Trending Topics:

Palestinians can have an embassy in Jerusalem, but God forbid not a capital — Israeli mayor

News
on 72 Comments
Nir Barkat

Nir Barkat

Nir Barkat, the mayor of Jerusalem, was on CNN’s Fareed Zakaria show the other day. He said Jerusalem must, God forbid, never be divided. “You can call Ramallah the center of the Palestinian people; they can bring their embassy to Jerusalem.” Good luck having a state if all you have is a “center of life.”

Excerpts:

ZAKARIA: How would you divide the city; can it be divided because the Palestinians say that they must have a capital in Jerusalem, East Jerusalem. A lot of Israelis feel, no, undivided Jerusalem must be the capital of Israel. Is there a solution?

BARKAT: Let me take you back 3,000 years. Jerusalem is the capital of the world, the temple among the middle, and it was never divided among the tribes….

ZAKARIA: But what do you say to a Palestinian who says, yes, but you have your capital. If we are to have our state, we have to have our capital? Where would that capital – ?

BARKAT: There are solutions to that, but there is not a solution of, God forbid, dividing the city of Jerusalem. It will never function. It’s against the DNA of the city.

And by the way, there is not one example of a city in the world that ever got split and became functional.

ZAKARIA: What are the solutions? What are the solutions?

BARKAT: Well, I leave that for the national government. You can call Ramallah the center of the Palestinian people; they can bring their embassy to Jerusalem…

ZAKARIA: For you, the Arab neighborhoods of East Jerusalem, which is where the Palestinians would like to put their state, you think it would not be possible to have a Palestinian capital?

BARKAT: A very clear no…

ZAKARIA: I’ve never met a Palestinian negotiator who would accept that position, that they cannot have a capital in a part of Jerusalem. Does that mean peace is unlikely?

BARKAT: I think it’s a demand that has to be off the table, because whoever raises such a demand doesn’t understand the importance of the city of Jerusalem as a united city.

P.S. Theodor Herzl the founder of political Zionism on many occasions promised the czar, the Pope, the kaiser, and the sultan that Jerusalem would remain an international city. Under the U.N. Partition plan, Jerusalem was to be an international city apart from the two states alongside it. Thus Israel’s annexation of Jerusalem in 1967 was considered illegal.

Philip Weiss

Philip Weiss is Founder and Co-Editor of Mondoweiss.net.

Other posts by .


Posted In:

72 Responses

  1. W.Jones on April 15, 2014, 11:32 am

    The Israeli right in surveys does not want Palestinians to have a state, and the percent of people with that opinion reaches almost half depending on the survey. What is the solution then that they see for Palestinians? Have they made surveys about this, or is their answer “no opinion”?

    • puppies on April 15, 2014, 1:06 pm

      @Jones – What do you mean, no opinion? They have the Zionist program: all of Palestine (with portions of Transjordan, Syria, Lebanon and Egypt) without its owners (a variant foresees a Weitz’ quota, not to ever exceed 15% of total population.)

      • W.Jones on April 16, 2014, 2:24 am

        Thanks. Is there a survey showing how many of them hold to this idea and did they express an opinion on how to achieve it in the survey?

      • puppies on April 17, 2014, 1:06 am

        Far as I know, it was precisely enough delimited in the 1938 Congress of Poale Zion as the target by Ben Gurion, and approved [http://www.marxists.de/middleast//ch04.htmschoenman]. It has been mentioned repeatedly, especially before and around the 1947 and 1967 wars of conquest, the 1982 aggression of Lebanon, etc. No links, as I don’t do much of that. What is way more instructive and confirms that the program is on without any doubt is the continuous valse-hésitation comedy of “peace talks” with two Zionist entity sockpuppets, i.e. the Oslo puppet and the US rep, while Labor then Likud (then Likud plus Jewish al Qa’ida) continue to advance the settlements and ethnic cleansing.

  2. brenda on April 15, 2014, 11:32 am

    BARKAT: Let me take you back 3,000 years. …

    (you are getting sleepy, very very sleepy, you are drifting off, away from the present issue… )

    I love the way Zakaria snaps out of it right away, cutting him off in mid-sentence.

    • annie on April 15, 2014, 12:59 pm

      (you are getting sleepy, very very sleepy, you are drifting off, away from the present issue… )

      ha! you skipped the best part:

      Let me take you back 3,000 years. Jerusalem is the capital of the world

      barkat probably fantasizes some future where an undivided and judaified jerusalem is the capital of the world. eee gads.

      • RoHa on April 16, 2014, 12:56 am

        “Let me take you back 3,000 years. Jerusalem is the capital of the world”

        So the last emperors of the Shang Dynasty were based in Jerusalem?

