Talk:East Jerusalem/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

untitled

I can deal with the changes that you have made Jayjg. Please keep an eye out for any new changes. We must keep these pages peaceful and unbiased. Thanks! MEC

Fair enough. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 00:57, 2004 Sep 7 (UTC)

This sentence: 

 The ancient Harat al-Magharba (Moorish) neighborhood in front of the
 Wall was demolished and replaced with a large open air plaza.

really piques my interest. It is not so much the demolition that interests me as it is the existence of the site in the first place, and the timeframe. A Moorish subculture and neighborhood in Jerusalem is exactly the sort of historical wrinkle I'd like to read about, but the link to the neighborhood, unfortunately, is just an edit link, since the article does not exist. In the absense of an article on the subject, I was wondering if at least the wording here could be clarified to remove ambiguity as to the timeframe. The word "ancient", in particular, is leaving me wondering. Obviously it does not mean ancient in the strictest historical sense, as all things Moorish date, as far as I am aware, from the Middle Ages; nor can it mean ancient in comparison to the site as a whole, since East Jerusalem as a whole (and the Western Wall in particular) is significantly more ancient than anything Moorish; nevertheless, there are two other possible meanings: it could mean ancient within the overall context of Moorish history and culture, in which case the settlement in Jerusalem would presumably predate the westard and northward movement into Spain, or it could merely mean ancient in comparison with the modern Arab/Israeli conflict, in which case it could be a later (in terms of Moorish history) settlement and could post-date Tours or even the expulsion from Spain. In the absense of a linked article supplying these details, at least the sentence should IMO be reworded to remove this ambituity. --Jonadab, 2005 May 22

"Old" would probably be more appropriate. It housed Muslim pilgrims from the Maghreb for centuries.

The Pakistani recognition is questioned/disputed by Pakistani diplomats; nobody seems to know where this factoid comes from. On the UK nonrecognition of EJ annexation, the first Knesset debates at the Jerusalem Center run by Dore Gold site notes this (and have nothing about Pakistani recognition).--John Z 23:00, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Misleading?

I think this article is quite misleading. As far as I know, there is currently no political entity known as "East Jerusalem." I think that when most people speak of East Jerusalsem (with or without a capital "E",) they are talking about the area north of the Old City and not the Old City itself. Some people would say that East Jerusalem is coextensive with the area occupied by Jordan from 1948-67, but because "East Jerusalem" is not legally defined, that's not authoritative. Mwalcoff 15:06, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

"East Jerusalem" can be defined as the area Israel annexed to the city of Jerusalem in 1967, including the eastern part of Jerusalem formerly under Jordanian rule as well as several villages and land belonging to nearby West Bank villages. It can also be defined (together with the Golan Heights) as areas under Israeli law that are not officially sovereign Israeli territory (as Israel hasn't formally annexed them). It is true there is no official entity called East Jerusalem, but the phenomenon known as "East Jerusalem" is well-known and has considerable political implications, and so it is notable.--Doron 08:38, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
Of course it's notable; I just don't want this article to favor one intrepretation of the term over any others. Would you consider it acceptable if I restored my lead paragraph while also keeping in the material you restored? Mwalcoff 09:09, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, I thought I did, the only thing missing is the part about what's considered "East Jerusalem" all of it or part of it - I didn't understand your point.--Doron 09:16, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
OK, I'll try to rephrase it. Mwalcoff 09:30, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
I hope it's alright now. I also restored the source descriptions at the bottom, because I think users might want to be aware of the POVs of the links. Mwalcoff 09:44, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
Fine, I'd just like to know who refers "specifically to the mostly Arab neighborhoods north of the Old City" as "East Jerusalem"? And what about the Arab neighborhoods east and south of the Old City?--Doron 11:22, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
Well, you'd know better than me. The tour guides at the bookstore at which I used to work generally only mentioned the area around Salah el-Din Street when talking about East Jerusalem (http://www.frommers.com/destinations/jerusalem/0088032923.html here's Frommer's example). I would think that Silwan, Abu Dis, etc., would be considered sort of separate settlements that happen to be within Jerusalem's municipal borders. If you think my wording is misleading, please change it. Mwalcoff 16:22, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
I don't know what East Jerusalem's tourist foci are, East Jerusalem is certainly not confined to the area north of the Old City. However, you do have a point - East Jerusalem can also refer to the pre-1967 Jordanian municipal boundaries (excluding Sho'fat, Beit Safafa, Umm Tuba, etc., which are villages annexed to Jerusalem after 1967). I'll edit your version and also mention the 1966 Kendall scheme, when I have the time...--Doron 06:09, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

2006 Parliamentary Election

Does this image from the NY times which shows an eastern Jerusalem voting district resolve any issues here? Is it worth mentioning on the main article page that residents of these areas were able to vote in their own district? I have no idea if Israel had any issues with the drawing of these district maps. map 01:16, 28 January 2006 (UTC)


Israelis in East Jerusalem

Should Israelis in East Jerusalem be considered Settlers? --Farouk yalla 13:59, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

FYI, in Hebrew, the direct translation for the word officials use to describe people moving to new territories is "settlers." American-Israeli Jews (like myself) tend to hate the word settler in English due to its association with the pioneers of the American west and the concordant 'treatment' of the native americans. However, it's not such a dirty word in Hebrew and I would argue is the only appropriate term to describe Jews 'settling' in 'frontier' areas.
It completely depends on the point of view you use. However, the word Israelis in this case is ambiguous, unless you are also considering whether Palestinian Israelis in this territory are settlers. gidonb 14:16, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
On another note, the vast majority of Palestinians in Jerusalem cannot be referred to as 'Israeli Arabs' from any POV because, unlike Arabs elsewhere, they are not Israeli citizens, and as such cannot be called 'Israeli'... Ramallite (talk) 14:21, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Ramallite, that is imprecise. A permanent resident is also an Israeli. But even if you thoughtfully forget this (Israeli personal identity is usually close to non-existent among Arabs in East Jerusalem), then still there are those Arabs who actually are Israeli citizens, but always lived in East Jerusalem (plus, some of the Jews who live there were born in the British Mandate of Palestine and few Arabs come from other parts of Israel). Regards, gidonb 14:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
The context in which Palestinians in Jerusalem wish to be considered (and are considered) Arab Israelis is the socio-economic and some civil rights. This is stated in the article on a per issue basis. gidonb 14:34, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
"A permanent resident is also an Israeli" is a very debatable phrase, and an opinion that is not shared in Jerusalem I must say, and also not by the Israeli government. I used the phrase "vast majority" above because, of course, there are some of the people you mentioned as well but they are a small minority. Lastly, the term 'Israeli Arab' has connotations that Jerusalemites have no 'wish' to be associated with. They do wish to hold on to some rights (such as health care, etc) because of their 'Israeli permanent resident' status, and not a nonexistent 'Israeli Arab' status. If I follow your reasoning, you are saying that 1- they want to hold on to the same benefits as Israelis have, 2- they are Arabs, therefore 3- they wish to associate themselves with their Israeli Arab 'brethren' by calling themselves "Israeli Arabs" at the insurance claims desk. This is wrong, because the term 'Israeli Arab' usually refers to Arabs with Israeli citizenship (not PR as you claim), and they don't use that phrase to refer to themselves. Ramallite (talk) 14:52, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

