This is not a Wikipedia article: This is a workpage, a collection of material and work in progress that may or may not be incorporated into an article. It should not necessarily be considered factual or authoritative.

The status of Jerusalem both in terms of sovereignty and as a capital of Israel/Palestine is a highly contentious issue over which there are numerous significant views. While the weights of different viewpoints varies depending on whether the focus is on West Jerusalem, East Jerusalem, or Jerusalem as a whole, in all cases the Israeli position is a significant minority opinion, with the majority rejecting the Israeli view. (Relevant to WP:NPOV "Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements.") -

WJ

Israeli view of regarding sovereignty/capital status of West Jerusalem is not an uncontested fact, it is a matter over which there is a significant divergence of opinion. (Relevant to WP:NPOV "Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts.")

• Most foreign States have not adopted a clear-cut policy on the status of west Jerusalem. Although their approaches differ, certain similarities emerge with regard to basic questions. Foreign States were not prepared to recognize the legality of Jordanian or Israeli rule over zones of Jerusalem under their respective control.......Despite this non-recognition of Israeli sovereignty, most States have nevertheless accepted the de facto applicability of Israeli law, and none has so far demanded that the laws of occupation, including the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, be applied. ^[1]

• States recognizing Israel did not recognize Israeli sovereignty over west Jerusalem.[64] They typically cited UN resolutions proposing an international status for Jerusalem.'[65] In December 1949 the General Assembly recommended placing Jerusalem under a "permanent international regime," supervised by the Trusteeship Council.[66] But the Knesset soon declared west Jerusalem Israel's capital .[67] Few states located embassies there, however, and Tel Aviv remained the effective capital.[67]^[2]

• Re Israel's attempts to "attain international legitimacy for Israeli sovereignty over Jerusalem, as capital city":

In the 1950's, this diplomatic effort was somewhat successful, as 24 countries agreed to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and transferred their embassies there. However, the United States and the major European countries were not a part of this group. They refused to recognize Israeli sovereignty in Jerusalem, let alone consider the city the capital of Israel....^[3]

• Elucidating the “main positions” on the status of Jerusalem, with respect to West Jerusalem, the source cites Henry Cattan: "Israeli control in west Jerusalem since 1948 was illegal and most states have not recognized its sovereignty there.[76] International law does not recognize the acquisition of a sovereign right by use of force, and Israel's status in the New City is only that of an occupying power.[77]" Citing Jordan's Crown Prince Hassan Bin Talal: "Israel's seizure of the western part of the city in 1948 did not grant it sovereignty because according to international law self-defense is not a method of aquiring title to territory; Israel's status in the city is that of a military occupant.[79] Nor do resolutions passed by the UN after the 1967 War attest that the organization has recognized implicitly Israel's sovereignty in West Jerusalem, and most states have refused to recognize any such claim.[80]" Citing G.I.A.D. Draper; "Israel did not aquire sovereignty in west Jerusalem in 1948 (nor did Jordan in east Jerusalem), because the international community had intended to establish in the city an international regime under UN administration. Both then and now, sovereignty has remained suspended and Israel's status in the city is that of a military occupant.[81]"^[4]

EJ

Israeli view regarding sovereignty/capital status of East Jerusalem is not an uncontested fact, it is a matter over which there is a significant divergence of opinion. (Relevant to WP:NPOV "Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts.")

• In practical terms, the international community has not recognized the sovereignty of either Jordan (in the past) or Israel at any point. Moreover, since 1967, the UN including the Security Council, has repeatedly stated that east Jerusalem is occupied territory subject to the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War.^[1]

• The attitude of the Palestinians was expressed inter alia in 1988 and 2002. When the Palestine National Council proclaimed in November 1988 the establishment of a Palestinian State, it asserted that Jerusalem was its capital. In October 2002 the Palestinian Legislative Council adopted the Law on the Capital, which stipulates that Jerusalem is the capital of the Palestinian State, the main seat of its three branches of government. The State of Palestine is the sovereign of Jerusalem and of its holy places. Any statute or agreement that diminishes the rights of the Palestinian State in Jerusalem is invalid. This statute can be amended only with the consent of two-thirds of the members of the Legislative Council. The 2003 Basic Law also asserts that Jerusalem is the capital of the State of Palestine.^[1]

• 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” spoke of east Jerusalem as “occupied Palestinian territory” ((2004) ICJ Reports 136, para. 78; supra para. 34).^[1]

