Talk:Community settlement (Israel)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Israel (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Cooperatives (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cooperatives, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Cooperatives on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

The name[edit]

Can anyone supply an official source for the English name "communal settlement"? To me the word "communal" is about a commune, not a community. Shouldn't it have been a "community settlement", or perhaps even better (in more idiomatic English), "community town"? (talk) 06:23, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I am renaming the article. Every indication is that the word "communal" is wrong and confusing, and "community" should be used instead. For example, look at the ministry of foreign affairs which calls it "community settlement" [1]. If you search in google for "community settlement" israel you find many references to them, while if you search for "communal settlement" israel you actually find many references to kibbutzim, sometimes referred to as communal settlements! Moreover, if you look at an English dictionary, one of the meanings of "communal" [2] is "characterized by collective ownership and use of property" (i.e., related to a "commune", rather than "community"). While this is not the only meaning, it makes the whole phrase ambiguous and needlessly confusing. So I'm renaming to "community settlement".
I'm actually even leaning into the more "English" phrase "community town" (leaving "settlements" to describe those in the west bank!), but I'll not take this drastic step yet.
By the way, have a look at [3]. In this homepage of Misgav (a regional council with many yishuvim khilatim), those are reffered to as "community villages". The specific link above is about Manof, founded by English speakers (from South Africa) so they definitely know how to correctly call themselves in English. Personally, I prefer the word "town" over "village" (because village has implies that the town is very small, which is not quite true for all of them), but definitely the word to use is "community", not "communal".

Nyh (talk) 08:39, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


The first, defining, paragraph of a "communal settlement" now reads:

A communal settlement (Hebrew: יישוב קהילתי‎, Yishuv Kehilati) in Israel is type of cooperative community that in contrast to a kibbutz or a moshav involves no economic cooperation between the residents. Cooperation is on a societal level only; education, religious actives and public works are some issues planned based on communal decision making. Residents form a legal cooperative union that is recognised by the state as the local authority.

But this is whitewash (to use a gentle term - other people might call it hogwash). This "definition" is indeed the official definition given by officials in such towns, but on second reading, one soon realizes it actually defines nothing: In every city and town in Israel, the citizens of the town cooperate in a "societal level" in a exactly the same way described here - the town (or its elected officials) controls the schools (and especially preschool), religious activities (when the property is owned by the town), public works, public buildings and facilities, and so on. In this respect, there's nothing special about a "communal settlement". Every town in Israel also defines (via a democratic process) bylaws that residents must obide by, building codes, zoning codes, and so on - just like a communal settlement does. In fact, a communal settlement probably doesn't belong in the "cooperative settlements in Israel" category any more than an ordinary town does.

The first paragraph, to be NPOV, must explain the difference between a Yishuv Kehilati and a regular Israeli town or city, rather than give the party line definition of the term. And what is that difference?

Basically, the only significant difference between a communal settlement and a regular town or city is that the communal settlement, unlike a town or city, is allowed to choose its residents. In a communal settlement, you are not allowed to sell a house, and sometimes even rent one out, to someone unless that person gets "accepted" by the community's acceptance committee. There are hardly any laws saying what such a committee's acceptance standards should be, so various communal settlements have chosen various criteria including age (almost exclusively favoring young people), race (always favoring Jews), family status (usually favoring legally married couples with children), and creed (some places only allow observant Jews, one only allow people who practice meditation, another allows only vegeterians, and some allow only people who profess to being "Zionists"). All of this obviously doesn't happen and can't happen in a "normal" town - in a normal town you can just sell your house to anybody you we - be it a single Jew, a married Arab couple, a single mom with 7 kids, a gay couple, or an elderly Chinese investor.

