Talk:Status of Jerusalem/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Jerusalem lead RfC

There is currently a request for comments open about the lead section of the Jerusalem article, and all editors are welcome to give their opinions. The dispute over the lead section is one of the oldest on Wikipedia, dating back to 2003, and focuses on whether or not it is neutral to say that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. The discussion was mandated by the Arbitration Committee, and its result will be binding for three years. The discussion is located at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jerusalem, and will be open until 22 June 2013 (UTC). — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 13:38, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Opening paragraph serious flaw

Pmurnion (talk) 19:34, 6 December 2011 (UTC) "There are differing legal and diplomatic positions on Jerusalem held within the international community.[1] Governments and scholars alike are divided over the legal status of Jerusalem under international law.[2] Most countries of the world do not recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital. Many do not recognize it as a city that is properly Israel's. Many UN member states formally adhere to the United Nations proposal that Jerusalem should have an international status.[3]"

The first paragraph of the article (quoted above) is totally misleading. There is a strong democratic consensus in the UN that Israel cannot claim Jerusalem as it's capital. To state that ther are different legal, diplomatic and scholarly positions is a deliverate misrepresentation. There are different legal, diplomatic, and scholarly positions on almost every known international problem but they are never described as such. That would mean that so long as a one or two countries and a few outfiled scholars held a tiny minority position; the whole area would be 'disputed'. Either it is nonsense or we will have to insert such a praragraph iat the start of every wiki article on politics or international relations.

It is made worse by the fact that it makes this wiki article internally inconsistent. Reading down through the detail it becomes obvious that almost every country holds one position on the dispute yet the opening paragraph cleary suggest there is a balance of opinion. This is a serious flaw and should not be allowed in any good wiki article. The opening paragraph should be amended to state the internationl consensus and should note the minority exceptions

Do you have a specific edit in mind to imprive this situation? One thing that should be considered though is that the article does describe several different views of the situation. It's true that many of them have a similar gist, but e.g. the Palestinians and the Americans don't share precisely the same view even though neither recognize the city as Israel's. --Dailycare (talk) 20:18, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

It now reads: "No country in the world has recognized Jerusalem as Israel's capital." This can't be true, because Israel recognizes its own capital and Israel is a country in the world. Better phrasing (if the statement is factually correct which I also strongly doubt) would be: "No foreign country has recognized Jerusalem as Israel's capital." This could also be a good time to reiterate that there is no other country in the world that has its capital called into question. --37.19.123.116 (talk) 19:18, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Which position is correct?

can someone tell me this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.238.152.3 (talk) 18:33, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

There is no "correct" position. Each group or state holds a position on the future of Jerusalem but the positions are mostly unsustainable. Though the U.N. position that Jerusalem should be placed under special rule as an international city could be sustainable, it is obvious that neither side would agree to this and Israel has continued to ignore U.N. resolutions that deem it as such.

The political structures of both Israel and Palestine create a barrier to any final agreement on Jerusalem. In Israel faction parties have much influence since it is a proportional rule system, preventing or stalling any final resolution. On the Palestinian side, the infighting between Fatah and Hamas also creates a problem as Hamas' would unlikely concede to any Israeli control in the Old City.

As far as international positions, the only state promised any power or influence in Jerusalem is Jordan, as they have custodianship over the Muslim Holy Sites.

If an agreement is eventually reached between the PLO and Israel other problems could arise. For instance the political right in both Israel and Palestine would continue to fight over sovereignty. Also, other Arab states may become involved if sovereignty or free access to any Muslim Holy site is compromised since the issue of the Old City is a Muslim issue more than a Palestinian issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.108.20.160 (talk) 21:20, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Re-constituted in international law

International law recognises the historic Kingdom of Israel and thereby the re-constituted Jewish National Home in Palestine. No other entity is recognised in international law as ever having a state in Palestine. This being the case, Israel and its capital Jerusalem are protected by UN charter article 80. Nothing the UNSC has done or can do can change the rights obtained by the Jews at San Remo in 1920. Political posturing against Israel is just antisemitism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.243.167.3 (talk) 00:16, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Positions on Jerusalem. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070223023100/http://ec.europa.eu:80/comm/external_relations/mepp/faq/index.htm to http://ec.europa.eu/comm/external_relations/mepp/faq/index.htm#11,

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:49, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

"No Man's Land"?

In the graphic with the caption "Jerusalem municipal area", Jerusalem is split into East Jerusalem, West Jerusalem, and "No Man's Land". There are articles on East and West Jerusalem but no where in the article is "No Man's Land" mentioned. What is it and when was it defined? Is it formal or informal? That image raises questions that the article does not address. Does anyone have info on this that can be added? --2601:5C2:2:F930:547C:3981:F4F5:1ABE (talk) 22:30, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Positions on Jerusalem. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140203082012/http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/34BE727D1EED7D688525799500579D23 to http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/34BE727D1EED7D688525799500579D23
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061029150108/http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/un/res181.htm to http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/un/res181.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121208020505/http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/651C804E6815FB28852575DF004B7C4C to http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/651C804E6815FB28852575DF004B7C4C
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.minfo.gov.ps/permenant/English/Jerusalem/Pal_Official.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:58, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Czech Recognition of Jerusalem

On May 24, 2017, the lower house of the Czech parliament voted to recognize Jerusalem as the capital city of Israel. The text was part of a resolution condemning UNESCO's position on Jerusalem as "occupied." Wikipedia user Malik Shabazz claims this has no place in this article. I disagree because if US Congress' resolutions that have no bearing on US foreign policy can appear here, why not the same for the Czech parliament? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Queens Historian (talk • contribs) 20:34, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

The source you cited does not say the lower house of the Czech parliament recognized Jerusalem as Israel's capital. It says the lower house passed a nonbinding resolution that called on the government to "promote 'respect' for Jerusalem as the capital of Israel", whatever that means. The source describes the resolution as "comparable to Sense of Congress resolutions in the US designed to make a point or send a message" and says "One diplomatic official pointed out that 'respect' for Jerusalem as Israel's capital is not the same as recognition."

A nonbinding resolution passed by one house of parliament is, like a Sense of Congress resolution or a press statement by an individual legislator, meaningless in terms of the state's foreign policy. It's trivial.

Finally, as I've told you on both your talk page and mine, I don't believe the article mentions comparably trivial resolutions of other houses of parliament, including the U.S. Congress. If you see any, please delete them. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:15, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Recognition by Russia ?

See here. Is it reliable/notable enough ?“WarKosign” 06:43, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

I see it is already mentioned in the article. “WarKosign” 07:47, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

This Russia thing is not as straightforward as that:

• Russia could acknowledge West Jerusalem as Israeli Capital
• Russia will recognize W Jerusalem as Israel’s capital only if E Jerusalem becomes Palestine’s – FM
• Russia Says It Would Recognize West Jerusalem as Israeli Capital in Deal With Palestinians

This is supported by the Israeli government, as per the JPost source: "officials in Jerusalem interpreted this to mean that recognition of west Jerusalem as Israel’s capital will only come once east Jerusalem becomes the capital of a Palestinian state".

