You may need to read this twice – the Guardian Denies that Jerusalem is Israel’s Capital.


A guest post by AKUS

Read the caption to the picture below, captured off the Guardian’s website.

“Passengers on a tram in Jerusalem observe a two-minute silence for Yom HaShoah, when the nation remembers the 6 million Jews who died during the Holocaust”.

Apparently in the April 20th 2012 print edition, on page 24, a fuller version of the caption also correctly termed Jerusalem the Israeli capital.

Now read the following correction made by the Guardian on Sunday 22 April 2012, which is found on the web here. As I did, you may have to read it twice to realize what it says:

• The caption on a photograph featuring passengers on a tram in Jerusalem observing a two-minute silence for Yom HaShoah, a day of remembrance for the 6 million Jews who died in the Holocaust, wrongly referred to the city as the Israeli capital. The Guardian style guide states: “Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel; Tel Aviv is” (Eyewitness, 20 April, page 24).

Did you need to read it again to grasp the “wrong reference” that the Guardian is correcting? In case you missed it, here it is again: the caption, the Guardian claims, violated its style guide by noting in passing that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel.

This calls for a correction, since the Guardian style guide apparently decrees:

 “Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel; Tel Aviv is”

The Guardian has decided that even though Jerusalem has been Israel’s capital since the founding of the state, its Parliament, Supreme Court and ministerial offices are there, it, the Guardian, believes that Tel Aviv is the country’s real capital. It has apparently enforced this absurdity by codifying it in its style guide.

Is there any other country in the world for which the Guardian’s style guide defines the capital as being other than the city that country has selected as its capital? If any newspaper’s “style guide” decreed that London is not the capital of England, would that not be ludicrous? Is the next step for the Guardian style guide to decide that Israel is not a country but Palestine is, even though exactly the opposite is true?

More than anything else this absurd refusal to acknowledge Jerusalem as Israel’s capital demonstrates the utter perversity of the Guardian’s reporting about Israel. It shows in their own words, in print, the Guardian’s cringing acceptance of Arab propaganda that is rewriting the history of Jerusalem, the attempts to write the Jewish history out of the history of Jerusalem, and the Guardian’s attempts to delegitimize Israel and deny its right to exist. 

If they had any shame, the people running the Guardian should be ashamed of their style guide and this ridiculous “correction” of a truthful statement. But they have no shame.


117 comments on “You may need to read this twice – the Guardian Denies that Jerusalem is Israel’s Capital.

  1. Tel Aviv is the internationally recognized capital of Israel, which is why all foreign embassies are located there. Jerusalem cannot be the official capital of Israel as long as the latter occupies East Jerusalem, which is part of the occupied Palestinian territory (oPt) and claimed by the Palestinian people as its capital. Once peace negotiations have succeeded and a settlement has been reached, East Jerusalem is bound to become the Palestinian capital, and West Jerusalme the Israeli capital.

    • In Israeli Law Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. Every country has the right to decide where its capital is, Israel is no exception.

      http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Jerusalem+Capital+of+Israel/

      Basic Law: Jerusalem, Capital of Israel

      1. Jerusalem, complete and united, is the capital of Israel.

      2. Jerusalem is the seat of the President of the State, the Knesset, the Government and the Supreme Court.

      3. The Holy Places shall be protected from desecration and any other violation and from anything likely to violate the freedom of access of the members of the different religions to the places sacred to them or their feelings towards those places.

      4. (a) The Government shall provide for the development and prosperity of Jerusalem and the well-being of its inhabitants by allocating special funds, including a special annual grant to the Municipality of Jerusalem (Capital City Grant) with the approval of the Finance Committee of the Knesset.

      (b) Jerusalem shall be given special priority in the activities of the authorities of the State so as to further its development in economic and other matters.

      (c) The Government shall set up a special body or special bodies for the implementation of this section.

      MENAHEM BEGIN
      Prime Minister

      YITZCHAK NAVON
      President of the State

      * Passed by the Knesset on the 17th Av, 5740 (30th July, 1980) and published in Sefer Ha-Chukkim No. 980 of the 23rd Av, 5740 (5th August, 1980), p. 186; the Bill and an Explanatory Note were published in Hatza’ot Chok No. 1464 of 5740, p. 287.

      “Palestine” is not a country. If and when it becomes one it too can declare its capital somewhere, but not Jerusalem.

      • Dear Sir

        One of 150 UN Resolutions can be seen below.

        Please kindly refer to UN Security Council Resolution 478 (1980) of 20 August 1980, which is binding.

        Thank you.

        The Security Council, recalling its resolution 476 (1980); reaffirming again that the acquisition of territory by force is inadmissible; deeply concerned over the enactment of a “basic law” in the Israeli Knesset proclaiming a change in the character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem, with its implications for peace and security; noting that Israel has not complied with resolution 476 (1980); reaffirming its determination to examine practical ways and means, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Charter of the United Nations, to secure the full implementation of its resolution 476 (1980), in the event of non-compliance by Israel ; Censures in the strongest terms the enactment by Israel of the “basic law” on Jerusalem and the refusal to comply with relevant Security Council resolutions;

        http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/DDE590C6FF232007852560DF0065FDDB

      • Look, the problem is that Biodegradable is telling it like it is – at least according to international law, the UN etc. It’s disgraceful and yet another example of how the bodies who set the international agenda are blinkered, biased and can’t be trusted, but the Guardian in this case is simply choosing to go along with the internationally accepted status.

        What these idiots fail to understand is that, even if East Jerusalem does become part/capital of some future Palestinian state, there is absolutely no reason whatsoever why Israel shouldn’t name the Israeli part of Jerusalem (which the same international bodies do not dispute is part of Israel) as her capital. It is the “complete and united” bit they don’t like.

