Talk:Positions on Jerusalem

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Positions on Jerusalem is part of WikiProject Palestine - a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative, balanced articles related to Palestine on Wikipedia. Join us by visiting the project page where you can add your name to the list of members and contribute to the discussion. This template adds articles to Category:WikiProject Palestine articles.
NB: Assessment ratings and other indicators given below are used by the Project in prioritizing and managing its workload.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the Project's importance scale.
After rating the article, please provide a short summary on the article's ratings summary page to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses.
Israel Portal
Positions on Jerusalem is part of WikiProject Israel, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Israel on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. This template adds articles to Category:WikiProject Israel articles.
Project Israel To Do (Drop-Down Menu):
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] "eternal, undivided capital"

I'm quite surpised that someone would remove 3 specific references to the common knowledge that Israel regards Jerusalem as its "eternal, undivided capital". Can anyone explain? Jayjg (talk) 22:17, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I added references to the Jerusalem Law, which does not use this phrase - but you seem to have deleted my work.
Where does the phrase "eternal" come from?
Can it be correct? (Certainly not before 1948, I suspect)
Johnbibby 22:59, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
While the Jerusalem law does not use that phrase, it's a common one that many reliable sources use. Some of the sources were the links that you removed. Jayjg (talk) 04:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
As surprising, or perhaps not so given your (Jayjg) biased views on this topic, is the removal of this link from the Jerusalem page in the first paragraph. I had thought that wikipedia was supposed to be neutral, not a forum for your propaganda. How is explaining the different positions irrelevant? I agree with your first statement on this page - the links removed on this page should be here.Jebus1 13:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Jebus for your comments.
Jayjg - I don't think you should be removing other people's comments (Jebus's) from the Talk page. That is deceptive and gives a misleading impression of what has been said.
Also, the reasons that you gave for reverting my edits ("September 2006 Jayjg (Talk | contribs) (restore sourced content, remove unsourced)" do not accurately reflect what you did.
You seem determed to keep re-stating this phrase "eternal, undivided capital" (on this pages and on others), as though it is God-given and correct. The official Israeli Law does not use this phrase, and most other states don't accept it either.
God may be all-powerful, but She does not control Wikipedia! (IMHO)
Also, IMHO, my edits are much clearer and simpler than yours. hence I will look at them again and may revert them back.
Johnbibby 14:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Ah, one of the joys of making an edit that has to do with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is to have that page in your watchlist and then watch the constant edits as the sparks fly. While I don't really want to get involved in the fight over content, and I suspect my position on the matter at hand is not the same as Jayjg, I feel honor-bound as a neutral party to point out that Jebus removed his own comment from the talk page. Go on, check the history and see for yourself. --Jfruh (talk) 14:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
My apologies - i did remove my comments as i had not read further down in the article. I still think that it should not say that it is in Israel though. Jebus1 15:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] recent change...

I ought to know better than to wade into Israeli-Palestinian Wikipedia conflict, but, recent change:

Most states and international organisations do not accept that Jerusalem is Israel's capital, nor Israel's annexation of East Jerusalem, nor its sovereignty over any part of the city.

I'm asking this genuinely: Is it really true that most states don't recgonize Israeli soveregnty over ANY part of the city? And how do you define "the city"? I thought that most countries and groups that recognize Israel (which includes most of the world's countries, plus the UN) recognize the land within the 1949 Green Line as Israeli, which includes West Jerusalem. I know that almost nobody (or possibly nobody period) recognizes Israeli rule over E. Jerusalem, but I though the West was generally accepted.

Of course, this does open the question of why states didn't recognize even West Jerusalem as the Israeli capital even before 1967. Is this a holdover from the city's proposed international status from the 1949 partition plan? --Jfruh (talk) 21:27, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, the recent change made things even worse. It implies that the same people don't recognize (1) Jerusalem as capital, (2) E. Jerusalem as part of Israel, (3) any of Jerusalem as part of Israel. These are three different positions and lots of people hold (2), or (1) and (2), without holding (3). --Jfruh (talk) 12:36, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Issues to include

I think the issue is very dense and complicated this is why the status of the city was left to final status negosiations between the PLO and the Israeli Government. I guess it is worth mentioning within the article that Tel Aviv is diplomatically accepted as the Capital of the Stat of Israel.

It is a fact that Jerusalem is under Israeli control but the Administration of some aspects of Education and Religion are under the "control" of Palestinians(living in Jerusalem). I think that the points mentioned below should be clearly represented.

