BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Sharing Jerusalem is necessary for peace

Dividing Jerusalem would simply turn the city into a war zone, with the battle lines being drawn wherever the dividing lines are drawn, as the two mixed-up and opposing communities fight for control over streets, holy sites and neighbourhoods. Moreover, it is simply not true that the inhabitants of East Jerusalem necessarily want to be the inhabitants of the capitol of a new Palestinian state rather than inhabitants of Israel. An opinion poll of residents of all 19 Arab neighborhoods of East Jerusalem conducted in 2011 showed opposition to a transfer of control to the Palestinian Authority. 40% said that they would move to Israel if their neighbourhood was transferred to the Palestinian Authority, and 39% believed most of their neighbour’s preferred Israeli citizenship. On the other hand only 29% would move to a Palestinian neighbourhood if theirs remained in Israel, and 31% estimated that most of their neighbours preferred Palestinian citizenship. 35% prefer Israeli citizenship compared to 30% preferring Palestinian citizenship, with 30% not knowing or not answering. Residents therefore seem to be satisfied with their current situation of having Israeli identity cards which entitle them to all the rights of Israeli citizens except the right to vote in national elections. They are also all entitled to citizenship upon request, in which case they may vote in national elections.(6) This means that sharing Jerusalem will not be a simple solution and that the Palestinians can come to trust the Israeli government and its security services.
Palestine has as valid a claim to Jerusalem as Israel does:

Israel has a better historical, moral and demographic claim to an undivided Jerusalem as its capitol than the Palestinians have a claim to East Jerusalem. This is both because Israel's historical claim is older, and indeed original, but also because Israel does govern all Jerusalem, including East Jerusalem, both fairly and democratically. Moreover, the idea that Jerusalem could be is not practical. If all Jerusalem becomes the capital of both Israel and Palestine, this would create all sorts of potential problems. If it was shared for example, would a baby born in a shared Jerusalem’s civic nationality be Israeli or Palestinian? And if an act is committed in Jerusalem which one nation's government recognises as a crime but the other doesn't, who decides what should be done? Different countries sharing a disputed territory but not dividing it is very illogical, even more so if that territory is the capital of both. Imagine what would have happened if the UK, France, and the USA decided to share Berlin with the USSR instead of dividing it!
International law supports dividing Jerusalem

The 1947 Arab invasion invalidated the "international" status of Jerusalem. The Arab non-acceptance of Resolution 181 and invasion of Israel immediately upon its declaration of statehood essentially reneged the resolution and the creation of an Arab state at the time.(15) Furthermore, self-determination is not an absolute right. Not every territory and region in the world that seeks independence has the right to it. This is due in no small part to the fact that such a system would be unworkable. Certain criteria must be met for a territory and people to obtain a legitimate right to self-determination, including not compromising the fundamental security or territorial integrity of the original state, which a Palestinian East Jerusalem would probably do.
Jerusalem cannot be neatly or peacefully divided

The Palestinians will accept a peace deal that gives them East Jerusalem, and so the fears over 'Hamas' are misplaced as the conflict will end. In October 2010 Senior Palestine Liberation Organization official Yasser Abed Rabbo said that the Palestinians will be willing to recognize the State of Israel in any way that it desires, if the Americans would only present a map of the future Palestinian state that includes all of the territories captured in 1967, including East Jerusalem. “We want to receive a map of the State of Israel which Israel wants us to accept. If the map will be based on the 1967 borders and will not include our land, our houses and East Jerusalem, we will be willing to recognize Israel according to the formulation of the government within the hour. ” added Rabbo.(18) Moreover, Jerusalem has been psychologically and religiously divided since 1967. The walls may be invisible, but they are high and thick. Many Israelis never go to the Arab neighbourhoods or the Old City, because they know, even though Israel controls them, they are not welcome. Many Arabs don't go to the Jewish sections, because they too know they are not welcome. And tens of thousands of secular Israelis have fled Jerusalem for Tel Aviv, because they do not feel comfortable in a city dominated by the ultra-Orthodox.(1) Only formalizing these divisions can end the conflict.
Jerusalem belongs to Israel

While it is technically true that the first founders of Jerusalem were Jewish, this in no way established a de facto right to that city. While Jerusalem may have technically been founded by a Jewish king, the intervening years saw more rule by non-Jewish peoples than not. Furthermore, the communities living there, particularly the Muslim populations, also built their own religious monuments and sights there, most notably the Dome of the Rock (the site of the Prophet Muhammad's ascension to heaven is Islamic teachings). Arguing this ignores the many years of control that followed the founding of Jerusalem. It ignores centuries of cultural and religious heritage that subsequent, and more contemporary, populations have developed in Jerusalem, and it ignores the equally valid claims the Palestinians groups have to Jerusalem. While it would clearly be unfair to give the capitol entirely to the Palestinians, it must also be recognized that their claim must be recognized as having equal legitimacy as Israel's. If Israel claims it deserves the city because of history and religious significance, then the Palestinians can say the same thing right back.(19)
Dividing Jerusalem would harm Israeli society:

Dividing Jerusalem will not alienate Jews from their heritage. Dennis Ross writes in the book "the Missing Peace", that it is a myth: "that all of Jerusalem, including the exclusively Arab neighbourhoods of Jerusalem, must remain Israeli lest the division of East Jerusalem rob Israel of its link to its Jewish heritage."(22) Furthermore, splitting Jerusalem will establish needed peace for economic growth. Without peace, it is impossible for Jerusalem to thrive economically as it should. If splitting Jerusalem is the best way to establish peace, then it is also the best way to stimulate economic growth. Finally, even if it would be damaging to Israeli society or culture to lose East Jerusalem, the fact that Israel illegitimately acquired it in a war means that this is a burden the Israelis should bear, instead of forcing the harm on the Palestinians.
Sharing Jerusalem is necessary for peace

The only sustainable solution is to divide and then share Jerusalem, and the Haram-Temple Mount. No final deal will be possible if one side or the other is not willing to embrace this. Sharing Jerusalem would involve acknowledging and respecting each other’s claims which would extend to the other problems preventing agreement. (1) Sharing is the only solution that leads to peace, as the Palestinians in East Jerusalem will not tolerate permanent Israeli governance. Peace will always be a trade-off; Israel needs security while the Palestinians need territory and a viable capital city which they have dreamed of having in East Jerusalem for decades. (9)(5) In any peace deal Israel will have to accept that their security forces cannot be in control of Muslim areas. The Palestinians won’t trust them as a result of decades where they have not been fair to Palestinians and have been abusive rather than protective.(2) All this means that Israeli rule in East Jerusalem can never be legitimate in the eyes of the Palestinians, and so long term peace can never emerge as long as this rule continues. French President Nicholas Sarkozy said in 2008: "There cannot be peace without recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of two states and the guarantee of free access to the holy places for all religions."(3) There has actually been recent recognition of this fact on both the Israeli and Palestinian sides. Hady Amr, Director of  Brookings Doha Center, wrote in 2007: "At a recent closed-door gathering of former Israeli and Palestinian negotiators hosted at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution...had come to realize just how painful the issue of Jerusalem was for both sides, that neither side could feel whole without Jerusalem, and that separation arrangements were unworkable when emotions flared over a few feet of Jerusalem stone. Although it took a decade, the Israelis realized that they could not be secure from Palestinian rancor if they deprived Muslim and Christian Palestinians of sovereignty over the Muslim Noble Sanctuary and the holy Christian churches. The Palestinian negotiators also acknowledged the corollary Israeli need for sovereignty over not only the Wailing Wall, but also the Jewish Temple Mount."(4) A poll in 2000 showed some 40 percent of Israelis were ready to give up Arab East Jerusalem without even knowing what they would get in return.(1) While it is an unlikely solution most of the more likely methods have already been tried so new more unconventional solutions need to be tried. The division of Jerusalem could be such a solution that would kick start the rest of the peace process. The benefits of ending the conflict would be immense.(4)
International law supports dividing Jerusalem

The Palestinian people since 1967 have demonstrated through resistance to Israeli occupation their desire for an independent state of their own.(7) An undivided Jerusalem forces the Palestinians living in East Jerusalem to live under the control of a state they do not wish to be a part of, a violation of their right to self-determination under international law. The 1993 Vienna Declaration, which reaffirmed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the UN Charter (and so sets the standard in current international law), unequivocally gives all peoples the right to self-determination: “All people have the right to self-determination. Owing to this right they freely establish their political status and freely provide their economic, social and cultural development...World Conference on Human Rights considers refusal of the right to self-determination as a violation of human rights and emphasizes the necessity of effective realization of this right”.(12) Because Israel captured East Jerusalem during the 1967 war, it is considered occupied territory under international law, and it is illegal for Israel to annex it.(7) This is why most countries do not recognise Israeli sovereignty over East Jerusalem and in fact keep their diplomatic missions in Tel-Aviv today and do not consider Jerusalem the official capital of Israel.(15) The fact that Arab states initiated the 1967 war does not justify Israel responding by annexing Palestinian territory or holding on to East Jerusalem, and so international law supports the return of East Jerusalem to the Palestinians.(8)
Dividing Jerusalem would harm Israeli society:

Besides the aforementioned security concerns, many other harms would also result to Israeli society if Jerusalem were divided. Jerusalem is simply too important to Israeli society to be divided. Ben Gurion explain in 1937, "for the Jews, the millions of the Jews who do not know the difference between the Sharon [or the Jezre'el] and the Valley [or the difference between Rehavia and the Old City] the name Jerusalem means everything."(20) This remains true today: Soviet dissident Natan Sharansky said in 2000, "Above all, Jerusalem is the base of our identity."(21) This is why sharing Jerusalem is forbidden under Israeli law. In 1980, Israel's parliament, the Knesset, passed the "Basic Law". This proclaimed, "Jerusalem, complete and united, is the capital of Israel." This makes it unlawful, under Israeli law, to now divide Jerusalem and share it as a joint capital with a Palestinian state, and shows how deep Israeli attachment to an undivided Jerusalem is.(15) Dividing Jerusalem would destroy the city, Roni Aloni-Sadovnik argued in 2006: "Yet there is a truth that has yet to be spoken: Any division of Jerusalem will bring about the city's destruction. Maybe, after 3,000 years of bloodletting and destruction, the time has come to understand that the road to peace does not run through Jerusalem."(18) A divided Jerusalem would also be less viable economically. Dividing a city in two means cutting off commerce between the two sides. It means cutting markets in half, reducing the market of suppliers for consumers and consumers for suppliers by 50%. This is highly problematic for a city that aims to become an global centre, and this is even more problematic when the city involved is considered to be a holy one by three faiths, all of whom want to see it prosperous and strong. Therefore dividing Jerusalem would be too harmful to Israeli society and to Jerusalem itself, and so it should not be divided.
Less incentive to study at university

If everything that University provides is open to all then there is less incentive to study at university. Anyone who is studying in order to learn about a subject rather than achieve a particular qualification will no longer need to attend the university in order to fulfil their aim. The actual benefit of university education is less in learning content per se than engaging with new ideas critically, something that is frequently more difficult in an online environment. Moreover if only some countries or institutions were to implement such open access then it makes more sense for any students who are intending to study internationally to go elsewhere as they will still be able to use the resources made available by that university. Open access if not implemented universally is therefore damaging to universities attempts to attract lucrative international students who often pay high tuition fees.
Opens up education

Making these academic materials available to the general public does not mean they are useful to anyone. Many of the materials universities produce are not useful unless the reader has attended the relevant lectures. Rather than simply putting those lectures that are recorded and course handbooks online what is needed to open up education is systematically designed online courses that are available to all. Unfortunately what this provides will be a profusion of often overlapping and contradictory materials with little guidance for how to navigate through them for those who are not involved in the course in question.
Openness benefits research and the economy

Open access makes little difference to research. If an academic needs to use an article they don’t have access to they can pay for it and gain access quickly and efficiently. The benefits to the economy may also be overstated; we don’t know how much benefit it will create. But we do know it would be badly damaging to the academic publishing industry. We also know there are risks with putting everything out in the open as economies that are currently research leaders will be handing out their advances for free. There is an immense amount of stealing of intellectual property, up to $400 billion a year, so research is obviously considered to be economically worth something.[1] With open access the proposal is instead to make everything available for free for others to take as and when they wish. [1] Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, “Backgrounder on the Rogers-Ruppersberger Cybersecurity Bill”, U.S. House of Representatives, http://intelligence.house.gov/backgrounder-rogers-ruppersberger-cybersecurity-bill
Students would be able to benefit from being able to use resources at other universities

Most students most of the time stick to the core areas of their course and thus are not likely to encounter difficulties with finding the relevant information. For those who do require resources that the university library does not have access to they can use interlibrary loan for a small fee to cover the cost of sending the book or article between universities.[1] The universities in most countries can therefore effectively split the cost of access by specialising in certain subjects which limits the number of journals they need to buy while making the resources available to their students if they really need them. [1] Anon., “Inter-library loans” Birkbeck University of London. http://www.bbk.ac.uk/lib/about/how/ill/illguide Within the UK Cambridge charges £3 to £6, http://www.bbk.ac.uk/lib/about/how/ill/illguide in Europe the University of Vienna charges €2 http://bibliothek.univie.ac.at/english/interlibrary_loans.html  while the United States is higher with Yale charging between $20-30 http://www.library.yale.edu/ill/
Universities deserve to profit from their work

