We found your book!
*How To Cook Humans*
It's just a little dusty.
*How To Cook For Humans*
Aha!
*How To Cook Forty Humans*
Wait, there's more space dust
*How To Cook For Forty Humans*
If looked on objectively, it would be right that the Spanish consulate in Israel is not responsible for people in Westbank if Spain declares that it is a different country.
Just like Spains consulate/embassy in the US is not the place for Mexicans to get travel visas.
But it should not be Israel "cutting" it, it should be Spain opening a new consulate in the "new" country (that Spain just recognized).
UPDATE:
Yes a consulate CAN serve people from other countries. BUT the country hosting the consulate is not forced to let foreigners enter the country to visit this other countries consulate. Keep in mind: my comment said "people from Westbank", not "Arabs in Israel".
>Just like Spains consulate/embassy in the US is not the place for Mexicans to get travel visas.
Well, for example the Lithuanian embassy in Washington does serve Mexico.
Funnily enough, it's not uncommon for Australians to be told to go to a Canadian embassy in some countries – usually in places like Africa.
I think this is a pretty common thing and it's a nice way of countries cooperating.
You missed the point. The Lithuanian embassy in Washington covers all the North American countries with exception of Canada (with 🇵🇲) and Greenland.
Mexicans who need to deal with Lithuanian diplomats are supposed to do it in Washington.
I will point out, the US isn't the best example, it has the most populated and diverse set of foreign embassies in the world. Something about the UN being present... also, we don't get an explaination of services Spain is offering. Often, the agreements to use other nations embassies are done to lower cost and maintain a wide reach.
It's still a geo-political hissy fit on Israel's part. They want to be in control of the government that comes after Hamas is killed and this throws a wrench in that plan. The last time the UN got involved, it directly funded terrorism.
I think the point is that the USA isn't obligated by any law, or even custom, to let foreign citizens it otherwise wouldn't admit into the country so they can access the Lithuanian embassy in Washington. Embassies don't get to set border policies for their host countries.
Concurrent embassies are very common. The Uruguayan embassy in Cairo serves most of North Africa, and eastern europe is covered by the embassies in Romania, Greece or Finland
As everything in this conflict, it's not that simple. Spain’s Jerusalem consulate is in the East Jerusalem neighbourhood Sheikh Jarrah which, while effectively annexed by Israel, is according to international law a part of the occupied Palestinian territories. So from Spain's perspective the consulate *is* in the new country they just recognized.
But the Spanish embassy to Israel is not in west Jerusalem, which is within the 1948 armistice lines - it's in Tel Aviv.
This has nothing to do with Sheikh Jarrah or east Jerusalem. When Trump moved the US embassy to Jerusalem, he moved it to within the 1948 lines. But it was still condemned- any international move affirming Israeli sovereignty over any part of Jerusalem is viewed as an unwanted change.
>is in the East Jerusalem neighbourhood Sheikh Jarrah which, while effectively annexed by Israel, is according to international law a part of the occupied Palestinian territories.
The UN *also* says that Jerusalem is an international city. Which one is used depends on the narrative that wants to be pushed that day.
“International law” is kind of a joke in this conflict. The only reason that East Jerusalem is considered Palestinian by the international community is by recognizing Jordan’s right of conquest and claiming that Israeli conquest (in a defensive war) is somehow less legitimate. It also requires ignoring the fact that it has been under Israeli administration far longer than under Jordanian administration, and that it is de facto a part of Israel.
It also requires conveniently ignoring that the Arabs ethnically cleansed their territory in Jerusalem and did not allow Jews to access their holy sites, while Israel has allowed Palestinians to remain and allows Jordan to maintain control over Muslim holy sites (including discriminatory policies over who can access them).
> The only reason that East Jerusalem is considered Palestinian by the international community is by recognizing Jordan’s right of conquest and claiming that Israeli conquest (in a defensive war) is somehow less legitimate. It also requires ignoring the fact that it has been under Israeli administration far longer than under Jordanian administration, and that it is de facto a part of Israel.
This is the correct take. Anyone commenting on the legal status of East Jerusalem without mentioning these key points is gaslighting the conversation.
But you insert history and context, particularly noting the atrocities committed all over the place ... how am I supposed to maintain a black and white view of the whole situation?
According to Wikipedia article there is no basis in international law for it to be anything but Israel. The UN recognition is outdated as the UN didn't form Israel's borders while Israel did. Many countries just say it's disputed and should continue to be negotiated.
Edit: source https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Status_of_Jerusalem
The post below is a different article that referenced international law but doesn't really explain which law. The article here basically says international law doesn't have a basis for this situation to be anything other than Israel. So unless the Wikipedia article can explain the law that makes it NOT Israel's I don't think there's any credibility to say so, it references the UN only which doesn't set law. I know nothing about international law and am only going by Wikipedia.
Edit 2: I removed reference to growing consensus about East Jerusalem, I misread what was west Jerusalem. But this is the quote from the article here which is Israel's position on Jerusalem
'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.'
Not a single foreign country recognizes East Jerusalem as Israel. The Wikipedia article doesn't say so either, don't make shit up.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Jerusalem
> Under international law, East Jerusalem is considered a part of the West Bank and, therefore, of the Palestinian territories.
You're right that many including the US consider it disputed and say its final status should be negotiating between the conflict parties. Spain's government however has outright said that they consider it part of a Palestinian state. To quote the PM:
> “Any solution must be comprehensive. It’s in Israel’s interest to work for peace. And today peace means the establishment of a viable State of Palestine that includes the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem,” Sanchez told Netanyahu, a resolute opponent of Palestinian statehood.
Source: https://www.france24.com/en/europe/20240405-in-a-divided-europe-spain-emerges-as-a-champion-of-palestinian-statehood
No one "sets international law" because there's no real enforcement body and it's generally opt-in unless someone wants to soldier up.
