Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Howard Grief


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   keep. J04n(talk page) 11:22, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Howard Grief

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable lawyer. He writes a lot, but there's not a lot written about him. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:42, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

please do not delete this page. this is very important stuff. howard grief is the leading scholar on this very important issue. he is well known in his field. look what one of the important historians in the world - SIR Martin Gilbert said about his work: " I have now had a chance to go through your book, and have learned a great deal from it. These are tremendously important issues, on which your book throws important light. " "..I shall certainly refer to it in my own work." https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/35617_476711462132_6177345_n.jpg

also look at this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ijS8mFP4I1A

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xLgqkoZPZ5Q

please don't hold up this important information.

also, you can read some of the book reviews:

http://www.amazon.com/Legal-Foundation-Borders-Israel-International/dp/1936778556/ref=la_B002ZMGJ92_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1368389705&sr=1-1

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Piwi2000 (talk • contribs) 20:09, 12 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions.  czar   &middot;   &middot;  16:40, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  czar   &middot;   &middot;  16:40, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions.  czar   &middot;   &middot;  16:40, 12 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete: (Keep, See Below) Difficult to find a diversity of secondary sources about the subject so appears to fail WP:BASIC. Also, though interesting, the subject's interaction with Gilbert is not relevant as notability is not inheritable in most cases. --Pusillanimous (talk&bull;contribs) 14:18, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

i founded a good source:

http://int.icej.org/news/special-reports/land-feud-back

http://mobiletest.jpost.com/Headlines/Article.aspx?id=83282037&cat=2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Piwi2000 (talk • contribs) 23:08, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

The Jerusalem Post definitely meets wikipedia standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Piwi2000 (talk • contribs) 23:03, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

also look at this:

http://www.iai.it/pdf/DocIAI/iaiwp1306.pdf "Israel Remains on the Right. The Historical Reasons Behind a Long-established Political Supremacy"

howard grief is mentioned here few times as a reference.

the author is Lorenzo Kamel - Lorenzo Kamel is Visiting Fellow at Harvard University's Center for Middle Eastern Studies. He is the author of two books and numerous academic articles. His most recent work, “The impact of ‘Biblical Orientalism’ in late 19th century Palestine", was presented at the 28th MEHAT Conference, Chicago University, in May 2013.

https://www.aspeninstitute.it/aspenia-online/contributors/lorenzo-kamel


 * Comment The Jerusalem Post piece does amount to significant coverage, but only one instance of significant coverage. WP:N does call for multiple instances.  And being cited as a reference in one other work also does not rise to the level of notability.  Grief appears to have found a unique argument for the expansion of Israel into the Palestinian territories based on the accords of the San Remo conference.  His opinions would have to be considered on the fringe, and not at all widely accepted.  Were Grief to obtain widespread acceptance of his position, that might make him notable, but apparently not yet.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 11:54, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I hope this will do it:

Michael Weiser about "The Legal Foundation and Borders of Israel under International Law" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Piwi2000 (talk • contribs) 22:18, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

http://www.michaelweiser.org/2013/02/

http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/author/michael-weiser/

"Whether you are a Jew or a gentile, every person who wants to understand the modern Middle East in general and Israel's creation in particular must read Howard Grief's masterpiece The Legal Foundation and Borders of Israel under International Law. Now, I don't use the word "masterpiece" often, but in this case the description is apt. "

Arutz Sheva

'Land for Peace? Peace for Peace'

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/128585#.UZVdtaJU96M

"Grief is the originator of the thesis that de jure sovereignty over the entire Land of Israel and Palestine was vested in the Jewish People as a result of the San Remo Resolution adopted at the San Remo Peace Conference on April 24, 1920."

