Recent from talks
Contribute something
Nothing was collected or created yet.
Status of Jerusalem
View on Wikipedia
| Part of a series on |
| Jerusalem |
|---|
The status of Jerusalem has been described as "one of the most intractable issues in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict" due to the long-running territorial dispute between Israel and Palestine, both of which claim it as their capital city. Part of this issue of sovereignty is tied to concerns over access to the holy sites of Jerusalem in the Abrahamic religions; the current religious environment in Jerusalem is upheld by the "Status Quo" of the former Ottoman Empire.[1][2] As the Israeli–Palestinian peace process has primarily navigated the option of a two-state solution, one of the largest points of contention has been East Jerusalem, which was part of the Jordanian-annexed West Bank until the beginning of the Israeli occupation in 1967.
The United Nations recognizes East Jerusalem (and the West Bank as a whole) as the territory for an independent Palestinian state, thus rejecting Israel's claim to that half of the city. There is broader consensus among the international community with regard to West Jerusalem being Israel's capital city, as it falls within Israel's sovereign territory (per the Green Line) and has been recognized as under Israeli control since the 1949 Armistice Agreements.[1]
Most countries and organizations support that West Jerusalem and East Jerusalem should be allocated as capital cities to the Israelis and the Palestinians, respectively;[3] this position has been endorsed by the United Nations,[4][5] the European Union,[6][7] and France, among others.[8] Russia, which is a member of the Middle East Quartet, already recognizes East Jerusalem as the Palestinian capital and West Jerusalem as the Israeli capital.[9]
The majority of United Nations member states hold the view that the city's final status should be resolved through negotiations and have therefore favoured locating their embassies to Israel in Tel Aviv, pending a final status agreement. Six countries have embassies to Israel in Jerusalem: the United States, Guatemala, Honduras, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, and the disputed Republic of Kosovo.[10][11]
Background
[edit]
From 1517 until the First World War, Jerusalem was part of the Ottoman Empire. It was part of the Damascus eyalet (province) until, as a result of widespread administrative reform in the mid-1800s, it became an independent sanjak (district) in 1872. From the 1860s, the Jewish community became the largest religious minority grouping in the city and from 1887, with the beginning of expansion outside the old city walls, became a majority.[12]
Throughout the 19th century, European powers were competing for influence in the city, usually on the basis (or pretext) of extending protection over Christian churches and holy places. Much of the property that is now owned by the churches was bought during this time. A number of these countries, most notably France, entered into capitulation agreements with the Ottoman Empire and also established consulates in Jerusalem. In 1847, with Ottoman approval, the first Latin patriarch of Jerusalem since the Crusades was established.
After capturing Jerusalem in 1917, the United Kingdom was in control of Jerusalem; initially under a wartime administration, then as part of the Mandate of Palestine assigned to Britain in 1920. The principal Allied Powers recognized the unique spiritual and religious interests in Jerusalem among the world's Abrahamic religions as "a sacred trust of civilization",[13][14] and stipulated that the existing rights and claims connected with it be safeguarded in perpetuity, under international guarantee.[15]
However, the Arab and Jewish communities in Palestine were in mortal dispute and Britain sought United Nations assistance in resolving the dispute. During the negotiations of proposals for a resolution that culminated in the United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine (also known as Resolution 181) in November 1947, the historic claims of the Vatican, Italy and France were revived. The Vatican's historic claims and interests, as well as those of Italy and France were based on the former Protectorate of the Holy See and the French Protectorate of Jerusalem. From their point of view this proposal was essentially to safeguard Christian holy sites and was expressed as a call for the special international regime for the city of Jerusalem. This status was also confirmed in UN General Assembly Resolution 194 in 1948, which maintained the position that Jerusalem be made an international city.[16]
The United Nations Partition Plan called for the partition of Palestine into separate Arab and Jewish states, with Jerusalem (with borders expanded to include Bethlehem, see UN map of Jerusalem) being established as a corpus separatum, or a "separated body", with a special legal and political status, administered by the United Nations.[17] The Free City of Danzig was a historical precedent for this solution; Trieste was a contemporaneous city ruled by the UN. Jewish representatives accepted the partition plan, while representatives of the Palestinian Arabs and the Arab states rejected it, declaring it illegal.[1]
On 14 May 1948, the Jewish community in Palestine issued the declaration of the establishment of the State of Israel within territory set aside for the Jewish state in the Partition Plan. Israel became a member of the United Nations the following year and has since been recognised by most countries.[18] The countries recognizing Israel did not necessarily recognize its sovereignty over Jerusalem generally, citing the UN resolutions which called for an international status for the city.[19] The United States, Guatemala, Honduras and Kosovo have embassies in Jerusalem.[11]
With the declaration of the establishment of the State of Israel and the subsequent invasion by surrounding Arab states, the UN proposal for Jerusalem never materialised. The 1949 Armistice Agreements left Jordan in control of the eastern parts of Jerusalem, while the western sector (with the exception of the Mount Scopus exclave in the east) was held by Israel.[20] Each side recognised the other's de facto control of their respective sectors.[21] The Armistice Agreement, however, was considered internationally as having no legal effect on the continued validity of the provisions of the partition resolution for the internationalisation of Jerusalem.[22] In 1950, Jordan annexed East Jerusalem as part of its larger annexation of the West Bank. Though the United Kingdom and Iraq recognized Jordanian rule over East Jerusalem,[23] no other country recognized either Jordanian or Israeli rule over the respective areas of the city under their control.[20] Pakistan is sometimes falsely claimed to have recognized the annexation as well.[24]
Following the Six-Day War of 1967, Israel declared that Israeli law would be applied to East Jerusalem and enlarged its eastern boundaries, approximately doubling its size. The action was deemed unlawful by other states who did not recognize it. It was condemned by the UN Security Council and General Assembly which described it as an annexation and a violation of the rights of the Palestinian population. In 1980, Israel passed the Jerusalem Law, which declared that "Jerusalem, complete and united, is the capital of Israel".[25] The Security Council declared the law null and void in Resolution 478, which also called upon member states to withdraw their diplomatic missions from the city. The UN General Assembly has also passed numerous resolutions to the same effect.[26][27][28]
Prelude: UN resolution from 1947
[edit]On 29 November 1947 the UN General Assembly passed a resolution which, as part of its Partition Plan for Palestine, included the establishment of Jerusalem as a separate international entity under the auspices of the United Nations, a so-called corpus separatum.
Israel
[edit]
During the 1948 Arab–Israeli War, Israel took control of West Jerusalem while Jordan took control of East Jerusalem (including the walled Old City in which most holy places are located).[20] Although accepting partition before the war, Israel rejected the UN's corpus separatum decision at the Lausanne Conference of 1949, and instead indicated a preference for division of Jerusalem into Jewish and Arab zones, and international control and protection only for holy places and sites.[29][30] Also in 1949, as the UN General Assembly began debating the implementation of its corpus separatum decision, Israel declared Jerusalem as Israel's "eternal capital".[31][32]
After Israel conquered East Jerusalem from Jordan in 1967 during the Six-Day War, Israel argued that it had the stronger right to the city.[20] Very soon after its conquest of East Jerusalem in 1967, Israel merged East Jerusalem with West Jerusalem by administratively extending the municipal boundary of the city.
In July 1980, the Knesset passed the Jerusalem Law as part of the country's Basic Law, which declared Jerusalem the unified capital of Israel.[33]
Legal positions since Oslo Accords
[edit]According to a 1999 statement by the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs, "There is no basis in international law for the position supporting a status of 'corpus separatum' (separate entity) for the city of Jerusalem."[34] In the view of the ministry, the concept of corpus separatum became irrelevant after the Arab states rejected the United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine and invaded the newly created State of Israel in 1948. Accordingly, the ministry states, "There has never been any agreement, treaty, or international understanding which applies the 'Corpus Separatum' concept to Jerusalem."[34]
In 2003 Israel argued that Jordan had no rights to any land west of the Jordan River, that it had taken the West Bank and East Jerusalem by an act of aggression, and therefore never acquired sovereignty.[35][36]
Positions on the final status of Jerusalem have varied with different Israeli governments. The Oslo Accords declared that the final status of Jerusalem would be negotiated, but Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin declared that he would never divide the city. In 1995, he allegedly told a group of school children[dubious – discuss] that "if they told us peace is the price of giving up a united Jerusalem under Israeli sovereignty, my reply would be 'let's do without peace'".[37] This position was upheld by his successor, Benjamin Netanyahu, who stated there would be "...No withdrawal or even discussion of the case of Jerusalem...".[38]
Netanyahu's successor, Ehud Barak, during negotiations, became the first Israeli prime minister to allow for a possible division of Jerusalem, despite his campaign promises.[39]
Prime minister during the second intifada, Ariel Sharon was unequivocal in his support for an undivided Jerusalem. In an interview done one week before a stroke incapacitated him he stated: "Our position is that Jerusalem is not negotiable. We are not going to negotiate on Jerusalem. Jerusalem will be forever a united and undivided capital of Israel."[40] Prime Minister (and former Jerusalem mayor) Ehud Olmert vowed to keep Jerusalem the "undivided, eternal capital of the Jewish people",[41] but later supported the detachment of several Arab neighborhoods from Israeli sovereignty and the introduction of an international trust to run the Temple Mount.
When Netanyahu succeeded Olmert, he declared that "all of Jerusalem would always remain under Israeli sovereignty" and that only Israel would "ensure the freedom of religion and freedom of access for the three religions to the holy places".[42] These statements seem to closely reflect Israeli public opinion. According to a 2012 poll by the right-wing Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, 78% of Jewish voters who responded said that they would reconsider voting for any politician that wants to relinquish Israel's control over the Old City and East Jerusalem.[43] On 17 May 2015, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu reiterated, regarding Jerusalem serving as the capital of both Israel and a future Palestinian state, "Jerusalem has forever been the capital of only the Jewish people and no other nation."[44]
On 2 January 2018 Israel passed into law new legislation that requires the two-thirds majority support of the Knesset for any section of Jerusalem to be transferred to a foreign government.[45] On 25 January 2018, Netanyahu repeated the previous government position, saying: "Under any peace agreement, the capital of Israel will continue to be Jerusalem, and the seat of our government will continue to be in Jerusalem."[46]
Palestine
[edit]During the British Mandate, the main representation of the Palestinian Arabs was the Arab Higher Committee, formed in the beginning of the Great Arab revolt in 1936; it was outlawed in 1937 and its leaders deported. Reconstituted in 1945 and dominated by Palestinian Arabs, it continued in various iterations until 1948, when, viewed as a threat to Jordan, its army was forced to disband. There was unequivocal support for an Arab controlled Jerusalem (at that time the status quo).
Until the establishment of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) in 1964, there was little in terms of an internationally recognised representation of the Palestinian Arabs. The Arab League usually took over the job, with the short-lived Egyptian-controlled All-Palestine Government based in Gaza having little sway, and Jordan taking control of the West Bank with East Jerusalem.
Until the Oslo Accords in 1993, and the Letters of Mutual Recognition, the Palestinians,[dubious – discuss] represented since 1964 by the PLO, had at all times rejected any partition of any part of the former British Mandate territory. However, while they had previously rejected the UN's internationalisation plan,[47] most of the Arab delegations at the Lausanne Conference of 1949 accepted a permanent international regime (called corpus separatum) under United Nations supervision as proposed in Resolutions 181 and 194.[48] The Arabs vociferously objected to Israel moving to (West) Jerusalem its national institutions, namely the Knesset, the presidential, legislative, judicial and administrative offices.
The fight over Jerusalem is existential, not because it is a magical city but because it was, and is, the center of our culture, national identity and memory.
— Prominent Palestinian activist Sari Nusseibeh, Once Upon A Country: A Palestinian Life[49]
The Palestinian leadership now claims the "1967 borders" (in effect the 1949 armistice lines) as the borders of the Palestinian territories, and includes East Jerusalem as part of these territories. Despite recognition of Israel (only from Fatah, not Hamas), and its support in 1949 of corpus separatum, it had never conceded sovereignty of Jerusalem. In 1988, Jordan conceded all claims to the West Bank, including Jerusalem, other than the Muslim holy places on the Temple Mount, and recognized the PLO as the legal representatives of the Palestinian people.[50]
The Palestinian National Authority views East Jerusalem as occupied Palestinian territory, in line with UNSC Resolution 242. The PNA claims all of East Jerusalem, including the Temple Mount, as the capital of the State of Palestine, and claims that West Jerusalem is also subject to final status negotiations, but is willing to consider alternative solutions, such as making Jerusalem an open city. In the Palestine Liberation Organization's Palestinian Declaration of Independence of 1988, Jerusalem is called the capital of the State of Palestine. In 2000 the Palestinian Authority passed a law designating the city as such, and in 2002 this law was ratified by Chairman Yasser Arafat.[51] The official position of the PNA is that Jerusalem should be an open city, with no physical partition and that Palestine would guarantee freedom of worship, access and the protection of sites of religious significance.[52] The status quo on the Temple Mount now is that tourists are allowed to visit, but not pray, on the Temple Mount, although this seems to be slowly changing.
ICJ case — Palestine v. United States of America
[edit]In September 2018, the State of Palestine initiated an action in the International Court of Justice, in the case Palestine v. United States of America (officially titled Relocation of the United States Embassy to Jerusalem), in which Palestine charges the U.S. with violating the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations by moving its embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, arguing the Convention requires that "the diplomatic mission of a sending State must be established on the territory of the receiving State." The Palestinian application argues that in international law Jerusalem cannot be considered to be the territory of the State of Israel because under General Assembly Resolution 181 of 1947 (the Partition Plan) Jerusalem was to have been placed under international governance, and thus precludes considering Jerusalem to be under the sovereignty of any State.[53][54]
United Nations
[edit]The United Nations considers East Jerusalem to be part of Israeli-occupied territories or occupied Palestinian territory.[55][56] It envisions Jerusalem eventually becoming the capital of two states, Israel and Palestine.[57] This is at odds with other General Assembly Resolutions, which promote an internationally administered Jerusalem.
1947 UN Partition Plan (Resolution 181(II)) provided for the full territorial internationalisation of Jerusalem:
"The City of Jerusalem shall be established as a corpus separatum under a special international regime and shall be administered by the United Nations."
[58] The resolution was accepted by the Jewish leadership in Palestine, but rejected by the Arabs.[32] This position was restated after the 1948 Arab–Israeli War in Resolution 194 of 1948 and in Resolution 303(IV) of 1949. According to a 1979 report prepared for and under the guidance of the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People, it would appear that the United Nations has maintained the principle that the legal status of Jerusalem is that of a corpus separatum.[59]
The United Nations General Assembly does not recognize Israel's proclamation of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, which is, for example, reflected in the wording of General Assembly Resolution 63/30 of 2009 which states that "any actions taken by Israel, the occupying Power, to impose its laws, jurisdiction and administration on the Holy City of Jerusalem are illegal and therefore null and void and have no validity whatsoever, and calls upon Israel to cease all such illegal and unilateral measures."[60]
Although the General Assembly cannot pass legally binding resolutions over international issues, the United Nations Security Council, which has the authority to do so, has passed a total of six Security Council resolutions on Israel on the matter, including UNSC resolution 478 which affirmed that the enactment of the 1980 Basic Jerusalem Law declaring unified Jerusalem as Israel's "eternal and indivisible" capital, was a violation of international law. The resolution advised member states to withdraw their diplomatic representation from the city. The Security Council, as well as the UN in general, has consistently affirmed the position that East Jerusalem (but not west Jerusalem) is occupied Palestinian territory subject to the provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention. The International Court of Justice in its 2004 Advisory opinion on the "Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory" described East Jerusalem as "occupied Palestinian territory".[56]
Many UN member states formally follow the UN position that Jerusalem should have an international status.[61] The European Union has also followed the UN's lead in this regard, declaring Jerusalem's status to be that of a corpus separatum, or an international city to be administered by the UN.[62][63]
Nevertheless, and inconsistent with the status of corpus separatum, the UN has designated East Jerusalem occupied Palestinian territory.[64] China recognizes East Jerusalem as the capital of Palestine,[65] and the United States has recognised at least West Jerusalem as Israel's capital. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said on 28 October 2009 that Jerusalem must be the capital of both Israel and Palestine.[66] The UN has never revoked resolutions 181 and 194, and maintains the official position that Jerusalem should be placed under a special international regime.[67]
European Union
[edit]The European Union currently views the status of Jerusalem as that of a corpus separatum including both East and West Jerusalem as outlined in United Nations Resolution 181.[56][68][69] In the interest of achieving a peaceful solution to the Arab–Israeli conflict, it believes a fair solution should be found regarding the issue of Jerusalem in the context of the two-state solution set out in the Road Map. Taking into account the political and religious concerns of all parties involved, it envisions the city serving as the shared capital of Israel and Palestine.[70][71]
The EU opposes measures which would prejudge the outcome of permanent status negotiations on Jerusalem, basing its policy on the principles set out in UN Security Council Resolution 242, notably the impossibility of acquisition of territory by force. It will not recognise any changes to pre-1967 borders with regard to Jerusalem, unless agreed between the parties. It has also called for the reopening of Palestinian institutions in East Jerusalem, in accordance with the Road Map, in particular Orient House and the Chamber of Commerce,[72] and has called on the Israeli government to "cease all discriminatory treatment of Palestinians in East Jerusalem, especially concerning work permits, access to education and health services, building permits, house demolitions, taxation and expenditure."[73]
The European Union set out its position in a statement of principles last December. A two-state solution with Israel and Palestine side by side in peace and security. A viable state of Palestine in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip, on the basis of the 1967 lines. A way must be found to resolve the status of Jerusalem as the future capital of both Israel and Palestine.
