Talk:Tel Aviv

Altonoyland? Really? I know the English translation is usually Old New Land, but since I have no real idea what language Herzl wrote the novel in (German? Yiddish?) I wouldn't make a change to the entry yet. Is there anyone out there who knows? --MichaelTinkler

Sorry, Altneuland, of course (My German is ... well, non-existent). Anyway, the book was written in German, so its name is in German too. --Uriyan

A further explanation of the symbolism of the name might be in place. IMO, it is a beautifull and brilliant translation of Herzl's book title: Tel is not just a hill, but a hill created by thousands of years of human settlement (see Tell). Spring often symbolizes renewal. So, it is indeed an Old New Land... What do you think, should this be put in the article or is it more fitting for a future article on the book itslef? --Lidless Eye 15:56, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)

The Ben Gurion Airport isn't in Tel Aviv, The airport is in LOD (few miles to the south), So I delete the paragraph. --Artist

So is it Tel-Aviv or Tel Aviv? The article is not consistent. --seav

Why does the page say "three countries" recognize Jerusalem as the capital at the top, while "two countries" are said to have said so at the bottom? Rickyrab 01:12, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)

AFAIK the number of countries accepting Jerusalem is three. But someone removed the US. I understood the US had changed its stance under Bush and accepted Jerusalem, hence the three. I presumed that whomever made the change had more up to date information. I'll put back the reference to three. FearÉIREANN 18:29, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)

When are you going to unprotect the Tel Aviv page? I'd like to edit it to say it's part of the Tel Aviv-Jerusalem megalopolis.

I've unprotected it - not really sure why it was protected at all (it may have been accidental). --Camembert

Tel Aviv

I reverted Uriber's change. I think the changes bizarre. The fact that 90% of the planet thinks Tel Aviv the Israeli capital is so central that it has to be mentioned up front, not buried in the bottom. As to the Tel aviv-Jerusalem megapolis, I think we need more information before including it. FearÉIREANN 18:29, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Ok, Jtdirl, we should do research to find out if, indeed, the Jerusalem/ central Israel corridor constitutes a megalopolis. That's why I brought it up- and, besides, Jerusalem is so close to Tel Aviv that the embassies are within commuting distance of the Knesset, anyway. As for the "temporary capital" point, we also ought to mention that New York City was once the temporary capital of the USA, and that the same also goes for Philadelphia. Other former national capitals that I am aware of: Istanbul, Nara, Ravenna, Vichy, Kyoto, and Honolulu, of the Byzantine Empire, Japan, Ostrogothic Kingdom of Italy, Vichy France, Japan, and the Kingdom of Hawaii, respectively. Rickyrab 20:40, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)

(The comment above is by User:Rickyrab), not by me. -- uriber 19:59, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Jtdirl - please provide some kind of cite for the claim that "90% of the planet thinks Tel Aviv the Israeli capital". No - the fact that most countries keep their embassies in Tel Aviv does not mean they "think it is the capital". If they do think so - they are simply wrong - and the Wikipedia should help them set things straight - not confirm their mistake. I can hardly understand why anybody reading the article would be more interested in the obscure fact that Tel-Aviv served as a temporary capital for a few months 55 years ago, than in the city's population, or its current significance to Israel as center of financial and commercial activity. uriber 19:39, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)

More on this issue: The embassies of Bosnia-Herzegovina, Ghana, Ivory Coast, Jordan, Kenya, Peru, and Uzbekistan, are in Ramat Gan - does this mean that these countries "think that Ramat Gan is the capital of Israel"? The embassies of Bolivia and Paraguay are in Mevaseret Zion (a suburb of Jerusalem, BTW). Does this mean they think Mevaseret Zion is the capital? I mean, it's a nice little place - but as far as I know it has no claims to being Israel's capital. -- uriber 20:28, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)

OK,I'll chime in on this one too,since I it was in reverting my change that Jtdirl page-protected the article to prevent my fixing it again.

