Wednesday, May 24th | 28 Iyyar 5777

Close

Be in the know!

Get our exclusive daily news briefing.

Subscribe
December 20, 2016 7:02 am

Time Magazine Lies About Jerusalem

avatar by Elder of Ziyon

Email a copy of "Time Magazine Lies About Jerusalem" to a friend
The Temple Mount in Jerusalem. Photo: Wikipedia.

The Temple Mount in Jerusalem. Photo: Wikipedia.

Time magazine has an article that claims to discuss the legal status of Jerusalem –and it’s totally inaccurate. Every single thing that it gets wrong has an anti-Israel bias. In fact, the whole article is a lesson in media bias. Take the passage below, for instance:

After the Second World War, the State of Israel was established and gradually recognized ‘de jure’ — or lawfully — by most of the world’s countries. However, although the U.N. recognized the state of Israel in 1948, allowing it to become a member state, it placed the whole city of Jerusalem under international control (a ‘corpus separatum’) on Dec. 13 1949. Despite this, most governmental offices moved to the city.

UN General Assembly Resolution 303(4) was passed on December 9, not December 13. It did not place Jerusalem under international control; General Assembly resolutions cannot do that. It merely expressed “its intention that Jerusalem should be placed under a permanent international regime.”

Related coverage

May 24, 2017 4:33 pm
0

Linda Sarsour and the Deafening Silence

It’s said that politics makes strange bedfellows. Or as author Harlan Ellison phrased it, everyone’s entitled to their own door...

Time is lying.

Crucially, the United States voted against this resolution.

Here is what happened on December 13: David Ben-Gurion said in unmistakable terms that Jerusalem is and always will be the capital of Israel:

As you know, the General Assembly of the United Nations has in the meantime, by a large majority, decided to place Jerusalem under an international regime as a separate entity. This decision is utterly incapable of implementation – if only for the determined unalterable opposition of the inhabitants of Jerusalem themselves. It is to be hoped that the General Assembly will in the course of time correct this mistake which its majority has made, and will make no attempt whatsoever to impose a regime on the Holy City against the will of its people.

…For the State of Israel there has always been and always will be one capital only – Jerusalem the eternal. So it was three thousand years ago – and so it will be, we believe, until the end of time.

Yet Time goes on:

But in 1967, during the Six-Day War, Israel captured the eastern section of Jerusalem, which Jordan presided over, and declared Israeli law, jurisdiction and administration would be applied to the whole city. Israel’s occupation of East Jerusalem has been considered illegal under international law and was condemned by the U.N., as well as other states.

The link that Time gives to claim that Israel’s rule over the part of Jerusalem that Jordan had annexed is illegal says no such thing. It is an article by legal scholar Eyal Benvenisti that argues that even if Israel annexed “east Jerusalem,” it would still be considered an occupier (a controversial theory). Yet in no way does his article claim that such occupation is illegal. In fact, there is no such thing as “illegal occupation.” The laws of belligerent occupation simply reflect that an occupying country has certain responsibilities — but the state of occupation is not illegal. The most that anyone can claim is that some Israeli actions violate the laws of occupation, not that the occupation itself is illegal.

Time is lying.

And it goes on:

 In 1980, the Knesset declared that “Jerusalem, complete and united, is the capital of Israel,” but this law was declared null by the U.N., which called for the removal of the remaining embassies in the city.

Here’s what Time doesn’t bother to say: Even though the US abstained on that Security Council resolution, it considered the demand that states abandon their diplomatic missions to be null and void. According to Secretary of State Edmund Muskie:

The status of Jerusalem cannot simply be declared; it must be agreed to by the parties. That is a practical reality. It will remain so. despite this draft resolution or a hundred more like it…

The Council calls upon those States that have established diplomatic missions in Jerusalem to withdraw them from the Holy City. In our judgement this provision is not binding. It is without force. And we reject it as a disruptive attempt to dictate to other nations. It does nothing to promote a resolution of the difficult problems facing Israel and its neighbors. It does nothing to advance the cause of peace.

