Jump to content

Talk:Israeli settlement

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Harlan wilkerson (talk | contribs) at 14:52, 3 May 2009 (→illegal / unauthourized outposts). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Pbneutral

Reference [22] not anymore available

This reference should be removed or a new one found. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.243.137.56 (talk) 12:41, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


"change wording, per MeteorMaker's objections"?

I wonder, what objections is Jayjg referring to when he made this change, with the edit summary "change wording, per MeteorMaker's objections"? I have certainly not objected that the article should say "or northern Samaria" instead of "also referred to as Samaria". If I have made an objection, it's that it should be made clear that "Samaria" is Israel-specific terminology. There is no consensus for that highly misleading edit and it should be reverted. MeteorMaker (talk) 10:50, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You alleged that None of those sources say that the term "Samaria" is sometimes used. That appears to be your own conclusion. Based on your complaint, I removed the phrase you were complaining about, and any pretext for claiming OR. Speaking of OR, your claim that "Samaria" is Israel-specific terminology has been conclusively disproved. Jayjg (talk) 03:39, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Scroll down a little for the demolition of that claim. Instead of resorting to proof by assertion, try and find one source that actually says what you are trying to prove, that "Samaria" is used outside Israel. I remind you that there are scores of reliable sources that prove you wrong here, and thousands more may be added. Also, kindly refrain from blatant misrepresenting of other editors' positions and from making misleading edit summaries in the future. MeteorMaker (talk) 07:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In this unrelated edit in the same article, I admit I was wrong about the existence of a consensus (though the edit in itself was fine). Now, you might have thought your edit summary correct too, the first time. However, I informed you that your wording was not "per MeteorMaker's objections" and still you didn't correct it. It was reverted two times, and both times you reinserted the false claim, with even more outlandish edit summaries [1][2], totally contrary to WP:AGF. Also, there was never a consensus for your edit, so it would be appropriate if you reverted it yourself. MeteorMaker (talk) 18:08, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This bogus edit summary seems to hit a new low for editorial dishonesty, finger-in-the-eye arrogance, and deliberate disruption.

There is currently a case before Arbcom about this entire hoax. I'd suggest not wasting further energy here, or on any article talk page.--G-Dett (talk) 00:43, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

illegal / unauthourized outposts

I tried looking for this issue in the archives but could not find something directly relevant. I've changed the wording from illegal outposts to unauthourized outposts since this term is disputed / misleading. The Sasson Report deals with the outposts and adds criteria it uses that might make an outpost illegal, but the Sasson Report itself is not binding or the legal policy of the Israeli government. The Israeli government itself does not have specific criteria for what an illegal or legal settlement, except for those locations that the courts have managed to deal with. For instance, Amona is an outpost, but only the houses that were destroyed were deemed illegally built. --Shuki (talk) 20:05, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are many WP:RS that call these settlements illegal settlements, including the WP:RS that you removed from the article.

If you want to rename them in this article, then find a WP:RS that supports this terminology. You are not a WP:RS. Factsontheground (talk) 23:56, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did you even read the Sasson Report? The cover page itself states that it is an interim report about unauthorized outposts. There is also absolutely no use of the term illegal in the entire 343 page report. Please stop introducing fictitious terms into wikipedia articles to push your POV on the subject. This seems to be your alternative way to call settlements illegal - POV that has not succeeded otherwise. --Shuki (talk) 22:36, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I have read the report but no, it is not the only WP:RS that deals with illegal settlement outposts.
You will find that the majority of WP:RS, in particular news agencies, use the "illegal settlement" terminology. Factsontheground (talk) 22:53, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They are often referred as "illegal" precisely because they are "unauthorized," in Israel, not because any international court or court of public opinion has passed judgment. Most of the RS will in fact use both terms. "Unauthorized," however, is the clearer and more accurate term as user:Shuki points out. Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:01, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if this is a reliable source, and not meaning to complicate things, but this says Lieberman "... is committed to expanding illegal Israeli settlements in the West Bank." [3] The Indypendent. Israel’s Killer Election. April 17, 2009. By Jaisal Noor and Arun Gupta
And here's a source stating that settlements are considered illegal under international law. "International law considers Israeli settlements on the occupied West Bank and occupied east Jerusalem illegal." [4] International Middle East Media Center. This Week in Palestine -Week 17 2009. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 21:56, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that the outposts are illegal is not disputed. The Sasson report found "A continuing, bold, institutionalized law violation" in the growth of the unauthorized outposts. The report was "interim" in nature because the investigation of several agencies could not be finalized in the time allocated. Page 19-20 of the Hebrew version (linked above) contains four mandatory criteria for authorizing any settlement in Judea, Samaria, and Gaza. Number two on that list required that there be a proper state title to the land. Sasson cited the High Court's ruling in the Elon Moreh case. It was based on customary international law (Hague IV Convention) restrictions on the military administration. The report states: "I must emphasize: an unauthorized outpost is not a "semi-legal" outpost. Unauthorized is illegal." The report goes on to say that building outposts on private Palestinian property is absolutely prohibited and in some cases constitutes a felony. The report also explains that the Israeli High Court of Justice had ruled that the Commander of the area must protect the fundamental rights of the Palestinians in Judea, Samaria and Gaza and that an establishment of outposts on Palestinian private property causes an intolerable prejudice to the right of possession recognized in the Basic Law: Human Dignity and Freedom. Here are some links to the English summary at UNISPAL, the Prime Minister of Israel's Communications Office, and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs harlan (talk) 14:51, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court

