Jump to content

Talk:Modi'in-Maccabim-Re'ut

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

Merge suggestion

[edit]

Not sure why I didn't do this automatically from the start (when creating this article), but it seems clear that this case warrants a merger of all 3 town articles. Modi'in-Maccabim-Re'ut has virtually no history as a municipality, and recent events have already been placed by editors into the individual articles. I will merge the articles if there are no objections. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 12:16, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree! Flymeoutofhere (talk) 22:33, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unused images

[edit]

After completing the merger half a year late, I was no able to place all of the pictures in the original articles into this one. Here are the ones that are not used, for anyone interested:

—Ynhockey (Talk) 18:46, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


The logo is in there. Entwhiz (talk) 02:34, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Founded

[edit]

Modiin was founded in 1994, not 2003, as you wrote on the sidebar...

The infobox makes it clear that the merger took place in 2003, but I will address your concern anyway, since we no longer have separate articles for Modi'in, Maccabim and Re'ut. —Ynhockey (Talk) 16:03, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know these are three separate cities, but my understanding is that they all date back to the time of the Maccabees, a little before 138 bce (the date that the Maccabees dedicated the new altar in the Temple in Jerusalem, which they had just liberated from the Syrians). My reference for this, for the city of Modi'in, is Levy, R. Chaim Zalman, "The Gift of Light: Chanukah, A Guide". NY: Chabad Jewish Center of the South Shore, 2004, p.5, which I have in my possession.

But what caught my eye was the name, "Modi'in". Has anyone heard the song, "Ani Modin", sung by Alan Oreskey? I've wanted a translation of it for a long time, but I know the word, "ani", which means "I", so when I saw the name of this city it occurred to me that that song might be something like, "I, myself, am an inhabitant of the ancient city of Modi'in - I am like a Maccabee in my zealousness for Judaism".

So it might have a history, and a background, and a meaning that should be reflected in this article - to match that beautiful night picture!

Thanks very much for listening, and for having this article and picture. Entwhiz (talk) 02:10, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The ancient connection is mentioned in the article. Feel free to expand it using the source in your possession. —Ynhockey (Talk) 10:03, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fact tag - mixed-use buildings

[edit]

The Neighborhoods sections says that Avnei Chen contains the "only retail under residential mixed use buildings" in the city. I slapped a {{fact}} tag on it because the Dimri towers are generally considered to be in adjacent Shimshoni, and they are high-rise residential towers with ground floors containing commercial enterprises, including medical clinics / doctors offices, a beauty shop, real estate agencies, etc. There may be other building like this, as well, in other parts of Modi'in, but I'm sure of the Dimri towers. --Eliyahu S Talk 06:01, 16 August 2012 (UTC) (corrected typo --Eliyahu S Talk 11:07, 16 August 2012 (UTC))[reply]

located in an area referred to as "no man's land"

[edit]

The introductory paragraph states that this city is in 1949 "no man's land". The cited article is not very authoritative on this matter, and Google maps, at least, suggests that most of the city lies on the Israeli side of "no-man's land", creeping across that boundary. Could an editor confirm the assertion of this first paragraph with a more authoritative citation, or else make a weaker claim? jnothman talk 03:50, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, the vast majority of Modi'in and Reut are in Israel, while Maccabim is in no-man's land. 85.250.97.201 (talk) 15:03, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The characterization of Modi'in as a city located in "no man's land" seems a deliberate provocation. The city is in territory that has been held by Israel since 1949 and which is entirely on the West (Israeli) side of the Green Line. To deny that it is on Israeli territory is to deny Israel (which may, of course, be the intent of the editor who chose this particular phrasing, but is nonetheless inappropriate in this lead-in). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.246.216.213 (talk) 20:46, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Location

[edit]

The town is not in Israel but in the West Bank, which is occupied by Israel — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.181.24.98 (talk) 12:48, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At least parts of it. According to international maps and convention, some of the town is on Occupied Palestinian Territories.142.229.90.171 (talk) 14:20, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 April 2017

[edit]

The words of the speech of "Benjamin Netanyahu the Prime Minister of Israel, spoke at the funeral "hamass will paye etc ..." are totally absent from the source (number 12 Jpost newspaper). So, i guess we can delete this wrong affirmation of the wiki poster. Miranda2016 (talk) 23:40, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Done jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) 01:35, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Modi'in-Maccabim-Re'ut. 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:

