Israel’s Wall that will not be taken away

Last week the British Advertising Standards Agency decided that the Israeli Government Tourism office could not use a picture of the Western wall with the Dome of the Rock in the background in its advertising. As the Wall is in East Jerusalem and therefore considered by the international community to be occupied territory and that it somehow would imply that occupied East Jerusalem is part of Israel.

Whilst I would agree that it would be controversial if Israel were to use Sheikh Jarrah or Abu Dis for example in its adverts (not that they would). The Western Wall is something different altogether. I don’t think that anyone in their right mind would expect Israel under any final status agreement to accept any arrangement that did not give Israel control over this site. One would not expect Catholics to have to give up the Vatican or Muslims to ever compromise on Mecca or Medina.

There are some who use such a logic to asset that Israel should not have to make any compromises on the small amount of land that it has. In a final status agreement Israel already has to accept that it will more than likely have to give up Hebron, one of its four holiest cities, and will have to make some sort of compromise on Judaism’s holiest city and ‘eternal capital,’ Jerusalem, whether that be division or shared rule or possibly another arrangement.

If it is agreed that Jerusalem is to be a shared capital city for both Israel and Palestine, then there is no controversy. If it is to be divided, Israel would most likely not accept the Old City to be under Palestinian sovereignty. It would be most likely internationalized and control over the four quarters would be divided giving power to the respective group of each quarter.