      • Hostage on April 16, 2014, 3:04 pm

        “Let me take you back 3,000 years. Jerusalem is the capital of the world”

        There is quite a bit of evidence that the Beverly Hillbillies of Jerusalem could barely keep their alleged cousins in Samaria under control 3,000 years ago.

  3. Citizen on April 15, 2014, 11:34 am

    RE: “…. dividing the city of Jerusalem. It will never function. It’s against the DNA of the city.”

    Racial prejudice, anyone?

  4. amigo on April 15, 2014, 11:50 am

    Whats God got to do with it???.

    BDS and resulting 1SS will sort out whose Capital it will be and it will not be the capital of a Zionist supremacist racist state.

    And neither will it be called Israel thanks to religious nutters like barkat.

    • mondonut on April 15, 2014, 3:14 pm

      amigo says: BDS and resulting 1SS will sort out… And neither will it be called Israel …
      —————————————–
      Refreshing honesty. BDS is intended to eliminate the state of Israel.

      • Woody Tanaka on April 15, 2014, 3:38 pm

        “Refreshing honesty.”

        And your editing is the exact opposite of honest.

        “BDS is intended to eliminate the state of Israel.”

        And if the choice is between 1) a state where all are free and where everyone’s human rights are protected, but Jews so not have exclusive power and 2) a state where the Jews have the power, but many Palestinians do not have freedom and human rights, which would YOU prefer. Answer honestly…

      • mondonut on April 16, 2014, 12:04 am

        Woody Tanaka says: And your editing is the exact opposite of honest.
        =====================================
        My “editing” in no way distorted the message, which is available in its entirety just a few inches above. And no, I have no intention of picking from your ridiculous choices. The Palestinians do not intend to provide #1 if they gain power and Israeli citizens who identify as Palestinians are not without freedom and human rights.

      • amigo on April 15, 2014, 3:51 pm

        “Refreshing honesty. BDS is intended to eliminate the state of Israel.”mondonut.

        If anyone is eliminating the State of Israel, it,s you zionists who keep fuelling the BDS movement through your land theft and expulsions.

        But Hey, who am I to warn you against your actions.
        All I can say is “Keep up the good work” and to tell you what a co operative opposition you are.

        BTW, How does “Palsrael” sound.Got a nice inclusive ring to it , don,t you think.

      • pjdude on April 15, 2014, 4:58 pm

        Does that mean if I start calling my cat a dog it will cease to exist? A name change is not destruction

      • mondonut on April 15, 2014, 6:22 pm

        @pjdude

        Moronic analogy, but nonetheless…

        1) If you replace your cat with a dog, you will not have a cat.
        2) I did not use the word destruction.

      • pjdude on April 15, 2014, 10:11 pm

        The analogy while silly was apr. You basicilly said if israel wasn’t called israel well than it wouldn’t exist. Which is moronic. I was mocking you. Destruction and eliminate are synonyms.

      • puppies on April 15, 2014, 5:38 pm

        @mondonut – Are you really objecting to that? Anyone except a criminal would want to “eliminate the state of Israel.”

      • mondonut on April 15, 2014, 11:55 pm

        @puppies

        Of course I object to that, as does the vast majority of the non-arab world. And I suspect that if the BDS crew were to be honest about their real intentions its support would dry up and they would fade away.

  5. amigo on April 15, 2014, 11:57 am

    “Well, I leave that for the national government. You can call Ramallah the center of the Palestinian people; they can bring their embassy to Jerusalem…”Barkat

    Why should the Palestinians do what no other nation will do by putting an Embassy in OCCUPIED JERUSALEM.

  6. eljay on April 15, 2014, 12:20 pm

    >> BARKAT: There are solutions to that, but there is not a solution of, God forbid, dividing the city of Jerusalem.

    Dividing Jersualem is far less unjust and immoral than all of the past and on-going (war) crimes committed by Zio-supremacists. I wouldn’t put too much weight on anything “god” has to say about this matter.

    >> It will never function. It’s against the DNA of the city.

    Which DNA is that? Jewish DNA? Is that was justifies not only the “Jewish State’s” decades-long occupation of the city but also its sense of entitlement to Jerusalem? What happened to the city’s non-Jewish DNA – has it all been scrubbed away?

    >> … I think it’s a demand that has to be off the table, because whoever raises such a demand doesn’t understand the importance of the city of Jerusalem as a united city.

    Alright, then, make Jerusalem united under the Palestinians, and let Israelis have an embassy there.

