Talk:Israeli settlement/Archive 12

This is an archive of past discussions about Israeli settlement. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Proposal of Palestinian citizenship for remaining settlers

Currently the section states "According to Rabbi Yehoshua Magnes, the possibility that any such exchange of sovereignty over the Jewish settler population can occur without subsequent Arab reprisal violence is low."

The reference sites the following text: "Second, a policy of retaining Jewish settlements under Palestinian control is likely to provoke more opposition than dissolving them; settlement is perceived as a half of the inseparable whole understood as the "Jewish presence in the land." Maintaining communities without Israeli sovereign control over them is the same as losing the land.36 Thus, transferring settlements to Palestinian control while allowing Jewish settlers to remain in them would also be perceived as jeopardizing Jewish lives and would be prohibited under the requirement to preserve human life. Therefore, it is better to dissolve the settlements than to maintain them under PA control."

But the above text is written by Laura S. Zarembski, and can only be attributed to her.

According to the article "Rabbi Yehoshua Magnes of Yeshivat Mercaz HaRav fears that violence can again break out if concerns of this segment are not addressed and the extremists are not acknowledged." But taken in context, the violence the good Rabbi is talking about is settler violence (in response to evacuations), not Arab violence.

Finally, can we get a slightly more reliable source than an editorial in the MiddleEast Quarterly?VR _talk 03:29, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree, the violence the cited article refers to in the name of Rabbi Magnes is settler violence. Zero^talk 13:58, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Incident Report

At IRC timestamp [01:35] (6:35 UTC) a user identifing him or herself as Aeonx came to the #wikipedia-en-help IRC complaining that the Twinlke rollback feature was not working for this page, but was working for other pages. The user requested that two edits be reverted. Those edits were 1 and 2 by an IP. The version that Aeonx wanted restored was 3. I verified that Twinkle did not appear to be working on this page, that the page was not protected, and that by performing the reverts, I was not making a vadnalism edit. A cursory reading of WP:WESTBANK causes me to believe that my revert, 4 was the correct version.

I am not involved in the editing of this page, or the underlying issue, and do not want to be a part of this issue in the future. The purpose of this post is to document an error in the Twinkle program, and document actions taken based on a discussion that took place off of Wikipedia. The full IRC conversation can be made available at the request of a member of ArbCom. Thank you, Sven Manguard _Talk 06:53, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

This is accurate. -- Aeonx (talk) 07:00, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

False claims

The article claims Julius Stone dispute the illegality of Israeli settlements. Looking at the sourced quote it says: ”Israel's presence in all these [disputed] areas pending negotiation of new borders is entirely lawful, since Israel entered them lawfully in self-defence.” this means that he believes that Israels occupation is valid. Not that the settlements aren't illegal. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:30, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree. A "presence" is not the same as a "settlement", nor does the former imply the latter. Cs32en Talk to me 00:02, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I also would like to request the quotation from both the Stephen Myron Schwebel and Rostow, Eugene sources, I'm looking at "Justice in international law", I cant see all the pages but in those I can see I don't see Schwebel saying they are legal.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:36, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not a legal expert so take this with grain of salt, my understanding is that Julius Stone disputes "occupied" vs "disputed" which is used by Israel as excuse itself from GC as far as settlements go as far as I understand. Anyway more productive discussion would result on Main article talk page or at WP:IPCOLL where more eyeballs are available. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 01:15, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

SD has a point. The quote doesn't support the material although I think the book itself may but, if I recall his argument correctly, the occupation was only justified pending a formal treaty between the warring parties (which sounds correct). Stone died before the 94 peace treaty with Jordan so who knows what he'd say now but the original reason is gone. As a slightly amusing side track, Stone was a well-respected scholar but his reasoning in matters regarding Israel was a wee bit unbalanced, to the point that his old employer, U of S, issues papers like this, which seems just a little bit mean. Sol (talk) 03:44, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Acting as a legal expert for the United Nations Committee on the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People, Ben Saul is entitled to his views on Stones interpretations of the law. Its unfortunate that Stone cannot defend himself against his claims. Anyhow, according to Cohen, Stone held that the settlements were legal. Chesdovi (talk) 20:41, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, it is unfortunate, Ben Saul resorting to adhoms after Julius Stone is dead. Stone also said: "No other state having a legal claim even equal to that of Israel under the unconditional cease-fire agreement of 1967 and the rule of uti possidetis, this relative superiority of title would seem to assimilate Israel's possession under international law to an absolute title, valid erga omnes..." If Israel has a superior title, it follows that settlements would not be illegal. Otherwise it would be like saying, "Yeah, it's your property, but only someone else can build on it." So no, not false claims. There were other major scholars and thinkers that took that position as well, such as Stephen Schwebel. Of course, perhaps he too is too sympathetic with Jewish interests in the middle east. Yehuda Blum from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem Law Faculty certainly can't be considered to have a valid opinion, being Israeli and Jewish as well. Eugene V. Rostow is the son of poor Jewish-American immigrants. I use the concerns of Ben Saul as my point of departure. We cannot exclude the notable opinions of people because we personally feel that they lean too far one way or the other. These are highly respected jurists and thinkers. 172.129.65.65 (talk) 03:45, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

How hilariously drool to hint at antisemitism as the motivating factor for dismissing bad arguments. The quote does not support the material. So we find a new quote or remove the material. Sol (talk) 07:04, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean remove it. Its sourced to Cohen. Chesdovi (talk) 12:10, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Stone in the intro to Y. Blum's book Secure Boundaries and Middle East Peace.:

"Ambiguities such as those here in question [Res 242: "territories" not "the territories"], deliberately preserved in Resolution 242 in order to sercure unanimity, illustrate the oft-sanctified role of ambiguity in diplomatic documents. The intial purpose served by such ambiguity may be to cover over, by a framework of apparent agreement, continuing deep measures of disagreement. That initial purpose, moreover, as we project it into the future relations of the disputants, gives forth of its own fertility. On the one hand, it leaves it open for both sides, as circumstances or positions change, to replace the textual ambiguities by agreed meanings. It also, on the other hand, allows each side to turn the ambiguity into a weapon of political warfare against the other. In the former projections, ambiguity is resolved into agreement and friendship; in the latter it is exacerbated and fuly exposed as a focus of irreconcilable conflict. Love and hate lie together in such an initial ambiguity, each ready to be summoned forth in its own good time." Sixty two years later we can see the direction so far. In the long scheme of history, not so long. In the long scheme of history, not so deadly nor so cruel as many other conflicts around the globe. 172.129.65.65 (talk) 03:59, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

EU action on the settlements (December 2010)

Background: BBC - Former EU leaders urge sanctions for Israel settlements, 10 December 2010.

Link to full text of letter (dated 2 December 2010) from European Former Leaders Group (EFLG) to Herman van Rompuy, President of the European Council, and Lady Catherine Ashton, High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy/First Vice-President of the European Commission.

From the BBC article:

The letter sent to European governments and EU institutions, asks EU foreign ministers to reiterate that they "will not recognise any changes to the June 1967 boundaries and clarify that a Palestinian state should be in sovereign control over territory equivalent to 100% of the territory occupied in 1967, including its capital in East Jerusalem". It also asks ministers to set the Israeli government an ultimatum that, if it has not fallen into line by April 2011, the EU will seek an end to the US-brokered peace process in favour of a UN solution, according to the EUobserver website.

...

In a letter of response to the former leaders, sent on Tuesday and seen by EUobserver, Baroness Ashton said the EU's approach to Jewish settlement expansion would remain unchanged for the time being. She said the demand for a peace treaty based on pre-June 1967 borders was "commonly accepted" and that she supported the US-brokered negotiations. "The European Union will continue to be at the forefront of efforts to advance the peace process and engage with both the Palestinians and the Israelis to find a way to resolve the conflict," her letter reportedly said. In a statement following the US announcement, she said: "The EU position on settlements is clear: they are illegal under international law and an obstacle to peace. Recent settlement related developments, including in East Jerusalem, contradict the efforts by the international community for successful negotiations."

← ZScarpia 23:45, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

"much of"

GHcool re added "much of" claiming "much of is correct.", how is it correct? "Much" is a weasel word and could mean 60% of the IC, in this case we are talking about the entire IC.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:21, 10 January 2011 (UTC) :As best I know, the entire world refers to the West Bank as "occupied" and it's also overwhelmingly called "Occupied" (as in "Occupied Palestinian Territories", OPT). I can see no justification whatsoever for claiming "much of" is an NPOV description. Templar98 (talk) 20:35, 10 January 2011 (UTC) - Banned user

Your question is answered here. --GHcool (talk) 23:08, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

That confirms that the IC say its occupied, while only Israel disputes it.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:14, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Is Israel not a part of the IC? --GHcool (talk) 23:27, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe Israel says WB is not occupied. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:24, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Israel agrees it's occupied. Sol (talk) 05:20, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Is Israel not a part of the IC? No, not if by, being part of, you mean that the Israeli Government's opinion forms part of ICJ verdicts. ← ZScarpia 14:11, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Israeli_settlement#Religious_significance

This looks important to me, though the section needs to be improved to provide the point of view of the supportes of the idea, in addition to the critical one. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 08:58, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

~~Yes, it is important. The point of view of the supporters of complete annexation is well provided by rabbi Dr Chaim Simons of Kiryat Arba [1], last updated 2004.~~

Amongst a lot of other interesting things, he reproduces an open letter he sent to President Carter all the way back in 1978. It reads in part: "As a former Sunday school teacher, whose knowledge of the Bible is the envy of us all, you are fully aware that the Almighty gave the Land of Israel in its entirety to the Jewish people for all time to come. Even a cursory glance at a map will show you that Judea and Samaria (West Bank) are the heart of this Divinely given Land of Israel."

It is possible that rabbi Chaim Simons is misled (eg he says "You surely know that your own country in company with the entire world (except Britain and Pakistan) never recognised Jordan's unilateral annexation of the West Bank. Your international legal advisers can tell you that Israel has a better legal title to this area than any other country in the world.") but he's an excellent source for the point of view of the settlers - I'm surprised you've not added to the article instead of slapping a drive-by "neutrality" tag on it. Templar98 (talk) 10:08, 17 January 2011 (UTC)struck comments of banned user.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 05:31, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Jewish settlement ?

Some people disagree with the use of these words in the lead to remind it is another expression that is used to refer to 'Israeli settlement'
An argument is that it is/would be a bias to use them :

Here is a reference from Norman Finkelstein who widely uses these words
Here is a reference from Israeli MFA that widely uses these words.

If there was a 'bias' at least one of them would refrain from using these words. That alledged 'bias' does not exist in the wp:rs sources but only in the mind of people. Anyway, that would be required to have an explanation of the reason why it is/would be a bias (and if possible to source this).
Another claim is that these words would be less used :

google book gives 80,000+ hits for 'Jewish settlements' or 48000 thousands with 'Israel' as an additonal keyword ; there are only +40,000 for 'Israeli settlements'

The only critic that fits what can be sourced is that 'Jewish settlements' also refers to settlements of Jews in the whole Middle-East, even before the birth of Israel and not only to those in the occupied territories. I answer that what is asked here is *not* to replace 'Israeli settlement' by 'Jewish settlement', not to state that all 'Israeli settlements' are 'Jewish settlements' but to remind in the lead that 'Israeli settlements' are also named 'Jewish settlements'.
(Don't answer that google book is not wp:rs - it is used to answer to arguments that are not sourced at all and to prove they are wrong.) I add that Jewish settlement redirects to Israeli settlement ( ! ), that several sources in this article (Israeli settlement) use the words 'Jewish settlements' and even more that the words 'Jewish settlements' are currenlty used in the article.
For an equivalent exemple, I would refer to Yom Kippur War (title) in the lead of which references are made in bold to Ramadan War, October War, 1973 War, 1973 Arab-Israeli War etc because all these are equivalent titles. This fits exactly our case.
Noisetier (talk) 18:28, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

In that link Finklestine mostly doesn't use it as a term for Israeli settlements in the OT. Mfa also calls the West bank "Judea and Samaria" and the occupied territories "disputed territories". Its a fringe term not commonly or widely used for the OT, and therefor it doesn't belong in the lead. The reason why your Google books search gets more hits for "Jewish settlement" is because "Jewish settlement" refers to Jewish settlements in the mandate and Ottoman times, not only that, but it also refers to Jewish settlements in other parts of the world: "Jewish settlements in the french colonies in the Caribbean" [2], "Jewish settlements in south America" [3] "Jewish settlements in Africa" [4] "Jewish settlements in Greece" [5] "Jewish settlements in Anatolia" [6] "Jewish settlements in Spain" [7] "Jewish settlements in Europe" [8] "Jewish settlements in china" [9], you can continue with hundreds of these different search combination's and find many more. This shows clearly that "Jewish Settlement" is a term used for Jews settling on land in the entire world, anywhere, while this article is exclusively about the Israeli settlements in the occupied territories Israel has occupied since 1967.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:18, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

You are right that in the reference I gave Finkelstein refers to settlements before '48. This is his PhD thesis where he attacks Joan Peter. But here in Beyond Shupnatz, he refers too to 'Jewish settlement'. It seems you claim 'Jewish settlement' is a pro-Israeli bias, could you explain why or in what ?
That is not true that I have many links with 'Jewish settlements' due to the pre'48 or pre'67 period. In the second research, I added the keyword Israel and most of the links refers to 'Jewish settlements' as 'Israeli settlement'. Did you just read the results ?
As I said above, it is true that 'Jewish settlements' refers also to many other settlement BUT it is also true that 'Israeli settlements' are also called 'Jewish settlements' and as a proof, Jewish settlements redirects to this article, the words are use in this article and in many sources.

-> to put in practice what you want, we need to transform the redirect in an article and explaining that 'Jewish settlements' refer to different settlements of Jews all around the world and also to 'Israeli settlements'. That could be done. Noisetier (talk) 20:43, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Comment - There is no doubt that Jewish settlement is frequently used as a synonym for Israeli settllement. Here is a list of example BBC articles. There are many other contemporary examples out there of course. While a redirect in Wikipedia proves nothing, we should do something to this article to make it clear that it is an alternative name (as mentioned here). The redirect could become a disambiguation page if there are articles around about other kinds of Jewish settlement e.g. in the Jewish Autonomous Oblast etc. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:18, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok. Sometimes, written comminucation is not clear.

Do you mean that whereas "there is no doubt that Jewish settlement is frequently used as a synonym for Israeli settllement", writing in this artile "(also named "Jewish settlement")" is not appropriate and that we should transform the article "Jewisht sentlement" in a disambigation page ? I can hear you but I cannot understand. Could you explain what difference you see with the case of the Yom kippur war and also what is pov-ed in the wordings "Jewish settlements" ? Noisetier (talk) 15:56, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay, to clarify

There is evidence in contemporary reliable sources that the term "Jewish Settlement" is used to refer to "Israeli settlement".
There is evidence that "Jewish Settlement" is an alternative term with the same meaning as "Israeli settlement"
However, we should try to find a source that explicitly says that Israeli settlements are also sometimes referred to as Jewish settlements. It's pretty obvious that it is an alternative name but policy-wise we should really cite a source that says it is an alternative name rather than draw conclusions ourselves.
We should add a brief statement that Israeli settlements are also sometimes referred to as Jewish settlements to the body of this article and cite the source.
We should also add the term Jewish settlement in bold to the lead as an alternative name.
Since the term "Jewish settlement" may also refer to things that are not Israeli settlements I am suggesting that a redirect Jewish settlement -> Israeli settlement may not be ideal. It may be better to change the Jewish settlement page to be a DAB page that lists the various types of Jewish settlement including Israeli settlement.

Sean.hoyland - talk 05:49, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

These are Israeli settlements, as Israeli law is in effect there. Some of the settlers may identify as inhabitants of Jewish settlements, especially those that have come into conflict with the Israeli state over the existence or establishment of the settlements. The term "Jewish settlement" obscures the fact that these settlement are being established in violation of Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, and may thus be preferred by some authors and sources (others may use the term out of ignorance of these implications). The only exception may be settlements that are illegal under Israeli law, but if Israel refused to take effective actions against the establishment or maintainance of these settlements, these effectively become Israeli settlements as far as international law is concerned. Cs32en Talk to me 07:10, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

The issue is about the terminology used by reliable sources and complying with the manual of style, nothing more. No one is suggesting replacing the standard term Israeli settlement with Jewish settlement or renaming the article or saying that they aren't Israeli settlements etc. It's simply about noting that the term Jewish settlement is also used by reliable sources (such as the BBC) to mean an Israeli settlement in the Israeli occupied territories. It is demonstrably the case using reliable sources that both terms are contemporary synonyms for eachother (to describe what is actually a colony in occupied territory) but we should really have a source that says that they are synonyms before the article is changed. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:22, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

..and it's not just a synonym used in the Western press as a Google search "jewish settlement" site:chinadaily.com.cn demonstrates. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:37, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't object to using both terms in the lead, as in fact both are being used by reliable sources. It would be best, however, to have sources that explain both the fact that the terms are being used as if they were synonyms, and that explain the differences between both terms as well. Cs32en Talk to me 07:42, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

@Sean.hoyland - many thanks for your clarification ! I agree with everything your write.

I think we all agree in fact.

The only issue I see is that we don't have the source that explains that 'Israeli settlements' is also sometimes/often (?) named 'Jewish settlements'. I didn't find any in google books. In the books I have, I read the index to see if there was not some redirect such as : Jewish settlement : see Israeli settlement but I didn't find any...

In such a case, what is the best to do ?

Noisetier (talk) 20:28, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Hebrew name

Why is the Hebrew traduction in the title ? There is nothing encyclopaedic to have this translation and even more nearly nobody can understand this. Why not in Arab then per wp:npov ? If somebody wants to get this in Hebrew (French, Polish, Arab, German, ...) he can simply use the interwiki linds (on the bottom of the column of the left...). Noisetier (talk) 18:28, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

So, can I remove this reference to the name in Hebrew ? Noisetier (talk) 20:49, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Unless somebody requires that I do not proceed, I will remove the Hebrew translation within 15 days. Noisetier (talk) 20:23, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

What is the significance of numbers that do not include Palestinians killed by the Israeli military?

The section should either be fixed, or the table should be dropped from the article. I fail to see how including a table that does not include Palestinians killed by the Israeli military contributes to the understanding of the topic. Cs32en Talk to me 20:52, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree.VR _talk 03:59, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Choice of Photos

The photos of settlements at the top of the article appear to have been chosen to present a particular POV about the settlements (cute, well kept, harmless, etc.). The first page of results for a Google Images search on "israeli settlement" includes many pictures of a quite different appearance (intrusive, stark, looming, barbed wire, etc.), no doubt reflecting the POV of the sites that host them. 204.128.230.1 (talk) 17:39, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I think they are probably chosen on the basis that they are free or we have permission to use them. There are some more pics in Commons category 'Israeli settlements in the West Bank' and its subcategories. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:50, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

they're like that for the same reason wikipedia doesn't show the violent/poor areas of other cities like london or paris... or photos of homeless people for example —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.139.188.245 (talk) 19:11, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Casualty figures

The section Israeli_settlement#Casualty_figures seems to have an obscure definition.

