Jerusalem is Israels capital

[mindlight]

The rumours are that America will shortly move their embassy to Jerusalem further endorsing it as the capital of Israel.

The issues here are mainly to do with the claims by Palestinians and various surrounding Arab nations that this is not Israeli territory and properly belongs to the Palestinian state.

Is this a wise move? Is it the right thing to do? Will it add or detract from the security of Israel? Should America ignore the views of many other allied leaders? What do you think?

New warnings over US shift on Jerusalem

 

[faroukfarouk]

Okay so I'm Canadian. Joe Clark was Canada's Prime Minister 1979-1980 and before one of the elections he talked a lot about making Jerusalem the site of the Canadian embassy in Israel.

The issue which arose was what exactly are Israel's borders according to international law.

Despite Mr Clark's pre-election, rhetorical best efforts, the issue when studied by Canadian diplomats and lawyers was not clear. If an embassy is to be opened at a particular address, the diplomatic mission in question needs to have established that the address in question is according to internationally recognized law in the country to which the mission is being accredited. Sufficient clarity did not emerge on this matter for the Canadian government to move the embassy from Tel Aviv.

Similarly the status of Berlin proved a diplomatic obstacle for Western countries accrediting diplomatic missions to the Federal Republic of Germany. While the Berlin (West) state parliament would ratify Bundestag laws, Berlin (West) - as it was known - did not formally belong to the Federal Republic of Germany. Hence the presence of foreign embassies in Bonn, the provisional capital of the Federal Republic of Germany, and not Berlin (West).

Of course, some foreign politicians in the Cold War could have taken the view: Oh, we are going to defy neighboring countries and make some people 'feel good' by shifting our embassy to Berlin (West). But this, on consideration, never actually happened. Indeed, particularly at times of international tension - such as the Cuban Missile Crisis - which in terms of diplomatic hardball was linked to the status of Berlin - a strong aim of Western governments was to de-escalate - rather than escalate tensions.

 

[Basil the Great]

It is probably not the wisest move, but it also may not make much difference. The MidEast peace process has been stalled for many years. Sadly, there is no indication that either the Israeli government or the Palestinian Authority are in the mood for serious negotiations at this point in time. I do not think that the move will add to Israel's security, but I am not sure that it will harm Israel's security either. Is it the right thing to do? Well, it would seem to be better to wait until the parties reach a final resolution, since both sides claim Jerusalem as their capital or at least part of Jerusalem. The rumor has it that the U.S. will not move it's embassy for now, so at least that is probably good news.

 

[faroukfarouk]

A similar situation arose in Ireland in 1922. The Anglo-Irish Treaty of 1921 said that if the northern community leaders were to be unable to resolve their differences, then the northern six counties would 'no longer' be governed from Dublin. This to some extent was part of the legal basis for the Republic of Ireland's claim on the northern six counties - Northern Ireland - in the decades ahead. To the question: Was Dublin ever the capital of a united, independent Ireland? people in the north from the different traditions would disagree. In the final analysis the question might prove intractable; but what is also relevant is the question of whether a 'solution' should be imposed by one side or other; or else whether incremental, mutually agreed containment would be preferable.

 

[mindlight]

Okay so I'm Canadian. Joe Clark was Canada's Prime Minister 1979-1980 and before one of the elections he talked a lot about making Jerusalem the site of the Canadian embassy in Israel.

The issue which arose was what exactly are Israel's borders according to international law.

Despite Mr Clark's pre-election, rhetorical best efforts, the issue when studied by Canadian diplomats and lawyers was not clear. If an embassy is to be opened at a particular address, the diplomatic mission in question needs to have established that the address in question is according to internationally recognized law in the country to which the mission is being accredited. Sufficient clarity did not emerge on this matter for the Canadian government to move the embassy from Tel Aviv.

Similarly the status of Berlin proved a diplomatic obstacle for Western countries accrediting diplomatic missions to the Federal Republic of Germany. While the Berlin (West) state parliament would ratify Bundestag laws, Berlin (West) - as it was known - did not formally belong to the Federal Republic of Germany. Hence the presence of foreign embassies in Bonn, the provisional capital of the Federal Republic of Germany, and not Berlin (West).

Of course, some foreign politicians in the Cold War could have taken the view: Oh, we are going to defy neighboring countries and make some people 'feel good' by shifting our embassy to Berlin (West). But this, on consideration, never actually happened. Indeed, particularly at times of international tension - such as the Cuban Missile Crisis - which in terms of diplomatic hardball was linked to the status of Berlin - a strong aim of Western governments was to de-escalate - rather than escalate tensions.

