Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Judaization of Jerusalem

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. The reasons outlined for both sides of the argument here make it impossible to close this debate with any definitive consensus given. One (talk) 04:15, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Judaization of Jerusalem (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

The article is a WP:POVFORK of content that belongs in Demographics of Jerusalem, History of Jerusalem, East Jerusalem, and several other articles. It is also a WP:SYNTH of various opinion pieces, concocted to promote a thesis. Nudve (talk) 16:22, 23 March 2009 (UTC) Note The first nomination was probably a Twinkle malfunction. I ask that the admin reviewing this delete it and consider this the first AfD discussion. -- Nudve (talk) 16:24, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Definitely not WP:SYNTH: 360 google book hits for "Judaization of Jerusalem", 72 google book hits for "Judaisation of Jerusalem", 91 hits for "Judaizing Jerusalem" and 18 hits for "Judaising Jerusalem". While there may be some SYNTH in the article as currently constructed (not sure, but I am assuming good faith regarding Nudve's claim in the nomination), the topic itself is notable in its own right and a subject of scholarly discussion. It is also not a POVFORK, since while it discusses a process and policy arguably related to the articles Nudve lists, it is as evidenced above, a subject in its own right. Controversy over the use of the term can be discussed in the article itself. Those concerned by a lack of balance are encouraged to add the views of those who take issue with the term to the article itself, rather than lobbying for its deletion. Tiamut^talk 16:44, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Obvious piece of political POV pushing. Example quote: "Under successive Israeli governments, the attempts to Judaize Jerusalem, obliterate its Palestinian identity and thicken 'Greater Jerusalem' to encompass much of the West Bank, have continued." That is in no way an encyclopedic or neutral treatment. Tiamat: Google hits are not a good guide in this case. The issue is highly politicised and the terminology may well be widely used without the process it describes having an identity distinct from actions already covered in existing, more NPOV articles. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:52, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi AlexTiefling. I just started working on this article today, and it was created a mere five days ago by Yamaman. The quote you point to as an example of "political POV pushing" was one I added. It comes from an essay by Jeremy Salt included in the book Remaking the Middle East by Paul J. White and William Stewart. Jeremy Salt is "is associate professor in Middle Eastern History and Politics at Bilkent University in Ankara, Turkey. Previously, he taught at Bosporus University in Istanbul and the University of Melbourne in the Departments of Middle Eastern Studies and Political Science. Professor Salt has written many articles on Middle East issues, particularly Palestine, and was a journalist for The Age newspaper when he lived in Melbourne." As per our policies, I am writing the article using WP:RS's. Is Salt not an WP:RS in your opinion? Or do you find his views too offensive for inclusion in our encyclopedia? How does this reconcile with WP:NPOV? Thanks for considering my questions. Tiamut^talk 17:07, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response. While I'm not convinced it would save the article, you could definitely improve it by reporting statements like the one I mentioned as the opinions of their proponents, rather than as fact. I don't find his views particularly offensive (indeed, from what I've seen so far, I might agree with them) - but they are opinions, rather than facts. Accordingly, you should be reporting the fact that a prominent and well-informed person has said these things, rather than stating the opinions themselves directly. It may be that the way forward is to recast this article in terms of the debate as to whether Jerusalem has been (and is) subject to a process of 'Judaization', and as to whether it should be. Sources on all sides can probably be found who are well-regarded in their fields and have significant opinions. But I'm not sure this is a topic where definitive conclusions will be drawn. AlexTiefling (talk) 17:36, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for responding too. You are right that what is expressed in Salt's work in an informed opinion that Israel is enacting a policy of Judaization in Jerusalem. However, its an opinion obviously not exclusive to him, as the sources cited in the article and on the talk page show (and there are many more yet to be added). That is part of why I did not bother attributing it directly to him for the time being. The article is still under development.

You are also right that there are some people who deny and object to the very idea, even viewing it as inherently pejorative, like A.M. Rosenthal in this 1996 piece in the New York Times. But even Rosenthal admits that such words, "have been used in public often." And though he attributes such usage "until recently only by Arabs for whom control of Jerusalem is a goal never to be abandoned and hatred of Jews never forgotten," even he admits that: "Now it pops up in the Western press as a dangerous reality. The Dec. 23 issue of Newsweek, in its news columns, says as a matter of regrettable fact that religious Jews are part of an effort to Judaize Arab East Jerusalem."

So I do understand what you are saying, but I think we can clear up this problem by integrating more sources like Rosenthal's that are deeply critical of the very idea into the article as a counter-balance. Widespread scholarly, and even media, discussion of the "Judaization of Jerusalem" is a fact, admitted even by those who dispute the very validity of the notion. That it is contentious in the eyes of some should certainly be noted in the article and the reasons why should be elaborated upon. I think it is best to do this under the current article title and not as a sub-section of Jerusalem or the Demographics of Jerusalem, where fair coverage of the subject would not be feasible. Tiamut^talk 18:21, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Wikipedia is not a battleground. Ordinarily, I'd argue for improving a POV article, not deleting it, but this one seems to be inherently and, convincingly for me, irredeemably set in a POV rut from the outset. Sourced, relevant content can and should be added in a NPOV manner to Jerusalem. Forking here is also undue. --Dweller (talk) 17:02, 23 March 2009 (UTC)Switch to Keep, see below. --Dweller (talk) 19:23, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jerusalem is way too long to add mention of this subject there. The topic has ample coverage in scholarly sources (as pointed out on the talk page). Saying something is inherently POV is hardly an argument when we have articles like Pallywood. Tiamut^talk 17:07, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. --GHcool (talk) 17:30, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nudve has argued that the article WP:SYNTH and WP:POVFORK, but has not responded to the evidence indicating the use of this very phrase (and other variations) in hundreds of scholarly works. Obviously WP:SYNTH is not an issue and I think POVFORK claim is weak given the scholarly evidence of the use of the term. It is also arguably covered under Articles whose subject is a POV, for those who want to claim that it is solely that, like A.M. Rosenthal, among others. Tiamut^talk 18:45, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. -- Yossiea ^(talk) 17:43, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. -- Yossiea ^(talk) 17:44, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. Unless, of course, we also want to add articles on Islamicization of Jerusalem, detailing the several ethnic cleansings of Jews and Christians under several Muslim administrations of the city, some quite brutal, the declared intentions of several contemporary Muslim leaders to push the Jews form he city, and the ethnic cleansing of all Jews when Jordan controlled the city. We would also need an article on Christianization of Jerusalem, blood flowing in the steets as the Crusaders triumphed, late Ottoman era concessions to western powers, etc. The Islamization article would be far better documented and bloodier than Judaization of Jerusalem because the facts are far worse. We would be documenting judicially unpunished rape and kidnapping of Christian girls (one traditional way to Islamize conquered territory was to kidnap as secondary wives the daughters of Christians and Jews. I have footnotes to this if you want them,) the use of Jewish gravestones as road pavements and ethnic cleansing carried out by the Jordanian Army. Do we really want to go this route?Historicist (talk) 17:56, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per historicists discussion. To keep means that there would be a need to add Islamicization of Jerusalem.--Jayrav (talk) 18:15, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with the argument being put forward by Jayrav and Historicist is that a false comparison is being made. While the "Judaization of Jerusalem" as a phrase gets hundreds of google book hits as outlined in my first comment above, "Islamicization of Jerusalem" gets zero. Creating an article on the Islamicization of Jerusalem would be WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. Now "Christianization of Jerusalem" does get 22 google book hits, and these are mostly in reference to the establishment of early Christianity in the region, which is covered in our article on Christianization. Judaization of Jerusalem is a topic for which there are hundreds, if not thousands of scholarly sources that use this very phrase to refer to an ongoing Israeli government policy or process. Those seeking to turn Wikipedia into battlefield are those threatening to create SYNTH, OR articles, in a WP:POINT-making exercise, simply because they don't like this topic. Tiamut^talk 18:34, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tiamet, I do sometimes wonder if you are deliberately disingenuous, or did it truly not occur to you that there would be a number of ways to label the concept that there have been deliberate attempts to make the city Muslim? "Islamization of Jerusalem" gets lots of hits. "Islamification" and "Jerusalem" googled together as keywords turn up interesting sources. I am sure there are other phrases, not to mention the pharses that could be found in other languages. You are correct in the narrow sense. The article would probably be named "Islamization of Jerusalem" But, uses of the concept and phraze of Islamizing Jerusalem? Scads. In sources that are scholarly and that go back many centuries.Historicist (talk) 18:54, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No Historicist, I am not being "deliberately disingenous". I merely did the search using the term you proposed and not its alternate permutations. But now that you have raised the issue, "Islamization of Jerusalem" gets 7 google book hits. "Islamification" and "Jerusalem" get 12 google book hits but looking at them more closely, most are not referring to the "Islamification of Jerusalem", but rather "Islamification" processes elsewhere, like in Gaza or Nazareth, with Jerusalem mentioned in passing. If you feel there is sufficient information for an article on "Islamization of Jerusalem" without resorting to WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, by all means, go ahead.

