Talk:East Jerusalem/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

recent changes

I have reverted recent changes, which included:

• Changing almost all references to Palestinian residents to Arab residents. There's no justification for this change.
• Removal of several sentences from the introduction, which contrary to Eliyyahu's edit summary, are not duplicate.
• Referring to Abu Tor as a mixed neighborhood -- there's only a small Jewish minority in this largely Palestinian neighborhood, which doesn't warrant describing it as mixed; by this standard, almost every neighborhood in Jerusalem may be described as "mixed".

Please discuss these changes before reintroducing them into the article.--Doron 22:09, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with most of the reversions you have made. I have caried out a copyedit to remove the repititious element. --Peter cohen 23:01, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks.--Doron 23:45, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

There is no reason to refer to Jerusalem Arabs as "Palestinians". This term only reflects the biased nature of the editor that put it there, because Palestinian is a national and not ethnic identification, as the last time I checked the status of Jerusalem was far from decided in Palestinians favour. There is not a "small minority of Jews" in Abu Tor, but a half a dozen streets. There is a small minory of Jews in Ktaf har haZeitim (ras il-'amud), Shekh Jarrah (derech har hazetim), or Ir David, but that is not mentioned in the article. Eliyyahu 04:08, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

There are scores of references in the literature to East Jerusalem Arab residents as "Palestinians" and there's no reason to impose your personal view about Palestinian identity on the article. As for Abu Tor, "half a dozen streets" is too vague -- if you have a reliable source that indicates a significant Jewish population, please provide it. As it seems from population figures, this is unlikely to be the case. Quarter 8, which includes Abu Tor, has a Jewish population of 43,879, whereas the population of the Jewish sub-quarters of 83 (East Talpiyyot; 12,158), 84 (Gilo; 27,258) and 85 (Giv'at Hamatos, Har Homa and Mar Elias Monastery; 4,604) sums up to 44,020, meaning that there would have to be a significant Arab population in these neighborhoods in order for there to be a significant Jewish population in Abu Tor. But, again, if you have reliable figures that clarify this issue, let's discuss them.--Doron 08:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

The Jewish part of Abu Tor is called Givat Hananiah and it is included on your source of 2005 population figures in sub-quarter 53. It includes streets Hamefaked, Ein Rogel, Amminadav, Nahshon, Yishai, Gihon, Oved, Asa'el, Batsheva, Avigail, and Naomi. There is also Jewish population in the areas I indicated in my previous comment. As for "scores of references" to Jerusalem Arabs as "Palestinians" that is not a good argument. There are scores of references to Jews as "infidels", so what? Jerusalem Arabs is a neutral term, which however makes clear that as opposed to Palestinians they hold Israeli green cards and enjoy freedom of movement within Israel as well as access to medical services and benefits. Eliyyahu 00:55, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• No, the Jewish part of Abu Tor was occupied in 1948 and has been part of Israel since. It is not part of East Jerusalem, and thus irrelevant to this article.
• "Palestinian" is not a derogatory term and is widely used by reliable and citable sources, while "infidel" is derogatory and you won't find it as a description of Jews in a reliable and citable source. This is an old argument, and Wikipedia policy is very clear on this. East Jerusalem Arabs are mostly not Israeli citizens.--Doron 08:44, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually you are mistaken, it came under Jewish sovereignty after 1967, as it lies to the east of Derech Hevron. "Palestinian" is not a derogatory term, but it is also not a neutral term, and is misleading in the context of an impartial article. As far as your revert of the 1981 annexation of East Jerusalem, it has to be mentioned; otherwise you are purposely leaving out one of the crucial points in the dispute over the territory. Eliyyahu 13:39, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid you don't have your facts right.

• I refer you to Alona Vardi, ed., The New Israel Guide, (מדריך ישראל החדש), vol. 12 (Jerusalem), pp. 35, "Abu Tor":

בעת הקרבות במלחמת העצמאות נכבש חלקה העליון של השכונה בידי ישראל. השכונה נשארה חצויה, וקו שביתת הנשק (1949) עבר בתוכה. בחלקה העליון התיישבו יהודים, והוא נקרא גבעת חנניה.

My translation: During the War of Independence the upper part of the neighborhood was occupied by Israel. The neighborhood remained divided, and the Armistice line (1949) passed inside it. Jews settled in the upper part, and it was called Giv'at Hananya.

• The law you are referring to, which was passed in 1980, not 1981, only declared the 'united' Jerusalem to be Israel's capital, it did not attempt to change the status of any part of Jerusalem. East Jerusalem was de facto annexed in 1967. There was no official explicit annexation, only an extension of Israel's law, jurisdiction and administration to East Jerusalem. Whether or not this amounts to de jure annexation is a matter of dispute among scholars and legal experts, and at any rate it is not recognized by anyone outside Israel. The article should state facts, and you edit is incorrect in more ways than one.

Besides, so far you haven't presented any good reason why not to use the term "Palestinians" despite it being used extensively in the literature. Just because you think it is not neutral or misleading doesn't make it so.--Doron 14:55, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Please avoid the condescending tone and adressing by name - this is not a chat room. I admit that you are right that the Jewish Abu Tor (גבעת חנניה) was settled in 1949 (although historical maps show this areas as no-man's land). However, since it is still referred to as Abu Tor, Abu Tor is usually considered Jerusalem's only mixed Jewish-Arab neighbourhood. Apropos annexation of eastern parts of Jerusalem following the Six-Day War, you have to remember that only Jerusalem and Golan Heights were annexed by Israel (and not the remaining territory, which came under military administration), and the Knesset law calling Jerusalem an "eternal and indivisible capital of the State of Israel" is significant for anyone examining this geo-politico-religious dispute.Eliyyahu 15:12, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that calling you by name was condescending and I apologize if you found by tone offensive. Now, since the article is about East Jerusalem, the fact that Jews live in a part of what is considered Abu Tor but is not in East Jerusalem hardly concerns this article. You can change the text from "Abu Tor" to "the lower parts of Abu Tor" if you want it to be more accurate. The issue can be elaborated in a new article called Abu Tor, which you can have the honor of starting. But this is not an issue of East Jerusalem demographics. As for the 1980 law, it is already mentioned in the article, but once again, it is not in any way related to annexation, it was only declarative and I don't think it belongs in the lead of the article. Nothing regarding Jerusalem's status has changed in 1980 (or in 1981), the only relevant event is when Israel applied her law, jurisdiction and administration in East Jerusalem in 1967, and that certainly belongs in the lead, but in this form, not by calling it "annexation", which is highly disputed.--Doron 16:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Apart from the issue of the date, I think the text

"In 1981, Israel annexed East Jerusalem, declaring all of Jerusalem an "eternal and indivisible capital of the State of Israel." The annexation has not been recognised internationally."

is satisfactory.

Only problem being that it is not true -- the Jerusalem Law has nothing to do with annexation. The issue of annexation is described very accurately in the "Sovereignty" subsection.

I do though have an issue with what was the following sentence.

The annexation has not been recognised internationally. United Nations Resolution 242 calls for Israeli withdrawal from territories occupied in 1967, including, it has been argued, East Jerusalem.

