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 89.139.24.45 (talk) at 15:17, 27 December 2013 (→‎Bias: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


If anyone looks at the Hebrew version and online there are currently 150,143 Jewish settelers n"y as of 2012.

Proposed update to an "external link" with an outdated URL

In the "Viewpoints and commentary" section of Israeli_settlement#Further_reading, in the recent version of the article (see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Israeli_settlement&oldid=552241078#Further_reading ), the 5th bullet says:

and hence seems to imply that the two external links (1: "Myths about the settlements" and 2: "A compilation of facts on the settlements") are both from the Jewish Virtual Library.

It is questionable whether this was ever true for the second external link there (2: "A compilation of facts on the settlements") but it does not seem to be true now (as of May 2, 2013). A check of the URL for the second external link there (2: "A compilation of facts on the settlements"), that is, the URL http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/Peace/settletoc.html , seems to indicate that this web page is not a reliable source, and in fact has somehow morphed into a bogus or "placeholder" web page.

I did a check using the Wayback machine, and it appears, (from searching for the URL "http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/Peace/settletoc.html" and finding this: http://web.archive.org/web/20050329084900/http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Peace/settletoc.html ) that -- (as of March 29, 2005 at least) -- there was some useful information there. The OLD domain name "www.us-israel.org" apparently used to "forward" to the domain name "www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org" -- but apparently it no longer does so.

Rather than using the Wayback machine URL http://web.archive.org/web/20050329084900/http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Peace/settletoc.html , IMHO it would be better (now, in 2013) to just use the rightmost portion of that URL, instead. That is, to just use the URL http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Peace/settletoc.html instead.


I was going to edit the article, to replace the [almost] "dead" (and clearly bogus) URL for the second external link there (2: "A compilation of facts on the settlements"), that is, the URL http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/Peace/settletoc.html , with the URL mentioned above, that contains the domain name www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org instead.

For several reasons, I decided to ask for comments here on the "Talk:" page first. One of those reasons was the fact that a big warning appears (when starting to make an edit to the article) saying [quote:] "In accordance with Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Further remedies, editors of this article are restricted to 1 revert per 24 hours." My understanding about the rules here may not be complete. Another of my reasons was the fact that when one is reading (never mind editing! -- just reading) the "Talk:" page, there is a comment box that appears, that says (in part), "If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first."

Now is an opportunity for you (meaning anyone!) to comment, if you would like to do so before I make the edit to the article, and change the URL for the the second external link there (2: "A compilation of facts on the settlements") from http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/Peace/settletoc.html to http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Peace/settletoc.html instead.

Of course, if you wait too long, and you read this after I have already edited the article, then you are still welcome to comment (or object) or whatever, at any time. But sooner might be better.


PS: In my opinion, (compared to some other 'issues' discussed on this "Talk:" page), this proposed update to an (allegedly) outdated URL is a relatively un-controversial proposed correction to something! Not a big deal...

Thank you, --Mike Schwartz (talk) 21:41, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Links

>> Israel-Romania row over settlements building(Lihaas (talk) 16:05, 10 December 2013 (UTC)).[reply]

Israeli settlements - Jewish civilian communities

Israeli settlements - Jewish civilian communities

We could go on reverting forever. How about:-

Following Israel's capture of these territories, Israeli settlements (Jewish civilian communities) were established within each of them.

Jewish civilian communities is the expression used in the lead of the article on Israeli settlements. Trahelliven (talk) 10:04, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

I utterly fail to understand why you insist on inserting Judaism into the equation. The illegality of Israeli settlements in the territories captured in 1967 has nothing to do with the religious identity of the settlers, but with the fact that the state of Israel is not recognized as having a valid claim to these lands. Furthermore, not all settlers are Jewish, and the vast majority of them are in fact secular. It's an irrelevant label that can have no purpose other than race-baiting. Poliocretes (talk) 10:13, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

(The above is copied from the talk page of Poliocretes.)

1 I have not inserted Judaism into the equation, I merely inserted the definition of Israeli settlement used in the article on that topic.
2 It may well be that the majority of settlers are not Jewish in the religious sense i.e that they are non-observant. My understanding, however, is that they are all Jewish in the ethnic sense.