Yet Time goes on:

Countries continued to locate their foreign embassies in Tel Aviv, Israel’s second largest city, situated on the Mediterranean coast, and the refusal to recognize Jerusalem as Israeli territory has become a near-universal policy among Western nations.

Not really, since Western nations recognize the Green Line (falsely) as a border. Their diplomats and heads of state routinely travel to Jerusalem to speak to Israeli diplomats. If pre-1967 Jerusalem were considered controversial, none of these national leaders would ever step foot in the city as guests of Israel.

Then Time contradicts itself:

The U.N. still maintains its position on Jerusalem. In October 2009, the U.N.’s Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon warned that Jerusalem must be the capital of both Israel and Palestine—living side-by-side in peace and security, with arrangements for the holy sites acceptable to all—for peace in the Middle East to be achieved.

If the UN maintains its position of Jerusalem as a corpus separatum, then how can it also call for Jerusalem to be divided and become the capital of two states?

The UN Secretary General even realizes that the idea of Jerusalem as an international city is dead, yet Time says the UN’s position hasn’t changed since 1949.

This is really a poor article — and its bias and lies show that Time isn’t trying to explain the facts. It is trying to hide them.

Share this Story: Share On Facebook Share On Twitter Email This Article

Let your voice be heard!

Join the Algemeiner
  • John Bush

    In lieu of a title search I apply possession as nine tenths law of ownership.

  • Kjell A. Amundsen

    UN is an advisory organization

  • Ariel

    Time Magazine is known to be managed by anti semetic people, including the writers and the stories in it, this is a proof of just one article written by an anti semetic Time magazine writer, who holds to his and the anti-Israel Lobby of the UN – point of view about Jerusalem. Israel ‘s capital city is Jerusalem, agree or not, it’s the reality.

  • ajnn ajnn

    This is not new. Likening Menachem Begin to a child molester (Fagin), losing a lawsuit to Ariel Sharon for libel (not easy for a news organization !!!), contrasting jewish/israeli millionaires with impoverished palestinian arabs represent examples from the 1980’s.

    time is undeniably a racist publication.

  • ricardo

    IMHO this entire discussion is completely irrelevant. Except for Saeb Erakat, Mohammed Abbas, Hanan Ashrawi e other vociferous PA leaders, most Palestinians don’t care at all if the American Embassy is Jerusalem or Tel Aviv, they have better things to do. Amongst the Hamas supporters, they also don’t care because they don’t recognize a single inch of sand as Israel, and probably don’t recognize the United States either.

    Who is it that really care about it? Of course Netanyahu and his buddies would like to see it happening, it is a big political gain for them. And of course there is CNN, Time Magazine, the New York Times and all those ‘holier than thou” Jews from Peace Now and J Street that are foaming out of their mouths in indignation against it, which does not matter at all, because President Trump is the only one that can decide if he wants to follow the will of the American People as was voted by Congress 20 years ago, or if he wants to play politics like the other previous Presidents. All he needs to move the embassy is sign a document, and the discussion is finished.

    Come to think of it, President Obama decided to give Fidel Castro a huge political gain by placing the American Embassy in Havana … bear in mind that 50 years ago Fidel was jumping up and down ready to destroy the entire Eastern Seaboard of the United States – and almost did it … If we did for people that hate us so rabidly as Fidel Castro, why not do it for people who are our friends like Netanyahu?

    While I will refrain to criticize Peace Now because they are in Israel, feeling the heat of the war and if things get ugly in Israel they are the ones that will need to bear arms and defend the country, I will definitively agree with the future US Ambassador for Israel – J Street people ARE kapos.

  • Joel_D_G

    Nice analysis. There were a couple of the salient but subtle points. When the time’s (small “t” intentional) reporter wrote “East Jerusalem” incorrectly as opposed to “eastern Jerusalem”, it implied a geo political entity – a city unto itself. There was never (even when separated by war) a city in the Middle East by that name. However, using the capitalized name implied that even the reporter does not buy into the falsehood of a unified international city.

    Furthermore the tame, “which Jordan presided over” is a interesting way of expressing Jordan’s own “occupation” and/or “illegal” force between 1948-1967 during which it formerly annexed all of the “occupied West Bank” to Jordan itself – a move that was rejected by every country (including the Arab ones) but three…Iraq, Pakistan and the United Kingdom.