None of the discussion in Resolution 242 suggests that East Jerusalem may have been excluded. The dispute is about the significance ot the absence of "the" before "territories". I have reworded the sentence to leave "the" missing but to indicate that East Jerusalem was part of the territories being considered.--Peter cohen —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 15:16, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The final revision removed the word annexation from the article. The rest stands correct. Jerusalem Arabs are neither Palestians nor Israelis, so please stop pushing your political agenda into the article. The current revision states all pertinent facts without assuming either that East Jerusalem will become separate from the rest of Jerusalem or the reverse. The status quo is presented and whether one agrees with it or considers it a travesty is beside the point. Eliyyahu 15:00, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the Jerusalem Law belongs in the lead, because it didn't make any change. 'Complete and united' Jerusalem has been Israel's capital since 1967. The law started as a much more significant initiative by the opposition MK Geula Cohen and was subsequently watered down before passing as a law. It is not an important event in the history of Jerusalem and it did not change the status of Jerusalem in any way, it's only importance was within contemporary Israeli internal politics, so I really don't see why it deserves to be mentioned in the lead of the article. But if it is absolutely necessary, at least get it right. The law passed in July 1980, not 1981.

As for 'Palestinians', as I said before, East Jerusalem Arabs are referred in the literature as 'Palestinians' very often. What counts in Wikipedia is verifiability -- a significant body of reliable and citable literature calls them 'Palestinians' (I can give you a very long list if you like), while you so far haven't presented a single source that denies them being Palestinian. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is politically motivated or a travesty. Give us a source that objects to the use of the word 'Palestinian' with relation to East Jerusalem Arabs and we can begin discussing this issue.--Doron 18:28, 22 September 2007 (UTC)--Doron 18:28, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Jerusalem Law is not a matter of internal politics any more than is Palestinians' claim to Jerusalem as their future capital - it clearly belongs in the article. For example, in a scholarly publication like Encyclopaedia Britannica it belongs in the first paragraph :[Jerusalem] "ancient city of the Middle East that since 1967 has been wholly under the rule of the State of Israel" [...] "Israel reaffirmed Jerusalem's standing as its capital by promulgating a special law in 1980". As far as the word Palestinian is concerned, I think we are going in circles here. I think I answered that in my previous response, but let me put it this way: Jerusalem's population is either Jewish or Arab (plus a couple thousand Armenians and a few hundred Gypsies). Jews are both an ethnicity and a religion. Arabs are an ethnic group which can be either Muslim or Christian (whether Bedouin or Druze are Arabs is disputed). These identities have existed for thousands of years. A hundred years ago there were no Israelis nor Palestinians - only Jews and Arabs, or Jews and Muslims and Christians. Until any part of Jerusalem actually comes under Palestinian control, calling the Arab residents Palestinian is either nonsense or propaganda (of which there is no lack in the media). Eliyyahu 05:57, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

We're not going in circles -- we're not going anywhere -- because you are yet to provide a single reference that a dispute even exists regarding the identity of East Jerusalem Palestinians. You argument is very interesting, but it is not based on published material and is completely unacceptable. We have massive reference in the literature to East Jerusalem Palestinians as such, and on the other hand nothing. As the article is written now, the only reference to anything Palestinian is the Palestinian claim, which makes no sense since the uninitiated reader doesn't know that more than half of East Jerusalem's residents are Palestinians -- just because one wikipedia editor disputes their being "Palestinian". Your arguments thus far constitute original research.

Since East Jerusalem Arabs are referred to in the literature as "Palestinians", and since you are unable to counter this by anything citable to support your opposition to the application of the term, and since at least one other wikipedian agrees with me on this, I'm restoring the previous phrasing. I urge you to abide by Wikipedia policy and build consensus before making any further disputed edits.--Doron 15:36, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Which "literature" are you talking about? Britannica and other major encyclopaedic entries avoid this definition. East Jerusalem Arabs are not Palestinian, and it is far from certain that they will ever be. It is perfectly clear what is meant by Arab Jerusalemites, so please stop pushing your political agenda. Eliyyahu 05:24, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

They are referred to as Palestinians very frequently, including the media (CNN, BBC, The New York Times, The Jerusalem Post, Haaretz), numerous UN resolutions, numerous official statements by the United States, and even prominent Israeli politicians such as Olmert and Rabin, and a fair number of scholarly publications and books. Now that I have established that the term "Palestinians" is applied quite frequently to East Jerusalem Arabs, it is your duty to establish that there is some sort of controversy about this application, otherwise you have no case. I don't appreciate your accusations of me pushing a political agenda, and urge you to comply with Wikipedia policy regarding consensus, original research and assuming good faith.--Doron 20:40, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

• First of all, media is not a scholarly source, encyclopedias are. Having said that, if you do a comprehensive search on Jerusalem Arabs as opposed to Palestinian residents (a highly pro-Palestinian phraseology) you will find that each of the sources you provided have a higher per centage reference to them as Arabs as opposed to Palestinians:

CNN: 1,620 (Pal), 5,770 (Arab) [1] BBC: 2,310 (Pal), 8,270 (Arab) [2] NYT: 4,270 (Pal), 12,600 (Arab) [3] HAARETZ: 1,820 (Pal), 6,620 (Arab) [4] JPOST: 1,190 (Pal), 10,900 (Arab) [5] US website: 427 (Pal), 2,490 (Arab) [6] Scholar: 283 (Pal), 29,300 (Arab) [7] Books beta: 280 (Pal), 12,400 (Arab) [8]

Since you think "google" searches are indications of consensus, if you run a simple search for East Jerusalem Arabs vs. East Jerusalem Palestinians you will get 4,170 hits for the former and a mere 821 for the latter. Now, I don't think that this is relevant in the least. The bottom line is Jerusalem Arabs is a NEUTRAL term, while "Palestinians" isn't. Eliyyahu 22:54, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

• By "consensus" I mean, of course, consensus among editors, which you have failed to seek. I again strongly advise you to read WP:CON and comply.
• Your comparison is misleading, because my results were for "East Jerusalem" and yours was just for "Jerusalem". Naturally, a compound expression appears less frequently than each of its components. Here's a fairer comparison of Palestinians/Arabs occurrences: CNN 1,590/1,190, BBC 2,310/1,220 NYTimes 4,280/3,660 Haaretz 1,830/1,600 JPost 1,180/988 US DoState 423/297 Google Scholar 3,590/3,320 Google Books 909/887.
• This comparison is meaningless anyway, I have established that the term is widely used, which you haven't denied. The fact that using "Arabs" is also possible does not weaken my argument. Since it is widely used, there's no reason not to use it, especially since it is relevant to the context of the article.
• The only reason which you bring up not to use it is because in your opinion it is not neutral. Your opinion is of no consequence here, the only thing that matters is published material. If you have a good reference that contests this usage, bring it and we can discuss it. Until then, you have nothing.--Doron 00:23, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• The search for Jerusalem's Arab residents speaks of the same people you are trying to reference, and is the preferred terminology ("east Jerusalem" as opposed to simply Jerusalem doesn't matter, for there are no Arabs in "west Jerusalem", so the same people are being referenced). The fact that some media use non-neutral terms may be misleading, but is hardly an argument. After all, most Arab propaganda still refers to Israel as a "Zionist Entity". Before the creation of the state of Israel the term Palestinian was applied equally to Jewish, Arab or Turkish inhabitants of Palestine (Eretz Israel), native or immigrant. It now implies a national identity - Jerusalem Arabs carry Israeli, not Palestinian papers, and enjoy all the benefits that come with that, they are not Palestinian. Clearly, they have a unique status, different from Israeli Arabs and Palestinians. "Jerusalem Arabs" is a neutral term which makes this difference clear. Eliyyahu 02:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

