Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration/Jerusalem as the capital of Israel

The articles Israel and Jerusalem state in their leads that "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel". I don't believe it's factual to state this in the leads; the status of Jerusalem is highly debatable; most of the world countries (if not all) consider East Jerusalem to be occupied by Israel, whereas Israel announced that "Jerusalem, complete and united, is the capital of Israel". IMO, the leads of the two article promote a minority view; the Israeli view. Imad marie (talk) 12:04, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The status of Jerusalem is indeed complex, and that complexity is conveyed in Positions on Jerusalem. However, can you find a reliable encyclopedia or atlas which states that the capital of Israel is not Jerusalem? -- Nudve (talk) 12:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

My argument here is not claiming that "the capital of Israel is not Jerusalem", my argument is that the two articles (and any other article) must not tell the reader in their leads that "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" as a fact, this is controversial, the articles must not assume and present facts judgments about that in the leads.

Please take a look at Jerusalem definition in britannica and encarta, both articles present the controversy before presenting any facts judgments, and I think this is fair. Imad marie (talk) 13:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I see. Both articles have an endnote next to the statement, explaining the legal issue. -- Nudve (talk) 13:25, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we should be promoting minority views in the leading paragraphs and then explain the full context in endnotes where no one reads them. I think we must explain the full context in the lead, before we make any judgments. Imad marie (talk) 13:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

On controversial topics, in particular, Wiki likely should not make that type of mental gymnastics necessary. If it is controversial, both/all sides should be in the lede with a 'see below' come-on. That would be, imo, nearer NPOV. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 14:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

While countries have chosen to locate their embassies elsewhere, and not recognize Jerusalem as the capital, that cannot change the basic fact of it being a capital. By the very definition of capital - "seat of government", Jerusalem is the de-facto capital - containing the parliament, government offices, supreme court, president's quarters, PM's quarters, etc; And by Israeli law it is the de-jure capital. It serves the function of capital in Israel, and is under Israel's control. Whether or not it should be is a different matter, and that is the subject of the dispute. International recognition is not, and has never been, a requirement for a capital. okedem (talk) 13:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Okedem is right. The de-facto status should come first. I guess the editors didn't want the lead section to become a legal debate instead of a description of the city. Perhaps some rewording is possible, though. And we shouldn't assume nobody reads endnotes. -- Nudve (talk) 13:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Okedem, long time, no see. You are both correct from your pov, which must be addressed in the lede, as must others. In this particular case, the key words we Wikipedians must grapple with are the ones upon which RSs are based; those must include 'claimed', 'recognized', 'de facto' and 'de jure', I believe, as well as any non-fringe others. If anyone tries to hang too-tough, it is harder to have a collaborative effort. Is that about right? CasualObserver'48 (talk) 14:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Worth noting: First, Britannica's article on Israel states in the lead paragraph "Jerusalem is the capital and the seat of government". No ifs, buts, or any mention of controversy. Second, Talk:Jerusalem/capital. This issue has been discussed so many times, including via RfCs, every time with the conclusion being "no consensus" or "Jerusalem is the capital". I can't see this discussion concluding any differently. Rami R 14:11, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia has the potential to, at moments, be far better than Encylopedia Britannica. One of the strengths here is the representation of underrepresented facts. Why not just re-phrase okedem:

"By Israeli law, Jerusalem is the de-jure capital of Israel, de-facto containing the parliament, government offices, Supreme Court, President's quarters, and Prime Ministers's quarters. However Jerusalem has not been recognized internationally as the capital of Israel, and many countries that see Jerusalem as equally the capital of the future Palestinian state, or view the city as a shared international heritage site that should be governed by a range of stakeholders locally and worldwide, have chosen to locate their embassies in Tel Aviv."LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 17:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Yes, they ought to say "declared capital" in the lede rather than "capital." I recall getting into a fairly ridiculous war over this on Template:Asian capitals, and being scolded about how Jerusalem is a FEATURED ARTICAL!!1 and thus this has previously been discussed and we have CONSANSUS!!1 and arguing about it is DESRUPTIVE!!1; if I recall, the featured article review (and this is a broken process in itself) actually contained no discussion of the "capital" issue. What I'm saying is that if you intend to make this change, be prepared for false claims of consensus, personal invective and probable claims of antisemitism, openly hypocritical double standards, copypasta from CAMERA-like websites, blizzards of citations, laughably fallacious arguments... basically your standard day's work on an Israel-related article :P <eleland/talkedits> 17:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's good to see you're maintaining a positive, friendly attitude.

Jerusalem answers the definition of the word "capital", and so it is the capital. Both de-jure, and de-facto. International recognition has no bearing on the concept of capital. okedem (talk) 18:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Jerusalem is the capital of Israel (de-facto), and consensus has been reached about that (de-facto) !!

Okedem, about your repeated argument that the seat of government is in Jerusalem, and that's why it is the capital by definition. Please note that the seat of government is in West Jerusalem, and that makes a big difference; East Jerusalem is occupied, and no logic can define it as the capital of Israel. Imad marie (talk) 20:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Imad, the capital of a country is chosen by that country only, and other countries, as Okedem said, have absolutely no say in it. Israeli law does not differentiate 'west' Jerusalem from 'east' Jerusalem. Instead, the municipal boundaries of Jerusalem are well-defined and represent the Israeli capital. The international dispute, as has been stated above, is well-documented on Wikipedia, in many footnotes and refs, as well as its very own article - Positions on Jerusalem. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 20:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

There's no city called "West Jerusalem"; no such an entity. Israeli law holds for both sides of the city, and there's no difference between them in that respect. The entire city functions as the capital. The last international plan for Jerusalem called for a corpus seperatum, international control of the entire city, for 10 years. Afterwards the residents would decide its fate, via a referendum. (By the way, as Jerusalem has had a Jewish majority since the 19th century, we can guess the results of such a referendum). In 1948, as the Arabs rejected the partition plan and were moving to capture the city, so did the Jews. Jordan's control over East Jerusalem was no more "legal" than Israel's control of it now. East Jerusalem is not claimed by any country other than Israel (Jordan dropped its claims a long way back), and so the only sovereign of East Jerusalem is the de-facto one, Israel. The whole dispute is of whether this should be so, what should be done. But the current facts cannot be changed. Whatever happens with Jerusalem in the future, cannot change its current function as capital. okedem (talk) 21:04, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• I just want to add, in reply to those who affirm okedem that the de facto status should come first (I agree with his point) that I added the info about the ambassies, SEcond, and it was instantly deleted. So even when someone does not argue with the de facto status, it seems that people are unwilling to see the other points of view represented in conjunction - the approach seems to marginalize the controversey in a way which is misleading.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 03:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

According to the edit history it was instantly deleted because there was a prior consensus on the current structure of the lead sentence, see Talk:Jerusalem/capital. Although consensus can change it requires discussion on the talk page to determine whether consensus has changed and how. Apart from that, your edit was imprecise and unsourced, it's not asked to much to spend at least a bit of effort when editing a featured article (or any article, for that matter). Novidmarana (talk) 06:55, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Jerusalem has been the center of dispute for a very long time, and the center of deadly wars and long peace negotiations. Both britannica and encarta don't define Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. East Jerusalem is considered to be occupied by the international community. Jerusalem is not recognized by the world countries as Israel's capital. Are we going to ignore all that and just say "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" just because Israel has de-facto control of it? Maybe we need WP:POLL here to see if we really have consensus that the leads should state that "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel". Imad marie (talk) 11:07, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

"Both britannica and encarta don't define Jerusalem as the capital of Israel." - clearly you have not read my comment above about Britannica's article on Israel. Rami R 12:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Consensus as the relevant guideline - WP:POLL has been rejected by the community. And yes, we should ignore all this and state Jerusalem is the capital plus a footnote with additional explanations. We should deal with facts, and fact is that Jerusalem as the seat of the government is the de-facto capital, and with the Jerusalem law it is also the offical capital. As there is no concept of a capital and hence international recognition of a capital saying something like the international community does not accept Jerusalem as Israels capital is imprecise and misleading. What the international community does not accept is that East Jerusalem is part of Israel, what is not the same. So in abscence of a legal definition capital we should go with the dictionary, and according to the dictionary definition Jerusalem is the capital. Novidmarana (talk) 13:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

(Hi. I'm wondering if this conversation would be more suitable to the Jerusalem or Positions article Talk page. Alternatively, since this is an issue that does cut across various articles and template(s), perhaps it would be fruitful to focus less on the debate itself right now, and think about how/where the question can be tackled. How can IPCOLL contribute to this question? Thanks. HG | Talk 14:39, 15 May 2008 (UTC))

Well I suggest that one benefit of IP COLL might be that some of the discussions here can occur on some of the same topics as those at regaular talk pages, but that they would theoretically be pursued by different people; ie, those who have joined IP COLL, or those who have some commitment or interest in making a project like this succeed. so i would tentatively suggest that discussions like this can proceed forward here, but only with certain considerations in mind; for instance, that the goal here is to find common ground between two viewpoints and/or communities. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

That's one problem, this discussion pops up everywhere (at the moment at Israel, Jerusalem). Another problem is that this is discussed again and again. Whenever it seem settled, and consensus has been achieved, it is almost guaranteed that a few weeks/months later the discussion starts again. While consensus can change, I don't see why this has to be discussed anew on an almost monthly basis. Novidmarana (talk) 15:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

By the way novidmarana and okedem are right. jerusalem is the capital. what the article can say is that various nations refuse to recognize it as such. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:21, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Sigh... this again. Does Israel consider Jerusalem its capital? Yes. Is its executive branch headed there? Yes. Judicial branch? Yes. Legislative branch? Yes. Most governmental services? Yes. I don't know guys, but that sounds like a capital to me. It doesn't matter how many countries don't recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital and claim it should be Tel Aviv or New York or Abu Dhabi. The fact is that Jerusalem is considered by Israel as its capital and functions as such. This is not one country's "point-of-view"; it's clear fact. Look up the word capital in any dictionary and you will find that recognition from a quorum of countries is not necessary for a city to be one. Jeez. People, on and (more importantly) off Wikipedia, need to quit harping on trivial issues like this one, get over this decades-long conflict, and move on with their lives already. -- tariqabjotu 19:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

How's this, as a way to keep topics from reoccuring? We could create archive files, with the topic in the title. such as: /Discussion archive/Jerusalem as capital, /Discussion archive. We could then list such archive pages, so that everyone could look up the consensus arrived at there. this might also be a good way to record various article compromises. does that sound good? --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 20:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

That is done already, sort of on the Jerusalem talk page, the link above the main body and below the wikiproject boxes. Apparently this is ignored by most, as discussion start on this topic start again and again, whenever a new editor arrives who thinks that his personal POV is not well represented. Novidmarana (talk) 21:09, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I understand, but I think it might be useful for WP:IPCOLL to have its own archives as well, to relfect the fact that, as you mentioned, discussions seems to keep restarting and stopping. i have copied the discussion here so far at /Discussion archive/Jerusalem as capital. At some point, we could remove the discussion from this talk page, once it has reached a conclusion and/or some sort of consensus. please feel free to leave any comments on this procedure. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:30, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

As a resource for editors, I think it would be useful for IPCOLL to set up a list of key disputed terms (etc) and where they have been discussed. On Jerusalem, for instance, we could mention Template talk:Asian capitals. The disputed terms could be listed on the main project page, with a link to a subpage(s) that contains all the discussion links. My 2 cents. Be well, HG | Talk 06:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

From the exchanges above I understand that only stating that 'Jerusalem is the capital' in unbalanced. We could comply to Wikipedia:NPOV by adding 'competing views' wherever 'Jerusalem is the capital' is mentioned. For example either we state competing facts in lead or we state none (optionnaly to be replaced by 'West Jerusalem is the biggest city' or something avoiding the 'capital' word). Winetype (talk) 13:01, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not "unbalanced". It's a fact, and it's indisputable. Whether it should be capital is in debate, but cannot change the reality. This is not a question of 'competing views', but of fact. okedem (talk) 13:43, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

These arguments over semantics are so wearying. Why make a principle out of a word? If people dislike the word capital, why not use something else? "Jerusalem is the seat of government" - doesn't sound that bad, and means the same thing. Remember, all these these nuances - this means that, that means the other - they are all beyond the typical reader. The typical reader will never notice that the article says "seat of government" and not "capital". --Ravpapa (talk) 16:55, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

No. Not only are these not the same, this would be succumbing to political pressure, telling us what words we can use, despite having absolutely no factual backing to those claims. It's the capital, by the very definition of the word - and thus, we should say it is, even if some people don't like it. This is the sort of thing that determines our credibility. Do we surrender in face of political opposition, or do we state the facts. okedem (talk) 18:21, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Looking at how other encyclopedias define Jerusalem and Israel:

***	Jerusalem	Israel
Britannica	Israel declared the city its capital	Jerusalem is the capital and the seat of government Capital (proclaimed): Jerusalem; international recognition of its capital status has largely been withheld
Encarta	Israel claims that Jerusalem is its capital	Jerusalem, the city Israel claims as its capital

The only article that states that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel is Britannica's definition of Israel, all other article say: "claim that ...". So looking at those articles makes me think that we are not neutral here. Imad marie (talk) 07:46, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

The editorial decision of other encyclopedias are of no concern. Only the facts are. And whether we like it or not, whether or not we believe that Jerusalem should be the capital - it is. It fulfills the requirements of a capital city, namely - seat of governments, and is the declared capital. International recognition has no bearing on this. Thus - we say it is the capital. okedem (talk) 08:12, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Can you provide even one solid non-aligned source which specifically states that "international recognition has no bearing" on a state's right to declare occupied foreign territory as part of its capital? I don't care how many Dore Golds you can quote - I want you to prove this supposed objective, factual standard is generally accepted. Simply repeating "It's the WP:TRUTH!!" doesn't impress. <eleland/talkedits> 08:19, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

You are the one who has to prove that the widely used definition of capital requires international recognition. I've already shown that no such requirement exists in the definition, as any simple dictionary will show. okedem (talk) 09:02, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Do you want a dictionary definition that says: "capital is ... under the condition it is not occupied"? Jerusalem is a unique case, East Jerusalem is occupied by definition and by international recognition, so it's kind of "wrong" to simply say "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel". Imad marie (talk) 09:27, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Facts

Some people seem to be asserting that certain things are facts as if they are not subject to argument and unproblematic. Tautologies (such as "big things are large") and various mathematical and logical statements are uncomplicatedly facts. Various statements about the physical world ("the Earth is round") are facts unless one is getting philosophical. But when we come to social and political concepts, then the concept of "fact" is often contested. The status of Jerusalem is just such a contested fact, as are, say, those of Kosovo, Taiwan, Northern Cyprus etc. NPOV says that we do not take such alleged facts on face value. I notice that some people are claiming both these positions:

1. Jerusalem is one undivided place. In particular, there is no such thing as West Jerusalem. This place is part of Israel.
2. Israel has the right to decide which place is Israel is its capital and that becomes its capital by objective standards.

Given that Israel is just about the only country that considers that all of Jerusalem is in Israel, then using 1 and 2 to then imply that the undivided entity that is Jerusalem is the capital of Israel cannot be anything but POV. For Wikipedia to be NPOV, it has to avoid a position that implies 1+2. We could split off a separate West Jerusalem article and say that Israel's capital is there in the lead, and discuss some of the issues lower down. But if we treat Jerusalem as one entity, we must not imply that that single entity is uncomplicatedly part of Israel or its uncomplicated capital.--Peter cohen (talk) 09:20, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Peter, there's a difference between what we want, or think is right, and what is.

The very definition of capital is "seat of government", and one can add the de-jure aspect of being designated as capital by the country (which is why The Netherlands has, sort of, two capitals). Jerusalem answers both those criteria - by their very definitions. Regardless of some people's opinions or wishes to that effect, "capital" has nothing to do with international recognition, or with embassies.

To call Jerusalem anything but "capital" would be a disservice to the readers, who just want the facts. Now, the issue of whether this should be so, whether Israel has a right to set its capital there, etc, is a very different matter. What should be cannot change what is.

There's no real entity by the name of "West Jerusalem". No distinction "on the ground". I remind you that East Jerusalem was "illegally" captured by Jordan (against the UN plan), leading to Israel capturing the other part of the city ("West Jerusalem"). Legally speaking, Jordan, or the Palestinians, have no more right to Jerusalem that Israel does. It is disputed, sure, but currently it is the capital. What will happen in the future - no one knows. Till then... okedem (talk) 09:49, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Your reference in the first sentence to "what is" totally ignores my saying that social "facts" are frequently contested. Higher up people have mentioned that Encarta reports that Israel "claims that" Jerusalem is its capital. If things were as plain and simple as you claim, that would be a basic howler and wouldn't have got past the editorial committee. I have previously mentioned elsewhere that the BBC refer to Jerusalem as Israel's "seat of government" and East Jerusalem as the "intended" one for the Palestinians [1]. In the entry for Netherlands they designate Amsterdam the capital and The Hague as the seat of government. I don't think that it is contested that Jerusalem is where Israel's government is seated. But the claim about it being the legal capital is contested. International law does not always agree with the claims of specific countries or their legal systems. SO saying, something is "de jure" is another one of these so-called facts that is actually contested. --Peter cohen (talk) 12:42, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Political pressure can make some people make certain decisions which don't result in the most accurate phrasing. Given that the very definition of "capital" is seat of government, and that is true for Jerusalem, and that Israel has designated Jerusalem as its capital - it is the capital. The Netherlands, as I said, is a special case - they chose to base their government in The Hague, but to designate Amsterdam as their capital, and their choice is respected. In Israel's case, there's no dichotomy between the two, so it's even simpler. Regarding occupation etc. (and "intended") - see what I wrote below. okedem (talk) 12:56, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I guess the following belongs to Talk:Jerusalem but I will post it here first. The very first line of Jerusalem says: "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel.", this is not NPOV for sure. My suggestion is, accompany this line with another one that says : "although this has not gained international recognition", or something like that. Imad marie (talk) 13:28, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Imad, you are continually evading this point. The word "capital" has a definition. Go to any dictionary or encyclopedia and read it. What it says is along the lines of "seat of government". Jerusalem houses Israel's government, parliament, supreme court, president's quarters, PM's quarters, etc. Israel controls all of Jerusalem. Israel has designated Jerusalem as the capital. It fulfills every requirement of capital, and so stating it is the capital is a simple statement of fact, and is NPOV. International recognition isn't, and has never been, a pre-requisite for capital, and so has no significance to this. The dispute over Jerusalem is already mentioned in a footnote, and in the article's body, and that's more than enough. okedem (talk) 13:40, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Nothing in my last suggestion contradicts with the definition, my suggestion was to show that Israel's declaration of its capital did not get international recognition. As I think this is as notable as the first line of the article. Imad marie (talk) 14:03, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

No, your suggestion makes it seem as though international recognition (or lack thereof) is necessary or changes the fact of capital somehow. It doesn't. It's just another controversy related to Israel, and has no bearing on the reality of the situation. It's been given enough space already. okedem (talk) 14:13, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

okedem: Am I right in understanding your argument? You say that Jerusalem is the capital because capital means "seat of government", and Jerusalem is the seat of Israel's government - a fact on which there is full consensus. Imad marie's point is that there is another aspect to the meaning of the word "capital" - the aspect of international recognition. Were Imad marie a world history buff, he would probably point to the case of Brasilia - which was the capital of Brazil, recognized universally by everyone, even though the government didn't move there for the first few years after it was built.

But if you believe that the terms "capital" and "seat of government" are synonymous, why are you so adverse to changing the word? Bear in mind that this change has two advantages, from your point of view: (1) it would be unnoticeable to virtually all readers except yourself, and (2) it skirts the whole issue of international recognition - you see, if you change the word, you don't have to explain that, well, some people think it's the capital but other people dispute it, and so on and so on. Saves a lot of painful and turgid polemics. --Ravpapa (talk) 18:12, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Later: I would go even a step further. The lead of the article on Israel says "Jerusalem is the capital, seat of government, and" and so on. Which is either redundant, or suggests that the word capital means something else than seat of government. If it's redundant, then one of them has to go. If it means something else, then there has to be some agreement on whether it's correct or not. --Ravpapa (talk) 18:17, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Ravpapa's argument. I just came to this WP policy and I think it serves well here: Wikipedia:NPOV#Let_the_facts_speak_for_themselves. Give facts, not conclusions. Say something like: "Jerusalem is the seat of Israel's government", "Israel claims that Jerusalem is its capital", "this claim has not gained international recognition"... those are indisputable facts, but saying something like: "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" is a conclusion that some make based on dictionary definition. Imad marie (talk) 05:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Imad - Unfortunately, using words requires the use of a dictionary, at times. This is not personal conclusions, but an inherent part of using language. As all other capital city articles use the explicit word "capital", I see no reason to apply a different standard here.

Ravpapa - I am aware of one case where "capital" and "seat of government" aren't the same, currently - The Netherlands. Amsterdam is the capital (as determined by The Netherlands), but The Hague is the seat of government. As Jerusalem is the seat of government, and declared capital by Israel, and houses all of the other symbols of state (like the Supreme Court), we can just say capital, the word that embodies the fullest meaning (both declared and seat of government) for most capitals in the worlds. The word "capital" has no connotation of international recognition, and that has never been part of the meaning of the word. Brasilia was the capital because Brazil said it was, not because other countries recognized it as such. Same for Jerusalem. okedem (talk) 12:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Imad - there is some justice in Okedem's argument. I just searched through all the definitions of the word that I could find, and none of them suggests that international recognition is a condition for a city being a capital. The whole dispute is purely semantic anyway - it seems to me that you would be satisfied if there is a reference in the opening sentence to the fact that Jerusalem's status as a capital is the subject of international dispute: "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, though its status is disputed by many countries". Kind of self-defeating from Okedem's point of view: if we were to remove the word capital and write instead, "seat of government", you would also be satisfied, and that would avoid inserting the the political muck into the top of the lead. --Ravpapa (talk) 16:20, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

However... every capital city article notes (or at least should note) that it is the capital of its respective country. The word capital has the most common, widest usage when referring to the aforementioned cities. One would say "Washington, D.C., is the capital of the United States" not that it's the "seat of government" of the United States, because many would infer that the capital is somewhere else (simply because capital is not used). The reason, I'm presuming, that Imad may be okay with saying that "Jerusalem is the seat of government of Israel" is because he wants people to infer the capital is somewhere else. It's not. Apparently in the hope that bugging the group of editors who frequently edit in this area will cause the wording to be changed, this matter has been rehashed over and over. Like I said on Talk:Israel, it seems some editors are here to make a political point rather than create quality articles related to Israel and Palestine. The issue regarding East Jerusalem and the occupied territories is far from glossed over; it is discussed in detail within the Israel and Jerusalem articles, as well as in a separate article. A footnote accompanies the (true) statement that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. And yet, some people just won't let this matter die until the word capital is expunged from the respective articles. Sigh. -- tariqabjotu 17:28, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think politics has anything to do with it. Many problems on I/P articles arise from the chronic non-resolution of boundaries, conflicts in law, etc. that create huge grey areas and clashes over conceptual definitions. Imad marie is right that Jerusalem is a unique case. Israel annexed the whole city in 1980, in violation of international law and the conditions of its recognition by the UN in 1948, but in making the whole city its capital, it only complicated the legal issue. Jerusalem de jure (in international law) cannot be Israel's capital, since Israel in international law has no right to east Jerusalem. It is de facto Israel's capital, because East Jerusalem is under 'belligerent occupation' and being engineered into an irrevocable part of the Israeli state. The acceptance of Jerusalem as a city placed under a permanent international regime was one of the conditions for Israel’s admittance to the UN. Israel was fully informed of this (Resolutions 20 Nov, 11 December 1948). One of the definitions of a capital city is that foreign countries establish their embassies there. They don’t and the UN is opposed to their establishment in Jerusalem, withdrawing that opposition only when negotiations over Palestine as an sovereign independent state or whatever other political status they freely chose to accept, are formally concluded. No other state has located its capital on land that does not belong to that state in international law. All other capitals are sited on unequivocally national territory, uncontested by international law. It's is not hostility to Israel, or finicky obnoxiousness or politics that created the problem, but the complexity of facts on the ground. Jerusalem refers partially to land internationally regarded as territory for a future Arab/Palestinian state. If Jerusalem, as the Knesset law of 1980 says, is both east and West Jerusalem, then Israel's determination of its capital as Jerusalem, locates its capital partially on non-Israeli territory. I know people like a quick read, and easy solutions. I/P articles are full of these issues, because the literature on the area is full of these contentions, which arise from thefailure of a political and legal resolution of the historic ambiguities. We workers in the dungeon just have to deal with it, not fake simple solutions that turn out to underwrite one side's narrative over another's. Regards Nishidani (talk) 21:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Luckily for Israel, Jerusalem was its declared capital before the 1980 Jerusalem Law and even before the 1967 war. Those that deny that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel based on the events that occurred in 1967 and after are ignoring this fact. --GHcool (talk) 22:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but the Jerusalem before 1967 did not include the Arab Jerusalem which now you all are saying is part of the capital of Israel. It's not a matter of denial. Any nation can do as it likes 'in its internal affairs', but the acquisition by force, and belligerent occupation of land not in law belonging to Israel, to then declare that part of it is now incorporated into Israel, and forms part of its capital, is no longer a matter of 'internal affairs. The point the UN made against South Africa in Namibia is the same made by the UN against incorporating east Jerusalem into 'Jerusalem, the capital of Israel'. Nations are not allowed in international law to declare their capitals as existing on land not formally recognized as belonging to that nation Nishidani (talk) 09:05, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to see some concrete sources that actually relate to the issue of whether Jerusalem is and can be Israel's capital (not whether it should; not whether Israel's occupation of the West Bank is okay; not any other irrelevant piece of information). Simply repeating "international law" several times doesn't make your argument pertinent or even correct. We don't need a history lesson.

