Jump to content

Talk:Israeli demolition of Palestinian property/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Article has been subject to POV-editing by cheats, Mr Hicks now blocked indefinitely

Mr. Hicks The III (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been identified as one of a series of sock-puppets of banned sock-master Isarig.

Isarig's past contributions are listed here under Former user 2], see Community Sanctions Noticeboard Isarig, Community Sanctions Noticeboard consensus, Community Sanctions Noticeboard Resolution, Community Sanctions Noticeboard Isarig, ANI: Isarig violating terms of mentorship for community concerns about the operation of this account. The extensive discussions culminated in compulsory mentoring, 1RR and an Israel/Palestine topic ban on the 30th August 2007.

In December 2007, Isarig (who had continued to edit outside the I/P topic) confessed to operating the sock-puppets Teens! and Clintonesque and was granted the right to vanish according to this deletion log and Isarig is no longer with us, wherein it is said "The user have been explained not to come back editing again as per WP:RTV, a thing they agreed to."

Full list of the sock-puppets now known to have been operated by Isarig:

Canadian Monkey -> click here for link to 3,193 edits

Mr. Hicks The III -> click here for link to 3,197 edits

NoCal100 -> click here for link to 2,668 edits

Lover Of The Russian Queen -> click here for link to 916 edits

Millmoss -> click here for link to 274 edits

Hadashot Livkarim -> click here for link to 68 edits, some likely conentious eg this and this and this.

AbetterWay -> click here for link to 21 harmless edits on IBM Thinkpad 380, Shu-turul, Sriram Raghavan and Mirawdale

Fistook -> click here for one harmless edit to Ma'alot massacre on 27 March 2009.

Oh, Those Russians! - > click here for one harmless edit to Ahlam Shibli on 22 June 2009.

Some of these accounts have been repeatedly subject to accusations of editwarring and disruptive editting.

As regards efforts to improve this article, knowing of what's happened may lead editors to examine every edit made by these cheats, in the likelihood that they were made in order to defend (or introduce) distortions to the encyclopedia. Many such edits can probably be reverted on site, allowing the natural processes of the project to correct remaining small errors in due time. 81.152.36.143 (talk) 12:51, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Biased and wrongly cited summary paragraph

  • "and to seize property for the expansion of Israeli settlements."

Supposedly the demolition is meant to allow for expansion of Israeli settlements but there has never been any Israeli construction on such demolition sites. The citations 5 and 6 - "Mass Demolition: Security Rationales, Demographic Subtexts" and "EU criticizes Israeli demolition of Arab homes in East Jerusalem Read more: EU criticizes Israeli demolition of Arab homes in East Jerusalem - Monsters and Critics - " don't mention anything about expansion. This is especially apparent about demolitions in Gaza where no Israeli lives at all nowadays. I think the last part of the sentence concerning "expansion" should be dropped. --77.124.118.68 (talk) 22:43, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

POV

This entry is a Zionist POV. --93.82.8.84 (talk) 07:45, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Read the Template:Neutrality documentation. You need to say what the problems are if you want to add a tag. You need to be specific and provide detailed examples where the content does not comply with policy. Saying "This entry is a Zionist POV" isn't enough. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:06, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

It is absolutely enough. Further the whole entry has not much references. --93.82.8.84 (talk) 08:15, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Let's assume for a moment that I'm a fuckwitted idiot. How would I for example go about addressing the problems that you can see ? Can you provide any specific clues ? Sean.hoyland - talk 08:28, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Because you are one. [1][2] --93.82.8.84 (talk) 08:36, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

If there are parts of this article that do not adhere to a neutral point of view, by all means point them out. Gobonobo T C 08:44, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
I was hoping for clues about the article content but thanks for the links anyway. Do you understand that you cannot effect change by simply saying this entry is a Zionist POV even if you are right ? If you genuinely want to remove bias you will take the time to provide details that show where that bias is and suggest ways to fix it. If you don't really care you won't bother. So, which is it ? Sean.hoyland - talk 08:49, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Bimkom information

The Ma'an article states "And from 2000-2014, only 206 building permits were issued, Bimkom says." The article later says in East Jerusalem alone 118+116+135=369 (>206) permits were given. This contradict Bimkom numbers which makes it unreliable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkavaSniper (talk • contribs) 11:00, 13 May 2015 (UTC)