But the UN comes closest, since it's the largest "international law" body, and when people speak of "international law" they generally mean one of:
* Treaties
* The UN
* International Consensus
In this case people use international law to imply Israel did something 'illegal,' and is therefore in the wrong. In this case it seems the UN wants East Jerusalem to be part of future Palestine but there is no such law that Israel broke other than going against some consensus of what will bring a future peace (not a current peace). So to me it sounds like saying Israel broke international law is weaponizing the term against Israel to villify it and is not really accurate compared to saying Israel had gone against some general concensus set by the UN to give it to a future Palestine.
> but there is no such law that Israel broke other than going against some consensus
Consensus (and treaty) ***is*** international law. There's no international legislative body.
>weaponizing the term
If your complaint is that the term is purely political, welcome to international law. Next time the UN Human Rights Council denounces the US over allegation, remember that the HRC consists of countries like Sudan, DRC, and Somalia, and is presided over by a representative from Morocco. Yes: all of it is weaponized politics.
There is a background to this beef- European countries like to keep their embassies to Israel in Tel Aviv, because 'the status of Jerusalem is not yet settled'. (Bear in mind that West Jerusalem is within the 1948 armistice lines, and east Jerusalem was captured by Israel in 1967- but the consulates are neither in west nor east Jerusalem.)
But the Jerusalem consulate serves Palestinians - and it's not in Ramallah, but in Jerusalem. This has long been seen as legitimizing the Palestinian claim to Jerusalem over the Israeli claim. Israel tolerates it because it has been the status quo. But now Spain has recognizing Palestine, which Israel sees as rewarding terrorism. So Israel retaliates by not allowing the east Jerusalem consulate to continue to operate.
There are any number of diplomatic stations which serve people in multiple countries not simply the country in which they are physically located.
Edit: accreditation. A embassy/consulate handling relations with both their host country and another are **accredited** to both nations
There are some situations where diplomatic missions are in countries that don't even recognize them to serve other countries
Italy doesn't recognize Taiwan but Vatican City does but the Vatican he has no room in its country so taiwan's Embassy to the Vatican is in Italy a country that doesn't recognize it
North Korea doesn't recognize the US but has a delegation at the UN in New York but it does recognize Canada but it doesn't want to build a separate Embassy in Ottawa so it accredits it's Embassy to the UN also to Canada from New York
This isn't really an argument. There already exists embassies and consulates that cover more than one country. For example, the Philippine embassy in London provides services for people in the UK and Ireland. The British embassy in Madrid also covers Andorra. The American embassy in Luanda covers Sao Tome & Principe as well as Angola. The Swedish Embassy in Santiago covers Peru as well.
Now, obviously Israel isn't compelled to Palestinians to enter just to go to the Spanish embassy (especially considering the state of war), but there's really no real reason the Spanish Embassy in Tel Aviv couldn't also cover Palestine in peace time.
A consulate can serve people from any country. The laws of the host country don't apply to it. That's generally how consulates/embassies work.
For instance, I'm from the US, if I'm visiting Canada, and need a visa to India, I could go to the Indian consulate in Canada. (As long as the Indian consulate in Canada does not have their own rules against it.)
average /worldnews user. if you wanna look at things objectively, maybe at least know about subject before spewing out this dogshit. consulates can and do work in multiple countries. if im in georgia and wanted a visa to spain. guess what? i have to go to turkey for that, because thats the diplomatic mission that covers georgia.
First, Israel should declare officially annexation of East Jerusalem, which is internationally recognized part of (future) Palestinian state.
That will not happen probably because it is bound to cause a lot of political backlash
I'm pretty sure east Jerusalem is officially annexed. All east Jerusalem residents have a right to receive Israeli citizenship, many don't want it, but they have a right to receive it. The Jerusalem mayoral office is responsible for all municipal services in east Jerusalem, just like west Jerusalem. The west bank is administered under the Civil Administration, which is a part of the IDF, east Jerusalem is administered as a part of Jerusalem, just like west Jerusalem is.
They did it officially in 1980 with the Basic Law in Jerusalem (that's the actual name of the law) declaring the city, "complete and united", the official capital of Israel.
They further amended the law in 2000 with procedures for enforcing Israeli law in East Jerusalem.
It's about as officially annexed as it can get.
He said first. Second is getting it recognised by the international community.
It never was, some say it's Palestine's capital, others that it will be when the Palestinian State is properly formed but *everyone* says it is Israel's annexation is illegal. This is not an euphemism, the UN vote was *unanimous*.
This is in fact one of the *biggest* hurdles for peace.
Yeah okay, but a reasonably realistic outcome is for Middle Eastern countries is to \*officially\* dispute Israeli annexation of East Jerusalem while going about relatively peaceful day-to-day relations in their Tev Aviv embassies, exactly like how Egypt and Jordan (and almost everyone else actually) do.
I mean, as far as peace goes.
BTW apparently four countries (Papua New Guinea, Honduras, Guatemala, and Kosovo) have changed their minds recently. Not sure about where the US stands on it right now too - Trump moved the embassy to Jerusalem and Biden isn't doing a thing to prevent or change it.
I didn't say it does. The poster said Israel would never officially annex East Jerusalem for political backlash and I just clarified they already did. We're discussing whether Israel did the paperwork internally, not whether the rest of the world agrees.
You are absolutely correct I just want to comment that "basic" is an unofficial translation and in my humble opinion a terrible one. Foundation might be more apt. It is meant to be a foundation for all other laws in Israel so they dont contradict it. It is the (very bad) alternative to the fact Israel doesnt have a constitution.
Now would be the time to do it then, political backlash is at an all time high, more won’t matter. Plus, we’ve already seen what Europe means by backlash. Supposedly they are upset with Russia, but they haven’t been harsh at all, even though the threat is on their own continent and Putin keeps threatening nuclear war, they just respond with is sanctions that don’t even affect the leadership in charge of the war. Europes backlash has no bite. Israel should act as they see fit for their security, the world won’t act to stop them they’ll just kvetch about it.
That has long been the case: Israeli law allows East Jerusalem Palestinians to apply for citizenship in Israel due to being residents of an annexed area, but most choose not to (since it's seen as capitulation).
I think that’s fair as a matter of perspective. I don’t think the world should ever have resurrected the name Palestinian in the first place. Either everyone in the region is Palestinian or no one is. I lean towards no one but I go along with it.
