Talk:History of Jerusalem

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

History of Jerusalem is part of WikiProject Palestine - a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative, balanced articles related to Palestine on Wikipedia. Join us by visiting the project page where you can add your name to the list of members and contribute to the discussion. This template adds articles to Category:WikiProject Palestine articles.
NB: Assessment ratings and other indicators given below are used by the Project in prioritizing and managing its workload.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the Project's importance scale.
After rating the article, please provide a short summary on the article's ratings summary page to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses.

This article seriously needs some ancient history that is not based on the Bible. --Zero 10:24, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes. Let's use the Qur'an instead. woops: It is not there. Zeq 18:43, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Um, yes it is. Either way, there are other sources about Jerusalem other than religious texts, they're just harder to find. Raven 21:19, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Zero. This article reads like a bible story, not an encyclopedia. Recently the Smithsonian magazine did a full article on the latest archeology of the area which indicates that Jeruselum was unihabited until about 200 years after the supposed time of King David, and then it was just a small goat herder village for hundreds of years after. It seems that they can't turn over a shovel full of sand that doesn't indicate that the Bible is all wrong. Lets update this page!http://www.smithsonianmagazine.com/issues/2006/may/archaeology.php

Contents

[edit] Discussion of the CURRENT status of Jerusalem

This article seriously needs some ancient history that is not based on the Bible. --Zero 10:24, 22 December 2005 (UTC). I agree with Zero’s comments. The section on Antiquity (prehistory - 6 CE) gives the false impression that the Hebrews and Jews were the only occupiers of Jerusalem that mattered. Until more balanced information is provided, this article should be listed as “factually disputed” as it is biased to the Jewish and biblical version of history, even though the history of Jerusalem also involves other nations and peoples. . “More on Canaanite civilization: "Recent archeological digs have provided evidence that Jerusalem was a big and fortified city already in 1800 BCE...Findings show that the sophisticated water system heretofor attributed to the conquering Israelites pre-dated them by eight centuries and was even more sophisticated than imagined...Dr. Ronny Reich, who directed the excavation along with Eli Shuikrun, said the entire system was built as a single complex by Canaanites in the Middle Bronze Period, around 1800 BCE." The Jewish Bulletin, July 31st, 1998. . Before the Hebrews first migrated there around 1800 B.C., the land of Canaan was occupied by Canaanites: "Between 3000 and 1100 B.C., Canaanite civilization covered what is today Israel, the West Bank, Lebanon and much of Syria and Jordan...Those who remained in the Jerusalem hills after the Romans expelled the Jews [in the second century A.D.] were a potpourri: farmers and vineyard growers, pagans and converts to Christianity, descendants of the Arabs, Persians, Samaritans, Greeks and old Canaanite tribes." Marcia Kunstel and Joseph Albright, "Their Promised Land." . The Jewish kingdoms were only one of many periods in ancient Palestine: "The extended kingdoms of David and Solomon, on which the Zionists base their territorial demands, endured for only about 73 years...Then it fell apart...[Even] if we allow independence to the entire life of the ancient Jewish kingdoms, from David's conquest of Canaan in 1000 B.C. to the wiping out of Judah in 586 B.C., we arrive at [only] a 414 year Jewish rule." Illene Beatty, "Arab and Jew in the Land of Canaan." http://www.cactus48.com/earlyhistory.html Tony February 4, 2006


Why is the current status included in the history article? This is redundant with the main article. Also it politicizes the article, while one would expect to read on history under history. A huge bias towards the disputes is already typical of most Israel/Palestine related articles. gidonb 13:04, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree that current politics should be left for other articles. Some of the "current status" is history but it tends to duplicate the previous section. What is useful can be merged upwards. The rest we don't need. --Zero 13:28, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for agreeing. I copy the text below. Anyone who finds historic data for this article or descriptions on Jerusalem in the present for the main article in the copied text, is welcome to make good use of it. gidonb 13:48, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

==Current status== (copied by gidonb on 13:48, 18 January 2006 (UTC), not written by me, please verify information!)

Israeli law designates Jerusalem as the capital of Israel; only a few countries recognize this designation. See Status as Israel's capital.

According to the 1947 UN Partition Plan, Jerusalem was supposed to be an international city, not part of either the proposed Jewish or Arab state. Following the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, West Jerusalem was occupied by Israel, while East Jerusalem (including the Old City) was occupied by Jordan, along with the West Bank. The Jordanian annexation of the West Bank was only recognized by the United Kingdom, who added a caveat that the recognition of Jordanian authority in east Jerusalem was only de facto.