Oops, the unreliable source is Ma'an, not Bimkom. Here is a report from them about permit. In page 56 is says 603 permit were given for 2350 units between 2005 and 2009 alone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkavaSniper (talk • contribs) 11:10, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Translate the relevant paragraph.Nishidani (talk) 12:57, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

According to Civil Administration data, between 2000 and 2012, Palestinians submitted 3,750 applications for building permits. Only 211 – just 5.6% – were approved. This percentage was especially low for the last four years for which the Civil Administration has provided statistics: from 2009 through 2012, a total of 1,640 applications were submitted. Only 37 – a mere 2.3% – were approved. Palestinians who built without permits, received stop-orders.' Acting the Landlord: Israel's Policy in Area C, the West Bank, B'tselem June 2013 p.19.

The figures of Ma'an for 2000-2012 and those of B'tselem are very close for the time period. Your figures suggest both are wide of the mark by a notable figure. Nishidani (talk) 13:14, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
The Bimkom report speaks of East Jerusalem. B'tselem source seem to be good but speaks only on area C where ~180k Palestinians live. The previous statement in lead covers about 4M palestinians. Thus those two do not belong together! — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkavaSniper (talk • contribs) 14:47, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Who have said this is about four million Palestinians? By the way, UN now estimates 300,000 Palestinians live in Area C. --IRISZOOM (talk) 15:46, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Biased sources given undue weight. No reliable sources quoted.

I think this article needs significant rework. Organisations that describe themselves as "human rights organisations" are being given undue weight. These organisations are lobby organisations and do not claim to attempt an impartial expert assessment of international law and are notoriously anti-governments (and particularly anti-Israel) and they therefore represent the anti-Israel side and not a neutral commentator.

Instead, we should be using neutral experts in international law to source the accuracy of Israel's contentions not pro-Palestinian sources. sebbysteiny - talk 15:47, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm agree with sebbysteiny. It's hard to find an information about original Israeli position in article. It's presented only in the form of POV-retelling by Israel's critics. But for such biased NGO as BIMKOM, someone has found a place just in a Lede :).
Here is a sad result of such "crap" & not-NPOV edits:

IDF explanations for house demolitions include use as a counter-insurgency security measure to impede or halt militant operations,[2] as a regulatory measure to enforce building codes and regulations.[3] House demolitions are also claimed to be a potent deterrent against terrorism,[4] in significantly decreasing Palestinian terrorists attacks.[5][6] Human rights organizations and the United Nations criticize the ongoing demolitions[7] of Palestinian homes as violating international law, and Amnesty International has contended that the Israeli government actually uses demolitions to collectively punish Palestinians[2] and to seize property for the expansion of Israeli settlements.[8][9]

--Igorp_lj (talk) 22:13, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
HRW, Amnesty and B'Tselem are described as "human rights organizations" by countless of reliable sources, not only by themselves. Your arguments to dismiss them as lobbyists, biased etc. isn't really good. They are mainstream and much respected organizations except for fringe organizations like NGO Monitor etc.
It is appaling but not surprising you quote the worthless NGO Monitor to dismiss Bimkom and as usual put numerous tag in articles. --IRISZOOM (talk) 02:38, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
I noticed this one too. Do you really think this is good editing? --IRISZOOM (talk) 02:41, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
I even afraid to think :) who are those "WE" :) on whose behalf you act feeling yourself entitled to give such harsh assessments and to decide what sources should remain in aricles. Of course, I am canceling this act of political censorship.--Igorp_lj (talk) 05:49, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
"We" as editors here, including you who put it. You are putting it to show the NGO in negative light. Face it, NGO Monitor is a fringe right-wing organization, not one we can rely on to dismiss every NGO or other organization they attack if they are critical of the Israeli government. --IRISZOOM (talk) 06:34, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
There is absolutely no rationale for reincluding Arutz Sheva, which as RSN discussions generally show is not reliable for facts, in reporting facts which, as I showed are reported in the linkable original research papers etc. It has to go. Nishidani (talk) 07:28, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
I agree, especially when there are reliable sources that can be used, like the one you replaced it with. So something from Bimkom, cited by Maan News (work by AFP), gets tagged with "unreliable source?" and "clarification needed" while Arutz Sheva and NGO Monitor are fine? --IRISZOOM (talk) 09:13, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Igorp is a serial tagger of pages I edit, and is simply going round tracking my edits, tagging the pages and restoring the bad sourcing I eliminate. As they say in the English classic tradition: all families have one.Nishidani (talk) 09:27, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
As usual, Nishidani's info isn't correct again. :) It's me who's explained you yet in January that this article is more suitable for "demolition aspects" than "Violence's article":