This single difference between a "communal settlement" and a "town" explains another superficial difference often seen between the two forms of settlements: Almost always, "communal settlements" are composed entirely of private houses each on its own plot of land (often, but not always, half a dunam), while most regular towns contain a mixture of such private houses (often dubbed "villas") and apartment buildings. This superficial difference is closely tied to the main difference (of the acceptance committee), to the point where it's hard to decide which is the cause, and which is the result. On one hand, absent a very centralistic government (like in the USSR or even Israel in the 50s) building large apartment buildings usually requires a commercial enterprise. Such a commercial enterprise's goals ("sell at the highest price") doesn't sit well with a communal settlement's goal ("sell only to those who get accepted"). But perhaps more importantly, communal settlements have more often than not been started by the Jewish Agency. This organization owns huge swaths of land in Israel (most legally bought by Jewish philanthropists) and its goal is to fill as much of its land as possible with Jews. As such, it wants to create settlements which are both spread out (therefore private houses instead of apartment buildings) and housed by Jews only (hence prefering a communal settlement, which lets them prohibit non-Jews from living there). (talk) 20:01, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I decided to be bold, and made did a big overhaul of the page to really explain what separates a communal settlement from an ordinary town. (talk) 21:53, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Co-operatives are normally non-selective[edit]

I am confused by this definition, which suggests that the only thing that makes it co-operative is its exclusivity, yet discrimination is prohibited by co-operative law in other countries.[4] Voluntary and open membership is the first of the ICA version of the Rochdale principles. Does this confuse other international readers? If so, can more explanation be added to the article. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 09:56, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Please compare the Israeli concept of Community Settlement to that of a Housing cooperative which is similar but spans a large multi-tenant building. Also in the latter, the co-op can screen applicants to join it. Saying that housing co-ops are "normally non-selective" is not aligned with the usual facts, where candidates *are* screened. Sure, the official laws forbid discrimination because of race, religion, etc. but in practice, the co-op can claim other reasons ("social compatibility", etc.) were the reason for rejection, and not racism. (talk) 11:41, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Page move reverted[edit]

I have reverted the WP:BOLD move of this article to the undisambiguated title Community settlement.

I agree that it is not usual practice to pre-emptively disambiguate, but this phrase of two common words is used in several other contexts, and its undisambiguated use here is likely to cause confusion.

The other uses include a pattern of ethnically-similar settlement in Australia (see Google Books search), and the British 1920s Empire Community Settlement Scheme ("empire+Community+settlement", [5]). The term also seems to have some sort of generic usage in geography [6]. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:05, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

West Bank settlements which are Community settlement- RfD[edit]

Huldra & Nomoskedasticity - you seem to have a problem with including this IMPORTANT fact on settlement pages where it is applied. Instead of edit warring, please discuss this. he:יישוב קהילתי‎ is translated to English this way. Here is an [example]. All I have done is starting to go through the Hebrew wiki and copy the information into the English one. Please advise. Ashtul (talk) 08:44, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Discussion with you has quickly resumed being pointless. Since I reverted *once* on each article in question, the notion that I have been edit-warring is silly. I'm not interested in discussing things with editors who can't avoid being silly. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:52, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Nomoskedasticity, miraculously, you and Huldra both reverted me on multiple pages. I guess from your response you have no issue with? Ashtul (talk) 17:54, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Nomoskedasticity, you don't need to like other ediors but you do need to build consensus with them. Astul should have full support to revert if you refuse to even onsider engaging in on-topic discussion. That is how edit wars start.Cptnono (talk) 23:35, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm not going to discuss with an editor who erroneously accuses me of edit-warring. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:01, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Nomoskedasticity, nobody blamed you yet but rather said let's not go there. Nishidani, you are welcome to join this RfD.
So far, I didn't see any argument as for way this basic information won't be included. What next? Should we erase Kibbutzim from Migdal Oz? Ashtul (talk) 12:07, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Here Nishidani claims The definition of communal settlement is in Israel and therefore it cannot be applied to WB settlements but the article clearly talks about the West Bank. If you have a problem with the definition, change it but it doesn't change the fact towns are considered Community settlement. Ashtul (talk) 12:20, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Don't be silly.Nishidani (talk) 12:59, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