On the other hand, Russia does recognize East Jerusalem as Palestine's capital, *Moscow has not changed its position since 1988 when it 'recognized independent Palestinian state with its capital in east Jerusalem' As does China: China recognizes Palestine as a country with east Jerusalem as its capital . Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 16:59, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Looks like a contradiction between secondary sources. foreign Primary source says "We reaffirm our commitment to the UN-approved principles for a Palestinian-Israeli settlement, which include the status of East Jerusalem as the capital of the future Palestinian state. At the same time, we must state that in this context we view West Jerusalem as the capital of Israel." Russian original says exactly the same. This analysis notes that it's not clear what "in this context" means, some secondary sources like the ones you linked interpret it as "when the two-state solution is implemented". Jpost, however "has learned that Moscow intends for this recognition to go into effect immediately". I guess we need to mention both possibilities until Russia provides clarifications or acts on the matter. “WarKosign” 06:49, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

I read the JPost article, and as I note above, it states quite clearly that the Israeli government feels the context means a peace agreement and two-state solution, which is also in-line with the English text (I regrettably have no Russian). The JPost is a typical Middle-Eastern source in the sense that it sometimes confuses reality with wishful thinking. I agree that the secondary sources are conflicting concerning this, and the text should reflect that, if we choose to have this aspect in the article at all. --Dailycare (talk) 19:13, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

I've been always told that Israel government's POV is not particularly important, that we represent all the different POVs. If we consider Israel the authority on this subject, why not on other subjects as well ? “WarKosign” 06:51, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Change in Russian position April 2017--Protected Edit Request

Article needs to be updated to reflect new change in position announced by Russian Foreign Ministry on 6 April 2017. Edit should add the following new text and citation to the "Russia" section of the article:

On April 6, 2017, the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs issued a statement saying in relevant part, "We reaffirm our commitment to the UN-approved principles for a Palestinian-Israeli settlement, which include the status of East Jerusalem as the capital of the future Palestinian state. At the same time, we must state that in this context we view West Jerusalem as the capital of Israel."

Secondary sources in the press include the following articles: http://thehill.com/policy/international/327673-russia-recognizes-jerusalem-as-israeli-capital; http://www.timesofisrael.com/in-historic-first-russia-recognizes-west-jerusalem-as-israels-capital/; https://www.rt.com/news/383777-israel-russia-capital-jerusalem/; http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/1.782109; http://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Politics-And-Diplomacy/Jpost-Exclusive-Moscow-surprisingly-says-west-Jerusalem-is-Israels-capital-486336. Additional secondary sources available if needed.One-Off Contributor (talk) 07:02, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Reference: http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/news/-/asset_publisher/cKNonkJE02Bw/content/id/2717182

Israel's reaction:

http://www.timesofisrael.com/in-historic-first-russia-recognizes-west-jerusalem-as-israels-capital http://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Politics-And-Diplomacy/Russian-envoy-Foreign-Ministry-to-discuss-recognition-of-Jlem-as-capital-488288 206.169.125.130 (talk) 23:58, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

References

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) 17:23, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

UN Resolution 2334

The article should be improved with a mention of UN Security Council Resolution 2334 that refered to Est Jerusalem as occupied territory. So I propose this paragraph to be added at the final of the section "United Nations":

Indeed, on December 23, 2016 the United Nations Security Council passed the Resolution 2334, which while refering to the status of East Jerusalem "Reaffirms that the establishment by Israel of settlements in the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, has no legal validity and constitutes a flagrant violation under international law and a major obstacle to the achievement of the two-State solution and a just, lasting and comprehensive peace;".

--Elelch (talk) 19:50, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Recognition under President Trump

Today, The United States, under the leadership of President Trump, recognized Jerusalem as Israel’s capital. Chris.alex.gomez (talk) 18:15, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Extended content