It's you, who is trying to connect the definitions of State Terrorism & House demolition to this article, bringing to it only those sources which may approve your own POV. I'd recommend you to learn these articles & and their sources. --Igorp_lj (talk) 22:13, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

So your bloated ego has deceived you again: as I see, your one-sided Bimkom's addition (10 May 2015) is the 1st your edit in the article here. --Igorp_lj (talk) 19:51, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
@IRISZOOM: Unlike you & Nishidani, I do not erase opinions of HRW and other such critics of Israel. So I do not understand your censorship for NGO Monitor & Arutz 7 based on both your willing only.
If your '"We" as editors here' is true, let's try to understand that all Wiki article should represent different POVs, not only left & Arab ones, but right & even :) Israeli POVs as well as others. --Igorp_lj (talk) 20:17, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
And now - some test: can you correctly present in the article what is already written in its current sources, but as usual with Nichidani, either not mentioned or distorted or disguised as something else.
  • "what about that 2005 recommendation by the Israeli military commission?..
  • The problem is, the commission conducted no serious study of the demolitions’ effects, and the latest evidence actually points in the opposite direction. The 2005 Times article on which much of the subsequent coverage seems to have been based is itself an overstatement of a contemporaneous account in the Israeli newspaper, Haaretz. But Haaretz made no claims about conclusive findings, simply stating that the military committee recommended ending the program and referencing a general, preliminary “study of the first 1000 days of the conflict” from 2003 that merely stated, “as of today, there is no proof” of effective deterrence from the demolitions.
  • The author of the Haaretz story, Amos Harel, told me that the committee wasn’t primarily intended as an objective evaluator, but as professional cover for the political echelon’s decision. Its recommendation—to end the demolitions—was largely a foregone conclusion.
  • Moreover, the general who led the commission “explicitly dismissed the idea that there had ever been a specific analysis or determination rejecting the deterrent effects of the program.” In fact, he said, “‘most of the professional side’—meaning the military personnel and members of Israel’s internal security service—actually supported continuing the demolitions due to first-hand experiences with families turning in would-be terrorists.”
  • This revelation exposes a serious reporting failure by many major media outlets who trumpeted the commission’s purported finding..."
  • "By exploiting spatial and time variation in house demolitions and suicide attacks during the second Palestinian uprising, we show that punitive house demolitions (those targeting Palestinian suicide terrorists and terror operatives) cause an immediate, significant decrease in the number of suicide attacks. In contrast, Palestinian fatalities do not have a consistent effect on suicide terror attacks, while curfews and precautionary house demolitions (demolitions justified by the location of the house but unrelated to the identity of the house’s owner) cause a significant increase in the number of suicide attacks. The results support the view that selective violence is an effective tool to combat terrorist groups and that indiscriminate violence backfires."
  • "The use of house demolitions may lead to an increase of nonsuicidal terror attacks or bring about animosity from the international community against its use. However, by showing which types of demolitions deter suicide terrorists and which promote more terrorism, we shed more light on the desirability of house demolitions and their effectiveness as a counter-suicide-terrorism tool"/
... --Igorp_lj (talk) 22:03, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
We should cover any notable reports etc., not what any person or group think. HRW's reports are far much trustworthy and significant than for example what NGO Monitor say. So it really does not matter if you don't remove HRW but just add what NGO Monitor say. I think you know there are plenty of pro-Palestinian sources that are in the same level as NGO Monitor but that does not mean we should add them either.
If we got another, but reliable, source that reports what Arutz Sheva wrote, why keep the former? Furthermore, you did actually use NGO Monitor to dismiss Bimkom here above. Then you went into the article Bimkom and added NGO Monitor's view about them under External links. You also added two tags here about Bimkom's statistics, which was reported by AFP. Can you explain those? You also added a NPOV tag. So clearly there is a disrepancy here by you when you dismiss mainstream NGOs and statistics covered by AFP but accept fringe sources.
This is not some "test" for me. If you want to add another article about the same study, then go ahead and add it. Don't attack others. --IRISZOOM (talk) 06:36, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
"Then you went into the article Bimkom" @IRISZOOM - not correct:
Regarding to "a test": so you prefer the article w/out above-mentioned info as well as Bimkom one w/out critics. Isn't it? :( --Igorp_lj (talk) 21:16, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Okay, you inserted the link a bit earlier than you wrote here. It doesn't really change what I said you did. You have both used NGO Monitor to dismiss Bimkom and put it in External links.
If you want to include something, add it. Don't blame me or others for not adding from articles you have found. --IRISZOOM (talk) 02:24, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Jewish terrorists' homes