Organisation of Islamic Cooperation
[edit]On 13 December 2017, the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), consisting of 57 primarily Muslim countries, declared East Jerusalem as the capital of the State of Palestine and invited "all countries to recognise the State of Palestine and East Jerusalem as its occupied capital."[75][76][77] The declaration makes no mention of Jerusalem as corpus separatum, nor makes any reference to West Jerusalem.
Location of foreign embassies
[edit]After Israel passed the Jerusalem Law in 1980, the UN Security Council adopted Resolution 478, which called upon UN member states to withdraw their diplomatic missions from the city. Thirteen countries—Bolivia, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, the Netherlands, Panama, Uruguay and Venezuela—moved their embassies from Jerusalem primarily to Tel Aviv. Costa Rica and El Salvador moved theirs back to Jerusalem in 1984. Costa Rica moved its embassy back to Tel Aviv in 2006 followed by El Salvador a few weeks later.[78][79] No international embassy was located in Jerusalem again until 2018, 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[80][81] for a decade,[82] then again in 2023.[83]
Various countries recognized Israel as a state in the 1940s and 1950s, without recognizing Israeli sovereignty over West Jerusalem. There is an international sui generis consular corps in Jerusalem. It is commonly referred to as the "Consular Corps of the Corpus Separatum". The states that have maintained consulates in Jerusalem say that it was part of Mandate Palestine, and in a de jure sense has not since become part of any other sovereignty.[22] The Netherlands maintains an office in Jerusalem serving mainly Israeli citizens. Other foreign governments base consulate general offices in Jerusalem, including Greece, Spain, and the United Kingdom. The United States had a consulate general in Jerusalem, which was merged into the Jerusalem-based embassy in 2018.[84] Since the president of Israel resides in Jerusalem and confirms the foreign diplomats, ambassadors need to travel to Jerusalem to submit letters of credentials upon being appointed.
The United States relocated its embassy to Israel to Jerusalem in 2018, as did Guatemala. Honduras followed in 2021. A number of countries have indicated that they could relocate their embassies to Jerusalem in the future, including Australia, Brazil, the Czech Republic, the Dominican Republic and Serbia.[85] In December 2020, the Czech Republic indicated that in 2021 it will open a Jerusalem branch office of the Czech Embassy in Tel Aviv. Hungary had previously opened an official diplomatic mission in Jerusalem.[86] Kosovo committed to opening its embassy in Jerusalem when Israel and Kosovo established diplomatic relations in February 2021.[87] By late 2022, only the United States, Guatemala, Honduras and the partially-recognized state of Kosovo maintain embassies in Jerusalem – Paraguay reversed the 2018 relocation of its embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem within months and the Honduran foreign ministry have stated that they are also considering relocating theirs back to Tel Aviv.[88][89] Fiji and Papua New Guinea have announced their intentions to open embassies in Jerusalem by the end of 2023,[90][91] while Paraguay also announced its plans to reopen its embassy in Jerusalem in November 2023,[92] making it effective in December 2024.[93]
Palestinian officials have consistently condemned each such relocation and diplomatic offices in Jerusalem, saying that they constitute "a flagrant violation of international law and goes against the unified EU position on the legal status of Jerusalem."[86]
China
[edit]The People's Republic of China (PRC) recognizes East Jerusalem as the capital of the State of Palestine.[65] In a 2016 speech to the Arab League, Chinese Communist Party general secretary Xi Jinping said that "China firmly supports the Middle East peace process and supports the establishment of a State of Palestine enjoying full sovereignty on the basis of the 1967 borders and with East Jerusalem as its capital."[94] China announced that this position remains unchanged in the aftermath of the U.S. recognizing Jerusalem as Israel's capital.[95][96]
France
[edit]The French Government notes that "It is up to the parties to come to a final and overall agreement with regard to the final status, which would put an end to the conflict. France believes that Jerusalem must become the capital of the two States."[8] France does not recognize Israel's sovereignty over East Jerusalem, which France considers an "occupied territory under the Fourth Geneva Convention".[97]
Russia
[edit]On 6 April 2017 the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs issued a statement saying, "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."[98] Some commentators interpreted this as a Russian recognition of Israel's claim to West Jerusalem,[99][100][101] while others understood the statement as a Russian intention to recognize West Jerusalem as Israel's in the context of a peace deal with the Palestinians.[102][103] On 14 June 2018, Russia held, for the first time, its annual Russia Day reception in Jerusalem. Until then, the annual reception has been held in the Tel Aviv area.[104] Although Russia has publicly recognised West Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, it continues to locate its embassy in Tel Aviv.[105] Prior to these events, in 2011 the Russian President Dmitry Medvedev stated that Russia had recognized the State of Palestine with East Jerusalem as its capital already in 1988, and that it had not changed its view.[9]
In January 2011, reaffirming Russia's recognition of the State of Palestine, President Dmitry Medvedev said Russia "supported and will support the inalienable right of the Palestinian people to an independent state with its capital in East Jerusalem."[105]
United Kingdom
[edit]The United Kingdom position on Jerusalem states that "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 E Jerusalem, which we continue to consider is under illegal military occupation by Israel. Our Embassy to Israel is in Tel Aviv, not Jerusalem. In E 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."[106][107]
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, but considers that the city should not again be divided.[106] 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.[106]
United States
[edit]
When Israel was founded, the position of the United States was that its recognition of Israel did not imply a particular view on the status of Jerusalem.[108] The U.S. voted for the UN Partition Plan in November 1947, which provided for the establishment of an international regime for the city, and Resolution 194 in 1948, following the 1948 Arab–Israeli War. But the U.S. voted against Resolution 303 in 1949 which reaffirmed that Jerusalem be established a corpus separatum under a special international regime to be administered by the UN, because the U.S. regarded the plan as no longer feasible after both Israel and Jordan had established a political presence in the city.[109] The U.S. position continues to be that final status of Jerusalem is to be resolved through negotiations.[110] On 8 December 2017, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson clarified that the president's statement "did not indicate any final status for Jerusalem" and "was very clear that the final status, including the borders, would be left to the two parties to negotiate and decide."[111]
On 6 December 2017, then-U.S. President Donald Trump announced that the U.S. would recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. On 14 May 2018 the U.S. embassy was transferred from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. The U.S. reclassified as its embassy its Jerusalem Consulate, which had been a lot in the neighborhood of Talpiot leased in 1989 for 99 years by the Israeli government and relocated there in 2002.[112] From 28 October 2020, for the first time, U.S. citizens born in Jerusalem will be allowed to list "Israel" as their place of birth on their U.S. passport, while retaining the option to list simply "Jerusalem" instead.[113][114]
The Biden Administration referred to Israeli residents of East Jerusalem as "settlers".[115] When U.S. President Joe Biden visited Israel and Palestine in 2022, his delegation removed the Israeli flags from his vehicle upon entering East Jerusalem, in a move widely interpreted as signaling non-recognition of Israeli sovereignty over East Jerusalem.[116]
Other G20 countries
[edit]
Argentina: On 5 February 2024, Argentine President Javier Milei announced during a visit to Israel the intention of Argentina to move its embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.[117]
Australia: On 15 December 2018 Prime Minister Scott Morrison announced that Australia recognised West Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, while East Jerusalem should be the capital of the State of Palestine.[118] However, Morrison also announced that Australia would not relocate its embassy to West Jerusalem until after the final status of Jerusalem was resolved.[119][120][121] On 17 October 2022, Australia's foreign minister confirmed its reversal of the previous governments recognition of West Jerusalem as Israel's capital.[122][123][124] The decision was harshly criticised by Opposition Leader Peter Dutton.[125] However, Australia still maintains close relations with Israel and currently has no formal relations with Palestine.
Brazil: Brazil recognizes East Jerusalem as the capital of the State of Palestine,[126] with which it maintains full diplomatic relations, whereas the Brazilian embassy to Israel is based in Tel Aviv.
Canada: According to Global Affairs Canada, "Canada considers the status of Jerusalem can be resolved only as part of a general settlement of the Palestinian–Israeli dispute. Canada does not recognize Israel's unilateral annexation of East Jerusalem."[127] In the fact sheet on Israel displayed on the Canadian Foreign Affairs Department's website, the "Capital" field states that "While Israel designates Jerusalem as its capital, Canada believes that the final status of the city needs to be negotiated between the Israelis and Palestinians. At present, Canada maintains its Embassy in Tel Aviv."[128]
Germany: According to Germany's Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel, Germany is committed to a two-state solution and believes that the final status of Jerusalem must be resolved through negotiations between the Israelis and Palestinians.[129]
Italy: "Endorsing the stance of the European Union in this regard, Italy does not recognise the legitimacy of any border changes that are not agreed between the parties. The question of Jerusalem is extremely sensitive, being the home to the Holy Places belonging to the three great monotheistic religions. To resolve this issue it will be necessary for the parties to reach a difficult, but possible, agreement to safeguard the special character of the city and meet the expectations of both peoples."[130]
Japan: In a 1980 statement to the United Nations, Japan criticized Israel's proclamation of Jerusalem as its united capital: "Japan cannot recognize such a unilateral change to the legal status of an occupied territory, which is in total violation of the relevant United Nations resolutions". Japan later reiterated its position in a 2001 UN report: "Japan believes that issues relating to Jerusalem should be resolved through the permanent status negotiations between the parties concerned, and until such a solution is achieved both parties should refrain from taking any unilateral action relating to the situation in Jerusalem."[131]
Saudi Arabia: Saudi Arabia recognizes the State of Palestine, with East Jerusalem as its capital. Saudi Arabia does not formally recognize the State of Israel. The Saudi monarchy has not taken an official position on the fate of West Jerusalem's status.[132] Saudi Arabia expressed disappointment in the United States's recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital.
South Korea: South Korean Ministry of Foreign Affairs introduces Israel's capital as Jerusalem, but mentions that there is controversy over its status. However, the South Korean Embassy in Israel is in Herzliya.[133][134]
Turkey: On 17 December 2017, Turkey's President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan said "the day is close when officially" his nation will open an embassy to the State of Palestine in East Jerusalem.[135] This statement came several days after Erdoğan had called for worldwide recognition of East Jerusalem as the occupied capital of a Palestinian state at a summit of Muslim countries convened in response to the U.S. recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital.[136][137]
Other countries
[edit]
Chile: The Chilean government considers Jerusalem to be a city with special status, whose final sovereignty must be decided by both Israel and Palestine. It also considers Israel's occupation and control over East Jerusalem illegal.[138] Chile maintains its embassy to Israel in Tel Aviv, while its representative office to the State of Palestine is located in Ramallah.
Republic of China (Taiwan): According to a 7 December 2017 announcement by Taiwan's Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA), Taiwan considers Jerusalem to be the capital of Israel, but has no plans of moving its representative office to the city in the wake of Donald Trump's formal recognition of it as Israel's capital.[139] Although Jerusalem is listed as the capital of Israel on MOFA's website, the ministry notes that its status as such "has not been widely recognized by the international community" and remains highly controversial.[140]
Czech Republic: In May 2017, the Chamber of Deputies of the Czech Parliament rejected a UNESCO resolution that criticized Israel for its excavations in East Jerusalem. The Chamber declared that the Czech government "should advocate a position respecting Jerusalem as the Israeli capital city" and called on the government to withhold its annual funding of UNESCO.[141] On 6 December 2017, following the recognition statement by the United States, the Czech Foreign Ministry acknowledged that Jerusalem is "in practice the capital of Israel in the borders of the demarcation line from 1967", but said the Czech government, in line the positions of other EU member states, considers the city to be the future capital of both Israel and Palestine. The Ministry also said it would consider moving the Czech embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem "only based on results of negotiations with key partners in the region and in the world."[142] In May 2018, Czech Republic reopened its honorary consulate in Jerusalem.[143] On 11 March 2021, the Czech Republic opened a branch of its embassy in Jerusalem.[144]
Denmark: "Israel has declared Jerusalem to be its capital. Due to the conflict and unclear situation concerning the city's status, foreign embassies are in Tel Aviv."[145]
Fiji: In December 2022, following negotiations between three political parties (the People's Alliance, the National Federation Party and SODELPA) seeking to form a coalition government following the 2022 election, it was agreed upon that Fiji would open an embassy in Jerusalem, which was a condition for SODELPA joining the coalition.[90]
Finland: The Finnish embassy to Israel is in Tel Aviv; Finland refers to East Jerusalem as part of the "occupied Palestinian territory", and it understands that East Jerusalem "will be the capital" of the Palestinian state.[146]
Guatemala: On 16 May 2018, Guatemala reopened its embassy in Jerusalem, the second country to do so.[147][148]
Honduras: On 24 June 2021, Honduras opened its embassy in Jerusalem, the third country to do so.[149]
Iran: On 27 December 2017, the Iranian parliament voted in favor of a bill recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Palestine in response to the United States decision to recognize the city as Israel's capital.[150][151]
Moldova: In December 2018, following his state visit to Israel, Moldovan President Igor Dodon said that he and his administration are considering the possibility of moving the Moldovan embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem,[152] probably in the hope to win support from the U.S. for his embattled government.[153] In June 2019, Prime Minister Pavel Filip announced that the decision to move of the Moldovan embassy to Jerusalem has now been taken by his government-one that has been described as "lame-duck" due to a constitutional crisis, with a second, counter-government in place that is opposed to the move, and which is recognised by Russia, the U.S. and the EU.[154][153] For this reason, the announcement was flatly ignored by the Israeli government.[153] The Filip government has also adopted the decision to sell to the U.S. the plot of land needed for the construction of the new American embassy in Jerusalem.[155]
Nauru: On 29 August 2019, Nauru officially recognized all of Jerusalem as the state capital of Israel. The island nation does not maintain an embassy in Israel, although it does have an honorary consulate in Rosh HaAyin.[156]
Netherlands: Following a general election, a new governing coalition agreed in May 2024 "to investigate when a move of the embassy to Jerusalem [...] could take place."[157]
Norway: In 2010, the Norwegian Foreign Ministry stated "Norway considers the Israeli presence in East Jerusalem to be in violation of international law, as does the entire international community."[158]
Oman: Oman does not recognize the State of Israel, and has stated that it will refuse to normalize relations with Israel until a sovereign and independent Palestinian state is established. As such, the country claims united Jerusalem as the capital of Palestine and does not have an embassy in Israel.[159]
Pakistan: Pakistan has refused to recognize Israel until an "adequate and fair" independent sovereign state for the Palestinians is established, specifically the State of Palestine with its pre-1967 borders and united Jerusalem as its capital.[160]
Papua New Guinea: Papua New Guinea opened its embassy in Jerusalem on September 5, 2023,[10] after announcing plans to do so earlier in the year.[91]
Paraguay: Paraguay moved its embassy to Jerusalem in May 2018, but following a change in government, on 6 September 2018, Paraguay announced that its embassy would be relocated to Tel Aviv.[161] This move was due to President Mario Abdo Benítez's disagreement over the embassy relocation.[161] According to President Santiago Peña in September 2023, Paraguay currently plans to relocate its embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem for a second time on November of that year.[92] The embassy was effectively relocated to Jerusalem in December 2024.[93]