If you compare the search for Jerusalem Arabs and Jerusalem Palestinians you'll see an even bigger difference in favor of the latter. But again, this is besides the point. East Jerusalem Arabs are Palestinian, they are widely referred to as such (as I have proven and you have not denied), and over the last two weeks you have been unable to support your arguments with a single source! If you have a source to support your view, we can discuss it, otherwise your edits are disruptive and defy Wikipedia policy.--Doron 08:11, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, you have not logically refuted a single point I have made, and it is that very failure that is leading you to resort to internet hit searches or rhetoric to support your biased position. The parallel to the term "Palestinian" is "Israeli", not "Jew", so even if Jerusalem Arabs were Palestinian it would have been incorrect to speak of them as such in the context of Arab vs. Jewish neighbourhoods, which is what is being discussed. However, despite their family ties to the Palestinians it is not their legal identity any more than that of the Arabs of Jaffa or Haifa, even though the latter are citizens, not residents of Israel. I simply don't understand why you are belabouring such an obvious point. Eliyyahu 18:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

There's nothing for me to refute, you have expressed nothing but your personal opinion about what is and what isn't Palestinian. I, on the other hand, have not stated my personal opinion, which is of no interest to anybody, but instead demonstrated that the usage of the term is prevalent in the literature. If you wish to change Wikipedia's view on how the term "Palestinian" ought to be defined, I suggest you start with the Palestinian people article, and I recommend you provide reliable sources to support your position, rather than rhetorics, which have no place in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a debate club.--Doron 19:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I am afraid it is you who are using rhetoric, while I am using logic. Wikipedia does not consitute a reliable source, so I suggest you open up encyclopedias Americana, Britannica or Hebraica for definitions. More importantly, Jerusalem Arabs, Arabs of Jerusalem or Arab Jerusalemites is the prevalent term by non-Arab official bodies and often by the Arab countries themselves. Eliyyahu 22:26, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

restrictions on Palestinians

Jayjg, according to Haaretz [9], policies of the Ministry of the Interior have caused a serious housing shortage that forced Arab residents to seek housing elsewhere and eventually loose their residency. Did you remove this sentence because you don't consider Haaretz to be a reliable source?--Doron 22:29, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I removed the sentence because Nwe combined it with obviously unacceptable edits, as I explained here. Feel free to re-add it; I am sure you will have no difficulty adding in a way that conforms with WP:NPOV. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:42, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I thought there was something wrong specifically with this quote. Fine.--Doron 01:16, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

This is only the opinion of the author. As you can read in the same article, "A single visit to Israel every three years is considered sufficient to maintain links to the city, and therefore permanent residency status"

Therefore housing shortage can't be a reason to lose residency. You don't need a house to visit East Jerusalem.Aufsteher (talk) 22:40, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Me violating the rules

As it appears, I have violated WP:3RR. I shall refrain from editing this article for a day to cool off, if somebody wishes to report me, go ahead, I wish you good health.--Doron 16:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Doron, you are wise.

Thank you for your good work !

Shavoua tov ! Alithien 16:18, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest that you should refrain from editing this article permanently,and I suggest refrain from editing political articles, since your behaviour is damaging. Good day. Amoruso 16:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll consider your advice.--Doron 20:10, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I know it's been a year, but just want to say I think you made some good points.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 06:57, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Missing information

Several key sections are missing from this entry:

• The question of zoning, permit and demolition policy
• The question of education and health services
• Governance structure and voting (more clarification needed)
• Relations between East Jerusalem and Palestinians in the West bank
• Relations between East Jerusalem Palestinians and Jews who have moved into the area
• Ongoing settlement construction in the midst of arab neighborhoods, such as Silwan.

Looking at the history of this page, I see many editors who would likely be ideologically opposed to inclusion of these points. However, to anyone who has ever lived in, or ever talked to people who live in east Jerusalem, these are key issues. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 20:55, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

map

What does it mean? What do the coloured areas mean? What do the red lines mean? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.140.57.113 (talk) 12:18, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

inappropraite footnote (POV and original research)

Citation 22 in the article is completely inappropriate for the following reasons:

1) It does not cite the actual work by Lauterpacht. It goes out of its way to hide the fact that the material in question was not a legal analysis, but part of a political pamphelt published by the Anglo-Israel association in 1968. It is not a work of legal scholarship. It is political advocacy.

2) The Citation presents long paragraphs of what appear to be original research in evaluating Lauterpacht's views. This is completely inappropriate especially in a citation. If this is not original research, it is uncertain what the material in the footnote sources back to.

3) The citation has its own citations. Material is being citated in support of arguments not even being made in the article.

4) The phrase "cogent legal analysis" is explicitly POV.

174.46.28.58 (talk) 22:04, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

The citation suffices to establish that the text is correct about Julius Stone. However, it does not suffice in regard to Lauterpacht - for that we need a direct citation or a citation to a third part who was not a controversial activist. Also the quotation was excessive and said very little. Zero^talk 01:10, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Name

Can anyone supply the Arabic and Hebrew names for East Jerusalem? It is standard Wikipedia formatting to include them in the opening paragraph, along with transliterations into the Latin alphabet. Skinsmoke (talk) 17:54, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

A transliteration into the Latin alphabet of Al-Quds Arab Capital of Culture would also be useful, and would be standard practice. Skinsmoke (talk) 18:07, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Demographics question

The article says, "The population of East Jerusalem is about 410,000..." Which East Jerusalem does this refer to? The Jordanian municipality shown on the map, which contained six square kilometers, or the Israeli one with about ten times that area? 69.12.180.231 03:38, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

"East Jerusalem" only existed as a Jordanian municipality unit, so there is no point in trying to have an Israeli equivalent. According to Jerusalem municipality website, the total population of Jerusalem in 2003 comprised 693,200 people, of which 464,500 (67.0%) were Jews and 228,700 (33.0%) were non-Jews. Since most non-Jewish residents are concentrated in the eastern part of the city, and the count of 410,000 people refers to the 1948-67 Jordanian municipality borders, that would mean that only about 52% of east Jerusalem is populated by non-Jews, and western Jerusalem is populated only by 280,000 persons. This sounds highly implausible. Eliyyahu 06:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I suggest amending the sentence, "Only a few hundred Jews were living in East Jerusalem at that time," to "Only a few hundred Jews remained in East Jerusalem following Jordan's expulsion of the Jewish Quarter."

