On Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 13:34, Paul Eggert <eggert@cs.ucla.edu> wrote:

It might be better to pick the most populous location in
the West Bank where there is a reasonable working consensus
about the time of day.

This is perhaps one of the best points in this thread.  Regardless of what any previous "theory" recommendations would point to, the practical implications of defining a canonical location for a consistent set of time zone rules by using a city where the definition of "time of day" isn't even half as stable should be obvious.  Not diminishing the merits of other cities suggested for this purpose, I think it's becoming clear that Hebron is the next most reasonable choice.

On Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 12:49, John Hawkinson <jhawk@mit.edu> wrote:

Unless you happen to live in one of the capital/populous cities
we have designated, people think of their time zone as designated by
their political authority. Having to pick a city that you know is
not-where-you-are is always somewhat of a humbling exercise.

While this may perhaps be the case, the goal has been only to pick a reasonable location that is representative of each set of time zone rules.  As the time in East Jerusalem, being split amongst official and nonofficial uses, is somewhat ill-defined, it is not a good candidate to fulfill this role.  Rather, residents of East Jerusalem could decide to use Asia/Jerusalem or Asia/Hebron (or even Asia/Gaza) for their own purposes, depending on how their particular allegiances may lie.