In 1998, the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs noted that the draft Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court included a provision that classified the transfer of civilian populations to occupied territories as a war crime. see The International Criminal Court - Background Paper. The prohibition did not depend upon the provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention, since the statute cited both the laws and "customs of international law".
That same year, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs reported that a number of its own eminent legal authorities had determined that the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights did not apply to the situation in the "occupied territories". The covenant applies to all individuals within Israel's territory that are subject to its jurisdiction. Israel questioned whether individuals resident in the "occupied territories" were indeed subject to Israel's national jurisdiction, and stated that the Covenant had been developed in the context of a normal relationship between a state and its "internal population". see Summary record of the 1675th meeting : Israel, 21/07/98, CCPR/C/SR.1675
In 2000, the editors of the Geneva Academy of International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights' Palestine Yearbook of International Law 1998-99 observed that the United Nations Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries had adopted the Rome Statute. They noted:
"in particular, that Article 8, which provides that the "transfer, directly or indirectly, by the Occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies, or the deportation or transfer of all or parts of the population of the occupied territory within or outside this territory" amounts to a war crime. This is obviously applicable to Israeli settlement activities in the Occupied Arab Territories."
See the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, 1998, Done at Rome on 17 July 1998. Entered into force on 1 July 2002, United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 2187, p. 3-7
In 2004, the ICJ advised the General Assembly that any measures taken by an occupying Power in order to organize or encourage transfers of parts of its own population into the occupied territory were prohibited. The court characterized the measures adopted by Israel with regard to Jerusalem and the settlements as "illegal". see paragraphs 120 and 122 of "Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory".
In 2004, the Israeli Supreme Court, sitting as the High Court of Justice, stipulated that Israel has been holding the areas of Judea and Samaria in belligerent occupation, since 1967. The court held that the International Law of Occupation contained in Hague IV, of 1907, is applicable. see Beit Sourik Village Council v. The Government of Israel, HCJ 2056/04
In 2005, the Sasson Report underscored the fact that Israeli state officials had always facilitated the establishment of settlements in the occupied territories by providing funding, water carrier and utility connections, and etc. harlan (talk) 09:36, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Harlan, can you explain what point it is that you are trying to make? Jayjg (talk) 04:12, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The legal arguments regarding the Sasson report, or the applicability of the Geneva Conventions, do not apply to the decision of the United Nations Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries. It's one thing to characterize the settlements as illegal, it's another thing to adopt a new international statute that makes them illegal. The Plenipotentiaries adopted the recommendations of the International Law Commission for the Rome Statute, and it has subsequently been ratified by a sufficient number of states. The Geneva Academy of International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights is a WP:RS source who have noted that the Statute "is obviously applicable to Israeli settlement activities in the Occupied Arab Territories."
The Statute contains a provision, in Article 8, that lists the transfer, either directly or indirectly, of population from the occupier's territory into occupied territory as a war crime. When Israel signed the agreement, the MFA legal adviser stated that:

When we signed, we added a political declaration. I know that it's been reported in the press that Israel signed with a reservation with respect to various elements in the statute which are problematic. The statute doesn't permit reservations, because we're talking about the statute of an international court, so clearly it has to be a document that stands on its own, without anything that could derogate from its legal effect. International Criminal Court - Press Briefing by Israel Foreign Ministry Legal Advisor Alan Baker

