Talk:Amona, Mateh Binyamin

[NPOV]

This is not the place for POV. Eyewitness, settler supporters, and peace activists alike should realize that there are many different perspectives on the same story. Let's not demonize one side at the expense of the other. This is an encyclopedia. Danny 21:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I echo that. It looks likely that there will be Commission set up, or at least some form of investigation will be undertaken soon. It's hasty to come to conclusions at this stage about what exactly led to and who did what, beyond what we know of from mainstream media sources. El_C 05:46, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I believe that there is a place for this article in wikipedia, yet the current edition is POV and definitely a stub that needs to be worked on. Only time will tell whether this is a news item or an historical event. --Shuki 00:46, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Facts are facts, and video evidence can't really be disputed. In one video, a police officer is shown smashing the heads of protestors who were literally sitting on the floor with arms linked in classic civil disobedience style. Do you think the policeman and protestor were hugging each other and the protestor just happened to "fall" off the roof? LandOfIsrael 11:08, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

One picture is worth of thousand words, one sais. So I have added some... --Fangol 10:05, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Great pictures!!!!!!

I'd like to remove the POV header. I tried to make the article even more "neutral". Please chime in below this line. Five votes to remove the POV heading (not including mine, of course) and the fifth person will remove it. Fair enough? Please write in the edit summary "my vote to remove POV heading" as well as entering your vote below. LandOfIsrael 20:01, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

This article is still nowhere near neutral. -Matt

Matt: What would you change? LandOfIsrael 14:28, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the issues were, but the article now quotes the results of an official government inquiry, so I am removing the NPOV tag. If anyone feels that there are still issues to be resolved, they should make note of them on Talk and work to correct them. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 00:30, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Super! Thanks for taking the initiative Tewfik! LandOfIsrael 11:46, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

POV and citations

Since the last POV discussion it seems like the article has gained a little bias (more in style than in factual content). On the other hand I have just reverted an edit which was clearly biased to the other side (and even counter-factual in one place). Maybe a POV check would be useful, and certainly adding inline citations seems to be in order. Eldar (talk) 22:34, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

"according to demonstrators"

In the first part of the article, there is a sentence "According to the demonstrators, Israeli security forces beat them over the head and body with truncheons, and some were trampled by police horses." This should be changed. first of all, since the battle, a sad wealth of media has surfaced depicting the police running down protestors and bludgeoning them. But even worse, this very article makes reference to the conclusions reached by the knesset commission which found that horses and bludgeons had been used.

So which is it?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bennyp (talk • contribs) 20:45, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

You're right, it's something worth looking into, particularly given what may happen with Migron pretty soon. Don't forget to sign your Discussion page comments with four ~.—Biosketch (talk) 08:17, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

legal status under international law

The line in the lead on the settlement being illegal under international law was removed as "irrelevant" because the government apparently did not approve of the settlement. I dont see how that could possibly make the status of this colony as a violation customary international law not relevant, but if Eldar would be so nice to explain that would be much appreciated. In the meantime, in keeping with the consensus established at WT:Legal status of Israeli settlements, I have reverted the removal of this material. nableezy - 23:35, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

• The requested explanation: Amona was not specifically mentioned in said dispute, and the Israeli government certainly did not defend its presence (just read the article itself). General statements about settlement legality belong to the article about Israeli settlements, just as you don't have general statements about the health effects of sugar in every article covering a type of candy. Eldar (talk) 02:09, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I see. There was a discussion at WT:Legality of Israeli settlements which established a consensus for including this material in all articles on settlements. That discussion also resulted in a consensus that this one source should be used, regardless of whether or not it mentions a particular settlement, as it says this is true for all settlements. nableezy - 06:50, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

That's not the conclusion reached following discussion nor is it consistent with the way reliable sources deal with this issue. Here for example in a BBC article from 2006 about Amona they say "The international community considers all settlements in the occupied territories - Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem - as illegal under international law, though Israel disputes this." The illegality is a notable attribute of all Israeli settlements. It's probably the single most notable attribute of any Israeli settlement so RS include it in their articles when they discuss settlements. To exclude such a notable attribute of an instance of something when RS take care to include it seems odd. Also, I don't think your candy analogy works. The legality of settlements isn't like a health warning. It's a distinctive feature that is common to all Israeli settlements that distinguishs them from other kinds of settlements in the world. It's like the "Distinctive features" attribute in the List of candies article if you assume that the set of all candies in the world is the analogue of the set of all settlements in the world. The distinguising feature of a particular candy is naturally included in the article about a particular candy because it's a notable feature of that candy. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:42, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

