Talk:Har Homa

message: On the "Har Homa Website" (Hebrew only) mentioned at the end of the article, there is no Har Homa, but Homat Shmuel (chomat shmu'el). 
Was there a change of name meanwhile?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.79.54.175 (talk) 21:02, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Har Homa or Homat Shmuel ? 

message: Zeq claimed in an edit summary, refering to the International Court of Justice: "The court never rulled on this area or on anywhere in Jerusalem. If anything the court considered all of Jerusalem (including west) as land that does not belong to any country."  As usual, Zeq doesn't have a clue.  In section 78 of the court ruling we find:
: The territories situated between the Green Line (see paragraph 72 above) and the former eastern boundary of Palestine under the Mandate were occupied by Israel in 1967 during the armed conflict between Israel and Jordan. Under customary international law, these were therefore occupied territories in which Israel had the status of occupying Power. Subsequent events in these territories, as described in paragraphs 75 to 77 above, have done nothing to alter this situation. All these territories (including East Jerusalem) remain occupied territories and Israel has continued to have the status of occupying Power.
In section 120 we find: 
:The Court concludes that the Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (including East Jerusalem) have been established in breach of international law.
--Zero 13:14, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  ICJ and Jerusalem 

message: There is now an NPOV-dispute tag on this article, but no indication here on the talk page of what the problem might be. Maybe that could be indicated? Palmiro | Talk 04:20, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV dispute? 

message: Would there be consensus for using a formulation similar to that employed on Pisgat Ze'ev, which would state the reality that Har Homa is a Jerusalem neighbourhood (in the practical sense), while noting that because it was constructed on land captured by Israel in the 1967 Six-Day War, it is widely considered a settlement? While I realize that this is a contentious issue, I believe that such a formulation would more clearly convey the nature of Har Homa's status. TewfikTalk 03:32, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would support such a formulation.  (especially since 2/3 of the lands in question were owned by Jews prior to the occuption of the area by TransJordan) Isarig 04:15, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Har Homa is a settlement, and a particularly notorious one; let's not give in to politically motivated euphemisms. Palmiro | Talk 10:50, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If land ownership (i.e. holding of title deeds) prior to 1948 is the basis for reclaiming land in the region, hell, I'm sure quite a few Palestinians would be glad to hear it! Ramallite (talk) 13:04, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not recommending this because of the land ownership, but rather to provide the clearest understanding of what the reality on the ground is. Simply calling it a settlement is misleading, as Har Homa is administered for all intents and purposes as a neighbourhood of the Jerusalem municipality. Of course, it is still extremely relevant to note the wide understanding that it is considered as [il]legitimate as all Israeli construction in the West Bank, and thus use some formulation of what was already used on Pisgat Ze'ev and Neve Yaakov (ibid). TewfikTalk 21:44, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

text: My comment was in response to the "2/3 of the lands" comment above. Anyway, here's my opinion on the matter: No country in the world (as far as I know) recognizes Israel's sovereignty over the part of Jerusalem occupied in 1967. That is yet to be negotiated. The international community (including Israel's closest friend, the US) regards these buildings as settlements. Israel, whose rights over the land in question are yet unrecognized, is the only party that refers to these areas as 'communities' - not to forget that they are 'Jewish-only' communities at that (even Israeli Arabs are not allowed to live in them, so if you want to talk about the reality of it in the practical sense, this fact would also apply). Therefore, if we want to follow Wikipedia rules of naming conventions, the regular English language definition, which is 'settlement', should take precedence. The Israeli POV is certainly welcome in this article, but it would be POV and less accurate to define Har Homa from the internationally unrecognized Israeli definition first (i.e. a community), and then state later that it is 'widely considered a settlement' as a secondary statement. The widely recognized English language definition, settlement, takes precedence on Wikipedia according to the rules as I understand them. The Pisgat Ze'ev article (and others like it) are written purely from an Israeli POV, and if the attention of other WP editors was brought to it, it would probably be changed as well. Har Homa is more known because it was a point of high contention since it is on one of the last spots that was open between Jerusalem and the rest of the West Bank, and was a point of friction between Bibi's government and the Clinton administration. Ramallite (talk) 22:18, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

text: What's your source for the claim that Israeli Arabs are not allowed to live in the new  neighborhooods of the part of Jerusalem occupied in 1967? Isarig 22:52, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Tewfik, you say "Simply calling it a settlement is misleading, as Har Homa is administered for all intents and purposes as a neighbourhood of the Jerusalem municipality." I must say that that is a non-sequitur. All Jewish settlements established in the territories Israel conquered in 1967 are generally considered settlements, regardless of what municipal administrative arrangements exist. Ramallite is entirely correct in this regard. Palmiro | Talk 17:22, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Isarig, although this is a discussion page and not the actual article where things need to be sourced, I will retract what I said above, since I was actually thinking of 'building' and not 'living' when I wrote what I did. My apologies. What can be sourced is that Palestinians are not allowed to build in areas slated to become Jewish settlements (or hardly anywhere else in Jerusalem, for that matter). There is no official government policy that prohibits Palestinians from living in settlements as far as I know, but there is a system of underlying discrimination where Jewish citizens will receive preference in matters such as leasing or buying property (e.g. a Jewish landlord will generally not want to lease an apartment to a Palestinian tenant). This is more "common experience" than actual policy, but one has to be living on our side of the "fence" to experience this. On the other hand, not too many Palestinians will attempt to take residence in settlements, since that would be lending legitimacy to them. Having said that, there are few reports of Jerusalem Palestinians moving into settlements in the Jerusalem area because of the crunch caused by the wall, where Jerusalem Palestinians have moved back into the city in order not to be outside the wall especially as it is widely believed among us that Israel intends to withdraw residency (the blue ID card) from any Jerusalem Palestinians who resides on the other side of the wall. This has caused housing prices to increase dramatically, so Palestinians have actually found it cheaper to move into Jewish majority areas. (My personal belief is that this is just another example of the mother of unintended consequences that will arise out of this wall). As for discrimination on Palestinian housing and residency rights in Jerusalem, this information is easily sourced. . Ramallite (talk) 22:23, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