The other citations illustrate occasions when the government of Israel has claimed the territories are occupied. harlan (talk) 06:35, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
According to which reliable source is it the case that "The legal arguments regarding the Sasson report, or the applicability of the Geneva Conventions, do not apply to the decision of the United Nations Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries."? Please bring sources discussing the Sasson report, Geneva Conventions, and the United Nations Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries, and making that same argument. Jayjg (talk) 02:33, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In my earlier post, I was writing about the "personal observations" offered by users Shuki and Tundrabuggy with regard to the Sasson Report. The Supreme Court of Israel has ruled that customary international law is part of Israel's common law, and that the Hague regulations are domestically enforceable. For a complete discussion of the domestic application of conventional (contractual) international law vs. customary international law see Chapter 2 of The Occupation of Justice, by David Kretzmer and Israel Yearbook on Human Rights 1979, By Yoram Dinstein, starting at page 347, and Human Rights in the Israeli-occupied Territories, 1967-1982, By Esther Rosalind Cohen., pages 86 and 156.
Those sources say that in 1979 the High Court ruled that privately-owned Palestinian land could only be requisitioned on a temporary basis by the military commander of the region under occupation, and that the authority for such orders is derived from applicable international law. The court ruled that unless a settlement was the direct result of military planning and necessity, it was illegal on the ground that it would otherwise violate the Hague regulations. The court also ruled that the military could not create facts that would outlive the duration of its occupation regime. The government issued an administrative regulation that same year proscribing the expropriation of privately-owned land for settlements. The Sasson report revealed that settlements had subsequently been built, or expanded, on privately-owned Palestinian land without the required military planning and approval. Those settlements are illegal because they violate the terms of customary international law.
Ha'aretz recently reported on a Defense Ministry database that showed many settlements from the Sasson report had been built illegally on private Palestinian land. The gentleman who compiled the datatbase, Baruch Spiegel, said that government legal experts had been employed in the creation of the database. Spiegel mentioned that the settlements were "illegal", not merely unauthorized. The article mentions portions of the Ofra outpost, which the High Court of Justice ordered to be razed. see "Secret Israeli database reveals full extent of illegal settlement" The Jerusalem Post also reported on the Ofra structures, and quoted a spokesman for Defense Minister Barak and the state's representative, attorney Avi Licht as saying the construction of the houses and their occupation were illegal. See Barak: I won't demolish Ofra houses now. see also A third of settlements on land taken for 'security purposes'. harlan (talk) 09:57, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

How about changing the lead as below to eliminate the contentious parts and associated refs ? Seems simpler, more neutral and possibly more stable.

Israeli settlements are communities inhabited by Israelis in territory that was captured during the 1967 Six-Day War. Such settlements currently exist in the West Bank , which is partially under Israeli military administration and partially under the control of the Palestinian National Authority, and in the Golan Heights, which are under Israeli civilian administration.

Sean.hoyland - talk 17:45, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Possible Arbcom Request

As a matter of general public policy, section 504 of the IRS code discourages tax exempt organizations (like the Wikimedia Foundation) from carrying on political propaganda campaigns. In that connection, the EU Council has decided to prohibit dissemination or distribution of material condoning, denying or grossly trivializing crimes as defined in the Statute of the International Criminal Court (Articles 6, 7 and 8) directed against a group of persons or a member of such a group defined by reference to race, colour, religion, descent or national or ethnic origin, and crimes defined by the Tribunal of Nüremberg (Article 6 of the Charter of the International Military Tribunal, London Agreement of 1945) directed against a group of persons or a member of such a group defined by reference to race, colour, religion, descent or national or ethnic origin. Member States will ensure that these conducts are punishable by criminal penalties of a maximum of at least between 1 and 3 years of imprisonment. see Framework decision on Racism and Xenophobia.

Many editors do not seem to be aware of the EU Council decision. For example, Wikipedia has a multitude of Israel-Palestine related articles that contain examples of those sort of statements. Although there have been a number of requests for Arbitration on Israel-Palestine related issues, there doesn't seem to be a published guideline, going-forward, that spells out the policy and procedure to follow when an editor trivializes an action directed at Israelis, or Palestinians, that falls within the Rome Statute or Nüremberg Charter prohibitions. That could result in Wikipedia being blocked over controversial content.

For example, Israel's courts and civil administrations have ruled or reported that government officials have helped construct settlements on illegally expropriated privately-owned Palestinian land. Up to a third of the settlements have been built in this way. That violates the Rome Statute for the International Criminal Court articles: 8(2)(a)(iv), and 8(2)(b)(viii). Israel's participation in the ICC treaty is not a factor, since other states have the right to vest universal jurisdiction in their own national courts over war crimes. see the ICRC List of Customary Rules of International Humanitarian Law, Rule 157. Many supporters of the settlements ignore the court decisions and insist that they are not illegal.

