Talk:Israeli annexation of East Jerusalem

POV and name
Hi, the term "reunification" is extremely political, and not accepted by any official body in the world but Israel. The content itself of this page is far from neutral and also quite far from the truth let alone the hole truth. Most of the lands that were "reunified" with Jerusalem were actually not jerusalem ever before this point, such are Silwan, Isawiyya, Sho'efat and so on and on. There is nothing about the protest, and objection of the local community and the entire world to this action, that is against the law, but the significance for settler city planners - that's important. I don't have the will power to enter a wiki war about this, but just pointing out, this article shouldn't stay. Neenche (talk) 17:25, 25 May 2017 (UTC)


 * The term "reunification" must be removed because it is tendentious and partial. That term implies a wrong and absurd comparation with "Berlin reunification". While Berlin was always a part of Germany, Jerusalem was never a part of the State of Israel (created in 1948) nor the State of Palestine (created in 1988). Jerusalem was, according to international law, a Corpus separatum before Israel and Palestine does exist.--Elelch (talk) 15:26, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Its also used for German reunification. In both cases there was a physical barrier built that was knocked down. Its a reunification of a city, regardless of who is in control or not. The physical location was unified into one space. Its a term that describes the physical characteristics, not the political implications. -  Galatz Talk  15:55, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

I added the POV tag because the title is simply incorrect. East Jerusalem is "unified" with West Jerusalem in the same way that the West Bank is "unified" with Israel, or even Iraq is "unified" with the United States. That is to say, not "unified" at all, the territory is under belligerent occupation. No one describes the Russian annexation of Crimea as a unification and neither is the Israeli conquest of East Jerusalem. Im The IP (talk) 14:25, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Considering international law, the Israeli annexing of East Jerusalem is obviously illegal. However, the term "Reunification" doesn't mean that the city has become part of Israel, it meant that it restored its pre-1948 status. That is, to be ruled by one authority.--Maher27777 (talk) 19:24, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

The question is: what is a better name? Zerotalk 10:07, 11 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I suggest "Annexation of East Jerusalem" or "Occupation of East Jerusalem" if the topic is limited to the events of 1967. Im The IP  (talk) 11:25, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Reunification is perfectly fine. The city was a divided city for a brief period of time, and became unified on the municipal level, reunified. The wider political context is detached from the local level. 11Fox11 (talk) 18:13, 12 September 2020 (UTC) strike sock
 * Use of "reunification" nearly always indicates that an Israel pov is being presented. That's why it is a bad title. It doesn't make any difference whether an argument can be made that reunification is a correct description. Zerotalk 03:37, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note the short description, which, apart from not being short at all, says "administrative merger of West Jerusalem and East Jerusalem by Israel, following the conquest of the Eastern half of the city (including the walled Old City) from Jordan during the Six Day War". What happened is described here http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/middle_east/03/v3_israel_palestinians/maps/html/1967_and_now.stm ie de facto, later followed by de jure annexation in 1980 so this should be titled Annexation of East Jerusalem (like Jordan and Annexation of West Bank)Selfstudier (talk) 14:32, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Far more than the title needs to be fixed before this article approaches neutrality. Actually I wonder why this article exists, since it doesn't cover any topic that isn't already covered elsewhere. Zerotalk 12:46, 28 December 2020 (UTC)


 * There is definitely a problem here, I am just not entirely sure what it is, so I am looking into it a bit. The Jerusalem Law could be taken as a kind of domestic (Israeli) formalizing of the 67 events and in that sense it could merge there as the history of that. The defacto annexation kind of gets lost in the process, the difference between this and the Jordanian annexation is that this one is subject to UNSC resolutions declaring it of no legal effect internationally but Israel refuses to recognize the validity of these resolutions. As usual in WP, we are skating around the issues to some extent.Selfstudier (talk) 13:29, 28 December 2020 (UTC)


 * WP has as well articles on Jerusalem and Status of Jerusalem to address the situation of J en toto. Then there is East Jerusalem addressing the situation there, then I think it is correct that all of the material here should go into one or other of the existing articles which would in the process deal with the non-NPOV here.Selfstudier (talk) 11:51, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 9 February 2022

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 01:46, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Reunification of Jerusalem → Israeli annexation of East Jerusalem – See the discussion preceding this RM. This article, together with the Jerusalem Law article are respectively, the de facto and de jure annexation of East Jerusalem. The proposed title is a redirect to the latter. Apart from renaming, a merge of the two articles can also be considered in the alternative, with this article being the history of the other. In the past, because Israeli authorities avoided using the term officially, there were some doubts about whether it was in fact an annexation but it is not denied nowadays and is now treated as such by Israeli courts. Selfstudier (talk) 19:20, 9 February 2022 (UTC) Selfstudier (talk) 19:20, 9 February 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:27, 17 February 2022 (UTC)