When talking about permanent residents I used the legal definition, but already eluded to the point you are making when I set "thoughtfully" and spoke about identity in east Jerusalem. So we agree on this point, I strongly advise against labeling Palestinians in east Jerusalem Arab Israelis or Israeli Arabs. So 1 and 2 are definitely correct, but 3 is already incorrect. It is true that they wish to be considered and are considered in many contexts Arab Israelis, but this is between them and the state, it is a formal identity (a formality). It does not mean that have the same identity as those who you can safely call Arab Israelis (and even than usually have other preferences), not even when they do have an Israeli passport. It is complicated, but not too complicated I think. There are formal identities and personal identities. You would offend most Arabs in Jerusalem by calling them Arab Israelis. This does not cancel out however that they are formally Arab Israelis in some contexts, and that they insist on some of these for as long as they can. gidonb 15:42, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Maybe we're just confusing "treated as an Arab Israeli" and "regarded as an Arab Israeli". For example, if a foreign student in the United States on a student visa stays there long enough (5 years), she'd be required by law to stop sending non-citizen tax forms and start sending in US citizen tax forms after the fifth year. In other words, she would have the benefits of US tax laws that wouldn't apply when she used tax forms for non-citizens. So you're saying that she would be considered 'an American Citizen' in the context of taxes (which is true, but not formally), and I'm saying 'American citizen' would be the wrong label for her any way you put it (which is also true). Anyway, too much nitpicking, not a big deal. Ramallite (talk) 16:33, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
I know "Arab Israelis" are Palestinians with israeli nationality. If palestinians in East Jerusalem have Israeli nationality they should be called "Arabs", if they dont (i suspect they dont since they voted in the Palestinian elections) they should be called Palestinians.
Farouk, now my question: How would you call both Arabs with an Israeli passport and Arabs without an Israeli passport together? gidonb 16:12, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Well Gidonb, this is complicated but here is my answer: In my opinion to answer this one first has to look at the meaning of "Israeli Arab". Israeli arabs are, as we both know, ethnic arab citizens of Israel who have, in acquiring this citizenship, renounced to Palestinian identity. The notion of "Arab" is particularly important for Israel as they have historically denied the existence of "Palestinians" calling the original inhabitants of the region (christians and muslims but not jews) Arabs. This was done to link them to the arab/muslim invasion of Palestine in the 6th(?) century. By the time European jews staring immigrating to Palestine in the last century all inhabitants of Palestine could be considered to be 'Arabs' (jews included)and they were certainly all Palestinian. The creation of Israel changed this: Understable Muslim and Christian hostility against jews due to the creating of a foreign state on Palestine redefined identities: The relatively small community of local Jews identified with the new state, becoming Israelis, and the rest of Palestinians mantained the old identity. The minority of Muslim arabs (or Muslim Palestinians) who became Israeli also identified with the new entity and became israeli arabs abandoning Palestine. What I mean is that Palestine or Palestinian identity is not (or was not) Arab but political. So there is no point having a name or word to encompass both communities on the basis of an arab ethnicity. The same goes for Israel. The arab-israeli conflict has, however, formed artifical ethnicities around this political division.

Anyways, its a bit confusing and its just my opinion. Maybe havent expressed myself in a clear way. Hope you understand:-)--Farouk yalla 16:54, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I understand you, here are my points: (Yes I agreew with you)

  1. Arab Israelis have quite heterogenous identities, yet this point is typically misunderstood or otherwise overblown by Jewish Israelis.
  2. Most Arab Israelis have never renounced their Palestinian identity. Some groups did, but for most the opposite is true. They did go through different processes from other Palestinian populations.
    1. It is normal that many arab israelis feel palestinian, (while being perfectly respectful and integrated Israeli citizens) since Israel is an ethnic state, created as a homeland for the jews. Ethnic tensions in this context will push a young israeli arab to sympathise with the Palestinian cause.
      1. Different push and pull factors operate in different directions. The basic sympathy is usually already there, as people share some identity, religion, family, tastes and other values. The experience of growing up in a more democratic environment is very different. Differences emerge. Israel is rather ethnocentric, because Jews (and Druze) are ethno-religious groups. 79% (+2%) of the population. Populations that are less ethnocentric (introvert) may be more political (nationalistic), as you mentioned for the Palestinians. Everything has its pros and cons and is usually a related to previous developments. gidonb 19:51, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  3. There is a variety of reasons why most Jewish Israelis prefer to call Palestinians "Arabs", you concentrate on a few of them. The perception that the others are foreign, is sometimes mutual.
    1. Well this is understandable since a large majority of jews ARE foreign. Palestinians are not... They are the people of Palestine who were all arabized, some adopted Islam and some kept their former religions: Christianity and Judaism.
      1. It is a matter of dynamics. People come and go. Identities develop. Neither population perceives itself as foreign. gidonb 19:51, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  4. Forget one moment the somehow shared Palestinian-Israeli populations. The remaining populations have foremost particular Jewish and Palestinian identities that are indeed on very different levels. Druze sometimes have an easier time understanding the others. Regards, gidonb 18:25, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
    1. I agree with you, I just felt that the word "Arab", when associated to Palestinians and Israel is in a way demeaning.
      1. There is nothing wrong being Arab or Israeli. It doesn't always talk to people's imagination as much as being Jewish or Palestinian, but usually it is out there, somewhere. gidonb 19:51, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Also remember that the situation was not idyllic for minorities in Palestine over the years. Christians persecuted Jews and Muslims. Muslims persecuted Samaritans, Baha'i and Druze. Others were blackmailed. Religious affiliations used to matter more, money too. You can call those who lived in the province of Palestine Palestinians, but it did not mean so much. gidonb 20:19, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Ahmed Goldberg?? Okay okay running away now... Ramallite (talk) 16:33, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
LOL!!! This material is complicated. The populations in Israel/Palestine talk in very different dimensions of identities. It takes training to understand it all. Jews and moslims find it hard to understand each other because their basic worlds are very different. gidonb 17:00, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

As for the question of whether Jews are settler I guess Mizrahi or Palestinian jews would reside in west jerualem rather than East and the vast majority of jewish inhabitants in Jerusalem are not indigenous to the region. the question I asked relates also to their status under Israeli and international law--Farouk yalla 14:49, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

There is no contradiction between being Arab and Palestinian. On the contrary. Then Arab describes all of these people, with and without Israeli passports, local and non-local, in all contexts. Since you asked, under Israeli law not one single person in east Jerusalem is a settler. There are quite a few Palestinian Jews and Arab citizens of Israel in east Jerusalem. Enough to make it all very ambiguous. gidonb 15:07, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

It is interesting to talk to u, Gidonb, even though your edits dont appear on my watch page for some reason... :-) In any case, it is clear that Israelis do not consider themselves foreign: Zionism is the return to the jewish homeland. However, Most are culturally and ethnically foreign to Palestine and many (maybe the majority) to the Middle East. American Evangelists could also consider themselves "palestinian" or "Israeli", being the followers of Jesus Christ. This is how the situation is percieved in the Middle East.--Farouk yalla 21:03, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Farouk yalla, return is one thing, presence another, but you seem to know more about Evangelists than me. You know there were days that Jews and Muslims were oppressed together by Christians. Jews thrived under Muslim occupations of Spain and Greece. Now that Christians have come to their senses some Muslims seem to have gone the other way. We should all put this behind us. Peace is what we need. It has been a pleasure talking to you. Regards, gidonb 22:09, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

neutrality problem

"This area is 70 square kilometers and consists of the Jerusalem Old City and surrounding original Arab neighboorhoods but today also extends into the adjacent countryside which today contains significant new Israeli settlements."

escuse me, but claming that east Jerusalem contained originally Arab neighboorhoods is a lie... first of all Jerusalem was built by jew. If u think that 3000 years ago does not matters what with the Jewish Quarter in east Jerusalem? they were expelled by the jordanians while independence war of israel.

please correct this mistake.

