Talk:Islamization of East Jerusalem under Jordanian rule

SYNTH?

Most (all?) of the sources cited do not use the term "Islamization". This page appears to use WP:SYNTH to engage in WP:OR to create the appearance of notability. I suggest all sources that do not use the term "Islamization" be removed and we take a look at what we are left with to determine whether this topic meets WP:N. If it doesn't, I will be proposing it for deletion. Tiamut^talk 12:15, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Because many of the sources are not available online, I'd ask that the article creator post relevant passages here if they use the term Islamization to refer to the period of Jordanian rule over Jerusalem. Tiamut^talk 12:18, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I have checked a few of them, and as far as I can tell the entire article is a synthesized OR "response" to the Judaization of Jerusalem article. The problem with that is the Judaization of Jerusalem article is based on high quality sources discussing "Judaization of Jerusalem" while this one is AMuseo's own interpretation of events and sources that do not discuss the purported topic of this article. nableezy - 15:24, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

• I have added quotations that use the word Islamize in reference to the period of Jordanian occupation, and will continue to do add more. But it is important to note that the concept of Islamization is well-defined and that actions that meet this definition, such as requiring Christian schools to close on Muslim holy days, are correctly discussed in a page on Islamization whether or not the specific term is used.AMuseo (talk) 21:55, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Could you provide a single source that relates international plans for the internalization of Jerusalem under the partition plan to Jordanian Islamization of Jerusalem? nableezy - 22:44, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Jordan rejected the internationalization in favor of direct administration and discriminatory laws against the city's historic Jewish and Christian populations. That constitutes Islamization.AMuseo (talk) 22:59, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Could you please provide a source that connects the topic of internationalization to Jordanian Islamization? Not the reason you feel that qualifies as Islamization, but an actual reliable secondary source that makes the connection you are making. nableezy - 23:12, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Holy OR, Batman! So I'm guessing the same issue might arise with Islamization of Gaza, Islamization of the Temple Mount, Islamization of Palestine and everything else in the the ? Brb, Islamitizing. Sol (talk) 01:21, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Hey guys, there is this new thing on the internets and its The Google. Check it out.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:56, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I have not disputed the topic of the Islamization of Jerusalem, or indeed of Palestine as a whole, is a notable topic. A well-written article using quality sources in a manner consistent with the policies of this website could exist on such a topic. However, there are issues with the content of the article and the sources used right now. Would you care to address those issues? nableezy - 02:05, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Semantic based argument, to say that the article shouldn't exist because the term wasn't in use pre 1967 is nonsensical. Perhaps the article should be renamed, but the content is relavent, and the current topic title is an accurate description of the events that occurred when Jerusalem was under Jordanian rule. Drsmoo (talk) 03:04, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Who said that? nableezy - 03:55, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Material removed form article

This material was removed from the article. I believe that it is part of the process of Islamization that took place under Jordanian occupation and rightly belongs in the article, but I would like the opinion of other editors.

• Jordan "ignored" calls form the Vatican and the international community to internationalize the city. The Jordanian government withstood British and American pressure to implement the 1947 United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine. King Abdullah and the government of Jordan also refused the 1949 effort by the Arab League to internationalize the city. At no point did the international community recognize Jordan's right to control Jerusalem or the Holy Places it contains.
• All citizens of Israel, including Muslim and Christian Arabs, were deprived access to Holy places in Jerusalem under Jordanian control from 1949-1967, with only a handful of exceptions made in individual cases.

AMuseo (talk) 04:08, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Whenever you say something like "I believe that x is true" calmly re-read Wikipedia's policy on original research. Get a source that connects the material that you "believe" is related to Islamization by Jordan to that topic. nableezy - 04:19, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

This material was restored. I have removed it again. There is no source that connects the partition plan and internationalization of Jerusalem with "Islamization" under Jordanian rule. Unless such sources connect those topics it is original research for it to be done here. You cannot say that you think "X is Islamization" and on that basis it should be labeled as such in the article unless a reliable source does so. nableezy - 03:58, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I suggest bringing it up to a noticeboard if you feel the topic title is inaccurate. I think that the title should be changed from "Islamization of Jerusalem under Jordanian Occupation" to "Islamization of Jerusalem"

After a quick search I've found a few sources for that

http://www.ynetnews.com/Ext/Comp/ArticleLayout/CdaArticlePrintPreview/1,2506,L-3596681,00.html

http://www.jerusalemites.org/jerusalem/islam/5.htm

http://www.pij.org/details.php?id=169

http://www.bu.edu/mzank/Jerusalem/mp/periodic/

http://books.google.com/books?id=CkvPZijxHtYC&pg=PA4&lpg=PA4&dq=%22islamization+of+jerusalem%22&source=bl&ots=L16oq9izPN&sig=5CrCiUb9ZLBztlN1WB5rnicNeTM&hl=en&ei=muCiTPGvKYO88ga2rMi3Cg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CBkQ6AEwAjgU#v=onepage&q=%22islamization%20of%20jerusalem%22&f=false

These are just sources that contain the phrase, I'm sure there are far more to use for the article. Drsmoo (talk) 06:46, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

What exactly are you responding to? Do any of those sources relate plans for internationalization to Islamization? That is what this section is about. nableezy - 18:43, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

They relate to the concept of Islamization of Jerusalem, which has been discussed in notable sources.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drsmoo (talk • contribs)

Is there a source that relates that to the concept? nableezy - 21:39, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Is this article for real?

