Category talk:Mosques in Jerusalem

Hey

from user talk:eleland 17:08, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

West Jerusalem is undisputedly in Israel, thus the "Mosques in Israel" category is correct. However, East Jerusalem is not under palestinian sovereignty in any way. That is the consensus here on wikipedia and in the international community. It is indeed considered to be occupied by Israel but not under palestinian sovereignty. It is located in disputed territory and it would therefore be a POV-push to write it is under palestinian sovereignty. Wikipedias consensus on all relating articles is that it is disputed and neither in Israel or the palestinain territories. For example Al-Aksa Mosque. Disputed is NPOV.

'Disputed territory' is itself Israeli terminology for what is known internationally, and in law, as the 'Occupied Palestinian territories'. Note 'Palestinian' here refers not to a disputed territory, but to a 'Palestinian' territory. Mosques in Occupied Palestinian Territory are Palestinian. There is no consensus in wiki that this is 'disputed', which is just the Israeli POV term. Nishidani (talk) 09:34, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

It is internationally known as Israeli occupied, or de facto annexed, not palestinian. Its sovereignty is disputed and its final status, according to the International consensus, should be determined through negotitations. Look at for example at the Al-Aksa Mosque and you see the wikipedia consensus. And if there is a dispute here at wikipedia then disputed is certanly NPOV.Fipplet (talk) 11:56, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Blather as you will, the International Court of Justice ruling uses the vox propria Palestinian Occupied Territories. In English, the use of the adjective means that the 'occupied territories' are Palestinian, until Palestinians decide otherwise. In the meantime, they, not anyone else can rightly sing and state:

Palestine, Palestine, Palestine, fosterland, vår längtans bygd, vårt hem på jorden!

Landet är inte edert, det är deras. And the theft, annexations, seizures by an occupying power using brute force and alien laws are all illegal.Nishidani (talk) 12:24, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

NPOV is defined by consensus of sources in the relevant field. In this case the field is international law. The International Court of Justice, which is the highest judicial body in international law, decided fifteen to zero on this point. The United Nations Security Council, which is the highest political body in international law, has repeatedly passed resolutions very strongly and unambiguously condemning Israel's measures to change the legal status of Jerusalem and asserting that they have no legal force. (Incidentally, these resolutions simply crystallize and make explicit what is anyway a straightforward application of international law.) If you like, review sources on international law (by this I don't Alan Dershowitz and the like, but the actual journals) - you'll find the consensus is overwhelming. East Jerusalem is occupied Palestinian territory. Sovereignty over territory is a much squishier concept than legal status of territory, but it is not directly at issue here.

Perhaps you are being confused by the word "Palestinian" - in that phrase means "in the region of Palestine," it is not an endorsement of the territorial ambitions of the Palestinian national movement. Since 1991 there is also an international consensus, apart from the consensus on the legal status of the territories, which holds that there ought to be established a Palestinian state with borders corresponding approximately to those of the occupied Palestinian territory. That is not a legal but a political consensus, around an ought rather than an is. I should remind you that Israel actually joins in this consensus officially, albeit with extreme duplicity in creating "facts on the ground" that render it irrelevant.

I am officially sick of providing remedial education on international law to nationalist teenagers of all stripes. <eleland/talkedits> 14:10, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The complexity of the legal status of Jerusalem is touched upon in Positions on Jerusalem. It is clear that Jerusalem is treated as separate from the West Bank. Since 1986, the Security Council has used the terminology "Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem" to reaffirm the applicability of the Geneva Convention to East Jerusalem; meaning that although under Israeli occupation it is not viewed as automatically "Palestinian territory". The legal status of East and West Jerusalem was summarised in a 1997 UN report entitled "The Status Of Jerusalem", which reaffirms that the decision of the UN in 1947 to declare Jerusalem an international city remains valid. Therefore I suggest putting all such mosques under "Mosques in Jerusalem". Chesdovi (talk) 16:24, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Chesdovi is correct. I'll remove both Israel and Palestinian territories and instead add disputed territories. Fipplet (talk) 16:46, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Chesdovi is not correct or even close to correct. Amusingly, if he were correct, you'd be dead wrong in claiming that "West Jerusalem is indisputably in Israel," for that matter, which shows just how seriously the two of you seem to be thinking about this. Anyway "Other Arab territories" means the Golan. How he draws "not viewed as automatically Palestinian territory" from "Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem" is beyond me, and, I think, anyone. The corpus separatum plan was part of a general assembly recommendation, which is not a legal decision and does not create legal obligations or change the legal status of anything. Yes the plan lingered into the 1950s[1] but it was and is a dead letter. The 1997 report to which Chesdovi alludes reads,

