That is disgusting. My husband produces a political radio show, and I guarantee that this will be getting coverage today.

OK BBC: where, exactly, is Israel's capital located??

How odd. The official capital and seat of government of Israel is indeed Jerusalem. What were they thinking?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel

I thought most countries including the UK do not recognize Jerusalem as the capital and do not have their embassy there. Isn't that an objective fact as well. I am not saying Israel should care. But, if the BBC cares, that doesn't seem unreasonable.

Mike Keenan and Jason F.,

Please stop using logic and making actual arguments! You're interfering with snarky posts about things that DB doesn't like. Then again, it is hard to miss the irony in DB complaining about bias.

Wow, Davis had another post about Israel, certainly one of the most urgent law-related subjects around--what a surprise, that almost never happens.

Hey, where's the post about our Supreme Court justice who finds "24" a compelling example of how the law should work? I guess if he was referring to the law in Israel we'd hear about it.

Bernstein - 1; Michael Vick's Herpes - 0.

Hey, where's the post about our Supreme Court justice who finds "24" a compelling example of how the law should work?

Maybe DB, like me, is just too nauseated by Scalia's remarks to post on the subject.

Re: Jerusalem, let's see: the Knesset sits in Jerusalem; the high court sits in Jerusalem; the presidential residence is in Jerusalem. I am trying to think of some definition of "capital" that would exclude Jerusalem, but it's not coming to mind.

Jason F.,

I believe that you are improperly insinuating that DB is misleading his readers. I have read both the linked Jerusalem Post article and the BBC statement. The BBC statement says that the editorial board was sorry and that it has taken proper remedial action. But so that you don't claim that I am misleading anyone, here is the language:

Although the programme-makers had apologised privately for the error and removed it from the programme's website, the matter was one of such sensitivity and concern to the Palestinian people that the complainant believed a broadcast correction and apology was necessary.

(emphasis added). The Jerusalem Post article, similarly, states that the editorial board took the further step of mailing a letter to the complaining parties and appologizing:

In a letter to the complaining NGOs, Fraser Steel, head of editorial complaints at the BBC, said: "We of course accept that the international community does not recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital, and that the BBC should not describe it as such. I was therefore pleased to see that Katherine Tsang [BBC Information adviser], when she wrote to you in April, acknowledged the error and apologized for it. [Presenter] Steve Boulton and other senior managers in BBC Sport told us they very much regret the mistake and apologize for it."

(emphasis added). [sarcasm] Hmm, it seems that the BBC did call it a mistake after all. Who would have thought that DB would accurately describe the events in which he posts? [/sarcasm]

In any event, your argument (that because the fact of Israel's capital city is so "controversial", it should naturally be reasonable to accept one view over the other) is so fraught with subjectivity that the BBC should instead follow up every article on any controversial issue with an appology decribing the BBC's preferred preference on the issue, as a matter of rote.

Mike Keenan and Jason F., Where a country's capital is, is a matter of fact, not one of opinion. The BBC doesn't get to "recognise" Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, just as it doesn't get to "recognise" a cat as a mammal. One can have all sorts of opinions on whether Israel should have its capital in Jerusalem, but as a matter of objective, easily verifiable fact, it does, and it's dishonest to ignore that fact.

Milhouse: You pose this as a simple matter of fact. But the question of what can be legitimately claimed as territory by a country is anything but a "matter of fact". When Israel refers to "Jerusalem" as its capital, it means the "unified" city of Jerusalem, which includes East Jerusalem (annexed in 1967) as well as the rest of the city. This places anyone who does *not* believe that the 1967 annexation was legitimate in a bind: agreeing with Israel that "Jerusalem" is its capital might be seen as implicitly acknowledging Israel's claim to East Jerusalem.

Of course, I would find it perfectly reasonable to hold that Jerusalem is Israel's capital without holding any position on the location of legitimate boundaries of "Jerusalem, Israel", but I would hardly class this as a simple "matter of fact".

An item of 'such sensitivity and concern to the Palestinian people'

Yeah, like they don't have anything else to worry about right now.

Besides, there is a subtext here that Professor Bernstein has not mentioned. If, hypothetically, the Palestinians ever get their political facts-on-the-ground to match the fantasies in their fever-dreams, Jerusalem will not only no longer be either a de facto or de jure capital of Israel. It will be Judenrein.