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/9014#.UZTmLaJU96M

" Jerusalem attorney Howard Grief spent twenty five years researching Israel's legal rights under international law. Grief summed up Israel's legal rights in a new 700-page book entitled, The Legal Foundation and Borders of Israel under International Law. According to Grief, Israel and its legal borders were supposed to be set by the historical formula adopted by the Supreme Council of the Principal Allied Powers at the San Remo Peace Conference in April 1920. Those historical borders were supposed to encompass the Biblical formula of "from Dan to Beersheba." Unfortunately, the French and the British conspired to cut off large portions of Jewish national land before the ink on the Mandate was dry. "

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/11408

"Howard Grief, who has provided the seminal work on the legal foundations of Israel under International Law, says one can conclude this because they are the only people mentioned to be dealt with specially. [11]The non-Jews are referred to only to ensure their civil and religious rights are to be protected." "[11] Howard Grief, The Legal Foundation and Borders of Israel under International Law, p. 36"

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/11412#.UZVRsqJU96M

"What was the effect of the abandonment of the trust by the trustee in 1948? Howard Grief provides a more legally precise reason,[36]  but a simple way to look at it was that when the trustee quit his obligation, the only equitable thing to do was to give the rights to the beneficiary of the trust or the ward of the guardian."

"[36] Grief refers to the doctrine of "acquired rights" codified in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, Article 70 Article 70 1 b) and the legal doctrine of "estoppel" See: Grief at pp.175,176 (The Legal Foundation and Borders of Israel under International Law)"

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/10291#.UZVSMKJU96N

"Howard Grief’s beautiful book “The Legal Foundation and Borders of Israel under International Law” is the best and most important rebuke of the Court’s thesis about Israeli settlements."

The Jewish Press

http://www.jewishpress.com/indepth/columns/keeping-jerusalem/givat-haulpena-and-jerusalem/2012/06/27/2/

"As Israeli constitutional legal expert Howard Grief has summed up, there is a “near-universal but completely false belief that it was the UN Partition Resolution of November 1947 that brought the State of Israel into existence. In fact [however], the UN resolution was an illegal abrogation of Jewish legal rights and title of sovereignty to the whole of Palestine and the Land of Israel, rather than an affirmation of such rights or progenitor of them…. The General Assembly exceeded its authority [when passing the Partition resolution]. It did not have the power to divide the country” that had already been given to the Jews."

American Thinker

http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/03/the_un_acts_in_violation_of_international_law_while_claiming_to_uphold_it.html

"Howard Grief, the author of The Legal Foundation and Borders of Israel under International Law and the leading expert on the subject, co-copied me with three powerful letters in defense of Israel's rights"

crethiplethi.com

http://www.crethiplethi.com/over/

http://www.crethiplethi.com/israeli-sovereignty-over-jerusalem-judea-and-samaria/israel/2010/

"“Howard Grief’s excellent exposition Legal Foundation and Borders of Israel under International Law and his shorter articles[27] are basic to the subject matter at hand. I have been guided by his work. He states that the “acquired rights” doctrine in International Law is codified by the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. It provides, in Article 70 1. (b) for the consequences of the termination of a treaty.” Unless the treaty otherwise provides or the parties otherwise agree, the termination of a treaty under its provisions or in accordance with the present Convention: does not affect any right, obligation or legal situation of the parties created through the execution of the treaty prior to its termination. "[27] Howard Grief, The Legal Foundation and Borders of Israel under International Law: A Treatise on Jewish Sovereignty over the Land of Israel (ISBN-10: 9657344522). See also his articles at:Grief.4thgenevaconvention and Giref.occupationmyth."

Outpost Magazine

"A LANDMARK WORK" by William Mehlman

http://www.think-israel.org/mehlman.griefbook.html

" The Legal Foundation and Borders of Israel under International Law is the product of 25 years of independent research by Grief, a former adviser on international law to the late Professor Yuval Ne'eman, Minister of Energy and Infrastructure in the Shamir government and the father of Israel's nuclear energy program. It is the kind of seminal work that seems destined to become both an indispensible source for defenders of Israel's rights under international law and a mirror on the events and personalities that transformed a November 2, 1917 letter from British Foreign Secretary Lord Arthur James Balfour to Lord Lionel Walter Rothschild into the trumpet call that awakened Jewish nationhood from a 1,900-year coma."


