EU Chief: Divide Jerusalem – Israel’s PM: Not a Chance

EU’s new Foreign Policy Chief, insists that the Palestinians must have a state with Jerusalem as its capital, and that is ‘a necessity for the world at large.’

By Ryan Jones


The European Union’s new foreign affairs chief, Federica Mogherini, visited the region over the weekend and insisted on the urgent need for a Palestinian state with the eastern half of Jerusalem as its capital.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu met with Federica Mogherini, High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. – Photo: Kobi Gideon, GPO

“We need a Palestinian state – that is the ultimate goal and this is the position of all the European Union,” said Mogherini while in the Gaza Strip, adding later during her stop in Ramallah that “Jerusalem can be and should be the capital of two states.”

Mogherini said that establishing a Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital is a “global” objective, and that Israel is obstructing this important and worthy goal by continuing to allow Jews to live in areas claimed by the Palestinian Arabs, in particular on the eastern side of Jerusalem.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu responded by once again stating that “Jerusalem is our capital and as such is not a settlement.”

Speaking to reporters ahead of his own meeting with Mogherini, Netanyahu stressed that “the neighborhoods in which we are living…and we’ve been building, have been there for close to 50 years… Everybody knows that in any peace arrangement they will remain part of Israel.”

Indeed, the issue of Jerusalem remains perhaps the largest stumbling block to international efforts to conclude a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. A firm majority of Israeli Jews insist that after millennia of longing for a return to Jerusalem, the city must never again be divided, while Palestinian leaders say they won’t accept any peace deal that doesn’t give them control of half the city, including the Old City and Temple Mount.


View original Israel Today publication at:


  1. Dov Grauman says:

    This woman Ms.Margerini and the entire EU community must be told in no uncertain terms to take their ultimatums and threats and to shove them right into their collective nomular cavity. How dare they have the chutzpah and the hoze to tell Israel it must give up parts of the country and half of Jerusalem nog al to a non existent people simply because they claim to be a nation and because they can’t stand seeing Jews live and prosper. And then the giddy end the non representatives of this no nation say they will not enter into any agreement that does not give them Jerusalem AND. AND. THE TEMPLE MOUNT. Well guess what. There is never going to be a peace agreement. Why is everyone waisting their time. This is never going to happen.
    Ms Margerini has absolutely no idea of history let alone Judaism. She will be a total failure like all those that have come before her. What makes her think she will be different. Her arrogance will be her downfall.

  2. Adele Bloom says:

    They have a Capital in Israel if they want.. Ramallah.. Their Holy city is in Meccah or Medina .. Let us alone .. stop hating Israel and the Jews.. We will not give them Jerusalem or Israel.. G~d gave The Hebrews ( Jews) that land and you are cursed for just thinking that way.. We cannot live side by side with people who want to kill us.. like your European People in European Countries … Killing and Stabbing our Rabbis and children.. Shame on you! You just mind the business of Antisemitism in Europe.. stop the stabbing of Rabbis in Belgium and Shooting of Children at schools in France.. No more of your comments at all..

  3. Harold van Ouwerkerk says:

    Fredrica dares to state the EU is united in the desire to create a Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as their capital. This is a flagrant lie! The truth however is that there has never existed an Arab Palestine and the name Jerusalem is not mentioned in the Koran. Another absolute truth is that Jerusalem has been the heart of Judaism for over 3000 years and is mentioned over 600 times in the Jewish Bible (The Tenach). I personally know hundreds of Dutch civilians and some politicians who are in favor of an undivided Jerusalem as capital of the Democratic State of Israel !

  4. Gita says:

    She’s Italian yes? So go home and divide Rome.
    – She says the Palestinians “claim” eastern part of Jerusalem as their capital but I’ve learned that it’s not enough to “claim” something to make it mine, you have to earn and deserve it and that’s as far from the Palestinian “claims” as you can get.
    What on earth makes this woman believe she’s got any right to interfere in another states very delicate businesses and without hesitation tell them what to do. Somebody should have a serious talk with her before both she and the rest of us are going to suffer from her foolishness.