Concrete sources repeat that it is Israel's stated policy to get its decision to have Jerusalem as its capital recognized by having embassies move there. Consider the following 5 (of many) passages:

Re the early move in the 1950s.

'‘The Foreign Ministry of Israel relocated to Jerusalem on 12 July 1954, 6 countries lodged protests, US, Britain, France, Italy, Turkey and Australia. Israel became the sole example of a sovereign country whose capital city was not recognized by foreign powers.’ Raphael Israeli, Jerusalem Divided:The Armistice Regime 1947-1967, Frank Cass, London, Portland, Or. 2002 p.177

‘Since 1967, . .it has been a major thrust of Israeli foreign policy to secure international recognition of its annexation of Jerusalem and to have states confirm that recognition by transferring their embassies from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem ... In 1980, several months after the resolution of the Clark embassy affair, thirteen countries withdrew their embassies from Jerusalem and moved them to Tel Aviv in response to the passage of a bill in the Knesset which established as a basic law – the Israeli equivalent of a constitutional principle – earlier administrative orders declaring Jerusalem the capital of Israel.' David Taras and David H.Goldberg (eds.)The Domestic Battleground: Canada and the Arab-Israeli Conflict, McGill’s-Queen’s University Press, Kingston, Montreal, London 1989.p.145

(I.e.By accepting to ignore the ambiguity of 'Jerusalem (including East Jerusalem) is Israel's capital' the Wiki article looks like it is securing textual recognition of Israel's annexation of East Jerusalem).

(3) 'Repeated assertions by Israel that Jerusalem was the nation's capital found little international recognition'. The New Encyclopaedia Britannica, Encyclopaedia Britannica, inc., London, 2002 p.335

(4) ‘One tangible consequence of the non-recognition of Israeli sovereignty over the whole of Jerusalem is that only two states – Costa Rica and El-Salvador – maintain their embassies in Jerusalem, whereas all others are situated in Tel Aviv.Deon Geldenhuys, Isolated States: A Comparative Analysis, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 1990 p.136

I.e. not placing embassies in Jerusalem is an act that signals Israel does not have sovreignty over the whole of Jerusalem. To place them there is to accept that 'Jerusalem' as defined by the Knesset law of 1980, is Israeli territory holus bolus. At the moment, Israel's position is that its capital extends to land that is not Israeli territory. Nishidani (talk) 10:07, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

(5)‘the US and others have blocked Israel’s desire for international recognition of Jerusalem as its capitol(sic), in favour of a negotiated settlement of the city’s status.' Vaughn P. Shannon, Balancing Act:US Foreign Policty and the Arab-Israeli Conflict, Miami University, Oxford, USA 2003 p.131

Nishidani (talk) 10:21, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Again, you're talking about the legality of the present situation, whether Israel has a right to declare all of Jerusalem as its capital (by "international law", if you will). This isn't about that. This is about reality. Today, Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, as Israel say it wants it and as Israel treats it. Whether that is right is irrelevant; Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. If it wasn't, there wouldn't be this controversy over whether it should be the capital of Israel (because it wouldn't actually be the capital; hence, no controversy).

The reality you speak of is called 'creating facts on the ground'. You are saying that the Arab quarters of jerusalem are Israeli territory because Israel annexed them unilaterally in defiance of international agreements in 1948, and created a new larger Jerusalem. That is Israel's POV. How many nations accept that: almost none. Everyone knows that West Jerusalem is and will be, eventually, Israel's capital. The fact is that East jerusalem cannot be said to be part of that Israel which has its capital in (West) Jerusalem. Everybody, the world over, would like the juridical absurdity of this mess to be clarified by final negotiations, but until negotiations finalize these issues, a grey area, with deadly implications for Palestinian aspirations for Al-Quds as the capital of a Palestinian state will exist. Wiki cannot espouse Israel's point of view as reflecting 'reality'. The reality is that 99% of the nations of the world withhold formal recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital because of these legal-technical issues. Nishidani (talk) 09:05, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Of course the issue is complicated -- and the articles on this subject reflect that. Where "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" resides in such plain language, a footnote further explaining the situation exists. There's a section on this as well as an entire article that discussions Positions on Jerusalem. As I said, this topic is not glossed over. However, Jerusalem is currently, as I have already stated, the capital of Israel, so it's fine to say that. I'd like to know what definition of capital you have that states that the location of embassies determines a country's capital.

Further, the idea that political motives have nothing to do with this just isn't working with me. The complexity of the facts only makes it easier for people to hide their political stance. I have actually contributed to these articles and have not, for instance, just been harping about how biased -- one way or the other -- these articles might be. -- tariqabjotu 23:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The acceptance of Jerusalem as a city placed under a permanent international regime was one of the conditions for Israel’s admittance to the UN. (Resolutions 20 Nov, 11 December 1948). One of the definitions of a capital city is that foreign countries establish their embassies there. They don’t and the UN is opposed to the their establishment in Jerusalem, withdrawing that opposition only when negotiations over Palestine as an sovereign independent state or whatever other political status they freely chose to accept, are formally concluded.

‘In 1980, Israel took a further step towards the full incorporation of east Jerusalem when the Knesset enacted a ‘basic law’ declaring ‘Jerusalem united in its entirety’ to be the capital of Israel. This action, which has been widely hailed as the final annexation of East Jerusalem, was condemned by the Security Council in Resolution 478 (1980) as a ‘violation of international law’ and ‘null and void’. No state has recognized Israel’s annexation of Jerusalem. . . Israel may not exercise sovereignty over East Jerusalem . . ‘both the Security Council and the General Assembly maintain that Israel is in belligerent occupation of East Jerusalem … The annexation is therefore null and void and States are under a duty not to recognizes it. In essence, non-recognition is employed as a sanction by the international community, as a result of Israel’s violation of international law, in the same way that non-recognition was invoked against South Africa in respect of its administration of Namibia and its creation of Bantustan states.’.John Dugard, ‘Enforcement of Human Rights in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip’ in Emma Playfair (ed.) International Laws and the Administration of the Occupied Territories: Two Decades of Israeli Occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, Clarendon Press, Oxford pp.461-487 p.476

I repeat, 'Jerusalem is the capital of Israel', means Jerusalem as defined unilaterally by the Israeli government, incorporating territory that is not yet legally Israeli territory (except in Israeli law), is the capital of Israel. The statement says that East Jerusalem whose juridical status is not yet defined in international law, forms part of Israel. To state this is to state not the 'reality' but Israel's POV. No other country in the world accepts this. There is a reason why hardly any countries put their embassies in Jerusalem, because to do so would imply recognition of the illegal reality of territorial incorporation Israel has engineered. Nations recognize each other diplomatically, and signpost this recognition, among other things, by locating their embassies in the capital. Israel is recognized: Jerusalem as Israel's capital is not recognized. You are espousing, as a NPOV, Israel's POV in that apparently innocuous formulation.Nishidani (talk) 09:05, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

You have brought no sources to back your claims that the presence of embassies or international recognition have ever been a part of the definition of capital. For someone who accuses others of spreading POVs and not relying on RS, you seem to be doing exactly that.

If posting these very long quotes pleases you, go ahead, but they add nothing to the discussion. No one here claims that Jerusalem is internationally recognized as part of Israel. No one here claims Jerusalem isn't disputed. No one claims foreign countries recognize Jerusalem as capital, or recognize Israel's annexation. All these quotes prove nothing, and are completely irrelevant to the discussion. okedem (talk) 10:18, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

You have brought no sources to prove that in using 'Jerusalem' you do not imply those parts of Jerusalem which are not part of Israel under international law are in fact part of Israel. Not being parts of Israel under international law, yet being part of Jerusalem, they cannot be included in a statement that implies they are parts of Israel, a state which claims that its capital extends over West Jerusalem and the illegally annexed east Jerusalem. You have to prove that East Jerusalem is part of Israel, since 'Jerusalem is the capital of Israel' implies as much. You are simply trying, by the ambiguity of the word 'Jerusalem', to insert Israel's POV claims about East Jerusalem into wiki as though it were NPOV.Nishidani (talk) 10:59, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Nice try side-stepping the question. Answer a request for sources for a spurious claim you made, with an attack on another point. Sly.

Yes, factually the capital is the entire city. Israel controls the entire city, has designated it the capital, and has all of its governmental institutions there. There is only one realistic entity there, one city. No wall between the halves. One municipal authority, no borders, no different laws. Same governmental systems, same public transportation, same roads, water pipes, electricity. Same everything. Jews and Arabs live in both "sides" of the city. Is it right? Is it moral? Is it legal? A complex question, that is not on the table here. But the facts remain. Regardless of the legality of it, Jerusalem, the whole of it, is the capital of Israel. okedem (talk) 13:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Okedem. There's really no way around the fact that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. In discussing whether Hsinking was the capital of Manchukuo, it doesn't matter whether Japan had the right to make it the capital or if it enjoyed international recognition. What matters is the fact that they did it.

As it stands, there's an endnote explaining why Jerusalem is the capital. If it's that controversial, maybe it could simply be moved into the main text. -- Nudve (talk) 13:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Consensus

There are certain people talking about consensus as is it is unchanging and uncomplicated. Wikipedia is very clear that consensus can be challenged and can change. "We decided all this a year ago." is not acceptable under WP:Consensus. Saying "how dare someone new turn up and express their POV after we have discussed this before" is not acceptable under WP:Consensus. Can people be very clear about this. The consensus even on featured articles can change.--Peter cohen (talk) 09:20, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

The way I see it, currently we don't have consensus for saying: "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" in the related articles' leads.Imad marie (talk) 09:40, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Imad, you have to face the very definition of the word. As you have failed to provide any source stating the need for international recognition on a country's capital, please accept that Jerusalem answers the definition. You have to separate your personal opinion of what should be, from what actually is. Only the latter should be written in the articles. okedem (talk) 09:51, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Please see my comment above, Jerusalem is a unique case, East Jerusalem is an occupied territory. I'm not sure if I can find a dictionary definition that says: "a capital must not be occupied", but that's common sense. Imad marie (talk) 09:58, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

"Common sense" - well, that's great, but when going against the facts and the definitions, you need sources.

Actually, even the claim of "occupied" is bogus - occupied from who? No country has a legal right to it. Jordan captured it despite to UN plan, and no longer lays any claim to it. The Palestinians aren't a state, and even if they were to accept the UN partition plan in 1947, Jerusalem wouldn't have been under their control. In fact, the "corpus separatum" plan called for the residents of Jerusalem to vote, after 10 years, on their desired alignment. Jerusalem has had a consistent Jewish majority since the 19th century, and throughout the 20th century, and the outcome of such a vote may very well have been the annexation of Jerusalem to Israel. But that's speculation. The point is, Jerusalem is, at most, disputed. Not occupied. okedem (talk) 10:15, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

For someone who fulminates against "denialists," you have a remarkable... flexibility... okedem. Perhaps we should edit the article on the International Court of Justice's landmark 2004 decision to note that, "The ICJ ruled 14-0 that East Jerusalem was part of the Occupied Palestinian Territory, although a pseudonymous Wikipedia editor 'okedem' vociferously disagrees." You're arguing now against a durable consensus of all relevant authorities when you try to claim that East Jerusalem isn't occupied. I must confess that it leads one to suspect that you haven't the slightest respect for NPOV or for source material, and are simply reaching around for any old propaganda claim to support your precious Jewish state's continued domination of as much territory as it can grab. <eleland/talkedits> 06:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Eleland, don't attack editors. I'm sure you're well aware of our multiple policies regarding these matters, though I have little expectation of you following them in the foreseeable future.

I've made no suggestion of changing anything about the language we use in articles regarding East Jerusalem. As I have mentioned below, when writing about the occupied territories, as I have done often, including writing the section about them in the Israel article, I have always included East Jerusalem under that terminology. Thus, your attacks are both false and misdirected. I also refer you to somewhere below, where I expressed my severe disinterest in Jerusalem and whatever happens to it. The points I make are supported by multiple legal experts, it's not my interpretation. However, I make no suggestion of changing the terminology we use, as the "occupied" term is the most common and widely accepted term for this.

Of course, its telling that you, too, choose to cite someone saying "occupied", instead of addressing any points or facts.

Regardless, I have explained below that as I make no suggestions regarding the articles, I shouldn't have even replied to Imad's use of the term occupied, and that was only an aside. Naturally, had you bothered to read the rest of the discussion, you would have known everything I've just said. I guess the vitriol just had to come out, and quickly. okedem (talk) 07:15, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Opinions are all very well. Your opinion happens to coincide with the official position of the Israeli government, which almost uniquely, asserts things about Jerusalem that are not determined in International Law. At most you can say this is Israel's line. Wiki must deal with the legal lay of the land on questions like this. In the literature, in UN resolutions, Jerusalem is 'occupied'. Even the Nixon administration defined 'east Jerusalem' as 'occupied'. Whatever the case, the legal case for east Jerusalem being 'occupied' is very strong, and the transference there of 170,000 people violates the Geneva Conventions. Were the case clear, all of the negotiations with the PLO/PA, since 1994, to which Israeli is party, negotiations in which explicitly a 'final agreement' on the status of Jerusalem forms an integral part, would not have been acceptable to the Israeli government. Israel's formal (as opposed to real) agreement to negotiations in which the status of Jerusalem forms part of the agenda, is proof that Israel itself acknowledges the lack of sufficient legal grounds in international law for its de facto annexation, and hopes to secure at least most of the annexed territory by the consent of the PA.Nishidani (talk) 13:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Everything I said is fact, not opinion (regarding the partition plan, the planned vote, the lack of sovereignty, etc), whereas you quote what some people say, but say nothing regarding those facts. The conclusion drawn from those facts is that Jerusalem is disputed, and that, indeed, is my (and others') interpretation.

The definition of occupation simply doesn't fit here. It wasn't occupied from any sovereign. The Geneva conventions apply to signatories only, and as Jordan never claimed sovereignty in East Jerusalem (and had no legal right to do so), it is inapplicable to that territory. No nation has any more legal right to it than Israel does (or doesn't).

But that discussion is moot, and has no bearing on Jerusalem's factual status as Israel's capital, regardless of what its future might be, or what other nations think of it. okedem (talk) 14:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not interested in your opinions, but in the evidence you bring to bear on the problem from reliable sources (the Israeli POV is not NPOV, bear in mind). Consider (to cite just a few quotes from a relevant file)

(1)The third phase of US policy, 1967 to the present, can be characterized as a period of fluctuating, or even, conflicting decisions. Policy has changed from President to President, and additionally, Congress has entered the picture with its own pronouncement. The central formula of US policy has been that the status of Jerusalem was a matter for negotiation between the parties, but that the City must remain undivided. If international interests were secured, the United States would concur with any agreement reached between the parties. While Washington seemed to acknowledge de facto Israeli control in west Jerusalem, the status of east Jerusalem generated American tergivisations. The Johnston administration took no formal stand and deliberately eschewed labelling east Jerusalem occupied territory. Only the Holy Sites were deemed to be a matter of international concern. Implicitly,. This confirmed the legitimacy of Israeli administration in all of Jerusalem. President Reagan apparently endorsed this stand by refusing to pronounce east Jerusalem occupied territory and by refraining from condemning Israeli construction there. In contrast,. the Nixon administration stamped east Jerusalem as occupied territory, and the Bush administration even objected to Israeli construction in that area. In these matters, the Carter and Clinton administrations straddled the fence.p.4 Shlomo Slonim, Jerusalem in America’s Foreign Policy, 1947-1997, Kluwer Law International, The Hague, London, Boston 1998 pp-3-4

(2)‘the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including east Jerusalem.’ UN Resolution 2003/59 48th Plenary Meeting 24 July 2003, in Resolutions and Decisions of the Economic and Social Council, Economic and Social Council Official Records 2003, Supplement No.1, United Nations, New York 2004 pp.91-2

(3) ‘The United Nations viewed east Jerusalem as part of the territory under Israel’s occupation. When Israel declared its legislation to apply in east Jerusalem,. The United Nations condemned this measure as tantamount to annexation, saying that Israel held east Jerusalem only as a belligerent occupant. When Israel declared the entirety of Jerusalem its capital. the Security Council and General Assembly each pronounced the action unlawful. The Security Council 'reaffirm(ed) that acquisition of territory by force is inadmissible', and “reaffirm(ed) the overriding necessity to end the prolonged occupation of Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem.”.. The General Assembly has also been precise on Israel’s obligation to withdraw from east Jerusalem. It stated 'that the acquisition of territory by force is inadmissible under the Charter of the United Nations', and that 'Israel must withdraw unconditionally from all the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem. In 1990 Israel asserted its claim to east Jerusalem in the midst of a controversy with the UN. After a shooting incident in east Jerusalem in which Israeli police killed seventeen Palestinians, the UN Security Council asked the UN secretary-general to propose appropriate measures in response. The secretary-general suggested sending investigators. Israel objected,. On the grounds that east Jerusalem was part of its sovereign territory, and that the UN had no right to send investigators without its permission. It told the secretary-general “Jerusalem is not, in any part, ‘occupied territory’, it is the sovereign capital of the State of Israel. Therefore there is no room for any involvement on the part of the United Nations, in any matter relating to Jerusalem.” Thje Security Council backed off sending investigators but expressed “alarm” at Israel’s refusal.' John B. Quigley, The Case for Palestine: An International Law Perspective, Duke University Press, 2005 Pp.226-7

There's no need for quotes. I believe we're all well-aware of the UN's POV, and the US's POV.As I have said, Jerusalem is disputed, its future unclear. Never once have I claimed that East Jerusalem is Israel's sovereign territory. (Personally, by the way, I couldn't care less about Jerusalem, and whatever holy/unholy sites it holds.) In no place have I even suggested we should change articles and call Jerusalem disputed instead of occupied. I accept that its the majority position, and so that's what we write. In fact, while composing the section of Israel regarding the occupied territories, I specifically included East Jerusalem there. The issue of occupied vs. disputed has no bearing on the current discussion, I shouldn't have even replied to Imad's use of that term. Disputed or occupied, most countries don't recognize East Jerusalem as part of Israel, and don't recognize Jerusalem role as capital. This is not the argument, we all know these facts. I could, of course, cite many legal scholars explaining why it's not occupied, but disputed. But this is not what we're here for, and not related to the discussion. It's a shame you continue to press the semantic point, which in no way helps with the current discussion. okedem (talk) 14:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Don't blame me. You spoke of 'Jerusalem', and yet technically we have two areas, whose legal standing is disputed, and you denied 'occupation' when many legal texts and UN resolutions define east Jerusalem as occupied. All I did was correct your assertions, which toe the Israeli POV. In analysing our exchange I see you speak generically of 'Jerusalem', which is a physical entity, but whose legal status as a unified entity is 'disputed' and the way that dispute plays out determines whether it is 'occupied' or 'not occupied'. I don't mind 'disputed', but using 'disputed' in no way disinvalidates the extremely widespread and well-grounded view that the eastern zone is occupied, indeed abusively so, since the Israeli government is rapidly altering its demographics. It is occupied because, as one sees with the developments in Silwan and elsewhere, Palestinian Arabs have almost no resort against decisions made by the Supreme Court, the Government, the Planning Agencies and the IDF which are incrementally seizing land that was traditionally theirs. That can only occur under 'occupation'.Nishidani (talk) 14:57, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Jerusalem is disputed all around. In the narrow legal aspect, there's little difference between East and West Jerusalem. Both were supposed to be a part of the corpus separatum outlined in the 1947 partition plan. As Jordan never annexed East Jerusalem, and never claimed it as its own, its status remained basically the same, regardless of its capture in 1967. While the common view is that East Jerusalem would probably somehow be part of the Palestinian State, the exact nature of its current status is a matter for debate. As fascinating as UN texts are, they are not the word of God, and I will not avoid saying things that contradict their, highly political, views. (For instance, while under Jordanian rule, somehow the UN didn't really bother scolding them for the illegal occupation of Jerusalem or the West Bank.)

Still, as I said - this is irrelevant to the discussion here. okedem (talk) 15:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, but Israel's views, like the UN's, are 'highly political', and not the word of the tetragramma. You are in your rights to contradict the latter, but to do so by repeating the viewpoint of the former is disingenuous. As to irrelevance, you are again wrong. The point under debate is 'jerusalem' as the capital of Israel. The Israeli government thus defines it. The problem is, what part of Jerusalem is the capital of Israel? the Jerusalem that Israel has annexed unilaterally, including all of the Arab east Jerusalem, to create a unified urban and geopolitcal reality that overrides the international legal status quo. For a foreign country to 'recognize' Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, as Jerusalem is defined by Israel, imperils negotiations on a final agreement, for in so far as Israel makes a de facto claim to the whole area, any external recognition would entail implicit recognition of Israel's annexation, and de facto control of what is otherwise occupied land. I'm amazed you cannot see the difficulty, which is perhaps semantic, but, as often in history, great turning points often hinge on semantic ambiguities, and the failure to perceive their consequences.Nishidani (talk) 15:20, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Again, I'm "disingenuous" and "wrong", and I fail to see the difficulty. No, it cannot possibly be that I simply disagree with you, and am only stating my opinion (mine, not Israel's). But it seems you cannot accept anyone having views different from your own. They're just quoting other people, governments, bodies. They can't think for their own. Were they to do so, they would have to agree with you, surely.

I'll repeat myself - Israel's sovereignty of East Jerusalem is disputed no matter how you look at it - as disputed territory to be determined, or as occupied territory to be determined. In both cases, no matter how you call it, Israel "right" to East Jerusalem is questioned - so it doesn't matter if we say its "disputed" or "occupied", the issue remains the same for the purpose of "capital".

And, as I've previously said, international recognition has absolutely nothing to do with the concept of "capital", and so is irrelevant to this discussion. Is Jerusalem the seat of government? Yes. Is it designated as capital by Israel? Yes. Open and shut case. okedem (talk) 16:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

You still refuse to define it. By capital of Israel is all of Jerusalem, as defined by Israel, included, or only part of it? If as you say, Israel's sovereignty over east Jerusalem is disputed, then, syllogistically, if (a) Jerusalem is Israel's capital (b) Jerusalem designates both West and East Jerusalem (c) since Israel's sovereignty over one part of Jerusalem is disputed (d) Jerusalem cannot be the capital of Israel, since part of it lies in an area of land that is not, technically in law, Israeli land. You cannot have a capital city in territory that does not belong to your state.It's neither your fault, nor my fault, that the lack of clear legal definitions, causes these absurd problems. But the first step is to recognize the impasse that this lack of legal definition producesNishidani (talk) 16:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I remain concerned at debate happenning in an unstructured way eith the thread deviating from the section header. But... Surely the Security Council resolution mentioned in (iii) above declaring the Jerusalem legislation unlawful is evidence that the city is not de jure Israel's capital? My understanding is that the Security Council is deemed a higher authority in international law that can over-rule whatever individual countries decree. I'm sure I've said elsewhere that I'm happy for Jerusalem to be referred to as a de facto capital, just as I would say that Northern Cyprus, Kosovo and Taiwan are de facto independent countries which are recognised as such to varying degrees internationally.--Peter cohen (talk) 17:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Nishidani - Saying Jerusalem, without specifying East or West, means the whole city. Yes, Israel's sovereignty is disputed. What I'm saying is, that doesn't matter to the fact of capital. Even if Israel 'has no right' to declare Jerusalem as its capital, once it did, and the city serves as such, we need to report that fact - for all intents and purposes, Jerusalem is the capital, and that's what matters.

By the way, let me clue you in on a little secret - I, personally, couldn't care less about Jerusalem. I don't care about the religious sites, nor do I consider the Jewish history there of any real meaning to this, considering the current situation and what's at stake. Myself, I'd designate Tel Aviv the capital, being the real center of Israeli life. But my personal opinion doesn't matter to this. Even though I don't like it, Jerusalem is my country's capital. And that why I'm arguing here. As Jerusalem fulfills the criteria for capital, functions as such, I must argue that we write that.

Peter - de jure is according to the country's law. The Security Council, to my knowledge, cannot change a country's laws. okedem (talk) 17:26, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

In the hope of progressing towards some consensus, I was trying to separate out some issues. Therefore I would rather that the topics that Imad marie and Okedem are moving towards were discussed under another header, say definitions or history or whatever. Although consensus won't exactly be easy to achieve, it will be impossible if we have threads that ramble over many aspects without any shape or structure.--Peter cohen (talk) 12:52, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi,

Dear gentlemen, why are talking about a consensus hard to find when you have already written it.

• According to Israeli governement, the capital of Israel is Jerusalem reunified (so, West and East J.).
• According to most (all?) other countries, Jerusalem cannot be the capital of Israel.

