Talk:Hebron

Pilgrims

"The armistice agreement between Israel with Jordan intended to allow Israeli Jewish pilgrims to visit Hebron, but, as Israel did not reciprocate in kind, this did not occur." [161]

The source is a book by Sarah Irving, who is involved with the "Electronic Intifada" and therefore possibly a biased source. Is there any other source for this information?

In any case, even if true, the perspective is a bit skewed. During the Jordanian occupation of East Jerusalem, not only were Israelis barred from entry, but all Jews, regardless of citizenship. Given that fact, the idea that barring Israeli Jewish pilgrims to Hebron had anything to do with reciprocity seems far-fetched. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.36.48.88 (talk) 08:04, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for raising that. I don't think that an association with the Electronic Intifada translates into a badge of unreliability automatically. One looks at the quality of the source and its publisher first. One might note that the Armistice allowed (technically) Jewish visits to the Western Wall, but in practice this never occurred. It is never mentioned that Jordan banned all visits by Muslims in Israel to East Jerusalem as well, so that ban in practice was not resttricted to Jew, but to all those on the other side of the line, pious Muslims as well. These issues are very complex: throughout that period, any Palestinian of 700,000 trying to get back 'home' was branded as an 'infilitrator' and could be shot on sight within Israel (compare the standard Zionist narrative of the wretched fate of Jews attempting to dodge the British Mandatory authorities to reach Palestine. The latter is narrated with bitterness (understandably so), the former, which is identical in its motivations, is dismissed by as fine an historian as Benny Morris with a broadbush confusion of desperate nostalgia for one's roots and homeland and house as 'infiltration' and the borderlines between 'nostalgia' and 'terrorism' blurred. The endless border incidents certainly affected the application of policies and promises given in 1949. But your point specifically on Hebron merits attention, and we'll have to look further into it.Nishidani (talk) 18:24, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Electronic Intifada is an anti-Semitic Holocaust denial site that promotes terrorism. Anyone associated with that site is a racist and thus not a reliable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.93.31.26 (talk) 06:26, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

This article is filled with anti-Semitic sources and needs a big purging by a professional editor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.38.3.29 (talk) 01:26, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Changes in phrasing of the lead

@ZinedineZidane: The phrasing "West Bank of Palestine" does not make sense. The "West Bank" is a proper name here, and refers to the west bank of Jordan River, roughly speaking. West Bank is not a province in the country "Palestine". Therefore, the earlier phrasing was better. Kingsindian ♝♚ 21:38, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

That's besides the point. If you look up any city in the world, it will say, for instance, "London is the capital and most populous city of England and the United Kingdom" or "Paris the capital and most-populous city of France". Not "London is an English/British city" or "Paris is a French city". Saying "Hebron is a Palestinian city" seems WP:POINTy. cf. "Derry". You wouldn't start the article with "Derry is an Irish city" or "Derry is a British city". It is: "Derry is the second-largest city in Northern Ireland". ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 21:40, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Firstly, perhaps you will agree that the phrasing "West Bank of Palestine" does not make sense. Simply "West Bank" by itself makes more sense. Secondly, your comparison to other cities are not correct here because London and Paris are not occupied, like the West Bank is. Hence the need for "Palestinian". Kingsindian ♝♚ 21:47, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Right, so you will admit there is a political/ethnic/nationalistic point being made here? Otherwise, how would Hebron and Bethlehem's occupation change how you describe them in the opening sentence of an encyclopedia? ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 21:57, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

See http://global.britannica.com/place/Bethlehem http://global.britannica.com/place/Hebron-city-West-Bank ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 21:58, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Firstly, can we agree that "West Bank of Palestine" does not make sense? Even the Britannica source simply says "West Bank". Secondly, there is indeed a political point being made. Perhaps editors feel that it is an important point to be made (it is of course accurate). This kind of stuff is a matter of judgement, there is no right and wrong here. If you feel that it is important to not write "Palestinian" in the lead, try to find consensus, using RfC or some other method, instead of this ineffectual edit-warring. You seem to be a new user, I would like to direct you to the essay WP:BRD. If you make a bold revert, and it gets reverted, do not simply keep making the revert, but discuss (on the article talk pages, not user talk pages, where others can't see them). Kingsindian ♝♚ 22:08, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Three users so far, and none have been able to provide a reason, a source, or a Wikipedia policy which lends credence to the idea that these two cities should have an opening sentence at variance with every other entry on every other city in the world. I am not really new to Wikipedia, but every time I attempt to make a clear, common sense edit which is supported by irreproachable sources, Wiki "veterans" who seem to feel like they own the article I'm editing - immediately revert, with no other justification than their own personal, rather queer reasoning. Why is the opinion of yourself, Nishdiani and Hertz1888 privileged over Encyclopedia Britannica? ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 22:37, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