Philippines: On 6 December 2017, following the recognition statement by the United States, President Rodrigo Duterte expressed interest in relocating the embassy of the Philippines from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem[162] and reportedly contacted the Foreign Ministry of Israel to discuss the plans.[163] However, the Philippines' Department of Foreign Affairs later mentioned that it does not support Trump's statement to recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital and expressed its support for a two-state solution.[164]
Romania: In April 2018, Prime Minister Viorica Dăncilă announced that the Government has adopted a memorandum regarding the initiation of procedures to relocate the Romanian embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.[165] President Klaus Iohannis, who had not been informed about this decision, accused the Premier of violating the Constitution, while emphasizing "the need for a just and lasting settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict by implementing the two-state solution."[165]
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines: "St Vincent and the Grenadines strongly urges the United States of America to acknowledge that any unilateral declaration on its part regarding the status of Jerusalem will not in any way advance the cause of a just, peaceful and lasting solution to the dispute between the peoples of Israel and Palestine".[166]
Serbia: On 4 September 2020, following a breakthrough U.S.-led agreement with Kosovo (and Israel), Serbia agreed to recognize united Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and relocate its embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem by June 2021.[167] On 9 September 2020, The Jerusalem Post quoted an unnamed source from the Serbian president's office who stated that Serbia would not move its embassy to Jerusalem as it pledged to do by signing the White House Agreement if Israel recognizes Kosovo as an independent state.[168]
Singapore: In a 7 December 2017 statement, Singapore's Ministry of Foreign Affairs reaffirmed the country's support for a two-state solution where the final status of Jerusalem would be "decided through direct negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians."[169]
Slovakia: "Slovakia is on its way to relocating its embassy to Jerusalem," the head of the Slovak National Council Andrej Danko said on 4 July 2018 in a meeting with the president of Israel. A date for the relocation has not been provided, but Slovakia will first open an honorary consulate in the city.[170]
Suriname: Surinamese Foreign Minister Albert Ramdin announced in 2022 that Suriname intends to open an embassy in Jerusalem.[171] The status of this decision was shortly after contradicted in parliament by Vice President Ronnie Brunswijk.[172]
Sweden: "Sweden, like other states, does not recognise Jerusalem as Israel's capital, which is why the embassy is in Tel Aviv."[173]
Vanuatu: The Republic of Vanuatu recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel in June 2017. Vanuatu President Baldwin Lonsdale issued the recognition in response to a controversial UNESCO resolution passed in October 2016 that, according to the Israeli government,[174] downplays Jewish connection to the Temple Mount.[175]
Venezuela: In 2018, the Venezuelan government affirmed the support for Palestinian cause by declaring its stance to recognize Jerusalem as the eternal capital of Palestine after the U.S. embassy move to Jerusalem, which it called as an "extremist decision" that lacks legal validity and violates international law.[176][177][178] During the Venezuelan presidential crisis, Interim President Juan Guaidó vowed to place his country's embassy in Jerusalem if he had assumed power from Nicolas Maduro.[179]
Islamic holy sites
[edit]The status of Islamic holy sites in Jerusalem, including Haram Al-Sharif/Temple Mount, is also unresolved. In 1924, the Supreme Muslim Council, the highest Muslim body in charge of Muslim community affairs in Mandatory Palestine, accepted Hussein bin Ali (Sharif of Mecca) as custodian of Al-Aqsa.[180]
In the 1994 peace treaty with Jordan, Israel committed to "respect the present special role of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan in Muslim Holy shrines in Jerusalem." Israel also pledged that when negotiations on the permanent status will take place, it will give high priority to the Jordanian historical role in these shrines. The Wakf Department that oversees Muslim sites in Jerusalem is controlled by the Jordanian government, which insists on its exclusive custodianship of the holy site. In 2013, the Palestinian Authority also recognized Jordan's role through an agreement signed between PA President Mahmoud Abbas and King Abdullah II.[181]
Position of the Vatican
[edit]The Vatican has had a long-held position on Jerusalem and its concern for the protection of the Christian holy places in the Holy Land which predates the Palestinian Mandate. The Vatican's historic claims and interests, as well as those of Italy and France were based on the former Protectorate of the Holy See and the French Protectorate of Jerusalem, which were incorporated in article 95 of the Treaty of Sèvres (1920), which besides incorporating the Balfour Declaration also provided: "it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine". The Balfour Declaration and the proviso were also incorporated in the Palestinian Mandate (1923), but which also provided in articles 13 and 14 for an international commission to resolve competing claims on the holy places. These claimants had officially lost all capitulation rights by article 28 of the Treaty of Lausanne (1923). However, Britain never gave any effect to Mandate provisions arts 13 & 14.[citation needed]
During the negotiations of proposals that culminated in the United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine (also known as Resolution 181) in 1947, the historic claims of the Vatican, Italy and France were revived, and expressed as the call for the special international regime for the city of Jerusalem. This was also confirmed in UN General Assembly Resolution 194 in 1948, which maintained the position that Jerusalem be made an international city,[16] under United Nations supervision. The Vatican's official position on the status of Jerusalem was in favour of an internationalization of Jerusalem, in order to keep the holy place away from either Israeli or Arab sovereignty.[182]
Pope Pius XII supported this idea in the 1949 encyclical Redemptoris nostri cruciatus. It was proposed again during the papacies of John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul II and Benedict XVI.[183] The Vatican reiterated this position in 2012, recognizing Jerusalem's "identity and sacred character" and calling for freedom of access to the city's holy places to be protected by "an internationally guaranteed special statute". After the U.S. recognized Jerusalem as Israel's capital in December 2017, Pope Francis repeated the Vatican's position: "I wish to make a heartfelt appeal to ensure that everyone is committed to respecting the status quo of the city, in accordance with the relevant resolutions of the United Nations."[184]
French claims in Jerusalem
[edit]There are four sites in Jerusalem claimed by France under a national domain (Domaine national français), which are based on claimed French acquisitions predating the formation of the State of Israel, and based on the former French Protectorate of Jerusalem (also known as capitulations), which was abolished in 1923. These sites are:
- Church of the Pater Noster, also known as the Sanctuary of the Eleona
- Benedictine monastery in Abu Ghosh
- Tombs of the Kings
- Church of Saint Anne
French presidents have claimed that the Church of Saint Anne in Jerusalem, for example, comes under French protection, is owned by its government, and is French territory.[185][186] The Israeli government has not made any public statement relating to the French claims.
See also
[edit]References
[edit]- ^ a b c Moshe Hirsch, Deborah Housen-Couriel, Ruth Lapidoth. Whither Jerusalem?: Proposals and Positions Concerning the future of Jerusalem, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1995. pg. 15. ISBN 978-90-411-0077-1.
- ^ Leigh Phillips (19 November 2009). "EU rebukes Israel for Jerusalem settlement expansion". EUObserver. "The issue of Jerusalem is one of the most intractable issues in the Israel-Palestine conflict. While both Israelis and Palestinians claim Jerusalem as their capital, most countries maintain their embassies in Tel Aviv while the occupied territories are administered by the Palestinian Authority in the town of Ramallah."
- ^ Sherwood, Harriet (30 January 2014). "Israel-Palestinian peace talks: the key issues". The Guardian. Retrieved 10 December 2017.
Both Israel and the future state of Palestine want Jerusalem as their capital. ... The international consensus is that Jerusalem would have to be the shared capital of both states.
- ^ A/RES/67/19 of 4 December 2012. United Nations General Assembly. The General Assembly emphasized "the need for a way to be found through negotiations to resolve the status of Jerusalem as the capital of two States".
- ^ "Jerusalem must be capital of both Israel and Palestine, Ban says". UN News Centre. 28 October 2009.
- ^ 2012/2694(RSP) – 05/07/2012 Text adopted by Parliament, single reading. European Parliament. Archived from the original on 11 March 2014.
- ^ Leigh Phillips (19 November 2009). "EU rebukes Israel for Jerusalem settlement expansion". EUObserver. Quoting a statement by the European Union: "If there is to be genuine peace, a way must be found to resolve the status of Jerusalem as the future capital of two states."
- ^ a b Jerusalem's status: the statement made by the Israeli Prime Minister is detrimental to the final status negotiations Archived 1 March 2010 at the Wayback Machine, French Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs, (21 May 2009)
- ^ a b Medvedev reaffirms Soviet recognition of Palestine (Ynet News, 18 January 2011) "Russian president says Moscow has not changed its position since 1988 when it 'recognized independent Palestinian state with its capital in east Jerusalem'"
- ^ a b Williams, Dan (5 September 2023). "Papua New Guinea opens embassy in Jerusalem". Reuters. Retrieved 4 November 2023.
- ^ a b "Israel authorizes Slovakian embassy branch in Jerusalem". The Jerusalem Post. Retrieved 10 September 2021.
- ^ Ruth Kark and Michal Oren-Nordheim (2001). Jerusalem and Its Environs: Quarters, Neighborhoods, Villages, 1800–1948. Detroit: Wayne State University Press, p. 28.
- ^ Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory Archived 14 October 2020 at the Wayback Machine, Advisory Opinion, ICJ Reports 2004, p. 165 para. 70.
- ^ Paul J. I. M. de Waart (2005). "International Court of Justice Firmly Walled in the Law of Power in the Israeli–Palestinian Peace Process". Leiden Journal of International Law. 18 (3): pp. 467–487. "The Court ascertained the legal significance of the 'sacred trust of civilization' of the League of Nations (LoN) in respect of the 1922 Palestine Mandate as the origin of the present responsibility of the United Nations".
- ^ See, for example, Article 28 of the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine.
- ^ a b Kane, Gregory (28 November 2007). "Hearing the Sounds of Silence at Middle East Conference". Virginia Gazette. Archived from the original on 20 November 2008. Retrieved 27 July 2008.
- ^ General Assembly resolution 48/158D, 20 December 1993. para. 5(c) stipulated that the permanent status negotiations should guarantee "arrangements for peace and security of all States in the region, including those named in resolution 181(II) of 29 November 1947"
- ^ United Nations General Assembly Resolution 273.
- ^ Quigley, John (2005). The Case for Palestine: An International Law Perspective. Duke University Press. p. 93. ISBN 978-0-8223-3539-9.
- ^ a b c d Lapidoth, Ruth; Hirsch, Moshe (1994). The Jerusalem Question and Its Resolution. Martinus Nijhoff. ISBN 978-0-7923-2893-3.
- ^ Korman, Sharon (1996). The Right of Conquest: The Acquisition of Territory by Force in International Law and Practice. Clarendon Press. ISBN 978-0-19-828007-1.
- ^ a b See:
- "Corpus Separatum §33 Jerusalem" Marjorie M. Whiteman editor, US State Department Digest of International Law, vol. 1 (Washington, DC: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1963) pages 593–594.
- Foreign relations of the United States, 1948. The Near East, South Asia, and Africa (in two parts) Volume V, Part 2, Page 748.
- Ira Sharkansky (1996). Governing Jerusalem: Again on the World's Agenda. Wayne State University Press. p. 23. ISBN 978-0-8143-2592-6;
- John Quigley (1994). "The Legal Status Of Jerusalem Under International Law". The Turkish Yearbook Of International Relations, vol. XXIV, pp. 11–25.
- ^ Berger, Marshall J.; Ahimeir, Ora (2002). Jerusalem: A City and Its Future. Syracuse University Press. p. 145. ISBN 978-0-8156-2912-2.
- ^ Silverburg, Sanford R. (April 1983). "Pakistan and the West Bank: a research note". Middle Eastern Studies. 19 (2): 261–263. doi:10.1080/00263208308700547. ISSN 0026-3206.
- ^ "Basic Law: Jerusalem, Capital of Israel (Unofficial translation)". www.knesset.gov.il. Passed by the Knesset on the 17th Av, 5740 (30 July 1980).
- ^ "A/RES/66/18 of 26 January 2012". United Nations General Assembly. Archived from the original on 3 February 2014.
- ^ Quigley, John (2005). The Case for Palestine: An International Law Perspective. Duke University Press. p. 173. ISBN 978-0-8223-3539-9.
- ^ Amirav, Moshe (2009). Jerusalem Syndrome: The Palestinian-Israeli Battle for the Holy City. Sussex Academic Press. pp. 26–27. ISBN 978-1-84519-348-5.
- ^ Letter dated 31 May 1949, addressed by Mr. Walter Eytan, Head of the Delegation of Israel (doc.nr. A/AC.25/Com.Jer/9 d.d. 1 June 1949)
- ^ FRUS, 1949. Foreign Relations of the United States, 1949, Section Israel. United States Department of State, Telegram from US consul to Secretary of State. FRUS, 1949, pp. 661–663, 13 January 1949
- ^ "Jerusalem Day". www.knesset.gov.il. Retrieved 6 December 2017.
- ^ a b Lapidoth, Ruth (2013). "Jerusalem". Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law. Oxford.
- ^ "Basic Law: Jerusalem, Capital of Israel". Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs. 30 July 1980. Retrieved 2 April 2007.
- ^ a b The Status of Jerusalem. Archived from the original on 4 May 2016. Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs. 14 March 1999. Quote comes from §IV.
- ^ Einhorn, Talia (2003). "The Status of Palestine/Land of Israel and Its Settlement Under Public International Law". NATIV online, vol. 1 / 2003. Retrieved 11 March 2018.
- ^ "Disputed Territories – Forgotten Facts About the West Bank and Gaza Strip". mfa.gov.il. Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs. 1 February 2003. Retrieved 11 March 2018.
- ^ "Jerusalem History". www.jcpa.org. Retrieved 13 February 2020.
- ^ Hawas, Akram T. The new alliance: Turkey and Israel "Turkey and Israel". Archived from the original on 22 February 2011. Retrieved 13 February 2020.. The fourth Nordic conference on Middle Eastern Studies: The Middle East in globalizing world. Oslo, 13–16 August 1998.
- ^ Dore Gold. "Jerusalem History". Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs. Retrieved 6 December 2017.
- ^ Bodoni, Ronen (1 June 2006). "Sharon's last interview before stroke". Ynetnews. Retrieved 13 February 2020.
- ^ Avishai, Bernard (7 February 2011). "The Israel Peace Plan That Still Could Be". The New York Times. Retrieved 11 March 2018.
- ^ "Netanyahu: Jerusalem holy sites will remain Israeli forever". Haaretz. 21 May 2009.
- ^ Karl Vick (31 December 2012). "The West Bank's 2012: The Year of the Israeli Settlement". Time.
- ^ "Israel's foreign relations: Contra mundum". The Economist. 21 May 2015. Retrieved 24 May 2015.
- ^ "In late night vote Knesset passes law to hinder East Jerusalem withdrawal". The Times of Israel.
- ^ "Netanyahu at Davos: Jerusalem to remain capital under any peace agreement". Jerusalem Post. 25 January 2018.
- ^ Mark Tessler (24 March 2009). A History of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, Second Edition. Indiana University Press. pp. 322–323. ISBN 978-0-253-01346-0.
- ^ UN Committee on Jerusalem, Meeting between the Committee on Jerusalem and the delegations of the Arab states, 20 June 1949 (doc.nr. A/AC.25/Com.Jer./SR.33)
- ^ "Mideast impasse raises new uprising threat". UPI. 28 January 2010. Retrieved 3 January 2023.
- ^ "Jordan – History – Disengagement from the West Bank". www.kinghussein.gov.jo. Retrieved 13 February 2020.
- ^ "Arafat Signs Law Making Jerusalem Palestinian Capital", People's Daily, published 6 October 2002; "Arafat names Jerusalem as capital", BBC News, published 6 October 2002.
- ^ "The Palestinian Official Position". Palestinian National Authority, Ministry of Information. Archived from the original on 12 February 2006. Retrieved 10 February 2006.
- ^ Nathaniel Berman, 'Jerusalem before the International Courts: Utopias 2020'
- ^ International Court of Justice. "Relocation of the United States Embassy to Jerusalem (Palestine v. United States of America)". Retrieved 17 January 2023.
- ^ "The Status of Jerusalem" (PDF). United Nations. Retrieved 7 January 2015.
- ^ a b c Lapidoth, Ruth (2011). "Jerusalem – Some Legal Issues" (PDF). The Jerusalem Institute for Israel Studies. pp. 21–26. Retrieved 11 December 2017. Reprinted from: Rüdiger Wolfrum, ed. (2011). The Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law. Oxford University Press.
- ^ "Jerusalem must be capital of both Israel and Palestine, Ban says". 28 October 2009. UN News Centre.
- ^ "United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181". 29 November 1947. See "Part III. – City of Jerusalem". Archived from the original on 29 October 2006.
- ^ "The Status of Jerusalem, CEIRPP, DPR (1 January 1981)". Archived 8 December 2012 at the Wayback Machine Section "Conclusions".
- ^ "Resolution adopted by the General Assembly – 63/30. Jerusalem" (PDF). United Nations. 23 January 2009. Retrieved 9 April 2011.
- ^ Ira Sharkansky. Governing Jerusalem: Again on the World's Agenda. Wayne State University Press, 1996, page 23. ISBN 978-0-8143-2592-6.
- ^ "EU re-ignites Jerusalem sovereignty row". BBC News. 11 March 1999. Retrieved 7 January 2015.
- ^ "Special Report: Israel's Uncertain Victory in Jerusalem". Foundation for Middle East Peace. 7 May 1999. Retrieved 6 December 2017.
