Talk:Jerusalem/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Discussion relating to Jerusalem's status as capital to Talk:Jerusalem/capital

false?

AV: You deleted this, but do you have any evidence or argument that it is false?

The purported Israeli annexation of Jerusalem has been declared by the UN Security Council to be "null and void and must be rescinded forthwith" (Resolution 478). Israel, as a UN member state, is obliged under international law to "accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council" (Charter of the United Nations, art. 25). But Israel refuses to accept the UN Security Council's decision, in violation of international law.

Maybe someone can answer this question which seems to be critical for some biased parts of the article: Does a Palestinian living in Westbank have free access to Jerusalem? Yes or no? According to my sources (which are a few years old - situation may have changed) a Palestinian from Westbank had to ask for special Israeli permission and was not allowed to stay over night in the city.

"The Israeli government argues it has a generous policy" is a bit vague for an argument. If the facts of access policy were accurately described, I think, we could leave this to the readers jugdement.

"Under Israel, members of all religions were largely granted access to their holy sites" would be misleading if my informations are correct and Muslim from the surrounding villages can't go to Jerusalem whenever they want. --Elian 22:54 Oct 5, 2002 (UTC)

It is true that Muslims from the areas surrounding Jerusalem are not able to go to Jerusalem whenever they want, however the reasons for this are entirely on a security basis (fear of terrorist actions). Whether this is justifiable or not, in all cases, may be disputable of course. Muslim residents of Jerusalem may visit any of the holy sites, as far as I know. Jews have been restricted from the Temple Mount, since September 2001, also for security reasons. -Avi Jun 26, 2003

---

Arab nations do not formally recognize neither Israel's claim to the city of Jerusalem, nor he state of Israel itself.

I was under the impression that at least some Arab states have now recognised the state of Israel, though for a long time they refused to do so.

Even for countries that do accept the legitimacy of the State of Israel, most of their diplomatic missions are maintained in Tel Aviv.

This appears to duplicate the paragraph immediately after it.

The UN resolution is formulated negatively, and does not imply a future status

This might make sense to diplomats, but it's completely unclear to me

The city's final status will be determined in a final status accord with the Palestinians

This prediction may or may not come true.

During the Arab occupation of the West Bank and Jerusalem, Arab governments did not view Jerusalem as having special religious significance, and no attempt was made to create either a Palestinian Arab state, nor was there any Arab desire to use the city of Jerusalem as a capitol or political center.

What exactly is "the Arab occupation of the West Bank and Jerusalem"? Are we referring to the years before the formation of Israel, or a specific period between one of the many wars fought over the territory between Israel and neighbouring countries? Under both interpretations I'm skeptical of its truth, but I'd like to get clarification first...

I think both periods are meant. Jerusalem was held by Muslim countries from the 7th century until 1917, except for a brief period. And again from 1949 until 1967, the eastern half was held by Jordan. None of these countries made Jerusalem an official political center, and religiously Muslims have almost from the beginning held Mecca and Medina to be more important, with Jerusalem running a distant third. -Avi Jun 26, 2003

---

Second millenium: Jacobites in 1173? Wiki references point to the Stuart kings and the French revolution. Should be fixed! Who were these jacobites, anyway? --Cema 15:54 Apr 26, 2003 (UTC)

It probably refers to the Syrian Jacobites, an old Christian group that is a part of Oriental Orthodoxy. SCCarlson 03:51 Apr 27, 2003 (UTC)

A handy link to Jacobite

---

For the record:

• Reference for 1099 quotation: Edward Peters (editor) The First Crusade: The chronicle of Fulcher of Chartres and other source materials (University of Pennsylvania Press, 1971) p214.
• Reference for 1482 quotations: Palestine Pilgrims Text Society, Vol 9-10, p384-391. (Translated by A. Stewart, London, 1893; republished AMS books, New York, 1971).

