Talk:Judaization of Jerusalem/Archive 3

Discussion for title NPOV
I am distinguishing this from the whole NPOV argument since the subject matter of this article assumes the existence of Judaization, while its very existence is questioned by some editors including myself. This is distinct from the unbalanced POV of the article, which not only assumes the existence (the POV-title part) but also disproportionately cites critics of Israel and open advocates of the Palestinian cause without giving the Israeli response to their claims or including Israel's explanations (or explanations proffered by advocates for Israel) for various policies. That is the justification for the two templates applied. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.44.174.192 (talk) 12:09, 22 September 2013 (UTC)


 * 'all Palestinian advocates.' You know, that is one more thing you can be taken to book for. I don't see an obsession over Islamization of Jerusalem's title. When I checked google, I saw that the phenomenon was well-attested. That was the end of it. The same goes for this article. Check google. It is a very widely attested phrase used to describe a process designed to secure Jerusalem's Jewish identity. There's nothing to argue here, except to note with Karl Popper that: 'No rational argument will have a rational effect on a man who does not want to adopt a rational attitude.' (The Open Society and its Enemies(1945)5th ed.Routledge 1968, vol.2 p.231) Nishidani (talk) 12:21, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * That's because there _was_ an Islamization of Jerusalem like a thousand years ago. Nobody disputes that because it's obviously true.  The Dome of the Rock is on the site of the Jewish temple, and many churches and synagogues were reconsecrated as mosques.  I don't understand.  Do you think that Islam predates Judaism in the city?  Do you dispute that Jordan ethnically cleansed its part of the city after the 1948 war?  There's nothing to dispute.  The idea of the "Judaization" of Jerusalem implies that jews are somehow foreign to the city (a claim made by many members of Hamas and the PLO, as well as countless journalists in the Arab world).  In the case of Islamization, the city was conquered and many of its sites were reconsecrated as Islamic sites.. that is an Islamization because prior to the conquest, Islam was a foreign entity in the city.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.44.174.192 (talk) 12:27, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Moreover, I did a google search, and every result is either a representative of an OIC state, a Palestinian politician, or a Palestinian activism website. See for yourself. 174.44.174.192 (talk) 12:31, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll notify you here, instead of your talk page. The banner on top of this talk page reads in part.


 * All articles related to the Arab-Israeli conflict broadly construed are under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24 hour period). When in doubt, assume it is related.
 * Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Reverts of edits made by anonymous IP editors that are not vandalism are exempt from 1RR but are subject to the usual rules on edit warring.
 * Editors who otherwise violate this 1RR restriction may be blocked without warning by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence.
 * After being warned, any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process may be blocked up to one year, topic-banned, further revert-restricted, or otherwise restricted from editing.
 * Reports of editors violating any of these restrictions should be made to either the Arbitration enforcement or Edit warring noticeboards.


 * This means you are obliged to self-revert, since you have just violated the rule. I.e.


 * 19:44, 21 September 2013‎. Ist revert
 * 12:15, 22 September 2013‎. Second revert.
 * Failure to comply with the rules will lead automatically to you being reported.Nishidani (talk) 12:40, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Report me. I really don't give a damn.  You can't win in an argument so you bait me into violating 1RR.  However, what you're wrong about is that there's no double revert, since I had change the templates and you reverted them.  Anyway, if this is the way you want to play, lets go. =)174.44.174.192 (talk) 13:00, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Moreover, I argue that your edit constitutes clear vandalism, since it is removing a template that specifically asks that people not remove it until the argument is over. You can't win the debate so you try to stifle it.  That's palestinian activists for you.  You really know how to shout somebody down. 174.44.174.192 (talk) 13:03, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I.e. you are not interested in the rules (b) when told of them, you ignore them (c) when told you break them, you admit it but brush it off saying I baited you into an error (my fault then) ('you bait me into violating 1RR. ') and (d) describe me as a 'palestinian activist', editing in a vandalistic manner,(read WP:Vandalism) (WP:AGF) violation. I have to, and indeed wish to, abide by them, you don't. That's wanting to have a fight with an assumed adversary, demanding however that one of his arms be tied behind his back. I personally will still give you time to revert. Nishidani (talk) 15:52, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * IP again claims that "this article assumes the existence of Judaization", while the lead of the article states that "The question of whether there is an Israeli government policy for the Judaization of Jerusalem is a matter of debate". I'll repeat myself and say that if you feel there are reliably reported significant views on the subject-matter of this article that are missing from the article, please feel free to add them. In other words, if you think it's broken then fix it. --Dailycare (talk) 21:09, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * (a) the IP broke a fundamental rule, and should be reported for it. He secondly refused to revert when notified, i.e., couldn't care less. Thirdly wickeynl left the stupidest template imaginable in, which says after some years there is something disputed about the title. That is an irresolvable complaint, since the title comes from RS, and is extremely widespread in source usage. The IP has therefore no leg to stand on, and persists in trying to turn this from a problem-solving wiki page into a debate, which has, judging from his remarks, no consequential aim than to change the title. It's pointless arguing the point unless sustained policy-based arguments can be set forth challenging the title. That is not being done, and therefore the tag should be removed, as merely a feint, sticking a 'beware' sign up, without justifying it, in order to warn off readers from an article the IP dislikes.Nishidani (talk) 21:19, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Dailycare, the body of the article repeatedly assumes the existence of Judaization rather than placing allegations in the mouths of the people who have made them (wouldn't it be great if they were called allegators, lol). The one sentence you quoted doesn't make up for that.  Nishidani, just because you disagree with me doesn't mean that I "don't have a leg to stand on".  You've repeatedly failed to read what I've written, and you've gotten all bent out of shape about this because it matters a lot to you that the evil jews are trying to "judaize" "arab lands".  However, as it so happens, Arab citizens of Israel are also able to live in settlements and in East Jerusalem.  The distinction between Israeli arabs and Palestinian arabs is political rather than racial or ethnic.  Further, Israel has offered citizenship to all of the permanent residents of Jerusalem, and it has given those permanent residents who choose not to become citizens harsher terms.  This is not apartheid, and it's not judaization.  Judaization would be the building of a temple on the temple mount (whether or not it would involve the destruction of Al Aqsa and the Dome of the Rock).  Judaization would be trying to force muslims to adopt Judaism and to drive out muslims on account of their being muslim (rather than being recalcitrant permanent residents who won't accept citizenship).  The term "Judaization of Jerusalem" is practically a conspiracy theory.  Look it up on google and see what you find.  It's a bunch of hilarious propaganda claiming that Israel is trying to destroy the Muslim holy places, while this is clearly not the case.  It's incitement, plain and simple.  That you found a handful of activist arguments claiming that there is this process going on makes no difference.  The fact of the matter is that the article needs to be rewritten in such a way that it stops assuming that the policy exists.  If you can't find any such places, write me back and I'll paste a couple.  67.87.97.192 (talk) 21:40, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:TLDR. It's midnight, and I like to start the day intelligently, which means not looking at wikipedia-qua-blogging-outlet-balderdash-dump, but rather reading a book.Bye Nishidani (talk) 21:49, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