I think both statements are easy to source (and that everybody will agree these are the two pov's on this issue, abstraction made of who would be right or wrong or both or neither one nor the other).

So, according to wikipedia that gives to each pov on an issue it's due weight, I think it is easy to solve :

"According to ..., ... . This choice is not accepted by ..."

I also permit to remind you something I think important : why for god's sake are you losing time in such a discussion : nobody cares about what is written in wikipedia about the capital of Israel. Those who comes here and read that already have their answer; a minority could be intersted by the details of the polemics and most are expected to read the article about Israel or about Jerusalem and to learn something interesting about the country or the city...

Best Regards, Ceedjee (talk) 17:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Ceedjee, capital is not about the legal aspects. It's about what happens. Jerusalem answers the criteria for capital, and so other countries' opinions just don't matter. okedem (talk) 17:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

According to WP policy, all point of view matter. And the point of view of "all other countries" is that they do not recognize Jesuralem as capital of Israel, rightly or wrongly. Ceedjee (talk) 05:37, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Many of the same countries that do not recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel also don't recognize Israel altogether, preferring to refer to it euphemistically as "the Zionist entity" and the like. Are we supposed to then assume that this lack of recognition is a "point of view" that ought to be incorporated into the Israel article? This is silly. If something is verifiable, it belongs on Wikipedia. Denialists theories don't belong here. --GHcool (talk) 06:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Recognition is a diplomatic matter, supporting or opposing a certain decision or situation. It cannot change facts. The view of those countries is that Israel has no right to declare Jerusalem its capital. Regardless, it is, as the reality shows. Other countries show their opposition to this situation by non-recognition, but that has no power to change reality. okedem (talk) 06:09, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello,

Okedem and GHCool,

• There is no reality and there is no truth. There are only point of views, even if they are wrong. Eg, there is no difference between following sentences :

1. "ceedjee says the sky above his head is green. No other contributer agrees with that".

2. "ceedjee says the sky above his head is blue. No other contributer agrees with that".

ceedjee's mind is relevant, because he talks about the sky above is head and he can decide this. All other pov's are relevant, because they are many even if they are less pertinent to talk about the color of the sky above ceedjee's head

• The comparison with the legitimity of Israel is not right. I remind you that it is a 6,000,000,000 vers 7,000,000 people ration for Jerusalem to be recognized as the capital of Israel... The non-recognition of Israel is a minority pov. If it was not, then we should write this in the article. There are a lot of exemples of countries that were not recognized by others in history. And history reminded they were not legitime countries...

Ceedjee (talk) 08:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Wow, let's stay away from post-modernistic musings, shall we? Of course there are facts. We live in a world of facts. Now, we may view things differently, and lots of things are subjective judgments, but in the end there are facts.

There's a miscommunication here, I think. I wrote this below, but I'll repeat it - there are two pertinent facts -

1. Jerusalem is Israel's seat of government; 2. Israel designated Jerusalem as the capital. Both points are not in dispute by anyone, as far as I know. The different viewpoints regard Israel's right or lack thereof to declare Jerusalem its capital, or control it altogether. But we don't touch on that issue by saying its the capital. That's just a statement of fact, not a value judgment. What I'm saying is this - as both points are known, and not in dispute, that means Jerusalem is the capital. As international recognition has never been a part of the definition of capital, it is irrelevant to this. okedem (talk) 08:48, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Agree to Ceedjee's argument, we have two facts that are not disputed, my opinion is that we should present those two facts in a balanced way. Currently, information is not presented in balance, example is: Jerusalem article, the very first line of the article says: "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel", and then the article presents the disputed nature of the city in the fourth and last paragraph of the lead, this is not neutral. The fact that the international community does not recognize the city as Israel's capital is as significant as the de facto status of Jerusalem as Israel's capital. Imad marie (talk) 06:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

GHcool raised a good point. What you're saying is akin to opening the Israel article by saying "Israel is a country in Western Asia, though many countries say it doesn't exist". There are only two relevant points to the concept of capital, both factual issues: 1. Jerusalem is Israel's seat of government; 2. Israel designated Jerusalem as the capital. Both points are factual, and not in dispute. I see no one trying to claim Israel's government seats elsewhere, nor are there any claims that Israel didn't declare Jerusalem as its capital. Thus, there's no argument over the facts, and no alternate viewpoint that need representation. The different viewpoint regard Israel's right or lack thereof to declare Jerusalem its capital, or control it altogether. But we don't touch on that issue by saying its the capital. That's just a statement of fact, not a value judgment. What you're saying would have been relevant had we said "Israel maintains it had rightfully designated Jerusalem the capital, and had every moral and legal right to do." Then we should have detailed what other countries think about that (and we do expand on that issue elsewhere). But in the lead we discuss the facts, which aren't in dispute. okedem (talk) 07:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

The comparison GHcool made is not a good one, the counties that do not recognize Israel as a state are a minority, whereas the countries that do not recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital is a big majority (if not all countries).

And I disagree with you, the two facts listed by Ceedjee are of equal significance, we should not present one fact as an undue weight to the other. Imad marie (talk) 07:22, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Majority of minority - both can't change a fact.

You haven't directly replied to my comment. I've listed two facts. Both are not in dispute, and both are the only known requirements for capital. Unless you can provide good references that state international recognition as prerequisite for capital, this line of reasoning would seem to come to an end. okedem (talk) 07:31, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

And you ignore my rational, the disputed nature of Jerusalem is as significant as its status as the (de facto) capital of Israel. Those two facts should be balanced together, not just present one side of the story. Imad marie (talk) 07:47, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Your rational seems irrational (sorry for the pun). There's no relation between Jerusalem as capital, and its disputed status. It would have been disputed regardless of its function as capital. The two bear no relation.

If you wish to suggest discussing its disputed nature - that's fine, but that has nothing to do with its status as capita. Indeed, a whole paragraph of Jerusalem's lead is dedicated to the dispute. okedem (talk) 07:57, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

'Jerusalem is the seat of Israel's government. It is also Israel's designated capital, though not recognized as such by other nations'.Nishidani (talk) 10:30, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

That would be a far more neutral claim. Imad marie (talk) 10:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

No, because it creates the impression other nations have anything to do with this. They don't, and none of you have brought any sources to the contrary. The definition of capital has nothing to do with international recognition.

And I repeat what I said above - Israel controls Jerusalem, and has annexed East Jerusalem. This move is opposed by many countries, and this has nothing to do with Jerusalem's status as capital. The annexation would not have been any more acceptable if Tel Aviv was the capital - the nations that view it as illegal would still have done so. The status of capital has nothing to do with the dispute.

Now, in the Jerusalem article, there's already an entire paragraph of the lead dedicated to the dispute, and more in the body of the article. That's more than enough, and that much coverage was inserted mainly as a compromise between the different editors. Now you want to push it further.

The footnote in Israel was also a compromise. Frankly, I find international opinion completely irrelevant to Jerusalem's factual status as capital, but as some editors feel differently, I did not oppose a footnote. Now you want to push that further.

This is a recurring theme in these articles. Editors reach a compromise, form a consensus, and sometime later another editors decides to push things further, using the previous compromise as a starting point for further negotiations. Somehow the direction of the push is always the same. That's not the way to work. It's not honest and it's not in any way constructive in a cooperative endeavor. There's no point in working towards a compromise, if a few weeks or months later, the whole thing starts over. okedem (talk) 13:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Well,

All countries disagree with Jerusalem being the capital of Israel. For wp, the pov of all countries (but one) is relevant enough to be stated.

If you claim that they are wrong, just provide a official tribunal judgement that states so...

Everything has been said. Ceedjee (talk) 14:07, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for you to provide a source which says that a national capital can encompass territory that does not belong to it in international law. No country in the history of the world has ever gotten away with or even tried, to my knowledge, to plunk its capital on land it has no legal entitlement to. Imad Marie made a correct point, overlooked by many, namely that Israel's position on this is unique, i.e. it defines its capital as extending over land Israel has no legal entitlement to. I have cited several texts which show that the Israel government has repeatedly tried to get foreign governments to relocate their embassies to Jerusalem in order to corroborate its claim to Jerusalem as the capital (see above). If there was no necessity to have foreign diplomatic recognition in this way, why does the Israeli government continue so insistently to pressure and lobby for embassy relocation to Jerusalem. If it decides where its capital is, and this is nobody's business, it would not have engaged so persistently in lobbying the US and Canadian parliaments to that end, not to speak of other countries. It has never succeeded because a move of embassies there implies recognition of the justice of Israel's determination of its capital on land whose legal title is not yet defined. Personally, I couldn't care one whit where Israel's capital was. I presume it will be recognized as legitimately in that part of Jerusalem which international law and treaties determine to belong to Israel. To repeat, 'Jerusalem is the capital of Israel' is Israel's government's POV.Nishidani (talk) 13:51, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

There's a difference between fact and recognition. Jerusalem is Israel's capital. Regardless of legal issues, moral issues, international recognition, or any such matters. It answers the definition of capital, was designated as such, and so it is the capital. Israel wants other countries to recognize this, which would mean - "it's okay, we think you're right, and we won't ask you give away this land". Whether Israel has a right to do so, or a right to the land, is a different issue. You've yet to show any RS that defines capital in a way that doesn't fit Jerusalem. International law, with all due respect, has nothing to do with this simple definition. The whole concept of international law, and "legal right" to territories is a very new idea, so you can't really go very far back in history for it.

I have work to do, and it has become abundantly clear to me that you have no intention of presenting any sources for your claims. I've said everything that needs to be said, and you've consistently changed your claims, side-stepped requests for sources, and presented extremely long quotes which prove nothing, as no one here disputes what they show (like your quotes showing East Jerusalem is in dispute - yea, we know, thanks). You create straw men, with which you valiantly fight, and pretend that means you "won" the argument. Good day to you. okedem (talk) 14:35, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

'There's a difference between fact and recognition. Jerusalem is Israel's capital'.

Fact. Jerusalem has an area which in international law, as opposed to Israeli law, does not constitute part of Israel.

It has become abundantly clear to me that you have no intention of budging an inch from your repetition of the Israeli POV, in order to allow, with several extra words, to qualify a statement that is both true (Israeli POV) and false (since 'al-Quds' is not in Israel, and nor are the many religious areas in the city part of Israel, subject fully to Israeli law). It has become abundantly clear that you refuse to come up with a source that can defend the idea that a 'capital city' of a nation can extend over land not belonging by title, as opposed to 'belligerent occupation' to that nation. I have no interest in winning any blessed argument. I do know how to read the implications of a statement, and the statement you propose looks, on the surface, as innocuous as they come, but if construed as to its implications, it is a powerful POV that influences public perceptions, not least of which Osama Barak's. I intend nothing personal in the severity with which I have challenged your position. I simply think you are not aware of the implications, on non-Isrfaeli ears, of language that is perfectly acceptable to Israelis. No bad faith therefore exists on either side. I am as annoyed as yourself that this kind of protracted argument exists, but it is in the nature of the I/P reality, and not in our respective attitudes, that the problem lies. Until formal treaties resolve these technical ambiguities, we can, here, get no where and the sensible thing is to adopt moderate consensual compromises that show, as Ceedjee advised, both sides of the question. Cheers.Nishidani (talk) 14:46, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

For such possible implications we have an entire paragraph in the Jerusalem lead, and a footnote in Israel, and content in the body of both articles. okedem (talk) 14:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Okedem, I don't expect that any of what I or Nishidani, or any other editor say will change your mind. Both Israleis and Palestinians have given their lifes for Jerusalem, and the dispute still goes on, with never ending wars. And as Nishidani said, behind the innocent dictionary definition, there exists a strong Israeli POV to annex Jerusalem. I don't expect that a simple discussion here will resolve our dispute. Imad marie (talk) 15:48, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Some editors here have hinted at this being an attempt to promote my own views regarding Jerusalem. One editor was brazen enough to attack me for that perceived attempt. Some, like yourself, have tied this discussion to the macro dispute between Arabs and Israelis over Jerusalem.

In case my previous comments left no impression on you, here it is, again - personally, I don't care about Jerusalem in the least bit. I don't care about the Western Wall, nor any other "holy site". I don't care about the old city, the Jewish quarter, or any such thing. I don't like Jerusalem, and try to avoid visiting it. I wouldn't give a cent for it, so certainly not my life. I'd prefer the capital to be Tel Aviv. I would be just fine if someone else controlled East Jerusalem (after security issues are resolved, naturally). This argument has nothing to do with any supposed views of mine regarding the annexation. I'm arguing over this from a purely editorial stand-point, of stating the facts. I do the same in arguments over other issues, like Alternative Medicine (in the Hebrew Wiki).

So whatever you think about my arguments, don't attribute them to that dispute. I have no part in it. okedem (talk) 16:07, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I have not a shadow of a doubt you are acting in perfect good faith, and I have found you amenable to rational argument elsewhere. I am just surprised you cannot see the point being made by those who do not share with you the Israeli government's POV. I have no problem with Jerusalem being the capital of Israel, either. What I do find perplexing is your failure to perceive the innuendo, which is pushed by the Israeli government, that recognizing this capital by diplomatic measures normal in such cases, relocation of embassies, means recognizing that 'Jerusalem' here refers also to that part of the city which is not legitimately Israel's and is regarded by no authoritative body outside of Israel, as legally part of Israel. Silwan is not part of Israel, though de facto ruled as though it were because the government is engineering the destruction of the Arab character of East Jerusalem in order to make reversion of it to a future Palestinian state impossible. The wording 'is the capital of Israel' where Jerusalem entails also illegally annexed territory, means occupied land there is part of Israel. In any normal construal of language, against the reality it denotes, the wording 'Jerusalem is part of Israel' means Jerusalem as defined unilaterally by Israel in its attempt to incorporate manu militari alien land into its territory without the consent of its owners. If Jerusalem were two cities, one called Jerusalem, the other Al-Quds, the former referring to the Western Jerusalem and whatever extensions to it Palestinians agree on in ceding, then the problem we have would be dissolved, and the whole world could happily concur that 'Jerusalem is the capital of Israel' because there would be no geopolitical implications of ownership of the Arab and Holy areas. They can't for the simple reason, that such an agreement doesn't exist. The Vatican for one refuses to recognize Jerusalem is the capital, simply because, as one can see in its agreement with the PA, to recognize the correctness of this designation means handing over on a legal platter Israeli jurisdiction, technically, to Holy Places it owns, just as Waqf properties' would come under Israeli state law's future rulings. Really okedem, this is a serious point, and not a quibble, and I am disconcerted that your intense convictions about the 'plain realities' are blind to the suppressed realities that formulation insinuates. I have fond memories of Tel Aviv. I even saw 'Hair' performed there, when friends managed to drag me from its beaches.Nishidani (talk) 17:30, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Nishidani, this claim, of innuendo, is not your original claim. In fact, you only brought it up about one or two comments ago.

The difference here, is that I (and others) maintain that the status of capital is not dependent on international recognition, or solution of sovereignty issues. Thus, fulfilling the condition "seat of government", and additionally being designated the capital, is enough. So when we say "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel", we say nothing of legality or sovereignty, only that Jerusalem is the seat of government, and that Israel considers it the capital. You think that also means "Jerusalem is wholly a part of Israel". I don't see it that way, stemming from my different understanding and view of the word "capital".

To prevent such misunderstandings we have additional text - a whole paragraph in one article (with more in the body), a footnote (and more in the body) in another. This is sufficient to prevent confusion, in my view. okedem (talk) 18:18, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

And what I find perplexing is that you, Imad, and Ceedjee keep forming your positions around something that has nothing to do with whether Jerusalem is the capital and ultimately nothing to do with the point I, okedem, and others have been trying to make. We keep asking for you all to respond to the points that are relevant to this discussion -- i.e. what does it take for a city to be considered a country's capital. The location of embassies and the legality of certain land do not fall into that criteria. And yet, you are still attempting to prove that Israel doesn't have a right to establish its capital on land that includes occupied territories. Fine; go ahead, but that's an irrelevant point, one that I myself might even be inclined to agree with.

What I, okedem, and others are trying to tell you all is that regardless of whether it is legal for united Jerusalem to be claimed as Israel's capital, the fact still remains that united Jerusalem is, in fact, Israel's capital. This is a matter of true-or-false, not right-or-wrong. The Jerusalem article does not begin with "Jerusalem is, under international law, the capital of Israel" or "Jerusalem is, without controversy, the capital of Israel". No; it says "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel", a fact that is demonstrated by the fact that Israel calls it and treats it as such. The controversy over the capital is adequately covered -- in a footnote appended to the statement, as well as another paragraph in the introduction, a section in the article, and then yet another, separate article. When will you all stop?

Yes, the statement in the article reflects the Israeli government's point-of-view (although not just their point-of-view; non-recognition does not mean Jerusalem is not actually the capital), but it's the only point of view that matters because it's their capital and they can put it wherever they want. So regarding the idea that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel... Is that legal or fair? Perhaps not, and there are enough words on Wikipedia addressing these issues. But true? Absolutely. -- tariqabjotu 18:31, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

'i.e. what does it take for a city to be considered a country's capital. The location of embassies and the legality of certain land do not fall into that criteria.' That's just an opinion like many other assertions you have made.

The whole problem would go away if you all had the simple courage to rephrase the contentious remark in a way that is wholly indisputable. I.e.

The capital of Israel is in Jerusalem.

No one in the world would take exception to that.

But it won't be accepted because the Israeli POV phrasing allows that the capital of Israel extends over Arab territory, occupied manu militari and intended to be permanently transformed into Israeli land some time in the future. Nishidani (talk) 19:40, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

You haven't presented any source for "capital" that says anything about embassies, land-legality, or international recognition. The dictionary definition of capital, has been presented, and it's very simple. Thus, you seem to be the one presenting mere opinions.

"The capital of Israel is in Jerusalem"? Really? In what language is that, exactly? Because it most certainly isn't English.

You know what? It's very hard to discuss this when you keep calling a certain phrasing "Israeli POV phrasing". Accept that it's just a phrasing that you don't like, and that other editors support it in good faith, with no relation to any specific government or nationality. Appreciate the fact that no one here called any other phrasing anything like "the Palestinian phrasing", or "the Arab phrasing", or anything of that sort. okedem (talk) 20:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Israel calls the 'Occupied Palestinian territories, 'disputed teritories' and that last phrase was circulated as the official phrase to be userd in the Israeli medeia by Begin, around the same time that the Knesset made a law about 'unified Jerusalem'. Being a sovreign nation Israel can play with language as it likes, but since the language it uses is not shared by the world's legislastive bodies or legal beagles who have to deal with the area, for very good technical reasons, israel uses the Englìsh language the way that suits its interests, and almost all other nations on earth barring two use the English language to describe these problems in a different way, a way that reflects the problem Israel's language aspires to bury. This is not, as Tariq and others say, a moral distinction, it is a legal distinction. I'm not surprised that pro-Israeli editors refused to see it, since they are raised in that language and ideological milieu. Wiki is a global encyclopedia, reflecting a globalized perspective, and not any one national perspective or jargon. It's not again 'the Palestinian phrasing' since all nations of the world bar two, the UN and the ICJ and everyone else, know that 'Jerusalem is the capital of Israel' is loaded language calculated to dull perceptions and prejudice the resolution of the chaotic legal bingle that, de facto, now exists with regard to the appropriate neutral terminology. When Tariq used the standard POV Israeli term 'unified Jerusalem', as Obama did some hours ago, he shows either he doesn't understand the issue, or that he simply embraces Israel's POV. Obama was criticized immediately by all people a spokesman for Nush's administration for using that term, which is unacceptable even to the highly pro-Israeli Republican administration. Nishidani (talk) 21:03, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

It amazes me that you don't realize how condescending you seem. You know The Truth, the Right phrasing, the Correct way to speak. Other editors "refuse to see", but it's okay, it's not their fault, it's because "they are raised in that language and ideological milieu". No, they can't possibly just disagree with you after considering the issue and deciding on the merits of the different phrasings. No... they're all pushing the POV they were indoctrinated with, poor bastards. (Tariq, by the way, is not Israeli nor Jewish - what explanation will you concoct for his opinion?)

'unified Jerusalem' (since you insist upon bringing it up) - like it or not, Jerusalem was unified in 1967. It was one city until 1948, when it got divided. In 1967 Israel captured East Jerusalem, and thus united it, so it is again one city, with no walls, free movement, one continuous entity, not two separate ones. Is it right, legal, moral? Whatever. But that's what the word "unified" means. Say what, now? They're still not unified in the legal sense? East Jerusalem is considered occupied? Yea, okay, why not. But in the realistic, facts on the ground sense - the city has been unified. okedem (talk) 21:47, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

If I appear 'condescending' it is because I work part of my day reading the history of a subject where condescension has been the basso ostinato of most discourse on the Arabs amnd Palestinians for a century, and, since I have difficulty with language that patronizes its object ('the Other') with judgments that reek of thinly veiled contempt, I naturally argue forcefully against them. Tariq like many young Wikipedians, is clearly brilliant. I only found out lately, by experience, that my perplexities in the obstinacy of some interlocutors to understand a point that is often mentioned on TV or in newspapers, are quickly clarified if I check the age of the person I am arguing with. I like everyone else, can get things wrong. But usually I get things wrong through failing memory, not through lack of knowledge. That Tariq does not realize that the phrasing he used reflects an Israeli POV (as the reactions to Obama's use of the same phrase show) and not the 'reality on the ground' merely shows an understandable lack of immersion in the specific history and literature of the subject. he put in his tuppence worth, and it turned out to be worth well, a ha'pence. That you can write, as an Israeli, that Jerusalem is unified because there are 'no walls, free movement, one continuous entity, not two separate ones' shows that, as you say, as a Tel Avivian, you don't know much about the problems native Palestinian Jerusalemites have in exercising their right to 'free movement'. Is that condescending? As you will, but a 'free city' as we understand it means right of movement, purchase of land, housing non-discrimination in driving on any road. Jerusalem is unfied for Israelis. It is certainly not unified for its Arab inhabitants. One more example, then, of the loose use of language clichés without actually thinking of the implications of those words. One more example that two many editors on your side confuse standard Israeli description of events in your region as the 'normal' description of that world. As for your questioning my phrasing 'The capital of Israel is in Jerusalem, it is impeccably grammatical. To challenge that is merely to object to the precise use of English, something which is disliked by many because it makes their mental life more complicated than they feel comfortable with. Still, cheers. Nishidani (talk) 07:34, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of discrimination, Jerusalem is no longer in two halves. Yes, even Arab Jerusalemites can travel to anywhere in Jerusalem. There are no checkpoints or borders to cross.

Forget it, this isn't part of the discussion, and we won't convince each other. I'm not a Tel-Avivian, by the way.

A city is a capital. A capital is a city. One does not reside within the other. okedem (talk) 07:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Just for the record, Meron Benvenisti, since he had a long career in Jerusalem msyoral politics, knows more about this than you and me, and would agree that your and Tariq's mention of a 'unified city' is nonsense.

‘Any data that treat the city as one political, economic, and social unit are by definition meaningless because the depiction of Jerusalem as a unified city is itself a fiction. The necessity of maintaining this fiction requires that the data be manipulated to support it. The use of numbers which are – by their very nature –“objective,” lends an air of “scientific” reliability to what is actually a way of shoring up positions dictated from abover in accordance with government policy requirements.’ Meron Benvenisti, Son of the Cypresses: Memories, Reflections, and Regrets from a Political Life, University of California Press 2007 p.86.

There are three technical terms for what is going on in Jerusalem, a policy of a 'unified city', 'divided city' and a 'shared city'. The former is the Israeli POV, and has never been, administratively, implemented (plenty of documentation on that). That is why Benvenisti and others refuse the term 'unified city' it is a political slogan denied by the bureaucratic redtape and peculiar sectorial administrative rules which dioscriminate between Arab and Israeli inhabitants. In no world capital I am familiar with are the rules governing different ethnic groups and sectors differ. Just as in no other capital of the world does part of its territory lie on, technically, foreign soil. Excuse my condescension.Nishidani (talk) 08:00, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

You have no argument with me that the unification of Jerusalem didn't really go well. Politically, economically, etc, there's little unification. But physically, there is. I can only suppose that's what Obama meant - that the two halves are no longer separated by a border, and are both under the control of one power. Anyway, I'm not his advisor nor his interpreter, so let's drop it.

By the way, I've asked this before, but no one came forward - the Jerusalem article, while a fine piece of work, is lacking in two areas - first, the culture section has almost no mention of the Arab culture in the city. Second, there's no real discussion of the meaning of this unification, what is unified and what isn't. What differences are there between the former halves of the city (and there are, don't get me wrong). This info is not missing due to any deletion, it's just that no one wrote it. Every once in a while someone complains about it - usually along the lines of - "this article is biased, why is there no Arab culture", etc. When said user is asked to write something about it himself, we never hear from them again. So if one of the users reading this has the knowledge or time to write on these subjects, please do. Just remember to be neutral, and I request that any proposed changes be posted on the talk page first, to be discussed. okedem (talk) 08:52, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

'first, the culture section has almost no mention of the Arab culture in the city. Second, there's no real discussion of the meaning of this unification'. Quite true, and commendably fair in the perception of a fault. However (sometimes this should be born in mind when thinking of intractible people like myself) this is true of virtually all articles dealing with towns, cities and locations in I/P areas. Take Hebron: it reads as though it had no Arab history, and the notable figures listed are mainly Jewish, the few Arab links lead to empty pages (Surely some Jewish editors have read the works of Yitzak Shami, a fine Hebronite writer, and can work up a page on him, and link it there?). I don't blame Israeli editors for this, it is not technically their job. But we have few Palestinian editors to fill in the gaps. I've added quite substantial amounts of information on, for example, Jewish people in Wiki whom I both admire and know something about. I only wish some editors with the knowledge and capacity to look up the relevant info on Arab historical figures and cultural life dedicated a little time to this gaping hole. After all, we are editing an encyclopedia, and owe it to the global reader to be comprehensive. Tremendous amount of knowledge is shown by too many Israeli editors in editing pages on dubious, shady, violent figures in Palestinian history. The result spurs many of 'us' to take a defensive policy on points that, were there more collaboration on the positive but ignored side of Palestinian history, would probably dwindle away overnght. Nishidani (talk) 09:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

It is just a point of view.