Has anyone heard yet that homes and houses of Jewish/Israeli murderers and terrorists ( such as Jack Teitel, Baruch Goldstein or the ones who now face court because of the lynching of 16-year-old boy ) who commit acts of violence against civilians within the occupied territories and Israel itself have ever been demolished and the families of lawbreakers of that kind been made homeless? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.204.221.210 (talk) 10:53, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

NPOV Issue with the section "As a punitive measure"

The statement "While arguments, that punitive house demolitions would not dissuade future terrorism are corrected by evidence, prompt house demolitions led to “fewer suicide attacks in the month following”,[6] a benefit to the security of civilian Jews and Arabs alike." suffers from a NPOV issue. The statement should be rewritten to make it clear that this was the findings of a joint study by Northwestern and Hebrew U. One should not have to look at the citation to determine this as it should be spelled out in the sentence. As it is written it makes it seems as Wikipedia is endorsing the study as valid/sound which would violate NPOV. Rather, we should simply state what the source says and let the reader determine for themselves if the study's conclusions are sound or not. A better way to reframe the sentence would be as follows: "While arguments have been made that punitive house demolitions would not dissuade future terrorism, a study by Northwestern and Hebrew University came to a different conclusion, that prompt house demolitions led to "fewer suicide attacks in the month following”, which the study's authors described as a benefit to the security of civilian Jews and Arabs alike,[6].". I would suggest that someone with rights to edit Israeli–Palestinian articles could improve the wording of my suggested sentence replacement and add it to "As a punitive measure" section in place of the old POV statement. --Notcharliechaplin (talk) 03:23, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

I've added some of this. The page is too poorly organized, and needs to be rewritten from top to bottom with a sense of chronological development and more thematic breaks, shifting information into the relevant sections. The study above is just one of many (and particularly obtuse: it excludes consideration of how demolishing ca.50,000 structures, and leaving tens of thousands homeless is beneficial to Palestinians).Nishidani (talk) 12:39, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on House demolition in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:04, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 August 2017

Remove: "Their results, which The New Republic calls "politically explosive" indicate that "precautionary demolitions" have caused suicide attacks to increase, a “48.7 percent increase in the number of suicide terrorists from an average district,” while in the months immediately following a demolition, punitive demolitions caused terror attacks to decline by between 11.7 and 14.9 percent.[13][24]"

Justification:

One of the authors of the study specifically said that the data should be be used to justify the practice and all 3 of the authors have their doubts that the data reflects the effectiveness:

"Klor’s reading of the results was entirely different. He repeatedly emphasized that the “magnitude of the deterrence is small, localized and diminishes over time.” In his view, the objections to the demolitions are powerful enough that their study’s limited results shouldn’t be used as a justification. “If you ask me personally,” Klor said, the current round of demolitions is primarily meant “to placate the Israeli public.”