The BBC article quotes the relevant Geneva convention as follows:"The occupying power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own population into the territories it occupies." It does not however state that "the occupying power shall not permit the voluntary movement of its own population into the territories it occupies." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:BBA0:2A00:A179:DF03:6029:98F1 (talk) 16:38, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

NPOV/ Built on Pal land

The fact that this is built on Palestinian land is repeated an inordinate amount in the article. One example is the first paragraph of the background section. This paragraph has three sentences and in each sentence of the paragraph this fact is reiterated. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:48, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

The Palestinian owners, the Israeli Courts, the Israel Civil Administration, the IDF, and virtually everyone have been saying this for 19 years, and no one squatting there listens. If they happen to read the article, the point might get through-:)Nishidani (talk) 19:32, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh, they listen and they've heard it about most every house built in Israel and the WB - whether on properly registered land to Palestinians or unregistered land claimed by the Ottoman Empire (the only known registrar of that land, btw).

I spent a lot of time on that hill with friends since arriving in Ofra, 1985 - mostly because I like the open outdoors with a good view. There was nothing cultivated about it, though some court decisions accepted it as a fact. Look at the photo in the top of the article. That's most of the land Amona is built on. Before those shacks, there were no footpaths or road. Does any of it look like it's been cultivated by fig trees or some such? Even if the trees were removed, there'd be some signs of the land having been worked, but there was none. The only other area of Amona is behind the camera where the nine houses were demolished. There was nothing there either, only barren land. At the peak of the first Intifada there was talk of needing some guard duty there because settlements and settlers were coming under attacks that killed and maimed - and the hill loomed high over the valley Ofra was built on, causing a security risk in times of trouble. The idea developed into trying to build an extension to Ofra there. Primarily for security reasons - but also as a response to the attacks (many victims of the Palestinian attacks were also Palestinians and Israeli Arabs btw, but one could hardly read about that in literature and press (was world opinion on a one sided crusade against the Israelis and specifically the settlers? A case can certainly be made for it.)

When I arrived in Ofra, Ein Yabrud barely had 20-30 houses visible from the road. It was visually evident that most of them were built before 1948 while a few were new structures. I'm good friends with some of the residents there. The first thing I heard from them was that the Jordanian occupation (1948-1967) suffocated them and did not allow them to build the simplest structures (is there a tendency for world opinion to overlook human rights violations by Arabs against Arabs - yet blow out of all proportions the claims of injustices by Israelis in a one sided view that rarely tells the full story of why things have come to what they are? A case could well be made for it). They say there was no economy and no livelihood until Israelis started visiting the villages showing a spirit of care and co-existence. Many said that the settlements were breathing new life into the villages because there was now a growing economy, a source of livelihood and permission to build to their heart's content. It would not be possible to recognize Ein Yabrud today. A thriving modern village/city, nearly 1000 homes and buildings, where the older structures aren't even visible in the landscape anymore. There are many more modern multi-family buildings there than there are people to live in them. Many of the Ein Yabrudians work in Ofra today and it's a primary source of income for the flourishing community. One side of the story that's rarely heard. I do not wish a foreign occupation on anyone, but the suffering of the Palestinians could end tomorrow with their independence and country - or when their leadership has a change of heart and ceases incitement, hatred and backhanded support of violence against Israelis. Not a good foundation on which to expect peace and co-existence. All of this could rarely, if ever, be found in reliable sources, but it is a weighty side of the story that's not often heard outside of the people who live in this part of the world.