While this actions is often reported as controversial, it enjoys wide support in the US and has been lauded by both mainstream political parties of the US. Background Jurusalem has had hundreds of battles over it. As far as the 3 main Sole God religions the timeline is NOT Debatable. First in time were the Jews with their Israel and Possession of Israel. From Moses the Founder of the Jewish Nation about 4,000 years ago, and then King David and King Solomon everyone knows of that heralded the First Golden Period of Jurusalem from c. 1010 BCE:Jerusalem becomes City of King David and capital of the United Kingdom of Israel.c. 962 BCE: King Solomon builds the First Temple. [3]Timeline of Jurusalem Second in time were the Christians from the Roman Empire .40–37 BCE: The Roman senate appoints Herod "King of the Jews" and provides him with an army.19 BCE: Herod expands the Temple Mount and rebuilds the Temple (Herod's Temple), including the construction of the Western Wall.[22][23] 342 Emperor Constantine renames the city Jurusalem and begins a new wave of Christian immigration 614 Seige of Jurusalem most Christians are massacred. 617: Jewish governor Nehemiah ben Hushiel is killed by a mob of Christian citizens, three years after he is appointed. The Sassanids quell the uprising and appoint a Christian governor to replace him. 620: Muhammad's night journey (Isra and Mi'raj) to Jerusalem. (Islamic sources) 624: Jerusalem loses its place as the focal point for Muslim prayers to Mecca, 18 months after the Hijra (Muhammad's migration to Medina). c. 625: According to Sahih al-Bukhari, Muhammad ordained the Al-Aqsa Mosque as one of the three holy mosques of Islam.[42] 629: Byzantine Emperor Heraclius retakes Jerusalem, after the decisive defeat of the Sassanid Empire at the Battle of Nineveh (627). Heraclius personally returns the True Cross to the city.[43] 687–691: The Dome of the Rock is built by Caliph Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan during the Second Fitna, becoming the world's first great work of Islamic architecture.[3] 692: Orthodox Council in Trullo formally makes Jerusalem one of the Pentarchy (disputed by Roman Catholicism). 705: The Umayyad Caliph Al-Walid I builds the Masjid al-Aqsa. 1099: Siege of Jerusalem (1099) – First Crusaders capture Jerusalem and slaughter most of the city's Muslim and Jewish inhabitants. The Dome of the Rock is converted into a Christian church. Godfrey of Bouillon becomes Protector of the Holy Sepulchre.[54] 1104: The Al-Aqsa Mosque becomes the Royal Palace of the Kingdom of Jerusalem. Then many more battles and changes of fortune, ownership and long periods of Mixed COEXISTENCE. which lasts until the Decline of the Ottoman Period 1840: The Ottoman Turks retake the city—with help from the English (Lord Palmerston). !!!! 1841: The British and Prussian Governments as well as the Church of England and the Evangelical Church in Prussia establish a joint Protestant Bishopric in Jerusalem, with Michael Solomon Alexander as the first Protestant bishop in Jerusalem. 1847: Giuseppe Valerga is appointed as the first Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem since the Crusades. 1852: Sultan Abdülmecid I published a firman setting out the rights and responsibility of each community at the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. The firman is known as the "Status quo" and its protocol is still in force today. 1853–54: Under military and financial pressure from Napoleon III, Sultan Abdulmecid I accepts a treaty confirming France and the Roman Catholic Church as the supreme authority in the Holy Land with control over the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. This decision contravened the 1774 treaty with Russia, and led to the Crimean War. 1857–90: The Batei Mahse, two-storey buildings, are built in the Jewish Quarter by the Batei Mahse Company, an organization of Dutch and German Jews[69] 1860: Jewish neighbourhood (Mishkenot Sha'ananim) is built outside the Old City walls, in an area later known as Yemin Moshe, by Sir Moses Montefiore and Judah Touro(Hebrew: היציאה מן החומות‎).[70][71] 1881: The American Colony is established by Chicago natives Anna and Horatio Spafford. 1898: German Emperor Kaiser Wilhelm II visits the city to dedicate the Lutheran Church of the Redeemer. He meets Theodor Herzl outside the city walls. 1899: St. George's Cathedral is built, becoming the seat of the Anglican Bishop of Jerusalem of the Episcopal Church in Jerusalem and the Middle East. 1917: The Ottomans are defeated at the Battle of Jerusalem during the First World War. The British Army's General Allenby enters Jerusalem on foot, in a reference to the entrance of Caliph Umar in 637. The Balfour Declaration had been issued just a month before. 1918: The Hebrew University of Jerusalem (HUJI) is founded (inaugurated in 1925) on Mount Scopus on the land owned by the Jewish National Fund. 1918–20: Jerusalem is under British military administration. 1920: Nabi Musa Riots in and around the Old City of Jerusalem mark the first large-scale skirmish of the Arab-Israeli Conflict. 1923: The first lecture is delivered by the president of World Union of Jewish Students (WUJS), Albert Einstein. 1947 November 29: 1947 UN Partition Plan calls for internationalization of Jerusalem as a "corpus separatum" (UN General Assembly Resolution 181) 1948: 1948 Arab–Israeli War. 14 May: The term of the British Mandate ends and the British forces leave the city.[79] 14 May: The State of Israel is established at 4 pm. 26 July: West Jerusalem is proclaimed territory of Israel. 1949: Jerusalem is proclaimed the capital of Israel. The Knesset is reestablished in Jerusalem. 1967 5–11 June: The Six Day War. 28 June: Israel declares Jerusalem unified and announces free access to holy sites of all religions. Every other country determines its own Capital and other countrys agree with that self determination. Only Israel and the Jews get this facetious treatment by Islamic extremist countrys. If Israel cannot denote Jurusalem as its Capital then lets DO THE SAME to ISLAMIC countrys and their toadying puppets of the left wing West and decry Mecca and Medina as Capitals of Arab states. SUMMARY the Monotheistic timeline is 1. FIRST Israel and Jerusalem for the Jews abt. 2000BCto950BC (4,000 years ago) But Yehudah shall be inhabited for ever and Yerushalayim from generation to generation." Joel 4:20 The HEBREW.Israel Bible 2. SECOND Christianity (after and interchanging with the Roman/Byzantine Empires) 65BC to 629AD 3.THIRD AND LAST Islam and Muslims (620 a purported Dream, 687 Umar to First Crusades) Being alternated with the Christians again after the First Crusades 1099 to 1140, and Ottoman rule with British and French and Italian and Greek assistance and input, 1917 UK and Balfour Declaration ending with the transition to 1948 the modern State of Israel and Jurusalem as Captial 1967 expansion of State of Israel as Israel defends against the AGGRESSIVE OFFENSE of many Islamic neighbours who as a group LOSE to the Jewish Israel. From that time the Arab Islamic states have sent most of their criminals, antisocialites, unwanted to the area they call Palestine. NOTE that MOST Islamic States do NOT ALLOW Palestinians ENTRY into their own countrys eg Saudi Arabia(Home of Islam), Kuwait, etc even though they may provide terrorist weapon funding support. The Islamic PLANK of JIHAD, the call to Muslims to overtake everywhere and everyone else MUST be seen in this context as the NUMBER ONE FORCE ie enemy of Isarel and Jurusalem and the Islamic threats of Violence and fatwas and infiltration into Western countrys education political propaganda as the BASIS OF ALL this unreasonable RESISTANCE to Israel denoting Jurusalem as its Capital. JEW JU-ru-SALEM the CLUE THE 50 mile high SIGN is in the NAME. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.161.223.16 (talk) 09:36, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Relations with United Kingdom - what do you mean by "we"?

Oops. I made a huge mistake. I didn't read it quite clearly. Sorry for the inconvenience... Itsquietuptown (talk) 12:15, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

After Trump Move, Jerusalem Battle Now Plays Out on Wikipedia

The debate on this page and the main article for Israel and Jerusalem were mentioned in this report in Israel's Haaretz. Here is the report in English 192.118.73.36 (talk) 23:01, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

US recognition in the lead

Maybe add the fact that Jerusalem is recognised as Israel's capital by the congress and senate as well as Trump. Dank Chicken (talk) 21:23, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

What about a discussion of the position of past presidents? When running for president 25 years ago, Bill Clinton promised to “support Jerusalem as the capital of the state of Israel.” President George W. Bush criticized Clinton for not following up on that commitment, but then W failed to make good on his too. During Barack Obama’s 2008 campaign, he stated that, “we should move our embassy to Jerusalem” but never recognized the city as the capital once he was elected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:603:4A80:1C1C:389C:DBF5:E059:709B (talk) 14:34, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that should be added too. Dank Chicken (talk) 12:06, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 December 2017

Change the US position section to the following:

Extended content

==United States== [[File:Greater Jerusalem May 2006 CIA remote-sensing map 3500px.jpg|thumb|Greater Jerusalem, May 2006. [[CIA]] [[remote sensing]] map showing what they regard as settlements, plus refugee camps, fences, walls, etc.]] The [[United States]] recognizes Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. President Trump said recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel is “nothing more or less than the recognition of reality.” He added that the United States is still supportive of a two-state solution. <ref>http://edition.cnn.com/2017/12/06/middleeast/jerusalem-decision-latest-intl/index.html</ref> The US formerly viewed as desirable the establishing of an international regime for the city.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/510EF41FAC855100052566CD00750CA4|title=See General Assembly, A/L.523/Rev.1, 4 July 1967|publisher=|accessdate=6 December 2017}}</ref>, saying that final status must be resolved through negotiations<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1133635.html|title=U.S.: Only Israel, Palestinians should decide Jerusalem's future (Haaretz, Dec. 9, 2009)|publisher=|accessdate=6 December 2017}}</ref> and it formerly did not recognise Jerusalem as Israel's capital.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1997/03/02/weekinreview/a-new-struggle-for-jerusalem.html|title=A New Struggle For Jerusalem|first=Serge|last=Schmemann|date=2 March 1997|publisher=|accessdate=6 December 2017|via=www.nytimes.com}}</ref> [[United States]] policy on Jerusalem refers specifically to the geographic boundaries of the "City of Jerusalem" based on the UN's ''[[Corpus separatum (Jerusalem)|corpus separatum]]'' proposal. The United States voted for the [[United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine]] in November 1947 and [[United Nations General Assembly Resolution 194]] in December 1948 following the 1948 Arab-Israeli War but voted against [[s:United Nations General Assembly Resolution 303|Resolution 303]] in December 1949 that reaffirmed that Jerusalem be established a corpus separatum under a special international regime to be administered by the United Nations because the U.S. regarded the plan as no longer feasible after both Israel and Jordan had established a political presence in the city.<ref name="crsMark">{{cite web|url=https://fas.org/man/crs/RS20339.pdf|title=Jerusalem: The U.S. Embassy and P.L. 104-45|last=Mark|first=Clyde|work=CRS Report for Congress|publisher=Congressional Research Service. The Library of Congress|accessdate=1 April 2011}}</ref> The U.S. opposed Israel's moving its capital from Tel Aviv to West 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.<ref name="crsMark"/> The U.S. opposed Israel's annexation of East Jerusalem after the 1967 war.<ref name="crsMark"/> The United States has proposed that the future of Jerusalem should be the subject of a negotiated settlement.<ref name="crsMark"/><ref>Adam Kredo, [http://www.jta.org/2011/08/16/news-opinion/politics/solving-the-white-house-photo-mystery-over-jerusalem-israel ''Solving the White House photo mystery over ‘Jerusalem, Israel’'']. JTA, 16 August 2011</ref> 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.<ref name="crsMark"/> In 1995, Congress passed the [[Jerusalem Embassy Act]], which declared, as a statement of policy, that "Jerusalem should be recognized as the capital of the State of Israel."<ref>Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995, {{USPL|104|45}}, Nov 8, 1995, 109 Stat. 398.</ref><ref>{{cite web|last1=Kontorovich|first1=Eugene|title=Russia Recognizes Jerusalem as Israel’s Capital. Why Can’t the U.S.?|url=https://www.wsj.com/articles/russia-recognizes-jerusalem-as-israels-capital-why-cant-the-u-s-1494795684|publisher=The Wall Street Journal|accessdate=15 May 2017|date=May 14, 2017}}</ref> In 2002, passed as part of the [https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/107/hr1646/text "Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Year 2003"] Congress said, "For purposes of the registration of birth, certification of nationality, or issuance of a passport of a United States citizen born in the city of Jerusalem, the Secretary shall, upon the request of the citizen or the citizen’s legal guardian, record the place of birth as Israel," although Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama have not allowed it.<ref>Kampeas, Ron. [http://www.jewishjournal.com/nation/article/adl_to_jerusalem-born_yanks_we_want_you_20110728/ "ADL to Jerusalem-born Yanks: We Want You."] ''Jewish Journal''. 28 July 2011. 28 July 2011.</ref> A federal appeals court declared the 2002 law invalid on 23 July 2013.<ref>Haaretz/Reuters/JTA, 23 July 2013, [http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/1.537530 ''U.S. court rules || Americans born in Jerusalem cannot list 'Israel' as place of birth'']</ref> On 8 June 2015, [[Supreme Court of the United States|The Supreme Court]] in [[Zivotofsky v. Kerry|a 6-3 ruling]] struck down Section 214(d) of the [[Jerusalem Embassy Act#Developments|Foreign Relations Authorization Act, FY 2003]], citing the law as an overreach of Congressional power into foreign policy.<ref>{{cite journal|title=ZIVOTOFSKY ET UX. v. KERRY, SECRETARY OF STATE|journal=Supreme Court of the United States Syllabus|date=8 June 2015|url=https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/13-628_l5gm.pdf|accessdate=9 June 2015}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|title=Supreme Court strikes down 'born in Jerusalem' passport law|url=https://news.yahoo.com/court-strikes-down-born-jerusalem-passport-law-140857993--politics.html?bcmt=comments-postbox|accessdate=9 June 2015|work=Yahoo News|agency=Associated Press|date=8 June 2015}}</ref> President [[George H. W. Bush]] (1989–1993) stated that the United States does not believe new settlements should be built in East Jerusalem<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.fmep.org/reports/special-reports/special-report-on-israeli-settlement-in-the-occupied-territories-1/u.s.-policy-jerusalems-final-status-must-be-negotiated|title=U.S. Policy: Jerusalem's Final Status must Be Negotiated|publisher=|accessdate=6 December 2017}}</ref> and that it does not want to see Jerusalem "divided". The Obama administration has condemned expansion of [[Gilo]] and [[Ramat Shlomo]] as well as evictions and house demolitions affecting Palestinians living in East Jerusalem.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.thetimes.co.uk/|title=The Times & The Sunday Times|publisher=|accessdate=6 December 2017}}</ref><ref name="t2010-03-16">{{cite news|url=http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article7062808.ece|title=Anger in Ramat Shlomo as settlement row grows|date=2010-03-16|publisher=The Times|accessdate=16 March 2010 | location=London | first1=Sheera | last1=Frenkel}}</ref><ref name="cnn2010-03-13">{{cite news|url=http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/meast/03/12/israel.clinton/index.html|title=Clinton: Israeli settlement announcement insulting|date=2010-03-13|publisher=CNN|accessdate=14 April 2010}}</ref> 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 [[Embassy of the United States in Israel|U.S. embassy]] in Tel Aviv. The U.S. consulate is not accredited to the Israeli government.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://oig.state.gov/documents/organization/161737.pdf|title=Inspection of Consulate General Jerusalem (United States Department of State and the Broadcasting Board of Governors) (pages 1 and 3)|publisher=|accessdate=6 December 2017}}</ref> The U.S. has six buildings in Jerusalem with a staff of 471. In 2010 the consulate had a budget of $96 million.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://oig.state.gov/documents/organization/161737.pdf |title=Inspection of Consulate General Jerusalem |author=Office of Inspections |date=March 2011 |publisher=United States Department of State and the Broadcasting Board of Governors, Office of Inspector General |accessdate=29 November 2012 |location=Arlington, Va.}}</ref> President Trump has ordered the moving of the US embassy to Jerusalem, and recognized Israeli sovereignty over the city, on 6th December 2017. <ref>http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-42259443</ref> As Trump said in a foreign policy speech: "Through all of these years, presidents representing the United States have declined to officially recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital," Trump said. "In fact, we have declined to acknowledge any Israeli capital at all. But today we finally acknowledge the obvious. That Jerusalem is Israel's capital. This is nothing more or less than a recognition of reality. It is also the right thing to do. It's something that has to be done." "The United States remains deeply committed to helping facilitate a peace agreement that is acceptable to both sides," <ref>http://edition.cnn.com/2017/12/06/middleeast/jerusalem-decision-latest-intl/index.html</ref>

Bellezzasolo (talk) 18:34, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Copying and re-writing the entire section is too much of a change to be approved in a single edit request. Please either suggest specific changes or solicit a consensus for the re-write. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:30, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 December 2017

Recently I created a new map that shows the international recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital.

