Talk:Modi'in Illit

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Book town[edit]

Is Kiryah really translated as book?--77.124.198.123 (talk) 20:02, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Sefer is book. I'm not sure how to translate kiryah though. --Shuki (talk) 21:02, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
It's hard to translate... basically it means district/borough, or even city (in the Israeli sense of the term) lol. So town is basically accurate enough. Breein1007 (talk) 01:27, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Weasel tag/ "widely regarded as illegal"[edit]

The issue of illegality of settlements is opinion. Has an international court that is agreed to by all the nations (such as the "U.S. Supreme Court" which is agreed to by all the U.S. states) been called upon to hear this and declared Modi'in Illit illegal and thus guilty of existing? Until such time as something of this nature happens, this is merely the opinion of some people, some journalists, some lawyers, some court somewhere possibly. As an opinion ("illegal under international law") it has no place in the lede. "Widely regarded" is in fact weaselly and implies WP agreement. See Weasel word Adverbs which detensify (eg "often", "probably") and its corollary "Adverbs which intensify" (such as "widely regarded"). Pay particular attention to the section on extrapolating. No study has been done to my knowledge which would allow us to use such an expression, and as it stands it appears to be WP:OR. Stellarkid (talk) 19:05, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

It is "weasely" but not the way you make it out to be. We should be following sources like BBC which state flat out that the "settlements are illegal under international law, though Israel disputes this." By saying "widely regarded", while true, it downplays how much this "opinion" is regarded as fact. nableezy - 20:59, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
There is a journalist on the BBC that wrote that opinion, and it can be added, along with the fact that others (not merely "Israel") dispute this claim. It does not belong in the lede of every Jewish town or community article in WP that their Arab neighbors and some others consider them illegitimate and illegal. "Widely regarded as illegal" simply does not belong, certainly not in the lede, even though you can find the reference. It is highly POV and the "widely" part is OR unless demonstrated. Stellarkid (talk) 00:32, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
That isnt by "a" journalist, every single BBC article about a settlement contains that line. It belongs in the lead of every Israeli settlement in the occupied territories. nableezy - 03:17, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
If you want something from a non-news source, here you go:

Article 49, paragraph 6, of the Fourth Geneva Convention provides: "The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies." That provision prohibits not only deportations or forced transfers of population such as those carried out during the Second World War, but also any measures taken by an occupying Power in order to organize or encourage transfers of parts of its own population into the occupied territory.
In this respect, the information provided to the Court shows that, since 1977, Israel has conducted a policy and developed practices involving the establishment of Settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, contrary to the terms of Article 49, paragraph 6, just cited.
... The Court concludes that the Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (including East Jerusalem) have been established in breach of international law.
LEGAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE CONSTRUCTION OF A WALL IN THE OCCUPIED PALESTINIAN TERRITORY, Advisory opinion by the International Court of Justice.

nableezy - 03:39, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
It is WP:OR for us to be making legal opinions, and POV to assert an opinion as fact. This article by Dore Gold says:

'...settlement activity was not defined as a violation of the 1993 Oslo Accords or their subsequent implementation agreements.

President Bush's deputy national security advisor, Elliot Abrams, wrote in the Washington Post on April 8, 2009, that the U.S. and Israel negotiated specific guidelines for settlement activity, whereby "settlement activity is not diminishing the territory of a future Palestinian entity."

Eugene Rostow, a former dean of Yale Law School who was also Undersecretary of State in the Johnson years, would write years later that "Israel has an unassailable legal right to establish settlements in the West Bank."

Thus, President Ronald Reagan declared on February 2, 1981, that the settlements were "not illegal."'
This flatly contradicts the assertion that "Israeli settlements in the West Bank are regarded as illegal under international law, though Israel disputes this".
Other dissenting opinions include this one in the Los Cruces Sun "Too bad international diplomacy doesn't have a replay button. If it did, the parties could look back at history, which would show that Israeli settlements not only are legitimate under international law but positively encouraged."

"The basic relevant provision, the League of Nations' 1922 British Mandate for Palestine, Article 6, encourages "close settlement by Jews on the land, including state lands and waste lands not required for public use." Most Israeli settlements in the West Bank have been built on land that was state land under the Ottomans, British, Jordanians and, after the 1967 Six-Day War, under the Israelis, or on property that has been privately purchased."

or this article from Commentary Magazine that says

"Indeed, the analysis underlying the conclusion that the settlements violate international law depends entirely on an acceptance of the Palestinian narrative that the West Bank is “Arab” land. Followed to its logical conclusion—as some have done—this narrative precludes the legitimacy of Israel itself."

