Corrections

CiF Watch prompts correction to Indy claim that Tel Aviv is Israel’s capital


Last week, we posted about an article at The Independent reporting on a recent Delta flight from New York to Tel Aviv which was delayed after some ultra-Orthodox Jewish passengers refused to sit next to women. The story, by Jon Stone, included the following passages:

orig

Of course, Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, not (as the passage suggests) Tel Aviv.

(As we noted previously, other UK media outlets, including the Guardian and Times of London, have made that same mistake over the years.)

Following our communication with Indy editors, they revised the relevant sentence and deleted the claim that Tel Aviv is Israel’s capital.

revised

We commend Indy editors on the correction.

26 replies »

  1. It is correct to point out that Tel Aviv is not Israel’s capital.

    However, references to Jerusalem as Israel’s capital should also carry a reference to the fact that the UK Government considers the eastern half of the city, including the Temple Mount, to be under an illegal military occupation by Israel, and consequently did not recognise Israel’s Jerusalem Law declaration of a “complete and united Jerusalem” as its capital.

    In fact, not a single country in the world recognises that declaration, even the USA. See UNSC Resolution 478 on the matter.

    • HMG’s formal position is based on the 1950 statement: it recognises that Israel exercises de facto authority in West Jerusalem and, from 1950 to 1967, recognised that Jordan exercised de facto authority in East Jerusalem. Since the war of 1967, HMG has regarded Israel as being in military occupation of East Jerusalem, and in this connection subject to the rules of law applicable to such an occupation, in particular the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949. HMG also holds that the provisions of Security Council Resolution 242 on the withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the 1967 war applies to East Jerusalem. The Venice Declaration and subsequent statements (both by the UK alone and with EU partners) have made clear that no unilateral attempts to change the status of Jerusalem are valid.

      Illegal is your lie, antisemite.

      • Yet again you accuse someone of being an anti-Semite when they reveal an inconvenient truth.

        Your quote avoids the preceding 3 paragraphs from the archive, which I include below; “illegal” is a reasonably accurate term (‘violation of International Law’ in paragraph 3) to describe what is happening right now.

        Rather than arguing over what is illegal or legal, we should be discussing how lasting peace can be brought to the region. But you’d rather call people anti-Semites.

        – Quote:
        • The UK position was formally expressed in April 1950, when HMG extended simultaneous de jure recognition to both Jordan and Israel. However, the statement withheld recognition of the sovereignty of either Jordan or Israel over the sectors of the city which each then held, within the area of the corpus separatum as stipulated in UN General Assembly Resolution 303 (IV) of 1949. In the British view, no such recognition was possible before a final determination of the status of this area, although HMG did recognise that both Jordan and Israel exercised ‘de facto authority’ over those parts of the city and area which each held.
        • In the 1967 war, Israel occupied the whole city, taking possession of the Jordanian (East) sector to add to West Jerusalem, which it already held. The Israeli government immediately extended its civil law to the whole city, simultaneously greatly enlarging the municipal boundaries into the West Bank. This purported annexation of East Jerusalem was reaffirmed in 1980 when Israel enacted its ‘Jerusalem Law’, formally declaring East and West Jerusalem together, ‘whole and united’, to be ‘the capital of Israel’.
        • The UK rejects these Israeli measures to change the status of Jerusalem. The UN Security Council unanimously adopted Resolution 478 of 1980 in response to the Israeli annexation, declaring it to be a violation of international law; the British Government has reiterated and amplified this position many times since

        • …we should be discussing how lasting peace can be brought to the region.
          We?! Are you an Israeli or a Palestinian?

        • Insinuations without foundations. So you prefer a lie to the truth, not surprising, with your record, antisemite.

      • Some people are very quick to fling the lie of “antisemite” at arguments they don’t like.

        From the same page that you have quoted:

        “Jerusalem was supposed to be a ‘corpus separatum’, or international city administered by the UN. But this was never set up: immediately after the UNGA resolution partitioning Palestine, Israel occupied West Jerusalem and Jordan occupied East Jerusalem (including the Old City). We recognised the de facto control of Israel and Jordan, but not sovereignty. In 1967, Israel occupied E Jerusalem, which we continue to consider is under illegal military occupation by Israel. Our Embassy to Israel is in Tel Aviv, not Jerusalem. In E Jerusalem we have a Consulate-General, with a Consul-General who is not accredited to any state: this is an expression of our view that no state has sovereignty over Jerusalem.”

          • Amendment for clarification, the official documents and statements of HMG from where the paragraphs cited here were taken say nothing about illegality. Why a webcontent officer was allowed to write his personal opinion into such an introduction to the official positions held by HMG remains open ( or not, given the traditional bias of the FO), but is not part of the offical position.
            Well, citing a webcontent employer of the FO is funny, but remains a falsification of the official position, therefore a lie, liar.