I like that the touch of humor in your statement alleviates the concern that you might feel it's alright for WP to place undue weight on information in some articles, in order to commandeer a bandwagon to compel settlers and teach them to listen, but I can assure you that we're all well aware of the score - and the countless untold stories that reveal the missing parts of the whole picture. (I've never seen a smiley with the nose above the eyes, btw. Brilliant!:-) MichaelNetzer (talk) 23:07, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

The smiley was my way of saying 'my nose is out of joint'. Your story of the 'redemption of the land' when nice intelligent folks show backward Arabs how to develop their land, without paying for it, has some good points. I noticed those photos myself. But the nittygritty always slips through the sieve. Post 1967 put a huge amount of land under military rule, with nahal bases, that denied any access to one's village land, which had many uses Israelis do not consider (goats, small plots, the use of cisterns, and springs). The technique was to get the land abandoned, and then claim it as barren. All of Ofra where you are illustrates the point way before 1985:-

Al-Fajr reported or 6 January 198l that the military Governor of Ramallah notified the chairman of the local council of Silwad on 5 January 198l that the Israeli authorities had decided to expropriate 200 dunams of land owned by inhabitants from Silwad and 'Ain Yabrud. The said lands would be given to the Jewish settlement of 'Ufrah.Unispal (I doubt you'll have the patience to read it from top to bottom, but you should)

I do not wish a foreign occupation on anyone, but the suffering of the Palestinians could end tomorrow with their independence and country - or when their leadership has a change of heart and ceases incitement, hatred and backhanded support of violence against Israelis. Not a good foundation on which to expect peace and co-existence

I.e. the indians shouldn't get upset, and if they are pissed off that most of the fertile lands and water resources are denied them, it's incitement, hatred and backhand support of violence. If you're spat and shat on, wipe it off, and ask for a job from the nice folks who ran roughshod over your title or land use. It's called feudalism. You're living in a dreamworld (settlement), Michael, and the nightmare its construction caused implies that an expropriator has rights, the expropriated only an obligation to shut up and start being helpful. Nothing personal about this, but as in the kidnapping case, there is a huge outcry if tragedy visits one ethnos, and a vast silence about similar things (the Beituniya assassinations in cold blood a mere month ago) when the ethnos history wipes its arse on is affected. We live in a discursive universe where the old racism has has changed its identity. It's only because I was raised reading several hundred books on Jewish suffering throughout history from strongarmed, lordly ethnic majorities, that I, like so many Jews, can't read that history without applying the same perception to what's going on there to another people. If one can't see that, it is only because one has learnt to think in exceptionalist terms, arrogating to one's own side the idea of a qualitative difference that must alter one's faculty for judging according to universal principles. But this is not the place to discuss these things. Nishidani (talk) 08:05, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Because it isn't the place to discuss such things, you shouldn't have made that egregious comment to begin with. Were done. MichaelNetzer (talk) 00:57, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

i.e. you read what I wrote in response to your off-topic comments, and complain I'm off-topic, 'egregiously'. I'm familiar with the unicentric and unilateral mindset here, but am always puzzled that those who exhibit it can't see the contradiction. So be it, finis.Nishidani (talk) 07:27, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Live and learn so you might be less puzzled. I'm not confused by the unicentricity, unilaterality, and even pompocity of mindsets pointing fingers at the faults of others based on pretentious versions of lopsided moralities, while never looking at their own moral shortcomings that besmirch innocents. I meant your first response to Brewcrewer that was out of place and egregious. MichaelNetzer (talk) 10:15, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Most people don't have to live to learn the obvious. Some would have to unlearn or dig themselves out of a huge motherlode of ethnic 'pomposity', to see what is self-evident. That vast majority, like me, follows a universal norm, that the house you buy has to have correct title, must not lie on other people's property and is not the result of collective theft backed manu militari and in contempt of customary human rights. Only a 'lopsided mentality' can't understand that. We don't point fingers here. We register what RS state. It's only POV pushers who get upset at the establishment, without puffery, of the factual record (pompocity should be 'pomposity', though perhaps it is to ride an orthographic high-horse to note that). By all means exercise your right to a come-back, but I'm done here. Nishidani (talk) 10:50, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Amona, Mateh Binyamin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140327204721/http://www.yesh-din.org/infoitem.asp?infocatid=499 to http://www.yesh-din.org/infoitem.asp%3Finfocatid%3D499
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131001212300/http://www.yesh-din.org/infoitem.asp?infocatid=411 to http://www.yesh-din.org/infoitem.asp?infocatid=411

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:57, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Article is out of date

The High Court of Israel ruled in 2006 that the settlement is illegal under Israeli law,[3] but as of March 2013, its status remained unresolved as the Israeli government continued to fight the court's eviction order.

The settlers have been evicted, so perhaps someone can add more updated info? ImTheIP (talk) 15:56, 4 June 2017 (UTC)