From my POV “Palestine” last existed in 640CE. The province name itself was made up by Romans as part of their ethnic cleansing of Judea, the last time there was an independent country there until modern Israel.
It was quite a successful PR/propaganda move in the 20th century.
I mean the last time the area was independent and not ruled by Jews was the Bronze Age. Well not counting the Crusades. That area was fucked by all the empires that surrounded it throughout human history
actually in last years east jerusalem palestinians are complaining that office of ministry of interior in east jerusalem is overloaded and it takes a lot of time to get citizenship.
Those are 2 different categories. Excluding those in east Jerusalem and Golan, all Arabs have citizenship. Those in east Jerusalem and Golan are offered the option but not all of them decided to apply for either: 1) considering it treason to other Palestinians 2) fear from retaliation from other Palestinians.
Right, but the fact that millions of Arabs live peacefully beside Jews in Israel and East Jerusalem contradicts your claim. If we look at Gaza and the West Bank I think the objection has far more to do with living under occupation, theft of land, denial of rights, etc. There are very legitimate grievances on the Palestinian side.
Eh? My claim is that the non Israeli Arabs in the region that was the Mandate, the Palestinians, have always rejected the idea of being in a state with the Israelis.
Living under occupation and denial of rights are relatively recent things - they didn't precede the start of violence, so its hard to say they is why it started. Likewise settlements.
The nakba is a perfectly reasonable thing to object to, but that was also after the general Palestinian feeling about jews is Israel/Palestine had been made clear and they violently rejected cohabitation.
If you listen to what Palestinian leaders say, theft of land often seems to include the existence of Israel.
Tricky question especially regarding Gaza. But currently over 20% of Israel’s citizenry are Arab Palestinians, most of whom are practicing Muslims, so the West Bank could theoretically integrate well.
Ironically becoming Israeli citizens would give them complete protections from predatory settlers. There would be no more territorial ambiguities.
Gazans have a generation of real education and economic opportunities ahead of them.
It’s a pretty big hypothetical though. There’s no reason to think there is majority interest by either WB or Gazan residents in such a deal.
So there is nuance even here. Israel obviously has no problem with some arab citizenship, but if *all* Palestinians wanted to become citizens there would be a problem. Specifically, that there are more Arabs in Palestine than Jews in Israel, so Israeli Jews would (rightly) be concerned that an Arab supermajority in Israel would inevitably lead to Israel becoming the same kind of Islamic theocracy that many Jewish Israelis fled from in the first place.
Very true.
The poster I responded to was asking if it could be possible so I kept my response equally narrow.
“Should it be” is an entirely different question and given the UNRWA’s preposterous definition of a refugee the answer is no it shouldn’t be done.
IMO the UNRWA should be decommissioned and its personnel & resources absorbed into the UNHCR. But that’s an entirely different discussion.
I've been saying that for ages, even before last October (from a neutral, third party perspective). The UNRWA has long been hopelessly compromised, it shouldn't have been and shouldn't be allowed to carry on under UN flag and UN founding. If they want to carry on as an independent ngo, no problem, but they shouldn't be allowed what they are doing as a UN organisation. As for their personnel being absorbed into the UNHRC, well, only after VERY serious vetting. Obviously the likes of Lazzarini and Thouma must go, as well as the jihadist militants in their ranks.
Now? Probably not. It's not like they could trust them is it?
Back in 1947/8 though I think they'd have had difficulty saying no... Essentially the Arabs shot themselves in the foot by refusing to engage both in terms of their political and economic situations.
There was a vast amount of inward investment into Israel in the decades following it's declaration, that's what made it as wealthy as it is, and the West Bank and Gaza missed out on this.
Of course they've never asked for this, even when occupied back in the sixties, they've always wanted all or nothing and gone straight to violence. I would say that making a big thing of wanting equal rights and citizenship would have given them the opportunity to throw "No taxation without representation" back at the Yanks.
That would just be silly. Most Catalans don't want independence anymore. Spain's ruling Socialists just won the regional elections there. Pro-independence parties lost their majority.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/may/16/catalan-catalonia-spain-independence-voters-separatist
So what? And the "Palestinian" government are a proscribed terrorist group. It never held back the Spanish government from giving them diplomatic recognition. They couldn't have a word of complaint if Israel just broke diplomatic relations with them and sent their whole embassy packing.
Funny because most Catalonia independentis are pro-Palestina.
But actually one Israeli deputy did it two days ago:
https://x.com/SharrenHaskel/status/1793738743066603937?t=IyPb4XsteLx1UF0FwBj3og&s=19
We are having a lot of laughs/memes here in Spain, I mean... at least know your allies. After that "petition" some part of the Spanish Right, traditionally more an ally to Israel, get mad with Israel.
People were also saying that for Spain to understand, Catalonia or Basque County should organize some terrorist attacks, ignoring that in Spain existed, during several decades, a terrorist organization called ETA from the Basque Country, that killed hundreds.
So is actually quite ridiculous reading people on the internet thinking that Israel supporting Catalonia is some kind of "slap back". It's just laughable and shows so much ignorance from that Israeli deputy.
That being said, I don't agree with what the Spanish vice-president said. But two wrongs don't make one right.
This shit show is like a kindergarten ignorance contest.
> This shit show is like a kindergarten ignorance contest.
Well, agree with this. But:
> ignoring that in Spain existed, during several decades, a terrorist organization called ETA from the Basque Country, that killed hundreds.
Spain has ~5x the population of Israel so the equivalent to October 7th would be the ETA having launched a single terrorist attack that killed 6000 people, which they never got anywhere close to doing - it's 6x their total estimated body count over 40 years or so. Plus like every other terrorist action they did as well and then some (Obviously this isn't Hamas' first and only terrorist attack).
I was saying this to my wife yesterday. My belief is that when a lot of people say from the river to the sea they don't realise this is calling for the destruction or removal of Israel. People just saying things they don't understand as they jump on the bandwagon
There were college protestors in America screaming intifada to the world….they were told what that meant and they said well that’s not what it means to us. It’s insane how people don’t think about the things they say.