After reading all that is written about it on this page, I cannot find any argument that the title is inappropriate. I can only see a claim that the title assumes the phenomenon exists, which is entirely incorrect given that Wikipedia has countless articles on non-existent things. What about N-Ray, Atlantis or Water memory? And even if "'Judaization of Jerusalem' is practically a conspiracy theory" as Anon falsely claims, we have countless articles on conspiracy theories too. So what is the real argument against the title? Only one: Anon doesn't like it. Well, too bad. Zerotalk 09:37, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * As anon falsely claims? Nice bias, Zorro.  The argument is that the article should be something like "claims of Judaization" and cite the principals involved in the promulgation of the theory.  Moreover, the problem with calling it 'Judaization' rather than 'Israelization' is that it falsely implies that Israel is trying to change the character of the city and its various sites from Christian and Muslim to Jewish.  In reality, the policies in question do not discriminate on the basis of Jew or Arab but rather on Israeli citizen vs Permanent resident.  The whole point of this group of policies is to secure east Jerusalem as sovereign Israeli territory in the event of a future 2-state solution.  That's the whole reason why Israel would be rather pleased if the permanent residents of Jerusalem all traded their permanent resident status for full Israeli citizenship, since this would de facto negate the claims by the PA/PLO/Hamas for control of East Jerusalem.  This is the reality, and dressing it up in words like 'Judaization' is just Jew-baiting and incitement.  One could surely question the morality, the legality, or the wisdom of Israel undertaking a project to prejudice the final status of East Jerusalem, but the term 'Judaization' is inflammatory. 67.87.97.192 (talk) 14:18, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * See WP:SOAPBOXNishidani (talk) 14:55, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree, these arguments have already been dealt with. Barak below also confesses to the policy, which puts it in even clearer light. We also have a source from the mayor's office on the record saying it's been the policy for decades. Barak says "boosting its Jewish majority", not "boosting the Israeli majority", and ditto for the other sources as well. --Dailycare (talk) 20:18, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Obviously because \emph{a fortiori}, more jews than arabs means more israelis than palestinians. Another reason why he mentioned jews rather than Israelis is that the Palestinians wouldn't mind taking tons of extra arabs into their future state.  They would mind having Jews there, though (the PLO has reiterated numerous times that a future palestinian state would be Judenrein).  It's not that Israel is planting flags on muslim sites and declaring them jewish holy sites, they're planting israeli flags, but the jews are the flagpoles.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.44.174.192 (talk) 14:12, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

You are free to disagree with me, but you are not free to disagree and then claim that there is no disagreement
Some editors around these parts seem to think that it's alright to disagree on substance and then claim that there is no disagreement by removing the notice of a POV dispute. This is completely unacceptable, outrageous, and I will revert any edit that removes the tag until the concerns are addressed (See WP:NPOVD). I am willing to work with the other editors in the meantime to fix what Tritomex and I (at least) see as a major POV problem. However, right now, the article is highly misleading.174.44.174.192 (talk) 19:49, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