GOER 16:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup

This article is a bit messed up.

  • There's a huge introduction that talks about all sorts of things, some of which are later covered in the History section. I suggest moving all historical events to the History section and create a new Status section which would include the discussion on the status of East Jerusalem.
  • Furthermore, the introduction gives several "definitions", most of which roughly overlap, and it is not clear what's the difference between them. Worse even, it is not clear who uses these various definitions, if they are indeed in use. As far as I know, East Jerusalem refers to the entire West Bank territory that was annexed to the municipality in 1967, or, in historical contexts, it may refer to the pre-1967 Arab municipality, and perhaps the adjacent suburbs. I don't know of any other reference to East Jerusalem that doesn't roughly overlap with one of these two.

--Doron 06:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Did a major cleanup:

  • Moved all historical events to the History section.
  • Moved all issues concerning the status of Jerusalem to the Status section.
  • Removed repetitive passages.
  • Removed original research about demographics.
  • Cleaned-up weasel phrasing of rights infringements of Palestinians.
  • Added statistics.
  • Removed a couple of irrelevant external links.

Sorry for such a huge edit, I had to do it all in one edit because there was such a mess.--Doron 00:57, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

incorrect statements

Access to holy sites

"Jews were not allowed access to the Mount of Olives, Western Wall and other holy sites, in contravention of Article VIII of the 1949 Armistice Agreements." - this statement, which can be sourced to 100 "reliable sources", is simply not true. Actually it is a claim of Israeli public relations that is uncritically passed around. The fact is that only Israeli Jews were prevented from access to East Jerusalem. Other Jews, such as Americans, were not forbidden to go there and many did. This is described in the book by Gilbert which I referenced. The last part of this sentence is also not a fact, but is rather an opinion. The agreement itself does not require visits to be allowed but only requires that a "Special Committee" be established in order to make arrangements for the visits. From this point an argument can be constructed that Jordan obstructed the Special Committee, etc etc, and it is a reasonable argument but only an argument. Jordan blamed the failure of the Special Committee on Israel; that is also only an argument. --Zerotalk 00:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. Regarding "Israeli" vs. "other" Jews, I think it's a moot point; the Jordanians wouldn't really be sure which non-Israelis were Jews anyway. That "opinion" comes from the source I used as well. And, in practice, the Jordanians destroyed pretty much all the Jewish sites in East Jerusalem, so there wasn't anything to visit - they defied Article VIII in spirit and in practice. Jayjg (talk) 03:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
I think we can see from the list below how well the Jordanians kept to the agreement. nadav (talk) 03:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Razed synagogues

Jayjg, the statement your source makes is mostly accurate, but not entirely. Some small synagogues remained standing. Here's an incomplete list of what happened to the synagogues of the old city:

nadav (talk) 01:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

This is quite true (I didn't check the details). Israel's record is no better. --Zerotalk 11:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
The source I was using pointed that out, but also noted that Jordan had unique requirements under the Armistice agreements in this regard, which it deliberately flouted. Jayjg (talk) 16:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Atarot and Neve Yaakov

Jayjg, as anybody that knows anything about the history of Jerusalem knows, Atarot and Neve Yaakov were not part of Jerusalem during the Mandate. Their sites became part of Jerusalem when the municipality borders were extended in 1967. Do you need me to find sources that say so?--Doron 08:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

See historical municipal boundaries from the Jerusalem Institute for Israel Studies.--Doron 12:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Is there a reason why "North Jerusalem" is capitalized? I'm not familiar with this proper noun. nadav (talk) 12:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter, they weren't in north Jerusalem, they were north of Jerusalem, with or without capitalization.--Doron 12:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm just repeating what the source said. They certainly were close to Jerusalem, perhaps suburbs of it. Jayjg (talk) 16:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Nevertheless, they were both villages north of Jerusalem. I'll change back if you don't object.--Doron 16:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Fine, but can you use wording that indicates their proximity to Jerusalem? E.g. something like "just north of Jerusalem"? Jayjg (talk) 17:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Atarot is indeed a suburb. Neve Ya'akov is a bit further away (I would not call it a suburb). In Atarot there is the only airport for Jerusalem. The intersting thing about Atarot is that the people who lived there were kicked out during the 1948 war (palestinin exodus anyone ? - many from all religions left fighting zones) and in 1967 they took a vote : Should we demand to come back to the original aatrot site (they hold title) but decided to stay on the Israeli side of the green. Zeq 16:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Zeq, both Atarot and Neve Ya'akov are part of the Jerusalem municipality, but we're talking about 1948.--Doron 16:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I was refering to distance and what is and is not " a suburb": Ataraot is and Neve Ya'akov is not. Zeq 16:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm not aware of anybody calling them suburbs in 1948, or distinguishing between the two with regards to this definition. Why don't we stick to facts, they were both villages near Jerusalem.--Doron 17:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Is the source misrepresented by Zero ?

Please review this edit:[1] Zero have inserted the words "from all religions" . I wonder if this is the source. According to the source I have the complete paragrpah talks specifically about Israeli jews not being allowed into the wall:

"Among the articles of the armistice agreement was one, Article VIII, under which Jordan guaranteed Israeli Jews free access to the Wailing Wall. In fact, during the nineteen years of Jordanian rule in East Jerusalem, no Israelis were allowed to visit this site which was most holy to them" ([Martin Gilbert, Jerusalem in the Twentieth Century (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1996),] p. 241).

Zero owe us an explnation. But I am not surprized.

Clearly Gilbert was talking about jews. This is a well know fact that for 19 years - Jordanian soldiers and tourists, but no Jews. Arabs promised Jews the right to visit their most holy place in the world, yet Israeli Jews were banned from the Western Wall without exception through this time. Zeq 15:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