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) 09:43, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"ceded" or "confiscated"

[edit]

User:Huldra, as is often the case in these articles dealing with the State of Israel and Mandatory Palestine, and the Six-Day War, when the country came under Israeli "rule," and which some may call "occupation," editors here have taken two approaches in dealing with this subject. Some prefer to use a more softer tone, such as "lands that were ceded" (see: definition of "cede" in Cambridge Dictionary), whereas others prefer the harsher word, "confiscate." Not that it really matters, since most governments have the authority to confiscate lands anyway, especially lands that were originally designated as "no man's land," by an act of the 1949 Armistice Agreement between Jordan and Israel. Do we have any indication on whether these lands (upon which was built Maccabim) were actually what has been described as "no man's land"? If the lands were classified as "no man's land," wouldn't it be better to use "cede" instead of "confiscate?"Davidbena (talk) 00:10, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see the the lands in question referred to as the village lands of Beit Sira. To say it was "ceded" would imply that Beit Sira agreed to it, reluctantly or not. Similarly the Palestinian Authority has never agreed, even reluctantly, to Israeli sovereignty in the Latrun salient (which is where this land lies). It has always been included by them as Palestinian land in every negotiation. Land taken by force should be called "confiscated" or "expropriated" as those are the correct English words for that action. Finally, the right of governments to confiscate land (the right of eminent domain) only applies to their own land and not to other land they occupy. Under international law, an occupier can only confiscate land for serious military need or for the benefit of the occupied population. Zerotalk 00:29, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That may be how some interpret the word "cede," but even Indian territory was ceded (confiscated) by the US Government, to the chagrin and unwillingness of the American Indians themselves. In American history, a case in point is the Sioux Indian nation. [Background information: In US public records, there is a transcript of the treaty of 1868 made between United States government representatives, on the one part, and the Sioux Indian nation represented by their chiefs, on the other part. In that treaty, under Article 1, it states: "From this day forward all war between the parties to this agreement shall forever cease." Only eight years later, on the 25th of June 1876, the conditions of the said treaty were broken by the US Government, under General George A. Custer, and the 7th cavalry, who waged a war against un-molesting Sioux (Lakota) Indians encamped in the valley of Greasy Grass (Little Big Horn). Under the laws governing the validity of treaties or pacts made between parties, if a treaty or pact is breached in one part, it is deemed as though it had been breached in all parts and is, therefore, null and void altogether. From a legal standpoint, this brings us back to the status quo before committing themselves to that treaty. On the US side, subsequent legislation was made by the US Government in the Fall of that same year, in which it forced the Sioux to sign away their right to the Powder River in He-Sah-Pah (the Black Hills). Today, the term used for the expropriation of their lands is "ceded."]. You see, it also applies to lands forcibly taken away from a people, either through coercion or an act of war. The Cambridge Dictionary makes this clear. In any rate, it is also "confiscation" - although a much harsher word to use, in my humble opinion. In Jewish law, even a court can confiscate a man's property. Hence the rabbinic dictum הפקר בית דין הפקר = "What a court rules as ownerless property is ownerless property." User:Zero0000, you stand to be corrected in your statement "the right of governments to confiscate land (the right of eminent domain) only applies to their own land and not to other land they occupy." While this might be the view of many, I wish to remind you that here, in Israel, there was never an occupation, since the word occupation would imply a sovereign before the change of status, but there was no sovereign. There was a country occupied by foreign powers, while Jews and Arabs lived in that country together and were both subject to these foreign powers. When, finally, the government shifted into the hands of the Jewish people, they were at liberty to do with the land as they pleased. If Maccabim was a town built on "no man's land," which it was (see: European Union on Modi'in-Maccabim-Re'ut municipality, and Israel Blasts EU Listing), and had the original Arab land owners despaired of having retrieved their lost land, or had died, this would entitle the government, even more so, to develop the land in question. For the most-part, these are technicalities that have yet to be determined. However, the use of the word "confiscate" only obfuscates the Israeli-Palestinian land issue in this particular case.Davidbena (talk) 01:12, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Zero0000:, can you be reached by private e-mail?Davidbena (talk) 01:38, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Davidbena: If you have an email address set up in your preferences, you can send me email by this link. Now back to the subject. The problem with saying that Beit Sira "ceded" land is that many readers will take it to mean that the village made some agreement to give up land, either willingly or unwillingly. That is what your example has, but in this case there was no such agreement at all. We have to avoid misleading readers even by words which can be understood in different ways. On the other hand, "confiscate" is the plain truth about what the government did. In fact "confiscate" would be correct even if the action was entirely legal, though "expropriate" is the word most used in legal contexts. The legal status of the no-mans-land is ambiguous in Israeli law, since Israel has never taken the step of extending Israeli law to it. The status of the West Bank, however, is not ambiguous at all: according to Israeli law it is held under belligerent