The reason for treating these cities differently is that they are different. In the West Bank there is a very strong divide between places that are Palestinian and places that are Israeli settlements. This distinction is perhaps the single fact about them most commonly mentioned by sources, so putting it in the lead is good writing that conforms to policy. The decisions made by other encyclopedias are not our concern. Zero^talk 00:31, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, thankyou for admitting that this is a case of (1) politicized exceptionalism and (2) placing your own personal opinion above the sources ("other encyclopedias" is quite hilarious btw, you actually believe that as a random, anonymous internet screen-name you have equal or greater authority than the editors of Encyclopedia Britannica). Congrats. ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 07:09, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, as a Wikipedia editor in good standing I have the right to prefer the opinions of multiple reliable secondary sources over the text of one encyclopedia. Zero^talk 10:42, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Nonsense. You haven't provided a source here that stays that the customary expression ("X is a city in X") is somehow incorrect in this two exceptional cases. It's just your personal opinion. ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 11:10, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

We edit consensually, not by unilateral fiat. And we strive to get multiple sources for controversial points. Anyone can make a nonsense of an encyclopedia by a selective use of one source, which might look good, but is either wrong, or badly written etc. Here the consensus is, among 'pro-Israel' and 'pro-Palestinian' editors of experience that one edits on this issue as Hertzl indicated. It is pointless to insist further, unless reality changes, or sources improve. To further revert would be disruptive'Nishidani (talk) 12:03, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

@ZinedineZidane98: Firstly, since you have not responded to my question thrice, I am just going to assume that you agree that "West Bank of Palestine" does not make sense. I will assume henceforth, that you simply mean "West Bank", and your position is to remove "Palestinian" from the sentence. In regard to this, I noted that the label is accurate. The decision on whether to use an accurate label in the lead or not is decided by consensus of editors on Wikipedia (which you inaccurately dismiss as "personal opinions"). There is no wikipedia policy which states that we have to follow Britannica text, though of course people can make arguments, convincing or otherwise, based on such things. This is my final comment on the matter. I hope there will be no more edit-warring over this, and you will use proper WP:DR methods if you wish to pursue this. Kingsindian ♝♚ 13:26, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

So, in short: "screw convention, screw the sources, screw other encyclopedia, screw every other article on Wikipedia, we like it this way, because it makes a political/ethnic/nationalistic point we approve of". And "we" are a few online activists, who seem to devote a large part of their life to editing Wikipedia on all matters to do with the Arab-Israeli conflict, and exclusively in advocacy of one side of that conflict. Seems legit. ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 13:35, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

If you had written a sentence that actually made sense you might have cause for all this babbling. But you didnt. And you didnt because you apparently are under the impression that writing involves filling in the blanks in some template. Now that may have made sense in elementary school but the world you live in is slightly more complicated than a fill in the blank template allows for. But apparently the fact that your favored sentence was nonsensical is "besides the point", because the only point that matters here is everybody else is an online activist and a random, anonymous internet screen-name. Remind me again, what are you? All this babbling because you think everybody but you has some slant they are editing with. And what exactly do you think the political/ethnic/nationalistic point being made is? That its a Palestinian city in Israeli-occupied territory? That there is a difference between Palestinian cities and Israeli settlements in the West Bank? That there is some need to distinguish between the two? nableezy - 14:12, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for proving my point. "Babbling" you say? ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 02:08, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

I was not aware you had one, sorry. And yes, babbling. nableezy - 18:05, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

If you have a point, I still don't know what it is. Incidentally here a few examples of places identified as Jewish in the first sentence: Harasha, Shim'a, Naaran, Kfar Bar'am, Or HaGanuz. There are lots of others. The ethnic nature of a place is reasonable in the lead whenever it isn't obvious from the context. We don't write "English city in England" because that would be silly. We do, however, write that Lamponeia, Neandreia, Artemita, Pydna etc were Greek cities in their first sentences because that is key information about them. You should stop this now. Zero^talk 07:21, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