I'm with Luke, in that I honestly thought it was Tel Aviv - and I'm staunchly pro-Israel, so it wasn't any anti- bias on my part - I blame "the world" for not recognising what is nonetheless true.

Even if "the world" doesn't recognise that Jerusalem is Israel's capital, the fact that the Knesset is located there (along with the rest of the government machinery) makes their opinion moot.

If Israel had simply said "Hey, Jerusalem's our capital" while keeping the actual functions of a capital city elsewhere, that would be fraudulent. But Jerusalem is by all appearances Israel's capital in function as well as in name.

At that point the opinion of "the world" as to where Israel's capital is is of no importance at all.

Is there a single country in the world besides Israel that recognizes Jerusalem as the capital? And that has no bearing at all? AFAIK, no country has its embassy in Jerusalem. Not a single one.

I don't see a good comparison with Castro, who the US recognized in 1959 (and a couple years later broke off relations). Maybe a better comparison is China. For decades, the US refused to recognize the government in Beijing as the true government. If NBC had a story in 1960 that extolled that government as the true one, I could see them apologizing for it.

Err, of consequence I mean, not of consequent.

One further thought I had while I was admiring my typo, is that it seems reasonable to require that a country's capital be inside that country.

I think this makes the BBC's position more sensible, since the British government does not regard Jerusalem as part of Israel. (According to the link Alex R posted, they recognize Israel's de facto control over Jerusalem, but not Isreali sovereignty over Jerusalem.) So if the BBC refers to Jerusalem as Israel's capital, it could be seen as recognizing Israeli sovereignty over Jerusalem, which obviously would be an error.

In terms of the argument that Israel's capital is what Israel says it is -- while that is compelling, there are limits to the argument.

That isn't the argument though. The argument is that Israel, de facto, has its government located there. It is true that most embassies to Israel are in Tel Aviv, 30 miles away. But Jerusalem is the site of all major Israeli government offices except the Defense Ministry.

Arguments about Cuba saying its capital is in Miami are specious. Until Castro builds a presidential mansion and a prison in Miami, and runs Cuba from Miami, the analogy will not be valid.

it is obvious from the above that some posters will just not trust what those jews tell them as to where the seat of their government is-it gives you an idea of why the jihadists think they will win. apparently, the threat of violence is sufficient to make the West ignore the obvious. perhaps Israel should claim Mecca as its capital.

I think this actually raises a potentially difficult question. How do you figure out a country's capital?

Actually it raises an even more difficult question, how do you figure out what a country is?

Although everyone's been dancing around the issue, the real problem in this situation is not whether or not Jerusalem and not Tel Aviv is the "true capital" or "political capital" or "cultural center" of Israel.

At this level all the BBC is guilty of is having a reporter make a relatively minor mistake about another geographical area.

Quick, what's the capital of Texas? did you say Austin? or did you say Houston or Dallas?

The real issue here is that by some definitions of a state, and the relevant international treaties, Israel doesn't legally own some or all of Jerusalem.

I'm not sure what the "capital" of the Palestinian authority is (Ramallah?) But they consider Jerusalem to be just as much of their "de facto capital" as Israel considers it to be their "de facto" capital.

Then when the BBC states that "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" some people (IE groups associated with the palestinian cause) complain that this is "biased"

Of course BBC quickly corrects the error, leading to DB's inference that the BBC is biased in caving to pressure from Pro-Palestinian groups.


The real issue behind this is the very thorny and very fundamental issue of the exact status of any "palestinian state" that might or might not exist.

If Castro were to...insist that Miami, Florida was part of the "unified" Cuban city of "Miami", and that the "unified Miami" was the "eternal, undivided" capital of Cuba, I suspect that the US might not go along with this...
No, but after reading tributes to one of the dashing young rebels who built Cuba's communist system, I have no doubt Western media outlets would be sympathetic to that idea.

