it is simply echoing the UK's position on Jerusalem

This is not the UK's position. It is simply not true.

where are most albeit not all foreign embassies in Israel located, some are in the suburbs of Tel Aviv aren't they? where is the UK's embassy in Israel located? and it should be noted that the outrage in the OP seemed to Tel Aviv as opposed to Jerusalem not simply Tel Aviv alone

Tel Aviv is certainly not the capital of Israel.

They can characterize Jerusalem like the UN does, but that doesn't make Tel Aviv Israel's capital.

The Guardian cannot be taken seriously as a credible source WRT Israel when they so blatantly lie.

Seems more like an attempt by the OP to paint The Guardian as an antisemitic newspaper for what ever reason the OP seems fit.

They're claiming Tel Aviv is Israel's capital when it's most certainly not.

Tel Aviv is considered as Israel's capital and that's where most of the embassies are located. Is the Guardian lying about that? It matters little if you like it or not, it's just a fact. Another fact is that most countries of the world do not recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital. Is The Guardian lying about that too? Again it's a fact.

It doesn't matter if a newspaper or an individual comments that an apple in the basket is an apple but you MUCH prefer that apple to be an orange, so you start your "defense" by calling them liars so you can change the apple to the orange that you want. You aren't going to go very far before you start making a fool of yourself.

The United States has withheld recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital; in line with a host of other nations. Because of that, no embassy in that city so the embassy must be located somewhere. Tel Aviv seems fine. An international cosmopolitanism city. More available land to build your embassy and much less contentious. Of course stubborn badgers might disapprove though I don't know how they can make countries move their embassy to the "right place"

If the Guardian simply reported Jerusalem isn't recognized and that most embassies are in Tel Aviv, that would have been accurate.

But they didn't.

They lied.

They have zero credibility WRT their coverage of I/P. The article down below about their Jenin reporting is even more proof of that.

=======

Tell me this. If the Guardian doesn't make a correction, what will you think about their coverage of I/P?

Of course you might not approve, but I don't really care about that. A newspaper is more than just about the I/P issue. Since you so wholeheartedly believe the paper is crap when it comes to the I/P issue and thus anything it says about the I/P issue simply must be lies, anti-Israel, anti-Semitic swill and thus must be ignored, I don't follow that simple easy logic that some people like to promote. I make up my own mind. For example if an editorial in the paper implies any Israeli attack on Iran is a very very bad idea (patriotism and flag waving aside) I would tend to agree. Although according to some, such a comment by said newspaper is immediate irrelevant because of past issues. Same logic when it comes to papers with a right lean like J_Post. Just because of some screw ups or controversial editorials have left a paper slighted, it does not mean that anything they write from then onwards forever should be "uncredited" and tossed. If that happened, there would be a severe lack of media around. On both sides.

And we're not talking some screw-ups. Every news source does that, but credible ones post retractions. The Guardian does not.

Do you compare Guardian facts on I/P to the facts being reported by other news sources?

I read and make up my own mind and not let others do it for me. Both The Guardian and J_Post have relevant news items in them. To refuse to read one area of a news paper which you are already reading is a bit myopic in my opinion. So I will read all news items that catch my eye and try to avoid the red herrings.

All the Guardian needed to say was that it's not recognized as such by other nations. That's all.

Do you believe they should retract, again?

Foreign countries don't get to decide what the capital is of another independent state.

They can not recognize the proclaimed capital of the country, but they can't make a different city the capital simply by having their embassy there.

Deep down you must know that to be true.

in some countries where the embassies are NOT located in the capital city.

Every other country has as its internationally recognized capital whatever city the country itself has designated.

Israel is singularly unique in this regard.

Thus, there is no other country I can think of where the embassies are not located in the capital city.

For any country of the world, however, it is absolutely indifferent in which of its cities other countries prefer to have their embassies and this in no way affects its status of the capital.

In Israel, the executive, legislative, and judicial branches are all located in Jerusalem.

Every country has the right to declare its own capital, and Israel declares its capital as Jerusalem.

Most countries don't recognize this declaration but I do not believe there is any country that recognizes Israel and identifies Tel Aviv is the capital.

it is disputed territory and no matter how many Palestinians are kicked out or evicted from their homes no matter how many MK's pose for triumphant pictures on the furniture of the evicted no matter how many buildings Israel builds there or chest pounding proclamations of it is ours are made will change that

Despite what the anti-Israel talking points script might say, the Western portion of Jerusalem and Mount Scopus has been part of Israel since independence in 1948. The Eastern portion of Jerusalem was part of Jordan until 1967. Jordan relinquished all claims to any part of Jerusalem in the 1980's.

Israel has every right to declare her capital in a city that has been a recognized part of that country since the day it was founded and a part of Jewish history for 3,000 years.

now you are correct about West Jerusalem and if you wish to consider East and West Jerusalem 2 totally separate entities then West Jerusalem could be considered Israel's capital but as I understand it it is East Jerusalem or Jerusalem as one united city that is being declared Israel's capital

It's one thing to say that countries do not recognize Jerusalem is the capital, but that does not mean they get to choose a different city and name that the capital without Israel's consent.