    Or maybe adhere to international law, get your Zio-supremacist paws off Jerusalem and let it be the free city it was supposed to be.

    Oh, right, “god forbid”.

  7. Woody Tanaka on April 15, 2014, 12:30 pm

    “Let me take you back 3,000 years. Jerusalem is the capital of the world…”

    The man is delusional. The city of Jerusalem has never been more than a provincial, backwater nowhere; important to the tribes that lived there, sure, but no more meaningful to the rest of the world than any other trade-route crossroads.

    And 3,000 years ago, it did experience a brief moment when the larger, more important civiliazations around it were in decline or had yet to ascend — civilizations such as Egypt, Persia, Assyria, Babylonia, Greece and Rome — and at that time the city was the capital of the minor tribal kingdom, and in few hundred years fell and was then serially conquered by the major powers of the region.

    Of course, it was an important religious site, but, again, only for the locals. It was not until the first few hundred years AD that it had any regional religious meaning.

  8. FreddyV on April 15, 2014, 12:32 pm

    Jerusalem was annexed in 1967?

    Don’t you mean occupied? Annexation took place in 1980 didn’t it?

    • Hostage on April 15, 2014, 2:19 pm

      Jerusalem was annexed in 1967?

      Yes, the State of Israel took immediate steps to alter the legal status of East Jerusalem. That was the subject of the 5th Emergency Special Session of the General Assembly (17 June – 18 September 1967) and resolutions 2253 & 2254 (ES-V) “Measures taken by Israel to change the status of the City of Jerusalem” http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/2253%20%28ES-V%29

      Annexation took place in 1980 didn’t it?

      No that really only changed the operation of the applicable law from a Knesset ordinance to a fundamental or “Basic Law” with constitutional implications. But it had long since been included by the application of the Area of Jurisdiction and Powers Ordinance, 5708-1948. http://israellawresourcecenter.org/israellaws/fulltext/areajurisdictionpowersord.htm

      FYI, applying all Israeli state laws by proclamation to selected territories occupied by the IDF violates the Hague and the Geneva Conventions and amounts to an act of annexation.

      • FreddyV on April 15, 2014, 4:30 pm

        Hostage, I’m always very happy for your correction. And may I say a little star struck too and flattered that you’d reply to my post. Thanks man. Your knowledge continually and repeatedly bowls me over.

      • bintbiba on April 15, 2014, 6:30 pm

        me to,. Hostage….” a little star struck and bowled over by your knowledge “… @Freddy V.

      • Hostage on April 15, 2014, 8:24 pm

        Hostage, I’m always very happy for your correction

        @ FreddyV and bintbiba thank you both.

        I was just answering the two rhetorical questions and passing along some arcane details in the process. It wasn’t intended to be a correction.

  9. Krauss on April 15, 2014, 12:36 pm

    Theodor Herzl the founder of political Zionism on many occasions promised the czar, the Pope, the kaiser, and the sultan that Jerusalem would remain an international city. Under the U.N. Partition plan, Jerusalem was to be an international city apart from the two states alongside it. Thus Israel’s annexation of Jerusalem in 1967 was considered illegal.

    Well, too bad three of the four are gone and the fourth has no political power to speak of anymore.

    Still, dividing Jerusalem was always a foolish idea. I agree with Nir here.
    The difference is that he wants it under Israeli control. I want a secular binational state to control instead.

  10. ritzl on April 15, 2014, 12:53 pm

    Maybe this is a misquote, but it sure stands out:

    Barkat: Let me take you back 3,000 years. Jerusalem is the capital of the world….

    • puppies on April 15, 2014, 12:58 pm

      @ritzl – Misquote? No, Zionist thinking.

      • ritzl on April 15, 2014, 1:10 pm

        Aye.

    • annie on April 15, 2014, 1:01 pm

      i missed this comment of yours ritzl and just posted something upthread. exactly, it really (really) stands out.

      • ritzl on April 15, 2014, 1:35 pm

        Yep, Annie. Woody gave the definitive response. These ruling thought processes in Israel are simply stunning.

        And to connect it to Alterman’s latest blather, for Alterman to blame BDS for some imagined negative effect on Israeli leadership (wrt to his desired solution to the conflict) while this is the unremarkable (to him) existing and transcendent conventional wisdom in Israel is equally stunning.

        I know I say this too much, but you all are doing such a great job reporting this stuff by laying out these glaring contradictions side by side for all to see.