If you want a specific outrageous claim, it's that Israel's policies in Jerusalem are at all related to South Africa's apartheid policies in Johannesberg (this is simply a lie, since any permanent resident of Jerusalem may apply for Israeli citizenship and thereby obtain all requisite rights). The source is not reliable, and it's clearly bias. The distinction is political rather than racial or ethnic (namely, meeting the test of citizenship). There are no restrictions against Israeli arabs moving to Jerusalem.174.44.174.192 (talk) 19:57, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Bollens is an expert who has published in the field, so he is reliable for this information, have a look at WP:IRS. Whether you think he's biased, or whether you agree or disagree with him, isn't relevant. --Dailycare (talk) 20:49, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I challenge you in three ways: First, Bollens is not WP:NOTABLE; second, he is speaking not in his capacity as a scholar but as an activist (since scholarship would need to argue for the point, which would be impossible, given the facts); and the third, of course, is that Bollens is factually incorrect. Bollens is an ideologue, and therefore, he is not reliable.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.44.174.192 (talk) 23:58, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Or, you know, we can start citing Alan Dershowitz, who has published in the field and is faculty at Harvard. Remember, "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view)." You can't have your barrel full and your wife drunk. 174.44.174.192 (talk) 00:15, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * You don't like people citing activists and then you cite Dershowitz? This gets more bizarre by the minute. Zerotalk 01:55, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Are you an idiot? That was precisely my point!  Either activists are _allowed_ or they are _not allowed_.  I was saying that if you persist in using activists and calling them experts, then I can do the same thing.  "You can't have your barrel full and your wife drunk" is the Italian version of "You can't have your cake and eat it too".  Seriously, please read.174.44.174.192 (talk) 02:59, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * To clarify, I'm saying that I think we should proscribe all opinions proffered by advocates of one side or another. If we are going to cite a source, then we should try to either make sure that the source is neutral (by making sure that the source's claims are backed up by solid logical arguments), or if that isn't possible, make sure that we include sources from all of the significant viewpoints as well as including their affiliation with advocacy for any particular side of the issue. 174.44.174.192 (talk) 03:05, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * You completely miscomprehend wiki policy on sourcing. It is nowhere written that sources 'must be neutral'. We are not to evaluate the 'logical' status of material in RS. Your last point would exclude government documents, since governments engage in advocacy, esp. in this area. Lastly editors can't 'proscribe' anything.
 * You'ève been told time and again to bring to the talk page a list of objections that make a cave for POV question so editors can examine them. We have no problem is handling this. What you can't do, given your ignorance of procedures, is be dragged into a revert war staged on the article page, by someone who prefers to keep branding it a travesty of neutrality without adequate evidence for his or her opinion.Nishidani (talk) 09:17, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Are you also daft? Read what I wrote again.  For some reason, you jokers can only seem to read half of what is written (NPOV policy, multiple instances of my posts, etc).  What I said, and I will repeat it again for your benefit, was that either we will restrict ourselves to non-biased/non-advocate sources, or we will have to relax those standards equivalently on both sides of the argument to allow opinions from advocates (or many sides, if there are many sides).  However, please bear in mind that you will be opening a can of worms, and I will immediately begin citing people like Dershowitz, who meet your standards for reliability.  The specific thing I mentioned is cited in an op-ed in the Guardian, which is a rather unreliable source.  Now see here, you opened up this can of worms by continually removing the NPOV dispute notice.  Now, instead of me walking away happy with the stupid notice at the top, you've shown an excessive amount of bad faith by continually removing the POV Dispute notice, and therefore, spite necessitates that I actually proceed to edit this dumb article in order to either remove the POV or balance it out with claims from advocates for Israel in order to or balance out the POV distortion.  I'm not going to be bullied by a bunch of palestine activists into allowing them to silence me when they are clearly not operating in good faith or even within the bounds of the rules.  I will be checking back to make sure that either the POV dispute is resolved by editing the article or the POV dispute notice remains.  If it is removed, I will revert the removal.  If you have a problem with this, then we can submit the issue to arbitration.  I disagree with your reading of NPOV, RS, and moreover, I maintain that you are promoting a double standard in which anti-Israel/pro-Palestinian advocates with loosely-related academic credentials (for instance, Falk) can be automatically considered reliable sources regardless of whether or not their opinions appear in advocacy rather than scholarship while pro-Israel advocates (for example, Dershowitz) are required to meet a much higher standard.  Fair is fair, Nishidani.  Either you get Falk, and I get Dersh, or neither of us gets our respective man.  Your move. 174.44.174.192 (talk) 09:56, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * What on earth has Richard A. Falk got to do with this, other than to indicate you are checking my contribs, and can't read my recent edit correctly? No move required. You don't respond to specific wiki-policy-aware editors ('I disagree with your reading of NPOV, RS, and moreover'), but just repeat your ideas. You're required to move towards policy.Nishidani (talk) 10:41, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Falk is hardly a reliable source on this matter. He has shown himself to be extremely biased in regards to Israel, but I'm willing to accept his statements regarding "Judaization" only, of course, if we can accept lots of fun editorial remarks disagreeing with him.  The entire article is full of things like this.  It's basically cherry-picking all of the opinions on "Judaization" and then finding quotes that agree with the contention that there is a "Judaization", but no quotes arguing that it's a piece of propaganda designed to incite condemnation against Israel.  I'm also working collaboratively now by not unilaterally removing his statement.  Now tell me, do you want to remove Falk, or should I go looking for a counter-quote from an equally reliable (i.e. not at all reliable) source?174.44.174.192 (talk) 11:06, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Moreover, for a notice of NPOV dispute, it is not incumbent on me to make a 'cave for POV question' or whatever you meant. I am telling you that I see a POV problem.  The notice simply says that someone has raised this claim.  It doesn't mean that it's proven to have a POV problem.  The notice gets removed either when I disappear and stop responding regarding the POV problem, if arbitration determines that I'm not being reasonable, or if my concerns are addressed.  Those are the three ways you will get rid of it.  Now, I'll tell you that the first one will not happen if you continually remove the notice.  I've offered you the second, and of course, I would be fine with the third.  Now stop trying to bully me into conceding, and let's discuss the lack of balance in this article.  I've already raised objections regarding the obliteration of Jerusalem's history before 600 AD.  Moreover, I've raised objections regarding your choice of sources (at least in the absence of similar-quality counter-sources).  I have plenty of time, so if you want to improve the article, then work with me.  If you want to get rid of me, contact arbitration, but I've looked a number of times at the rules, and you have no chance of winning arbitration in this case.  I await your reply. 174.44.174.192 (talk) 10:07, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Also, another remark, why would you put the word 'proscribe' in quotes? My usage was correct (prohibit inclusion; exclude; banish). Putting your interlocutor's words in scare quotes comes off as extremely impolitic, since you appear to be implying that you do not think that the word can be used in that way. Given your personal history, you would benefit by ceasing your condescensing remarks, especially in the case of the rules regarding an NPOVD, since in that particular case, in addition to your conduct being impolitic, your position is incorrect. Good day.174.44.174.192 (talk) 10:31, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * No regular and experienced editor here can see any merit in your unique expostulations. That's why the tag reflects your personal viewpoint, and you have no given specific instances of why this article violates NPOV. It was clear from your first remark that you don't understand wikipedia.Good night Nishidani (talk) 10:41, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Wrong, the NPOVD tag reflects my (and whoever originally posted it, YonYon or whatever) contention that the article does not maintain an NPOV. Moreover, your band of 'regular and experienced editors' (see, I'm casting doubt by using scare quotes) are all Palestinian advocates, and this page is likely on their watch lists (or you've contacted them to bring them here).  On the other hand, this page is not watched by most Israel advocates or even by most WProject:Israel editors.  The fact of the matter is that nobody who has taken any kind of opposing view in any discussion on this page has supported you, only your co-advocates.  This is why I've suggested that we take it up with arbitration, since it's very clear that you have prevented any kind of critical mass of critics from building up on this page by ganging up on them and claiming that their edits or contentions go against current consensus.  However, you won't scare me away, and I'm going to stand my ground on this one. If I wanted your assessment of my contributions, I would have asked for it. It's clear that we disagree, so we can resolve this the right way (fixing the page), the easy way (arbitration), or the hard way (you can try to outlast me and start an edit-war). 174.44.174.192 (talk) 10:55, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Bollens is a professor of urban planning. He's an expert in the subject-matter of the material sourced to him and has published in that field. Dershowitz is a professor of criminal law. What material would you suggest to source to him? I have a few quick comments to your ideas:


 * 1) leaving the NPOV tag there and "walking away", as you seem to suggest, leads to removal of the tag if there is no active discussion on a NPOV issue.
 * 2) You again claim that sources would be biased. WP:IRS however states that "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective", so whether or not individual sources are unbiased isn't really here nor there. If you feel there are reliably reported significant views on the subject-matter of this article that are missing from the article, please feel free to add them.
 * 3) Your claim that the article just treats Judaization as fact is hard to square with this sentence in the lead: "The question of whether there is an Israeli government policy for the Judaization of Jerusalem is a matter of debate".
 * 4) Referring to editors with language like "Are you an idiot?", "Are you also daft?" will lead to you being ignored and/or blocked.
 * 5) Since this is a content issue, it doesn't seem like a candidate for arbitration.  --Dailycare (talk) 11:51, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I will support the NPOV tag up until I make some edits and then the other editors reach a consensus that my sources are acceptable. In the meantime, since this is a temporary problem, I am leaving the two POV things up there. 174.44.174.192 (talk) 12:03, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Regarding Bollens, I am not convinced that he has any particular understanding of the history of the conflict or the political subtleties (for instance, Jewish vs Israeli, or the political status of permanent resident noncitizens in the city). This has a huge effect on determining whether or not something is or is not apartheid. Also, Dershowitz has published a book and many articles in the press on the conflict, and given that the subject in this case is criminal and municipal law, I see no reason why his specialty is not at least as close to those subjects as urban planning is to determining whether or not a state is apartheid. See?  I can do this all day.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.44.174.192 (talk) 12:14, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Whether you (or any other editor) think Bollens has understanding is neither here nor there. Publishing a book or opinion pieces in the press don't count, since according to WP:IRS the publications must be in "reliable third-party publications". But we can have a look at the material you have in mind, and decide. Whether a source is reliable depends on the material being sourced. --Dailycare (talk) 21:02, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Then start removing the op-eds from the Guardian. Moreover, Bollens has not published anything in a reliable source relevant to whether or not Jerusalem is being "Judaized". He's an architect and urban planner, not a historian or expert.  67.87.97.192 (talk) 21:26, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yawn.Professor of Planning, Policy and Design; Warmington Chair in Peace and International Cooperation

