Talk:Israeli settlement

Security isn't a "pretext"

Under 4.2 Settlement Policy, the article reads "The government abrogated the prohibition from purchasing occupied land by Israelis; the "Drobles Plan", a plan for large-scale settlement in the West Bank meant to prevent a Palestinian state under the pretext of security became the framework for its policy."

The dictionary definition of pretext is something that is put forward to conceal a true purpose or object; an ostensible reason; excuse.

The provided citation doesn't support the copy in the wiki article. The document doesn't say that security was a pretext. The document says security is one of several reasons to develop the settlements. The cited article reads, "The following are the principles which guided the plan: 1. Settlement throughout the entire Land of Israel is for security and by right, A strip of settlements at strategic sites enhances both internal and external security alike, as well as making concrete and realizing our right to Eretz Israel..."

So the article isn't even denying that it assumes that the Israelis have some sort of biblical or historical right to Israel, BUT it also argues that the settlements would improve security.

There is also the matter that the same section of this article implies that these cited documents were written by representatives of the Israeli government; they were not, they were written by departments of the World Zionist Organization which is an NGO and not directed by the Israeli government. It was essentially written by a think tank advocating a certain perspective but the article casts it as from the central government planning office.

Haaretz article: "Secret 1970 document confirms first West Bank settlements built on a lie."

Haaretz - Yotam Berger - Secret 1970 document confirms first West Bank settlements built on a lie, 28 July 2016.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 March 2020

it is not a change rather an addition of a significant quote. In 1969, former Israeli defense minister, Moshe Dayan, openly confirmed that Israel displaces Arabs by stating that "Jewish villages were built in the place of Arab villages. You do not even know the names of these Arab villages, and I do not blame you, because these geography books no longer exist; not only do the books not exist, the Arab villages are not there either … There is no one place built in this country that did not have a former Arab population." Smobarak (talk) 19:28, 7 March 2020 (UTC) - Moshe Dayan's address to the students at Technion University in Haifa, Israel (March 19, 1969). Smobarak (talk) 19:28, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. It is not clear what you wish to have done with this passage (where in the article to place it, in the context of what original prose, etc.). El_C 19:30, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Excising a fact on the basis of a personal opinion

here. Nishidani (talk) 23:04, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

I a fact, which is not in dispute. It was elided, one of several SJ reverts of my contributions to Wikipedia over the last few weeks. The fact added was:

The transfer by an occupying power of its civilian population into the territory it occupies is a war crime

This is the precise wording of a fact of international law, which is the basis for all of the positions assumed by international bodies mentioned in the lead. Without the fact given, the positions taken seem to be opinions. They may be, but the fact is not opinionable.

His edit summary states

• undue for lead.

Why is it undue? Not explained (the fact has existed and has a huge literature for 71 years and is summed up in 19 words. Trump's recent plan, promised, never carried out, was dead in the water and yet gets 29 words in the lead. If (a) is undue (b) is even more undue.

• 2. disputed.

Where is the source that states that the fact mentioned is disputed? Israel is a signatory to one of the two conventions where that fact is established, the Fourth Geneva Convention. Israel's High Court accepts that law, because it is a fact in international law. I cited the precise text in international law. No one disputes the law or its wording. They may dispute its interpretation (only Israel in reality does), but the fact that population transfer is a war crime is not disputed. Ergo, ignorance of the topic by the eraser.

• 3. Israel isn't "transferring" its population into the WB as a form of population transfer, with regards to what the term means. Building settlements, just like the Palestinians do in Ramallah or Bethlehem, etc. isn't population transfer.

This is SJ's opinion, but what we think is not permitted to interfere with the summary statement of the issues and the relevant facts. Apart from the absurdity of comparing incoming immigrants from all over the world taking up residence in a settlement in occupied territory to Palestinians born and bred there building their homes on land that they have not militarily occupied.

Since the reasons given are utterly irrelevant or spurious or unexplained, I have restored the text.Nishidani (talk) 23:12, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Nishidani, firstly, you need to stop personalizing everything. If you can't edit without that, then maybe take a break. And the fact that you wrote, "Apart from the absurdity of comparing incoming immigrants from all over the world taking up residence in a settlement in occupied territory to Palestinians born and bred there building their homes on land that they have not militarily occupied." proves that there is no "transfer" of population from Israel to the West Bank if you think about it from a logical standpoint in what "population transfer" means with regards to the Geneva Convention. Also, Israel never ratified the statute and declared it has no intention of doing so, so that is disputed, so when Nishidani says that the reasons given are "utterly irrelevant or spurious or unexplained" that's just him being his usual self. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 23:26, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