should we take no reply as an admission of guilt ? Zeq 14:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I think this does need a response. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
If there's no response, just change it to what you think more accurately reflects the source. nadav (talk) 21:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
No. I think it is quite clear and doesn't deserve any particular answer and no change.
Israeli citizens, from all religions, were forbidden the access. Not particularly Jews.
If you have a source that claims the contrary, please, indicate the controverse. Alithien 22:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
It's not a question of whether what it says is true in your opinion. It's a question of whether it's what the source says. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Just check. I think here Zeq claims Zero lied and this is only based on "a well know (sic) fact that for 19 years"... Alithien 22:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
No, he's claiming that Zero misrepresented the source, which refers explicitly to Jews. It deserves an explanation. Jayjg (talk) 23:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
This doesn't deserve an explanation unless Zeq has a source that claims the contrary to what Zero wrote or unless he himself has checked that source. Or do you think too Zero made a mistake ?
And even without source, find me 1 Israeli who visited East Jerusalem between 49 and 67 ! Whether Jew, Muslim, Arab or atheist. Alithien 23:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Zeq is quoting a source, above, the very source that Zero used, and claiming that Zero misrepresented the source. The issue here is that Zeq has found the source that Zero used, and claims he misrepresented it. Jayjg (talk) 23:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
If Zeq is proved to have mispresented the source, will you block him ? Alithien 23:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I did not misreperesent anything. I have a source which quote the same author and the issue was the guarrnty to jews access to their holy site (which was gurantied in the armstice agreement). Zeq 05:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Isn't is written : "no Israelis were allowed to visit this site which was most holy to them" ? Alithien 23:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
It says " Jordan guaranteed Israeli Jews free access to the Wailing Wall", and then points out that no Israelis were allowed access to the site most holy to them. The Wall isn't holy to Muslims or Christians. Jayjg (talk) 23:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I too have the book Zero quoted. He cites page 254. Gilbert writes there: "It was not only Jews who suffered from lack of access to their Holy Places in East Jerusalem under Jordanian rule. The division of the city proved a blow to another aspect of worship that had hitherto been taken for granted. Under the Jordanians, the Christian and Muslim shrines were open to all Christians and Muslims worldwide, except for those who were resident in Israel. Thus tens of thousands of Israeli Arabs found themselves prevented by Jordan from praying at the al-Aksa Mosque, or from setting foot on the Haram". This is exactly what Zero claimed -- that " Israelis of all religions were not allowed into East Jerusalem". This is not speculative interpretation of a possibly ambiguous phrase, but an accurate summary. If anyone is misrepresenting Gilbert's book here, it's not Zero. RolandR 01:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, Roland. It was indeed page 254 that Zero cited, and his summary of what it says is entirely accurate. Thank you for looking it up. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Zeq doesn't directly say he owns the book. I infer from the language of his question and from the fact that he didn't revert that he only has an excerpt from the book. nadav (talk) 01:23, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
As I said I have a source that quotes the source. Zero had enough time (he edited since I first raised the subject) to reposnd. When he does not respond it makes everything harder (and it is logical to understand that he can not defend the dit he made). His contemt to me is infulancing his ability to function as wikipedia editor. Thanks for RolandR for giving a full answer about the source - this is what Zero could and should have done. Zeq 05:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
That doesn't sound like apologizes, does it ? Alithien 14:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Recent edits

Hertz1888, making edits to make a point is against Wikipedia guidelines (see WP:POINT). Removing one bit of the article by me does not justify removing another bit by you. Restoring that bit by me does not justify restoring the first bit by you. This tit for tat is disrupts Wikipedia.

As for the edits, the text I removed bears no weight. It is the opinion of a few politicians, it is not an official position of any political entity. The House of Representative resolution does not constitute recognition of Israeli sovereignty. The European parliament's position is not determined by a party organized by "pro-Israeli members of the European parliament, the European Jewish Community Center, and the office for Jerusalem and Diaspora affairs", and not by the personal opinion of a single Finnish MP. Neither of these references indicate any change in the position of the United States or the European Union regarding East Jerusalem. You can be sure that if either of them had all of a sudden recognized Israeli sovereignty over East Jerusalem, this would have been the front headline of every major newspaper in the world (or at least in Israel). And it wasn't. Because it isn't.

As for the text you removed, I agree the opinion poll is not noteworthy (and unreliable). The position of the Palestinian Authority, on the other hand, is relevant. It is not the opinion of some obscure Palestinian MP, this has been the official position of a recognized political entity for more than a decade. What is your justification for removing it?--Doron 23:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Either way, much of the material was irrelevant for this article. We have Positions on Jerusalem for this kind of stuff. nadav (talk) 23:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Doron, you justified deleting substantial content on the basis that this section relates to legal status. Though you did so unilaterally, I respected the principle involved. I removed additional statements of opinion on the same basis. That the P.A. "views" E. Jerusalem as a future capital of a future state is hardly a matter of legal status; their viewing it as such doesn't make it so. What I did was for the sake of consistency, not as tit for tat. If you want the section to reflect legal status, it can either include political opinions, comments and "views", or not; the question is where to draw the line. It seemed to me you were drawing it somewhat inconsistently. That is why I restored the status quo ante. A fresh start, and a fresh look at what belongs in the section and what doesn't, couldn't hurt. Hertz1888 00:28, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

There should be no views or opinions at all. We already have enough of that in Positions on Jerusalem and in Jerusalem itself. nadav (talk) 01:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Hertz1888, The Palestinian National Authority claims East Jerusalem as a future capital of an independent Palestine. While this indeed does not have any effect on the current legal status, it is certainly relevant to the issue of the section. This is not an "opinion", it is the official position of a political entity which was recognized by the Arab League (Rabat summit conference) and by Israel (Letters of Mutual Recognition) as the representative of the Palestinian people. Their position is relevant to the future status of East Jerusalem, whatever it may be, and thus it is relevant to the section. I'm sure you are aware that there is a debate even within Israel about the future status of East Jerusalem (Taba Summit), which would be impossible to appreciate without knowing about the Palestinian position.
The text I removed, on the other hand, is opinions, not official positions. If these were official positions, they would have been given a prominent reference in the article, rest assured.--Doron 07:55, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
It's not opinions, it's official positions of the U.S senate, house of representatives, and the European Parliament. Amoruso 14:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
What is this official position? Where does the source say that this is the official position? And what is it exactly?--Doron 15:02, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi guys,
The European parliament in Brussels also supports this view with Finnish MP Hannu Takkula declaring that Jerusalem was unified and that it belongs to Israel.
Maybe you are not aware of our european institutions but it is not because a MP supports something that the European parliament does it... The only representative of European organism, even parliament, is the President of the Commission...
Regards, Alithien 15:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
This was an event of the parliament, he wasn't speaking for himself. Read the source please. As explained above, even if it's not official resolution, it's important for customary law. As for the U.S, these are legal resolutions adopted by the legislative power of the United States system, therefore they are obviously official. Amoruso 15:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately what is written doesn't correspond to what sources claim.
This should better fit the source.
More, a better source should be found to state that "european parliement" would support Israeli annexion of East Jerusalem.
(nb - just my pov : you know, all these european guys are stupid, Jerusalem is our reunified capital for eternity; nevertheless we should realize they don't admit this; which only translates their hates towards us, that is clear, but it never minds, does it ?...)
Alithien 16:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Are you contesting what exactly ? Why did you remove the official resolutions of the United states congress ? Amoruso 16:22, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Oups. Sorry. This is a mistake : given you push everything at once, I removed everything at once.
Nevertheless, I agree with Doron comments before and think what you misunderstand some points.
I suggest we find a mediator.
Alithien 16:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
You should self revert because you provided no reason for the deletion. Agreeing with someone else who made no argument and removed it, is not a valid reason to remove sourced material and is looked upon harshly. Amoruso 16:30, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Sourced material removed

