Talk:Church of the Pater Noster

Location

Until the final status of Jerusalem is negotiated it is internationally accepted that this location is in "Jerusalem, Israel". In the future if Jerusalem is divided into East and West this location my very well be considered to be within the territory of the state of Palastine. Spool 26 (talk) 16:03, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Totally disagree. Not a single country, AFAIK, has accepted Israel´s unilateral annexation of territories. So when every country in the world, except Israel, say that this is not accepted Israeli territory, then we follow Israels opinion, and not the vast majority of opinion in the world? Forget it. It is 100% unacceptable (and quite insulting, IMO, to the rest of the world), and I will take this to mediation, if need be. Regards, Huldra (talk) 00:37, 10 January 2009 (UTC),

---

While I do not agree that Jerusalem as a whole, and specifically this church as well as others referencing this talk page should be marked Jerusalem, West Bank, as this presupposes that the entire city of Jerusalem should be under Palastinian control, I do digress in my opinion above. You are correct in your statement that the international community has not "accepted" the de facto status of Jerusalem as being within the auspices of the Jewish state. I was merely trying to set a standard that could be applied to all articles referencing the territory of East Jerusalem. A bit of history to make my point below:

"For four hundred years until the first world war, Palestine was a province of the Turkish Empire. With the defeat of that empire and the assumption in 1922 of the League of Nations Mandate over Palestine by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, tension between Arabs and Jews increased. The efforts by the British authorities to calm the atmosphere and to provide remedies achieved some temporarily acceptable arrangements but failed to provide a long-term solution to the conflict. With the increase in violence in 1947 and the all-out war between the two communities in 1948, which was joined by the neighbouring Arab States, Jerusalem was placed at the heart of the conflict and its control became an essential goal of the fighting parties. In an attempt to find a permanent solution, the United Nations adopted in 1947 the Partition Plan for Palestine which, while dividing the country into Arab and Jewish States, retained the unity of Jerusalem by providing for an international regime under United Nations control. That formula, however, could not be implemented. It did not stop the violence or alter the efforts of the parties to control the City by force. The Israel-Jordan Armistice Agreement of 1949 formalized the de facto division of the City into the eastern sector, including the Old City, controlled by Jordan (which also controlled the West Bank), and the western sector, or the new City which had been developing since the nineteenth century, controlled by the new State of Israel. The 1967 war, which resulted in the occupation by Israel of East Jerusalem and the Palestinian territories, ended the armistice demarcation line between the eastern and western sectors but reopened with new vehemence the debate over the two competing claims. Israel, which annexed East Jerusalem in 1980, considers that "Jerusalem, whole and united, is the capital of Israel", and wants the City to "remain forever under Israel's sovereignty." Its de facto control on the ground has enabled it to invest vast resources and efforts into changing the physical and demographic characteristics of the City. The Israeli claim to Jerusalem, however, has not been recognized by the international community which rejects the acquisition of territory by war and considers any changes on the ground illegal and invalid. On the other hand, the Palestinians have claimed East Jerusalem as the capital of a future independent State of Palestine to be established in the territories occupied since 1967. The UN Security Council, in resolution 242 of 22 November 1967, while not specifically addressing the status of Jerusalem, emphasized the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and affirmed that the fulfilment of principles of the Charter of the United Nations required, among other things, withdrawal of Israeli forces from territories occupied in the war, and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty and territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area." - United Nations Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People.

As you can see from the above excerpt the actual "Legal" location of this church is Israeli Occupied East Jerusalem. It seems like this small editing war is just an extension of this whole conflict, so I propose a compromise. Insertion of the following location tag: ( Israeli Occupied East Jerusalem, Palestinian Territories) To be used for all locations in Israeli occupied East Jerusalem. This precludes the notion that Israel is the internationaly recognized government in control of all of Jerusalem and also that a future state of Palastine would control all of Jerusalem as well. Hopefully this will be acceptable to all. Spool 26 (talk) 03:16, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, without getting into the whole history of Jerusalem/Israel/occupation: the above suggestion, that is:( Israeli Occupied East Jerusalem, Palestinian Territories) is acceptable to me. Thanks, Spool! Regards, Huldra (talk) 03:30, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

---

While East Jerusalem is indeed considered occupied by Israel, it is, compared to the West Bank and Gaza, not considered to be occupied "from the Palestinians". It is not considered to be in the Palestinian Territories, sovereignity, or control. It's sovereingity is disputed and under negotiation. Jerusalem was to be a Corpus Separatum, an international area ruled by the UN and not part of a palestinian state. It is located in a disputed area which final status is to be determined by negotations. So either we write Jerusalem, Israel (de facto)(since it de facto is in Israel), Jerusalem (disputed) or just Jerusalem.

Your point is lacking in several areas. Firstly: The Israel-Jordan Armistice Agreement of 1949 formalized the de facto division of the City into the eastern sector, including the Old City, controlled by Jordan (which also controlled the West Bank), and the western sector, or the new City which had been developing since the nineteenth century, controlled by the new State of Israel. The moment this armistice was signed the point of an international city administered by the UN was moot. So at that moment East Jerusalem became a territory of the Kingdom of Jordan. Since the whole of the West Bank was at that time also a territory of Jordan, and since the Kingdom of Jordan in 1988 ceded control of the West Bank to the PLO, and further, since the territory of East Jerusalem would have been included in this transfer of power had Israel not occupied it Illegally in 1967, than it only stands to reason that East Jerusalem would have become a Palestinian territory in 1988. UN resolution 242 states that Israel has no right or claim to East Jerusalem and calls for its immediate withdrawal from the territory. Hypothetically, using your reasoning, if the United States suddenly attacked the territory of East Jerusalem and declared it a part of the sovereign territory of the USA we would be putting this tag in it's place: (Jerusalem, United States of America (de facto)). So at the very least my suggestion above should be a compromise to all. My goal here is not to be inflammatory or try to make my personal opinion the standard. I am merely trying to set a standard that would be acceptable to all.

