Jerusalem: Why not an international city?

[Robin]

I have made the case to some that Jerusalem is just too much of a hot issue for any one single government to control. In a conversation with my dad, I asked him, "So, Mormons think that they will one day build a new temple in Jerusalem... how do you imagine that ever happening?" He responded that it could ONLY happen after an apocalyptic catastrophe. FYI, my pop is on the neo-con bus with many others on this site.

To me it would seem that the ONLY solution to the problems of the ME, one that will result in a lasting piece, is twofold --

1. Turn Jerusalem into an international state that can be used by Muslims, Christians, Jews and Mormons alike. Police it heavily, but try to respect access to holy sites during respective holy days.

2. The single state solution, backed by a strong constitution that guarantees religious rights of all citizens.

Jon Steward seemed to agree with my first point, which he brings up at the end of the top interview I link to here:

http://www.onegoodmove.org/1gm/

[SeattleUte]

I think Israel would go along with this. It's not like Israel holds fee simple absolute title over the place anyway. Israel is fundamentally a liberal democracy infused with Western values, and I believe there is a strong moderate center there. The problem is that Hezzbollah, etc. keep undermining the moderates. The problem with your idea is that Islamic extremists don't see an ecumenical world as their ideal. They believe theirs is the the only true, restored church. That's the least of it; the militant ones see it as their calling to kill Westerners, including Israelis. They'd see such a place as a marvelous sand box. Unavoidably it would be heavily patrolled by armed soldiers.