Wow, King Adbullah prayed in Al-Aqsa Mosque!!! He must have been hell bent on Islamizationizing Jerusalem!!!!! What a load of doodoo this article is. I started to look at the references and found the first two don't even contain what is claimed. Hey, what does teaching children in Arabic (in an Arab country, what cheek!!) have to do with Islamization? What does internationalization have to do with Islamization? Well I guess they have the "ization" bit in common so they must be one and the same! Then we quote the Israeli mayor of Jerusalem quoted as a source, naughty naughty, the web page of some advocacy organization that reads like a rant, the Jewish Virtual Library, and our favorite Islamophobe. Who needs WP:RS? Zero^talk 23:41, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Request for Speedy Deletion

I requested the article to be deleted according to the Speedy Deletion general criteria, as it it

• was created (article history here) by a the sock of a banned user (SPI).
• Not much have been changed since his last contribution. Basically, what has changed is that a section was removed (see diff here). The last version edited by the sock (and only by the sock) is this one. --Frederico1234 (talk) 17:54, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Clean up

I've been trying to go through an clean up this article. The content of the article rarely matches its title, but I'm trying to do what I can to bring the two in line with one another. The article has major issues of WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, and WP:COATRACK, and many of the sources aren't easily accessible, or just don't match what they're cited for. Additionally, full sentences were just copied verbatim from the sources. The article was nominated for deletion, but thanks to off-wiki canvassing (in my opinion) that's unlikely to go through. We should at least try to bring any salvageable material up to wiki-standards. If anyone has time, please help out. ← George ^talk 01:30, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

SYNTH tag

I've replaced multiple tags on the page with just a SYNTH tag, as that seems to be the biggest issue at the moment. I'll make it simple: citing a source that says Jordan discriminated against Christians or Jews does not mean the same thing as Islamizing. They are two different things, but much of this article implies a connection when the sources themselves make no such connection. That is WP:SYNTH. We need to make it clear who exactly has made the charge, and the evidence they cite. ← George ^talk 13:20, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

There is also a severe problem with sourcing. At the moment much of it is basically a compendium of attacks on Jordan by Israel's standard bunch of advocates. Btw, I identified the real author of the article cited as "Hanus" - it is professional propagandist Dore Gold. Zero^talk 14:15, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

A big issue is that many of the sources aren't online, so I can't verify them. And some of the ones offline aren't readily available (I just added one for an unsourced quote which is only in one library worldwide, in Germany). How do you know that Hanus is Gold? We should update this article, and possibly delete the one I just created on Hanus. ← George ^talk 14:19, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Hanus is the editor, the book is a compendium (as the name says) of articles by luminaries like Dore Gold, Daniel Pipes and Mitchell Bard (the cover is visible at Amazon). The snippet that Google will show of page 67 exactly matches this article of Gold. Hanus is not Gold, it is just the citation that was wrong. Zero^talk 14:42, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Yep, good catch. I updated the article. ← George ^talk 14:45, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

George, please feel free to entirely remove any topic that my text from proper sources shows to be irrelevant to the subject of this page. Zero^talk 13:48, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Quite honestly, I'm tempting to just wipe out the second paragraph of the lead, and the Jordanian views on East Jerusalem section in the body. It just no longer has anything to do with Islamization, or even discrimination. All that those sentences say now is that Jordan liked Muslims and Christians. Before doing so, I'm checking to see if there is objection to such a move. If you do object, please also explain what Jordan's affinity for Muslims and Christians has to do with Islamization. ← George ^talk 07:21, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm fine with that. I'd also be fine with removal of the section about schools. The only pro-Islamic thing about that is the closing of schools on Fridays, not much to get excited about. Incidentally, the fact that serious academic studies like those of Katz and Israeli give a different picture from that of Ye'or, Gold, etc, just underscores how unreliable the latter are. We should work to replace them completely. Zero^talk 13:09, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree with the bit on schools as well. The problem with removing Ye'or and Kollek is that they're pretty much the only people who have ever called the discrimination during this period "Islamization". It's a very fringy concept of questionable notability, but if you remove them there is literally nothing left in this article. I tend to doubt that most of the people who voted to keep in the deletion discussion actually reviewed the (lack of) sources, but we could try renaming the article "Discrimination in Jerusalem under Jordanian rule" or something similar (I also have an issue with calling Jordanian rule from 1948 to 1967 "occupation" while citing a single newspaper from 1954). ← George ^talk 13:22, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Since deleting this type of coatrack is essentially impossible, maybe it would be better to propose merger with East Jerusalem. Anything of value here (including some things that don't fit the topic of this page) could go into the Jordanian occupation section of that page. Zero^talk 14:05, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Not a bad idea. The main page for that section, Occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem by Jordan, may be a more appropriate, more targeted article to merge into though. Thoughts? ← George ^talk 16:24, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Removed that paragraph and section as mentioned as few days ago. ← George ^talk 21:18, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Credibility of sources

[1] Why are Moshe Hirsch, Deborah Housen-Couriel and Ruth Lapidoth called “some authors claim”, while Tessler is not labelled as a “claim “ or as “some authors”? Chesdovi (talk) 13:02, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:33, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Islamization of Jerusalem under Jordanian occupation → Islamization and Arabization of Jerusalem under Jordanian occupation — Relisted. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:13, 9 June 2011 (UTC) This includes all actions taken by the Jordainian government to solidify it's hold on the city, a process not always made in the form of Islamization. Chesdovi (talk) 14:23, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

Discussion

Comments by George

I'm not sure that expanding one vague term used for SYNTH by adding another really helps anything. I'd suggest renaming the article to Discrimination in Jerusalem under Jordanian rule instead. ← George ^talk 21:07, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Sentence in the lead

There's currently a sentence in the lead "Israelis irrespective of religion were unable to visit East Jerusalem, so their holy places were inaccessible to them." I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean. It doesn't have anything to do with Islamization, and it's not at all unexpected from two countries recently in war. How many Jordanians were able to visit holy places in West Jerusalem? I'm going to go ahead and boldly remove it, but if anyone has a reason it should be kept please explain why here. Thanks. ← George ^talk 21:36, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

See para 5 (page 23 in case the link doesn't work). Many authors choose to hide the fact that it applied to every Israeli and instead present it as an action only against Jews. And you are quite right that visits in the other direction were also prevented (though most of the key "holy sites" were on the Jordanian side). It doesn't belong on this page so you were right to delete it. Zero^talk 01:05, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that's about what I thought. I don't think that a law that restricted Jews, Christians, and Muslims from all visiting their respective holy sites counts as Islamization. Open to reconsidering if anyone has a different take on it, but seems pretty obvious to me. Thanks for the feedback Zero. ← George ^talk 06:03, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

• "The Jordanians required most tourists to produce baptismal certificates — to prove they were not Jewish — before they were allowed to enter East Jerusalem from Israel." [2]
• "So severe were the Jordanian restrictions against Jews gaining access to the old city that visitors wishing to cross over from west Jerusalem (at the Mandelbaum Gate) had to produce a baptismal certificate." [3]
• "Jordan even barred access to non-Israeli Jews, requiring all tourists to present a certificate of baptism before visas were granted." [4] ---Chesdovi (talk) 11:31, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

