That may or may not be true, but there's a larger geopolitical context to consider. Moving an embassy to Jerusalem is an inflammatory move when there's an ongoing conflict about the issue of who...
That may or may not be true, but there's a larger geopolitical context to consider. Moving an embassy to Jerusalem is an inflammatory move when there's an ongoing conflict about the issue of who owns what territory in that region. It's stupidly short-sighted for a country like Australia to be seen as favouring one side over the other, when that's certain to piss off a lot of people and make the already torturous peace process just that little bit more difficult.
I disagree completely. All the embassys, government offices, etc are in West Jerusalem, land that is unequivocally recognized as part of Israel, was built by Israel, and independent of any...
I disagree completely. All the embassys, government offices, etc are in West Jerusalem, land that is unequivocally recognized as part of Israel, was built by Israel, and independent of any realistic peace process.
I would say moving embassies (back) to Jerusalem could even help the peace process by reminding Palestinian politicians that they must come to the negotiating table if they want peace.
Edit:
I think even the argument that the American embassy move sparked riots misrepresents the situation. Rioting was already planned, the embassy move was just a convenient event for Hamas leaders to use.
While most of the rest of the world might agree to Israel's claim to West Jerusalem, Israel itself claims the whole of Jerusalem ("complete and united") as its capital. That makes any foreign...
While most of the rest of the world might agree to Israel's claim to West Jerusalem, Israel itself claims the whole of Jerusalem ("complete and united") as its capital. That makes any foreign country's representation in Jerusalem problematic. By using even West Jerusalem for their embassies, they would be giving Israel the opportunity to claim that they're supporting Israel's claim to the whole of Jerusalem. Therefore, until such time as there's an actual treaty in place documenting Jerusalem's status, it's more diplomatic (pun intended) for other countries to keep their embassies in Tel Aviv.
You say that as if Israel is all for peace but Palestine won't play. But Israel has done plenty to sabotage peace like killing a medic then trying to smear her.
reminding Palestinian politicians that they must come to the negotiating table if they want peace.
You say that as if Israel is all for peace but Palestine won't play. But Israel has done plenty to sabotage peace like killing a medic then trying to smear her.
Perhaps not this Israeli administration, but previous Israeli governments including those led by Barak and Olmert have made some plenty reasonable offers that were hardly ever negotiated upon....
Perhaps not this Israeli administration, but previous Israeli governments including those led by Barak and Olmert have made some plenty reasonable offers that were hardly ever negotiated upon. Even the current Israeli PM has engaged in so-called "settlement freezes" to try and motivate his counterpart to come to the negotiating table, to no avail.
If you want my honest opinion, I think the Palestinian government only is willing to negotiate upon peace so long as it guarantees them a "victory," I.e. they take over what is now Israel through demographic means rather than through violence. This is something that the West and the Western media seems to ignore.
anyways, you and I seem to be talking about different entities as well. You mention Israeli response to a Hamas initiated riot and attempted infiltration. I am talking about negotiations with the Palestinian authority.
Maybe someone more versed in this whole debacle can answer one question to me. If Jerusalem was always the top point of contention between the Jewish State and the Arab State, why didn't the UN...
Maybe someone more versed in this whole debacle can answer one question to me. If Jerusalem was always the top point of contention between the Jewish State and the Arab State, why didn't the UN propose a "three-state solution"? That is, turn Jerusalem and some surrounding lands into a city-state, not dissimilar to Vatican or Monaco, and make some for of coalition government to rule it, like Andorra?
It did. Twice. Once in 1947 and again in 1948. The original resolution which intended to divide Palestine into an Arab state and a Jewish state included the following provision for the city of...
If Jerusalem was always the top point of contention between the Jewish State and the Arab State, why didn't the UN propose a "three-state solution"?
It did. Twice. Once in 1947 and again in 1948.
The original resolution which intended to divide Palestine into an Arab state and a Jewish state included the following provision for the city of Jerusalem:
The City of Jerusalem shall be established as a corpus separatum under a special international regime and shall be administered by the United Nations.
A few hours after the Jewish state of Israel was formed as a result of this resolution (on 14 May 1948), the brand-new country was invaded by some of its Arab neighbours. After the dust settled, Israel not only controlled a lot of the territory that the UN had intended to form the basis of an Arab state, but it also controlled West Jerusalem.