• After the 1967 war Israel treated east Jerusalem differently from the rest of the West Bank. The Knesset quickly adopted a law stating that "the law, jurisdiction and administration of the state" of Israel "shall extend to any area of Eretz Israel designated by the Government by order."[51] Using this law, the government declared Israeli law applicable to an area that included east Jerusalem, plus adjacent West Bank territory of approximately equal size.[52] The government merged this newly enlarged east Jerusalem area with west Jerusalem.[53] Justifying the incorporation, Eshkol said, "Israel without Jerusalem is Israel without a head.[54] The action was condemned by the UN Security Council and General Assembly as annexation and, therefore, a violation of the rights of the Palestine Arabs.[55] The annexation of east Jerusalem was not recognized by other states and was condemned as unlawful.[56] In 1980 the Knesset declared "Jerusalem, complete and united" to be "the capital of Israel" The Knesset denominated this law a "basic law," giving it quasi-constitutional rank .57 The Security Council and General Assembly declared the 1980 law a nullity.'"^[5]

Jerusalem

Israeli view of regarding sovereignty/capital status of Jerusalem is not an uncontested fact, it is a matter over which there is a significant divergence of opinion. (Relevant to WP:NPOV "Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts.")

• The European Union supports the idea that Jerusalem is still subject to the corpus separatum status. Thus in 1999 the Ambassador of the Federal Republic of Germany (at that time holding the presidency of the EU) wrote in a diplomatic note: “… The EU reaffirms its known position concerning the specific status of Jerusalem as a corpus separatum…”^[1]

• The internationalization of Jerusalem was not abrogated by reason of its occupation in 1948 by Israel and Jordan. In fact, such internationalization was reaffirmed by the General Assembly in resolution 194 of December 11, 1948 and resolution 303 of 9 December 1949, significantly after Israel's occupation of modern Jerusalem and Jordan's occupation of the Old City. The non-implementation —- or even the violation — of resolution 181 did not entail its abrogation, just as various resolutions of the United Nations which have called for the repatriation of refugees or rescission of the measures taken by Israel contrary to the status of Jerusalem have not lapsed or been abrogated by Israel's refusal to implement them. There exists no principle in legal theory which would support the view that a resolution of the United Nations is abrogated by reason of its violation.

More importantly, in several resolutions adopted since 1967, the legal status of Jerusalem has been invoked by the General Assembly and the Security Council to condemn Israel's occupation and annexation of the City and to proclaim the nullity of all measures it has taken in violation of such status. In these resolutions, the General Assembly and the Security Council speak of “the status of Jerusalem”, or “the legal status of Jerusalem” (Security Council 252 of May 21, 1968 and General Assembly resolution 32/5 of October 28, 1977), or “the specific status of Jerusalem” (Security Council resolutions 452 of July 20, 1979,456 of March 1, 1980 and 476 of June 30,1980). The only “status” or “legal status” or “specific status” which Jerusalem possesses is that laid down in resolution 181 of November 29, 1947.^[6]

• Israel has not, as a result of its occupation and annexation, acquired sovereignty over Jerusalem. Its status is that of a military occupier. The United Nations has invariably referred to Israel as “the occupying power.” This description was emphasized in the last two resolutions of the Security Council, namely, resolutions 476 of June 30, 1980 and 478 of August 20, 1980 which have condemned Israel's actions in Jerusalem. It is a settled principle of the law of nations that an occupying power does not acquire sovereignty over occupied territory, nor does its occupation destroy or extinguish the sovereignty of the legitimate sovereign. Belligerent occupation does not result in the transfer of sovereignty in favour of the military occupier, who merely acquires a temporary right of administration.^[6]

• Israel's annexation of the Islamic and Christian holy sites in 1967, followed in 1980 by the enactment of the Basic Law: Jerusalem proclaiming that “Jerusalem, complete and united, is the capital of Israel,” kindled the international community's wrath. The Basic Law: Jerusalem, initiated by MK (Member of Knesset) Geula Cohen with the support of the Prim minister Manechem Begin, did not contribute anything to the strengthening of Jerusalem. Just the opposite: Twenty-two of the twenty-four countries that had previously recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel moved their embassies out of the city. Only two embassies stayed put: those of Costa Rica and El Salvador. In the summer of 2006, these two countries announced the adoption of a new policy whereby they would not recognize Israel's sovereignty in Jerusalem, and transferred their embassies out of the city. Even the United States, Israel's closest ally, made it clear that until there is an agreed-upon arrangement with the Palestinians, meaning a division of the city, it will not recognize Israeli sovereignty in Jerusalem or move its embassy there.

Forty years of diplomatic efforts on this front have brought Israel nothing but disappointment and failure.^[3]

Reflist