The Nuremberg Tribunals established beyond question that individuals can be brought to trial in international criminal proceedings for violations of the rules of customary international law. see United Nations and International Criminal Law, Johan Van Der Vyver

In 1993 the UN Security Council "acting under Chapter VII of the Charter on the United Nations" approved a report made by the Secretary General which concluded beyond doubt that the law applicable in armed conflict as embodied in the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 and the Hague Convention (IV) of 18 October 1907 had become part of international customary law. Breaches of the principles contained in the conventions were subsequently placed within the competence of an international criminal tribunal charged with prosecuting the responsible individuals. see Security Council Resolution 827, 25 May 1993, the commentary with regard to customary law in the UN article on The Statute For the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, and War crimes law comes of age, By Theodor Meron, page 212.

When a possible conflict arose with the national law of the Federal Republic of Germany, the Tribunal drew attention to the obligations of states under the Security Council resolutions and repeated the self-evident principle of international law that states cannot invoke their own municipal laws as a basis for avoiding their international obligations. see International Law Reports, By E. Lauterpacht, et. al. page 8

In 1995 the United Nations Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries met to debate, crystallize, and codify international criminal law in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. see Sources of International Law – The Place of Treaties. The Statute mentions the Geneva Conventions in Article 8. "War crimes". Those provisions are declaratory of custom which is binding on all parties in an armed conflict. States that do not ratify the Rome Statute can only opt-out to the extent that the various provisions therein do not form a part of international customary law. See the briefing on the Harvard Program on Humanitarian Policy and Conflict Research, International Humanitarian Law Initiative: The Legal status of Israeli settlements under International Humanitarian Law.

In 2000, the editors of the Geneva Academy of International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights' Palestine Yearbook of International Law 1998-99 observed that the United Nations Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries had adopted the Rome Statute. They noted:

"in particular, that Article 8, which provides that the "transfer, directly or indirectly, by the Occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies, or the deportation or transfer of all or parts of the population of the occupied territory within or outside this territory" amounts to a war crime. This is obviously applicable to Israeli settlement activities in the Occupied Arab Territories."

Also see ICRC List of Customary Rules of International Humanitarian Law, Rule 130: States may not deport or transfer parts of their own civilian population into a territory they occupy.

The International Court of Justice and the Israeli High Court of Justice have repeatedly ruled that the Palestinian territories are under belligerent occupation, and that Israel's acts in the territories are subject to the limitations placed on the acts of a belligerent occupant by customary international law. In the 1979 Elon Moreh Case, the Israeli High Court ruled that privately-owned Palestinian land had been expropriated for the purpose of establishing Israeli civilian settlements in breach of the articles annexed to the Hague Convention of 1907. The court ruled that a military government is not permitted to create facts that are designed to persist after its temporary rule in the area has ended. The Occupation of Justice, by David Kretzmer, page 39

Ha'aretz recently reported on a Defense Ministry database which showed that many settlements mentioned in the Sasson Report had been built illegally on private Palestinian land. The gentleman who compiled the datatbase, Baruch Spiegel, said that government legal experts had been employed in the creation of the database. Spiegel mentioned that the settlements were "illegal" (not merely unauthorized). The article mentions portions of the Ofra outpost, which the High Court of Justice ordered to be razed. see "Secret Israeli database reveals full extent of illegal settlement" The Jerusalem Post also reported on the Ofra structures, and quoted a spokesman for Defense Minister Barak and the state's representative, attorney Avi Licht as saying the construction of the houses and their occupation were illegal. See Barak: I won't demolish Ofra houses now. see also A third of settlements on land taken for 'security purposes'.