The position of United States and European parlimant is of course pertinent to the article. It is not less important than non binding resolutions of the United Nations body. The United Nations is not more of a legal body than the U.S senate. In fact one could argue it is less. International Law's main principle is customary law. The claim that countries don't recognise East Jerusalem as part of Israel is false by default following the resolutions of the united states parliaments cited. Note that customary law can be created also by speeches, agreements, and by statute of limitations - this effects reality on the ground, and is of course very important to note in a "status" section. Please don't remove for political reasons, though I'd try to maintain WP:AGF. Amoruso 14:51, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Are you claiming the US Congress and the European Union Parliament recognize Israeli sovereignty over East Jerusalem? Please quote a source that says so.--Doron 15:04, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
That's exactly what the source says, atleast concerning the U.S house of representatives. The parliament is bit weaker perhaps but still important to note. What exactly didn't you understand about the U.S resolutions ? I think the fact they're official was quite easy to understand... Amoruso 15:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
No. I think Doron is right : the source doesn't claim that... Alithien 16:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Right on what ? ":“The vibrant Jewish population of the historic Old City of Jerusalem was driven out by force during the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. In six days of war, Israel defeated those forces seeking its destruction and reunited the city of Jerusalem which had been artificially divided for 19 years" - please self revert immediately. Amoruso 16:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Add all opinions of uninvolved parties, including UN, EU, and US, to the article that is specifically devoted to them. The same material should not be repeated on every page relating to Jerusalem. 17:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC) [unsigned statement by Nadav1]
Hi Amoruso,
It is written in the 6 day war Israel defeated (...) forces seeking its destruction : ie the destruction of Jerusalem ?
The meaning you give to sentences is the same as the one I have just given right now...
I don't understand why or how you understand this that way...
Nobody in the world considers Jerusalem is the unified and eternal capital of Israel ! And so what ???
If they don't like this, they can come and explain. They will get a special reception, won't they ?
But I don't understand why it is so important you need to make it believe some guys in the US or in Europe Parliament would think the contrary.
Do you lack confidence in our rights ? Alithien 19:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
This is futile Amoruso. Nothing in the text you quote constitutes recognition of Israeli sovereignty. It is all empty words. If the House of Representatives wanted to declare it recognizes Israeli soverignty over East Jerusalem, I'm sure that is exactly what they would have stated. Passing a resolution that tells a beautiful story abouthow Israel "reunited" the city is not the same as declaring "we recognize Israeli sovereignty over all of Jerusalem". It's simply not there. I'm happy you realize the EU argument is a bit weak.--Doron 20:10, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
The house and the senate do clearly and explicity recognise Israel's unification of its capital. This is why they also ordered the relocation of the embassy (which was vetoed by Presidents of U.S in the past). It's a shame you and Alithien write things that have no support whatsoever and remove sourced material which you don't like. Amoruso 08:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
That's trivial, anybody can recognize the "unification", what does this mean exactly? Does anybody recognize Israel's sovereignty over East Jerusalem? Does any country want to move her embassy to East Jerusalem?--Doron 12:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, the Senate and the House of Representives want to move their embassy to East Jerusalem - the area intended for the location of the embassy is in East Talpiot. The house and the embassy explicity recognise Israel's sovereignty over Jerusalem, which is in the source. Anyway, I'm adding a legal opinion regarding the sovreignity to enrich the article. Amoruso 16:25, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Let me say that your recent additions indeed enrich the article and are well-written and neutral. I restored the bit about lack of recognition, slightly rephrased, with a source (though I'm sure a better source could be found, this will do for now). By the way, the intended location for the US embassy is indeed in East Talpiot, but it's in the Allenby Barracks compound which is well inside the part of East Talpiot that was ruled by Israel before 1967, i.e., not in East Jerusalem.--Doron 21:03, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Actually it's in the Haas promendate and this is a part of East Jerusalem proper. The letter you added is indeed quite insignificant but we can keep it I guess if it's better written. Thanks. I removed the leading on Blum, as he's an international law expert and his view is supported in his works he brings the appropriate footnotes, it's not a oneman view. Amoruso 16:10, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Haas promenade is just next to Allenby Barracks. Both are very close to the line between the Israeli zone and the no-man's land. I may be wrong and the exact future location of the embassy is not in former no man's land, but it is most certainly not in East Jerusalem. Anyway, we can just wait and see where they locate it.
As for your last edits:
  • There's no reason to hide the fact that Yehuda Blum was an Israeli ambassador. The reader might want to know that this particular legal expert is also involved in the dispute.
  • As for the 1990 resolution "recognizing the unified Jerusalem as Israel's capital", this is not the phrasing of the resolution. According to the resolution, Congress acknowledges that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel and believes that Jerusalem should remain undivided, which is quite different from the phrasing you introduced to this article. Could you perhaps give a direct quote of the source you're citing?--Doron 00:09, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
This quotation I gave is very similar, I'll check it again. I'm removing the ambassador thing, it's not relevant, he's known for being a legal expert on international law issues. Amoruso 11:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Blum became an ambassador after he wrote this paper so it's not relevant to that paper, and, as I've noted before, this material was included as a deliberate attempt at poisoning the well. It would be better to actually write an article on Blum, so that if the editor clicks on the link, he can get a full picture of the person. Jayjg (talk) 17:46, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

US

Is there a reason that mention of the US President's legal obligation was removed? It seems quite salient, so unless it is incorrect... TewfikTalk 23:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

It is treated better and at length in Jerusalem Embassy Act. It is too complicated to put it all here. Saying that the president has a legal obligation or that the act is binding on him is confusing - binding on him to do what? As that article explains, the executive maintains that the act can't be read to impose an obligation to change the US position on Jerusalem, e.g. recognize it as Israel's capital, as Congress does not have that power - recognition is an executive function. (The US Congress is limited by the Constitution - it is not like the British Parliament or the Israeli Knesset.) On the other hand, the executive has respected other portions of the act e.g. the waivers, as noted in the article. People who are interested should read the other article, which is a fine summary as far as I can tell (I didn't write any of it).John Z 02:50, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Two issues

Jayjg is making an absurd attempt to block of discredit two necessary inclusions in the next. My attempts to include mention of planning restrictions for Arabs are being previcated with his attemps to prefix the sentence with the qualifying insistence that the claim is only according to the apparently dubious findings of the sources given, even though the sources I cite are both themselves heavily referenced, and on of them is from the World Bank. How many sources do you require before you will end this chirade?