          • Complete formal text
            “Jerusalem was supposed to be a ‘corpus separatum’, or international city
            administered by the UN. But this was never set up as immediately after the
            UNGA resolution partitioning Palestine, Israel occupied West Jerusalem and
            Jordan occupied East Jerusalem (including the Old City). We recognised the
            de facto control of Israel and Jordan, but not sovereignty. In 1967, Israel
            occupied East Jerusalem, which we continue to consider is under illegal
            military occupation by Israel. Our Embassy to Israel is in Tel Aviv, not
            Jerusalem. In East Jerusalem we have a Consulate­General, with a ConsulGeneral
            who is not accredited to any state: this is an expression of our view
            that no state has sovereignty over Jerusalem. The UK position was formally
            expressed in April 1950, when HMG extended simultaneous de jure
            recognition to both Jordan and Israel. However, the statement withheld
            recognition of the sovereignty of either Jordan or Israel over the sectors of
            the city which each then held, within the area of the corpus separatum as
            stipulated in UN General Assembly Resolution 303 (IV) of 1949. In the
            British view, no such recognition was possible before a final determination of
            the status of this area, although HMG did recognise that both Jordan and
            Israel exercised ‘de facto authority’ over those parts of the city and area
            which each held.
            In the 1967 war, Israel occupied the whole city, taking possession of the
            Jordanian (East) sector to add to West Jerusalem, which it already held. The
            Israeli government immediately extended its civil law to the whole city,
            simultaneously greatly enlarging the municipal boundaries into the West
            Bank. This purported annexation of East Jerusalem was reaffirmed in 1980
            when Israel enacted its ‘Jerusalem Law’, formally declaring East and West
            Jerusalem together, ‘whole and united’, to be ‘the capital of Israel’.
            The UK rejects these Israeli measures to change the status of Jerusalem.
            The UN Security Council unanimously adopted Resolution 478 of 1980 in
            response to the Israeli annexation, declaring it to be a violation of
            international law; the British Government has reiterated and amplified this
            position many times since. HMG’s formal position is based on the 1950
            statement: it recognises that Israel exercises de facto authority in West
            Jerusalem and, from 1950 to 1967, recognised that Jordan exercised de facto
            authority in East Jerusalem. Since the war of 1967, HMG has regarded Israel
            as being in military occupation of East Jerusalem, and in this connection
            subject to the rules of law applicable to such an occupation, in particular the
            Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949. HMG also holds that the provisions of
            Security Council Resolution 242 on the withdrawal of Israeli armed forces
            from territories occupied in the 1967 war applies to East Jerusalem. The
            Venice Declaration and subsequent statements (both by the UK alone and
            with EU partners) have made clear that no unilateral attempts to change the
            status of Jerusalem are valid. The UK believes that the city’s status has yet
            to be determined, and maintains that it should be settled in an overall
            agreement between the parties concerned, but considers that the city should
            not again be divided.
            The British Government supports the right of the Palestinian people to
            establish a sovereign and independent Palestinian state and looks forward to
            early fulfilment of this right, provided there is a concomitant recognition of
            Israel’s right as a state, and the right of its citizens to live in peace with
            security.

            No illegality mentioned, so it remains a lie, whether by the antisemite here or the officer in charge of the website.

          • I refer you again to UN Security Council Resolution 478 (regarding the Jerusalem Law), which the UK voted for and remains the position of the British government.

            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.

            Adopted at the 2245th meeting by 14 votes to none, with 1 abstention (United States of America).

            • Now the liar comes back with a resolution which has nothing to do with an illegal military occupation. Stop lying, antisemite.

        • Yes, Jerusalem “was supposed to be a ‘corpus separatum’ under the 1947 UN proposal, which (you conveniently forget to mention) was ACCEPTED by the Jews, and REJECTED by all the Arab governments (I can’t say Palestinians, because there was no “Palestinian people” at that time), prompting an immediate invasion of the new State of Israel by multiple armies bent on its destruction. The current status of Jerusalem is a direct consequence of the constant rejectionism of the Arab leadership.

          In particular, you should know that the ONLY time in its several thousand years of history that Jerusalem has ever been divided into “West” and “Arab East” Jerusalem was the 19 years of Jordanian occupation (at which time nobody called for any Palestinian state, let alone for Jerusalem to be its capital).

          • What’s more, I don’t believe that Jordan’s occupation of the city was based on any sovereign right to it anywhere in law, was it? Where did the law give a Hashemite kingdom the right to invade and claim as its own territory west of the Jordan River?

            • Of course not. It was purely a war of destruction, and not done in the interests of the Palestinian Arabs at all. Jordan has since renounced all claim to any land west of the Jordan (as if it had any claim in any case).

    • If that is the case then the rightful owner is Jordan, but I don’t see how International Law would even accept that, so I fail to see how Israel is illegally annexing the territory when currently it belongs to no one.

      • Why would Jordan be the ‘right owner’? It wasn’t in ‘rightful ownership’ at any point in time, only in de facto military control.

        • classicalhero7 knows better – he must be an expert in international law.
          That the area never ever has been part of Jordan and that Jordan declared in 1988 that it has no claim to it it is obvious according to his/her expert opinion that the rightful owner is Jordan… The Palestinians are in a deep shit due the stupidity of their leaders – the only thing that can dig their hole deeper is the help of these experts.

      • It doesn’t belong to Jordan either – their annexation of the territory post-1948 was also illegal.

        Legally, no country has sovereignty over the area and it is still subject to those “negotiations”, that Israeli PMs bang on about when they want to appear conciliatory.

        No country having sovereignty =/= it is OK for Israel to take it as their own.

        • “Israeli PMs bang on about when they want to APPEAR conciliatory” –
          we know where you are coming from, don’t you worry.
          So many people shouting ‘illegal’ when they have no clue.
          Look up the League of Nations mandate documents, San Remo etc.

  2. And wha about the ilegality of the destruction and the ethnic cleansing of the old Jewish quarter, nowadays known as East Jerusalem?