Talk:Judaization of Jerusalem

Sources and Material

• Leilani Farha, ‘Bringing Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights Home: Palestinians in Occupied East Jerusalem and Israel,’ in Isfahan Merali, Valerie Oosterveld (eds.), 'Giving Meaning to Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights',University of Pennsylvania Press, 2001, pp160-179

-Text:Building permits are impossible to obtain. ‘the only way a Palestinian can receive a building permit is if the applicant can prove sole ownership of or title to the plot of land on which he or she wishes to build or renovate. As the Israeli government knows, this is practically impossible because when Israel occupied what is now East Jerusalem, 80 percent of the land was privately owned by Arabs but only one-third had been formally surveyed and registered by the Jordanian government. Since 1967 no land registration for Palestinians has been permitted' p.162

-In the notes (n.3 p.254) she refers us to the United Nations Commission on Human Settlements, HS/C/14/2/Add.1 at 7 (1992), “Housing Requirements of the Palestinians,” which states: “The military occupation and colonial policy of the occupying power which is aimed at the Judaization of the land had extremely adverse effects on the Palestinian housing sector.”

Useful source?

Palestinian journalist Khaled Abu Toameh has asked why the Arabs of Jerusalem are not consulted on these debates. Does this have a place in the article (perhaps as a neutral view?)? Here is his article. Im not sure where, if anywhere, to put it.--Metallurgist (talk) 18:39, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Addition to background section

User:Miamosa has just restored this. First added by an IP editor ([1]), it was restored by User:AmiAyalon1969 (indeffed for sockpuppetry, among other things) and User:Brewcrewer. I have multiple problems with the text. None of it is connected by the sources cited to the topic of this article. Some of it is unsourced. Some of it relies on biblical sources or scholars which is inappropriate for an article on a political issue. I am going to remove it. Could users wishing to restore it outline their reasons for its inclusion here and work to address the issues raised? Thanks. Tiamut^talk 13:31, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't know about the history of the edits, ip's, socks and other editors, but I read it and it seems like proper (sourced) background to me. Like anything it could probably be improved with better sources and better expansion into the Christian era, and to have it flow better into the Muslim era. But the material makes it a bit more understandable as to why Jews might want to "Judaize" Jerusalem in the first place. This didn't happen in a void, after all. At one time it was totally Jewish. Plus it doesn't seem to rely on Biblical sources. (Was there a chapter and verse I missed?) It relies on a work by Diane Slavick, which is categorized as history, and one by Israel Finkelstein, a recognized archeologist and academic. Politically, the article seems very one-sided, mainly an attack on Israel and Jews ("Judaize"), so anything to balance this viewpoint with the Hebrew viewpoint would be an improvement, in my view. Miamosa (talk) 21:30, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

There need to be sources connecting topics, not just a personal view. If sources can be brought connecting that material to the topic of this article then by all means include it. But the sources provided do not do so. nableezy - 21:38, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

"UN officials have charged"

The lead currently says that "UN officials have charged that Israel's actions are tantamount to apartheid and ethnic cleansing." The body of the article cites two UN special rapporteurs—Richard Falk and his predecessor, John Dugard—as having made the charge. One cannot cite two instance of such statements and create the sort of blanket statement the lead currently contains. If two U.S. Congressmen say "taxes are too high", that shouldn't be written, unqualified, that "U.S. Congressmen say that taxes are too high", because it ascribes the stance of two Congressmen to the hundreds of members of Congress. The same is true here. I tried to resolve this by changing the text to reflect that this was the stated opinion of two UN officials, with the edit summary "Two officials at the UN do not constitute the UN. If more UN officials than Falk & Dugard make the claim, then this can be rethought", but Adamrce reverted, stating that "Officials mean officials, they don't give personal opinions". I didn't mention anything about whether or not the stance was a personal opinion, just that it's unfair to ascribe the stance to thousands of officials at the UN, based solely on the statements of two of them. If there are sources that state that this charge is more widespread, please provide them. In the meantime, I'm going to go with a much similar edit of just inserting the word "Two" at the beginning of the sentence, as only two examples are cited in the body. ← George ^talk 08:09, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

If two congressmen sign a statement to some effect, newspapers do in fact say that "Congressmen say X" since it doesn't mean that all congressmen say so, just that more than one does. I think that "UN officials" is better than "At least two UN officials" which isn't encyclopedic language. Thoughts? --Dailycare (talk) 14:42, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

As a further comment, here is a source according to which the president of the General Assembly has also charged that Israeli actions on the West Bank (which includes East Jerusalem) amount to apartheid. --Dailycare (talk) 15:23, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

No, if two congressmen say something, no newspaper worth the paper it's printed on would say "Congressmen say X" as a blanket statement, they would say "Congressmen X and Y say Z". Your source is a good one, and I'd encourage you to include Brockmann's statement in the body of the article. I've changed the lead to say "Several UN officials" instead of "Two UN officials". ← George ^talk 06:48, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I guess it was solved before my visit, lol. Seems good to me, as we don't need to count statements; as I have more too :p ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 07:54, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm OK with the "several" wording. However I don't agree on the point concerning "congressmen", here for example is an example of the usage that I refer to above. Of course, the NYT may not win prizes for high-class journalism but at least it's worth the paper it's printed on. --Dailycare (talk) 15:36, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Article titles are a special case, as they're intentionally short and act as dramatic hooks to draw the reader's attention. The lead of that article clearly starts out talking about a single Congressman, "A member of the House Judiciary Committee", and never lumps all Congressmen together. Though if all are happy with the term "several" then the point is moot. I'm fine with whichever qualifier best describes the number of UN officials hold this view—a couple, several, a few, a handful, many, etc. ← George ^talk 18:24, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Judaization

The term judaization is defined as the process of cultural assimilation to Judaism and the imbuing with Jewish principles, and its unorthodox pejorative employment throughout the article to refer to a forced attempt to stamp Judaism on an area is hardly encyclopedic; it is charged with an underlying implication that infringes NPOV and is redolent of antisemitic undertones. I shall endeavor to replace this term with alternative expressions. Ankh.Morpork 14:34, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Read the archives, where this was discussed at extreme length, and do not 'endeavour to replace the term' attested widely in RS no one questions, 'with alternative expressions'.Nishidani (talk) 15:08, 1 July 2012 (UTC)