- ^ "December Overview" (PDF). UNOCHA. December 2009. Archived from the original (PDF) on 16 February 2010. Retrieved 3 January 2010.
- ^ a b China supports Palestinian UN bid (Xinhua, 8 September 2011) "China recognizes Palestine as a country with east Jerusalem as its capital and possessing full sovereignty and independence, in accordance with borders agreed upon in 1967, according to Jiang"
- ^ Jerusalem must be capital of both Israel and Palestine, Ban says, UN News Centre, (28 October 2009)
- ^ UNGA, 30 November 2011, Resolution adopted by the General Assembly, 66/18. Jerusalem Archived 16 June 2013 at archive.today (doc.nr. A/RES/66/18 d.d. 26 January 2012).
- ^ "EU re-ignites Jerusalem sovereignty row". BBC News. 11 March 1999. Retrieved 6 December 2017.
- ^ "Reaction by Foreign Minister Sharon on the EU stand on Jerusalem", Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 11 March 1999.
- ^ Leigh Phillips (19 November 2009). "EU rebukes Israel for Jerusalem settlement expansion". EUObserver.
Quoting a statement by the European Union: "If there is to be genuine peace, a way must be found to resolve the status of Jerusalem as the future capital of two states." - ^ "EU: Jerusalem should be capital of two states". BBC News. 8 December 2009. Retrieved 11 August 2010.
- ^ EU, 3 August 2012, Local EU statement on the continued closure of East Jerusalem institutions
- ^ The EU & the Middle East Peace Process: FAQ, European Commission, retrieved 20 June 2007. Archived 23 February 2007 at the Wayback Machine
- ^ Ashton, Catherine (21 March 2010). "Lessons From a Gaza Trip". The New York Times. Retrieved 6 December 2017.
- ^ Muslim leaders urge world to recognise East Jerusalem as capital of Palestine (France 24, 2017-12-13) "their final statement declared “East Jerusalem as the capital of the State of Palestine” and invited “all countries to recognise the State of Palestine and East Jerusalem as its occupied capital.”"
- ^ Muslim leaders call for recognition of East Jerusalem as Palestinian capital (CNN, 13 December 2017) "Leaders from the 57-member Organisation of Islamic Cooperation recognized East Jerusalem as the occupied capital of a Palestinian state and called on the international community to do the same, according to the final communique from the group's emergency summit"
- ^ Muslim Leaders Declare East Jerusalem the Palestinian Capital (New York Times, DEC. 13, 2017) "Leaders and officials of Muslim nations declared East Jerusalem the Palestinian capital on Wednesday at a summit meeting in Istanbul, producing the strongest response yet to President Trump’s decision to recognize the city as Israel’s capital."
- ^ "Costa Rica to relocate embassy to TA". Jerusalem Post. 17 August 2006.
- ^ "El Salvador to move embassy in Israel from Jerusalem to Tel Aviv". People's Daily. 26 August 2006.
- ^ "Foreign Embassies in Israel". Israel Science and Technology Directory. Retrieved 23 January 2018.
- ^ "Bolivia cuts diplomatic ties with Israel". Reuters. 14 January 2009.
- ^ "Bolivia restores relations with Israel". France24. 28 November 2019. Retrieved 11 April 2024.
- ^ "Bolivia cuts ties with Israel; other Latin American countries recall envoys". Al Jazeera English. 1 November 2023. Retrieved 11 April 2024.
- ^ "US consulate general in Jerusalem merges with embassy". BBC. 4 March 2019. Retrieved 9 April 2024.
- ^ "Dominican Republic to weigh relocating embassy to Jerusalem". The Jerusalem Post.
- ^ a b "PA slams Czech Republic's decision to open diplomatic office in Jerusalem". The Jerusalem Post.
- ^ "Muslim-majority Kosovo forges ties with Israel; will open embassy in Jerusalem". The Times of Israel. 1 February 2021. Retrieved 2 February 2021.
- ^ "Honduras opens embassy in Jerusalem, 4th country to do so". AP NEWS. 24 June 2021. Retrieved 18 October 2022.
- ^ "Honduras to consider returning Israeli embassy to Tel Aviv from Jerusalem". Reuters. 8 August 2022. Retrieved 18 October 2022.
- ^ a b "ICEJ-Fiji elated as government commits to open Jerusalem embassy". 23 February 2023.
- ^ a b "Papua New Guinea to open Jerusalem embassy, Israel announces | the Times of Israel". The Times of Israel.
- ^ a b "Peña anticipa que apertura de la embajada paraguaya en Jerusalén se daría en noviembre" [Peña anticipates that reopening of Paraguayan embassy in Jerusalem will take place in November]. Yahoo Noticias. 25 September 2023.
- ^ a b Sokol, Sam (11 December 2024). "Knesset speaker: With Jerusalem embassy, Paraguay 'chose principles over popularity'". The Times of Israel. Retrieved 11 December 2024.
- ^ Mohammed al-Sudairi (28 January 2016). "China's Stance on East Jerusalem". Middle East Research and Information Project. Archived from the original on 24 November 2017. Retrieved 6 December 2017.
- ^ "Why is China worried about Trump recognising Jerusalem as Israel's capital?". South China Morning Post. 6 December 2017. Retrieved 17 December 2017.
- ^ "China's Position on the Recent Development of the Status of Jerusalem". my.china-embassy.org. Retrieved 6 September 2020.
- ^ étrangères, Ministère de l'Europe et des Affaires. "Israel / Palestinian Territories – France condemns the expulsion of Mr Salah Hamouri (18 Dec. 2022)". France Diplomacy – Ministry for Europe and Foreign Affairs. Retrieved 3 January 2023.
- ^ "Foreign Ministry statement regarding Palestinian-Israeli settlement". The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation. 6 April 2017. Archived from the original on 7 November 2017. Retrieved 8 December 2017.
- ^ Keinon, Herb (6 April 2017). "JPost Exclusive: Moscow surprisingly says west Jerusalem is Israel's capital". The Jerusalem Post. Retrieved 7 December 2017.
- ^ Vladimirov, Nikita (6 April 2017). "Russia recognizes Jerusalem as Israel's capital". The Hill. Retrieved 7 December 2017.
- ^ Kontorovich, Eugene (14 May 2017). "Russia Recognizes Jerusalem as Israel's Capital. Why Can't the U.S.?". The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 7 December 2017.
- ^ "Russia could acknowledge West Jerusalem as Israeli Capital" Archived 9 April 2017 at the Wayback Machine. Palestine News Network. 8 April 2017. "[T]he Russian Foreign Ministry said in a statement that if a peace agreement between Israeli and Palestinian people could be reached, Russia could acknowledge West Jerusalem as the Israeli capital."
- ^ "Russia Says It Would Recognize West Jerusalem as Israeli Capital in Deal With Palestinians". Haaretz. 8 April 2017. "In an unusual move, the Russian Foreign Ministry issued a statement on Thursday in which it said, for the first time, that in the event of a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians, West Jerusalem should be the capital of Israel."
- ^ "Russia breaks from pack, holds national day reception in Jerusalem – Israel News – Jerusalem Post". www.jpost.com. 14 June 2018.
- ^ a b "Russia reaffirms recognition of Palestinian state". BBC News. 18 January 2011. Retrieved 8 December 2017.
- ^ a b c "The UK position on Jerusalem – A key issue in the Palestinian track, and a key concern to the whole Islamic world". Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Archived from the original on 17 September 2003.
- ^ "Global Security: Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories – Foreign Affairs Committee. Israel and British Government policy". www.parliament.uk. 26 July 2009. Retrieved 16 May 2010.
- ^ Schmemann, Serge (2 March 1997). "A New Struggle For Jerusalem". The New York Times.
- ^ Mark, Clyde. "Jerusalem: The U.S. Embassy and P.L. 104-45" (PDF). CRS Report for Congress. Congressional Research Service. The Library of Congress. Archived from the original (PDF) on 25 October 2012. Retrieved 1 April 2011.
- ^ Mozgovaya, Natasha; Ravid, Barak (8 December 2009). "U.S.: Only Israel, Palestinians should decide Jerusalem's future". Haaretz. Retrieved 8 December 2017.
- ^ Morello, Carol (8 December 2017). "U.S. Embassy's move to Jerusalem should take at least two years, Tillerson says". Washington Post. Retrieved 9 December 2017.
- ^ "Diplomatic construction", Jerusalem Post, published 1 December 2005.
- ^ Richman, Jackson (29 October 2020). "Report: US citizens born in Jerusalem to be allowed to list 'Israel' on passports". JNS.org.
- ^ Israel, U.S. Mission (30 October 2020). "U.S. Embassy Jerusalem Issues First Passport Listing Place of Birth as "Israel" for Applicants Born in Jerusalem". U.S. Embassy in Israel. Retrieved 16 December 2022.
- ^ "West Bank", The World Factbook, Central Intelligence Agency, 21 December 2022, retrieved 3 January 2023
- ^ "Biden visits east Jerusalem without Israeli flag on limousine". The Jerusalem Post. Retrieved 3 January 2023.
- ^ Berman, Lazar (6 February 2024). "In first bilateral visit, Argentina's Milei says he will move embassy to Jerusalem". The Times of Israel. Retrieved 15 July 2025.
- ^ "Australia recognises west Jerusalem as capital of Israel". France 24. 15 December 2018. Retrieved 13 June 2022.
- ^ Davey, Melissa (15 December 2018). "Australia recognises West Jerusalem as Israel's capital but holds back on embassy move". The Observer – via www.theguardian.com.
- ^ Macmillan, Jade (15 December 2018). "Government recognises West Jerusalem as Israel's capital, embassy to stay put". ABC News.
- ^ "Australia recognises West Jerusalem as capital of Israel". Sky News. Retrieved 18 November 2020.
- ^ "Australia quietly drops recognition of West Jerusalem as capital of Israel". the Guardian. 17 October 2022.
- ^ Knott, Matthew (17 October 2022). "Australia drops recognition of west Jerusalem as Israeli capital". The Sydney Morning Herald.
- ^ "Australia says it will end its recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital". NPR. Associated Press. 18 October 2022.
- ^ "Dutton lashes Wong's 'significant mistake'". 19 October 2022.
- ^ "Topônimos e gentílicos – Manual de Redação – FUNAG". funag.gov.br. Retrieved 13 June 2022.
- ^ "Canadian Policy on Key Issues in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict". Global Affairs Canada. Government of Canada. Archived from the original on 18 February 2018. Retrieved 6 December 2017.
- ^ Gateway, Canada's International; Canada, Le portail international du (26 June 2013). "Canada's International Gateway". Archived from the original on 14 October 2010. Retrieved 6 December 2017.
- ^ "Nach Trumps Jerusalem-Entscheidung: Deutschland steht zur Zwei-Staaten-Lösung". Auswärtiges Amt. 7 December 2017. Retrieved 13 December 2017.
- ^ "Errore". www.esteri.it. Archived from the original on 16 June 2011. Retrieved 6 December 2017.
- ^ "UN Document A/56/480 of 17 October 2001". United Nations. Archived from the original on 11 December 2017. Retrieved 10 December 2017.
- ^ Agencies and TOI staff. "Saudi king: Palestinians have right to East Jerusalem as capital". The Times of Israel. ISSN 0040-7909. Retrieved 6 September 2020.
- ^ "이스라엘 – 국가/지역 검색 – 외교부". Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Republic of Korea (in Korean). Retrieved 1 December 2021.
- ^ "Embassy of the Republic of Korea in the State of Israel". Embassy of the Republic of Korea in the State of Israel. Retrieved 1 December 2021.
- ^ Mallory Shelbourne (17 December 2017). "Turkey will open embassy in east Jerusalem: Erdoğan". The Hill. Retrieved 17 December 2017.
- ^ "Erdogan says Turkey aims to open embassy in East Jerusalem". 17 December 2017. Reuters. Retrieved 17 December 2017.
- ^ Sariyuce, Isil; Damon, Arwa; Qiblawi, Tamara (13 December 2017). "Muslim leaders call for recognition of East Jerusalem as Palestinian capital". CNN.
- ^ "Chile manifiesta preocupación por decisión de Estados Unidos de reconocer a Jerusalén como capital de Israel". Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores de Chile (in Spanish). 6 December 2017. Retrieved 7 December 2017.
- ^ "No plans to move office to Jerusalem, MOFA official says". Taipei Times. 8 December 2017. Retrieved 8 December 2017.
- ^ "State of Israel – West Asia – Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Republic of China (Taiwan) 中華民國外交部 – 全球資訊網英文網". Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Republic of China (Taiwan). Archived from the original on 8 December 2017.
- ^ "Czech parliament denies UNESCO resolution on Jerusalem". Prague Daily Monitor. 24 May 2017. Retrieved 25 May 2017.
- ^ "Position of MFA to Issue of Jerusalem". Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Czech Republic. Archived from the original on 19 January 2018.
- ^ Fulbright, Alexander (4 July 2018). "In 'surprise' move, Slovakia says cultural mission to open in Jerusalem". Times of Israel. Retrieved 6 July 2018.
- ^ "Czech Republic opens de facto embassy to Israel in west Jerusalem". 11 March 2021.
- ^ "Israel har erklæret Jerusalem for sin hovedstad (ca. 900.000 indbyggere). På grund af konflikten og den uafklarede situation vedrørende byens status opretholdes udenlandske ambassader i Tel Aviv". Archived from the original on 30 September 2007. Retrieved 6 December 2017.
- ^ "Finland's country strategy for Palestine – 2021–2024".
- ^ "Guatemala Says it Will Relocate its Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem" Archived 25 December 2017 at the Wayback Machine, Time, 25 December 2017.
- ^ "Guatemalan president arrives to reopen embassy in Jerusalem". The Jerusalem Post. 16 May 2018.
- ^ "Honduras opens embassy in Jerusalem, 4th country to do so". Associated Press; APnews.com. 24 June 2021.
- ^ Jack Moore (27 December 2017). "Iran Recognizes Jerusalem as Palestinian Capital City in Response to Trump Declaration". Newsweek.
- ^ "Iran assembly recognizes Jerusalem as Palestine capital", Anadolu Agency, 27 December 2017.
- ^ "Moldova president said to 'very seriously consider' moving embassy to Jerusalem". The Times of Israel.
- ^ a b c Ahren, Raphael. "Why Israel didn't celebrate when Moldova vowed to move its embassy from Tel Aviv". The Times of Israel. ISSN 0040-7909.
- ^ "Palestinians rip Moldova for Jerusalem embassy move announcement". The Times of Israel. ISSN 0040-7909.
- ^ Moldova's Filip Government Announces Transfer of Embassy to Jerusalem, by Jerusalem Post Staff, Reuters, 12 June 2019
- ^ JTA and TOI staff. "Nauru, world's 'least-visited country,' recognizes Jerusalem as Israel's capital". The Times of Israel. ISSN 0040-7909. Retrieved 6 September 2020.
- ^ "Dit zijn de belangrijke plannen en voornemens uit het coalitieakkoord" [These are the most important plans and intentions in the coalition agreement]. NOS (in Dutch). 16 May 2024. Retrieved 17 May 2024.
- ^ "Norway concerned over situation in East Jerusalem". regjeringen.no. Ministry of Foreign Affairs. 18 January 2010. Retrieved 6 December 2017.
- ^ "Israel claims Oman could be next to normalise ties". 7 October 2021.
- ^ Siddiqui, Naveed (29 January 2020). "Pakistan backs Palestinian state with pre-1967 borders, Jerusalem as capital". DAWN.COM. Retrieved 6 September 2020.
- ^ a b "Paraguay and Israel in spat over embassy". BBC News. 5 September 2018.
- ^ "Philippines and Czech Republic consider moving embassies to Jerusalem after Trump announcement, report". The National. 7 December 2017. Retrieved 7 December 2017.
- ^ "Additional nations said to consider moving embassies to Jerusalem". The Times of Israel. 6 December 2017. Retrieved 7 December 2017.
- ^ Dona Z. Pazzibugan (13 December 2017). "PH thumbs down Trump move declaring Jerusalem as Israel’s capital". Philippine Daily Inquirer.
- ^ a b "Scandal privind mutarea ambasadei din Israel. Președinția acuză premierul că a încălcat Constituția". Știrile Pro TV (in Romanian). 20 April 2018.
- ^ "St Vincent and the Grenadines against US move to recognise Jerusalem as Israel's capital". NationNews Barbados. 6 December 2017. Retrieved 6 December 2017.
- ^ "Netanyahu says Serbia will move its embassy to Jerusalem". www.aljazeera.com. Retrieved 6 September 2020.
- ^ "Serbia won't move embassy if Israel recognizes Kosovo". The Jerusalem Post. Retrieved 9 September 2020.
- ^ "Future status of Jerusalem should be decided through direct negotiations: MFA". The Straits Times. 7 December 2017.