This could be mentioned, but it is not an excuse for failing to mention that Israeli Muslims were not admitted, nor were Israeli Christians with one exception. Raphael Israeli and Martin Gilbert, both eminent historians with a pro-Israeli reputation, are very clear about this and both allow that non-Israeli Jews could enter. If Muslims and Christians were excluded too, where is the "Islamization"? Also your sources refer only to entering from Israel and don't mention other ways to enter. The story actually makes zero sense, since Christians do not carry baptismal certificates and most Christians would not even have one. I can imagine a Jordanian border guard making this demand when he suspected that someone was an Israeli Jewish activist trying to enter, but if it was a general requirement nobody at all would have been admitted. Zero^talk 02:55, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Sources

Chesdovi, Dore Gold (professional propagandist) and books like "For Zion's Sake" (written by an Israeli politician) are unacceptable here. You can't just shove any rubbish you like into the article. Zero^talk 14:59, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Why have you note described Tessler's assertions as a "claim"? Chesdovi (talk) 15:38, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

SYNTHy additions

Rather than go back and forth, removing and re-adding this text, I'm hoping we can discuss what I view as the most SYNTHy of the additions to the article. These include:

• Mention of Arabization. Arabization is not the same as Islamization. I have no idea why this is in here, until the page rename discussion concludes that this should be an article on Islamization and Arabization. To say that "Prof. Israeli referred to Islamization as Arabization" is pure SYNTH.

Using the JOJ as a guide, there is mentioned "de-Arabization", "ethnicization", "colonialism", "apartheid" & "occupation". Chesdovi (talk) 09:12, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

JOJ shouldn't be a guide for anything, especially given its own problems. Problems with other articles aren't carte blanche to go and add similar problems to other article just to make a point. I'm going to be removing this unless you can provide a better justification for it. ← George ^talk 09:30, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

• Mention of Jordan renovating Muslim holy sites. This makes sense in the body of the article when contrasted with treatment of non-Muslim holy sites, but it's misleading when placed by itself, because it implies that Jordanians treated non-Muslim holy sites differently while not expressly stating so. The issue is that Jordan also renovated some Christian holy sites, making the point moot.

We do not need Jordan to expressly say what they are doing, it is an allegation after all. For Islamization to take place, it is still possible for them to upkeep other sites, as Israel. Chesdovi (talk) 09:12, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

The allegation is that there was Islamization, not that there was renovation. There's no reason to mention renovation unless reliable sources mention it in the context of it being an aspect of Islamization. Are there reliable sources that do so? ← George ^talk 09:30, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

• The spiritual significance of Jerusalem. Same issue. Zero added sources saying that Jordan considered it of spiritual significance to Muslims and Christians, I removed both, and now Chesdovi re-added the pro-Muslim significance. Knowing that other sources mention the Christian significance to Jordan, how is this "Islamizing"?

It makes no difference what the Jordainians may say, Israel also says Jerusalem is a free and equal city yet allegations of Judization are abound. Chesdovi (talk) 09:12, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Again, this isn't an article for making points because of issues you have with other articles. Take up those issues in the other articles. ← George ^talk 09:30, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

• Road signs in Arabic. What the heck does this have to do with anything? It implies something without saying it, which is, again, SYNTH. If the source says "Jordan was Islamizing Jerusalem by putting up Arabic roadsigns" then fine, include it, but if the source doesn't say it then it's pure SYNTH.

Why does the JOJ have a "Replacing Arabic place names with Hebrew names" section? Chesdovi (talk) 09:12, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Same thing again; take it up at that article. If sources in the JOJ article do not say that "Israel put up signs in Hebrew to Judaize Jerusalem", then go remove it from that article. You shouldn't be adding SYNTH to this article to make up for the shortcomings of that article. ← George ^talk 09:30, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

If putting up new road signs in Arabic is not Arabizastion, what is? Do we really need a source for this obvious fact?! If it works one way, anf that's sourced, why do we need a source for the other way? Chesdovi (talk) 10:03, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

It's not Arabization unless reliable sources say it is, and Arabization is not the same as Islamization anyways. I took a quick look at the JOJ article, and the source cited there explicitly says that putting up signs in Hebrew was an attempt to Judaise Jerusalem. I don't agree with them, but a reliable source said explicitly that someone made the claim. We need a similar source saying that putting up signs in Arabic was an attempt to Islamize Jerusalem, or it's synthesis. ← George ^talk 10:07, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

aND IF WE HAVE A SOURCE SAYING REMOVING THE aRABIC SIGN IS A FORM OF jUDIZATION.... ? 10:42, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

What's the question? It's almost 4am here, so I'm about to pass out, but I'll try to answer tomorrow if you can be more specific as to what you're asking. ← George ^talk 10:46, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Some muslim guy says when Israel removed the Buraq sign on the Wall, it was basically Judisation. Why is not its placement in the first place not Islamization? Chesdovi (talk) 11:33, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Very hard to find any source specifcally saying the attachment of an Arabic sign saying Buraq on the Wall is in fact "Islamization" (magic word always missing), but others do imply it:

"As he approached the Wall he noticed a sign in Arabic and English announcing that Mohammed and a band of angles had met on this spot. Ben-Gurion feared that an Islamic “presence” so close to the Western Wall might bolster the “Arab claim” to Jerusalem".