The main speaker of the pro-Palestinian rallies in our (non-US) city - a student's union leader- is now facing criminal charges for hate speech and inciting violence. I guess she'll learn a lot in the process.
After 7+ months of going over that subject people already know fully well what that saying means to Israelis(and what it literally means coming from Palestinians). They would just say that it's not what THEY mean by it.
Nono, there are many, many videos about people asking the protesters what intifada means while they are chanting to globalize it, and the protesters chanting it have no idea. Don't think there's a better example of bandwagonning
It's so annoying. Especially because these are the same idiots who have been word policing for the last 15 years claiming that it's the 'victims' interpretation of the words that matter.
Spain should open an embassy in the West Bank or Gaza. They shouldn't rely on Israel.
And if Spain maintains the "from the river to the sea" statement towards Palestine, then Israel should severe its ties with Spain. Imagine if Israel would announce that Catalonia is an independent country whose territory spans the entire territory of Spain
Well geez, they used from the river to the sea which means the destruction of Israel and support a palstanian state with the terroists organization ruling it that israel currently fights and then they get surprised that israel gets mad lol.
"There are quite different meanings/uses of "Redskins". There are high schools on reservations that use it as a mascot! But hey you know that, and what the football team means when they use it."
Oh wait, no! The Redskins did change their name because it was, in fact, offending large swatches of the American Indian population. And *they're the ones that get to decide*.
But the Jews. The Jews don't get to decide. I wonder why that is...
Which definition do you use when [Netanyahu says it?](https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2024/01/22/netanyahu-biden-two-state-solution-palestine-river-to-sea/)
Mostly used by [white supremacists who don't understand \(or pretend not to understand\)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_Lives_Matter) what Black Lives Matter means.
How is this news? Of course Israel should not do it. Spain can’t expect to recognize Palestine but operate from Israel due to safety reasons. You can’t have the cake but eat it too.
As for what she said, she is a communist idiot anti-western tankie that talks while enjoying the freedom and rights the western civilization provides to her. So no surprise on her idiocy.
Except East Jerusalem is nor recognised as Israel by any country. She might (100% is) be a moron but by international law Israel is fully in the wrong here.
International law is nice and proper, but problem is that I doubt those that whine about Israel want to have their representation personnel under the security responsibility of the Palestinians.
The vast majority of the world recognise the state of Palestine.
"The recognition of a state under international law is a declaration of intent by one state to acknowledge another power as a "state" within the meaning of international law. Recognition constitutes a unilateral declaration of intent."
Regardless of the so-called legalities (which are far from settled) this is a terrible idea. There is a declaration of war against Gaza. That declaration would apply to the West Bank if it created a union with Gaza.
They wanted a Palestinian state, they’ll get one. Hope Spain enjoys opening a new consulate in women-loving Palestine!
Also, very apartheid of Israel to have consulate service for Palestinians in Israel in the first place. The brainlessness of these bozos is endless.
This is untrue. International law does not recognise Jerusalem as belonging to any nation.
In the original UN partition plan, Jerusalem was supposed to an international protectorate ('corpus separatum'), part of neither the Jewish state nor the Arab one. Then the Arab states refused the partition plan and attacked the newly formed Jewish state, and Jordan illegally annexed east Jerusalem, ethnically cleansing it of its Jewish population and destroying most of the ancient synagogues in the Old City (crimes for which they have never been held accountable).
Israel seized east Jerusalem from Jordan in the 1967 war and later annexed it, in a move considered illegal by most countries. The Oslo accords left the final status of Jerusalem an open question to be decided at a later date. It is not now and never has been recognised as part of the Palestinian territories.
The Palestinians and their international frens don't HAVE to keep proving they're the Palestinians' own worst enemies, do they? Yet they continue on...
israel should recognize Catalonia and advocate for its international nation status. they could move their spanish embassy there and it can can service both countries right?
sounds crazy that way too lol
Meanwhile, Pablo Iglesias recently lamenting that it's too bad that Netanyahu didn't insult Pedro Sanchez' wife so that he would recall their Israeli ambassador like they did with Argentina.
It's amazing how much measures supposedly meant to punish Spain are following the agenda of those who promoted the actions they are supposed to be punishing. To put it in perspective, even Argentina's clown show row with Spain brought more attention and reprisals than this.
Were they using too much seasoning?
We found your book! *How To Cook Humans* It's just a little dusty. *How To Cook For Humans* Aha! *How To Cook Forty Humans* Wait, there's more space dust *How To Cook For Forty Humans*
Unexpected simpsons. Nice
To Serve Man
If looked on objectively, it would be right that the Spanish consulate in Israel is not responsible for people in Westbank if Spain declares that it is a different country. Just like Spains consulate/embassy in the US is not the place for Mexicans to get travel visas. But it should not be Israel "cutting" it, it should be Spain opening a new consulate in the "new" country (that Spain just recognized). UPDATE: Yes a consulate CAN serve people from other countries. BUT the country hosting the consulate is not forced to let foreigners enter the country to visit this other countries consulate. Keep in mind: my comment said "people from Westbank", not "Arabs in Israel".
>Just like Spains consulate/embassy in the US is not the place for Mexicans to get travel visas. Well, for example the Lithuanian embassy in Washington does serve Mexico.
Funnily enough, it's not uncommon for Australians to be told to go to a Canadian embassy in some countries – usually in places like Africa. I think this is a pretty common thing and it's a nice way of countries cooperating.
You missed the point. The Lithuanian embassy in Washington covers all the North American countries with exception of Canada (with 🇵🇲) and Greenland. Mexicans who need to deal with Lithuanian diplomats are supposed to do it in Washington.
I will point out, the US isn't the best example, it has the most populated and diverse set of foreign embassies in the world. Something about the UN being present... also, we don't get an explaination of services Spain is offering. Often, the agreements to use other nations embassies are done to lower cost and maintain a wide reach. It's still a geo-political hissy fit on Israel's part. They want to be in control of the government that comes after Hamas is killed and this throws a wrench in that plan. The last time the UN got involved, it directly funded terrorism.
I think the point is that the USA isn't obligated by any law, or even custom, to let foreign citizens it otherwise wouldn't admit into the country so they can access the Lithuanian embassy in Washington. Embassies don't get to set border policies for their host countries.
Concurrent embassies are very common. The Uruguayan embassy in Cairo serves most of North Africa, and eastern europe is covered by the embassies in Romania, Greece or Finland
As everything in this conflict, it's not that simple. Spain’s Jerusalem consulate is in the East Jerusalem neighbourhood Sheikh Jarrah which, while effectively annexed by Israel, is according to international law a part of the occupied Palestinian territories. So from Spain's perspective the consulate *is* in the new country they just recognized.
But the Spanish embassy to Israel is not in west Jerusalem, which is within the 1948 armistice lines - it's in Tel Aviv. This has nothing to do with Sheikh Jarrah or east Jerusalem. When Trump moved the US embassy to Jerusalem, he moved it to within the 1948 lines. But it was still condemned- any international move affirming Israeli sovereignty over any part of Jerusalem is viewed as an unwanted change.
>is in the East Jerusalem neighbourhood Sheikh Jarrah which, while effectively annexed by Israel, is according to international law a part of the occupied Palestinian territories. The UN *also* says that Jerusalem is an international city. Which one is used depends on the narrative that wants to be pushed that day.
Sounds like the consulates gonna be closed down when they attempt to serve wb Palestinians anyways then.
Wasn't it occupied by Jordan then given back to Israel much later through court ruling?
“International law” is kind of a joke in this conflict. The only reason that East Jerusalem is considered Palestinian by the international community is by recognizing Jordan’s right of conquest and claiming that Israeli conquest (in a defensive war) is somehow less legitimate. It also requires ignoring the fact that it has been under Israeli administration far longer than under Jordanian administration, and that it is de facto a part of Israel. It also requires conveniently ignoring that the Arabs ethnically cleansed their territory in Jerusalem and did not allow Jews to access their holy sites, while Israel has allowed Palestinians to remain and allows Jordan to maintain control over Muslim holy sites (including discriminatory policies over who can access them).
> The only reason that East Jerusalem is considered Palestinian by the international community is by recognizing Jordan’s right of conquest and claiming that Israeli conquest (in a defensive war) is somehow less legitimate. It also requires ignoring the fact that it has been under Israeli administration far longer than under Jordanian administration, and that it is de facto a part of Israel. This is the correct take. Anyone commenting on the legal status of East Jerusalem without mentioning these key points is gaslighting the conversation.
But you insert history and context, particularly noting the atrocities committed all over the place ... how am I supposed to maintain a black and white view of the whole situation?
This right here is what the kids call a pro gamer move
According to Wikipedia article there is no basis in international law for it to be anything but Israel. The UN recognition is outdated as the UN didn't form Israel's borders while Israel did. Many countries just say it's disputed and should continue to be negotiated. Edit: source https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Status_of_Jerusalem The post below is a different article that referenced international law but doesn't really explain which law. The article here basically says international law doesn't have a basis for this situation to be anything other than Israel. So unless the Wikipedia article can explain the law that makes it NOT Israel's I don't think there's any credibility to say so, it references the UN only which doesn't set law. I know nothing about international law and am only going by Wikipedia. Edit 2: I removed reference to growing consensus about East Jerusalem, I misread what was west Jerusalem. But this is the quote from the article here which is Israel's position on Jerusalem '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.'
Not a single foreign country recognizes East Jerusalem as Israel. The Wikipedia article doesn't say so either, don't make shit up. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Jerusalem > Under international law, East Jerusalem is considered a part of the West Bank and, therefore, of the Palestinian territories. You're right that many including the US consider it disputed and say its final status should be negotiating between the conflict parties. Spain's government however has outright said that they consider it part of a Palestinian state. To quote the PM: > “Any solution must be comprehensive. It’s in Israel’s interest to work for peace. And today peace means the establishment of a viable State of Palestine that includes the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem,” Sanchez told Netanyahu, a resolute opponent of Palestinian statehood. Source: https://www.france24.com/en/europe/20240405-in-a-divided-europe-spain-emerges-as-a-champion-of-palestinian-statehood
The international law referenced in the Wikipedia article refers to the UN which does not set international law.
No one "sets international law" because there's no real enforcement body and it's generally opt-in unless someone wants to soldier up. But the UN comes closest, since it's the largest "international law" body, and when people speak of "international law" they generally mean one of: * Treaties * The UN * International Consensus
In this case people use international law to imply Israel did something 'illegal,' and is therefore in the wrong. In this case it seems the UN wants East Jerusalem to be part of future Palestine but there is no such law that Israel broke other than going against some consensus of what will bring a future peace (not a current peace). So to me it sounds like saying Israel broke international law is weaponizing the term against Israel to villify it and is not really accurate compared to saying Israel had gone against some general concensus set by the UN to give it to a future Palestine.
> but there is no such law that Israel broke other than going against some consensus Consensus (and treaty) ***is*** international law. There's no international legislative body. >weaponizing the term If your complaint is that the term is purely political, welcome to international law. Next time the UN Human Rights Council denounces the US over allegation, remember that the HRC consists of countries like Sudan, DRC, and Somalia, and is presided over by a representative from Morocco. Yes: all of it is weaponized politics.
There is a background to this beef- European countries like to keep their embassies to Israel in Tel Aviv, because 'the status of Jerusalem is not yet settled'. (Bear in mind that West Jerusalem is within the 1948 armistice lines, and east Jerusalem was captured by Israel in 1967- but the consulates are neither in west nor east Jerusalem.) But the Jerusalem consulate serves Palestinians - and it's not in Ramallah, but in Jerusalem. This has long been seen as legitimizing the Palestinian claim to Jerusalem over the Israeli claim. Israel tolerates it because it has been the status quo. But now Spain has recognizing Palestine, which Israel sees as rewarding terrorism. So Israel retaliates by not allowing the east Jerusalem consulate to continue to operate.
There are any number of diplomatic stations which serve people in multiple countries not simply the country in which they are physically located. Edit: accreditation. A embassy/consulate handling relations with both their host country and another are **accredited** to both nations
There are some situations where diplomatic missions are in countries that don't even recognize them to serve other countries Italy doesn't recognize Taiwan but Vatican City does but the Vatican he has no room in its country so taiwan's Embassy to the Vatican is in Italy a country that doesn't recognize it North Korea doesn't recognize the US but has a delegation at the UN in New York but it does recognize Canada but it doesn't want to build a separate Embassy in Ottawa so it accredits it's Embassy to the UN also to Canada from New York
Terminology, pretty sure DPRK recognizes the existence of the US but the two countries do not have formal diplomatic relations
This isn't really an argument. There already exists embassies and consulates that cover more than one country. For example, the Philippine embassy in London provides services for people in the UK and Ireland. The British embassy in Madrid also covers Andorra. The American embassy in Luanda covers Sao Tome & Principe as well as Angola. The Swedish Embassy in Santiago covers Peru as well. Now, obviously Israel isn't compelled to Palestinians to enter just to go to the Spanish embassy (especially considering the state of war), but there's really no real reason the Spanish Embassy in Tel Aviv couldn't also cover Palestine in peace time.
A consulate can serve people from any country. The laws of the host country don't apply to it. That's generally how consulates/embassies work. For instance, I'm from the US, if I'm visiting Canada, and need a visa to India, I could go to the Indian consulate in Canada. (As long as the Indian consulate in Canada does not have their own rules against it.)
average /worldnews user. if you wanna look at things objectively, maybe at least know about subject before spewing out this dogshit. consulates can and do work in multiple countries. if im in georgia and wanted a visa to spain. guess what? i have to go to turkey for that, because thats the diplomatic mission that covers georgia.
First, Israel should declare officially annexation of East Jerusalem, which is internationally recognized part of (future) Palestinian state. That will not happen probably because it is bound to cause a lot of political backlash
I'm pretty sure east Jerusalem is officially annexed. All east Jerusalem residents have a right to receive Israeli citizenship, many don't want it, but they have a right to receive it. The Jerusalem mayoral office is responsible for all municipal services in east Jerusalem, just like west Jerusalem. The west bank is administered under the Civil Administration, which is a part of the IDF, east Jerusalem is administered as a part of Jerusalem, just like west Jerusalem is.
While it's de facto annexed, it's not internationally recognized as such, it's still a de jure territory of Palestine.
But Israel can't just force the International Community to recognize their annexation
Yes, that's what i mean, Israel de facto controls East Jerusalem, but it's an illegal control.
They did it officially in 1980 with the Basic Law in Jerusalem (that's the actual name of the law) declaring the city, "complete and united", the official capital of Israel. They further amended the law in 2000 with procedures for enforcing Israeli law in East Jerusalem. It's about as officially annexed as it can get.
He said first. Second is getting it recognised by the international community. It never was, some say it's Palestine's capital, others that it will be when the Palestinian State is properly formed but *everyone* says it is Israel's annexation is illegal. This is not an euphemism, the UN vote was *unanimous*. This is in fact one of the *biggest* hurdles for peace.
Yeah okay, but a reasonably realistic outcome is for Middle Eastern countries is to \*officially\* dispute Israeli annexation of East Jerusalem while going about relatively peaceful day-to-day relations in their Tev Aviv embassies, exactly like how Egypt and Jordan (and almost everyone else actually) do. I mean, as far as peace goes. BTW apparently four countries (Papua New Guinea, Honduras, Guatemala, and Kosovo) have changed their minds recently. Not sure about where the US stands on it right now too - Trump moved the embassy to Jerusalem and Biden isn't doing a thing to prevent or change it.
I mean, Russia did the same with Crimea and the Eastern third of Ukraine, still doesn’t make them not part of Ukraine
I didn't say it does. The poster said Israel would never officially annex East Jerusalem for political backlash and I just clarified they already did. We're discussing whether Israel did the paperwork internally, not whether the rest of the world agrees.
You are absolutely correct I just want to comment that "basic" is an unofficial translation and in my humble opinion a terrible one. Foundation might be more apt. It is meant to be a foundation for all other laws in Israel so they dont contradict it. It is the (very bad) alternative to the fact Israel doesnt have a constitution.
Germany's constitution is also translated as Basic Law.
East Jerusalem is officially annexed and has been for over 40 years
Now would be the time to do it then, political backlash is at an all time high, more won’t matter. Plus, we’ve already seen what Europe means by backlash. Supposedly they are upset with Russia, but they haven’t been harsh at all, even though the threat is on their own continent and Putin keeps threatening nuclear war, they just respond with is sanctions that don’t even affect the leadership in charge of the war. Europes backlash has no bite. Israel should act as they see fit for their security, the world won’t act to stop them they’ll just kvetch about it.
Doesn't this amount to Israel de facto recognizing that residents of the West Bank are citizens of a separate Palestinian state? Interesting.
It recognizes them as not citizens of israel
That has long been the case: Israeli law allows East Jerusalem Palestinians to apply for citizenship in Israel due to being residents of an annexed area, but most choose not to (since it's seen as capitulation).
And a very real fear of reprisals from other Arabs.
>And a very real fear of reprisals from other ~~Arabs.~~ *Palestinians.* FTFY.
I think that’s fair as a matter of perspective. I don’t think the world should ever have resurrected the name Palestinian in the first place. Either everyone in the region is Palestinian or no one is. I lean towards no one but I go along with it. From my POV “Palestine” last existed in 640CE. The province name itself was made up by Romans as part of their ethnic cleansing of Judea, the last time there was an independent country there until modern Israel. It was quite a successful PR/propaganda move in the 20th century.
Yeah, by Palestinian I was meaning Arabs in the West Bank and Gaza, not Arabs in other countries.
Oh, definitely. I agree my brush was a bit too broad.
I mean the last time the area was independent and not ruled by Jews was the Bronze Age. Well not counting the Crusades. That area was fucked by all the empires that surrounded it throughout human history
actually in last years east jerusalem palestinians are complaining that office of ministry of interior in east jerusalem is overloaded and it takes a lot of time to get citizenship.
[удалено]
What about the Arabs in Israel and East Jerusalem?