Speaking in front of a cheering crowd of thousands, Fidel Castro renewed his call for the unification of the Cuban capital of Miami. The disputed portion of Miami is on the North American mainland, and is currently occupied by the United States, which gained control over the Florida peninsula by unprovoked military aggression in the 19th century. Castro's repeated requests for negotiations on the status of the city have been rebuffed, despite the large Cuban population of mainland Miami. In Cuba, a poll conducted by a CNN reporter and a representative of the Cuban government found unanimous, enthusiastic support for the reunification of Miami as well as, "whatever Fidel and Raul want to do."

Many international observers fault the US for its obstinate refusal to consider ceding a tiny fraction of the land under its control. Critics contrast the American position on Miami with the fact that the US maintains control over a part of Cuba, Guantanamo Bay, also seized in a war of conquest, and now home to the most notorious prison in human history.

Uh, BGates, I am correct that the blockquote in your post is not at the link you provided, right?

I think the correct phrasing would be self-proclaimed capital, or something of that sort. I don't think an apology for a statement that tacitly accepts a proclamation that the British government does not is in any way objectionable, nor anti-Semitic (although the government policy it reflects might be—I don't think so, but I wish to separate the arguments).

I almost hate to chime in - in part because I sort of agree with DB on the underlying issue (recognition of Jeruseleum) - but I think the most obvious parallel would be if, pre-recognition, a government agency (not the state department) referenced China using the demarcation of communist rule. Such an action would be beyond the authority of that agency, and would infuriate those clinging to the fiction that the true head of state was Taiwan.

So regardless of whether one disagrees with the official British policy as to what the capital of Israel is, certainly one can respect the fact that the BBC is a quasi-autonomous Public Corporation operating as a public service broadcaster. Although the BBC is free to criticize (rightfully) that position, it would be unethical to simply ignore it.

That being said, would the BBC have acted inappropriate for denying the complainant? No. But criticism of the BBC simply for such a minor accomodation is reaching/projection, imho.

Steve P. and others interested:

According to the Department of State the United States recognizes Jerusalem as the capital of Israel but maintains its embassy in Tel Aviv.

Henry, we have a select-a-blogger feature, from which you can read the VC without my contributions. You are welcome, no invited, no urged, to use it.

David, I understand--but maybe you could actually address the point I raised, namely the counterproductive effect of dragging every minor Israel-related issue out like it is a big freaking deal.

If you don't see this effects of this phenomena around you, you aren't looking too hard.

Thanks David. Your willingness to engage intellectually on the subject of Israel on anything other than a "preaching to the choir" basis is telling.

Next you come down from Mt. Zion, don't forget the tablets.

Alex R: Acknowledging the fact that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel does not in any way acknowledge Israel's claim to East Jerusalem, or to any part of Jerusalem. An exact ly parallel case exists for our consideration: Throughout the existence of the German Democratic Republic (aka East Germany), its capital was East Berlin, even though that city was not part of DDR's sovereign territory. As far as I know nobody refused to "recognise" the fact that the capital was there, and no country with an embassy to DDR put it anywhere else.

The only difference I can think of between the German and Israeli cases, besides antisemitism, is that if some country had tried to put its embassy to the DDR in Karl-Marx-Stadt or Rostock or anywhere but in East Berlin, the East Germans would simply not have allowed it, whereas the Israelis foolishly allow foreign countries to put their embassies in Tel Aviv, thus clouding the issue.

I wouldn't say I'm misusing at all. I'm merely using a broader definition of capital.

Point taken; but Palestine, as a non-state, in a certain sense can only have a de facto capitol (and one arguably in Jerusalem) in this broader sense; on the other hand, if we grant that a non-state can have a capitol in the more limited, political (as opposed to, e.g., spiritual) sense, the de facto capitol of Palestine is Ramallah. The de facto capitol of Israel is Jerusalem in both senses.

Note that Israel's declaration of Jerusalem as its capitol is irrelevant to the de facto capitol issue--as Ramallah is the de facto capitol of the Palestinian Territories (at least in the West Bank, since Gaza is for all purposes a seperate political entity).

Prof. Bernstein's failure to engage those who note the questionable legal claims Israel has to Jerusalem as a capital and the international law that bolsters the BBC position speaks more loudly than all of the commenters that pointed them out.

Incidentally, for years Costa Rica and El Salvador had their embassies in Jerusalem, but Costa Rica announced last year that they'd move to Tel Aviv.