Academic work is not about profit. For most researchers the aim is to satisfy curiosity or to increase the sum of knowledge. Others are motivated by a desire to do good, or possibly for recognition. None of these things require there to be profit for the university. Moreover we should remember that the profit is not going to the individual who did the research, there is therefore no moral justification that the person has put effort in and so deserves to profit from it. The university does not even take the risk, which is born by the taxpayer who pays the majority of the research budget. Much of the profit from publishing this knowledge does not even go to the university. Instead academic publishers make huge profits through rentier capitalism. They have profit margins of 36% despite not doing the research, or taking any risk that goes into funding the research.[1] [1] Monbiot, George, “Academic publishers make Murdoch look like a socialist”, The Guardian, 29 August 2011, http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/aug/29/academic-publishers-murdoch-socialist
Making everything free to access will damage universities ability to tap private funding

If business wants certain research to use for profit then it is free to do so. However it should entirely fund that research rather than relying on academic institutions to do the research and the government to come up with part of the funding. This would then allow the government to focus its funding on basic research, the kind of research that pushes forward the boundaries of knowledge which may have many applications but is not specifically designed with these in mind. This kind of curiosity driven research can be very important for example research into retroviruses gave the grounding that meant that antiretrovirals to control AIDS were available within a decade of the disease appearing.[1] [1] Chakradhar, Shraddha, “The Case for Curiosity”, Harvard Medical School, 10 August 2012, http://hms.harvard.edu/news/case-curiosity-8-10-12
Less incentive to study at university

The vast majority of people who go to University are not doing so simply because they are interested in a subject and want to find out more. Instead they are after the qualification and improved job prospects university provides. Even those few who are in large part studying out of curiosity and interest will likely be doing so at university because they like the student life and want the experience. However having courses and materials out in the open can even help universities with recruitment. Providing open access boosts a university’s reputation abroad which helps it in the international student market. Open access to academic work also helps give potential students a much better idea with what they will be studying which is very useful for students who are unsure where to choose. The benefits are obvious as shown by 35% of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s students choose the university after looking at its OpenCourseWare.[1] [1] Daniel, Sir John, and Killion, David, “Are open educational resources the key to global economic growth?”, Guardian Professional, 4 July 2012, http://www.guardian.co.uk/higher-education-network/blog/2012/jul/04/open-educational-resources-and-economic-growth
Opens up education

Higher education, as with other levels of education, should be open to all. Universities are universally respected as the highest form of educational institution available and it is a matter of principle that everyone should have access to this higher level of education. Unfortunately not everyone in the world has this access usually because they cannot afford it, but it may also be because they are not academically inclined. This does not however mean that it is right to simply cut them off from higher educational opportunities. Should those who do not attend university not have access to the same resources as those who do? This can have an even greater impact globally than within an individual country. 90% of the world’s population currently have no access to higher education. Providing access to all academic work gives them the opportunities that those in developed countries already have.[1] [1] Daniel, Sir John, and Killion, David, “Are open educational resources the key to global economic growth?”, Guardian Professional, 4 July 2012, http://www.guardian.co.uk/higher-education-network/blog/2012/jul/04/open-educational-resources-and-economic-growth
Most universities are publically funded so should have to be open with their materials.

The United States University system is famously expensive and as a result it is probably the system in a developed country that has least public funding yet $346.8billion was spent, mostly by the states, on higher education in 2008-9.[1] In Europe almost 85% of universities funding came from government sources.[2] Considering the huge amounts of money spent on universities by taxpayers they should be able to demand access to the academic work those institutions produce. Even in countries where there are tuition fees that make up some of the funding for the university it is right that the public should have access to these materials as the tuition fees are being paid for the personal teaching time provided by the lecturers not for the academics’ publications. Moreover those who have paid for a university course would benefit by the materials still being available to access after they have finished university [1] Caplan, Bruan, “Correction: Total Government Spending on Higher Education”, Library of Economics and Liberty, 16 November 2012, http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2012/11/correction_tota.html [2] Vught, F., et al., “Funding Higher Education: A View Across Europe”, Ben Jongbloed Center for Higher Education Policy Studies University of Twente, 2010. http://www.utwente.nl/mb/cheps/publications/Publications%202010/MODERN_Funding_Report.pdf
Openness benefits research and the economy

Open access can be immensely beneficial for research. It increases the speed of access to publications and opens research up to a wider audience.[1] Some of the most important research has been made much more accessible due to open access. The Human Genome Project would have been an immense success either way but it is doubtful that its economic impact of $796billion would have been realised without open access. The rest of the economy benefits too. It has been estimated that switching to open access would generate £100million of economic activity in the United Kingdom as a result of reduced research costs for business and shorter development as a result of being able to access a much broader range of research.[2] [1] Anon., “Open access research advantages”, University of Leicester, http://www2.le.ac.uk/library/find/lra/openaccess/advantages [2] Carr, Dave, and Kiley, Robert, “Open access to science helps us all”, New Statesman, 13 April 2012. http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/economics/2012/04/open-access-science-helps-us-all