• Current Events & Politics
    Welcome Guest
    Please read before posting:
    Forum Guidelines Bluelight Rules
  • Current Events & Politics Moderators: tryptakid | Foreigner

Why does the status of Jerusalem matter?

swilow

Bluelight Crew
Joined
Mar 9, 2005
Messages
33,319
Location
Your double slit
Interesting read in light of our Prime Minsisters recognition of West Jurasalem as Israel's capital city.

I'm honestly not too sure what the ramifications of it all are though. Can anyone explain? :?

Why does the status of Jerusalem matter?

4854124-3x2-700x467.jpg


Australia has recognised "West Jerusalem" as the capital of Israel. So what?

The city is Israel's declared capital, its Parliament and other institutions of state are all there. So why does Australia's policy matter?

For a start, there is no city called West Jerusalem, according to the Israeli Government. Jerusalem, "complete and united", is the capital declared by an Israeli Basic law, which has similar legal status to a constitution.

The Israeli Government hasn't so far acknowledged Australia's recognition of "West" Jerusalem and Australian statements about a potential Palestinian capital in East Jerusalem also run counter to Israel's position.

So the declaration doesn't satisfy Israelis and has also angered Palestinian officials.

In recognising "West" Jerusalem as Israel's capital, Australia has joined just three other nations; the Russian Federation, the Czech Republic and Panama.

Most countries ? with the United States one notable exception ? avoid this issue and keep their embassies in the commercial capital Tel Aviv.

Why? Because the status of Jerusalem is one of international law and diplomacy's most problematic questions.

It has not been settled since the war over the creation of the state of Israel in 1948.

In 1967, Israel drove out Jordanian troops from the east of the city and dramatically expanded its municipal borders.

International law still considers East Jerusalem to be Palestinian territory under Israeli occupation.

Numerous United Nations Security Council Resolutions criticise Israel's subsequent actions in East Jerusalem, including calling on Israel to "withdraw its forces from territories occupied in the 1967 conflict" (242), "desist forthwith from taking any further action which tends to change the status of the city" (252), "dismantle the existing settlements" (465) and "cease settlement activities" (2334).

UNSC resolution 478 ? noted in Scott Morrison's policy speech ? also calls on member states to withdraw their diplomatic missions from the city. In 465, the Security Council called Israel's settlement policy and practices ? including in Jerusalem ? "a flagrant violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention ?" and "a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East".

The International Court of Justice has concluded "third states" (such as Australia) have a duty not to recognise an illegal situation as lawful or assist in maintaining it.

States also have a responsibility to ensure respect for the Fourth Geneva Convention. So these are among the reasons why many nations are reluctant to change a long-held position on Jerusalem, not that they don't realise the practical reality.
 
over all in general while taking a big step back to see the whole picture... political handshakes and treaties. (who's got your back and for what reason) otherwise other countries need to stay out of other countries business unless it's to offer their input that might be helpful.
 
I was looking back at a textbook for a class I took in college called "The Geography of International Conflicts" not too long ago. It was heartening to see some of them have been solved in the roughly 25 years since I took the class, Northern Ireland for one, and South Africa. The Israel problem IMO will never be solved (and this is coming from an American Jew), because the fundamental principle of Zionism is the establishment of a Jewish nation-state in the Jewish biblical homeland, with Jerusalem as its capital. None of these can be accomplished without negating something else:

1. A two-state solution would mean that the Jewish nation-state is no longer comprised of the Jewish biblical homeland
2. Absorbing the Palestinian people as members of the Jewish state would mean that the Jewish state would no longer be a Jewish nation-state
 
It's stupid.

Jerusalem has been shared quite peacefully between Jews and Muslims for hundreds, thousands of years.


Making it a capital of either religion or territory by stealth recognition by the world is asinine.

It's not up to us, it's up to the people on the area.

I feel bad for the Palestinians.

If the guns were in their hands, Jerusalem would be theirs and in the same manner as well.

Bloody hell.

This whole Israel and how it came about thing really is shitty. It never solved anything.
 
I'm honestly not too sure what the ramifications of it all are though.
i don't think he has a strategy and he just wings this sort of stuff. i think trump's unilateral action just complicates the peace process and makes any agreement between israel and the palestinians harder.

alasdair
 
Top