My concern is that it be admitted that the whole idea of countries declaring that a city in another country is that other country's capital,regardless of that country's government being elsewhere,is very unusual. That the censors here won't allow this obvious fact to get into either the Jerusalem or Tel Aviv article is deeply biased for all the claims of NPOV. L.E./12.144.5.2

Checked with UK Foreign Office, Irish Dept of Foreign Affairs, embassies of countries in sub-Saharan Africa, Norwegian Foreign Affairs, UN office and others - asked the question 'what city do you recognise as the capital of Israel?' Answer 'Tel Aviv'. 'Do you recognise Jerusalem?' 'Absolutely not', 'No' and 'there can be no question of that' were the replies. In off-the-record briefings (hence I am not naming the sources) it was said 'Israel breached international law in its claim that Jerusalem is the capital of the state. That option was explicitly not available.' 'The recognition of Jerusalem depends on a broader solution to the Israeli-Palestinian dispute. Until that is solved to the satisfaction of the international community there can be no question of recognising what is an illegal claim unrecognised by the international community.' 'The diplomatic corp is not based in Jerusalem and will not be based in Jerusalem. Israel can no more unilaterally declare a city that it illegally seized to be its capital than the Palestinian Authority can unilaterally declare Jerusalem the capital. The city's status will have to be decided as part of a broader solution to the whole issue of Israel and Palestine."

For the record, states are entitled to name any of city or urban centre over which it has legal control to be its capital. States are not allowed in international law to name cities it does not have legal ownership of. Israel's seizure of Jerusalem is disputed in international law. As a result, until Israel's control of all of Jerusalem is accepted in international law the international view is that there can be no question of accepting Israel's designation of Jerusalem, hence the basing of most the world's diplomatic community in Tel Aviv, not Jerusalem. It is not wiki's job to say who is right and who is wrong, merely to point out that Israel has designated Jerusalem as its capital, most of the world says that designation is illegal. If Uriber thinks that the fact that the location of the world's embassies in Tel Aviv rather than Jerusalem is of no consequence, for convenience or to do with real estate prices, he really knows shockingly little about international diplomacy and diplomatic protocol. Embassies are generally located in capitals. For every state on the planet bar a tiny number to refuse to base their embassies in Jerusalem is a co-ordinated diplomatic snub make it crystal clear that 'we don't accept Jerusalem as your capital' is dramatic and unambiguous. It says 'we don't accept your seizure, contrary to international law, of the entire city of Jerusalem. On the world diplomatic circle, the world's capitals are Washington DC, London, Paris, Madrid, Dublin, Harare, Canberra, . . . and Tel Aviv'.

As the diplomatic community expects Jerusalem eventually to be accepted as Israel's capital is not in doubt. So all expect to have to move there at some stage. For that reason, some have chosen, often for administrative reasons, not to locate in Tel Aviv but in cities that ambassadors chose as their preferred location to live and work from, pending the move to Jerusalem. But all are clear that there is no question of a move to Jerusalem until Jerusalem is recognised as the capital, and that won't be done until it is accepted that Israel can in international law designate Jerusalem as its capital. And that won't be done until there is a broad consensus agreement on a solution to the status of Israel and the Palestinians. It may be that that will be as some sort of deal whereby Jerusalem is accepted as a capital for both the the Israeli state and a Palestinian state. But until some agreement is reached that is accepted in international law, the recognition of Israel's right to control all of Jerusalem is not on the cards. And without such international legal recognition, Jerusalem in international eyes does not qualify in international law as a city that can be designated as a capital of anywhere by anyone.