International law seems ambiguous by definition to me and there are all sorts of complex disputes analogous to this one. The Spratly islands for instance disputed by various powers in the South China Sea. There the interest is the strategic location vis a vis key shipping lanes, the possible presence of oil and fishing rights. At the end of the day though these will probably revert to China simply because it is bigger than the others and can spend more money on artificial reefs etc. In the Falklands international law recognises the UK sovereignty and this was also affirmed by a local referendum but you will never get an Argentine to admit they are anything other than the Malvinas.
So if there is a principle here it is probably something akin to might is right.

In the Berlin case having the German capital in an island surrounded by hostile commies in the middle of the Cold war was just not practical and so the embassies were better located like the capital in Bonn.

Jerusalem has for most of its history been an undivided city. Though it has been ruled by Jews, Romans, Various Caliphates, Crusaders, Mamelukes, Ottomans and the British. Muslims generally had no issue with the city when it was ruled by a Muslim power. The split between the Jordanians and Israelis as a result of war was an historical aberration and lasted less that 2 decades before the Israelis won back control when the surrounding Arab powers foolishly tried to destroy them. International law recognises so many spoils of war in practice one must wonder how they can dispute Israeli ownership. It seems to me this is only a live discussion because of the religious significance of the city. Basically Christians and Jews trust the Israelis to maintain access to the Holy places there while under the Ottomans and various other Muslim powers such access was restricted.
There is also the growth of the Palestinian people from their Egyptian and Jordanian and sometimes Palestinian backgrounds. Whereas in 1948 about 40% of these were Christian now most are Muslim and increasingly radicalised against the Israelis.

Personally I think Israel is there to stay in Jerusalem and I have no desire for a radical Muslim Palestinian state in the area. There are good scriptural grounds to believe that the land belongs to the Jews. So if Trump decides to plonk the American embassy there in defiance of an International law that seems to me to have little to do with rights and real justice in this case anyway then good on him.

 

[mindlight]

It is probably not the wisest move, but it also may not make much difference. The MidEast peace process has been stalled for many years. Sadly, there is no indication that either the Israeli government or the Palestinian Authority are in the mood for serious negotiations at this point in time. I do not think that the move will add to Israel's security, but I am not sure that it will harm Israel's security either. Is it the right thing to do? Well, it would seem to be better to wait until the parties reach a final resolution, since both sides claim Jerusalem as their capital or at least part of Jerusalem. The rumor has it that the U.S. will not move it's embassy for now, so at least that is probably good news.

I agree, hatreds are so high right now it probably will not make the slightest difference. Also America is already seen as allied to the Jews and thankfully no American president is likely to challenge that impression. So why not just make this official. Waiting for the parties to come to a resolution may take some time and especially given the radicalisation of the Palestinian community and the emigration of its Christians elsewhere.

 

[mindlight]

A similar situation arose in Ireland in 1922. The Anglo-Irish Treaty of 1921 said that if the northern community leaders were to be unable to resolve their differences, then the northern six counties would 'no longer' be governed from Dublin. This to some extent was part of the legal basis for the Republic of Ireland's claim on the northern six counties - Northern Ireland - in the decades ahead. To the question: Was Dublin ever the capital of a united, independent Ireland? people in the north from the different traditions would disagree. In the final analysis the question might prove intractable; but what is also relevant is the question of whether a 'solution' should be imposed by one side or other; or else whether incremental, mutually agreed containment would be preferable.

Technically they were governed from Westminster although the Irish parliament in Dublin was the means by which that rule was exercised. Since the British brought Ireland a unity it never had before I think I would side with the Northern Irish in the view that there never was a united Ireland before the British and after they left the Northern Irish have to this day been keen to emphasise they are still united with the mainland rather than the South.

The Good Friday agreement basically allows for Ireland to be split for so long as a majority of the Northern Irish want that. So nothing is being forced on anyone here. The worries of Irish men about BREXIT reflect this division between those who look to the mainland and those who look South but add the extra complication that South might now include the rest of Europe.