It's very telling that the best you can do is try to equate equate Ancient Greek archaeological sites and Israeli settlements/outposts with actual extant cities, like Hebron and Bethlehem. If "accuracy" was your concern (which it isn't, when you read the first line of any encyclopedia on any city they don't immediately discuss ethnicity) surely you've mention Area C, PA sovereignty etc. But you don't, because that would look ludicrous in the first line... as does categorizing a city's ethnicity/nationality. But, you obviously have a point to push, and you're all very good at it. I'm not "doing" anything - merely pointing out an anomaly, for the record. ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 11:07, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

The only point I see being pushed here by everyone but you is that WP is edited collaboratively, through consensus. It is time to stop pointing fingers. I suggest you read WP:AGF, and especially WP:FOC. Hertz1888 (talk) 13:15, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

^^^. I think we can stop responding now. nableezy - 18:05, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

A synthetic source on the military situation worthy of consideration

This is written by a former commander in the zone Yehuda Shaul, The only way to end the violence in Hebron +972 magazine 2 November 2015.Nishidani (talk) 17:29, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

this is not a valid source. Stop usig this as a place for propaganda 96.57.23.82 (talk) 03:12, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Antisemitic statements in the paper

Too much of this article depends on unreviewed and known bias sources. This is inevitable with the topic and finding balanced reports are ineed thin. But the line needs to be drawn with the repetition of classic racist anti-semetism being repeated as broad fact.

That is written 'anti-semitic'. That community is notorious even in Israel for the extremity of its extremely peculiar settler culture, and all this is very well documented. It even has its defendents such as Jerold Auerbach and Michael Feige, but they sweetly glide over that strain of madness. Nishidani (talk) 19:56, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Actually, your wrong. The "source" is not even legitimate and shouldn't be a citable source. The settlers IN HEBRON are a wide variety from Chabad, to securalists. I know you would like to paint Chabad as a Meshianic "Cult" but that exact racist rhetoric has been used against Jews for CENTURIES. Every Jew that puts on Tfillin is a Meshianic extremist by the standards applied by the artical and EVERY Jew says, I remember Jerusalem at the passover sedar. The statement that all the settlers after 1967 are founded with the ideological commandment to break the law and kill, if necessary and bring meshianic race war is a LIE.... PERIOD and doesn't belong repeated in this article.

I hate the racists, and race baiters allowed to run free on wikipedia.

And how about the Chabad Sysnaguages and follwers who have been there since the Rebbe lived in Hebron in the 1830's, these are also part of the post 1967 "madmen" or ar you in fact just a racist spreading your specific brand of hatred and anti-Jewish propaganda whenever you can all over the internet. 96.57.23.82 (talk) 22:20, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Instead of fixing this blatant antisemetic snear, the page as been locked from editing. The editor is a racist and should be locked out and th paragraph removed. In fact, under German Law, and other nations, this paragraph is in violation and anti-semeitsm statutes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.57.23.82 (talk) 00:42, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Furthermore this IP address qualifies with over 500 edits BY FAR — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.57.23.82 (talk) 16:49, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

By any rational standard this is a classic form of anti-Semitism ....

The use of Messianic Jewish theology as evidence of Jews being an internal threat is a classic anti-Semitic tactic used for nearly 1000 years and it should not be tolerated on wikipeda

removing this section is vandalism and supports racism by suppressing this complaint.

This paragraph is a bigoted statement and should not be in wikipedea ~~It is a classic tactic by antisemetic propaganda to use the belief in the Mesheach or the Messiah as a reason for politic repression. The false charge is being levied here, and is very problematic. Does that author who wrote that paragraph aware of the historical context of his charges? The paragraph needs to be pulled for be factually wrong and for being a form of anti-semetism 24.38.3.28 (talk) 01:00, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Post-1967 settlement was impelled by theological doctrines developed in the Mercaz HaRav Kook under both its founder Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook, and his son Rabbi Zvi Yehuda Kook, according to which the Land of Israel is holy, the people, endowed with a divine spark, are holy, and that the messianic Age of Redemption has arrived, requiring that the Land and People be united in occupying the land and fulfilling the commandments. Hebron has a particular role in the unfolding 'cosmic drama': traditions hold that Abraham purchased land there, that King David was its king, and the tomb of Abraham covers the entrance to the Garden of Eden, and is a site excavated by Adam, who, with Eve, is buried there. Redemption will occur when the feminine and masculine characteristics of God are united at the site. Settling Hebron is not only a right and duty, but is doing the world at large a favour, with the community's acts an example of the Jews of Hebron being "a light unto the nations" (Or la-Goyim) [210] and bringing about their redemption, even if this means breaching secular laws, expressed in religiously motivated violence towards Palestinians, who are widely viewed as "mendacious, vicious, self-centered, and impossible to trust". Clashes with Palestinians in the settlement project have theological significance in the Jewish Hebron community: the frictions of war were, in Kook's view, conducive to the messianic process, and 'Arabs' will have to leave. There is no kin connection between the new settlers and the traditional Old Families of Jewish Hebronites, who vigorously oppose the new settler presence in Hebron.[210] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.38.3.29 (talk) 01:19, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Aside from being wrong on the facts, it follows the classical formula of the Protocols of Zion.