What I do know is that there are tonnes of scholarly and media sources referring to the "Judaization of Jerusalem", which go to the trouble of defining it and not just using it (i.e. secondary and not primary sources). This subject should not be WP:CENSORed by using vague threats of battles, making false claims of WP:SYNTH or engaging in side arguments. The subject is notable and its coverage is in line with our policies. If the article is imperfect now, fix it. It's only been around 5 days. Tiamut^talk 19:43, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh… Judaization of Jerusalem is a concept of recent popularity in anti-Israel circles. The word “Judaize” is an old term referring to the attraction of some Christians to Jewish theology and practice. This old term has been put to a new political use in the last couple of decades, almost exclusively by individuals, some with university appointments, who are outspoken opponents of the existence of the State of Israel. Islamization is an old coinage referring to the spread of Islam, both political and religious. There is a large literature going back centuries and covering most of the world. If we are to go this route, it would be equally useful to have articles on the Islamisation of Constantinople the Islamisation of Budapest the Islamisation of France – we can cover the globe! User:Tiamut’s first sleight of hand is to confine her searches to a phrase in parentheses “i.e. Islamisation of Jerusalem. When a phrase becomes useful as a political tool to a particular party, it can be found in quotations, as Judaization of Jerusalem. With the centuries-long transformation of Jerusalem into a Muslim city, the sources are not polemicists hurling slogans, but scholars (and some polemicists) documenting the long process of unequal laws, deportations, preferential in-migration of Muslims, and, yes, kidnapping, forced conversion, forced marriage, economic disadvantage causing unequal procreational success, elite population replacement (a term of art describing situations wherein a conquering group gets to out-procreate everyone else, causing an ethnic shift in a large population) and ethnic cleansing that deliberately sought the transformation of Jerusalem into a Muslim city. User: Tiamut’s second sleight of hand is to fail to include. the many spellings of the concept: “Islamization” Islamisation” “Islamicisation” Islamicization” “islamification” “Muslimization” I am certain that there are more. What you find is you do a series of diligent searchs, or, indeed, if you know the literature, is a large literature covering many centuries of policies by a series of Muslim governments to achieve the Islamization of Jerusalem. But, you have to treat it as a topic, not a phrase. And, of course, accept that the historiography of the pre-modern Middle East is woefully inadequate. What I am trying to avoid here is a series of angry articles. If we have the Judaization of Jerusalem an avalanche of Islamization articles will legitimately follow. How would we argue against a Greek nationalist who wanted to wirte on Islamization of Constantinople if we allow the Judaization of Jerusalem? User:Tiamut sees this as a threat. It is merely a prediction. The Islamizaton of Smyrna and the Islamization of Armenia should be particularly fun to police for POV. The material belongs in a more comprehensive and balanced articles. I just looked at Great Fire of Smyrna It is lousy with POV special pleading, a good example of the extreme difficulty of producing and maintaining wikipedia articles on contested national terrain. As I asked before, do we really want to go here? This material, after all, could form a short paragraph in a more balanced article on Jerusalem.Historicist (talk) 20:50, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and expand. An important and controversial subject that could be a substantial article if appropriate sources are used. Ian Pitchford (talk) 20:41, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It's one of the most frequent topics in Israeli newspapers, the events described are of a weekly order. Something that often in the news, and so frequently mentioned in serious books by ranking Israeli historians (Meron Benvenisti in his City of Stone etc.). The phrase has been around since the late 60s, and this accounts for the extensive literature on it. Why delete an article that must cover something that has attracted an extensive secondary literature. (Michael Dumper's book The Politics of Sacred Space lists quite a few studies on this, Oren Yiftachel's ethnocracy, idem. Historicist's arguments are all about past history, and therefore the comparison is misplaced. The Judaisation programme is something going on for some decades, the object of intensive often monographic studies and articles, by sociologists, historians of landscape etc.. Silwan's 1500 inhabitants, under the wall, have just got their marching orders. Deleting looks, for the moment, distinctly, like WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and nothing more.Nishidani (talk) 21:19, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The past is not dead. In fact, it's not even past. If we do this, I expect articles on the Islamization of Bosnia Islamization of Baghdad Islamization of Indonesia Islamization of NIgeria and, of course, the Islamization of EuropeHistoricist (talk) 21:40, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, will three more articles to wiki's 2,700,000 articles upset anyone, if this is (as it isn't, a precedent? What's the fear? By the way, I live and regularly travel in a few European countries: my next door neighbour is a Muslim, as is the local grocer, and pizza-maker. While blogs rave, esp. in America, and Samuel Huntington aficionados go ballistic, these people learn the language, speak the local dialect, and, apart from the Northern League's antiSemitic provocations, get on well with everyone. I'd welcome such an article, since there's quite a large literature, some of its serious, most of it pertaining to the politics of scare. Your one argument sounds like a wiki weigh-watcher alarm. Too many articles! Then why pick on this one?Nishidani (talk) 21:50, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are too many highly politicized articles inthe area of nationalism, articles that, like Judaizing Jerusalem, aim not to inform, but to attack a competing ethnic group. We try to stem the tendency to turn Wikipedia into an ethnic battleground by redirecting articles like this to more larger articles where the information can be part of a more nuanced treatment of a topic.Historicist (talk) 21:54, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have yet to see an I/P article that is close to NPOV. Most editors here edit from a highly politicized and indeed ethnic perspective.Nishidani (talk) 22:15, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Ian Pitchford. Wodge (talk) 21:23, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Interesting subject but blatantly POV at the moment will no real WP:RS and poor writing. Historicist has a point that leaving an article like this would invite many other "Islamization of ABC" articles. But why stop at Jerusalem, when an article could be written about the 'Judaization of the Galilee' and 'Judaization of Palestine'. Don't forget to open a special cat for all these articles. --Shuki (talk) 21:37, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is an entirely one-sided article that clearly mischaracterizes many elements of the issue. Statements such as Har Homa "lays siege to the Christian Palestinian communities of Beit Sahour and Bethlehem" and that "Ever since israeli occupation of Al-Aqsa Mosque, ... the mosque has been under constant threats" are just a few of the statements that betray a clear lack of the NPOV tone absent from this article. I fail to see how a re-write would add any of the needed balance. Alansohn (talk) 21:39, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those are arguments for more editing, not for deletion. If this is the criterion, then 90% of I/P articles would be up for deletion. NPOV is a goal, and most articles here fail it.Nishidani (talk) 21:53, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And I have been editing to try to get it up to par. I urge those who cite some of the POV wording to re-read the article as it is now, and keep in mind it will only improve further as more editors get involved in editing it. Tiamut^talk 02:06, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete - not only does this article need a full rewrite to have NPOV wording, the very title/subject of the article is inherently POV. One could argue for the inclusion of an article called Arabization of Jerusalem (not sure about Islamization), because it is known that when Jews started building outside the walls in the 19th century, suddenly Arab started doing so as well. However, this would still be a POV article because it is a collection of loosely-related information from loosely-related sources, and it was the basis for deleting more than one of the Allegations of X Apartheid articles. Moreover, I have not seen any evidence that there was ever a concentrated plan to 'Judaize' Jerusalem, unlike early plans by Ben Gurion and Mapai to bring more Jews to the Galilee and Negev (which should not be called 'Judaization' either, but at least the concept there is real). -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 22:01, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is an article that has been up 5 days. No one disliking it seems to want to improve it by editing. The subject is disliked, therefore it is proposed for deletion. If you haven't seen any evidence of a plan, as opposed to consistently applied policies over the last twenty years, where do you live, and what do you read. Just on Alansohn's Har Homa, there is a dozen pages if I remember in Menachem Klein's Jerusalem dealing with the international repercussions, the violent protests from Arafat, King Hussein, the UN, with Clinton even intervening on that project in the late 90s. Studies in urban space dealing with Jerusalem frequently refer to its judaization. Even secular Israelis complain of its 'judaization'! Come on, you guys. Give the article a month or two, and the editors a chance to bring it up to snuff. Help edit it. Kerrist! Five days, and massive deletion campaigns!Nishidani (talk) 22:11, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete' - This is a clear WP:POVFORK, the material belongs in other articles (i.e., Demographics of Jerusalem - Epson291 (talk) 23:08, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Obvious POV fork. JFW | T@lk 23:09, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. A clear POV fork. Any useful info might be merged into Demographics of Jerusalem or History of Jerusalem, if it is written in a neutral way. Canadian Monkey (talk) 23:16, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The WP:POVFORK sticks out. Pastor Theo (talk) 23:50, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, though perhaps rename. An important subject, which routinely gets international press coverage. Here are two articles from The Economist, for example: [1], [2]. Suggestions that this is a POV fork are wide of the mark. The article Demographics of Jerusalem presents only numbers; it does not consider political, legal and social drivers, and any attempt to add such discussion is considered out of scope; while the article History of Jerusalem affords only seven lines on the subject - not enough to fully explore all angles and points of view of the topic, but any more would be disproportionate in an article covering 3,500 years of history. A spin-out article is therefore entirely appropriate. Finally, to those who would like to make the entire topic just disappear, consider the words of Richard M. Nixon: "There can be no whitewash... on Wikipedia". Jheald (talk) 00:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep has the skeleton of a potentially good article, although it currently leaves a lot to be desired. I'd say it just about passes notability as a seperate article, but I can see the merits of the fork argument. If it stays it would probably be a magnate for vandalism and POV-pushing, and would need constant vigilance to keep it neutral. On balance, a very weak keep, bordering on the verge of a delete. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 00:59, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I would also be very keen on a re-name. Can anyone provide sources that Judiaization of Jerusalem is the common name for this phenomena. Israelification, might be a better name (although I doubt that is used either). Lord Cornwallis (talk) 01:08, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Judaization" seems to be much more common than "Israelization" (though Cheryl Rubenberg who I recently added as a source, does use both). Tiamut^talk 02:06, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Tiamut appears to be accurate in stating the Judaiziation is the most commonly used phrasing. I just looked over the first few pages that come up on google books and a google news archives searchs of the term. It is a term in use almost exclusively in the world of extreme anti-Israel activism. The first page of google books search: Judaization of Jerusalem, sans parentheses shows uses by only one author sufficiently well-known ot have a Wikipedia page Henry Cattan. parentheses gives the same result. page two with parentheses we get Marc H. Ellis Meron Benvenisti (an Israeli leftist and perhaps the most respectable chap in the conversation) and also writers such as Justus Weiner and Israel Stockman-Shomron writing to argue against the concept. So, yes, the phrase is used, but overwhelmingly by obscure and opponents of the existence of the State of Israel. Often in articles that contain hate-speech. All national movements have their extremists. Palestinians nationalists draw more than their share of vocal and hate-filled foreign supporters. The question remains, do we want to support an article that is will definitionally be an outlet for the most estreme kind of ultra-natinoalist hatred of the "other"? Once you have defined an article as "Judaization of Jerusalem, this outcome seems inevitiable. Historicist (talk) 02:56, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The "obscure opponents of the state of Israel" that are cited in the article as sources thus far include: John Dugard of the United Nations Human Rights Council, the Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre (IDMC) (quoting UNCHR, ICAHD, and B'tselem), Oren Yiftachel, Nur Masalha, and Cheryl Rubenberg, among others. It would help if instead of resorting to polemical WP:SOAPBOXing, Historicist could provide links to sources that could be used in the article. The concept exists. He may not like it, but see WP:POVFORK, the section on Article whose subject is a POV. Some people don't like Evolution, but that doesn't mean we don't write about it. And I object to the Historicist's fear-mongering claims that this article attracts "extremists", as well as to the implications such an assertion holds for editors like me who are working hard to improve it. Tiamut^talk 03:33, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Having re-read the article again I have to admit I think that changing the title to "Alleged Judiazation of Jerusalam" would be best. I have to confess I am still distinctly uncomfortable with the word "Judiazation" despite its apparent academic use. Having said that if someone talked of the historical "Christianization of North America" I, as a Christan, would not be offended. In this case I think the term needs some clarification. What is "Judiazation" meant by in this article, an increase in the number of adherents of the Jewish relgiion or people of Jewish ethnicity? On a personal note, I'm also rather sceptical that it has been Judiazed (at least in a religous sense) - looking at the Demographics article the number of Jews roughly doubled between 1967 and 1995 while the Muslim population had almost quadrupled in the same period while there still remains a smaller but relatively substantial Christian population of 14,000 or so.

Aside from that I don't have that many objections to the article - it is well-sourced and not quite as POV as it seemed the first time I looked at it. If it is decided to delete, I suggest the bulk of this article is merged into the Demographics of Jerusalem article. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 04:37, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment Lord Cornwallis and for the encouraging words regarding the improvements in sourcing and NPOV. I understand your reticence and with the snowball of delete votes it may be wise to start looking for another home for this material. I made a backup copy in my user space just in case. Might I suggest that a more appropriate place to merge, if that's where we end up, would be Judaization itself? There we could discuss Oren Yiftachel's thesis that Judaization is a state policy and then discuss specific Judaization projects as they regard Jerusalem, the Galilee and the Negev. We could also cover objections to the use of the term "Judaization" there. The fact is that the term is in widespread use, both as regards Jerusalem and other places in Israel/Palestine. We cannot avoid using it simply because it makes us uncomfortable. We do have articles on Christianization and Islamicization after all. Tiamut^talk 04:45, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, this is yet another example of blatant Israel-bashing on Wikipedia. Definitely a POV fork. It's got to go. 6SJ7 (talk) 03:41, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How is it a POVFORK exactly? Is Eurabia a POVFORK? Or how about Islamization in Iran or the Islamization of Bosnia and Herzegovina? How can you ignore the hundreds of scholarly and mainstream media sources using and defining the concept of the "Judaization of Jerusalem"? How do you reconcile the exception in WP:POVFORK regarding "Articles that express a POV" with your position? Does anyone arguing POVFORK care to respond to that, or are we simply choosing to speak past one another here? Tiamut^talk 03:59, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Interesting and notable. Brunte (talk) 06:44, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For those just joining this discussion, the article has been expanded by 10,000 bytes since it was nominated for deletion and is now radically different than it was (see diff here). I urge those who have already voted to re-read it and re-consider their positions based on what it is now, rather than what it was. Tiamut^talk 07:54, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep I can't even beleive that it was nominated for deletion. This is one of the most notable items on the israeli-Palestinian conflict. Yamanam (talk) 09:45, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - the little bit of the content that could work neutrally into the Demographics of Jerusalem article could be written there. However, there's some serious POVforkings in the article as it currently stands as there's not even a borderline attempt at a mention of the Jewish history (4000 years of it) in the area or the "Arabization" of the city. I do see a bunch of names that are considered fringe perspectives used to bash Israel and promote a standard Arab narrative which occupies the article. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:30, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, a subject which, at a quick check, could be written up from 20 very good sources, should be reduced to a snippet of a few lines in another article. Some people are unnerved by the word 'judaise', and I can understand that. One section that is lacking is a survey of the consequences of specific 'Judaization' policies on the demographics and politics of Jerusalem's varied Jewish population, since that is divided up into hilonim, haredim, masortiim and datiim. The secularists (hilonim) are losing out to the more intensely religious constituencies that eithe press for, or are not opposed to, 'judaization' (which is not simply directed, please note, Tiamut, at Arabs, but also at the secular city). From memory there was a net drift of some 10,000 young people of secular or moderate orthodox views from the city, replaced by new religiously-inspired immigrants, over the last year or so.

The phrase, which is used, (despite Historicist's insistent drumming on the 'radical' 'extremist' 'nationalist' anti-Israel theory he's invented for the occasion), by many Israelis, and many scholars, encapsulates what no one in good faith can deny, i.e. that it has been consistent government policy, a key element in planning, since 1967. This is everywhere attested in every history of the city. If you forget plunking 'judaization' into your search machines, and simply consult the extensive literature on the modern history of the city, on urban planning, and local politics, you will find extensive documentation of the many-faceted ways in which this policy has been systematically applied to secure a demographic majority, de-Arabize by expropriation of land and turn it to exclusive Jewish residences, expel whole areas of their Arab population (Silwan), deny building permits to Arabs, even, if my memory does not fail me, recalling all textbooks, after the Oslo Accords, used in East Jerusalem Arab schools printed with the PNA/PLO symbol, and restamping it over with 'Lion of Judah' and 'Jerusalem' (not al-Quds). This is a potentially very rich field, and lacks exploration in wiki. Rather than hector for deletion, help the page. Here are the sorts of books and remarks which could assist it.