Milhouse, I actually agree that, as I said before, it is perfectly reasonable to hold that Jerusalem is Israel's capital without holding any position on the location of legitimate boundaries of "Jerusalem, Israel". And I also agree that it is a fact that the usual things one finds in a capital city of a country (except for foreign embassies) are located in the part of Jerusalem which is uncontested Israeli territory. But I disagree that it is an uncontested "fact that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel", not so much due to the definition of the word capital, but due to the definition of the word Jerusalem. Someone who (a) believes that Israel does not have legitimate claim to the eastern portion of Jerusalem, and (b) believes that use of the term "Jerusalem" without qualifiers refers to the entire, undivided city of Jerusalem, could quite reasonably hold that it is not a fact that "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" -- though they might also hold the opposite, based on Israel's de facto domination of the entire city.

The comparison with East Germany is interesting: According to Wikipedia, at least, [T]he three Western Allies eventually established embassies in East Berlin in the 1970s, although they never recognized it as East Germany's capital. Treaties instead used terms such as "seat of government.". So at least the USA, the UK, and France were similarly picky about language with respect to East Germany, though I would guess that any news media referred freely to East Berlin as the capital of the GDR.

Mr. X: you can "note questionable legal claims" all you want, but that doesn't change reality.

Ben P,

I don't think one can make the same claim that Jerusalem is the Palestinian Arabs' "historic soul." When the PLO was formed (pre-1967), they specifically renounced claim to any of the land that was then under Arab rule (which included East Jerusalem). It was only after Israel captured the territories in the '67 war that the Palestinian Arabs (and, indeed, Arabs in general) discovered their devotion to and the importance of Jerusalem.

I'm with Mr. Bernstein on this: Israel says it's their capital, and their government buildings are leaders are located there. What anyone else says in light of this evidence is immaterial. If you want to pick nits, a proper wording might be "Israel's capital is in the contested city of Jerusalem" or something similar. Even then, "contested" would only be in a legalistic way, as Israel has undisputed physical control of all of Jerusalem.

More troubling, to me, though, is the rather appalling boot-licking attitude the BBC seems to display whenever Palestinian sensibilities are threatened. Does anyone seriously believe the BBC would put on sackcloth and ashes and issue that kind of apology if it had somehow misstated a fact about the US? Or even about the UK itself?

'how do you figure out what a country is?'

Ask the Kurds.

Milhouse:
The usual reference to the Capital of the DDR was "Pankow." This would be something like the UK referring to the capital of the USA in 1789 as "Manhattan." Pankow is an administrative district of Berlin, and is quite like New York's boroughs.

Mr. X, I agree with you that the BBC would have been justified if it chose to say something like Jerusalem is Israel's "de facto" capital. But the Beeb claimed that it made an ERROR and MISTAKE in calling Jerusalem Israel's capital, even though we all acknowledge it's (at least) the de facto capital. Given that, it wasn't really an "error," no matter how you slice it, and the Beeb's willingness to apologize profusely for it, compared to all the actual anti-American and anti-Israel mistakes, is telling, which was the theme of the post.

WHOI Jacket
Mine isn't, and it makes me feel Superior ;-)

Nathan_M (mail):
I think this actually raises a potentially difficult question. How do you figure out a country's capital?

The easiest way would be to take the government's word for it, but that potentially doesn't make sense. If Portugal declared Madrid to be its capital I doubt anyone else would agree.

An alternative is where a country's legislature sits, but this runs into problems too. According to a quick search of Wikipedia, Wellington replaced Aukland as the capital of New Zealand in 1865 -- even though parliament moved there in 1862. Also, again according to Wikipedia, Paris was recognized as the capital of de Gaulle's French government during WWII, even though Germany occupied it.

More to the point, Chile's legislature meets in Valparaiso but the capital is Santiago.

As a matter of customary international law, no other country has an embassy in Jerusalem.

(1) Whether one has an embassy there is a separate question from whether one recognizes it as the capital. The U.S. does.
(2) Whether an outsider "recognizes" it as the capital is a separate question from whether it is the capital. If we started insisting that Liverpool was the capital of the U.K., would that cause the Parliament to magically transport itself northwest? The capital is the place where the official seat of government is; it's not the place that other countries "recognize" as the capital.

