Talk:Issawiya

The referance for the section on land registery does not exsist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.220.103.35 (talk) 15:48, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Part of Israel or not?

I'm confused—if Al-Issawiya is part of Mount Scopus, doesn't that mean it's been part of Israel since 1948, since the mount is an internationally-recognized exclave of Israel? I'm not entirely sure this article is adequately clear about the nationality and legal status. I'd certainly like to learn more about this interesting topic. - Gilgamesh (talk) 06:27, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Is the mount is an internationally-recognized exclave of Israel ? I thought Mount Scopus was technically re-occupied in 1967 and annexed later. I guess I'm agreeing with you, this article isn't adequately clear about the nationality and legal status. For interest the remote sensing interpreters at the CIA [1] label/color code part of it as 'Israeli settlement' and part as 'Palestinian populated' with some 'Israeli enclave', 'Arab enclave' 'disputed' and 'no man's land' bits thrown in... (note the file on commons is 53Mb). Sean.hoyland - talk 08:00, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Yep. The article is internally inconsistent and/or factually inaccurate on this point. If you look at Google Maps, it shows the pre-1967 boundaries of the Israeli exclave on Mt. Scopus (although not the no-mans land zone that surrounded it). Al-Issawiya is indeed mostly inside, and was probably completely within the exclave betwwen 1948 and 1967. This brings up interesting questions about whether the inhabitants remained there during this period or came back after the 1967 war. Or are they some other group of Arabs who just settled there in the years since 1967? If they did remain all along, would they not have been Israeli citizens rather than permanent residents as other Arabs in East Jerusalem are? And, if they did remain in place during the division of Jerusalem, what arrangements were made for their ingress and egress from the exclave and for keeping them supplied with food/water/services? The 1948 armistice conditions allowed the Israelis to remain on Mt. Scopus and keep it supplied or at least manned with periodic UN supervised convoys. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.102.231.183 (talk) 19:43, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll second the "Yep." To the extent that Isawiya was part of the Mt. Scopus exclave and its residents remained, they should be Israeli citizens. If they are in fact just permanent residents of Jerusalem, and the reason they are only that is because they left between the wars and came back after Israel captured East Jerusalem, then that certainly runs contrary to the ethnic cleansing accusations that Palestinians have put forth regading Israeli conduct in Jerusalem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.102.231.183 (talk) 18:56, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I see that there is some confusion about the status of Isawiya and its residents. Upon reading the references (mostly in Hebrew) offered on the Hebrew Wikipedia page, I understand that Isawiya did not become part of Israel and the residents did not not get Israeli citizenship after 1948. Both Mount Scopus and Isawiya became part of a demilitarized zone administered by Israel (not exactly the same as part of Israel) with oversight by the U.N. according to terms of the "Mount Scopus Agreement". During the war in 1948, the residents fled, with some of the men returning periodically to check on their homes and belongings. After the war, the residents were permitted to return to their original homes, now part of this gray area according to the U.N. agreement. Arrangements were made to supply water and supplies. Various access points were set up (with occasional friction). For all intents and purposes, the residents became connected to Jordanian controlled East Jerusalem. Over the years, while still living in the demilitarized zone administered by Israel, the residents accepted Jordanian citizenship. After 1967, Israeli control was established. After 1980 and the passage of the Jerusalem Law uniting Jerusalem under Israeli rule, few if any of the residents accepted Israeli citizenship opting instead for permanent residency status as was the case with almost all other Arabs in "East Jerusalem"

All this applies only to the western side of Isawiya. The eastern side of Isawiya (today known as Mahjarat 'Atma and Bitana) was mostly unsettled at the time of the 1948 agreement (and, by the way, at a lower elevation than the western side) and was not included as part of the demilitarized zone. Unfortunately, the precise borders of the enclave have been erased from GoogleMaps, so other sources need to be used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.126.83.239 (talk) 10:20, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

The boundaries that Google maps (used to?) show are here. However there is an issue since there were two maps and a disagreement over which one was valid. See para 80 of this document. Zero^talk 11:39, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Maybe the green and blue lines in this map show the Jordanian and Israeli claims. I can't verify that at the moment. Zero^talk 11:56, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

I must correct myself regarding GoogleMaps. It does show the lines. I don't know why I didn't see them yesterday. Maybe I was looking at some other map.