It includes "Palestinians killed by Israeli civilians" on one hand, and "Israeli civilians killed by Palestinians" on the other.

In other words the Israeli casualties include those murdered by militant groups, as well as those killed by civilians, but the Palestinian casualties only include those killed by Israeli civilians, but not by Israeli security forces. Why?

The obscure definition seems to hide the true number of Palestinian casualties.VR _talk 00:57, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

That looks very deceiving to me - a balanced comparison would be Palestinians killed in Palestinian areas compared with Israelis killed in Israel - the former being perhaps 20 or 50 times more than the latter. Templar98 (talk) 20:47, 10 January 2011 (UTC) - Banned user

==Julius Stone on legality of settlements== The discussion above "False claims" concerned whether Julius Stone "dispute[s] the illegality of authorized settlements" and it's been claimed that Cohen's book Human rights in the Israeli-occupied territories, 1967-1982 By Esther Rosalind Cohen is evidence of this.

In fact, Cohen says "Julius Stone445 held that Nahal settlements are legal measures necessary to maintain military hold of the territories and establish strong defensive positions along the cease-fire lines in the Jordan Valley". Cohen then adds 6 conditions, only the first of which (voluntary movement) is likely to be fulfilled by the settlers. In particular "3) be placed at strategic positions born of military necessity" and "4) be temporary for the duration of the occupation." The Google Book doesn't show the end of that section, but the whole tenor of what Cohen is saying would not lead us to believe that Stone said that settlements are legal.

It may well be that Stone's arguments are subtle and nuanced and contribute usefully in other directions, but he cannot be said to have argued, either based on Cohen, nor based on "Israel and Palestine: Assault on the Law of Nations" where he wrote that ”Israel's presence in all these [disputed] areas pending negotiation of new borders is entirely lawful, since Israel entered them lawfully in self-defence”, to have claimed the settlements are legal. Templar98 (talk) 14:33, 6 January 2011 (UTC) - Banned user

I've removed the section. It's strange to include attacks by groups armed by the Israeli army but not the army itself. Or conversely, to include attacks by Palestinian militants but not the major Israeli militant group, the Israeli army. All casualty figures should be included, possibly broken down by instigator, but certainly not this arbitrary subset of casualties. Areinit (talk) 17:31, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

More Mainstream Scholars have weighed-in on Israeli Colonialism and Genocide

There was an earlier discussion here regarding the subject: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Israeli_settlement/Archive_11#Ned_Cuthoys_editorial_equating_Israeli_settlements_to_genocide

Now the Journal of Genocide Research and "Top Genocide Scholars Battle Over How To Characterize Israel’s Actions" Read more: here harlan (talk) 21:03, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Harlan, it's quite interesting, but both the name of this section and the provided link are off topic of this page discussion. WP:NOT#FORUM --ElComandanteChe (talk) 22:13, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you El, but the Cuthoys article and the Journal of Genocide Research article are about the inherently genocidal nature of settler colonial societies. That is not off-topic and I think you know that. harlan (talk) 02:24, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

If Israel commitited genocide in '48, why were there 700K refugees? And how come the West Bank/Gaza population has been growing rapidly since '67? The Arabs made no secret of their genocidal intent, thank goodness Israel got the upper hand. The Arabs had where to flee, the Jews did not. Chesdovi (talk) 23:25, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Here is a link to the discussion that the article mentions, where Shaw's definition of genocide is described. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 21:01, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Funny how this is not described by Harlan as a "discredited fringe" view. You can't have it both ways Harlan. Chesdovi (talk) 12:17, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Do you have reasons to assume it would be discredited or fringe? --Dailycare (talk) 21:34, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Chedovi, can you show me an international court or UN organ that agrees with Stone, Rostow, Blum, et al? Both of these scholars agree that Israel committed a serious crime against humanity, "ethnic cleansing". They only disagree over whether that constitutes the crime of genocide when it destroys a society in whole or in part. A report on international criminal law and the defense of the rights of indigenous peoples has just been issued by the Special Rapporteur appointed by the United Nations Permanent Forum which discusses "cultural genocide" consisting of non-violent acts that are still included in the definition of the crime of genocide in the international convention. So, "In international law, genocide,.. ..has a meaning under the Convention which is far broader than physical destruction." [10] He also says:

The recent tendency to define as “ethnic cleansing” policies that could prove to be genocidal under the definition of “genocide” established in international law has been a way of escaping responsibility, and even of fostering impunity. “Ethnic cleansing” may the ideal term for journalistic and even scientific purposes because of its emotional content, but its ineffectiveness makes it a poor choice in the field of law. The same may be said of “ethnocide” and “cultural genocide” as fully separate terms distinct from “genocide” as defined in criminal law. Use of one or both of these expressions is frequently a way of circumventing the legal effects of use of the word “genocide” even in the face of the evidence.

So, I didn't describe it as a "discredited fringe view" because its not. Lemkin himself coined the term genocide to describe both the destruction of societies as groups or the physical destruction of part or all of the members of a society and the convention still includes non-violent acts that are part of the legal definition. In the earlier thread I noted that the European Court of Human Rights upheld criminal convictions for the crime of genocide in the case of Jorgic v. Germany based upon those grounds:

The court also found that the applicant had acted with intent to commit genocide within the meaning of Article 220a of the Criminal Code. Referring to the views expressed by several legal writers, it stated that the "destruction of a group" within the meaning of Article 220a of the Criminal Code meant destruction of the group as a social unit in its distinctiveness and particularity and its feeling of belonging together; a biological-physical destruction was not necessary. It concluded that the applicant had therefore acted with intent to destroy the group of Muslims in the North of Bosnia, or at least in the Doboj region.[11]

FYI, Jordan's written statement to the ICJ in 2004 contained [12] "Annex 1 Origins And Early Phases Of Israel's Policy Of Expulsion And Displacement Of Palestinians" which said that Israel has pursued a continuous policy of ethnic cleansing against the Palestinians ever since it came into existence. That falls under the prohibition against population transfer in customary international law. The ICJ cited Israel for violating Article 49(6) of the Geneva Convention in displacing Palestinians and facilitating the transfer of portions of its own population into the territory to alter its demographic character. That is a "grave breach" and a war crime according to the Rome Statute and the Additional Protocol to the Geneva Conventions. The preamble of the apartheid convention explains that the crime includes acts that also can be defined as genocide. Lebanon's written statement to the Court said that the situation in the territories corresponds to a number of the constituent acts of the crime of apartheid, including "the deliberate imposition on a group of living conditions calculated to cause its physical destruction in whole or in part". See page 9 [13]

This information is all third party verifiable and comes from reliable mainstream sources. The ethnic cleansing/genocide issue has not only been discussed by mainstream scholars in the mainstream press it has been enforced in international courts like the ECHR. That is something that cannot be said for the personal opinions of Stone, Rostow, Blum, Shamgar, et al. harlan (talk) 11:15, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Does Jorgic v. Germany discuss Israeli settlements or the Palestinians, or is this SYNTH? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:45, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

NMMNG, of course it is not Synth, because I'm not proposing to put Jorgic v. Germany in the article. I am going to put the material that mentions Israeli settler colonialism and its connection to ethnic cleansing and genocide in the article. I mentioned the Jorgic v. Germany case and the UN report to demonstrate that the crime of genocide does not require physical destruction of the group. Two of the constituent acts of the crime of genocide don't require that anyone be killed, i.e. preventing births in the group & taking children from the group and giving them to another group. Dr Martin Kramer recommended ending pro-natal subsidies to Gaza and set-off a firestorm of criticism, i.e. [14] [15] harlan (talk) 22:14, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

See this news article: "Israel's expansion of settlements in East Jerusalem and eviction of Palestinians from their homes there is a form of ethnic cleansing, a United Nations investigator said on Monday." [16] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:08, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Demographics – Any details?

For instance, do statistics of the settlers' religions exist? Are any other such characteristics available? -- 91.11.211.92 (talk) 19:37, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

If they are available anywhere I would have thought a good place try would be the Israel Central Bureau of Statistics. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:42, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Land ownership, and "Peace Now"'s report

I added the following argument about their report:

This report is disputed by the government, who argue it cannot have been privately owned, as it was "not under the legitimate sovereignty of any state".^[1] On the specific issue of Ma'ale Adumim, Peace Now faced criticism for downgrading their estimate of the proportion built on privately owned Palestinian land from 86%, to 0.5%.^[2] The group's revision was based on government information which had newly been released to them.^[3] Similarly, an initial figure of 71% of the land on which Revava being private Palestinian land was revised to 22% following the release of additional information, and 'The Fund for Redeeming the Land' sued the group for libel. Peace Now was convicted, ordered to pay the Fund 20,000 NIS, and to make a public apology in the newspapers Haaretz and Maariv.^[4]

A few minutes later the paragraph was erased stating that the sources are "Partisan", and that some of the points are about single settlements. I do not understand this reasoning - the sources are Ha'aretz, Camera and nrg, and one of the sources is the governmental site, bringing Israel's official's answer. I can't see what is bad with the sources, and even if for any reason one of the sources isn't considered reliable, that is not a reason to erase the whole paragraph. And the fact that part of the points discuss single settlements also is not a reason to erase the data, since in these cases it was proven that the "Peace Now" report was far from accurate. Editorprop (talk) 19:16, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

That is a fairly partisan way of framing things. The original Peace Now report on Ma'ale Adumim was based on leaked Israeli government documents. The Israeli government declined to release official documents and was sued by Peace Now. Peace Now won that lawsuit and the government released the requested documents. As a result of this, Peace Now corrected its numbers. This is the problem with depending on CAMERA and other similar sources. They may get certain things right, like Peace Now issued a correction for a prior estimate, but they slant it in such a way that the story is almost unrecognizable. And in the end, this isnt an article about Peace Now or their settlement reports. Peace Now has released up to date material based on official government records, including the Sasson report. That entire section needs to be rewritten so that it discusses the actual issue at hand, land ownership, not this pretend issue that is in any event not relevant to this article, that being the actual report. Also, though going in the wrong direction, the first sentence in your edit conflates unrelated ideas, one being whether or not the property was privately owned and the other being whether or not the property is on occupied territory. Under international law, a state may not transfer its own population into or the native population out of territory it holds under military occupation. This is the reason why nearly the entire world considers all Israeli settlements to be illegal under international law. That is not affected by whether or not the actual area that a settlement is built on is privately or publicly owned. Israel argues, most of the time, that Jordan was not a legal occupant of the West Bank and as such the West Bank is not occupied territory. That is why Israel "disputes" that the settlements themselves are illegal under international law. A separate topic is whether or not the actual land that a settlement was built on was illegally expropriated from a private owner. That is what the Peace Now reports deal with, property that was privately owned by Palestinians that was expropriated, in violation of Israeli, not international, law. nableezy - 19:46, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Link 52

The 52nd cited link is broken, I don't know how to fix it but if someone could either find the right link or take it down and the information taken from it that would be great! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.74.104.106 (talk) 12:56, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Colony vs Civilian Community

P I changed the opening sentences of the article and my edits were reverted. The original paragraph was:

An Israeli settlement is a Jewish civilian community built on land that was captured by Israel from Jordan, Egypt, and Syria during the 1967 Six-Day War and is considered occupied territory by the international community. Such settlements currently exist in the West Bank. Israeli neighborhoods in East Jerusalem and communities in the Golan Heights, areas which have been annexed by Israel, are considered settlements by the international community, which does not recognize Israel's annexations of these territories.

and I changed it to this:

An Israeli settlement is an Israeli colony illegally[1] built on land captured by Israel from Jordan, Egypt, and Syria during the 1967 Six-Day War. These colonies are built on occupied territory.[2] Such unlawful settlements currently exist in the West Bank. There are also Israeli colonies in East Jerusalem and communities in the Golan Heights, areas which have been annexed by Israel.

My rationale for rephrasing the paragraph was that you don't call dwellings on illegally occupied territories civilian communities but colonies.

Another reason is that the emotional impact of the former is little more than this:

The strike on Twin Towers on 11 September, 2001 was a violent act committed by some students getting pilot training in the United States. This led to the death of more than 3,000 people including the students after they knowingly smashed their planes in the buildings. The international community considers it an act of terrorism but this view is not universal and has its critics who claim the students acted out of frustration.

I was told to make my case here. That's good. So, anyone who thinks what I did was wrong? And kindly tell why? :)

Sin un nomine (talk) 14:50, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm copying this from my talk page as it belongs here. If you think the article and its lead do not give due weight to the view that these are colonies and the occupation is an act of colonization, you need to compile high quality (preferably academic) secondary sources that examine and describe this perspective, then make your case. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:16, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Demographics

I haven't found in the resources the data of the just 2300 Jews in East Jerusalem in 1948. According to the data in Demographics of Jerusalem the population in the whole Jerusalem was of 100 000 Jews, 40 000 Muslims and 25 000 Christians in the same year. --Enkiduk (talk) 19:04, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

How is it possible for any of the land on the West Bank to be 'Palestinian' owned? The land was annexed, ilegally, by Jordan in 1948 and handed to the PLO sometime after the 1967 War, again, illegally. Palestine has never existed as a separate, legal state. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.103.26.148 (talk) 19:45, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Settlements as colonies

Thank you, Shrike, for engaging in this discussion and for referring me to the “Due and undue weight” section of the Wikipedia NPOV advice. If you look a little further down on the NPOV page you will find the section on “Good research” which advises “Good and unbiased research, based upon the best and most reputable authoritative sources available, helps prevent NPOV disagreements. Try the library for reputable books and journal articles,...” This is what I have done (in line with the suggestion on this talk page on 20 Nov 2011). Any similar investigation would indicate to you that the settlements have quite commonly been characterised as colonies over a significant time period in a wide range of fields, as diverse as architecture, critical theory, cultural studies, geography, planning, peace and conflict studies, politics, social theory, as well as in non-academic discourse. This discussion is an important part of the discussion of Israeli settlements in Palestine and should be addressed.

I am not sure what you meant by “so accessible to me references don't say that settlement= colony.”? However to reassure you I have cited a definition of settlement as colony. (Baltzer, 2007:391)

Wikipedia NPOV also advises that “it may be appropriate to mention alternative names and the controversies over their use” and I hope we can do this in a scholarly manner, introducing the idea with a single word in the introduction and expanding it in later section, with an appropriate heading. I have replaced the reference to settlements as colonies and hope this will enable us to begin to properly represent discussion of the use of the word “colony” in the contexts of Israeli settlements.

I hope that you will contribute to this section by providing material which will help improve this article remembering that “Wikipedia describes disputes. Wikipedia does not engage in disputes.”

We also need to work together to improve this article in both organisation and reliability – there are too many assertions inadequately supported, for example does the definition of settlement as “civilian community” adequately areas such as Barkan near Salfit which is in effect an industrial settlement? This definition of Israeli settlement is not supported by any reference or citation so I think it is unreasonable to exclude the alternative description which is well supported. And most if not all of the settlement/colonies on the West Bank are populated by members of the Israeli military and are more heavily armed than any normal civilian community. Miriel2012 (talk) 08:26, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

First of all it shame that you didn't answered my question on the talk page. So I will ask it here too: “Did you ever edited Wikipedia under different user name?”. Second you was reverted so you instead of engaging in edit war that you currently are you should have used a talk page and only after reaching a consensus you should do any change please read wp:brd and kindly revert yourself.Third most of the sources use term Jewish settlement only minority of sources use term colony so per WP:UNDUE it shouldn't be in the lead. We could make a section how anti-Zionist and New Historian circles term Israeli civilian communities and Judea and Samaria but thier view is a minority view.--Shrike (talk) 17:00, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Miriel2012, setting aside the question regarding Wikipedia:Sock puppetry which you should answer on your talk page rather than here and the WP:BRD issue (which another user needs reminding of at Talk:State of Palestine, Talk:Palestinian territories and Talk:Gaza Strip), I think you are going about things the wrong way around. If you think the article should discuss the colonization/colony aspect (and I think it should), you should develop the article content first and leave the lead alone for the time being. The lead is both a summary of the article body and it should include significant alternative names per WP:LEAD. Since there is no content in the article body about this and nothing to indicate whether colony is a significant alternative term I don't think the term belongs in the lead right now. The article Settler colonialism may be of interest if you haven't seen it. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:36, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Also, for the record, I don't think someone like Rassem Khamaisi at the University of Haifa could be described as either an anti-Zionist or a New Historian even though he uses the term colonies. He's an Urban and Regional planner and Geographer. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:18, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

But as I understand its more political term so WP:RS should be backed by political scientist?--Shrike (talk) 18:24, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I think that's circular reasoning because it's based on the premise that colony is a political term. It's a bit like arguing that using a word is a sin therefore the sources discussing the word should be religious studies experts. Khamaisi, who I think is clearly a reliable source, isn't using the term in a politically charged way, he's using it as a geographer, but others do as you say. I think the politicization of the word for many is just one aspect of it in this context. This chapter in A companion to postcolonial studies has some useful background on the terminology. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:47, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

As Mirel2012 is not answering and not participating in talk moreover there is no consensus to include this word in the lead until there would be appropriate section in the the article that will solve the problem of WP:UNDUE I will delete this word. --Shrike (talk) 06:09, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Removal of map

A map showing Israeli settlements was removed here: [17], edit summary "20 year old map" but this is not a valid reason to remove the map. It shows Israeli settlements in the area as of 1992 and I am not aware of any newer map, and its presented as Israeli settlements as of 1992 and im not sure that new settlements has even been created there after 1992. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:27, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Jewish civilian communities

I can't understand why we can't just be honest about the nature of the settlement communities. I would be grateful if anyone trying to remove this phrase would explain what the issue is.