  11. on April 15, 2014, 1:21 pm

    “Theodor Herzl the founder of political Zionism on many occasions promised the czar, the Pope, the kaiser, and the sultan that Jerusalem would remain an international city. Under the U.N. Partition plan, Jerusalem was to be an international city apart from the two states alongside it. Thus Israel’s annexation of Jerusalem in 1967 was considered illegal.” Exactly! Why did Zakaria not say this to the mayor ? This is the sad state of the US media. No knowledge and no aggression against the aggressors. Israel gets away with murder every time. Or is it Zakaria not wanting to upset his Zionist bosses at CNN ? I am not sure. Perhaps all these factors play a part in the coverup.

    • mondonut on April 15, 2014, 3:18 pm

      @unverified__5ilf90kd

      Probably because neither Herzl’s promises nor the dead letter partition plan constituted legality.

      • puppies on April 15, 2014, 7:20 pm

        Correct, Herzl’s and all other Zionists’ subsequent actions were glaring examples of unleashed illegality.

  12. LeaNder on April 15, 2014, 1:26 pm

    And by the way, there is not one example of a city in the world that ever got split and became functional.

    West Berlin, and East Berlin, or “Berlin the capital of the GDR”, is the capital of the GDR, to use the former slogan: you tube: GDR advertisement.

    Of course the BRD, the Federal Republic of Germany, moved their own capital to Bonn at the time.

    So there weren’t two capitals in both parts. But Berlin had a wall too. ;)

    “Functional” they were anyway. Ask the people that lived there. Even the West was a “functional” oasis.

  13. Mike_Konrad on April 15, 2014, 1:50 pm

    Here I agree with the mayor.

    The Arabs have Mecca and Medina (which used to be a Jewish city until the Muslims killed all the Jewish men in the 7th century). Let the Jews keep Jerusalem.

    • puppies on April 15, 2014, 3:18 pm

      @Konrad – Jewish Arabs then were not Zionists. Not a single one. Palestine has been just as Arabic as Mecca since ard the 10th century and this applies to the Moslem, Orthodox, Catholic, Nestorian, etc. and Jewish Arab population of pre-invasion Palestine and Jerusalem. You sound like you are irremediably confused between an equivalent of Aryanism and an equivalent of Papalism.

    • eljay on April 15, 2014, 3:19 pm

      >> The Arabs have Mecca and Medina (which used to be a Jewish city until the Muslims killed all the Jewish men in the 7th century).

      A Zio-supremacist looks to another group’s 7th century acts of injustice and immorality to justify his group’s 20th and 21st century acts of injustice and immorality. Amazing.

      >> Let the Jews keep Jerusalem.

      Jerusalem was a city of its inhabitants. It should remain a free city of its (current and ethnically-cleansed indigenous) inhabitants, not a city of and for “the Jews” (or “the Palestinians”, for that matter).

    • Woody Tanaka on April 15, 2014, 3:57 pm

      “Here I agree with the mayor.”

      Of course you are, you’re as much of an igornant bigot as the mayor.

      “The Arabs have Mecca and Medina”

      Mecca and Medina are Saudi cities. What does that have to do with Palestinians? Unless you’re such a racist that you view all of the Arabs and interchangable, which you clearly do

      “(which used to be a Jewish city until the Muslims killed all the Jewish men in the 7th century).”

      No it didn’t. Stop making stuff up. There was some Jewish tribest there, and they lost a political and military conflict and suffered appropriately in the fashion of the times.

      “Let the Jews keep Jerusalem.”

      No. The Israelis should be satisfied with that portion which is to the West of the Green Line.

      • puppies on April 15, 2014, 6:56 pm

        Woody – “The Israelis should be satisfied with that portion which is to the West of the Green Line.”
        No. Conquest is not acceptable as a way of acquiring territory by any state. No representative Palestinian state and government was allowed after the unanimous rejection of the Partition Proposal (also by the Zionist bandits.)

      • Woody Tanaka on April 16, 2014, 9:05 am

        puppies,

        At this point, the Palestinians, through their governmental organizations, have already accepted the Green Line. I see no reason to be “more Catholic than the Pope” on this issue.

      • puppies on April 17, 2014, 12:44 am

        @Woody – Their “governmental organizations” aren’t worth a used chewing-gum. Not formed properly, in the absence of armed aggression and occupation, no test of representativity, officially puppet governments with no armed sovereignty following a medley of resistance organizations in exile. During the German occupation, of course the resistance took decisions but they all paid attention to make everything official after governments were regularly constituted in full sovereignty. I’m old-fashioned that way.
        Observing that the Colonial Powers had no right to partition Palestine and that the Partition Proposal was rejected by the population is not being more Catholic than the Pope. It’s exposing the glaring illegality of both the Zionist entity and its puppet “governments”. Bring me something from an unoccupied and sovereign Palestinian people. Until then any Zionist presence remains illegal (also note that they are continuing full-scale war; even the armistices were concluded with other powers.)

