Thursday, June 21, 2007

BBC apologises for saying Jerusalem is Israel’s capital

The Jerusalem Post reports that a BBC presenter dared to refer to Jerusalem as Israel's capital and ‘historic soul’, and the organisation has apologised and promised not to repeat ‘the mistake’. Complaints were received from four organisations – the Muslim Public Affairs Committee, Friends of Al-Aksa, the Institute of Islamic Political Thought, and Arab Media Watch, who said: ‘Under international law, neither east nor west Jerusalem is considered Israel's capital. Tel Aviv is recognised as Israel's capital, pending a negotiated settlement between Israel and the Palestinians.’

Ever-sensitive to Muslim concerns, the BBC responded: ‘We of course accept that the international community does not recognise Jerusalem as Israel's capital, and that the BBC should not describe it as such. I was therefore pleased to see that Katherine Tsang (BBC Information adviser), when she wrote to you in April, acknowledged the error and apologised for it. (Presenter) Steve Boulton and other senior managers in BBC Sport told us they very much regret the mistake and apologise for it… Senior managers will try to ensure, as you suggest, that the mistake is not repeated. Because it appears on the Web site, there will be a public acknowledgement of the error, and the action taken in consequence.’

Cranmer is a little surprised that Pakistan and Iran have not called for suicide bombers to target Broadcasting House for this provocation. Had they done so, doubtless the BBC would be even more inclined to favour the Qur’an, expound the righteousness of Mohammed, and exalt Allah.

But why precisely has the BBC apologised?

Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman Mark Regev insists: ‘Jerusalem is Israel's capital. It is the right of every sovereign state to determine which city will be its capital. Quite so. On December 5th 1949, the Israel's first Prime Minister, David Ben-Gurion, proclaimed Jerusalem as Israel's capital and since then all branches of the Israeli government - legislative, judicial, and executive - have resided there. It is also where the President and Vice-President have their official residences. Jerusalem is manifestly the ‘historic soul’ of Israel, as Scripture attests - both Old Testament and New - and that is a matter of historic record. It has been sacred to the Jews since the 10th century BC, and that pre-dates the Qur’an by some 1600 years. And the fact that in 1948 the Arab Legion managed to seize the Old City, and hold onto it until the Six-Day War, does not in any sense diminish the claim.

Incidentally, Jerusalem is mentioned in the Bible 632 times. Where is it ever mentioned in the Qur’an?

This sort of grovelling apology is consistent with the manifest habitual anti-Israel bias of BBC. We have seen their reporters weeping at the death of Yasser Arafat, and know well of Orla Guerin, who, herself married to a Palestinian, has supplied us with numerous accounts of Israeli-inflicted terror on the innocent Palestinians.

Could someone remind the BBC who kidnapped their reporter…

48 Comments:

Blogger Laban said...

The FCO website says : "Area: 21,000 sq. km
Population: 7m
Capital City: Israel maintains that Jerusalem is its capital city, a claim not recognised by the international community (see below)"

THE UK POSITION ON JERUSALEM

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 East Jerusalem, which the international community continues 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 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.

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.

After the 1967 war, with Israel occupying all of Jerusalem, 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 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. The Declaration of Principles and the Interim Agreement, signed by Israel and the PLO on 13 September 1993 and 28 September 1995 respectively, left the issue of the status of Jerusalem to be decided in the 'permanent status' negotiations between the two parties.

21 June 2007 at 07:51  
Blogger wonkotsane said...

Jerusalem is an international city under a UN mandate and belongs to no country. Israel is illegally occupying Jerusalem - as it is with Palestine - in defiance of international law and in voilation of many UN resolutions. Jerusalem is occupied territory, it would be like the US setting up their capital in Baghdad.

21 June 2007 at 08:58  
Blogger Cranmer said...

Well, His Grace simply does not agree with this UN twaddle. Who made them the arbiters of all that is good and true? And what of the 'historic soul' dimension?

21 June 2007 at 09:04  
Blogger wonkotsane said...

And naturally you support giving America back to the natives and Australia back to the Aboriginies?

21 June 2007 at 11:07  
Anonymous The Recusant said...

America back to the natives and Australia back to the Aborigines...