  5. Hery Shiner says:

    The True Facts underlying Israel’s Sovereign Legal Rights in Extant International Law

    Although the State of Israel was officially declared by
    its first Prime Minister, David Ben Gurion, on May,14,1948, the
    sovereign legal rights to Palestine/Israel, in the context of
    (still extant) International Law, were actually granted to the
    Nation of Israel/Jewish People 28 yrs. earlier at the San Remo
    Peace Conference, in San Remo Italy, after the conclusion
    of WWI.
    The San Remo Peace Conference was convened by the
    Supreme Allied Council (comprised of Britain, France, Italy,
    Japan and the U.S as an observer as America had not officially
    declared war on the Ottoman Empire) in San Remo, Italy from
    April 19-26,1920 to deal with territories that had been formerly
    controlled by the Ottoman Empire. The Supreme Allied Council
    represented the interests of the collective allied nations/forces
    of WWI, and possessed the full legal right of disposition over
    the lands of the former Ottoman Empire, which had now become
    the legal property of the allied nations as a result of the
    Right of Conquest, which was the extant international law at
    that point in history i.e. before the 20th Century establishment
    of the Mandate System, and the League of Nations/U.N.

    The Right of Conquest was a law that granted nations ownership
    of the lands which they conquered militarily. The completion of
    colonial conquest of much of the world , the devastation of WWI
    and WW II, and the alignment of both the United States and the
    Soviet Union with the principle of self determination, led to the
    abandonment of the Right of Conquest in formal international law.
    The Mandate System (which was created by South African statesman
    Jan Christian Smuts:- who served as part of the British Imperial War
    Cabinet in WWI and went on to become the PM of South Africa), the
    1928 Kellogg-Briand Pact, the post-1945 Nuremberg Trials, the UN
    Charter, and the UN role in decolonization saw the progressive
    dismantling of this principle. Simultaneously, the UN Charter’s
    guarantee of the ” territorial integrity ” of member states effectively
    froze out claims against prior conquests from this process.

    Due to the law of the Right of Conquest, The San Remo Resolution
    did have the force of law, as the Supreme Allied Council now possessed
    the full legal right of disposition of the former lands of the Ottoman Empire,
    which included the territory that was commonly known as Palestine. The
    terms from the San Remo Resolution were then incorporated first a ) in the
    Treaty of Sèvres of August 10, 1920 and b) in the first three recitals of the
    Preamble of the Mandate for Palestine. The Mandate was confirmed by
    all 52 states who were members of the League of Nations, in 1922 and
    separately by the United States in a 1924 treaty with the United Kingdom :
    (The Anglo-American Convention).

    Additionally, even though the above legal and historical
    facts are the objective truth(i.e. all facts can be independently
    validated by unbiased, knowledgeable 3rd parties) there
    unfortunately still exists widespread misconception around
    the world, as well as among Israel’s political leaders, judiciary,military
    and media, that the State of Israel derives its legal existence from the
    UN General Assembly Resolution 181 (II) of November 29, 1947,
    popularly known as the”Partition Resolution”. This misconception
    is so ingrained in official historical,political and popular thinking
    that it is extremely difficult to change, regardless of the
    overwhelming evidence to the contrary, as referenced above .

    In addition to the ignorance of the law and the related historical
    events,another major reason for this misconception is that Israel’s
    own Proclamation of Independence perpetuates the wrongful
    notion that it was “on the strength of the Resolution of the
    United Nations General Assembly” that the members of what
    in the proclamation itself was called “the People’s Council”
    relied in declaring the establishment of the State of Israel on
    May 14, 1948. Other reasons cited in the Proclamation were
    “our natural and historic right”. It was further stated there that
    “the State of Israel will cooperate with the UN in implementing
    the resolution of the General Assembly of the 29th November,
    1947, and will take steps to bring about the economic union
    of the whole of Eretz-Israel.