 * also note that he was working for a very famous man - Yuval Ne'eman — Preceding unsigned comment added by Piwi2000 (talk • contribs) 20:49, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

http://www.mideastoutpost.com/archives/william-mehlman-anarchy-at-turtle-bay.html

"The General Assembly action violates Article 80 of that document, which preserves intact all of the rights granted the Jewish people under the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine. As pointed  out by international attorney and author* Howard Grief and confirmed by former Israeli  UN ambassador  Dr. Dore Gold,  Article 80 is a guarantor against any alteration of Jewish rights to Palestine  and the Land of Israel enumerated in the Mandate,  absent an intervening agreement converting the Mandate into a Trusteeship.  “The only time that could have occurred,” Grief submits in a recent paper on the subject, “was during the three-year period between the October  24th 1945 inception of the UN Charter and the May 14th-15th expiration of the Mandate. That did not happen and so those rights, including the right of Jews to immigrate freely to the Land of Israel and establish settlements, as stipulated in Article 6 of the Mandate, remain in full force and effect.” “The United Nations,” he adds, “has no power to transfer those rights to any non-Jewish entity such as the Palestinian Authority.”  "

newenglishreview.org

http://www.newenglishreview.org/custpage.cfm/frm/78523/sec_id/78523

http://www.newenglishreview.org/custpage.cfm/frm/78586/sec_id/78586

"[9] The most assiduously researched and thoroughly addressed study on the subject of both sovereignty over, and actual ownership of, the disputed provinces is the recent and long-awaited treatise of the earlier-cited, international legal scholar and Jerusalem attorney [Appendix, supra], Howard Grief, The Legal Foundation and Borders of Israel Under International Law (Jerusalem, 2008): a major undertaking, 25 years in preparation, and the present era’s perhaps-definitive work on the jurisprudential basis for the Jewish State—and which explores the matter exhaustively, with clarity, precision and courtesy for lay apprehensibility. [Available from Mazo Publishers, Jerusalem: 054-7294-565 / USA:  1-815-301-3559. www.mazopublishers.com] "

Gatestone Institute

Whither the "Peace Process"? by Ted Belman

http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/472/whither-the-peace-process

"[19] Howard Grief, Nativ"

Paul Eidelberg

http://xeniacitizenjournal.wordpress.com/2011/05/25/beyond-un-resolution-242/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Piwi2000 (talk • contribs) 22:15, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It does seem that they are mentioned at least here. Apteva (talk) 18:18, 18 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. Grief is a former self-employed lawyer from Canada who became the darling of the Israeli extreme right by proposing bizarre fringe theories (his own book says "original thesis never previously voiced") about the Arab-Israeli conflict. He is so far to the right that he files lawsuits against acts of the Israeli government that is very far to the right itself.  All of this means that he is highly unreliable as a source, but that doesn't mean he isn't notable.  I think he is notable enough for an article.  On the other hand, the article is supposed to be about him, not to be a platform for disseminating his theories.  The two large sections called "International Legal Agreements..." should be both deleted, and replaced by at most a few sentences explaining his views.  Some criticism should be provided too, though it might be hard to find much since most academic legal experts would consider him too bizarre to respond to. Zerotalk 15:37, 19 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Just because he became the "right wing darling" doesn't make him "unreliable".

His arguments are well based on historical facts and high level of legal analyses. Anyone who has legal education and knowledge in international law knows that this is a valid and respectable argument. (That should be heard)

Just because his theories are new and his conclusions are different from the situation De facto and may be different from the interest of some country's/ people doesn't make him/it bizarre. (e.g Galileo Galilei)

In my opinion this is more of an academic issue and should not be judged according to a political point of view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Piwi2000 (talk • contribs) 16:38, 20 May 2013 (UTC) 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mkdw talk 23:04, 20 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete- First, this article is about 100 times longer than the available sources can confirm and is way beyond promotional. With that aside, there is a reliable source. The Jerusalem Post article is good, but the others are mainly blogs (the .blogger and .wordpress self published type blogs) and passing mentions. I would say that there is not enough to show WP:GNG based on the single WP:RS. I was able to read quite a bit from the blogs and he is truly notable for what he has done, just not notable by Wikipedia guidelines. --FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 23:57, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

some more academic references:

Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People: From the San Remo Conference (1920) to the Netanyahu-Abbas Talks

by Joshua Teitelbaum

http://www.law.georgetown.edu/faculty/teitelbaum-joshua-c.cfm

http://dayan.org/sites/default/files/ME%20Diplomacy-Israel%20as%20the%20Nation-State%20of%20the%20Jewish%20People_%20From%20the%20San%20Remo%20Conference%20(1920)%20to%20the%20Netanyah.pdf

" 6. The most exhaustive study of the international legal basis for the State of Israel is Howard Grief, The Legal Foundation and Borders of Israel under International Law (Jerusalem: Mazo Publishers, 2008), which attributes great importance to the San Remo decision, and which he terms the "San Remo Resolution." "

http://i-rep.emu.edu.tr:8080/xmlui/bitstream/handle/11129/77/Qutob.pdf?sequence=1

"..According to Howard Grief, the conditions and terms of the mandate were drafted by the Zionist Organization.40 Therefore, it did not deal with any Arab national rights. This mandate clearly illustrated the British sympathy to the Zionist movement and moreover the British interests in the region. Grief affirms that there was actually only one purpose for the mandate and that was clearly to secure the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine.41 According to Article 2, 4 and 6 of the Mandate for Palestine, .."

"41 Howard Grief, The Legal Foundation and Borders of Israel Under International Law (Jerusalem:Mazo Publishers, 2008), 128." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Piwi2000 (talk • contribs) 02:23, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

also - here is a copy of a petition he filled to the House of Commons of Canada:

PETITION TO THE HOUSE OF COMMONS OF CANADA FOR THE REAFFIRMATION OF JEWISH LEGAL RIGHTS TO THE LAND OF ISRAEL AND FORMER MANDATED PALESTINE PREVIOUSLY ASSENTED TO BY CANADA IN 1922 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Piwi2000 (talk • contribs) 06:38, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

http://israeltruthweek.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/goldhar-petition-to-cda.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Piwi2000 (talk • contribs) 06:31, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

see also FrontPage Magazine

http://frontpagemag.com/2011/paul-schnee/the-history-lesson-so-desperately-needed-by-israel%E2%80%99s-detractors-2/

" However, as Howard Grief pointed out in his essay, “Legal Rights and Title of Sovereignty of the Jewish People to the Land of Israel and Palestine under International Law,” before the Arab Palestinians’ romp of fantasy can be realized they need to disprove the legitimacy of the Balfour Declaration of 1917, the Mandates System established and governed by Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations contained in the Treaty of Versailles and all the other peace treaties made with the Central Powers, i.e. Germany, Austria-Hungary, Bulgaria and Turkey. .. Grief goes on to say that the moment of birth of Jewish legal rights and title of sovereignty thus took place at the same time Palestine was created a “mandated” state since it was created for NO other reason than to “reconstitute” the ancient Jewish state of Judea in fulfillment of the Balfour Declaration and the general provisions of Article 22 of the League Covenant. This meant that Palestine from the start was legally a Jewish state that was, in theory, to be guided toward independence by a Mandatory or Trustee, also acting as Tutor (this turned out to be Great Britain) and who would take the necessary political, administrative and economic measures to establish the Jewish National Home.

" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Piwi2000 (talk • contribs) 07:08, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

also, please watch this Christian Broadcasting Network video featuring Howard Grief:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ijS8mFP4I1A

and this ICEJ Media Norway Video (from 4:10 to 21:00):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sVPWnjFLcBc

you can see the full interview in english here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vjhik8rV780

see also:

Algemeiner_Journal

http://www.algemeiner.com/author/howard-grief/

http://www.algemeiner.com/2011/09/22/article-80-and-the-un-recognition-of-a-%E2%80%9Cpalestinian-state%E2%80%9D/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Piwi2000 (talk • contribs) 11:26, 22 May 2013 (UTC) — Piwi2000 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Change to Keep. Although Piwi2000 has sprayed every passing mention of Grief that he could find into this discussion, and many of them are from unreliable sources (such as right-wing blogs, etc), there does appear to be enough notice of Grief and his fringe thesis that people in Israel are at least talking about it.  I agree with others that the article needs to be severely pared down: report about Grief's thesis, but do not use the article as his personal soapbox.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:12, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Change:Keep WikiDan61 appears to be on target. --Pusillanimous (talk&bull;contribs) 13:31, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.