        I agree with Pretz, though. It’s one thing to say that Jerusalem is not recognised, but quite another to rendomly decide that some other city is the capital.

    • Nat, when you claim that east Jerusalem is ‘occupied Palestinian terrotory’ do you realise which nation actually gave it it’s name (HINT it wasn’t the Arab invaders of the 600′s)

  2. The capital of Israel is wherever Israel says its capital is. The same logic applies, and is applied, to every country.

    • The plain, simple, unvarnished truth. The fact the Guardian sees it otherwise speaks volumes about their world view. Distorted? That’s being polite. Thanks for highlighting this.

  3. Jerusalem is the Capital of Israel,ALL of East West North and South of Jerusalem.JERUSALEM WAS IS AND WILL BE FOREVER THE CAPITAL OF ISRAEL…THE racist Guardian can and go and eff themselves,they can whistle Dixie,we will decide for ourselves where the the capital of Israel is.

    The racist Guardian are provocateurs who never miss a chance to look like the jackasses that they are……..

          • ‘Hypocrite’
            Actually you may find a long list of Jewish anti-semites, such as Karl Marx and Gilad Atzmon (Self proclaimed). To try to deny this is pointless. You can argue that Ha’aretz is not anti-semitic (which it is in my opinion except for the racial definition), but you cannot argue that Jews are incapable of anti-semitism.

          • Come to think of it, this throws up an interesting conundrum. By cif’s own definition of antisemitism linked on the home page, that statement is undeniably antisemitic. An accusation made not to a single individual but by implication, all those who work at the paper. Now it is clear to anyone that people who work at Ha’aretz are not Nazi sympathizers. So what do we have here? People who have not an ounce of antisemitism in their souls are being unjustly accused of said prejudice simply for writing an article critical about the govenment’s policy IN THEIR OWN COUNTRY. Antisemitism is deplorable. But when accusations are made so lightly, how do you think that reflects on the term ‘antisemitism’ itself? It loses it’s original meaning and becomes a term describing somebody whose opininons you sharply disagree with. The more these accusations are made unjustifiably, the weaker the term becomes in the eyes of others (particluarly the accusee’s). Sadly, in my opinion, this term has become so weakened now that it is fairly ineffectual. Consider this. The ones who are most hurt into silence by these false accusations are the VERY ONES who care about the evil of this prejudice. Being accused of doing something that you deplore is very hurtful. That is why the strategy has, up to now, been so effective. Real antisemites wouldn’t give it a second thought. They might even consider it a badge of honor. I’m afraid that this crying wolf (antisemitsm) has lost much of it’s power and I fear the toothpaste cannot be pushed back in the tube.

            • The more these accusations are made unjustifiably, the weaker the term becomes in the eyes of others (particluarly the accusee’s).

              Only if said accusee is very weak-minded.

              Sadly, in my opinion, this term has become so weakened now that it is fairly ineffectual.

              Speak for yourself. If someone were to make that accusation towards me, at least, I’d dismiss them as a raving lunatic. But the meaning and gravity of the term anti-Semitism wouldn’t change one iota as far as I would be concerned.

              • That’s precisely one of the points I was making. Of course the term wouldn’t change for you but the liberal unnecessary use of the term changes the meaning for non-jews, and consequently that term has less impact with the resulting outcome that real antisemitism and the now-prevalent view of the term, by non-jews, becomes blurred. Real antisemitism can then be defended by pointing at the misuse of the term as justification that what was being done is not antisemitic.

                • Of course the term wouldn’t change for you but the liberal unnecessary use of the term changes the meaning for non-jews

                  Not in the case of this non-Jew.

                • Exactly. I got that impression. That’s why i said “not you, Pretzelberg” did you miss that post?

                • Your “not you, Pretzelberg” comment referred to something else.

                  You said: “Of course the term wouldn’t change for you BUT [my emphasis] the liberal unnecessary use of the term changes the meaning for non-jews.”

                  You assumed me to be Jewish, didn’t you?

                • Pretzelberg. You’re reading the wrong post. For some reason it comes AFTER the my reply to comments. Look further down to the one which begins: “OK to the antisemitism bit. first read…” That will put my comment in the correct context. That’s the one which contains the “not you Pretzelberg” I quoted. Yes I did assume you were Jewish. After reading the correct post, you may understand my mild chagrin that I was incorrect. I thought you were the only Jewish person commenting who a) attempted to answer my posts with some degree of politeness and objectivity and b) did not retreat into hypocritic silence when the disingenuous fallacious arguments I read on this site were turned in the other direction. Sadly I must again renew my quest to find such a person (on this site, of course). Still, your comments are interesting. Thankyou.

                • Similar charges are made all the time about racism, usually by people who then whine that if rappers use certain words for black people, it’s unfar that they can’t.

                • Dear Sir

                  Please kindly refer to UN Security Council Resolution 478 (1980) of 20 August 1980, which is binding.

                  Thank you.

                  The Security Council, recalling its resolution 476 (1980); reaffirming again that the acquisition of territory by force is inadmissible; deeply concerned over the enactment of a “basic law” in the Israeli Knesset proclaiming a change in the character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem, with its implications for peace and security; noting that Israel has not complied with resolution 476 (1980); reaffirming its determination to examine practical ways and means, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Charter of the United Nations, to secure the full implementation of its resolution 476 (1980), in the event of non-compliance by Israel ; Censures in the strongest terms the enactment by Israel of the “basic law” on Jerusalem and the refusal to comply with relevant Security Council resolutions;

                  http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/DDE590C6FF232007852560DF0065FDDB

            • I did not accuse them of anti-semitism because of opposing the Israeli government. I accuse it from it’s overall content, especially selective negative reporting about those who mostr identify as Jewish (the orthodox) as well as the reality defying hatred of Israel persay that is reflected in the reader comments.