Despite lengthy discussion of these facts on the Israeli Occupied Territories and Israeli Settlements page, many editors continue to demand that the articles should say the territories are "disputed" and not under military occupation. They also have reverted edits and insist that the illegal outposts are merely "unauthorized". WP:NOTADVOCATE states that content hosted in Wikipedia is not: Propaganda, advocacy, or recruitment of any kind, commercial, political, religious, or otherwise. harlan (talk) 08:22, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well said. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:32, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Commendable analysis, as one invariably expects from you Harlan. While the legal situation is clear, as you underline, the precise way in which editors pushing their nationalist POV, as many do, in violation of WP:NOTADVOCATE, are in the wrong technically in wikipedia's self-referential framework of rules, is not so clear. They could say in their own defence that they only follow WP:RS that endorse their POV (i.e. the minority international and Israeli official dissent from many of these judgements). They might say further that to prove your point before Arbcom you cannot produce evidence in violation of WP:NOR. Virtually everything done by Israel in the West Bank and Gaza is in violation of international law. But there is no tribunal of enforcement, possession is 9/10s of the law in practical terms, and, for Wikipedia, following so many sources that would ignore, as do many amicable states, these elements of international law, the situation may be described according to sources, nothing more. One of the ironies of the PA/Hamas fracture is this, the PNA is prepared to overrule the strict application of international law, by a treaty between the two parties which would override the prevailing legal situation as you describe it. Hamas, whatever its other designs, is not. Very convenient. In the breech, settlements continue.Nishidani (talk) 13:04, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing in this section violates WP:NOR guidelines. There are published secondary sources that support everything I've said here, and compiling facts is WP:NOTOR.
The underlying issue is really very non-technical. Materials condoning, denying or grossly trivializing crimes as defined in the Statute of the International Criminal Court (Articles 6, 7 and 8) are ipso facto illegal in many EU jurisdictions. By definition, they should not be cited as WP:RS sources.
States and individuals cannot claim sovereign immunity for acts that violate customary international law. The sanctity of private property - in accordance with the law of nations - has been recognized as common law in US Courts ever since the United States vs Percheman case in 1832. Plaintiffs can pursue claims for damages here in the Federal District Courts under the Alien Tort Claims Statute. Here are some examples of lawsuits which have cited violations of customary international law: In Re South African Apartheid Litigation and the 8 billion dollar Swiss Banks Settlement: In re Holocaust Victim Assets Litigation. There have been criminal investigations of both Palestinians and Israelis in several EU countries. The last investigation that I heard about was this report in the Jerusalem Post: Norwegian lawyers: Extradite Olmert, Livni, Barak harlan (talk) 14:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since those editors who repeat the stuff in wikipedia you find everyday in major newspapers, from the New York Times, to Haaretz, from the Washington Post to the Jerusalem Post, do so by clipping stuff from precisely these sources, it extremely doubtful whether, unless you can show precedent, why the anonymous POV-pushers of an encyclopedia which no one controls could be held, in the front line, to standards most of the world's press, and many of its lamentably distinguished 'statesmen' (read thugs) endorse through ignorance or out of considerations of power. (2) Your point refers to content, and Arbcom never rules, in principle, on content, and therefore is not responsible either. I hate to defend an encyclopedia's capacity to retain trash, one that in the I/P area is often nothing more than a dumping ground for ideology or sub-neanderthal historiography (nothing against homo floriensis in that however), but this, concretely, is what I think is problematical in the point you raise. Nishidani (talk) 15:55, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I must sadly voice my disillusioned opinion and agree with Nishidani. The likely outcome of taking this to the ArbCom is that you'll get indef-blocked too. Excellent work on the sourcing as always, but Wikipedia will only hate you for it. MeteorMaker (talk) 21:00, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Customary international law is something very specific in international law. Usually, customary international law excepts for crimes of genocide or piracy, has a prerequisite that all sides agree to it especially sides that are involved in the dispute. In fact, except for these jus cogens issues of genocide and piracy, agreement of all parties is the fundamental basis for international law. This is why the ICC is only applicable to countries that have ratified its agreement. This is why the ICJ taking on the advisory opinion of the West Bank Barrier was so fundamentally wrong and opposed by legal scholars and by many nations in the U.N itself. This is why the UN doesn't make international law by a voting in the GA, nor even in the SC except in very specific instances of using military force, unless all parties have agreed to such law. Personal property law in the U.S and the status of the settlements is something completely different. Israel can assert, and legal scholars do so, that the entire region is Israel's according to international law going back to the Balfour Declaration, the San Remo conference and the terms of the mandate, and by many other techniques. International law is a flexible concept open to interpretation. Sadly, Israel instea d of asserting its rights under international law tried to compromise over the years out of naivety that it might work. The Arab countries and anti Zionist people (mostly Jews ironically) kept pushing the fringe concepts in international law in the hope of demonizing Israel. This has to a large extent worked, but has made a travesty out of many U.N instiutions to the the point that international law has become a joke, a tool by Israel's enemies to attack it. The last conference on Racism is a good example of such travesty. It is today acknowledged that international "law" as defined by block voting of countries the U.N is not lawful nor moral nor of interest. Again, the purest form of international law is consent. If Israel disputes anything, as long as it doesn't do something truly horrific like genocide, and this was supposed to be a very rare and limited exception following the Holocaust (before WW2 the only customary binding law was probably piracy), then it doesn't violate international law. I think the articles cite many eminent legal scholars who believe Israel is being lawful in all territories. Scholars like Julius Stone. If it doesn't, it should. 216.165.95.70 (talk) 18:41, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Israeli_settlement&oldid=287648636"