The problem with your premise wonkotsane is that no one is advocating expelling or killing all Jews in Israel except anti-Semitics, Palestinian Muslins or misguided western liberals (Oh and the BBC and Guardian readers). The Israeli state desires peace with its neighbours and its subjects, Jewish, Muslim, Christian and atheist alike. At the same time Israel recognises its own historical, cultural and hereditary connections with the Promised Land, in common with all nations. If Muslims continue to attack Israel, the nation has a right to defend itself, this is what seems to upset the anti-Israelis.

So as we can see from successful integration the Aborigines do own Australia and live in peace with Australians of more recent arrival as to the American Indians, and yes we all know there are problems but they are not locked in a shooting war are they?

21 June 2007 at 12:30  
Anonymous Miss Jelly bean said...

Cranmer, not withstanding your sentiments, I believe that this argument about 'who is the rightful owner of Jerusalem' is far more complex and goes beyond the point of how many times the name is mentioned in the Bible or Torah. You made implication to the undeniable fact that Islam was acknowledged as a religion after Judaism. You fail to understand Islam. I have mentioned this before on this blog, that according to Muslims, Islam is the only true religion, of all the prophets. Moses was a Muslim, not Jew. So yes, the land historically speaking does belong to the followers of Moses, and therefore Jerusalem should be the capital of Israel, the promised land, but since Muslims don't acknowledge the Jews of the present time to be true followers of the right path, and true followers of Moses, why should it matter to us whether Jerusalem is mentioned once in your scriptures, or a thousand times? I'm sure you would claim the same, that you don't acknowledge Islam to be the true religion and therefore couldn't care less about what we Muslims think. Personally, it is of no significance to me whether the Jews claim Jerusalem to be their capital, as long as the Dome of the Rock remains unharmed and intact, and I know the poor Jews won't be able to rest in peace with the knowledge that the Dome of the Rock stands, and their temple doesn't. I send them my sympathies.

21 June 2007 at 13:29  
Blogger EUBanana said...

From Wikipedia :-

Jerusalem (Hebrew: יְרוּשָׁלַיִם (help·info), Yerushaláyim or Yerushalaim; Arabic: القُدس (help·info), al-Quds)[ii] is Israel's capital,[iii] seat of government, and largest city[2] in both population and area,[3] with 732,100 residents in an area of 126 square kilometers....


Good enough for me. Forget the religious twaddle, from a purely secular point of view it /is/ Israel's capital. The Israeli seat of government has been there for almost as long as modern Israel has existed.

As for the bigotry, intolerance, tribalism and fearfully jailed minds caused by religion, well demonstrated in the post above this one, well, all I can say is, I hope Richard Dawkins is ultimately successful..

21 June 2007 at 14:05  
Blogger Hettie said...

"and I know the poor Jews won't be able to rest in peace with the knowledge that the Dome of the Rock stands, and their temple doesn't. I send them my sympathies."

Nice one Ms Jellybean. Very enlightened thinking. Compassionate, too.

21 June 2007 at 15:04  
Anonymous The Clarendon Code said...

You fail to understand Islam. I have mentioned this before on this blog, that according to Muslims, Islam is the only true religion, of all the prophets. Moses was a Muslim, not Jew.

I have always held that Adam and Eve spoke English and that the English are the true inheritors of the earth.

I really cannot accept these deluded notions of followers of Arabia's own L Ron Hubbard and his cut-and-paste tome he had written for him by the Nestorian monk Sergius Bahira.

It is time fantasists stopped pretending that an illiterate trader and brigand from The Hejaz did anything but have his carnal desires made divinely inspired by commissioning Sergius Bahira to cut and paste Judaaism, Christianity and Zoastrianism into a series of exculplatory documents.

The very fact that Salman Rushdie chose as his book title those Koranic verses which relate to the endorsement of polytheism is probably the real reason for the antics of the illiterates who burn books....these verses call into question which sections of the Koran were written by Satan and which not.

If the BC gets confused about Jerusalem again they should simply refer to it as Zion

21 June 2007 at 16:24  
Anonymous Alpha and Omega said...

as long as the Dome of the Rock remains unharmed and intact,

"Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up."

21 June 2007 at 16:27  
Anonymous דָנִיֵּאל said...

In relation to what Wonkotsane said i agree with Cranmer. Who made the UN rulers of the world?
If i may point out to you all, the nations of Europe as we know them were originally founded on invasion, war and occupation.
It looks like ive come back just in time. Miss Jelly Bean is onto her favorate topic once more, the dome of the rock.