              • OK to the antisemitism bit. First read the definition of antisemitism that this blog proposes. What article Ha’aretz published is irrelevant. The fact you made the comparison is enough. How could anyone possibly come to any different conclusion? If a similar accusation were made by an non-Jew, or – heaven forfend – The Guardian, this board would be popping with rage. But so far – silence. For the record, I don’t think you’re antisemitic at all. YOu just made a thoughtless comparison. What I’m trying to show you in these posts, is how easy it is to accuse someone of antisemitism when that is the last thing they are. The whole site is based on this premise and the hypocrisy of silence here speaks volumes. (not you Pretzelberg). Now do you understand more clearly my origian post?

                • ?
                  I do not think for one second anyone would object to the Guardian characterising Ha’aretz as a hate-rag, especially against orthodox Jews. In fact if it did I would applaud it.

            • And Alex, your logic is wonkey. Accusing a Paper of anti-semitic only implicates the Editor. Deciding which articles contribute to the paper being overall anti-semitic is left to the serious researcher. Flawed psuedo-intellectual ‘logic’ like your disapears up its own backside.

              • I think the term is ‘analogy’ rather than ‘logic’, but I know what you mean. OK. Regarding your point about the Orthodox Jews. Well there you go again! Identifying all Orthodox Jews with the bigots who spit on little girls and Christian clergy and ask women to sit at the back of the bus because (presumably) they have no self-control. I’m sure none of your Orthodox friends would be happy being tarred with that same brush.

                • Identifying all Orthodox Jews with the bigots who spit on little girls

                  Are you quoting from extra lines in MM’s post that are not visible to us mere mortals?

                • No. It’s visible. MM said “articles on orthodox jews” The only negative (correctly so, imo) articles are on a very small section of the Orthodox community.; not on ‘orthodox jews’ in general. Unless they weren’t visible to me!

          • Not when you read its articles on orthodox Jews. Try reading it. I actually had to give up looking at it on the net as it was making me feel physically sick at the level of hate. The comments are even worse.

            • I think you mean analogy not logic. Think about your comparison for a minute. Der Sturmer is not an ‘ordinary’ newspaper. That type of paper would only be staffed by those committed to the cause. How many blacks or jews do you think work on the BNP’s rag?

              • Now you are just getting preposturous. Do you understand that absurdist hyper-literalism is not really an argument. You may as well critisise me as Ha’aretz isn’t written in German.My point is that since it uses blind unreasoned hate and selective viewpoints, leaving it asRealiable as Der Sturmer, and with similar targets.

  4. The palestinians can have London as their capital,they might as well.They practically run the place,with generous help from the Racist Guardian and the Brown-Nosed BBC………

  5. Not recognising Jerusalem is one thing (many other newspapers take the same diplomatic stance) – but declaring Tel Aviv as the capital is plain silly.

    • Pretzel, this. If you want to insist that Israel can’t have Jerusalem as the capital, or not refer to it as the capital, or call it a ‘disputed city, which Israel considers its capital’, I may argue with you, but it’s not demented.

      Officially deciding that another city, which Israel does not consider its capital IS the capital of Israel, because you say so, is just silly.

      If Canada claimed DC, and we were fighting over it, not considering it the capital of the US would be one thing. Declaring that the real capital was Atlanta would just be bizarre.

      • Alex. The PCC is just plain wrong on this occasion. I ask you – how can you possibly present any logical argument for the designation by foreign powers of the capital city of a sovereign state?

        I accept that some will refuse (for misguided reasons, in my opinion) that Jerusalem is Israel’s capital, but there is simply no logical, legal, moral or other basis to randomly allocate that status to an alternative city. Put aside your antagonism to Israel for a moment and consider that point on its merits.

        • I agree with GoonerEll. The PCC is in this case plain wrong.

          But your post comes one month after this thread, Alex. Do you spend every day scouring the international media for stories that give you – so you think – arguments against Israel?

          Have you ever linked to a report in defence of Israel?

      • Very good. In the Guardian stable there is a funny worldview justifying to decide about the capital of any country. Obviously they are looking at their calendar and think that we are in 1925. Later the PCC a British institution as well uses the same calendar and the same date. Maybe this is the high time to explain to them that the British empire has been finished about 60 years ago for good and they have exactly the same quantity of say in the subject as Alex or his fellow travellers. The only entity who decide about Israel’s capital is the people of Israel and not the institutions of a third rate European ex-empire.

  6. The Racist Guardian wouldn’t know shame.It is a rag sheet that caters to the radical Leftist bottom feeders,scavengers who feed on the Guardians tripe………

  7. Ah the Guardian the so called GUARDIAN – This unfamous English News paper must get their facts right – Enough with your Lawrence of Arabia attitude soon you will have to wear a GALLABEYA and pray five times facing Medina because it is not too far now when you will have to print The Guardian in Arabic – But JERUSALEM WILL ALWAYS BE THE CAPITAL OF ISRAEL.

  8. The problem with Nat’s statement is that the refusal of nearly all nations to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel goes back to 1948, and long antedates both the Six-Day War and the 1980 statute cited by Biodegradable. It’s really a vestige of the 1947 Partition Plan,which envisaged Jerusalem as an international city belonging to neither state.

    Also, the true absurdity of the Guardian’s position is that the capital of a state is where its governing institutions are located. Israel is in fact governed from Jerusalem and no where else.

    Finally, I love the (presumably) embarrassed reference to the “Style Guide.” Apparently the editors don’t quite have the chutzpah to proclaim that “Tel Aviv is the capital of Israel” in fact, merely that “our internal rules require us to say this.” Interesting.