Amir S. Cheshin, Bill Hutman, Avi Melamed, Separate and Unequal:The Inside Story of Israeli Rule in East Jerusalem, Harvard University Press, 2001 (very good esp. on Teddy Kollek's administration, and changes after Olmert became mayor)

’Jerusalem was never up for discussion with the Arabs, not in the Allon plan, not anywhere. Right after the 1967 war, the Israeli government redrew the city’s borders to include a maximum amount of land with a minimum number of Arabs. The capital of the Jewish state would haqve to have a strong Jewish majority. Within the new municipality, Paleswtinian properties were expropriated to build new suburbs. . .In 1969, William Rogers, the U.S. secretary of state, proposed a peace plan that called for joint Jordanian-Israeli governance of a unified Jerusalem. The Israelis responded by seizing thousands of acres of Arab-owned land in Jerusalem and bringing in bulldozers to build more Jewish housing. . .In 1970, the Israeli government decided to “thicken” the metropolitan area of Jerusalem, to consolidate a Jewish presence not only in each corner of the enlarged and united city of Jerusalem, but all around it as well. Israel build vast new Jewish suburbs, Ramot to the north, Gilo to the south, and East Talpiot to the east. Although Jews had owned some of the land for these projects before 1948, most was expropriated from private Arab owners or declared state lands. Ringing the Arab part of the city with Jewish housing projects would, the government believed, make it impossible for it ever to revert to Arab sovereignty.’ Roger Friedland, Richard Hecht,To rule Jerusalem, University of California Press, 2000 pp.165-166

‘The importance of the city in Jewish tradition, as well as its tenuous position at the end of an Israeli corridor until 1967, mean that planners want to maintain a large Jewish majority. Municipal and national officials have invested heavily in building the city’s infrastructure, including housing for immigrants and young couples. They have also pursued the annexation of land outside the municipal boundaries, in order to provide additional opportunities for building residents (sic) for Jews. Yet they have had trouble stemming the drift of young Jews to coastal areas where there are typically greater economic opportunities.’ Gedalia Auerbach, Ira Sharkansky, Politics and Planning in the Holy City,Transaction, 2007 p.14 (see also p.33)

Finally, this instinctive pressing for delete is not impressive. There are many ways to improve this article, it has barely got off its feet. Negotiate, co-edit, when the proposed page promises to harvest what is a considerable literature on a controversial topic. Academic works abound on it, and not to use them because of some political fear is to subjugate the 'encyclopedic' aim to image anxieties and the taboos they generate. Nishidani (talk) 11:33, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heyo Nishidani,

The issue at hand is a single perspective article (read: bordering a propaganda manifesto) with a bare minimum of content that could be written into a non POVfork in a neutral manner. As Nudve presented in their nom, the article is basicaly a WP:SYNTH of various opinion pieces, concocted to promote a thesis.

p.s. As much as instics play a role in the "Occupation gah!!!" narratives for each side in the dispute, which are certainly pack filled with anxieties and taboos, I don't think it is a matter for this forum and it seems, to me at least, a violation of WP:CIV and WP:SOAP to write up long essays in that direction.