Source:

https://newrepublic.com/article/120506/study-israels-home-demolitions-policy-works-it-moral (same as reference 13 already referenced) The Land of Smeg (talk) 12:24, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. There is another source in the section that properly backs this statement, and other editors will probably not want this information removed. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 16:18, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
I did not make the suggested deletion, but I did add the reservations of Klor, which are relevant and properly cited. Zerotalk 16:28, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on House demolition in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:49, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on House demolition in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:44, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

1948 demolitions

I came to this article while searching for info on the 1948 demolitions of villages. I did eventually find a relevant article using Google search: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Arab_towns_and_villages_depopulated_during_the_1948_Palestinian_exodus I think this should be mentioned in the History section and/or "See also". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keith McClary (talk • contribs) 17:14, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

These are distincly different in being conducted during the course of a war (and for the most part - buildings were cleared after former residents left, often long after). This article refers to legal (in the Israeli sense) demolitions - either punitive or to enfore building codes.Icewhiz (talk) 20:44, 23 February 2018 (UTC)


Mohammed Abu Khdeir case

Why isn't the Mohammed Abu Khdeir case mention? Or any other similar cases? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:18D:4980:D8F4:C589:FA69:9E8C:8410 (talk) 19:22, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Middle East Monitor

Is Middle East Monitor, for example [3], a WP:RS? —comrade waddie96 ★ (talk) 08:47, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

There are discussions about it from time to time with pro Israeli editors complaining and pro Palestinian supporting, with no resolution, it's still considered RS as far as I know. Still, if you are going to use it for something particularly contentious, be prepared for an argument, might be as well to try and back it up with additional sourcing (even primary). My 2 cents. Selfstudier (talk) 12:02, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Title

The current title of the article is "House demolition in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict"; the lead for the past few weeks has read "House demolition in the context of the in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict...". This makes it sound very symmetrical, as though the topic were Strategic bombing during World War II, where all sides participated. But the article is clear that this is a tactic used specifically by Israel and Israeli settlers against Palestinians, not the opposite. The case where Hamas demolished Palestinian houses in Gaza is hardly relevant here. Shouldn't the title and lead reflect this, e.g. as "Israeli demolition of Palestinian houses" or some such? --Macrakis (talk) 15:23, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed there are no cases of Palestinians demolishing Israeli houses, so this should be clear from the title.Nicob1984 (talk) 07:49, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
I also agree, but we all know who runs the english Wikipedia. Luckily everyone offline knows who's the good and who's the bad in this conflict.
201.239.206.63 (talk) 07:06, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

@Aroma Stylish: Feel free to add your input on what you think is a reasonable article title. To me, it seems there is a consensus in favor of changing it.ImTheIP (talk) 06:53, 13 August 2020 (UTC) Regarding your addition of the clause "and [that it] has led to a significant decrease in Palestinian terrorist attacks," we generally avoid using loaded language such as "terrorist" ImTheIP (talk) 06:56, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

I changed it back to simply "Israeli house demolitions" without the unnecessary POV "against Palestinians" (demolitions of settler structures are also covered in this article) nor the extra "...in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict" which is repetitive. As far as the decrease in terrorist activity as a result of this policy, it's what the sources say verbatim, so in this context is entirely appropriate. Next time please explain in talk page or the edit summary when you remove something from text instead of hoping that nobody takes notice.--Aroma Stylish (talk) 15:16, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
I support a move to some title that makes it clear what is going on ie Israeli demolitions of Palestinian properties. We need a formal RM I think because otherwise any move will likely be reverted.Selfstudier (talk) 09:58, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
I'm flabbergasted that the title has dropped 'Israeli'. There is no systematic demolition of houses by other actors. The practice is Israeli, and that is what the article should state:' Israeli House Demolitions in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict.'Nishidani (talk) 11:04, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

information Administrator note: please launch a proper move request if you wish to see a title change for this article. That is the only way this is going to happen. El_C 15:23, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 16 August 2020

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Moved as proposed. After extended time for discussion, there is an apparent consensus that this title should be changed, but some disagreement over the best target. Absent clarity, and with one other participant weighing in support of the original nomination, that is the title that will be used. At some point in the future, this may be revisited. BD2412 T 01:42, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

House demolition in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict → Israeli demolition of Palestinian property – As per the discussion in the chat and taking into account the way this subject is typically discussed in relevant forums eg https://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-question/Lords/2020-01-08/HL241/ or https://www.ochaopt.org/content/increase-destruction-palestinian-property-west-bank-including-east-jerusalem Selfstudier (talk) 14:56, 16 August 2020 (UTC)—Relisting. —usernamekiran (talk) 19:20, 24 August 2020 (UTC)—Relisting. —usernamekiran (talk) 03:19, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