    • Absolutely correct. As far as the international community is concerned, the status of Jerusalem remains to be determined. This does not prevent the diplomatic and commercial transactions taking place within the city but there is not even official recognition of West ( Israeli) Jerusalem as Israel’s capital. After passage of the law annexing East Jerusalem into a united city, those countries who maintained embassies in Jerusalem, moved them outside the city, mainly to Tel-Aviv. As we know, even friendly USA maintains a autonomous consulate in West Jerusalem, separate from the embassy in Hayarkon Street in Tel Aviv.

      For all that, in no way does Tel-Aviv carry the title “Capital of Israel” so this is just one more of the Guardian’s attempts to create a fictional concept which fits in with its distorted view of Israel and try and present it as fact.

      Not so long ago, on this very blog, the paper was taken to task for listing Israel as Middle East in its Travel Guide. The furore was effective in bringing about some change so maybe this criticism will cause the rule makers to think again.

      • Not so long ago, on this very blog, the paper was taken to task for listing Israel as Middle East in its Travel Guide

        If I remember rightly, the problem was that Israel wasn’t listed at all! The veritable hub of global tourism that is Antarctica was, however.

  9. Great reply to Nat, David. By the way, Bethlehem and other parts of “oPt” (shouldn’t that be “oPpt” in Nat-Guardian-supine-bubblehead terminology?) were also part of the international territory envisaged by the UN. Up for grabs Nat?

  10. But… But… Jerusalem is the capital of the Palestinian state that not only doesn’t exit but was squashed as a probability because, see, there are too many Jews living in Jerusalem.

    Gosh. The Guardian sure sounds like a bunch of swell race baiting dipsticks. I’m so happy they use their pull to help curb and train the rest of the world.

  11. And don’t forget the photo. It’s not for nothing that the racist wankers at the Guardian chose to omit any black Jews from the scene. God forbid that anything should contradict their Stalinist-type grip on reality: Israel as a monotone, supermacist apartheid colonial enterprise.The Guardian is shallow and spiteful to the core.

    • Also there’s nobody that the Guardian’s readers would find attractive or readily identify with in the photo. That must be why our imperial masters at the Guardian considered it so much better for us to have a capital city with a more secular image and so after long discussions, settled on Tel Aviv

      • Yes Margie, the Guardian cannot resist its imperial impulses. East Jerusalem’s status may well be disputed, but here comes the self-proclaimed world arbiter for universal truth and justice: Der Guardian, taking malicious delight once again in its stand against Jewish sovereignty.

          • Pretzel, fair enough. I shall try and resist my own impulse to give Hmm..Hmm..THE Guardian that particular moniker.

          • To Groovy Times – NEVER SAID IT BETTER – Although I must say no dispute over JERUSALEM – One city capital of the independant state of ISRAEL – They can theorize as much as they want JERUSALEM will always belong directly or indirectly To a JEWISH STATE -

          • “Come on, GT. References to ‘Der Guardian’ are a bit silly.”
            That’s right. Everyone knows the real name is Al-Guardian.

    • I’ve always suspected that somewhere in the international journalist’s handbook there is a set of directions for an encounter with the IDF that begins, “Find the blondest guy in the group, and speak only to him. It does not matter if he does not speak English, or has no authority. Ignore attempts of darker-skinned, higher-ranking, or English-speaking soldiers to butt into your conversation. Get pictures.”

      Maybe not, but I swear, there are times it looks that way.

  12. Pingback: War diary: An eyewitness account of the 1948 battle for Jerusalem « Iran Aware

  13. I recently sent this message to the Guardian. I await their reply:

    To the Editors:

    In response to your recent “correction”:

    • The caption on a photograph featuring passengers on a tram in Jerusalem observing a two-minute silence for Yom HaShoah, a day of remembrance for the 6 million Jews who died in the Holocaust, wrongly referred to the city as the Israeli capital. The Guardian style guide states: “Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel; Tel Aviv is” (Eyewitness, 20 April, page 24).

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian/2012/apr/22/corrections-and-clarifications

    The capital of Israel is, unequivocally, Jerusalem. Whether the Guardian, the UK, or the rest of the international community recognize this, Jerusalem is the self-chosen capital of the State of Israel, and the site of all major government buildings including the Israeli parliament. Even if one views the final status of East Jerusalem as the likely capital of a future Palestinian state, the rest of Jerusalem is without any doubt within the borders of Israel, where it has been the capital since the founding of the modern state.

    Tel Aviv has never been the capital of Israel. The fact that Tel Aviv is the site of foreign embassies does not, of course, automatically make it the de facto capital of Israel, and their placement there does not represent the preference of Israel. If the US President were to follow the wishes of Congress, our embassy would not be in Tel Aviv, but in Jerusalem as it should be. Jerusalem is not merely the administrative or legislative capital of the State of Israel, it is the capital, period.

    Referring to Tel Aviv as the capital of Israel represents a severe form of bias against this nation. There is no other country that I am aware of for which the Guardian unilaterally decides what their capital is. Although not specifically cited in the correction, the term “the Tel Aviv government” is another piece of biased misinformation favored by organizations – I’m sure you know who they are – that wish to delegitimize the state. There is no “Tel Aviv government”, except possibly a local or municipal one. The government of the State of Israel is located in Jerusalem, which is Israel’s one and only capital.

    As is often said, you are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts. My view is not an opinion, but represents an actual, if contentious, fact. I urge you to go visit the State of Israel, and see for yourselves where the government is situated. Whether you approve or not, this is reality. Referring to Tel Aviv rather than Jerusalem as the capital of Israel promotes a falsehood, one that I cannot see how this or any news organization could honestly believe or publish.