Your point is contradicting itself: "Hypothetically, using your reasoning, if the United States suddenly attacked the territory of East Jerusalem and declared it a part of the sovereign territory of the USA we would be putting this tag in it's place: (Jerusalem, United States of America (de facto))". Jordan did suddenly attack the territory of East Jerusalem and declared it a part of their sovereign territory. They were occupying it and thus Jerusalem and West Bank was never de jure territory of Jordan. The agreement was not in any way binding and did not create permanent or de jure borders. Israel and Jordan was in no position to negotiate the status of Jerusalem since it was still under international sovereignity and the internationl community never accepted the annexation and has never forgone it's sovereignity over Jerusalem unless negotiations desides its final status.

Furthermore: UN resolution 242 does not mention Jerusalem/East Jerusalem and does therefore not call for Israels immediate withdrawal from the territory. It doesn't even states that Israel must withdraw from all territories captured. So the UN resolution 242 has no effect in this debate. Especially since it or any other resolution doesn't states that East Jerusalem is palestinian.

This is totally unacceptable. As quoted above: "the international community [] rejects the acquisition of territory by war and considers any changes on the ground illegal and invalid." Please don´t try to legitimise what isn´t legitimate. Thank you. Huldra (talk) 20:38, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Read what I(ip number 85.230.108.247) have written and then respond to what I said. As I wrote; East Jerusalem is considered occupied, but I also wrote alot of other things.--Fipplet (talk) 20:50, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Fipplet: I thought you were blocked for the last two days? Are you telling me that you evaded the block by posting as an IP? Oh, and also: you *can* sign, even if you are editing as an IP: now one has to look through the history to find what ip number 85.230.108.247 wrote...quite cumbersome. And nothing anyone has written on this page justify the "Israel" label. Again: don´t try to legitimise what isn´t legitimate. Regards, Huldra (talk) 21:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

---

It is highly POV to place a Palestinian flag next to the location. It is also false that East Jerusalem is part of the West bank under international law. Please stop pushing this POV across multiple articles. NoCal100 (talk) 23:21, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I wanted to also address the point above that "Israel and Jordan were in no position to negotiate the status of Jerusalem since it was still under international sovereignity..." by stating one simple fact, the 1947 United Nations Partition Plan was NEVER implemented, so Jerusalem was NOT under international sovereignity when the negotiations took place, hence the whole point above is moot. Thank you. Spool 26 (talk) 05:08, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

1: The UN was the one who wrote the partition plan which they only where in position to do if they had sovereignty over British Palestine. Which they also had since the British handed over Palestine to the International community. And since it wasn't accepted by the arabs, those areas that didn't became Israel was still under international sovereignty.

2: Even if my first point is untrue Huldra pointed out that we shouldn't follow one country's opinion but the inernational community. The inernational community considered the rule of Jerusalem and West Bank by Jordan an occupation.

So Israel and Jordan were in no position to negotiate the status of Jerusalem and the agreement was not binding, did not and was not intended to create permanent or de jure borders.

We should write just Jerusalem. No flags and other location. Perhaps that will settle our dispute. Thank you--Fipplet (talk) 10:46, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

No: you take (and "accept") something from a plan, ...but ignore other parts? If we are to follow the 1947-plan, then what about Jaffa? ..Do get back to this century: it is against the opinion of *all* countries in the world to accept that structures in the occupied territories of 1967 are Israeli. That is, all countries except one, namely Israel. To implement Israel version over every other country in the world, and then call that a NPOV version, is just unbelievable "Chuzpah". It will not stand. For the last time: acquisition of territory by war is considered illegal and invalid. Regards, Huldra (talk) 00:24, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Huldra, why don't you take a look at the article and see what it says. It no longer says it is Israel. It just says Jerusalem, so this discussion isn't really necessary. The thing with the partition plan is that the International community accepted Jaffa as part of Israel but never Jerusalem as part of Jordan or any other arab entity. And by looking through your comments you see that it is all it takes. I btw think that USA regards all of Jerusalem as Israel but I am not sure. Conclusion: Since East Jerusalem is disputed territory we shouldn't imply anyones soverginity over it, so just Jerusalem will be fine and that applies to every church in the disputed parts of Jerusalem.--Fipplet (talk) 12:06, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Now, on a completely different subject

I notice that a French flag is flying over the church and that the labels above the language versions of the Our Father are in French. What is the connection between this church and France? - Montréalais (talk) 13:47, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I believe the flag flyes at the site to remind people of the connection to the French through the Princess Bossi Aurelia, Princess de la Tour d'Auvergne, et de Bouillon who excavated the site and built the church and the cloister, which were occupied by the Carmelite Sisters in 1874 and who's remains are still entombed there. Spool 26 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:00, 1 September 2011 (UTC).

It is the property of the French consulate. It's exact legal status open to debate, though. 2001:861:4002:AF30:3C42:D1C9:EDC6:15DD (talk) 12:38, 30 March 2021 (UTC)