Jerusalem.

[Ethan]

Should the rest of the world recognise Jerusalem as the sole undivided capital of Israel? As far as I know since the 6 day war Israel declared Jerusalem as it's capital since it re-captured East Jerusalem from Jordan. The United nations doesn't recognise it and says Israels claim is null and void despite the fact that Jordanian forces are no longer there.

So, should the rest of the world just suck it up and realize that Jerusalm is the undivided capital of Israel, or should they continue to reject that claim?

 

[BigLutz]

Its been what 30 years since the 6 day war? If the Peace Treaty of the Six Day War gives Israel. Jerusalem and it was legitimately signed by both sides, then the UN should approve it.

 

[Poliwag2]

Please clarify what you mean by "recognise as the sole undivided capital of Israel".

"The Holy Places, sacred to three great religions, must be open to all, the monopoly of none. Let us not confuse religion and politics." - King Abdullah, 1947

 

[PartyPokemon]

Politically, Jerusalem had BETTER be Israel's "sole undivided capital."

 

[PartyPokemon]

Politically, Jerusalem had BETTER be Israel's "sole undivided capital."

 

[The_Panda]

You've oversimplified the situation regarding Jerusalem, and indeed the whole West Bank Babylon. The Six Day war never really had a formal peace agreement, rather a ceasefire then occupation of the West Bank, Golan Heights, Gaza and the Sinai. The Sinai was later returned to Egypt and both Egypt and Jordan have renounced their claims to Gaza and the West Bank respectively. Since then, the Palestinian territories have been considered territories occupied by Israel. The issue arises in that no international body and no nation (not even Israel) recognises the two territories as Israeli territory due to the claims of the Palestinian Authority and other such (legal) organisations (Hamas is generally considered a terrorist group, and quite rightly as well!). The territory of East Jerusalem was by a 1980 Israeli law annexed (or effectively annexed) and declared the "undivided capital of Israel". However this annexation as with similar annexations are generally illegal under international law, and it was declared such in the United Nations Security Council and the international courts. It should be noted that the "effectiveness" of the control of a certain region is no measure of international recognition, and if that was so, for example, Manchukuo should have been recognised, when evidently it was an illegal incursion into the territory of another country.

I personally have little problem with Israel having its capital and its institutions located West Jerusalem, the region which it under international law owns. From my understanding its institutions are located in this part of the city anyway. But the barrier to accepting the relocation of Israel's capital though isn't that the United Nations doesn't want Israel to have its institutions in West Jerusalem, but that the law that moved the capital was itself invalid due to the issue of East Jerusalem. If Israel repudiated this law and passed a second that would not concern East Jerusalem then by all means it would likely be accepted by the United Nations and other nations. Until then though the U.N. and other nation cannot and should not recognise the Jerusalem Law and hence Tel Aviv remains the legal capital.

As for what I think should happen in Jerusalem, in the best case East Jerusalem could become the capital of a Palestinian State and West Jerusalem that of Israel. Oh and on the issue of a name, it's likely that a Palestinian State would rename East Jerusalem "Al Qud", and probably in response West Jerusalem would just become "Jerusalem".

 

[BigLutz]

You've oversimplified the situation regarding Jerusalem, and indeed the whole West Bank Babylon.

Not really, while the situation is a bit screwed up, it has been 30 years. You would think by now it comes down to the simple "Do they or dont they have a legitimate claim" which is really just a Yes or No.

The Six Day war never really had a formal peace agreement, rather a ceasefire then occupation of the West Bank, Golan Heights, Gaza and the Sinai. The Sinai was later returned to Egypt and both Egypt and Jordan have renounced their claims to Gaza and the West Bank respectively.

While the Six Day War didnt have a "formal peace agreement" the Yom Kippur War, which was in many ways a continuation of the Six Day War, did actually have a formal peace agreement in the Camp David Accords and then the Egyptian–Israeli Peace Treaty. Which gave the Sunai Peninsula back to Egypt as you pointed out. But also recognized Israel.

Anyway really at this point Israel isn't going to give it back, neither side is ahearing to UNSCR 242, and Israel has been burned way too many times in "Giving up land for peace". At this point give it to them, it may be oversimplifying it but it has been 30 years, you have entire Generations growing up and living there, there are bigger things to worry about.

 

[The_Panda]

Unfortunately dividing Jerusalem will always be difficult because of the demographics, but based on modern populations there are more Arabs there than Jews (though the statistics I'm using only list religion, it's pretty much synonymous in this case. Also note that it only gives the total for Jerusalem and then that for West Jerusalem, so you have to subtract it), in about a 5:4 ratio. Either way you are going to be moving large numbers of people. It seems generally more logical to give East Jerusalem to Palestine, for three main reasons. Firstly, there are more Arabs than Jews in that area (this is pretty self explanatory. Secondly, the significance of Jerusalem to both nations (or future nations) is its religious significance. One simply cannot deny that the location of holy sites is important for considering the borders of Jerusalem. And while yes the Al Aqsa mosque is built on part of the Temple Mount, I think it more fair that an arrangement where key Jewish sites like the Western Wall and others are in West Jerusalem while the mosque itself is part of East Jerusalem. Alternatively the Old City itself may be better administered under a separate body, say, the U.N. or a joint effort by the two nations, and be a politically neutral zone. Thirdly, consider the Palestinian people and culture here: its as much built around Jerusalem as Jewish culture is. I know this may sound a bit "iffy", but I strongly believe in the idea that a nation is in part defined by its culture, and a culture is in many cases built around landmarks, holy and historical. I think that by removing Jerusalem from Palestine (and removing Jerusalem from Israel as well) you are damaging the Palestinian culture, which in a future country would be built around the existence of things such as the Al Aqsa mosque. Fourthly, economically having part of a city such as Jerusalem would be very good for Palestine. Again this is a self explanatory, but I must say rather weak, argument (but it deserves its position anyway).

Also while "Israel has been burned way too many times", one has to also consider that the Palestinian people (I'm not talking about Egypt, Jordan, Syria or Hamas here) have suffered a horrible tragedy as well. They're a people without a country, and their culture, like that of the Jewish people, is invariably built around Jerusalem (Arabs have called that city "home" for some unbroken thousand of years before now). Land that was once theirs was taken away from them. While we certainly cannot and definitely should not displace the nation of Israel, surely what should be done for a Palestinian state is the grant of East Jerusalem as their capital.