A community settlement (Hebrew: יישוב קהילתי‎, Yishuv Kehilati) is a type of town in Israel. While in an ordinary town anyone may buy property, in a community settlement the town's residents, who are organized in a cooperative, can veto a sale of a house or a business to an undesirable buyer.Nishidani (talk) 13:02, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I have changed it to A community settlement (Hebrew: יישוב קהילתי‎, Yishuv Kehilati) is a type of town in Israel and the West Bank. I hope this will resolve this conflict. Ashtul (talk) 15:06, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I have restored the original text to the three articles I have spotted being edit warred over. The fact that the places are Israeli settlements does not change their internal governance arrangements. Settlements are set up as kibbutzim, moshavim and communal settlements, and I find it odd in the extreme that this has become a bone of contention. I really do not understand the point in removing factually correct information from the articles. The above excuse about the introduction to this article is flimsy in the extreme, and I hope the edit made by Ashtul goes some way to stopping it. Number 57 16:34, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

No, it's not okay. The objection is not just about whether it's true -- it's about the very poor sentence structure that results; it's also about whether it's desirable to have this information in the lead sentence -- in particular to put it first. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:23, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

What sort of status is "yishuv kehilati"?[edit]

As noted, this article is severely in need of citations. One key issue is the following: is "yishuv kehilati" just a common description, or is it an official classification bestowed on a place by the government? Does one become a yishuv kehilati just by deciding to be one, or does one need some government department to grant that status? In the case of a West Bank settlement, if the government has officially designated it as a yishuv kehilati, and there is a source for that, I don't object to it being mentioned in the article for that place. However, if it is just a claim made by the settlers who live there, without government confirmation, it doesn't deserve a mention. In any case, it shouldn't be in the lead sentence as that should reflect the majority viewpoint of reliable sources (which is "Israeli settlement" overwhelmingly). Concoctions like "Israeli settlement and community settlement" are just terrible writing—it sounds like there are two places being mentioned. One should introduce it as an Israeli settlement and then later, provided it can be properly sourced, note that it is classified as a community settlement. Zerotalk 15:58, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I believe there is a legal description of them (maximum size etc) here. It is an official classification, and a list of all places in Israel and settlements in the West Bank by governance type can be found here. Happy to translate if people can't read Hebrew.
As you say, the current way is an awkward way of combining the two descriptions; I wondered whether "communal Israeli settlement" may be one way around it. But then again, we also say Israeli settlement and kibbutz where that is the case (e.g. Kalya)...
One this I have just changed in the article is that these places are villages, not towns – towns in Israel are classed as local councils. Number 57 16:51, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
"communal Israeli settlement" don't emphasis the the fact they are yishuv kehilati especially in English. The fact there are two links is isn't very visible and I believe many people would miss it. The phrase isn't great but these are the common terminology for both.
As per the source, I don't see why their own website which is usually appears in 'external links' won't be sufficient. Ashtul (talk) 17:21, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
I'd be happy to accept the list #57 mentions as evidence of official governance type. As for boilerplate wording, how about something like "XYZ is an Israeli settlement in the West Bank that is organised as a community settlement."? Zerotalk 17:37, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
I think thats much better than is an Israeli settlement and a communal settlement. nableezy - 17:52, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Looks good to me. Ashtul (talk) 18:03, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Okay by me as well. But there is a problem. That is, property definition. We are told in sources that the WZO and JA play a large hand in allocating that property, which can, according to our text, be bought and sold by individual residents only with the permission and approval of other residents. There seems to be considerable variation in the situation of legal title, which would affect sales of this kindm for example. Much of the land here has, apparently, no legal title as belonging to those two organizations, to judge from Israeli court decisions. Thus Ofra is a community settlement, but much of it is built on privately owned Palestinian land, as the recent court order that Ofra return the land on which 9 of its houses are built to the Shehadah family, who are just one of many plaintiffs. The free off the top of the head writing of this page leaves it full of such conceptual confusion.Nishidani (talk) 19:45, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Nishidani, much of the land in Israel cannot be bought but is leased. You can read a bit about it if you translate he:חכירה. I just confirmed it with a lawyer who specializes in real estate and about 90% of the land in Israel is leased. Good night. Ashtul (talk) 20:37, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
We're not talking about land in Israel, nor Israeli land. Nishidani (talk) 08:13, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
But at least some Israeli laws apply there and so do the definitions. 'yishuv kehilati' is broadly used is Israeli municipal terminology. Many are in West Bank but it doesn't make it a political term even if some claim it is to keep them Jewish which is clearly stated under Controversy section. Ashtul (talk) 11:40, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Please inform yourself of the subject before editing or commenting. On the West Bank, military law applies, ottoman law applies to land expropriation, etc., not Israel's civil law. As the source you removed stated, community settlements appear to get round Israeli law by getting state land transferred to authorities which are registered abroad and thereby sidestep Israeli law. This is not a tutorial. You are consistently trying to remove information that reliable sources contain, and that is not acceptable. Nishidani (talk) 11:46, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Let's go back to square one. Many towns in the west bank are considered 'yishuv kehilati'. This fact is beyond argument. I asked again my real estate friend and he explained briefly the town doesn't have any ownership over the land but it can prevent transfer of rights if a prospect buyer does pass the committee. There are many laws which regard this element but it is a mechanism that is secondary and doesn't change the definition. Ashtul (talk) 12:50, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, we'll just cite your real estate friend, then. Sorted, nu? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:58, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
I doubt you want to declare him RS. As a Bait Yehudi voter, he has some opinions you might not like :) I will try to find a source that covers the legal mechanism over the weekend. I seriously doubt I'll find something in English though. Ashtul (talk) 13:25, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Some confussion[edit]