According to others, the city has not been unified at all but is military occupied.

Nevertheless, I think what is currently in the articles, if not perfectly neutral, should be ok for the readers.

With such reasonnings based on facts, one could add in the article that Israel is the only country in the world that chose as capital a city partially out of her country.

Ceedjee (talk) 07:07, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

No, Ceedjee, the city has been physically unified. Say we, you and me, have a small statue. It's an inheritance, and we both believe we own it. We fight over it, and the statue breaks in two. We each keep our halves. A while later, I sneak into your house, and steal the other half. I come back home, and combine the two halves, to create the whole statue again. I've reunited the statue - I've unified it. It says nothing of my right to do so, but that's just what I've done. okedem (talk) 07:36, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

So suppose you want to write a wiki article about this statue. Do you say: "the statue (unified and as a whole) is okedem's property"? I think not, that would be promoting your POV, and acknowledging that you have the right to acquire this statue and canceling Ceedjee's rights. A more neutral statement would me: "Okedem stole Ceedjee's half and declared it as his property, unified". Imad marie (talk) 08:26, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Now you're pushing the analogy was beyond its usefulness. It was only brought up for the unified notion, not the capital notion. Still, saying "Jerusalem is Israel's capital" is not akin to "Jerusalem is Israel's legal property". It just means that it serves as capital, lawfully or not. okedem (talk) 08:52, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Break 2

OK, I think all arguments have been presented here, and no more can be presented. We don't have consensus for changing the "capital" status, and also we don't have consensus that the current version of many articles are neutral about Jerusalem's status. I'm not sure where that takes us, I hope we can meet somewhere in the middle. Imad marie (talk) 20:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah, but we already have "met somewhere in the middle" on this issue. We described Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and then explained the controversies surrounding this fact. --GHcool (talk) 21:11, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi GHcool,

There are 2 misunderstandings.

In wikipedia, we are expecting consensus, not compromise.

And concensus doens't mean we agree with what is written but we agree that what is written fits with wp:principles.

The current version is more or less neutral (because both pov's on the issues are in the articles) and should satisfy the readers but there is a little bit more weight given to one pov rather than to the other.

Both sentences "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" and "Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel" are false.

First is false because, this is just a fact but this is considered legitimate by all (and the sentence oculd make believe it is 100% legitimate).

Second one is false because, if this is not considered legitimate by all, this is nevertheless the fact on the grounds and there are arguments put forward to defend this.

The facts on which *all agree* are that "Jerusalem has been chosen as its capital by Israeli government, has been proclaimed reunified by Israeli government and that these choices are not considered legitimate by most (all?) other nations.

That's all. Israeli should leave reader judge by themselves if facts are legitimate or not.

And if somebody wants to give arguments pro or contra, this can be done in the appropriate section, if all these arguments are sourced.

I am sure that the Israeli (ie our !) pov is strong and fair enough so that it can be convincing only by presenting all arguments to readers.

Ceedjee (talk) 07:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

You're leaving out the most important thing - Jerusalem is the seat of government, thus fulfilling the definition of "capital" as detailed in every dictionary. As no one presented a competing definition, there's no problem with "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel", especially when we already have footnotes and paragraphs explaining the situation.

In such topics you rarely have consensus where everyone's happy. Most phrasings are compromises between people's interpretation of the rules and the meaning of the different words. There has already been a compromise between the editors of different views here, but this is really becoming a trend in these article. Reach a compromise, wait a bit, and then re-open it, constantly pulling to one side. okedem (talk) 07:36, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

We all got the dictionary definition interpretation thing, but the current articles give undue weight to this definition, they highlight the interpretation: "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel", and then explain the other POV's later on, either in small footnotes where they are rarely read, or in later on sections. This is not neutral to me. Imad marie (talk) 08:04, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Okedem,

What you write is WP:PR. Are you sure the dictionnaries take into account the case of Jerusalem and its complexity ? (It is not often a country chose as capital a city whose a part is not in its territory...)

To respect WP:NPoV, we could only write "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" if most of WP:RS sources claim so. And it is not the case.

With such reasonnings, we could also claim Israel has set up her capital in a territory outside her country.

Israel chose Jerusalem as its capital. Israel decide to unify Jerusalem. Every agree she does that. This choice is not accepted by others. Everybody too agrees on that. All the remaining are argumentations to state one party is right and the other is wrong, which is not acceptable in wp.

Both pov are relevant because it is the capital of Israel (and so the pov of Israeli is relevant) and the other pov is relevant just because it is the remaining of the world.

Ceedjee (talk) 08:40, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I can only assume you meant WP:OR.

"Capital" is a word. Jerusalem fulfills the definition of that word. Thus it is capital. Israel's government sits in Jerusalem, that's almost the only relevant fact here (the other being Israel's designation of Jerusalem as capital). You keep forgeting that fact. None of you presented any sources with anything to contradict the presented dictionary statement of the word. okedem (talk) 08:52, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Indeed : WP:Orignial Research, not WP:Personal Research.

But no. Else, anybody can right now write : Israel is a terrorist state.

Because a part of what he does comply with the dictionnary definition of terrorism.

I don't forget anything. It is not the capital, it is the designated-capital. It is you who do not want this nuance to be added because if this is not added, it denies the fact that there could be a polemic about this issue.

As I said, current article and definition is good for me because the reader can find the information. But all this discussion looks like a pilpul.

Take care if somebody comes and writes Israel is... Israel does... ending the sentence with a controversial word, I don't know how you will argue what he does is not right, even if this is not nice for Israel...

In fact, we could write. According to the dictionnary definition Israel's capital is Jerusalem but the designation of Jerusalem as her capital has not been recognized by other nations. As well as we could write, according to the dictionnary definition of terror, Israel's army practices state terrorism...

Note nobody has to provide anything to reject a WP:OR ;-). On the contrary : where are the WP:RS sources that claim "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" (as if it was an obvious 100% true fact...) and who do not nuance "Israel chose Jerusalem as her capital". And if this is the same, I am sure the reader can make the link alone.

Good luck :-)

Ceedjee (talk) 10:33, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

No source disputes the fact the Jerusalem is the seat of government. That makes it the capital. Sorry, using words requires using definitions. "Designated-capital" might be okay it the government was somewhere else, but the country decided to pick a new capital, but has yet to move the government. This is not the case. (Oh, and Israel's actions don't fit the definition of terrorism). okedem (talk) 10:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

You ignore all the rationals given to you, and keep on repeating the same argument: "dictionary definition". Why is it hard for you to consider other arguments? Why do you reject giving more weight to other POVs? That is not neutral to me. Imad marie (talk) 17:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Atleast four arguments have been presented:

• East Jerusalem is occupied by Israel.
• Jerusalem's situation is unique, and too complex for a dictionary to handle.
• The mainstream sources (media and encyclopedias) do not state that Jerusalem is the capital of Irael.
• Most of the world countries (if not all) do not recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital, and choose not to locate their embassies in it.

All those arguments have been ignored, and you want to stick to the dictionary definition regadless of other POV's. Imad marie (talk) 18:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Plus the fact that Okedem can't bring a source to show that a nation's capital can be located by fiat on territory not belonging to that nation.

Plus the oft-cited 'seat of government' argument often raised by okedem ('No source disputes the fact the Jerusalem is the seat of government. That makes it the capital')is demonstrably false, because as Peter Cohen pointed out, the example of Holland (Hague/Amsterdam) gives the lie to the connection estabished by a dictionary) between 'seat of government' and capital, so that is not a sufficient condition. One could add that in political geography, there are several theories of 'capital', from Mark Jefferson's, ‘The Law of the Primate City' Geographical Review, (1939) 29:226-32 to Colin Flint and Peter Taylor's Political Geography: World-Economy, Nation-State and Locality,5 th ed. Pearson Education, 2006 pp.129ff, who have a tripartite model of defining 'capital city' (European.core), Third World (periphery); political 'company town' (American), none of which seem to fit Jerusalem. The case is unique, and that is why Ravpapa's suggestion is the sensible compromise.

Nishidani (talk) 19:04, 6 June 2008 (UTC) (outdent)

• The Accusation: "East Jerusalem is occupied by Israel [and, therefore, Jerusalem isn't the capital of Israel]"
• The Reality: Jerusalem was the capital of Israel since 1948. It remains the capital today. The fact that Israel captured East Jerusalem from Jordan during the 1967 war has as much to do with Jerusalem's status as capital as Israel's capture of the Golan Heights or the Sinai or the Gaza Strip. This argument suffers from the red herring fallacy.
• The Accusation: "Jerusalem's situation is unique, and too complex for [the] dictionary [definition of the word 'capital'] to handle [and therefore, Jerusalem isn't the capital of Israel]."
• The Reality: Although Jerusalem's situation is unique, it is not so complex that we would have to censor facts. It is important to get the meaning of words right. This is what dictionary definitions are for. If a thing satisfies all of the requirements entailed in the definition of a word, then that word must be applied to that thing. As I said above, Jerusalem's complexities are such that it may be necessary to explain some of the more subtle details. Imad marie seems to be saying with this argument that to resolve the complexities of Jerusalem, we must be more ambiguous, and not only more ambiguous, but more ambiguous in the direction of censorship. This is clearly counterproductive.
• The Accusation: "The mainstream sources (media and encyclopedias) do not state that Jerusalem is the capital of Irael [sic] [and therefore [and therefore, Jerusalem isn't the capital of Israel]."
• The Reality: Another red herring, and also, somewhat of a negative proof. If they don't state that Jerusalem is the capital, what do they state is the capital of Israel?
• The Accusation: "Most of the world countries (if not all) do not recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital, and choose not to locate their embassies in it [and therefore, Jerusalem isn't the capital of Israel]."
• The Reality: Yet another red herring. Capitals don't require foreign embassies to be located within their borders. Capitals also don't require igloos to be located within their borders. Imad marie's argument may as well be that Jerusalem isn't the capital of Israel because Jerusalem has no igloos.
• The Accusation: "[T]he fact that Okedem can't bring a source to show that a nation's capital can be located by fiat on territory not belonging to that nation [gives weight toward the position that Jerusalem isn't the capital of Israel]."
• The Reality: This is a negative proof. I doubt Okedem can't bring a source to show that Santa Claus exists. Does that lead anybody to believe that Santa Claus does exist? --GHcool (talk) 21:03, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I know that the format accusation/reality/fact is standard in hasbara formulas for addressing foreigners and naive readers to disabuse them of disinformation' seeded maliciously by recalcitrant disbelievers in the stateparty line, but could I prevail on you to dispense with it? It is very clumsy in here, and is best suited to USA Today/Fox News/Frontpage-type venues. Here we are actually reasoning on disputed facts and the meaning of a statement.

Your remark re Jerusalem as Israel's capital underlines the point. The UN made it clear in no uncertain terms as a condition of Israel's recognition that the city was to be under international control. Israel only slowly chipped away at this. The city that was its capital was West Jerusalem, not Jerusalem. In usage Israel called its West Jerusalem 'Jerusalem', but this linguistic sleight of hand does not alter the fact that Israel's 'Jerusalem' down to 1967 was not the 'Jerusalem' on historical or linguistic definition. I gave evidence for the fact that its own foreign ministry (whose location is one of the seats of government defining 'capital') was only relocated to Jerusalem in 1953, and led to vigorously protest my Israel's major backers. The formula you are pushing has gained some leverage over decades because it is constantly pushed, to the point no one objects to it with the vigor nations objected to it for decades earlier. As usual, the trick is to win a point by sheer persistent attrition (I know this will be quoted against me).

What has accusation got to do with a challenge to a statement which is factually misleading. If Jerusalem is united by Israel de facto, but part of its territory does not belong to Israel de jure, that part of the 'united Jerusalem' which is extraterritorial in law to the state of Israel cannot constitute part of the state. The state may declare Jerusalem is its capital in its own terms, but those terms define land not belonging to the state as state lands (East Jerusalem' which is, in international law, 'under belligerent occupation'. No country in the world is allowed to stake its capital on foreign soil. To say that is to accuse no one. It is simply to point out what many in the Israeli-Jewish community apparently fail to understand because it, quite understandably, believes the oft-repeated declaration of the State without asking what that declaration means operatively, i.e. what the words 'Jerusalem is the capital of the state of Israel' mean when measured against the reality. You all say this is a moral point. It isn't. It is a point in law, accepted by all 180 odd nations bar two as the reason why the Israeli declaration is unacceptable.

Okedem asked us to bring a source for his point. By par condicio we asked him to bring a source for his point. We can't, he can't, therefore the two cancel each other out.

Your reality is not the reality others outside of your belief-circle perceive. You all harped on 'unified city', until I cited Meron Benvenisti, who says that is a fiction.

‘Any data that treat the city as one political, economic, and social unit are by definition meaningless because the depiction of Jerusalem as a unified city is itself a fiction. The necessity of maintaining this fiction requires that the data be manipulated to support it. The use of numbers which are – by their very nature –“objective,” lends an air of “scientific” reliability to what is actually a way of shoring up positions dictated from abover in accordance with government policy requirements.’ Meron Benvenisti, Son of the Cypresses: Memories, Reflections, and Regrets from a Political Life, University of California Press 2007 p.86.

Okedem harped on 'seat of government' is defined as a capital, on the strength of a dictionary, despite Peter Cohen's early example of the Hague/Amsterdam situation, which gives the lie to the precision of that dictionary's definition.

No one here is responsible for the legal mess in this definitional ambiguity over so many terms related to I/P issues causes. It is a natural consequence of the failure to achieve a legal agreement between the three (UN) or two parties. It is unacceptable to the Palestinians, as Mahmud Abbas made clear once more yesterday, for anyone to refer to Jerusalem as a united city, indivisible, since this insinuates Israel's unilateral definitions and annexations are thereby recognized. In the Palestinian view, and a good part of Jerusalem is Palestinian, that part of the city is not part of the state of Israel, and they do not live in the state of Israel, even if Israel insists that they live in the capital of Israel's state. How can they, who live and are born in what Israel regards as unified Jerusalem, be part of the state of Israel if their very residency renewals and property rights can be arbitrararily cancelled or blocked by bureaucratic whim, since Israel refuses to actually administer the city as a unified entity, but makes endless discriminations between non-Israeli and Israeli inhabitants?.

Palestinians in (West)Jerusalem are not allowed the same rights as Palestinian Arabs born on Israeli territory outside of Jerusalem. They are permanent residents (whose residency can be revoked if they go abroad to study, for example, in certain circumstances, sdince in Israeli law residency is a privilege that can be revoked). They are denied citizenship (even the Supreme Court of Israel denies Palestinians born in what Israel deems to be Israeli territory (annexed East Jerusalem), Israeli citizenship). Therefore Israel does not consider Palestinian people born in West Jerusalem to be members of the state of Israel, but at the same time defines West Jerusalem as part of the state of Israel. This is absolutely bizarre, one of the thousand absurdities of the place. Now these Palestinians are told to read Wiki on Jerusalem, and find out they are born in the capital of Israel, but are technically 'immigrants', though they necver immigrated there. All national laws, except Israel's, say if you are born in an area defined as the part of that nation, esp. its capital city, and your family has lived there for generations, you are ipso facto a member of that nation. Another example of the fact that, in reality, the word 'Jerusalem' is used for convenience, meaning the capital of a state for one purpose (assuming territorial rights over non-Israeli territory) and meaning only East Jerusalem when it comes to dealing with the status of Palestinians, who are deemed not to be part of, citizens of, the state of Israel because they are born in West Jerusalem.

The statement 'Jerusalem is the capital of Israel' is just that Israel's POV. It is so simple and innocuous, usage has caught on, but in so far as there are Palestinian parts of Jerusalem that do not form part of the state of Israel, it is obvious that this formulation, though recurrent, cancels the Palestinian right to have their POV represented in Wiki. You are involved in a violation of NPOV in allowing into an article on a city a formulation of its identity which represents Israel's POV, and cancels the Palestinian POV. And all that needs to be done is to accept Rabpapa's sensible suggestion. Or any variation. The capital of Israel is in Jerusalem. The fact that a locative particle is held to ransom is proof if any that politics is what is stalling consensus, and not mine. Language, as Bacon said in the 59th aphorism of his Novum Organum, manipulates its users, and those who press this equivocal language look like they are very much aware of the utility of this subliminal power of words Nishidani (talk) 22:16, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

All very interesting indeed and I agree with most of it, but it is also all a red herring when applied to the question of whether Jerusalem is the capital of Israel or not. As explained above, Jerusalem is the capital of Israel despite the unity (or lack thereof) of East and West Jerusalem. Jerusalem is the capital of Israel despite what other countries recognize. Jerusalem is the capital despite any injustices Israel may or may not have committed to Palestinians. Jerusalem is the capital of Israel despite the fact that it lacks any igloos. --GHcool (talk) 22:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Nope... This is what the Israeli's think, and what the Israeli government thinks. Imad marie (talk) 06:03, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'll put this in simple, logical terms.

Okedem is on record as stating that

'By the very definition of capital - "seat of government", Jerusalem is the de-facto capital '.

The logical form of this statement is, syllogistically:

(a) A capital is where the seat of government is.

(b) The seat of government of Israel is Jerusalem.

(c) Therefore, Jerusalem is the capital of Israel.

Are we agreed that this correctly represents Okedem's point?

If so (and I have cited his words), then, Okedem is wrong, not on moral, ethical as opposed to factual or reality grounds, but on logical grounds. Because

The proposition (a)is not correct, since some governments, i.e. Holland, have their seat of government in one city, and their capitals in another. According to Okedem's proposition, the Hague, as seat of Holland's government, is the capital of Holland, which it is not, since Amsterdam is its capital.

Therefore, the definition Okedem uses for his proposition is defective. In consequence, the syllogistic deductions made from his demonstrably false premise are incorrect.

As a result, one cannot, with this flawed assumption, draw the conclusion Okedem draws from it.

Since he has only this definition (the OED cites another, = capital as the 'head-city' of a nation or state, nothing about seat of government), it is insufficient to substantiate what is not a description of reality, but a POV of the Israeli government.

A nation's legitimacy is both internal, and external. The external legitimacy derives from recognition by other constituted nations. Israel has constantly pursued foreign recognition of its POV that Jerusalem is its capital (amply documented above). Almost no nation, despite five decades of intense pushing, has recognized Israel's assertion that Jerusalem is its capital. They show that disrecognition by locating their embassies in Tel Aviv.

The statement that 'Jerusalem is Israel's capital' is not acceptable in an encyclopedia that aspires to objectivity and political neutrality because it denotes a legal reality Israel aspires to accomplish, but which it has not achieved, a reality that depends on negotiations with another state, or semi-state actors, i.e., it denotes the idea that Israel's unilateral annexation of all of Jerusalem is valid. On that incorporation of alien territory, 'under belligerent occupation' rests the 'objective' truth-claim in the assertion implicit in the phrase 'Jerusalem is the capital of Israel'.

In historic usage, certainly down to 1967, in asserting that Jerusalem was its capital, Israel implicitly referred by 'Jerusalem' to that part of the city (the West) it won in 1948. Israeli usage historically, until 1967, referred not to the whole of Jerusalem (an absurdity, since Jordan held the othe rhalf), but to half of Jerusalem. In writing 'Jerusalem is the capital of Israel' historically, Israel was simply stating 'Jerusalem = Israeli occupied West Jerusalem', which therefore gives the lie to GHCool's assertion about 1948.

A state cannot have its capital on non-state land, as the use of 'Jerusalem' as 'unified Jerusalem' asserts in the Israeli proposition.

Despite the universal currency of this term in Israeli literature, and its widespread drift into slipshod foreign usage, it is factually therefore untrue. East Jerusalem's status has not yet been legally determined in international law. It cannot therefore constitute, as this proposition implies, a pre-existing part of the state of Israel.

Israel's own legal behaviour demonstrates that it does not consider East Jerusalem (part of its 'unified Jerusalem') legally part of Israel, since Israeli law accepts as citizens Arabs born in Israel, but Israeli law does not accept as citizens Arabs born in West Jerusalem. It therefore, in law, does not apply to East Jerusalem Israeli laws governing Israeli territory and citizens. It does however assert, in contradiction of its own legal behaviour regarding Jerusalemite Arabs, that they are part of Israel, uniquely, in the proposition 'Jerusalem is the capital of Israel'.

The only intelligent way to represent the facts objectively therefore is to state the obvious NPOV solution, which Ravpapa himself hinted at, and which I reformulated as The capital of Israel is in Jerusalem. To say otherwise is to allow to pass as an objective fact a contentious POV which elides Palestinian and international challenges to Israel's unilateral assertion. Wiki must be scrupulously neutral between two parties, and Jerusalem's status has two interpretations (Israel's) and (the Palestinians'). You are all trying to pass off as 'neutral' a statement that the whole world has regarded as contentious (see documentation above). The contentiousness is reflected in this editorial dispute, and therefore a compromise must be reached to avoid a unilateral imposition by one party, as Ceedjee, a strong pro-Israeli editor, and Ravpapa, a man of harmonic rationality, have both recognized.Nishidani (talk) 07:41, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Nishidani, you are balantly misrepresenting my claims, to make it appear as though the Netherlands example is some wonderful find to support your point. Far from it. As anyone can easily see, I've mentioned the Netherlands example several times on this page. Almost every time I talked about capital being the seat of government, I mentioned the other criteria, which is being declared capital by the country, and mentioned the Netherlands as the only example of this I'm aware of. So don't pretend you found some flaw to undermine my words - I was the one who brought it up. I also said, several times, that this works just fine - Jerusalem is both the seat of government, and the declared capital, and so there's no difference, no issue like the one of the Netherlands.

A capital cannot be in a city. A capital is a city. Simple linguistic issue.

Regarding sources - you keep claiming things like embassies, international recognition, or legal right, have anything to do with "capital", but have been completely unable to show sources for that. I've shown that the definition of capital makes no such demands. I don't, and can't, present sources that say "X is not a requirement". That's like asking you prove you don't have a sister. You can't prove a negative, you know. You trying to equate the two types of sources is absurd. okedem (talk) 11:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't misrepresent your claims, and there is nothing 'blatant' about my arguments.

Since the Netherlands is, in your own words, a 'special case', why the objection to those who say Jerusalem is also a 'special case'. You are being inconsistent. Whatever undermines your definition of a capital is 'exceptional'. You repeat, in your argument, a claim that is, as shown, not sustainable. So at least drop the 'seat of government' example. That leaves you, correct me if I am wrong, with the claim that every state has the right to decide where its capital is. True, but, the corollary is, no state in history, other than Israel, has ever staked its state capital on land that does not belong to it. (I.e., Israel is 'exceptional', just like the Netherlands, and precisely because of this, the language required has to, as the Netherlands articles do, remark on the anomaly, not assert, against history, a misleading piece of phrasing). You all like analogies, which can serve any imaginative purpose. I accept evidence and logic. You have no evidence for the idea that a state's capital can be located on land that does not legally belong to that state.

'A capital cannot be in a city. A capital is a city. Simple linguistic issue.'

No, as far as I know, this is your personal opinion. You have insisted on sources for the claims people like myself make, and they have been duly provided. For your own claims, you source your own opinion, as though it were ex cathedra. Unless you can source this, you have no ground to stand on. And as for linguistics, I too am a native speaker, and trained in that discipline, and find nothing objectionable, especially given the ambiguities the commonplace phrasing creates, in that formulation.Nishidani (talk) 13:37, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Again, you're creating a straw man, and valiantly defeating him. In almost countries all countries, the seat of government is designated the capital. In the Netherlands those are two different cities. The Netherlands chose to designate another city as their capital - their right - it's their capital, not anyone else's. A country can choose to designate a city their capital, even though it's not the seat of government, since the it's their obvious right. No country can dictate to another the location of their capital. The fact that we respect Holland's choice in this is proof of that, and proof we should respect Israel's choice, especially when there's perfect agreement with the "seat" criteria. I have consistantly repeated these two criteria (seat, designation. Those two are the ones that appear in defintions, by the way), and consistantly explained the case of the Netherlands. With Jerusalem we don't have that issue, so the question of capital becomes even easier. The seat of government and the designated capital are one and the same.