This is from the Israeli government website. [18] After the 1967 Six-Day War, the areas of Judea, Samaria and Gaza, as well as the Sinai peninsula, came under Israeli control. In the 1970s, a group called Gush Emunim dedicated itself to the establishment of Jewish settlements in Judea and Samaria, the heartland of the biblical Land of Israel and the places where events recounted in the Bible took place. After a protracted struggle, the government finally permitted settlement in these areas, until then populated solely by Arabs, and by the mid-1990s some 150,000 Jews lived in Judea, Samaria and the Gaza Strip. Dlv999 (talk) 18:02, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Why would you want to use a source that describes what wanted to be done 45 years ago to describe the current status quo?--brew crewer (yada, yada) 18:06, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Why would you put "wanted" in quotation marks to imply that it was included in the source when it obviously is not. The source is dated 2002 and describes "Jewish Settlement in the Land of Israel" up to the 21 century. Dlv999 (talk) 18:18, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I did not put "wanted" in quotation marks, I italicized the word for emphasis. But you unfortunately missed the point anyway. The source you are trying to utilize describes what the Gush Emunim "dedicated" (that's a quote, BTW) itself to do. You can't use that source to claim as the status quo.. As an analogy, yesterday I said to myself that I won't be editing Wikipedia again. But that does not mean I am not editing Wikipedia today even though I am telling you today what I wanted to do yesterday.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 18:33, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

You seem to have missed the second half of the quote: After a protracted struggle, the government finally permitted settlement in these areas, until then populated solely by Arabs, and by the mid-1990s some 150,000 Jews lived in Judea, Samaria and the Gaza Strip. the title of the piece is "Jewish Settlement in the Land of Israel". Dlv999 (talk) 18:42, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I am still waiting for a source that says Israeli settlements are for Jews only. Your implications and historic factoids do not suffice.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 18:48, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Can anyone shed any light on the IPs statement "non jews can and do live in settlements" ? Does one of the larger settlements have a Chinatown ? The Canadian IP 174.113.154.168 appears to be on a very important mission from multiple IPs (e.g. 99.237.236.218), and they have already filed a report at ANI as new editors usually do, so they may not have the time to elaborate on the edit summary. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:34, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

To respond to your latter point first, the IP is most likely a sock of a banned editor. On your first point, the burden is on the proponent to prove that the settlements are by law exclusively for Jewish citizens of Israel. Israeli law prohibits this type of --discrimination so I would be surprised this would be the law. In this source describing the racism faced by some Arab citizens that moved into a settlement we can discern that by law they are not disallowed from moving in. Indeed, the source describes how "1,300 of Pisgat Zeev's 42,000 residents [are] Arabs." --brew crewer (yada, yada) 18:45, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I think your confusing the issue a bit here. To say that settlements are Jewish communities does not necessarily mean that it is the law that makes them Jewish communities, there could be any number of reasons - racism for instance. Also your source says that "Majlaton is a Palestinian" not an Israeli, so if this is the source you are relying on your own proposed solution is inaccurate. Dlv999 (talk) 19:09, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I guess the source is sufficient to show that "a Jewish civilian community" is imprecise in at least one case though so perhaps there is room for improvement in the wording/sourcing. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:39, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I would say the Jewish civilian community is a defining characteristic. As a thought experiment, let's just say that all the Jews moved out of Pisgat Zeev, would it remain an Israeli settlement, or would it simply be a Palestinian neighborhood in East Jerusalem under Israeli occupation? Also, the source does not use the word "settlement" so it is unclear whether or not the source feels that Pisgat Zeev is a settlement or not. Dlv999 (talk) 20:07, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Its a WP:REDFLAG issue so we need a good WP:RS for it--Shrike (talk) 20:54, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Anyhow the most common term is Israeli settlement obviously.--Shrike (talk) 21:08, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Just to clarify Shrike, are you suggesting the first sentence of the lead should be an Israeli settlement is an Israeli settlement...? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dlv999 (talk • contribs) 21:19, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

The best option would be without any qualifier I am also OK with "Israeli civilian community" --Shrike (talk) 13:15, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi, maybe I can help. If I understood Shrike correctly, the suggestion is the first sentence of the lead should be an Israeli settlement is an Israeli civilian community..., replacing the current word "Jewish" with "Israeli". Aslbsl (talk) 12:16, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Its not only my suggestion but of other editors too becouse there are many non Jews that lives in settlements too.--Shrike (talk) 13:09, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Shrike, do you have an RS for this claim? Dlv999 (talk) 13:30, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Shrike should look for a reference anyway, but is there a RS saying that only Jews live there? Aslbsl (talk) 13:43, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I am currently looking for RS to support the statement an Israeli settlement is a Jewish civilian community... so far I have two:-

Kathleen Uradnik, Lori A. Johnson (2009), pg 338 [19] "An Israeli settlement is a Jewish community on land that was captured by Israel during the Six-Day War."
Mark Tessler (2009), pg 469 [20] "The government also began to construct Jewish neighborhoods in former Arab areas, some of which were explicitly designed to give newly acquired sections of the city more Jewish character, and some of which were intended to create a physical barrier between East Jerusalem and the rest of the West Bank. Another set of modifications in the postwar territorial situation involved the construction of Jewish settlements in the occupied territories, in addition to those associated with Israel's annexation of East Jerusalem.....Settlement activity after the June War was also undertaken by Israelis committed to permanent retention of the West Bank and Gaza. These Israelis referred to the the former territory by Biblical designations of Judea and Samaria, terms employed for the deliberate purpose of asserting that the territorial claims of Jews predate those of Arabs, and also to create subtle but important symbolic distinction between East Jerusalem and the rest of the West Bank...... these Israelis sought to construct civilian communities that would create a Jewish demographic presence in the occupied areas..." Dlv999 (talk) 14:27, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

The first source is a school text book so scratch that. The second source does not add anything we don't know already. The intention was to "Judaize" the areas of Judea and Samaria, of course. However the description of a settlement cannot go by what it was intended to be. The fact is (as seen in the newspaper article about Pisgat Zev) settlements are not Jewish civilian communities, but Israeli civilian communities. This elementary fact has been explained a whole bunch of times already. Please review WP:DEADHORSE and WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT. Best, --brew crewer (yada, yada) 14:44, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Your Pisgat Zev newspaper report does not mention settlements as I have already pointed out. It refers to a "Jerusalem neighborhood of Pisgat Zeev" that was "built for Jews". The question is, does the fact of Palestinian presence in a neighborhood "built for Jews", mean that it is no longer classed as a settlement. It seems the source believes so, because it never calls Pisget Zev a settlement. It is your own synth that this is a settlement with Palestinian inhabitants. Also your source says that Pisgat Zeev has "Palestinian" residents, so it certainly can't be used to justify the "Israeli civilian community" claim. Dlv999 (talk) 14:57, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm, I am having a hard time finding any indication that non-Jews live in these settlements. Of course, Messianic Jews are often not considered Jews by Israeli law and are present in the settlements, but I do not think that should really be considered since most non-Jews consider them Jewish to an extent. The only mentions I can find of other groups mention workers or guards with no indication of whether they live there or commute.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:08, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

The Pisgat Zeev example was already brought--Shrike (talk) 16:30, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't think an East Jerusalem settlement should be considered too meaningful in this case. There are no clear boundaries with the East Jerusalem settlements like there are with the West Bank settlements and the Jewish community reacted with some hostility towards even that small number of Arabs moving there. It should be noted further that these are not Arab settlers from some other part of Israel, but people living nearby.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:39, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Also it has already been noted that the article does not call Pisgat Zeev a settlement. The RS refers to it as a neighborhood. Claims that this is proof of Palestinians living in settlements are pure synth. Dlv999 (talk) 16:49, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Not that it helps much, but interestingly, if you look at 2.7 Localities and Population, by District, Sub-District, Religion and Population Group from the Statistical Abstract of Israel 2010, there is a demographic breakdown for "Judea and Samaria", total pop=296,700 of which 289,900 are classified as Jews -> 97.7%. I'm curious who the 2.3% are. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:03, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Maybe American Christians [21] [22]? Tiamut^talk 17:13, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

This statistic doesn't include East Jerusalem and Golan.Btw my guess it may be a not-Jews that were brought to Israel because the Law of Return--Shrike (talk) 17:33, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Here's a smattering of sources that discuss the settlements as "Jewish settlements": BBC1, BBC2, The Independent, The Telegraph, Le Monde, Le Figaro, New York Times, Israel Today and Prime Minister Netanyahu, quoted in the Jerusalem Post. The two French sources say "colonies juives" which is "Jewish colonies" to be exact. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 19:48, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I have been thinking maybe we should preface it with "predominantly" to account for the very small minority who may be non-Jews. That or we could reword it to emphasize that they are intended to be settled by Jews exclusively, I imagine sourcing would not be difficult in that respect.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:06, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion saying they are "Jewish communities" does not mean there is necessarily 100% Jews. 97.7% Jewish is a Jewish community - there are just occasional non-Jews living in a Jewish community. But more importantly, there are RS that refer to them as "Jewish settlements". Unless someone has a source that directly contradicts the sources using "Jewish settlement" I don't see that there is justification for a change. So far all that has been produced is the Pisgat Zeev article - but it does not call Pisgat Zeev a settlement, it calls it a neighborhood, so it is synth to try to use this as proof of non-jews living in settlements. Dlv999 (talk) 22:09, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

@TDA. I support your "predominantly" (or any other similar wording) but am unable to find a specific source in support of such wording despite the fact that it's the truth. If you are aware of any such source please do share. Thanks.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 22:05, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

We don't need a source using that exact word. A source that verifies the claim is sufficient. If someone looks at a source that shows a demographic breakdown of the settlements and it clearly demonstrates the validity of the word then WP:V has been satisfied.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 19:31, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

What is the nation of citizenship of 100% of the settlers? Hcobb (talk) 22:43, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

@DC. I don't see how your sources change anything. Googling the phrase "Jewish settlement" will undoubtedly churn out lots of news articles. However try googling "Israeli settlements" and you'll get plenty more. The latter term is the actual name of the article, is more neutral, and is not in conflict with any sources. Therefore the opening description should remain "Israelis" instead of "Jews." They yellow badging is unnecessary and not as consistent with the sources.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 02:41, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Please point to me a single source that conflicts with "Jewish civilian communities". We know they are Israeli settlements, that is why the article is called Israeli settlement. Describing the Jewish character of the settlements adds more information per cited sources. I am yet to see a source that contradicts the claim. As pointed out the Pisgat Zeev article does not refers to Pisgat Zeev as a neighborhood, it is your own synth that to use this for claims about settlements. Also it refers to "Palestinian" residents not Arab Israelis. Dlv999 (talk) 08:32, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

The Israeli communities in the Judea and Samaria Area are not exclusive of non-Jews. Xians in Ariel. --Shuki (talk) 18:29, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I wonder how many followers of Messianic Judaism live in the settlements...I assume that is what the family in the article follow. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:53, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

The target of the Ariel bombing is a non-Jewish pastor who visits followers in the surrounding Arab villages. I couldn't quickly find much about messianics, and the congregations listed on the net are in the big cities, with only one mailing address in M Adumim. But I know that more info could be found on blogs and other non-RS sites. On top of that, while the two Haredi cities of Modiin and Beitar Illit are virutally Jewish only by nature, as well as the vast majority of the religious villages, the other two non-religious cities of messianic and Maale Adumim have sizable ex-pat Russian and Ukranian immigrants. Though not the majority, there is nonetheless many mixed marriages of Jews and non-Jews. I wouldn't bother to talk about the Jerusalem neighbourhoods in the context of this discussion but you would, and that would definitely contradict the claim that settlements are homogeneous Jewish communities, especially given the somewhat recent trend of middle class Arab Israelis moving into places like French Hill. --Shuki (talk) 20:18, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

According to RS, the victims of the Ariel bombing, the Ortiz family are Messianic Jews The Ortizes are Jews who believe that Jesus was the Messiah.. Here is another RS discussing the Ortiz family's messianic Judaism [23]. I would be interested to know if you have any RS that would conflict with the statement that "Israeli settlements are Jewish civilian communities". Also, the Arabs living in places like French Hill are not Israelis, they are Palestinians living under Israeli occupation. Dlv999 (talk) 21:47, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Great, thanks for destroying your credibility. You demand an RS from me and then make a statement that is at best a generalization but most likely completely inaccurate. --Shuki (talk) 00:09, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Try reading the cited RS for the French Hill article you linked in your previous post. e.g. "The trigger for these movements has been the construction of the West Bank security barrier in and around Jerusalem. "One effect of the barrier is the movement of tens of thousands of Palestinians from outside Jerusalem to inside municipal Jerusalem. We know about such cases, especially in Neveh Ya'acov, Pisgat Ze'ev, Armon Hanatziv and East Talpiot," says Haim Ehrlich, coordinator of policy and advocacy at Ir Amim, an NGO that promotes equality among Jews and Arabs in Jerusalem. "Why? It's very simple," says Ehrlich. "Firstly, the Palestinian neighborhoods in east Jerusalem are very overcrowded and are therefore becoming very expensive. Secondly, the quality of life is much better in Jewish neighborhoods. We're speaking about basic facilities like garbage [collection] and public services. For Palestinians who are educated and middle class, it's better for them to pay an extra $50 or $100 a month for a much better standard of living." Ziad Al-Hamouri, head of the Jerusalem Center for Economic and Social Rights, concurs: "All the pressure put on the shoulders of the Palestinians because of the wall is frightening people that their [Israeli] identity cards will be taken away [if they live outside the barrier]. This is what is behind the movements."[24]. Or you could read the Pisgat Zeev article already linked and discussed in this thread [25] Dlv999 (talk) 08:36, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Brewcrewer, would you then propose to say that "Israeli settlements are Israeli settlements"? I think the point here is that the first sentence of the lead should describe the settlements in terms that add a bit of colour to the title of the article. I provided a list of RS that call them "Jewish settlements" and we know also that they were explicitly founded as "Jewish" on order to Judaize the occupied territories (there are RS to this effect too). Therefore it's slightly beside the point if 5% of the inhabitants are in fact non-Jewish. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 21:19, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous. More reading material on non-Jews living in Israeli settlements:

The first source there is a Wikipedia article, the second one discusses one non-Jewish person and the third link points to an index. As a related point, I don't see in this thread any arguments as to why a settlement with, say, 95% Jews isn't a "Jewish settlement". "Jewish settlement" isn't the same as "100.0% Jewish settlement". Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 20:37, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I think we can resolve both of our problems by simply stating something along the lines that is is "predominantly Jewish." I just can't seem to find the sourcing for that or any similar wording. Regardless, we can't use vaguely written newspaper articles headlines to support the opening sentence of an encyclopedia article when it is factually incorrect, as demonstrated by the abundant sources.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 20:49, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I don't think we need sources for that wording. It is possible to find primary sources about the demographic make up of each community in Israel. DC, in the past, I had cataloged the religious settlements as such. In essence, these are the 'Jewish settlements' because they are maintained according to the Torah while other non-religious settlements are secular. We might also get into the discussion about whether the Jewish descriptor is suggesting a lifestyle, culture, national description, or demographic religion status. --Shuki (talk) 21:44, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Shuki AND brewcrewer are cheating the rules. Off course you must have a source for your changes. You IN ADDITION must have consensus. You have no source and no consensus, but you cheat your change in to the article's lede. That is against the rules! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nassiriya (talk • contribs) 15:46, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Found a good academic source on this :- "The accelerated development of community settlements in the Galilee and the Negev (and later in the West Bank) symbolized the deepening spatial separation, not only between Jews and Arabs but also between different groups within Jewish society. The “gray” areas of law could be exploited to enable the state to prevent Arab citizens from living in community settlements, and communities themselves to select members. The selection process and the relatively high prices made these settlements into Jewish, middle -, and upper-class communities. In addition, many of the projects of community settlements in the Galilee and the Negev came to a large extent at the expense of the Palestinian population, as they were built on land expropriated (or in dispute), were exclusively Jewish and were not matched by Arab new settlements. (Pg 59)

"The war of 1967 opened to Israeli society new spaces for settlement in the occupied territories. The national-religious movement of Gush Emunim was convinced that the 1967 war was an act of God and from the mid-1970s onward made the West Bank the preferred frontier of settlement. National and territorial ideas that characterized Zionism since its inception now combined with messianic ideas to create mechanisms of settlement driven by religious conception, supported by the government, especially after the political revolution of 1977. In less than twenty years Israeli governments established over 130 community settlements in the occupied territories. In fact, the settlements copied the typical “yishuv kehilati” – the Jewish suburb of the Galilee and the Negev." Pg 65 [26]; Text can be viewed at google Books [27] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dlv999 (talk • contribs) 18:14, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Dlv, I hope you really don't think we are idiots. We brought evidence from RS showing that the settlements are in fact not exclusively Jewish, so there is no point in bringing claims which are in fact false. Brewcrewer suggested a compromise and you are showing that you cannot be a collaborative partner in editing this article. --Shuki (talk) 21:47, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I have to admit when I see someone posting a wikipedia page about Jewish immigration to Israel to "prove" that non-Jews live in settlements I start to wonder. Arutz sheva is not a reliable source and in any case the story is unclear whether the individual legitimately immigrated to Israel through Jewish ancestry or fraudulently immigrated in which case he will presumably face deportation. The final link does not lead to a story. I have already pointed out the holes in the Pisgat Zeev source, which no-one has addressed. 1) the source does not refer to settlements (that is the SYNTH of editors) 2) the source refers to Palestinian residents not Arab Israelis, so cannot be used to support "Israeli civilian communities". Another claimed source turned out to be about a family of messianic Jews. If I have missed any of the claimed sources please point them out - but it seems to me that the paucity of evidence presented shows that you are really scrapping around the bottom of the barrel on this one. I have provided a cast iron academic source and you refuse to even acknowledge it. Dlv999 (talk) 21:59, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Sheesh. So, er, right. Wikipedia will claim that all settlements are 100% Jewish because you found two very poor sources that don't say it either. Maybe we can assume that most if not all settlements were founded by Jews (please bring source), but reality shows that they are no longer exclusively Jewish (again, you ignored my suggestion asking if 'Jewish' is a religion or a culture). You have not brought any sources claiming that 'Israeli settlements' are exclusively Jewish and therefore your continued reverting of the first line of the article is POV and your OR. --Shuki (talk) 22:37, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that people are ignoring references that have been provided here that showed non-Jews living in Israeli settlements. People are coming here with their minds made up about what they want to believe, and even when the references prove otherwise, they ignore them. How can you try to build consensus with people being so uncollaborative? The sources have clearly showed that non-Jews live in the settlements, so calling them Jewish settlements is obviously misleading. Any uninformed reader who sees that phrase will conclude that only Jews are allowed to live in the settlements. As the sources have shown, this is false. It's really quite simple. 99.237.3.66 (talk) 20:51, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Sources in different countries use the term "Jewish settlements", so I don't see what the problem is using the term here. Even Netanyahu uses "Jewish settlements". Some of the discussion here sounds like people trying to explain the sources away. That's not what we're supposed to do, rather we should write in articles what sources say. Whether non-Jews live there isn't the point. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 20:59, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

We can always opt for saying Jewish (97.7% in 2010) or something along those lines. That figure is just for the West Bank, but you get the idea. We could opt for precision. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:18, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Sean. we need more of your level-headedness here. Brewcrewer already suggested a compromise "predominantly Jewish.". That is fine with me as well. --Shuki (talk) 18:54, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

"Since the signing of the Oslo Accords in 1993, no new settlements have been established in the occupied territories.[16]"

The above statement currently appears in the lead with a single unattributed citation to the ADL website [28].