He also insists that mention that Yehuda Blum, who is cited as an international expert who justifies Israel's occupation, was an Israeli ambassador is well poisoning. Quite the contrary, it simply must be made clear that this expert is not objective. He had already worked for the Israeli government when he made this comment, but, excluding perhaps his name, there is no suggestion given that this comes from someone who might be construed as partisan.Nwe 16:08, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your first complaint, WP:V and WP:NPOV are quite clear; see, for example, WP:NPOV#Attributing and substantiating biased statements. Regarding Blum, your statement that "it simply must be made clear that this expert is not objective" is an admission that your intent is poisoning the well. Jayjg (talk) 17:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
It demonstrates that my intent is guarding against misleading information. Failure to mention Blum's connection to the Israeli government gives too much credence to the suggestion that Israel's occupation is legal, which is not generally an internationally repected point of view. The issue goes beyond Blum being Jewish, he has worked for and assisted the Israeli government and Israeli policy. While it may be true in some respect that no expert is non-partisan, Blum's position is unusually slanted. With regards to the second matter, your attribution might be justified the if the statement in question were an opinion. But it is no, it is a verified fact supported by vast findings and accepted by international institutions.Nwe 16:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
The statement that some international law experts insist East Jerusalem is not occupied is not "misleading", but simple fact. The "connection to the Israeli government" you keep on inserting happened years after he wrote the paper. Poisoning the well is a clear violation of WP:NPOV#Fairness of tone, and your arguments make it clear that that is precisely your intent. Regarding the other matter, WP:V is quite clear, as is WP:NPOV; opinions must be attributed to the people making the claims. As this is an incontrovertible violation of two policies, any future edits which remove that information will simply be reverted without comment. Jayjg (talk) 01:24, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Excessive citing of WP policies we are all aware of is absolutley pointless when the issue in question bears no relevance to such policies. If every fact that required citation needed a qualification that you are assigning to this one then the site would be unreadable. I have now added a third, pro-Israeli source to the assertion. As I have said, these are not opinions, but facts verified by the sources given. On the second issue, according to the investigation I've done into his career, Blum began working with the IDF in 1956, and with the Foreign Office in 1962 and was first part of an Israeli delegation to the UN in 1973. The second of the two sources cited was only published in 1974, the first being in 1968. The recent addition of more academics justifying Israel's occpation, meanwhile, is a clear violation of WP:NPOV#Undue weight.Nwe 10:59, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
If you want to add a third source, cite that source as well. And the removal of other academics is a violation of WP:NPOV and WP:WEASEL. Again, any edits that remove proper citations of the individuals making claims will simply be reverted. Jayjg (talk) 17:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
The third source has been cited. I am not removing citations, I am removing needless attributions . WP policy does not demand that every finding and fact have an attribution to the sources that verify them, that is why its articles are still readable. The sentence in question neither implies a quotation nor an opinion, but an almost-universally accpted fact. It neither contradicts WP:Verifiability and WP:NPOV as you have clamed. Such an attribution as you claim is need become even more absurd if the sources cited are multiple. The removal or inclusion of academics has nothing to do with WP:WEASEL. And as I have already said, reference to too many of them violates WP:NPOV#Undue weight. Nwe 21:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
WP:NPOV is quite clear on this: "Where we might want to state an opinion, we convert that opinion into a fact by attributing the opinion to someone... The reference requires an identifiable and objectively quantifiable population, and should ideally be attributed to named individuals who are regarded as reliable." On the other hand, WP:NPOV#Undue weight is entirely unrelated; providing 10 citations for a point instead of one is good practice, and not a violation of anything. Re-read these policies please. Jayjg (talk) 22:32, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Quite clear on what? Rather than I needing to re-read these polices, I feel it is you who needs to re-read my messages and understand the point I am trying to convey to you. What purpose did you intend for the above quotation? As I have already said, an opinion is not in question here. What is in question is a fact, a piece of information about which there is no serious dipute. The Israeli government openly admits to its Jewish majority policy in Jerusalem. I have now given a pro-Israeli, pro-Palestinian and neutral and reliable source verifying the restrictions. The other issue being discussed is relevant to WP:NPOV#Undue weight as mentioning many academics who represent a minority view gives undue weight to this view. And what did my removal of some of these academics have to do with WP:WEASEL?Nwe 20:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Claiming that opinions are facts does not actually turn them into facts, and opinions must be attributed, per the policies I presented. Two of the sources you brought did not mention any demographic related reasons for the discrimination, so I've removed them. You must attribute your claims to the sources that make them, and you must only have them say what they actually say, not other things you've added on. Mentioning the names of experts in international law who support a position is in no way a violation of WP:UNDUE, and avoids the problems of WP:WEASEL. Jayjg (talk) 20:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Do I have to repeat myself again? How does the issue of of WP:WEASEL ever arise? Excessive reference to obscure academics in support of a minority opinion clearly violates WP:UNDUE. You are quite right that "Claiming that opinions are facts does not actually turn them into facts, and opinions must be attributed", so obviously right, in fact, that I fail to see why you would make the point at all. Pointing out that fact is not opinion, on the other hand, is quite another matter, and you should demonstrate that it is an opinion, that there is serious dispute regarding it, if you want to. Mere contradiction, which you are currently attempting, serves no use and gets us nowhere. Why have you suddenly decided that the world bank source is not applicable, having acknowledged it for days at this stage? However, it seems that your concerns therefore relate to the issue of the Jewish majority. I will try to restructure things in accordance with this.Nwe 14:41, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Legal experts with international reputations like Lauterpacht, Stone, and Rostow are not "obscure academics", and naming them is not "excessive reference". In addition, you need to name exactly who says what; you cannot assert opinions as fact, and you certainly can't refer to Marshall J. Breger as "an article from the pro-Israel [[Middle East Forum]". Any edit you make that does not state explicitly who is making various claims, and replaces Marshall J. Berger's name with the ridiculous POV locution "an article from the pro-Israel Middle East Forum" will be reverted. Jayjg (talk) 21:29, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Mentioning all three, and even two, is excessive reference to a minority opinion, in breach of the aforementioned WP policy. The extent of their obscurity is completely subjective, but of the three original academics mentioned(Blum, Stone, Lauterpecht), only one had WP article about themselves, which in itself seems fairly categorical to me. You persist in this chirade of contradiction with regard to opinion Vs. fact. What is it that you see as an opinion? Fortunately you seem finally to be beginning to compromise. Why do you accept the slightly imperfect version now provided by Doron when you did not accept my own?Nwe 16:06, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Nonsense. You could argue that going on at length regarding their views might be considered "excessive" (though you'd be incorrect), but certainly naming them is not. The fact that Wikipedia doesn't have an article about Sir Elihu Lauterpacht speaks to Wikipedia's incompleteness, not Lauterpacht's "obscurity". There's a reason the Centre for International Law at Cambridge was named after him. Regarding "this chirade of contradiction with regard to opinion Vs. fact.", you need to thoroughly review WP:NPOV. Doron's version complies with that policy, and with WP:V. Your versions seem oblivious to those policies. Jayjg (talk) 03:01, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
It speaks of both, an individual needs to be fairly obscure at this stage if no-one has written an article on them on wikipedia. The mention of an extensive list of people who hold an opinion necessarily implies that their views are held by a great number of people than is actually the case.I have read WP:NPOV and WP:V and I know you believe, or claim to believe, that my edits violate them, but you have not explained why. Please to do so, how did my version differ from Doron's? You have, rather remarkably, failed to explain specificallly what difficulty you have with my edits. I would like to resolve that before reviewing the current version further.Nwe 21:31, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
What an astonishingly Wikicentric view of the world; if Wikipedia doesn't have an article on a person, they must not be important. Amazing. Moving on from that bit of nonsense, we encounter another; three names are described as "an extensive list". And by the way, if there actually were an "extensive list" of people provided, it would not be a violation of NPOV to state it, but rather a proof that it was not even a minority opinion. Finally, Doron's edit attributed opinions to those who hold those opinions, in accord with WP:NPOV - yours, on the other, directly violated that. I've explained the specifics in earlier comments, feel free to review them. Jayjg (talk) 21:53, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
It is not Wikicentric, merely common sense. Considering the number of people who use Wikipedia it goes without saying that someone of any significant renown would have been given an article by someone. You could argue that three names is not extensive, but it is excessive. Claiming that a large list of experts would not be a violation of NPOV, because it would claim that their views are not in a minority, is an absurd use of logic. There could be ten people mentioned, for example, out of a field of several thousand. Which opinions did I not attribute to those who hold them, particularly in my last edit? You have repeatedly failed to make that clear despite my persistent attempts to make you do so. Read over my last edit and your own messages if you disbelieve this.Nwe 17:36, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