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:03, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since it has just be proposed, and sketched, and immediately a deletion call went out, of course it has a bare minumum content. It hangs under a death sentence because the title and the proposal are disliked. Nudve's suggestion that it is WP:SYNTH is nonsense, for all articles synthesize, i.e. collate many sources, which is what this page aims to do. Nudve's point insinuates that a 'theory' is being mocked up to create the idea that it exists independently of the subjective title of the page. Actually, it is something a good many sources mention, study and to delete the page is to refuse a place on wiki to this particular topic on nothing more than WP:IDONTLIKEIT grounds.Nishidani (talk) 14:47, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since the "call went out", the content has only been further directed in a one way narrative. I've got nothing against a well written portion of the demographics article of Jerusalem explaining that the city is slowly turning more Jewish but this article is just occupied with a synthesis of people, several of them fringe sources, saying bad things about Israel. The breaking off of this topic has been abused to make it into a single perspective POVFORK and as such, it should be deleted. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 15:57, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep because it is not a sin of any sort for the Jewish people to reclaim and Judaize what they regard as their own cities and land on the Land of Israel. What don't I get? Similarly, after the Muslims kicked out hundreds of thousands of Jews from the great Arab capitals they then proceeded to entirely Islamize Cairo, Damascus and the rest. Likewise the Allies de-Nazified Europe after World War II and Democratized Germany -- was that a "sin" or a "crime"? People are not thinking here and just shooting from the hip. That is the way history works. The article needs to point out how the Jewish people have come back to live in Jerusalem after a 2000 year exile and have developed it into a major modern and Jewish city -- with lots of room for all other religions and ethnicities, they even just gave back the Russian Compound to Russia. It's a city that in the last century went from a small neglected dustbowl in the far-off reaches of the Ottoman Empire into a jewel in the crown of the currently four great Jewish cities in Israel in addition to Haifa, Beer Sheba and Tel Aviv or are they also too Judaized for the tastes of some people. What will be the next "complaint", that too many China Towns are springing up all over the US and the world? IZAK (talk) 14:38, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Admirable honesty, and the other side of the argument, which should be represented. Just a small point I'm sure you'll meditate on. The Ghozlan family were evicted from their Silwan home in Jerusalem a few years ago, as part of the Judaization programme. That family had sheltered Jewish residents in 1929 in that home to save their lives from marauding Arabs during the great riot of that year. Somewhere along the line, ideology made administrators lose sight of the righteous gentile. A similar thing has happened in Hebron.Nishidani (talk) 15:06, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And that is "history" -- tear-jerk stories of people being evicted from homes that's as old as the hills? It happens in Western societies not at war. Have you ever heard of the legal act of eminent ___domain, look it up. And if you are going to match up activities of people, why not consider all the ruthless suicide bombings by Arab terrorists that has killed hundreds of innocent Jews in the heart of Jerusalem and other cities. Israel controls Jerusalem, get over that. If the Israeli governement would decide to hand over some control to the Palestinians then that would come as a result of politics, negotiations and treaties and not by name-calling and propaganda. Just as Egypt controls Cairo and Syria controls Damascus and Saudi Arabia controls Mecca and all those cities had once had significant Jewish populations in years and centuries gone by yet the Egyptians and Syrians and Saudis have conveniently forgotten and noone calls them on that. The core problem here is the oldest one of all, that the Arabs and Palestinians cannot come to terms with the reality of Israel's existence and that on top of that it has the might to enforce its policies in its land as much as any sovereign state has, and let's try to avoid bringing tales of personal cases because history and politics is not social work and communal activism. IZAK (talk) 02:35, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've actually 'suffered' from eminent ___domain law, exercised by a government, in a country where I was a citizen, and the process took 20 years, after which I was paid the full commercial price in a consensual negotiation. Eminent ___domain does not apply to (a) an occupying army's expropriation of an invaded land with native right or title (b) the justification of seizure to evict one ethnic group and replace it with another, at least in the modern world and modern democracies. The reason is usually to do with government infrastructural works, never with ethnic cleansing. As for the rest, you refer to acts consequent on the nakba, and this is not the place to discuss them.Nishidani (talk) 12:29, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nishidani, judging from your own words it is evident that you are over-personalizing and expressing an overly-idealized view. When the Muslims over-ran Saudi Arabia and the entire Middle East over the last 1500 years enforcing their creed by force and beheaded its Jews and Christians noone paid anyone "compenstaion" -- such as with the Umayyad conquest of Hispania and the conquest of the Middle east by the Ottoman Empire -- (the Caliphs and the Sultans would have regarded "compenstaion" for conquered peoples as a nice joke, that's about it, they should be happy they weren't beheaded the Caliphs and Sultans thought). This is not just ancient history at play, it stiil goes on as you see with the 1974 Turkish invasion of Cyprus or the Morrocan annexation of Western Sahara and the 1973 to 1991 Western Sahara War or the Eritrian grab of chunks of Ethiopia in the 1961 to 1991 Eritrean War of Independence and many other such cases, where only military force is applied by Muslims against both other Muslims and ceratinly against Christians, (not just by Israel as you make it seem) where the rule of "and to the victor belongs the spoils" applies according to life and reality while in modern Jerusalem the Jews provably have a long-standing historic claim as well as having lived in it as an organized community at least from the time the Turks allowed them to from the 1400s onwards. Incidently, using a word like "nakba" shows that you are approaching this matter from only one point of view, that of the Arabs, and the term "nakba" also has an interesting contrived propagandisic history of its own. The modern Jewish state of Israel, like all the modern Arab states surrounding it are based on legitimate and binding international agreements and treaties starting granted by the victorious Imperial powers, namely Britain and France, stemming from the Sykes–Picot Agreement of 1916, the Balfour Declaration of 1917, the Treaty of Versailles of 1919, the Churchill White Paper of 1922, the White Paper of 1939, and then from the United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine/UN General Assembly Resolution 181 of 1947 and a number of other UN resolutions and international treaties. If one cannot talk in those kinds of universally accepted diplomatic and political terms but one chooses instead to talk in judgmental emotive one-sided terms and catch-phrases then one is not paying enough attention to WP:NPOV and WP:NOTADVOCATE because on Wikipedia all sides of the issues get to be expressed, addressed, stated and written in articles, as much as they do on this AfD page. Sincerely, IZAK (talk) 20:51, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Everything you said about Muslims, could be said by a Muslim of what happened to Canaan in the Tanakh, and in the Book of Joshua. I'm sure you know the narratives intimately enough to realize that Eretz Yisrael came such by overrunning the land, which then was overrun by Persians, Greeks, Romans, Arabs, Turks, the Brits, etc. No doubt the Canaanites were overrun by the Hyksos and the Hittites, etc. As to the rest, you don't seem very familiar with the way either Jerusalem or Cairo was taken when both the Persians and Arabs overran those two cities. History is not a recitative of good guys vs.bad guys, except in some minor cerebral fibrillation on odd days in the minds of American Presidents.Nishidani (talk) 21:38, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • Heyo IZAK, Regardless of whether it is a sin or not (it isn't), the article has been written up as a fork for promoting a "bad Israelis!" narrative and hence should be deleted. Some content could be taken from it and added to the demographics of Jerusalem article. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 15:57, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • HiHo Jaakobou I get that but by the same token as a Wikipedia article the Judaic point of view must be built in and presented. How about calling it Allegations of Judaization of Jerusalem as they did with the Allegations of Israeli apartheid article? But that is beating around the bush since the fact is that the term has come into coinage, albeit by Israel-bashers yet nevertheless it can be turned around and shown to be a term that is not based on negativty against Israel and Judaism alone. No doubt at this very moment there are Israelis and writers who are writing to show why "Judaizing Jerusalem" is actually a good thing from a Judaic and Israeli point of view. IZAK (talk) 02:35, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Let me know when a clear and visible change exists in the article and I will reconsider my !vote. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:56, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I hope to get around to it. One of the big issues is the growth of vast Haredi and Hasidic communities in Jerusalem with many Hasidic dynasties that are even based in Jerusalem such as the Belz (Hasidic dynasty) and the Ger (Hasidic dynasty) and it is due to their population growth resulting from marriage at an early age (around 20) and the subsequent very large families they have, usually around ten kids per family, that then creates the pressure for more housing and it never ends. We are talking hundreds of thousands of Haredi and Hasidic Jews here and it's not even addressed in the article. Anyone could do a search on Google and come up with endless articles that will prove definitely that it is a plain old Haredi/Hasidic baby-boom that is fueling the so-called Judaization of Jerusalem that Arabs bemoan but Jews accept. By the way, Haredi Jews do not care about archaeological digs that gets the PLO hot under the collar (they would prefer the Earth be left untouched fearing ancient Jewish graves will be destroyed) they care about housing and room for their living and growing population. In many ways this is a no-brainer. IZAK (talk) 20:07, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - this topic gets a lot of attention among the Arab news networks as well as Western academics, and to those claiming it is a POVFORK, what exactly is it forking off of? You cant seriously answer Jerusalem or Demographics of Jerusalem can you? Nableezy (talk) 15:36, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Heyo the guy from Nablus,
    As has been stated by the nom, it is a breakoff from Demographics of Jerusalem, History of Jerusalem, and East Jerusalem. A zero attempt at constructing a non Anti-Israel-only narrative article makes this into a POVFORK.
    Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:06, 24 March 2009 (UTC) more accurate 16:07, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • This guy is actually from Chicago by way of Egypt. Nableezy (talk) 16:13, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • So what's the connection to Nablus as a nick then? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 18:00, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • There is none, it is a figment of your imagination, something you put together so that you could dismiss my points with greater ease. But I certainly would love to go see Nablus one day. Nableezy (talk) 18:18, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A reasonably balanced article. From the above discussions I expected something much more dubious. DGG (talk) 16:25, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• strong Keep Hugely important (and well-sourced) topic. As long as NPOV is kept under control, the issue , in-and-of-itself, belong here. To do otherwise is to be a form of censorship which Wikipedia isn't. NPOV will have to be watched, but that's not a reason to delete. I don't think the topic needs be NPOV. Hobit (talk) 16:51, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: This article has been drastically rewritten in the last 24 hours or so since the nomination, so as the nominator I feel that I should comment on this. I agree that the WP:SYNTH problem has diminished, since the sources improved and opinions are now attributed, even if they are somewhat cherry-picked. Still, I think the WP:POVFORK remains, and much of the valuable information now in this article should be merged into other Jerusalem-related articles, where it can be discussed more neutrally and in a more comprehensive context. -- Nudve (talk) 16:55, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your reconsideration. But what has occurred occurs everywhere, most recently at 2008-2009 Gaza War, material in subsections kept multiplying, so separate articles were created whenever a section got bloated. The material here, still, after 6 days, a small amount of the potential material available, would suffer extreme reduction if relocated to a section of any other page. That is why I would ask you to reconsider your second point.Nishidani (talk) 18:15, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you specify exactly which information cannot be added to any other article? -- Nudve (talk) 04:47, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Come now, this is an article in its own right. To dismember it and relocate the plethora of details would be a futile, and sisyphean task, with no point to it, other than getting rid of a page which, in a very brief arch of time, has been raised from scrappy to substantial. The original objections relate to a completely different page. It is as if you objected to a rickety skeleton, left the room, and came back to find a fully-fleshed body, engineered with deft intelligence to have moveable parts, eyes and limbs, and insist that your objection still stands, and that one cannibalize the robo for spare parts for some other automata, equally well made, because you disliked the original blueprint.Nishidani (talk) 10:19, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nice Metaphor, but I still have my doubts. For example, the entire "Demographic debate" section is dedicated to one author's POV (I assume it is brought correctly), and most of the article is people's opinions and accusations, and because of the article's stated scope, they can only be one way. Only the part about the Elad Association is actually important fact. -- Nudve (talk) 13:10, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In a way, we should all thank you for initiating the deletion process. My personal view is that most articles in this area could be deleted on similar grounds. By the nomination you galvanized Tiamut to bring it up the a snuffish level in just a few days. We are essentially now discussing a different article. My first glance left me in doubt, to tell the truth, but I voted for keep, because I know Tiamut's work as an editor, and now that she has fleshed in the details, and elided some poor phrasing, I'm much more comfortable with its claim to an autonomous page. As to people's opinions, well, my understanding of the academic literature is that this is certainly not a matter of opinion: I gave some sources, and the bibliography has more (much still unharvested). The points you raise are legitimate: it's just that this page has had a life of some several days. There are articles in wiki that go back to 2004 on important subjects, which are devastatingly bad, because of edit-warring. No one would argue they be deleted. Their poor state begs for more collegial and intensive work on them. This is just out of the cradle. I'd edit it myself, except that I'm semi-retired from the project, and have only stayed on to clear a few issues mainly relating to Arbcom. I hope, if accepted, the deletional school does not use their disagreement to engage in a 'counter-attack' but simply exercises tight control that the page conforms wholly to wiki standards. Nishidani (talk) 14:09, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nudve, this article is seven days old. I've only been editing it for two (I might mention, wholly on my own). The "Demographic debate" section was added yesterday. I put Benvenisti's work in and then had to attend to real life. Today, I have added Justus Weiner's thoughts and those of Dan Diker. I wish that instead of focusing on the shortcomings of the article when it is under development and using that to lobby for its deletion, that you would instead join in the process of editing and/or at the very least acknowledge that your fellow editors are not wizards and cannot put complete versions of articles up in one day, or even five. Tiamut^talk 16:36, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if it's appropriate for me to edit the article while the AFD is still open, although it looks like it's going to close as "Keep" or "No Consensus". I appreciate the hard work you are putting into this, but I still don't understand exactly why this information can't be added to, say, Demographics of Jerusaelm or East Jerusalem. -- Nudve (talk) 19:06, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Even the deletionist are saying that some of the material should be merge. Why? Because the topic is notable, and the article is sourced. POV concern is a matter of discussion on the talk page of the article and can be addressed by editing. --J.Mundo (talk) 19:00, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Tiamut. Informative and well-sourced. MeteorMaker (talk) 19:13, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (switched from delete) Particularly motivated to switch by the Haaretz sources. I still think there are significant POV issues within the article, but they can be allayed, but no longer believe it's undue or a POV fork. I still caution users to remember that this isn't a battleground. Sadly, not one dead innocent from either side will be brought back to life, whatever Wikipedia says about anything. I heartily, if immodestly recommend perusing WP:BALANCE and cheerfully (and still immodestly) recommend WP:BOSTONTEAPARTY. Although, oddly, this AFD has been (so far) remarkably chilled. --Dweller (talk) 19:27, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The arguments of Tiamut, Nishidani, and IZAK are convincing. The article is now well-written and impeccably sourced, with plenty of scope for expansion in neutral language. The article (and potential larger article) is too long to be feasibly merged with another, and the claim that this a POV fork is weak. NSH001 (talk) 19:29, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Proposal Perhaps the problem is in the title. Once the article is framed by the topic Judaizing Jerusalem it will necessarily lead the reader to perceive a Jewish effort to Judaize what is by implication a non-Jewish city (after all, if it were Jewish, it would not need Judaizing.) If, instead, the article was called something like Efforts to change the ethnicity of Jerusalem, it could take into account both the history of previous efforts to change the ethnicity of Jerusalem, and the fact that there are ongoing Palestinian efforts to achieve and maintain a Palestinian majority in the city. Efforts to change the ethnicity of Jerusalem is both closer to NPOV and more accurate, since we are talking about ethnicity.Historicist (talk) 20:03, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid you're confused. Palestinian efforts are focused on retaining the character of that part of the city and outlying areas where they are or were a strong majority, and where they had land now systematically confiscated. 'Jerusalem' is two realities managed by one group. There are no 'ongoing P efforts to change the ethnicity of (West) Jerusalem'. There are ongoing Israeli (nota bene, not 'Jewish') efforts to change the ethnic composition of the eastern area of Jerusalem. Jerusalem is in two parts. It is absolutely uncontroversial that the recognized Jerusalem of Israeli governance is Jewish, should be Jewish, will forever be Jewish. There is controversy over why that part of the city conquered in 1967 should be subject to demographic engineering to smother its non-Jewish identity. It is this that the page deals with.Nishidani (talk) 10:19, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support for Historicist's proposal to merge any useful information into new article, Efforts to change the ethnicity of Jerusalem.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 17:27, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I could see that as an article covering various movements in history, but this article is about a specific policy of the government. The topic of this article is sufficiently sourced and long enough that it can be its own article, with a summary going to this proposed new article along with summaries of other movements in history, and if those other movements are discussed enough to merit their own article they should also have a separate article. Nableezy (talk) 17:43, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• In its present form, after two days of revisions, this is an excellent example of the proclivity to use Wikipedia as a nationalist battleground. First we have the assertion:the Jews are Judaizing Jerusalem, the format and language support this assertion, indeed, they make it seem self-evident that the Jews are doing something inherently wrong. Then, there is the pretense of balance, two sections, support and criticism. But, the article itself is an indictment. Once the accusation is framed in this way, Israel will necessarily appear in the wrong, no matter how the article is reedited. the only hope for salvaging this article is to refdefine the premise. Either by renaming the article, or by folding the material into a longer and more nuanced article on Jerusalem.Historicist (talk) 21:10, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I may have missed this but where does the phrase 'the Jews are Judaizing Jerusalem' occur in the text? The Israeli government and the municipal authorities have long explicitly announced and put into effect a programme of 'judaising Jerusalem'. Please do not throw around the phrase 'the Jews' this, 'the Jews' that. Many secular Jewish people in Jerusalem couldn't care less. To them it is a vibrant modern historic city, full of cultural diversity and richly variegated traditions, Jewish, Christian, Arab, Russian, Armenian etc. Quite a few are uncomfortable with tendencies to sacralise the landscape, and homogenize its culture, or subordinate its life to that part of Judaism which governs the exemplary religious life. Nishidani (talk) 10:19, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The article's title implies a certain POV on real or imagined demographic trends in Jerusalem, as Historicist nicely explained above. Beit Or 22:15, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The criteria for inclusion is WP:Notability rather than NPOV. If there are POV issues, our response is to tag and ruthlessly edit it rather than delete it. Personally, I'm not at all convinced that there has been any sort of Judaization of Jerusalem - at least from glancing at the figures on the Demographics of Jerusalem page. However, I am convinced enough sources have been provided to indicate that this concept is a genuine, verifiable and relatively mainstream one even if it may be incorrect. And I happily admit to not being an expert on the topic. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 23:54, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per nom. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:26, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete- 1) It's an attack page --obviously or it wouldn't have the need to say "alleged" in its very definition like "alleged rapist" or "alleged murderer." 2) It talks mainly about East Jerusalem so should be renamed {alleged) "Judaization of East Jerusalem" or be merged into the East Jerusalem article . Why not merge into an even bigger attack article called the (alleged) Judaization of Palestine or the (alleged)Judaization of the Middle East? </irony> Why, even the "support" section of this article is an attack section! Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:58, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Historicist is editing Islamization at the same time as he is calling for the deletion of this article, which is immensely better documented. And Tundra, drop this feigned disbelief, as with the 'alleged'. It does help to read from cover to cover Israeli dailies over breakfast, and mull things like this orthis orthis or this orthis or this or this or this or this, over one's muesli. Nishidani (talk) 10:19, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I agree with Tundrabuggy that it is an attack page. The very name of the article suggests something out of Der Stürmer, and its existence in Wikipedia is an embarrassment to the fundamental idea that this is an encyclopedia. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:54, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By now this has become an ethnic-block instinctive 'thumbs down' vote. By likening the name to Der Stürmer, you are suggesting those who are writing it or who support its retention are anti-Semitic. You haven't even read the evidence. It is used by Israeli historians of the highest calibre, without irony. So, are they too Nazis, like me and Tiamut, to be rapidly included in the name-sheet at Jewish self-hatred, a good article to parallel this one with?Nishidani (talk) 12:21, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I read the article. Is there some other "evidence"? I have not concluded that the people writing the article are antisemitic, but rather I am considering the written content. We are talking only about deleting a problematic article. I assume the editors will not be deleted. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:29, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you haven't read the thread. Meron Benvenisti's books introduced me to the term years ago. Meron Benvenisti, and he is just one of several eminent Israeli academics one could name who use the term, would never be seen anywhere near anything or anyone associated with virulent anti-Semitic or racist rhetoric. He uses the term, and 'Hebraization' without equivocation. It is what is going on, and historians, as opposed to partisans, call processes by their proper name. Denialism is something which we, and particularly anyone of Jewish heritage, or anyone, like I hope myself, with a long attachment to the Jewish tradition's exemplary witness as a 'light unto the gentiles', are rightly touchy about, where any fudging of historical truth regarding Jewish suffering or the Holocaust, or weaseling around the facts of anti-Semitism is involved. But denialism works both ways. This is a well-attested fact, and reality, relating to Israel, not to 'the Jews', and the 'denialism' factor explains virtually every negative vote. Nishidani (talk) 12:38, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heyo Nishidani,