@Sir Joseph: Israel ratified the Fourth Geneva Convention on 6 July 1951 and does not deny being a party to it. What Israel denies (against its own legal advice) is that 4GC applies to the occupied territories. Zero^talk 06:23, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, this is the same nonsense about not being occupied and instead being disputed. The settlements themselves (as structures) may or may not be legal but the transfer of Israeli citizens into them (howsoever that occurs) certainly is not legal. Israel of course , disputes this (as usual).Selfstudier (talk) 08:55, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Nothing personal. It is a fact that you systematically revert me, with spurious edit summaries that have naught to do with policy or good practice. The one fact you try to mention above is wrong: you confuse the Rome Statute, which Israel did not sign, with the Geneva Convention IV, which it underwrote (see Zero, constrained to remind you of the obvious, above). You ignore the fact that the Allon Plan specifically slated areas of the West Bank for settlement, i.e. transfer, in the face of the conclusion, in a top secret memorandum to the Eshkol government in September 1967 by Israel's foremost expert on international law, Theodor Meron, responding to the Prime Minister's request for clarification of the issue. His conclusion ('Legal Counsel to the Foreign Ministry') ran: any such project was a violation of the Geneva Convention and therefore criminal.

'Theodor Meron's note and attached legal opinion, preserved in Levi Eshkol's office files, testify to two things. The first: As of mid-September 1967, Eshkol knew that settling civilians in occupied land, including the West Bank, violated international law. The second: By early September, after nearly three months of weighing the West Bank's future, Eshkol was actively exploring settlement in the region.' Gershom Gorenberg, Accidental Empire, Henry Holt & Co, 2006 pp.99-100.

One can huff and puff, blather, throw sand in the eyes, whinge, grizzle, object in a million volumes of talk, but the fact remains there, and no amount of opinionizing about it alters its status as a fact. Stating that is more important than registering what the UN, previous US gfovernments, Israeli politicians etc., opine, for the fact is what all opinions must wrestle with, and the reader has a right to know what the facts, not the spin, are.

We strive to get facts here. Opinions about facts exist, and in this regard, the opinions are dealt with in the body of the text, amply. The dead-in-the-water-on-birth opinions of Julius Stone are plunked down all over I/P articles, same format, same sourcing, every time this issue arises, and it is a fringe opinion in legal theory. The error of this article was to cite Israel's practice and reasons, and then state that the consensus of the world is that Israel is doing something illegal. Two opinions, international consensus and Israeli (and of course the US under President Chump). What was lacking was the objective fact, not disputed by anyone. which all of the opinions refer to. That was a glaring oversight, and I fixed it. Less politicized opinion (as yours is) and the more the factual record is showcased, the closer we approximate to the known aims of this encyclopedia. If anything is undue it is mentioning a fringe legal theory in the lead, as you did. Nishidani (talk) 09:25, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

I removed the undue and unsourced material. While it is true that Israel disputes this and cites this and that opinion in support, the facts are that this position is a tiny minority of a preponderance of opinion and not really reflective of a balance of sources.Selfstudier (talk) 11:12, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Again SJ's carelessness created a problem and the fixes make it worse, though the material had to be radically reduced per WP:Fringe. The problem is, I added a fact, -. the fact is a categorical statement in law that admits of no exceptions (as sources say) and the text now states that Israel disputes the fact. Israel does not dispute the fact, least of all the Israeli Supreme Court and the IDF, for it is on the law books. Israel says that the fact is immaterial, since their oolonisation of occupied territory does not consist in population transfer, to which the fact addresses itself. Of course this argument is complete lunacy,-everyone inside and outside the relevant political circles, knows it to be such - but in describing it, one should leave no margin for interpreting the text as implying Israel 'disputes' the fact. It disputes its applicability to Israel's unique circumstances, as a colonizing power that is not colonizing anything.Nishidani (talk) 12:14, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Nishidani, and which sovereign signatory was in charge of the West Bank before Israel took it over in 1967? And again, I'm not going to tell you again to stop personalizing your edits. If you can't do that, then perhaps editing online isn't for you. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 13:47, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

I know the answer, but this is not going to be a rerun of the endless discussions already had. I have edited close to 80,000 times: and have added several thousand academic sources to Wikipedia. How many have you added, rather than, as you admit doing here, lifting information from one article to plunk it down on another? I've never done that, and don't sit on articles, tweaking, reverting, etc. Nishidani (talk) 17:37, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Selfstudier, I'm not sure why you removed that it's also disputed by legal scholars, since I got that directly from the page of International Law and Settlements and those scholars are some of the scholars who dispute the charge, it's not just Israel. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 13:58, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Idk why you are not sure, I explained why, which part did you not understand?Selfstudier (talk) 14:09, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Selfstudier, because it's disputed by scholars, not just Israel. So as I said, not sure why you removed that part. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:30, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

I addressed that in my remarks, I take it you still haven't read them (reading materials for you below).Selfstudier (talk) 14:33, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Selfstudier, I don't know if you recall, but my edit inserted, "disputed by Israel, and scholars." Not sure how all of your words changes that. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:17, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

