Don’t taze me Hasbro
by Will, 24 February 2008
Monopoly, the world’s best-selling board game, is going global. A simple idea, substituting the iconic properties of the original game with hallmark cities of the world. Hasbro is letting people vote on its Web site for which cities to include in the new game.
In this celebration of capitalism, would-be moguls could buy up properties in cities such as Moscow, … Tokyo, Japan and Jerusalem, Israel.
Wait. Nix that last one — at least the Israel part.
Given the white-hot controversy over Israel — the world’s most fought-over piece of real estate — should the board game refer to “Jerusalem, Israel” even though Palestinians say Jerusalem will be the capital of any future Palestinian state? Should it say “Jerusalem, Palestine?”
Instead of rolling the dice, parent company Hasbro is taking the middle ground.
The company is letting people vote on its Web site for which cities to include in the new game — “Dublin, Ireland” for example. It recently removed “Israel” after “Jerusalem” and then eventually removed all of the country names.
Hasbro told The Associated Press that a mid-level employee decided on her own to take out “Israel” after pro-Palestinian groups and bloggers complained — sparking even more protests *from the other side*.
“It was never our intention to print any countries on the final boards and any online tags were merely used as a geographic reference to help with city selection,” Hasbro said in a written statement. “We would never want to enter into any political debate. We apologize for any upset this has caused our Monopoly fans.”
Comment:
Jerusalem is the capital city of Israel. In all its long history it has been the capital of one nation, Israel. Since a Palestinian country has never existed (of which, please note, ’tis not the same as saying it should never exist) it would and should, quite possibly, perhaps, just maybe, rule that one out by default. Note: I have left some things unsaid.
Sunday 24 February 2008 at 8:46
They can take off the name of the country, but what about the streets? David haMelech, Herzl, Jabotinski… Will you be able to put a hotel on Har haBayit? Or will there be a little plastic temple?
Sunday 24 February 2008 at 13:18
Golly, this didn’t happen when they made the Star Wars Monopoly or the Simpsons Monopoly.
Sunday 24 February 2008 at 15:54
wasn’t it for a while Aelia Capitolina? Capital of Roman Province of Palestine? Not entirely sure here, certainly the Romans renamed Judea Syria Palestine and Jerusalem Aelia Capitolina and rededicated the temple to Jupiter and even sacrificed the odd pig? Not as much fun as when Seleucids held orgies in the temple perhaps but let’s not go there. I should be getting back to the Chartist land plan…
Sunday 24 February 2008 at 17:29
The establishment of Aelia Capitolina was one of the events that kicked off the Bar Kokhba revolt, which ended with 600,000 Jews murdered (some sources claim millions) and the rest expelled, sold into slavery and forbidden to worship on pain of death. The name ‘Judaea’ was wiped from the page of history, replaced with ‘Syria Palaestina’. Roman ‘civilisation’ was really great. The Roman and Orthodox churches later enthusiastically picked up the baton of murderous Jew hatred, which they carried into the modern era.
Sunday 24 February 2008 at 18:25
… oh, and Aelia Capitolina wasn’t the capital of a state or kingdom, but of a Roman province.
Sunday 24 February 2008 at 19:39
Under international law, neither East nor West Jerusalem is considered Israel’s capital. Tel Aviv is recognised as Israel’s capital, pending a negotiated settlement with the Palestinians. East Jerusalem is considered by the international community to be illegally occupied by Israel, in contravention of several binding UN Security Council Resolutions
Sunday 24 February 2008 at 21:04
‘Under international law … yap yap yap!’
Fuck your bourgeois laws
Sunday 24 February 2008 at 21:48
CHANCE CARD #17 - Lose one hotel off Jerusalem
Sunday 24 February 2008 at 22:40
“Fuck your bourgeois laws”
Jerusalem is only the capital under Israeli law, is their bourgeois law any better than than the international community?
Sunday 24 February 2008 at 22:58
under international law West Jerusalem is definitely considered part of Israel so it’s hard do see what objection there might be to the Israeli’s having their capital there.
It seems a bit daft telling a country that it can’t have its capital in a place where its soverignty is not contested
Sunday 24 February 2008 at 23:03
yeh the knesset etc are inside green line israel.
Sunday 24 February 2008 at 23:10
‘international community … yap yap yap’
Sunday 24 February 2008 at 23:47
I didn’t mention the “international community” you fucking prick
Monday 25 February 2008 at 0:47
International law is primarily a self-serving political mechanism: it is something protean, developed by an unelected and very often unaccountable academic and legal elite, in accordance with the political motivations of the governments they serve. In many cases, its operation is extremely dubious: think of the way international investment law works to penalise poor nations to the benefit of multinational corporations.
Let’s leave this aside, however, and accept that some form of international legal norms are useful. As things stand there is no basis in international law for denying Israel the establishment of its capital in Jerusalem, because there is no binding treaty existing that makes the city a corpus separatum. Each sovereign nation, under both international law and custom, may designate its own capital on its territory, and Israel’s legal claims to at least the territory of west Jerusalem are extremely strong.
Monday 25 February 2008 at 3:56
International law has not evolved to the extent that it can be regarded as equitable. The UN Security Council is the final arbiter of what is legal and what is not, and the 5 permanent members have a veto. This contravenes the idea that all are equal are under the law, and recognizes 5 large and powerful states who are literally above the law.
Furthermore, disputes under international law are arbitrated on a very political basis. Isolated countries with powerful enemies like Israel are falsely accused of illegality when their actions are clearly within both the letter and the spirit of the law. The occupation of the West Bank and the Golan Heights is a case in point. Israel is even accused of illegaly occupying the Gaza strip, even though not a single Israeli soldier remains stationed in that territory! In contrast, members of the Arab and Third World blocs cover for each other and systematically evade punishment for their egregious crimes and genocial threats.