Ceding Sovereignty

In my previous post about Jerusalem, I asked why the status quo couldn't be maintained. I then came across an article published in israelnationalnews entitled, "Obama Think-Tank: Israel Should Cede Jerusalem Sovereignty."

"A think tank which is arguably the most influential in Washington is proposing an “interim” neutral administration to govern Jerusalem instead of Israel...

...Four weeks ago, CAP held a panel discussion based on the premise that the Old City of Jerusalem is the main impediment in finding a solution to the Israel-Arab problem in the Holy Land. Michael Bell, a former Canadian Ambassador to Jordan, Egypt and Israel, presented a plan entitled the Jerusalem Old City Initiative. The plan does not call for the internationalization of Jerusalem -- but is not far off from that. It recommends that both Israel and a future state of Palestine appoint a third-party administrator that would run and police the city

Bell explained that the plan calls for an administration or regime that would govern the Old City of Jerusalem for an interim period, without either Israel or the PA giving up their demands for sovereignty: “Frankly, I don’t think there’s going to be any agreement on sovereignty. I think that the two sides need not cede their demands for sovereignty; these claims can remain exactly as they are today. The sides would simply agree to delay the implementation or assertion of these claims until after an agreement is reached. Until then, a special administration would be set up, with the two sides agreeing to set this up, at least on an interim basis. And what this would do … would be to ensure dignity, human rights and equity for all living in the Old City, all visitors, and all pilgrims.”
Questions and Clarifications

The implication that these values are not currently provided and offered by Israel was not challenged. An audience member did ask afterwards why the status quo could not simply be retained, and Bell responded by saying, “We thought of this option ourselves, but we thought it would be too intangible…”

...The CAP report on the event states, “The Temple Mount’s Western Wall is the most sacred place of Jewish worship, and the al-Haram al-Sharif (Temple Mount), where Muslims believe that Mohammad ascended into the heavens, is the third holiest site in Islam.” However, law professor Marshall Breger -- co-author of “Jerusalem's Holy Places and the Peace Process” and consultant to the Jerusalem Old City Initiative – who spoke at the panel about the competing religious claims, said more than once that it was the Temple Mount itself, and not the Western Wall outside it, that is the holiest place in Jerusalem.
To read full article, click here.

I found a June 23rd interview with Michael Bell about the topic of dividing Jerusalem. One of the questions posed was:

"Is there anything else that you think is important to mention?

The security factor is a very important one. On the one hand, Israelis are very worried about terrorism, and threat of violence. On the other hand, Palestinians are worried perhaps about the same kind of thing in terms of the fair mindedness of policing and what have you....."

Can someone please explain to me what Mr. Bell means by his answer? Is he equating Israeli fears of terrorism with Palestinian fears of fair mindedness?

As reported in the INN article, the Cap report states that “The Temple Mount’s Western Wall is the most sacred place of Jewish worship" while, in actuality, the Temple Mount is the holiest place in Jerusalem.

If a basic Cap report fact must be corrected by a professor and Bell, co-director of the Jerusalem Old City Initiative, gives answers in his interviews that leave me more confused than ever, why is anyone listening to this think tank?