      • Woody Tanaka on April 17, 2014, 10:02 am

        puppies,

        I appreciate your position and I don’t disagree that the Zionist project has been illegitimate from the state and that the state of Israel is, was, and ever shall be illegitimate; but as far as I’m concerned, if the PLO as the representative of the Palestinian people made the tactical decision to accept it, then I respect their decision.

    • pjdude on April 15, 2014, 5:02 pm

      One not really. It be more accurate to say a Muslim one and why should jews be alliwed one inch of illegally gained territory?

    • Dentrebeccag on April 16, 2014, 7:35 am

      Mike_Konrad, European, American, Russian, etc. Jews have no rights to Jerusalem. If anything, Jerusalem needs to be an international city overseen by the UN. Your interpretation of the Torah is not a legal deed to the land of Palestine.

  14. seafoid on April 15, 2014, 2:36 pm

    The DNA of the city is tolerance. Zionism is a deluded interlude.
    They have poured concrete everywhere but they still don’t understand Jerusalem.

    • mondonut on April 15, 2014, 3:22 pm

      @seafoid

      Sure. When the Jordanians controlled part of Jerusalem they were very tolerant of the Jews. They kindly and politely helped every one of them to leave.

      • seafoid on April 15, 2014, 3:36 pm

        How many Palestinians were allowed to stay in Rehavia, habibi?
        The only village left intact after the Jews took over was Abu Ghosh.
        Ethnic cleansing is the spark plug of Zionism.
        There were no accusations of blood soaked matzos in Ottoman Jerusalem.

      • mondonut on April 15, 2014, 4:45 pm

        Really? Your answer is to invoke The Blood Libel?

      • Woody Tanaka on April 15, 2014, 4:12 pm

        “When the Jordanians controlled part of Jerusalem they were very tolerant of the Jews.”

        The Jews had just started a war and ethnically cleansed the Palestinians, expelling them from their homes. If you’re not willing to accept a full Right of Return, then you have no room or basis to complaint about the Jordanians’ acts.

      • mondonut on April 15, 2014, 6:28 pm

        @Woody

        Let’s try that the other way around. If you have no problem with what the Jordanians did with the indigenous Jewish population then you have no right to assert the non-existent RoR.

      • Woody Tanaka on April 16, 2014, 9:03 am

        “Let’s try that the other way around. If you have no problem with what the Jordanians did with the indigenous Jewish population then you have no right to assert the non-existent RoR.”

        First, note: it’s “the Right of Return.” Using “non-existent RoR” is simply Nakba denial and your use of it makes you morally the same as those who refer to the “Holohoax.”

        Second, your statement further reveals you are projecting your bigotry. My position is that, upon signing the armistice, that all the people, whether they were Jews or Palestinians, had the absolute right to return to their former place of residence if they were willing to live in peace with their neighbors.

        So if the Israelis had not interfered with the exercise of the Right of Return by the Palestinians and made it known, as they did, that they intended to violate international law in this regard, then the Jordanians’ acts would have been wholly without excuse. But given the Israeli refusal to satisfy their responsibility regarding the Right of Return by the Palestinians, their is no basis to criticise the Jordanians alone for their decision to reciprocate. So, again, If you’re not willing to accept a full Right of Return by the Palestinians, then you have no room or basis to complaint about the Jordanians’ acts.

      • talknic on April 15, 2014, 9:24 pm

        @ mondonut “When the Jordanians controlled part of Jerusalem they were very tolerant of the Jews. They kindly and politely helped every one of them to leave.”

        Of course. It’s been pointed out to you and your dimwitted fellows quite a few times. You’re such slow learners one wonders how you ever learned to breath out.

        It’s NORMAL when states are at war to inter or expel foreign nationals (aliens) and or citizens who’re possible 5th columnists and freeze their assets. It’s also normal to allow them return and return their assets or pay compensation

        BTW Israeli law 1948 (still current) forbade Israeli residents and citizens entering the territory of a hostile entity.

        Israeli law prevented Israelis, Jewish and non-Jewish, from worshiping in territory under Jordanian sovereign control til 1967. Israeli law prevents Israelis, Jewish and non-Jewish, from returning from Israel to the Arab States Israel doesn’t have a peace treaty with

  15. Citizen on April 15, 2014, 4:19 pm

    Funny, how Obama and Kerry take this line of thought.