"For twenty years the Western Wall stood desolate and forsaken. The Arabs thought that they would succeed in effacing all traces of Jewish association with the Wall. They erased all the age-long inscriptions on the stones, removed the notes of supplication that had been inserted by worshippers in between the crevices in the Wall, and affixed a sign in Arabic and English bearing the legend: el-Burak." ----Chesdovi (talk) 11:33, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

World Jewish Bible Society? Who? Come on, we can find an infinite amount of invective leveled by partisans of each side against the other, let's stick to sources that at least have the appearance of a little independence or objectivity. Zero^talk

I showed as Afd that JOJ also has partisan sources. Chesdovi (talk) 13:12, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

The difference is fundamentally the motivation Chesdovi. There is a reliable source that says that Israelis put up a sign in Hebrew because they wanted to "Judaize" Jerusalem. The reliable source says Judaization was the motivation. I, personally, disagree with the reliable source on the issue, but the source says it nonetheless. There is not a reliable source that says that the Jordanians put up a sign in Arabic because they wanted to "Islamize" Jerusalem. I can understand your frustration with the difference between those scenarios, but our hands are tied by the reliable sources. If you can find a reliable source that gives Islamization as the motivation for why the Jordanians put up the signs, as the JOJ source does, then we can definitely add it. But short of that, we're violating Wikipedia's policies on original research. ← George ^talk 00:04, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

If it's helpful, the relevant part of WP:SYNTH is that "If no reliable source has combined the material in this way, it is original research." Reliable sources said that some people have alleged the Islamization of Jerusalem under Jordanian rule. Reliable sources say that the Jordanians put up signs in Arabic. If no reliable source has combined the two and said that one of the ways Jordanians Islamized Jerusalem was by putting up signs in Arabic, then it is original research. Hope that helps. ← George ^talk 10:14, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

• Arabs in the Jewish Quarter. Ok, so the Jews were expelled/fled/left, and some Arabs moved in, then the Arabs were expelled/fled/left, and it was planned to be turned into a park. I get how the Jews being expelled/fled/left has significance, but what does it matter that the Arabs were later expelled/fled/left?

Clearly it shows that the transformation into a park was in the process of happening, not just a plan on paper. Chesdovi (talk) 09:12, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

No, it shows that you're synthesizing something that sources don't say. You're adding information to imply that "the transformation into a park was in the process of happening". If source say that, then just write that and cite the sources that say so. But if sources don't say that, then you've crossed the line into synthesizing information.

The failures of other start-class articles are not a valid reason for including synthesized information. I'll give you a few days to find some reliable sources that support your assertions above before I go through and weed the SYNTH back out. If you prefer, you can just open RfCs on the issues now, as we already have three opinions in this discussion. Your call. ← George ^talk 09:30, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

And just to be clear, sources that support these will have to draw a pretty explicit line like "Arabization is one form of Islamization", "Jordan tried to Islamize Jerusalem by putting up signs in Arabic", "Jordan started to make Jerusalem more Muslim by moving Arabs out of the Jewish Quarter and turning it into a park". We're not here to make arguments for Ye'or and Kollek, we're here to write what they've alleged, and what reliable sources say constituted Islamization during this time period. ← George ^talk 09:38, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

The road sign thing seems to be trivia to me and I'd delete it from both articles if I could. If we have to have it (alas) there is no reason supported by the sources, or in logic, to equate putting up a sign and taking it down. Also the language of the sign seems irrelevant. A country in which a great majority of residents speak Arabic as a first language can be expected to put up signs in Arabic. Only the content of the sign is potentially of importance (but I think not enough importance). Zero^talk 13:04, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm thinking to try to take a look at the JOJ article next. A single source talking about a single sign warrants an entire section of its own? Doesn't make sense to me. ← George ^talk 00:04, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

On another, non-synth-related note, the sentence "Students, whether Muslim or Christian, were to study only their own religion, but study of the Koran became mandatory" makes no sense. We should cite who said what, like "According to X, Muslims and Christians studied their own religion, but according to Y, they all had to study the Koran." ← George ^talk 23:56, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

On the last one, we should prefer the academic study (Katz) that devotes several pages to the Christian schools under Jordanian control over the Israeli attack on Jordan that makes an extraordinary claim in passing. Katz discusses the actual Jordanian law in detail. Zero^talk 02:38, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Checking in to see if there has been any progress on finding sources, per my comments from June 10th above, before I start editing this article. ← George ^talk 01:06, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

References

The road sign

In deleting the road sign I was wrong in suggesting that the sign was not actually on the wall itself. In fact it was, and I'm 100% sure because I located the exact spot. Since the floor of the plaza was lowered in 1967 or soon afterwards, the spot where the sign was is now 4.1 meters (13.5 feet) above the pavement. However I'm not going to put it back because, as well as not being in the only source provided, it is hard to argue it as Islamization. The sign provided both the Jewish name "Wailing Wall" and the Arabic name "Al-Buraq" which is an example of being inclusive, not one of being exclusive. The road was known in Arabic as al-Buraq from 1865 or earlier. Zero^talk 06:11, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Why self-serving claims by politicians shouldn't be allowed as reliable sources

The mayor of Jerusalem Teddy Kollek wrote in 1981: "It will also be remembered that, during the 19 years of the Jordanian occupation, the number of Christians living in Jerusalem dropped from 25,000 to 9,000." and E.M.Gregory added this claim to the article. What Kollek failed to mention is that half of those 25,000 were living in the part of Jerusalem occupied by Israel and that (unlike the Christians in the Jordanian part) Israel dispossessed most of them of their property. Some went to East Jerusalem (perhaps temporarily) and others went all over the world. Zero^talk 01:56, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Various articles by Daphne Tsimhoni give a more scholarly account of the demographics. Zero^talk 03:24, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I'll add: it is perfectly obvious that Kollek's article is self-serving and propagandistic. Being an elected mayor doesn't make him more reliable, it makes him not a third-party source and so less reliable by Wikipedia guidelines. Zero^talk 23:18, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Major issues

Using the term "Islamization" is problematic here. I can see there were discussions about this, but the issue still remains. "Islamization" is a radical term, it hints to a wide range of policies. I took a quick look at the sources, the only one advocating for this term is Kollek. The naming should be reconsidered. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:45, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Also, pr Jordanian annexation of the West Bank, the second part of this articles name should be moved to ..... of East Jerusalem under Jordanian annexation, or ..... of East Jerusalem under Jordanian rule. Huldra (talk) 20:08, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Actually, why does this article exist? Content could be easily relocated to Jordanian annexation of the West Bank. Makeandtoss (talk) 21:01, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

We may rename this, but this is highly notable.GreyShark (dibra) 07:03, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

• Problem with Makeandtoss and Hulda's comments is that this article appears to be specifically about religious issues, not about the Jordanian annexation as a political phenomenon. Moreover Islamization in modern usage is about political Islamism, but historically, certainly from 1948 - 1967, the term was used to describe the government-imposed shift to a regime that granted rights to Muslims not granted ot non-Muslims as a region shifted from political control by Christian or Hindu rulers to Muslim ones. This appears to be a precise use of the term in an historical context.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:09, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Merger proposal

Closed per request at WP:ANRFC. There is a rough consensus against a merge. Opponents of a merge noted that the two articles focus on different topics. This was not rebutted by the supporters of a merge whose comments generally were much briefer than the supporters.