Following this, the United Nations made a new resolution, which said (in part):
the Jerusalem area, including the present municipality of Jerusalem plus the surrounding villages and towns, the most eastern of which shall be Abu Dis; the most southern, Bethlehem; the most western, Ein Karim (including also the built-up area of Motsa); and the most northern, Shu'fat, should be accorded special and separate treatment from the rest of Palestine and should be placed under effective United Nations control;
Officially, these resolutions have never been reversed or altered. Officially, the United Nations still wants to administer Jerusalem as a separate entity.
In practice... everyone has conceded that possession is nine-tenths of the law, and Israel can keep West Jerusalem - but East Jerusalem should be reserved for a future Arab state. Israel disagrees with that last part.
Recognizing Jerusalem as Israel's capital is just recognizing the reality of the situation.
That may or may not be true, but there's a larger geopolitical context to consider. Moving an embassy to Jerusalem is an inflammatory move when there's an ongoing conflict about the issue of who owns what territory in that region. It's stupidly short-sighted for a country like Australia to be seen as favouring one side over the other, when that's certain to piss off a lot of people and make the already torturous peace process just that little bit more difficult.
I disagree completely. All the embassys, government offices, etc are in West Jerusalem, land that is unequivocally recognized as part of Israel, was built by Israel, and independent of any realistic peace process.
I would say moving embassies (back) to Jerusalem could even help the peace process by reminding Palestinian politicians that they must come to the negotiating table if they want peace.
Edit:
I think even the argument that the American embassy move sparked riots misrepresents the situation. Rioting was already planned, the embassy move was just a convenient event for Hamas leaders to use.
While most of the rest of the world might agree to Israel's claim to West Jerusalem, Israel itself claims the whole of Jerusalem ("complete and united") as its capital. That makes any foreign country's representation in Jerusalem problematic. By using even West Jerusalem for their embassies, they would be giving Israel the opportunity to claim that they're supporting Israel's claim to the whole of Jerusalem. Therefore, until such time as there's an actual treaty in place documenting Jerusalem's status, it's more diplomatic (pun intended) for other countries to keep their embassies in Tel Aviv.
You say that as if Israel is all for peace but Palestine won't play. But Israel has done plenty to sabotage peace like killing a medic then trying to smear her.
Perhaps not this Israeli administration, but previous Israeli governments including those led by Barak and Olmert have made some plenty reasonable offers that were hardly ever negotiated upon. Even the current Israeli PM has engaged in so-called "settlement freezes" to try and motivate his counterpart to come to the negotiating table, to no avail.
If you want my honest opinion, I think the Palestinian government only is willing to negotiate upon peace so long as it guarantees them a "victory," I.e. they take over what is now Israel through demographic means rather than through violence. This is something that the West and the Western media seems to ignore.
anyways, you and I seem to be talking about different entities as well. You mention Israeli response to a Hamas initiated riot and attempted infiltration. I am talking about negotiations with the Palestinian authority.
Maybe someone more versed in this whole debacle can answer one question to me. If Jerusalem was always the top point of contention between the Jewish State and the Arab State, why didn't the UN propose a "three-state solution"? That is, turn Jerusalem and some surrounding lands into a city-state, not dissimilar to Vatican or Monaco, and make some for of coalition government to rule it, like Andorra?
It did. Twice. Once in 1947 and again in 1948.
The original resolution which intended to divide Palestine into an Arab state and a Jewish state included the following provision for the city of Jerusalem:
A few hours after the Jewish state of Israel was formed as a result of this resolution (on 14 May 1948), the brand-new country was invaded by some of its Arab neighbours. After the dust settled, Israel not only controlled a lot of the territory that the UN had intended to form the basis of an Arab state, but it also controlled West Jerusalem.
Following this, the United Nations made a new resolution, which said (in part):
Officially, these resolutions have never been reversed or altered. Officially, the United Nations still wants to administer Jerusalem as a separate entity.
In practice... everyone has conceded that possession is nine-tenths of the law, and Israel can keep West Jerusalem - but East Jerusalem should be reserved for a future Arab state. Israel disagrees with that last part.