Nishidani, some of the material you introduce is specific for settlement in the West Bank and not about the locality type and though some of the material apply, it is unclear what is what. Much of it apply only to 'Hitnahluyot' and not 'Yishuv Kehilati' I don't have time to go through this in depth right now but Palestinian Labour Migration to Israel: Labour, Land and Occupation is a brief look refer explicitly to West Bank settlements and is irrelevant. Ashtul (talk) 20:31, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

That is speculation by you. The sources are diligently quoted on those pages which specifically address the topic, and it is not up to you or me or anyone else to kibitz and question them, unless you have evidence of error from another equally viable source.Nishidani (talk) 11:43, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
I have just reverted your edits. Reading through the sources, some of the information doesn't apply at all to communal settlements inside Israel and talks explicitly about settlements in the West Bank. In some cases it is impossible to tell on which one they write. Please advise. Ashtul (talk) 07:56, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Look. You are inexperienced, have had immediate problems from arbitration, and coming back, without any objections from editors like myself, have jumped into a completely unintelligible revert practice. You must not remove information specifically on the topic given from high quality academic sources, whose credentials are impeccable. What you say is untrue: those three books I introduced address specifically the topic. Secondly, you removed, again, tags requesting citations for the statements. Wikipedia is designed to be reliable, and reliability requires quality sourcing. Your behavior constrains editors like myself into reverting you when you engage in such irrational removals, i.e., you are editing in a mode that looks like it is provoking edit-warring. When people know the rules, build articles, they should not be faced with this kind of behavior by editors who do not have a grasp of how this encyclopedia functions.Nishidani (talk) 11:41, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
I humbly disagree. I read through the sources and as I wrote in my revert summery, the settlement word intertwine between 'colonial' settlement and community settlement. I didn't say they are not WP:RS but they are useless in this context as the terms are mixed. Ashtul (talk) 11:49, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Oh fachrissake. Any text on any topic will have correlated topic words in it. I never in 8 years heard anyone state this as an excuse. I'm busy, like everyone else, and have no intention of being dragged into extensive discussions on pointless assertions.Nishidani (talk) 12:05, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Leila Farsakh, Palestinian Labour Migration to Israel: Labour, Land and Occupation source for example clearly speaks about west bank settlement. What you are saying is the we should write about pink-lady apples and MacBookPro in the same article b/c they are both 'apple'. Personally I think the term Community Settlement is not a good translation but it seems to be how it is translated all over the internet. Ashtul (talk) 13:16, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Read WP:RS and provide us with the section on which you base your judgement that the excision of texts that devote several pages to community settlements can be justified because those texts also mention other matters.Nishidani (talk) 14:26, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