  16. Shuki on April 15, 2014, 6:55 pm

    “Under the U.N. Partition plan, Jerusalem was to be an international city apart from the two states alongside it. Thus Israel’s annexation of Jerusalem in 1967 was considered illegal.”
    +++
    The arabs rejected the U.N. plan and then attacked the Jews in 1967 which resulted in the annexation of Jerusalem. (In case you forgot…)

    • talknic on April 15, 2014, 9:48 pm

      @ Shuki “The arabs ….. Jews “

      Bigots really are quite stupid and your vile habit of purposefully lower casing the proper noun Arab/s immediately shows everyone you’re one sick lil’ puppy in need of psychiatric help.

      “The arabs rejected the U.N. plan”

      Irrelevant. The Jewish Agency considered it binding AFTER the Arabs rejected it http://pages.citebite.com/l1t3s9i2x5shf

      It was enshrined in the Declaration months after the Arab states rejected it http://pages.citebite.com/w1r5t6q2q5qhs

      The Jewish state was proclaimed and recognized by it months after the Arab states rejected it http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/study_collections/israel/large/documents/newPDF/49.pdf

      “and then attacked the Jews in 1967 “

      Strange, Unlike UNSC resolution 228 condemning Israel’s attack on its neighbours ( in 1966 http://www.un.org/en/sc/documents/resolutions/1966.shtml in case you forgot…), there’s no UNSC resolution condemning any Arab state for attacking Israel in 1967 0r 1948 for that matter.

    • Hostage on April 15, 2014, 11:15 pm

      The arabs rejected the U.N. plan and then attacked the Jews in 1967 which resulted in the annexation of Jerusalem. (In case you forgot…)

      Correction: You are forgetting quite a few details. Israel signed the armistice agreements in 1949 and those permanent armistice lines of demarcation were implemented under the auspices of a series of chapter 7 UN Security Council resolutions, including 62 and 73.

      The declassified Minutes of the People’s Council and Israeli historians have long since revealed that Jewish officials never accepted the internationalization of Jerusalem, the plan for Economic Union, or the boundaries of the Jewish state as stipulated in the UN plan. See for example David Tal, War in Palestine, 1948: strategy and diplomacy, Routledge, 2004, ISBN 071465275X, page 471.

      The relevant Zionist representatives testified on the record that they rejected both the UNSCOP majority and minority plans. The spokesmen said that they would only recommend adoption of either (by Vaad Leumi), subject to reservations that have never been withdrawn. They conditioned acceptance on being granted immediate control over immigration and on further discussions involving the constitutional and territorial details of the UN plan. In particular, the spokesmen said that no plan that failed to incorporate Western Jerusalem into the Jewish State would be acceptable. So the Jews rejected the terms of the resolution regarding the internationalization of Jerusalem too. See:
      *Yearbook of the United Nations for 1947-48
      * The FRUS http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/FRUS/FRUS-idx?type=goto&id=FRUS.FRUS1947v05&isize=M&submit=Go+to+page&page=1165

    • RoHa on April 16, 2014, 12:15 am

      “The arabs rejected the U.N. plan and then attacked the Jews in 1967”

      In 1967 Israel attacked Egypt. “The Arabs” did not attack “the Jews”.

    • puppies on April 16, 2014, 1:31 am

      Shuki – “The arabs rejected the U.N. plan”
      The Palestinians (given that not their language but their precise nationality is important here) rejected the partition plan just because there was absolutely no reason to accept giving away their country to a medley of crazy Russians and Bessarabians and Germans… etc., you say? How dare they refuse such a gift of God in the person of the Zionist invaders? They certainly deserve being robbed of their land, their sovereignty and their lives as a commensurate retribution!

      Also, was your moma a Zionist? It shows! She didn’t even teach you basic manners. “Arab” is an ethnonym and in English it’s always capitalized. Second, the Arabs’ arabness is totally irrelevant in matters of Palestine, the Palestinians (including the Jewish Palestinians before the invasion) being the owners of all Palestine without exception, and the only ones habilitated to reach political decisions about it.

  17. DICKERSON3870 on April 15, 2014, 8:36 pm

    RE: “Let me take you back 3,000 years. Jerusalem is the capital of the world . . .” ~ Nir Barkat

    MY COMMENT: I agree with Nir Barkat that Jerusalem should not be divided, but it must be made into an international city so that it can once again truly become (in a sense) “the capital of the world”! Perhaps the UN can even be relocated to the new International City of Jerusalem!

  18. wondering jew on April 15, 2014, 9:28 pm

    Phil writes, “Under the U.N. Partition plan, Jerusalem was to be an international city apart from the two states alongside it. Thus Israel’s annexation of Jerusalem in 1967 was considered illegal.”

