This seems to be a tough question lately!
"Resist, we much. Weï»¿ must, and we much. About that, be committed."
``I don't think that other entities can impose a capital city on another country.``
I suggest you look up international law and educate yourself on the recent history of the area. East Jerusalem is considered occupied,under military rule. It is officially part of Palestine, not Israel.
This has nothing to do with imposing a capital on another country but respecting international law and the right to self-determination. You, as an American, should understand the concept of self-determination.
Land seized during a war is NOT considered, under international law, annexed. If that was the case, the US would own Japan and Iraq. Canada would own Holland. Germany would be subdivided into areas owned by other countries.
Residents living in the occupied land have the right,under international law, to self-determination. They do not suddenly loose their citizenship in their country, just because their land is being occupied by a foreign power.
East Jerusalem was not ceded to Israel under any treaty. It is therefore, under international law, not part of Israel.
Israel is not obligated to abide by international law and has every right to act as a sovereign state.
cshell_sonny wrote:Israel is not obligated to abide by international law and has every right to act as a sovereign state.
This is true. If we had a bit of a smack down with Canada and ended up being stuck with Ontario, we could make it our capital, without any permission from "international law".
Exactly!! I may need to "educate myself on the issue of international law", but I know enough to realize that consent is key. A sovereign state can consent to international law. can interpret the law to suit their own interests or choose to ignore it. This is the backbone of sovereignty or the basis of self-government.
I also know enough history to know that the struggle over Jerusalem control extends far beyond "recent history" .