With Geroge Mitchell shuffling back and forth in these "proximity talks" I thought we should remind ourselves why Jerusalem is not up for negotiation.
Under Israeli law all of Jerusalem is the capital of Israel.
It is not only Israeli law that justifies the annexation of Jerusalem. When Israel came into being the Israeli flag flew in the Jewish Quarter of the Old City of Jerusalem. Jews had lived, as the majority population in the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem for many centuries. In fact the only periods that that wasn't the case was when occupying powers had forced them out.
For centuries Jews have been the largest ethnic group living in Jerusalem and since 1857 they have been in the majority in the city.
At that time, and before then, the entire urban population of Jerusalem lived in what is now called "East Jerusalem". In 1948 the invading Jordanian army (Arab Legion) captured the Jewish Quarter http://www.rova-yehudi.org.il/en/taarucha.asp (and it was illegally annexed by Jordan in 1950. Unlike Israel, Jordan's only claim to East Jerusalem was that of conquest. The Jews of the Old City were forced out en masse.) Article 2 paragraph 2 of the 1949 Armistice Agreement between Israel and Jordan http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/9a798adbf322aff38525617b006d88d7/f03d55... (the only international agreement that delineated the "green line", which delineated the West Bank and divided Jerusalem until 1967) said: "It is also recognized that no provision of this Agreement shall in any way prejudice the rights, claims and positions of either Party hereto in the ultimate peaceful settlement of the Palestine question, the provisions of this Agreement being dictated exclusively by military considerations." The description of East Jerusalem as occupied territory is at very least disputed. It is the 1907 Hague Convention. http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/hague04.asp#art42 that most legal opponents of Israel
quote when justifying referring to East Jerusalem as occupied, whilst they forget that the definition there comes in a section (Chapter 5 Section 3) headed "Military Authority over the Territory of the Hostile State". There is and never has been or never will be a state of Palestine.
Similarly article 2 of the 4th Geneva Convention makes it clear that the provisions relate to territory of a High Contracting Party (i.e. internationally recognised nation state). The foremost expert on the subject is of the opinion that the annexation of Jerusalem is legal under international law. http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/125049
The former president of the World Court is of the same opinion http://middleeastfacts.org/content/schwebel/what-weight-to-conquest.htm The one legal opinion that is quoted against Israel is the World Court case regarding the barrier. http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?p1=3&p2=4&code=mwp&case=131&k=5a In that case the World Court was asked by the UNGA to give an advisory opinion in the matter. In an advisory opinion parties that are concerned provide relevant documents to the court and the judges declare their opinion in open court. In this instance this is not what happened. The court turned the matter into a case in which both sides were invited to present witnesses and to have barristers cross examine each others witnesses. This was in specific breach of Article 34 Paragraph 1 of the Statute of the Court. http://www.icj-cij.org/documents/index.php?p1=4&p2=2&p3=0 "Only states may be parties in cases before the Court."
Israel thought that the court was making a mockery of itself and chose not to take part in the proceedings. Accordingly an advisory opinion was given based purely on the Palestinian perspective that was not worth the paper it was written on in terms of the enlightenment it gave as to the real legal situation.
The Palestinian Authority is not a state. Its authority is derived from the Oslo Accords of September 13th 1993. http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/9a798adbf322aff38525617b006d88d7/71dc8c... The status of Jerusalem was left to be decided in the permanent status negotiations, which ended in deadlock at Taba in 2001 without an agreement. At Taba and Camp David the talks failed on the issue of refugees and the Temple Mount. It was agreed that the Western Wall Plaza would remain a part of Israel if the other issues were resolved. The Palestine Authority therefore, as of yet, has no authority within Jerusalem, West or East and no authority to make claims or pronouncements concerning Jerusalem.
Therefore as far as Israeli law is concerned the status of Jerusalem is settled, Jerusalem is Israel's eternal, undivided Capital City.