and demonstrates that to state that the settlements are illegal is to "accept the Palestinian narrative" and is consequently POV.
Other articles that have a different view include this one in the Washington Post, and this one in the New York Times.
WP:NPOV says clearly: "The neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject, nor does it endorse or oppose specific viewpoints."
I am not saying that we should ignore the viewpoint, but I am sure it could be presented in a more neutral way, for example to say that there is a dispute over the legality of the settlements, but not to assert that the legality is "regarded" or "widely regarded" as this or that. I do think, however, that if the article is about Modi'in Illit, the source presented in the lede should also refer specifically to Modi'in Illit, and not to some generalized Israeli "settlements". Stellarkid (talk) 16:49, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
We are not making a legal opinion, the ICJ already did that. NPOV requires that we give each "POV" its due weight, and it is a super-majority view that Israeli settlements in the occupied territory are in violation of international law. The UNSC has been clear on this, the ICJ has been clear on this, and countless sources are clear on this. A few people disagree, that should be noted but it cannot be allowed to be treated on the same level of the super-majority view. And the BBC article cited is about Modi'in Illit. nableezy - 17:46, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

The BBC article mentions Modi'inIllit as being "over the Green Line" -- ie over the armistice line. This line is not a border and never was intended to be. Where do you get the opinion that "a few people disagree"? In fact that "opinion" was a travesty which ignores the Jewish people's historical national rights that the UN and the League of Nations once recognized and flies in the face of the principles they originally espoused. Stellarkid (talk) 22:35, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I dont know what you are arguing here. I dont plan to get into a discussion on the Jewish people's historical national rights. If you really believe it is not a super-majority view that Israeli settlements in the occupied territories, both Syrian and Palestinian, are violations of international law you have some reading to do. You can start with the following:

Tillman,Seth. The West Bank Hearings: Israel's Colonization of Occupied Territory, Journal of Palestine Studies, Vol. 7, No. 2 (Winter, 1978), pp. 71-87. University of California Press
p. 81-82: The language of the sixth clause of Article 49 of the fourth Geneva Convention is clear" "The Occupying Power shall not deport or tansfer parts of its own civilian popultion into the territory it occupies" . . . By no stretch of the legal imagination can this or any other provision of the fourth Geneva Convention be tortured into authorization for a belligerent occupying power to exempt itself from its volantarily contracted treaty obligation because it contests the legitimacy of the governing authority it displaced.
p. 83:Except for Israel itself, world opinion is now unanimous in its collective judgment that the Israeli colonization of the West Bank is both illegal and an obstacle to peace.

Lesch, Ann Mosley. Israeli Settlements in the Occupied Territories, 1967-1977, Journal of Palestine Studies, Vol. 7, No. 1 (Autumn, 1977), pp. 26-47
p. 27: The establishment of civilian settlements violated Article 49 of the Geneva Convention for the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, which prohibits the transfer of the occupiers' population to the occupied territories

Roberts, Adam. Prolonged Military Occupation: The Israeli-Occupied Territories Since 1967, The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 84, No. 1 (Jan., 1990), pp. 44-103. American Society of International Law
p. 85: The settlements program is quite simply contrary to international law. . . so plainly in violation of the Geneva Convention

Roberts, Adam. Decline of Illusions: The Status of the Israeli-Occupied Territories over 21 Years, International Affairs (Royal Institute of International Affairs 1944-), Vol. 64, No. 3 (Summer, 1988), pp. 345-359. Blackwell Publishing
p. 356: On the 20th anniversary of the occupation, the International Committee of the Red Cross highlighted the settlements issue in a tough statement deploring 'persistent violations of the Fourth Convention, often considered to be grave infractions; citizens of the occupying power continue to take up residence in the occupied territories'.

Let me know if you need more. nableezy - 23:21, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes, the point is that there is a difference of opinion with respect to legality and illegality, with what constitutes "Palestinian" land, and what constitutes "occupied" land, etc. That difference of opinion is given short shrift in this article, with the presumption of 'truth' to the view that Modi'in Illit is "illegal." I believe this is POV and will look to offer a compromise wording. I have no interest in going on with you about it. Feel free to have the last word. Stellarkid (talk) 23:59, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
There is not a real dispute as to what is "Palestinian territory" or if it is occupied, CAMERA and NGO Monitor's position aside. The scholarly sources are almost unanimous in saying that the West Bank, including E. Jerusalem, is part of the occupied Palestinian territories and that Israeli settlements in that territory are illegal. The difference of opinion is given, Israel disputes that the settlements are illegal under international law. Anything more than that would be giving undue weight to an extreme minority position. nableezy - 00:24, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

"reliance on primary sources"[edit]

Brewcrewer, could you please explain this illogical revert? Why exactly should the Israeli claim on the applicability of GCIV be included without one word about the fact the this view has been rejected as being without basis by the ICJ? If you wish, I will add a substantial amount of material on the topic of illegality of this colony under international law to the section so as to render moot any concern about an over-reliance on primary sources. I will add as many secondary sources as you would like. How many would you like? nableezy - 19:52, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