    One last note of interest. East Berlin was never acknowledged as the capital of East Germany (the one sided-declaration by the USSR of which the West did not accept) and yet western embassies were located in the that capital city and business was conducted there. …and they were the enemy – not the ally…sad.

  • Myron Robinson

    The main stream media first of all always distort the facts re Israel and secondly do not understand either uti possidetis or International Law. Uti Possidetis applied to the case of Israel, uti possidetis juris would dictate that Israel inherit the boundaries of the Mandate of Palestine as they existed in May, 1948. The doctrine would thus support Israeli claims to any or all of the currently hotly disputed areas of Jerusalem (including East Jerusalem), the West Bank, and even potentially the Gaza Strip (though not the Golan Heights .According to international law, until there is an agreement as to permanent borders, the armistice lines drawn as a result of 1967 constitute Disputed Territories.

  • Peter O

    The Security Council,

    Recalling its resolution 476 (1980),

    Reaffirming again that the acquisition of territory by force is inadmissible,

    Deeply concerned over the enactment of a “basic law” in the Israeli Knesset proclaiming a change in the character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem, with its implications for peace and security,

    Noting that Israel has not complied with resolution 476 (1980),

    Reaffirming its determination to examine practical ways and means, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Charter of the United Nations, to secure the full implementation of its resolution 476 (1980), in the event of non-compliance by Israel,

    1. Censures in the strongest terms the enactment by Israel of the “basic law” on Jerusalem and the refusal to comply with relevant Security Council resolutions;

    2. Affirms that the enactment of the “basic law” by Israel constitutes a violation of international law and does not affect the continued application of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, in the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since June 1967, including Jerusalem;

    3. Determines that all legislative and administrative measures and actions taken by Israel, the occupying Power, which have altered or purport to alter the character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem, and in particular the recent “basic law” on Jerusalem, are null and void and must be rescinded forthwith;

    4. Affirms also that this action constitutes a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East;

    5. Decides not to recognize the “basic law” and such other actions by Israel that, as a result of this law, seek to alter the character and status of Jerusalem and calls upon:

    (a) All Member States to accept this decision;

    (b) Those States that have established diplomatic missions at Jerusalem to withdraw such missions from the Holy City;

    6. Requests the Secretary-General to report to the Security Council on the implementation of the present resolution before 15 November 1980;
    7. Decides to remain seized of this serious situation. ” UNSC resolution 478

  • It’s time to stop reading “Time.”

  • watsa46

    Goebbels mass media! Includes the Guardians, the US Pravda (NYT), WPost, LA Time etc…. Bunch of losers!

  • SteveC1

    This is an EXCELLENT, critically well thought-out and logically composed article.

    Almost EVERY time TIME Mgazine does a piece on Israel there are inaccuracies.

  • solange

    I have also caught The History Channel lying about Israel. I receive “Today in History” updates in my email. In one of those, they listed the establishment of the state of Israel from mandate Palestine, saying that “some European Jews” came there and took the land from the “Palestinians.” I corrected them, but it is so disturbing and outrageous that a far reaching organization saying that it is a keeper of history should declare such lies.

  • Raymond of Canada

    If we are going to know the truth about any subject today, sadly, we cannot turn to the widely-accepted media or press. We owe it to ourselves to become acquainted with some good news sources online and watch for propaganda-laced entertainment as well. And now that Obama has promoted “fake news” as something which can be identified and eliminated, watch for censorship creeping into social media. Truth has indeed become the new hate speech and those who love the truth are not welcome.

  • Joseph Feld

    Years back I subscribed to Time’s European edition. They printed several quite inaccurate and misleading articles on Israel and printed replies to some of those articles. Then they printed a very misleading article and I wrote a detailed, researched reply. They didn’t print my reply, BUT they did print several resplies supporting the original misleading article. At that point I ended my subscription.

    • robert Davis

      Everyone should do as you did. These medias are pure sh. not Worth reading and still less paying for ,it.

Algemeiner.com