DL3222 (talk) 20:15, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — JJMC89 (T·C) 20:30, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 December 2017

In 'Other Countries' for the Czech Republic following 'On December 6, 2017, following the recognition statement by the United States, the Czech Foreign Ministry declared its recognition'. that they consider Jerusalem to be the future capital of both the State of Israel and the future State of Palestine. The Czech Republic will start negotiating the move of the Czech embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem based on negotiations with partners in the region and in the world . JuliusRT (talk) 23:40, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

References

Already done Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:34, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 December 2017

Add quotation marks on Saudia Arabia's statement. A Vocaloid Nerd (talk) 19:00, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Partly done: The previous statement was unverifiable form the Saudi Embassy archives and has been replaced by a statement cited to the Embassy's most current official statement. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:42, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

better map than the "CIA remote sensing" image

This map [1] is very ugly looking and hard to read at the scale it is shown. It also blacks out all the area on the western side of the Green line, which could plausibly be interpreted as POV, and the Jewish areas look like they're colored in with blue highlighter. I'm sure maps that are clearer and less weird exist. OtterAM (talk) 19:46, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

While I'm not sure the POV concern is warranted, I agree regarding the scale/readability issue. I would support replacing the current map with one that shows the east/west distinction more clearly, perhaps by being more zoomed in. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 20:09, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Separate article for 2017 recognition

The current article may become too long in just one section if this goes on. Also the recognition is in itself notable. So I think it deserves a separate article, especially to accommodate the aftermath. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 23:35, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

On second thought, I agree with you that as the situation continues to develop ongoing updates to this article will likely overburden it. I still think the overall structure of the article needs improvement, and that the section on the U.S. Embassy should probably also be moved to the background section of a new article. Right now the Jerusalem embassy act is discussed both in a section on the U.S. Embassy and the United States section. I think this article needs to discuss the announcement and some basic information about the reaction to it, but an article should probably be started for more detailed updates. Seraphim System ^(talk) 23:52, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

The biggest problem is what to name the article - Donald Trump's December 7 Announcement? U.S. recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital? Donald Trump's Jerusalem Policy Change? Seraphim System ^(talk) 00:00, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Definitely concur merits its own article. Plot Spoiler (talk) 00:52, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

"2017 U.S. declaration on Jerusalem's status" maybe? Or maybe it might be better to wait for the protests to stop. If they get more violent or become a conflict-like situation, then maybe a "2017 Palestinian protests or uprising/ would be better. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 01:48, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

I think the protests would have to be covered within the article, I don't expect that the title "2017 Intifada" will gain consensus. I don't think it can be titled declaration on "Jerusalem's status" to stay away from the "final status" language which will be ambiguous/confusing. I looked over other articles and I think "Jerusalem policy shift of Donald Trump" is consistent with our other articles (Foreign policy of Donald Trump, Immigration policy of Donald Trump, Economic policy of Donald Trump, etc.) per WP:NAMINGCRITERIA Seraphim System ^(talk) 04:05, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't agree, your suggestion sounds like an ordinary article sentence. Maybe the official White House title of the speech would be better? MonsterHunter32 (talk) 09:56, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm not lying to you, that is how the rest of our articles are titled, you can confirm it yourself if you don't believe me. I don't see any reason to deviate from an obvious and widespread naming convention in this case.Seraphim System ^(talk) 09:59, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

I think a separate article fails on WP:NOTNEWS. Trump's WP:FART on the matter (and WP:FART reactions) is getting UNDUE attention in Israel, Jersusalem, and Positions on Jerusalem. This is really a case where WP:WAITing is in order (beyond a one-line Trump mention, perhaps). In a month or two - we will be better able to assess any lasting ramifications of this - all the POV/NEWS-pushing editing (from all sides) going on in the meanwhile - isn't going to last in any event.Icewhiz (talk) 10:02, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

The reason I am objecting to "Statement of Donald Trump on Jerusalem" is because the article would really be about a policy shift - it would include more background then just "Donald Trump made a statement". The WP:RS are discussing a policy change, and I prefer to stick to naming conventions in the rare cases where there are well-established ones like "X policy of Donald Trump" Seraphim System ^(talk) 10:15, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Most of the continuing reactions seem to be an extension of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. We could extend the "Israeli–Palestinian conflict (2015–2016)" article to the present day, or create another article altogether, like "Israeli–Palestinian conflict (2017–present)". ^Falling_Gravity 20:00, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

That article is already too long, that this addition would push it way beyond WP:ARTICLESIZE - I think there is enough for a standalone article, though brief summaries should be added to broader articles also. 2017 could be created, but based on the sources available now I think there is enough for a standalone article. Seraphim System ^(talk) 20:34, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Anyway, since the additions are overburdening this article I will create "United States Recognition of Jerusalem" - any move discussions should happen at that article, but I don't think there is any dispute about WP:GNG. Seraphim System ^(talk) 20:55, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Section for China

The wording for the section can probably be improved? It seems like half of the section is talking about China's general position on Palestine instead of their position on Jerusalem, and then another half of the section is about China's reaction to the Trump announcement instead of about their own position.C933103 (talk) 07:35, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Clarification on German Position w regards to statement from German Federal Foreign Office

(Foreign Minister) Gabriel emphasized that Germany will not relocate their embassy: "We stand by the Two-State Solution and believe that the status of Jerusalem must ultimately be resolved by local parties."

https://www.auswaertiges-amt.de/de/aussenpolitik/regionaleschwerpunkte/nahermittlererosten/-/1003376 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.81.255.49 (talk) 17:39, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

I've added the source into the article. I'm not going to include a specific English quote because the statement is written in German, but I've rephrased the section to indicate Germany's support of a two-state solution where the final status of Jerusalem is ultimately resolved through negotiations between the Israelis and Palestinians. If there are any other sources you come across or you have any suggestions regarding wording, please let me know. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 17:05, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