    The misstatement in the Proclamation of Independence that
    the State of Israel relied “on the strength” of the Partition
    Resolution for its legal establishment is 100% false, and as a
    consequence has ended up concealing or suppressing
    the fact that Israel’s legal foundation under international law
    derives not from United Nations General Assembly Resolution
    181 (II) of November 29, 1947,which was merely a non-binding
    recommendation, without any force of law, as the General Assembly
    of the U.N. is not a legislative body, but rather, as mentioned
    above, stems from the San Remo Resolution of April 25, 1920,
    issued by the Supreme Allied Council,who did possess the full
    legal right of disposition in regard to Palestine/Israel, and as
    such did have the force of law, and was thereby incorporated
    into the various legally binding conventions/treaties .

    Furthermore,contrary to popular belief,although the text of
    The Mandate for Palestine referenced the British Government’s
    favorable view on the establishment of a Jewish Homeland in
    Palestine (what has commonly become known as the
    “Balfour Declaration”, in a nod to British Secretary of State
    of Foreign Affairs Arthur James Balfour, who made this
    historic declaration on behalf of the British Government,
    on November 2,1917), this pronouncement by the British
    did not confer any sovereign legal rights upon The Jewish
    People since at this point in history Britain had not yet
    acquired the legal right of disposition to Palestine, and
    even though at that point in history,Britain was arguably
    the world’s superpower and it was Gen. Allenby
    who led the troops that captured this region. This
    misunderstanding of the true legal and historical facts
    by both Israeli & international historians, politicians,media et al
    is the fundamental reason behind the distorted narrative that
    gave birth to the concept of ” The British Mandate for Palestine” .
    In fact no such convention/treaty by this name ever existed.

    The name of the treaty was The Mandate for Palestine
    and Britain was the Mandatory working on behalf of the
    Allied Nations (i.e. the “property manager” ) who had
    collectively gained title to this region due to the Right
    of Conquest and whose collective interests were represented
    by the Supreme Allied Council. As Mandatory, even though
    they failed to do so and in fact violated many of the People
    of Israel/Yehudim’s legal rights, Britain’s role was in fact
    to have acted as a mentor and support and tutor the Jewish
    People so that they could fulfill all the terms of the Mandate
    and build the institutions of government that would allow
    them to establish a functioning state and declare independence
    and be accepted by the community of nations, as they were
    the rightful & legal
    beneficiaries of this treaty.

    Finally, Article 80 of the UN Charter, once known unofficially
    as the “Jewish People’s clause”, preserves intact all the rights
    granted to Jews under the Mandate for Palestine (which was
    confirmed in 1922 by all 52 member states, of the League of
    Nations,) even after the Mandate’s expiry on May 14-15, 1948.
    Under this provision of international law (the U.N. Charter is
    an international treaty), Jewish rights to Palestine and the
    Land of Israel (i.e. this included Gaza & the “West Bank-
    Yehuda – Shomron & al lof Yerushalayim) were not to be altered
    in any way unless there had been an intervening trusteeship
    agreement between the states or parties concerned, which
    would have converted the Mandate into a trusteeship or trust
    territory. The only period of time such an agreement could have
    been concluded under Chapter 12 of the UN Charter was
    during the three-year period from October 24, 1945, the date
    the Charter entered into force after appropriate ratifications,
    until May 14-15, 1948, the date the Mandate expired and the
    State of Israel was proclaimed. Since no agreement of this
    type was made during this relevant three-year period, in which
    Jewish rights to all of Palestine may conceivably have been
    altered had Palestine been converted into a trust territory,
    those Jewish rights that had existed under the Mandate
    remained in full force and effect, to which the UN is still
    committed by Article 80 to uphold,or is prohibited from
    altering to this day .

    Source : Howard Grief : The Legal Foundation and Borders
    of Israel Israel’s Rights under International Law : A Treatise
    on Jewish Sovereignty over The Land of Israel ( available for
    download as an e-book from

  6. roquel says:

    Very funny Im pretty sure, like 100%, that most Peole in the EU… would wish they would hqve their borders back again.. and this lady wasnt nominated by Annyone of The People… thats even the funnier part B”H! She only as suppot of the small group of Arab leaders in charge of the EU. lol

Leave a comment

Leave a Reply