There is a factual question of where Israel centers its government, and the clear answer is Jerusalem. However, if other countries do not recognize Israel's claim over the city that is the de facto capital and refuse to place embassies there, objective news organizations would be justified in usage that reflects the majority of international opinion.

False. Objective news organizations -- a phrase which doesn't belong in the same sentence as BBC -- are justified in reporting objective news, not "majority opinion." That is, if the BBC had merely said that although Israel's official capital is Jerusalem, most countries do not recognize it, that would be objective.

In any case, the real issue here isn't whether the BBC calls Jerusalem the capital or not, but whether it makes a groveling, abject apology to Palestinians because someone on the network -- not even a news broadcaster, by the way -- did so.

Milhouse: According to Wikipedia (not the most confidence-inducing introductory clause, I know), "From 1949 until 1967, West Jerusalem served as Israel's capital and was recognized internationally as Israel's capital...". I have no independent confirmation of this.

DB: Perhaps when the BBC said it was an "error", they didn't mean that the statement was false, but just that it was a mistake for the announcer to have made such a controversial (whether true or not) statement in the context of a sports program. The BBC's webpage says that the makers of the original program "apologised privately for the error", so we don't get to see what they said in their private apology, and their Complaints Unit ruled that that was sufficient.

Alex R: "Perhaps when the BBC said it was an "error", they didn't mean that the statement was false, but just that it was a mistake for the announcer to have made such a controversial (whether true or not) statement."

In other words, the statement wasn't so much false as likely to get someone blown up. I agree.

"DavidBernstein (mail):
Jerusalem is Israel's capital. Whether other folks recognize it as such as a diplomatic matter is a completely separate matter."

I am Teh Emperor Of Teh Earth! Whether my Loyal Subjcets recognise this or not is a compleatly seperete mattar!

Can I be Teh Lawar nows?

It's slightly ironic that people from Palestine - a nonexistent "state" - believe that they can make some sort of legitimate declaration on this matter. Look at any widely marketed globe or atlas. I guarantee you'll see Jerusalem. Palestine? Not so much.

Wow, who gave the UN authority to declare national statutes void?

I'm pretty sure the capital of Israel, wherever it is, is near Jerusalem.

Seems like the BBC and its acolytes are in Cloud Cuckoo-land.

Wow, who gave the UN authority to declare national statutes void?

Whatever the weight of this comment in general, in the case of Jerusalem, whose status is related to the UN decisions of 1947, the UN's resolutions have some real meaning.

Harry, assuming that the British Mandate was for the UN to partition in the first place, it would seem obvious to me that the UN is not obliged to accept unilateral changes in the status of Jerusalem—which the UN allocated neither to the Jews nor the Arabs.

With the exception of the United States Congress and a few small countries, no one outside Israel recognizes Jerusalem as the capital, and as I showed by link, the UK (and I imagine most other countries) does not recognize de jure Israeli sovereignty over even West Jerusalem. In this context, the UN is not "negating" Israel's unilateral decision; it is reiterating its belief that the status of Jerusalem is special and has not been altered by the Israeli act. It is not overruling Israel because it created Israel; it has never claimed any authority to change Israeli highway speed limits. It is denying Israel's right to change the status of Jerusalem from the UN's own 1947 decision.

I suspect that your support for Jerusalem as the capital of Israel (and an integral part of Israel) is leading you to distort the situation.

Israel is not the only country with an unusual situation as to the location of its capital, although it is probably the country as to which there is the most international controversy as to that question. See this Wikipedia article for a list of countries with multiple capitals.

Some oddities: Amsterdam is considered the capital of the Netherlands even though the executive, legislative, and judicial functions are all in The Hague. Many of the embassies accredited to the Vatican are located in Rome, Italy -- including the Italian embassy to the Vatican. The Philippines' capital used to be Quezon City (a city in the Metro Manila region) until it was moved back to Manila in 1976; however, neither house of the Philippine Congress meets in Manila, and the lower house still meets in Quezon City.

Notwithstanding all that, I can understand why some countries might be unwilling to state officially that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel de jure (from the perspective of their own laws; it is the capital under Israeli law). Nevertheless, it is the de facto capital and media organizations should not apologize for referring to Jerusalem as the capital. And there is no basis for anyone to call Tel Aviv the capital of Israel even if they don't want to identify Jerusalem as the capital.