"It goes without saying", "common sense", etc. are not actual arguments, and certainly not logical ones. The "absurd use of logic" is to claim that a large list of experts are a "minority". If a large list of experts say something, then Wikipedia needs to report it. Finally, as I mentioned in previous comments, you failed to attribute Marshall J. Breger's opinions to him. Jayjg (talk) 20:24, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
No, they are linguistic elaborations of arguments, in this case the argument being that someone of any significant repute is likely to have been given an article by someone on wikipedia at this stage. The issue we are discussing is also not whether the views of your "experts" should be reported , it never was. It is how many experts should be listed in this report. A large number subtly assigns undue weight to their opinions. If you had an issue to raise over the minor matter of attributing Marshall J. Breger's opinions to him, you could have simply changed that section of my edtis, and we could have discussed that. I take from your message that you had no other difficulty with my edits. In this case why did you revert them in their entirety?Nwe 15:00, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Three is not "a large number", no matter how many "linguistic elaborations" you provide. As for my edits, I made it clear several times what the consequences of failing to abide by policy would be; see, for example, this. You were perfectly well aware of what the problem was, since you kept reverting me on that. [2] Jayjg (talk) 01:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
That does not explain why you persistently reverted the entirety of my edits, and it doesn't seem you can. You also continually keep changing your argument on the number of experts needed. In your previous message you claimed that a large number of "experts" would justify the inclusion of their views (which was besides the point but nevermind), now you insist that there isn't a large number. Whether or not three is a large number is entirely subjective and it is pointless discussing it, but it does implicitly provide undue weight to a minority position.Nwe 18:03, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
A list of 3 experts is neither "a large number", nor undue weight. I won't be repeating myself further on that topic. Did you have any issues with the current article content, or changes you wished to make to it? As this section is very long, why don't you start a new section listing an proposed article changes. Jayjg (talk) 19:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
This section wouldn't have such an unwieldy appearance on length if you didn't insist on indenting all of my contributions to such an extent. Listing three experts, or even two, is undue weight because it provides the subtle illusion of a large number of experts supporting a minority position. I have certain concerns over the present version's failure to mention the precise difficulties faced by Arabs due to planning restrictions in East Jerusalem. However, I would like to resolve why exactly the entirety of my previous edits were reverted, in order to avoid such a situation again, before reviewing the current version with respect to the issues I was trying to ensure in my past contributions.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Nwe (talk • contribs)
The purpose for article Talk: pages is to discuss proposed article content. Are there any changes you propose to the current article content? Jayjg (talk) 22:39, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
The purpose of article talk is to discuss proposed changes and previous edits. I am entitled to request an explanation for your provious behaviour with regards to my edits, particualarly as your response will affect future changes I will make. As for proposed future changes, reference to the poor conditions in Arab quarters, rather than mere loss of residency status, induced by housing restrictions. With respect to the number of "experts" cited, I'll merely mention that refusing to engage in discussion on issues that might affect the NPOV of wikipedia is poor form.Nwe 16:57, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
How is mentioning Blum's career as an Israeli delegate "poisoning"? Surely association with Israel can't be too poisonous, even the Hebrew wikipedia is not shy about mentioning it [3]. The fact that you are trying to hide this piece of information is proof that it should be mentioned -- quoting a supportive opinion of just any legal expert is not the same as quoting a supportive opinion of one that has been involved in representing Israel in the international arena, and the reader should be informed about this and take it into consideration. Unless you believe that a legal opinion is based on pure logic and is not influenced by the inclinations of whoever is holding it, which I'm sure you don't. If you have nonpartisan legal experts that are saying the same, you can add them all and Blum's diplomatic career would no longer be important, but if all you can find is this one, then the reader ought to be cautioned. The real problem here is the weasel word "Some" at the beginning of the paragraph, which doesn't bother you for some reason.--Doron 08:53, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Doron, there aren't any "nonpartisan legal experts", on any sides of this debate. As for your argument that the fact I don't want it included is proof that it should be, I'm rather dismayed. I've seen the exact same kind of thing done in other articles, where people insist that various people who are critical of Hamas, neo-Nazis, Holocaust denial, whatever, be labeled as "Jews". Poisoning the well is a nasty tactic, and it should be shunned. Regarding the word "Some" at the beginning of the paragraph, others who have agreed with this position include Meir Shamgar, Elihu Lauterpacht, Julius Stone, and Eugene Rostow. Jayjg (talk) 14:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't appreciate your insinuations regarding a "tactic" employed by me, and I don't accept your comparison. To suggest that mentioning the fact that someone is Jewish is necessary for putting his words into context is racist, plain and simple. I am not saying that a person's ethnic background needs to be mention, but rather his professional background. While it is racist to assume that one's ethnic background may affect his views, it is only natural to expect one's professional and political background would affect his views. A more relevant comparison would be this (and please forgive me for this rather nasty comparison, I am only giving it in the narrow aspect of this discussion's context, nothing else implied): a while ago I stumbled across an "article" by an engineer that examined the gas chambers in Auschwitz and concluded that the number of Jews claimed to have been killed there is exaggerated. If such an article was to be given as a source in Wikipedia, wouldn't you think it would be important to note that this particular engineer was also an active member of a holocaust denial group?
Back to Blum -- at least one of the cited sources was written while he was already an Israeli delegate, i.e., a professional whose job is to represent Israeli positions. While other legal experts, Israeli, Arab, American, European, or whatever, would probably have a personal bias towards one side or the other, it is not the same as someone employed by a government as a diplomat who is expressing an opinion that is supportive to this government's interests. In short -- my point is that while other aspects of Blum's background (such as his ethnicity) are irrelevant, and may indeed constitute poisoning the well, his professional background is relevant and warrants mentioning. We should mention that he's a legal expert and that he is a former diplomat, both are relevant and neither constitutes poisoning the well.
As for other experts -- go on and quote them, and then this whole argument would no longer be relevant!--Doron 07:15, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
I didn't mean to imply that you were using a "tactic", and I'm sorry you inferred that from my words. Instead I've quoted other legal experts, who actually have a stronger reputation than Blum, so that should solve the problem. Jayjg (talk) 18:14, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, I thought you were familiar with Stone's position but I wasn't sure, now this paragraph looks much better. I have two concerns, though: first, the paragraph now suggests that Stone and Lauterpacht believe that Israel has sovereignty over the West Bank as well. I may have missed it, but I found no such indication in the cited article (and the footnote doesn't mention this either) -- was this your intention? Second, though English is not my first language, it appears to me that the author claims that Israel has the power or has the right to claim sovereignty over East Jerusalem, not that it has claimed sovereignty or is sovereign in East Jerusalem, am I wrong? (this is in reference to the question of whether Israel's policies constitute a claim of sovereignty, which the authors do not address)--Doron 22:49, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
I've removed the West Bank part, which was not germane to this article anyway. Regarding your second question, the first sentence in the quotation provided is clear: "Lauterpacht has offered a cogent legal analysis leading to the conclusion that sovereignty over Jerusalem has already vested in Israel." Jayjg (talk) 00:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
No, you can't say that in the lead of his name because it will be your WP:OR that there's some connection or relevance to that. You can certainly say that in an article about Blum obviously if it's true, but you can't say that here as it's leading the reader and poisoning his opinion with bias based on your OR. Amoruso 08:49, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Mentioning that he's a former diplomat is "poisoning the well" as much as mentioning that he is a "legal expert" is "sweetening the well". Both are equally relevant to the opinion he's stating.--Doron 09:00, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Wait, why are we mentioning this person? And then, if we are, how is him having served as UN rep somehow controversial? Okay, so he didn't make that statement in his capacity as UN rep, and maybe he even became that after, but the fact that he became UN rep is, at this point in time, the most important thing about this individual, an aside you can't do without. For example: 'legal expert X, who later became Prime Minister/Minister/Chair of, [etc.] had said that...' El_C 09:18, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Clearly, having served as United Nations representative of a country would top most people's resumes, save perhaps heads of State and so on. El_C 08:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