21 June 2007 at 17:32  
Anonymous דָנִיֵּאל said...

By the way alpha, I’m unsure of what you are trying to achieve with that quote. Perhaps you could explain, I can see a great discussion brewing!

21 June 2007 at 17:35  
Anonymous Alpha and Omega said...

I’m unsure of what you are trying to achieve with that quote.

simply reminding Miss Jelly Bean of two important things: -

i) Physical structures are not the essence of Faith in God

ii) What stands today may fall tomorrow. It is a very old tradition of building a new shrine on top of another as if it expunges your rivals.....but it is in terms of the eternal quite trivial


but of course Daniel, you think I refer to the Jewish test for the validity of The Messiah

21 June 2007 at 18:01  
Anonymous Miss Jelly bean said...

"Physical structures are not the essence of Faith in God"

Indeed, I never said they were.

Faith in God springs from an inner, more deeper desire of an unresolved soul which is confronted with the need to know God. To know God, and therefore have knowledge of God is thus essential for man, to have awareness of and understand his ultimate purpose. Knowledge of course, can be aquired through contemplation, obsevation, intuition and logical reasoning. The knowledge of God inevitably exalts man to a more elevated position, which therefore implies that the human-self is capable of immense spiritual development, the only hindarance for man being the darkness of his own heart, acting as a veil between him and the truth. It is only through knowledge that he can dispel this darkness from his heart and approach reality. But since man can never have perfect knowledge of God, there will consequently always remain a yearning for God. The steady increase in knowledge will give rise to more satisfaction and consequently more yearning, since God's actions, wisdom and atributes can never be completely known to man.

We could keep going, but I think I've gone way off topic. Point is, I'm well aware that structures are not the essence of faith in God.

I was sympathising with the Jews because until their temple isn't rebuilt, their Messiah won't arrive. Am I right?

21 June 2007 at 20:53  
Blogger wonkotsane said...

"The Israeli seat of government has been there for almost as long as modern Israel has existed."
No it hasn't because when Israel was created Jerusalem was an international city under a UN Mandate.

Cranmer and person whose name is written in Hebrew that I can't copy and paste, if you're questioning the authority of the UN to designate Jerusalem as an international city then are you also questioning their authority to create the State of Israel?

No matter what you think of the Palestinians, if Israel pulled out of Palestine most of the attacks would stop. One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter as the saying goes. Israeli's think they're saving themselves form savages, Palestinians think they're trying to liberate their country.

21 June 2007 at 21:34  
Anonymous דָנִיֵּאל said...

To Wonkotsane, look at Gaza....the Israelis pulled out of there and just look at the situation. They can’t even decide on the basis for a civilisation; that is leadership.

To Alpha, you are quite right to say physical structures are not the essence of faith in God but surely Christ was referring to his body as the temple that would rise after three days. The message was that all could come to Yahweh through Jesus his son.

To Miss Jelly Bean, you are not quite right. There is a great deal of disagreement within the Jewish world about the coming of the messiah. Some groups hold that the Messiah will be a person and other groups believe that the Messiah is a representation of the Messianic Age itself.
Traditional Orthodox thought has mainly held that the Messiah will be an anointed one descended from his father through the Davidic line of King David who will gather the Jews back in the Holy Land, the Land of Israel, and usher in an era of peace.
Reform Judaism however holds that the Messianic Age will be a time when the world is at peace but they do not agree that there will be a King of this era.

21 June 2007 at 22:07  
Anonymous Voyager said...

I was sympathising with the Jews because until their temple isn't rebuilt, their Messiah won't arrive. Am I right?

I think you have inverted the order

21 June 2007 at 22:09  
Anonymous The Recusant said...

If Israel pulled out of Palestine most of the attacks would stop….

We're all a little dumber for having read your post we award you no points. People who deny responsibility for their own actions use a language that portrays them as passive victims of circumstance, guess who I’m thinking of.

Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions. -G.K. Chesterton

21 June 2007 at 22:21  
Anonymous deegee said...

If the BBC would accept that Hamas was a terrorist organization as does the British Government then I would accept their Jerusalem explanation. They are inconsistent when it suits them.

22 June 2007 at 07:00  
Blogger Surreptitious Evil said...

"If Israel were to pull out of Palestine ..."

Surely, taking the Hamas Charter as a reasonable representation of at least one side of current Palestinian thinking that should have been:

"If Israel were not in Palestine ..."

We can then argue about where Israel should be. The Farringdon Road, while a little crowded already, might make some interesting discussions.

S-E

22 June 2007 at 10:40  
Blogger wonkotsane said...

So what you're saying, then, is that Israel has a right to occupy Palestine and Jerusalem in defiance of international law and in defiance of UN resolutions and that the UN can justifiably be ignored unless, of course, it is in the context of creating and maintaining the State of Israel?

I suppose some consistency would be out of the question?

22 June 2007 at 13:35  
Anonymous Voyager said...

So what you're saying, then, is that Israel has a right to occupy Palestine and Jerusalem in defiance of international law

On what basis did Jordan do so between 1948 and 1967 ?

22 June 2007 at 17:20  
Blogger Snuffleupagus said...

Voyager - Two wrongs don't make a right.

The Arabs may very well be hijacking the Palestinian cause but that doesn't mean that the cause is not a legitimate one.

22 June 2007 at 18:17  
Blogger Jeremy Jacobs said...

"ncidentally, Jerusalem is mentioned in the Bible 632 times. Where is it ever mentioned in the Qur’an?


Exactly Your grace.


Wonkostanse - There has always been a Jewish presence in the area called "Palestine" - derived from Phillistine after the Romans had ethnically cleansed the area of Jews.

You sound like another one of those anti-semites who, having lost most arguments, now can only insist on the destruction of Israel along with your friends in Hamas, UNISON and the UN.

22 June 2007 at 18:40  
Blogger Jeremy Jacobs said...

Miss Jellybean, you said

"You made implication to the undeniable fact that Islam was acknowledged as a religion after Judaism. You fail to understand Islam. I have mentioned this before on this blog, that according to Muslims, Islam is the only true religion, of all the prophets. Moses was a Muslim, not Jew. So yes, the land historically speaking does belong to the followers of Moses, and therefore Jerusalem should be the capital of Israel, the promised land, but since Muslims don't acknowledge the Jews of the present time to be true followers of the right path, and true followers of Moses, why should it matter to us whether Jerusalem is mentioned"....................................

and this is why some Muslims want to destroy Israel and the Jews. The ultimate intellectual property argument!

They will, of course, fail.

22 June 2007 at 18:43  
Blogger Snuffleupagus said...

Recusant -
'So as we can see from successful integration the Aborigines do own Australia and live in peace with Australians'

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/this_world/3856187.stm

Take a look at this BBC article. I have deliberately chosen one from the BBC to niggle His Grace. But I could present you with countless others.

Aboriginal men have a life-expectancy of less than 40 years on average. The Aboriginal tragedy in Australia is simply shocking and I don't know how you can say such things.

You are correct however to suggest a nation has the right to defend itself. What is at issue is exactly what constitutes 'defence'.

Jeremy Jacobs - Please tell me how Wonkotsane is an anti-semite? And desires the destruction of Israel? And is friends with Hamas? Did you read the same comments that I have just read???

22 June 2007 at 19:20  
Blogger Cranmer said...

I have deliberately chosen one from the BBC to niggle His Grace.

His Grace is not easily niggled, and never so when the puerile objective is pre-disclosed.

22 June 2007 at 20:56  
Anonymous Observer said...

Voyager - Two wrongs don't make a right.

Why do you think Jordan was wrong ?

Do you think Rome was wrong too ?

22 June 2007 at 21:08  
Anonymous The recusant said...

Oh please Snuffleupagus the BBC is rife with such article; I think this particular offering will not even raise a singed eyebrow from HG. But to show how easy it is here is a contrary article saying they are having a lovely time, the last paragraph says

Happily many things have changed for the better amongst Aborigines today, and many anti-discrimination laws have been reinforced. Racial discrimination is a very serious crime in Australia, and the government is giving extra support to indigenous communities. In reality, Aborigines in 2006 are receiving many more social benefits than any other community. Many Aboriginals are completely integrated into society, through music, art, politics, making their presence enhance the real Australia.

You know they both don't mean squat in terms of proving anything and particularly not from the BBC, who I wouldn’t trust to sit the right way on the lavatory. However as you like the BBC this must mean, according to your logic, Kensington and Chelsea are victimising the Glaswegians to such an extent that they are killing off the Jocks 10 years early; which to use your over emotive phraseology must be a tragedy in Scotland which is simply shocking and we don't know how anyone can say such things.

If the Aborigines have a short life expectancy is not from being bombed or shot having their throats slit as in the case in Palestine which is where this thread started, but they do have it in common with

Country - Life Expectancy
Zambia - 37.2
Mozambique - 37.5
Malawi - 37.6
Zimbabwe - 37.8
Angola - 38.3
Botswana - 39.3
Rwanda - 39.3
Swaziland - 40.4
Niger - 41.3
Namibia - 42.5
Uganda - 42.9

So Snuffleupagus who do you blame for these figures, George Bush?

22 June 2007 at 21:24  
Anonymous CCTV said...

Quite a list of basket-case countries......

22 June 2007 at 22:10  
Blogger Snuffleupagus said...

Recusant
How can you list those countries and compare them with Australia? And more importantly, do so and forget that you are comparing the life expectancy of EVERYONE in these countries to a particular minority in Australia.

You keep believing the Aborigines are fine if that makes you feel good. When I visited Australia, (resembling an Aborigine), I was called all names under the sun. I experienced more 'in your face' racism there than I have anywhere in the world and I have travelled extensively. But no doubt I am mad. Your article tells me so.

As for your figures, there are complicated reasons for them - all very different to the reasons the Aborigines have such a short life expectancy. And I'm sure you know this. Not even George Bush would be silly enough to try to draw a comparison between these countries and Australia...

22 June 2007 at 22:31  
Blogger Jeremy Jacobs said...

What the hell has Australia got to do with "Palestine"

22 June 2007 at 23:09  
Blogger Snuffleupagus said...

Jeremy
Nothing. Only picked up on an earlier point made originally by Wonkotsane which was clever and which no one really answered. Neither did you answer my questions to you.

Your Grace
Where is your sense of humour?

22 June 2007 at 23:14  
Anonymous Voyager said...

and which no one really answered.

Oh you mean about Jordan occupying the West Bank and Jerusalem 1948-67.......yes I was wondering when you were going to explain that

23 June 2007 at 06:18  
Anonymous The recussant said...

I don’t ‘keep believing’ anything of the sort, you shot off on an antipodean tangent and I, by demonstrating that the whole world has problems, tried to focus your attention back on Jerusalem, Israel and Palestine which was the subject of HG thread. If you want to discuss your own topic, (you seem to have unresolved issues with Australia) I believe Cranmer's Pulpit would be a more appropriate venue. As for your ethnicity, preferences etc. which you appear to wear on your sleeve as this is not the first time you have mentioned it, are you using it to excuse your apparent empathy towards the raping, murdering bunch of Islamic terrorists that is Hamas?

23 June 2007 at 10:18  
Anonymous CCTV said...

What about these Jordanian Citizens on The West Bank ? Having annexed The West Bank and East Jerusalem in 1950 Jordan was expelled in 1967......and yet I hear not one word from Sesame Street about this......

23 June 2007 at 11:05  
Anonymous fred said...

To Miss Jelly Bean:
You fail to understand Islam. I have mentioned this before on this blog, that according to Muslims, Islam is the only true religion, of all the prophets. Moses was a Muslim, not Jew.

There are plenty of us who understand Islam only too well, well enough to spot the Taqiyya. Mohamed was conciliatory to the Jews and the Christians in Mecca, and based his religion on Judaism, because he thought he could hoodwink them into joining his newly founded religion. When they saw through his story, he turned against them, the Medina period. So Muslims act Medina, but spout Mecca to deceive the kuffar. And dhimmi fools like the BBC, Bliar, the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office, and the whole politically correct multiculturalism industry, all fall for the lies hook line and sinker.

Moses was no more a Mohammedan than you are an astronaut!

23 June 2007 at 11:47  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The Koran is The Satanic Verses

23 June 2007 at 15:12  
Blogger tim said...

I'm late to this discussion, but one thing I haven't seen followed-up-on is this idea that there's hypocricy at work in our supposedly relying on the authority of the UN to create Israel, but denying their authority to set Jerusalem as an international city.

Well, honestly, I'd never seen anyone on my side appeal to UN "authority" to support the existence of Israel. The UN may have been a forum for getting other countries to go for a partition plan, but one might recall that that partition plan was rejected by the Arab neighbors, who have continued to be a...(ahem)...problem, and the Israelis had to fight for themselves. Furthermore, the Balfour Declaration, promoting the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine, was done by Great Britain in 1917, a generation and a half before the UN was established.

