Jump to content

Talk:Ramot, East Jerusalem/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

"Trying to cut down on & summarize this run-on sentence"

I agree with George the sentence is too long, but I don't think you should have erased the point that even the parts of Ramot which were beyond the green line - were in no man's land.Editorprop (talk) 14:11, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

It wasn't clear why that is relevant. "No man's land" is a place that nobody lives on because it is an area in dispute. How is saying that Israel built on disputed land any different from saying that Israel built a settlement on land across the Green Line? ← George talk 18:32, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
No man's land was the area between the two armistice lines,(Israeli and Jordanian), therefore it is important to mention the fact that Ramot was never Jordanian, (and of course wasn't Palestinian also).Editorprop (talk) 11:37, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
I am returning the information. (Maybe there is place to cut on the illegal part, and it could be phrased as before in short, see history).Editorprop (talk 11:40, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Why is it relevant that "Ramot was never Jordanian"? Nothing in the article currently indicates that it was, so why stress the point that it wasn't? Besides, if that's what you want to say, why not just say that? "No man's land" has no meaning by itself - it doesn't indicate why no one lived there, it doesn't indicate when no one lived there, and the sourcing for it doesn't seem particularly relevant. The term by itself will confuse the reader, so please provide a justification for its use. ← George talk 14:48, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
When saying beyond the green line, usually one is implying to areas which were Jordanian (and therefore one can say that the Palestinians are the heirs), therefore it is important to mention that this neighborhood was between the 2 lines. No man's land means land which was between the lines, and the article mentions this was the situation until 1967 so I'm not sure why you think it is confusing. If you have a different way to mention it that may be a good idea, (maybe it should be put in brackets), but to omit this information would be wrong. Editorprop (talk) 14:57, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Okay, I think I understand what you're saying. Can you explain to me what the three lines on the map at the top of this page represent? Also, is this land still "no man's land"? ← George talk 15:03, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
It isn't no man's land since 1967 (when it was conquered by Israel). The pink/purple line is Jerusalem's municipal borders, the top green line shows was the Jordanian line (before 67), and the bottom line was the Israeli line.Editorprop (talk) 15:13, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
I guess what I don't understand is while some of Jerusalem's municipal border (the pink line) is indeed in what was "no man's land" before 1967, much of it is also over what was the Jordanian line (pre-1967). Are you saying that none of what is today Ramot is over the Jordanian line (pre-1967)? Do I understand correctly? ← George talk 15:19, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes. None of Ramot was Jordanian before 67, and actually part of Ramot B was within the Israeli side of the green line.Editorprop (talk) 15:57, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Okay, I think I got you. We need to change the English of this sentence a bit, as it currently sounds like the international community considers Ramot illegal because it was in an area that was no man's land, but that's probably ancillary. ← George talk 16:14, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

US, and Clinton Parameters etc

The US's reference actually is quite clear about Ramot. It shouldn't have been erased. The only but there is Har Homa which was built late, and with that the US is mentioned to be unhappy in the article, calling it a settlement.

Clinton Parameters, Geneva accords and Palestine papers are not just "Several peace initiatives", they are actually the all the spectrum of known peace initiatives. If you wouldn't like to get into details, you could write "In all peace initiatives", or just revert to the way the article was.Editorprop (talk) 08:39, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

The biggest problem with what you had written is the "expected" nature of it. Nothing is "expected", or at least your sources didn't say anything was "expected". The only thing shown is that two previous peace proposals suggested that the Palestinians give up Ramot in exchange for other lands. If you have specific sources with specific quotes to back up the "expected" nature of such a deal, please present them and I'll be happy to take a look. ← George talk 08:42, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
I rewrote according to the point you mentioned. I hope this is the way you wanted it.Editorprop (talk) 08:55, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Much better, thanks. I cleaned up a bit of the grammar, and expanded it a bit. ← George talk 09:02, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Legality of building in a demilitarized zone

I'm not sure why you say that. Those who argue that all settlements are in Palestinian land, cannot call a place in no man's land "Palestinian", they can only argue that it is in dispute and cannot be considered Israeli.(The following may not be connected, but it does give the feel - the Syrians are demanding not only what they had of the Golan Heights by 1949 lines, but what they had on 4 June 1967, when they entered demilitarized zone).Editorprop (talk) 09:02, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

A demilitarized zone, colloquially referred to as no man's land, is someone's land. It's only empty because anyone entering it would be shot. It doesn't have any different legal status than anything else on the other side of the Green Line. If you know of sources that disagree on this point, I'd be happy to take a look. ← George talk 09:08, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
It is empty since it is between armistice lines (not only because defacto whoever enters will be shot). For that reason it can't be considered "Palestinian land", only maybe "disputed land". The whole idea of calling anything beyond the armistice lines "Palestinian" is to take the armistice lines as some type of International border. According to this - everything that was on the Jordanian side is "Palestinian", and everything on the Israeli side is "Israeli". But even according to this - whatever is between the lines is disputed, not Palestinian. Editorprop (talk) 09:14, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, what armistices lines? I'm only aware of one - the 1949 armistice agreement line. Was there another? And as far as I know, none of that land was disputed. It's purposely left empty to keep armies separated.
Let me give you an example. Between Israel and Lebanon lies the Blue Line. It demarcates the internationally recognized border between Israel and Lebanon. Now, could Israel and Lebanon build right up to that line, putting building right next to each other? No, they would shoot each other. So there's a strip of land on which neither side steps, because the other side will shoot them if they do (which has happened a few times in the past few years). That's no man's land. It doesn't mean nobody owns it, and it doesn't mean it's disputed, it's just that nobody can walk on it because they'll get shot. Say that tomorrow war broke out between Lebanon and Israel, and Lebanon won (yeah right) and controlled part of northern Israel. Building a Lebanese village on what is today no man's land on Israel's side of the Blue Line would be exactly the same legally as building in Tel Aviv. Make sense? ← George talk 09:23, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
As you can see on the Palestinian map brought in the source (and as stated in article brought in source), two lines were drawn in the armistice agreement at 1949. Although today usually people only refer to the Israeli line, there were two lines and Ramot and Ramat Shlomo were between them. These lines were not made only for convenience.Editorprop (talk) 09:27, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I saw the map you linked to earlier, and while it shows the Israeli and Jordanian lines, there is only one Green Line. It appears to be internationally recognized as the line on the western edge of the demilitarized zone. Do you have a source which says otherwise? ← George talk 09:41, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
If I would write something like - it is not considered within Palestinian line according to the international community, I would need to bring a source to that. But what I would like to have written is only the plain fact that it was between lines. This is a clear fact which is sourced clearly.Editorprop (talk) 10:00, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Oh, absolutely, and I'm fine with saying it was between the lines (which the article currently does). But what isn't sourced is that being between those lines makes it more legal in the eyes of the international community to build there than elsewhere across the Green Line, which is why I moved the text from the "legality" section to the "history" section. I don't think the Hebrew source says that it's legal for Israel to build in the demilitarized zone, but feel free to translate any relevant quotes from that source if that's what it says. ← George talk 10:14, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Actually that is the whole issue of the article. Editorprop (talk) 16:21, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm quoting: כיוון שהשכונה ממוקמת בשטח ההפקר אזי לא ניתן לטעון שישראל בונה בשטח ששייך למישהו אחר. זה אולי לא נותן מענה לוויכוח המדיני אך זה בהחלט יכול להקל על ישראל מבחינה משפטית. משמעות ההגדרה 'שטח הפקר' היא שמדובר בחלק מארץ ישראל שלא הוגדר האם הוא שייך לישראל או לירדנים - כאשר הפלשתינים הם אלה שכביכול ירשו אותם. כיוון שזה בוודאות לא היה שייך לירדן אזי אין מקום לדבר על השטח הזה ככבוש
Free translation: Since the neighborhood (Ramat Shlomo, and see in article that Ramot is the same) is in no man's land, therefore no one can claim Israel is building on an area belonging to someone else. This may not solve the political dispute, but it definitely makes things easier for Israel legally. The meaning of no man's land is that this is part of Israel that has not been defined if it is Israeli or Jordanian - in which case the Palestinian would be considered as if they are their heirs. Since it definitely didn't belong to Jordan, there is no place to call it "occupied territory".Editorprop (talk) 16:35, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Um, everything across the Green Line is considered occupied Palestinian territories. There are an abundance of sources that say this. For example, this one. To say that this cannot be called occupied territory goes against the countless sources that do in fact call this occupied territory. nableezy - 16:47, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I was quoting the article, showing that the no man's land issue was brought as a legal issue, therefore it should be mentioned in the legal area of the article. I did not think to get into details in the article and say "therefore it isn't considered OT", therefore I am not trying to argue your point. But now that you brought it up - is there any place that says specifically that areas which were no man's land are OT, or do articles just talk generally (maybe since they are missing some facts)? Just a query. Editorprop (talk) 16:53, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
They specifically say Ramot is in the occupied Palestinian territory of East Jerusalem. I have no problem including this in the legal section if phrased as an Israel argument for it being legal. But it has to be given as the Israel argument because the overwhelming majority view is that it is occupied territory. nableezy - 16:55, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
I would just mention the fact that it is in no man's land, and not get into the consequences. I just brought the quote to show that this issue is not detached from the legal issue. Israel in any case does not believe any of the west bank is occupied territories, since it didn't have any legal sovereignty before 67.Editorprop (talk) 17:03, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
That is the view of the government, the Supreme Court however regularly says the West Bank is held under "belligerent occupation". But I think if it is placed in the legal status section it should explicitly say why it is relevant to that section. nableezy - 17:05, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
If you insist we could write something like "It was between the Jordanian and Israeli line, in no man's land, therefore Dr. Rubi Seibel and Dr. Aaron Lerner argue it isn't considered "occupied territories", even according to those who consider every other part of the west bank as occupied territories." (But I think it is just making a short issue long).Editorprop (talk) 17:12, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
The last line is clearly incorrect, as people who do say the West Bank is occupied also say that EJ, including Ramot, is occupied. I think the line could be it is argued that as the portions of Ramot that were built over the Green Line were in the demilitarized zone [or no mans land if you would rather use those words] it should not be considered occupied territory. nableezy - 17:37, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
I get you . It should be something like:
It was between the Jordanian and Israeli line, in no man's land, therefore Dr. Rubi Seibel and Dr. Aaron Lerner argue it shouldn't be considered "occupied territories", even according to those who consider every other part of the west bank as occupied territories.Editorprop (talk) 17:43, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
The belligerent occupation issue (according to the supreme court) does not include Jerusalem (even the part you call EJ), only the rest of the west bank, since it hasn't been annexed.Editorprop (talk) 17:19, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
I know, that was a response to "Israel in any case does not believe any of the west bank is occupied territories". nableezy - 17:37, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for translating Editorprop. Your translation makes more sense than Google's automated translation. I'm good with something along the lines of what you & Nableezy are discussing, laying out that it is an attributed viewpoint based on where Ramot is. I would prefer the term demilitarized zone, as it's less ambiguous to non-native English speakers than "no man's land", but it's not a big deal. What about something like: "Some in Israel have argued that because Ramot was constructed in what was a demilitarized zone before the Six-Day War in 1967, it should not be considered occupied territory in the same way the rest of the West Bank is." It's a big long, but maybe something like that? It might make a nice counter balance to the "international community" viewpoint, better than just "Israel disputes this", and could fit well in the Legality section. Thoughts? ← George talk 19:52, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I tried going among your lines, but I did change to what I wrote above (as you have agreed with it too), in places I felt it was closer to the wording of the source. I didn't write the names, just brought "experts for international law", since Dr. Seibal is considered such, and he has many writings on this issue. (But I am fine with writing his name instead).Editorprop (talk) 10:57, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Concise Lede

Current lede generates too much discussion which is probably an indication of some problem. How about going back to following lede:

Ramot (Hebrew: רָמוֹת, lit. Heights), also known as Ramot Alon (Hebrew: רמות אלון, lit. Alon Heights) is one of the largest housing developments in Jerusalem, with about 50,000 residents. It is situated in the northwestern part of the city and divided into six sections, from Ramot 1, the oldest section, to Ramot 6, the newest section. Ramot 5 is the commercial center.
The international community considers Israeli settlements in the West Bank illegal under international law, but the Israeli government disputes this.[1]

This lede is a consise summary of the article per WP:LEAD and neutral per WP:NPOV. All the rest could be discussed in the body. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 13:49, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

That lead leaves out vital information. Articles shouldnt have small leads, I dont see why you think a "concise" lead is somehow better than a detailed one. nableezy - 15:30, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

RFC

Should the lead of this article specify that part of this settlement is located in East Jerusalem? Nableezy 13:39, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Statement of dispute

A portion of this development lies on the Palestinian side of the Green Line. The area on this side of the Green Line in what Israel annexed as part of Jerusalem is commonly known as East Jerusalem. Below are a set of sources that say Ramot is in East Jerusalem.

News sources
Human rights groups
Books published by university presses

Many more sources can be provided. It has been argued that it is "POV" to say that a portion of this development is built in East Jerusalem. One source, whose reliability has been challenged, has been offered disputing that Ramot is in East Jerusalem ([1]).

Comments

  • Include - countless reliable sources say, from around the world, as a fact, that Ramot is in East Jerusalem. This fact is among the most notable aspects of this development, because it has caused nearly the entire world to label this development an Israeli settlement that violates international law. The argument for not including this fact is that it is a "POV" because Israel "disputes" this. The lead should say Israel disputes this finding, but that cannot be allowed to overrule the countless reliable sources that make this point clear. nableezy - 13:39, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Don't include - you may include it as the way the international community addresses it, (which is what the sources state), but it is not a fact (the geographic location is Northwest), so it shouldn't be included in the since part, only in the therefore part.Editorprop (talk) 17:08, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Include. Whether the settlement is in the northern, southern or any other part of East Jerusalem is a bit beside the point, since the points that the sources do make are 1) Ramot is in occupied East Jerusalem, and 2) such settlements are illegal. Many sources also say that Israel disputes the illegality, but that shouldn't get equal footing with the opinion of the UN. --Dailycare (talk) 20:04, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Include. At a quick glance, I think that AgadaUrbanit's proposal here is OK. However, since many sources use the name East Jerusalem, it seems to be important to mention it in the lead, e.g.
...It is situated in the northwestern part of the city (also known as East Jerusalem) and divided into ... -- Ashot  (talk) 16:03, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
but that isn't quite correct as it appears to say that East Jerusalem is the name of the northwestern part of the city. Actually East Jerusalem is the name of a large area that includes parts to the north, east and south. What about "It is situated in East Jerusalem, to the north-west of central Jerusalem"? Zerotalk 01:41, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
I'd prefer some wording with only one Jerusalem in the sentence. -- Ashot  (talk) 04:51, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Why not just "it is situated in the northwestern part of East Jerusalem", and leave it at that? ← George talk 05:09, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

There is clear consensus for including East Jerusalem as the location. Ill be re-adding that sometime in the next day or so. nableezy - 22:39, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

done. nableezy - 14:31, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

There is a clear consensus for including the location of this place as East Jerusalem. A new account has repeatedly removed that. Somebody should revert the collection of POV-pushing and OR by this account. nableezy - 05:28, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Geographically Ramot is it in North-West Jerusalem. Google maps is unbiased, and it shows Ramot as NW Jerusalem.

Geographically Ramot is it in North-West Jerusalem. It it not a point of view, it is just a fact. If you look at a map, you can clearly see that it it not East. You can finds sources that say west is east, north is south, etc - that does not make it so. It is sometimes mistakenly reported in the press as east. Just look at a map, not the NY times.

Google maps is unbiased, and it shows Ramot as NW Jerusalem. http://maps.google.com/maps?q=ramot+b&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wl

If not, are you saying that Google maps is lying, biased, or pushing a particular point of view?


It is one of a few neighborhoods that is north of Highway 1 (Israel). Ramot is west of Route 404, usually referred to as Menachem Begin Expressway (or Begin Boulevard). — Preceding unsigned comment added by TiberiasTiberias (talk • contribs) 06:11, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that east Jerusalem (lowercase 'east', a geographic term) is different than East Jerusalem (uppercase 'East', a political term). You're arguing that Ramot is not in east Jerusalem, which is true, however, it is considered part of what the international community calls East Jerusalem. To give you an example, a city geographically in northern Germany may have been part of East Germany, even though it was not geographically in the east of Germany. Hope that helps. ← George talk 06:45, 18 July 2011 (UTC)


East Germany was a separate country, it no longer is. I don't think people today would refer to northern Germany as East Germany.

The '"east" Jerusalem' that you mention is a political term. It is intending to make a political statement. On a map it is clearly north and west, but we say east. I can also say California is on America's east coast.

Jerusalem is only one city. Israel is only one country. I understand that many in the "international community" do not recognize Israel at all, to them there is no country. Israel does exist and Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. Jerusalem is not divided.

--TiberiasTiberias (talk) 08:38, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

You're splitting hairs a bit. East Berlin was a subsection of Berlin, in the same way that East Jerusalem is a subsection of Jerusalem. Before the Berlin wall came down, even areas in northern Berlin were called East Berlin. The lowercase east Jerusalem is not a political term, it's a geographic term. We know this because in English, geographic terms (north/east/south/west) are not capitalized, but geographic terms that are part of a political or administrative division are (e.g., West Bank, East Germany, South Africa).
I can understand why you don't consider Jerusalem a divided city, but reliable sources often describe it as such, as Sean explains below; reliable sources are the foundation of Wikipedia. ← George talk 00:35, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
TT, if I may call you that, as a general point on using Wikipedia talk pages (see WP:TALK, WP:SOAP), please don't include your personal opinions about whether something is intended to make a political statement, whether X is one thing or more than one thing etc. They are irrelevant and can be ignored. Editors may even remove them from the talk page or amend them so that they aren't displayed. Wikipedia content is based on reliable sources so all arguments must, as a matter of mandatory policy, be based on what reliable sources say and must be consistent with the key policies of the project such as WP:NPOV and WP:V. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:16, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
  1. ^ "The Geneva Convention". BBC News. 10 December 2009. Retrieved 27 November 2010.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ramot,_East_Jerusalem/Archive_2&oldid=1255202384"