    The cause and effect implied by the word “thus” is false. Israel’s annexation of East Jerusalem in 67 was considered illegal because it was not part of Israel according to the armistice agreement of 1949. Some of the legal scholars here might add some interesting facts about Jerusalem’s status according to the UN, but the annexation of 67 and its rejection by the international community is NOT based upon the partition agreement, but based upon resolution 242 and the fact that according to that resolution EAST Jerusalem is occupied territory.

    • talknic on April 15, 2014, 10:15 pm

      yonah fredman Some facts for you and your fellow apologists to keep ignoring.

      Israel was proclaimed and recognized as it asked to be recognized, according to UNGA res 181. http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/study_collections/israel/large/documents/newPDF/49.pdf

      Subsequent UNGA and UNSC resolutions are based on that fact.

      corpus separatum was never instituted. Jerusalem has never been legally separated from what remained of Palestine after Israel was declared independent of Palestine.

      “but based upon resolution 242”

      UNSC res 242 was based on Israel’s proclaimed and recognized sovereign extent.

      The Jordan/Israel and Egypt/Israel peace treaties tell us the purpose of UNSC res 242 was peace treaties between states

      The annexation of East Jerusalem was illegal because it was unilateral. There was no agreement, no referendum, no self determination by the legitimate inhabitants of the territory being annexed.

      • Hostage on April 16, 2014, 2:12 am

        corpus separatum was never instituted. Jerusalem has never been legally separated from what remained of Palestine after Israel was declared independent of Palestine.

        The UN resolution was named “The Plan for the Future Government of Palestine”. It partitioned “Palestine” into two states and a Corpus Separatum. All three remain part of Palestine under the terms of the plan and were part of an Economic Union, with a common currency, transportation system, & etc. The UN did adopt a statute for the City of Jerusalem and reserved its right to appointed a Governor of Jerusalem. http://www.jta.org/1950/03/28/archive/u-n-trusteeship-council-votes-to-authorize-jerusalem-governor-to-repatriate-araes

        The Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel acknowledged that the General Assembly required the people of Eretz Israel to take such steps as were necessary on their part for the implementation of that resolution. It was only later that Israel claimed that it had been formed by an act of secession.

        Even Israeli historians, like David Tal, have noted the schizophrenic arguments employed by Zionist officials, like Moshe Shertok. The Arab States accepted the map attached to resolution 181(II) as the basis of negations at the Lausanne Conference on the very same day the UN accepted Israel’s application for membership in the United Nations. Israel had repeatedly acknowledged an obligation to help implement the terms of the resolution. Shertok would take turns arguing with the UN Mediator that Israel accepted the plan of partition as the only binding adjudication when that supported his territorial claims, but dismissed it altogether as being in need of major revisions, in light of facts created on the ground, when the Arabs claimed territory on the basis of the same binding adjudication.

      • talknic on April 16, 2014, 9:14 am

        @ Hostage claro .. shall adjust

      • Hostage on April 16, 2014, 2:48 pm

        @ Hostage claro .. shall adjust

        No you were perfectly correct that Israel ended-up claiming it had been established by its own act of secession. That happened during a conference in 1949 on public debts, enemy bank accounts, & etc that I’ve cited elsewhere. I was just pointing out that the General Assembly and UN Trusteeship Council had subsequently adopted a statute on the City of Jerusalem anyway and that you’d need a ruling from the ICJ at this point to settle all of the conflicting claims. In the post-Oslo era, the EU member states took the position that, in their view, the whole city was still a Corpus Separatum. The acknowledgement in the Declaration of the Establishment of the State Israel that the General Assembly required the People of Eretz Israel to take steps to implement the resolution can’t be reconciled with secession.

    • Hostage on April 16, 2014, 12:38 am

      The cause and effect implied by the word “thus” is false. Israel’s annexation of East Jerusalem in 67 was considered illegal because it was not part of Israel according to the armistice agreement of 1949.

      The Security Council could impose a final settlement, but it never has done that yet. The armistice agreements were merely provisional measures adopted under the auspices of Article 40 of the UN Charter, which are without prejudice to the rights of the parties concerned. http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/un/unchart.htm#art40

      Article 28 of the LoN Mandate required the establishment of a perpetual regime of international safeguards for the rights of the various religious communities, their holy sites, and their right of transit to access them. http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/palmanda.asp#art28 The General Assembly included a protection plan for religious and minority groups and a plan for a Corpus Separatum – all under direct UN guarantee or administration.