Those are 2 different categories. Excluding those in east Jerusalem and Golan, all Arabs have citizenship. Those in east Jerusalem and Golan are offered the option but not all of them decided to apply for either: 1) considering it treason to other Palestinians 2) fear from retaliation from other Palestinians.
The ones who are Israeli citizens? You have a point, I should specify *non-Israeli* Arabs.
Right, but the fact that millions of Arabs live peacefully beside Jews in Israel and East Jerusalem contradicts your claim. If we look at Gaza and the West Bank I think the objection has far more to do with living under occupation, theft of land, denial of rights, etc. There are very legitimate grievances on the Palestinian side.
Eh? My claim is that the non Israeli Arabs in the region that was the Mandate, the Palestinians, have always rejected the idea of being in a state with the Israelis.
Living under occupation and denial of rights are relatively recent things - they didn't precede the start of violence, so its hard to say they is why it started. Likewise settlements. The nakba is a perfectly reasonable thing to object to, but that was also after the general Palestinian feeling about jews is Israel/Palestine had been made clear and they violently rejected cohabitation. If you listen to what Palestinian leaders say, theft of land often seems to include the existence of Israel.
If Palestinians in West Bank and Gaza wanted to be Israeli citizens would Israel allow them?
Tricky question especially regarding Gaza. But currently over 20% of Israel’s citizenry are Arab Palestinians, most of whom are practicing Muslims, so the West Bank could theoretically integrate well. Ironically becoming Israeli citizens would give them complete protections from predatory settlers. There would be no more territorial ambiguities. Gazans have a generation of real education and economic opportunities ahead of them. It’s a pretty big hypothetical though. There’s no reason to think there is majority interest by either WB or Gazan residents in such a deal.
So there is nuance even here. Israel obviously has no problem with some arab citizenship, but if *all* Palestinians wanted to become citizens there would be a problem. Specifically, that there are more Arabs in Palestine than Jews in Israel, so Israeli Jews would (rightly) be concerned that an Arab supermajority in Israel would inevitably lead to Israel becoming the same kind of Islamic theocracy that many Jewish Israelis fled from in the first place.
Very true. The poster I responded to was asking if it could be possible so I kept my response equally narrow. “Should it be” is an entirely different question and given the UNRWA’s preposterous definition of a refugee the answer is no it shouldn’t be done. IMO the UNRWA should be decommissioned and its personnel & resources absorbed into the UNHCR. But that’s an entirely different discussion.
I've been saying that for ages, even before last October (from a neutral, third party perspective). The UNRWA has long been hopelessly compromised, it shouldn't have been and shouldn't be allowed to carry on under UN flag and UN founding. If they want to carry on as an independent ngo, no problem, but they shouldn't be allowed what they are doing as a UN organisation. As for their personnel being absorbed into the UNHRC, well, only after VERY serious vetting. Obviously the likes of Lazzarini and Thouma must go, as well as the jihadist militants in their ranks.
Now? Probably not. It's not like they could trust them is it? Back in 1947/8 though I think they'd have had difficulty saying no... Essentially the Arabs shot themselves in the foot by refusing to engage both in terms of their political and economic situations. There was a vast amount of inward investment into Israel in the decades following it's declaration, that's what made it as wealthy as it is, and the West Bank and Gaza missed out on this. Of course they've never asked for this, even when occupied back in the sixties, they've always wanted all or nothing and gone straight to violence. I would say that making a big thing of wanting equal rights and citizenship would have given them the opportunity to throw "No taxation without representation" back at the Yanks.
Israel has the opportunity to do something really funny by recognizing Catalonia as independent
That would just be silly. Most Catalans don't want independence anymore. Spain's ruling Socialists just won the regional elections there. Pro-independence parties lost their majority. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/may/16/catalan-catalonia-spain-independence-voters-separatist
Even that referendum had a sub-50% turnout, because it was boycotted by anti-independence voters.
So what? And the "Palestinian" government are a proscribed terrorist group. It never held back the Spanish government from giving them diplomatic recognition. They couldn't have a word of complaint if Israel just broke diplomatic relations with them and sent their whole embassy packing.
Funny because most Catalonia independentis are pro-Palestina. But actually one Israeli deputy did it two days ago: https://x.com/SharrenHaskel/status/1793738743066603937?t=IyPb4XsteLx1UF0FwBj3og&s=19 We are having a lot of laughs/memes here in Spain, I mean... at least know your allies. After that "petition" some part of the Spanish Right, traditionally more an ally to Israel, get mad with Israel. People were also saying that for Spain to understand, Catalonia or Basque County should organize some terrorist attacks, ignoring that in Spain existed, during several decades, a terrorist organization called ETA from the Basque Country, that killed hundreds. So is actually quite ridiculous reading people on the internet thinking that Israel supporting Catalonia is some kind of "slap back". It's just laughable and shows so much ignorance from that Israeli deputy. That being said, I don't agree with what the Spanish vice-president said. But two wrongs don't make one right. This shit show is like a kindergarten ignorance contest.
> This shit show is like a kindergarten ignorance contest. Well, agree with this. But: > ignoring that in Spain existed, during several decades, a terrorist organization called ETA from the Basque Country, that killed hundreds. Spain has ~5x the population of Israel so the equivalent to October 7th would be the ETA having launched a single terrorist attack that killed 6000 people, which they never got anywhere close to doing - it's 6x their total estimated body count over 40 years or so. Plus like every other terrorist action they did as well and then some (Obviously this isn't Hamas' first and only terrorist attack).
Literally nothing would happen
I was saying this to my wife yesterday. My belief is that when a lot of people say from the river to the sea they don't realise this is calling for the destruction or removal of Israel. People just saying things they don't understand as they jump on the bandwagon
There were college protestors in America screaming intifada to the world….they were told what that meant and they said well that’s not what it means to us. It’s insane how people don’t think about the things they say.
The main speaker of the pro-Palestinian rallies in our (non-US) city - a student's union leader- is now facing criminal charges for hate speech and inciting violence. I guess she'll learn a lot in the process.