occupation. Zerotalk 10:26, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'm in total agreement with you. You are right. The word "cede" can lead to some confusion. Thanks for your reply. As for modern Israeli law, there seems to be some dispute on the subject, either by some legislators or some members of the Israeli parliament and/or judicial branch, but I will not argue the details. BTW: Although I often argue in Israel's defense, do not interpret this to mean that I dislike the Arabs that share this country with us. Be it far from me. Moreover, wherever injustice is found - whether on our side or on their side, I cringe at the thought. With that said, the events of 1948 and 1967 were precipitated by riots (before 1948) and general animosity. In war, history has shown that the victors decide the fate of the losers. I, personally, think that this was Divine providence, however unpleasant this might sound to some people. Be well.Davidbena (talk) 17:15, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
One more thing: In the case of the West Bank, the Israeli Prime-Minister has recently made statements to the effect that even if a "Palestinian State" were established in the West Bank, there will ALWAYS be a permanent Israeli military presence there. (See: Israel vows to retain West Bank control in any peace). So, call it what you like - "Palestinian State," Autonomous Region," "Territories governed by the Palestinian Authority," "Belligerent Occupation," etc., it's all semantics. Netanyahu sees the strategic importance of Israel's military presence in this region of our country, because of the history of animosity between our two peoples, as well as Israel's historical (ancestral) rights to the country.Davidbena (talk) 17:32, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of land expropriation, especially during or after conflict, you may wish to see the old and new Israeli laws dealing with this subject: The old laws, under The Law of the Land (Jewish); and the new laws, under Land Acquisition (Validation of Acts and Compensation) Law, 5713-1953. These two articles shed light on the legality of land acquisitions. Bear in mind, too, that the Government of Israel sees itself as continuing the system of land tenures where the British in Mandatory Palestine had left off, and which land tenures they too had inherited from the Ottoman regime, as defined in the Ottoman Land Code of 1858. The difference between the Modern State of Israel and, say, the Palestinian Authority, is that Israel wishes to retain the unity of the entire country, as it was under the British Mandate (when Palestine stretched from the Mediterranean Sea to the Jordan River), whereas the Palestinian Authority seeks to divide the country into two independent states. The language of "occupation" pursues that agenda. Be well.Davidbena (talk) 01:55, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mmmm.....to say that Israel is just "continuing the system of land tenures etc" sort of misses the point: that for Israel these land tenure rights were just for Jews...and nobody else. (Those who were not Jews could have their land confiscated whenever Israel wanted.) In effect, an apartheid system. You say that the Palestinian Authority seeks to divide the country.....the alternative, which clearly some Israelis envisage, is that Israel, and only Israel, should have it all. Huldra (talk) 20:18, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That is incorrect. First, Israel's "land laws" make it abundantly clear that all lands are the property of the State - whether those held by Jewish tenants or Arab tenants. Besides, what we are talking about here, if you haven't figured it out yet, is a history of war with a population that has consistently shown itself hostile to the Jewish people and/or the State of Israel. As for what you call an "apartheid" system, conditions between Jews and Arabs living within Israel's side of the Green Line are better than those conditions between Jews and Arabs in the territories controlled by the Palestinian Authority. Jews venturing unarmed in those regions risk being killed, while Arabs visiting Israeli towns and cities are not killed. Understandably, this attitude of hate (perpetuated by our Arab citizens) is the reason they are not included in the Israeli political process.Davidbena (talk) 21:43, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You surely cannot deny that there is an apartheid system on the West Bank, when you go to different courts for the same crime. (Eg, Ahed Tamimi gets 8 months, while Israeli settlers who have done exactly the same get 0 time in jail.) As for "attitude of hate (perpetuated by our Arab citizens)"...that is exactly it: the Palestinians on the West bank are NOT "your citizens". Nor would Israel ever want to include them (as that would destroy the "Jewish state"). It is not their attitude Israel cannot accept, it is their number. Huldra (talk) 22:21, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
David, failing to distinguish between the occupier and the occupied is about as great an error as it is possible to make on this subject. Zerotalk 00:04, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The word "apartheid" is malicious and misleading. There are two systems of law, one which applies to the conquered territories (West Bank) and which Israel has recently given a form of semi-autonomous rule to the Arab populace in this region; the other which applies to the pre-1967 borders and settled primarily by Jewish Israelis with a relatively small Israeli-Arab population. The young Arab girl (Tamimi) affronted an Israeli soldier who was non-offending. I have seen the video. Where is the respect for authority? It only underscores the real issues here, which can be defined as premeditated hostility, along with insurrection and demagoguery. I think you can appreciate it when I say that there is a movement to incriminate Israel, by using misleading words such as "occupation" and "apartheid." The Arabs are, indeed, our fellow citizens of this country. (I work with them, here in Israel, but whose houses and families are in the territories ran by the PA). They are not discriminated against, except only in terms of holding government positions. This is understandable. Many countries throughout the Middle East do not