In the case of Jerusalem the demographic pressure is in part because of deliberate attempt by the Palestinians to outbreed their Jewish hosts in a Democratic age where they figure international opinion will be swayed by majority opinion. But considering the number of Arab states that are held together by foreign workforces that outnumber the locals this argument looks weak. The Jews returned to Israel in the wake of a holocaust which caused many of them to think they had no where else to go. That a Jewish home might be the only way to safeguard their lives. Concession of the west Bank , Gaza strip and East Jerusalem would severely weaken the security and defensibility of the Jewish state. Given that hostile intent has been proven in multiple wars this has to be a legal consideration also.

 

[faroukfarouk]

There are good scriptural grounds to believe that the land belongs to the Jews. So if Trump decides to plonk the American embassy there in defiance of an International law that seems to me to have little to do with rights and real justice in this case anyway then good on him.

So are you and others prepared to take the consequences in terms of radicalization and long term perceptions influenced?

In 1916 the Sykes-Picot agreement basically 'carved up' the Middle East into spheres of influence between Great Britain and France. Later the US superseded the old colonial powers as a neo-colonial influence.

In 1953 the US was perceived as having 'succeeded' - where Great Britain had failed in its attempts - having organized a coup-d'état in Iran; this led to the 1979 Iranian Revolution (see the writings of Stephen Kinzer).

The US was regarded during the days of the British and French colonial powers as - somewhat - of an honest broker in the Middle East. This perception has increasingly lessened. (Even when the US electronic surveillance ship the 'Liberty' was bombed by the Israeli military during the Six Day War, the US protest was rather mute. Even when American campaigners are bulldozered to death by Israeli drivers, the US government hardly protests - see 'Rachel Corrie'. When the Israeli government lobbies for US Presidential pardons for fugitive financiers, it gets what it wants - see 'Marc Rich'.)

In 1990, the Emir of Kuwait did not ask for US assistance in ejecting the Iraqis from his country. In 1990 the Saudis had misgivings against the stationing of huge numbers of US troops in their country, because of the suspicion that the US strategically wanted a permanent army presence in the region. The later statement by Vice President Cheney that the Iraq War of 2003 was about maintaining a permanent US presence in the region showed that the Saudi predictions were accurate.

If it does not matter how the US is perceived internationally, if it simply does not matter what the US does in Jerusalem and if whatever consequences to the action of putting the US Embassy in Jerusalem are simply of no concern, then this might be an argument for it; but the diplomatic and legal consensus for decades has been that there would indeed be consequences and that these consequences should be avoided. This not to moralize, but to look historically.

 

[mindlight]

So are you and others prepared to take the consequences in terms of radicalization and long term perceptions influenced?

It seems to me that radicalised Muslims and their agendas generally end up dead and defeated and do not serve interests of the Muslims peoples of the Middle East but rather put Muslims off Islam. So encouraging them is not as bad as it sounds. The Taliban oppressed women and alienated Muslims who were not from their Pashtun background. They never even succeeded in taking Afghanistan and are now weaker than ever. Iranian fundamentalism weakened the state and arguably led to a war with Iraq that cost 2 million Muslim lives. Al Qaeda had its moment of "glory" in 911 but just about everyone who was anyone in that movement 15 years ago is now dead. ISIS rose and succeeded in starting a war that led to 2-300,000 dead (almost all Muslims). The two state solution looked viable in Israel just 20 years ago and then Arafat walked away from probably the best deal the Palestinians could have expected. Palestinian radicalisation since has cost thousands of Palestinian lives and placed the dream of their own state beyond their reach for at least a generation to come. Islamic radicalisation seems to me to be demonstrably a losers game. So why should the West be afraid of it. More people die in car accidents every day than do in Muslim terrorist incidents in a year.

In 1916 the Sykes-Picot agreement basically 'carved up' the Middle East into spheres of influence between Great Britain and France. Later the US superseded the old colonial powers as a neo-colonial influence.

Yes the British used to rule the world - Canada and the USA were all a part of the empire at one point. [NOSTALGIC SIGH] Those days are gone and now America rules.

In 1953 the US was perceived as having 'succeeded' - where Great Britain had failed in its attempts - having organized a coup-d'état in Iran; this led to the 1979 Iranian Revolution (see the writings of Stephen Kinzer).

It stopped an unsympathetic leftist gaining power and secured the Middle east for the next 20 years. The fall of the Shah cannot actually be connected with 1953. It could have been avoided by better policies in the 5 years before 1979. Low oil prices in the 50s and 60s basically contributed to a boom in living standards unprecedented in history.