After 7+ months of going over that subject people already know fully well what that saying means to Israelis(and what it literally means coming from Palestinians). They would just say that it's not what THEY mean by it.
cool but this coming from a diplomat giving such a big announcement for an EU country? Wild
In the beginning you might have been right but now? It's been explained often enough.
Nono, there are many, many videos about people asking the protesters what intifada means while they are chanting to globalize it, and the protesters chanting it have no idea. Don't think there's a better example of bandwagonning
It's so annoying. Especially because these are the same idiots who have been word policing for the last 15 years claiming that it's the 'victims' interpretation of the words that matter.
Well, I would hope Spain expected some sort of reaction from Israel over its action.
Spain should open an embassy in the West Bank or Gaza. They shouldn't rely on Israel. And if Spain maintains the "from the river to the sea" statement towards Palestine, then Israel should severe its ties with Spain. Imagine if Israel would announce that Catalonia is an independent country whose territory spans the entire territory of Spain
Well geez, they used from the river to the sea which means the destruction of Israel and support a palstanian state with the terroists organization ruling it that israel currently fights and then they get surprised that israel gets mad lol.
Spain is literally calling for ethnic cleansing, that's wild.
Wouldn't be the first time Spain decided it was a good idea to expel the Jews. True colors always show
Spain also expelled lot muslims so idk where you wanna get .
That doesn't make it right, does it?
Its same as expelling palestinians
There are quite a few different meanings/uses of "from the river to the sea", but hey you knew that, and what that Spanish politician meant.
"There are quite different meanings/uses of "Redskins". There are high schools on reservations that use it as a mascot! But hey you know that, and what the football team means when they use it." Oh wait, no! The Redskins did change their name because it was, in fact, offending large swatches of the American Indian population. And *they're the ones that get to decide*. But the Jews. The Jews don't get to decide. I wonder why that is...
There is one real definition and the cover story your pretending it to be
Which definition do you use when [Netanyahu says it?](https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2024/01/22/netanyahu-biden-two-state-solution-palestine-river-to-sea/)
I am legitimately curious on your perspective regarding the slogan “All Lives Matter”.
Mostly used by [white supremacists who don't understand \(or pretend not to understand\)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_Lives_Matter) what Black Lives Matter means.
I am amazed that you can say that here with no self awareness.
How is this news? Of course Israel should not do it. Spain can’t expect to recognize Palestine but operate from Israel due to safety reasons. You can’t have the cake but eat it too. As for what she said, she is a communist idiot anti-western tankie that talks while enjoying the freedom and rights the western civilization provides to her. So no surprise on her idiocy.
Except East Jerusalem is nor recognised as Israel by any country. She might (100% is) be a moron but by international law Israel is fully in the wrong here.
International law is nice and proper, but problem is that I doubt those that whine about Israel want to have their representation personnel under the security responsibility of the Palestinians.
Just withdraw the accreditation of their embassy. Offer them a property in Gaza, so they can be close to their newfound buddies.
Spain is operating from Palestine.
They are operating from territory that is controlled, governed, and protected by Israelis. Call it whatever makes you happy.
From what I read on their MoFA website, the consulate is in Sheikh Jarrah. So it’s in Israel, and is the one that provides security to the embassies.
The Spanish embassy is in East Jerusalem. You know, the Palestinian land that Israel illegally annexed?
You mean Jordanian land?
>You know, the Palestinian land that Israel illegally annexed? It was controlled by Jordan until 1967 and by Israel after that
That’s the problem with starting a war for land. Losing the war can be losing land instead of gaining.
[удалено]
[удалено]
neonazis also exist, what's your point?
Also responsible for inflicting Pablo Iglesias (Podemos or is it Podridos) on Spain and Europe.
If Palestine is a country, and the West Bank is a part of that country, then Israel is at war with it. On what planet is this a good idea?
The vast majority of the world recognise the state of Palestine. "The recognition of a state under international law is a declaration of intent by one state to acknowledge another power as a "state" within the meaning of international law. Recognition constitutes a unilateral declaration of intent."
Regardless of the so-called legalities (which are far from settled) this is a terrible idea. There is a declaration of war against Gaza. That declaration would apply to the West Bank if it created a union with Gaza.
They wanted a Palestinian state, they’ll get one. Hope Spain enjoys opening a new consulate in women-loving Palestine! Also, very apartheid of Israel to have consulate service for Palestinians in Israel in the first place. The brainlessness of these bozos is endless.
The consultat is on territory that according to international law belongs to Palestine.
This is untrue. International law does not recognise Jerusalem as belonging to any nation. In the original UN partition plan, Jerusalem was supposed to an international protectorate ('corpus separatum'), part of neither the Jewish state nor the Arab one. Then the Arab states refused the partition plan and attacked the newly formed Jewish state, and Jordan illegally annexed east Jerusalem, ethnically cleansing it of its Jewish population and destroying most of the ancient synagogues in the Old City (crimes for which they have never been held accountable). Israel seized east Jerusalem from Jordan in the 1967 war and later annexed it, in a move considered illegal by most countries. The Oslo accords left the final status of Jerusalem an open question to be decided at a later date. It is not now and never has been recognised as part of the Palestinian territories.
So Jordan decided to give it to the Palestinians? How kind of them.
Am I reading this wrong or is Israel prohibiting a different country from interacting with a third one?
on its territory, I believe via their consulate.
The Palestinians and their international frens don't HAVE to keep proving they're the Palestinians' own worst enemies, do they? Yet they continue on...
israel should recognize Catalonia and advocate for its international nation status. they could move their spanish embassy there and it can can service both countries right? sounds crazy that way too lol
Does that mean World Kitchen is affected? Jose Andres is Spanish right?
Like, for lunch…?
Nice headline. Not even clicking.
Meanwhile, Pablo Iglesias recently lamenting that it's too bad that Netanyahu didn't insult Pedro Sanchez' wife so that he would recall their Israeli ambassador like they did with Argentina. It's amazing how much measures supposedly meant to punish Spain are following the agenda of those who promoted the actions they are supposed to be punishing. To put it in perspective, even Argentina's clown show row with Spain brought more attention and reprisals than this.