Ph.D. University of North Carolina, AICP.
 * Specializations: (a) ethnic/group disparities and urban planning, (b) urban growth policy, (c)metropolitan governance, (d)intergovernmental approaches to planning
 * Prof. Bollens studies ethnicity and urban policy, development strategies, and regional and intergovernmental approaches to planning. Here are questions that guide my research and teaching: (1) what is the role and influence of urban planning and policy amidst deep inter-group conflict, (2) can bottom-up urbanism contribute to top-down peacemaking and efforts to democratize a multinational society, (3) what is the relationship between how governance is structured in metropolitan areas and the equality/inequality of opportunity across individuals and localities? Over the past 17 years, Bollens has interviewed over 240 urban professionals and community advocates in Jerusalem, Belfast, Johannesburg, Nicosia (Cyprus), Sarajevo and Mostar (Bosnia), Barcelona and Basque cities (Spain), and Beirut about the role of urban policy and city building amidst nationalistic ethnic conflict and political transitions. Recent books include City and Soul in Divided Societies (2012, Routledge Press), Cities, Nationalism, and Democratization (2007, Routledge), On Narrow Ground (2000, State University of New York Press) and Urban Peace-Building in Divided Societies (1999, Westview Press).
 * Translation. You are wasting our time. Nishidani (talk) 21:43, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * An Op-ed in Guardian is OK if, once more but for the last time, it's written by someone who has published in the field in question in reliable third-party publications. In other words, as is sometimes said, he's reliable for the content in his own right. Nish, we should AGF but he did write above he can "do this all day". --Dailycare (talk) 20:09, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Bollens didn't write the article. It's an article quoting him in a private conversation.  Anyway, the relevant section of the article equivocates on the meaning of the word "Palestinian" vs "Arab" (since the latter class includes both Israeli Arabs and Palestinian Arabs).  First, note "'Planning and urban policy, which normal cities view as this benign tool, was used as a powerful partisan tool to subordinate and control black people in Johannesburg and is still used that way against Palestinians in Jerusalem,' says Scott Bollens, a University of California professor of urban planning who has studied divided cities across the globe, including Belfast, Berlin, Nicosia and Mostar. 'In South Africa there was 'group areas' legislation, and then there was land use, planning tools and zoning that were used to reinforce and back up group areas. In Israel, they use a whole set of similar tools. They are very devious, in that planning is often viewed as this thing that is not part of politics. In Jerusalem, it's fundamental to their project of control, and Israeli planners and politicians have known that since day one. They've been very explicit in linking the planning tools with their political project.'".  What's important to note here is that Bollens uses the term 'Palestinian'.  However, the Guardian article immediately changes around what Bollens has said by following it with "At the heart of Israel's strategy is the policy adopted three decades ago of 'maintaining the demographic balance' in Jerusalem. In 1972, the number of Jews in the west of the city outnumbered the Arabs in the east by nearly three to one. The government decreed that that equation should not be allowed to change, at least not in favour of the Arabs."  However, their equivocation bears fruit here: "'The mantra of the past 37 years has been 'maintaining the demographic balance', which doesn't mean forcing Palestinians to leave,' says Daniel Seidemann, a Jewish Israeli lawyer who has spent years fighting legal cases on behalf of Jerusalem's Arab residents. 'It means curtailing their ability to develop by limiting construction to the already developed areas, by largely preventing development in new areas and by taking 35% [of Palestinian-owned land in greater East Jerusalem] and having a massive government incentive for [Jews] to build up that area.' The political decision to discriminate against Arabs was an open but rarely acknowledged secret. The authors of a 1992 book on Jerusalem, Separate and Unequal, laid bare the policy. The writers, two of whom were advisers to the city's mayors, said that Israeli policy since 1967 was 'remorselessly' pursued with four objectives: to expand the Jewish population in the mainly Arab east of the city; to hinder growth of Arab neighbourhoods; to induce Arabs to leave; and to seal off Arab areas behind Jewish settlements. In 1992, Jerusalem's deputy mayor, Avraham Kahila, told the city council: 'The principle that guides me and the mayor is that, in the Arab neighbourhoods, the municipality has no interest or reason to get into any kind of planning process. Thus, we encourage the building of Jewish neighbourhoods in empty areas that have been expropriated by the state of Israel. But so long as the policy of the state of Israel is not to get involved in the character of existing Arab neighbourhoods, there is no reason to require plans.' The mayor at the time, Teddy Kollek, was so identified with the city that he was known as Mr Jerusalem. Talking in 1972 about East Jerusalem, Kollek's adviser on Arab affairs, Ya'akov Palmon, told the Guardian: 'We take the land first and the law comes after.'" Notice how the Guardian is able to distort the meanings of these things by equivocation.  Moreover, it uses things that mean specific things in order to create a picture of 'Judaization'.  However, it's simply not accurate.  Take a look at page 43 of the google books preview of "Separate but equal".  It specifically states that Israeli arabs were given preference over non-Israeli arabs.  Moreover, Bollens's comment states that there was an 'apartheid-like effect' between Israelis and Palestinians (note that he does not use the word 'jews' or the word 'arabs').  The distortion arises, true, from the Guardian article, but that's all the more reason to avoid citing garbage magazines.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.44.174.192 (talk) 02:18, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Moreover, the evidence is even more damning. The Guardian writer interpolates 'Jewish' in the place of 'Israeli' in quoting Bollens: "Bollens says about 40% of East Jerusalem is designated as a green zone, but that this is really a mechanism for land transfer. 'The government calls it a green zone to stop Palestinians building homes there, and then when the government wants to develop an area [as Jewish] it lifts that green zoning miraculously and it becomes a development place.'". It also takes "Palestinian" to mean both citizens and non-citizens of Israel where the pattern of conflation seems to only support the theory that "Palestinians = Arabs and Israelis = Jews" is only applied when it serves to make Israel look bad. However, by invoking this formula, is it not the case that the Guardian editorial board is explicitly admitting to its own antisemitism (since anti-israeli and anti-jewish would naturally mean the same thing)? The article is a hit piece rather than a report. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.44.174.192 (talk) 02:49, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Is the title "Judaization of Jerusalem" correct?
This is in fact what the title-template is about. Since the term Judaization is defined for this article, the existence of it cannot be disputed, only the correctness of the definition. The term is restricted to the Judaization of Jerusalem by Israel, so the bullshit about history in the section Background does not make any sense.