New paragraph in lead

I think the previous wording of the lead section was confusing. The lead explained that the EU and many UN member states officially/formally regard Jerusalem as a corpus separatum, but didn't mention that the current international consensus is that Jerusalem should be the future capital of both Israel and Palestine, in accordance with final status negotiations between the Israelis and Palestinians. This omission could easily create a false impression for a reader who isn't already familiar with this topic. The goal of the new paragraph I added is simply to clarify what the current consensus is, viz., that Jerusalem should be the future capital of two states, not some independent entity administered by an international regime. I'm not familiar with the minutiae of this topic, so my current wording may contain some inaccuracies. The sources can probably be improved as well. However, I think the basic thrust of the paragraph is accurate, and fills a critical omission in the lead. If anyone has any criticisms or suggestions for improvement, I would be glad to discuss them. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 06:14, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

It's a bit more complex. The official (or de-jure pretext) position of many countries is still Corpus Separtum. It isn't that they expect this to come to be - but more of a claim that hasn't been relinquished. The vast majority (or maybe all) of these countries have also said, while not relinquishing this position, that the status of the city should be determined in talks between Israel and the Palestinians. So - they have not given up the claim, however they have said that at least presently (for the past 25 years or so) that if Palestinians and Israelis come to an arrangement they'll accept it.Icewhiz (talk) 07:28, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

@Icewhiz: Thanks for the reply. Do you know of any sources that support your claims? If we could get those sources into the article and tweak the wording to reflect the nuance you describe, that would be great. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 05:12, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Positions on Jerusalem. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/19862D03C564FA2C85257ACB004EE69B
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.mofa.gov.tw/en/CountryInfoEn.aspx?CASN=7F220D7E656BE749&n=8BE86319074BA343&sms=A76B7230ADF29736&s=5FFD3F069D988527
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100209074518/http://www.justice.gov/olc/s770.16.htm to http://www.justice.gov/olc/s770.16.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:49, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Removal of OIC section

I decided to remove the section on the OIC summit that was added a few days ago by User:Dailycare. I don't think it's appropriate in this article given that the summit was primarily a reaction to Trump's recent decision, not an exposition of the OIC's position on Jerusalem more generally. While I might be amenable to having a section on the OIC if it includes that body's past positions on Jerusalem or its positions on Jerusalem expressed outside the context of Trump's specific announcement, the section I removed is much more appropriate in the article "United States recognition of Jerusalem as Israeli capital". Accordingly, I've used the sources provided by Dailycare to expand the existing paragraph on the OIC in that article.

If anyone has any comments or questions, I would be happy to discuss this further. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 21:14, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi, are you planning to go through the rest of the article to remove views expressed, arguably, as a reaction to something else, or are you planning to restore the section? Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 15:18, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what you're getting at in the first part of your question. No, I don't plan to restore the section, but that doesn't mean I want to remove all views from the article that are reactions to something else. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 05:00, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

In that case, can you express what was the actual reason for removing the section, if you don't in fact think that opinions expressed as a reaction to something else should be removed? Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 07:47, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

20 Wikiprojects?

@Rupert loup: isn't this addition of 16 wiki projects a tad excessive?Icewhiz (talk) 10:48, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

No, it's not. Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2013-04-01/WikiProject report Rupert Loup (talk) 10:57, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

How does this source support your edit? I'm inclined to agree with Icewhiz here. Some of these WikiProjects are only tangentially related to the article, and including them could distract from the ones that are more relevant. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 16:20, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Only international relations WP is somewhat relevant, agree to remove the rest.GreyShark (dibra) 06:21, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

The controlling guideline is WP:PROJSCOPE which says " if a WikiProject says that an article is within their scope, then do not edit-war to remove the banner. No editor may prohibit a group of editors from showing their interest in an article." As a WikiProject member Rupert has the right to tag any article he feels is within the scope. This cannot be overridden at the article Talk, it can only be reversed at the WikiProject Talk. Rupert raised this issue at WikiProject Religion and there were no objections to tagging this article. Thus the Religion banner should be restored per guideline. – Lionel^(talk) 05:24, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

A mistake in the article - cannot edit myself, please fix!

The article says: "The US did not recognise Jerusalem as Israel's capital." However, the US did recognise it. Fix the mistake please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiMan3 (talk • contribs) 09:48, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Honduras

Honduras is next to move its embassy to Jerusalem:

• Honduran National Congress urges embassy relocation to Jerusalem - Times of Israel

- 108.162.177.213 (talk) 13:19, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

It's a symbolic gesture by the parliament, the government has yet to make such a decision. “WarKosign” 16:21, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Paraguay is moving its embassy to Jerusalem, and there is no mention of Paraguay at all under the other countries list. Please rectify!

• [2] - Times of Israel — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:7D0:5ED0:A5A5:FAB8:EE31:F589 (talk) 07:24, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Fixing several pages - embassies in Jerusalem, Israel

US already moved its embassy from TLV to JLM , that happened Yesterday , 14 May 2018, in a ceremony that covered all over the international media. The Guatemala is moving the embassy Today, and Paraguay confirm the moving will occur in this month. Therefore, claiming that there is a none diplomatic mission to Israel, in Jerusalem, is no longer correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.94.40.245 (talk) 07:30, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

World Map

I think it would be a good idea if we have a world map on the positions of each nation is taking. Leftwinguy92 (talk) 02:47, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Location of foreign embassies

Location of foreign embassies should be updated that Guatemala will open on the 16'th of May 2018, https://www.mako.co.il/news-military/israel-q2_2018/Article-ee0f0d1bbe26361004.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.144.60.80 (talk) 15:48, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

WP:CRYSTALBALL - let's wait for the move to happen and news to report it, then we can update the article. “WarKosign” 15:58, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

As for the US embassy, Yesterday they moved the embassy from Tel-Aviv to Jerusalem, and they already updated the address, check here (in the site's footer): https://il.usembassy.gov/ --84.94.40.245 (talk) 20:43, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Paraguay had transferred it's embassy to Jerusalem on the 21'st of May37.19.119.179 (talk) 15:43, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

This page should have a World Map of what each nation stance on this issue. Leftwinguy92 (talk) 04:43, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Please! may some senior editor with permissions update the article, mainly the position of a new states and notably the sentence: "No international embassy remained in Jerusalem, although Bolivia had its embassy in Mevasseret Zion, a suburb 10 kilometres (6.2 mi) west of the city, until relations were severed in 2009" - which is now incorrect. Thank you. 84.94.40.245 (talk) 11:19, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Other G20 countries, Australia

Could someone please clean up the bare reference in the Other G20 countries section, subsect Australia?

Could you please also add another reference: https://www.sbs.com.au/news/australia-recognises-west-jerusalem-as-israeli-capital-but-embassy-move-on-hold. The government owned Special Broadcasting Service (SBS) usually maintains strong neutrality in their reporting on Australia's foreign policy.

What a shame we have to protect pages like this ... but totally understandable from the edit history. Prime Lemur (talk) 03:18, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

It's plainly inaccurate to say that it was President Trump who recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.