I have done a little digging and there are numerous significant opinions published in RS that contradict the claim:-

In the past few months, Israeli settlement agencies and settler organizations have set up the nuclei of three dozen new settlements, according to two Israeli groups that monitor construction and oppose the program. A Western diplomat estimated the number at 40. The Washington Post, 2002
Gordan, Neve (University of California Press, 2008) pg 193 [29]
Joel Beinin, Rebecca L. Stein (Stanford University Press; 2006) pg 188-189 [30]
Mehran Kamrava (University of California Press, 2011) pg 247 [31]
Since 1993, Israel has established thirty new settlements in the Occupied Territories. Seventeen of these were established just prior to and after the signing of the Wye Memorandum. B'tselem (1999)
The Israeli group Peace Now says Israel has built several new settlements since Prime Minister Ariel Sharon took power. CBC, 2004
Haaretz news report on Israeli government legalisation of illegal settler outposts built since 1993 (2011)

In my opinion at the very least, the claim should be attributed to the ADL and all significant opinions published in RS should also be presented. Dlv999 (talk) 11:38, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I would say that, rather than having the article say that the ADL says that no new settlements have been built whereas other sources say that is not true, the line should just be deleted. There's no date on the ADL source, so the chances are that the validity of the statement has expired with the passage of time. The only other likelihood is that the ADL is maintaining that any new building has involved expanding existing settlements rather than establishing new ones (or, as Zero has pointed out below, the ADL may be using a restrictive definition of what a settlement is - 13:58, 25 March 2012 (UTC)). The Lead is supposed to summarise the detail, yet nowhere in the rest of the article is it claimed that no new settlements have been established since the Oslo accords. ← ZScarpia 12:16, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree, deletion of the line is the best option at present. There is a section at the bottom of the article on "new settlement construction". If this issue is to be included in the article it should be introduced to this section in a balanced way, per RS. Dlv999 (talk) 12:28, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

What's going on here is spin regarding the word "settlement". Most of the new settlements are called "illegal outposts" by the Israeli government (which nevertherless supports almost all of them), so people like the ADL can pretend they don't count. Zero^talk 12:48, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

The misunderstanding is the continued vague use of the term 'settlements'. The line should stay in but clarified if you have a better source. It is similar to leaving in all the sources who make claims about the tens of roadblocks that maybe existed during the 2000s but don't anymore, and there are no good sources to confirm that either with the current number. I think actually that the Israeli government has not recognized new settlements since 2001? I cannot recall the actual year, maybe around Ehud Barak's term. There is the issue of the outposts which are not recognized yet, but this is mostly an issue of government bureacracy (in fact, Shilo was only recognized two weeks ago and I think Har Bracha still has no official status). The issue of illegal outposts is not black and white either. The most famous illegal one was the eight homes in Amona, and there have been many outposts destroyed over the recent winter. Migron is in the news now since the court demanded it destroyed, and there is pressure on the government to legalize it (that's what governments can do). --Shuki (talk) 19:40, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

The sentence is unacceptable for several reasons. (1) The ADL is not a reliable source for such facts, in fact it does not even claim expertise on things like this. (2) The article in question has been on the ADL website for at least 10 years, so even if we cited it there would need to be a qualifier like "up to 2002" that would make it pretty useless. (3) As noted above, there is widespread source evidence against the ADL claim. (4) The distinction between "settlement" and "outpost" is a sort of game played by the settlers and the government and we are not bound to follow it. Shilo is an example you mention, pretty much every good source calls it a settlement because that's what it is. Zero^talk 23:18, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Per your logic, I've started to remove other 10+ year non-RS sources with outdated claims. --Shuki (talk) 05:12, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Shuki, you are not following Zero's logic by deleting references. Per WP:RS, each reference should be assessed on it's own merits for the statement that it is being used for. Zero has highlighted a number of reasons why the ADL source is unsuitable for what it was used for. Your own deletions are problematic because 1)The HRW reference was used for a statement attributed to HRW, which is perfectly acceptable (note the issue with the ADL citation, was that it was used for unattributed fact in the Wiki voice) 2) Something that has happened 10 years ago, has still happened today and a source that describes it 10 years ago is still valid (although it may be preferable to add more recent sources). The issue with the ADL source is that it was being used for a statement that claimed something hadn't happened (which after 10 years may or may not still be the case). Dlv999 (talk) 09:01, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Then it should have been attributed to ADL and not deleted.--Shrike (talk) 09:28, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

That would address one of the issues with the source, but a number of other issues would still be outstanding. See Zero's last post above. If the sentence is to be included, it should first be introduced to the appropriate section (new settlement construction). It should be noted however, that if it is introduced to this section it will be accompanied by a passage detailing all the sources and organisations that have contradicted the claim (for a feel of the sources see the first post in this thread). Dlv999 (talk) 09:38, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Dlv, I've requested you be officially notified of ARBPIA. There is an issue under discussion now, you reinserted terminology that is not in the source, and all of that by not violating 1RR by six minutes. [32] I would suggest reverting your last edit as a sign of good faith. Thanks. --Shuki (talk) 14:52, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Did you mean to put your request on the Requests talkpage rather than the Requests page itself? Also, are you aware of WP:POINT? Also, it looks to me that, while complaining that Div came close to exceeding the 1RR limit, you have actually exceeded the 1RR limit yourself. ← ZScarpia 15:20, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Since Shuki asked me. The ADL remark is dated 1997. The Oslo Accords were signed Dec 1993 (from memory), so even were it correct, it would refer to 3-4 years of the nearly two decades of settlement activity, and, ipso facto as useless as tits on a bull, outdated. 27 new settlement outposts were approved from the signing of the Wye Plantation agreements(1996), and a further 15 won approval after Sharon took over in March 2001, to note just a few. This is fatuously silly, since any 2 second net search will reveal that the ADF statistic is deceptively outdated.Nishidani (talk) 15:34, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Outposts and settlements are different things, and if anyone is playing semantic games here, it is Zero000, who pretends the Israeli gov't supports them , which is a lie. The outposts are illegal, even under Israeli law, and the Israeli supreme court has ruled they need to be dismantled. All Rows4 (talk) 16:44, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

According to the Anti Defamation League, since the signing of the Oslo Accords in 1993 and through 2002, no new settlements were established in the occupied territories.[

(a)The sentence you remoulded, from an outdated source, is ungrammatical
(b) the linked to the ADL page gives a 1997 copyright. So how your date 2002 fits into a page copyrighted 5 years before is unclear
(c) The lead definition runs:
'An Israeli settlement is a Jewish civilian community built on land that was captured by Israel from Jordan, Egypt or Syria during the 1967 Six-Day War. Such settlements currently exist in the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and in the Golan Heights.'
That construed by any any native speaker of English means what it means: it does not stipulate a difference between legal and illegal settlements. An illegal outpost is still 'a Jewish civilian community built' on Palestinian land.
Since the ADL text is severely challenged, its reframing ungrammatical, the facts false,and the reasons given captious hairsplitting without textual basis, I shall revert your edit if only for the encyclopedic end of ensuring that wikipedia does not publish false information. Nishidani (talk) 17:27, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

[ec] The Israeli courts have ruled that outposts should be dismantled; but that doesn't establish that the Israeli government or armed forces have not assisted the outposts, nor that the ADL's statement is reliable.

Take the Migron outpost:

Haaretz, Migron case only reveals tip of Israel's occupation iceberg":

"But Migron is just the tip of the iceberg. It is the tip of the iceberg of outposts and settlements built on Palestinian land. It is the tip of the iceberg in terms of how the government turns a blind eye or even cooperates with the unauthorized outposts. It is a tip of the iceberg in terms of ignoring High Court rulings.:

The Guardian, Israeli court rules against illegal settlement:

"The state submitted the delay petition this month, seeking to bypass the high court's earlier order to dismantle the Migron outpost by 31 March because it was built on privately held Palestinian land."
"On Sunday, the court ruled that accepting the state's agreement would be tantamount to flouting the rule of law."
"Some hardline lawmakers said they would promote legislation to skirt around the ruling although previous attempts at legislation have failed."
"Settlers claim Arab plaintiffs have not proven ownership of the land and note that government officials helped them to set up their outpost, even though it was not officially sanctioned."
"Israel promised the US more than a decade ago to dismantle two dozen outposts built after 2001, including Migron. But violent clashes with settlers over the destruction of isolated structures, combined with political and legal obstacles, discouraged the government from honouring its pledge."
"While Israel has given its authorisation to more than 120 settlements, outposts like Migron do not have even that level of legitimacy because their construction was not officially sanctioned. Even so the government has hooked them up to utility grids and has sent soldiers to protect them."

Haaretz, Timeline / A history of the West Bank outpost of Migron:

"July 2003: The Housing Ministry funds infrastructure work at the outpost and prepares building plans."

And there is at least one case of an outpost being retroactively authorised. Take the case of Shvut Rachel:

Alternative Information Center, Israel Legalises Settlement Outpost in West Bank:

"Shvut Rachel, one of the oldest and largest settler outposts in the West Bank, was recently legalised by Israel"
"The founders of Shvut Rachel grabbed Palestinian land without holding appropriate Israeli authorisation, counting instead on “the support of various government ministries, the army and the Civil Administration,” as BT’selem reports."
"The funding and support provided from private donors, and from the Israeli government via West Bank regional councils, help to construct infrastructure and eventually to transform the outpost into a permanent settlement."
"Peace Now activists are currently pushing for an investigation of this move, which overturns Israeli official policy to not transform outposts into new settlements. Against this charge the Israeli Defence Ministry defended itself, telling AP that 'Shvut Rachel is not an isolated outpost but a neighbourhood of Shilo settlement.'"
"The two settlements of Shvut Rachel and Shilo are about half a mile apart and this is part of the clear strategy of settlers, who establish their outposts close to recognised settlements. What the Defence Ministry’s statement highlights is the common Israeli practice of using the outposts to increase settlement activity: the outposts are authorised and merged into existing settlements with the claim that no new settlements have been created. If this subtle policy of settlement expansion is illegal according to the international law, it also clashes both with a 2005 Israeli government-commissioned report that classifies Shvut Rachel as an outpost – and not as a ‘neighbourhood of Shilo’ – and with the promise of then Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon to dismantle any outpost."

← ZScarpia 17:56, 26 March 2012 (UTC) (expanded: 22:18, 26 March 2012 (UTC))

ZScarpia, the requests page is the 'talk' page of the AE. I did not want to take Dlv to AE so I made a request. I also suggest that you and Nishidani analyse my edits on the article, prove I violated 1RR and then when you cannot, respectfully retract your misleading and aggressive accusation that I violated 1RR. False accusations which incite the battleground are grounds for taking you to AE as well. --Shuki (talk) 17:19, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

19:46, 25 March 2012 Reversion #1
22:44, 25 March 2012‎ (+ 2hr 58min) Reversion #2
05:08, 26 March 2012‎ and 05:10, 26 March 2012‎ (+ 9hr 24min) Reversion #3

← ZScarpia 18:08, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

The third 'reversion' is not a reversion at all, merely a copyedit. And saying that the 2nd 'reversion' is a reversion of my own 'Reversion #1'? Do you even know what 1RR means? I guess not. --Shuki (talk) 18:52, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Final comment? ← ZScarpia 19:02, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Please tell me about what? Commenting quite civily about the English comprehension of other editors here, you brought to this discussion about including the line about 'no new settlements' many bits of information about Migron and Shvut Rachel that are not relevant to the discussion and I was going to ask you what you are commenting on. And if you asking about something else, than my friendly final comment is that you should take that into consideration that everyone in this section will be sanctioned including you if you keep up with the battleground mentality. --Shuki (talk) 21:34, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

A Battleground mentality consists in asserting against the evidence, easily gathered by googling for 1 minute (I got 19 RS sources), that an outdated piece of false data trumps good up-to-date sources. Just one.

‘Between 1993 and 1999, settlers established 42 “unofficial” settlements, only four of which were subsequently dismantled. . More than a dozen new settlements were established between the 1998 Wye Accords and the outbreak of war, although former Prime Minister Netanyahu supposedly promised Clinton that he would half expansion.'Anthony H. Cordesman, Jennifer Moravitz The Israeli-Palestinian war: escalating to nowhere, Greenwood Publishing Group , Center for Strategic and International Studies, 2005 p.433. So please desist from POV editing, and stick to known facts in RS. Thank you.Nishidani (talk) 13:17, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Surely, you must have noticed that this discussion has been sidelined and the collaboration here non-existent, with four POV editors making edits without bothering to take this discussion seriously. I also would like to mention that your editing has returned to the same level of combative POV insertion as before your major ban. This is the old Nishidani I remember. --Shuki (talk) 23:44, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

For students of lexicography, 'combative POV insertion' here means avoiding nationalist efforts to whitewash the historical record and astroturf wiki's readership in believing that carpet-bagging never takes place. It means, describing what happens as a chosen people's representatives strangle an indigenous population's right to a dignified poverty on their own historic lands. I don't have an 'ethnic-restrictive' sense of conscience, Shuki. I read Kant as a boy, and thought his categorical imperative, '"Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law.", came straight out of Hillel the Elder's 'That which is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow. That is the whole Torah.' You might, but I doubt it, mull for a nanosecond his follow up: 'go and learn'. If editing the facts in is in violation of some wiki rule, by all means make a report, instead of wasting time on the talk page making ungrounded insinuations. Nishidani (talk) 09:02, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

In the Sasson Report (2005?), she makes a statement that a careless reader could understand like the ADL one: "I have not found a single government or committee resolution, since the beginning of the nineties, to establish a new settlement in the territories". The non-careless reader will notice the catch: instead of making new "legal" settlements, over a hundred "outposts" were established with the massive support of government departments and agencies. Then she documents in detail how this support was provided. This is the sort of thing that should be in the article, rather than ADL's outdated, ignorant, and misleading sentence. Zero^talk 13:00, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Zero, you've obviously missed most of the discussion here. If anything is misleading, it is your latest comments about the ADL sentence, which like most RS, was factual at the time it was printed. You're welcome to contribute to the WP project. Just be careful to avoid OR (your personal interpretation of the Sasson Report), attribute claims properly and not insert your POV into articles. As for Nishidani, you have still not retracted your accusation that I violated 1RR. Instead of trying to accuse me of something vague, just come out and say it. Keeping up this animosity is merely misleading other non-careless readers. Thanks. --Shuki (talk) 20:39, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

(a)'misleading other non-careless readers' consists in attributing to me an accusation (that you violated IRR) when the point was made by ZScarpia, with whom you confuse me unaccountably. (b)The ADL page, please read the thread as you advise others to do, was not, uh,'factual at the time it was printed' (1997). It wasn't even 'printed'. So I will repeat what you refuse to read:

‘Between 1993 and 1999, settlers established 42 “unofficial” settlements, only four of which were subsequently dismantled. . More than a dozen new settlements were established between the 1998 Wye Accords and the outbreak of war, although former Prime Minister Netanyahu supposedly promised Clinton that he would half expansion.'Anthony H. Cordesman, Jennifer Moravitz The Israeli-Palestinian war: escalating to nowhere, Greenwood Publishing Group , Center for Strategic and International Studies, 2005 p.433

(c) As regards your use of English, 'animosity' does not mean 'punctiliousness'. Nishidani (talk) 09:08, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

This might be of interest. "Peace Now, an Israeli anti-settlement group, said the change of the three outposts' status marked the first time since 1990 that the Israeli government had established a new settlement, adding that the four-man committee did not have the authority to approve the change." No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:05, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Here is a BBC story on the same issue. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 19:14, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I seem to be missing where that BBC article talks about new settlements and when they were established. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:46, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Same date, same settlements, same story, the BBC even uses Reuters photo. The problem is everyone is playing semantic games over this. These are not new settlements, they are certainly not the only new settlements since 1990. What they are is the only "illegal outposts" (i.e. unofficial settlements) that the Israeli government has recognized since 1990. Since the government supports "illegal outposts" (i.e. unofficial settlements) in myriad ways and very very rarely removes any at all, the legality/outpost/settlement issue is more of a semantic game than anything meaningful on the ground. Dlv999 (talk) 20:34, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Peace Now (which I don't think anyone can suspect of supporting the government on settlements) quite specifically says these are the first since 1990. The BBC does not specifically address the issue. That's what we have in reliable sources. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:43, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Peace now also says there are over 100 of these so called illegal settler outposts. I think the import of this story is that the Isreali government has established a mechanism to make them official. Outside of Israel of course this distinction between settlements and outposts is pretty meaningless, as they are all supported by the Israeli government and they are all considered illegal under international law. Dlv999 (talk) 08:13, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I understand that you think there's no difference, but for the purpose of putting information in this encyclopedia, Peace Now's opinion matters and yours doesn't.

I also believe that someone got topic banned over this issue, and he deserves an apology. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 08:26, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I have RS to support my position: "According to Peace Now, there are more than 100 "illegal" outposts at various stages of development in the West Bank, which were set up by various Israeli governments since the 1990s in an unofficial and illegal manner. Israel only considers settlement outposts to be illegal, but the international community views all settlements as unlawful, whether approved by the government or not."[33]. Per the source inside Israel there is a distinction between outposts and settlements this is why an Israeli NGO, Peace now, says this is the first tie Israel has "established" new settlements. But Peace now is also saying that various Israeli governments have been establishing settlement outposts (now over 100). Dlv999 (talk) 08:40, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

You seem to not be understanding me. Your opinion on why Peace Now made the statement you don't like is irrelevant. They obviously make a distinction and so should this article. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 09:02, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

If you want to add that peace now have said that these are the first new settlements since 1990 that is fine. But I will also add that peace now have said that "various Israeli governments since the 1990s" have set up over 100 settlement outposts and that the international community considers all settlements (i.e. official settlements and settlement outposts) to be illegal. Dlv999 (talk) 09:16, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

<- Here[34] is the LA Times using the words interchangably and not interchangably in the same article.