 * If no objection, I will go ahead with this.Selfstudier (talk) 11:20, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Well I object, this should just be redirected to Jerusalem Law. It is non-neutral to describe what is disputed as an annexation as an annexation. What it is treated as by Israel is not how it is treated internationally, and using an Israeli POV for the title is non-neutral.  nableezy  - 14:51, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Redirect is OK with some of the content going over as history of, it is not a POV problem to treat the annex as applicable de facto and de jure under Israeli law, since that is actually the case, but not de jure internationally (because not agreed either by the annexed population or the international community being the principal difference between this annex and the Jordanian). The other side of the coin is represented by Israeli occupation of the West Bank which includes East Jerusalem. Selfstudier (talk) 15:11, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Annexation and occupation are not matters of local law, they are issues of international law. And as a matter of international law, given the UNSC resolution on this, East Jerusalem was not annexed and it remains occupied.  nableezy  - 15:37, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree that internationally that is the case and we have an article that reflects that, Israeli occupation of the West Bank. Annexation is simply the seizing of territory and then usually applying the law of the seizor in the seized area. Afterwards, it is a case of whether that is legitimized by international recognition. If not, then internationally it remains occupied.
 * Whether the end article is called Jerusalem Law or Israeli annexation is neither here nor there, they mean exactly the same thing in this case. Anyway this is not crucial, if we redirect and give the Jerusalem Law a bit of infill history wise (the UN resolutions mainly) then it's all good, my main concern (and Zero as well) has been the NPOV in this article and how to deal with it. Redirect will do that just as well. Selfstudier (talk) 15:51, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I have done most of the aforementioned infill so just need to decide whether to rename/redirect/do nothing. Selfstudier (talk) 09:59, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ with Israeli annexation of East Jerusalem.--Maher27777 (talk) 20:15, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * . I see no arguments based on WP:COMMONNAME which is the relevant policy here. Alaexis¿question? 09:01, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I did not consider commonname since both titles are descriptive of the seizure of territory and commonname does not apply. Although, fwiw, Reunification of Jerusalem and Annexation of East Jerusalem produce roughly the same number of hits in Google.Selfstudier (talk) 09:12, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Support per nom. Showiecz (talk) 04:24, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. It's a more descriptive and accurate title. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:25, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - "Reunification" is biased and most sources who use the word are Israeli-based (First results when googling "Reunification of Jerusalem": 1, 2), while most reliable sources prefer "annexation" (Associated Press, Al Jazeera, Cambridge) — Golden  call me maybe? 17:55, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - While appreciating the reservations that some have that this title would lend weight to a position not accepted by the international community, annexation is fundamentally a neutral term that has no bearing on whether the action was legal or illegal, unilateral or bilateral, etc. The sources support it. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:10, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Stick to Neutral POV
To say The "Israeli annexation of East Jerusalem, also known as the Reunification of Jerusalem" means that both those terms are equal, which are not, and that the cause of removing the title!Maher27777 (talk) 07:53, 29 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Idk what you mean by "equal", they are both descriptive titles for what occurred. Selfstudier (talk) 09:21, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Is the reunification term only prevalent in Israel, and, if so, is 'also known as' a bit sweeping? If the usage is thus limited, 'known in Israel as' might be more apt. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:31, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The recent name change was an attempt to start fixing the POV problems in this page and Jerusalem Day which is also the same thing but dressed up as a national holiday. Idk if the usage occurs mainly in Israeli/pro-Israel sources, probably (Golden in the RM above said that they thought it was), if you can demonstrate that, go ahead and change it. Selfstudier (talk) 09:57, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I think it's more neutral to say :"Israeli annexation of East Jerusalem, known in Israel as Reunification of Jerusalem"....Maher27777 (talk) 09:29, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Redirect proposal
This should be redirected to Jerusalem Law, it is a POVFORK of that article. We already have an article covering the act that purportedly annexed East Jerusalem, this just presents that same information in a biased manner.  nableezy  - 15:33, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Oppose redirect. Support merge under the title here. 67 is the (effective) annex, 80 is just formalizing it (in Israeli law). Selfstudier (talk) 15:41, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The title here is a blatant NPOV violation.  nableezy  - 16:08, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I know you prefer occupation. Leaving aside that we're both kind of skating around the status of Jerusalem, which is technically neither, why is what is described in sources a NPOV violation? Selfstudier (talk) 16:16, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Its a minority viewpoint on the status of EJ (annexed), it should be obvious why promoting a minority viewpoint as though it were the commonly held one is a NPOV violation.  nableezy  - 16:17, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree that the parts of East Jerusalem beyond what was there in 67 are occupied, of course I do, that's a given. But the Israelis did carry out an annex, de facto. It's not so different from Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation. Will you head over there and ask for that to be renamed Russian occupation of Crimea? Selfstudier (talk) 17:00, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The whataboutism in that question is not something I take seriously. I have no interest in that, and besides the two situations are not comparable. This is not a common name, Google results for occupation dwarf annexation. Same for news results, exclusive book results, and scholar results also show occupation being more common. It is a straightforward NPOV violation to claim that a minority view and name is the commonly used one.  nableezy  - 05:32, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * We both made our views clear in the RM above just 3 months ago. I said then a redirect would be OK but the majority of other editors thought not. I'm still OK with a redirect but not with title Jerusalem Law. Occupation is more common exactly because there is an occupation, that's why we have Israeli occupation of the West Bank which includes the area referred to here. This is not about the occupation, it is about the (effective/purported/de facto/occu-/whatever) annex. I fixed the opening sentence of the lead and gave a ref/quote.Selfstudier (talk) 09:15, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Oppose redirect too. These are two different subjects; one about the 1967 event, implications, commemoration, views, etc. The other about a basic law of Israel, which merits its own article. Tombah (talk) 15:56, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Then this should be titled Israeli occupation of East Jerusalem.  nableezy  - 16:08, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Better the "Reunification of Jerusalem". Maybe the current one is a good compromise after all. Tombah (talk) 16:13, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Likewise explicitly POV. Occupation is a super-majority viewpoint, and this is a minority one, and "reunification" is a fringe-sized minority one.  nableezy  - 16:16, 17 July 2022 (UTC)