I believe most voters expressed something other than denialism as a reasoning. To be frank, this suggestion seems like a violation of the decorum principal the ArbCom have decided upon. Also, I've yet to see a rationalized non-soapbox response to the concearn raised by a number of editors here that only anti-Israeli perspectives occupy the article and it's basically used as an attack page. Suggesting the issue has been recorded by Jewish people as well as rabid anti-Zionists doesn't quite answer this concern.

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:07, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well if I've violated something, denounce me to the cops. I won't object, never do. We are editing a global encyclopedia, and to do that adequately, we are obliged to make sure our judgements are informed by an individual assessment, in each case, in each edit, of the merits of the argument. I keep seeing 'the Palestinian perspective', 'the Israeli perspective', 'the Japanese think', the 'Russians say', 'the Arab viewpoint', 'The Christian take on this' etc.etc., and many only slipshod terms employed by otherwise careful editors. I don't, I've said it before, believe there is any such thing. There is no such thing as an 'Israeli perspective' or an 'anti-Israeli/anti-Palestinian perspective' for it implies in every case groupthink. Terrible things occur in the history of every region, every people: the historian's job is not to think of cui bono when writing, except of course when evaluating the reliability of, especially, primary sources. It is simply, when a topic becomes part of his discipline, as 'Judaisation of Jerusalem' is part of academic discourse by now, to struggle against his own biases while he assays the evidence. Most are saying the evidence is not there, this is an allegation, that it is anti-Semitic to even mention the subject, that it is an attack page on Israel. If (in my own area of professional interest, where I don't edit) I saw Chinese editors coming down unilaterally against a page on the Sinification of Tibet (see Sinicization of Tibet), saying it was an attack page against China, or that people proposing the page were like people writing on the Yellow Peril, I would make the same observation. What Israel is doing in Jerusalem is something with many analogies in the past, and, in the present. But the reaction here is pure denial, because too many are judging this, apart from Izak, with political and ethnic defensiveness. If my saying this troubles you, I'm sorry. But that's how I see it, and I am more unnerved by instinctive support for any position (even one I may share) than by fears of being caught out as politically incorrect.Nishidani (talk) 13:52, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to me that, even for those who are most opposed to Zionism, this article is a disaster, because it frames the issue as a confrontation with Judaism, and as opposition to the presence of Judaism....exactly contrary to the traditional claims of anti-Zionists. Although, outside the title and headings, the editors are careful refer to Zionism and Zionists, it could not be more clear that the objection is to increasing the Jewish population of Jerusalem. Why would anyone want such a problematic article? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:06, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, please read the thread and the literature cited on the page's bibliography. This is not about the Judaisation of West Jerusalem: it is about the historic fact, pursued by both the municipal authorities and the government, to change the planning, urban development, demographics, and character of that part of the city, with its Arab culture, demographics and character, annexed de facto, not, technically de jure (Lustick) into a greater Jerusalem. The word 'Jerusalem', operatively, refers not to the Jewish city, but to the Arab area, as existing, as expropriated, as incorporated, where massive development informed by a policy of judaisation is extremely well documented. No one in the real world in Israel doubts that this is what the purpose is: Izak admits it is so. It has generated an extensive literature in academia. No one is contesting 'Judaism'. Books are noting the way a city with three monotheistic traditions is subject to social, demographic and infrastructural engineering to ensure the absolute, irrevocable Jewish character as the dominant reality over the illegally incorporated Eastern sector of the city and its limotrophic zones, even if this means kicking out Arabs. It's not an opinion: it stands out like dog's balls, and impartial, non-polemical Israeli academics call it 'Judaization'.Nishidani (talk) 14:18, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument is that the article does not really mean what it seems to say, which is absurd. By that thinking, the article should have a notice on the top of the page warning readers that if they do not read the contents, and explanations, of this AfD they will be at risk of misunderstanding what the article "really" means. Sorry, but that does not work for me. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:10, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Important Comment The article has been under great improvemnt by Tiamut, her improvement of the article started after 23 Mar, I beleive for those who has voted before this date it might be better to revisit the article and reconsider their votes. For the records, quick review of the votes shows that 11 users voted to Delete on 23 Mar only, and during 24 Mar and 25 Mar only 6 users voted to Delete maybe this shows that article has became more balanced. Yamanam (talk) 14:35, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Important response (just kidding about the "important" part, the point is that your comment does not become any more important by saying it is): There are two problems that improvements to the text cannot resolve, and in order of importance (so to speak), they are: (1) The title. In conjunction with the subject matter of the article, the title is inherently an attack on an ethnic/religious group; and (2) The article does not really work as a standalone article. There is no reason to have this article when we already have Positions on Jerusalem. It is an impermissible content fork of that article. 6SJ7 (talk) 15:52, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The title is not 'inherently (or otherwise) an attack on an ethnic/religious group'. If 'judaization' is troublesome, why do Israeli scholars use it in books describing what is going on? If it were, then in Israeli universities there are a large number of scholars, using the term' who must be listed as 'Jewish self-haters'. It is an article on consistent, strongly documented official policies by government and municipal authorities. Nishidani (talk) 16:29, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Judaization is no more an inherent attack on Jews, than Christianization is an inherent attack on Christians, or Islamization on Muslims. Also, for those arguing that the article topic is POV, see [Articles whose subject is a POV. This is not a reason for deletion. Tiamut^talk 17:37, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You could not be more wrong. The problem is the history that the known baggage it carries. Take a look at the image, and caption, at the top of this page, and you will see. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:59, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry Malcolm Schosha, but that proves what exactly. (Besides the popularity of invoking vague allusions to the anti-Semitic undertones of a word used freely by scholarly sources to describe a government policy/process in this AfD.) Tiamut^talk 16:04, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Its not vague. The title of the article sounds like a headline from Der Stürmer. It is virtually impossible to use the term, particularly in the context of this attack page, without it sounding antisemitic [3], [4]. The term has too much antisemitic history attached to it.

As a consequence the title, and the headings, frame the article in terms of anti-semitism, rather than anti-Zionism. All the more so when one realizes that a very high percentage of the Jews moving into east Jerusalem are ultra-orthodox Jews who are themselves anti-Zionist. So, is the problem with Zionism (as the anti-Zionists have always claimed), or is the objection really to Jews?...which is how the article makes it appear. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:43, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rubbish. Antisemitic tradition and then Nazi usage esp. made the word 'Jew' itself synonymous with all sorts of contemptible things. Not for that was the dignity of the ethnonym destroyed. I admit I personally refrain from using the word precisely for the reasons you give, though I'm an odd man out in this, for Jewish people, and the modern world generally, have no problem restoring that word to its pristine meaning. One should not be intimidated by history, or the past. The word 'judaize' is of Greek origin, for example, and first occurs in koine Greek in the Septuagint translation of the Tanakh, at Book of Esther ch.8:17:

κατὰ πόλιν καὶ χώραν, οὗ ἂν ἐξετέθη τὸ πρόσταγμα, οὗ ἂν ἐξετέθη τὸ ἔκθεμα, χαρὰ καὶ εὐφροσύνη τοῖς Ιουδαίοις, κώθων καὶ εὐφροσύνη, καὶ πολλοὶ τῶν ἐθνῶν περιετέμοντο καὶ ιουδάιζον διὰ τὸν φόβον τῶν Ιουδαίων.

ἱουδάἲζειν 'to judaise', referred in the Sacred Scriptures, according to Liddell and Scott, to the conversion of non Jews to Judaism, to become Jewish, or imitate the Jews, and comes from this passage in the Hebrew (miṯəyahăḏîm:מִֽתְיַהֲדִ֔ים). However there's an interesting discussion (ch.6) on the word in Shaye J. D. Cohen's The beginnings of Jewishness:boundaries, varieties, uncertainties, University of California Press, 1999 pp.175-197, for example, where it is taken as Jewish Greek meaning 'profess to be Jews', and where the author says it only came to mean 'convert to Judaism' in later post-classical Christian authors, where it assumes several additional meanings (a) 'to asdopt the customs and manners of the Jews (b) to be Jewish or become Jewish (c)to interpret the Old Testament "literally". (d) to deny the divinity of Christ (e) to give support to the Jews by adopting their customs and manners'(p.186). It is finally noted that in medieval times, the verb came to be used of those who rebelled against the state or who lent money at usurious rates of interest (p.196, as in 'to jew', as one finds, for example, to quote an example I came across recently in John Updike's Rabbit is Rich (1981) in the sense of 'chisel a dealer down on a price'. John Updike, A Rabbit Omnibus, Penguin 1991 p.483).

The word Judaize in contemporary English, according to the OED has two meanings (a)to play the Jew; to follow Jewish customs or religious rites; to follow Jewish practice (b) To make Jewish: to imbue with Jewish doctrines or practices. Judaization first used in English by Robert Southey in 1814, clearly means 'a becoming or making Jewish in character' (Vol.VIII p.291 col.3). In this sense, there is no intrinsic lexical opprobrium attached to the word, and the fact that it is used in so many Israeli sources dealing with the post-1967 transformation of Jerusalem is proof that the insinuation you keep making that it has an anti-Semitic undertone is evidently misbegotten, and a piece of rhetorically presumptive hyperbole.I'm getting sick and tired of every other argument in the I/P area leaking into this kind of intimidation by insinuation, instead of hewing to strict, close argument according to evidence. Nishidani (talk) 18:31, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Rubbish"? Really? Your beginning tells me a lot. Then you follow the inane remark with some refs that have nothing to do with my points at all. Anyone who reads the title of the article will see immediately that the discussion is framed [5] in terms of a 'Jewish problem'. The the title does not name Zionists, nor does it refer to Israelis (many of whom are Islamic, Christian, Druze, etc), but the objection is to Judaization. The entire article is framed in terms of Judaization. And you see nothing wrong with that? Amazing.