But the precise demarcations notwithstanding, I wish to stay on the topic as discussed in the previous comments, ie, the status of the residents of Isawiya within the enclave. 'Why were they not granted Israeli citizenship immediately after 1949 the same as the many other Arabs living west of the 1949 Armistice Agreement Line within the new State of Israel?' It is my understanding that the enclave was not considered an intrinsic part of the State of Israel but rather a demilitarized zone under Israeli control. (I've also read that Jordan considered it Jordanian territory with access granted to Israel, but that may be an unsupportable claim.) GoogleMaps labeling the line around the enclave, "1949 Armistice Agreement Line", may be misleading by ignoring special circumstances; not all parts of the "Line" were covered under one blanket agreement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.126.83.239 (talk) 06:02, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

The Mount Scopus Agreement does not indicate Israeli control, it indicates UN control. Zero^talk 06:20, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Correct. But what agreements and decisions followed in 1949? This is important because there is a lack of definition in the opening line of the article as to the description of the "enclave". This information also needs to be included in the history section of the article. Needs refs. I can't come up with anything by Googling. Maybe someone has access to official documentation to put light on this gray area. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.126.83.239 (talk) 06:51, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

IP edits

I restored the lead based on RS sources after an IP deleted the text as "vandalism." There seems little question who the vandal is.--Geewhiz (talk) 10:12, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

al-Issawiya and Mt Scopus enclave

The article says that Issawiya was within the enclave, but the source says that "part of it" was in the enclave. This needs to be clarified. I think the explanation is that Issawiya now is bigger than Issawiya then, but this needs sourcing. Zero^talk 16:28, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. I removed a sentence saying it was "captured" in 1967 because it was not sourced to a reliable source, but also if it was part of the enclave Israel didn't need to capture it, it already had it. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:29, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

lede

Changed village to urban neighborhood in lede, because Issawiya today is as no more a "village" than Greenwith Village is.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:41, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Isawiya. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090305225724/http://my.mli.org.il/Mli_Pdf/Jen%20Glaser%20Philosophy%20for%20Kids%20Haaretz.pdf to http://my.mli.org.il/Mli_Pdf/Jen%20Glaser%20Philosophy%20for%20Kids%20Haaretz.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:16, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Sourced Information Deleted

User:Huldra, can I ask you why you deleted in this article a reference to this sourced information? See Isawiyyah?Davidbena (talk) 22:19, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Davidbena From my understanding, most of Isawiya was part of the demilitarised zone during 1948–1967. But I admit: I am no expert on this area. Pinging User:Zero0000, as I believe he knows this area better than me, Huldra (talk) 22:26, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, I am no expert either on the Isawiyya area, and I was not the one who posted the information, but the information did indeed happen to be sourced. I think that we should be careful about deleting sourced information. The author mentions only "part" of it belonging to Israeli sovereignty before 1967.Davidbena (talk) 22:29, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Sure, but if it was only "part" of it belonging to Israeli sovereignty before 1967, then it should not have been in the lead, IMO. But perhaps mention later on (depending on how much it was?). I think we need to study the maps carefully before drawing any conclusions, here, Huldra (talk) 22:49, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

