I don’t see how that changes anything. How about if we call the area now occupied by “Israel” Israel and the areas occupied by “Palestinians” Palestine?
Regards,
Shodan
That sounds too easy. :dubious:
What exactly do you mean by “occupied.” 
More seriously, is there any love at all, anywhere, for a shared Jerusalem? Not a divided city, but an “open city?” There isn’t any absolute reason two countries couldn’t have the same capital.
Or would this just collapse into a new division of the city into armed zones, where “the others” simply never went? (Sigh… Likely to be formalized with walls.)
It is of religious importance to both religions. Muslims certainly refuse to share it. The Israelis show a great deal of restraint by keeping Tel Aviv as the capital of Israel.
Jerusalem is Israel’s capital. Moreover, do you mean “Muslims” or “Palestinians”? They’re not the same and neither has any power there.
They moved from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem some time ago.
(Has the U.S. finally accepted it? I remember, for a long while, we kept our embassy in Tel Aviv, to protest the move.)
Israel certainly shows restraint by allowing the WAQF to maintain control over the holy sites. (I don’t know what the "neutral’ name is for the Temple Mount.) They could have nationalized the whole area. Why not? It’s not like the Arabs could be any angrier with them.
The embassy is still here in Tel Aviv, on an insanely expensive piece of beachfront property. Every few years the Israeli government and teh U.S. Congress make noises about moving it to Jerusalem, but nothing ever happens. I think it’s mostly for show - everyone is perfectly happy to keep the embassy where it is, for a variety of reasons.
That said, the Israeli government moved to Jerusalem in 1949, so it wasn’t a recent change. Most governments never recognize the move, though, as like everything else involving this country, it’s a politically-charged issue. One reason, though, that people often think the de facto capital is still in Tel Aviv is that the Ministry of Defense and military high command are still here, at teh Kiryah, AKA Camp Rabin, AKA the Israeli version of the Pentagon. Defense-related press releases are postmarked “Tel Aviv”, which can understandably be a bit misleading.
Your Canada/us hypothetical runs close to the Pakistan/India reality.
Since Pakistan does get free shots, I think that having capability to do something about it, having nukes, and having powerful friends plays a role.
Coming back to Israel, none of these make a difference for statehood. However legal hassles will be different. I don’t think tearing off the fig leaf will make a difference in diplomacy; wikileaks exposes caused scarcely a ripple.
Thanks. I thought it was still Tel Aviv for political reasons. Didn’t a little old lady give a soldier a falg when Jerusalem was taken in 49, and his officers make him take it down?
IIRC, the story was that they had the soldier take the flag down from the Temple Mount in Jerusalem after it was taken in 1967; it stills flies elsewhere in the city, of course.
“The Arabs” most certainly could “get angrier” with them.
To give a really obvious example, Israel certainly doesn’t want it’s treaty with Jordan ended and they’ve for decades been maintaining relationships with the Hashemites and know full well that “nationalizing” the Temple Mount would be disastrous.
Hard to “get angrier” than going after someone with a “knife.”
Not sure what the reference to a “knife” is supposed to mean.
Suffice it is to say that Sabras want tot keep the Hashemites happy or do you disagree?
Actually the word “Palestine” has changed a lot over the years in what it referred to. Back in the 1940s, British Mandatory Palestine included what is now Jordan. Do you think that the UN should declare Jordan to be part of “Palestine”?
Oh yes, absolutely. Israel considers its peace with Jordan one of its most important geopolitical assets. God help us if it collapses.
There’s also a personal aspect here - the Israeli public had a huge amount of respect and sympathy for the late King Hussein, and much of that has carried over to his son. They won’t be happy at all if the government manages to fuck up relations with the Hashemite clan.
It didn’t seem worth starting a new thread, so I just wanted to give an “attaboy” to Bibi, who has now decided that it was the Germans, and not the Palestinians, who were behind the Holocaust.
In this case, there’s nothing behind the fig leaf – “Palestine” is not a de facto state. It’s just a vaguely defined aspiration the only purpose of which is to undermine Israel.
It’s interesting to note that the PLO charter of 1964 makes clear that the “Palestinian State” does not seek sovereignty over Judea, Samaria, or Gaza. It was not until later that the Palestinian Arabs decided that they needed a sovereign state which included these areas. So what changed after 1964? Just 3 years later, in 1967, these areas came under Jewish control.
So you see, words like “Palestine,” “Palestinian Land,” and even “Palestinian” are vaguely defined, artificial words mainly for the purpose of undermining Jewish Israel and no other reason.
“Palestine” is not a state and “Palestinians” don’t even particularly want a state. What they want is for there not to be a Jewish state.
What are you talking about?
The Emirate of Transjordan, which eventually became Jordan most certainly wasn’t part of “Palestine” in the 1940s.
Were you thinking of prior to the establishment of the Emirate of Transjordan in the early 1920s?
Sort of like how the early Zionists always referred to the Arabs as “natives” while right-wingers nowadays try and claim they’re all the descendants of recent immigrants.
The British seem to be adept at confusing things. They certainly confused me. During the Crusades, was not the entire area know now to Westerners as the Middle East called Palestine?