Cunard (talk) 23:47, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Merge with Jordanian annexation of the West Bank, I don't feel it deserves a standalone article. Makeandtoss (talk) 21:02, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

• Agree to merger.Davidbena (talk) 15:01, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
• Agree too. Zero^talk 01:48, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
• Agree as well Seraphim System ^(talk) 01:59, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
• Keep - certainly a notable article - one of the three periods of Islamization of Jerusalem. We may however rename the article into Islamization of East Jerusalem during Jordanian rule or Islamization of East Jerusalem during Jordanian annexation to fit the main article on that period.GreyShark (dibra) 06:39, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
• MergeSelfstudier (talk) 18:15, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
• Merge Huldra (talk) 20:04, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
• Don't Merge Both are big and important topics and deserve separate articles. There are a number of differences in the scope of the two articles. One of them is about the whole of the West Bank while the other focuses on East Jerusalem. (It is disputed if East Jerusalem is even considered part of the West Bank given that it was considered a corpus separatum in the 1947 partition plan.) The occupation and annexation article deals with more political issues, while this article deals with more social issues. I think they are best remaining separate. OtterAM (talk) 21:38, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose After reading the article and the sources, it appears to me that the article focuses on religious issues: the denial of rights to non-Muslims to make pilgrimages to holy sites, the denial of rights to education children in Christian doctrine that Christians had enjoyed under the previous British Mandate government, and the denial to Jews of the right to reside in or even to enter Jordanian-held Jerusalem even for the purpose of brief pilgrimage to Jewish holy sites, and the erasing of non-Muslim faiths by means of the destruction of Jewish houses of worship by Jordanian authorities. No justification for deletion.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:55, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose The term Islamization is widely used in WP:RS.Also the occupation of East Jurasalem by Jordan was not recognized even by UK so its status its different from the West bank--Shrike (talk) 12:23, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

But where is the term Islamization used in the context of Jordanian rule? Makeandtoss (talk) 13:31, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

• Several longstanding sources in article discuss "Islamization used in the context of Jordanian rule." Responding to your comment, I just added two more. All from pro-Israel voices, but notable ones.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:13, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 2 May 2020

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

The result of the move request was: Moved; I don't particularly see the comments in opposition to such a move are particularly persuasive to move away from the much larger consensus that "occupation" is not desirable in articles titles regarding the topic. Sceptre (talk) 17:46, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

---

Islamization of East Jerusalem under Jordanian occupation → Islamization of East Jerusalem under Jordanian rule – There was no military occupation of the territory and post annexation it was civilian not miltary rule, so the article title is evidently based on a mistake.

Note Eyal Benvenisti (2004). The International Law of Occupation. Princeton University Press. pp. 108–. ISBN 0-691-12130-3. a pro-Israel lawyer who writes "Since 1948 it had been under Jordanian administration and Jordan claimed to have annexed it in 1950".Selfstudier (talk) 09:18, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Or Anthony H. Cordesman; Jennifer Moravitz (2005). The Israeli-Palestinian War: Escalating to Nowhere. Greenwood Publishing Group. pp. 243–. ISBN 978-0-275-98758-9. ""the subsequent armistice left the West Bank under Transjordan's administrative control"Selfstudier (talk) 11:43, 2 May 2020 (UTC) Selfstudier (talk) 19:01, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Oppose No one recognized the occupation even the UK that recognized the occupation of rest of the area as Jerusalem is an international city that should be under UN rule. Anyhow the argument there is only civilian rule would hold water but the problem we should apply the same logic on Israeli rule of Jerusalem till WP calls it occupation we can't change the title per WP:NPOV.Now about the sources:

• Eyal Benvenisti he not pro-Israeli scholar but even he write that the annexation is null and void so we can't call it rule per WP:NPOV

I have no objection to it being called annexation instead of rule, that would also be fine.

Benevisti Amicus Curiae brief to ICC 16 march 2020 "the intentional ambiguity surrounding the Palestinian assertion of territorial sovereignty does not serve the interests underlying international law, among them legal certainty and uniformity. The ICC should fulfill its role as a custodian of the international legal order rather than legitimize Palestine’s bifurcated, case-specific approach to territorial sovereignty" looks like "pro-Israel" to me. Of course, the argument was rebutted by the ICC prosecutor.Selfstudier (talk) 17:19, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

• There are multiple sources that use the term Jordanian occupation [5],[6],[7] and many others so per WP:COMMONAME we should keep the current name --Shrike (talk) 19:34, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

See my response at WikiProject_Israel_Palestine_Collaboration#Change_"rule"_to_"occupation", many sources use the word occupation in its physical sense rather than in the sense of a military occupation. As I said there, provide the usual details, name of military administration, date commenced, name of commander and so forth and then we can set up a specific article for the military occupation and include this article as a link out from it.Selfstudier (talk) 10:09, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

And how did Transjordan come to "occupy In the physical sense", if not through military invasion? All the sources listed above, by me and Shrike use it in the obvious meaning: a military occupation. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 13:57, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

A miltary invasion does not automatically mean that a military occupation is established (for instance, an army could enter and leave again, the Iraqi forces did that, right?). No-one is disputing the fact that TJ invaded the territory, that is an obvious historical fact. If there was a military occupation, when was it established ie when did the army gain control over the territory and how do you explain the granting of citizenship rights to the Palestinians? That is the very opposite of military occupation.Selfstudier (talk) 15:10, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

That's simply incorrect. In international law, a territory becomes occupied when it is under the effective control of the invading army. Parts of what later became known as the "West Bank" became occupied as early as May 14th 1948, and the Jordanian military presence there and its effective control did not end until June 8th, 1967. Granting of citizenship does not end the status as occupied- you are once again instructed to look at Israeli-occupied_territories#Golan_Heights or Israeli-occupied_territories#East_Jerusalem.