I think the title should be changed into "Judaization of Jerusalem by Israel". The article covers the period from 1967.

Regarding the definition: There is no question of attemps to convert Muslims to Jews. There is without doubt a durable strive for remaining and even increasing a Jewish majority in Jerusalem. Judaization is the creation and maintenance of a Jewish majority. It is arguable to state that this is attended with destruction of Arab culture and expulsion of the Palestinian population. The question of whether there is an Israeli government policy for the Judaization of Jerusalem is not at all a matter of debate. To start with a citation of Prime Minister Ehud Barak on 8 November 2000:

"Maintaining our sovereignty over Jerusalem and boosting its Jewish majority have been our chief aims, and toward this end Israel constructed large Jewish neighborhoods in the eastern part of the city, which house 180,000 residents, and large settlements on the periphery of Jerusalem, like the city of Ma'aleh Adumim and Givat Ze'ev. The principle that guided me in the negotiations at Camp David was to preserve the unity of Jerusalem and to strengthen its Jewish majority for generations to come."

Address by PM Barak on the Fifth Anniversary of the Assassination of Yitzhak Rabin-08-Nov-2000

There is no such as "Israelization of Jerusalem". If Israelization was the aim, Netanyahu would not demand the recognition of a Jewish state, and the recognition of a democratic State of Israel would suffice for a peace agreement. In fact, Judaization is the real and only goal. --Wickey-nl (talk) 14:52, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, get us a source that says that Palestinians aren't judaizing Jerusalem, but Israel is, and perhaps . .Nishidani (talk) 14:55, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

1. The subject is not invented, but an existing widely discussed phenomenon; 2. No rule forbids an article about the subject; 3. The title reflects the content of the article; 4. Most importantly, the title itself does not imply whether or not Judaization is occurring, unlike the content of the article. --Wickey-nl (talk) 11:42, 27 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Which is why I changed it from NPOV-Title to NPOV. The section "Opposition to judaization" is basically a POV-fest.  Moreover, in one of the earlier sections I just showed by a comparison with the original cited sources that the guardian article misrepresents them seriously.  You can't equivocate on the meanings of the words "Jew" and "Arab" or "Israeli" and "Palestinian".
 * For instance, it is easy to see that if an Israeli Arab owns land in Jerusalem and then goes to live in the West Bank, his property is not seized and made forfeit. This is what that article implies, and it's simply false.  It is true that if a Jerusalem permanent resident ceases residency within Jerusalem for a certain period of time, his land is forfeit.  However, notice again the distinction between Arab citizens of Israel and Arab permanent residents of Jerusalem.  It's a coercive method for the Israeli government to 'encourage' those Arabs to adopt Israeli citizenship.  We can argue about whether or not this policy is somehow "bad", but it's not Judaization and has nothing to do with Jewishness.
 * Again, this is just your personal construction. 'to 'encourage' those Arabs to adopt Israeli citizenship' is not 'Judaization'. Oh really? adopting 'Israeli citizenship' means taking on an identity of a citizen in a 'Jewish state'. The person's status is 'judaized' juridically ipso facto by the very definition of what the state of Israel is.Nishidani (talk) 08:22, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * How is the person's status 'Judaized'? They still speak arabic (one of Israel's official langauges) and are free to worship whoever they want.  It doesn't even satisfy your own definition of 'Judaize', although it does satisfy an obvious definition of 'Israelize'.  For instance, we don't say that someone is 'Christianized' when he becomes a citizen of the UK, even though it is the de jure state religion (and Judaism in this case is not even the state religion of Israel).  67.87.97.192 (talk) 20:56, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Please see the page Judaization. This is precisely what is described there as "Israelization" Judaization versus Israelization

While the term Judaization is used to denote the conversion from non-Jewish to Jewish, the term Israelization is sometimes used to refer to the adaption of non-Israelis to Israeli law and culture, for example by the application for an Israeli ID card/Israeli citizenship to acquire more rights, or the use of Israeli education.[7] 67.87.97.192 (talk) 21:06, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Interesting point. 67.87.97.192 I dont think that East Jerusalem Palestinians feel Judaized by becoming Israeli citizens, nor I think Palestinian Christians become Islamized by becoming Palestinian citizens (Islam is the official religion of Palestine, while Israel do not even have official religion) --Tritomex (talk) 21:23, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

It is called israelization
Just saw this headline on google news:www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2013/11/jerusalem-two-state-solution-building-plans-netanyahu.html

I think the Incitement Gang owes some people an apology.70.192.66.36 (talk) 21:23, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * You find an article that presumably agrees with a belief that you hold and in your mind this justifies demanding an apology from an undefined "gang" you accuse of "incitement". If this is how you deal with information sampled from sources and interact with people in this topic area, Wikipedia is not for you.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 05:34, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Yep. The term 'Judaization of Jerusalem' is pure incitement.  You ought to look up the history of incitement regarding Jerusalem and its supposed 'Judaization'.  It goes back all the way to Herr Mufti trying to incite riots against the Jews in the mandate period.174.44.174.192 (talk) 01:06, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Funny, here are Herr Shalom and Herr Gapso reported as using the word "Judaize" on Der Arutz Sieben. Zerotalk 13:21, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * According to the article, also Aryeh King uses the term. Not to mention the EU, which criticises Israel's policies to enhance the Jewish presence at the expense of the Arab presence. --Dailycare (talk) 20:35, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * You mean the Arabian colonist presence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.240.42.139 (talk) 02:29, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

The Jewish Character of East Jerusalem Before 1948
For this article to be fair, it should discuss the Jewish character of east Jerusalem prior to Jordanian occupation. Before 1948, much of NE and SE Jerusalem had Jewish land owners. This property was confiscated by the Jordanians. The Jordanians pushed out or killed all the Jews from occupied east Jerusalem, destroyed completely the Jewish Quarter of the Old City, and desecrated Mt. Of Olives - a Jewish cemetery that completely covers the mountain side and has been there for thousands of years. The Western Wall - holiest site of the Jewish religion - was used as a garbage dump.