  • Jerusalem as capital of Israel including E. Jerusalem.
  • East Jerusalem as future capital of an Independent Palestinian State.
  • West Jerusalem as the Capital of Israel.
  • Tel Aviv as Capital of Israel and Ramallah or Abu Dis as capital of Palestine, State of.

[edit] International position

I realise this is a sensitive topic, but I would suggest rewriting this sentence at the beginning of the article.

Some states and international organisations, mostly supporting the Palestinian claims, do not accept Jerusalem as Israel's capital, nor Israel's annexation of East Jerusalem, nor its sovereignty over any part of the city.

This sentence looks POV to me. Isn't it the case that no country has, to quote, acceptet Israel's annexation of East Jerusalen? If that is the case, the sentence implies that every country is supporting the Palestinian claims. In addition, I find it strange to lump together not accepting Israel's annexation of East Jerusalem and not accepting Israel's sovereignty over any part of the city. As far as I know, a great many countries accept the latter but not the former. Perhaps this sentence could be split up into two or three groups and better written as to remove POV and enhance the quality of the article. JdeJ (talk)

That is why the sentence begins with "some" rather than many. The subject of this sentence is "some countries" and the predicate states what it is that they do not accept. Unless you are claiming that there are no, or is only one, country that rejects all three claims, then I fail to see your point: the sentence is accurate and complies with NPOV. At most, one might suggest adding after some, "but not all," but this is implied already, thus, really redundant and unnecessary. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:30, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
From my editorial point of view (separate from my political point of view, which I am doing my best to keep out here), the problem with this sentence is that there are three predicates but the sentence doesn't distinguish the varying categories within the "some", to wit:
1. Some do not recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital
2. Some do not recognize Israel's annexation of East Jerusalem
3. Some do not recognize its sovereignty over any part of the city.
The three "somes" are not identical sets of international actors, but the sentence as currently written implies that they are one undifferenitated group. I would guess that the largest group recognizes Israel's sovreignty over West Jerusalem, but doesn't formally recognize Jerusalem as the Israeli capital, and don't recognize Israel's annexation of E. Jerusalem -- that is, they fall into groups (1) and (2) above but not (3). A smaller group, made up mostly of Arab states that don't recognize Israel at all, naturally doesn't recognize any Israeli claims on either half of the city of any kind, and thus falls into groups (1), (2), and (3). A rather small group recognizes Israel's sovereignty over W. Jerusalem and formally treats W. Jerusalem as the Israeli capital by locating their embassies there, but still doesn't recognize the annexation of E. Jerusalem -- thus falling into category (2) but not (1) or (3). I'm not aware of any state other than Israel that formally recognizes Israel's annexation of East Jerusalem (i.e. that doesn't fall into category (2) above) but I could be mistaken. --Jfruh (talk) 23:15, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Jfruh! You summed it up very well. I see that the sentence has already been changed to a better version, but the way you put it here is very neutral and very accurate. Do you think it would make sense saying something like this
  • Israel regards a united Jerusalem (including East Jerusalem) as its capital.
  • Palestinian groups claim part or all of Jerusalem as a capital of a future Palestinian state, some UN member states(mostly some Arab states)support the Palestinian claims to all of Jerusalem.
  • The majority of UN member states and most international organisations regard Western Jerusalem as part of Israel while not recognising the Israeli annexation of Eastern Jerusalem.
As an outsider, I won't interfere with the actual editing of this article. The above statement based on Jfuh's very good explanation would seem both neutral and correct to me. --JdeJ (talk) 14:54, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
one note:U.S congress has recognised East Jerusalem's annexation and the capital sense. Amoruso 15:11, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:ANI

Please see related discussion at

[edit] Category:Disputed territories

Hertz1888 is tag-teaming with Tewfik to remove Category:Disputed territories from any location on this article page including as a "See also" link.

The last edit summary by Hertz1888 was "Relationship to this category is itself disputed. There is no consensus to keep reinserting it." See this diff: [1]

See WP:Vandalism#Types of vandalism and "frivolous" explanations. You guys need to discuss your deletions seriously. The relationship to this category is obvious. Much of the article discusses the disputed nature of Jerusalem. --Timeshifter 07:06, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Status under Israeli law

Hi. Visiting here after the discussion at Template talk:Asian capitals. I'm under the impression that Jerusalem is the de jure capital of Israel according to Israeli law. So, I'll add a bullet point to the article, which can be discussed here. Thanks. HG | Talk 04:54, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Found and added supporting data in the body of the article -- the 1980 Basic Law under Israeli law. Thanks. HG | Talk 05:15, 23 November 2007 (UTC)