I prefer 'Israel demolitions of Palestinian housing', because property is more extensive. Israel bulldozes roads, smashes stone walls, reorganizes landscape, on Palestinian property without necessarily touching houses, but most of the literature on this refers to the 50,000 houses and dwellings Israel has demolished since 1967.Nishidani (talk) 17:46, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
What about Israeli house demolition? As has been pointed out, on occasion settler houses have also been demolished? ImTheIP (talk) 19:03, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Knocking their own houses down isn't a crime and should be encouraged.:)
Sure, I'm OK with housing, although the wider issue of displacement is quite important (at least legally).Selfstudier (talk) 19:07, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
The Israeli demolition of settler homes is extremely rare proportionately, and to excuse 'Palestinian' because we do have rare instances of settlement houses being demolished is to allow the exception to determine the nominal norm. Two different legal systems operate; one is under Israeli civil law, the other under occupational military law. In short, whatever title adopted should contain a clear indication that this is a policy applied almost exclusively to Palestinians.Nishidani (talk) 19:20, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
That's why I changed the title, so as to restrict it to Palestinian property, the existing title allows consideration of settler property but apart from being immaterial, that is not Palestinian so...Selfstudier (talk) 21:27, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Just a general note. The title allows for at least a section on war demolitions. The most up to date assessment of the damage to housing infrastructure in the 2014 Gaza Strip assault concluded that 3,329 houses were totally destroyed, 1,592 zeverely damaged and 28,366 partially damaged. Detailed Infrastructure Damage Assessment GAZA - 2014, United Nations Development programme 2019 p.9 Nishidani (talk) 20:05, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Agreed, just small grammatical note, change to singular demolition as in Israel demolition of Palestinian housing or Israel demolition of Palestinian homes — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shushugah (talk • contribs) 18 August 2020 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 July 2021

"Israel has demolished or compelled the owners to demolish, 780 homes in East Jerusalem between 2004 and 2018, leaving 2,766 people of whom 1,485 minors, homeless.[28]" The source listed for that line,

  1. 28 - https://www.btselem.org/planning_and_building/east_jerusalem_statistics - is no longer accessible, and an archived version is unavailable. This source should be removed or replaced if possible, as the current state of the listed source contains zero information, given that it's completely inaccessible. IPetraeus (talk) 02:54, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

 DoneSelfstudier (talk) 08:51, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

"Although revoked by the British"...But started by who?

The section about punitive demolition says the policy was stopped by the British, but fails to say it was started by who. Was it started by Israel, by the Ottoman Empire, by the British? Mystery...

To be honest, the actual start date and the original legislator who started the policy of punitive house demolition is more important than the fact that in 1948 the policy was stopped by the British just before they stopped administering the region, to be started again by Israel right when they started administering their side of the region.

Since the British started it it should state : "The British administration introduced the policy of punitive house demolitions during the Great Arab Rebellion of 1936-39. The British used home demolitions to respond to Arab acts of sabotage. and stopped it at the end of their mandate in 1948 (https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/72837601.pdf). Israel reinstated the policy in 1948 at its formation." Patrick.N.L (talk) 10:52, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

The article is about the Israeli practice, more detailed information besides the citations about the British practice could be included in 1936–1939 Arab revolt in Palestine or perhaps Mandate Palestine.Selfstudier (talk) 16:47, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Incorrect citation in the lead paragraph

The source citing 50000 demolitions is an account since 1947. However the lead sentence sets up the scope of the article as since 1967. This is incredibly misleading, and I noticed it because reading other numbers in the article 50000 didn't seem to add up. Also, the article purports to be about housing and there is a conflation between housing and structures.

This being in the lead of the article I feel is misinformation. I suggest that it be removed and replaced with a more accurate account of the houses that have been destroyed by the Israel government. 2601:240:C400:1480:415A:4DF6:4766:4D0C (talk) 21:52, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

An editor incorrectly changed the lead opener to include a link to House Demolitions, property does not only mean houses, see Statistics section and the ICAHD stats. The ICAHD article does discuss demolition since 1947 but if that were the case, even only homes would amount to 131,000. I changed the url and updated the figure post 67. Selfstudier (talk) 22:31, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Israeli_demolition_of_Palestinian_property/Archive_2&oldid=1222742451"