One.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:54, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
One for what? How is there "too much reliance on primary sources" when exactly one "primary source" is used and that primary source says, nearly word for word, what the article says? To be clear, the only primary source is the ICJ Wall decision. That decision rejects the Israeli position (pages 171-177). It also says that the ICRC has reaffirmed the applicability of GCIV to the oPt (and for that it is a secondary source). nableezy - 20:03, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
hey, just one secondary source. thats all i am asking for. the inclusion of contentious material based on primary sources is not a good idea, for one due to the potential OR issues. i'm open to being overruled by a consensus of positions based on our WP policies. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:36, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
What exactly is the "contentious" material. Primary sources are acceptable when they are being used for the views of the source. Citing the ICJ for the views of the ICJ is a valid use of a primary source. Can you please specify what the misuse of the primary source is? Do you really dispute the sentence? Or is it that you just want to ensure that Israel's specious argument on the applicability of GCIV to the occupied territories remains unanswered? nableezy - 16:49, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
I don't recall there being any policy-based reasons for not using primary sources, as long as they're used correctly. FWIW, here are a few secondary sources on this point: 1 2. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 19:19, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Archaeological site Khirbet Bad-Issa[edit]

Hi. I added a section about the "Archaeological site Khirbet Bad-Issa". I first had it under "History", but it doesn't seem to fit in. If somebody has a better idea where to place it, please feel free to do so. Ajnem (talk) 10:22, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Brewcrewer insist on that it is a "community" instead of a settlement[edit]

I reverted Brewcrewer:s version. He then reverted mine saying "if you're not familiar with topic and area I wont bother explaining it, so just go by the terms used in the source provided". Well, I am familiar with the topic and area. I see no reason to call it a "Jewish community" and why calling it by the most used used term (settlement) would "in this instance it actually changes the point made by the RS". It's a settlement and should be viewed as such. This term is used in the whole article except in this sentence and there is no reason for that. Also note that the other source referred to in the sentence (Jonathan Cook) also calls it a settlement. --IRISZOOM (talk) 20:03, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

If sources say settlement, then settlement. Simple as that. --Dailycare (talk) 20:15, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
In the sentence in the source you are referring to "community" is used. But now that you're insisting with your nonsense, I'll explain and allow you to apologize for wasting my time. Modi'in Illit is close to the green line, which means it is also close to communities within the green line that are not considered "settlements". Therefore saying it is the largest "settlement" in the area means that it is the largest settlement in the area but it may not be the largest community in the area, i.e. there is a community that is in the area within the green line that is larger. Saying it is the largest "community" in the area means that it is larger than any settlement outside the green line and any community within the green line. Two different meanings, not just political slogans. The NYT which always used the word "settlement" and uses the word throughout the article knew what it was doing when it used the word "community" in that one instance. It was making a specific point, which is not made using the word "settlement." So changing the word community to settlement is pure political hackery in the fact of facts. You think I give a fuck if there is one less "settlement" in Wikipedia? It's changing the point being made by the NYT. I'm not responding any more to this nonsense. If you want to revert back to "settlement" knock yourself out -- I don't give a damm. You're welcome. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:43, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Actually I think you have misconstrued the source. It states that "it is the largest and fastest-growing Jewish community in the West Bank." So the source is not making any claim whatsoever about Jewish communities within the green line (and their sizes in comparison to Modi'in). I think what your comment does correctly highlight is that your preferred formulation for the article ("the largest Jewish community in the area") would include communities both sides of the green line (and thus not supported by the source). While the alternative ("largest Jewish settlement in the area") would only refer to Jewish settlements in the West Bank (and thus is consistent with the cited source). Writing Wikipedia articles does not mean copying the exact words from articles but being faithful to their meaning. Dlv999 (talk) 21:28, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
I think you should refrain from this kind of language, Brewcrewer. See Wikipedia:Civility.
It's clear that New York Times is reffering to the area in the West Bank. They write "... it sits on land captured by Israel in the 1967 Middle East war and, with 45,000 residents and 60 births a week, it is the largest and fastest-growing Jewish community in the West Bank".
After previewing my reply, I see that Dlv999 has made the same point. --IRISZOOM (talk) 21:36, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 July 2017[edit]

Please somebody revert this edit, since redundant category is already included in "Religious Israeli settlements".--Boots Dawson (talk) 06:02, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Note: :Since the TrickyH's edit was in question here. Its best if the editor attends this edit request. regards, DRAGON BOOSTER 06:32, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 14:50, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
Before I started adding this cat to pages that already included the subcats of "mixed" or "religious" settlements, I read through the H:CAT page and I didn't see any statement that a page shouldn't belong in both a subcat and the parent cat. To me it makes sense for the pages of the settlement to be listed in both, so that one cat might make a complete list of settlements. I'm happy to be proven otherwise if I'm not looking in the right place. TrickyH (talk) 21:57, 7 July 2017 (UTC)