[Filo]

There is no "beyond" psychotic Muslims. They are the obstacle -- their existence eliminates the possiblity of peace anywhere, period. Appeasing them doesn't work, and "internationalizing" Jerusalem would be doing just that. In fact, it would give the jihadis encouragement that their terrorist methods bring tangible results politically. ...and they've had quite enough encouragement already.

No argument that it is a form of appeasement and, as such, is distasteful.

My reasoning is, however, simple: As of now a Muslim attack on Jerusalem is an attack on Israel and, in the eyes of much of the world, justified due to how Israel "oppresses" the poor Palestinians.

Make it a holy city unto itself with Christianity as part of the mix and then an attack on or attempted takeover of Jerusalem is akin to an attack on the Vatican. International mobilization would be swift and decisive as the attack would be the start of a holy war.

Since Jerusalem is nestled in the heart of Israel it would make things harder for Islam on the whole, IMO, even when "just" attacking Israel. . . one stray bomb or missile and 2 billion Christians are gonna be ticked.

[Mr. Mojo]

As of now a Muslim attack on Jerusalem is an attack on Israel....

Terrorist attacks in Jerusalem are extraordinarily rare, so nothing would change. Jihadi attacks on the usual targets (Tel-Aviv, Haifa, Netanya etc.) wouldn't be prevented by an "internationalized" Jerusalem.