First, the President did it as a state action. So this is The United States recognition. Second, he did this pursuit to the US law and with wide support from both political parties. This is not an action which has any, but marginal, opposition in the US. The language which says "Trump recognized" rather than "US recognized" makes it sound like President Trump made a personal choice. But it wasn't. It was widely supported state action. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drubanov (talk • contribs) 19:26, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Actually previous presidents were in the same position. They were required to, but could sign a waiver to avoid doing so. There really was no compulsory obligation. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 23:35, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

I didn't claim that President Trump was compelled to take this state action. I simply said that it is misleading to use the language which makes it sound like Trump was doing it despite the United States. Since the action was widely supported in the United States, the more accurate description would be that "The United States, under President Trump, recognized Jerusalem as the capital of the state of Israel." This article makes it sound like Trump was going rogue against the wishes of the state, when, in fact, from the perspective of both political parties, this was done not a moment too soon. Drubanov (talk) 00:02, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Honduras and Nauru

Honduras and Nauru recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel this week.

• NAURU, HONDURAS RECOGNIZE JERUSALEM AS ISRAEL’S CAPITAL - JPost

--69.157.127.100 (talk) 22:53, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 May 2020

The last paragraphs in the United Nations section concerning the United States should be removed, since it is duplicated in the United States section, and the one reference in that subsection should be moved to the appropriate section. In addition, a reference from the header of this page (such as reference number four on that page) should be inserted in lieu of the full citation needed template. Pianostar9 (talk) 15:17, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. — Tartan357 (Talk) 00:33, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 June 2020

Change "The United States

The United States recognized Jerusalem as Israel's capital in 2017, and moved its embassy there on March 14, 2018, coinciding with the 70th anniversary of the state." to "The United States recognized Jerusalem as Israel's capital in 2017, and moved its embassy there on March 14, 2018, coinciding with the 70th anniversary of the state." 122.129.136.61 (talk) 07:48, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

 Done. El_C 07:54, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Serbia and Kosovo

Press articles dated September 4, 2020 indicate that Kosovo and Serbia will open embassies in Jerusalem, which would require an update to the article. Sources: https://www.timesofisrael.com/netanyahu-kosovo-to-be-first-muslim-majority-nation-to-open-jerusalem-embassy/, https://www.timesofisrael.com/serbia-to-move-embassy-to-jerusalem-mostly-muslim-kosovo-to-recognize-israel/.One-Off Contributor (talk) 18:26, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was to merge. Selfstudier (talk) 12:21, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

---

Proposal to merge List of positions on Jerusalem into Status of Jerusalem. Most of the former already exists in the latter and anything not there can be easily added, so the merge candidate is redundant.Selfstudier (talk) 18:00, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

There was no discussion and no objection assumed.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

North Korea

North Korea does not recognize Israel as a sovereign state, but only Palestine as a sovereign state. However, Israel's capital recognizes Tel Aviv and Palestine's capital as Jerusalem, respectively. 지리 - 중학교 3학년 (37 page), 지리편람(중학생용) (532 page) -- Sangjinhwa (talk) 01:05, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

How can Israel's capital recognize anything? It is not a sovereign state? Dimadick (talk) 06:13, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

OP's comment makes no sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.6.149 (talk)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 May 2022

I think the article would benefit from a specific section that mentions which countries currently recognize Jerusalem as the capital city of Israel. 109.115.204.98 (talk) 14:29, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Already in the article? Not just for Israel, either, some states recognize East Jerusalem as capital for Palestine. Status involves more than just recognition of capital, it's a question of sovereignty as well, afaik everyone stipulates that sovereignty over all or part of Jerusalem is a final status issue. If you want to add some info that is missing, please supply sources. Selfstudier (talk) 14:43, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

I think that there should be a map showing the international recognition of Jerusalem like at International recognition of Israel and International recognition of the State of Palestine. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 15:34, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Jerusalem is not a state, it is not "recognized" in that sense. A chunk of it is occupied territory, start with that. Selfstudier (talk) 15:50, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Suriname

The status of the decision to open a Surinamese embassy in Jerusalem seems doubtful. While the Minister of Foreign Affairs announced it while in Israel, it was immediately contradicted in Parliament by the Vice President, and it doesn't seem terribly certain they will follow through. Maybe it's more appropriate to remove the mention and wait until the decision is formalized? Sources: [3], [4]. effeietsanders 22:54, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

@Dunutubble: courtesy ping. effeietsanders 22:55, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

uk embassy move

Tombah, I dont want to just revert you, but can you reconsider the most recent addition. If something happens then sure include it, but a PM saying we could or we might is the sort of WP:NOTCRYSTAL coverage that isnt necessary here. Right now, it is in the realm of speculation and all that has happened is a review of the location. If that progresses further then sure, include it. But in the meantime, would you be open to removing it? nableezy - 16:08, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

If the material does stay, I would suggest pointing out that the raising of the issue is related to a pledge Truss made to the Conservative Friends of Israel group ("In 2014, CFI stated that 80% of Conservative MPs were members") during the recent Conservative Party leadership election, which resulted in her becoming UK Prime Minister. Rishi Sunak, her rival for the leadership also expressed support for such a move when the two appeared at a CFI event.[5][6][7] (Eventually, Keir Starmer, leader of the Labour Party, himself something of a Zionist[8], will be asked to comment.) (‘To a greater extent than any previous leader, Liz Truss’s politics have been shaped by organisations that call themselves thinktanks, but would be better described as lobbyists who refuse to reveal who funds them.’[9])     ←   ZScarpia   17:47, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

When I saw the section name, having read the news, my immediate thought (without even looking) was WP:CRYSTAL. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:54, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Tombah I didnt want to revert, but there being no response here I did so. Beyond that, it isnt clear how moving the embassy would have any impact on the UK's view on the status of the city. nableezy - 15:13, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

It means the UK is factually recognising, at least WEST JERUSALEM, as Israel's capital. Such a thing is not a consensus, regardless of East Je. But should it happen, then I thing it would be the correct time. Archway (talk) 16:42, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

That is untrue, and either way not relevant to the city's status under international law, which is what this article is about. nableezy - 16:49, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't think that the removed text accurately reflected what sources reported, that Truss told Lapid that she was reviewing the location of the UK embassy. That is different in several respects from what Tombah wrote: "the UK government under Liz Truss is looking into moving the British embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem."     ←   ZScarpia   16:55, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

US embassy move

Perhaps mention could be made of UN Security Council and General Assembly resolutions which were responses to the US announcements?[10][11][12][13]     ←   ZScarpia   11:45, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

There are no UN Security Council resolutions about this - the US vetoed the proposed one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Red Slapper (talk • contribs) 17:31, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

There were no passed UNSC resolutions. nableezy - 17:33, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