Mr. X, I agree with you that the BBC would have been justified if it chose to say something like Jerusalem is Israel's "de facto" capital. But the Beeb claimed that it made an ERROR and MISTAKE in calling Jerusalem Israel's capital, even though we all acknowledge it's (at least) the de facto capital. Given that, it wasn't really an "error," no matter how you slice it, and the Beeb's willingness to apologize profusely for it, compared to all the actual anti-American and anti-Israel mistakes, is telling, which was the theme of the post.

When a news reporter deviates from his or her news organization's style guide, it is both an error and a mistake. It may not be a factual error, but it is an error. E.g. I'm pretty sure Reuters still doesn't use the word "terrorist" in its news coverage, and if a Reuters story went across the wire with that word in it, there would be a correction issued with an apology for the error.

Harry, can you show me where the UN acquiesces in the existence of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus? Any place where it refers to Lefkosa (i.e., the Turkish rendering of Nicosia) as the capital? I don't think so. The TRNC isn't even recognized by the Universal Postal Union. (Nor did the US find the events of 1945, 1956, and 1968 had anything to do with our refusal to acknowledge the annexation of Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia into the USSR.) But you are (I imagine on purpose) missing the point. I am not defending the UN as an institution, nor its many anti-Israeli follies. I am saying that the UN has good reason to believe that the de jure status of Jerusalem can not be changed by Israel (or anyone else) unilaterally without its consent. You seem quite unwilling to consider their Jerusalem position on its own merits.

You are now claiming that the UN's view of the status of Jerusalem should be trumped by the wars of 1948, 1967, 1973, etc. I find it quite ironic that the more you hold this to be the case, the more justified Palestinians are in finding critical the correction of the "error" in what seems to me to be a minor, unimportant reference.

"When a news reporter deviates from his or her news organization's style guide ..."

The BBC has a problematic history and their style guide isn't on the order of Elements of Style by Strunk and White. Much could be offered, but witness a recent example in The Hamas, MI6, BBC Axis, which provides a glimpse into the intersecting lives and careers of "spokespersons" featured by the BBC to help convey their purported news stories. A few hundred words and cannot be readily summarized, but one of the closing graphs is strongly indicative:

"[This] does not suggest a BBC conspiracy, any more than the disgraceful procession of Hamas apologists being interviewed on TV without any kind of challenge ... suggests such a thing either. The much more likely explanation is scarcely less disturbing. It is that a group of people representing both Hamas and its western apologists in the British military and intelligence world have been pushing themselves forward to the BBC as informed and dispassionate commentators on events in Gaza — and the BBC editors and producers have not seen [fit] to check them out because of a combination of ignorance, sloppiness and — most lethal of all — the fact that they mainly agree with the appeasement of genocidal terror that these propagandists are promoting."

Such is, in point of fact, representative of the BBC's style when it comes to Israel. And to be clear, the reference to "genocidal terror" is not hyperbolic, it's supported with direct reference to the Hamas Charter, itself cited and excerpted in the piece.

(A related and particularly irony in what is being discussed is that both Fatah and Hamas have stated their goals to reclaim Jaffa/Tel Aviv, and not merely Jerusalem.)

BBC on the Couch

An item in this reveals the probably reason behind calling the item in question an "error" rather than portraying it as disputed.

They seem to have an extra sensitivity to Islam.

"The most startling example came when executives were presented with a scenario in which a program featuring "Borat" comedian Sacha Baron Cohen asked guests to throw things they hated into a garbage can. BBC brass said they would broadcast anything thrown in the trash, even the Bible — but not the Koran, for fear of offending Muslims. The executives would also be in favor of broadcasting an interview with terrorist chieftain Osama bin Laden.
As the Sunday Times put it, "What emerges from the report is a picture of an organization with a liberal, anti-American bias and an almost teenage fascination with fashionable causes."

I'm waiting with bated breath for the BBC to apologize for referring to Belfast as Northern Ireland's capital. What about sensitivity to Irish Republicans?

So exactly what city do Irish Republicans think *is* the capital of Northern Ireland?

You know, I'm old enough that my school maps had special disclaimers that the USA didn't recognize the de facto East German/Polish border.