In response to the query about the name, I believe the original title of this article was "Communal settlement", and at some point it was changed to "Community settlement". Personally I think "Communal" is a better description, as all settlements are communities in some way or another, but not all are communal. The official English name for them is "Communal locality". I wouldn't be opposed to moving it to this title or back to "Communal settlement". Number 57 14:23, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Communal settlement as a term covers kibbutzim, moshavim, and yishuv kehilati, and any other form of collective settlement in Israel whereas, 'community settlement' in the literature I am reading refers to the last. What people wish to do with the article, its scope, should be clarified before any move.Nishidani (talk) 14:29, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
I think the scope of this article is clearly "yishuv kehilati" (otherwise there is no point to it). Number 57 14:35, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Moshav and Kibbutz have their own articles and this article is connected to "yishuv kehilati" on Hebrew Wiki. It is also clear from the content even if the name is not super clear but is how it is referred to all over the internet. Ashtul (talk) 15:19, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Continued discussion from here[edit]

I will try to make it short.

Nishidani, after spending hours by now you still don't understand the basic concept of Yishuv Kehilati.

The article clearly states As distinct from the traditional Israeli development village typified by the kibbutz and moshav, the community settlement... while you wrote above Communal settlement as a term covers kibbutzim, moshavim, and yishuv kehilati.


You also seem to confuse WB sewttlements and Community ones. For example -

Sentences such as The mountain strip community settlements were developed in two strategically parallel lines: the first central string of settlements runs parallel to the main road connecting the 6 major Palestinian cities of Jenin, Nablus, Ramallah, East Jerusalem, Bethlehem and Hebron, while the second, east to the watershed, runs parallel to the Allon Highway. was written about all settlements and not just community settlement. (page 96).

As a result statements that covers many other WBS are applied to Many CS which has nothing to do with it.

Then you placed in the lead the unsourced, controversial WP:OR statement such as "essentially took shape as a new typology for settling the West Bank, but also in the Galilee as part of the aim of establishing a 'demographic balance' between Jews and Arabs, and thwarting the development of a Palestinian state". No source! Regardless, it appears unsourced under Controversy, it is made by a political organization and applied only for some settlements. There is no way it should be in the lead.

The main issue with your sources is that most of them deals with Israeli control over the West Bank. The terms Settlement and Community Settlement switch turns very quickly and easily thus if one chooses to work with these source, one should be extra careful to understand which one is dealt with and in case of doubt, not write. Unfortunately, this was NOT how you did it as I presented.

Your changes effect too many parts of the article to sort through and figure out which is what. That is why I deleted it all. Please advise...