When Israel re-united the city in 1967, it simply restored the "Jewishness" that the Jordanians completely destroyed. Israel has never acted to clean Jerusalem of its Arabic or Muslim heritage, but to restore it (at least in part) back the Jewish character it legally once had and illegally taken from it. These facts should be made clear in the article. Also, the term "Arab East Jerusalem" must be exposed for what it is - propaganda - because east Jerusalem became Arab East Jerusalem after the 1948 ethnic cleansing of its Jewish population, institutions, and synagogues by the Jordanian occupying forces.

It is true, however, that, in more recent years, fringe right-wing groups have been buying properties in Arab neighborhoods and settling Jewish families there. Everything I mentioned here is backed by other articles within Wikipedia and each have respective credible sources cited.Paltschuler (talk) 00:34, 22 May 2014 (UTC)Peter Altschuler 5/21/2014


 * Wikipedia is not a forum. You obviously know very little about the subject anyway. Zerotalk 00:43, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Which facts do you dispute and what are your sources? Paltschuler (talk) 00:55, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It doesn't work like that here. If you want to change something, be specific and provide sources. What specific changes are you proposing should be made to improve the article and what are the reliable sources you suggest should be used to support those changes ?  Sean.hoyland  - talk 15:51, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

I simply offered that as a starting point for the editors to work with. Here is a good source of reference: http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_article=2577&x_context=7&x_issue=4#1Paltschuler (talk) 09:37, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * We try to avoid using political activist organisations as sources. See WP:RS. Zerotalk 11:15, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Intro edits
The intro to this article seems to contradict the remainder of the text: that is, Judaization is portrayed as solely an active, directed process (almost a conspiracy), as opposed to the nuanced active (government action) and passive (demographic shifts) process described in the remainder of the article. It also uses the phrase "establish and increase" a Jewish presence and the "transformation of elements from Arab to Jewish"- a phrase that misleadingly implies a total absence of Jewish (and Christian, and Armenian) culture in the city prior to 1948. Perhaps a better intro would be as follows:

Judaization of Jerusalem (تهويد القدس, tahweed il-quds; יהוד ירושלים, yehud yerushalaim) is the process of increasing the Jewish character of Jerusalem, transforming it from a multiethnic Ottoman city in the early 1900's to the more predominantly Jewish city of today (see Demographic history of Jerusalem). Israel has allegedly sought to Judaize the city Jerusalem since its inception in 1948 by securing the largest possible Jewish majority and transforming physical elements of the city.

I'm new here, so comments?
 * Welcome to wikipedia! Concerning how the lead is written, I agree with you in that it should be in line with what the body of the article says. The body of the article, in turn, needs to reflect what the best sources say on the subject. In this case, I'm not sure if it's wrong to say this involves conspiratorial aspects, since we have sources that describe deliberate policies aiming at increasing the Jewish character at the expense of the Muslim character, and also denials that this would be taking place. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 19:01, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the response! I agree to governmental aspects of Judaization, but it seems there's enough evidence in the article itself to also assume passive/nongovernmental reasons for the shift (e.g. birthrate, Jewish migration).  The sentence I'm trying to fix is the current intro's "The main ways to Judaize Jerusalem is by ..." bit, which seems a little heavy handed (implying a single controlling actor).  I tried to incorporate these methods into the next sentence on Israeli actions.  So how's it look? Mulled whine (talk) 20:46, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * You make an interesting point, however now that I review the article, the birthrates don't get much coverage therein, except in that the high Arab birthrate is cited as a reason for the active Judaization policies of the Israeli government. Migration, as far as it is facilitated by Israel, is an active policy. Concerning the birthrates overall, I think the sources we have describe Judaization as an active policy, and as the article needs to reflect sources, it needs to describe active policies. But of course if we have sources that describe Judaization in terms of birth rate, then that could be mentioned. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that Israel is encouraging Jewish Jerusalemites to have many babies, for these racial purposes, but I don't recall seeing sources to that effect. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 10:54, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Heh. Someone just changed the intro and did a better job than me. Mulled whine (talk) 16:16, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Intro edit
I reverted the recent change by Plot Spoiler to allow discussion to reach consensus. I like the change to use the words 'to the view that' but here is the full abstract on which the change was based.

'''Since its inception in 1948, Israel has sought to transform the physical and demographic landscape of Jerusalem to correspond with the Zionist vision of a united and fundamentally Jewish Jerusalem under Israeli sovereignty. While much of this has been accomplished through the violent expulsion of Arab residents during the wars of 1948 and 1967, the Judaization of Jerusalem has relied equally on measures taken during times of ‘peace’: the strategic extension of Jerusalem's municipal boundaries, bureaucratic and legal restrictions on Palestinian land use, disenfranchisement of Jerusalem residents, the expansion of settlements in ‘Greater Jerusalem’, and the construction of the separation wall.'''

As can be seen there is a lot that is in the abstract that has not been used. I think that the reference to the fact that this is a Zionist vision has to be added, otherwise the word united really is POV. I also think that the other material as to the means by which Judaization is accomplished could be added. The present text also needs quote marks if we add in Zionist, which I think we have to. Can there be agreement around an expanded intro something like