In the 1967 Six-Day War, Israel captured East Jerusalem, and began taking steps to unify the city under Israeli control. In three legal measures passed by the Knesset on 27 and 28 June 1967 Israel extended its laws to 6.4 km² of Jordanian Jerusalem and 64 km² of the nearby West Bank, effectively annexing them (see Maps of Jerusalem pre- and post-1967). Residents of the annexed territory were offered Israeli citizenship on condition they renounce their Jordanian citizenship, which most of them refused to do.

In 1988, Jordan withdrew all its claims to the West Bank (including Jerusalem) in favor of the Palestine Liberation Organization.

The status of Palestinians in East Jerusalem is also controversial. The Palestinian residents of East Jerusalem have a 'permanent resident' status, which allows them to move within Israel proper. However should they move out of Israel proper (e.g. into the Palestinian territories), this status will be lost and they will not be able to return. Since many have extended families in the West Bank, only miles away, this often implies enormous hassles. By Israel's Citizenship Law, they are entitled to Israeli citizenship, which they can receive automatically or almost automatically, provided that they do not have any other citizenship. Thus, many Palestinians who would like to hold their Jordanian passports have to retain the status of permanent residents. Some Palestinians decline to accept citizenship since they consider it equivalent to accepting Israel's annexation.

Another issue is the status of family members not recorded in the census preceding the Israeli annexation of East Jerusalem. They must apply for entry into East Jerusalem for family reunification with the Ministry of the Interior. Palestinians complain that such applications have been arbitrarily denied for purposes of limiting the Palestinian population in East Jerusalem, while Israeli authorities claim they treat Palestinians fairly. These and other aspects have been a source of criticism from Palestinians and Israeli human rights organizations, such as B'Tselem.

Also see: Hebrew University HUJI

And while we are at it, the chapter 1948- is not really written as a history either. Some of it also redundant with the text above. gidonb 13:52, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Israel

Unless reasonable objections, I will add the Israel template to this article.Stoopideggs2 03:15, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Distortion of source

"Jordan also burnt down 57 synagogues" -- the given source does not make that claim. --Zerotalk 14:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

fixed it, thanks. Amoruso 05:12, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Note on the Gerald M. Steinberg-sourced material, I noted it as his, as per the preceding Guinn material.--AladdinSE 09:19, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary as it's in the ref. Previously, it used quotation remarks which is why it made sense to understand what it is. Amoruso 09:41, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't understand what you are trying to say. It is necessary, and perfectly in unison with the treatment given to the Guinn material.--AladdinSE 10:03, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

It's unnecessary in both cases, but in the first it will not be coherent since it used quotation marks. The names of the authors are in the references. Amoruso 10:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. It is rank POV double standards that Steinburg's material be treated as fact, while the material unfavorable to the Israeli position is given the qualifier "According to David Guinn".--AladdinSE 08:49, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism

I deleted this section:
"Historical Controversy
Recent archeological data indicates that Jerusalem was uninhabited until 200 years after the Biblical time of King David. Obviously this is in direct conflict with Judeo-Christian mythology and explosive in nature. However, it is important to note that this new data is well documented and widely accepted (very quietly) in the scientific community. http://www.smithsonianmagazine.com/issues/2006/may/archaeology.php"

This article does need a better criticism section, but this is not the way to do it. First, using terms like "explosive in nature" and "accepted (very quietly)" makes this sound like a tabloid article. Second, most of this article in the external link provided does not even deal with Jerusalem specifically. Third, much of the external link given is about the work of Israel Finkelstein, who is a controversial figure. Fourth, the claims in the criticism section are misleading, because while most archaeologists do not accept the Bible's version of Israelite history they certainly do not accept such a radical view as Finkelstein's--and they certainly don't keep this "very quiet." This article needs a more balanced view, but it needs an intelligent criticism section. SU Linguist 06:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for comment

There is currently a discussion at Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance about whether or not Jerusalem was captured by the Mongols in 1300. The opinions of other editors who are familiar with the topic, would be appreciated in the discussion. --Elonka 16:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 597BCE or 586 BCE

I always heard Jerusalem fell in 586 BCE, leading to the Babylonian captivity. This article says, without a reference, that it happened in 597 BCE. I have placed a "fact" tag on the claim. If no reference is forthcoming, I will change it to 586 BCE as given by refs such as the Catholic Encyclopedia [1] and the 1911 Britannica [2]. Edison (talk) 19:14, 17 March 2008 (UTC)