The General Assembly resolution [181], however, could not be implemented. The representatives of the Jewish Agency accepted the Partition Plan but the Arab States and the spokesman of the Arab Higher Committee rejected it, declaring that they did not consider themselves bound by the resolution. As a result of the deep differences between the conflicting parties, all-out war broke out in Palestine, resulting in the de facto division of the country and of Jerusalem itself.
[...]
By October 1949, the Security Council had postponed indefinitely its discussion on how to achieve the demilitarization of Jerusalem, and in 1950, the Assembly cancelled the financial appropriation for the establishment of an international regime. [...] In 1951, the Conciliation Commission undertook its last sustained effort to mediate between the parties to the conflict, and submitted a set of comprehensive proposals with regard to refugees, compensation, territorial adjustments and revision of the armistice agreements to ensure freedom of access to the Holy Places in the Jerusalem area. The Commission, however, once again concluded that the parties' unwillingness to implement the relevant resolutions and the changes that had taken place on the ground made it impossible to proceed towards a settlement.24/

I have looked over the whole report and can find no reaffirmation of the corpus separatum plan; it is noted that the plan was reaffirmed in 1949 and 1950, but that is not reaffirming it in 1997. Furthermore, even if the corpus separatum plan were in effect, it in no way contradicts the designator "occupied Palestinian territories." Again, don't be confused by the word "Palestinian." It means "in the former British Mandate of Palestine," not "belonging to the Palestinian national movement." I would take the word of, among others, the Conference of High Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention, who in 1999 "reaffirmed the applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention to the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem,"[2] rather than endorse one single Wikipedian's highly... creative... reading of a phrase used in UNSC resolutions. <eleland/talkedits> 16:56, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

"Amusingly, if he were correct, you'd be dead wrong in claiming that "West Jerusalem is indisputably in Israel". I am very aware of that and that is why I removed 'Category:Mosques in Israel', so it's not so amusing actually. Besides that, I am not so sure that "Palestinian" actually means "in the former British Mandate of Palestine", but I don't wanna look into it. I can accept that if it's true. However, I will add disputed territories since it currently is still disputed, regardless of what the international community says. Fipplet (talk) 17:27, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Will you be adding "disputed territories" to localities in Israel, as well? I'm sure you're aware there's a "dispute" there, also "regardless of what the international community says." <eleland/talkedits> 17:32, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The difference is that Israel actually controls Jerusalem, which makes the claim more valid. If for example Hamas controlled for example some Israeli territory, I would definitely consider it justified to label it as disputed territory, although still under Israeli sovereignty. In this case it's even more valid, as that the international community doesn't consider Jerusalem to be under anyones sovereignty, as we agreed upon.Fipplet (talk) 17:55, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

You keep using the word "sovereignty." Why? We are not talking about sovereignty. We are talking about the legal status of territory. So far as I can see you are making up facts, definitions, and standards as you go along. Do you really think this is a useful exercise? <eleland/talkedits> 22:32, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Amusingly, I found this stipulation at Arab Media Watch. Resolution 181 earmarked Jerusalem not to be included in the Palestinian Arab territory. You mention above that: "Since 1991 there is also an international consensus, apart from the consensus on the legal status of the territories, which holds that there ought to be established a Palestinian state with borders corresponding approximately to those of the occupied Palestinian territory." But Jerusalem was not included in the legal status of the rest of the BM Palestinian territory. Therefore, the UN views East Jerusalem, not as occupied Palestinian territory, but simply as "occupied territory". In this sense, West Jerusalem is also occupied according to the UN. This is well known, or so I had thought. Chesdovi (talk) 18:14, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

1) UNGR 181 created no legal obligations for any party outside the UN bureaucracy itself.