Israel tries to save West Bank settlements it vowed to dismantle
Israel's government is scrambling to find ways to save some of the unauthorized West Bank settlements it once promised to dismantle, including some that are built partly on private Palestinian land.
The new strategy seeks to retroactively legalize some outposts and, in other cases, relocate Jewish settlers to nearby land that is not privately owned, in effect creating what critics say would be the first new West Bank settlements in years.
Though most of the world views all Jewish settlements in the West Bank as illegal, Israel makes a distinction between settlements it has approved and those, known as outposts, that arose over the last 20 years. <- note that this sentence says, via the combination of settlements+and those, that outposts are a type of settlement

I don't think it's worth wasting time on these terminology issues. An outpost is a type of settlement as far as many sources/things/people are concerned. Sometimes they are described as settlements, sometimes they aren't, so you can count them in a number of ways. We're supposed to be clarifying things for the readers rather than adding to the confusion. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:54, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Clarifying things for the reader would be to explain there are two kinds of things and that not only the Israeli government makes that distinction. That some newspapers are lazy and sometimes don't make the distinction doesn't mean we need to fuzz it too when we know otherwise. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 09:02, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

"Two kind of things" is not what we are dealing with because one is a subset of the other. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:07, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

One is not a subset of the other, as can be seen by the Peace Now statement I posted above. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 09:16, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

From Peace Now's website: "“Outpost” is a term for describing how the settlers “pull the wool over our eyes” by establishing settlements despite the fact that, in 1996, the government of Israel pledged not to build any more of them. In reality, outposts are new settlements. Today, there are more than 100 outposts throughout the West Bank. Around 50 were established after March 2001."[35] Dlv999 (talk) 09:21, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

The meaning of "outpost" versus "settlement" should be explained on the page since readers might come here for this information. However we are not required to ourselves respect this word game that is employed for political purposes. Zero^talk 09:44, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Indeed and here's a suitable expert source, Professor Elisha Efrat from the Department of Geography and the Human Environment, Tel-Aviv University[36], in The West Bank And Gaza Strip: A Geography of Occupation and Disengagement, p.40, "Besides the Jewish settlements in Judea and Sumaria, another particular type of settlement has been developed there during the years, namely the outpost. The outpost settlements..." etc

Efrat's definition of an outpost - "A temporary Jewish settlement in the West Bank established by settlers whose aim is to ensure the construction of a permanent settlement on its site in the future"p.208. The Israeli outpost article should use this definition. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:25, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

The Financial Times writes: "Israel makes a distinction between outposts, which lack formal legal status, and settlements, which were built with the full support of the government and according to official plans. Critics say that by granting legal status to the three outposts, Israel is effectively creating the first new settlements in the West Bank since 1990. (...) William Hague (...) said (...) “The official sanction being given by Israel, designating outposts as settlements for the first time in over 20 years, sets a dangerous precedent for other outposts, which are illegal under both international and Israeli law." (US attacks Israel’s settlement policy, FT, April 25, 2012) This is behind a subscription unfortunately. I don't think that anyone needs to "win" this discussion and we can simply discuss the outposts in the article much like our sources do. --Dailycare (talk) 20:36, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Since mid-1990s attacks against settlers became a frequent phenomenon.

The statement does not appear to have a citation. Perhaps it is relying on the HRW report cited further on in the passage. I have not checked the report, but it would be unsuitable for the claim because 1) We do not use HRW for unattributed statement of fact in the wiki voice. 2)It was published in 2002 at the height of the Al aqsa intifada so is 10 years out of date and the situation has radically changed since then(e.g the separation barrier, PA collaboration with Israeli security forces). Dlv999 (talk) 16:33, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Simple solution we attribute and state the date.--Shrike (talk) 16:34, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

No. 2002 means by that date. 'Since' implies strongly that attacks against settlers continue, frequently, for another decade. You need up to date statistics for the whole period 1990-2012 to retain that 'since'. This is straightforward English. The datum should also be linked with phrasing that shows the massive increase in settlers on Palestinian territory. Nishidani (talk) 08:23, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

"In a report published in 2002, HRW said that...". We don't know if there was an increase after that or not at the moment, but that's no reason to remove reliably sourced information. Linking an increase in attacks on settlers with an increase in the number of settlers should be done by a reliable source, not by us. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 09:06, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

There was a noticeable surge in settler violence concomitant with a noticeable decline in Palestinian violence in the West Bank for the post-Intifada period 2006 until now. I have the data somewhere and will post it, and perhaps edit it in, tomorrow. But I'm sure anyone can find it. It was the obvious tendentiousness of using a 2002 report with since 1992 (until 2012) which was counterfactual, that invalidates the phrasing for me.Nishidani (talk) 20:44, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Stephen Schwebel and the legal status of the settlements

The legal status section of the article currently states that: "The scholars and jurists Eugene Rostow and Stephen Schwebel have disputed the illegality of authorized settlements." In the case of Stephen Schwebel this appears to be untrue. Extracts from the source cited are given here. Schwebel addresses the legality of the military occupation, not the legality of the settlements. Previously, two requests have been made (1 2) for justifications to be provided for the wording of the sentence. To date, none have been given. ← ZScarpia 19:18, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Last Jewish town legalized in Judea and Samaria

the last "settelments" to be legalized in judea and samaria were in 2012- their were three and i am afraid i forgot their names-i know one of them is rechalim — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.98.212.60 (talk) 22:35, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Palestinian violence vs. Jews

is theri a reason barely any of the attacks are recorded? what about the fogel family massacare in itamar, or the father and his baby boy who were murdered in kiryat arba. the murder of rabbi kahane and his family in drive by shooting, the sniper who murdered a 3 moth jewish child in hebron. these are the attacks i rememeber off the top of my head. dont get me wrong, i am aware wikipedia has to mantain a anti-semetic nazi propaganda by not mentioning too many jews as victims-but i feel that these "major" and grusome attacks shoudl be recorded--129.98.212.60 (talk) 22:39, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Lead

Hello. I'm not in the mood to read through all the discussions above, but I think that the stance of the international community, which is clear enough, needs shortening and the stance of Israel, which is less clear, needs expanding in the lead. As far as the (il)legality of settlements is concerned, it is, to my knowledge, ‘only’ a question of the 4th Geneva Convention (transfer of population). In addition to that, the settlements which are illegal or unauthorized even by Israeli standards, the so called “outposts”, have to be treated more adequately. And frankly, I don't think that the “The Clinton Parameters” should be mentioned in the lead at all. And last but not least, the display of pictures of settlements (e.g. “Ariel, home to the Ariel University Center of Samaria”) even ahead of the map is imo most unsatisfactory. Im going to start working on changing it. And by the way, I also think that the first sentence raises the What-is-Jewish and Who-is-a-Jew Question where it is not needed or wanted. Cheers, Ajnem (talk) 12:13, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi, when you do get into the mood, I recommend you familiarize yourself with at least the "Jewish civilian communities" thread, above. Concerning expanding and shortening the various viewpoints, the weight given to viewpoints should be in rough relation to the prevalence of the viewpoints. For example in 2009 the UNGA passed a resolution (Res. 64/93) denouncing the settlements as illegal (vote: for 166, against 6, 3 abstentions). That gives a rough handle on the relative weight of these two viewpoints. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 19:51, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

You mistaken please read WP:WEIGHT--Shrike (talk) 20:03, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Nope, DC is correct, the policy is clear: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint.

Neutrality in Wikipedia terms does not mean giving equal weight to extreme minority and overwhelming majority opinions, it means representing each according to the prominence of each viewpoint as DC has said. Dlv999 (talk) 20:33, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello. Always glad to initiate a sensible discussion. Incidently, I agree with all said above in this section. As far as my mood is concerned, it did take me through the “‘Jewish civilian communities’ thread”. And those who mention the fact that every Jewish Israeli living in one of the Israeli settlements is not considered a Jew by (all) Jewish denominations imo have a point. “Jew” as defined by the law of return and “Jew” defined by Orthodox, Conservative and even Reform Judaism are two different things. And are there persons who do not hold Israeli citizenship and/or are not Jewish living in the settlements, including in those called “neighborhoods” in East Jerusalem? Chances are that there are, at least in the latter. And I don't mean foreign nationals working in the West Bank. In addition to it, there is always the question of what makes what Jewish. Is a house or a store or a bank owned by Jews a Jewish house, store or bank? In my part of the world, only those who are not exactly best friends of the Jewish tribe think so. And what is a “community”? So many questions and more raised in the single word “Jewish” in connection with community/settlement. Not a good start for an article. I'll try to think of something. The same goes for the adequate distribution of weight of the opinion of Israel's some 6 million Jews plus a few millions of Diaspora Jews, not to mention evangelical Christians who are the most fervent Greater Israel fans these days, probably outnumbering their Jewish friends by quite a few millions – in short Dlv999's “extreme minority” – and the rest of the world, taking into account that it is the 6-million-minority that holds not only all the aces but the whole deck of cards. And by the way, I take Dlv999 revert of my first round of cleaning up as a joke – not a good joke, but a joke all the same. Cheers, Ajnem (talk) 11:04, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

There is a natural tendency I think to give more weight (in terms of real estate in the lead) to the Israeli side because it is more complicated but it doesn't seem to be the approach used by reliable sources when they are trying to summarize. Some examples are available at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Israel_Palestine_Collaboration/Current_Article_Issues/Archive._Legality_of_Israeli_settlements#Compilation_of_sources. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:16, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you could explain why you think that a map of the West Bank is more appropriate than a photographic representation of the Settlements (which is the topic of the article) at the head of the article (bearing in mind that the first sentences of the lead make it clear that the settlements are not found only in the West Bank). Dlv999 (talk) 11:21, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

First @Sean.hoyland: Wait and see. I'll do the editing and then you can comment, or make changes. As it is now, listing heaven knows how many international bodies who consider the settlements illegal makes their position weaker, not stronger. “The international community considers the settlements in occupied territory to be illegal” is as strong as one can make it, there is no higher or more numerous body than the international community. Now there are two paragraphs pro illegality vs one hidden sentence in the “The Clinton Parameters” paragraph mentioning the Israeli stance, so I don't understand what you mean by “give more weight (in terms of real estate in the lead) to the Israeli side”. Second @Dlv999: the pictures of the settlements in the version before my changes you reverted back to are pure propaganda, put there any odd way including before the map for POV reasons. 5 out of the 11 settlement pictures, not including the pictures I added which you didn't remove, don't show existing settlements but evacuated settlements, including violent scenes of evacuation, with legends like “Gush Katif was a block of 16 Israeli settlements in the southern Gaza Strip. Its 8,000 residents were forced to leave and had their homes demolished in August 2005 as part of Israel's unilateral disengagement plan” or “Resident of Neve Dekalim forcibly removed from his home” (my emphasis). The very first picture has the legend “A neighbourhood in Ariel, home to the Ariel University Center of Samaria” (my emphasis) which is right out of the Yesha Council brochure. I thought your revert was a prank, I may have been mistaken. Ajnem (talk) 13:13, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

You haven't addressed the point I raised. Why do you feel that it is appropriate to put a map of the West Bank at the head of the article, rather than photographic depictions of settlements, which is the topic of the article. Especially given that the first sentences in the lead make clear that settlements are not only found in the West Bank. Regarding your proposed changes to the lead of giving more weight minority position wrt legality, my reading of the discussion is that consensus is largely against your proposal as it would be contrary to wikipedia neutrality policies. In light of this, perhaps you would be better off posting your proposed edit to the talk page for discussion before amending the article. Dlv999 (talk) 13:34, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry Dlv999, no dice. The Yesha Council, in whatever guise, is not were I think Wikipedia should turn for advice [37], Ajnem (talk) 14:18, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

The legal underpinning is one sided. The major official Israeli position should be included. Particularly grating, without an extended explanation, which would be out of place here, is the language that implies Jordan, Syria, or Egypt had sovereignty over the parts of Palestine they had occupied during their invasion in 1948. Inclusion of The Clinton Parameters does not belong; just an historical footnote at this point. I see no problem with illustrations of dismantled settlements so long as the article is appropriately illustrated. Where is a good source for the Israeli position on legality of settlements either on the West Bank or in areas they have "annexed"? User:Fred Bauder Talk 16:16, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you would consider a good source but search for "School of Oriental and African Studies" in the Compilation_of_sources link above. That source and the one below are useful for Israel's position in 1967. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:36, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for returning to a sensible discussion. There are plenty of pictures and plenty of room for more, if so desired. There exist plenty of sources for legal status, but in this case stress has to be on 4th Geneva Convention. I hope my first round of clean ups meets with your approval, Ajnem (talk) 17:21, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

"The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies." plainly applies. And absent negation of some element would seem to settle the matter. User:Fred Bauder Talk 19:03, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

WP:OR violation

This is pretty obvious.

The article is about 'Israeli settlement'.

In regard to their legality, we have a section dealing, not with defences of the legality of Israeli settlements, but with the legality of Israeli's occupation of the West Bank.

Four of the jurists' opinions cited were written before Israel started settling the West Bank. (Yehuda Blum in 1968, Elihu Lauterpacht in 1968, Julius Stone in 1969, Stephen M. Schwebel in 1970) and dealt with the definition of the West Bank, not with settlements.

You can only use this material if it comes from an RS article or book which deals both with the legality of the West Bank occupation and the legality of settlements. Either this should be done, or the section removed, since as it stands it is WP:OR.Nishidani (talk) 15:09, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't think there is any serious question, in international law, regarding the legality of occupation of the West Bank, Jerusalem, or the Golan Heights, or any other territory Israel has occupied during the Arab-Israeli conflict; there is no peace, and no prospect of peace; there IS a state of war. The material in http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/legal-expert-if-israel-isn-t-occupying-west-bank-it-must-give-up-land-held-by-idf-1.449909 certainly is "a wonderland governed by the laws of absurdity". I'm not at all sure how we should handle that information; opinion, I guess. Do we have an article on the Levy committee? User:Fred Bauder Talk 15:49, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Nup, not yet. In any case, I'm fine with people introducing material specifically from sources that talk about the legality of settlements, as per the Levy Committee. But I can't see how the material concerning the legality of the West Bank occupation, material that apparently does not deal with settlement policy, can stay on an article dealing with settlements.Nishidani (talk) 16:42, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

The questions are conflated in popular discourse, thus we need to cover them and make the distinction as best we can. User:Fred Bauder Talk 17:20, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Fred. I've had that policy thrown at me by admins several times, and, having accepted their reading of it, I'm raising it here. Articles are based on RS related to the subject of the article. The subject is Israeli settlement, not the legality of Israel in the West bank. You need RS on settlements that relate the two. That is how we write texts here. And that is why this section, as it stands, violates WP:OR. Popular opinion is irrelevant.Nishidani (talk) 20:43, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what policy you speak of, but there are doubtless good sources which discuss conflation of the two issues which we can use as sources. User:Fred Bauder Talk 21:03, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

WP:NOR (This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented.) WP:SYNTH. That's what is patently violated. I'm in no hurry, but I think a tag to that effect should be put on the section. I'm sure someone can come up with the relevant texts, but it should be done rapidly.Nishidani (talk) 21:29, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand your issue, but I'm sure I will once you start changing the article. User:Fred Bauder Talk 22:05, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps this will help. My issue is precisely the issue of WP:NOR policy as stated by User:Jayjg here. It's not my brief to rewrite the section, which I wasn't responsible for. The policy infringement is clear, and therefore either it is rewritten per policy by someone who wishes to retain its general outline, by using secondary sources that cite these legal opinions on the West Bank while discussing Israeli settlements and their legality, or else it will be removed as an infringement of WP:NOR. Nishidani (talk) 22:13, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

The issue is what can be legally done, or permitted, by the occupying power. User:Fred Bauder Talk 01:57, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

No, the issue is wiki policy which concerns what can be added, and in what way, to pages, through the use of RS. One cannot engage in writing up material for a page from primary sources that are not relevant directly or otherwise to the topic of the page.Nishidani (talk) 12:12, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I have removed the paragraph; the information in it does not conform to the cited source. By the way, during a state of war military occupation is legal. I can't access http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/netanyahu-appointed-panel-israel-isn-t-an-occupying-force-in-west-bank.premium-1.449895 It is behind a paywall for me. I can imagine a theory which would repudiate occupation but I can't see what they came up with. User:Fred Bauder Talk 02:36, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Did you read the source. See my page for a comparison between the source and my paraphrase. I've reverted you, and modified the language to make the imbrication of source and paraphrase even tighter. Your second point is irrelevant. I am not saying Sasson is correct. I am citing her remark, which is exactly relevant to the theme of the section heading. To object to it as incorrect is to engage in WP:OR and ignore WP:V. Nishidani (talk) 11:50, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I can read this: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/10/world/middleeast/israeli-panel-says-west-bank-presence-is-not-occupation-and-recommends-approval-of-jewish-settlements.html User:Fred Bauder Talk 02:45, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Again that has nothing to do with the merit of the edit. You are confusing, among other things, what the Supreme Court rules about settlements established under Israeli law, the internal law of an occupying power, and what the Supreme Court rules concerning Israel's obligations under international law regarding its duties as an occupying power as those are stipulated in things like the Geneva conventions. They are distinct and should not be confused.Nishidani (talk) 11:50, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Could you explain why Sason personal view is notable at all?Does she expert on the topic of International law?--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 11:59, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh come on! She was directly chosen by the Israeli government to head a commission into the settlements, and for that reason alone is a competent source (unlike the guys cited in the 'legality section' who are not cited for what the article deals in, Israeli settlements). Didn't you read the link to her name? I'll repeat it here: Sasson Report.Nishidani (talk) 12:05, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

For 25 years, Ms. Sasson worked in Israel’s state attorney’s office, during which she represented the state before the High Court of Justice and the Supreme Court, and headed the Special Tasks Division for eight years. Ms. Sasson served as an adjunct professor in Tel Aviv University’s faculty of law for five years. She was chosen by the Israeli government to investigate issues of the legality of settlements and outposts, and her report was accepted by that government.Nishidani (talk) 12:12, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Levy Report. Can we add it here?

It seems too early to deal with the Levy Report otherwise than mentioning it and its stance. But it imo should be mentioned. Haaretz has another article in which it says: “The main message coming from the top [Netanyahu] is that the report will “inspire” certain changes, but will not be adopted in its entirety” [38]. For those who cannot read the Haaretz articles: Haaretz's new policy is that you have to register to have access to all the articles. If you do register, you get 10 articles for free per month, same as with the New York Times. Ynet's article is of course less critical, but it also concludes “Still, the committee's recommendations are not mandating. Netanyahu is likely to ask the Ministerial Committee on Settlements to review the report” [39] and reports “The American Administration vehemently disagrees with the findings of the Levy Report” [40], which is pretty strong language, coming from a diplomat, and The Jerusalem Post has a pretty good summary of the report [41] and gives reactions, quoting among others “MK Uri Ariel saying it is one of the ‘most worthy and just reports written.’ MK Arieh Eldad said the report ‘smashes into pieces the mantra of ‘occupation’ as far as international law is concerned’ and called for an end to the ‘Muslim occupation of the Land of Israel that began 1300 years ago’” [42]. I think I'm going to start an article on the report under Levy Report, as this seems to be what it's called by most sources, but I cannot find it on the internet, although some sources say it was published. But if it's in Hebrew only, it is of no use to me anyway. Ajnem (talk) 07:48, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

OK, Jewish Daily Forward coverage: http://forward.com/articles/159262/report-seeks-to-erase-occupation/ Should be useful. User:Fred Bauder Talk 03:11, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Certainly the 'Legality' section as it stands will have to be largely removed (Julius Stone's work 1981 may refer to settlements as legal, and needs checking etc.,) so I suggest to replace the inappropriate material there now, someone write up the Levy Report's assertion (not Israel's official position by the way) that settlement conforms to international law. For the record, (since I can see as per Migron, Mateh Binyamin today,) how POV warriors might pounce on this to paste it everywhere, Levy's conclusion is fringe, and as such must be written up in an article like this with an eye to WP:Undue.Nishidani (talk) 15:56, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm very sorry, but I have to disagree. Unfortunatly the report or its conclusion is not “fringe” but a report commissioned and published by the Israeli government, which was praised by no small number of members of the Israeli cabinet, including the prime minister (see Levy Report). Chances are that the report will either not be approved by the Ministerial Committee on Settlements which has to deal with it, or later not be approved by Netanyahu, who knows that he cannot annex the West Bank for the time being. The far right and the settlers will not forget that it exists though. My suggestion is to wait and see what will become of the report before putting it into the article here, for the reason Nishidani mentioned. By the way, has anybody found the report online? And could those who know Hebrew please check the Hebrew title and my translation in the English article.