I was very careful not to call Tel Aviv the capital in the article, but say it is viewed as the de jure capital by most of the world, just as I was careful not to say that Jerusalem was or was not the capital, but use the carefully neutral designated capital, which leaves it up to the reader to decide whether they accept that designation or not. I was equally careful not to say whether Israel's seizure of the entire city was right or wrong It is not wiki's job to take sides, merely explain. Stating categorically that Jerusalem is or isn't the capital, or that Tel Aviv is or isn't the capital, would be expressing a POV over who is right and who is wrong. That is something we cannot as an NPOV sourcebook do. FearÉIREANN 21:12, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)

So long as you say that by "de jure" you mean "by international law", not by national law (which says differently and which is enforced by a pretty strong organization of law enforcement). Rickyrab 21:17, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)

And even if jtdirl considers this "co-ordinated diplomatic snub" as acceptable,I find it horribly biased to act as if it is common enough to escape comment that it is almost unheard of to assert that a city in another country is that country's capital against that country's wishes.

(Everybody,write your legislators and suggest Cork be decleared capital of Ireland...unless you're Irish,who cares what they think!)

L.E./12.144.5.2

Yeah, and let's declare New York the capital of the United States! Who cares about Washington. Rickyrab 21:29, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)

HEY! NOT ALL OF JERUSALEM WAS SEIZED IN 1948!! Rickyrab 21:37, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)

International law is superior, as appeals to international courts, the Geneva Convention, etc makes clear. If Israeli law contradicts international law then international law takes precedence, as it does over Irish law, British law, etc etc. It is irrelevant as to whether native law is backed by "a pretty strong organization of law enforcement". Irish criminal law made homosexual conduct a criminal offence and was backed by the Irish law courts, judiciary and the police. But the law was (rightly, IMHO) torn down by an international judgment. Britain's Sellafield Nuclear reactor is based in UK law but is facing a challenge in international law. If international law rules against Sellafield, then it will be 'bye bye Sellafield'. Éire's constitutional law in Articles 2 and 3 claimed de jure jurisdiction over Northern Ireland. It may have been in the Irish constitution, but international law said unambiguously that Northern Ireland was not part of Éire (since 1949 the Republic of Ireland) but of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. International acceptance of that fact in practice was shown in the accreditation of ambassadors to the Court of St. James, ie, to the King/Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. (The Republic of Ireland has since changed Articles 2 and 3 to accept British rule in Northern Ireland while espousing the aspiration of Irish unity.

Well, if a country has enough military force, than, for all intents and purposes, it is the law. Laws are only words on pieces of paper until folks cooperate to obey and enforce them. Rickyrab 22:02, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)

The diplomatic community has out of respect for Israel not gone to seek an international judgment over the status of Jerusalem (just as it never formally had the Irish Articles 2 and 3 subjected to international ruling), but has made it clear in its actions that all the best legal advice available to it is that Jerusalem is not and cannot currently be accepted as a de jure capital (the same approach as seen in the accreditation of ambassadors to the Court of St. James). In effect Jerusalem is viewed as a de facto capital, with the only capital that ever was formally declared a capital, Tel Aviv, continuing to hold that de jure status. As part of a broader settlement, Jerusalem will no doubt be given de jure acceptance but it has not got it now. FearÉIREANN 21:43, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Jtdirl: Western-European diplomatic circles' POV on Jerusalem's status is just that - a POV on the facts. The international community (whatever that is) can "not like" the fact that Jerusalem is Israel's capital. They can even call it "illegal". That will not change the facts - Jerusalem is Israel's capital, and Tel Aviv is not. Claims like those you heard from European diplomatic sources should be mentioned in the article - but only after clearly stating the actual facts.

On a side note, perhaps you can enlighten me a bit on this "International law" issue. What under international law makes the Republic of Ireland's control over Dublin "legal"? When the Celts invaded Ireland in the fourth century BCE, was that done in accordance with international law? (At the time, BTW, Jerusalem was already for several centuries the well-established capital of Judah - to which Israel can honestly claim be a successor). When the Roman legions destroyed Jerusalem in 70 CE, thus terminating its status as capital of the Jewish state - was that in accordance with international law? My personal view on this is that "international law" is nothing but a tool in the hands of International powers used to serve their own political interests. -- uriber 21:56, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)