When you a palestinian radical, why let a good snide prevent you from being a bigot. Obviously all followers of Rav kook are Mechianic crazys and none of the people who survived the purge of Jews would want any return to the graves of Abraham and Sarah, or the Cemetary or Avraham Avinu synaguage. It says so in this "dependable" source and all the arabs and radical communists here are in consenus... 02:54, 4 February 2016 (UTC)96.57.23.82 (talk)

the stupid article even talks against itself. It says here:

There is no kin connection between the new settlers and the traditional Old Families of Jewish Hebronites, who vigorously oppose the new settler presence in Hebron.[210] - which is obviously wrong and bias when there are chabbadnicks there directly related to previous Jewish families that lived there... and then it more accurately says here:

Survivors and descendants of the prior community are mixed. Some support the project of Jewish redevelopment, others commend living in peace with Hebronite Arabs, while a third group recommend a full pullout.[181] Descendants supporting the latter views have met with Palestinian leaders in Hebron.[182] In 1997 one group of descendants dissociated themselves from the settlers by calling them an obstacle to peace.[182] On May 15, 2006, a member of a group who is a direct descendant of the 1929 refugees[183] urged the government to continue its support of Jewish settlement, and allow the return of eight families evacuated the previous January from homes they set up in emptied shops near the Avraham Avinu neighborhood.[181] Beit HaShalom, established in 2007 under disputed circumstances, was under court orders permitting its forced evacuation.[184][185][186][187] All the Jewish settlers were expelled on December 3, 2008.[188]

So why allow thew continuing bigotry in this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.38.3.28 (talk) 21:42, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with anti-Semitism. I'm willing to bet most Jews in the world know nothing of the peculiar intricacies of hermeneutic theology prevalent in a number of Hebron's yeshivot. The article is a scholarly description of what is taught there, and we document this.Nishidani (talk) 08:38, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

No the source is not scholarly and the source a diatribe against Jews. As a fact, their at 70 families in Hebron, quite a few of them mainstream, Chabadnick school. The source is invalid, as anyone can tell just by the tone of the posted paragraph that makes a classical case for repression of jews based on the core of their religion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.38.3.28 (talk) 00:34, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Actually, while we are on the topic, the Hebron Yeshiva is the same Yeshiva that the Arabs tried to kill everyone in 1929. It is not only Mainstream Judaism, but it has been a cornerstone for the Rosh Yeshiva across the World including Rabbi Kotler and Rabbi Hunter of the Beth Medrash Govoha and Chaim Berlin Yeshiva - two of the largest in the world. The education in Hebron is parallel to the Jewish education anywhere else in the world, and is a full participant in the 3000 year old Talmudic tradition. To assert that the Yeshiva is a threat to Arab populations, which is what is being said in this paragraph, and which is in conflict with the rest of this article, is itself proof of the anti-Semitic nature of this paragraph, regardless of the sources. You can not say that mainstream Jewish studies and belief in the messiah is cause of civil disobedience and poses a threat to the arab population. To do so to propagate a classic anti-Semitic lie.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.38.3.28 (talk • contribs)

Yeshiva University, by all accounts a mainstream Jewish educational facility hires Hebron Yeshiva scholars regularly and supports the Herbon School. This includes J. Mitchell Orlian Associate Professor of Bible BRE, BA, MS, PhD, Yeshiva University; Ordination, Hebron Yeshiva, Israel. So it is hard to see how the source can be considered reliable. So the paragraph is in conflict with the rest of the article, quotes an unreliable source that doesn't have a NPV, and echos a classical false accusation that have been used for ages. It seems the paragraph is a form of anti-semitic rhetoric and that it should be pulled by Wikipedia standards

166.84.1.1 (talk) 03:31, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

There continues to be this anti-semetic smear on the Hebron page. Perhaps one can explain how the inconsistency in the article and how the paragraph in question proves to be not just a recooking of the Protocols of Zion? 166.84.1.1 (talk) 06:22, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

The work which was quoted is not from a non-biased point of view or a peer reviewed article. The author, Hanne Eggen Røislien, is a know anti-Jewish aggitator who has credentials in cyber-securty and is wholy incapable of balanced analysis. In his previous work, he accused the IDF of being a fundamentalist organization because their communiques during Rosh Hashona had articles about Holiday happenings and dippying apples into honey in his article "Religion and coming to terms with soldiering in the Israel Defence Forces (IDF) ". This is equivalent to complaining that Stars and Stripes is full of Christmas stories and that Christmas Carols are being sone by officers at a hospital visit... as proof that the US Army is a fundamentalist Christian organization. It is very dangerous when people like this are given any kind of serious consideration because any sign of Jewishness is translated as fundamentalism and danger to the world order.