The reason is the number of each ethnic group is currently used as justification for who is now entitled to live in East Jerusalem. The Jews didn't choose to leave under the Jordanian Occupation, they were kicked out.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupation_of_the_West_Bank_and_East_Jerusalem_by_Jordan#1948_Arab-Israeli_war Labellesanslebete (talk) 16:10, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Whole of Jerusalem?

The linked article talks about a "future" Palestinian state. Also, the actual document (English translation here) does not directly specify the "whole" of Jerusalem as many have reported. Perhaps it is better to say something like "even though current Palestinian law ambiguously specifics Holy Jerusalem (Al Quds Al Sharif) as the capital of a future Palestinian state" ?? I believe that the term "Holy Jerusalem" was the name that Palestinian negotiators referred to, for any parts of Jerusalem they would have gained sovereignty over, during the Taba talks. Ramallite ^(talk) 21:52, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Is there any other documentation which explains this usage better? Jayjg ^(talk) 16:01, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Not really - and that's what makes it ambiguous. Right wing Israeli sources insist that it means the "whole" but that is not based on hard evidence. The best source I can find is this source which claims that Al-Quds al Sharif is "part and parcel of the territories occupied in 1967" which does not make it the "whole" of Jerusalem. I think since it is at best ambiguous, it should be stated as such. Ramallite ^(talk) 18:10, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Resurrecting this section. The Palestinian Declaration of Independence doesn't specify that it's East Jerusalem and I'm not quite sure where that idea comes from. Can anyone shed some light on this? As is, the cited translation simplys say "Jerusalem" as the capital so I'm inclined to change it to match the source. Sol (talk) 21:49, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Dead Link

Foodnote 16, The source that should cite the number of Palestinians living in east Jersualem, is a dead link. Can anyone find find this information elsewhere? --195.86.127.78 (talk) 07:33, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

done Sean.hoyland - talk 07:55, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Intro-No Source

In the intro, there is the following:

"Despite the Armistice terms guaranteeing access to Holy Sites, under Jordanian control Jews were banned from the Wailing Wall in Jerusalem, and all synagogues were demolished."

There was no source for the article listed and a quick Google search yielded no results.

Also, some of the sources are quite obviously biased. For example, one of the sources is Ralph Israeli who has books such as Dangers of a Palestinian State". I didn't remove sections like that, but I believe they should be looked into. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.7.65.70 (talk) 09:02, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

UNSC Res 478

Here is a source that disputes 478 is "non-binding":

• Playfair, Emma, ed. (1992). International law and the administration of occupied territories: two decades of Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Oxford University Press. p. 477.

  Although Resolution 478 (1980) was not adopted under Chapter VII of the Charter, it is at least arguable that it is binding on Member States under Article 25 as the language of the resolution, particularly the use of the word 'decide' in relation to the decision 'not to recognize the basic law', suggest an intention on the part of the Security Council to bind States-within the meaning of the test expounded in the 1971 Namibia Opinion.

We can't say as fact that the resolution is "non-binding". nableezy - 19:05, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

So we have one source that is disputing the charter of the UN which dictates what chapters must be used to make resolutions binding. Seems WP:FRINGE to me. There are also sources that state the resolution was non-binding. The US Secretary of State Ed Muskie said this flat out... you can explore the sources at the Wikipedia article for UNSCR 478. Breein1007 (talk) 19:26, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

The source does not make a novel argument, this is drawn from the ICJ opinion in the South African presence in Namibia case in the early 70s. The question is if the resolution draws on Articles 24 and 25, such as by using the term "decide", is the resolution binding? That is a question of which there is considerable discussion of, but one that is not settled as "no" as we have it in the article now. This is not a random website making this argument, this is published by Oxford University Press. nableezy - 19:41, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

We should not use the word binding or non-binding here, so I removed it. It's too complicated to enter into here, and should be described on the pages for each resolution and SC resolutions in general. The early practice of the Security Council was to almost never explicitly adopt resolutions under any chapter, but to make people guess whether they were binding or not, based on the language. The Korean War resolutions for example don't mention chapter VII, but as they authorized force, it is obvious they were meant to be binding.John Z (talk) 22:04, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

::::The whole business of binding vs non-binding is meaningless, Chapter VI is a nation feeling threatened and complaining to the UN, Chapter VII is the UN thinking it sees a problem and deciding what to do. A Chapter VI resolution automatically becomes Chapter VII once the UN decides action is necessary.

To understand how meaningless any distinction is, note that the UN Charter doesn't mention resolutions, just the "authority to make recommendations and decisions in fulfillment of the organization's functions and purpose". All resolutions are binding, what's changed is that the UN no longer challenges aggressors. I'm at a loss to explain why that should be. Templar98 (talk) 18:19, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

struck comments of a blocked user

Is East Jerusalem OPT or UN territory?

It would appear from numerous UN documents, which state "East Jerusalem and the rest of the occupied Palestinian territories" and "the OPT including EJ", that EJ is part of Palestinian territory. However, from Positions on Jerusalem it appears that the majority of states concur that EJ has the status of CS? Can this contradiction be reconcilled? Chesdovi (talk) 01:06, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

It's an excellent question and one of the many problems regarding stances on/status of Jerusalem. Some countries accept that Jerusalem was supposed to be CS but now consider it as part of the West Bank but I've never had much luck tracking down their explicit reasoning. Others have shifted their policy but both policies are covered in the WP article. We could try a concerted effort to nail down these positions via the I/P Collaboration group. The policies and statements are often contradictory and sometimes nonsensical (why not acknowledge the parts of Jerusalem in the Israel areas as defined by 181? etc.) Sol (talk) 17:25, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

What's Ban Ki-moon's phone number? Chesdovi (talk) 17:31, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

=( We aren't on speaking terms since he unfriended me on facebook. Sol (talk) 04:15, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

::::I believe the Corpus separatum died with Security Council Resolution 242 in 1967, which granted Israel, for the first time, the borders of the Green Line and required it to withdraw to that line. Previous to that, the legal border was still that of the General Assembly Resolution 181, annexation beyond that had never been legalised. The annexation of the West Bank by Jordan was legalised (at least to the Arab League, reluctantly, making Jordan the trustee) by 1950 or so. Templar98 (talk) 16:44, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Ian Lacey's publications are shown here - note that the Australian Four Wheel Drive Council don't even trust him as a lead author for any of their valuable publications. His leaflet on the legal views of Julius Stone (d.1985) might be a true reflection of them, but Stone's views are widely misquoted, he only said that settlements could be legal in very, very limited circumstances. The Lacey reference is worthless and should come out. Templar98 (talk) 17:59, 6 January 2011 (UTC) struck comments of a blocked user

