Jerusalem should become an independant city state

So the "city-state" would be less of an independent nation and more of a UN buffer zone. Interesting... There is, to my knowledge, no other example of an inhabited area being controlled by the UN exists. All other UN administrated territory is restricted to everyone except UN peacekeeping forces. The area between the North and South of both Korea and Cyprus is like this, and with Antarctica the people there just follow the law of their home country. How would laws be decided? If the UN makes all the decisions, how do you think the inhabitants would feel about the decisions regarding what laws they have to follow being decided by people they don't elect in an office far away from them? And if the inhabitants of Jerusalem are allowed to vote, then the prior issue hasn't been solved. If a pro-Jew law gets passed, the Palestinians will be angry and vice-versa. By the way, I'm talking about the citizens and not the countries when I say Jews and Palestinians. You also addressed my argument about the economy of the city state. You say that tourism will keep it afloat, but I beg to differ. Studies have shown that tourism is not a surefire way to build an economy, with countries that focus on tourism ending up with various different results from their economy shrinking, their economy growing and their economy staying the same. (Source: https://www.sciencedirect.com... ) So it isn't a certainty that tourism could keep the economy afloat. Also, you mention taxes. Who would the taxes go to? The UN? If they go to the UN, how do you think the citizens will feel about their money going to an organization that is meant to look after the entire world? How could hey be sure that their money would be focused on them and not on a peacekeeping effort elsewhere. If there's a local government, then it will face the problem of a Jew being elected and the Palestinian residents of the city being angry, or a Palestinian being elected and the Jewish residents of the city being unhappy. Not to mention that this wouldn't really make either side happy. Rather than reaching a compromise in which each side gets some of what they want like the 2 state solution proposes, you're just giving neither side what they want. Surely a compromise of some sort would be better? Also, here are some arguments you didn't address: #1: It would make Israel more vulnerable. Iran still plans to wipe Israel of the map. Before you say the UN would stop it, Iran is friends with Russia and China, 2 fifths of the UN council. They'd VETO any action against Iran and the others wouldn't put up a fight out of fear of starting WW3. #2: Both sides still claim the entire land. A UN buffer zone hasn't stopped conflict in Korea and it won't stop conflict here. Both Israel and Palestine still want control of the entire land, and they'll fight to get it. #3: The Jews were there first. Jerusalem is the heart of Biblical Israel and should belong to the Jews. The Palestinians have no historical claim to that city. The Palestinian government is a literal terrorist group so to suggest that Israel should abandon Jerusalem because of them is ridiculous. Jerusalem is only important because of Judaism. The reason the other two religions find it important is because it was first important to Judaism. Jerusalem is mentioned hundreds of times in the Jewish texts. Jerusalem is in the Israeli national anthem. The recapturing of Jerusalem by Israel in 1967 is the culmination of Jewish history. Washington DC was put on a swamp just to keep it out of any state, Jerusalem is where it is because of the Bible. To suggest that Jerusalem should belong to anyone except the Israelis is an idea I don't understand.