The Anglo-Irish Treaty and the results of the boundary commission on Irish borders were registered with the League of Nations in the 1920s. Those boundaries remain legally registered with the United Nations. Dublin is within those boundaries and so internationally qualified to be the capital. Don't be so childish with your arguments. Just because you have a POV doesn't mean your POV is NPOV. FearÉIREANN 22:06, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I believe the 1949 Armistice Agreement between Jordan and Israel was also registered with the UN. It clearly marked the western parts of Jerusalem within Israel's boundaries. All of this is, as I said below, beside the point. International law is just another POV. uriber 22:14, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Jerusalem was initially registered as an international city, not a territorial city. In international law that registration was not changed by its subsequent incorporation. You can have whatever opinion you want about international law. That is your POV. Law however is law, however much you may have a chip on your shoulder about it. FearÉIREANN 22:22, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)

In any legal system I know, more recent events (legislation, treaties, etc.) take precedence over older ones. Hence it does not matter what was initially registered - but what was eventually registered. Is International law different - does older registration have precedence over the newer one?

Also - If the 1947 UN Partition Plan is the legally binding document - certainly Tel-Aviv-Yafo (which is the city's current name) can not be the capital - since Yafo (Jaffa) was supposed to be part of the Arab state according to that plan!

I did not say that law is not law, or that international law is not law. (why would I say such a ridiculous thing?) I only said that as a law, it has a certain POV about the facts.

My Main point: According to my dictionary (the American Heritage Dictionary), a "capital" is "A town or city that is the official seat of government in a political entity, such as a state or nation". Jerusalem is the official seat of the Israeli government, hence it is the capital by definition. This state of affairs might be illegal according to certain interpretation of certain laws - however it is still true.

-- uriber 22:56, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)

And even if jtdirl considers this "co-ordinated diplomatic snub" as acceptable,I find it horribly biased to act as if it is common enough to escape comment that it is almost unheard of to assert that a city in another country is that country's capital against that country's wishes.

(Everybody,write your legislators and suggest Cork be decleared capital of Ireland...unless you're Irish,who cares what they think!)

L.E./12.144.5.2

Yeah, and let's declare New York the capital of the United States! Who cares about Washington. Rickyrab 21:29, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)

You obviously no very little about the topic. Ireland could of course declare Cork its capital, the US could declare New York its capital, but Ireland could not declare Newry in County Down its capital and the US could not declare Toronto its capital. In international law Jerusalem is a city that was illegally seized in stages by Israel. You and I may disagree with that viewpoint but it is the international viewpoint. As far as the diplomatic community is concerned, Jerusalem is to Israel what Newry is to Ireland, a place that does not the right to be designated as its capital. I am simply pointing out the rules, not saying whether I agree with them or not. FearÉIREANN 21:43, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Okay, then let's give the USA a spectacular capital.... Niagara Falls, the Horseshoe sidw (which, as everyone knows, is on the "wrong" side of the border) Rickyrab 21:51, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)

If such a location breaches internationally recognised boundaries, then the international community would say 'sorry but you can't pick there' and refuse to base their diplomatic representation there, as has been the case with Jerusalem. Diplomatic protocol is quite complex however much George Bush may wish it (and as Saddam Hussein learnt to his cost), no country can do as it wants. FearÉIREANN 22:06, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC) And even if jtdirl considers this "co-ordinated diplomatic snub" as acceptable,I find it horribly biased to act as if it is common enough to escape comment that it is almost unheard of to assert that a city in another country is that country's capital against that country's wishes.

Let me make another attempt at clarifying my point: Wikipedia is not (or at least, I think should not be) a legal document. Wikipedia should primarily focus on stating The Facts (de facto, if you prefer Latin). Points-of-view regarding these facts (whether they are political, legal - under any legal system - or other) can be presented - by they have to be clearly separated from the facts, and the only deserve a secondary place in the articles. uriber 22:07, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)

The fact is that Israel has designated Jerusalem as its capital. The fact is that internationally that designation is not accepted in law by all but a handful of states. That is the reality. For Wikipedia to state categorically that Jerusalem is the capital, or Tel Aviv is the capital would be POV. Stating that 'x says this, y disagrees' is elementary NPOV.

