Gov't spokesman states lands gained by Israel in Six Day War considered "occupied territory" by international law, opposes Australian policy shift.

http://www.jpost.com/Diplomacy-and-Politics/Jordan-rejects-Australian-govt-decision-not-to-recognize-East-Jerusalem-as-occupied-355597

snip* No country in the world except for Israel has recognized 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 United States views as desirable the establishing of an international regime for the city.[44] Its final status must be resolved through negotiations[45] and it does not recognise Jerusalem as Israel's capital.[46]

United States policy on Jerusalem refers specifically to the geographic boundaries of the "City of Jerusalem" based on the UN's corpus separatum proposal. De jure, Jerusalem is part of the Palestine Mandate and has not been under sovereignty of any country since.[47][48]

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 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.[49]

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.[49] The U.S. opposed Israel's annexation of East Jerusalem after the 1967 war.[49] The United States has proposed that the future of Jerusalem should be the subject of a negotiated settlement.[49][50] 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.[49] In 2002, Congress passed legislation that said that American citizens born in Jerusalem may list "Israel" as their country of birth, although Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama have not allowed it.[51] A federal appeals court declared the 2002 law invalid on 23 July 2013.[52]

President George H. W. Bush (1989–1993) stated that the United States does not believe new settlements should be built in East Jerusalem[53] 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.[54][55][56]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positions_on_Jerusalem

Jordan annexed the west bank and east Jerusalem as their own territory, that's how much they care about the Palestinian national movement.

If it wasn't for israel reclaiming the property in 1967 the possibility of a Palestinian state would be long gone.

Or if you care for the "legal niceties" that the real world doesn't, then you could say that it belonged to the League of Nations, except that organization didn't exist anymore. The reality was that it was governed by the British. So what?

This was after the League ceased to exist so that they couldn't abandon it to the League. So it was abandoned to whoever lived in it. However the Palestinian war to drive out the Jews meant that the entire territory was up for grabs to whoever of the inhabitants could win it. Since Jordan's land grab was illegitimate, and since the Palestinians continued the war well past 1967, Israel's conquest of all of Jerusalem settles the issue as far as who should get Jerusalem. The Palestinians set the stakes and the means, and now have no right to complain about the result. When you add that to the powerful Jewish historical, religious and political claim, the city should remain with Israel.

wasn't the West Bank supposed to be an Arab State or part of it? yet you claim Jordan which is an Arab state had no right to it so who in your mind did ?

1948

View profile
This was after the League ceased to exist so that they couldn't abandon it to the League. So it was abandoned to whoever lived in it. However the Palestinian war to drive out the Jews meant that the entire territory was up for grabs to whoever of the inhabitants could win it. Since Jordan's land grab was illegitimate, and since the Palestinians continued the war well past 1967, Israel's conquest of all of Jerusalem settles the issue as far as who should get Jerusalem. The Palestinians set the stakes and the means, and now have no right to complain about the result. When you add that to the powerful Jewish historical, religious and political claim, the city should remain with Israel.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1134&pid=63859

If you mean a moral claim that excludes any Jewish claim to the Old City, then no, they have no right to Jerusalem. They have a claim to the Old City by virtue of living in it but so do the Jews. The Jewish claim is far stronger. So where do you stand? Does Israel have any kind of legitimate claim to the Old City?

as the old city it has traded hands so many times over history, it would be difficult to say who if anyone has a right to it

You would agree that both Israel and the Palestinians have a right to the Old City, yes?

and Palestine was never therefore British territory, nor were its inhabitants ever British subjects. The fact that the US was in occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan does not mean that those territories belonged to the US.

When we talk about who owns territory from a government perspective we are talking about sovereignty. Who ruled the area. In this case it was Britain. It actually couldn't have been either the League or the UN because they aren't states, and can't have any sovereignty over anything. Only states have sovereignty. The last state to actually rule Palestine was Great Britain. Whether Britain actually annexed it is irrelevant. The US may occupy Iraq but it doesn't rule it. Likewise Afghanistan. If not Britain then the Ottoman Empire, which also had dropped off the map. So then it belonged to no one.

the territory, but it also did not allow local rule. It ruled the entirety of the Palestine Protectorate. Prior to that it was a province of the Ottoman Empire. The protectorate started under the league of nations and continued under the UN until GB withdrew.

The territory was supposed to be divided in to two separate nations, with Jerusalem as an international city.

An Israel was formed under those guidelines, but a Palestine was not formed due to the Palestinian leadership listening to their bretheren, deciding to try to drive the Jews in to the sea and take the entire land for themselves. They lost that struggle.

With Iraq and Afghanistan, there were already nations in place when the US invaded and occupied them. No such thing existed in the area of Israel, WB, Gaza prior to 1948. No independent nation of Palestine existed, nor was there local sovereignty or rule over the area ever in modern history under rule of a group of people that were recognized as Palestinians.

of GB and prior to that it was a province of the Ottoman Empire.

When GB withdrew, war began because the Arab nations refused to allow the Palestinians to declare an independent state.