tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7014209.post7669163482268791637..comments2024-03-28T14:55:27.949+02:00Comments on My Right Word: Construction ProgressYMedadhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14333122797414935958noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7014209.post-5147335304585991462011-05-22T21:13:10.325+03:002011-05-22T21:13:10.325+03:00More State Dept trickery and crookery:
1-- the Jer...More State Dept trickery and crookery:<br />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?<br /><br />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?<br /><br />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. <br /><br />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.EGnoreply@blogger.com