But this is not the place to argue these points further. If the article survives the AfD, I will resume the discussion on the article talk page. I think it is sad to see WP degraded by this attack page. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:15, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article isnt an objection to the policy, it is a description of the policy. And that policy is called Judaization in English sources describing it. You are objecting to people using a word on the basis that you think that the very word itself has antisemitic connotations. That is indeed rubbish. Nableezy (talk) 20:24, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would describe what you have written, above, as bullshit (in the philosophical use of the term), because the fact is there are plenty of WP:reliable sources that say "Judaization" can be, and very often is, an antisemitic term [6][7][8][9][10][11]. WP goes by reliable sources, no matter what Nableezy thinks to the contrary, and the word, as it is used as the title of this attack page, certainly appears to be antisemitic. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:43, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You see how your two points are in conflict? You say Wikipedia goes by reliable sources, yet you object to using a term found in countless reliable sources describing the topic of the article. Try to have some consistency in your position, the title is supported by many reliable sources. They are describing a set of actions by the Israeli government and the word they use is Judaization. That a number of Israeli and Jewish scholars use that exact term to describe those exact actions hasnt dissuaded you from making the assertion that the use here is antisemitic. Though I will concede that it may be used in an antisemitic way, here it is not. How something appears to you is not really our concern, this is the name scholars, including Jewish scholars, use for these policies. Nableezy (talk) 22:07, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the conflict? I never claimed that there are no antisemitic sources that are WP:verify. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:14, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The conflict is that you refuse to use the name of something that RSs use because you think it is antisemitic. This is what the policy is called in English, there is nothing antisemitic about it. I wont argue this further, but the assertion that the name of something, a name used by Israeli and Jewish sources as well, is antisemitic is nonsense. Nableezy (talk) 22:35, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is it is not my reasoning that is conflicted. There are often sources that are in conflict. But, when the very name of an article rests on one side when there two sides, the result is a profoundly problematic article. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:43, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I should add that de-Arabization is a term frequently encountered in Israeli sources, with a double meaning, of scrubbing off Levantine traits in the Mizrahi population and the Israelification of Arab territory.Nishidani (talk) 17:42, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious Keep. well-sourced and notable. charges of povforking and synth are unfounded - if some editors think that a notable and reliably sourced topic "makes israel look bad" that is not a reason to delete it. if the content of the article itself is unbalanced to "make israel look bad," it needs content based on reliable sources to show the other pov, used with due weight. untwirl(talk) 16:12, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• KeepThis is a notable subject, and the article is well-sourced. The text is long enough to warrant a separate article, merging is not a good option and deletion IMO is out of the question. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 18:12, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would reply to Malcolm's attempt to find WP:RS for his thesis that 'Judaisation' as in 'Judaisation of Jerusalem' is antiSemitic, but (a) a chair is uncomfortable for anyone forced to listen to a wearisome argument, and my reply would require, in courtesy, that someone supply the admin with a divan instead, (with a few headache tablets if the effects of my refutation proved somniferous) and (b) Olmert, when he was mayor of Jerusalem, is quoted in German sources as saying the latest landgrab will ensure an irreversible Judaising of the city ('Die jüngste Landenteignung, so erklärte Jerusalems Bürgermeister Ehud Olmert am 4. Mai, will die Judaisierung der Stadt zu einer unwiderruflichen Tatsache machen'.Die Zeit, May, 1995 ). Meron Benvenisti, Baruch Kimmerling, Oren Yiftachel, Israel Shahak are, since they are Israeli scholars who use or used this word, all tone-deaf to the Nazi-echoes picked up by Malcolm's reliable sources, some of which Frontpage Magazine, are not reliable, and others, had he read them, deal with things like Protestant translations of the Tanakh in the 16th century. Shahak was a survivor of the Holocaust, and yet called a spade a spade. But I don't think it worth the trouble, since German RS like die Zeit say Ehud Olmert himself subscribes to the word and policy. However, if Malcolm does want a point by point refutation, suffice it to ask for it, but only if he can accomodate the admin on watch here in a more comfortable observation point, i.e., a bed.Nishidani (talk) 15:28, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nishidani, please review WP:NPA and WP:SOAP. Refactoring might be a good idea. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:53, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Informative article about a notable subject. Factsontheground (talk) 01:17, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Read through it, and I see no problems at all. A notable topic covered by many different newspapers. Dream Focus 13:30, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It does seem to be a notable topic. I'm not sure I understand some of the objections about it; there's no reason why we couldn't have parallel articles (for instance) on Islamicization of Bosnia, Christianization of the Philippines, and so on. (I might have a go at the Bosnia one, as that's an area I know something about.) The expansion of a religion's reach is obviously a topic of significant historical interest, and as others have demonstrated it is evidently one that has been documented in reliable sources. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:05, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I took a look. Here is an example of the "great improvement"

According to Nur Masalha, the International Christian Embassy in Jersualem (ICEJ), established in 1980 in the former home of Edward Said, supports "exclusive Israeli sovereignty over the city and the Judaisation of Arab East Jerusalem."^[1]

The Elad Association promotes the Judaization of East Jerusalem. Operating in the city for some 20 years to acquire properties belonging to Palestinians in Kfar Silwan, Palestinians say it has "taken over" substantial sections of the village.^[2] Elad also funds the digs being conducted near the Temple Mount. In 2008, Haaretz reported that at least 100 skeletons dating to the Islamic era (c. 8th-9th centuries AD) found a few hundred meters from Al-Aqsa mosque were removed and packed into crates before they could be examined by archaeological experts.^[3] The excavations at Al-Aqsa are described in Arab media in the context of Israeli efforts to Judaise Jerusalem.^[4]

• The only hope that I see for treating this material in a responsible fashion is to include it in a longer article so that it can have some context.Historicist (talk) 16:03, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-relevant discussion on factual elements of this article, belongs elsewhere. Click the blue button at the right to see text (This box doesn't include any votes)

The section is typical of the article. Note the discrediting of the Christian organization with the assertion that it occupies [[Edward Said]'s old Jerusalem home. Of course, Said grew up in Cairo. This was his Aunt's home, which he sometimes visited on vacation. I assume that the church purchased the property. The excavations are in the City of David, which is sort of near the Temple Mount, a the nearest part of teh excavaton to the southern wall of the temple is a ten minute walk away. And of course the entre dig (actually , series of digs) is on land that was unoccupied until the twentieth century, Silwan was the histori village on the far side of the steep valley. No one lived on the ridge of the City of David until the Jewish Meyuchas family built a house there. There were olive trees. I am not certain who owned those trees. The lies and half-truths are in this article are legion. Nationalist Propaganda is like that.Historicist (talk) 16:01, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply] Nationalist propaganda of course always is something one's adversaries engage in. I heard one Silwan resident, while showing his house under demolition, explaining their ownership went back 150 years, (as long as the Meyuchas nearby). Are you saying that an area where a Jewish family took up residence in the 1800s, ipso facto, is Jewish, and all Arab building contemporary with, or after that, is thereby inappropriate? Nishidani (talk) 17:48, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply] To apply the term Judaize to a large hill that had no inhabitants until a Jewish family built a house there is... odd. That is why I suggest moving this article to a page where the material can be put in context, or, perhaps, redefining this as a page discussing Ethnic change in Jerusalem.Historicist (talk) 18:45, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply] I do not think this is the best place to argue the details of Israeli real estate law, which combines elements of Ottoman and British laws, combined into Israeli law. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:05, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply] I was trying to demonstrate how hopless this article is. I acknowledge that the facts could be corrected and patrolled, but the attack mode of the article is intrinsic to the definition in the title.Historicist (talk) 18:40, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply] My comment was directed to to Nishidani, but somehow my edit got moved down a space, so instead of being above your comment it is now below. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:57, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply] Historicist. Cite the exact date for the settlement of the Meyuchas. You haven't demonstrated anything so far. And Malcolm please review your study of law. Malcom is certainly correct. This is not the place. However, the answer is 1873-4. And there are published photographs proving that the entire site of the Cityo of David was vacant, and Silwan was a small village on the far side of the valley.Historicist (talk) 22:03, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply] Thanks for the date: roughly the time everyone was buying into the city, Christians included. On law, vacancy (lack of houses) does not mean property did not have title. Orchards have title, or customary usage, under Ottoman law as under Mandatory law. Secondly in areas conquered by Israel in 1967, but regarded as 'Occupied', Israeli law is by force majeur, when used on non-Israeli territory, particularly when the so-called 'annexation', according to Israeli jurists, was merely de facto, not de jure. This has been long discussed elsewhere. Malcolm's point was irrelevant, because I was not discussing Israeli law, but thinking of International law, and of the Jordanian-Ottoman law still in use under Israeli administration onn the West Bank.Nishidani (talk) 22:38, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply] Nishidani, this has nothing to do with the AfD, and appears to be WP:SOAP. This is the place for discussing the AfD, and it is not the Israel/Palestine e-forum discussion list. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:49, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply] If you read the above as WP:SOAP please apply your label and your comment also to Historicist, IZAK and a few others evenly (par condicio) as well. I responded to their remarks, which I think a courtesy.Nishidani (talk) 22:53, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply] Does that mean that you intend continuing using this AfD as a soap box? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 23:11, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply] No, since we are at a point where the lack of adequate arguments leads to waving trumped up wiki flags imputing some infraction at one's interlocutor, making it personal. Good evening.Nishidani (talk) 23:14, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply] Sorry I offended you. My sarcasm sometimes gets out of hand. But it is still true that this is the place to vote, and give some explanation of the vote, concerning the nomination. Arguing over the truth of one's cause belongs elsewhere. It seems there is a place, as well as "a time to every purpose under the heaven." Malcolm Schosha (talk) 23:48, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.