allow minorities and/or people of a different religion or social class to take over their system of government, and Israel is no exception. Israel, in this regard, is not a completely democratic state, since fraternal considerations and religion take precedence over democracy. Still, we can respect our fellow Arab Muslim, Christian, Samaritan and Druze citizens, and accord them with all the protection and human dignity guaranteed by the law.Davidbena (talk) 00:18, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. It is not "malicious" or "misleading" ..if it is correct. Please read Apartheid. Oh, btw, no doubt the the people who institutionalised apartheid in South Africa, was 100% sure that what they did was the right thing...And is it so difficult to call people for Palestinian, (instead of Arab)? And, to repeat: there are videos of Jewish settler women doing exactly the same as Ahed Tamimi.. (Where is the respect for authority there?) ....but the Jewish girl never was prosecuted. Apartheid. Huldra (talk) 22:41, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't it just easier to say, "women of the Jewish faith were fighting Arab women," rather than "Jewish settler women"? If an Arab moves from a village and decides to live in Hebron, is he called a "newcomer" or "settler"? No, because it's irrelevant. And, yes, I saw that video too (the argument between two women), and it was disturbing and sad to see. These things should never be. There is, however, a difference between two neighbors fighting each other, and an Arab woman attacking a non-offending soldier. Wouldn't you agree? Neighbors should be friendly towards each other. You say that Israel is guilty of "apartheid." Since when have the Arabs in our country wanted to pray in synagogues with Jews, or to live like the Jews? They speak a different language and they gravitate towards their own kind, and they pray in their mosques and shrines. These are natural things related to "apartheid," a word that literally means "separateness". There's nothing wrong with that. "Birds of a feather flock together, and a person after his own kind." You see, you are using the words "apartheid" and "occupation" to arouse public sentiment against Israel, failing to remember that the same attitude and feelings of strife and enmity have been used by the more militant Arabs living in Palestine, and which attitude brought upon them and their families the "nakba" ("catastrophe"). The only way to mend this dire situation is for people of this mindset to change their way of thinking and learn to live peaceably with Israelis, in one nation, with the Arabs taking the responsibility over their own municipalities and local government to improve their society. Likewise, those who are of the Jewish faith should not provoke our fellow Arab citizens to anger, but try to ameliorate their condition. BTW: The word "apartheid" in South Africa was used differently to what you may see here, insofar that in South Africa the people were of the same religion and faith, as well as ideology, but they were separated only because of the color of their skin.Davidbena (talk) 06:08, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You ask "Since when have the Arabs in our country wanted to pray in synagogues with Jews, or to live like the Jews?" ...in return I would ask you: "Since when have you wanted to pray in mosques with Muslims, or to live like the Muslims?" ...and if your answer is "never"...then you really dont have an argument. And there is a difference between being different and equal, and being different and unequal. On the West Bank there is difference and unequal. And I am not using word like "apartheid" and "occupation" to arouse public sentiment against Israel.....I am using those words because those are the most accurate words describing the situation. It is not words which create negative sentiment agains Israel!! It is sending 14 year old Palestinian boys to prison....for something a Jewish boy would never, ever be punished for. That is apartheid: different, and unequal. Huldra (talk) 23:20, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Huldra, O Huldra, you seem to be ignorant of Israel's reality. How can you expect Arabs who hate Israel to vote for the politicians who will govern Israel? They have their own local councils and municipalities, where they do exercise a form of governance over their own people. As far as human dignity is concerned, if an Israeli affronts an Arab man, woman or child, he is duly punished. Jewish violence against Arabs is rare in our country (though not entirely unheard of), while Arab violence against Jews (especially soldiers) is far more common, if not the norm. A 14-year old Arab boy who shoots a sling-shot or tosses Molotov cocktails at Israeli soldiers is duly punished, just as any Jewish child would be had he done the same. I can remember a time when there were no check-points when entering or leaving an Arab village, but because of the high number of suicide bombers coming from certain Arab sections, road blocks, check-points and separation walls were installed. I cannot remember hearing of an Israeli suicide bomber. The only thing to ever come close to this depraved act was Baruch Goldstein who took the law into his own hand. He was killed for his actions. Those who murdered the boy, Mohammad Abu Khdeir, were apprehended and duly punished. We do not complain whenever justice is duly meted out, so why is it that you complain when Israeli security forces apprehend an offending youth? Again, there is no "apartheid"-system in our society, but rather an intolerable security situation, one that has seen the perpetuation of the hate and hostility that existed between Arabs and Jews during the British Mandate, and instigated, mind-you, by Haj Amin Husseini. "Apartheid" and "occupation" are both misnomers, at least in Israel's case, since in "historical terms" many Israelis who took part in the wars to reclaim the country of Palestine (from Jordanian occupation) were themselves formerly called "Palestinians" prior to 1948. This is a fact that cannot be denied. "Palestinian Jews" (now called "Israelis") – both they and their children – simply restored Palestine's old borders in 1967.Davidbena (talk) 18:50, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please add to notable residents ...