    Please correct this one.

      • No response yet, not holding my breath either. As noted by several, the story is being picked up by Israeli newspapers.

        One auto-correction is that Tel Aviv was Israel’s capital for a brief period during Israel’s War of Independence in 1948-49. This hardly justifies the continued reference to Tel Aviv as Israel’s capital or to the “Tel Aviv government”, of course. It makes no more sense than referring to Philadelphia as the US capital or Flensburg as the capital of Germany, despite the fact that both were briefly the seat of government for those two countries.

        The Guardian is ignoring actual facts in favor of wishful thinking on their part. Whether or not they would prefer Tel Aviv to be the capital of Israel, or if they disapprove of Jerusalem, or would like to see Israel disappear and be replaced by an Islamist Arab state matters little. Like it or not, Guardian, Jerusalem is the capital city of Israel, and your editorial policy will do nothing to change that,

  14. The Guardian is idiotic, even according to their perverse world-view West Jerusalem at the very least is Israeli Terrotory, and as such can be the capital. If they refuse to recognise it as the capital, at least they can have the decency not to create a new one (Tel Aviv),

  15. ‘Nat’ was the first to comment on this article, and he seems to believe that the nub of the problem consists in the fact that East Jerusalem is ‘occupied Palestinian territory’, hence, Jerusalem cannot be the official Jewish capital.

    I’m wondering if this person is dishonest or just ignorant about recent history – ( ie. East Jerusalem in recent history was only majoritarily Arab for 19 years :1948-67, when the Jordanians illegally annexed it, and of course there was never the project to set up a “Palestinian capital” there, if only because the Kingdom of Jordan was already a Palestinian country with a capital Amman ).

    Denying Jerusalem as the Israeli capital is just another way to deligitimize Zionism. The Guardian is insulting its readers’ intelligence – or else its intelligent readers have already left the sinking stinking ship – and the only remaining readership is that of ignorant sheep. Baa-baa…

    • the Kingdom of Jordan was already a Palestinian country

      And you accuse another poster of being “dishonest or just ignorant about recent history”??

    • Denying Jerusalem as the Israeli capital is just another way to deligitimize Zionism.

      So successive US governments are “deligitimizing Zionism”?

      And your reference to the Kingdom of Jordan as “already a Palestinian country” constitutes historical revisionism.

      Plenty of thumbs-up from the usual CiFW crowd, of course.

  16. No country has the right to choose ANY city as it’s capital, otherwise that would leave France to choose Melbourne Australia.

    • Are you denieng that West Jerusalem is Israeli? And BTW, if you call it Jerusalem you are de-facto admiting that it was founded and named by the Jews, and as such is definately part of Israel. Call it ‘Al-quads’ if you prfer modern revisionism.

    • The French are extremely proud of Paris, so I’m going to say that Melbourne is pretty safe. Wake me if the Israelis suddenly develop an interest in Toronto, and meanwhile, stop making moronic comparisons.

  17. Pingback: Links (Ian) | ISRAEL TRIBUNE

  18. The capital of a country is the city where it has its government. That is the definition. No other country needs to “recognize” a capital, whatever that could mean. Other governments may think that Tokyo is the capital of Israel or that the number pi equals four. Jerusalem is the seat of the Israeli government and is thus the capital of Israel.

    Macmillan: “capital or capital city [COUNTABLE] the city where a country or region has its government”

    Merriam-Webster: “a city serving as a seat of government”

    Oxford English Dictionary: ” serving as the seat of government for a country, province, state, county, or other administrative area.”

  19. The Security Council,

    Recalling its resolution 476 (1980),

    Reaffirming again that the acquisition of territory by force is inadmissible,

    Deeply concerned over the enactment of a “basic law” in the Israeli Knesset proclaiming a change in the character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem, with its implications for peace and security,

    Noting that Israel has not complied with resolution 476 (1980),

    Reaffirming its determination to examine practical ways and means, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Charter of the United Nations, to secure the full implementation of its resolution 476 (1980), in the event of non-compliance by Israel,

    1. Censures in the strongest terms the enactment by Israel of the “basic law” on Jerusalem and the refusal to comply with relevant Security Council resolutions;

    2. Affirms that the enactment of the “basic law” by Israel constitutes a violation of international law and does not affect the continued application of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, in the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since June 1967, including Jerusalem;

    3. Determines that all legislative and administrative measures and actions taken by Israel, the occupying Power, which have altered or purport to alter the character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem, and in particular the recent “basic law” on Jerusalem, are null and void and must be rescinded forthwith;

    4. Affirms also that this action constitutes a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East;

    5. Decides not to recognize the “basic law” and such other actions by Israel that, as a result of this law, seek to alter the character and status of Jerusalem and calls upon:

    (a) All Member States to accept this decision;

    (b) Those States that have established diplomatic missions at Jerusalem to withdraw such missions from the Holy City;

    6. Requests the Secretary-General to report to the Security Council on the implementation of the present resolution before 15 November 1980;

    7. Decides to remain seized of this serious situation.

    • Your post is a perfect match to your selfdescription on your blog.

      I have degenerative illness and so i have nothing to lose. I no longer care about libel, slander, being polite, not swearing.

      If I say anything which is actionable then do it – I have no assets but if it wastes your money I’m happy to play

      What you posted above is not actionable – it is sheer ignorance, stupidity and hate of Israel. As every student of history knows the UN delivered other innumerable one sided and biased resolutions against Israel (the most famous was the “Zionism is racism” crap what later they revoked) and that the relevance of these resolutions is simply zero.