New Edits (Jerusalem Day, Difficutly of Arab life)

Jerusalem day is a national Israeli holiday and is relevant to the article.

There are no Israeli laws which make life difficult for Arab Israelis living in the Eastern part of Jerusalem. They can freely pass into the Jewish parts of the city, as many thousands do daily for work, school, and recreation/entertainment. There is no boarder between the two. If you can show proof of an Israeli law making life difficult, cite it when you edit it in. --יהושועEric 20:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Even better proof is this statement from the article:

In 1995, Israel began revoking permanent residency status from Palestinians who could not prove their "center of life" was in Jerusalem. This policy was ended four years later after it was discovered that more Palestinians were moving back in order to retain their status.

Obviously, if life was so bad for Arabs under Jewish sovereignty, they wouldn't have been leaving the Palestinian Authority to be under Israeli rule.

--Eliyahu S Talk 14:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

-wrong Categories

I removed the cateogries "divided cities" and "cities in the west bank" because they contradict the article. The article says the city was divided in 1948. Right now it's united under Israel. That might be a horrible thing not legal not whatever, but it's not under separate political entities. Wikipedia is also not a crystal ball. And east jerusalem is NOT a city... Amoruso 20:59, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

If you actually looked at the introduction to Divided Cities, you will see the statement of the use of the term in Wikipedia. --Peter cohen 21:08, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
I think you meant Divided cities. --Timeshifter 21:51, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks.--Peter cohen 12:03, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Ok then, self rv, but this situation is different obviously, since east jerusalem is current discussed territory not just historical concept, and it's misleading IMO. Amoruso 21:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. Nicosia is listed as divided too and is also the subject of a current dispute. --Peter cohen 12:03, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
OK. East Jerusalem is not technically a city. It is the name for part of a city. Jerusalem is the name of the city, not East Jerusalem. So I will leave out Category:Cities in the West Bank for now. Instead I added the categories Category:Israel and Category:West Bank.
East Jerusalem is the name for part of a divided city. Divided according to the definition at Divided cities. So it belongs in Category:Divided cities. It is also disputed territory. So it also belongs in Category:Disputed territories. You did not remove either of those categories in your last edit.
As for city subcategorization Category:Jerusalem should be a subcategory of Category:Cities in the West Bank and Category:Cities in Israel.--Timeshifter 11:48, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree that references to both Israel and WB need to be there, unless they become inherited categories e.g. by Jerusalem having both cats or Category:East Jerusalem being reintroduced and not immediately being proposed for re-deletion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Peter cohen (talk • contribs) 12:03, 9 August 2007.
I agree with adding the Categories Category:Divided cities, Category:Disputed territories, Category:Israel and Category:West Bank to the article. Thank you Timeshifter. Amoruso 12:16, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:ANI

Please see related discussion at

Discussion is now archived here: [4].--Timeshifter 17:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Category:West Bank

Tewfik keeps removing this category in spite of the consensus reached to keep it in the previous talk section. See this diff of Tewfik's last removal. --Timeshifter 23:19, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Provided Category:Jerusalem Governorate remains, it is in a tree under the West Bank. --Peter cohen 00:48, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) The governorates are not really operational any more, if they ever were. And the governorates are political structures more than geographic categories. From the Jerusalem Governorate article: "the governorate exists only in theory and constitutes an Unrecognized region."

From Governorates of the Palestinian National Authority: "Note: On June 14, 2007, President Mahmoud Abbas dismissed Haniyeh's government, and appointed Fayyad to form an emergency government. However, Haniyeh and Hamas maintain that these actions were illegal, and that Haniyeh is still the Prime Minister; Haniyeh still exercizes de facto authority in the Gaza Strip, while Fayyad's authority is limited de facto to the West Bank."

From a webpage: "Following the Oslo Accords, the West Bank was divided into areas A, B and C. Israel assumed direct administrative and security control of Area C, a contiguous block comprising approximately 60% of the West Bank. Areas A and B that came under Palestinian Authority administrative control consist of more than 60 non-contiguous areas."

For maps of all this: [5]

So the Jerusalem governorate may not even cover the Israeli settlements annexed to Jerusalem and Israel. But Category:West Bank covers East Jerusalem geographically. --Timeshifter 08:01, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

the annexation of East Jerusalem occured many years before the Oslo Accords. Area C has nothing to do with East Jeruaslem. Area C covers Israeli settlements and others areas of the West Bank. East Jerusalem is not Area C - It is Israel. Your comments here prove again that you don't know the material. Read basic history concerning Jerusalem and the annexations (even if they're 'illegal'):[6]. Then read what's Area C. [7] Amoruso 13:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

" situation in the West Bank is much more complicated. The Israeli-Palestinian agreements created three zones: Area A consists of territory under the full civil and security control of the PA; Area B is territory under the PA's civil and partial security control, but Israeli forces exercise predominant control; and Area C remains under full Israeli control and contains the Israeli settlements. By 2000, 17 percent of the West Bank was classified as Area A, 29 percent as Area B, and 59 percent as Area C. Much of the area where the PA exercises some type of control does not form a contiguous territory, however. Gaza is separated from the West Bank, while in the West Bank, Areas A and B are themselves divided among 227 separate areas (199 of which are smaller than 2 square kilometers) that are separated from one another by Israeli-controlled Area C. All but 40,000 West Bank Palestinians live in Areas A and B."... Amoruso 13:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

You are quoting from
http://www.prb.org/Articles/2002/TheWestBankandGazaAPopulationProfile.aspx
Thanks for yet again proving my points. Even though some residents of East Jerusalem were allowed to vote in the PNA elections the Jerusalem Governorate does not indicate a geographic entity that covers all the West Bank territories annexed to Jerusalem and the Jerusalem suburbs since 1967. Note the Area A, B, C info. Therefore the most logical geographic categories to add to the Jerusalem article are Category:Israel and Category:West Bank. It is all covered in detail here:
Palestinian legislative election, 2006
Palestinian National Authority
Mahmoud Abbas
Since Hamas took over the Gaza Strip, and since Mahmoud Abbas dissolved the unity government there is no elected government based on the governorates and their voters.
From Mahmoud Abbas: "From On June 14th, 2007 Abbas dissolved the Hamas-led unity government and declared a state of emergency in response to the increased violence in the Gaza strip."--Timeshifter 20:28, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

(unindent).

Also, not all parts of East Jerusalem are Palestinian-inhabited. And not all Palestinians living in East Jerusalem are allowed to vote. Keep clicking the map to the right to see it at full size. From: Palestinian legislative election, 2006#Voting in East Jerusalem:

"on January 10 2006, Israeli officials announced that a limited number of Palestinians in East Jerusalem would be able to cast votes at post offices, as they did in 1996."

So even before the elected government was dissolved, the Jerusalem Governorate was not a geographic structure. It was a voting district. That district changed in size depending on who was allowed to vote. Now it is not functioning. --Timeshifter 00:37, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

More scope

East Jerusalem contains much more than the Old City. It also includes the American colony, site of the U.S. Consulate, and that whole "downtown" shopping area, including the Rockefeller Museum. It offends my Jewish sensibilities when you imply that half the Old City really belongs to Jordan. They took it from us, and now they say it was always theirs? Yoninah 7 July 2005 18:10 (UTC)

"They took it from us"? Is this some obscure usage of "they" which can simultaneously refer to Romans and Jordanians as the same entity, while lumping together a 2000-year-old theocratic monarchy with a republic founded by atheist nationalists as "us"? Anyway, if you want to expand on the American colony or the shopping area, I'm sure more information on other East Jerusalem neighborhoods would be a welcome addition. - Mustafaa 7 July 2005 18:49 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:East_Jerusalem/Archive_1&oldid=1079215665"