and the Temple Mount. Some see this is providing justification for just such prohibitions past and future. Past actions and present rhetoric easily say the same thing--in fact, it's hard to see how present rhetoric provides any sort of guarantee or even grounds for negotiating as equals. "It's our third most sacred site, but meaningless to you" is hardly an even-handed approach. One wonders what others think the real basis for the Jews' thinking they have a connection to the site is.

To some extent, it's a re-revision of patently revisionist history that'll be needed between there's any broad acceptance of sharing the site. Loss aversion, though, is a mighty force to contend with, and now we have it on both sides.