      The UN doesn’t have the right and the power to decide about the capital of Israel, this right is exclusively in the hand of the Israeli people. (and believe me soiniciulacht we have the necessary power too).

      • The UN is the arbiter of INTERNATIONAL law – my post was an exact quote of the resolution with not a single word of mine.
        Don’t forget to wash your tin-foil helmet and wipe the spittle off your screen..

        • Yes well done, you have quoted the UN resolution accurately (I assume – I haven’t checked it word for word). The point I make in my earlier post on this topic still stands however.

          Yes – international law does not currently recognise Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. But, and here’s the point, THAT DOESN’T MAKE IT RIGHT.

          Nobody seriously denies that the part of Jerusalem to the West of the Green Line, where the Knesset, the PM’s Office etc are all placed, are part of Israel – that status is NOT disputed. So how can the UN and others, with a straight face, and with any hope of retaining the least shred of credibility, deny a sovereign state (and member of the UN) the right to decide that THIS PART of Jerusalem is its capital?

          Once again, the UN places one burden on Israel that it doesn’t place on any other nation in the world anywhere – it takes away its right to decide its own capital city.

          The fact that the Guardian and others meekly accept such an absurd and indefensible situation is the disgrace on which this entire discussion is based.

          • Yes, that pesky Rule of Law gets in the way all the time.
            The Guardian is in the UK, the UK under international law is required to accept the UN Resolution.

            • Interesting that you claim that countries, and presumably its citizens, are required to accept the “pesky Rule of Law”.
              Yet on your own blog you write;
              “I no longer care about libel, slander, being polite, not swearing.”

              So the “pesky Rule of Law” has to be accepted by everyone else, including countries, but not by you? Or do they only have to accept the “pesky Rules of Law” they agree with?
              An interesting concept but neither logical or moral just a good example of hypocrisy.

            • “Required to accept” the UN resolution? What does that mean? Nobody is allowed to criticize a law, even if properly passed, and point out its absurdity and idiocy?

              Not even the UN is that tyrannical.

              In the UK, it is the law that you are not permitted to drive at over 70mph. If you do so, you can be punished. If you argue that the speed limit should be raised, however, you have not “broken the law”, you have simply taken advantage of your democratic right to free speech.

              In any event, the resolution is not a “law” in the sense that you can be found guilty of breaching it. It is merely a statement of the UN’s position on the matter.

                • Yes it has. Even if having Jerusalem be Israel’s capital violates some international law, whatever that implies, it does not undo the actual fact that the government of Israel operates out of Jerusalem. As already pointed out, this does mean that it is the capital, whether anyone likes it or not. International law certainly cannot designate another city as a fictitious capital. Nor can the Guardian. So, yes, they are lying.

                • Israel can claim Mars Jupiter and half Andromeda it doesn’t change INTERNATIONAL law.

                  The Knesset can outlaw bananas and classify Camels as aircraft if they so wish but it doesn’t have any legal force outside Israel.

                • Correct. But insude Israel – and Jerusalem is definitely is inside Israel the Israeli law is the only authority,. That you don’t like this fact – tough luck. You have to learn to live with this fact.

                • The issue isn’t whether it is legal under international law per the UN for Jerusalem to be the capital of Israel. You can argue that point all you wish, but as others have already noted, the UN’s record toward Israel is so laughably biased that there is zero chance you will sway me or most of the other readers of this blog.

                  For the last time, whether “legal” or not, the actual fact is that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, not Tel Aviv. To claim otherwise is just delusional or, in the case of the Guardian, lying. I am sure you have many reasons why this ought not to be, or why many would prefer it not to be, but that is not really the point.

                  Which is, again for the last time, that the Guardian is promoting a falsehood when it makes the claim that Tel Aviv is the capital of Israel rather than Jerusalem. Keep in mind that this is a newspaper, which s supposed to stick to the facts whatever its editorial bias. The Guardian is free to report that countries around the world do not recognize Jerusalem as the capital, or to editorialize that it should not be the capital, but not that it isn’t – which is a big fat lie.

        • The UN is arbiter of international laws allowing to Assad to slaughter his own people, allowing to hanging adulterers and gays in Iran, allowing the gaspoisoninig of Kurds, allowing to keep womenas third rate citizens in Moslem countries, allowing to China to occupy Tibet, allowing to the leaders of Sudan to ethnically cleanse a big part of its own population etc.
          BTW I have a feeling that not my screen needs a cleaning after reading your hysterical self pity on your own blog.

  20. The Israeli government should yank this nasty Racist Guardian’s chain.The Israeli authorities can make their life a misery…….About time…….

  21. soiniciulacht, You know when Israel arrested Eichmann from Argentina in 1960, the U.N had an emergency meeting and demanded that Israel return Eichmann back to Argentina. The U.N and all the Arab countries said it was against International law to kidnap Eichmann from Argentina.
    So according to you, you would have said Israel must return one of the biggest mass murderers in history cause the U.N and Arabs say this is against International law.
    The Entebee rescue was condemmed by the U.N in 76.
    The bombing of Iraq’s nuclear facility by Israel was condemmed by the U.N in 1981.
    Here is the truth and only the Truth.
    There is a primary historical fact, that must be established now. There has never been, I repeat NEVER been, a civilization, Entity, or a nation referred
    to as “Palestine” There was never a Palestinian tribe, and there was never a Palestinian country in the Land of Israel to begin with! Arab culture that allows honor killings to be legal. Israel is not for sale. It is not a pie to be sliced up and served to a clan of killers and their supporters.
    1: When did Jerusalem serve as a capitol to any Arab Country ? Never.
    2: When did Jerusalem serve as a Palestinian capitol ? Never.
    3: Only Israel have had Jerusalem as there capital in Ancient and modern times. Jerusalem was never in history an Arab capital and never will be one.
    4: How many times is Jerusalem mentioned in the Koran? Zero.
    Was Mohammed to so badly educated, he could not utter the word
    “J-e-r-u-s-a-l-e-m”

  22. This is not looking good for liars like soiniciulacht

    http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/126403
    Israeli on Arab TV:
    6/04/08
    A Bar Ilan Univ. researcher told Al Jazeera, “Jews were in Jerusalem while Muslims were drinking wine; we don’t need your permission to build.”