I didn't try to change it, I removed it as undue and not representing an NPOV position (as well as the bit with no source)Selfstudier (talk) 15:23, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Selfstudier, it's called balance, Israel is not the only entity disputing it, it's also other legal scholars and you removing that is now implying that it's only Israel and not others who think so. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:38, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Balance of sources I think is what you mean. In this case ~it runs at something like 100 to 1, so we should have 100 cites for "our" position and 1 for "yours". The article says Israel disputes it and has two cites which is more than adequate representation of a POV that essentially amounts to legal fiction.Selfstudier (talk) 16:47, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Zero0000, the transfer of populations is dealt with in the Rome Statues and Israel never ratified it. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 13:43, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

@Sir Joseph: It is named as a war crime in the Rome Statute, but it derives from Article 49 of the 4th Geneva Convention: "The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies." Almost all the legal literature on the settlements, both for and against the Israeli position, focusses on 4GC. That is also what internal Israeli discussions focussed on immediately after the 1967 war, since it was clear that the plans being hatched were in violation of 4GC and an excuse had to be formulated however tendentious. Zero^talk 14:26, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

https://www.justsecurity.org/67343/assessing-the-new-u-s-view-on-the-legality-of-israeli-settlements-in-the-west-bank/ Things to read and why the minority view doesn't really hold water (along with the position of the present US administration).Selfstudier (talk) 14:30, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

http://opiniojuris.org/2020/02/07/icc-and-palestine-symposium-prosecuting-settlements-as-war-crimes-and-crimes-against-humanity-the-iccs-jurisdiction-over-the-occupied-palestinian-territory/ ICC case depends on the majority view, it fails if the minority view is correct.Selfstudier (talk) 14:31, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

The ICC claims jurisdiction "on the territory of any State Party", even if the perpetrator is not a State Party. The State of Palestine has been in the official list of State Parties since 2015. That's the basis of the current Palestinian bid; how it will turn out is unclear and of course Israel will ignore the outcome regardless. Zero^talk 15:17, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, exactly so, it will now be a bit difficult to turn around and claim that SoP is not a State Party. What is perhaps more interesting is whether or not the settlement venture is considered a war crime (leaving aside which individuals might then be considered responsible). A recognition of this would at least be a step in the right direction.Selfstudier (talk) 15:28, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Technically, the official view of Israel is WP:Fringe since (a) it is a political position held by the occupying nation that was advised the law says otherwise and (b) the legal dissent exists among an exiguous number of scholars who are, mostly, openly aligned with Israel for various reasons, and choose to challenge the international consensus. The only reason we give so much space to an extreme minority opinion is that it has been adopted by one state out of 196, and (c) as an NPOV adjustment on the premise that there are only two parties to the dispute, and therefore this fringe view is stated as one half of the legal disagreement between the two parties, though the other party's viewpoint represents the international consensus.The question has never been posed in terms of this ostensible conflict between WP:NPOV and WP:Fringe, but it is a serious problem technically. It's like giving equal time in the Shakespeare Authorship Question to the marginal views of sceptics, and that of 99.9% of the academic consensus. Nishidani (talk) 17:45, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

• I reverted this as the lead is supposed to be a short summary and already has "The international community considers the settlements to be [[Israeli settlements and international law|illegal under international law." This summary sentence sums the issue up succinctly, without technical legal minutiae. This summary probably requires an update due to the changed US position. 11Fox11 (talk) 03:09, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for notifying the page about what you did, without a comment beforehand here as to why you think it excessive. The body of the text as close to 1300 words with extremely lengthly pros and cons. And yet you think that 19 words stating the fundamental fact of law, not opinionable, is too much. These 19 words are is not 'technical minutiae'. They constitute perhaps the most lucid summary of the basis of the conflict. If anything the body of the text has far too much technical minutiae to bewilder the reader, if they ever read that far, and this is an encyclopedia, for facts, not for tediously contorted opinions.Nishidani (talk) 08:27, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Nota bene, that what required fixing was ignored. I have corrected (a) the false impression Israel disputes the relevant law (b) I have removed Stone et al., because it was, without examination, clipped from another page without verification, and, unlinked and unpaginated, did not allow the reader/editor access, aside from it being issued by a non RS publisher. It does not appear to be remarked on, that Stone's arguments have been comprehensively taken to pieces (most recently by Simon McKenzie, Disputed Territories and International Criminal Law: Israeli Settlements and the International Criminal Court, Routledge, 2019 ISBN 978-1-000-75805-4) and remain a historical fringe curiosity. (c) moved the source clutter to the relevant section which, in any case, required a generalization before details were entered into.Nishidani (talk) 11:52, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

"See also" section

Shouldn't the "See also" section include a link to the article, List of Israeli settlements? NASAPeepo (talk) 15:40, 9 July 2020 (UTC)