The US was regarded during the days of the British and French colonial powers as - somewhat - of an honest broker in the Middle East. This perception has increasingly lessened. (Even when the US electronic surveillance ship the 'Liberty' was bombed by the Israeli military during the Six Day War, the US protest was rather mute. Even when American campaigners are bulldozered to death by Israeli drivers, the US government hardly protests - see 'Rachel Corrie'. When the Israeli government lobbies for US Presidential pardons for fugitive financiers, it gets what it wants - see 'Marc Rich'.)

Real Politik is about power not truth. But Americas friendship with Israel could be perceived as being in spite of the Jews rather than because of any undue influence they possess. There are religious reasons for that, there is a strong Jewish lobby in Washington, but so also the fact is Israel is useful, shares many common interests and are a better guardian of the Holy Places than any Muslim power ever was. The Saudis have Mecca and Medina and the Jews are regarded as fit guardians of Jerusalem. Indeed the hidden arrangements between these powers indicate a mutual self interest in maintaining the status quo rather than radical overthrows of the present order. A Palestinian state would more likely result in the trashing of the Dome of the Rock than its security and would not be able to pay its own way either.

In 1990, the Emir of Kuwait did not ask for US assistance in ejecting the Iraqis from his country. In 1990 the Saudis had misgivings against the stationing of huge numbers of US troops in their country, because of the suspicion that the US strategically wanted a permanent army presence in the region. The later statement by Vice President Cheney that the Iraq War of 2003 was about maintaining a permanent US presence in the region showed that the Saudi predictions were accurate.

If it does not matter how the US is perceived internationally, if it simply does not matter what the US does in Jerusalem and if whatever consequences to the action of putting the US Embassy in Jerusalem are simply of no concern, then this might be an argument for it; but the diplomatic and legal consensus for decades has been that there would indeed be consequences and that these consequences should be avoided. This not to moralize, but to look historically.

Right!! both the Saudis and Kuwaitis are beneficiaries of Coalition involvement in the Gulf against Sadam. The Saudis today signed up to an alliance with the Americans worth billions a year. The Americans have been turning a blind eye to seriously brutal Saudi policies in Syria and Yemen. Maybe America would have more respect if it just tried to do what was right in the region. After all with fracking it no longer needs their oil. The ridiculous attempt to use ISIS to severe the Shia corridor through Iran, Iraq and Syria has failed miserably. It is time that America stopped playing with images while wreaking havoc and started acting in a way more consistent with its own values. Support of Jewish Democracy and Freedom is one of the core identifiers of American foreign policy. That much is already clear and building an embassy in Jerusalem simply clarifies that rather than trying to cover up what everyone has really known for decades anyway.

 

[faroukfarouk]

It seems to me that radicalised Muslims and their agendas generally end up dead and defeated and do not serve interests of the Muslims peoples of the Middle East but rather put Muslims off Islam. So encouraging them is not as bad as it sounds. The Taliban oppressed women and alienated Muslims who were not from their Pashtun background. They never even succeeded in taking Afghanistan and are now weaker than ever. Iranian fundamentalism weakened the state and arguably led to a war with Iraq that cost 2 million Muslim lives. Al Qaeda had its moment of "glory" in 911 but just about everyone who was anyone in that movement 15 years ago is now dead. ISIS rose and succeeded in starting a war that led to 2-300,000 dead (almost all Muslims). The two state solution looked viable in Israel just 20 years ago and then Arafat walked away from probably the best deal the Palestinians could have expected. Palestinian radicalisation since has cost thousands of Palestinian lives and placed the dream of their own state beyond their reach for at least a generation to come. Islamic radicalisation seems to me to be demonstrably a losers game. So why should the West be afraid of it. More people die in car accidents every day than do in Muslim terrorist incidents in a year.



Yes the British used to rule the world - Canada and the USA were all a part of the empire at one point. [NOSTALGIC SIGH] Those days are gone and now America rules.



It stopped an unsympathetic leftist gaining power and secured the Middle east for the next 20 years. The fall of the Shah cannot actually be connected with 1953. It could have been avoided by better policies in the 5 years before 1979. Low oil prices in the 50s and 60s basically contributed to a boom in living standards unprecedented in history.



Real Politik is about power not truth. But Americas friendship with Israel could be perceived as being in spite of the Jews rather than because of any undue influence they possess. There are religious reasons for that, there is a strong Jewish lobby in Washington, but so also the fact is Israel is useful, shares many common interests and are a better guardian of the Holy Places than any Muslim power ever was. The Saudis have Mecca and Medina and the Jews are regarded as fit guardians of Jerusalem. Indeed the hidden arrangements between these powers indicate a mutual self interest in maintaining the status quo rather than radical overthrows of the present order. A Palestinian state would more likely result in the trashing of the Dome of the Rock than its security and would not be able to pay its own way either.