Judaization of Jerusalem (Arabic: تهويد القدس‎, tahweed il-quds; Hebrew: יהוד ירושלים‎, yehud yerushalaim) is the view that, "Since its inception in 1948, Israel has sought to transform the physical and demographic landscape of Jerusalem to correspond with the Zionist vision of a united and fundamentally Jewish Jerusalem under Israeli sovereignty". Then a precis of the other text, which is an excellent summary of the methods that this view is accomplished by? Comments welcome Baal is my Lord and Master 18:56, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi, I'm OK with this suggestion except in that I don't feel we need quotation marks. Using a single sentence of this type is not a copyvio. Alternatively as an abundance of caution, the same thought may be conveyed using a different wording, e.g. "(...) is the view that Israel has pursued a transformation of Jerusalem to enhance it's Jewish character and to portray the city as united under Israel's sovereignty in accordance with Zionist goals." Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 20:14, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Pardon my ignorance, but is it uncontroversial to claim that a unified Jewish Jerusalem is a Zionist goal? Zionism and History of Zionism imply that post-1948 Zionism is relatively fractured - they list a variety of splinter groups which cross the Israeli political spectrum.  I'm wondering if it makes more sense as "(...) is the view that Israel has pursued a transformation of Jerusalem to enhance its Jewish character and to portray the city as united under Israel's sovereignty."Mulled whine (talk) 03:34, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The word united does need some qualification. since Jerusalem has been extended by Israeli law then what do we mean when we say uniifed?  Others might legitimately say that an occupied Jerusalem, or a controlled Jerusalem would be a better wording. I would have no objection to removing the word Zionist if we remove the word united.  How about    Since its inception in 1948, Israel has sought to transform the physical and demographic landscape of Jerusalem to correspond with a vision of a fundamentally Jewish Jerusalem under Israeli sovereignty.   We do not really need united as under Israeli sovereignty covers that.  The word united implies that there is something to unite, i.e. something that once was united, and I do not think that sits well with Israel's declared expansion of what constitutes Jerusalem today as opposed to what previously was thought of as Jerusalem.Baal is my Lord and Master 07:09, 3 November 2014 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theredheifer (talk • contribs)
 * I'm not sure why you need to qualify "united". That is, replacing "united" with "occupied" in my suggestion doesn't make sense: the Israeli government is not trying to portray Jerusalem as "occupied", but rather as "united".  That said, I don't think your revision is a bad lead in, so long as we keep the "is the view that" and drop "since its inception in 1948", both of which seem to increase the NPOV (the article includes support for and against the Judaization argument, and we are quoting a strong supporting author for a definition).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mulled whine (talk • contribs) 14:23, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I can see someone arguing that the word occupied could easily replace united in this sentence, Since its inception in 1948, Israel has sought to transform the physical and demographic landscape of Jerusalem to correspond with the Zionist vision of a united and fundamentally Jewish Jerusalem under Israeli sovereignty. I doubt if you would find a non Zionist view that Jerusalem should be 'united'.

Can I have comments on the following suggestion, please?

Judaization of Jerusalem (Arabic: تهويد القدس‎, tahweed il-quds; Hebrew: יהוד ירושלים‎, yehud yerushalaim) is the view that Israel has sought to transform the physical and demographic landscape of Jerusalem towards a fundamentally Jewish city under Israeli sovereignty. While much of this has been accomplished through the violent expulsion of Arab residents during the wars of 1948 and 1967, the Judaization of Jerusalem has relied equally on measures taken during times of ‘peace’. These include the strategic extension of Jerusalem's municipal boundaries, bureaucratic and legal restrictions on Palestinian land use, disenfranchisement of Jerusalem residents, the expansion of settlements in ‘Greater Jerusalem’, and the construction of the separation wall.Baal is my Lord and Master 03:35, 5 November 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theredheifer (talk • contribs)
 * I'm Ok with that version too. In the beginning, it would seem more correct to say Judaization of Jerusalem is a term used to describe the view that (...), rather than saying Judaization is the view. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 20:17, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Disagree. The wording is inconsistent. At first it's just a "view", but then the following wording indicates it is an undisputed fact ("the Judaization of Jerusalem has relied"). Also, the lead has no mention of those that dispute this view and why. Plot Spoiler (talk) 20:50, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I note that at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamization_of_the_Temple_Mount  a similar article, once the lead has stated that 'this is the view that' it is then described in the wikipedia neutral voice.  Both should be the same.  How about    Judaization of Jerusalem (Arabic: تهويد القدس‎, tahweed il-quds; Hebrew: יהוד ירושלים‎, yehud yerushalaim) is a term used to describe the view that Israel has sought to transform the physical and demographic landscape of Jerusalem towards a fundamentally Jewish city under Israeli sovereignty. According to those who hold this view, while much of this has been accomplished through the violent expulsion of Arab residents during the wars of 1948 and 1967, the Judaization of Jerusalem has relied equally on measures taken during times of ‘peace’.  These include the strategic extension of Jerusalem's municipal boundaries, bureaucratic and legal restrictions on Palestinian land use, disenfranchisement of Jerusalem residents, the expansion of settlements in ‘Greater Jerusalem’, and the construction of the separation wall.  I do not have access to any contradictory view, but we can look for that once this change has been made.Baal is my Lord and Master 07:43, 7 November 2014 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theredheifer (talk • contribs)
 * I'm OK with that as well, although it isn't as good as the previous version. The Israeli government is on the record saying it wants to Judaize the city, so whether these efforts are ongoing isn't really in dispute. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 21:49, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * If we have an RS that states that Israel has a goal of Judaisation of Jerusalem then I would agree with changing the text to reflect that.Theredheifer (talk) 19:03, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I think we have such sources in the article already, see this section, this and this. --Dailycare (talk) 17:53, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * And other sources (right in the article) say that Israel does not have a goal or "Judaizing" the city writ-large and that such an allegation is preposterous. Plot Spoiler (talk) 01:39, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * So if a source says Israel isn't seeking to Judaize, then Netanyahu's views on the matter become irrelevant? The EU says Israel is Judaizing the city. Which source in particular are you referring to? --Dailycare (talk) 21:00, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * This new intro suggestion is not neutral. Example: violent expulsion? it doesn't mention that Jordan controlled East Jerusalem between those years. The source maybe belongs to the criticism section. The previous intros had a better general explanation. Yuvn86 (talk) 22:25, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Why do you feel the former Jordanian occupation is relevant to this subject?--Dailycare (talk) 18:44, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Because the Judenfrei Old City that existed for a mere 19 years between 1948 and 1967 is what supporters of ethnic cleansing of Jews from the city mean when they talk of "Judaization". That's why Ericl (talk) 14:14, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Recent edit
The RS uses the word occupied, not the word controlled in relation to Israel. Note that using the word occupied in relation to Jordan, and controlled in relation to Israel is POV. The use of the word occupied in relation to East Jerusalem is widespread on wikipedia. Why has the word occupied been removed?

The other claim has no RS.