Israel's existence is owed to the Israelis who fought that desperate fight in 1948. Not to the UN. And these days, despite the UN.

So no, we do not appeal to UN authority for the legitimacy of Israel.

As for Jerusalem, the UN may have recommended a "special international regime" to administer the city, but this was never implemented. And in practice, of course, Israel and (until 1967) Jordan have had control over the city. Jordan might even have it still, had they not foolishly tried to invade West Jerusalem 40 years ago. But they gambled, and they lost. And so they lost territory. That's what happens after wars.

Or perhaps do our Arab and Moslem commenters want to return Egypt to the Copts? Roumelia to the Greeks?

23 June 2007 at 15:37  
Anonymous Observer said...

Turkey to the Christians and The Emperor

23 June 2007 at 16:04  
Blogger tim said...

One other thing, which I still do not understand:

Have the Israelis ever regarded Tel Aviv as the national capital? Hmmm...I just looked it up in Wikipedia (fount of all knowledge), and it says it served as temporary capital from May 1948-December 1949. (Because of the Arab blockade of Jerusalem during the war of independence.)

OK, so there's precedent for Tel Aviv as capital, but that was for less than two years, and Jerusalem has been for the past fifty-seven.

The presumptuousness of foreign countries in trying to dictate to Israel where its capital should be would be like the "international community" deciding to remove their embassies from Washington, D.C., to Albany, New York City, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Lancaster, or York. And that's just the list up to the end of the Revolutionary War.

23 June 2007 at 16:18  
Anonymous Observer said...

The presumptuousness

I have always preferred the English word presumption

23 June 2007 at 17:06  
Anonymous CCTV said...

deciding to remove their embassies from Washington, D.C

Most wise considering the British burned Washington DC down in 1812.....(I note Little Boy Blair offered humble apologies in return for a job offer)

23 June 2007 at 17:07  
Blogger Snuffleupagus said...

cctv - What about the Jordanian citizens of the West Bank? - What about them?

Recusant - At least you used the word 'apparent'. Presumably I seem to support Hamas because I was unable to note the obvious antisemitism of Wonkotsane? I invite you or anyone else really to point out to me what was said that demonstrates my support for Hamas and Wonkotsane's antisemitism.

Tim - Yes, I agree with your idea of the arrogance of other countries but then some are involved in Israel's business in many ways, and sometimes they are very supportive. If Israel chooses to invite certain countries to meddle in their affairs, I am not sure they can then dictate how and when those countries should meddle.

23 June 2007 at 23:49  
Anonymous cctv said...

cctv - What about the Jordanian citizens of the West Bank? - What about them?

Perhaps they should live in jordan

24 June 2007 at 02:49  
Blogger Snuffleupagus said...

cctv - Huh? So should all non-Jews leave Israel too?

24 June 2007 at 11:09  
Anonymous cctv said...

cctv - Huh? So should all non-Jews leave Israel too?

What is a Jewish Passport ?

Do you understand the legal concept of Citizenship ?

Is it something you are familiar with ?

24 June 2007 at 16:27  
Blogger Thomas said...

Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. The BBC is in error. The Parliament and the Supreme Court are there. When the Palestinians (then called Jordanians) invaded and occupied the Old City in 1948, destroying the ancient Jewish buildings and killing and imprisoning the inhabitants. Over the next 19 years they occupied the Jewish capital and fired at Jews from the city walls. The city reverted to Israel after the war started by the Arabs in 1967 and has remained the Capital of Israel ever since.

The BBC is in line with British inability to treat the Arab world with honesty and frankness. Britain panicked in the face of Arab anti-Semitism and a flood of refugees from the Holocaust after WW2 and dumped Palestine in the UN's lap. The British were forced out of Palestine by Arab forces and to a lesser extent Zionist activism.
Since then the BBC has fudged the history of Israel in an attempt to flatter wounded Arab pride. The fact is, the Arabs lost and lost again after instigating brutal attacks. Israel is there to stay, Jerusalem its capital. If the BBC could stand up and accept this fact and tell the truth to the world, rather than support Arab denial, it would improve the hopes for a peaceful resolution.

27 September 2008 at 14:34  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older