- ^ Kahana, Arieloch (4 July 2018). "Slovakia declares it will move its embassy to Jerusalem". Jewish News Syndicate. Retrieved 6 July 2018.
- ^ Berman, Lazar. "Suriname to open an embassy in Jerusalem in the near future". The Times of Israel. ISSN 0040-7909. Retrieved 30 May 2022.
- ^ "Bee steunt Mohab-Ali: Er komt geen ambassade in Jeruzalem". www.starnieuws.com. Retrieved 31 May 2022.
- ^ Regeringskansliet, Regeringen och (1 May 2015). "Sidan kan inte hittas". Regeringskansliet. Retrieved 6 December 2017.[dead link]
- ^ Peter Beaumont (26 October 2016). "Unesco adopts controversial resolution on Jerusalem holy sites". The Guardian. Retrieved 10 December 2017.
- ^ "Island nation Vanuatu recognizes Jerusalem as Israel's capital". Israel Hayom. 1 June 2017. Archived from the original on 8 December 2017.
- ^ "Venezuela and the NAM express their absolute support for the Palestinian cause". 18 December 2017. Archived from the original on 31 March 2019. Retrieved 3 April 2019.
- ^ "Venezuela Recognizes Jerusalem as the Capital of Palestine as Trump Accelerates U.S. Embassy Move". Arab America. 19 January 2018.
- ^ "Venezuela recognizes Jerusalem as eternal capital of State of Palestine". english.wafa.ps.
- ^ "I24NEWS".
- ^ "Abdullah: No to undermining Jordan's control of Jerusalem holy sites". The Jerusalem Post.
- ^ "Jordan fears losing control over Muslim sites in Jerusalem". The Jerusalem Post.
- ^ "Vatican renews call for peace, negotiated solution on Jerusalem". CNEWA. 11 December 2017.
The Vatican consistently has called for a special status for Jerusalem, particularly its Old City, in order to protect and guarantee access to the holy sites of Judaism, Christianity and Islam.
- ^ "Vatican Hails UN Palestine Vote, Wants Guarantees for Jerusalem". Haaretz. 30 November 2012.
- ^ Horowitz, Jason (6 December 2017). "U.N., European Union and Pope Criticize Trump's Jerusalem Announcement". The New York Times. Retrieved 10 December 2017.
- ^ "Macron confronts police in Jerusalem's Old City". The Jerusalem Post.
- ^ "VIDEO. "Je n'aime pas ce que vous avez fait devant moi" : le coup de colère (en anglais) d'Emmanuel Macron contre les forces de sécurité israéliennes à Jérusalem". Franceinfo (in French). 22 January 2020. Retrieved 22 January 2020.
Status of Jerusalem
View on GrokipediaHistorical Background
Ancient and Biblical Significance
Jerusalem's ancient origins trace to a Canaanite settlement known as Jebus, with archaeological evidence indicating the first city wall constructed around the 1800s BCE, marking the emergence of an organized urban center on the site's strategic ridge.[6] Prior to Israelite control, the city served as a Jebusite stronghold, referenced in extrabiblical sources as a regional power amid Canaanite city-states during the Late Bronze Age collapse circa 1200 BCE.[7] According to biblical accounts corroborated by archaeological findings, King David conquered Jerusalem from the Jebusites around 1000 BCE, renaming it the City of David and establishing it as the political capital of the united Israelite monarchy.[7] This event unified the tribes by selecting a neutral site outside tribal territories, with excavations revealing large-scale 10th-century BCE structures, such as fortifications and a potential palace complex, aligning with descriptions of David's expansions including the Millo.[8] The Tel Dan Stele, an Aramaic inscription from the 9th century BCE, provides the earliest extrabiblical reference to the "House of David," confirming the historical existence of his dynasty and Jerusalem's role as its seat.[9] David's son Solomon constructed the First Temple circa 967–957 BCE on Mount Moriah, traditionally identified as the site of Abraham's near-sacrifice of Isaac, elevating Jerusalem to the spiritual center of Israelite worship.[10] The Temple housed the Ark of the Covenant and served as the locus for annual festivals and sacrifices, embodying God's covenantal presence as described in Deuteronomy 12, where centralization of worship at the chosen site precluded altars elsewhere.[11] Archaeological traces, including 10th-century BCE monumental architecture and artifacts from the Temple Mount vicinity, support the scale of Solomonic-era building, though direct Temple remnants are absent due to later destructions and prohibitions on excavation.[12] The Temple's destruction by Babylonian forces under Nebuchadnezzar II in 586 BCE, evidenced by burn layers and arrowheads from siege contexts, led to exile but reinforced Jerusalem's enduring biblical mandate for restoration.[13] The Second Temple, completed around 516 BCE under Zerubbabel after the Persian conquest of Babylon permitted Jewish return, restored sacrificial rites and pilgrimage obligations, though lacking the Ark and original grandeur until Herod's expansions.[14] In Jewish tradition, Jerusalem's biblical significance derives from its designation as Zion, the "city of our God" (Psalm 48:1–2), the direction of prayer (Daniel 6:10), and prophesied eternal role as the throne of divine kingship (Isaiah 2:2–3), underscoring its foundational status beyond mere political utility.[15] This centrality, rooted in Torah commands for Temple-focused devotion, persisted through prophetic literature emphasizing repentance and return to the city as conditions for national redemption.[16]Periods of Foreign Rule to Ottoman Era
Following the Babylonian conquest and destruction of the First Temple in 586 BCE, Jerusalem entered a period of foreign domination beginning with Persian rule. In 539 BCE, Cyrus the Great of the Achaemenid Empire conquered Babylon, issuing a decree that permitted Jewish exiles to return to Judah and rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem, which was completed around 516 BCE under Zerubbabel and Joshua the High Priest.[17][18] Persian administration granted limited Jewish autonomy, treating Yehud as a province (yehud medina) with Jerusalem as its administrative center, though subject to imperial oversight and taxation; archaeological evidence, including Persian-period seals and coins from the City of David, confirms continuity of Jewish settlement and cultic practices.[7] This era, lasting until 332 BCE, saw no major fortifications rebuilt, reflecting Persian policy of decentralized control rather than militarization.[19] The conquest of the region by Alexander the Great in 332 BCE initiated Hellenistic rule, initially under the Ptolemies of Egypt until circa 200 BCE, followed by Seleucid dominance from Syria. Seleucid kings promoted Hellenization, leading to cultural tensions; Antiochus IV Epiphanes' desecration of the Temple in 167 BCE—erecting a Zeus altar and banning Jewish rituals—provoked the Maccabean Revolt led by Mattathias and his son Judas Maccabeus.[20] The revolt, combining guerrilla tactics and religious fervor, culminated in the Temple's rededication on December 25, 164 BCE (Hanukkah), though full independence under the Hasmonean dynasty was achieved only by 142 BCE with Simon Thassi's removal of the Seleucid Akra fortress south of the Temple Mount.[21] Archaeological finds, such as roof tiles inscribed with Seleucid motifs from Jerusalem's City of David, attest to Greek military presence during this era.[22] Roman intervention began in 63 BCE when general Pompey the Great besieged and captured Jerusalem after a Hasmonean civil war, incorporating Judea into the Roman Republic as a client state while allowing the Hasmonean-Antipater dynasty nominal rule. Herod the Great, appointed king in 37 BCE, transformed the city with massive public works, including the expansion of the Temple Mount platform to enclose about 144,000 square meters using retaining walls and vaults, and the construction of Antonia Fortress and palaces; his rule blended Roman engineering with Jewish religious priorities but was marked by internal repression, including the execution of Hasmonean rivals.[23] Jewish unrest escalated into the First Jewish-Roman War (66–73 CE), triggered by Roman procuratorial corruption and religious provocations; Titus' siege of Jerusalem in 70 CE breached the walls after months of famine and infighting among Jewish factions, resulting in the Temple's destruction by fire on August 70 CE (9th of Av), the slaughter or enslavement of over 1 million inhabitants per Josephus, and the city's partial razing, leaving only the western Temple retaining wall intact.[24] The Bar Kokhba Revolt (132–135 CE), led by Simon bar Kokhba against Hadrian's plans to build a Jupiter temple on the Temple Mount and rename Jerusalem Aelia Capitolina, briefly restored Jewish control but ended in defeat at Betar, with Hadrian expelling Jews from the city and renaming Judea Syria Palaestina to erase Jewish ties.[25][26] Under Byzantine (Eastern Roman) rule from 395 CE, Jerusalem evolved into a Christian pilgrimage center, with Emperor Constantine I legalizing Christianity in 313 CE and his mother Helena identifying holy sites; the Church of the Holy Sepulchre was dedicated in 335 CE, and the city gained patriarchal status as one of five major sees, fostering monastic growth and church construction atop former Jewish sites, while Jews faced periodic bans but maintained a small presence.[27] The population, estimated at 70,000–100,000 by the 6th century, included Christians, Jews, and Samaritans; Persian Sassanid forces sacked the city in 614 CE, massacring thousands and destroying churches before Byzantine reconquest in 629 CE under Heraclius, but Muslim Arab armies under Caliph Umar ibn al-Khattab captured it peacefully in 638 CE, ending Byzantine control.[28][29] Rashidun and Umayyad caliphs (638–750 CE) administered Jerusalem as a provincial center (Jund Filastin), with Umar clearing the Temple Mount esplanade and building a wooden mosque; the Umayyads constructed the Dome of the Rock in 691 CE and Al-Aqsa Mosque by 705 CE, emphasizing Islamic claims to the site while tolerating Christian and Jewish communities under dhimmi status, though conversions and taxes reduced non-Muslim populations.[7] Abbasid rule (750–969 CE) shifted focus to Baghdad, leading to neglect and earthquakes damaging structures; Fatimid control (969–1071 CE) saw periodic tolerance but destruction of churches under Caliph al-Hakim in 1009 CE. Seljuk Turks captured it in 1071 CE, restricting pilgrim access and prompting European Crusades. Crusader forces under Godfrey of Bouillon seized Jerusalem in July 1099 CE, massacring Muslim and Jewish inhabitants (estimates of 10,000–70,000 killed) and establishing the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem, fortifying the city and orienting it toward Christian sites until Saladin's Ayyubid forces recaptured it in 1187 CE after the Battle of Hattin, allowing Christian evacuation but destroying fortifications.[7] Brief Christian restoration occurred via treaty in 1229 CE under Frederick II, but Ayyubid and subsequent Mamluk rule (1260–1517 CE) marginalized the city economically, with Mamluks razing Crusader remnants and enforcing Islamic dominance while permitting limited Jewish immigration and scholarship; population dwindled to under 5,000 by the 15th century. Ottoman Sultan Selim I conquered Jerusalem in 1517 CE, integrating it into the empire as part of the Damascus Eyalet; Suleiman the Magnificent rebuilt the city walls (1538–1541 CE, encompassing 2.5 km circuit with 35 towers) and restored mosques, adopting a millet system granting religious autonomy to Jews, Christians, and Muslims, which stabilized multicultural coexistence despite occasional taxes and restrictions.[7] By the 19th century, Jerusalem's population reached about 8,500 (half Jewish), with European consular pressures improving sanitation and access, though the city remained a backwater until the empire's decline.[7] Throughout these eras, Jerusalem's status oscillated between provincial obscurity and contested holiness, with foreign rulers exploiting its symbolic value while Jewish communities persisted amid exiles and rebuildings, evidenced by continuous archaeological strata of synagogues and ritual baths.British Mandate and 1947 UN Partition Plan
Following the Ottoman Empire's defeat in World War I, British forces occupied Palestine, including Jerusalem, from December 1917 onward, establishing military administration under General Edmund Allenby.[30] The League of Nations formally conferred the Mandate for Palestine upon Britain on July 24, 1922, with implementation effective September 29, 1923; the Mandate incorporated the 1917 Balfour Declaration's commitment to facilitating a Jewish national home while safeguarding the civil and religious rights of non-Jewish communities.[31] Jerusalem served as the administrative capital under the British High Commissioner, with governance emphasizing security amid rising Arab-Jewish tensions fueled by Jewish immigration—totaling over 400,000 Jews by 1947, largely escaping European pogroms and Nazi persecution—and Arab opposition thereto.[32] Key disturbances in Jerusalem during the Mandate included the April 1920 riots, where Arab crowds attacked Jewish residents, resulting in five Jewish and four Arab deaths, prompted by anti-Zionist agitation against British policy.[32] The 1929 riots escalated violence, with Arab assaults on Jewish quarters in Jerusalem and Hebron killing 133 Jews overall, driven by disputes over access to the Western Wall and rumors of Jewish encroachment on the Temple Mount.[32] The 1936–1939 Arab Revolt further destabilized the region, involving widespread strikes, sabotage against British infrastructure, and attacks on Jewish settlements, culminating in over 5,000 Arab, 400 Jewish, and 200 British casualties; Britain responded with martial law and the 1939 White Paper, capping Jewish immigration at 75,000 over five years despite ongoing European Jewish refugee crises.[33] By 1947, amid post-World War II exhaustion and intensified violence—including the 1946 King David Hotel bombing by Jewish militants—Britain referred the Palestine question to the United Nations.[30] The UN Special Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP) recommended partition, leading to General Assembly Resolution 181 (II), adopted on November 29, 1947, by a vote of 33–13 with 10 abstentions.[34] The plan proposed independent Jewish and Arab states economically united, allocating approximately 56% of Mandate territory to the Jewish state (despite Jews comprising one-third of the population and owning 7% of land) and 43% to the Arab state, but designated Jerusalem and surrounding villages—including Bethlehem, Ein Karem, and Abu Dis—as a corpus separatum under international administration by the UN Trusteeship Council.[34] Under the corpus separatum provisions, Jerusalem's regime was to be demilitarized, with a UN-appointed governor ensuring neutrality, free access to holy sites, and protection for all religions; the enclave's boundaries excluded the Jewish-majority western suburbs like Rehavia but included the Old City and eastern areas, spanning about 175 square kilometers with a projected population of 205,000 (100,000 Jews, 105,000 non-Jews).[34] The Trusteeship was provisional for 10 years, after which residents would decide status via plebiscite, subject to UN approval; economic integration with both states was mandated, alongside safeguards for Christian and Muslim holy places, including the Vatican's observed interests.[34] Jewish leaders accepted the plan despite Jerusalem's internationalization diluting territorial contiguity, while Arab states rejected it outright, arguing it violated self-determination principles and demographic realities, precipitating civil war as Britain set Mandate termination for May 15, 1948.[33][35]1948 Arab-Israeli War and Division
The 1948 Arab-Israeli War erupted immediately after Israel's declaration of independence on May 14, 1948, as armies from Egypt, Transjordan (Jordan), Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon invaded the territory of the former British Mandate of Palestine the following day.[36] In Jerusalem, which the 1947 UN Partition Plan had designated as an international zone (corpus separatum) under neither Jewish nor Arab sovereignty, fighting intensified rapidly.[30] Palestinian Arab irregulars and the Transjordan Arab Legion blockaded the city from late 1947, severing supply routes and subjecting Jewish neighborhoods to shelling and assaults that caused civilian casualties and infrastructure damage.[37] Jewish defense forces, primarily the Haganah, mounted a fierce resistance, establishing convoys to break the siege despite heavy losses; Operation Nachshon in early April 1948 temporarily opened the road to Jerusalem but could not prevent the fall of the Jewish Quarter in the Old City to the Arab Legion on May 28, 1948, after prolonged combat that displaced hundreds of residents.[37] By late May, Transjordanian forces controlled the eastern sector, including the Old City and key holy sites, while Israeli forces consolidated control over western Jerusalem, encompassing modern neighborhoods and securing a tenuous link via the "Burma Road" bypass constructed during a UN truce from June 11 to July 8, 1948.[38] The war's Jerusalem front involved urban warfare, with estimates of thousands of combatants and civilians affected, culminating in no side achieving full control of the undivided city as envisioned by the rejected UN plan.[36] Hostilities formally ceased with the 1949 Armistice Agreements, including the Israel-Jordan pact signed on April 3, 1949, which delineated the Green Line as a de facto boundary without prejudice to future claims.[39] Under these terms, Israel retained sovereignty over West Jerusalem, establishing it as the seat of government, while Jordan administered East Jerusalem and the West Bank, annexing the latter in 1950 but barring Jewish access to holy sites and violating armistice provisions on cultural heritage.[36] [40] This division persisted as a military demarcation rather than a permanent border, reflecting the war's outcome from Arab states' coordinated invasion against the nascent Israeli state, which had accepted partition despite its flaws.[41] The armistices left Jerusalem bifurcated, with barbed wire and no-man's-lands separating sectors until 1967, undermining the internationalized status proposed in 1947.[42]Israeli Reunification and Control
Jordanian Annexation and Desecration (1948-1967)
Following the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, Jordanian forces captured East Jerusalem, including the Old City, on May 28, 1948, after the fall of the Jewish Quarter on May 27, leading to the expulsion of its approximately 1,500 Jewish residents and the destruction of most structures in the area.[43][44] On April 24, 1950, Jordan's parliament formally annexed the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, in a resolution that integrated the territories administratively but received international recognition only from Britain, Iraq, and Pakistan.[45][46] This annexation violated the 1949 armistice agreement, which stipulated demilitarized status for Jerusalem and preservation of holy sites, yet Jordan barred all Jewish access to the Old City, including the Western Wall, for the duration of its control until 1967.[45][44] Under Jordanian administration, 58 synagogues in the Jewish Quarter—many dating back centuries—were systematically razed or desecrated, with the iconic Hurva Synagogue, built in 1700 and rebuilt in 1864, deliberately dynamited in 1949 despite its cultural significance.[44][43] The Mount of Olives Jewish cemetery, used for burials over 3,000 years and containing an estimated 150,000 graves by 1948, suffered extensive vandalism: approximately 38,000-50,000 tombstones were smashed, with many repurposed as paving stones for roads, latrines, and construction materials, including for a Jordanian military camp near Jericho.[43][47][44] Jordan's Waqf authorities neglected or repurposed other Jewish sites, such as ancient mikvehs and study halls, while Christian holy places like the Church of the Holy Sepulchre faced intermittent restrictions, though less systematic destruction than Jewish ones.[43] These actions contravened Article VIII of the 1949 armistice, which required protection of sacred places and free access for all religions, resulting in no Jewish presence or worship in East Jerusalem for 19 years and contributing to the demographic shift where Jews, who comprised about 2% of the population pre-1948, were entirely expelled from the eastern sector.[44][45]Six-Day War (1967) and Defensive Reunification