I'm old enough to remember when National Geographic's maps of Europe contained disclaimers that the USA didn't recognize the incorporation of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania into the Soviet Union, which took place before the German/Polish border was shifted to the Oder-Neisse line, and about 10 years before the capital of Israel was shifted to Jerusalem.

You know, Harry, there was a protest when the State Department started giving people who were originally from Tibet "Tibet, China" as place of birth on their visas, passports (if naturalized), etc. I don't remember how it turned out. But China won that war, so I guess it was OK.

As best as I can tell, Harry's point is that the desire of the Arabs to kill Jews obligates the UN to abandon its de jure conception of the status of Jerusalem in favor of Israel's (and, obviously, obligates the BBC to follow suit). That wasn't the rule we followed with respect to the East German/Polish border, probably wisely. Until the UN and UK do make such a decision, I don't see why the BBC should be expected to do otherwise.

[Aside to Seamus: I'm sure you recall that any reference to mainland China during that era came with plenty of disclaimers.]

Seamus said:
So exactly what city do Irish Republicans think *is* the capital of Northern Ireland?

Silly. For those republicans, since there is no such entity as "Northern" Ireland, there can be no capital. Just as there is no city (or county) named "Londonderry." Six counties are still not liberated. Dublin is the capital of Ireland.

In the end the status of Jerusalem is but one issue and is subsidiary to dramatically larger concerns.

No one of goodwill would care to hold any reasonably hoped for peace hostage to any issue(s), whether it be Jerusalem as capital or some other issue(s). But what can be "reasonably hoped for" is very much a fundamental aspect of what needs to be addressed in a more forthright manner. What can Israel reasonably hope for from Fatah, Hamas and their Arab and Persian Muslim sponsors - including Iran, Syria, the Saudis and players in Egypt - among others still? What constitutes a genuine and reasonable hope (vs. a mere chimera and ruse) within such parameters, parameters that include both overt and many more covert declarations (in addition to an on-going set of tactics/strategies) aimed at eliminating Israel from the face of the earth, together with murderous, even genocidal intent?

Put differently, why is Israel, in perpetuity, being asked to pretend that mere chimeras and ruses are something other than they are? Why are they asked, in perpetuity, to pretend they represent real, viable and reasonable hopes? At what point - in the "land for peace" spirit of UNSCR 242 - have these Arab refugees and their sponsors manifested a genuine desire and goal of peace and comity? It didn't manifest itself when Israel withdrew from southern Lebanon - to the contrary, Shi'ia Hizbullah read it as a sign of weakness and acted accordingly. It didn't happen when Israel withdrew from Gaza, we are presently witnessing only the most recent Sunni Hamas autocratic manifestations in Gaza. It didn't happen when Israel withdrew from substantial quarters in northern Samaria, instead it was used as a haven for both local and intl. jihadists, i.e. both anti-Israel and anti-western jihadists.

In other words, it isn't Israel or her allies and benefactors who are holding Jerusalem - or any other issue - hostage in order that peace can be forestalled, as if for some larger Machiavellian purpose. Instead it has been Hamas, Fatah and their Arab and Persian Muslim sponsors (in addition to a largely coopted media, "world opinion" and trans-nationalist orgs such as the U.N.) who have been holding these Arab refugees (aka Palestinians, the only multi-generational "refugees" on the face of the planet) hostage in order that peace is always and forever forestalled, excepting their imagined and hoped for "peace" achieved by means of eliminating Israel and killing its citizens.

Jerusalem is very much indicative, but in the end it is not primary. What is primary is the fact that Israel remains a decidedly western frontier - with classical liberal forms of governance, including a fully vested Arab polity comprising appx. 22% of its population - and indicator of the wider conflict the west, or the erstwhile west, is facing. Pretending otherwise, pretending chimeras and ruses are the real thing, is not going to advance anything real.

(Further still, as to the supposed validity of the U.N.'s ability to confer de jure status, in terms of more serious conceptions of international law, v. here.)

BTW, we may not get a full appreciation of how biased the BBC can be by listening to their "overseas" edition broadcast in this country through NPR. The BBC, like CNN, may not always deliver the same product everywhere. CNN definitely panders differently according to the target audiences of its different broadcasts.