And I'm not sure about the Forward's explanation of the legal background [43]. Does the Levy report claim to base its finding on the San Remo resolution or is that the Forward's own explanation? Ajnem (talk) 08:03, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

It's in the report, see http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_opinion.php?id=2224 User:Fred Bauder Talk 13:18, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

There should be no dispute though that the Levy Report (thanks for the page, Ajnem)'s stated opinion on the legality of settlements in international law is an example of a WP:fringe opinion. Even all of the theorists cited on the general point so far are 'old hat', for the simple reason that bodies of international law in the meantime have laid down their interpretation regarding the status of the Occupation and settlements. It is also not law in Israel, and contradicts rulings by the Israeli Supreme Court. I have, as said, no problem with a brief synthesis of the opinion in the Illegality section. I think you have a perfect policy-based right to add it here. It is relevant, even if it is not Israeli policy, unlike the Sasson report.Nishidani (talk) 13:24, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Your welcome. The opinion piece in Israel Hayom doesn't explicitly say that the Levy report bases its conclusion on the San Remo resolution. Wasn't the San Remo resolution before the Brits partitioned what was meant to be their Palestine mandate into Transjordan and Palestine? Are we to expect that Levy et al. will now begin to (re)settle the East Bank? O boy, and not that small a number of people, including the founders of the state of Israel (“BY VIRTUE OF OUR NATURAL AND HISTORIC RIGHT AND ON THE STRENGTH OF THE RESOLUTION OF THE UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY”) think that it was the UN partition plan... But anyway, I will not delete it if somebody puts the Levy report into the article, but it is too early to determine whether it is “fringe” or “Israeli policy”, although I'm willing to bet that Netanyahu will find a way of both adopting it for the sake of the settlers and not adopt it for his own sake. But as the Forward suggests, Netanyahu may end up “pretending he’s Houdini” once too often. The Levy report is to be found under http://www.pmo.gov.il/NR/rdonlyres/E155A1D6-96A7-4143-8233-F126AC9288BF/0/doch090712.pdf for those who read Hebrew. Cheers, Ajnem (talk) 11:43, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but at the time of the San Remo Conference in 1920, Transjordan was under independent Arab rule, becoming briefly part of the short-lived Arab Kingdom of Syria that year. Transjordan wasn't included under the remit of the Mandate for Palestine until after the Cairo Conference in 1921, following talks between Churchill and King Abdullah. It was included on the understanding that it would be exempted from terms relating to the creation of a Jewish national home. That understanding was incorporated in the final version of the Mandate document submitted by the British to the League of Nations, which, besides being accepted by the League, was accepted by the Jewish representatives, who included Chaim Weizmann and, if memory serves me right, David Ben-Gurion. If you think that the Israel Hayom opinion piece that you linked to represents a true representation of facts, I think that you need to discover other narratives of events than the Revisionist Zionist ones. If you want a recommendation for a good source, I'd suggest reading the following if you can get access to a copy: Gideon Biger, Boundaries of Modern Palestine, 1840-1947 (2004, Routledge Curzon Studies in Middle Eastern History). ← ZScarpia 00:15, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

What kind of edit are we discussing here, exactly? Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 20:07, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Rather than simply characterizing Israeli settlements as violations of international law, there should be information showing there is at least a far-fetched legal argument for them as shown by the Levy Report. User:Fred Bauder Talk 20:22, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I think I misunderstood the purport of Ajnem's comment. Please ignore my reply. Though, I don't think that Israel Hayom piece should be being used as a secondary source for anything factual. ← ZScarpia 00:54, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

The "Legality arguments" section does describe these arguments. The Levy report is discussed here and here, where it's put in context, too. How about adding to that section e.g. "In 2012 a commission of jurists appointed by the Israeli government concluded that the settlements are legal. The findings of the commission were rejected by the Association for Civil Rights in Israel and Fatah." --Dailycare (talk) 20:12, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Israel has been arguing that the 4th Geneva Convention does not apply to the territories it captured in 1967, and that the settlements do not violate international law for quite some time now – long before the Levy Report appeared. The Levy Report basically deals with outposts and recommends legalizing them, i.e. to do away with the Israeli distinction between legal and illegal/unauthorized settlements. For the rest of the world this distinction doesn't exist anyway. Ajnem (talk) 16:33, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

News items, editorials and opinion pieces:

1. Haaretz - Chaim Levinsonn, Tomer Zarchin - Netanyahu-appointed panel: Israel isn't an occupying force in West Bank, 9 July 2012:

The committee was set up in January following pressure by settlement leaders to produce a legal report in response to the report submitted by Talia Sasson in 2005 on illegal outposts that had been commissioned by then Prime Minister Ariel Sharon.

The convening of the Levy Committee came following a lengthy dispute between Netanyahu and Attorney General Yehuda Weinstein, who saw the convening of the committee as undermining his authority. In the end, the committee was convened as an advisory committee. It was also decided that all its recommendations would be accepted subject to Weinstein’s review and approval.

A considerable portion of the Levy Report deals with refuting the conclusions of the Sasson Report, which dealt with construction from the 1990s and onward of neighborhoods and outposts on government land, with the encouragement of certain government elements but without building permits or official government approval.

...

With regard to Israel’s legal status in the West Bank, the Levy Committee declared that Israel is not an occupying power. The panel arrived at that conclusion after considering two conflicting legal approaches on the question

The first approach, presented by elements generally identified with the left, holds that Judea and Samaria are “occupied territories” under international law, ever since they were captured from the Jordanian kingdom in 1967.

According to this approach, as a military occupier, Israel is subject to international restrictions governing occupation, first and foremost the Hague Regulations with regard to the laws and customs of ground warfare, and the Fourth Geneva Convention with regard to protecting civilian populations in times of war

Under these covenants, an occupier must manage the area and maintain order while taking care of its security needs and the needs of the civilian population until the occupation ends. There is a prohibition against damaging private property, and the occupier is also banned from moving any of its own population to settle in the occupied area.

2. [Blog] Haaretz - Barak Ravid - Netanyahu knew report on legalizing West Bank outposts would be a diplomatic bombshell, 9 July 2012:

Netanyahu and his advisers knew very well why they were keeping a low profile on the report. In retrospect, it isn’t certain that Netanyahu would even have appointed the committee, which was convened under pressure from the Likud ministers who wanted something to offer the more right-wing camp of Moshe Feiglin, which represents a significant proportion of the party’s central committee.

3. [Opinion] Haaretz - David Kretzmer - Bombshell for the settlement enterprise in Levy report, 10 July 2012:

The report adopts the old, tired and universally rejected arguments that the West Bank is not occupied territory. In reaching this conclusion the report totally ignores both the position that the governments of Israel have taken before the Supreme Court for 45 years and the hundreds of judgments of the Court on this very question.

The first military orders promulgated when the IDF entered the territories taken in the 1967 Six Day War expressly mentioned the Fourth Geneva Convention, which deals with the powers and duties of an occupying power. Not long after the war ended some arguments were raised questioning whether the territories were indeed occupied, and especially whether the Fourth Geneva Convention applied. None of these arguments gained much support. They were rejected by all states, including the US; the UN Security Council, the International Court of Justice and the vast majority of international lawyers, Israeli and foreign alike.

...

If the territory were not Israeli territory, it would have to accept the only other known regime for territory conquered in war, namely a regime of belligerent occupation. It chose the latter path.

...

In their 2005 judgment ruling that the disengagement from Gaza was legal, ten justices of Israel’s Supreme Court summed up the attitude of the government and the Court itself in the following words: “According to the legal outlook of all Israel’s governments as presented to this court – an outlook that has always been accepted by the Supreme Court – these areas are held by Israel by way of belligerent occupation….The legal regime that applies there is determined by the rules of public international law and especially the rules relating to belligerent occupation.” Possibly since Justice Levy was the sole dissenting judge in that case, the Levy report ignores this statement and many other similar rulings of the Court. Instead of advising the government on the legal situation, it looks as if Levy simply rehashed the opinion that was rejected by all his colleagues.

4. [Opinion] Haaretz - Bury the report , 10 July 2012:

Attorney General Yehuda Weinstein, who opposed the creation of Levy's committee, has a responsibility to explain to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu the profound international law implications of adopting the report's recommendations.

5. [Opinion] Haaretz - Michael Sfard - Occupation no more, 10 July 2012:

The government of Israel hand-picked the members of the Levy Committee. Each member of the committee was selected because he or she was believed to deny the accepted legal basis for the status of the territories Israel occupied in the Six-Day War. That basis, according to which the territories are occupied and subject to the international laws of occupation, is accepted throughout the entire legal and diplomatic world (without exception) and has even been accepted in Israel for at least three decades.

...

And sure enough, the Levy committee delivered the goods. The West Bank is not occupied, it announced, but rather "a territory designated as the national home of the Jewish people… which the governments of Israel… chose not to annex but to approach pragmatically to allow peace negotiations." And why is that? Because the Balfour Declaration of 1917, the committee tells us, and the British Mandate, designated the territory for the Jewish state. There, in 1922, ended legal history, as far as the committee is concerned. It wants to be Galileo and prove everyone is wrong and it is right, but unlike the Italian astronomer it evades confronting the other opinion by ignoring it: It dismisses the Partition Resolution of 1947, that established the principle of founding two states between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean, with the strange statement that it was "a plan that did not gain purchase in international law.” The committee does not even bother to mention dozens of statements and declarations by almost all the countries in the world and the many international bodies that actually do recognize the right of the Palestinian people to establish an independent state in the West Bank and Gaza. Nor does it mention the advisory opinion of the International Court in Hague. The same goes for all of the experts on international law, who in a rare consensus, agree that this is a clear case of occupation. The report does not try to contend with the enormous existing discourse, it tries to silence it.

6. Haaretz - Chemi Shalev - Levy Committee member angrily rejects protest letter by American leaders, 19 July 2012.

7. Counterpunch - Jonathan Cook - Israel’s Annexation Plan, 18 July 2012:

He hand-picked its three members, all diehard supporters of the settlements, and received the verdict he expected – that the settlements are legal. Certainly, Levy’s opinion should have come as no surprise. In 2005 he was the only Supreme Court judge to oppose the government’s decision to withdraw the settlers from Gaza.

8. [News item from 2003 which briefly mentions Alan Baker] Haaretz - Moshe Gorali - Legality is in the eye of the beholder, 25 September 2003:

Israel is so confident of the unassailable legality of its settlements in the territories that Dr. Alan Baker, the Foreign Ministry's legal adviser, is himself a settler, residing in Har Adar.

← ZScarpia 01:33, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks ZScarpia for the last article. I have honoured Alan Baker with an article, which even the Hebrew Wikipedia doesn't seem necessary, and I have added it there. The interpretation of Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention Baker gave in 2003 according to Haaretz made it into the Levy Report, but I think not all of it. Or is “Israel has refrained from expropriating private land; the scale of the transfers is too small to affect the territory's character; and, what is most important, the transfers are not permanent” in the Levy Report, too? Ajnem (talk) 17:09, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Well done, I think you did a very good job with the new article. ← ZScarpia 22:08, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. By the way, does anybody have any idea why the Israeli government did not publish an English translation of the (entire) Levy Report? Of course, if they do, they cannot argue that anybody who criticises it outside of Israel has not read it. Ajnem (talk) 17:22, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

History section

This article is in obvious need of a history section, since Israeli settlement building has been ongoing since 1967 and has an eventful history. My attempts to add such a section have been reverted due to the alleged controversial aspect of some of the content, so I've decided to go back to basics and get a consensus for what should be in such a history section. The Israeli settlement timeline article contains useful material and references. Here is what I think should be in a history section:

1: A summary when the first settlements were created and the historical context.

2: Any notable historical events involving settlements (e.g. the gaza withdrawal, international reactions)

3: The graph of settlement growth over time.

Hopefully we can agree that such basic historical information deserves to belong in this article. Eptified (talk) 03:24, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

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

Breaking the silence

This edit [44] didn't contain IDF response to allegation though in the source it does appear so per our NPOV policy we should include it.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 14:46, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

By all means, Shrike. The problem was most of the sources spoke on conditions of anonymity, I suppose out of fear. The IDF did respond saying it wanted the names of the soldiers, and promised to investigate. But the key thought was, this could get awfully complex if I add what numerous sources say on this. I held off putting too much info in because it would only generate a long thread, and perhaps we need a whole section. I mean, I'd have to give Breaking the Silence's reply to the IDF comment, and the IDF's comeback, and that 60 of Israel's top psychologists and educationalists have written to the PM saying the investigations the IDF does undertake ignore the law, that the testimonies number 850 not 30, that so far 70 soldiers have gone public and the IDF hasn't acted on their information, that 8 or 7 years after a Supreme Court ruling Palestinian children are still used by UDF soldiers as 'shields' against hypothetical enemy gunfire. I.e. the sort of stuff other articles that refer to what Yedioth Ahronoth 's magazine recently reported in depth. I'm sure you're familiar with it, but in case you aren't, see John Lyons's brief synthesis 'Israeli soldiers break silence on abuse,' The Australian, August 25, 2012.

You have the link. If I have time, I'll put it in, but you hardly need ask me, because that is your right and you certainly do not require permission to make such an edit. Sherwood writes:-

'A spokesman for the Israeli Defence Forces said that Breaking the Silence had declined to provide the IDF with testimonies ahead of publication so they could be verified and investigated. He said its true intention was "to generate negative publicity regarding the IDF and its soldiers. The IDF has in the past, and continues to, call upon the organisation to immediately convey complaints or suspicions of improper conduct to the relevant authorities. In line with the IDF's ethical commitments, any such incidents will be thoroughly investigated."

Sorry I'm late in replying I had several windows open, three on wiki, and thought I'd pressed the 'print' button on this a half an hour ago. I only realized I hadn't when, on another page, when the watchlist came up, I saw Hertz's edit and thought he'd replied to me.Nishidani (talk) 15:39, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

POV tag

It's not much help to throw a POV template at the top without explaining what problems you see. How about explaining and then we'll discuss how to fix them.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 22:45, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely agree. You are supposed to explain on the talk-page....if editors do not do that, then the rest of us have to be mind-readers. Which I am not. If the editor in question do not explain why they put up a POV-template (and soon..), I will remove it, Cheers, Huldra (talk) 22:51, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I dropped the editor a note here. Not much help forthcoming so far.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 22:53, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I plan to log out in about an hour or so; if there is no sensible explanation before then, I´ll remove both this and the Esh Kodesh‎-POV-template. Cheers, Huldra (talk)

Thanks!— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 23:10, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

There are three issues. 1. Replace general terminology with specific, plain English designations. The editor used village or hamlet. 2. Corrected proper designation of Israeli administrative district. The editor used the designation of the Israeli administrative district for Judea and Samaria. 3. Remove "East Jerusalem". "East Jerusalem" is apparently not a valid designation. Z554 (talk) 23:18, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm assuming that you mean that the reversions of those three edits introduced a non-neutral point of view? It is not so obvious why you think this. Please explain. Before you explain your number 2, you might have a look at WP:WESTBANK.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 23:28, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I identified the issues. Z554 (talk) 23:31, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Not clearly enough. How did the reversion of those edits introduce a non-neutral point of view?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 23:36, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

If I understand correctly: Apparently Z554 wants both articles to link to villages instead of Israeli outpost and Israeli settlement...as if they are "just another village" (and not illegal under international law)? And use Judea and Samaria (only accepted among pro-settlement Israelis, etc, and certainly not by the International community)? And again: East Jerusalem is a valid designation in the International community. Sorry: This is not "Settlementopedia", you cannot force a minority view on the articles. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 23:42, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Esh Kodesh is located in the Israeli administrative district of Judea and Samaria. Israel is a sovereign nation and has the authority to designate their civil administrative districts. None of your assertions provide a valid counter argument nor do they change the objective fact concerning the location of Esh Kodesh in Judea and Samaria. Z554 (talk) 00:12, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

No, the sources support "West Bank". You're going against the sources here. The template is not designed to be used for the kind of problem you're talking about.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 00:20, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Article title

There are Israeli settlements in non-occupied territories as well. Unless you assign a special meaning to the word "settlement". Therefore I suggest to move the article to the title which actually matches the topic, namely, Israeli settlements in the occupied territories. Or did I miss something in the long and certainly controversial history of the article. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:47, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I think that reliable sources usually mean the settlements in occupied territory when they say "Israeli settlement". WP:TITLE guides that in that case the title of the article should be the term used in the sources. --Dailycare (talk) 10:09, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

American reliebale sources write "president" and mean "Obama", but we don't put article "president" under title "Obama". The correct neutral title trumps all other conventions IMO. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:17, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Many English-language sources are published outside of the US. We're also entitled to use our common sense. --Dailycare (talk) 19:47, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Our common sense hardly justifies turning a neutral term into a politically charged one. Oh, BTW it is also against WP:NPOV. Staszek Lem (talk) 03:43, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps it would help if you could provide some information about the "Israeli settlements in non-occupied territories" you are referring to. Could you provide some examples where reliable sources refer to these locations you have in mind as "Israeli settlements" ? This is required to support your assertion that there is an WP:NPOV violation. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:30, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I could, but see below. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:12, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

OK. A weird requiest; you may google yourself, but here are a coulpe major books: [45], [46]. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:23, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

He is using the generic term settlement and modifying it with Israeli as an adjective. That's all well and good, but the phrase Israeli settlement has a meaning of its own outside of Israel being used as an adjective to settlement. Israeli settlement means one of the residential areas Israel has built in the Golan, the West Bank (including EJ), and once upon a time the Gaza Strip and the Sinai. We don't need to specify in the occupied territories in the title because it is implied in Israeli settlement. nableezy - 20:33, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

After some more reading, (including some official EU documents, with efinitions of terminology), I reluctantly have to admit that the basically neutral term have acquired a specific meaning. I clarified the first sentence acordingly. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:10, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Just quickly, because I am about to log off - firstly, I believe you already conceded the point in your last post, with your comment that the term has "acquired a specific meaning", so I am surprised by your revert. With regard to your query about MOS, please read WP:BOLDTITLE. Regards, Gatoclass (talk) 15:49, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes I did concede, but it was related to the artile title being the most common usage. At the same time, the term itself has a generic meaning as well (and I presented evidence per request above in this chat). Therefore it needs diambiguation, and, as google books show 26,700 times, I am not very badly mistaken about the unambiguous title. As for BOLDTITLE, as far as I see, my naming/bolding exactly follows the one used in the page "United States". Therefore please be more specific with your objections to my reasoning. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:06, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Rename to Shtetls in the Land of Israel

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

These are shtetls; they are just a continuation of how we have been living for centuries. To call them "Israeli settlements" is a racist European anti-Semitic term because it intentionally denies our history. Also, since they are not located within the State of Israel, merely the Land of Israel, they cannot be Israeli, so you should just call them shtetls. No need for the "Israeli" crap. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.59.17.206 (talk) 00:14, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Just to let you know that this ip is a proxy 189.59.17.206. Please admin ban it. ThanksGeogheganTomTheConvert (talk) 22:02, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

The IP was blocked over a week ago, don't worry. - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 10:30, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Gas the Arabs

Can somebody please provide a policy based reason why that picture should not be included? If not I'll restore it tomorrow. nableezy - 19:38, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Can someone please provide a policy based reason why that picture should be included?--brew crewer (yada, yada) 20:12, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Sure, it is illustrating the text. It is a verifiable example of what the content is describing. So, any reason it should be excluded? Because it has been included for quite some time, and reverting without cause is disruptive. nableezy - 20:16, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Does the article include illustrations of violence perpetuated against Jews?--brew crewer (yada, yada) 20:18, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I dont know, you tell me. Why would that matter? This is an article on Israeli settlements, and the picture was in a section on settler violence. If you want to argue NPOV demands that it be excluded, youll have to quote what from NPOV supports that rather bizarre claim and explain why. nableezy - 20:20, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

See nobody had to tell you. If you're going to continue to claim that you have no idea why it would be problematic if there are pictures of Jewish attacks but no pictures of Arab attacks than the conversation is not worth having. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 20:29, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

This isnt an article on the Arab-Israeli conflict as a whole. This is an article on Israeli settlements, and one of the topics of that is settler violence. The image in question illustrates that. If you feel that there should be more material and/or images on violence against settlers then by all means, add that. That does not however justify the removal of an image that is directly related to the topic. Without you being able to provide an actual policy based reason, I will restore the image. nableezy - 20:35, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I think an image related to rocket attacks on the settlements would be more related since that is actual violence. Calling for violence from the settlers ("gas the Arabs") might also be appropriate but it looks like MoS might be a concern if too many images are added. I think the olive trees are a great thing to illustrate.Cptnono (talk) 21:04, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

There are rocket attacks on settlements? And you did notice the section is on settler violence, right? nableezy - 21:26, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Settler violence is one of the most widely reported aspects of this topic in Rs and it is appropriate to include pictorial representations. Dlv999 (talk) 04:59, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

"land that was captured by Israel from Jordan, Egypt and Syria"

I don't understand this part, from the first paragraph of the article. Did the nations of Jordan, Egypt, or Syria ever include the the Palestinian territories? Patwinkle (talk) 05:58, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

No response. Let me rephrase this question. Since the Palestinian territories never legally belonged to any of those nations, wouldn't it be more appropriate to specify, or somehow indicate, that the West Bank and Gaza was captured from Palestinians? In context of history, I think it's important to distinguish the difference between land that was taken from people who had legal rights over it as opposed to people who were illegally occupying it to begin with. What would be a good phrasing for this?Patwinkle (talk) 16:52, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

It was captured militarily. The statement has no bearing on legal ownership. Hcobb (talk) 17:16, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

To put it a little more clearly, Egypt and Jordan had de facto control of Gaza and the West Bank. Egypt had, for a time, run Gaza as the All-Palestine Government, but this was of dubious real control, and forced to rule from Cairo. In 1959, that was done away with and Gaza came under direct Egyptian control. Jordan annexed the West Bank in 1950. While one can argue about the legitimacy or right of Egypt and Jordan to control these territories, the fact of the matter is that they did, and Israel captured them from Egypt and Jordan in the Six-Day War. The Golan Heights were internationally recognized as part of Syria and, generally speaking, not claimed as part of a Palestinian land or state. They were not part of the UN Partition, for example. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 18:23, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Understood. It appears the wording has changed anyway since I first posted this section. It now says the land captured was that which was originally proposed for the Arab state (excluding Golan Hieghts). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patwinkle (talk • contribs) 14:14, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Wrong infobox in several articles of settlements

Hi everybody. I just realised for the first time that the infobox used for some of the Israeli settlements in the West Bank shows the title "Municipality of Israel" (e.g. Alfei Menashe, Ariel (city), Beit Aryeh-Ofarim, Beit El, Beitar Illit, Efrat, Elkana, Immanuel (town), Karnei Shomron). I first thought that somebody had been tampering with it, because I noticed it in an article where the standard sentence in the lede "The international community considers Israeli settlements illegal under international law, but the Israeli government disputes this" has been changed, but no, as it seems, the title has always been there – it just never caught my eye. As everybody, including the Israeli government agrees, the West Bank settlements are not located in Israel, they therefore cannot be municipalities of Israel. I'm surprised to see that I'm the first to notice and to take issue, but I'm going to change the wrong infoboxes to the correct Infobox Israel village. Ajnem (talk) 09:36, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

There is a similar problem at List of Israeli cities which includes Israeli settlements in the West Bank. Dlv999 (talk) 10:32, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Now that you mention it, there actually also is a similar problem at Regional council (Israel) and possibly others. "List of Israeli cities" at least gives a definition of what it lists, "Regional council (Israel)" dosn't. I'm going to change the latter, too. Cheers, Ajnem (talk) 13:38, 13 March 2013 (UTC) P.S. Just checked the categories, and – guess what. See Category:Districts of Israel, Category:Local councils in Israel, Category:Regional councils in Israel, Category:Regional Committees in Israel – the latter includes Hebron!

It is a pity that we can't edit the website of the New South Wales Jewish Board of Deputies which actually includes the whole of the West Bank and Gaza as part of Israel. Geography Israel lies at the junction of three continents: Africa, Asia and Europe. It is bordered on the west by the Mediterranean Sea, by Lebanon and Syria to the north, Egypt to the south and Jordan to the east. http://www.nswjbd.org/Geography/default.aspx Trahelliven (talk) 17:45, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

We certainly can't change that, but there is plenty to change in the other WPs. I'm fighting a very lonely fight against the POV-pushers in the German WP who share the New South Wales Jewish Board of Deputies' stance with one important difference – they are not Jewish, and, being German, have quite different reasons for their attitude. If somebody NPOV-inclined knows German, some help would be greatly appreciated. Ajnem (talk) 18:27, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Aside from the fiery polemic uttered above, regarding the issue of infoboxes, I still do not see the problem. There are three types of municipalities defined by Israeli law (including territories controlled by the military): cities, local councils and regional councils. For the first two we use the template Infobox Israel municipality, and for everything having to do with sub-entities of regional councils we use the template Infobox Israel village. The issue of which side of the Green Line the said municipality or village is in isn't an issue here as the municipalities are clearly legally defined. If the definition in the articles describing them is unclear, then that is what should be improved, not tampering with the infoboxes which are complicated pieces of code custom-tailored to the specific legal entities I just described. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 09:43, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

The problem is apparent from your own comment: "There are three types of municipalities defined by Israeli law (including territories controlled by the military)". This would support the use of info-box which stated "Municpality of Israel or territories under Israeli military occupation" (or something similar). The problem is the infobox simply states "Municipality of Israel", which in the case of the Israeli settlements is an absurd claim. The settlements are not "of Israel", Israel does not claim sovereignty over the territory of the West Bank outside of EJ. It is original research to go from the fact that Israel defines settlements in the West Bank under its administration by municipal status to the claim in the infobox that they are "of Israel".

As long as you continue to have an infobox claiming that the settlements are part of Israel you are going to have a consistent problem with people trying to amend the infobox, because most people with even a passing familiarity with the sources and the issues know that the settlements are not part of Israel, nor is it even a claim officially asserted by Israel itself. As an aside, I don't think it is particularly relevant how "complicated" the infobox code is, as applied to the Israeli settlements the infobox claim, "of Israel", is WP:OR, which is a core policy of the encyclopedia. Dlv999 (talk) 10:11, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Let's not make an elephant out of a mouse. There is absolutly no problem. It just so happens that the Infobox Israel municipality shows a heading saying "Municipality of Israel", whereas the Infobox Israel kibbutz/village has no heading showing. Therefore the latter is suited for use for the settlements in the West Bank and elsewhere, regardless of their size, whereas the former isn't. The only problem is that the kibbutz/village infobox does not provide a line where the status of the settlement as local council or city can be added, which obviously is of paramount importance to Ynhockey, which I can understand. It seems to me, that it is an issue to be discussed on the talk pages of the respective templates. I suggest that in the interim, the infobox which identifies the settlements as part of the state of Israel, which they aren't for the time being, be replaced by the Israel kibutz/village infobox which is used for the settlements that do not have local council or city status. I repeat, it is just a question of infobox syntax, not a problem of the name of the infobox or anything to do with "the definition in the articles" or Green Lines. Cheers, Ajnem (talk) 11:03, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't see the problem here. A "Municipality of Israel" is different to a "Municipality in Israel". The fact that some Israeli municipal councils are outside Israel does not change the fact that they are Israeli and function as any normal Israeli municipality.

Also, canvassing for assistance on other Wikipedias is unacceptable. Number 5 7 12:54, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

<- How about just changing the Template:Infobox Israel municipality settlement_type parameter

from
| settlement_type = Municipality of Israel
to
| settlement_type = Municipality

The attribute, which comes from Template:Infobox_settlement, can say anything of course, but the standard documentation describes it's usage as follows.

"Any type can be entered, such as City, Town, Village, Hamlet, Municipality, Reservation, etc. If set, will be displayed under the names, provided that either name or official_name is filled in. Might also be used as a label for total population/area (defaulting to City), if needed to distinguish from Urban, Rural or Metro (if urban, rural or metro figures are not present, the label is Total unless total_type is set)."

There is no need or reason for 'of Israel' to be there.

Alternatively, change the Region values from West Bank to West Bank, Palestinian territories or West Bank, Palestine ? Sean.hoyland - talk 16:32, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm still not clear what the problem is with "of Israel" - it's just another way of saying "Israeli", which is clearly correct (editors have no problem with using the phrase "Israeli settlement" in such articles). Number 5 7 16:51, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

The majority of reliable sources describe them as Israeli settlements, so using that terminology is consistent with our policy. I am yet to see a source that describes an Israeli settlement as a "municipality of Israel". I searched: (Ariel+"Municipality of Israel" -wiki) on google, News, Books. Nothing, no reliable sources using that terminology to describe Ariel. If sources do not describe the settlements in those terms we should not be describing them in those terms. As far as I am aware the justification for the "Municipality of Israel" claim being applied to settlements is a primary source (Hebrew) Israeli government document which characterizes Israeli population centers and those under Israeli administration in the West Bank by municipal status. I think the editorial OR is that because Israel has categorized the settlements by municipal status they can be described as "of Israel". The merits of the deductive OR step is irrelevant because OR is not permitted. The outcome is that we have a claim introduced into the articles that does not appear in RS covering the topic (i.e. the individual settlements). Dlv999 (talk) 17:28, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Sean.hoyland, leaving "of Israel" out may solve the problem for the settlements but there is imo no reason to leave "of Israel" out for the municipalities in Israel. Personally I think it would be best not to have any heading – just the name of the settlement – and not have any ideological/political issue involved. There is none with the settlements that are neither cities nor local councils and simply use the Template:Infobox Israel village like Itamar, just to give one example. Ajnem (talk) 17:13, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

One reason to leave "of Israel" out for the municipalities in Israel is that it is non-standard approach and redundant. Take a look at how this is handled for other countries, List_of_municipalities_of_Norway, Municipalities of Mexico, List_of_municipalities_of_Sweden, List_of_municipalities_of_the_Netherlands etc. To address Number 57's comments, just saying "Municipality" is clearly correct too and it is consistent with the documentation. It's a simple standard solution that addresses and resolves the concerns raised. As for the phrase Israeli settlement, it's standard terminology used extensively by RS and therefore editor's opinions about it don't matter. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:31, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Ajnem. The problem is with "of Israel" is the suggestion of territory. Municipality may refer to administrative title as wel as to territory. --Wickey-nl (talk) 17:47, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Having just read Dlv999's argument above, which is in my view a reasonable argument against using the Template:Infobox Israel municipality for these instances, apparently my suggestion doesn't address and resolve the concerns raised. Either way, there's no reason for 'of Israel' or any variation of that to appear in an infobox heading just like there is no reason for the heading in New York City to say "City of the United States". Sean.hoyland - talk 18:25, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

The reason why it says "Municipality of Israel" in the heading as opposed to other infoboxes for municipalities in other countries, some of which have no heading at all but just the name of the municipality, is, I presume, that the country is not otherwise stated in the infobox like it is in other infoboxes I checked. I don't know the reason for that – if I were to guess, I'd guess that it was omitted so that the infobox can be used for municipalities in the "administered" territories as well. If that's the reason it turns out that it was not a good idea, even though it took a long time before it was noticed. My suggestion would be:

turning the Template:Infobox Israel municipality into a standard template for municipalities, adding a hard-coded "country=Israel" and not use it for any localities outside the Green Line, and
using the Infobox Israel kibbutz/village for all Israeli administered localities outside the Green Line as it is already done for all of them except those which have city- or local council-status if I'm not misktaken. And to please those for whom it is important to have it in the infobox that the locality has city- or local council-status, sombody who is familiar with template syntax will no doubt add the necessary. If there are any objections to using a template which bears the name "Israel village" for settlements in the West Bank and elsewhere, we could probably have the same template under a more neutral name, the same template already exists as Infobox kibbutz and as Infobox Israel village, why not a third one. Personally I have no problem with using "Infobox Israel village", the name of the infobox is imo not important, as long as it shows what is consistent with WP:NPOV. Any better suggestions? Ajnem (talk) 16:36, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

First of all, only now after reading the long discussion I finally understand what your concern was. I didn't even notice this part and it didn't seem to have any significance to me, and even now I can't imagine why anyone would find it significant. However, just for the record, this line was added after the template format was changed (a change I opposed) to a standardized format.

Regarding the proposal, I strongly oppose it. The reason is simple: the whole point of having two infoboxes, one for municipalities and one for non-municipalities, is that they have distinct unique properties and nuances. For example, for a village it is important to say which regional council it belongs to, and not important to also state the district, while for municipalities it's the exact opposite. There are many more examples of such nuances which people unfamiliar with the subject may not understand, but it is the whole reason why we have two templates in the first place. If these differences didn't exist, we wouldn't have two templates but just one for all Israeli localities. On the other hand, there is no difference between municipalities on each side of the Green Line except which entities claim each territory, which is irrelevant to the template (which is politically neutral).

If you have such a big problem with the phrase "Municipality of Israel", be bold and remove that phrase from the template but don't change the template in the individual articles, it's there for a reason.

—Ynhockey ^(Talk) 23:46, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Ynhockey, I'm glad that you agree that "Municipality of Israel" is not an appropriate heading for municipalities outside the Green Line. What your opposition to my proposal and your suggestion therefore amounts to is that "Israeli settlements" in international parlance will have two different infoboxes: one with a light blue empty bar on the top for the bigger ones, i.e. those that have city- or local council-status, whereas the smaller ones will have a darker blue bar on top with the name of the locality. If it makes you happy to have two shades of blue to distinguish between bigger and smaller settlements, that's fine with me. As far as the rest of your argument is concerned, there is no need for two different infoboxes if all the options you mention are available so that |regional_council= |ditrict= |government_type= |mayor= ... can be filled in depending on the case. I'm all for respecting other peoples idiosyncrasies, I have a few of them myself, and I'm a big believer in AGF, but frankly, Ynhockey, isn't it just a case of your wanting to have the localities outside the Green Line in the Golan Heights and the West Bank, which you probably prefer to have referred to as Judea and Samaria, look exactly like Israeli cities or villages within the Green Line, particularly the bigger ones? And do you realise that if I or somebody else does as you suggest, the name of the country will not show in any infobox of cities and local councils in Israel within the Green Line either, which, by the way, is contrary to standard approach? Hasn't it occurred to you, dear Ynhockey, that you may be throwing out the baby with the bath water? The more I think about it, the more I come to the conclusion that the right solution is to have a special infobox for the localities outside the Green Line with no country name mentioned, and changing both the infoboxes Template:Infobox Israel municipality and Infobox Israel kibbutz/village into standard templates with a hard-coded "country=Israel". Of course, we'll have to have a hearty debate about what shade of blue the new template should have – not too dark, that's for sure. Cheers, Ajnem (talk) 09:30, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Well guys. What's the decision? You want me to try my hand at creating a new infobox for the settlements or do you want me to follow Ynhockey suggestion and eliminate the name "Israel" in the municipality infobox? If the latter, I probably don't even have to do that, I could just use the infobox Tel-Aviv uses – that should be municipal enough even for Ynhockey, I guess. Ajnem (talk) 15:16, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

O.k. I'm going to be bold (see above), if I can figure out how. Cheers, Ajnem (talk) 13:21, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I have never seen those settlements referred to as anything other than "Jewish settlements" in objective sites or sources. I think wikipedia should reflect the objective consensus rather than a subjective Israeli view. The US states clearly the differences of status in places like Guam, Puerto Rico or other US territories that are not actually part of the contingent US. May not be an apples-to-apples comparison, however, this is just an example.Patwinkle (talk) 17:30, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your concern. But "Israeli settlement" is the standard name given to the settlements in what the international community considers territories occupied by Israel, see e.g. Human rights situation in Palestine and other occupied Arab territories. Report of the independent international fact-finding mission to investigate the implications of the Israeli settlements on the civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights of the Palestinian people throughout the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem of February 2013. Ajnem (talk) 11:44, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

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:

Myths about the settlements and A compilation of facts on the settlements, Jewish Virtual Library

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)

Links

>> Israel-Romania row over settlements building >> Israel doubles West Bank outpost construction (Lihaas (talk) 16:05, 10 December 2013 (UTC)).

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)

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)

I agree though it would be missing out on a good opportunity to POV-push.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 19:13, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

Here is a source from an Israeli newspaper that proves the topic is not WP:OR and is notorious : [47]. Pluto2012 (talk) 20:00, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

I normally do not like the use of references from the jewish virtual library but here goes! [48] Trahelliven (talk) 20:10, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

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)

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. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 20:49, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

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)

@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)

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)

Although my personal sympathies are more with the Palestinians than the settlers, I'm happy to try and help (and improve my editing skills along the way...). Have moved the Itamar picture and added one of the Fogel family funeral. Will come back and have a look at the relative attention given to settler/Palestinian violence, though the relative numbers of attacks bear some attention and to be reflected in coverage. Also hope to add a section on non-violent resistance.Matruman (talk) 15:14, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Much appreciated. Thank you. 213.57.108.251 (talk) 21:27, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

"Remain under Israeli sovereignty" is not true

All Rows4 just reverted my edit. As I explained in my other edit summaries, it's not true that Israel has sovereignty over settlers. The sentence "80% of the settlers were to remain under Israeli sovereignty" gives you the view that the case is that Israel has sovereignty. However, it could be rewritten but as for now, it's not true. --IRISZOOM (talk) 13:50, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I rewrote that part yesterday. I think it's perfect now. --IRISZOOM (talk) 16:51, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

New topic under section 'History' - Dated 1948

I have noticed that the history section begins directly into 1967. I would like to introduce a fair and objective narrative covering 1948 - 167 periods. We seem to jump straight into the 1967 but there is considerable information that suggests there were settlements before this period of time.