The Six-Day War erupted on June 5, 1967, amid escalating threats from Arab states, including Egypt's closure of the Straits of Tiran on May 22, 1967, which constituted a casus belli under international maritime law, and the massing of Egyptian, Syrian, and other forces along Israel's borders. Israel launched preemptive airstrikes against Egyptian airfields that morning to neutralize the imminent aerial threat, destroying over 300 Egyptian aircraft within hours and securing air superiority. Despite Israel's diplomatic efforts, conveyed through the United States and United Nations, urging Jordan's King Hussein to stay neutral and avoid opening a second front, Jordanian forces disregarded these warnings and initiated hostilities by shelling West Jerusalem starting around 11:45 a.m. on June 5, targeting civilian areas and expelling UN observers from their headquarters in the city. This unprovoked artillery barrage, originating from positions including the Old City, killed 20 Israelis and wounded over 100 in the first hours, prompting Israel to respond with airstrikes on Jordanian military targets and ground counteroffensives to neutralize the threat to West Jerusalem's population.[48][49][50][51] Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) paratroopers and infantry units, facing fierce Jordanian resistance in urban and mountainous terrain, advanced eastward from West Jerusalem over June 6–7, capturing strategic positions such as Government House, Mount Scopus, and the Augusta Victoria compound. By early June 7, IDF forces breached the Lion's Gate and entered the Old City after intense house-to-house fighting, reaching the Western Wall and Temple Mount by midday, thereby liberating areas inaccessible to Jews since Jordan's 1948 occupation. Jordanian forces, outnumbered and outmaneuvered, suffered heavy losses—approximately 6,000 dead and 700 prisoners—while Israel reported around 500 fatalities in the Jerusalem sector. The fighting on the Jordanian front concluded with a UN-brokered ceasefire on June 7 for Jerusalem, extended regionally by June 10, leaving Israel in control of East Jerusalem and the West Bank. This outcome stemmed directly from defensive necessities, as Jordan's alignment with Egypt's aggression and initiation of combat in Jerusalem compelled Israel to secure the city's eastern approaches to prevent encirclement and further bombardment.[52][53][51] In the war's aftermath, Israel moved swiftly to reunify Jerusalem under unified administration, enacting three Knesset laws on June 27, 1967: an amendment to the Law and Administration Ordinance extending Israeli law to the annexed area; an amendment to the Municipalities Ordinance incorporating East Jerusalem into the municipal boundaries; and provisions for protecting holy sites. These measures applied Israeli sovereignty to approximately 70 square kilometers, including the Old City, while guaranteeing freedom of access to religious sites for all faiths, reversing Jordan's 19-year exclusion of Jews from their holiest places. The reunification ensured administrative integration, infrastructure development, and security for the city's 200,000-plus residents, framing it as a corrective to prior division rather than expansionist conquest, given the defensive context of the conflict.[54][55][56]Basic Law: Jerusalem, Capital of Israel (1980)
The Basic Law: Jerusalem, Capital of Israel was enacted by the Ninth Knesset on July 30, 1980, during the tenure of Prime Minister Menachem Begin's Likud government, thirteen years after Israel's capture of East Jerusalem in the 1967 Six-Day War.[57][58] The legislation, proposed by Knesset member Geula Cohen, formalized Israel's longstanding assertion of sovereignty over the undivided city, designating it as the state's eternal capital in response to ongoing diplomatic pressures and partition proposals.[58][59] Article 1 of the law states unequivocally: "Jerusalem, complete and united, is the capital of Israel."[60] Article 2 establishes Jerusalem as the permanent seat of the President, Knesset, Government, and Supreme Court, underscoring its central role in Israel's constitutional framework.[60] Article 3 mandates protection of the Holy Places against desecration or violation, reflecting commitments under the 1967 protection order issued by Defense Minister Moshe Dayan.[60] Further provisions require the government to allocate special budgetary resources for Jerusalem's development, prosperity, and residents' welfare, including compensation for economic disadvantages stemming from its status.[60] Article 5 prohibits the transfer of administrative authority over any part of Jerusalem's area or jurisdiction without Knesset approval by a majority of all members, a clause amended in 2000 to mandate at least 61 votes and further in 2018 to require 80 for concessions affecting the city.[60][61] As one of Israel's Basic Laws, which collectively form the underpinnings of its uncodified constitution, the enactment entrenches Jerusalem's indivisibility against territorial compromises, prioritizing national security imperatives and historical continuity over international calls for status quo ante restoration to pre-1967 divisions.[59] The law's passage by a 67-27 vote amid domestic debate highlighted divisions, yet it has since shaped Israeli policy, including resistance to UN resolutions deeming East Jerusalem occupied territory.[57]Administrative Integration and Security Imperatives
Following the Six-Day War, on June 27, 1967, the Israeli Knesset enacted Amendment No. 11 to the Law and Administration Ordinance (1948), extending the "law, jurisdiction and administration" of Israel to East Jerusalem and surrounding areas. [1] [62] This measure unified the administration of the previously divided city under a single municipal framework, incorporating approximately 70 square kilometers of territory, including East Jerusalem, into Jerusalem's expanded boundaries. [1] [63] The extension aimed to integrate infrastructure, public services, and urban planning across the city, reversing the isolation of Jewish holy sites and neighborhoods that occurred under Jordanian rule from 1948 to 1967. [1] Administrative integration involved applying Israeli civil law to residents of East Jerusalem, granting them permanent residency status with rights to social benefits, healthcare, and participation in municipal elections, though citizenship required separate application. [1] Over subsequent decades, investments in roads, utilities, and education expanded to Arab neighborhoods, with the unified municipality managing a population that grew from about 250,000 in 1967 to over 900,000 by 2020, reflecting demographic integration efforts. [1] These steps formalized de facto control without initial full annexation, which was later codified in the Basic Law: Jerusalem, Capital of Israel (1980). [63] Security imperatives drove the boundary extensions and unified governance, as divided control pre-1967 enabled Jordanian forces to position snipers on overlooking hills and restrict access to Jewish sites, fostering vulnerability to cross-border attacks. [64] Post-unification, integrated administration facilitated intelligence and policing to counter terrorism, with East Jerusalem residents implicated in numerous attacks, including bombings and stabbings, necessitating checkpoints and barriers aligned with the 1967 municipal lines to segment threats while preserving access. [64] [65] This approach aligned with Israel's defensible borders doctrine, prioritizing control over strategic elevations and corridors to prevent Jerusalem from reverting to a frontline, as evidenced by reduced infiltration incidents after 1967 compared to the porous armistice lines prior. [66] The measures responded to empirical patterns of violence, where relinquishing divided urban control historically amplified risks from non-state actors exploiting ungoverned spaces. [64]Israeli Sovereign Claims
Historical and Archaeological Evidence of Jewish Ties
Archaeological evidence establishes Jerusalem as the political and religious center of the ancient Kingdom of Judah, founded under King David circa 1000 BCE, with the Tel Dan Stele providing the earliest extra-biblical reference to the "House of David" in the 9th century BCE.[67] Discovered in 1993 at Tel Dan in northern Israel, this Aramaic inscription by an Aramean king boasts of victories over the kings of Israel and the "House of David," confirming a Davidic dynasty ruling Judah contemporaneously with the northern kingdom.[67] The stele's authenticity has been verified through paleographic and epigraphic analysis, countering minimalist scholarly doubts about David's historicity by anchoring the biblical narrative to Iron Age II material culture.[68] Excavations in the City of David, the original core of ancient Jerusalem south of the Temple Mount, have uncovered Iron Age structures and artifacts indicative of a centralized Judahite administration from the 10th century BCE onward.[8] The Large Stone Structure, identified by archaeologist Eilat Mazar as potentially David's palace, features massive ashlar masonry and casemate walls dating to the Davidic-Solomonic era, supported by associated pottery and location atop the ridge as described in 2 Samuel 5:9.[8] Nearby, the Gihon Spring fortifications and Warren's Shaft system reflect early defensive engineering tied to the Jebusite city's conquest and fortification by David.[69] Bullae (seal impressions) with Hebrew names, such as "Gedaliah ben Pashur" from the late First Temple period, and cooking pots inscribed in ancient Hebrew script further attest to continuous Jewish administrative and ritual activity in Jerusalem through the 6th century BCE destruction.[69] The Siloam Inscription, carved in paleo-Hebrew circa 701 BCE within Hezekiah's Tunnel, documents the engineering feat of connecting Jerusalem's water supply during Assyrian threats, as corroborated by 2 Kings 20:20 and 2 Chronicles 32:30.[70] Discovered in 1880, this six-line text describes workers from opposite ends meeting in the middle, providing direct epigraphic evidence of Judahite literacy and hydraulic expertise in the capital under the Davidic line.[71] A recently unearthed Assyrian inscription from circa 700 BCE near the Temple Mount, the first of its kind in Jerusalem, references administrative practices consistent with the Neo-Assyrian siege of Judah, reinforcing the historical context of biblical accounts without contradicting Jewish sovereignty.[72] Although direct remains of the First Temple are absent due to Babylonian destruction in 586 BCE and subsequent prohibitions on Temple Mount excavations, illicit soil from the site analyzed by the Temple Mount Sifting Project has yielded over 300,000 artifacts, including First Temple-era Hebrew seals, ivory pomegranate fragments, and ritual bone handles, affirming Jewish cultic centrality in Jerusalem from the 10th to 6th centuries BCE.[73] Second Temple evidence, such as Herodian retaining walls and the Trumpeting Place inscription, builds on this foundation, with mikvehs (ritual baths) and ossuaries inscribed with Jewish names underscoring enduring ties post-exile.[12] These findings collectively demonstrate Jerusalem's foundational role in Jewish ethnogenesis, predating other claimants by over a millennium and rooted in verifiable stratigraphic and inscriptional data rather than later traditions.[74]Legal Arguments under International Law
The legal foundation for Israeli sovereignty over Jerusalem traces to the San Remo Conference of April 1920, where the Allied Powers incorporated the 1917 Balfour Declaration into the Mandate for Palestine, designating the territory—including Jerusalem—as the site for a Jewish national home with rights to close settlement across the land.[75] These provisions, enshrined in Article 6 of the 1922 League of Nations Mandate, imposed obligations on the administering power to facilitate Jewish immigration and settlement without partitioning the territory or excluding Jerusalem, establishing irrevocable Jewish rights under international law that persist post-Mandate dissolution.[76] Following the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, Jordan's occupation and 1950 annexation of East Jerusalem lacked international recognition, with only partial acknowledgment from the United Kingdom and Pakistan; the Arab League rejected it, and the United Nations treated Jordan as a belligerent occupant rather than sovereign, rendering the claim legally void under principles prohibiting acquisition by conquest.[44] The 1949 Armistice Agreements explicitly designated the Green Line as a military demarcation, not a political boundary, preserving Israel's pre-war claims and preventing Jordan from asserting title.[1] Israel's reunification of Jerusalem in the 1967 Six-Day War occurred in response to Jordanian aggression, including artillery barrages on West Jerusalem, qualifying as lawful defensive action under Article 51 of the UN Charter; acquisition of territory in such wars against non-sovereign aggressors does not violate the post-1945 norm against conquest, as Jordan held no legitimate title to East Jerusalem.[77] UN Security Council Resolution 242 (1967), calling for withdrawal from "territories" captured in 1967 (not "the territories" or all areas), omitted specific reference to Jerusalem and conditioned any retreat on secure, recognized borders and peace treaties, implicitly endorsing negotiated outcomes over fixed reversion to illegal prior lines.[78] Under the principle of uti possidetis juris, Israel as successor to the Mandate inherited administrative boundaries encompassing unified Jerusalem at independence in 1948, with no valid partition or cession altering this; Palestinian claims to East Jerusalem as sovereign territory fail absent a recognized state displacing prior rights, and Jordan's ouster in 1967 transferred effective control to the rightful inheritor.[79] Israel's 1967 administrative integration and 1980 Basic Law formalizing sovereignty align with international law's tolerance for annexation of terra nullius-like areas (lacking legitimate sovereign) secured in self-defense, distinct from aggressive conquests prohibited by the UN Charter.[80] While non-recognition by most states reflects political pressures rather than legal nullity—evident in inconsistent application to other territorial disputes—effective control, historical rights, and absence of competing sovereignty substantiate Israel's title.[81]Israeli Supreme Court Affirmations
The Israeli Supreme Court, functioning as the High Court of Justice (HCJ), has repeatedly upheld the application of Israeli law to the entirety of Jerusalem, affirming its unified status under sovereign Israeli control following the 1967 reunification. Immediately after the Six-Day War, the government issued orders extending municipal jurisdiction and Israeli legislation to East Jerusalem, which the court validated as a legitimate exercise of authority over territory acquired in a defensive war, distinguishing it from formal annexation of enemy territory.[1] A pivotal affirmation came in HCJ 256/01 Rabach et al. v. Jerusalem Court for Local Matters (16 January 2002), where the court dismissed a petition contesting an Israeli local court's jurisdiction over illegal construction by Palestinian residents in East Jerusalem. The justices ruled that the 1967 extension of Israeli law to the area was lawful under domestic legal frameworks, rejecting arguments that it violated international prohibitions on acquiring territory by force. Justice Thea Strasberg-Cohen emphasized that Israeli legislation supersedes any perceived international inconsistencies, thereby endorsing the de facto integration of East Jerusalem and the city's indivisibility.[1][62] Subsequent rulings have reinforced this position, including affirmations of permanent residency status for East Jerusalem Arabs as "native-born" under Israeli administration, distinct from occupied territories, while allowing revocation for security-related breaches of allegiance. The court has not invalidated the Basic Law: Jerusalem, Capital of Israel (30 July 1980), which declares the city "complete and united" as the capital, and has invoked it to preclude administrative divisions or transfers of authority that could undermine unity. In cases challenging residency revocations or land applications, the Supreme Court has consistently applied Israeli civil law uniformly across Jerusalem, treating the eastern sector as an integral municipal extension rather than disputed territory.[82][1]Rejections of Partition Narratives
The Basic Law: Jerusalem, Capital of Israel, enacted on July 30, 1980, explicitly declares that "Jerusalem, complete and united, is the capital of Israel," formalizing the rejection of any partition and affirming sovereignty over the entire municipal area, including territories incorporated after the 1967 Six-Day War.[60] This legislation responded to international pressures for division by entrenching unified control, with subsequent amendments in 2000 prohibiting the transfer of authority over Jerusalem's expanded area—encompassing 64.5 square kilometers from 28 former villages—to any foreign entity without supermajority Knesset approval.[1] The Basic Law: Referendum of 2014 further reinforced this stance by mandating a national referendum and Knesset majority for any territorial concessions, effectively barring unilateral partition proposals.[1] Israeli Supreme Court rulings have upheld these measures, rejecting claims that East Jerusalem's status invalidates unified jurisdiction; for instance, in a January 16, 2002, decision, the High Court affirmed that Israeli law applies lawfully across the city, prioritizing domestic sovereignty over conflicting international interpretations.[1] Successive Israeli governments have consistently opposed partition narratives in negotiations, such as during the Oslo process and Camp David talks, where offers of limited Palestinian administrative roles in certain areas were conditioned on retained Israeli security oversight, not territorial division.[83] The 2018 Basic Law: Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People reiterated that "Jerusalem, complete and united, is the capital of Israel," underscoring policy continuity against schemes reviving the 1947 UN Partition Plan's corpus separatum concept.[84] Substantive rejections emphasize practical and security imperatives: division would recreate vulnerabilities seen from 1948 to 1967 under Jordanian control, including restricted Jewish access to the Old City and Old City Wall sniper fire on West Jerusalem neighborhoods, compromising the city's defensibility given its narrow geography.[83] Demographically, proponents of partition argue it would reduce Arab populations to preserve a Jewish majority, but critics note this ignores integrated municipal services—such as shared utilities, education, and healthcare—and the potential for continued Arab residency or influx post-division, failing to resolve underlying tensions.[83] Functionally, the city's neighborhoods form an interconnected fabric, with East Jerusalem areas reliant on West Jerusalem infrastructure; severing them would disrupt daily life, economic ties, and access to unified holy sites like the Temple Mount, where Israeli administration ensures multi-faith security without foreign veto.[83] These arguments prioritize empirical outcomes over abstract international blueprints, viewing partition as illusory given historical precedents of conflict under divided rule.[1]Palestinian Positions
