In September 2000 at Camp David, U.S. President Clinton is trying to crowns the end of his mandate with the pacification of the Palestinians and Israelis. The then Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak provide on the Palestinian Arabs - in the person of Yasser Arafat, 97% of the territories, demanded by the PLO to create a Palestinian state.
But the conflict can not be settled without decide on status of Jerusalem.
"Until you establish a Palestinian state with its capital in Jerusalem, Middle East peace will not occur". Behind this statement of Arafat stand hundreds millions from Islamic world.
In 1980 the Israeli Parliament adopted the "Basic Law", which declared: "Jerusalem is a thorough and united as the capital of Israel."
In these diametrically opposed positions there was a possible compromise? One party had to retreat.
And Barack, subjected to tremendous pressures, makes an unprecedented decision - provide East Jerusalem as the capital of a Palestinian Arab state. Barak betrayed his country's capital. With a single request - Israeli worshipers have access to the "Wailing Wall”, to prayers and perform his rituals. But Arafat decided to fight for total victory, and refused, saying: "We will only accept full Palestinian sovereignty over East Jerusalem, and only we will decide who has access to holy places." Whether emotions outweigh mind, or Arafat purposes FAILURE of the negotiations ?!
Upon successful completion of peace negotiations guarantor between Israel and the Palestinian state will be the United States. If the Arabs seek to conquer all Israel, then it would be inappropriate. If the "guarantor" are international forces, then would be easier to handle with the "blue" helmets , because its problem will not be decided in Washington, but at UN headquarters, which is under the control of anti-Israeli coalition.
And while Barack is devastated and humiliated, in Israel exploding protests. As president of the largest opposition party in parliament - Likud, Ariel Sharon immediately visited East Jerusalem, which demonstrates that defends Israeli sovereignty over the holy city.
Whithout "complete" sway over Old Jerusalem, Arafat named Sharon visit like "provocation" against Islam and used it to justify the "second intifada" .
As for the strife are those relating to the possession of Jerusalem? This city is not a center of industry, trade or exchange, is not a place for entertainment, casinos and gambling, around it and no deposits of oil, gold or diamonds. Do not look for answers in the field of pragmatism and "healthy" mind. Becouse the battle for Jerusalem is the spiritual. A Spirituality is governed by principles that are not identical with those of pragmatism - something more - often in severe conflict with the latter. As a result of such conflict is also the battle for Jerusalem.
The problem around the Jerusalem issue is confined to the Temple Mount, where once Solomon's temple was located, and today stands Omar mosque.