What makes me think you have another Ian Lacey, but not this Ian Lacey? One thing is that the World Catalog gives his other work as The Arab-Israel conflict : a study guide for teachers and students, written together with Solomon Encel - not sure of the ISBN number. I suspect he has nothing at all to do with the Australian car industry. He is also responsible for putting together material on the origins of the Arab-Israel conflict at the education website of the New South Wales Jewish Board of Deputies. I think his viewpoint cannot be summarily dismissed as "worthless". Snakeswithfeet (talk) 02:46, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Also could I please ask you to support with text (not opinion) the assertion that "the United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 granted Israel the borders of the Green Line (Israel) and required it to withdraw to that line?" Snakeswithfeet (talk) 03:03, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

West Bank

Reenem has removed the category cities in the West Bank, claiming that EJ is not in the WB. Ill copy and past what I wrote at Talk:Jerusalem about this issue:

Reenem removed the categories Category:Cities in the Palestinian territories and Category:Cities in the West Bank, arguing that EJ is not treated as part of either by the international community. That is simply false. See for example this report from OCHA, or this report on the wall. Notice that they both include East Jerusalem as within the West Bank. I am restoring those two categories.

nableezy - 19:58, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Voting

The article does not make it clear whether east jerusalem residents can vote in either Israeli or Palestinian elections. 68.188.25.170 (talk) 05:46, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Map

Hi, I can someone explain what is the 'no man land'(red) on this map, a military zone or? Because looking at this map, it seems like there is a neighborhood there? Also can someone who know the area please date all the maps.--Mor2 (talk) 07:01, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

"Culture" section - politically biased

I find that this section has a targeted political agenda. Can someone review this? 122.154.122.2 (talk) 14:36, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I read the short section. It appears to consist of 3 reliably sourced examples of cultural suppression rather than a description of the culture of East Jerusalem. I guess the section title is probably inappropriate, but I don't think it is any different from having 3 examples of cultural promotion or 3 cultural events or descriptions of 3 cultural sites, which editors are free to add. Whether the content reflects positively or negatively on things the reader might care about, like the public image of Israel or Palestine, is in the mind of the reader. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:42, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

"offered citizenship"

I inserted the "when" and "by whom" templates because of the use of weasel words. According to this phrasing, which is repeated in many sources, East Jerusalem Palestinians where "offered" citizenship "after 1967" and they "refused". I am yet to come across a source that actually gives details about how and when they were offered and subsequently refused. As far as I know, following the application of Israeli law they became eligible for citizenship and most of them did not take advantage of their eligibility, if something more explicit which can be deemed an "offer" and a "refusal" ever took place, surely it is documented somewhere. Using a journalistic report offhandedly mentioning an offer and a refusal taking place sometime after 1967 as a source for such tendentious phrasing does not bode well for the integrity of this article. I suggested the factual and disinterested phrasing "Arab inhabitants of East Jerusalem can apply for Israeli citizenship, but most have not done so", which was rejected by another editor because the original phrasing appears in a source. Are we to adopt the phrasing of the source just because it exists?--67.250.35.250 (talk) 06:48, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

(Written before I noticed the above; I won't bother editing it.) The following sentence was the target of an edit and revert a few minutes ago:

"Arab inhabitants of East Jerusalem were offered Israeli citizenship, but most have refused, not wanting to recognize Israeli sovereignty."

The source is an unsigned 2009 BBC article, which supports it. Now, like our anon complainant, I want to question whether this is true. First, this news report is not a reliable source for what happened in 196x. News reports are reliable for current events, not for history except in certain cases (e.g., the writer is an acknowledged expert, the article interviews an expert, etc). So we need a better source for the "offered Israeli citizenship" claim. Actually I don't doubt we can find one, since this claim is very common and, like this anonymous BBC journalist, I always assumed it is true. Lots of books just state it as true, usually (always?) without actual evidence. I got suspicious about the claim when this article by Yehudit Oppenheimer appeared in Haaretz last year:

"An urban legend has it that, upon the de facto annexation of East Jerusalem in 1967, the State of Israel offered the city's Palestinian residents as a group Israeli citizenship and they rejected it. Though it's an interesting legend, there isn't a shred of truth to it. The state applied Israeli law, judicial powers and governance to East Jerusalem less than two weeks after it was conquered. And to the Palestinians who lived there, it conferred the status of permanent residency, which is still in effect today, more than 45 years after the annexation of East Jerusalem." [10]

Oppenheimer is the executive director of Ir Amim, which makes her an expert but also an activist, so we would prefer something better. So I looked in Avi Raz, The Bride and the Dowry, which is perhaps the most detailed account in English about that period of history, with hundreds of citations to Israeli official documents. On page 2, "The boundaries had been demarcated so as to include the minimum possible number of Arab inhabitants, and the method by which the annexation was legislated freed Israel from the need to grant the 70,000 Arab residents of the annexed area Israeli citizenship". From Raz's extended commentary, his main point is that Israel did not (at that time) present the action as annexation but only as the extension of Israeli law and administration to East Jerusalem. Without annexation, there was no need or even justification for offering citizenship. Then I looked in Benvenisti, Jerusalem the Torn City (1976). Benvenisti was Teddy Kolleck's administrator in East Jerusalem from July 1967 and Deputy Major of Jerusalem from 1971 to 1978. He discusses the annexation for several chapters (esp. 108–128). As well as confirming Raz's statement that the annexation action was deliberately portrayed as not annexation, he says that the Arab residents legally became "enemy aliens" and "absentees" but an administrative decision was made to not treat them as absentees and to allow citizens of Jordan to work for the Israeli government (pp 111–112). On p116 and pp163–167, he gives a lengthy discussion of how Israeli identity cards were issued. I can't find in this book any mention of a general offer of Israeli citizenship. In Wasserstein, Divided Jerusalem, pp.211–217, there is another lengthy discussion of the annexation without any mention of a general offer of Israeli citizenship. From all this I conclude that there was no such offer. On the other hand, it is true that at some point Arab residents were permitted to apply for citizenship. I assume this came some time later since it isn't mentioned in these sources, but I didn't find a good source for it. Zero^talk 07:16, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Ian Lustick's "Has Israel Annexed East Jerusalem?" paper has some information about this that may be useful. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:37, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Just wanted to point out that the Hebrew wiki article does not claim that there was such an offer, it only states something very similar to my proposed phrasing. I would also imagine that some legislation would have been required in order to "offer" citizenship like that, Israeli law requires one to apply for citizenship and only if they meet certain requirements, and there is no reference (direct or indirect) to East Jerusalem in the Israeli nationality law, making this whole offer story sound rather dubious to me. Why not use my perfectly informative and neutral phrasing until reliable evidence for such an offer-and-refusal episode surface? (and I'm happy to see you here, Zero, after my long absence. D. )--67.250.35.250 (talk) 10:10, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree with that, though we could also add some more detail from the sources I found and maybe cite Lustick too (thanks, Sean). Meanwhile I notice that Shuafat, Arab citizens of Israel, and Judaization of Jerusalem have the same error. Maybe other articles too. The first of those has a NYT article as source. Zero^talk 13:45, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Working on my memory of what Lustick wrote, I consider it a bit misleading. Didn't he point out that the relevant Israeli laws aren't couched in terms of annexation, so he concludes that Israel did not annexe East Jerusalem? However, from what I've read, the intent of the Israeli moves was annexation, but for reasons of deniability, that is, the Israeli government wanted to be able to claim that they weren't annexing East Jerusalem in order to, among other reasons, deflect international condemnation, the laws were deliberately drafted without using annexationist terminology. As you pointed out, Raz stated that "the annexation action was deliberately portrayed as not annexation." The wording of the Israeli laws failed to suppress an angry response from the international community, though. It declared any unilateral Israeli move to change the status of any part of Jerusalem as invalid and demanded the rescinding of any Israeli laws which attempted to do so. Despite the omission of mention of annexation in the Israeli laws, subsequent decisions of the Israeli courts have confirmed that East Jerusalem was annexed. So, though Lustick writes, based on the wording of the laws, that East Jerusalem was not annexed, that was actually the underlying intent of the laws and that is how the Israelis themselves interpret the legal situation.     ←   ZScarpia   15:29, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