You'll have to explain your "in" claim. To me it seems as badly phrased as "France's most populous city is in Paris". okedem (talk) 13:59, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah, how wikipedians love to enlist the 'strawmen' trope! I prefer Eliot's 'hollow men' heads full of straw, whispering meaninglessly! Can we tizzy up our metaphors, this is getting boring? No. Nothing you say replies to my points. No country is allowed to plunk its capital on territory not belonging to that country. All countries can plunk their capitals where they like, sure, as long as they do not plunk their capitals on foreign land, which leads to war, terrorism, and international legal bingles. The Netherlands is an exception. Israel is an exception. Where exceptions exist you cannot explain them by reference to general formulae, since we are dealing with exceptions to the nigh universal rule. This is simple, elementary logic and you consistently violate it, apparently because you approve of the formulation proposed unilaterally by your state.

Compare the language of the Wiki article on East Berlin.

East Berlin was the name given to the eastern part of Berlin between 1949 and 1990. It consisted of the Soviet sector of Berlin that was established in 1945. The American, British and French sectors became West Berlin, a de facto part of West Germany. Despite its status as part of an occupied city, East Berlin was claimed as the capital of East Germany. . . The East German government referred to East Berlin simply as "Berlin" or often "Berlin, Hauptstadt der DDR" (Berlin, capital of the GDR).

An occupying power (Israel/Soviet Union) called part of an historic city (West Jerusalem/East Berlin) by its full name (Jerusalem/Berlin), and referred to that full name as its 'capital'. This is exactly the situation of Jerusalem to 1967. So we have a perfect parallel to the standard usage of Jerusalem = West Jerusalem/Berlin =East Berlin. At that time all Israel's seats of government lay in' West Jerusalem. When Israel, solecistically repeated the mantra, 'The capital of Israel is Jerusalem from 1948 to 1967, historically that Jerusalem was understood to refer to the section of the city to which Israel had won title, West Jerusalem. Of this there can be absolutely no doubt that in linguistic history, 'Jerusalem' meant 'in Western Jerusalem', and the phrase 'The capital of israel is Jerusalem' meant contextually 'The capital of Israel is in Jerusalem'. This is the origin of the phrase. Israel never asserted for those two decades that its capital lay in a city including East Jerusalem, for the simple reason that it had no claim to that area. West Germany though it had West Berlin, never moved to claim it as its capital, until, with the dissolution of east Germany, it won formal title to that territory (I happen to know one of the NATO ambassadors who helped draft the final papers on this). In 1980 Israel unilaterally annexed, as occupying power, the other half, and then asserted its capital and seat of government (all to the West side) was in a unified Jerusalem, in violation of the 1948 UN conditions for recognizing Israel. The Wiki article on this is quite clear. It uses the word 'claim' as does Encarta on Jerusalem. Again, all that this discussion shows is that you are trying to pass off a national POV as appropriately neutral for a global encyclopedia that keeps at arms length, everywhere else, attempts to violate NPOV rules.Nishidani (talk) 14:13, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, your arguments fail to convince. Only East Berlin was physically in the hands of the DDR. The whole of Jerusalem is physically in the hands of Israel, and the whole of it functions as capital. You keep returning to the "right" or "title" claim, but it remains as irrelevant always. I repeat, the whole concept of "territory that belongs to a country" is a very new concept. No countries had difficulties with changing their borders by war. The whole concept of "not yours by international law" doesn't go back very far, and is still vague. As Jerusalem, for instance, doesn't actually belong to anyone according to the UN plans (the last actual sovereign there was the Ottoman Empire), there's serious difficulty invoking such claims.

I understand your "in" phrasing better now, but it's still badly worded. If you don't know the exact meaning, its just not English.

Fine, enough of this. We've made our positions clear. While I use the literal, facts on the ground interpretation, you use the legal, "formal title", international recognition interpretation.

This issue is not new here. To solve it before, we added a footnote explaining the situation in Israel, and an entire paragraph in the lead of Jerusalem. That was a compromise position. The problem with compromise positions here, is that a short time after a compromise is reached, new editors (or old ones) try to pull the equilibrium further to their side, using the old compromise as a starting point for further compromises from the other side. Unfortunately, it seems this method of action is almost always pursued by one groups of editors, pulling the equilibrium towards one side. This type of behavior severely hampers any chance for real cooperative work, and any will to compromise. Frankly, it's unbearable. What's the point of any compromise, of any new phrasing, when I know that in a few months the whole cycle will repeat itself? okedem (talk) 14:48, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

There is an edit war going on in Jerusalem article... Aside from this, Okedem, as I said before, you being an Israeli editor, you hold the Israeli POV in your thoughts, and me being a Palestinian editor, I hold the Palestinian POV in my thoughts, this is an nationalism dispute for sure. Nothing that was said, or will be said will ever change your mind. Jerusalem is more significant than a small friendly discussion going here. I'm thinking of WP:DR now, maybe WP:RFAR. Imad marie (talk) 15:19, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

No, this is exactly what I protest against. I suppose I should have done what so many others here do, and never revealed my nationality in the first place. Enough with this silly categorization. I've explained, in detail, where the difference of opinion comes from. At least for me, it's not due to any nationalistic sentiment, or some POV I was raised with. It's due to giving more weight to the facts on the ground, using the "capital" definition, than to the questions of sovereignty and international recognition. Don't tag me or categorize me, and don't claim everyone here is engaged in some nationalistic dispute. It's insulting and counter-productive. okedem (talk) 15:28, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Nothing insulting in what I said, we are all here to improve wikipedia content the way we think it's better. And I think not many will disagree that this is a nationalism dispute. Imad marie (talk) 15:56, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, it is insulting, in that it reduces thinking human beings into nationalistic automatons, and reduces well thought-out opinions to mere national POVs. As I said before, I have so special interest in Jerusalem's role as capital, or in Israel's control over East Jerusalem or the West Bank. I argue for a certain phrasing because I consider it the most accurate, not because it reflects well on my country. okedem (talk) 17:08, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

'Sorry, your arguments fail to convince.'

Not need for apologies, except for the fact you failed to complete the sentence in its correct form, since you omit the obligatory 'me'.

No, I think your objections nationalistic. Most of us suffer from the bias of an ethnic or national background. You cannot see the obvious problem, but other pro-Israeli/Israeli editors have seen the problem, accepted that a compromise could be worked out. You have shown an extremely intractible ultramontane defence of a phrasing many respectable sources of public information refuse to use (BBC, Encarta etc). They have very good reasons for doing so, and the fact that you can't see them suggests, since you clearly write in good faith, suggest you are confused, in your embrace of a very naive belief in 'real facts' (facts on the ground) as opposed to what the language used to describe those real facts actually implies, connotatively and denotatively. I've proven that the origin of the contested phrase 'The capital of Israel is Jerusalem' dates back to 1948, and that it was used for two decades with the sense that 'Jerusalem' was West Jerusalem. I see you cannot confute this, because you ignore it, perhaps uncomfortably. The fact that Israel conquered and then annexed the city, and tried to shift the meaning to imply 'all Jerusalem' and establish another 'fact on the ground' is irrelevant. What you are doing, objectively, is to endorse this national political project, and determine the reality of Jerusalem by linguistic sleight-of-hand. You say you have no such intention, but that is how I read it. Your refusal to budge, when others, in your own community and of similar beliefs, can see things as outsiders see them, is proof that you are caught up in a national mindset, which you confuse with the objective facts of the world, presumably contested only by thickheaded anti-empirical polemicists (like myself).Nishidani (talk) 17:20, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I understand Nishidani's thing about 1948 vs. 1967 meaning about the word "Jerusalem," but its still a red herring. "Jerusalem is the capital" is a true statement whether we are saying the statement in 1948 or in 1967 or in 2008. The meaning of the word "Jerusalem" may have changed, but the meaning of the word "capital" did not. --GHcool (talk) 18:53, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I know all about red herrings, since I dip mine in a sauce of that colour, but the category is inappropriate. Were it a red-herring you would have to explain to us why all the world's spokesmen dealing with I/P problems are trained not to use in public declarations they phrase you and Okedem defend. I take your reservations seriously GHcool because you are one of the very few strong pro-Israeli editors I have encountered who will admit on occasion that the other side is right in a dispute, if enough leg-work is done according to the proper criteria to establish the case. The distinction you make over variance in meaning is not germane however. The meaning of a phrase lies in its construal, i.e. what does it mean. I'm afraid I was trained in a school that taught words and their combinations offer several interpretations. In article writing, the rule is, avoid ambiguous language. The phrase Okedem defended is and was ambiguous. True, Israel's FO, official spokesmen and hasbara agents by sheer persistence have managed by decades of repetition, to get users of English, in Israel as around the English world, to think, by not thinking, that there is no ambiguity, or to ignore the implications of the wording. But encyclopedias don't usually allow slipshod language that leads to false impressions, particularly if they are politically loaded, and this is what we have here, s endlessly demonstrated on several levels. The only reason for retaining that expression is that, one has succeeded in getting it into Wiki (not into most serious books and encyclopedias), and that is a political victory in the propaganda war. I don't therefore expect any Israeli or pro-Israeli editor to side with anyone who questions it. That would be self-defeating, a betrayal of a national interest, which they do perfectly well to defend, since that is a democratic right (even if it cancels out others). For this is not about reality, but about defending language which gives a nice advantage politically to an Israeli POV, whatever the subjective intentions of those, like yourself and Okedem, who defend it. I think most accept it simply because it seems obviously true. What is obvious is very rarely true, for the simple fact that one of the things about obviousness is that no one is prompted to think about it. It's obvious that the sun rises. . .until 20,000 years later, someone thought about it.Nishidani (talk) 20:21, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, the claim that serious books and encyclopedias don't call Jerusalem the capital is false. I just checked The Continuum Political Encyclopedia of the Middle East, which is incredibly succinct on Jerusalem's status: "[Jerusalem is the c]apital of the State of Israel though not recognized as such by most of the international community" (491). This is the first sentence of the encyclopedia's entry under "Jerusalem." By coincidence, I have to go to my local public library today to return a book. I'll check more encyclopedias when I get there and I imagine that those encyclopedias will say more or less the same thing.

Secondly, I agree with you that the semantics of the word "Jerusalem" are important. Perhaps I can be swayed to elaborate on the pre- and post-1967 meaning of the word "Jerusalem." The article could say something to the effect of the following: "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, although before 1967, Israel only had control over West Jerusalem. After Israel conquered East Jerusalem from Jordan in the Six-Day War, Israel gained control over all of Jerusalem." The point is that the meaning of "Jerusalem" has expanded, but the meaning of "capital" has not changed. --GHcool (talk) 20:47, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Addendum: I just came back from the library and checked every relevant reference book they had on world history/geography. The reference books that explicitly denote Jerusalem as the capital of Israel include The World Almanac and Book of Facts 2007 (p. 785), The Statesman's Yearbook (2005 ed., p. 939), TIME Almanac 2005 with Information Please (p. 797), The Concise Oxford Dictionary of World Religions (p. 285), The World Book Encyclopedia (Vol. 11, p. 94a), and Atlas of World Geography (Rand McNally: 2000, p. 44). Many of the above give state that most countries' embassies are in Tel Aviv, but most of them simply identify the capital of Israel as Jerusalem just as they identify the capital of the United States as Washington, D.C. --GHcool (talk) 00:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

It's a worthy thing to have done that legwork, and I am not surprised the RS you cite state that fact. I don't doubt that the capital of Israel is Jerusalem. I am merely pointing out that 'Jerusalem' in that statement denotes historically complex realities. As you allow, 1949-1967, in historic usage, Jerusalem denoted 'West Jerusalem'. With regard to 1967-2008, since Israel has not annexed East Jerusalem, it is in both Israeli and international law not de jure a part of the state of Israel. (See Ian Lustick below). Since it is not part of the state of Israel, the phrase 'The capital of Israel is Jerusalem' still means, denotatively (in terms of construal of the meaning of the word as measured against the factual reality), that the 1949-1967 connotation of 'Jerusalem' as West Jerusalem still pertains (despite rhetoric. It remains a weasel wording), for the simple reason that no capital in the history of the world is sited partially on property not belonging to that state. Secondly, I will remark also that whereas the The Continuum Political Encyclopedia of the Middle East source, as you cite it, has absolutely no problem in qualifying immediately after its standard definition of the location of Israel's capital, that this is not recognized, Wiki editors bridle at this, and want a footnote, a link, or clarifications further down. That is what I and others cannot understand, the persistence in cueing the text so that an ambiguous fact stands alone, without semantic qualification. That you are amenable to some reflection and suggestions on how to surmount the impasse is once against proof of your rigour, and I hope some inch of compromise, rather than a rigid stand-off between defence of a textual fait accompli that looks partial, and a querlous remonstration by those representing, as editors, the legitimate views of the other party, can be worked out. I don't think Wiki editing should mimic the eternal stasis that troubles the political negotiations typical of that region, which favour the de facto because establishing a de jure clarity is politically intractable. Regards Nishidani (talk) 10:12, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Nishidani, I have been known to compromise on occasion. I wouldn't mind a compromise here. Thing is - we already had a compromise - which you are now opening up.

How can you ask anyone to work for a compromise, when we all know that in a few short weeks or months, some other editor will complain about neutrality, and will take the compromise to be the starting point for new discussions, always pulling in the, so-called, pro-Palestinian direction? I'm serious here - compromises are great, but it's becoming extremely tiring to come back to these discussions every time. I'm sick of compromises being abused as steps in a full-scale move. Editors know they can't make some changes in one step, so they initiate discussions, make compromises, and start again, working towards their ends. So tell me - how do you solve that? okedem (talk) 12:13, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Nishidani, don't analyze my motives. It's rude and risible. "a betrayal of a national interest"? How does that even make sense, given what I've explained in detail regarding my personal opinions? I accept your different point of view, and explained where our differences come from. You, on the other hand, insist upon not respecting other people's opinions, dismissing them as "nationalistic" POVs. This is in extremely poor taste. Learn to respect people with different opinions. Your tactic clearly shows you believe anyone who's objective will reach the same conclusion as you, meaning anyone who doesn't share your opinions is obviously biased, probably for his country.

Regarding compromises - I've explained why they're problematic. Even if we find a great compromise now, in a few weeks or months someone else will complain, again, and we'll start this over, and again a compromise will be reached, pulling the phrasings in one direction, always. A lovely method of operation. I say again - there's already a footnote, a paragraph, and extensive discussion of this in the articles. These do well to prevent confusion. I see no reason to add to them, and don't accept your interpretation. okedem (talk) 08:46, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

By the way, "The capital of Israel is in Jerusalem" seems to be a truly original creation, as I've been able to find no instances of it anywhere online. okedem (talk) 08:51, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

For the record, and for onlookers. I have once more stumbled over the linguistic minefield of this area, and lost a foot of space in the several miles of comment I provided. I used the word annexation as though it were a fact. Okedem, I see, also repeated this idea, in remarking:-

'And I repeat what I said above - Israel controls Jerusalem, and has annexed East Jerusalem.'

I assume some responsibility for Okedem's error, since I appeared to have primed it by repeating a clichè many propagandists on both sides have circulated.

I have been referred overnight to a seminal article on Israeli law regarding East Jerusalem, which I have now read closely, and the conclusion by one of the major academic authorities on I/P issues, Ian Lustick, is that the Israeli government has never, despite much informal propaganda, legally declared that it has annexed (sipuach) East Jerusalem. The area is in a legal limbo, and is not part of Israel in Israeli law, as opposed to being subject to administrative law. Ian S. Lustick, 'Has Israel Annexed East Jerusalem?', Middle East Policy Council Journal Volume V, January 1997, Number 1 Nishidani (talk) 09:54, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Since you so throughly repeat the position that we're not here to represent Israeli POV, I do say "annex", as that is the de-facto situation, and has been called so by the Israeli Supreme Court, recognizing Israel's avoidance of the word, but saying it's what it is. okedem (talk) 10:04, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

There is no such thing as a de facto annexation. You appear to like the word de facto, because it sounds like it is testimony to the truth. You haven't had the time to read Lustick's article, which cites a very large number of laws, court rulings, that indicate the contrary to what you assert. So I will reply when enough time has expired to indicate you've done your homework. We are obliged to inform ourselves thoroughly, and not argue reflexively.Nishidani (talk) 10:16, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Tell that to the Supreme Court. I've read plenty of article about it, and the opinions vary widely. My opinion is that Israel's action can be called annexation, seeing as how Israel has applied its system of laws and civilian government to that area, incorporating it with West Jerusalem. You don't share that view - bless you. It has nothing to do with discussion here. okedem (talk) 12:06, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Uh, just a private word with you. Supreme courts do not determine state acts like 'annexation'. Annexation is a formal act by a state, which accompanies the practice with a specific law. The Supreme Court has likened what the Government does to annexation, but the interpretation has no value in regard to the actual legal situation of the Israeli government's behaviour. If you don't understand the ABC of these things, you won't understand anything else, as is shown by the remark,'Israel has applied its system of laws and civilian government to that area', which only shows me you haven't the patience to read Lustick's article, because he documents precisely from the legal history that Israel has not applied its system of laws to that area' (had it, all those born in West Jerusalem would have Israeli citizenship). That brefusal to budge, the persistence of uninformed prejudices that reflect newspaper knowledge and not technical knowledge, prompted my remarks earlier on nationalism. I will explain what I mean by a chance ancedote of these days. Yesterday the name of Max Scheler came up in conversation, and today, recalling it I checked the wiki page. At a glance one could see that it was written by a Catholic of a certai ideological persuasion. Someone like myself, from the outside, will note that immediately. Perhaps it won't at all be evident to the person who drafted the page, since he loves his subject and works within the confines of a particular interpretative tradition. That is what I find here. And that is why I assume good faith in many editors whose approach I find nonetheless ethnically appropriative of a subject, and vigorously defensive of a national interest. Anyone who edits in a way consonant with an identifiable state-political orthodoxy, is not editing according to a scrupulous conscience concerning the objective criteria required to establish content for a global encyclopedia. All of the opinions here cleave to a public state position, and that is why, rather than being a reproval, my remarks were a prompt to make you reflect, and ask you to think for yourself, and therefore for wiki's good, something that inevitably implies a certain wariness when one finds one's 'opinions' to be identical with those of a given political or national party. I'm afraid the Grand Prix is now running, and I must be off to watch it.Nishidani (talk) 17:18, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

1. My remark regarding the Supreme Court was a reply to your remark: "There is no such thing as a de facto annexation". There is, and what Israel did can be considered as such, which is why the courts have often called the situation by that term.
2. I've read Lustig's article. Interesting read, however, as he himself said, "Nor am I claiming that there is one and only one possible meaning to terms like "annexation" or "sovereignty." I simply wish to show that from an Israeli perspective the legal and political status of expanded East Jerusalem is not the settled and deeply embedded constitutional question that most assume it is." I've read plenty of other analysis articles stating the situation is, despite Israel's denials, a full blown annexation.
3. "had it, all those born in West Jerusalem would have Israeli citizenship" (I assume you meant East Jerusalem) - There's no direct relation between Israel applying its laws somewhere, and citizenship of people being born there. Israel, unlike the US, doesn't give citizenship to anyone born in its territory. A child of a non-citizen remain a non-citizen. Children of citizens, born in East Jerusalem, do get citizenship. The relationship, if you wish, is indirect - according to the article, one of the signs of an annexation is imposing citizenship on the population in the territory. So had an annexation, according to Lusting, occurred, East Jerusalem's Arabs would have citizenship, and thus so would their children. Just wanted to make sure we're clear on that (mainly for other people reading this). okedem (talk) 17:41, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately for Nishidani, the argument is over. All the sources I found say that Jerusalem is the capital. Attempts to re-interpret the meaning of the word "capital" has failed. Wikipedia must echo reliable sources. Reliable sources include the dictionaries, encyclopedias, almanacs, and atlases and they all point in one direction: that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. Because this is a somewhat contentious issue among an extremely small minority of people, okedem and I are willing to have a footnote explaining the more controversial points. Unless Nishidani (or anyone else) can find me as many reliable sources that say that Jerusalem is not the capital as I have found that say that Jerusalem is the capital, then there is nothing further to discuss. Nishidani's argumentum ad nauseum is akin to arguing for "the other side" of the "debate" on whether Elvis Presley is alive or dead. --GHcool (talk) 17:25, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I disagree about the RS's thing, most of the RS's that I found are neutral about it, they don't say that Jerusalem (is) or (is not) the capital of Israel, which I think we should do here. Imad marie (talk) 17:45, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

As already stated above, The Continuum Political Encyclopedia of the Middle East (491), The World Almanac and Book of Facts 2007 (p. 785), The Statesman's Yearbook (2005 ed., p. 939), TIME Almanac 2005 with Information Please (p. 797), The Concise Oxford Dictionary of World Religions (p. 285), The World Book Encyclopedia (Vol. 11, p. 94a), and Atlas of World Geography (Rand McNally: 2000, p. 44) all explicitly denote Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. I challenge anyone to find seven or more equally reliable sources that say that are "neutral" on the issue of whether Jerusalem is or is not the capital of Israel. --GHcool (talk) 18:01, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

You misrepresent me. I am not denying that the capital of Israel is Jerusalem. I have simply shown that the use of the word 'Jerusalem' in that phrasing meant historically, denotatively, and in law, from its conception, 'West Jerusalem', certainly from 1949 to 1967. The non-annexation that followed, despite okedem's waffle, does not change this, at least no one has shown reliable sources to prove that the denotation has changed with the military occupation.

The semantic point on Jerusalem = West Jerusalem is undeniable, though no one here seemed to have realized it. You yourself, once it was pointed out, admitted it was true. That for convenience one prefers to ignore the nature of semantics, and adopt politicized jargon as though it were, being 'realistic', objective, is no surprise, and I have no problem in being in a minority position on this, since I find generally most newspapers unreadable, and wiki articles idem, for the insensitivity invariably shown in public usage to what words actually mean (I gather most of you are quite young, scientifically minded, and unfamiliar with William Empson or J. L. Austin, even if this sounds patronizing, or as, Okedem would say, condescending). A large part of the informational world is used to drug our perceptions by planting modes of expression for their strategic, instrumental value in moulding opinion, and here what occurs corroborates the fact, first pointed out by no radical fringe conspiracist, but by sober people like Walter Lippmann and Karl Kraus. I haven't entertained illusions about the futility of trying to change any pro-Israeli editor's opinion on this. I've spent half a lifetime studying nationalism, have published on it professionally, and find the usual symptoms all over these I/P articles, in the most unsuspecting places (like the etymology of Jerusalem). In nationalism, rationality doesn't count, and when rationality is allowed, it is of the variety called 'instrumental rationality', i.e., whatever argument serves a preset and self-interested purpose. If this has, as you suggest, been nauseating, I would remind you that you are under no obligation to read, and, the numbers game and vested ideological interests being what they are, there is little need to trouble yourself with following my comments, if they engender Roquentin's malady. As to the encyclopedias you cite, as I said, well done for looking them up, but I would be more convinced if I had the precise and full entry from each. Don't reply: otherwise I would feel guilty for inducing a further exacerbation of the malaise you indicate.Nishidani (talk) 19:19, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, cut it out already. I couldn't care less whether you have been studying nationalism or international law or Catholicism since you were a baby. This has nothing to do with age, nationality, or religious background; they have no bearing here when you clearly can't even articulate your position in a manner that addresses the points presented by your opponents. You have nothing if the best thing you can do is write us off as being too pro-Israeli to see why we're wrong. -- tariqabjotu 22:42, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Moving on

I think it's time for a request for comment. This issue is really exhausting, in my opinion, particularly because the side in favor of changing the wording from "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" seems unable to respond to the relevant points presented by the other side. So, I think it's time we get some outside opinions, from people who will (hopefully) stick to forming a position based on the relevant facts (and who aren't as rigid on their positions). -- tariqabjotu 19:25, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean? You asked me to supply reliable sources earlier. I supplied several, and you never replied, as far as I recall. To you, as for others, from the outset, this was an open and shut case, and anyone who argued against this was not being realistic. In another case, I have been constrained to write double the quantity of what I've written here because one single editor Michael Safyan disagrees with roughly 142 references and 20 academic books which show crushingly that his idiosyncratic definition of 'uprising' is just that, a personal, mystical interpretation of a neutral word in English. He admits no dictionary proves his contention. In that instance, no administrator stepped in to say the discussion was exhausting or that 'one side' is 'unable to respond'. To the contrary, extreme punctilious neutrality was displayed by kibitzers and administrators looking on and in. Laborious mediation is pressed, and I presume arbitration, after that, on what any commonsensical person knows to be a completely subjective assertion by one person. That is a far easier case that the present one. That is, Tariq, contextually, what worries an editor like me, the lack of consistency. By all means get third opinions, but having declared yourself that the position I represent is ungrounded, perhaps you should save outsiders the trouble, and just let this, like many other rational causes, die a natural death. I certainly know what the answer will be. But it is my right to point out, for the archives, the dissident position and its rationale.Nishidani (talk) 19:41, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Contrary to popular belief, I have other things to do and a limited time in which to do them, so I can't devote all my time to responding to this dispute which seems to have comments coming in hourly, if not more frequently. If I see that others have responded with comments similar to what I would have said, I won't spend time adding an additional comment. However, if you want one, I'll reiterate that the sources you provided, again, have nothing to do with what I requested and, ultimately, the reason I support the current sentence.