Ashtul (talk) 19:20, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

The article was unsourced. That means it is all free composition. That is not permitted on Wikipedia. You cannot cite the article as an authoritative source, because it had no sources until I introduced them. (2)I repeat: where is the specific policy on which you base your judgement that books (by Israelis) mentioning specifically 'Community settlements in Israel' cannot be used in certain circumstances on our article concerning 'Community Settlements in israel'? If you can't cite a policy, you are just blahblahing.Nishidani (talk) 19:55, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
It isn't your prior WP:LACK of knowledge of the subject but the fact the sources are problematic since they deal mainly with WBS and not CS and the word repeatedly used is simply 'Settlement' which causes many WP:Inaccuracies in the edits. It isn't your fault but it doesn't make your contribution less wrong.
In addition, although some CS are indeed WBS, the way you phrased it WP:GENERALIZEs the info.
Then there is the WP:OR statement in the lead which is WP:EXCEPTIONAL and most defiantly a subject for WP:NPOVD.
I hope this clarify things. Good night. Ashtul (talk) 21:55, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Meaningless. You have to have a policy reason for removing reliable sources, otherwise you are vandalizing the page by mass blanking of relevant sources. So stop beating around the bush. Provide it.Nishidani (talk) 21:58, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Content removal#Inaccurate information.Ashtul (talk) 22:00, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
That is an essay not policy.
Regardless, have you taken a look at Ashtul's reasoning, Nishidani? I don't know enough about those details but it is intriguing enough that merely blowing off is not the best thing to do.Cptnono (talk) 23:36, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Cptnono, is WP:Content removal an essay? Ashtul (talk) 09:42, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I have hidden the pointless flame war. Please discuss the content not who did what. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 11:39, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Fixes messes.[edit]

Ashtul. It is impossible from your edit summaries to understand the reasons for your changes to the text as often as not. The edit summaries are false or based on a failure to recall the content of the available sources i.e.

  • (1)Edit summary with source description falsification

You remove this

" With the ascendancy of the Likud Party, community settlements experienced rapid expansion: by 1989, 115 had been established.

With the edit summary: Source say clearly the figure includes kibbutzim and moshavim which are DIFFERENT (rm))

The source contradicts that, which is original research since the source nowhere mentions in that section are kibbutzim or moshavim mentioned. It says most of the 115 settlements were precisely of the type described in our article..

‘The years 1977-1989 were the period of massive expansion of the settlements in the West Bank. By 1989, a total of 115 settlements had been built, most of the community settlement/suburban type.

All you needed to do was ask me for exact figures (now added from Kellerman), or make the point that not all of the 115 were of the CS type.

This nonsensical flag-waving shows unfamiliarity with the linked sources, and is used to remove from the lead the following text:

'essentially took shape as a new typology for settling the West Bank, but also in the Galilee as part of the aim of establishing a 'demographic balance' between Jews and Arabs, and thwarting the development of a Palestinian state.'

The source text says.

‘a new settlement typology had to be conceived. In the early 1980s the ‘community settlement’ was developed by the settlement division of the WZO together with Amanah, the settlement arm of Gush Emunim, for the purpose of settling the mountain areas under Israel’s control, both within Israel in the Galilee, and in the occupied areas of the West Bank. In both regions this was part of the national effort to create a ‘demographic balance’ between Jews and Arabs.' (Weizman p.126)

There are other examples of obvious falsely motivated removals, like that regarding the aim of impeding the formation of a Palestinian state as a prime objective. For these reasons, I have retained one element you added, while generally reverting and fixing the messy elisions you imposed.

I don't write articles oiff the top of my head. I always paraphrase what the cited source says. If you disagree with the paraphrase, consult the original, reprodsuce it, and show on the talk page why you think the summary is erroneous. Don't remove stuff at sight. Don't make judgements on your personal views.Nishidani (talk) 13:23, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

This is easy -
  1. community settlement/suburban type aka community settlement AND Kibutz AND moshav which are mentioned in the paragraph above. Those differ from urban settlements such as Ariel, Ma'ale Adumim etc'. Just another example for why the sources you chose to work with are confusing and should be edited in with extra care.
  2. You didn't put a source AND the sentence and thwarting the development of a Palestinian state is still WP:OR, not to mention it is false as Galilee isn't on the table for a future Palestinian state. So please stop blaming me for putting my personal views and look in the mirror.
Ashtul (talk) 15:38, 22 February 2015 (UTC)