What's everyone elses thoughts on this? There is so much controversy on these israel palestine matters already.

I'd like to see fair and objective information covering the 1948 - 1967 period. I have included references for you all to review and look forward to further information about this time period.

Reveala (talk) 05:58, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Book from Amazon ^[5]

Levy Report (Wikipedia) ^[6]

Publication about Occupation ^[7]

Article from 'History Today' (April 24, 1950)^[8]

East Jerusalem

--AreaMan (talk) 19:23, 22 February 2014 (UTC)The article repeatedly refers to "East Jerusalem" as if that is an existing municipality, perhaps like East St. Louis. There is no such political entity. The areas captioned as in "East Jerusalem" include Gilo and Pisgat Ze'ev. Gilo is south and slightly west of the Old City. Pisgat Ze'ev is north of the Old City, stretching to the east. Gilo and Pisgat Ze'ev are both under the administration of the city of Jerusalem and are included in its borders. This also applies to the other places referenced as "East Jerusalem".

It would be clearer and more accurate to refer to these various neighborhoods simply as "Over the Green Line".

Reliable sources usually refer to the part of Jerusalem across the green line in the Israeli occupied territories as East Jerusalem, therefore, so does Wikipedia. Obviously an encyclopedia with a mandatory neutrality policy can't treat Jerusalem as if it is simply an administrative district of Israel within the borders of what Israel, and only Israel, regards as its territory. I'll also add that the likely outcome of pursuing this line of argument is that editors will argue that it would be clearer and more accurate to refer to it as occupied East Jerusalem citing ~2.6 million ghits and ~19k google books hits. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:54, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

It's probably worth mentioning that the UN Partition Plan specified boundaries for Jerusalem, which was supposed to become a corpus separatum. Therefore, in UN terms, East Jerusalem is the area east of the Green Line and confined within the specified boundaries, which is considered to be currently territory occupied by Israel. The boundaries lay in the countryside outside the built-up areas of the city. ← ZScarpia 21:47, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

AreaMan (talk) 21:08, 24 February 2014 (UTC) An encyclopedia is supposed to provide correct information, not perpetuate common errors. Your logic would put Snopes out of business forever, and erase all corrections in news reporting. If all the governments or "Reliable sources" decided pi was exactly equal to 3, should we alter Wikipedia to match? There never was a municipality called "East Jerusalem", so it could not be "Occupied". Israel captured the eastern section of Jerusalem from Jordan, is anybody claiming it is still Jordanian?

In any case, Gilo and Pisgat Ze'ev are not east of Jerusalem, nor in eastern Jerusalem.

While I agree with Sean.holyland, in any case the designation East Jerusalem does not imply a separate municipality any more than South London. There may be an argument about its extent, but not its existence as a recognisable, useful and used geographical term. Plus, the bus systems certainly are completely distinct. Matruman (talk) 14:12, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

POV disagreement from December apparently resolved?

this dispute appears to be RESOLVED, see the following diff: [49] and the 3 "previous edits". I don't see any other disputes on this webpage (the POV tag said the dispute would've been discussed here, and the arguing parties said that they were resolving that particular dispute on this Talk page; it's apparent been removed/archived since then).

IRISZOOM's wording also seems to still be intact; all rows4 hasn't re-asserted his original position since December; no other POV disputes are currently "open" on this page. So, no other edits in December seem to be "remaining disagreements"? I just wanted to get a 2nd opinion; if you look @ December's "History" webpage and agree, please remove the POV tag. 72.183.52.92 (talk) 21:43, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Oslo relevance to settlements (WP:OR)

1. There are subsequent agreements (e.g. Wye River Memorandum) that may have annulled or voided the alleged effect that Article 31 potentially used to have on the new settlements (if Article 31 even had any relevance to the new settlements, ever).

2. The entirety of the Oslo Accords are not BINDING, some parts are only CLANDESTINE roadmaps that were never finalised -- due to failures by both parties to not follow certain parts of Oslo II.

3. Under Contract Law, if the Palestinians were the first party to abrogate/violate their obligations under Oslo II, this may (be found by a Court of International Law to) have relieved Israel of following Oslo II in its entirety, retroactively (including Article 31 or any other portions that allegedly applied to settlement-building) and a judge's decision is the only 'expert source' that avoids potential libel (deceit) issues, as explained in my last paragraph (the potential for many more legal technicalities in addition to a binding judgment of who violated Oslo II first, is why I added my last paragraph, beginning with "N.B.:"). The Wikipedia editor who added the following bit does not have expertise (nor even the ability to get it correct that you should capitalise the A in "Article 31" ;-P ) and should cite an unbiased 3rd-party expert source saying: 1. whether or not Article 31 is still relevant to Israel's new settlements ("as of the 2005 amended peace place" or similar form so that we never need to put an {update} tag on it), AND/OR 2. that Article 31 ever did have relevance to these newer settlements when Israel "broke ground" or continued to build each one, rather than the potential that a judge could rule, e.g., that at the time of settlement-building resumption, Art. 31 was already voided by subsequent agreements (contracts) such as Wye River and/or adjudicating that the PNA had voided/annulled the Oslo II Accord by having already, at that point in time, abrogated their obligations that they agreed to in Oslo II.

Summary: It is WP:synthesis and WP:OR to add the following, without citing a source who is expert, neutral, and verifiable+reliable, who can AFFIRM that there is a logical nexus (relevance) between the Oslo Accords (and the alleged specific article(s)) and today's more recent settlements: "...in spite of the Oslo Accords, which specified in article 31 [sic: must capitalise "Article"] that neither side would take any step that would change the status of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip pending the outcome of the permanent status negotiations"

N.B: This 3rd-party neutral/reliable/etc source should be a judge with appropriate jurisdiction to adjudicate International Law disputes, because, e.g., it is the job of such a judge, and only such a judge, to interpret international treaties like Oslo II, e.g. interpret/affirm that "change the status" (to quote Oslo II's Article 31) was intended by both parties (with consensus ad item[50] as typically needed in this form of mutual contract) to apply to new settlement-building. Without said judgment, to imply one party's or the other party's guilt of breaking Oslo II is every bit as LIBELOUS as a journalist who says, before a judge/jury with competent jurisdiction has even rendered a verdict, "that murderer, George Zimmerman" rather than the commonly seen terminology of "that alleged murder, George...": this libel (deceit) issue is why you always see journalists say "alleged..." until after a judge/jury renders a verdict (in this case, a Court of International Law). 72.183.52.92 (talk) 18:16, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

If you made your point in about 1/4 as many words, more people would be likely to read it. But your comments about the role of judges are irrelevant to the way Wikipedia operates. In fact an attributed opinion of any person with relevant expertise, for example a historian or political analyst, is prima facie admissible (issues of weight aside). Although I agree with your specific deletion in this case, your attempt to rule out any replacement text in advance is futile. Zero^talk 00:48, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Links

>> Fight brews between Israeli settlers and army Lihaas (talk) 17:54, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Israeli civilian communities or Jewish civilian communities or something else

There have been a few edits on this issue again in the first sentence in the lead today, whether to describe Israeli settlements as Israeli civilian communities or Jewish civilian communities. It's been discussed before at least once Talk:Israeli_settlement/Archive_12#Jewish_civilian_communities, and maybe more, I haven't checked in detail. What are people's views on the best way to handle this ? I don't really have a strong view on it. Sources use both descriptions, although I don't know which is more common. As I said in my edit summary "Jewish civilian communities" is a more precise/less imprecise reflection of the demographic realities [than Israeli], but we already know that it's not 100% accurate from the previous discussion. hmmm. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:26, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Do you have a source for how many non-jews live in settlement? It ought to be mentioned. The discussion you mentioned cited a source saying a number of Arabs lived in some settlements. Regardless its hardly imprecise to mention them as Israeli settlements. You could call it predominantly Jewish as an alternative.88.104.212.92 (talk) 18:37, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Statistics (2012) for "Judea and Samaria" from the Statistical Abstract of Israel 2013 No. 64.

From 2.16 Localities and Population, by District, Sub-District, Religion and Population Group[51]
- Total population = 341,400 in 123 "Jewish localities"
- Jews = 334,200 in 123 "Jewish localities"
- Arabs = 0 in 0 "Non-Jewish localities" (or at least none listed on worksheet ST02-16y)
- The 341,400 vs 334,200 mismatch is unexplained

From 2.15 Population, by District, Sub-District and Religion[52]
- Total population = 341,400
- Jews = 334,200
- "Moslims" = 0 (or at least none listed on worksheet ST02-15y)
- Christians = 0 (or at least none listed on worksheet ST02-15y)
- Druze = 0 (or at least none listed on worksheet ST02-15y)
- Not classified by religion = 500

So, still missing several thousand mysterious people in the West Bank to make up the discrepancy between 341,400 and 334,200. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:44, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

On the archive you listed someone mentions a source about Arabs living in Israeli settlements. I haven't checked the source yet. 88.104.212.92 (talk) 18:48, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't believe that there are precisely zero Arabs living across the green line in Israeli settlements. That seems too implausible. Surely there are some students from Ariel University living in Ariel, even just one ? Confused. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:57, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I think we should try to find out first and foremose, which terminology is employed by most international sources. If "Jewish settlements" is predominantly used, then we should do so too even if there would be an Arab minority in the settlements. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 19:04, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree but I think more detail will be needed, perhaps in a note. I've tried adding one for now, at least for the West Bank data. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:38, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

An explanation of Israeli racism you can find here. Non-Jews include Buddhists, Hindus, Samaritans, and of course communists and atheists from the former USSR, but primarily family members of Jewish immigrants.

"Israeli, predominantly Jewish, civilian communities" is an excellent alternative. --Wickey-nl (talk) 14:18, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

To avert misunderstanding, this does not only apply to West Bank and Golan Heights, but also to cleansed and proper Israel. Sean, to give a definitive answer on your question: the ICBS explanation above says:

Localities are classified as “Jewish” or “non-Jewish” according to the majority population in the locality. In most localities, there is a large majority either of “Jews” or of “Arabs”. In Israel, there are nine localities defined as "mixed".--Wickey-nl (talk) 14:22, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Is anti-Semitic soapboxing like the above allowed on Wikipedia? "An explanation of Israeli racism you can find" -- Wickey-nl. "Cleansed and proper Israel" -- Wickey-nl. Usually Sean.hoyland removes soapboxing, but he seems to have missed this instance. If someone were to post an anti-Muslim or even merely a pro-Jewish comment, it would have been cleansed already. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.20.127.90 (talk) 12:42, 9 June 2014 (UTC) looks like more block evasion by JarlaxleArtemis Sean.hoyland - talk 16:44, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Okay, you get an answer. Wickey-nl's comments are not anti-Semitic nor do they reach the level of soapboxing that I care about. There's racism in Israel just like everywhere else and there was and is, even now, actions that are described as cleansing or ethnic cleansing. Get over it. You are confusing being a normal human being, someone who doesn't like what looks like racism and injustice to them, with being an anti-Semite. That confusion is a dumb and offensive mistake for so many reasons. Normal people have ethics, morals, values. It effects them. It's not their fault. They are just people. Why would I remove a pro-Jewish comment by the way ? What's wrong with a pro-Jewish comment ? Not even sure what you mean. I guess you don't mean something like "Ben Katchor is a genius" and I sincerely hope you aren't conflating pro-Jewish with disruptive nationalist advocacy for the State of Israel because they are not the same at all. What catches my eye on talk pages is hate, ultranationalism, banned users and people using talk pages to pointlessly wage war in the most pathetically weak way possible, and there is a lot of all 4 of those things in ARBPIA. My turn. Couple of questions. When did Israel supporters become so whiny by the way ? And how come so many Israel supporters like yourself don't seem to care about how their frequently appallingly disruptive and offensive behavior in Wikipedia damages the reputation of Israel and its supporters ? Sean.hoyland - talk 13:57, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Sean, don't feed the trolls ;). This one has come in on multiple IPs in the past few hours and left two death threats among other things. About 10 editions are now blocked including this one but it isn't tired of the fun yet I fear. Zero^talk 14:02, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I should probably resist the urge to use Wikipedia as if it's a behavioral research lab. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:48, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

This is another fine example of Wikipedia's rampant anti-Semitism. Wikipedia administrators dismiss Jewish complaints as "trolling" and then ban them. Wickey-nl is slandering an Israeli demographic report as racist without giving any evidence. That is racist soapboxing meant to slander Jews, and that Wikipedia sponsors anti-Semitism is disgusting and proves that Wikipedia should be shut down for inciting hate speech. This article calls Jewish villages in the Jewish homeland of Judea "illegal Israeli settlements," citing UN propaganda. Yet it does not call the Arab villages and towns in Israel "Palestinian settlements." Only Jewish ones are settlements. Another example of Wikipedia's anti-Semitism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.95.248.111 (talk) 14:29, 9 June 2014 (UTC) looks like more block evasion by JarlaxleArtemis Sean.hoyland - talk 16:44, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

intro 1st paragraph

is there any real reason that you have to mention that israel expands settlements despite condemnation from the un and then you overstate it again by how many countries condemn israel, twice. i'm not saying its wrong, but in the 1st paragraph and in an intro, without an explanation of the deep complexities of building in the west bank and indeed of this whole conflict in general, i found this to be a very troubling intro filled with much bias. i suggest a revision, much of what is mentioned in the 1st paragraph is set to make readers take a certain position on the conflict, and since wikipedia is meant to be a source of free information and not of propaganda, i think a revision is definitely in order. --173.68.208.82 (talk) 23:16, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Stronger statement needed

It says "The international community considers the settlements in occupied territory to be illegal". Considering the sheer unanimity of the consensus, that is not a sufficiently strong statement. The more explicit "The Israeli settlements in occupied territory are illegal" is ideal. As an analogy, you wouldn't say that "The scientific community holds the law of conservation of momentum to be necessarily true"; you would say that it is true without attribution; nor would you say that "The legal community considers murder to be illegal in the United States", but that it is illegal. The attribution of the claim to some "international community" seems like a cowardly move to appease Israel-supporters. It's a deliberate usage of equivocal language to mystify the issue. JDiala (talk) 04:48, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi there, it's true that there is a near universal agreement the settlements contravene the Geneva convention, and thus constitute war crimes. This is a source where several governments give that view. However, e.g. the beeb has boilerplate language in several articles which goes out of its way to explicitly mention that Tel Aviv disputes the illegality. --Dailycare (talk) 19:07, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Whilst I agree that there is near unanimity and consensus amoungst the international community on this issue I do not feel that that is a good enough reason to warrant a changing of the wording. The current wording strikes me as both adequate, concise and un-emotive (which is a good thing for a Wikipedia article). I am not going to get into a debate on the definition of 'international law' (something that some people dispute even exists) which supposedly dictates what is legal between communities in the form of states as I think others could do that better than me. I am skeptical that it could be worded better however I do sympathise with your point even if I dont support it.--Discott (talk) 14:30, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

^ Israeli Settlements and International Law Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs, May 20, 2001.
^ Alex Safian: Peace Now’s Blunder: Erred on Ma'ale Adumim Land by 15,900 Percent CAMERA March 16, 2007.
^ Shragai, Nadav (2007-03-14). "Peace Now: 32% of land held for settlements is private Palestinian property". Haaretz. Retrieved 2009-07-06. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
^ "שלום עכשיו יפצו מתנחלים ב-20 אלף ש'" (in Hebrew). nrg Maariv. 2008-12-14. Retrieved 2009-07-06. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |trans_title= ignored (|trans-title= suggested) (help)
^ http://www.amazon.com/The-Claim-Dispossession-Land-Settlement-1878-1948/dp/0878559647
^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levy_Report
^ http://watchdogwire.com/blog/2013/08/09/the-legal-and-historical-precedents-for-israeli-claims-to-judea-and-samaria/
^ http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-61692149.html

[1] Israeli Settlements and International Law Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs, May 20, 2001.

[2] Alex Safian: Peace Now’s Blunder: Erred on Ma'ale Adumim Land by 15,900 Percent CAMERA March 16, 2007.

[3] Shragai, Nadav (2007-03-14). "Peace Now: 32% of land held for settlements is private Palestinian property". Haaretz. Retrieved 2009-07-06. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

[4] "שלום עכשיו יפצו מתנחלים ב-20 אלף ש'" (in Hebrew). nrg Maariv. 2008-12-14. Retrieved 2009-07-06. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |trans_title= ignored (|trans-title= suggested) (help)

[5] ttp://www.amazon.com/The-Claim-Dispossession-Land-Settlement-1878-1948/dp/0878559647

[6] ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levy_Report

[7] ttp://watchdogwire.com/blog/2013/08/09/the-legal-and-historical-precedents-for-israeli-claims-to-judea-and-samaria/

[8] ttp://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-61692149.html

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

Proposal of Palestinian citizenship for remaining settlers

Incident Report

False claims

EU action on the settlements (December 2010)

"much of"

Israeli_settlement#Religious_significance

Jewish settlement ?

Hebrew name

What is the significance of numbers that do not include Palestinians killed by the Israeli military?

Choice of Photos

Casualty figures

More Mainstream Scholars have weighed-in on Israeli Colonialism and Genocide

Demographics – Any details?

Land ownership, and "Peace Now"'s report

Link 52

Colony vs Civilian Community

Demographics

Settlements as colonies

Further reading

Removal of map

Jewish civilian communities

"Since the signing of the Oslo Accords in 1993, no new settlements have been established in the occupied territories.[16]"

Since mid-1990s attacks against settlers became a frequent phenomenon.

Stephen Schwebel and the legal status of the settlements

Last Jewish town legalized in Judea and Samaria

Palestinian violence vs. Jews

Lead

WP:OR violation

Levy Report. Can we add it here?

History section

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

Breaking the silence

POV tag

Article title

Rename to Shtetls in the Land of Israel

Gas the Arabs

"land that was captured by Israel from Jordan, Egypt and Syria"

Wrong infobox in several articles of settlements

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

Links

Israeli settlements - Jewish civilian communities

Bias

"Remain under Israeli sovereignty" is not true

New topic under section 'History' - Dated 1948

East Jerusalem

POV disagreement from December apparently resolved?

Oslo relevance to settlements (WP:OR)

Links

Israeli civilian communities or Jewish civilian communities or something else

intro 1st paragraph

Stronger statement needed