I requested that you provide information regarding whether Jerusalem is or can be Israel's capital. In response, you highlighted sources which note that Israel is the only country whose capital city is not widely recognized and that Israel wants foreign countries to recognize their capital as Jerusalem (most tangibly, by moving their embassies to Jerusalem). I requested sources about neither of these two facts, in part because they're irrelevant to my argument and in part because I have know, and agree with, the information within them. In fact, one of your sources even helps support my argument. You bolded a piece that said "Israel became the sole example of a sovereign country whose capital city was not recognized by foreign powers." Do you see the words "capital city"? Even though it's stating that Jerusalem is not recognized by foreign powers (a fact with which we all agree), it still calls Jerusalem Israel's capital city. The lack of recognition does not invalidate the fact that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel.

This is precisely what I'm talking about when I say you, and those who agree with you, seem unable to respond to an argument with a relevant point. That you all have consistently been incapable of responding to the points I, okedem, and others have presented demonstrates that we need some outside opinion, opinion from editors who ideally are not so rigid in their position that they are unable to respond to the issues at hand.

Yes, this was, at least to me, an open-and-shut case. This issue has been discussed many times, and it seems some people do not understand the concept of a compromise. What we have is already a compromise between two positions -- one which supports have a large, or at least blatant, amount of information about Jerusalem's status and one which supports little to none. We are already in the middle; for you all to request that the Jerusalem article lean further to your side seems disrespectful of the compromise, especially when you can't even explain your position against the current compromise. It's not that people who disagree with me are "not being realistic"; it's that people who disagree with me (on this point) have been unable to provide any sort of counter-argument. Instead, they have only been able to say that Jerusalem is partially on occupied territory or that other countries don't recognize it, etc. These are not counter-arguments as they do not address the question.

I don't know what is going on between you and Michael Safyan, and I don't see how that's relates to what's going on here. I don't need to further prove my point; it has been said dozens of times before, by myself and others. Requesting a third opinion was just a suggestion, and if you are willing to concede on this, that would be great. However, I imagine that there are others who won't and, third opinion or opposing concensus regardless, never will. For that reason, you may be correct: it's not worth wasting anyone else's time. The article would then remain with the current formation -- as it should. -- tariqabjotu 22:00, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

It seems we need to try some WP:DR methods here. Imad marie (talk) 21:06, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

No, the dispute has been resolved. All reliable sources say that Jerusalem is the capital. Every single one. Case closed. --GHcool (talk) 23:17, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Wow, that's a bossy attitude. All reliable sources? What about britannica and encarta? I haven't looked for more sources yet. Imad marie (talk) 05:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Even britannica states "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel". But back to the current topic: Haven't we already gone through an RfC? Did it help then? Is there a solid reason to believe it will help now? Rami R 07:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Encarta is the first reliable source I have come across that does not explicitly state that Jerusalem is the capital. However, the way Encarta states it does not contradict all of the other RS's that explicitly define Jerusalem as the capital.

P.S. Well done, Rami R, for finding that Britannica does as well! That makes eight sources for explicitly defining Jerusalem as the capital! --GHcool (talk) 07:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Britannica says that Jerusalem is the capital in one article [2], and is neutral about it in another two articles [3] [4], so I wouldn't count it in your list.

Personally I don't think an RfC will help, because I know the outcome from now, we will not have consensus. Imad marie (talk) 07:55, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Then it seems that the best we can hope for is "to agree to disagree". Perhaps a permanent editing restriction on the Jerusalem and Israel articles, something like "1RR per week for issues regarding Jerusalem's status as capital". This will hopefully get Jerusalem's article unprotected, and per ArbCom's WP:ARBPIA only requires an uninvolved administrator's endorsement (perhaps the protecting administrator?). Rami R 08:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

It is not my practice on a delicate point like this, to edit the text with my viewpoint before gaining consensus. There is no danger to these texts from me, as the record shows. I am still perplexed that the denotation of 'Jerusalem' for 2 decades at least, when the disputed phrase was established in usage, was, precisely 'West Jerusalem', just as in slipshod usage, 'America' frequently refers to just one part of the two continents, namely the USA. All uses of that word 1949-1967, referred to West Jerusalem. Despite being a belligent occupant of the other half since 1967, Israel has done nothing in terms of international law to assert that the meaning of that phrase's denotation has changed. It's seat of government is in West Jerusalem. Sigh Nishidani (talk) 09:49, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

We treat cities according to their municipal boundaries - this for the purpose of population, area, etc. The Jerusalem municipal authority includes both West and East Jerusalem. okedem (talk) 10:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Well. The only solution seems to have an RfC or to call for a third party. That's ok for me. Ceedjee (talk) 16:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I console myself that I am in good Israeli professional company when I think this 'realistic' 'factual' jargoneering about a unified Jerusalem is just a piece of ideology. The problem of old people is that they don't have to google up an impression. They've lived through and read through events the young mug up on, faux de mieux, by reading brief encyclopedia entries, or wiki related articles.

'Along comes Obama and retrieves from the junkyard the outworn slogan "Undivided Jerusalem, the Capital of Israel for all Eternity. Since Camp David, all Israeli governments have understood that this mantra constitutes an insurmountable obstacle to any peace process. It has disappeared - quietly, almost secretly - from the arsenal of official slogans. Only the Israeli (and American-Jewish) Right sticks to it, and for the same reason: to smother at birth any chance for a peace that would necessitate the dismantling of the settlements.Uri Avnery, ‘Obama, Israel and AIPAC’, Counterpunch 9/6/2008

All of you are welcome to your POV's, but it doesn't change the fact that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel according to 8 extremely reliable sources and contradicted by 0 reliable sources. Elvis Presley is also dead, and anyone with a different point of view is welcome to look that up. Also, the Earth is not flat. And the Holocaust happened. And 9/11 wasn't an inside job. And there's no such thing as the Loch Ness monster. --GHcool (talk) 16:48, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Remarkably puerile. This is not about UFO paranoia, and you well know it. You admitted openly that, given Jerusalem = West Jerusalem in the original phrase which established this usage, there was margin for a minor rethink. Unaccountably, you have now withdrawn your offer, and re-adopted the national slogan, hurrahing with hyperbolic sarcasm. Well, perhaps that registered moment of 'oh! Never realized that. He has a point' was perceived as a breach in the iron wall, a lapse in steely will, a moment of collaborative weakness, to use Jabotinsky's appropriate term as a metaphor, and you have plugged up the weakness in your part of the national salient! There! I think we are now on equal terms in the vein of comically sarcastic dismissal, and I hope you take mine, as I did yours, as trivial sand in the eyes.Nishidani (talk) 17:46, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

8 against 0 is a false claim, and I showed that above. I thought you would stop claiming that. Imad marie (talk) 16:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

If Imad marie showed that 8 sources did not explicitly call Jerusalem the capital and that more than 0 sources did explicitly deny capital status to Israel, then I must have missed it. Also, there's no such thing as chem trails or Bigfoot. --GHcool (talk) 17:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

You, like me, are repeating yourself, pal. No one has determined whether the use of the standard slogan in those encyclopedias reflects the established equation, in that phrasing, of Jerusalem = West Jerusalem. You have acknowledged this to be true in terms of its objective denotation from 1949-1967. You and okedem have offered no proof that the ambiguity is resolved by Israel's belligerent occupancy. Indeed Okedem has noted on the Jerusalem page that as soon as Israel tried, by an internal law, to assert the identity of the two parts, 13 countries rapidly withdrew their embassies from Jerusalem in protest at the conceptual sleight-at-hand, just as Uri Avnery has remarked, and he should know, as an insider, that the slogan has more or less dropped from view.Nishidani (talk) 17:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

This is not a challenge between you and me, OK? concentrate on the group discussion here. Imad marie (talk) 17:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Nishidani's ad hominem does not change the fact that 8 sources confirm that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel and that UFO's aren't mutilating cows. --GHcool (talk) 17:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Come now, GHcool, one can be ad hominem in many ways, as when you preferred the ad oddballum/em approach. You were saying my position was off-the-planet, and similar to the hallucinations of the lunatic fringe, illustrated with a half-a-baker's dozen of weirdo fantasies. You laughed at them, to 'attack' (no harm done, I'm an adult and deplore whining over putatiove hurt sensitivities) my position.

I do appreciate your last sentence. It illustrates my point that many in here don't understand the ambiguities of language.

'UFO's (sic) aren't mutilating cows'

has two possible meanings, depending whether one takes 'mutilating' as adjectival or as a verb in the present tense.

Rather like 'Jerusalem' = 'West Jerusalem': America = the United States: Berlin = East Berlin (1948-1989) etc.Nishidani (talk) 18:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

That's cute. UFOs aren't cows that are mutilating other things, but UFOs also aren't things that mutilate cows. Of course, the species and/or activities of alleged UFOs don't have any bearing on Jerusalem's status as the capital of the State of Israel, as I'm sure Nishidani and I both agree. --GHcool (talk) 19:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Brush up your mythology. In Irish myth, and I am of Irish descent, the moon is a cow. If UFOs come from outer space, why not the moon? If the moon, why not a mooncow, from a superior version of our own species, capable of the technology to make the journey down in its Cow UFO to mutilate earthlings? - the preceding UFO/cow/moon nonsense was written by User:Nishidani.

Nishidani, you haven't presented any evidence showing 'Jerusalem' = 'West Jerusalem' for any time in the last 41 years. While, for the purpose of discussing Israel's capital, that was true until 1967, the claim that this meaning simply persisted to our days is only your opinion, with nothing to back it up. We have no reason to believe that the sources GHcool presented use that strange, limited, meaning. English speakers, when they say "Jerusalem", don't seem to mean just the West or just the East. okedem (talk) 19:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Come now, don't be disingenuous. You never have questioned that the standard wording we argue over did, from its conception, mean that 'Jerusalem' = 'West Jerusalem'. No one in here has shown this to be wrong. The institutions of its 'seat of government' Israel established over that period were all in the Western part of the city Israel gained in 1948. If one went back to the pre-1967 versions of encyclopedias or CIA sourcebooks. it would be interesting to see if they use the same phrase. If they do, it means that the descriptive language hasn't changed, all that has changed is Israel's extension of its authority manu militari over what remains occupied 'enemy' territory.

Since all nations bar Israel agree to the universal (bar Israel) formula that 'the status' of Jerusalem is a matter for negotiation between the parties', since Israeli since the Oslo talks down to the Taba talks, has allowed the status of Jerusalem to be on the agenda for a compromise that will determine a final status of the city, it stands out like canines' testicles that de facto, since Israel's leaders (bar Netanyahu) have expressed a formal readiness to discuss the 'status' of the city, and of a proposed Al-Quds as capital of a future Palestinian state, that, while no state discusses the 'status' of a capital on its own land, a state like Israel has often shown a formal readiness to discuss the status of Jerusalem, precisely because, outside of the attrition of the passage of time (Israel's standard strategy), in international law, the fact that the post-67 situation is one of belligerent occupation of foreign territory, the interpretation of Israel's capital as extending to the Eastern part means, in international law, Israel's capital is on foreign territory, which is a huge anomaly. 'No country I know of allows that part of its capital city's territory is subject to feasible claims of ownership by another country. Israel does. This of course is all hypothetical, agreed. Israel will never cede an inch, and the Palestinians will never have a state, but subsist like Sparta's helots, on the crumbs left over from the the great territorial feast. Look, Italy's just lost to Holland in the UEFA cup, and I'm in a grumpy mood.Nishidani (talk) 20:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I "never have questioned"? If this is the sort of evidence we're using now, let me just state, for the record - what ever you think I did, it wasn't me. Just in case you'll come up with some other claim, like "you never did deny being a member of the communist party..." or something along those lines.

Everything you wrote above is mere conjecture and speculation on your part. In English, "Jerusalem" means both parts, as we all know. If someone writes "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel", and doesn't clarify ("When we said Jerusalem, we meant just the West") - we know they're talking about the whole city. This isn't some recent change, or some obsolete sources. If a book published in 2006 uses that phrasing, I can only suppose they didn't sleep through the past 40 years. If the readers can understand "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" in other sources, they'll understand it here.

And if it's clear to everyone that 'Jerusalem' = 'West Jerusalem' - why are you arguing? It's been your claim all along that by saying Jerusalem is the capital, the readers will get the wrong impression about the whole of Jerusalem, including the East. okedem (talk) 21:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Don't try to wikilawyer your way out. When the point was raised, you never challenged it, like much else documented here. And in plain English, if a remark goes unchallenged by one's interlocutor, one is within one's rights to note that he did 'not question it'.

Nothing I have written is mere conjecture or speculation. I have my opinions, but argue them by a combination of logic and reliable sources. In English 'Jerusalem' in that phrase meant originally 'in Jerusalem, and indeed the part where Israel moved its capital in 1949 was often called 'New Jerusalem' (Larry Collins, Dominique Lapierre,, O Jerusalem Granada, London 1982 p.567) and in saying 'we know' this you are abusing the Pluralis Maiestatis. Your problem is, I suggest, that, as you say, all too frequently '(you) can only suppose'. Nishidani (talk) 15:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Scope of discussion, definitions

So it seems this dispute needs some method of WP:DR. We can call for RfC, or maybe wait for the planned to Ethnic and Cultural Conflicts Noticeboard. Imad marie (talk) 14:27, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll agree to a WP:DR as long as we can also discuss the topics of whether Elvis is dead or alive and whether the Earth is flat or not as part of the same dispute resolution. I take the position that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, Elvis is dead, and the Earth is not flat. I expect Imad marie will take the opposite positions.

As Nishidani already knows, what is described in O Jerusalem does not reflect the 2008 reality of the situation. --GHcool (talk) 16:43, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

In case you haven't realized, GHcool, that comment was not in the least bit helpful. I disagree with Imad & Company, but their position is not as outlandish as claiming that the Earth is flat or that Elvis is alive (or whatever you were saying about UFOs and such earlier). Let's be reasonable. -- tariqabjotu 17:51, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not so sure. Saying that Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel, given the weight of the evidence against that claim, is as unreasonable and outlandish as saying that any other capital city explicitly denoted by the 8 sources I cited as capitals is not actually a capital. On the other hand, I agree with Tariqabjotu that my comment be considered unhelpful. I'm open to suggestions on how to combat denialism more effectively in the future. --GHcool (talk) 18:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind, Tariq, a little, indeed even a lot of joshing, and make no objection to GHcool's gusto for lashing out with lashings of his favourite dish or is that diss, redherring hyperbole.

All I can see here is a desire to pass a unilateral determination by one nation-state off as an objective 'fact'.

By a 14/1 virtually unanimous judgement the ICJ in 2004 found for the Palestinians (whose POV is artfully suppressed by the phrasing I contest), by determining that the 'illegal Israeli actions' in occupied East Jerusalem', and 'the Israeli settlements in the Occupied Territories' (including East Jerusalem) are conducted in flagrant breach of international law, and Israel's obligations under those laws. The ICJ ruling means East Jerusalem, which Israel claims as an integral part of its state, is no such thing in international law.

The linguistic sleight-of-hand, strongly favoured by Israel, which has never ceased to press for recognition of its unilateral claim in this regard, by pleading in world fora for nations to recognize this formally and establish their embassies in Jerusalem, is this

(a)From 1949-1967 there existed an earlier customary definition of Jerusalem as West Jerusalem, the seat of Israel's government. The seat of Israel's government was in West Jerusalem. Its capital was in West Jerusalem.

(b) In 1980 a law was passed to make a de facto but not de jure an annexation of the Palestinian section of the city, and declare it formally unified, and integral part of territorial Israel.

(c) Israel however refused to apply Israeli law to the Arab inhabitants of east Jerusalem. Were it 'Israel' , as native Arab inhabitants of Israel, they would benefit from the laws that their Arab bretheren in Israel benefit from. They dwell instead in a legal grey zone that denies them the status that would logically follow were they born as Arabs in Israel. By this discrimination, Israel itself recognizes the anomalousness of its unilateral declaration that the city is unified as integral part and parcel of israel.

(d) Israel has, in negotations left the 'final status' of Jerusalem on the table as subject to a future settlement between Israel and the Palestinians, which again shows that Israel recognizes its assertions lack the basic legal warrant in international law for what is asserted by the 1980 law.

(e) The ICJ in 2004 determined, in a non-binding, judgement, that East Jerusalem is occupied Palestinian territory. Israel may ignore this, but the the assertion that the phrase 'Israel's capital is Jerusalem' denotes, not as it did from 1949 to 1980, West Jerusalem, but all of Jerusalem, including the Arab areas, creates the following paradox. In international law, Israel's capital lies partially on land that does not belong by law to the state of Israel.

(f) That many sources, reliable sources, say Israel's capital is Jerusalem does not answer the issue. For in all of those respectable sources, Jerusalem can be read as West Jerusalem (in accordance with historical usage from 1949) or 'unified Jerusalem'. GHCool's evidence is totally ineffectual, because none of the works he cites determine what is meant objectively by the phrasing, West Jerusalem or West and east Jerusalem. For all we know, those sources may simply refer to West Jerusalem, which in historic Israeli usage was still called 'Jerusalem'. Indeed its institutions and seat of government lie still in West Jerusalem.

(g) I have no objection to the phrase 'Israel's capital is Jerusalem' so long as the language, by an adjective or adjunct phrasing, immediately qualifies it by clarifying the contested status. As it stands, at a level of textual rhetoric, is underscores the position of the Israeli government on the objective and irrevocable reality of a de facto annexation, while neatly suppressing the fact that, for one, the Arab world of 1 billion people would not endorse that phrasing. Arabs are part of the global society that participates in, and reads Wiki, and to accept a phrasing preferred by Israel, and which is accepted widely only because the ambiguity is ignored, yet rejected in diplomatic circles, when discussing Jerusalem, since virtually every other nation on earth, which collectively hold that the juridical status of Jerusalem is not yet determined, and therefore, as in law, 'occupied' until its status is consensually determined, to accept that phrasing, unqualified, in its intrinsic ambiguity is to violate NPOV, and to prejudice the world readerships perception of the de jure status of Jerusalem as partially under 'belligerent occupation'.

(h)I will repeat this till the cows (of recent curiosity) come home, if my interlocutors persist in dismissing it as a trivial piece of personal cavilling equivalent to flat-earth speculation. It is in a very long and deep tradition of English letters, which rose to its peak with the work of William Empson and the journalism and novels of George Orwell, to construe words in order to tease out what they trick us into thinking or not thinking about, and, when cognizance of their misleading implications is taken, to take due measures to, as Mallarmé had it, 'donner un sens plus pure aux mots de la tribu.'(Toast Funébre a Théophile Gautier, repeated by T.S.Eliot in Little Gidding 2). Futile remonstration, of course, but as Luther said, Hier stehe ich; ich kann nicht anders, especially when it is a matter of others denying the politics of language because thinking about them is tiresome, and life and national interests, are served by talking about ostensible 'facts' (invariably when they appear to favour a preponderance of power by one of two parties to a dispute).Nishidani (talk) 20:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

There's no need to discuss the legal point regarding East Jerusalem. It hasn't been contested here. The point is that it doesn't matter, and legal ownership of the land is not required for placing one's capital on it.

Your assumption/claim that when the sources quoted say "Jerusalem", they mean "West Jerusalem" is extremely far-fetched. As the standard usage of Jerusalem in English means the entire city (as reading any encyclopedia, including Wiki, will easily show), if anyone means anything else, they'll write it explicitly.

We have text that clarifies the status of capital - in a detailed footnote on the word "capital", in an entire paragraph in the lead of Jerusalem, in additional text in the body of several articles, etc. okedem (talk) 20:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

'legal ownership of the land is not required for placing one's capital on it'.

Just out of curiosity could you provide me with a Reliable Source for that statement?

'Your assumption/claim that when the sources quoted say "Jerusalem", they mean "West Jerusalem" is extremely far-fetched.'

Not at all. I am willing to bet that, since the phrase was introduced in 1949, many reputable encyclopedias repeated the phrase over those decades, and in doing so, underlined the fact that the capital of Israel was, precisely, only in the area under Israeli control, West Jerusalem.

In that period, to the contrary, any other reading of the phrase would have made no sense, since Israel's seat of government then, as now, was not physically located in East Jerusalem.Nishidani (talk) 20:31, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Note to self. Psychologically the analogy here is intriguing. I appear here to be autistic, 'everybody's out of step but my Johnnie'. I.e. I am virtually alone in asserting a reality the majority refuse to accept. The consolation is, that in asserting my point, I parallel what Israel is doing, from the opposite end, i.e. Israel, alone of all countries, asserts something no other nation on earth accepts as reflecting the legal reality of that territory. Thus there is a curious complicity in our respective behaviours. Not to countenance my own intransigence as reasonable is, by analogy, to repudiate the reasonableness of Israel's unilaeral self-determination of the situation in the face of universal dissent. Nishidani (talk) 20:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm not providing sources regarding requirement of legal ownership. None of the definition I read mention such a requirement, so I can only assume it doesn't exist. Regardless, I meant that as explaining the claim made by the people "on my side" of the argument, explaining why your repeated claims that East Jerusalem is occupied are beside the point.

Your claims might have made sense, if we were discussing souces from 1949 to 1967, but we're not. I'm not inclined to believe the authors are so incompetent they simply forgot the last 40 years and the controversy regarding Jerusalem. I say again - as any Encyclopedia will tell you, "Jerusalem", without qualifications, means the entire city (and that's exactly why you're arguing here - if "Jerusalem" meant "West Jerusalem", you wouldn't have objected - you're trying to have your cake and eat it too, it seems). okedem (talk) 20:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

'No, I'm not providing sources regarding requirement of legal ownership. None of the definition I read mention such a requirement, so I can only assume it doesn't exist.

Well I remarked earlier that you confuse your private suppositions with technical informed judgements. Allow me to remark that you are very naive about the way language functions. The best of authors make remarks that mean also things that they did not have in mind when formulating their ideas. This is particularly true of the language of politics, and the language of the press, . One thing in this regard is absolutely sure. Diplomats on formal occasions, when reprsenting their state, never use 'Jerusalem' to mean the 'unified Jerusalem of the state of Israel'. Perhaps you are familiar with Orwell, but you show no sign of it. If you read German, or a Hebrew translation exists of it, read Victor Klemperer's LTI - Lingua Tertii Imperii. He showed how the subtle, day by day, drift of usage in German, as manipulated under the Nazis, gradually created a public mentality that unwittingly got sucked in, because they didn't pay attention to the subliminal effects of these manipulated words, to accepting as a 'reality' things that, expressed in objective terms by people attentive to the meaning of words, would perhaps have left them horrified. In our late age, this has been forgotten, and one can see the result all over the pages of the world's malaiseNishidani (talk) 20:59, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

As fascinating as these intellectual musings may be (I'm quite familiar with Orwell's work, which bears no relation to our discussion, I'm afraid), you've presented no sources to support your multiple contested claims. I will assume you have none, and are simply voicing your fringe theories regarding usage of the word "Jerusalem". Enjoy. okedem (talk) 21:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

And you have presented no source to disprove the fact I pointed out, that in Israeli political usage from 1949 onwards, 'Jerusalem is the capital of Israel' referred to West Jerusalem. Since that is true, all later usage carries over the ambiguity that was in the phrasing from the very beginning. I hate ambiguity in encyclopedias. And to retain that intrinsic historical ambiguity, after 1980, is to implicitly endorse in the text what is an explosively loaded wording that misleads the reader. It's as simple as that, and, no, you've never read Orwell on language. It shows here and elsewhere (as when you put the phrasing 'Jerusalem has had a Jewish majority since the 19th century', playing on the ambiguity that the Jews were the major confessional group, though they did not constitute the majority of the population for most of the period. The correct NPOV way of saying this is simply 'The Jews have formed the largest confessional population of Jerusalem since the 19th century'. tactically astute, but again, misleading, whether by calculation or not is not for me to presume Nishidani (talk) 21:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

You're evading again. Not every foggy notion you conujre requires disproving. The burden of proof is on you to show that when these sources say Jerusalem, they mean West Jerusalem, a highly unusual interpretation.

Don't tell me what I did or did not read. It's just plain silly.

And I must ask you to take back your accusations regarding the Jewish majority issue, both the accusation of ignorance, and the blunt hint at malice. For, you see, you, like Imad before you, immediately decide to attack, without even bothering to ask (as evident on my talk page). When I say "majority", I mean above 50%, not "largest group". Had I meant "largest group", I would have said "largest group".

What's my source for that? Read here: [5], section 7 of "Major Conclusions". See "Table 10 - Population of Jerusalem until 1945", under "The Population of Jerusalem in Ottoman and British Times" for the detailed numbers, showing Jews were an absolute majority (61.9%) at 1896 at the very latest, possibly earlier (the previous data point is for 1876, showing 47.9%). Jews were the largest group (but not a majority) at least as far back as 1844, when they were 45.9%.