"In the posted article in support for the bigoted and contradicted segment of this article being discussed, the paper starts out with this: In the West Bank city of Hebron the Israeli-Palestinian conflict still overshadows all activities. Despite the tension, friction, and violence that have become integral to the city’s everyday life, the Jewish Community of Hebron is expanding in numbers and geographical extent. Since the Six Day War, the community has attracted some of the most militant groups among the settlers in the West Bank, responsible for severe violence against Palestin- ians, including harassment, car bombs, and attempts to blow up the Dome of the Rock mosque itself. Why do the members of the Jewish Community of Hebron wish to live and raise their children in such a violent setting? Using a series of interviews with members of the Jewish Community of He- bron and related settler communities in the period 2000–05, the article examines the ways the Jewish Community legitimizes its disputed presence. It reveals a deep religious belief, blended with intense distrust of and hatred toward the Palestinian population."

That in itself is inaccurate. The Hebron Community is limited to 70 families and has been so restricted for a long time. You would never know the Israeli's won the six day war by the reality in the city where Jewish Yeshivas have been in fact converted to Mosques. The community is a fraction of its size and population of previous generations. The final sentence is true about the entire worldwide Jewish population. After generations of racist hatred and terrorist attacks against the Jewish people, the entire Jewish population has a deep religious belief, but the articles standards which is an idiot standard as we can see from the previous complaints about apple and honey dipping, and intense distrust and hatred towards the Palestinian population.... not to mention the Germans, Ukrainians and Muslims and any number of other peoples who spill Jewish blood without remorse and repeatedly. The protocol was in turn a diplomatic outcome of

The Article then claims, "The protocol was in turn a diplomatic outcome of the incident on February 25, 1994, when Baruch Goldstein,an American-born settler and member of the illegal ultra- right Kach party, opened fire on Muslim worshipers in the Tomb of Abraham in the heart of Hebron,..." etc. This is WRONG factually. The current protocol was born from the Oslo accord.

Now, lets start with his bias analysis:

"In an interview on July 26, 2000, spokesperson David Wilder stated: Everything that happens now is written in the Tanakh [the Hebrew Bible]... . God decides everything. Hebron is where it all started and where it all continues. It is not a coincidence that the Jewish Community of Hebron exists today or that people do as they do there. History proves us right. The statement spells out two central dimensions in the worldview of the Jewish community of Hebron: Firstly, the literal understanding of the sacred texts. Secondly, the understanding of themselves as active and decisive parts in the cosmic puzzle called “contemporary history.” "

This is a completely IGNORANT analysis. This statement is a typical rehashing of basic Jewish theology which is universally accepted and what is flatly stated in the Torah,

A) that Sarah dies in Hebron and Abraham buries here there, along with the other patriarchs, and B) that all events in the world are under the guidance of god. C) Hebron is a special place for Jews to live in, as the stories of the Spies says in plain language.

If this is an example of radicalism, then the entire Jewish faith and the entire Jewish people are radicals, or the author is clueless. It does not justify the believe that the settlers in Hebron are fundamentalist who will disobey Israeli law and national orders, and randomly kill Palestinians. This has not been the case and it is still not the case. If you want to condem the Hebron settlers, and the IDF and Israel for being Jewish...SO BE IT. Such is what they are. Such is what we all are. And we all want to live in Peace and in our home land and safely in the broader scope of humanity.

This is not an example of the opening remarks truly NPOV article. You don't begin your analysis by picking out a quote of choice, wrapping it up in a a unsubstantiated conclusion, and then use that to propel the rest of your analysis. This is clearly and example of someone who has a perspective, chooses a choice piece of 'evidence' to justify their prejudice, and then goes on to write a document based on this prejudice.

Bases on this articles lack of prejudice alone, and its inaccuracies, this paragraph needs to be removed from the Wikipedia record.

96.57.23.82 (talk) 20:22, 27 February 2016 (UTC)