P F Tinmore, et al,
Yes, this is a very tough issue.
Is there anything that Israel does
not lie about?
The UK’s advertising watchdog has banned the Israeli Government Tourist Office from using an ad which implies that Jerusalem’s Old City is part of Israel.
This branch of the Israeli government has a track record of producing ads which either wipe the occupied West Bank and Gaza off the map or eliminate any trace of Palestinian history, heritage and culture from the land in order to promote Israel as a travel destination.
The IGTO’s latest publication is a glossy 32-page brochure, titled “Taste of Israel,” which was distributed in February by the supermarket Waitrose.
Tourist ad falls foul of UK watchdog for claiming Jerusalem belongs to Israel The Electronic Intifada
(COMMENT)
In June 1967, Israel effectively annexed East Jerusalem and extended Israeli sovereignty over the city. And this is kind of confusing.
Some people assess the situation this way:
B'Tselem - The Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories said:
East Jerusalem is occupied territory. Therefore, it is subject, as is the rest of the West Bank, to the provisions of international humanitarian law that relate to occupied territory. The annexation of East Jerusalem breaches international law, which prohibits unilateral annexation. For this reason, the international community, including the United States, does not recognize the annexation of East Jerusalem.
SOURCE: Background on East Jerusalem B Tselem
The fact that West Bank is occupied Palestinian territory (oPt) in 2015, does not mean it was oPt in 1967. In fact, it was not. It was Jordanian territory under Israeli occupation.
Second, the West Bank and Jerusalem are two separate territorial entities. The West Bank was part of the allotted portion for the Arab State in the
Partition Plan. Jerusalem was suppose to be a
corpus separatum under a special international regime ---- administered by the UN through the Trusteeship Council. It was never considered part of the West Bank.
(IMPORTANT POINTS)
THE STATUS OF JERUSALEM
Prepared for, and under the guidance of
the Committee on the Exercise of
the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People
1981
IV. THE DE FACTO DIVISION OF JERUSALEM said:
In actuality Palestine's fate was being determined not by international agreement but by armed force. Several months before the British finally withdrew from Palestine on 15 May 1948, a virtual state of war existed between the Palestinian Arabs and Zionist military organisations such as the Haganah and the Irgun. With the entry of forces from bordering Arab countries following the proclamation of the State of Israel on 14 May 1948, full-scale war broke out. being ended by a UN-negotiated truce on 16 November 1948, with Israeli forces having decisively defeated the Arab troops. Israeli territorial control expanded deep into the territories allotted to the Arab State, and into the western sector of the Jerusalem enclave destined for internationalization under the Partition Resolution. Eastern Jerusalem, including the Walled City and the "West Bank", came under the occupation of Jordan, then not a member of the UN. (Map at Annex II)
This division of Jerusalem was confirmed by an Israel-Jordan cease-fire agreement of 30 November 1948, (which allowed convoys to an Israeli contingent in occupation of Mount Scopus in the Jordanian sector.)
The de facto division of the city was further formalized by an Israel-Jordan Armistice Agreement of 3 April 1949. This Agreement had no effect on the Partition Resolution's provisions for the internationalisation of Jerusalem.
The Trusteeship Council invited views from Israel and Jordan, which were summarized as follows:
"The representative of the Hashemite Kingdom of the Jordan stated that his Government desired to reiterate . . . that it would not discuss any plan for the internationalization of Jerusalem. The representative of Israel stated that., while opposed to the internationalization of the Jerusalem area proposed in the draft Statute, his Government remained willing to accept the principle of direct United Nations responsibility for the Holy Places, to participate in discussions on the form and content of a Statute for the Holy Places, and to accept binding declarations or agreements ensuring religious freedom and full liberty for the pursuit of religious education and the protection of religious institutions"19.
On 4 April 1950 the Council approved a Statute20 still conforming to the territorial internationalization plan of the Partition Resolution of 29 November 1947. Jordan, still not a UN member, refused further comment and Israel maintained that, in the changed circumstances since that resolution, it would accept an international regime only for the Holy Places within the Walled City and its immediate environs21.
Faced with this situation the Trusteeship Council's proposals lapsed for all practical purposes. - See more at:
The status of Jerusalem - CEIRPP DPR study 1981 - DPR publication 1 January 1981
Israel made a decision. There is no question that The UN Security Council censured Israel and called for the rescinding of measures taken that affected the status of Jerusalem. The Security Council further passed a number of resolutions specifically directed to the status of Jerusalem; which are available in Section X of:
The status of Jerusalem - CEIRPP DPR study 1981 - DPR publication 1 January 1981
It became painfully clear that the Arab Palestinians has no intention of respecting the special regime of Jerusalem. If Israel had not taken Eas Jerusalem, the Palestinians would have taken all of Jeruslam.
[Palestinian Declaration of Independence]"The Palestine National Council hereby declares, in the Name of God and on behalf of the Palestinian Arab people, the establishment of the State of Palestine in the land of Palestine with its capital at Jerusalem."
SOURCE: Palestinian Declaration of Independence