What do you think "effective control" means? Explain to me how there was effective control over the territory on May 14th? (the fact that this or that bit is temporarily controlled as fighting continues is irrelevant to the question). There is no comparison with Israeli actions anywhere, everyone from the town mouse up (except Israel) agrees that that those are occupation, military administration, military commander, military justice system, transfer of civilians, UN resolutions, the works, there is no debate about it. That is not the case with TJ in the same space and trying to pretend that it is is simply fatuous.Selfstudier (talk) 15:43, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

The concept of effective control is defined in international law. Just do some reading. There is little doubt that when the Jordanian army is physically present in the West Bank, and Jordan controls all aspects of life there, it exercises effecitve control over the area. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 15:55, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

I know it is, and it is completely clear from the comments you just made that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.Selfstudier (talk) 16:23, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

I have a very good idea what I am talking about. Now, cut out the personal attacks, and wait for this Requested Move to play out. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 16:25, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Oppose. Unilateral and unrecognized annexation does not end the status of a territory as occupied. See for example Israeli-occupied_territories#Golan_Heights or Israeli-occupied_territories#East_Jerusalem. There's no shortage of sources referring to the "Jordanian occupation" as such:

• "King Abdullah of Transjordan occupied the West Bank, allegedly for the protection of unarmed Arabs "against massacres". - United Nations Competence in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, International & Comparative Law Quarterly, Volume 31, Issue 3July 1982 , pp. 426
• "Jordan (then Transjordan) occupied the West Bank area", Palestine Peace not Apartheid (review), Mediterranean Quarterly, Volume 18, Number 2, Spring 2007 pp. 136-141
• ' the Hashemite Kingdom of Transjordan occupied the West Bank of the Jordan River". Challenges to Israel-Palestinian Joint Security, SMA White Paper: A Geopolitical and Cognitive Assessment of the Israeli-Palestinian Security Conundrum, p. 57. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 19:36, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree that a contested annex does not end the status of a territory as occupied I am simply saying that there was no occupation (military occupation) to begin with. See my comment above about sources using the word occupation in a physical sense rather than in the sense of military occupation (applies to both the sources you mention there).Selfstudier (talk) 10:12, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

• I doubt there was no military occupation, and if there was, then it should stay "occupation". But if there wasn't, I would agree that "rule" would be better. Debresser (talk) 20:59, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

If the usual details of such an occupation are forthcoming then of course there should be a separate article to cover that. Also note Gregory comments in the merger proposal just above this discussion, he seems fairly clear that it ought to be "rule". And Greyshark flat out suggested the same rename I am proposing here.Selfstudier (talk) 10:16, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose Zarcademan123456 (talk) 21:05, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

There is not much to respond to here so I will content myself with quoting the initial sentence of this article

"Islamization of East Jerusalem under Jordanian occupation is what occurred during the Jordanian annexation of the West Bank between 1948–1967" and enquire whether you can spot the obvious flaw? Selfstudier (talk) 10:20, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

• Endorse We've already been around the block about utilising the word "occupation" in reference to the Jordanian period. "Rule" may not be perfect either, but I believe it to be the more neutral of the two. Havradim (talk) 19:41, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

As you say, we have been around the block more than once (soon to be three times by the look of it). Leaving the title of this article as it currently stands will mean that it cannot be linked from the Jordanian annexation article because that would be a contradiction to the consensus there. In that event all the material here would need to be copied over without using the word occupation already negated there so that it can stand on its own without being linked to here.Selfstudier (talk) 12:41, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

There's no contradiction between occupation and annexation. A territory can be annexed, and occupied at the same time. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 00:28, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Since in your opinion annexation equals and includes occupation, do you then agree that we can refer to the Golan Heights as being occupied? Havradim (talk) 05:14, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

I don;t know how you got the idea that I think that annexation equals occupation. That's not what I said - I said the two can exist at the same time. And yes, of course the Golan not only could be described as occupied it is described so in every Wikipedia article that mentions it, including the one you linked to. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 14:31, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Woah! Some wild statements being made here, my initial comment stands, you can't link out to "occupied" when we have 3 times negated "occupied" in the article being linked from, that's just obvious. Might be able to egg it perhaps, don't know. Simpler as well as consistent would be to do this page move. That apart, occupation is military control, annexed territory is civilian control so the two things are distinct in that sense. Then there is the international law sense ie has the annex been accepted, are there relevant UN resolutions about the case? So, to take the most contentious example, EJ is now civilian rule because it was annexed but that Israeli law annex is not recognized anywhere and the UN has in effect deemed the annex (and any other changes to the character) as void (as if it had not occurred). So in that particular sense, it is as if it were the prior situation ie occupied. The main point is you always have to distinguish between domestic law and international for a proper description of the case.Selfstudier (talk) 11:06, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

What "wild statement"? EJ is under civilian rule, yet is described as occupied in every Wikipedia article discussing it. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 14:29, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Yep, I just explained why that is not only possible but true. And I wasn't just referring to your comments. Once more for the hard of hearing, it is civilian rule domestically and occupied internationally, no inconsistency at all. Annexation and occupation of the same place domestically would be a contradiction in terms.Selfstudier (talk) 18:17, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

It is exactly the same with regards to the WB - it was occupied militarily by Jordan and then annexed in move not recognized by the international community, and thus remained occupied, even though Jordan did not consider it so, domestically.JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk)

No it isn't exactly the same. There is no resolution anywhere declaring Jordanian annex null and void and nor has any occupation been shown to exist before it (the best you might be able to say is that it was something similar to what the Russians did with Crimea, the Russian forces did not occupy Crimea (not officially). Then the annex was based on the wishes of the local population (that part is similar, what occupier appoints the occupied population to positions within its administration?) and then there is a resolution about the Russian annex. Anyway, the long and short of it is that you cannot compare apples with oranges.Selfstudier (talk) 19:49, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