None of the Mt Scopus enclave belonged to either Israel or Jordan before 1967 according to the UN. By the Mt Scopus Agreement signed by the two countries on 7 July 1948, "The area as delineated on the attached map will be assigned to United Nations protection until hostilities cease or a new agreement is entered upon. It shall include the areas designated as Hadassah Hospital, Hebrew University, Augusta Victoria and the Arab village of Issawiya. The United Nations agrees to become a signatory to this document by representation through the Senior Observer in the Jerusalem area and the Chairman of the Truce Commission. It therefore accepts responsibility for the security of this area as described herewith." Unfortunately I can't find "the attached map" at the moment; I'll look more thoroughly later, but it was probably this one or very similar. There were parts of the enclave where Jewish civilian police were allowed and parts where Arab civilian police were allowed. No armed forces were allowed. The armistice agreement did not replace the Mt Scopus agreement, which resulted in the Israeli sector of the demilitarised zone remaining under effective Israeli control with UN-enforced road access. If that map is the official one or close to it, Isawiya was in a zone under UN control. However, an article I have about the situation in the 1950s says that Israeli armed forces frequently entered Isawiya during that period. I have to read it properly before writing more. Zero^talk 01:33, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your invaluable research.Davidbena (talk) 01:47, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks from me, too! Zero, could you possible expand the post-1948 paragraph? Huldra (talk) 20:31, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Life wasn't meant to be easy. There were two maps, and a dispute between Israel and Jordan over which one was "the attached map" in the 1948 agreement. You can read about the dispute in this UN document of 1958, but annoyingly the maps are not presented there. However, I can show you what the Israeli claim looked like in 1961; it is here. On that map all of the buildings of Isawiya lie in the "Jewish Enclave". I'm pretty sure Israel never took a formal action to turn the demilitarised zone of the 1948 agreement into Israeli territory, but I might be missing something. Israeli practice with regard to demilitarilized zones and no-mans lands has always been to act like they are under Israeli sovereignty without taking formal action (eg Latrun salient after 1967). Zero^talk 00:31, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Quite, but from reading that 1958 UN document, it is clear that the UN distinguished between Issawiya and "Jewish Sector of Mount Scopus" ("proceeded to Issawiya, whereas another UNMO proceeded to the Jewish Sector of Mount Scopus"). This reminds me of Al-Hamma, Tiberias, which was to be a demilitarized zone (DMZ), but where Israel eventually drove the inhabitants out. Again, this probably needs some serious in depth work ..... Huldra (talk) 21:58, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Here are some early UN documents:

• 5 October 1948
• S/3015 25 May 1953

The 1953 one, from the Truce Supervision Organisation, is interesting. To quote:

3. Under the terms of the Agreement entered into by the parties on 7 July 1948 (see Annex), the Mount Scopus area is divided into three sections: (1) the “Jewish section”, (2) the Arab village of Issawiya, and (3) the Augusta Victoria Hospital area.

8. As to the second section of the demilitarized area, Issawiya village, a check was made by the investigating team with regard to the population of that village: According to paragraph 4 of the 7 July 1948 Agreement, “the United Nations undertakes to limit the population on Mount Scopus to those individuals needed for its operation, plus the present population of the village of Issawiya”.

9. The interpretation of the words “present population of the village of Issawiya” has given rise to difficulties. No census was taken either before or after the 7 July Agreement was signed (two days later, the first truce arranged under United Nations auspices was to come to an end and hostilities were resumed - they were not resumed on Mount Scopus, thanks to the Agreement). As a matter of fact the population of Issawiya - estimated at 650 in the Gazetteer published in 1940 by the Mandate authorities and reported to have reached 950 in May 1948 sought refuge in safer places at the end of May or beginning of June 1948, when clashes increased on Mount Scopus. Consequently, nobody was probably residing in the village when the 7 July Agreement was signed, though male inhabitants were said to be continuously visiting it, especially at night, to check their properties. According to the Government of Israel, the words “present population of the village of Issawiya” means the inhabitants who were allowed to re-enter the village shortly after the signing of the Agreement, viz., 150. Whether this figure represented the total number of inhabitants who were permitted to re-enter, or male inhabitants, who were allowed to take their families with them, has been a moot point. When Israel representatives have brought it up, I have taken the position that, in the absence of any authoritative contemporary record proving that the first alternative was right, I accepted the second alternative. One hundred and fifty male inhabitants, plus their families, brings the population of Issawiya to a figure closer to that of May 1948.

Huldra (talk) 09:47, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Isawiya. 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/20080123203402/http://www.poica.org/editor/case_studies/view.php?recordID=461 to http://www.poica.org/editor/case_studies/view.php?recordID=461
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110519034402/http://www.poica.org/editor/case_studies/view.php?recordID=1096 to http://www.poica.org/editor/case_studies/view.php?recordID=1096

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 04:09, 17 November 2017 (UTC)