I'll repeat what I said above in response to Jtdirl: The fact is not that Israel has designated Jerusalem as its capital (this might be a fact - but it's not the central fact here). The central fact is that Jerusalem is "A town or city that is the official seat of government in a political entity, such as a state or nation." - hence it is a capital (of Israel) - by simple dictionary definition. -- uriber 23:02, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I'll also repeat here an example I gave before elsewhere: If the Moon article would have said "some people say the Moon is made of green cheese, others say it is made of rock" - would that be an NPOV article? Would it be a good article? To me, getting the facts correctly is way more important than being NPOV. Unfortunately, Wikipedia too often takes the easy ('x says this, y disagrees') path out - making it a much less valuable resource than it could have been. uriber 23:07, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Question? Which states deny that Jerusalem is the captital? I know there are many states which do not base their embassies there, but which states have specifically said "we do not recognize Jerusalem as your capital"?

Well, maybe the existence of a law is also a fact. Rickyrab 22:17, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Just to weigh in here: I think the dispute more properly belongs in Jerusalem, where it currently is, or in some other article on the status of Israel's capital. The fact that designating Jerusalem as a capital may or may not violate international law is largely unrelated to Tel Aviv, which is only involved in the matter somewhat tangentially (that is, the dispute is primarily over the status of Jerusalem, not over the status of Tel Aviv). I'd support making this section say something along the lines of For a period of 8 months (May through December 1948) until the seizure of Jerusalem it also served as the de facto capital of Israel. Though Israel subsequently designated Jerusalem to be its capital, this has not been recognized by much of the international community, so most embassies are still based in Tel Aviv. (See Capital of Israel for details.) --Delirium 03:20, Oct 4, 2003 (UTC)

Overall, sounds pretty much what I was proposing in the first place. One thing though. As a lot of states, (IMHO ludicrously, but they do) regard Tel Aviv as the capital of Israel, you cannot do an article on Tel Aviv without mentioning that some still view it as the de jure Israeli capital. (As a kid I was always puzzled why the likes of the BBC, ITN, RTÉ etc used to have correspondents reporting "from the Israeli capital, Tel Aviv", given that I thought that Jerusalem was the Israeli capital. It was only years later that I found out that most international states regard the Knesset's designation of Jerusalem as Israel's capital as contrary to international law and so invalid.) If some people regard city 'x' as a country's capital, even if you think it nutty, you have to state the fact in an article on city 'x', and given the claim's importance, it is something that has to be said in the first few lines. After all, Tel Aviv is not just any ordinary city, like Marseilles, Hamburg, Manchester, Cork, Little Rock, etc it is a city that has an international status because of the claim that it is the Israeli capital and the resultant fact that many embassies are based there, many media bureaux are based there, ambassadors live there, visiting foreign ministers often stay there, etc. As the issue resolves around Jerusalem, with Tel Aviv in the eyes of the diplomatic world being seen as Israeli capital by default, all this article needs is two or three lines stating (a) it was once the de facto capital of Israel, (b) because of issues regarding the status of Jerusalem, many internationally continue to regard it as in effect the default capital of Israel, (c) Israel however rejects that international opinion and regards Jerusalem as the legitimate and only capital.

The problem is simply that two users refused to accept anything that didn't state that Jerusalem is the Israeli capital. We had already solved this dispute on the Israel page by avoiding saying Jerusalem is or isn't the capital, saying simply in NPOV language that Jerusalem is Israel's "designated capital". That leaves it totally up to the reader (and wiki has a worldwide readership, not merely a US and Israel based one) to decide whether or not they accept that designation's validity or invalidity. What the problem two users have applying the same solution to this article (ie, many in the diplomatic community think x. Israel says y') in neutral language is beyond me. It seems that they are simply trying to push their agenda though POV edits that they perversely think are NPOV. FearÉIREANN 06:19, 4 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Let's face it, rumors of Tel Aviv's being Israel's capital are greatly exaggerated. :) Rickyrab 08:24, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)