      Two thirds of the concerned states that were present and voting adopted a legally binding decision on that international question of sacred trust or special trusteeship regime (Article 18) regarding the direct administration of the entire City of Jerusalem by the UN organization itself in accordance with the explicit terms regarding the functions and powers of the General Assembly contained in Articles 81 and 85 of the UN Charter. So, the General Assembly is one of the concerned parties. http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/un/unchart.htm#art81

      The US State Department’s Legal Advisor, Ernest Gross, wrote several memos explaining that situation, e.g.:

      (4) The Security Council is not empowered to alter the November 29, 1947 resolution of the General Assembly. While that resolution stands, groups in Palestine are authorized, and the Palestine Commission is required, unless the Security Council has taken action pursuant to Chapter VI or Chapter VII of the Charter recommending a political settlement other than that recommended by the General Assembly, to take the steps contemplated in the resolution for implementing the partition plan, Great Britain having stated its acceptance of the plan and acquiescing in its implementation.

      (5) If, for any reason, in particular because of developments not anticipated when the General Assembly made its recommendation – such as violent opposition in Palestine, frustration by the Mandatory, inaction of the Security Council – the recommended plan appears unworkable, the General Assembly may repeal or alter its recommendation.

      link to digicoll.library.wisc.edu

      The Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel was a signed legal instrument which acknowledged not only the undertaking regarding the protection of religious and minority rights, but also acknowledged that “the General Assembly required the inhabitants of Eretz-Israel to take such steps as were necessary on their part for the implementation of that resolution.” – which included the provisions regarding the Corpus Seprartum.

      In 1999, the EU reaffirmed that it still considered all of Jerusalem a Corpus Separatum:

      But the EU reply stated that all of Jerusalem, including the Jewish sector, is a “corpus separatum” or separate body. This term is a direct reference to the 1947 UN resolution 181, designating Jerusalem an international zone.

      Observers say this is the first time the EU has referred so explicitly to the 1947 resolution and does set a precedent.

      http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/295001.stm

      The General Assembly has never repealed or altered the resolution. It even reaffirmed it and cited it in the 2003 request for an ICJ advisory opinion:

      Recalling relevant General Assembly resolutions, including resolution 181 (II) of 29 November 1947, which partitioned mandated Palestine into two States, one Arab and one Jewish, . . . What are the legal consequences arising from the construction of the wall being built by Israel, the occupying Power, in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem, as described in the report of the Secretary-General, considering the rules and principles of international law, including the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, and relevant Security Council and General Assembly resolutions?

      http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/F953B744269B9B7485256E1500776DCA

    • Dentrebeccag on April 16, 2014, 7:37 am

      Amen.

  19. Kay24 on April 15, 2014, 11:38 pm

    He lies boldly when he claims the “Jewish Bible” tells them to treat everyone alike.
    You have to be naive to look at their crimes against Muslims and Christians,and not realize they are neither following the instructions of they Bible, nor international laws.
    They are experts at keeping a straight face when they keep lying. A disgusting habit.
    A matriarch of the settler terrorist was asked if she could visualize Palestinians and Israelis living in peace side by side, in that area, and she said never, because they were promised that land by God, and that the Palestinians could never be equal.
    They are full of it, from the mayors to the arrogant settlers.

  20. Daniel Rich on April 16, 2014, 12:30 am

    ‘I think it’s a demand that has to be wiped off the map table’ – hasty hasbara speech writer

  21. amigo on April 16, 2014, 6:56 am

    More xpose,s at the NYT ( compliments of the Editorial Board) and this is big

    “Perhaps the Obama administration’s effort to broker a deal was doomed from the start. In 2009, the administration focused on getting Israel to halt settlement building and ran into the obstinacy of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and resistance from the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, to entering peace talks. Since then, members of Mr. Netanyahu’s coalition government have tried to sabotage the talks. As Tzipi Livni, Israel’s chief negotiator, told the website Ynet, “There are people in the government who don’t want peace.” She cited Naftali Bennett, the leader of the pro-settler party Jewish Home, and Uri Ariel, the housing minister.nyt

    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/15/opinion/in-the-middle-east-time-to-move-on.html?action=click&contentCollection=Opinion&region=Footer&module=Recommendation&src=recg&pgtype=article

    And from Haaretz,

    The New York Times placed the blame for the collapse of the process squarely on Israel, attributing it to Israel’s failure to release the fourth batch of Palestinian prisoners, as agreed, and its announcement of 700 new housing units in Jerusalem.

    The Palestinians’ response of applying to join 15 international organizations was legal, the paper said, noting that they “did not seek to join the International Criminal Court, a big fear of Israel’s.”haaretz

    http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/1.585738

    All hands on deck on HMS (Hasbara Mother Ship) Poseidon.

Leave a Reply