No two situations are ever 100% the same, but the fundamental aspects of these are the same: Jordan militarily invaded and occupied land that was not part of its recognized territory, then it annexed it in a move not recognized internationally, and established civilian rule there. As you seem to agree, a civilian administration does not end the occupation - as the EJ and Golan examples show, even on Wikipedia. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 20:12, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Stating over and over again that there was an occupation doesn't mean there was one. And it is not even close to 100% it's barely 50% if that (it's not really a % thing but I'm trying to keep it simple). Your objective is obvious, you want to equate the two situations and while I agree that there are certain commonalities, you just cannot compare the two. This is why many editors on 3 separate occasions now cannot agree on calling Jordan's actions an occupation whereas many editors can simply and easily agree that that is what to call the Israeli action over the same space. And while you might like to ignore UN resolutions, you can't do that either.Selfstudier (talk) 21:53, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

How do you think the Transjordanian Army found itself controlling the Latrun salient, capturing the defendants of Gush Etzion and taking them to Transjordan? How did they build and destroy structures in the Old City of Jerusalem? Did they magically materialize there? re-read the scholarly sources presented above, all saying TransJordan occupied those areas. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 00:10, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Besides the two sources I started off with, there are many more of equal quality that do not refer to it as an occupation, that is why there is no article about any "Jordanian occupation", this obvious non-NPOV effort about some religious issues is the only thing out there.Selfstudier (talk) 09:14, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

• Endorse move The article was started by now-banned User:AMuseo under this POV name, overdue to be moved, Huldra (talk) 22:01, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

  He wasn't banned when he created it, and that's not a valid reason to move an article, certainly not one that dozens of people have since then edited. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 23:50, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Actually, was banned when created, as AMuseo was a sock of a topic-banned editor. Cant wait for the irony of this response to be clear. nableezy - 00:38, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

• • I believe AMuseo is female. And the POV name is the reason why this article should be moved. Huldra (talk) 23:58, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

    • That could be, I don't know. But "Jordanian rule" is every it as POV as "Jordanian occupation", just from the other side. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 00:05, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

      • I see it as being practical but not perfect. Occupation is flawed, and annexation is besides the point; rule to me conveys that Jordan did the acts depicted in the article while in 'control' (another option) of this area, but not necessarily as sovereign, although that might be implied. Administration might also work, but rule sounds more concise to me. Havradim (talk) 05:53, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

        I see "rule" as a much broader term; it encompasses both "occupation", "annexation" and any other form of "rule" (say, "administration", "control"). "Occupation", on the other hand, basically let the 1948-1950 era "trump" the 1950-1967 era (when it was annexed). That is POV, pure and simple, Huldra (talk) 20:59, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose to all those supporting the move, will you explain how Gaza, et al is then included under current Military Occupations at this article? List_of_military_occupations#Contemporary_occupations? There is no military occupation of Gaza by Israel, yet according to Wikipedia, even in 2020 somehow Israel is militarily occupying Gaza. Yet, when Jordan actually occupied East Jerusalem, you want to say it didn't occupy East Jerusalem? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sir Joseph (talk • contribs) 21:52, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Gaza is considered occupied via an international consensus. Since GAZA/WB (including EJ) are considered one unit, the international consensus can be applied in that manner as well. As for "Jordanian occupation", there is no consensus (not in Wikipedia nor internationally) for it (3 RFC's at Jordanian annexation of the West Bank all failed to get consensus for this notion and I would be interested to see someone (you, Sir Joseph?) attempt to create the article "Jordanian occupation of the West Bank" -properly not as as a silly redirect). Now you have pointed it out to me, I don't know why the Jordanian annex is in the list of military occupations (it is a contradiction in terms absent any UN resolutions nullifying the annex as in the case of East Jerusalem), that will need fixing up as well.Selfstudier (talk) 11:10, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Selfstudier, "consensus" is not the same as truth as I'm sure one often sees in Wikipedia. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 13:54, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Truth, like beauty, is often in the eye of the beholder. In the matter of Jordanian "occupation", which I have not completely denied but merely asked for some evidence of it, besides the citizenship business, you can also look to the appointment of so-called "military governers" (in charge of no military), I think there were 7 initially and then reduced to 3 later on but they were Palestinians! I can just see the IDF appointing Palestinians to their occupation command structure, lol. Even if you ignore the obvious contraindications, the maximum length of this supposed occupation might have been sometime in late 48 up to time of Jericho conference, say, hardly worth it really, considering they were spending most of the time working out the annex details (in connivance with the UK and USA I might add).Selfstudier (talk) 14:27, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Selfstudier, in the case of East Jerusalem and Golan, residents there are afforded full citizenship rights and there is zero differentiation between Jews and Arabs as far as the law is concerned. The claim that it's under military occupation is laughable, same as Gaza. If you walk through Gaza, the only occupation anyone faces is Hamas occupation. There is no Israeli presence in Gaza whatsoever. To claim that borders represent a military occupation would mean that many countries throughout the world are under occupation for securing a border. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:36, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

I will happily debate that with you on the appropriate page, not here. (just by way of example, for Gaza, you have ignored the fact that Israeli military is able to and frequently does enter the area at will and elsewhere, if you are trying to convince me that Israeli law treats Jews equally with others, I have another leg you can pull, Jewish nation state law refers).Selfstudier (talk) 08:58, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