The law applies Israeli courts' jurisdiction over East Jerusalem, so as far as the court is concerned East Jerusalem is no different from any part of Israel proper. I don't think any judge in Israel ever had to determine specifically whether or not Israel's measures constituted annexation. But that's besides the point -- the question is whether or not Israel offered citizenship and the Palestinians rejected it. If I offer someone a cookie and he says "keep it, I don't want your cookie" is not the same as if I have cookies and the other person is allowed to ask for one and if he meets certain conditions I will consider giving it to him, and the other person simply doesn't ask for a cookie. You wouldn't describe the latter as an offer and refusal, would you? Specifically saying something was offered and refused paints it as generosity met with ingratitude. That this is the case has not been clearly established.--67.250.35.250 (talk) 18:49, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

To clarify, I posted Lustick's paper because it includes information about what Israel did and did not do e.g. "On June 26,1967 a quick and rather inaccurate registration was done of the Arab population in the area of what was to be added to the Israeli municipality. But those registered in the census received Israeli identity cards describing them, not as citizens, but as "Permanent Residents." To obtain citizenship, these Arabs have had to apply for it through the normal naturalization channels available to any non-Jew in the world who might wish to apply for Israeli citizenship." His discussion about whether Israel has done everything required to accomplish annexation is interesting, but that isn't why I posted the link. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:14, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Apologies for leading the discussion on a detour.     ←   ZScarpia   03:00, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Is there any objection that I reinstate my phrasing (with a proper source) until further evidence shed light on this alleged offer?--67.250.35.250 (talk) 18:13, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I object. It seems clear there was no offer. Why write about Israeli citizenship at all then? Why not summarize what the sources actually say? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:10, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

You are right, the sentence should be removed altogether. The citizenship issue is already discussed elsewhere in the article.--67.250.35.250 (talk) 06:25, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Sovereignty

To quote the article, "However this is a minority position, and international law considers all the West Bank (including East Jerusalem) to be illegally occupied territory."

How ever source number 27 (http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=41329&Cr=palestin&Cr1#.UuQH4tXnbnA) does not say anything about international law holding that any of West Bank is illegally occupied. It refers directly to settlements in those areas. While certainly the people of those settlements may be illegally occupy land that is not there's to legally occupy I must ask that you use the word occupation very carefully. I see nothing in this source that says Military Occupation of the West Bank by Israel is illegal. I see a claim that the occupying power of this military occupation is taking illegal action. No one reading this article should walk away with the thought that Israeli occupation of the West Bank is illegal as the sources do not justify the basis of that.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 19:11, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

I've removed the word "illegal". It was added by a POV pushing sockpuppet.[11]. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:46, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Be aware though that it's not very difficult to find respectable sources that do use the phrase "illegally occupied" rather than simply "occupied" despite it being a bit misleading e.g. The New York Times, "the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights, territories the international community generally considers illegally occupied". Sean.hoyland - talk 17:53, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

How ever respectable sources doesn't mean reliable source.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 07:37, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Clear violation of Wikipedia principles

As a Russian Wikipedia editor, I perhaps should not be too much concerned about the quality of English Wikipedia articles. However in this case, the violation is so obvious I think it should be highlighted. I mean the "Negotiations on "share" or "divide"" section. In my opinion, it is from beginning to the end written with the aim to express the particular editor's pro-palestinian position on Eastern Jerusalem issue. It would however be acceptable anyway, - after all, it is not always possible to restrain oneself from his/her biases, - if this section was not filled with plain emotions as opposed to neutral facts. Phrasings like "Provocative statements by Israeli leaders", "Obvious examples of such facts", "aggressive settlement policy", "The Israelis were still not satisfied. They wanted, inter alia,.." - are they descriptions of facts justified by reliable sources, or just the editor's personal judgements (actually, accusations)?

We in Russian Wiki try to avoid turning the pages of The Free Enciclopedia into a platform for expressing personal views, whatever they are. Is the English Wiki different? --Levminikes (talk) 10:47, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on East Jerusalem. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.merip.org/joost.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:29, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Status in international law

Article says:

East Jerusalem's status in international law however remains uncertain: the United Nations' Security Council immediately dismissed the resolution of unification as a "violation of international law",[10] and the international community does not recognize Israel's or Palestinian sovereignty there.[11]

I think it should say "is clear" and not "remains uncertain." The international community and international law, as expressed by UN resolutions, consider East Jerusalem part of the West Bank and considers the West Bank to be under belligerent occupation. The status of East Jerusalem is not different from the status of any other Palestinian city such as Ramallah. ImTheIP (talk) 21:01, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Minor Typographical Issue with "Healthcare" section

Last two sentences of second paragraph as they are now: "According to ACRI, only 11.3% of the residents of East Jerusalem are treated by the welfare services. In 2006 64% of the Palestinian population lived below the population. By 2015 75.4%, and 83.9% of their children, live below the poverty line.[85]"

I believe that the emboldened word at the end of the first sentence was supposed to be "poverty line", not "population", and should be replaced with said words. This will cause the sentences to read: "According to ACRI, only 11.3% of the residents of East Jerusalem are treated by the welfare services. In 2006 64% of the Palestinian population lived below the poverty line. By 2015 75.4%, and 83.9% of their children, live below the poverty line.[85]"

Fartmaster1987 (talk) 05:05, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on East Jerusalem. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304190705/https://www.nad-plo.org/userfiles/file/Non-Peper/Jerusalem%20Non-Paper-%20Final%20%20June%202010.pdf to http://www.nad-plo.org/userfiles/file/Non-Peper/Jerusalem%20Non-Paper-%20Final%20%20June%202010.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121616590000/https://www.nad-plo.org/etemplate.php?id=59 to http://www.nad-plo.org/etemplate.php?id=59
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304121305/https://www.nad-plo.org/userfiles/file/Factsheet%202013/EJ%20TODAY_FINAL%20REPORT_II.pdf to http://www.nad-plo.org/userfiles/file/Factsheet%202013/EJ%20TODAY_FINAL%20REPORT_II.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140908061418/http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/172D1A3302DC903B85256E37005BD90F to http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/172D1A3302DC903B85256E37005BD90F
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110725000704/http://www.alquds2009.org/etemplate.php?id=91 to http://www.alquds2009.org/etemplate.php?id=91
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140203082012/http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/34BE727D1EED7D688525799500579D23 to http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/34BE727D1EED7D688525799500579D23

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:50, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on East Jerusalem. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Replaced archive link x with https://web.archive.org/web/20121616590000/http://www.nad-plo.org/etemplate.php?id=59 on http://www.nad-plo.org/etemplate.php?id=59
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140203082012/http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/34BE727D1EED7D688525799500579D23 to http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/34BE727D1EED7D688525799500579D23

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:28, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on East Jerusalem. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Replaced archive link x with https://web.archive.org/web/20121616590000/http://www.nad-plo.org/etemplate.php?id=59 on http://www.nad-plo.org/etemplate.php?id=59
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140114012447/http://www.palestine-studies.com/files/pdf/jps/2759.pdf to http://www.palestine-studies.com/files/pdf/jps/2759.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061228000653/https://www.afsc.org/israel-palestine/learn/East-Jerusalem.pdf to http://www.afsc.org/israel-palestine/learn/East-Jerusalem.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061228000653/https://www.afsc.org/israel-palestine/learn/East-Jerusalem.pdf to http://www.afsc.org/israel-palestine/learn/East-Jerusalem.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:21, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on East Jerusalem. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131109001552/http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/0/a39a906c89d3e98685256c29006d4014 to http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/0/a39a906c89d3e98685256c29006d4014
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130110025247/http://www.kbj.org.il/images/kotel_p.html to http://www.kbj.org.il/images/kotel_p.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131109003053/http://unyearbook.un.org/1967YUN/1967_P1_SEC1_CH9.pdf to http://unyearbook.un.org/1967YUN/1967_P1_SEC1_CH9.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131206101025/http://domino.un.org/UNISPAl.NSF/0/17bdf357679b218f85256c41006ad66d to http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/17bdf357679b218f85256c41006ad66d
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120206112528/http://www.nad-plo.org/userfiles/file/maps/campdavid.pdf to http://www.nad-plo.org/userfiles/file/maps/campdavid.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.palestine-studies.com/journals.aspx?href=issue&jid=1&iid=118
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121108062446/http://www.nad-plo.org/userfiles/file/Reports/cdpapers.pdf to http://www.nad-plo.org/userfiles/file/Reports/cdpapers.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:16, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Where is Wikipedia proclaimed objectivity

This article on Jerusalem is blatantly biased. The very first sentence speaks about Jordan annexation of eastern Jerusalem !! The article is clearly written by an israeli settler who prefers to hide his name !! My talk is therefore directed to Wikipedia editors, rather than this colonialist israeli.

Dear Wikipedia objective editors I am sure that you know the following facts: 1- Prior to Balfour Declaration in 1917, the number of Jews in Palestine was few thousands only. 2- There was nothing called israel prior to 1948. On that date, the largest colonialist crime in modern history was committed when UK - USA - Zionist movement created the so called state of israel at the land of Palestinians. This was an inhibited land owned by human beings who have the same human rights as those of UK and USA citizens !! 3- Jordan annexed eastern Jerusalem !! What a lie. Annexed Jerusalem from whom ?? from Zionists who were not there and flooded the place after Balfour declaration, or from the occupation forces of "great" britain ?? . Jews were not a majority neither in Palestine nor in Jerusalem except for ~ 100 years in the BC era. If you want to revert everything to that age, then US citizen should go back to Europe and leave America for its original inhabitants.

israel is a foreign insert in the Arab body. No matter what you do or say, this foreign insert will die. History and Biology will enforce this divine rule, regardless of how many false lies are published in Wikipedia or elsewhere.

Prof. Serag Eldin Habib Cairo University Egypt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.208.159.102 (talk) 00:03, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

I assume good faith and not trolling here, so I will attempt to reply to your concerns.

• "The article is clearly written by an israeli settler" This article was started by User:Ed Poor in 2004 and is actually one of Wikipedia's oldest articles. The edit history reveals edits by multiple editors over the last 13 years.

  I am not an Israeli settler, although I am pro-Israel, pro-Jewish, and pro-Muslim (all at once! :-) but the editorial task here is to create a neutral article rather than an article which supports only the "correct" point of view. Who annexed what, and whether they should, are matters that we should cover without endorsing one side or another. I really would like to see both sides on a number of Arab-Israeli issues. --Uncle Ed (talk) 00:15, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

• "in 1917, the number of Jews in Palestine was few thousands only" Possibly correct, but largely irrelevant here. The article covers territorial disputes and developments from the 1948 Arab–Israeli War onwards. It does not cover either the previous territorial history of Jerusalem as a whole, nor the demographic history of Mandatory Palestine.
• "There was nothing called israel prior to 1948." Your point being? The article does not claim the pre-existence of Israel.
• "This was an inhibited land owned by human beings" Inhabited, not inhibited. Inhibition (depending on the context) is about fear of performing, reservations against performing, or active suppression of certain acts. Neither Jerusalem, nor Palestine are that unusual here. Who "owns" an area, inhabited or otherwise, is a matter decided in territorial wars, and diplomatic conferences. And despite the supposed right for self-determination, the local populations often do not have much of an influence in the events which determine their fates.
• "Jordan annexed eastern Jerusalem !! What a lie. Annexed Jerusalem from whom" Annexation is a neutral term for describing the events and expansion. Wikipedia editors are not allowed to pass moral judgements.
• "Jews were not a majority neither in Palestine nor in Jerusalem except for ~ 100 years in the BC era." Again, the demographic history of the entire region prior to 1948, is not part of the scope of this article. It covers only events from 1948 onwards, and only when they affect this area within Jerusalem.
• "then US citizen should go back to Europe" Because that is just what Europe needs, another influx of migrants in an already heavily populated continent. Sorry but I am a European citizen, and we are already experiencing the effects of the European migrant crisis. The entire continent seems to be embracing xenophobia, and I doubt that this will lead to positive developments. Dimadick (talk) 12:17, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

US Recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's Capital

President Trump's recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital and plans to move the US embassy to West Jerusalem seem like a significant event that should be included on this page. Here is a source from the NYTs. Trump did not specify East or West Jerusalem, but just said “Today we finally acknowledge the obvious: that Jerusalem is Israel’s capital." Felderp (talk) 18:18, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

trivial detail

Icewhiz, your dismissal and erasure of strongly sourced text here as 'trivial detail', requires a justification, It is not self-evident, since (a) several key sources of high cite several versions of the incident and (b) the way the jurisdiction of EJ was changed from Jordanian to Israeli hands without any legal instrument, is not trivia. Nishidani (talk) 18:38, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

The jurisdiction changed by a rather major war. How a military official (varying accounts) delivered the message to the previous adminstration is a minor technicality.Icewhiz (talk) 19:06, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, that is your personal opinion, not a policy. The point is several world authorities on Jerusalem's history and that period devote each roughly a page in their respective works and articles to this moment, supplementing the overall narrative with different details. They therefore, RS, consider this a notable element in the narrative of East Jerusalem. It is not the manner of the delivery of the message that is the point, but the legal mechanism used by an occupying power used for the dismissal of elected officials. In short, why is your anonymous opinion more important than what reputable authorities judge notable?Nishidani (talk) 22:55, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