If you do not like the phrase civilian Jewish community, I invite you to insert your own definition in the lead in the article - Israeli settlement. A discussion of this nature should be conducted on that talk page. Trahelliven (talk) 17:32, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why not just say "Israeli civilian community"? I agree that the term "Jewish" is fraught with religious and frequent racist overtones (it is as inaccurate as referring to all Arabs as "Muslims"). Since it is also unnecessary in this context, there seems no reason to insist on its use. • Astynax talk 18:55, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree though it would be missing out on a good opportunity to POV-push.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:13, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This message was poster on the wrong page. It was intented to be posted on the talk page of the article "Israel".
On one side, 20 % of the population of Israel is Arab and 75 % is Jewish (secular, religeous, or anything else: Jewish is used in the ethnical sense).
On the other side 100 % of the population of the Israeli settlements is Jewish (Beit Safafa is not an Israeli settlement in the sense used to refer to them)
I think that what Trahelliven wants is just to underline this fact.
It is obvious that it is not a pov-pushig and that this reflects a reality but sources should be found to prove that this situation is notorious and described as such by reliable sources.
Pluto2012 (talk) 19:26, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
sorry;I posted it on the wrong talk page. The point that I am trying to make is that all settlements in fact are Jewish, certainly in the ethnic sense or in the sense that they come within the criteria to be eligible for Israeli citizenship.
Can you imagine any Arab Israeli citizens being allowed by the Israeli government to establish a settlement in either Judea or Samaria with all the rights and privileges that other Israeli settlers have, including special subsidies, use of the special roads, separate bues etc, continuing right to vote in Israeli elections? Trahelliven (talk) 19:55, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a source from an Israeli newspaper that proves the topic is not WP:OR and is notorious : [1]. Pluto2012 (talk) 20:00, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I normally do not like the use of references from the jewish virtual library but here goes! [2] Trahelliven (talk) 20:10, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're both dead wrong. "Settlements" include secular ethnic Jews, Christians, and yes Arabs. See this one random source I found in one minute. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2006/may/8/20060508-120655-8112r/
You are pointing to an anomalous position in East Jerusalem created by Israel's barrier through the West Bank. It certainly wouldn't generalize to the West Bank settlements outside of East Jerusalem. Dlv999 (talk) 20:40, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Even if what you are saying is correct, we cannot state that settlements are all Jewish, when that is factually wrong, as you apparently admit. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:49, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is not because there is a neighbourhood where Arabs do install themselves in East-Jerusalem that we cannot state that Israeli settlements are populated by Jewish. It is easy to find the right words that take into account this "detail", such as "nearly all" or "in the West Bank". Another options is to talk about "colonisation" given that's not the case of the Israeli Arabs.
I add that Trahelliven provided sources whereas you take your conclusion from a WP:OR. It is nowhere written in your link that there are Arab Israli Settlers.
Pluto2012 (talk) 20:54, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@BC your source uses the term "Jewish settlement" to describe Pisgat Zeev, so is consistent with our current article definition. I also agree with Pluto in that you are engaging in OR. Our definition of Israeli settlements should be consistent with that of academic sources, not based on the original research of editors:- See for instance Elisha Efrat (7 September 2006). The West Bank and Gaza Strip: A Geography of Occupation and Disengagement. Routledge. ISBN 978-0-203-96534-4. (pp 27-28):

>"After the Six Day War in 1967, Jewish settlements were gradually established in Judea and Samaria. These were initially defense strongholds and military agricultural settlements. Later they achieved the status of permanent settlements. At the beginning the main concentration of settlements was in the Jordan Valley and the eastern slopes of the Samarian Hills, but later on more settlements were established in western Samaria. The settlements planted in Judea and Samaria are political in nature, their main object being to obtain a hold on areas which may in the future face being cut off from the State of Israel. Most of the settlements are located today in the western and central parts of the region and at selected points in the hill country....by 2004 Jewish presence along the Jordan Valley had expanded to some 6,000 settlers in 30 settlements.

>"Another plan was connected with the erasure of the “Green Line”. As the security border adopted by the government was along the Jordan River, it was decided to erase the previous border to the west of the Samarian Hills by means of almost contiguous Jewish settlement. Beginning in 1976, therefore, a few settlements were established beyond the “Green Line” as an extension of the settlement complex within Israel proper. After the right-wing Likud Party came to power in 1977 the World Zionist Organization’s Settlement Division prepared a comprehensive plan for the establishment of more settlements in the West Bank. This plan was a guiding document for the government policy regarding the settlements, and emphasized that the civilian presence of Jewish communities is vital for the security of the State, and there must be no doubt regarding the intention of Israel to hold the areas of Judea and Samaria forever; the way to do so should be a rapid settlement drive in these areas. Dlv999 (talk) 04:38, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bias

Hello! I feel that this article is highly biased. A few points: Graphically, the picture of "soldiers and settlers attacking demonstrators" comes from a source that definitely seems biased, no attack is seen, and it could easily be a few soldiers and settlers overseeing a demonstration that could easily downgrade to crowd violence, as happens frequently. When Itamar is reminded, a nice picture of the village is shown, and not of the 5-member family that was killed in their sleep there, yet pictures of settler violence are seen throughout the article.

The section about Palestinian violence towards settlers is microscopic compared to the "Settler violence against Palestinians" sections, and completely disconnected from reality and history of the conflict.

I am tagging this as NPOV, since my editing skills are not good enough for me to fix this article. Thanks anyone for helping with this. 89.139.24.45 (talk) 15:17, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]