There was a vote. The US had to veto it, otherwise it would have passed. Of course, they couldn't veto the resolution put to the General Assembly. (And your comment is testing the envelope of the exception which allows non-500/30 editors to make constructive suggestions on this talkpage.)     ←   ZScarpia   21:08, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Morning Star - Ramzy Baroud - Nikki Haley elevated Israel, and damaged US standing at the UN, 19 October 2018: Haley’s political outlook is not influenced by true conviction. In his bestselling book, Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House, Michael Wolff describes Haley as an “opportunist” who is as “ambitious as Lucifer.” In fact, there can be no rational explanation for Haley's palpable hatred of Palestinians and Arabs and love of Israel, other than sheer opportunism." The US-Israel pact at the UN is as old as Israel itself, but the last two decades have taken this relationship to new heights. The already slanted US position on Israel’s occupation of Palestine, and its brazen use of the “veto” power to shield Israel from international criticism, reached its zenith during the term of George W Bush’s ambassador to the UN, John Negroponte (2001-4). The “Negroponte doctrine” — instant rejection and, if necessary, vetoing of any UN security council resolution critical of Israel — remained a staple in US foreign policy until today, with the notable exception of Resolution 2334. ... Haley was true to her words. The “Haley doctrine” went even further than Negroponte’s, as the latter was largely confined to blocking resolutions critical of Israel. Haley, on the other hand, supported Israel at every possible opportunity and, along with Israeli ambassador to the UN Danny Danon, she conspired to punish countries and UN agencies, such as Unesco, UNRWA and others for recognising Palestinian rights or providing aid to Palestinian refugees. ... In December 2017, the self-proclaimed anti-bullying diplomat, threatened those who voted in favour of an Egypt-sponsored draft resolution that expressed "deep regret at recent decisions concerning the status of Jerusalem." She vetoed the draft, which was supported by all other members of the Security Council, calling the vote an “insult” that would not be forgotten.     ←   ZScarpia  

Incorrect link for Great Arab Revolt

The link to the "Great Arab Revolt" in the first line of the section on Palestine is incorrect. The link takes a user to the Arab Revolt of World War I, whereas the context of the statement is clearly intended to take the user to the 1936-1939 Arab Revolt in Palestine, sometimes referred to as "The Great Revolt". The Arab Revolt of World War I is sometimes referred to as the Great Arab Revolt and these two events are easily confused. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.240.246.169 (talk) 02:19, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 December 2022

Article contains the sentence: "From 28 October 2020, for the first time, U.S. citizens born in Jerusalem will be allowed to list "Jerusalem, Israel" as their place of birth on their U.S. passport." This is not true and is not what the quoted reference says. People aren't actually allowed to list "Jerusalem, Israel", but either "Jerusalem" (neutral term) or "Israel" (as country). So you choose one, there can't be both. Please change that. 109.93.81.141 (talk) 23:21, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

MORE DETAILED EXPLANATION: As the source explains, US passports list country name as the place of birth for places outside of US. In the case of Jerusalem, it would be "Israel", as recognized by the Government. Specially, since the status of Jerusalem is controversial, traditional and neutral possibility is just "Jerusalem". So, once again, you can choose one of those two options, but you can't mix it together into "Jerusalem, Israel", as is currently falsely written in the article. 109.93.81.141 (talk) 23:22, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

In that case it should be changed, but can you find a reliable source for it? Zero^talk 01:30, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

From the embassy: According to the State Department’s announcement from yesterday, U.S. citizens born in Jerusalem will now be able to request either “Jerusalem” or “Israel” as their place of birth on consular documents. Those U.S. citizens born in Jerusalem who do not specify their place of birth on applications for consular services as “Israel” will continue to be issued documents that indicate their place of birth as “Jerusalem.” Current guidance permitting use of “Palestine” in some cases for those born before May 14, 1948 remains unaltered. This policy change does not affect U.S. citizens born outside of Jerusalem. nableezy - 02:45, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 December 2022

Article contains the sentence: "From 28 October 2020, for the first time, U.S. citizens born in Jerusalem will be allowed to list "Jerusalem, Israel" as their place of birth on their U.S. passport." This is not true and is not what the quoted reference says. People aren't actually allowed to list "Jerusalem, Israel", but either "Jerusalem" (neutral term) or "Israel" (as country). So you choose one, there can't be both. Please change that. 109.93.81.141 (talk) 23:21, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

MORE DETAILED EXPLANATION: As the source explains, US passports list country name as the place of birth for places outside of US. In the case of Jerusalem, it would be "Israel", as recognized by the Government. Specially, since the status of Jerusalem is controversial, traditional and neutral possibility is just "Jerusalem". So, once again, you can choose one of those two options, but you can't mix it together into "Jerusalem, Israel", as is currently falsely written in the article. 109.93.81.141 (talk) 23:22, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

In that case it should be changed, but can you find a reliable source for it? Zero^talk 01:30, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

From the embassy: According to the State Department’s announcement from yesterday, U.S. citizens born in Jerusalem will now be able to request either “Jerusalem” or “Israel” as their place of birth on consular documents. Those U.S. citizens born in Jerusalem who do not specify their place of birth on applications for consular services as “Israel” will continue to be issued documents that indicate their place of birth as “Jerusalem.” Current guidance permitting use of “Palestine” in some cases for those born before May 14, 1948 remains unaltered. This policy change does not affect U.S. citizens born outside of Jerusalem. nableezy - 02:45, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 January 2023

After these changes, the text on Germany in this section was put together with Canada. Somebody should add a blank space like it was before, like this: ...url=https://web.archive.org/web/20101014200935/http://www.canadainternational.gc.ca/israel/bilateral_relations_bilaterales/fs_israel_fd.aspx?lang=eng%7Curl-status=dead}}</ref>

Germany: According to Germany's Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel....

(instead of: "status=dead}}</ref> Germany: According to Germany'...")--Duponiuex (talk) 17:19, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

 Done Lemonaka (talk) 17:24, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 September 2023

Paraguay has plans to move again its embassy to Jerusalem by late 2023:

https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/article-755915

https://www.jpost.com/breaking-news/article-754911

Segagustin (talk) 21:25, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. M.Bitton (talk) 23:27, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

I want to change the ''Location of foreign embassies'' and ''Other countries'' section, if possible. I've also gave you reliable sources, both are from [[The Jerusalem Post]] Segagustin (talk) 15:26, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 October 2023

Change "State of Israel" to Israel or change Palestine to "State of Palestine" for unbiased views. Icantthinkofaname22 (talk) 03:31, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant because it can be a unbiased view to have "State of Israel" and "Palestine". Icantthinkofaname22 (talk) 03:32, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

 Question: The terms "State of Israel", "Israel", "State of Palestine", "Palestine", all appear in various parts of the article. Is there a specific part of the article that you believe needs to be changed? Liu1126 (talk) 10:13, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, nevermind, I just read it wrong. Icantthinkofaname22 (talk) 10:29, 18 October 2023 (UTC)