Now you just look as though you're trying to find any feeble excuse to attack me, and to hell with facts or sources. okedem (talk) 22:03, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Jerusalem has had a Jewish majority since the 19th century

'Since the 19th century' = 'Since 1896', i.e.the last four of 100 years?. Come on now. The point is obvious. Encyclopedias must be precise, and no harm is done in saying, (while much clarity is obtained in being truth to the details), 'Since the last decade of the 19th century' etc., Otherwise you mislead, conjuring up a century of majoritarian presence out of 4 years. (2) I don't need to prove that from 1949 to 1967 Jerusalem meant Jerusalem West in Israeli usage, since in its declarations over that period, Israel wasn't asserting its capital was in Jordanian-occupied territory. The textual practice I defend is called construing what words mean denotatively. A pattern of pushing a phrasing that is seamed with suggestive semantic bias, when simple, clean phrasing is available, is not encouraging Nishidani (talk) 07:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not attacking you, I am arguing vigorously against your support for slipshod language that, by its consistent ambiguities, pushes implied meanings that underscore an Israeli POV. The whole point of the exercise is to ascertain, when evidence shows there are loose phrasings that engender possible ambiguities, what alternative language might do justice to both parties to the dispute (I am not a party to the dispute, but the Palestinians and Arab world offended by the assumptions in the phrasing you support most certainly are). This is a global encyclopedia, not an outlet for one nation's POV, however subtly worded.Nishidani (talk) 08:25, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Now you're just being pathetic. "Since the 19th century" means from some time point within the 19th century, as opposed to "...throughout the 19th century", for example, which would have been misleading. If you can't even admit to your false accusation, and try to weasel your way out of it, I'm done talking to you. I hope others, reading this, will see that you're just looking for excuses to attack, immediately assuming bad faith, and even confronted with evidence, you refuse to apologize. Your working pattern here is obvious. Accuse others of not presenting sources, but advance fringe claims, ever changing as your old ones fall out of favor. Constantly discuss other editors, instead of the issues raised. Attack when confronted with a tough question, and attack again when proven wrong.

I had hoped you would simply take the proper course of action, and apologize for your rash accusations. It's a shame you chose not to. okedem (talk) 08:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I can only repeat the point. As any diplomat knows, in drafting bilateral documents, any ambiguities in phrasing must be ironed out, so that no misunderstandings will arise. When you say 'since the 19th century', you imply one of two things: (a) throughout the 19th.century or (b) from some time in the nineteenth century. Since we are writing a narrative that has two points of view, it is eminently sensible and realistic to avoid that ambiguity and, with a mere extra word or two, eliminate the grey semantic zone. That you do not wish to do this, looks to me as though you prefer the phrasing that, in retaining the ambiguity, leads incautious or quick readers to think that Jerusalem had a Jewish majority throughout the 19th.century. I assure you I am not a person who uses arguments to attack other people. It is assumed I am in bad faith by some, with comic hyperbole, and I don't protest, because I think they genuinely are convinced I'm off the planet. In a multicultural, multiperspectival world, nationalists the world round thing the competing aspirations of other nations are absurd. No, they are simply assertions to an equal right to defend their point of view and national interests. If I see, as I have, a pattern emerging in my interlocutor's position, I occasionally (if rarely compared to what I do perceive) state the pattern I perceive to my interlocutor in order to make him or her aware of how I read him, and the reasons for my challenge to the way he or she is reading our common problem. I am not a rash person: annoyingly pedantic perhaps. But, as Palestinians say often, in failing to pay due attention to legal language in agreements they have lost huge swathes of land, and legal rights.Nishidani (talk) 08:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure, whatever. okedem (talk) 08:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

When I spoke before about the Earth not being flat, I was talking about the planet Earth, not soil. I know Nishidani has a problem of taking words that mean something in context and pretending like they mean something else, so I thought I'd clarify. --GHcool (talk) 21:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the article on Northern Cyprus refers to Nicosia (Lefkoşa in Turkish) as the capital of The Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, even though only one country in the world (Turkey) recognizes the occupation of Nicosia (and, for that matter, of all of northern Cyprus). --Ravpapa (talk) 04:35, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

GHcool seems to be so proud about his library visit, that now he is comparing the disputed matter to the (roundness of the Earth). I still protest to the 8 references thing. We have references like encarta (2/2 articles) and britannica (2/3 articles) that show Jeruslam as a disputed city. Also, The Continuum Political Encyclopedia of the Middle East , provided by GHcool, says: "Jerusalem is the capital of the State of Israel though not recognized as such by most of the international community", the disputed fact is presented in the same sentence that states Jeruslam is the capital, not in a small footnote where it is rarley read, that is more neutral than what we are presenting here. I'm not sure what other references say because I don't have access to them. Imad marie (talk) 06:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Let's not pretend the controversy isn't given any space. As has been said several times, there's, of course, the footnote, but there's an entire paragraph in the introduction dealing with this issue. There's a large section later in the article detailing the capital issue; that section is longer than arguably more central topics (like the religious significance of the city). We then have a whole article that would allow readers to go further in depth here. I'm starting to sound like a broken record; we don't need sources and stacks of information to come to a conclusion here. We all are aware there's controversy surrounding the city. We all are aware that all the embassies are located elsewhere and that the vast majority of countries don't recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. We also understand how Encarta or Britannica or X number of other sources treat this issue. However, we are not those books or encyclopedias. We may go into more or less detail into some things. We may place information at different places in the article or use a different structure. That's fine, and through many discussions, the formulation currently present in the Jerusalem article is the one that has received a fair level of agreement. What we have now is already a compromise, and it does not matter how other sources treat the issue; we are not compelled in any way to swing further to the side that keeps beating this dead horse, requesting that we mention yet again in yet another location that the city is disputed. Various positions about the issue are presented; NPOV does not beckon us to mention the "disputed" claim at every turn, within the body. It seems the only reason you come on Wikipedia is to complain about some anti-Palestinian / pro-Israeli bias that you believe is seeping into articles; it's really exhausting and a complete waste of time. -- tariqabjotu 08:32, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

It seems the only reason you come on Wikipedia is to complain about some anti-Palestinian / pro-Israeli bias that you believe is seeping into articles

I presume I am being addressed, Tariq. If so, I hope you don't mind my reposting it on my Contributions User page?Nishidani (talk) 09:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I was talking to you, which is why I posted immediately after Imad's comment, included one tab more than Imad's comment, and commented specifically on points that are in Imad's comment. -- tariqabjotu 09:15, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I do complain about pro-Israeli bias in some article, and I'm sorry you think this is a waste of time. Saying something like: "Jeruslam is the capital of Israel" implies acknoledegment of Israel's right to annext East Jeruslam, and implies cancelation of the Palestian rights to claim East Jeruslam as their capital in their future state, WP should be neutral about the I-P conflict. I understand the argument about the "capital definition", but Jereuslam is a unique complex case that I don't think it was considered when the dictionary definition was made. Imad marie (talk) 09:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

The controversy over the city is not news to us; of course it was considered when the formulation was made. "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" does not imply anything; you are inferring something that isn't there. If that clause conjures up "cancelation of the Palestian rights to claim East Jeruslam as their capital in their future state [sic]", that's your problem, not ours. The article says nothing of that sort, and in fact goes on to mention the contrary in the introduction (there's more to the article than the first sentence, you know). It is not our job to tailor to your point-of-view and eliminate any opportunity for you to even think there's something that goes against that perspective. Your first post on this matter came on May 14. You have wasted enough of my time already and I'm not going to let you waste any more of it. Goodbye. -- tariqabjotu 10:20, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I find your last comment to be inappropriate, you make it look like I'm the only editor concerned about the neutrality of the disputed issue, or that I'm the reason that we didn't reach consensus until now, or that I'm interested in you personally or your personal time. If you think this discussion is a waste of time then you can decide not to participate in it. Imad marie (talk) 12:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Relevant international concepts, terms

Ravpapa has, as one expects from any comment he makes, made a useful analogy. Compare these articles to the full and nuanced in text (not relegated to footnotes) that describes an nanalogous situation.

(1)Northern Cyprus

The Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC) (Turkish: Kuzey Kıbrıs Türk Cumhuriyeti, KKTC), commonly called Northern Cyprus (Turkish: Kuzey Kıbrıs), is a de facto independent republic located in the north of Cyprus. The TRNC declared its independence in 1983, nine years after a Greek Cypriot coup attempting to annex the island to Greece triggered an invasion by Turkey. It has received diplomatic recognition only from Turkey, on which it has become dependent for economic, political and military support. The rest of the international community, including the United Nations and European Union, recognises the sovereignty of the Republic of Cyprus over the territory of the TRNC.

The Turkish Army maintains a large force in the TRNC that meets with the approval of much of the Turkish Cypriot population. However, the Republic of Cyprus regards it as an illegal occupation force; its presence has also been denounced in several United Nations Security Council resolutions. Attempts to reach a solution to the dispute have so far been unsuccessful. In 2004 the UN Annan Plan to reunite the island was accepted by a majority of Turkish Cypriots in a referendum, but rejected by a resounding majority of Greek Cypriots.

(2)Nicosia

Nicosia, known locally as Lefkosia (Greek: Λευκωσία, Turkish: Lefkoşa), is the capital and largest city of Cyprus. It is located at 35°10′N 33°21′E. Located on the River Pedieos and situated almost in the centre of the island, it is the seat of government as well as the main business centre. Nicosia is the capital of the Nicosia District. </blokquote>

Following the intercommunal violence of the 1960s, the capital was divided between the island's Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot communities in the south and north respectively. An attempted coup to unite the island with Greece in 1974 led to a Turkish invasion, leaving the capital divided since then, with Turkish Cypriots claiming the north as the capital of their own state, Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC) (recognised only by Turkey). On 3 April 2008, as part of efforts to reunify the island, a symbolic wall dividing the two communities at Ledra Street was opened. South of the Green Line, the population of the city is 270,000 (late 2004), while a further 84,893 live in the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. Nicosia is important commercially with many shops, two modern shopping malls, restaurants and entertainment. The city is a trade centre and manufactures textiles, leather, pottery, plastic, and other products. Copper mines are nearby. Nicosia is the seat of the University of Cyprus (UCY) and four other universities.

These are leads, and fully explicate the ambiguities, and legal lay of the land, in the leads.Nishidani (talk) 08:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, and? The Jerusalem article mentions the fact that it's the capital of Israel in the first sentence (much in the same way the Nicosia article mentions it's the capital of Cyprus in the first sentence) and goes into detail about the controversy over the city in a later paragraph in the lead (again, just like the Nicosia article). So, what's your point? -- tariqabjotu 09:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

There are several odd things in the lead, beginning with designating what Israeli law calls ‘(Arab) permanent residents’ of Jerusalem by the rather brutal phrase ‘non-citizens’. One can justify that, of course, because it is a term in international law, but the Israeli usage is different, and should be adhered to.

The point of my remarks refers to the weighting. One editor suggested declared as the adjective for capital, as in Israel’s declared capital to solve the problem. The Nicosia article has the statement of fact on the capital, and then immediately after, in the second para., the clarification. In the Jerusalem article, the point is pushed down the page, to the bottom of the lead, where it is again misleadingly explained (see below). In my experience, anything perceived as negative for Israel on I/P articles shows a natural tendency, under stress by editors, to be pushed as far down the page as discretion allows. A lot of edit-wars in the past hinged on this.

If you note the final paragraph, it has even managed to ‘fix’ another dubious, indeed false, position as a fact. It reads:-

' Israel's annexation of East Jerusalem (captured in the 1967 Six-Day War) has been particularly controversial.'

.

The annexation link takes us to a page, where there is no mention of ‘annexation’ (though Israeli spokesmen often use that word, and once more we get the Israeli government line). Instead, Ian Lustick’s article is cited. That article denies that Israel ever formally ‘annexed’ Jerusalem (something I have insisted on throughout this discussion, only to be met with Okedem’s personal suppositions that Lustick is wrong). Lustick remarked also that:’ a distinctive element of annexation of territory is that citizenship is automatically imposed upon the territory's inhabitants without their application or request’. Since citizenship wasn’t imposed, the territory was not annexed in any normal sense of the word.

I’ll wager the text won’t be changed on this either, even though patently wrong.

I’ve long noted these things. I haven’t edited the page on these points because I regard it as suffering from an unavoidable collective ethnic ownership problem, and not worth the futility of being endlessly reversed. I have used this discussion page to endeavour to get others to loosen up over this, so that people refrain from imposing textually what a government imposes by fiat. I have a complete draft for the section on etymology of Jerusalem, for example, which is, despite assurances that this is a fine FA article, off the planet in terms of the scholarship on semitic languages, and again, highlights a Jewish textual POV. No editor so far, though told of the problem, seems ready to move a finger to fix this (which is almost all misleading), the annexation error or adjust adjectively the contested capital thing. Nishidani (talk) 11:37, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Over the "annexation" issue... this seems like semantic nitpicking. I'm sure you are well-aware what the intended meaning was. There is no City of West Jerusalem or City of East Jerusalem; there is one Jerusalem, all under the control of Israel as if it had always been theirs. This is annexation, in the sense that East Jerusalem was "append[ed] or attach[ed] ... to a larger or more significant thing", in the sense that East Jerusalem was "incorporate[d] ... into an existing political unit such as a country, state, county, or city" [6]. Look, that's what annexing something means. If there's some alternative legal meaning with more stipulations and if you want to complain about this as well and claim there's some pro-Israeli bias hidden underneath the word or the link, just change the damn thing to another word already and then quit whining about it.

You seem to be some expert on people's motives, so I'm not going to even attempt to counter the rest of your post (les I be inundated with Latin phrases and meaningless historical or literal quotes). I'm going to say something similar to what I said to Imad. You don't seem to have any consistent position about this matter. I present a point, you defend an irrelevant point. One matter is disproved, you raise another one. You make outrageous conjectures about the intentions of sources (and the intentions of everything else). It's bias, it's nationalism, it's an ethnic feud. If you don't think anything can come of this, why are you trying? You can see bias in the number three, so indeed, why am I trying? It's all futile, isn't it? I'm too biased to see the light!

Get back to me when you all have successfully picked off all the serious editors with your disorienting games and begin inserting unsupported changes into the Israel and Jerusalem articles. I'll be right there to revert you. The onus is on you all to demonstrate that the amount of space dedicated to this controversy is insufficient. But you're not advancing through the dispute resolution steps; you even rejected my suggestion for a third opinion. That's fine with me; I don't need to do anything. The article defaults to the current state -- as it should. This matter has been discussed so many times, and it seems opponents to it are just dragging the supporters of it through the mud. Congratualations, I'm out; only a few more to go. But, like I said; civil POV pushers don't deserve reward. I will revert you. -- tariqabjotu 12:18, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Well the thread always has its comical moments and this is one. Tariq. I quoted a technical article by one of the world's foremost experts on that area, and a specialist in nationalism to boot, and Jewish to boot, and he documented closely that Jerusalem has never been annexed. You don't check the article. You don't apparently check the link on the Jerusalem page. What is your reply? To look up the definition at 'Answers.com', and make a few personal deductions from the definition. I don't whine. I argue against the mental laziness and practical topical illiteracy (for that is what googling up a useful answer you need to a question on a problem you don't understand means) where I encounter it. No one is obliged to answer me, if they think my minority position wrong. To answer is to express a desire to engage in dialogue. Having accepted that, to complain about one's interlocutor is to whinge without justification, for the argument is not imposed, but accepted by free will. I will note for the record that you threaten to revert me on an article I specifically said I won't edit, whose defects I had to courtesy to note on talk pages, without pushing them, as others do, on the actual page. I.e. you threaten to revert me when I have explicitly said I will not edit the page. You say I rejected third person referrel. I didn't. Check. I said it would probably waste their time. Everyone wants quick results, no time to think of implications, and this is especially true of the young.Nishidani (talk) 13:10, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

In Lusting's own words: "Nor am I claiming that there is one and only one possible meaning to terms like "annexation" or "sovereignty."" okedem (talk) 13:29, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

This really is extraordinary. Selective quotation adduced to exempt oneself from correcting a defective text. If you read all the relevant article, and not just the conclusion that adds some marginal support for your views, you will see that Israel has not annexed East Jerusalem. I.e.

(1)I simply wish to show that from an Israeli perspective the legal and political status of expanded East Jerusalem is not the settled and deeply embedded constitutional question that most assume it is.

(2)'Despite its official position, successive governments in Israel have tried, in their policies and propaganda, to create the impression that the fate of Jerusalem has been sealed--that politically and legally and in every other respect the portions of the municipality over the Green Line are as much a part of the country as any other district.

(3.1967)One such misconception is the mistaken claim', asserted by many, including Dore Gold in his 1995 publication on Jerusalem, that the Levi Eshkol government "annexed" East Jerusalem by the legal and administrative measures it implemented in 1967.

(4.1967)The term 'annexation,' is out of place. The measures adopted related to the integration of Jerusalem in the administrative and municipal spheres and furnish a legal basis for the protection of the Holy Places. (Letter to UN 1967)

(5.1980 Knesset Jerusalem Law)'passed by the Israeli parliament, the relevant clause of the Basic Law reads as follows: "Jerusalem, complete and united, is the capital of Israel."

(5.1980)'As in 1967, neither the word annexation (sipuach) nor sovereignty (ribonut) were used. The consensus of legal scholars is that this action added nothing to the legal or administrative circumstance of the city, although, especially at the time, its passage was considered to have political importance and sparked a vigorous protest reaction from the world community. As was true of the legislation and administrative measures taken in June 1967, the Basic Law-Jerusalem of 1980 neither proclaimed Israeli sovereignty in or over the city nor used the term annexation. Added to the reasons for this avoidance in 1967 was the promise the Israeli government made to the United States at the time of the Camp David accords to refrain from advancing or implementing claims to sovereignty in parts of the land of Israel across the Green Line before the completion of the transitional period of "full autonomy" and before the end of negotiations on the final settlement. Evidence that the Begin government, even after passage of this law, understood that Israel had yet to fully annex this city and that it did not have a claim to sovereignty which could be defended before the International Court of Justice, is its decision to withdraw its attempt in October 1980 to take over the Palestinian-owned East Jerusalem Electric Corporation. According to press reports, officials believed that the move would interfere with the continuing process of establishing 'the future status of Jerusalem as a unified city under full Israeli sovereignty'.

(6.1968)'Above all, it has been the judgments of the Israeli Supreme Court and arguments made by Israeli jurists in the process of making those judgments that reveal the complexity of expanded East Jerusalem's status in Israeli law. What emerges from these judgments and the strained and awkward reasoning contained in some of them is that these 71 square kilometers exist in a kind of Israeli legal limbo. This status was created to obviate the need for formal announcements of annexation or sovereignty.

(7.1969)the Israeli Supreme Court had to speak clearly on this matter came in 1969 when an unusual case (Ruidi vs. Hebron Military Tribunal) came before it on appeal. Although it has been incorrectly cited to prove the opposite of the conclusions it contains, the reasoning in this case and its outcome are strong evidence for my interpretation of the legal situation in the context of which the Israeli government remains extremely reluctant to make or test any official claim to have annexed expanded East Jerusalem to the State of Israel.

(8.idem)Justice Haim Cohen, in his opinion, stressed that neither the Supreme Court of Israel nor the military government could make a determination as to whether East Jerusalem had been annexed or who was sovereign there. That, he stressed, was a political problem. In his authoritative analysis of this case, Yoram Dinstein noted the ironic fact that here, as in other fora, the Arabs have generally been the ones to exaggerate the meaning of Israel's actions and declarations, to interpret them as having constituted the 'annexation' of East Jerusalem, whereas Israel itself has always refrained from making this claim.

Nishidani (talk) 14:18, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Irony of ironies, it is the Arabs who mistakenly assert Israel has 'annexed' East Jerusalem. There is no unequivocable evidence, no formal legal act, that indeed Israel has done so. To say it has annexed East Jerusalem is to endorse an Arab POV, and a phrasing typical of the pro-Israeli convervative commentariat.Nishidani (talk) 14:18, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Yup, read the whole thing. Lustig is clearly stating his own interpretation of the term, which is why he took care to point out that his analysis is not the only possible meaning. Which means - a great as that article is, it's not the one conclusive meaning, but just one expert's opinion, as he himself indicated.

Why do I even bother writing this? You're obviously going to pick some words I said, and turn them around to attack me or some other editor here; or, if you're in another mood, try to change your claims yet again, as you have so often done, doing anything to avoid the actual points, arguing over and over again regarding irrelevant points no one even contested. So, more irrelevant literary references? Another UN resolution, saying East J. is occupied? Another quip about "the young", or about how nationalistic I am? Whatever. okedem (talk) 14:30, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

No Lustick, had you read the article or my excerpts, cites very many Israeli legal sources, to ground his own opinion, and those sources consensually say annexation has not occurred in legal terms. But the point is, the text of Jerusalem says 'annexed'. Since this is a declaration of an ostensible fact, whereas it is just one minority opinion about the situation, and not an uncontested fact, on what grounds in the Wiki rule book re WP:NPOV can you defend it? If a majority of Israeli legal scholars point out that a formal act of annexation has not only never been passed, but that both the Supreme Court and the Israeli government has been consistenly leary of stating that an annexation in the legal sense has occurred, this means that the presence of the word in this article is inappropriate, as representing a minority POV as a statement of the facts. It's that simple.Nishidani (talk) 14:37, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Whatever. okedem (talk) 14:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Now you complain about which dictionary I chose (Is this one better, Master?)? Play the age card? Seriously, what the hell is your problem? My God, just forget about it. I don't fucking care. You want your power trip, you want to drive me away? Fine; you got it. I don't need crap like this from you or anyone else. Put the word disputed in; the world is not going to collapse over it and I'm certainly not going to kill myself having to listen to you playing holier than thou for a few more weeks. You win. Now, leave me the fuck alone. -- tariqabjotu 13:37, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Come now, there is no need to be angry. Leave you alone? I was discussing a problematical issue and you joined in, and I replied to you. That is not harassment. If you dislike the argument, I will not pester you to stay here. Power trip? I'm not an administrator. I don't threaten people with perpetual reverts, bearing the authority a community, has invested in such a role that such a revert would have. You have waved a warning sign at me simply because I noted that there is an error in the text no one has corrected. Indeed, worse, you have justified keeping the error by threatening to revert me automatically if I even dare to correct it. I've never encountered this behaviour before, and, though too old to be shocked, am saddened. If you're happy with the error, so be it. But I have replied to okedem on why annexation is POV. Nishidani (talk) 14:18, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Hi, all. I think that this matter, of using "annexation" and "asserting sovereignty" in the article is much more serious than the "Jerusalem is the capital" debate. The latter is a question of neutrality, of undue weight, of phrasing and semantics. But as for the first, the article is simply baldly stating as fact something which is untrue and uncitable, and jarring. Israel has never "asserted sovereignty" over East Jerusalem, or any part of the West Bank for that matter. Israel explicitly denied annexing East Jerusalem in 1967. I have been waiting for the article to be unprotected to change it, but missed the brief opportunity afforded by Peter. It is indeed true that what is in the article now tends to be the Arab POV. A similar case is that of the Golan Heights. The Israeli & US point of view is that the Golan was not annexed, while the Arab POV is that it was. For documentation of a UN debate on this matter, which might help shed light on this one too, I refer to Jean Kirkpatrick's memoirs. Just to explain why things line up this way, if it is helpful for anyone: annexation following a war - the acquisition of territory by force is generally understood to be illegal since the UN charter. Israel has made declarations and laws which to an unfriendly eye can be read as a step toward annexation. So the Arab states, which I am sorry to say have not always been Israel's best friends, are quick to accuse Israel of illegal behavior. John Z (talk) 16:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

That indeed, as remarked, is one of the ironies of the situation. However, to be fair, it is also a position sustained by a fringe minority of Israeli jurists, and, I might add, Israeli spokesmen and many members of the pro-Israeli commentariat abroad. Lustick, as you know well remarks:-

'To be sure, there are Israeli jurists and scholars who maintain that annexation has been accomplished. Their arguments are weak and often calculated to create the political and legal reality that they implicitly admit does not now exist. From virtually any international legal perspective, according to prima facie consideration of the relevant documents and laws inside of Israel, consistent with the claims implicit in the behavior of Israeli politicians and based on the explicit judgment of leading Israeli judges and legal scholars, neither annexation nor the extension of sovereignty that attaches to annexation, has occurred.