[edit]
 Done -- zzuuzz (talk) 12:28, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Could the population density be added, and the demographics data be updated?

[edit]

I think there might be more details missing. Lirannl (talk) 15:00, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the density to the article. What specific information needs to be updated? —Ynhockey (Talk) 11:44, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maccabim

[edit]

Currently the 3rd sentence of #4.1 Maccabim-Re'ut is "According to ARIJ, Israel confiscated land from two Palestinian villages for the construction of Maccabim, presently part of Modi'in-Maccabim-Re'ut: 1,499 dunams from Beit Sira[14] and 471 dunams from Saffa.[15][16]". https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Applied_Research_Institute%E2%80%93Jerusalem to which ARIJ links describes it as "a Palestinian NGO". Is there a more neutral source which could be used? Mcljlm (talk) 02:15, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Correction to the section on the 2014 funeral of kidnapped teens

[edit]

The name of one of the murdered teens is erroneously given as Elad Yifrah; the correct name is Eyal Yifrah. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.141.145.194 (talk) 01:06, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please add under notable residents..

[edit]

2603:7000:2101:AA00:55DD:F8A4:FE03:48B1 (talk) 06:19, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 21:05, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 January 2024

[edit]

I would like to request that a certain picture that is contained in the Hebrew version of this article also be shown in the English version of this article. The picture has the following URL: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/06/Modiin_Map_2020.png. Yitzchakm2 (talk) 12:07, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: we don't even know what the picture is about. M.Bitton (talk) 12:08, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 June 2024; please add to notable residents

[edit]

2603:7000:2101:AA00:BCC7:AA19:864F:D62A (talk) 06:04, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 21:11, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Transportation section needs update

[edit]

The transportation section still calls 2016 the future... 2001:A62:14EF:1002:3D41:7897:34D8:A0CB (talk) 15:14, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 July 2024

[edit]

The first sentence says that Modi'in is "an Israeli city located in central Israel". Please change "an Israeli city" to "a city"; if it's in central Israel, obviously it's an Israeli city. 123.51.107.94 (talk) 00:16, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Left guide (talk) 02:04, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Modi%27in-Maccabim-Re%27ut&oldid=1258106206"