Sunday, May 22, 2011

Construction Progress

The new Mashbir Building at Zion Square is almost finished:

Don't worry, President Obama, it's in pre-1967 Jerusalem.

But wait, does the US recognize Israel's sovereignty in "West Jerusalem"?


See this summary here:

The United States views as desirable the establishing of an international regime for the city.[29] Its final status must be resolved through negotiations[30] and it does not recognise Jerusalem as Israel's capital.[31] United States policy on Jerusalem refers specifically to the geographic boundaries of the "City of Jerusalem" based on the UN's corpus separatum proposal. De jure, Jerusalem is part of the Palestine Mandate and has not been under sovereignty of any country since.[32] ...The U.S. opposed Israel’s moving its capital from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem following Israel's declaration of Jerusalem as its capital in 1949 and opposed Jordan’s plan to make Jerusalem its second capital announced in 1950.[38] The U.S. opposed Israel’s annexation of East Jerusalem after the 1967 war.[38] The United States maintains a consulate in Jerusalem that deals primarily with the Palestinian Authority, while relations with the Israeli government are handled from the U.S. embassy in Tel Aviv. The U.S. consulate is not accredited to the Israeli government. [39] The United States has proposed that the future of Jerusalem should be the subject of a negotiated settlement.[38] Subsequent administrations have maintained the same policy that Jerusalem’s future not be the subject of unilateral actions that could prejudice negotiations such as moving the U.S. Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.[38]
29.^ See General Assembly, A/L.523/Rev.1, 4 July 1967
30.^ U.S.: Only Israel, Palestinians should decide Jerusalem's future (Haaretz, Dec. 9, 2009)
31.^ A New Struggle For Jerusalem (New York Times, March 2, 1997)
32.^ Foreign Relations of the United States, 1961–1963: Near East, 1962–1963, V. XVIII. DC: GPO, 2000, 152. Memorandum of conversation, February 7, 1963. Crawford (NE)-Campbell (IO)-Bar-Haim (Israeli Embassy) meeting: U.S. position on the status of Jerusalem
38.^ a b c d e Mark, Clyde. "Jerusalem: The U.S. Embassy and P.L. 104-45". CRS Report for Congress. Congressional Research Service. The Library of Congress. Retrieved 1 April 2011.

1 comment:

EG said...

More State Dept trickery and crookery:
1-- the Jerusalem corpus separatum proposal contained the 3 Christian towns of that time as part of the Jerusalem enclave, Beyt Lehem, Beyt Sahur, & Beit Jalla. Why doesn't the State Dept object about their being taken over by the PA in 1995?

2-- it is true that "De jure, Jerusalem is part of the Palestine Mandate and has not been under sovereignty of any country since." But the palestine mandate was the Jewish National Home, which the wiki article and the SD does not admit. Now if Jerusalem is therefore part of the JNH, then why deny recognition to Israel's capital there?

3-- the Jerusalem enclave principle was part of the partition plan which was passed as a UN GA recommendation only. So as a recommendation it does not have the force of law, nor does any part of the partition plan.

Now how can they both insist that the mandate [= the JNH] is still in effect and also withhold recognition of any part of Jerusalem as Israeli sovereign territory on the grounds of the 1947 partition recommendation? I do think that wiki article correctly represents the position of the SD [tell me if and how I may be wrong] which is actually incoherent internally contradictory. They may have found the formula for squaring the circle.