A couple of paragraphs in a couple of books - sure this passes WP:V - but given that we have a multitude of full length books on Jerusalem and East Jerusalem - still UNDUE. Icewhiz (talk) 06:56, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

It's in five sources, occupying in two, page length treatment. Undue is determined by NPOV and source weight. As to NPOV you broke it by erasing the crucial Palestinian aspect of Israel's assumption of power, by cancelling mention that a legal Arab municipal council existed and was dissolved by sheer improvisation without regard to legal protocols. That is a fact you removed, leaving only the Israel action to stand, i.e. POV pushing. Five major sources specializing on that period mention this in detail, some covering it at page length. So you are also unfamiliar with these sources. For this reason, the es was subjective, probably WP:IDONTLIKETHAT and the text must be, per normal practice, restored.Nishidani (talk) 15:24, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

This article is about East Jerusalem - city, demographics, 70 years history (or thousands prior to division) - that a trivial detail (varying in details) of the details of dismissal of the Jordanian council passes WP:V - is not a reason to include - there's copious sourcing available for the topic. If you want something that's missing - we don't actually cover what the Jordanian city council actually did in the city in their 19 years or so of rule (or their appointment in the first place, for that matter). Icewhiz (talk) 16:09, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Read the article, which will show your assertion of what it is about contrafactual. You're repeating yourself. I've answered above. As to what the Jordanians (and British) did, I've hardly begun, and would have finished that had you not been disruptive. So drop the nationistic censorship and let the article develop as it is expounded according to sources.Nishidani (talk) 18:10, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Atarot and Neve Yaakov

These do not fit the heading, which is about Jordan and (East) Jerusalem. Atarot and Neve Yaakov did not at the time form part of the British Mandatory boundaries of Jerusalem which were in place when the 1948 hostilities broke out. They were technically in what is now the West Bank-excluding-East-Jerusalem.Nishidani (talk) 20:09, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Weizman

The first Israeli president Weizmann, in 1948, claimed only Israeli sovereignty over West Jerusalem, not including the Old City.

This strikes me, after parsing closely the actual speech (also in Weizmann, Chaim (1983). "Jerusalem will remain Jewish". In Litvinoff, Barnet (ed.). The Letters and Papers of Chaim Weizmann: series B. Transaction Publishers. pp. 700–702. ISBN 978-0-878-55297-9. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help); Invalid |ref=harv (help)

It suggests that the road to the Western Wall will be opened up in the future and that special arrangements must be made in the meantime to access Jewish sites. It closes as follows:

We are anxious to see these values effectively protected and we are agreeable that special arrangements be made for the Old City with its Holy Places. We would like to see this sacred zone beautified, so that worshippers coming from all parts of the world to Jerusalem will derive joy and inspiration from their pilgrimage. There would, however, appear to be no reason why such special arrangements for the Old City should extend also to the New City outside the Walls, which has no such sacred associations. This New City has sprung up during the past hundred years essentially as a result of Jewish effort. It has become during the last thirty years the administrative and spiritual capital of the new Jewish Palestine.It houses our central national institutions, the Jewish Agency, the Jewish National Fund, the Keren Hayesod, the Chief Rabbinate, the Hebrew University, the Hebrew National Library, the Jewish Medical Centre and numerous learned and communal bodies. It is now also the seat of the Supreme Court. It seems utterly inconceivable that this Jewish city should be placed under foreign rule. It seems inconceivable that the establishment of a Jewish State in Palestine should be accompanied by the detachment from it of its spiritual centre and historical capital.

He claimed sovereignty over West Jerusalem, but 'only' 'excluding' etc. appear to me to be spinning the text to suggest he was foreclosing on the idea that a sovereignty issue also existed for the Old City. Feel free to reintroduce it, but it looks like a POV case of WP:OR. One really needs a secondary source for such inferences, not a primary text.Nishidani (talk) 20:42, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

WP:Claim

This edit is not policy compliant, because WP:CLAIm does not ban the word, but says it must be sourced, and the source uses the word 'claim'. It is a claim, because it is an Israeli assertion of an interpretation disputed by the other underwriting party of the relevant protocol. Nishidani (talk) 11:41, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

A duplicate paragraph

The last paragraph of the intro is duplicated later in the article. Is this allowed?--Adûnâi (talk) 02:24, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Does America's embassy move mean they no longer recognize East Jerusalem?

Do they? As far as I know, the US now recognize the city as the capital of Israel, but what's about East Jerusalem?--Adûnâi (talk) 02:29, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Incorrect links

The link from "Dumper, Michael (2014). Jerusalem Unbound: Geography, History, and the Future of the Holy City" doesn't lead to that book but "1949 the First Israelis" by Tom Segev. Mcljlm (talk) 11:48, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Reason for edit protect?

Why this article is write protect or edit protected? The reason is not yet clear that most of the articles related to zionism is edit protected? Saifullah.vguj (talk) 17:36, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

please correct typo

Under "Healthcare", "In 2006 64% of the Palestinian population lived below the population" should obviously read "...lived below the poverty line". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.184.201.42 (talk) 20:14, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Done, thanks. Zero^talk 03:16, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

There's a rather obvious typo only 10 words into this locked article...

At least immediately obvious to a native Arabic speaker that has roughly the [self-taught] Hebrew fluency of a toddler.

East Jerusalem or Eastern Jerusalem (Arabic: القدس الشرقية‎ al-Quds al-Sharqit; Hebrew: מִזְרַח יְרוּשָׁלַיִם mizraḥ yerushalayim)

الشرقية‎ is not Romanized "al-Sharqit"

EVER.

It's not read that way. "-ية" is not the same as the female plural "ית" suffix in Hebrew. And this is very clearly the naïve reading of a native Hebrew speaker.

"al-Sharqiyah" is a literal transcription. "ash-Sharqiyah" or "al-Sharqiyyah" if you want to be pedantic about the pronunciation of ال preceding ش and the presence of a shaddah on the يّ as shown, respectively. I prefer the final spelling, I believe it's the most accurate.

حرف الشين من الحروف الشمسية.

وكلمة "الشمسية" تكتب al-Shamsiyyah وليست al-Shamsit.

Comparison: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ash_Sharqiyah

"Al Sharqiyah, Ash Sharqiyah (Arabic: الشرقية‎, from Arabic شرقية) or its variants, meaning 'eastern' or loosely 'oriental', may refer to:"

🇵🇸 -αβοοδ (talk) 03:42, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

I noticed this as well and corrected it. Jokkmokks-Goran (talk) 11:45, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Jerusalem map by neighbourhoods needed

See discussion at Talk:Jerusalem#Map by neighbourhoods needed. Arminden (talk) 18:08, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 March 2022

Please change Ruhi al-Khatib (1957–1967; to Ruhi al-Khatib (1957–1967) . OlezhkaG (talk) 23:15, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

 Done  melecie  t - 23:45, 6 March 2022 (UTC)