    Bar Ilan University political scientist Dr. Mordechai Kedar told a Moslem show host on the Arabic-language Al Jazeera television network, “Jews were in Jerusalem while your ancestors were drinking wine and bowing to idols.” In a heated debate with the narrator, he added, “We don’t need your permission to build” in the capital of Israel, Jerusalem.

    The encounter occurred earlier this week, when Jews around the world celebrated Jerusalem Unification Day. Dr. Kedar has frequently appeared on the widely viewed Qatar-based network but this time encountered a sharp attack from the show’s host, Jimal Rian.

    “Building in Jerusalem is another nail in the coffin in negotiations with the Palestinian Authority,” narrator Jimal Rian asserted. Dr. Kedar answered in fluent Arabic, “This was our capital 3,000 years ago, and we were here when your forefathers were drinking wine, burying girls alive and worshipping pre-Muslim idols. This is our city and it will be our city forever.”

    His reference to Muslims drinking wine, which is forbidden in Islam, infuriated the host. Rian wagged his finger in the air and said excitedly, “If you want to talk about history, you cannot erase Jerusalem from the Koran, and don’t attack the Muslim religion if we want to continue talking.”
    Jerusalem is not mentioned even once in the Koran. Jerusalem is a Jewish city.

    Dr. Kedar replied, “Jerusalem is not mentioned even once in the Koran. Jerusalem is a Jewish city.”

    The Al Jazeera host responded by quoting a verse from the Koran in which he thought Jerusalem was mentioned by name, but stopped in the middle upon realizing that it only refers to “the farthest place.”

    Dr. Kedar: “Jerusalem is not mentioned in the Koran even once. You can’t rewrite the Koran on air on Al Jazeera.”

    Rian changed the subject to “settlements” and asked Dr. Kedar why Israel is building 1,000 new apartments and deciding to build thousands more while there are rumors that “Jerusalem will include all of the West Bank [Judea and Samaria].

    The Bar Ilan researcher replied. “My friend, Israel is not counting the number of apartments that Qatar is building on the Qatar Peninsula so why are you doing so in Jerusalem? Jerusalem is our city forever and is not an issue for you, for Al Jazeera or for anyone else. Period. Jerusalem belongs only to Jews.

    Replying to Rian’s question if Dr. Behar’s assessment is the basis for talks with the Palestinian Authority (PA), he declared, “My friend, I invite you to Jerusalem so you can see with your own eyes that it has become a flourishing city after it was in ruins under Arab rule until 1967. We rebuilt the city and opened it to Christians, Moslems and Jews equally, unlike under Muslim rule” that prohibited other religions.

    The political scientist told Al Jazeera viewers, “The West bank does not belong to any nation because it was not under a nation’s jurisdiction, unlike the Sinai Peninsula.” No one can say it is occupied,” he argued. “From what country did we take it? Until 1967, Jordan occupied it. Therefore, we can do what we want.”

    He explained that Al Jazeera takes a jihadic and anti-Israel stance in order to detract viewers’ attention from the wealth of the oil-rich Arab kingdoms, including Qatar, where Al Jazeera is based.

    “The amount of poison that they disseminate about us from our home is too dangerous, and something had to be done,” he recently told the Jewish Forward, referring to the Israeli government’s unannounced partial boycott of the network. He labeled Al Jazeera “the mouthpiece of the Muslim Brotherhood,” the radical terrorist party that is gaining popularity in Egypt.

    Al Jazeera television claims 100 million viewers and has Israel-based studios in Jerusalem, Gaza and Ramallah.

    • Super comment!!!

      Let me add that if one reads

      Constructing a Counterfeit History of Jerusalem
      by Daniel Pipes
      May 15, 2002
      updated Mar 6, 2011 or The Muslim Claim to Jerusalem

      or

      by Daniel Pipes
      Middle East Quarterly
      September 2001

      One learns that:

      “When this Qur’anic passage was first revealed, in about 621, a place called the Sacred Mosque already existed in Mecca. In contrast, the “furthest mosque” was a turn of phrase, not a place. Some early Muslims understood it as metaphorical or as a place in heaven. And if the “furthest mosque” did exist on earth, Palestine would seem an unlikely location, for many reasons. Some of them:

      Elsewhere in the Qur’an (30:1), Palestine is called “the closest land” (adna al-ard).
      Palestine had not yet been conquered by the Muslims and contained not a single mosque.

      The “furthest mosque” was apparently identified with places inside Arabia: either Medina or a town called Ji’rana, about ten miles from Mecca, which the Prophet visited in 630.

      The earliest Muslim accounts of Jerusalem, such as the description of Caliph ‘Umar’s reported visit to the city just after the Muslims conquest in 638, nowhere identify the Temple Mount with the “furthest mosque” of the Qur’an.

      The Qur’anic inscriptions that make up a 240-meter mosaic frieze inside the Dome of the Rock do not include Qur’an 17:1 and the story of the Night Journey, suggesting that as late as 692 the idea of Jerusalem as the lift-off for the Night Journey had not yet been established. (Indeed, the first extant inscriptions of Qur’an 17:1 in Jerusalem date from the eleventh century.)