text: As no one has objected, and the other disputed Jerusalem articles have remained as "neighbourhoods," I've edited Har Homa to match the others. I removed the section detailing the illegality of settlement, as it is dealt with in said article, though I noted, as in the other articles, the widely held definition of Har Homa as a settlement. I moved the UN/SC link to an "External links" section. Cheers, TewfikTalk 04:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  settlement/neighbourhood clarification 

message: There has been little activity on this discussion page for a while, so just wondering, given there seems to be no consensus on other pages covering similar establishments, if anyone would mind either leading with both disputed terms within their context (of who perceives them) or another term such as 'disputed residential establishment.'? Colourinthemeaning (talk) 07:55, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: An editor above mentioned Peace Now. They use the term "settlement": http://www.peacenow.org.il/site/en/peace.asp?pi=62&docid=3156&pos=9 --Dailycare (talk) 17:08, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

text: I have previously tried to cite Peace Now, FMEP and a handful of other NGOs and each time the sources have been removed and labelled biased, while simultaneously replaced with Press Releases from the Israeli Foreign Affairs office, continually proposed as 'unbiased'. Colourinthemeaning (talk) 05:41, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Settlement v. Neighborhood 

message: I reverted an IP editor's recent change. This issue has been exhaustively discussed here, a discussion which went to a determination of consensus by an outside administrator. It concluded with this text: "The international community considers Israeli settlements in (the Golan Heights/the West Bank/East Jerusalem) illegal under international law, but the Israeli government disputes this." The text here predates this discussion, I believe, and is functionally equivalent. Changes from such text should be made only by a well-considered consensus.--Carwil (talk) 19:20, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Settlement illegality 

message: Overnight, an editor correctly reverted an edit I made at Har Homa, for clicking the link, he found that it did not provide the information I culled from the article the day before, which was more or less this:
::“It was a way of stopping Bethlehem from moving toward Jerusalem,” Netanyahu said of his approval of Har Homa, against US wishes, in 1997. . His acknowledgment that Har Homa was intended to disrupt Palestinian development between Bethlehem and Jerusalem
It could be I got confused, but I don't conjure up edits regardless of sources. Checking, it would appear that the initial report I used was changed or Orwelled down the memory hole, disinvalidating the edit itself.
So, since I had a visual image of the NYT page still in mind,
*(a) I googled:'har homa+Netanyahu+bethlehem+hamastan.'
*(b) This produced:
::Netanyahu Says No Palestinian State if He Is Re-elected ...Mr. Netanyahu stood next to maps of Har Homa, one from 1997 that showed its empty ... “It was a way of stopping Bethlehem from moving toward Jerusalem,” Mr. Netanyahu said of his ... Netanyahu Warns of New 'Hamastan' 
*(c)But clicking on (b) yields up no such text.
*(d)The Times of Israel has much of what I wrote, mentions the New York Times report, but, as one would expect, twists it to erase what the original source says. It is no longer what Netanyahu recalled as his purpose in 1997, but the motive for 'further construction' in 2015.
*(e) Slate magazine also carried the substance of Rudoren's article in a version by Ben Mathis-Lilley.
*(f) I eventually found Rudoren's article carried (dated 17 March) from the New York Times, in the Boston Globe ('Netanyahu says no Palestinian state if he is reelected.')
::Netanyahu on Monday also visited Har Homa, a Jerusalem neighborhood where construction on land Israel captured in the 1967 war ignited international outrage. Netanyahu said he had authorized that construction during his first term to block Palestinians from expanding Bethlehem and to prevent a “Hamastan” from sprouting in the hills nearby.Netanyahu stood next to maps of Har Homa, one from 1997 that showed its empty hillsides, and one showing its roughly 4,000 apartments today. A further 2,000 are under construction or planned.“It was a way of stopping Bethlehem from moving toward Jerusalem,” Netanyahu said of his approval of Har Homa, against US wishes, in 1997. “It stops the continuation of the Palestinians. I saw the potential was really great.”
*(g)Her article gives precisely the content I cited in my original edit. Unless I am mistaken, Rudoren gave an initial report with this content, which disappears therafter though it survives partially in a video clip which however does not contain precisely that language, attached to the reformulated article. Either Rudoren distorted her source, which is possible, and rewrote the piece, or her original report was correct but deemed unpalatable for the NYTs readership. If the former, the fact is that other newspapers still carry the original version under her name. Nishidani (talk) 10:15, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Netanyahu+Rudoren 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Har Homa. 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/17/world/middleeast/benjamin-netanyahu-campaign-settlement.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080102043528/http://www.netanyahu.org/conatharhom.html to http://www.netanyahu.org/conatharhom.html
*Added  tag to http://fr.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1198517322280&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:04, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The external links "Homat Shmuel (Har Homa) website (in Hebrew)" and "Center for Middle East Peace factsheet" are inactive.--77.125.85.13 (talk) 14:07, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links