2) "But Jerusalem was not included in the legal status of the rest of the BM Palestinian territory." What does that even mean? What is the BM? What the hell are you talking about?

3) Assuming miraculously that your above claim is not only intelligible, but accurate, why haven't the High Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention heard of it? Why hasn't one - not one - of the fifteen International Court of Justice jurists heard of it? Why hasn't the UN General Assembly heard of it? How exactly is it that a lone Wikipedia editor has managed to discover this essential legal argument that somehow eluded hundreds of the world's top legal minds for 61 years? <eleland/talkedits> 22:32, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for abbreviating without warning. BM = British Mandate. In point 1) you state that the UN only created legal obligation for itself, yet earlier you recommend using UN opinions as NPOV: “The United Nations Security Council, which is the highest political body in international law.” I am not “claiming” anything. All I am doing is highlighting that the words 'Occupied Palestinian Territories' (OPT) does not refer to Jerusalem, which is part of the “Occupied corpus separatum.” The UN has never reneged on any of its 3 resolutions which called for Jerusalem to be internationalised. Jerusalem was never to be part of Israel or an Arab state. There is a very clear distinction between Gaza and the West Bank and what is always singled out as “East Jerusalem.” In 1948 Israel occupied West Jerusalem and Jordan occupied East Jerusalem. Recognition of the sovereignty of either Jordan or Israel over the sectors of the city which each then held, within the area of the corpus separatum as stipulated in UN General Resolutions 181, was never given internationally. However, because 'de facto authority' was recognised, when Israel took Jordanian East Jerusalem in 1967, the move was regarded as a military occupation. In fact, the UK believes that no state has sovereignty over Jerusalem and that the city's status has yet to be determined. The background to the special status accorded to Jerusalem and its divorcement from the rest of the West Bank is discussed at length in Bernard Wasserstein’s Divided Jerusalem ISBN: 1861973330. There is no “legal argument” here, just what the current consensus of what the status of Jerusalem is. I would like to know what your source is for your premise that OPT in fact refers to all BM lands not held by Israel after 1948, including Jerusalem. As far as I understand, it was only in the mid-1970’s when finally the UN recognition of the existence of the Palestinians as a people endowed with national rights (rather than as inhabitants of disputed areas or refugees) meant that these territories were now referred to using the terminology "Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem". Indeed, up until 1986 the UN used the formulation “Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967". Chesdovi (talk) 00:36, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

How on earth is the statement "UNGA 181 created no legal obligations" supposed to contradict the statement "The UNSC is the highest political body in international law?" And how can you ask for sources when you're just ignoring whatever sources I give you? You already ignored the statement of the high contracting parties to the 4th Geneva convention. You badly misread the 1997 UN Report, or didn't read it at all, and ignored my refutation of your claim that it reaffirmed the corpus separatum status.

You say, "the words 'Occupied Palestinian Territories' (OPT) does not refer to Jerusalem, which is part of the 'Occupied corpus separatum.'" Rather than unpack your multiple misapprehensions, I will simply point you to Google:

about 5,460 from un.org for "occupied-palestinian-territory-including-east-jerusalem" OR "occupied-palestinian-territories-including-east-jerusalem" OR "occupied-west-bank-including-east-jerusalem" site:un.org

Your search - "occupied-corpus-separatum" site:un.org - did not match any documents.