Right!! both the Saudis and Kuwaitis are beneficiaries of Coalition involvement in the Gulf against Sadam. The Saudis today signed up to an alliance with the Americans worth billions a year. The Americans have been turning a blind eye to seriously brutal Saudi policies in Syria and Yemen. Maybe America would have more respect if it just tried to do what was right in the region. After all with fracking it no longer needs their oil. The ridiculous attempt to use ISIS to severe the Shia corridor through Iran, Iraq and Syria has failed miserably. It is time that America stopped playing with images while wreaking havoc and started acting in a way more consistent with its own values. Support of Jewish Democracy and Freedom is one of the core identifiers of American foreign policy. That much is already clear and building an embassy in Jerusalem simply clarifies that rather than trying to cover up what everyone has really known for decades anyway.

You've probably not read Stephen Kinzer's book 'All the Shah's Men'.

In 2003 the US and the UK went to war in Iraq on a false premise, with the attitude: 'We are going to do it and hang the consequences'.

 

[faroukfarouk]

What would happen if Mexico set up a new Distrito Federal to include El Paso, TX? Americans would be incandescent.

Americans were incandescent in 1917 when Imperial Germany seemed to 'offer' territories in the South-Western United States to the Mexican President.

This indeed is why the British secret services leaked the Zimmermann Telegram to Washington. Knowing full well what the reaction would be, bringing the US into World War One.

 

[ken777]

The rumours are that America will shortly recognise Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.

I was under the impression that the US recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel in the 1995 Jerusalem Embassy Act, and that it is the actual relocation of the US embassy that is the contentious issue.

 

[mindlight]

.

 

[mindlight]

I was under the impression that the US recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel in the 1995 Jerusalem Embassy Act, and that it is the actual relocation of the US embassy that is the contentious issue.

Thanks for the correction. I have updated the OP accordingly

 

[mindlight]

You've probably not read Stephen Kinzer's book 'All the Shah's Men'.

In 2003 the US and the UK went to war in Iraq on a false premise, with the attitude: 'We are going to do it and hang the consequences'.

The "Great Game", which America joined in WW2, between the UK and Russia did not begin in 1953. It was never conducted with any thought for the sensibilities of the local populations. So the books premise is faulty. American/British intervention in 53 was to do with preventing the increase of Russian power in the region and securing their own interests. It was a successful intervention and perpetuated the existing hegemony in the region for a further 26 years. The benefits of this to Western economies was clear. This was Real Politik as had been practiced by the British Empire for most of the C19. If the Shah had not been such an oppressive and foolish leader it might have gone on for longer.

I think the US and UK wanted a war with Sadam and the idea of WMDs was just an excuse for that. But conditions on the ground in Iraq had changed since 1953 and the old assumptions of Western dominance were no longer valid. But the Great Game continues nonetheless and many of Americas worst foreign policy blunders of the Obama era in Syria and in Iraq and also the Intelligence establishments resistance to working with Russia in the region under Trump have to do with the assumption that keeping Russia out of the ME should be the priority of American foreign policy in the region.

 

[Steve Petersen]

Turns out Schumer advised Trump to move the embassy to Jerusalem.

Chuck Schumer advised Trump to declare Jerusalem Israel's capital

 

[szechuan]

Donald Trump started WW3 OH YEAH!

 

[mindlight]

As PM Netanyahu says Jerusalem has never been the capital of any other people. Jerusalem is the capital of Israel.

Netanyahu: Palestinians must face reality

 

[pat34lee]

So are you and others prepared to take the consequences in terms of radicalization and long term perceptions influenced?

Jerusalem has never belonged to a nation other than Israel.
To hold it responsible for the actions of a terrorist people is
nonsense. No nation other than Israel has claim to any part
of the land, including the West Bank, Golan Heights and Gaza.

The Legal Case for Israel

 

[faroukfarouk]

Jerusalem has never belonged to a nation other than Israel.
To hold it responsible for the actions of a terrorist people is
nonsense. No nation other than Israel has claim to any part
of the land, including the West Bank, Golan Heights and Gaza.

The Legal Case for Israel

FYI, wikipedia article on the status of Jerusalem:

Corpus separatum (Jerusalem) - Wikipedia