So, feel free to name me a law that treats Israeli Jews differently than Israeli Arabs. And I'll give you a freebie, affirmative action. Israeli Arabs are given preferential treatment and admission into Israeli universities. Now it's your turn. As for Gaza, being able to go into Gaza on occasion, does not mean they occupy Gaza. That's proof that they don't occupy it, since they have to go in to Gaza. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 03:53, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Oh dear. Please see WP:SOAP. nableezy - 04:07, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Sir Joseph, in the case of EJ if there really is "zero differentiation between Jews and Arabs as far as the law is concerned", explain why Arabs are prohibited from running for mayor of Jerusalem?[8] Havradim (talk) 03:28, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Havradim, who says Arab citizens can't run for mayor of Jerusalem? Nothing in that article said the law prevented anyone from running for office. So, my question still stands, I'm waiting for a government law, not action of private citizens preventing someone from running for office.. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 03:53, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Article quote: "Most of the estimated 370,000 Arab residents do not have Israeli citizenship and the right to stand for election as mayor (although they can run as councillors)." This implies they cannot run for mayor even if they have Israeli identity cards/citizenship. It cannot be saying that those with citizenship can run for mayor and those without can still be councilors, because that makes absolutely no sense. Further, the subject of the article, someone who has identity papers, attempted a petition to the Israeli high court on grounds of not being afforded the equal right to run for mayor. Why would he need to go through the trouble if he could have simply submitted his name as a candidate? Therefore the article is implying that there is a legal difference in regards to the Arabs of EJ. Havradim (talk) 04:11, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Havradim, that's because they choose not to get citizenship. They are entitled to it, but they don't want it or are forced not to get it by the Palestinian Authority. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 04:26, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Or third option, they know they will still be discriminated against even if they do acquire citizenship, as in, not being allowed to run for mayor, and then being bullied into not taking the case to the Israeli high court, as was reported. Havradim (talk) 04:35, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm not going to make up hypotheticals. There is no distinction on an Israeli identity card between Muslim or Jew, so anyone can run for office. Ask the mayor of Nazareth, ask the council in Haifa, in Acco, etc. Don't bring in a hypothetical when you know Israeli Arabs can and do serve as elected office holders.Sir Joseph ^(talk) 04:44, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Nazareth, Haifa and Acco are in Israel. We are speaking of EJ where it is not a hypothetical but a fact that an Israeli Arab who tried to run for mayor of Jerusalem was barred by law from doing so. But under the Jordanians, Arab Palestinians were under no restrictions to represent their own population. Therefore the nature of the two "occupations" was fundamentally different. Havradim (talk) 05:16, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

so get citizenship. Israel makes no distinction. The article didn't claim any law. Stop making things up. I'm not responding to you anymore because it's clear you aren't listening and you are just throwing out hypothetical. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 05:49, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

The crux of this is whether the area was occupied from 1948-1950 and afterwards, throughout the annexation (the West Bank was both in a sense under occupation and in another sense was annexed to Jordan). In the first case it was occupied, in the second you could argue both ways.

Occupation need not be military either, as I think you pointed out...but civilian occupation is still an occupation, even if you appoint citizens (Palestinians) to rule themselves. Until annexation the West Bank was under occupation, period. Perhaps a different type than Israeli occupation, Egyptian occupation or OETA post ottoman, but an occupation nonetheless. Just because Jordan didn’t set up military governors doesn’t mean it wasn’t militarily occupied. Moreover, “Lack of evidence is not evidence of lack”. Could informal military governance have been the law of the day?

Furthermore, annexation doesn’t mean a territory is no longer occupied, as the Russian annexation of Crimea and the Israeli annexation of East Jerusalem evidence. Regarding at what point annexation becomes legal and no longer an occupation, that is more of a political than legal question I think. The Indian annexation of Goa was blatantly illegal yet came to be accepted due to politics. Same with Chinese annexation of Tibet, and I think one day the world will accept Russian sovereignty over Crimea (Europe needs Russian energy; until recognition though, Russia still occupies Crimea). But I digress. Only 3 (arguably only 2 countries, see talk page at Jordanian annexation of West Bank) recognized Jordanian annexation. In the eyes of most of the world, the West Bank was occupied. As to why no UNSC resolutions against Jordan, for the same reason there are no UNSC resolutions against Crimean annexation; politics. Great Britain held seat on UNSC, they would veto any resolution. Same with Russian veto against any resolution against their annexation. Jordan’s annexation just gave the occupation the legal veneer of sovereignty; it was still occupied. You could say same thing regarding Israeli occupation of East Jerusalem.

You have a valid argument about whether or not the annexation period was considered occupied or not, because not only was it de facto part of Jordan, but there is definitely an argument to be made that it was de jure annexed.

If that is the case, and it was annexed, then Israeli sovereignty must be recognized over Wast Jerusalem as well, as it wields sovereignty not only de facto but also arguably de jure, as it annexed it. (Golan I would argue is also Israeli territory now, captured in defensive war, but circumstances there don’t parallel the situation in West Bank via Jordan and East Jerusalem via Israel as nearly).

Brief aside, after annexation the Jordanian King banned the use of “Palestine” in official documents...doesn’t the suppression of national identity lead credence to the view it was an occupation? You can argue the legality both ways, but definitely until annexation it was an occupation and common sense seems to say it was an occupation as well.

this debate also has relevance for the current RFC on the I/P collaboration page. Zarcademan123456 (talk) 04:28, 9 May 2020 (UTC)~

What has to stop is this constant attempt to equate the Jordanian actions with the Israeli actions, there is no comparison. Along with the use of bogus arguments about what is or isn't an occupation. There is no point whatsoever in trying to argue that the Jordanian annex is an occupation, that has been tried several times now and got nowhere, rightly so. I keep issuing the invitation to anyone who thinks that they can show an occupation (in the usual IP sense) to set up the appropriate article and see what happens. Note also that this article is not only referring to as potential/alleged period of occupation but also the entire period of Jordanian control. The position is clear, there is no consensus for Jordanian "occupation" and this article title is in contradiction with that consensus.Selfstudier (talk) 09:13, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

IF you want to argue “control” or “rule” then in similar contexts the Israeli occupation and annexation of “east” Jerusalem and Golan heights should also be considered ”control” or “rule” would you agree? Zarcademan123456 (talk) 17:37, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

So if Jordanian annex wasnt occupation, you would similarity say Israel annex of east Jerusalem is not occupation? Why are they different? Both enjoyed limited recognition of claim and both offered citizenship to populace (just because most east Jerusalemites refused citizenship is not israel’s fault); and both laid claimed to land set for “Arab state” in 1947 partition (although given Arabs rejected partition and given 1920 San Reno conference gives Jews “land in Palestine, Israel arguably has stronger claim). Why is Jordanian annex diff than east Jerusalem annex? Zarcademan123456 (talk) 09:19, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

This has been discussed ad nauseum, not only is the Jordanian annex not an occupation as a matter of fact nor was it ever nullifed by way of UN resolution as was the Israeli annex of Jerusalem (and the Golan similarly). You may find this difference inconvenient or you may choose to try and argue that the UN is anti-Israel but the WP consensus as well as the legal reality is completely clear. The current article title fails for want of accuracy, it's really that simple.Selfstudier (talk) 13:29, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Struck comments by JungerMan Chips Ahoy!, a blocked and banned sockpuppet. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NoCal100/Archive § 06 May 2020 and Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/NoCal100 for details. — Newslinger talk 16:27, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.