Jerusalem is one city - the temporary division of Jerusalem was the work of the Jordanians. For 19-years, Jordan grabbed as much of the city as they could -- the way the Russians seized as much of East Berlin as they could. For the last 45-years, Jerusalem has been a united city -- capitol of Israel.

Pretending it's still a divided city would be like pretending Berlin is still split by the Brandenburg Gate -- it isn't.

your right in that Jordan relinquished its claim to the West Bank in the 1980's July 31 1988 to be exact but what you fail to mention is that they relinquished it to the PLO now as to Jerusalem Jordan still holds rule over Muslim holy sites in the city to this day and any possible other agreements Israel did not occur until 1994

here is more on that agreement

Article 3: Borders

Delineate and recognize the international boundary between Israel and Jordan with reference to the boundary definition under the Mandate, without prejudice to the status of any territories that came under Israeli military government control in 1967 (paragraph 2). Peace Island came under Jordanian military control, but Israel maintains administration and civilian presence.

Article 9: Holy places

Guaranteed free access to historically significant places. Israel agreed to respect Jordan's special role in protecting Muslim Holy shrines in Jerusalem. Israel agreed to give high priority to Jordan's historic role in these shrines during permanent status negotiations. The states also pledged to promote interfaith relations among Judaism, Islam and Christianity, with the aim of working towards religious understanding, moral commitment, freedom of religious worship, tolerance and peace.

Jerusalem: Jordan has preference concerning the status of Muslim holy places in the city (as a guardian or keeper of the holy places) in any future peace agreement with the Palestinians.

This page was last modified on 27 April 2012 at 19:18.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel%E2%80%93Jordan_Treaty_of_Peace#Article_9:_Holy_places

On July 31, 1988, Jordan ceded its claims to the West Bank — with the exception of guardianship over the Muslim Holy Sites of Jerusalem — to the Palestine Liberation Organization, as "the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people."[35][36]

The 1993 Oslo Accords between the PLO and Israel "opened the road for Jordan to proceed on its own negotiating track with Israel."[37] The Washington Declaration[38] was initialed one day after the Oslo Accords were signed. "On July 25, 1994, King Hussein met with Israeli Prime Minister Rabin in the Rose Garden of the White House, where they signed the Washington Declaration, formally ending the 46-year state of war between Jordan and Israel."[37] Finally, on October 26, 1994, Jordan signed the Israel-Jordan Treaty of Peace normalizing relations between the two countries and resolved territorial disputes between them.

This page was last modified on 25 April 2012 at 23:50.

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

is that the case?

If you use this logic that I think you are trying to push here; all newspapers, blogs, editorials and individuals that make reports on the endless shit parade that is the I/P conflict all these decades are all unfit to report on the subject because their integrity is called into question. All the good pro Israel, bad Palestinians sources and all the bad Israel poor victimized Palestinians sources are all unfit biased trash. Like a couple of guys wrestling in the mud and calling each other a muddy sock puppet. I guess it just depends on which side you are on to decide which muddy sock puppet is the cleaner one. Jerusalem Post or The Guardian?

...about all things I/P.

If you think JPost is just as bad, can give some examples?

But I really don't have to explain that the paper has a right lean to it the way The Guardian has a left lean to it. I don't have to show you all the examples as you already know. The one instance that really stuck with me was the editorial done about the Norway attacks that forced the paper to later apologize. Using that logic, then JPost is no longer fit to write anything about Norway.

Truly stunning. Thank you for posting this. Mind-blowing and scary.

Even having looked it up online, I am not entirely sure that I take your meaning.

Excuse my ignorance, but can you elucidate?

"surely your comment is meant to be tongue in cheek?" or "you're joking?" or "you cannot be serious?"

Its a very common expression. I would have thought your Anglican studies would have equipped you for such things.

I am sensing that is sarcasm, but I'm not sure.

Anyway, thanks for explaining.

Here's my take on the Jerusalem/Tel Aviv thing.

If the paper had said:

"Since Jerusalem as Israel's capital is widely disputed and not recognized internationally, it is our policy not to identify it as such" (or words to that effect) - then I would completely understand and not be at all surprised or insulted.

However the fact that they said that it is their policy to declare Tel Aviv to be the capital of Israel, even though it is not recognized by Israel itself as being its capital, is to me quite shocking and insulting (and a little scary).

For a supposedly objective news source to make such a deliberately erroneous assertion as a fact blows my mind. Even some of the most biased sources with respect to Israel do not explicitly (and falsely) state that Tel Aviv is Israel's capital, which it isn't. I certainly know of no mainstream Western source like The Guardian that has does that.

So to speak.

I essentially agree with your position, but I hardly think this amounts to one of the great crimes against humanity, nor is it mind blowing or particularly scary.

Maybe I am making too much of it. I certainly don't think it's a crime against humanity, and I meant mind blowing and scary in the online discussion forum sense of those terms.