      Muhammad ibn al-Hanafiya (638-700), a close relative of the Prophet Muhammad, is quoted denigrating the notion that the prophet ever set foot on the Rock in Jerusalem; “these damned Syrians,” by which he means the Umayyads, “pretend that God put His foot on the Rock in Jerusalem, though [only] one person ever put his foot on the rock, namely Abraham.”

    • If you read your own link you will see written on it in big, bold capital letters the words ADVISORY OPINION.
      Now why do you think they have written that?

      I note that you did not answer the two questions I put to you in my post above at 6.32 a.m.
      To refresh your memory they are,
      “So the “pesky Rule of Law” has to be accepted by everyone else, including countries, but not by you? Or do they only have to accept the “pesky Rules of Law” they agree with?
      An interesting concept but neither logical or moral just a good example of hypocrisy.”

      Would you like to answer the questions now, I don’t mind waiting as I’m sure your justification of your hypocrisy and double standards will be worth waiting for.

  23. Gerald their are 57 Islamic countries, alot of them rich in oil, so ofcourse the rest of the world will side with the Arabs.

    • Ed I don’t disagree with you.
      The point I’m making is that the link provided is to an ADVISORY OPINION, ‘soiniciulacht’ is either overlooking that or hoping that no one will notice.

  24. I want to remind people after the Arab terrorist attack in Eilat last August, which murdered 8 Israeli’s including Four family members, the U.N refused to condemn this terrorist attack.
    Infact, this shows the mindset of the Arabs.
    http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/147000

    The United Nations will not condemn as “terrorism” the attacks near Eilat in which eight Israelis were murdered after Lebanon’s representative rejected the measure.

    Lebanon’s representative to the U.N. Security Council said it would endorse a condemnation of the attacks only if the council were to condemn Israel as well, for killing the terrorists who planned the massacre.

    Lebanon refused to call the attacks “terrorism,” arguing that the attacks were not legally terrorism because one of the buses the attackers fired on had been carrying soldiers. The attackers also fired on several civilian vehicles, and made sure to shoot innocent victims at close range to ensure they died.

    Israel’s ambassador to the United Nations, Ron Prosor, expressed outrage. “It is outrageous that the Security Council did not clearly condemn the deliberate and appalling murder of many innocent Israeli civilians, which occurred yesterday in a series of coordinated terrorist attacks,” he said.

    “The U.N. Secretary General condemned it, the Americans condemned it, the European Union condemned it, yet the bottom line is that the Security Council again failed as a body,” Prosor accused. “Every time an issue pertains to Israel, we see deafening silence. They become blind and deaf.”

  25. Pingback: London Olympic website removes Jerusalem from ‘Palestine,’ gives it to Israel « Iran Aware

  26. The amazing thing is that the idiot at The Guardian who wrote this believes it to be factually correct. Debate it with him ( or her) and he would call you misguided and ill informed. Then when you show him “proof” he will say that is merely Zionist propaganda by radicals in the Israeli government and not true. Show him historical proof and he will say all of that is forgeries or documents created to deny that Tel Aviv is the capital. Show him non-Israel documents proving Jerusalem is Israel’s capital and he will remark how cunning Jews are to have agents fool even foreign governments.

    Then show him an official Israeli document with a Jerusalem Government stamp authenticating it, which says that all reporters who write for The Guardian are henceforth banned from entering Israel and any offices in Jerusalem that have been used by the Guardian have been closed and they are to leave Israel immediately. He will look incredulously at the Order and nervously smile that “This is a joke, right?”. Then take him to his offices in Jerusalem and let him see the furniture and office equipment in the street being guarded by Israeli police. Then introduce him to the Immigration Police who will escort him to the airport for transfer to London.

    He will start believing that Jerusalem is Israel’s capital about 2 hours into the flight home.

    • Show him non-Israel documents proving Jerusalem is Israel’s capital and he will remark how cunning Jews are to have agents fool even foreign governments.

      You don’t actualy believe that crap, do you?

  27. The UN, when it comes to Israel, has not followed its own rules since 1948. UN rules prohibit member states from delaring war on fellow member states. This is a basic presciption for the foundation of the UN. In 1948, Arab states which were member nations – Sgypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq all declared war on Israel and invaded the new nation. When a ceasefire was finally arrived at, the Arab nations retrurned to the UN, took their seats and began a political and diplomatic war on Israel whihc exists to this day. No action was taken against them by the UN. Not evern a simple censure for invading Israel.

    Since that time the UN has been the most anti-Israel International organization in the world, passing more anti-Israel Resolutions than all other none anti-Israel Resolutuions combined. Attacking Israel has become the rasion d’etre of the UN’s existence.

  28. Do people remember the UN Resolution that declared that Israel attacks which result in the deaths of Arab children are crimes against humanity and crimes against children in particular? That resolution did not allow for any justification of the Israeli attack and refused to mention the prior Arab attack on Israeli civilians that lead to any Israeli response. It was written as saying that Israel targets children.

    Do people remember when Israel attempted to introduce an amendment or a companion Resolution declaring that terrroist attacks by Arabs which result in the deaths of Jewish children are a crime against humanity and in particular against children, was voted down and not allowed to be added to the anti-Israel one?

  29. From Now on, I am considering Dover the capital of England, Anger the capital of France, Gibraltar the capital of Spain -Oh and by the way has anyone gotten a clue as to when the British will free this long occupied territory?- and La Ciudad de Nuestra Doña la Reina de Los Angeles (LA for short) as the capital of the USA. After all, if the Guardin can chose which city it wishes the capital of Israel to be, why shouldn’t I have that right too?

  30. Pingback: If I forget thee O Jerusalem, my name is the BBC (and the Guardian) | Anne's Opinions

Comments are closed.