Claims to East Jerusalem as Capital
The Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) declared the independence of the State of Palestine on November 15, 1988, in Algiers, explicitly designating Jerusalem—interpreted by Palestinian leaders as East Jerusalem—as the capital of the new state.[85] This proclamation framed the state within the borders occupied by Israel since the 1967 Six-Day War, rejecting Israeli sovereignty over East Jerusalem and emphasizing Palestinian self-determination rights under international law.[86] The claim is enshrined in Palestinian constitutional documents, including the Amended Basic Law of 2003, which stipulates in Article 3: "Jerusalem shall be the capital of Palestine."[87] Palestinian authorities maintain that East Jerusalem, defined by the 1949 Armistice Demarcation Lines (Green Line), hosts a Palestinian demographic majority—approximately 370,000 Palestinian residents as of 2023 compared to around 220,000 Jewish Israelis in the area—and serves as an economic and cultural hub for Palestinians.[88] They cite the area's Arab-majority population prior to 1967, continuous Muslim and Christian Arab habitation dating to Ottoman times, and the religious centrality of the Haram al-Sharif (Temple Mount) compound, encompassing Al-Aqsa Mosque and the Dome of the Rock, as Islam's third-holiest sites after Mecca and Medina.[30] Legally, Palestinian positions invoke United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 (1967), which demands Israeli withdrawal from territories occupied in the war without specifying borders, and subsequent resolutions like 478 (1980), which declared Israel's Basic Law: Jerusalem invalid and called for non-recognition of the annexation.[89] These arguments portray East Jerusalem as occupied Palestinian territory pending final-status negotiations, with sovereignty deriving from the Palestinian people's right to statehood in the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem. The Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), comprising 57 member states, reinforced this in a December 13, 2017, extraordinary summit resolution, proclaiming East Jerusalem the "capital of the State of Palestine" and urging global non-recognition of contrary claims.[90] Notably, pre-1967 Palestinian national documents, such as the original PLO Charter of 1964, did not assert claims to East Jerusalem, then under Jordanian control following its 1950 annexation (recognized internationally only by the United Kingdom and Pakistan), as Article 24 explicitly disavowed sovereignty over the West Bank under Hashemite rule.[91] Post-1967 claims thus pivoted to framing the territory as inherently Palestinian, aligning with broader Arab rejection of Israel's defensive conquest amid coordinated military aggression by Egypt, Jordan, and Syria. Despite Oslo Accords (1993–1995) deferring Jerusalem to final-status talks, Palestinian leadership has consistently rejected shared or divided sovereignty, insisting on exclusive control over East Jerusalem institutions, including a projected presidential seat and parliament.[88]Oslo Accords and Palestinian Negotiation Stances
The Oslo Accords, comprising the Declaration of Principles signed on September 13, 1993, and the Interim Agreement of September 28, 1995, explicitly deferred the status of Jerusalem to final-status negotiations, alongside issues such as borders, settlements, and refugees, without granting the newly established Palestinian Authority any administrative jurisdiction over the city during the five-year interim period.[92][93] This framework aimed to build mutual recognition and phased autonomy in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, but Jerusalem's exclusion from interim arrangements preserved Israel's undivided control while committing both parties to negotiate its future resolution by May 1999, a deadline that passed without agreement.[94] Palestinian negotiation stances under Yasser Arafat emphasized undivided sovereignty over East Jerusalem, including the Old City and the Haram al-Sharif (Temple Mount), as the capital of a future Palestinian state, rejecting any Israeli retention of sovereignty or administrative rights in these areas as incompatible with their claims to occupied territory.[95] In the lead-up to and during Camp David II in July 2000, Arafat refused Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak's proposals, which offered Palestinian sovereignty over most Arab neighborhoods in East Jerusalem and shared custodianship arrangements for holy sites, insisting instead on exclusive control without concessions on core religious and national symbols.[96][97] This position contributed to the summit's collapse, as Arafat provided no detailed counterproposals on Jerusalem and prioritized defensive maximalism amid domestic pressures from rejectionist factions.[96] Subsequent talks at Taba in January 2001 saw marginal progress, with Palestinian negotiators engaging on concepts like a "special regime" for the Old City's holy basin involving international oversight, but ultimate agreement foundered on Arafat's refusal to cede sovereignty over the Haram al-Sharif or accept Israeli security vetoes, reflecting a consistent stance that any compromise short of full East Jerusalem capital status undermined Palestinian legitimacy.[97] Post-Oslo, Palestinian Authority officials and PLO documents have reiterated that Jerusalem's eastern sector, annexed by Israel in 1967 but deemed occupied under their interpretation of international law, remains non-negotiable for statehood, with negotiation flexibility limited to practical arrangements rather than sovereignty yields.[94] This rigidity, coupled with internal divisions where groups like Hamas rejected Oslo's framework outright, has stalled final-status talks, as evidenced by the absence of resumed negotiations on Jerusalem since 2001 despite intermittent diplomatic efforts.[98]International Legal Challenges, Including ICJ v. US
In September 2018, the State of Palestine instituted contentious proceedings against the United States at the International Court of Justice (ICJ), alleging that the U.S. recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital and relocation of its embassy there in May 2018 violated Article 2(1) of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of 1961, by implying recognition of disputed territory as sovereign Israeli land and infringing on Palestinian rights to self-determination.[99][100] Palestine argued that international consensus, as reflected in United Nations resolutions, treats Jerusalem's status as subject to negotiation, rendering the U.S. action a breach of the convention's requirement that diplomatic missions be located in the receiving state's recognized sovereign territory.[101] The United States contested the ICJ's jurisdiction, asserting that Palestine's 2012 declaration accepting compulsory jurisdiction under Article 36(2) of the ICJ Statute did not apply retroactively to the dispute and that the claim distorted the Vienna Convention's purpose.[102] No judgment on the merits was issued, as Palestine discontinued the proceedings in May 2021, leaving the case without a binding resolution.[99] Broader international legal challenges to Israel's control over Jerusalem have centered on claims of unlawful annexation and alteration of the city's status, particularly East Jerusalem, viewed by challengers as occupied Palestinian territory since the 1967 Six-Day War. United Nations Security Council Resolution 478, adopted unanimously on August 20, 1980 (with U.S. abstention), censured Israel's July 30, 1980, Basic Law declaring unified Jerusalem as its capital, determining that all legislative and administrative measures to implement it were null and void, and calling on member states to withdraw diplomatic missions from the city.) The resolution affirmed prior UN positions, including Resolution 252 (1968), which invalidated any unilateral changes to Jerusalem's status, though enforcement was limited by the non-binding nature of such measures absent U.S. veto override and Israel's rejection of their legal force, citing defensive conquest and historical Jewish sovereignty absent in pre-1967 Jordanian rule.[103] The ICJ's July 9, 2004, advisory opinion on the "Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory" addressed Jerusalem indirectly, ruling 14-1 that Israel's separation barrier, enclosing East Jerusalem and settlements, contravened international law, including the Fourth Geneva Convention's prohibitions on altering occupied territory's status and acquiring land by force.[104] The Court, responding to a UN General Assembly request, declared the wall's route expressive of illegal annexation intent, obligating Israel to dismantle it, cease construction, and make reparations, while urging states not to recognize or aid the situation; it affirmed settlements in East Jerusalem as violations but stopped short of directly invalidating the city's unified status, focusing on humanitarian and territorial integrity norms.[105] Israel dismissed the non-binding opinion as politically motivated, emphasizing security imperatives against terrorism and disputing the "occupied" label for territory taken in a war of self-defense from non-sovereign Jordan.[106] More recently, the ICJ's July 19, 2024, advisory opinion on "Legal Consequences arising from the Policies and Practices of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem," requested by the UN General Assembly in December 2022, declared Israel's presence in the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and Gaza unlawful under international law, citing systematic settlement expansion, land expropriation, and demographic alterations as breaches of the prohibition on permanent territorial acquisition by force and the Palestinian right to self-determination.[3] By 11-4 votes on key questions, the Court specified that Israel's legislative actions to extend sovereignty over East Jerusalem, including the 1980 Basic Law, violated the city's pre-1967 status quo and required immediate withdrawal of administration, evacuation of settlers, and reparations; it further obligated other states to refrain from recognizing the situation as lawful or providing aid sustaining it.[3] Critics, including the U.S. and Israel, highlighted the opinion's reliance on contested premises—like equating post-1967 control with permanent occupation without addressing Jordan's prior illegal annexation—and its non-binding status, underscoring the ICJ's advisory role's susceptibility to UN political dynamics where anti-Israel resolutions routinely pass by large margins.[3]Internal Palestinian Divisions on Jerusalem
The primary internal divisions among Palestinians regarding Jerusalem stem from ideological and strategic differences between the Fatah-led Palestinian Authority (PA), which governs parts of the West Bank, and Hamas, which controls Gaza. Fatah, rooted in secular nationalism, has historically pursued diplomatic negotiations under frameworks like the Oslo Accords, where it asserted claims to East Jerusalem as the Palestinian capital while engaging in talks that explored limited compromises, such as sovereignty over Arab neighborhoods and custodianship of the Temple Mount/Al-Aqsa compound, though rejecting Israeli sovereignty over any part of the Old City.[88] In contrast, Hamas, an Islamist movement, explicitly rejects recognition of Israel and frames Jerusalem—particularly the Al-Aqsa Mosque—as an inalienable Islamic waqf under full Palestinian sovereignty, opposing any partition or shared administration as a violation of religious principles, as reiterated in its 1988 charter and subsequent documents.[107][108] These factional rifts exacerbate geographical splits, with Fatah's influence in the West Bank contrasting Hamas's dominance in Gaza, leading to divergent tactics on Jerusalem: Fatah emphasizes international advocacy and PA claims to non-contiguous East Jerusalem areas despite lacking administrative control there, while Hamas leverages incitement around Al-Aqsa to mobilize support and justify armed actions against perceived Israeli encroachments.[109] Public opinion polls reflect broad consensus against compromise, with only 18% of Palestinians supporting mutual recognition of East Jerusalem as the Palestinian capital and West Jerusalem as Israel's in a 2016 joint survey, indicating minimal appetite for division even as leadership differences persist.[110] This hardline public stance, consistent across regions (20% support in West Bank, 14% in Gaza), underscores how internal factionalism hinders unified negotiation strategies, as Hamas's rejectionism undermines Fatah's diplomatic efforts.[110] Reconciliation attempts, such as the July 2024 Beijing Declaration, have seen Fatah concede to Hamas demands for a unity government overseeing the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and Gaza, with both affirming an undivided East Jerusalem as the Palestinian capital, yet underlying distrust—rooted in Hamas's 2007 violent takeover of Gaza and repeated failed unity pacts—limits implementation and sustains strategic divergences on enforcing claims to Jerusalem.[111] Among East Jerusalem's Palestinian residents, further micro-divisions exist, with some (around 10-15% turnout) participating in Israeli municipal elections for pragmatic benefits like municipal services, drawing criticism from both factions as collaboration, while the majority boycotts to affirm national claims, though this isolates them from PA governance.[88] Overall, these divisions prioritize factional rivalry over cohesive policy, stalling progress toward any resolution on Jerusalem's status.[112]International Stances
United Nations Resolutions and Voting Realities
The United Nations General Assembly's Resolution 181 (II) of November 29, 1947, proposed designating Jerusalem as a corpus separatum under international administration, separate from the envisaged Jewish and Arab states, to preserve its universal religious significance.[113] This plan was never implemented following Arab states' rejection, the ensuing 1948 Arab-Israeli War, and Israel's subsequent control over West Jerusalem under the 1949 armistice agreements, which the UN did not effectively challenge despite its mandate.[2] Following Israel's unification of the city after the 1967 Six-Day War—defensive in nature against Jordanian aggression—UN resolutions shifted to condemning Israeli sovereignty claims, often framing East Jerusalem as "occupied territory" without acknowledging Jordan's prior annexation of it from 1950 to 1967, which lacked international recognition.[114] Security Council Resolution 476 of June 30, 1980, declared null and void all legislative and administrative measures altering Jerusalem's status, reaffirming its "historical character and status," and was adopted by 14 votes to none, with the United States abstaining.[115] Subsequent General Assembly resolutions, such as the annual texts on "Peaceful settlement of the question of Palestine," routinely demand reversal of Israel's 1980 Basic Law designating united Jerusalem as its capital, ignoring Jewish continuous presence and legal ties predating 1967.[116] In response to the U.S. recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital on December 6, 2017, Emergency Special Session Resolution ES-10/19 of December 21, 2017, declared the move "null and void," passing 128-9 with 35 abstentions, opposed only by the United States, Israel, and seven small allies including Canada, Czech Republic, and Micronesia.[117] Voting patterns reveal structural imbalances: General Assembly resolutions on Jerusalem typically secure automatic majorities exceeding 120 affirmative votes, driven by the 57-member Organization of Islamic Cooperation, non-aligned movement countries, and support from Russia and China, against 5-11 negative votes from Israel, the U.S., and select Western or Pacific states.[118] For instance, a 2021 Assembly resolution on Jerusalem passed 129-11 with 31 abstentions, while 2024 texts reaffirming pre-1967 boundaries and condemning Israeli measures garnered similar lopsided support, with opposition limited to a handful of nations.[119] These outcomes reflect bloc voting rather than consensus, as the Assembly adopts more resolutions targeting Israel—15 in 2024 alone—than all other nations combined, underscoring a disproportionate focus absent for other territorial disputes like Cyprus or Kashmir.[120] Such resolutions, while non-binding under Article 10 of the UN Charter, exert diplomatic pressure but fail to alter facts on the ground, as evidenced by persistent Israeli control and U.S. vetoes of analogous Security Council drafts.[121] The pattern highlights the UN's limited efficacy on Jerusalem, where empirical control and bilateral recognitions prevail over recommendatory texts, often critiqued for overlooking Arab rejectionism in 1947 and subsequent wars initiating territorial changes.[119]European Union Positions and Inconsistencies
The European Union adheres to a policy of non-recognition of Israel's sovereignty over Jerusalem beyond the 1949 armistice lines, viewing East Jerusalem as occupied territory and insisting that the city's final status, including its role as a shared capital in a two-state solution, must be resolved through bilateral negotiations. This stance aligns with UN Security Council Resolution 478 (1980), which the EU supports by maintaining all member state embassies in Tel Aviv and rejecting unilateral actions altering the pre-1967 borders. The EU emphasizes Jerusalem's unique spiritual and religious significance, calling for the preservation of its special status, the inviolability of holy sites, and access for all faiths under international law.[122][123][124] In practice, the EU has consistently opposed moves implying recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's undivided capital, as evidenced by its response to the United States' December 6, 2017, announcement recognizing Jerusalem as such and planning an embassy relocation. EU High Representative Federica Mogherini stated the decision undermined prospects for peace by prejudging core issues, urging a return to negotiations, while the bloc renewed commitments to the Middle East Quartet and partners like Jordan. Similar criticism followed the U.S. embassy opening in Jerusalem on May 14, 2018, with EU foreign ministries decrying it as a violation of international law and a setback to the two-state framework.[125][126][127] Despite this unified rhetoric, inconsistencies arise from divergences among member states and the EU's own operational practices. The Czech Republic, an EU member, declared on December 6, 2017, that it regards pre-1967 West Jerusalem as Israel's capital, opened a diplomatic office there in March 2021, and has seen parliamentary pushes for broader international recognition of undivided Jerusalem. Hungary, another member, maintains a consulate general in Jerusalem and reached an agreement in principle in 2023 to relocate its embassy from Tel Aviv, though subsequent denials followed; reports in 2025 indicated ongoing expectations of such a move during high-level visits. These actions by Central European states, often aligned with Israel on security and historical grounds, strain EU foreign policy cohesion, which requires unanimity yet faces internal pushback from pro-Israel factions.[128][129] Further inconsistencies manifest in the EU's diplomatic footprint in Jerusalem, where it sustains a Representative Office for the West Bank and Gaza Strip and coordinates Heads of Mission meetings, enabling regular engagement with Israeli authorities and site visits despite non-recognition policy. EU officials, including High Representative Kaja Kallas in March 2025, conduct substantive talks in Jerusalem with both Israeli and Palestinian counterparts, blurring lines between practical necessity and symbolic endorsement of the city's administrative role. This presence, justified as facilitating Palestinian aid and monitoring rather than sovereignty acknowledgment, contrasts with prohibitions on embassy relocations and warnings to enlargement candidates like Serbia against similar steps, highlighting enforcement gaps and a pragmatic tolerance for de facto interactions that undermine the bloc's principled stance.[130][131][132] Such variances reflect broader tensions in EU Middle East policy, where rhetorical commitment to international law and a negotiated corpus separatum for Jerusalem coexists with member-driven deviations and operational flexibilities, often prioritizing bilateral ties or security cooperation over uniform non-recognition. Critics, including Israeli analysts, argue this muddled approach—claiming clarity while tolerating presences akin to partial acknowledgment—erodes credibility, as the EU demands Israeli restraint on settlements yet engages Jerusalem's infrastructure without reciprocal concessions on final status.[133][134]Organization of Islamic Cooperation Demands
The Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), comprising 57 member states, has consistently demanded international recognition of East Jerusalem—referred to as Al-Quds Al-Sharif—as the capital of the State of Palestine, rejecting any Israeli claims to sovereignty over the city's eastern sector.[135][136] This position, reiterated in multiple resolutions, stems from the OIC's foundational response to the 1969 arson attack on Al-Aqsa Mosque, emphasizing the preservation of Islamic holy sites and opposition to perceived alterations of Jerusalem's status quo.[137][90] OIC declarations, such as those from extraordinary summits, call for an immediate end to Israeli settlement expansion and construction in East Jerusalem, viewing these as violations of international law and threats to Palestinian territorial contiguity.[138][139] Resolutions urge member states and the United Nations to withhold recognition of Israeli administrative changes, including embassy relocations to Jerusalem, and to impose sanctions or diplomatic isolation on entities facilitating such moves.[136][140] In response to specific events, like the 2017 U.S. recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital, the OIC condemned the decision as null and void, demanding reversal and cessation of the U.S. embassy relocation while reaffirming support for UN resolutions affirming Palestinian rights in East Jerusalem.[141][136] Recent communiqués from 2025, including those from the 21st Extraordinary Session of the OIC Executive Committee, reiterate demands for unrestricted Palestinian access to Al-Aqsa Mosque, protection against Israeli incursions, and the establishment of an international regime to safeguard Jerusalem's historic and religious character under Palestinian sovereignty.[142][143] These positions, while aligned with broader Arab-Islamic consensus, prioritize Islamic custodianship over shared religious sites, often framing Israeli actions as existential threats without reciprocal acknowledgment of Jewish historical ties.[144][145]United States Recognition Evolution (2017-2018)
On December 6, 2017, President Donald Trump announced that the United States would recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, reversing decades of U.S. policy that had maintained ambiguity on the city's status to facilitate Israeli-Palestinian negotiations.[146] This decision fulfilled a provision of the 1995 Jerusalem Embassy Act, which Congress had passed to mandate embassy relocation from Tel Aviv but allowed six-month waivers for national security reasons—a practice followed by every prior administration.[147] Trump cited Jerusalem's historical significance as the ancient capital of the Jewish people and argued that recognizing this reality was necessary for advancing peace, while emphasizing that the U.S. took no position on final boundaries or sovereignty over specific areas, leaving those for negotiation.[148] The announcement directed the State Department to prepare for relocating the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem, with an initial target of opening by the end of 2018, though logistical preparations accelerated the timeline.[5] Prior U.S. policy, dating to President Harry Truman's 1948 recognition of Israel, had avoided endorsing Jerusalem's status to preserve diplomatic neutrality, with the embassy remaining in Tel Aviv and consular services handling Jerusalem operations.[149] Trump's move aligned with his 2016 campaign pledge and reflected a view that previous ambiguity had not advanced peace processes, such as the Oslo Accords.[150] On February 23, 2018, the State Department confirmed the embassy would open in Jerusalem on May 14, 2018, coinciding with the 70th anniversary of Israel's declaration of independence, which President Truman had recognized the same day in 1948.[151] The relocation occurred initially in a temporary facility at the former U.S. Consulate site in West Jerusalem, with Ambassador David Friedman overseeing the dedication ceremony attended by U.S. and Israeli officials.[150] This action formalized the recognition, establishing a permanent U.S. diplomatic presence in the city and prompting the State Department to issue new passports recognizing Jerusalem-born Americans' place of birth without specifying "Israel" or "Palestine."[152] The evolution underscored a U.S. policy shift toward prioritizing factual control—Israel's undivided administration of Jerusalem since 1967—over negotiated outcomes deferred since the 1947 UN partition plan.[153]Global Powers and Other Countries
Russia and China Dual Capital Recognitions
Russia's Ministry of Foreign Affairs announced on April 6, 2017, that it recognizes West Jerusalem as the capital of Israel while viewing East Jerusalem as the capital of a future Palestinian state, marking the first instance of any country formally acknowledging a portion of Jerusalem for Israel.[154][155] This dual stance was articulated by Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov during a UN conference on the Middle East, emphasizing a two-state solution based on 1967 borders with land swaps and mutual capital recognitions to facilitate negotiations.[156] Russia's position aligns with its broader policy of balancing relations with Israel and Palestinian authorities, though it has not relocated its main embassy from Tel Aviv; however, in June 2023, Russia agreed with Israel to open consular offices in West Jerusalem to handle services for Russian citizens.[157] China maintains that the status of Jerusalem remains unresolved pending final-status negotiations and does not recognize any part of the city as Israel's capital, continuing to accredit Israel's diplomatic missions in Tel Aviv.[158] In response to the U.S. recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's undivided capital in December 2017, China's Foreign Ministry reiterated opposition to unilateral actions altering the status quo, predicting heightened regional tensions.[159] China consistently advocates for a sovereign Palestinian state on 1967 borders with East Jerusalem as its capital, a position reaffirmed in multiple UN votes and bilateral statements, including Foreign Minister Wang Yi's December 2017 remarks supporting Palestinian sovereignty there.[160][161] This one-sided emphasis reflects China's alignment with the Palestinian position and broader Global South consensus, without reciprocal acknowledgment of Israeli claims to West Jerusalem, and no practical diplomatic shifts such as embassy moves have occurred.[162]Abraham Accords Countries and Normalization Trends
The Abraham Accords, signed on September 15, 2020, between Israel, the United Arab Emirates, and Bahrain, followed by Sudan in October 2020 and Morocco in December 2020, established full diplomatic normalization without addressing the status of Jerusalem as Israel's capital.[163] These agreements emphasized economic cooperation, security partnerships, and mutual non-aggression, deliberately sidelining core Palestinian issues such as borders, refugees, and Jerusalem to prioritize pragmatic bilateral gains over comprehensive Arab-Israeli peace frameworks.[164] None of the signatory states relocated their embassies from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, signaling implicit acceptance of Israel's administrative control in practice while avoiding formal endorsement of undivided Jerusalem as the capital, consistent with their prior criticisms of the U.S. embassy move in 2018.[165] Post-normalization, the UAE, Bahrain, Morocco, and Sudan maintained positions aligning with the two-state solution, advocating for East Jerusalem as the capital of a future Palestinian state in international forums, though their deepening ties with Israel—evidenced by over $3 billion in annual UAE-Israel trade by 2023 and joint military exercises—demonstrated a decoupling of economic and security normalization from symbolic concessions on Jerusalem.[166] For instance, Morocco, which received U.S. recognition of its sovereignty over Western Sahara as part of the deal, condemned Israeli actions at the Temple Mount in 2021, reflecting ongoing sensitivities to Jerusalem's religious sites despite expanded direct flights and tourism exceeding 200,000 visitors annually by 2022.[166] Sudan's normalization, formalized amid its internal transitional challenges, yielded limited implementation on Jerusalem-related matters, with no public shift from its pre-Accords support for Palestinian claims to the city.[167] Broader normalization trends post-Accords have stalled on Jerusalem's status, particularly with Saudi Arabia, which conditioned potential agreements on the establishment of a Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital—a stance reiterated in 2025 amid U.S.-brokered talks that collapsed following the October 7, 2023, Hamas attacks.[168] By October 2025, Saudi Arabia had not joined the Accords, with normalization prospects dimmed by Israeli ministerial rejections of linkage to Palestinian statehood and Riyadh's insistence on irreversible progress toward sovereignty, including over East Jerusalem.[169] While Accords countries sustained cooperation—such as UAE-Israel investments surpassing $10 billion by mid-2025—the October 2023 events prompted temporary halts in public endorsements and heightened scrutiny of Jerusalem policies, underscoring that normalization advances de facto engagement but not formal recognition of Israel's capital claim.[170]Non-Recognizing Majorities and Their Rationales
The vast majority of United Nations member states—approximately 180 out of 193—do not recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital, instead locating their embassies in Tel Aviv and adhering to the pre-1967 status quo for diplomatic purposes.[1] This position reflects a long-standing international consensus shaped by United Nations Security Council Resolution 478, adopted unanimously on August 20, 1980, which declared Israel's July 30, 1980, Basic Law: Jerusalem, Capital of Israel "null and void" and urged all states not to recognize any measures purporting to alter the city's demographic composition, character, or status.) The resolution's non-recognition clause has been invoked repeatedly, including in a 2017 UN General Assembly vote where 128 countries affirmed that Jerusalem's status remains a matter for final-status negotiations, rejecting unilateral changes like the U.S. embassy relocation.[171] European Union member states, comprising 27 countries, uniformly withhold recognition, emphasizing Jerusalem's role as a corpus separatum under the 1947 UN Partition Plan and its designation as a final-status issue in peace talks, with East Jerusalem envisioned as the Palestinian capital in a two-state solution.[124] The EU's February 26, 2025, statement by heads of mission reiterated the "unchanged" policy preserving the city's special status and inviolability of holy sites, while opposing Israeli settlement expansions that could prejudice negotiations.[124] This stance aligns with broader Western European rationales prioritizing multilateral diplomacy and international law over bilateral recognitions, though critics note inconsistencies, such as selective enforcement of UN resolutions compared to other territorial disputes.[1] The 57-member Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), representing most Muslim-majority states, provides a unified rationale rooted in religious significance and solidarity with Palestinian claims, declaring East Jerusalem the capital of Palestine and rejecting any Israeli sovereignty over the city, particularly Al-Aqsa Mosque.[172] OIC statements, such as those from August 2025 foreign ministers' meetings, condemn Israeli actions as destabilizing and affirm that occupied territories, including East Jerusalem, cannot confer sovereignty, urging global non-recognition to counter perceived violations of international humanitarian law.[145] Non-OIC developing nations often echo these positions through Non-Aligned Movement alignments or domestic political pressures, citing equity for Palestinians and avoidance of endorsing what they view as post-1967 conquests, despite limited engagement with Israel's pre-1967 administrative claims over West Jerusalem.[173]Diplomatic Recognitions
Countries Affirming Jerusalem as Israel's Capital
As of October 2025, only a limited number of countries have officially affirmed Jerusalem as the undivided capital of Israel, primarily through formal declarations or by relocating their embassies from Tel Aviv to the city, in defiance of widespread international consensus favoring a negotiated final status. These actions, numbering fewer than ten since the U.S. precedent in 2017, reflect strategic alignments, often influenced by bilateral ties with Israel rather than broad multilateral support. Embassy relocations serve as tangible affirmations, as they operationalize recognition by establishing permanent diplomatic presence in the affirmed capital.[174] The United States led this trend by recognizing Jerusalem as Israel's capital on December 6, 2017, under President Donald Trump, citing the city's historical and religious significance to Israel and the need to end ad hoc embassy policies. The U.S. embassy relocation followed on May 14, 2018, coinciding with the 70th anniversary of Israel's independence.[175] Guatemala promptly aligned, opening its embassy in Jerusalem on May 16, 2018, shortly after the U.S. move, as announced by President Jimmy Morales in solidarity with the recognition. Honduras affirmed recognition in August 2019 during a visit by President Juan Orlando Hernández, establishing a commercial office as a precursor, before fully relocating its embassy to Jerusalem on June 24, 2021, hosted by Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett.[176] Kosovo, establishing diplomatic ties with Israel in February 2021 as part of Abraham Accords-brokered normalization, opened its embassy in West Jerusalem on March 14, 2021, marking it as the first Muslim-majority entity to do so and explicitly acknowledging Jerusalem's status.[177] Papua New Guinea followed suit, inaugurating its embassy in Jerusalem's Technology Park on September 5, 2023, with Prime Minister James Marape invoking biblical ties and becoming the fifth nation with a full mission there.[178] Nauru provides a case of formal recognition without embassy relocation, announcing on August 29, 2019, that it views Jerusalem as Israel's capital, a stance commended by Israeli Foreign Minister Israel Katz but not extended to physical diplomatic infrastructure due to the island nation's limited resources.[179] These affirmations contrast with the majority of states maintaining embassies in Tel Aviv, often citing UN resolutions like 478 (1980) that deem Israeli actions in Jerusalem null and void, though such positions prioritize diplomatic uniformity over Israel's sovereign claims post-1967 unification. No additional countries have joined by late 2025, despite expressions of intent from figures like Argentine President Javier Milei, who pledged a 2026 move contingent on logistics.[180] The table below summarizes key affirmations:| Country | Recognition/Affirmation Date | Embassy Relocation Date | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| United States | December 6, 2017 | May 14, 2018 | Initial major power shift; embassy in Jerusalem Compound. |
| Guatemala | May 2018 (aligned with U.S.) | May 16, 2018 | First follower; embassy in Jerusalem Technology Park. |
| Honduras | August 2019 | June 24, 2021 | Preceded by commercial office; full embassy operational.[176] |
| Kosovo | February 2021 (ties est.) | March 14, 2021 | First Muslim-majority; downtown West Jerusalem site.[181] |
| Papua New Guinea | September 2023 | September 5, 2023 | Biblical rationale cited; first Pacific Island state.[182] |
| Nauru | August 29, 2019 | None | Formal statement only; no resident mission.[179] |
Embassy Relocations Post-US Decision
Following the United States' relocation of its embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem on May 14, 2018, several countries proceeded with similar moves, though the total remains limited to fewer than ten nations as of late 2024. These relocations were often motivated by alignment with U.S. policy, bilateral agreements, or domestic political factors such as evangelical Christian influence in Latin American states. Guatemala acted swiftly, inaugurating its embassy in Jerusalem on May 16, 2018, just two days after the U.S. opening, under President Jimmy Morales, who cited biblical significance. Paraguay followed on May 21, 2018, but reversed the decision in December 2018 under incoming President Mario Abdo Benítez due to economic pressures and Palestinian diplomatic backlash; it reopened the embassy on December 12, 2024, under President Santiago Peña, restoring full operations.[183] Subsequent relocations occurred amid U.S.-brokered deals and regional normalization efforts. Kosovo, as part of the 2020 Abraham Accords framework that included mutual recognitions with Israel, opened its embassy in Jerusalem on March 14, 2021, marking the first Muslim-majority entity to do so despite its disputed status with Serbia.[177] Honduras inaugurated its mission on June 24, 2021, under President Juan Orlando Hernández, emphasizing shared values and security cooperation.[184] Papua New Guinea became the fifth country to establish a full embassy there on September 5, 2023, with Prime Minister James Marape invoking religious motivations during the opening attended by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.[185]| Country | Opening Date | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Guatemala | May 16, 2018 | Immediate follower to U.S. move; maintained despite international criticism.[186] |
| Paraguay | May 21, 2018 (initial); December 12, 2024 (reopening) | Temporary reversal in 2019; recent move tied to renewed bilateral ties. |
| Kosovo | March 14, 2021 | Linked to Israel-Kosovo normalization; first in Europe and Muslim-majority.[187] |
| Honduras | June 24, 2021 | Emphasized alliance with Israel and U.S.[184] |
| Papua New Guinea | September 5, 2023 | First Pacific nation; cited religious rationale.[178] |