In fact, Google finds no use of the phrase "occupied corpus separatum" on the entire Internet. So let's cut the crap, ok? <eleland/talkedits> 05:20, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I have not revealed a contradiction in your statements, but am rather questioning why you retort my citation of resolution 181 by stating that it “created no legal obligations for any party outside the UN bureaucracy itself” as if to imply that quoting UN resolution here is of no significance when gathering sources to form, and I quote, a “consensus of sources in the relevant field, in this case…international law.” I was just following your advice to “review sources on international law.” As you also said “The United Nations Security Council, which is the highest political body in international law,” it is from the UN’s position on this matter that I am basing the view that Jerusalem is not “occupied Palestinian territory.” (OPT here meaning territories recognised to form part of a future Palestinian State, for that is what in essence the term refers to. I touched on this earlier when noting the chronology of UN terminology.)

Does the term “Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem," mean that Jerusalem is in fact included in part of the OPT; or does it specify “including Jerusalem” to discern that city from the rest of the OPT? The Conference of High Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention don’t state “Occupied Palestinian Territory, including Ramallah,” because Ramallah is considered part and parcel of the OPT. Mentioning it separately would be superfluous. The fact that East Jerusalem is stipulated means that it has a similar status in regards to the Geneva Convention, but the area is not viewed as identical to the rest of the OPT in other respects. The 1997 document lists no less than 3 proposals for the city’s future governance. It does not automatically belong to the PNA. It is therefore not “OPT”. It is, as Fipplet maintains, disputed territory. Al Ameer son also recognises this fact when he notes in the edit review: “(all the mosques are located in East Jerusalem (including the national Al-Aqsa Mosque). The PT cat must stay unless you suggest we create a category called Mosques in East Jerusalem”. It is well known that “East Jerusalem” is considered a territory of its own; that is why, I believe, Al Ameer son suggested it.

I did not ignore your “refutation of the claim” that the 1997 UN report did not reaffirm the CP plan. I noted that I had seen this at Arab Media Watch:

”The legal status of West Jerusalem is summarised in a 1997 UN report entitled "The Status Of Jerusalem", which reaffirms that the decision of the UN in 1947 to declare Jerusalem an international city remains valid.”

Whether that is a RS or not, I leave for you to decide. But it makes no difference here. The fact is that since then, no plan for Jerusalem has been enshrined in international law.

Finally, when I mentioned “Occupied corpus separatum”, I did not borrow the term, but credit myself with its creation. That is the current status of Jerusalem according to the UN and UK, and possibly others, (I am not an expert or this complex subject). You will notice however, that when referring to this area, it is called “Occupied East Jerusalem”, as opposed to East Jerusalem in the OPT. Again, we have a basis to acknowledge the fact that EJ is not considered part of the occupied Palestinian territories.

Please do not get confused with the fact that since Palestinians claim EJ as theirs, it automatically should be labelled OPT and rightfully belongs to them. Israel claims EJ too and it doesn’t legally belong to them either. The whole world wants Jerusalem, and I believe that one day it will be shared. Soon may it come. Chesdovi (talk) 22:54, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I would further add that in 1999, the EU, citing United Nations Resolution 181 of November, 1947, stated: "We reaffirm our stated position regarding the specific status of Jerusalem as a corpus separatum. This position is in strict accordance with international law." Israel for its part, views Resolution 181 as non-binding. I would be interested to be informed of the sources which provide an overwhelming consensus that places EJ in the OPT. Chesdovi (talk) 10:07, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I give up. Nothing works on you. No matter what evidence I provide, you will insist that your personally derived, highly idiosyncratic interpretation of de-contextualized quotes is the truth, and all relevant authorities are wrong. You insist that clearly defined words like "including" do not mean what their dictionary definitions say, while the absence of words has some profound legal significance that only you are personally capable of teasing out, although you are "not an expert or[sic] this complex subject," (who would have guessed?) This conversation can no longer serve any purpose. Goodbye. <eleland/talkedits> 15:30, 11 February 2009 (UTC)