I think perhaps this simple edit change has been complicated, in the minds of my interlocutors, by the impression I appear to have given them of recalcitrant obtusity regarding the 'Jerusalem is capital' question. I do hope your note helps them to see beyond me personally, to the issue. In changing it, they are not 'giving in' to a poco simpatico maverick, but simply registering a fact that both tells to Israel's advantage, and would illuminate both Arab and Western readers of the page that their common assumption, gleaned from the press, that annexation has taken place formally, is not true. The problem is, what word should replace annexed in the lead. I have no idea, and, as I have said, will not tamper with the article. I do hope that at least on this, we can see beyond any possible animosities this extenuating exchange may have engendered, and act responsibly towards the requirements of the text as per WP:NPOV. Best regards Nishidani (talk) 16:35, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Dispute resolution

I think all have been said. IMO, we should seek WP:DR now. We have the new WP:ECCN that may help. Imad marie (talk) 12:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I've been thinking DR for some time.--Peter cohen (talk) 16:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Imad marie. I think a certain patience on Wiki articles is required, even if one finds much that is objectionable. I have argued the case as thoroughly as I can, and have found little support. To really catch up the wiki community in an extended repeat of the argument without substantial support is usually not productive. Perhaps the sober thing is to see if there are a sufficient number of people following the article who think the point should be pursued, i.e., to bide your time for some weeks or a month.Nishidani (talk) 16:35, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I said previously that I'm willing to seek WP:DR as long as we also talk about whether Elvis is alive and whether the Earth is flat. Why limit ourselves with debating the merits of denying only one empirical fact? --GHcool (talk) 16:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

GHcool Well, in the meantime, it would be helpful if you could give your view on the annexation language, since it is something another editor, with a splendid record for impartiality and thorough knowledge of the area and no reputation for flatheaded, fatheaded, flatearther flatfootededly, fatuously finicky fraseological finangling such as I am seen to wear, sees as problematical, as I myself have argued. Nishidani (talk) 17:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

The sarcasm of certain contributors as well as the convenient way in which contributions about how WP:RSs such as the BBC and Encarta do not state Jerusalem is the capital of Israel get ignored when totting up the information, makes me feel that this issue is best dealt wth by WP:DR which wil hopefully provide a structure lacking here and some moderation. What is going on here is that vearious people are siexing their favourite acts nd gogn on about hem ad nauseam. They are ignoring or dismissing contrary information and this is coming down to who shouts longest and most insistently. Those of us who don't have the energy to post twenty times a day are getting souteddown.-Peter cohen (talk) 17:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't agree with Peter cohen more. The argumentum ad nauseam/denialism tactics is getting awfully dull. I suggest those tactics be dropped. --GHcool (talk) 17:51, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I doubt that in the history of the Wikipedia has so much vitriol been poured over such a small textual landscape. Because, friends, what are we talking about here? A total of three sentences:

• In the article Jerusalem, the first sentence: "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel."

• In the article Israel, the two sentences in the third paragraph: "Jerusalem is the country's capital, seat of government, and largest city. Jerusalem is not recognized as Israel's capital by any foreign government, however."

I think if we keep our eye on the target - and a mighty small target it is - it will help us all keep our tempers. --Ravpapa (talk) 05:47, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I think that putting the dispute sentence "not recognized by foreign governments" right next to the capital sentence "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel", would be fair. In both Israel and Jerusalem articles Imad marie (talk) 06:58, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

It wouldn't be, because international recognition is not a requirement for capital, and not even relevant. Such a sentence creates the false impression international recognition has anything to do with the status of capital, which, as was already shown, is not true. okedem (talk) 07:55, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

In the Israel it is already there. Does that mean the Israel article is acceptable to you, and only the Jerusalem article is in dispute? --Ravpapa (talk) 11:25, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

--Ravpapa has grasped the essence of the issue, with laconic clarity. In a general article on Israel, space is found for the immediate qualification asked for. Yet on the specific article, Jerusalem,(which, one would expect, should technically allow for greater focus) the same qualification, or a rephrasing, is denied as acceptable. All this nonsense would have been resolved by simply qualifying Jerusalem as 'declared', without any further expansion.Nishidani (talk) 12:36, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Again with that? 'Declared' would be misleading. The city serves as capital, not just declared as such.

And that qualification wasn't consensual, but added by one editor, with no agreement from anyone. There's a good explanation in the footnotes, and in an entire paragraph in Jerusalem's lead. okedem (talk) 12:49, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

And the "in Israel" is open to dispute. Internationally the majority view is that part of Jerusalem is in Israel and the rest is in occupied territory, Israel obviously considers all of the city- complete with its post-67 boundaries - is in Israel, some places do their best to claim that Israel doesn't exist and some claim that Jerusalem is not in any country until such time as its final status is agreed. --Peter cohen (talk) 16:10, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment about the current structure:

1. Israel article: no where in the lead the dispute is mentioned, it is only mentioned in a footnote.
2. Jerusalem article: the first paraghraph of the article is a single statement paraghraph: "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel", as if this paraghraph challenges any opposing views. And then the dispute is explained in the last and fourth paraghraph.

Imad marie (talk) 16:51, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

As it should be. --GHcool (talk) 16:55, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, well, since my post the article on Israel was revised, and the second sentence that I quoted was removed. --Ravpapa (talk) 05:38, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Good grief, that quick? overnight? don't tell me the direttore d'orchestra of the Hasbara Fullharmonic has been tinkling the ivories with eine kleine Nichtmusik again? Rats. I missed it.Nishidani (talk) 07:59, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Further evidence that WP:DR on the whole matter is the way to go.--Peter cohen (talk) 09:28, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Scope of issue

Before going to DR, we need to define what exactly we are disputing here, and as I've said in my second comment in this discussion: I'm not here to say that "Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel", my point is that the disputed nature of this claim is somehow being hidden, and not given enough weight.

Also, per Nishidani's suggestion, let's see how many editors agree to that before going to a DR. Imad marie (talk) 10:14, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

No point in that when one side refuses to present any sources for their claims, relying instead on Original Research and personal interpretations, ignoring perfectly good sources with ridicules claims, trying to interpret the source's words as somethings else (of course a source published in 2006, when saying "Jerusalem", actually means "West Jerusalem". They've been sleeping for the last 40 years, completely unaware of any changes in the world, and never heard about the controversy).

As enjoyable as a scholarly discussion might be, without relevant sources, it's meaningless. One side has presented nothing to counter the definition of capital, Jerusalem being the seat of government, Jerusalem being designated capital by Israel, Jerusalem's municipal boundaries including East Jerusalem, and so on. They've presented no sources for any alternate definition, no sources mentioning the need for international recognition (despite claiming such recognition is required), no sources about anything relevant. All we've seen is a barrage of quotes for completely irrelevant, and usually undisputed claims (regarding the legality of Israel's actions, lack of embassies, etc.), and trying to infer from that, that somehow that means Jerusalem isn't the capital. There's no use for presenting sources for points no one disputes, and it's nothing more than a smokescreen to hide the fact no pertinent sources have been presented. That's not how it works. Every time one of those silly claims get old, we hear a new one (like suddenly, "Jerusalem", in the year 2006, means "West Jerusalem", a new claim, just as silly as the previous ones).

If the whole discussion is over giving even more room to dispute, it's nothing more than another attack on the whole idea of cooperative work and compromises, another link in the chain of events of this sort. Reach a compromise, wait a bit, and then attack it again, pulling more and more to your side. Extremely counter-productive. Mind you, I think there's too much room for the dispute already, but that's the whole point of a compromise. If people of different POVs are all not completely pleased, it might be a good compromise. Even if you think the balance isn't exactly right, appreciate that it's a compromise position, that took a very long time to work out. Appreciate that in attacking one compromise, you're just giving more legitimacy to opening up more compromises. You're weakening our entire system for working these things out, and making sure that whatever new compromise reached will be shortly replaced by another. When I reach some compromise, I uphold it, even if it's not all I wanted. I defend it in discussions, I revert people changing it without discussion. Because I understand the importance of compromises to this system of ours - without long-lived compromises, we're doomed to argue forever, always edit-warring, pulling to this side and that, never reached a good stable solution, never even having time to actually improve articles. Think about that before destroying this compromise. okedem (talk) 10:25, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry you haven't read the thread, though you've participated heavily in it, since your summary is wholly tendentious and expresses many misprisions. On several points, the position you dismissed airily as ignoring the facts was shown to be, in fact, correct (annexation). The fact that, though your attention has been drawn to this, you yourself will not assist in making the required edit, suggests your partiality. Perhaps back in the past, 'annexation' was the result of a 'compromise'. In the terms you now address the issue, one doesn't touch the compromise even though later reflection has shown that it is notn only inadequate, but an untrue statement. You appear to like the text as it sits, and as it sits it tells to Israel's advantage. That is partisan editing, not editing for a just compromise. The problem here is not that Jerusalem's annexation is a 'fait accompli', but that some editors see the existing wording to that effect as a fait accompli and any compromise would constitute 'yielding won ground' to the 'enemy' without a quid pro quo. The page and issue thus reflects the realworld history of negotiations over the area, and like those negotiations, is ever stalled because one party has nothing to lose by insisting on keeping to the 'facts on the ground'. The 'truth' as usual is subject to barter, but if one has gold in one's hands, one doesn't barter it for nothing.Nishidani (talk) 10:39, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Prime example of your evasive discussion technique. The question of 'annexation' is irrelevant to the topic discussed - "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel", and you only raised it, as usual, to attack me. Only later did you try to link that to the actual article. Again, you use the irrelevant topic of "annexation" to pretend any of the actual, relevant, points have been addressed by you. A tactic you like to employ.

If you think the word "annexation" is inaccurate, feel free to suggest an alternate phrasing. I feel no attachment to it, and expressed no opinion regarding its place in this article. I only explained that even your source qualifies his analysis be saying it's only one possible interpretation of the term "annexation". "The fact that ... suggests your partiality" shows again how fond you are of personal attacks, usually as a substitute to any meaningful discussion. I have little to contribute to the discussion of "annexation" at this point, and many more important things to do, so I leave the floor to others. Call me evil for it, if you wish. okedem (talk) 10:50, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Annexation is intimately related to the assertion that Jerusalem is Israel's capital.There are two issues, on one, annexation, no one disputes that it is inappropriate. I judge editors also by their readiness to help each other in consensual adjustments to the text. I do not note any readiness by those in here who disputed 'annexation' (only to be shown it is technically incorrect for the article to use this word) to patch in an alternative. They let the word stand, others do not know if, in suggesting an alternative, they will enagge an edit war. Editorial bona fides is also shown by assuming a responsibility in such cases. The huge silence on this is what justifies my comment about partisan editing. As the text on 'annexation' sits, it looks good for Israel, and so one doesn't touch it.Nishidani (talk) 11:25, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure, sure, whatever. You're real shy about suggesting an alternative, frightened of suggesting anything. Others' silence is what's stopping you, and an editor couldn't possibly be busy studying for a couple of exams, and choose not to participate in a discussion. Of course, whatever you say. okedem (talk) 11:44, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Various suggestions have been made. 'Assumed administrative control over' etc.Nishidani (talk) 12:02, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Nishidani, just not to get into endless debates again, we need to define what exactly the suggested change is. Speaking for myself, I suggest giving the disputed nature of Jerusalem more weight, the fact that almost all countries of the world has declined to recognize Jerusalem as the capital (because East Jerusalem is occupied) deserves to be given more weight. Imad marie (talk) 11:13, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I disagree on giving the disputed nature of Jerusalem more weight in the lead. I incline to the point made by Ravpapa, a mere adjective (disputed/declared), or a terse phrase ('though disputed/not recognized as such' by other countries), after 'is the capital' is all that is required. This is not earth-shaking, and is the most rational, economical solution. Nishidani (talk) 11:25, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Agree... Imad marie (talk) 11:41, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

You have provided no sources showing any importance of international recognition or location of embassies to the status of capital, and so such an addition would create the false impression of these things being relevant to that status. okedem (talk) 11:44, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Read Haaretz this morning. Syria is to put an embassy in Lebanon, an important move that will mean Syrian recognition for the first time that Lebanon is an independent state. The local of embassies is everywhere indicative of status recognition. You persist in not understanding, I take it you do not wish to understand the point. It is simply a matter of laconically weighting the said passage with one word to eliminate the intrinsic ambiguity of 'Jerusalem', since Jerusalem is partially foreign, non-Israeli territory de jure. So DR is inevitably the only road to take some time down the track. Nishidani (talk) 12:02, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

New look at the issues here

I have attempted to be laconic in this discussion, thus, I believe, racking up points with both sides. I am now going to ruin any respect I may have earned by making a suggestion.

First of all, this whole argument has nothing to do with facts or sources. Everyone agrees on the basic facts of the history of the dispute over Jerusalem: the Jerusalem Law, and the lack of international recognition that that law has so far attained; the incorporation of Arab neighborhoods into the Jerusalem municipal boundaries, and the social and political schism that that act has until now failed to overcome. No, this argument is not about facts, but is entirely semantic - what words will we use to describe this factual situation. Since the argument is semantic and not factual, all of Okedem's impassioned references to reliable sources, and Nishidani's sardonic but equally impassioned political tirades are irrelevant. We are not trying to resolve the Middle East conflict. We are trying to pick the words we will use.

That said, here is what I suggest:

Israel: In the last sentence of the second paragraph:

...Since its foundation, Israel's boundaries, its determination of Jerusalem as its capital, and even the State's very right to exist have been subject to dispute, especially among its Arab neighbors. However, Israel has signed peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan, and efforts are being made to reach a permanent accord with the Palestinians.

Adding a reference to the dispute in the third paragraph is awkward, and irrelevant to the main subject of the paragraph (which is simply a mention of the major cities), and I therefore believe that tariqabjotu was correct in removing it.

Jerusalem: Change the first sentence to "Jerusalem is the seat of the government of Israel."

Relax, Okedem. You and I and Nishidani know that there are hosts (רבבות) of words and meanings behind that change, but 99.9% of the readers of Wikipedia will never notice the difference between "seat of government" and "capital". And a great benefit of this compromise is that it will enable us to remove the disputed tag from the top of the article - something that flies over the article like a red flag, alerting everyone to the dispute, much more than the minor change in wording will do.

In conclusion, I want to say two things: first, every attempt I have made at mediating disputes of this kind has ended with me getting hounded out of the discussion, and I fully expect that to happen again here. Second, as a former denizen of the place, who grew up on Abu Shukri's hummous and Benny HaDayag's scrumptious Nile perch, my own feeling is that the lead of the Jerusalem article doesn't begin to express the city's character and complexity. Jerusalem deserves better than the bald and barren "is the capital of Israel." But that is for another discussion. --Ravpapa (talk) 12:20, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I would underwrite the whole of the foregoing intervention, (even if it means that I must assent to the description of the arguments I have advanced as 'political tirades'!: semantic tirades might be better, but, as Vonnegut would say, so it goes, whatever). Ravpapa's suggestions are of course subject to modification, but what strikes the reader is that they show a fearless equanimity in assessing a dispute. There is not even a hint he has a vested interest in the cui bono, as distinct from the objective complexities of the text, and the city it describes. If we could all take a leaf, or sheaf, out of his Folio, wiki would be paradise.Nishidani (talk) 12:49, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Ravpapa, it is very much about sources. The question of whether or not to call Jerusalem capital can only be answered by sources defining it as such, and/or by sources defining the meaning of "capital". Choosing words requiring understanding their meaning, so we can use them properly.

As all other capital city articles here use the word "capital" in all its glory, not calling Jerusalem "capital" stands out. If according to sources, Jerusalem answers the definition of capital, not using the words is simply succumbing to unjustified pressure, instead of using the most-accurate phrasing to express the facts.

You write "And a great benefit of this compromise is that it will enable us to remove the disputed tag from the top of the article" - sure, but what will happen in a few weeks or months? Some editors will start this all over again, whether new or veteran, and we'll get dragged into another argument, and again there'll be claims of POV, bias, nationalism, and all that, and again supporters of a change will advocate "a compromise", and over and over and over again (and always to one side. Maybe I should stop upholding previous compromises, and let the "pro-Israeli" editors change the articles in Israel's favor; It is getting tiring reverting them again and again). This is why compromises should be respected in the first place, and not trampled again and again. okedem (talk) 13:08, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

You refer repeatedly to the fear that, were a compromise made, it would open up an edit war with new and veteren editors coming in to push a Palestininian POV further. I think proverbiallty this translates as, 'giv'em an inch and they'll take a foot'. I can't speak for others, but if I see luminously cooperative editing with my 'adversaries' on a page, it makes me ratchet up my care in seeing that other posters from 'my side' stick to the rules. I tend to get quite finicky, and indeed wary, about edits from 'my side' that might have the appearance of gaming the page. The measure is called 'confidence building' but I see little evidence for it here. I don't even edit that page because I know exactly what you're speaking about, and limit myself to offering suggestions, which may be culled or rejected by its habitual editors.Nishidani (talk) 13:58, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

It is not just some unfounded concern I have. A compromise has already been reached. A stable version created, which was approved by multiple editors, even though they didn't necessarily like it too much. The inch has been given. Now a foot is being called for (with no sources to justify taking said foot). okedem (talk) 14:14, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I have been remiss for not doing my research. Can you point me to the discussion where the previous compromise was reached? Thanks, --Ravpapa (talk) 14:27, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Ravpapa, please search for discussions titled "Lead", "Capital", or similar in the archives of both Talk:Israel and Talk:Jerusalem. The current leads were developed during quite a few discussions, up to and culminating in the FA reviews. okedem (talk) 15:06, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I remember asking Okedem once the same question about this compromise, and I had the same answer: "go search in the talk archives". Imad marie (talk) 15:37, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, for the exact same reason I just explained. The lead took shape over quite a few discussions, over some time, including the FA discussions. Go through the archives, read the discussions. That's the least you can do, before complaining of bias and advocating changes to the leads of obviously heavily edited and discussed articles such as these. okedem (talk) 16:22, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Compromise is not just about each side yielding slightly to the other. it is about each side adapting its requests based on reasonable arguments and concerns expressed by the other side....also being willing to come up with new sources, alternate textm, and being willing to assume good faith for the other side's demands/requests.

We are not asking Palestinians to dilute any claims of their own, but this specific issue relates to Jerusalem's staus within Israel's political life, so it is hard to find equivalent issues from the Palestinian side to reflect here. so a bit of flexibility seems called for in this case. In other cases, i have always, I feel, been open in calling for attention to and detailing of some various Palestinian concerns, based on their own legitimate perceptions, sources, etc. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:29, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Well I've been foraging through the archives and also reading randomly throughout the whole edit page history. It began like this in 2002:

'Jerusalem is the capital city of the state of Israel. This status is not fully recognized by most countries, and most diplomatic missions are maintained in Tel Aviv.'

The result of several years of editing and argument is that everything has been eliminated bar 'capital'. What one might call a unilateral consensus, in that, of two perspectives, one has managed to thrust all qualification into a note, or down the page, and retain its preferred version.Nishidani (talk) 18:17, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

The 2-sentence paragraph which you just quoted actually sounds kind of ok to me. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 22:35, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't sound ok with me since "most diplomatic missions" is weasel wording, and many many many many diplomatic missions are not maintained only in Tel Aviv nor is Jerusalem excluded/ignored/avoided in many many many many diplomatic missions. --GHcool (talk) 22:43, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I did my homework, and I think, at least for the time being, I am forced to withdraw my recommendation. For the following reason: The last serious discussion of this issue was in January 2007, and continued on and off for about four months. As you can imagine, substantially the same claims were made on both sides of the argument, and with the same unrelenting vigor. The discussion included an RFC with the honorable Blueboar providing his (as usual) insightful comments. The banter went on until April 2007, and then, except for a brief sputter in March, the issue was laid to rest until the current discussion.

On the one hand, more than a year has passed since serious discussion of the issue, and I think that it is perfectly all right to raise it once again. On the other hand, the last discussion - which paralleled the granting of FAC status to both the Israel (4/2007) and Jerusalem (9/2007) articles - involved many more participants (13 by my count, but maybe I missed some) than have chimed in here. So, without the involvement of considerably more editors, I don't think we have a mandate to change anything. --Ravpapa (talk) 13:16, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. One obviously cannot undertake a review of this sort on the strength of one or two 'dissidents'. So my original advice is to leave the page discussion as it is, and see in the future if there are sufficient numbers of people who think there is some merit in revising that earlier discussion. That is the nature of consensus, and one must accept the customary terms in which such consensus is negotiated, which means a significant number challenging a text.Nishidani (talk) 13:26, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

List of options suggested over the years

Please do not note your opinions on the matter here as this is just a list summarizing the suggestions/examples thusfar.

LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 04:29, 15 July 2008 (UTC) Every week new people suggest varying additions to the "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" sentence. As we all know, none have been regarded as acceptable by those who wish to see the sentence remain exactly as is, while the sentence, as is, continues to elicit a host of alternatives. I would like to list some of the suggested possibilities here, for posterity:

• "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel"
• "Jerusalem is Israel's official capital, although Israel's sovereignty over Jerusalem is not widely recognised by the international community (see Positions on Jerusalem)."
• "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. Jerusalem has not been internationally recognized as Israel's capital, and no embassies are located in Jerusalem-proper."
• "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel; it is the seat of Israel's government, but not of diplomacy."
• "Jerusalem is Israel's seat of government and its proclaimed capital. Israel's sovereignty over the city is disputed, particularly by Palestinians who view its eastern portion as occupied."
• "Jerusalem is the proclaimed capital of Israel"
• "Jerusalem is the disputed capital of Israel"
• "Israel regards Jerusalem as its capital, although hardly any other country recognizes it as such."
• "It is the official capital of Israel, although the status of the city under international law is unsettled."

Other approaches to the issue:

• English:"From 1948 until 1967, the Western part of Jerusalem was administered by Israel as its capital, while East Jerusalem was administered by Jordan. The city was reunited by the Israeli victory in the Six-Day War, although its status remains disputed. An Israeli law of 1980 declared Jerusalem to be the 'eternal, undivided' capital of Israel, while East Jerusalem is being claimed as the intended capital of a future Palestinian state. The status of the city's holy places is also disputed."
• "Jerusalem (Hebrew: יְרוּשָׁלַיִם (help·info), Yerushaláyim or Yerushalaim; Arabic: القُدس (help·info), al-Quds)[ii] is the capital and largest city of Israel. Located in the Judean Mountains between the Mediterranean Sea and the Dead Sea, Jerusalem has a storied history that goes back five thousand years, over the course of which it changed hands repeatedly. In recent times, the annexation of the eastern part of the city by Israel has been a major source of conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. Palestinians, along with the United Nations, do not recognize the annexation and see East Jerusalem as the future capital of a Palestinian state."
• "Jerusalem (Hebrew: יְרוּשָׁלַיִם (help·info), Yerushaláyim or Yerushalaim; Arabic: القُدس (help·info), al-Quds)[ii] is Israel's seat of government, capital,[iii] and largest city both in population and area, with a population of approximately 724,000 (as of 2006) in an area totaling 126 square kilometers (49 sq mi). Located in the Judean Mountains between the Mediterranean Sea and the Dead Sea, Jerusalem has a storied history that goes as far back as the 4th millennium BCE. Since then, its inhabitants have included Jebusites, Romans, Byzantines, Arabs, and Israelis. Today the city is governed by Israel but remains meaningful to Palestinians, who see it as the capital for a future Palestinian state."
• French: Jerusalem... is a middle-eastern city which has a dominant place in the Jewish, Christian and Muslim religions, and in Israeli and Palestinian national sentiment. The state of Israel has declared unified Jerusalem as its "eternal capital". This designation is not accepted by the international community. East Jerusalem is also claimed as capital of a potential future Palestinian state.
• Swedish: Jerusalem... is since 1949 the de facto capital of Israel, a status that has met weak international recognition. Most countries keep their embassies in Tel Aviv.
• German: Jerusalem... is the capital of the state of Israel. The presidency and... are located there. East Jerusalem was conquered during the six-day war and annexed in 1980 by a constitutinal amendment. The annexation is condemned as illegal by the international community and is therefore not recognized. There are thus international reservations about the extensions of Israeli rights to the eastern parts of the city and the expansion of the city boundary (and thereby the status as capital) to the east. The Palestinians claim the eastern part of the city as capital of a future Palestinian state.
• Italian: Jerusalem... is located...enormous historical and geopolitical importance... symbolic place for... Christianity, Judaism and Islam. The international governance originally called for by the UN for the city of Jerusalem (corpus separatum) was never realized. Actually, the international community considers East Jerusalem to be occupied territory, in the sense of the IV Geneva Convention, while the state of Israel considers East Jerusalem an integral part of its own territory, although it does not recognize citizenship rights of its inhabitants. The state of Israel has declared Jerusalem as its capital since 1950 and introduced legislation to this effect in 1980, but no other UN member state recognizes this, and most countries maintain their diplomatic missions in Tel-Aviv, the economic and financial center of the country.
• BRITANNICA © :Jerusalem Hebrew Jerushalayim, Arabic Bayt al-Muqaddas or Al-Quds ancient city of the Middle East that since 1967 has been wholly in the possession of Israel. In 1949 the city was proclaimed its capital by Israel. Jerusalem plays a central role in the spiritual and emotional perspective of the three major monotheistic religions. For Jews throughout the world, it is the focus of age-old yearnings, a living proof ofancient grandeur and independence and a centre of national renaissance;for Christians, it is the scene of their Saviour's agony and triumph; for Muslims, it is the goal of the Prophet Muhammad's mystic night journey and the site of one ofIslam's most sacred shrines. For all three faiths it is a centre of pilgrimage—the Holy City, the earthly prototype of the heavenly Jerusalem.
• ENCARTA © :Jerusalem (Hebrew Yerushalayim; Arabic Al Quds), city lying at the intersection of Israel and the West Bank, located between the Mediterranean Sea and the Dead Sea, about 50 km (about 30 mi) southeast of the Israeli city of Tel Aviv-Yafo. Jerusalem is composed of two distinct sections: West Jerusalem and East Jerusalem. West Jerusalem, which is inhabited almost entirely by Jews, has been part of Israel since Israel was established in 1948. East Jerusalem, which has a large Palestinian Arab population and recently constructed Jewish areas, was held by Jordan between 1949 and the Six-Day War of 1967. During the war, East Jerusalem was captured by Israel, which has administered it since. Israel claims that Jerusalem is its capital, but Palestinians dispute the claim and the United Nations has not recognized it as such. Jews, Christians, and Muslims consider Jerusalem a holy city, and it contains sites sacred to all three religions.