Please discuss before reverting.Theredheifer (talk) 11:59, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * You're using "occupied" for west Jerusalem. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 03:02, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

No the RS uses the word occupied. Here is the link to the RS. http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/ForeignPolicy/MFADocuments/Yearbook1/Pages/2%20Jerusalem%20Declared%20Israel-Occupied%20City-%20Governm.aspx

and here is what it says. NB this is a reference to 1948, it does not mean that Israeli sources would use the word occupied now. 2. Jerusalem Declared Israel-Occupied City, Government Proclamation, Official Gazette, No. 12, 2 August 1948: I would be happy to use the word controlled for both clearly uses the word occupied. Theredheifer (talk) 15:41, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Judaization of 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage 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 ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 03:22, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

This needs to be deleted.
It's not relevant historically it's a fallacy and frankly it's anti-semitic. If you want to declare Israel is "judaizing" east jerusalem sure w.e but the city of jerusalem has always been jewish.Loveandpeace&#61;happy (talk) 01:43, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Damn straight it does! Ericl (talk) 14:42, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Jerusalem was not Jewish for thousands of years.173.67.16.123 (talk) 01:35, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

It's pretty ridiculous. Jerusalem is a historically Jewish city. You can argue that Israel is trying to erase the impact of Arab control over the city, but that's not the same. Its like saying that the Spanish "Catholicized" Andalus. --Monochrome _ Monitor  22:24, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Israel is trying to ethnically cleanse Jerusalem and expel its historical inhabitants (many of whom have lived there for thousands of years) because their religious ideology tells them they have an inherent right to it. When does someones religious ideology give them special rights under international law? As for Al-Andalus, most of the inhabitants of Al-Andalus had always been Christian. There was no campaign of mass deportation until they got to Granada (which was controlled by Muslims for the longest). And that is controversial, it wouldn't be allowed today.173.67.16.123 (talk) 01:36, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Vandalism

 * The corpus seperatum according to the 1948 resolution that no one abided with? The west bank is the territory captured by Jordan during the 1948 war. Period. Israel only claimed east Jerusalem after the 1967 war, Jordan controlled the territory before Israel could even claim it. Majority of sources say it was not a military occupation and there is consensus at the talk page of the Jordanian annexation of the West Bank. Revert your edit. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:56, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:NPA accusing other editor to vandal over content dispute is forbidden.The status of East Jurasalem is different this annexation was not recognized even by UK.--Shrike (talk) 11:16, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok thank you for warning me. An annexation is an annexation (when the populations in the territories are given full civil rights by the occupying power), a military occupation is a military occupation (when those populations are not given rights and are under military rule), recognition doesn't mean anything. Residents of East Jerusalem were given full civil rights, so its an annexation. Period. There's no twisting around the facts and there's no room for original research. Majority of sources support this stance which was again formed by a consensus on the page i linked 3 times now. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:33, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I just realized that there are two other users involved in the dispute, rather than just you. My bad, that is why I made the vandalism claim. Makeandtoss (talk) 15:41, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Jordan Occupation
made some changes with this edit which I undid and he redid with this edit claiming "Annexation is the complete opposite of military occupation. A consensus was formed on the talk pge of Jordanian annexation of the West Bank". His edit however contradicts this. He is editing saying there was no occupation, yet points to a page that starts "Jordanian annexation of the West Bank was the occupation and consequent annexation..." Firstly his edits were over East Jerusalem which is treated differently than the West Bank. Second, stating "At the conclusion of the 1948 Arab–Israeli War" clearly alligns with the main page he is sourcing, that at the conclusion it was occupied. -  Galatz Talk  15:31, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Again there was a consensus formed there, that the period 1948-1950 was indeed a military occupation, since the West Bankers had no full civil rights, yet. Every annexation is preceded by a military occupation, and in this case, it is 2 years old, in contrast with the 27 years of annexation. And no East Jerusalem was not treated differently by Jordan, East Jerusalemites received full civil rights as the West Bankers and the Transjordanians. Makeandtoss (talk) 15:44, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The period of time you edited, the CONCLUSION of the war, you are very clearly stating in your arguments was occupation, which is the opposite of your edit. Just because Jordan treated East Jerusalem the same, that does not mean others did. The UK which recognized the annexation, did not recognize East Jerusalem. Jordan was the sole country which did. The same is true now over Israel's claims over East Jerusalem. -  Galatz Talk  15:48, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok that is for the first dispute, what about the second? About the second, you are arguing about the legitimacy of the annexation via international recognition rather than the argument between annexation and military occupation. West Bank's annexation was not recognized by anyone but Britain and Iraq, and East Jerusalem not by anyone but possibly Iraq? Is Britain's recognition your criteria here? Makeandtoss (talk) 15:55, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what you are trying to say. -  Galatz Talk  15:59, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * There are two changes in the edit . The second change says that East Jerusalem has been under military occupation since 1948. You argue that the West Bank wasn't a military occupation but Jerusalem was. And I argue that the only difference between the two is the recognition of Britain. Makeandtoss (talk) 16:04, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * We should treat Israel and Jordanian rule/occupation/annexation in East Jurasalem by the same terms there are no difference as both countries annexed it.--Shrike (talk) 04:55, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The difference is that the Jordanian annexation was with the approval and consent of the local population. Makeandtoss (talk) 05:57, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Source?There was a referendum?--Shrike (talk) 06:05, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * National conferences, including Jericho conference. The joint parliament, with seat allocated equally between both banks of the Jordan, voted for the annexation.Makeandtoss (talk) 07:15, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Makeandtoss (talk) 07:20, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The historians doubts it was voluntary and Israeli citizens in East Jerusalem can vote too--Shrike (talk) 09:40, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Again, that point was brought up in the talk page I mentioned where a consensus was formed.Makeandtoss (talk) 18:14, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * And again East Jerusalem is separate matter.--Shrike (talk) 07:37, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Didnt we just agree that the only difference between the annexation of East Jerusalem and the West Bank is the recognition of Britain?! Makeandtoss (talk) 18:29, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * . Makeandtoss (talk) 18:01, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
 * My point i that is annexation of E.Juraslem have less legitimization that even annexation of West Bank.As both Israel and Jordan annexed Jerusalem we should treat it in the same terms
 * Please do not make that analogy. Israel is a Jewish state, its 'annexation' of Arab majority East Jerusalem is in no way comparable to Jordan's annexation of the territory in 1950. Second, it did not have the consent of the East Jerusalemites as is in Jordan's case. Several Arabs refused citizenship and were given residency permits. This discussion is becoming increasingly lengthy over something insignificant where both you and I can utilize that time to make positive contributions to Wikipedia. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:18, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
 * So just becouse Israel is Jewish it should be treated differently?--Shrike (talk) 14:08, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Israel has never technically annexed East Jerusalem, they have only applied Israeli laws to it. -  Galatz Talk  14:13, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * it was very clear what I said. The annexation of an ethnoreligious Jewish state over a territory with an overwhelming different (Arab Muslim) population is much less legitimate than what Jordan did. Assuming good faith, I think you misunderstood and inadvertantly tried to portait me as an antisemite. I am semeitic too btw.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Judaization of 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/20111006215902/http://www.sharingjerusalem.org/pdf_TheJudaizationofEastJerusalem.pdf to http://www.sharingjerusalem.org/pdf_TheJudaizationofEastJerusalem.pdf

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:52, 2 December 2017 (UTC)