-- zero 14:05, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)

holiest place

To whoever keeps editing this page: please don't repeat edits when they have been undone by other people without investigating the talk page to find out why they were undone, or looking at the edit log. In this case there are a couple of reasons why your edit was not a good idea:

1) You need to qualify statements like 'holiest place'. Explain why it is holy. Maybe 'Sacred to three religions' would be better. 2) Check your facts. King David did not found Jerusalem, even according to biblical accounts. See Joshua 10:1, or 1 Samuel 17:54 for example. 3) Please check your spelling. Anyone can mistype, but to make the same mistake twice shows you are not checking.

DJ Clayworth 15:53, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)

---

Had been unaware "City of Peace" was considered a religious term for Jerusalem. My mistake. I had been taught that the name was derived from the hebrew words "Eer Shel Shalom", which taking into account Old Hebrew and gradual corruption of the name would create the term "Yerushalayim".

  -Leumi

---

The Jerusalem page note that the city is highly contested, but does not (sufficiently?) indicate why the three religions and serveral population groups assign a special status to the city. Some history is provided but it is devoid of explanation for the attachment. One section entitled, Arab view of the status of Jerusalem, seems particularly mislabeled as the section notes the dates of construction of the two mosques and an earthquake? (is there significance to the earthquake of 1016?)

I would like to add a section on the significance of Jerusalem to Jews. I am not qualified to do the same for Christianity and Islam, and wish someone will take on this task.

Your thoughts, please, before the text is added. OneVoice 14:23, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

That's a good idea. The history of the idea that Jerusalem is a sacred city also ought to be added. --Zero 10:07, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Wailing wall

Concerning a recent claim: there is no justification whatever for claiming that "Wailing Wall" is derogatory. It was never regarded as derogatory in the past and countless books and articles written by Jews used it freely. Even today, when "Western Wall" has become much more commonplace, the alternative "Wailing Wall" appears even on Israeli government web pages. --Zero 10:07, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)

We all agree that Wailing Wall is in widespread use even by Jews and the Israeli Govenment. I know of no citation of the Jews ever using the term "Wailing Wall" till after it appeared in non-Jewish publications around 1917. The structure was always referred to as the "Kotel HaMaravi", the "Western Wall". Western Jews have the western term, perhaps to ease communication with non-Jews by using a term well-known to them. "Wailing" fits very well with the Christian doctrine of "survive but not thrive"....the Jews should be wailing and here is the wall where they wail.

This is also true of the term "Jew". It occurs nowhere in Tanach, Mishnah or Talmud. Jews have referred to themselves as "Bnei Yisrael", the Children of Israel, Israel being the name given to the Patriarch Jacob after the struggle with the angel. OneVoice 13:07, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)

The precise phrase "Wailing Wall" was probably not used even in English until the 20th century, but phrases like "the place of wailing" and "Wailing Place" occur earlier. There's a story that the name has a Talmudic origin: "The Talmud teaches that when the Temple was destroyed all the Gates of Heaven were closed - except for one, the Gate of Tears. that is how the Western Wall became known as the Wailing Wall." I have no idea if that has some truth to it or is a modern invention. Still, to go back to the original question, I see no reason to call the phrase derogatory and you didn't offer any. --Zero 13:19, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Demographics of Jerusalem

Why didn't "BV" mention in summary, that he/she added demographics of Jerusalem 12:05, 23 Aug 2003, especially doing so from an obscure source? 62.157.25.229 23:49, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The 1922 and 1931 figures were indeed nonsense. I'll put in the British census figures in a day or two. --Zero 12:46, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

As it turned out, the only error for 1922/1931 was 10,000 missing Christians in 1922. The numbers I put in are taken from the census data for 1922 and 1931. The 1944 figure is an estimate for the end of that year prepared by the British administration. During these three periods, the cities with a Jewish majority were Jerusalem, Tel-Aviv and Tiberias. Incidentally, there are figures going around that show many more Arabs in Jerusalem; these are for the subdistrict of Jerusalem, not the city of Jerusalem. The subdistrict included rural areas that were overwhelmingly Arab. --Zero 01:24, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC)