Talk:Israeli settlement/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

Israeli settlement?

Shouldn't the title of this article be "Israeli settlements" (plural)? AucamanTalk 10:44, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Settlement is the process of creating settlements. Like colonization/colonies.--1010011010 04:05, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I too thought at first it was settlements in singular. I support an article move, simply to avoid misunderstandings. -- Heptor talk 20:47, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, we are not talking about the abstract idea of settlement. We're talking about Israeli settlements. AucamanTalk 23:47, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

There is already an article at Israeli settlements. It simply redirects back to Israeli settlement, but the history is non-empty. An admin is therefore needed to move the article. A less lazy person than me would try summon one and persuade him/her to move the artilce. -- Heptor talk 16:08, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

The terminology/definition used is bizarre. An Israeli community has a unique name if it is in territories. Israelis built the whole land by settling it, from Rosh Hanikra to Eilat. Yet a kibbutz in Israel is not a settlement, but a few feet away across the Green Line it is a settlement???? I would think this is one time when someone ought to use a Webster's definition. Yes, anyone can point out common usage, but the only explanation of the usage is to stigmatize. Stigmatization does not pertain to legal status, size, recency of being built, etc. Yet in Webster's under settlement, there is not anything about the West Bank nor is there anything pejorative about its usages. By the way I believe the Palestinian usage often matches the Israeli one. they coyly use the word "settlement" leading people to pretend to believe they are talking about the West Bank but they are actually talking about all of Israel. This is deceptive because most editors here would not admit that is what they mean. For these reasons, I think the use of the word should be totally abolished. I prefer the term "community" because it does not attempt to dehumanize the people who, for whatever reason, live in the West Bank, is a better fit linguistically, and actually does not in any real way compromise any claim Palestinians or Israelis have on the land. One can speak of Jewish communities on Arab land, if one believes that describes the situation, which yields nothing of Arab rights in any negotiation but describes the situation accurately linguistically and without using a word that has become essentially a slur. 22:20, 22 October 2007 (UTC) that is me sorry forgot I wasn't signed in Bigleaguer 22:24, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

You may think the word should be abolished, but it is the standard terminology used by all official sources including the US government and Israeli government. Whether you like it or not, the Green Line exists, the territory beyond it has not been annexed and is not considered part of the State of Israel by the State of Israel or any other government, therefore Israeli communities there have a different status, and the name in official use and common use for this is "Israeli settlements in the (occupied, disputed, or no adjective) territories" and the abbreviated form in common usage is "Israeli settlements".

Even in the MEMRI alleged interview with Mahmoud Zahar that you referenced, he first makes a rhetorical point by saying Israeli towns are settlements (if normal usage was that towns in Israel are settlements, he would not have to state this explicitly), then when he actually uses the word "settlements" several times later in the interview, he is using it in the normal meaning, referring specifically to the Israeli settlements in Gaza that were about to be evacuated.

You complain Palestinians would like to erase the distinction between towns in Israel and in the West Bank, but your proposed solution is to call both by the same name, erasing the distinction yourself! It is the official and standard terminology of "settlements in the occupied territories" that maintains the distinction.

You have added a page-long rambling personal rant at the head of the article, that means no more than what was already said concisely and in a neutral tone in the introduction, that the settlement movement likes "community" better than "settlement". --JWB 21:21, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

No, I have pointed out that the term has become a slur and a means to duhumanize people, which was not previously noted here. I also pointed out that the term as used by wikipedia, the ap, reuters, bbc, etc. is different than people who actually live there use the term. This is important for people to know, especially those who get up on their soapboxes about how the "whole world" etc. etc. insists on removing 300,000 people from their homes. Bigleaguer 11:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

The CAMERA reference is not about the word "settlement", but the word "settler", which has a worse connotation. It also claims to be from Haaretz, but this is impossible to verify since the link is dead.

The first bullet point in the Terminology section already pointed out "some think it has acquired a derogatory connotation in recent years". That section covers the terminology usage and connotations well, and has the original Hebrew terms which you don't. Even if you did have new relevant points, which you don't, it is arrogant to ignore the existing balanced summary and stick a longwinded page of your particular viewpoint in front of it. --JWB 17:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

"(alternatively considered part of the West Bank and at other times treated separately)"

Why do people keep inserting the unsourced trivia "(alternatively considered part of the West Bank and at other times treated separately)" into the introduction of this article, which is about Israeli settlements, not about the status of East Jerusalem? Jayjg (talk) 22:35, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

If you missed it, there arose a difference in opinion as to how to mention Jerusalem, either by itself, as part of the West Bank, etc. This formulation is true and I can certainly dig up citations if you dispute it. But are you really disputing that some quarters consider Jerusalem to be part of the West Bank, while others consider it to be separate? The status of the city is a very controversial matter and Israeli settlement in East Jerusalem is controversial in large part because of said status. I did not add an entire section, I added a few words to disambiguate that the status is unlike the rest of the post 1967 territories. Listing the city by itself with no connection to the West bank is not neutral. It endorses one POV over another. Adding a few words to show the different positions is NPOV. --AladdinSE 11:23, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

It is unneccesary to place it in the introduction. It is clear that the status of EJ is disputed.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 11:31, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Where is it clear? And why should it be listed only in the manner that favors the Israeli position, that is, of the legality of the annexation, and its distinctness from the rest of the West Bank? "Trivia" would be to insert a note about date of its founding, or the numbers of museums it contains. All I am proposing is a brief disambiguation that it is treated as part of the WB by some and separately by others, thereby endorsing no one position over the other. It's NPOV 101. If EJ were no longer a separate entity, and the Israeli annexation were legally recognized, then post 1967 Jewish population in the city would not be such a bitterly divisive issue. Its all about the context of legality of post 1967 settlements.--AladdinSE 12:04, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
What's the source for all of the above? Pecher Talk 12:23, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
And why does the simple and concise wording "favor the Israeli position"? The Israeli position is that East Jerusalem is part of Israel, and that there are no settlements in it. The introduction certainly doesn't indicate that. Jayjg (talk) 16:56, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes, the Israeli position is that EJ is part of Israel and does not contain "settlements", and the intro does not say otherwise. The intro does, however, treat EJ as separate from the West Bank, which Israel has not annexed. The Palestinian position (and many others) treats [Arab East] Jerusalem as part of the West Bank. Why then is EJ listed among the territories captured in 1967 in the intro, whereas other cities are not? This is an endorsement of one POV over another. What I propose is to briefly state that the status, in terms of being seperate or distinct form the WB, is disputed. This is central to the te issue of post 1967 Jewish settlement in the East. I do not want to exclude the mention of EJ separately, as its future status in peace negotiations is a very divisive issue, and the city deserves special mention as long as it is stated in a neutral manner. As for sources, you know there are many. Come on, do we really need any for the simple acknowledged fact that the status of EJ as part of or distinct form the WB is disputed? Take for example what B'tselem says about EJ: Prior to 1967, therefore, most of the area comprising present-day Jerusalem was not part of the city (West or East), but rather part of the West Bank. The CIA World factbook mentions EJ and its disputed relationship to the WB several times. It lists EJ under "West Bank". The BBC says "Palestinians in the West Bank, including east Jerusalem, have lived under Israeli occupation since 1967." Citation is easy to provide, but hopefully no one will insist that it be inserted as that might only lengthen what I wanted to be a brief disclaimer. By the way, I would also be open to an astrerix or foot-note type notation that would provide this information. I cannot understand how it can be classified as "trivia", however. --AladdinSE 11:05, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Jerusalem has always been treated differently from other territories, but more importantly, this is an article about the settlements, not an analysis the status of the various territories and how they compare to each other. The intro of this article should not be yet another place weighted down with partisan and wordy summaries of material that belongs in other articles. Jayjg (talk) 14:30, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
So why then should this article promote a viewpoint which is not the general understanding as one would deduce from our articles on the areas in question? Surely as this article does not deal with the status of the various territories, it should simply adopt the more widely-accepted understanding of what they are, the understanding that informs the organization of our articles on the subject? Then if people need more information, they can find it in the relevant articles. Palmiro | Talk 22:51, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
The widely accepted understanding is that East Jerusalem is treated separately from the West Bank, historically, in legal instruments, in negotiations, de facto by Israel, and likely in any ultimate peace agreement. Jayjg (talk) 21:44, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. And what I am proposing is not partisan at all, it is the epitome of NPOV. The status of EJ is central to the issue of settlements in EJ. A few words, or a footnote notation, is not "weighing down".--AladdinSE 08:40, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg: You removed mention that the incorporation of EJ by Israel is not recognized internationally. I would be willing to leave it as "generally not recognized" to indicate a majority instead of a totality, if you can provide one reliable source that cites a single nation-state that recognizes the Israeli annexation of East Jerusalem. Even the United States, as far as I know, has not officially recognized the annexation. Thanks.--AladdinSE 09:20, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

The American congress voted to recognize Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, but the government still chose not to move their embassy back to Jerusalem fearing controversy. So they recognized it de jure but maybe not de facto. Anyways it is not my job to disprove when you are adding.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 09:31, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad you realized your error. The American congress voted to move the American embassy to Jerusalem from Tel Aviv, and as far as I know, made no comment about recognizing the incorporation of the occupied East. Even the PNA recognizes Israel's right to a capital in West Jerusalem, for heaven's sakes. In any case, you did not provide a source, especially for "de jure but maybe not de facto". Now, for the sake of argument, lets say the US recognized this incorporation as legal, why did you not amend to say "not generally recognized internationally".--AladdinSE 09:47, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Because it would be original research, don't you think so? Pecher Talk 09:53, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
First of all, I never did admit I was wrong because I wasn't. Secondly it is not my responsibility to provide a source when you are the one that is trying to add something. Third of all I believe the only reason you are trying to add the comment is because you are attempting to weasel in your POV, so there is no reason for me to attempt to to amend it.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 09:55, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Pecher: It is a very simple matter to source. Not one country has recognized the annexation of EJ. Do you not agree? Is it not also OR to insert Moshe's defacto justification? Moshe: Please assume good faith, and consider that this happens to be the vastly overwhelming official international position. Your way on the other hand would treat the Israeli position as the true undisputed one, which is endorsing one POV over another. --AladdinSE 22:18, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Sasson report

I've shortened this section as parts of it were out of date, and I removed some of the Sharon references, partly because he's not mentioned in the report and also because they're probably not relevant now. SlimVirgin (talk) 12:06, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

The section in general was in need of such copyediting and "dating". The commented-out section was returned with citation (with slight rephrasing). Otherwise, I have no problem with the changes.--AladdinSE 12:10, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Why did you revert my Sasson edits? I agreed with most of your copyedit, formatting, and shortening. I provided the citation you talked about in the commented-out section. What is the disagreement?--AladdinSE 12:27, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Can I have a response please. --AladdinSE 08:45, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

The recent additions to this section are one of the worst examples of erroneous and misleading edits ever made to this article. "The initiative was backed by Sharon..." What "initiative"? Then, what do the reported calls to seize hilltops have to do with the Sasson report? "The report ignored Sharon's complicity..." That's such a blatant POV that it does not even merit discussion. "...the report prompted calls..." We can always find an organization calling for something — that's why these organizations exist, but that's not a reason to include every "call" into an encyclopedia article. Just imagine all calls for George W. Bush's impeachment being included in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a soapbox for political campaigning. Pecher Talk 09:52, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

This material has been part of the article well before you joined the discussion, they are not "recent additions". The wording "The report ignored Sharon's complicity..." was originally part of some cited commentators analysis, if I remember correctly, and not mine. I have no objection at all to its removal. The connection with Sharon and the report is sourced and the "initiative" wording comes form that source and is not original with me. This is what the BBC article has to say:

The report details how officials in the ministries of defence and housing and the settlement division of the World Zionist Organisation spent millions of dollars from state budgets to support the illegal outposts.Ms Sasson called it a "blatant violation of the law" and said "drastic steps" were needed to remedy the situation. It describes secret co-operation between various ministries and official institutions to consolidate wildcat outposts, which settlers began setting up more than a decade ago. It was an initiative backed by Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, then foreign minister, who urged settlers to seize hilltops in order to break up the contiguity of Palestinian areas and prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state.

As you see, the BBC seems to think that the hilltops comment is quite relevant to the Sasson report. So much for OR. As for "calls", they are highly germane when made my reputable and influential organizations and persons, and may not be deleted when properly cited. As for your Bush example, you could not be more wrong! There is an entire article on the subject! See Movement to impeach George W. Bush--AladdinSE 10:15, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Interesting link, I used to be of higher opinion of Wikipedia, but it's never late to learn; anyway, it is not necessary to follow bad examples. On the other point, Sharon's backing is BBC's opnion, rather than a part of the Sasson report. Pecher Talk 11:57, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry your opinion of Wikipedia has suffered. Try to get that article on Bush to be deleted and it would be interesting to see how much success or support you get. I believe an afd has already been defeated at least once. Getting back to this article, you'll find the BBC to be held as a highly reliable source and that rules and guidelines have been more than satisfied as to inclusion of the material here. As for Sharon's backing not being part of the report, you'll find that none of my edits say that. You concerns as per complicity wording are valid and I will not return that language.--AladdinSE 22:24, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Blind reverts

Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg, please stop blindly reverting without bothering to look at the article edit history diffs and corresponding Talk discussion. You added a second redundant "Sasson" heading in your haste and negligence. Also, if you had studied the diff, you would have seen that I did not revert SlimVirgin about the reviews, as I have said before I not not revert this point more than once a day while the discussion continues. My edit summary clearly indicated where my change lay, in the Sasson section. It is disrespectful to claim your side as "common sense" and to refuse to participate in Talk and revert blindly without even taking the trouble of seeing what it is you are reverting.--AladdinSE 12:25, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

As long as you continue your disruptive "one revert a day ad infinitum" policy you have no standing to criticize the behavior of others regarding reverting. Jayjg (talk) 14:21, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree. While Jayjg is improving the article, your only contribution is disruption, so it's time to stop lecturing others. SlimVirgin (talk) 15:01, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, and Pecher too has been doing good work. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:51, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes, Aladdin, and please stop doing the same edit and repeating the same argument over and over again; that's getting tiresome. Pecher Talk 18:08, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes I forgot, my voluntary limits are disruptive, and your multiple reverts are not. OK, well we'll let the record speak for itself on that one. The comment was bout Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg's blind revert which was CLEARLY disruptive and added a redundant heading because the editor did not even bother to check what s/he was reverting. No comment from you about that, of course. Only general polemics and manifest hypocrisy. Charming.--AladdinSE 08:35, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Checkpoints - Section expansion

The bullet point on checkpoints in the "Impacts on Arab populations' does not seem to be supported by sources, at least its inclusion into this article is dubious. For example, the statement "The use of 50+ security checkpoints, with many inside the West Bank, are used by Israel to secure the settlements, but they also significantly restrict Palestinian freedoms and are viewed as humiliating and degrading" is sourced to a BBC page with two separate maps showing settlements and checkpoints. First, the two maps are unrelated and secondly, nowhere on the BBC page can I find support for the statement in question, linking settlements and checkpoints. The statement by Menachem Finkelstein pertains to checkpoints in general; again, nowehere is can I see a link with settlements. The same is true for the sentence "These checkpoints also significantly impact Palestinian movement and economic activity within the West Bank": general arguments about checkpoints, not about settlements. It looks like these arguments have been carried over from one article to another regardless of their relevance. Pecher Talk 18:26, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

A little too quick there, weren't you? All you had to do is fix per source, or find sources for what you think was missing, because outright deletion (in the manner that you did) is not a sign of good faith in my opinion. Ramallite (talk) 21:04, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
An incivility in the edit summary and a failure to assume good faith in the comment — an impressive achievement that you, hopefully, will not try to surpass. The burden to provide adequate sources for your edits lies on you, not on other editors; if an edit does not match the source provided, it can just be removed. Pecher Talk 19:46, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Do not lecture me in civility and good faith, my friend, you are throwing stones from a glass house. And leave the sarcasm aside. Your continuous "the burden to provide sources is on you" comments spanning many article discussions are getting a bit tiresome, especially when you apply this logic very very selectively. But I thank you for not using the word "behooves", because as people who know me will attest, I abhor that word immensely (it's incredibly annoying, about as much as the word anoikis.) In any case, everybody:
I have significantly expanded the section on the impact on Palestinians. I usually don't like to list grievances or point fingers in articles, but this problem is one of the most contentious and painful from the Palestinian perspective, and I feel it is really important to show why. I thought it would be most NPOV to list reports 'according to two human rights organizations', one Israeli and the other international, because this way the chances of being called a POV-pusher are a little bit slimmer. But I honestly believe that this is a very important section in understanding the conflict and has been misrepresented so far. Ramallite (talk) 21:26, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Just in case you didn't know, "The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it." is from WP:V and it "spans" the whole Wikipedia, not just several talk pages. Pecher Talk 21:43, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Thank you Pecher. In case you didn't realize, I didn't include that material myself (although before you point it out to me, I did neglect to look at the BBC source to see if it mentioned humiliation, because I assumed that such as simple sentence followed by a citation would have that claim included). But the material I myself included, I obviously sourced. I am aware of the policy, but it's the selectivity of your implementation that I was referring to. But nobody's perfect, not even my cousin Lou. Ramallite (talk) 22:06, 19 April 2006 (UTC)


The sentence "The historical use of curfews in urban areas such as Hebron restricts thousands of Palestinian citizens to their homes for the protection of several hundred Jewish settlers" is sourced to a BBC article[1]. However, nothing in the article, which deals with an isolated case of a murder of an Israeli settler by Palestinians, justifies such a broad conclusion about "historical use of curfews", not to mention that the immediate cause of the curfew in question was not a (supposedly preemptive) "protection of several hundred Jewish settlers", but the need to investigate the murder. Pecher Talk 18:41, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


Ramallite, the fact/opinion distinction you're drawing boils down to your opinion, so that these are matters of someone's opinion is inescapable. What we need to do is describe them in a way that neither elevates nor discredits them. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:33, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

How are shootings of Palestinians, the prevention of olive harvests, or the discharge of untreated sewage onto Palestinian agricultural land opinions? They certainly express an opinion, that of the persons responsible as to the human worth of Palestinians, but they are themselves facts. I don't even know that they are widely disputed facts, but an occurrence, even a disputed one, is not an opinion! Palmiro | Talk 22:48, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

It's a question of good, unbiased writing in accordance with NPOV.

  • Unbiased: "Accounts that the presence of settlements in the West Bank has an adverse impact on the local population include ..."
  • Biased: "Human rights organizations Btselem and Human Rights Watch have documented and reported extensively on the adverse impact of settlements and Israeli settlers on the local population ..."
  • Unbiased: "Alleged impact on the Palestinian population"
  • Biased: "Impact on the Palestinian population according to two human rights organizations" (biased in part because one of them is Human Rights Watch, and in part because of the sentence structure) SlimVirgin (talk) 22:54, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
I completely fail to understand your claim that examples 1 and 3 are unbiassed and 2 and 4 biassed. Four, in particular, is clear and factual and far preferable to 3, which starts by casting doubt on everything that follows with the weaselly "you-don't-really-want-to-believe-this" use of "alleged". If these are allegations that have been credibly disputed, then it should be possible to find cases of organizations equally credible, or at any rate quotable, that dispute them. I wont even ask what you mean by those mysterious references to biassed sentence structure and Human Rights Watch. That particular proposal is possibly the worst example of bias masquerading as NPOV that I have seen for quite a while. Palmiro | Talk 23:08, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
You can try "reported" if you feel "alleged" casts doubt. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:35, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Slim - what exactly, in your judgement, am I incorrectly referring to as a fact? Using the word 'alleged' to describe the impact on Palestinians, as if these accounts might be fictional, is a level of denial I haven't really seen before (in regards to this conflict anyway). Moshe Constantine - I did not understand your edit summary regarding your edits to that section. You mention controversy - nobody, not even the most left or the most right wing in Israel - disputes these accounts regardless of what individuals may feel about Btselem or HRW (which is the old 'describing Israeli policy = bashing Israel' straw man argument again). The only thing that is controversial is the different 'justifications' given (e.g. ranging from "dehumanization, humiliation, collective punishment" to "Palestinians deserve it because they are terrorists, or are human scum, or non-human scum", etc). But this section doesn't describe views such as this, just the documented occurrences. Again, there is no dispute over those. Ramallite (talk) 13:33, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Reported might be better than alleged, but we can't describe what some organizations say as though it's a fact. SlimVirgin (talk) 13:53, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Is that all organizations or just these two? For example, what about all the organizations talked about in New anti-Semitism for example? That sort of thing? (I don't know if accounts are described there as fact or not, I haven't gone back and read it, but I wanted to ask first before I go off making comparisons). Also, are you saying that some of these accounts are unverified or fictional? I know you can't be saying that, so I still don't get it. Ramallite (talk) 14:08, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
"Reported impact" is entirely factual, meaning "this is the impact that has been reported." I can't see the objection to it. It doesn't imply at all (as "alleged" might) that the impact might not be as reported, but it also doesn't state that it is as reported either. SlimVirgin (talk) 15:41, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
The objection to it, even though it may now be a moot point if my latest edit stands, is that it (again) is an unnecessary qualification. It's like every single article or section that may be mildly perceived as having an iota of information from the Palestinian perspective has to have a title or an intro whose wording apologizes for its existence. So we can have a "Motivations for settlements" (not 'described' or 'alleged' motivations), or "Tensions, mistrust and accusations" instead of "perceived tensions, mistrust and accusations", or whatever other title I had the privilege of not writing, but have to have 'alleged', 'viewed', 'reported', or 'farted' impact on the 'Palestinian population' (that insect colony down there). Am I being hysterical? Perhaps, but hey, they didn't burn my great aunt Lucy at the stake for being non-chalant. Ramallite (talk) 16:15, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

On third thought (done with the second already), I'm just going to restore the original 'Impact on the Palestinian population'. This way, there is no POV in the title whether they are 'views', 'facts', 'allegations', 'mind teasers', 'jokes', 'musings', or 'riddles'. If anybody feels the text of the section itself is POV, we can discuss. I'm trying to avoid "Israel regards these measures as necessary because..." text because that would have to trigger 'Palestinians regard these measures as inhumane etc etc" which would turn this into yet another breeding ground for propagandists/apologizers/complainers/lobbyists/victims. Ramallite (talk) 13:47, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Contrary to what you're saying, the old title implies that the claims in the section are facts, while they are opinions, of course. Pecher Talk 14:06, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Ah Pecher - there you are! May I ask what exactly is 'opinion' in that section? You do realize that you telling me such things are 'opinion' would be as insulting to me as referring to the pogroms of Russia as 'opinions'. But I will assume good faith and inquire nevertheless. Ramallite (talk) 14:11, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Also, Pecher, "the old title implies that the section are facts" is not only your own opinion, it's illogical and flawed. By your logic, every section title implies fact. As we know, you apply your logic (and WP rules as you see them) very selectively, which is understandable, but unless you elaborate (which you have so far failed to do), I don't see how you can establish such as argument. Ramallite (talk) 14:23, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Does that require so much effort to conduct the discussion without resorting to logical fallacies and bringing in the issue of pogroms to the discussion of settlements? I am puzzled why I must defend the position that a section describing opinions of Btselem and Human Rights Watch is devoted to opinions. Wikipedia:Use common sense also applies in this case, which may explain why reasonable people regard section titles as descriptions of facts unless they see a qualification that these are actually opinions. Pecher Talk 14:56, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
First, thanks for not answering my question (no surprise there) about what exactly the 'opinion' is. Second, you ought to understand that when there are undisputed accounts of Palestinians getting screwed by settlements and settlers, and along comes a foreigner and describes these accounts as mere 'opinions', you just cannot be taken seriously (to say the least) and can even be accused of being a malicious denier. So what may be a 'logical fallacy' for you is actually very relevant for people who actually know what they are talking about. When a human rights organization documents (interviews, take photos, sees for itself) things like beatings, shooting, confiscation (the signed military orders are real, they are not some J.K. Rowling invention), by what logic do you get to call all of these 'opinions'? Not that I am surprised by your attitude here, but you are not doing your own reputation good when you argue things like this. Ramallite (talk) 15:05, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

There are ample documents and criminal convictions to include in this article as NPOV the existence of violence and brutality against Palestinians by Israeli settlers in the Westbank. Meaning that the discussion of such violence and brutality can be sharp, without needing a POV tag. gidonb 15:38, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Gidonb - yes there are, but at the same time I'd hate to see WP articles turn into a tirade against one group or the other - I try my best to stay consistent even against my own POV, which I wish others (above) would do also. So I thought it simply be best to describe that this phenomenon exists - with sources, but without illustrating specific examples. This way, the article describes why settlements are very contentious, why the Palestinians have enormous problems because of them, while at the same time prevents the page from becoming a breeding ground for POV pushers. Ramallite (talk) 16:15, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
If we want this article to be really NPOV and complete, we must add a section describing all the violence and terror attacks directed by Palestinians against the settlers. Pecher Talk 17:05, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
(was response to Ramalite) Sounds like an excellent plan to me. There are of course many direct and indirect impacts. The former are more obvious and easier to describe. The indirect impacts include measures taken by the IDF and various Israeli government ministries to secure settlers on the roads, the shape of the barrier and relate also to Palestinian violence towards these Israelis. Good luck and let me know if you want me to review something. Regards, gidonb 17:18, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Pecher, I would not describe all violence towards the settler (i.e. incidents), but rather describe it in general terms with an occasional example. There are saperate articles for Palestinians violence towards Israelis. gidonb 17:25, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
We can't discuss the impact on one side without discussing the impact on the other. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:27, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Gidonb - I'm not sure from your message above if you were assuming that I had more to write - because actually I'm done (unless I come across something else in the literature that's glaring). I don't think it's useful to go into any detail. I hope you'll agree.
Slim, it would be a bit funny to write, in response to the impact of settlements on Palestinians, a section on the impact of Israeli settlements on ... Israelis! You know as well as I do that we cannot invent arguments that don't already exist in reputable/verifiable sources (you remind others of this all the time, and is a reason you're a very respected editor). In any case, the two situations do not mirror each other. Settlers have the force of an occupying power behind them and act regularly and with impunity, and the collective human rights (a big deal in this conflict) of Israeli settlers or Israeli citizens are not 'impacted' by Israeli settlements according to any literature I can find. If the article seems one-sided because of this issue, it's because that's the reality of the situation. In other words, the 'counter POV' would be the impact of Palestinian settlements on Israelis in Israeli territory, but those don't exist. In any case, like I say above, this too may be a moot point because I (at least) have no desire to get into descriptions of the impact at this point, unless to balance any further edits that may arise in the future. Ramallite (talk) 03:47, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
The opposite POV isn't whatever we think it ought to be, but what it is, with all the mess that might entail. If we're going to talk about the impact on Palestinians of Israeli settlements, then we must also talk about the violence the settlers have experienced and the restrictions that may have placed on them. It should all be carefully sourced, as you say. SlimVirgin (talk)
Again, like I say above: "we cannot invent arguments that don't already exist in reputable/verifiable sources" - which means that I guess we're agreeing with each other? The question remains, is violence against settlers an impact of Israeli settlements or settlers on ... Israeli settlers? If so, according to whom? If not, then it would need some other section or article with a different pretext. What would be most useful is a reputable source that does the comparison so we can cite it, and as such avoid our own original research. As gidonb said above, there already exist articles on Palestinian violence towards Israelis. And I normally do not touch propaganda tirade style articles so people wouldn't have to worry about me lurking around there. Ramallite (talk) 04:06, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Ramallite, you're setting up a straw-man argument to keep this material out, and I'm not sure why you would want to. There is more than one POV here and both (all) must be reported, using good sources as you say. There's no need to restrict the section to "impact of the settlements on ... Israeli settlers" or anyone else. We can call it whatever we want. Reported impact of the communities on each other. Interaction between the communities. Reported violence between communities. Whatever best fits the content and is most neutral. What do you mean by "tirade-style articles"? SlimVirgin (talk) 04:25, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
No, I am doing no such thing, I could also say that you are setting up a straw-man argument in order to claim that this material is not NPOV. I'm trying to keep things accurate, and that includes that the two situations do not mirror each other (at least not according to any sources I've seen, but perhaps you know something I don't). You say that there is more than one POV regarding human rights? Is there an opposing POV? I haven't seen that. Nevertheless, one is welcome to add whatever one wants, naturally, but present it neutrally and not misleadingly (something I know both you and I feel strongly about - not to mislead). You wrote above "There's no need to restrict the section to "impact of the settlements on..."", and I had written above what you wrote "then it would need some other section or article with a different pretext" - so again, doesn't that mean we're basically in agreement, i.e. add whatever we want, but call it for what it is even if we have to change the section or add a new section? So why this bad faith 'straw-man argument' accusation? Also, I already told you above why I feel that adding extra words like 'reported' is unwarranted and unnecessary. This is an example of a tirade style article, and so is the second half of this. A propaganda style article includes something like this or this. But that's just my judgment and my prerogative, you're not going to start an argument with me about that, are you? :) Ramallite (talk) 04:58, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree strongly with Palmiro and others. What historian could write with a straight face that there have been "alleged reports" that settlements have an "adverse" affect on Palestinians? Of course they make life difficult for Palestinians, to put it mildly. From the other side, who would write that terrorist attacks "allegedly have a negative impact on Israeli society"? For many Palestinians, the settlements are so bad they justify attacks. I disagree strongly with that viewpoint, but let's not absurdly claim that the negative impact of Israeli settlement is only "allegedly reported". -Pat

The adverse effects of the settlements are commonly grossly exagerated for political reasons. Because of the fact that the Palestinian government wants the land that the settlments occupy for a future state it is in their interest to claim effects that possibly do not really occur.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 23:01, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

What you wrote above sounds like personal speculation. First, the vocal Palestinian organizations rely on Israeli statistics for their sources, because Palestinian ones are either non-reliable (Palestinians surveyors are not allowed to enter restricted areas) or, as is usually the case, non existent. Second, the Palestinian 'government' does not 'want' the land. One must realize that the vast majority of this land was owned by Palestinians (and I don't mean 'claimed' by Palestinian nationalists, but rather plots to which Palestinians held title deeds). The MO is for the Israeli army to issue a 'confiscation' order to the owners, usually to the effect of "By order of the military commander of the region of central Samaria, the plots of land between markers xx, xx, xx, and xx are hereby expropriated for reason of state security" or something like that. This land is usually (but not always) uninhabited, but often has olive trees or other produce that benefit the owners. Once the land becomes 'State land" (as has now happened to around 50% of the West Bank since 1967), settlements start to go up within a few months, but vast amounts of land surrounding the settlements are also off limits (settlements themselves cover only 3% of the West Bank, but the 'security' lands around them that are off limits come to about 60% of the West Bank). Third, the issue of the settlements was actually the least contentious in the 2000 Camp David talks. The main stumbling blocks were the refugees and Jerusalem, but Palestinians had accepted that the large settlement blocks would become part of Israel, and Israel had realized that it would have to dismantle all the outlying settlements in the West Bank even without the Palestinians really asking them to. Ramallite (talk) 14:07, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


Sorry what needs cleanup in this article? AucamanTalk 09:08, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I do not know. I just cleaned up a couple of things after the article jumped up in my watchlist. Nothing serious, mostly related to recent dynamics. I think one picture should be replaced. It is so confusing. I hid it along with my comments. I never read the whole article. gidonb 14:27, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Some additional findings. The article hardly discusses the settlements themselves: settlement types, housing, use of water, electricity, sewage, who lives in the settlements, employment, transportation, education, leadership, press, municipalities, culture, sports, and so forth. The article almost exclusively discusses the settlements in terms of the Israeli-Palestinian dispute. Given their contested location this is not surprising, but still constitutes a strong bias towards national politics that can also be found in many other articles concerning Israeli and Palestinian topics. gidonb 16:23, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
That's true. Also notice the order of the sections: the section on effects on Palestinians is near the top, above other sections, discussing settlements themselves, like "Communities established on the sites of previous recent Jewish communities". This is easy to correct, though. Pecher Talk 16:36, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. "Communities established on the sites of previous recent Jewish communities" is imho a sub of settlement types, but definitely not a first level chapter. These communities are an exception and a first level header gives them clearly overexposure. This chapter starts the discussion of population that is the next chapter, so I hope it works well at its new location. gidonb 16:46, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
It relates also to history I should say for completeness. As texts evolve, the chapters should be changed some more. For example, I wanted to change historical background into history of the settlements, then noticed that the text does not cover it. gidonb 23:48, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Dismantlement of settlements and Sasson report

I think that the chapter "dismantlement of settlements" should be dispersed into two other chapters that already discuss parts of its contents anyway: the history of the settlements (the part on the settlements that have been dismantled) and Israeli/international dimensions of the settlements above the chapter (here the policy option and possible outcomes of the negotiations would fit). It would reduce redundancy in the article. Objections anyone? I am still thinking how to better fit in the Sasson rapport. gidonb 20:18, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Sasson report may fit into the "history" section"; what is clear is that it should not be in a section of its won. Pecher Talk 20:24, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
It would be too much wording to put completely in the history section. I think that we need to put the publication and essence in the history chapter and move the entire chapter to an independent article. It is somewhat heavy on any part of this article, but definitely noteworthy and sufficient for a separate article. The individual findings should benefit several parts of the settlements article. gidonb 20:30, 21 April 2006
p.s. as Jayjg just highlighted through a correction, the other documents are also woven into the article. The Sasson rapport may have been a current affairs chapter. gidonb 20:41, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

When the Sasson report was first added, I pointed out it was a current event, and too long. After agreement from AlladinSE to shorten it, I did so, and was immediately reverted by him. I've left it alone since then, but it still unbalances the article. Jayjg (talk) 21:42, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Jayjg. How about moving it to a new article? Does anyone object? gidonb 21:52, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree. It looks a little out of place. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:26, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
It's about one particular political scandal related to the settlements. It's important, but probably over-long here as it stands. A new article, with a summary here, might be a good idea all right. Palmiro | Talk 12:16, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Thank you all. I have made the article at Sasson Report and the summary at Israeli settlement#historical timeline. Please make any necessary edits directly in the texts/names. gidonb 13:01, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree that with the expansion of the article over the last year and the reduced importance of the findings since the new elections, that the Sasson report should gets its own article.--AladdinSE 23:12, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Article 49

Cybbe, why do you insist on trying to restrict the Article 49 section to paragraph 6? Those who argue for the legality of the settlements do not do so, but rather consider the entire Article relevant. The Article itself specifically mentions forcible transfers, as does the commentary. If you wish to undermine their argument, please do so by presenting it fairly, and then presenting a sourced counter-argument. Trying to have the supporters of the legality of the settlements make arguments that they actually don't make is completely against the WP:NPOV policy. Jayjg (talk) 19:26, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I do because it's paragraph 6 which is cited as the applicable law, not the rest of the article. I have no problem with having the arguments which spring from the other parts of the article presented, but it should be made clear which parts they are discussing. By using the broad "article 49", with no distinction as to which part one is refering to, relevant information is lost. For instance, the previous version stated that article 49 explicitly refers to "deportations and forcible transfers", and while this is true, it is misleading when it does not make clear that is the first paragraph, as it gave the impression that the provision cited as rendering the settlements illegal included this wording. We could cite the entire article of course, so people could see for themselves, but I dont see that as the best alternative. Oh, and this is all sourced btw. --Cybbe 21:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
It makes sense to refer to separate paragraphs of the article, but it is biased to focus on the paragraphs that support one side the argument as the critical ones, and dismiss the others. I've fixed that, but please avoid further violations of the 3RR. Jayjg (talk) 01:23, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Cybbe, you seem to have violated the 3RR, I will give you a chance to revert yourself.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 21:39, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Well done to both Cybbe and Jayjg for making this section much clearer and more comprehensive. It's shaping up to look like a relatively rare (on ME-related issues) good example of NPOV in practice. I have just one quibble: Jayjg, you changed "General Assembly resolution" to "(non-binding) General Assembly resolution". That could be misunderstood as saying that this GA resolution was a non-binding one, rather than as an explanation of the generally-non-binding nature of GA resolutions. I think if we have to get this point across specifically (personally I don't think it's necessary, but I don't have a problem with it either), it may need to be a little bit clearer in this respect. Palmiro | Talk 10:02, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Regarding 3RR, while I did edit more than three times, I can only count two reverts (three if the first edit should be counted). As for whether it is necessary to point out that GA resolutions are non-binding under international law, I feel it superfluous but won't object, --Cybbe 17:17, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the compliment; there's more work to be done still, but it is shaping up nicely. Thanks to Ian Pitchford as well. Regarding "non-binding", the sentence states that the G.A. resolution "demands" that Israel do something; that has to be balanced with the point that G.A. resolutions can't really demand anything, since they are non-binding. A better solution would be to remove it altogether, since G.A. resolutions have nothing to do with international law, but I thought that might raise some objections. Jayjg (talk) 18:22, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
I included the GA resolution to show that 150 countries voted in favour of it; that is, to show their stance on the issue. It does not imply that the resolution, and thus the advisory opinion, is an accurate statement of international law, but it does imply that the official position of these government is that it is (which is interesting, as a great deal of them, e.g. the EU, were against ICJ reviewing the matter but subsequently issued statements where they "agreed" to the legal conclusions the Court made). --Cybbe 18:18, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
And whether it is possible to "demand" something without it being legally binding, I'm of the opinion that it is quite possible both semantically and logically, but I can see some confusing stemming from this for someone unfamiliar with the UN Charter. --Cybbe 18:21, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

In practice, de facto, and de jure

The sentence about Israel's position regarding the applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention currently reads:

In practice, Israel does not accept that the Fourth Geneva Convention applies de jure, but has stated that on humanitarian issues it will govern itself de facto by its provisions...

Is there a reason why the "in practice", which seems just confusing, should be there, or is it a fossilized remnant from some previous version? We are already talking about "de facto" practice and a "de jure" stance, so it seems odd that all of this should be qualified with "in practice". Palmiro | Talk 13:27, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Good observations. Seems like a pleonasm to me. --Cybbe 17:18, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
I understood it quite well actually. Israel considers that the Fourth Geneva Convention does not apply on strictly juridical basis, but it admits that provisions are intended for situations similar to that which is the case. Therefore it will oblige by the convention anyway. So, do I get a Wikilawyer pin or something? -- Heptor talk 01:33, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
That's not quite right as I understand it. The court actually uses devices to avoid making a ruling on whether the Convention is applicable or not - the usual one being that the military authorities agree that they will apply the humanitarian provisions of the Convention, although no one really knows what this means. --Ian Pitchford 07:06, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
I think you missed Palmiro's point. There is no need to have both "in practice" and "de facto" in the same sentence, as far as I can tell. --Cybbe 20:36, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Bypass roads

I tried to remove POV from the passages dealing with bypass roads, while both detailing the varied levels of access and the rapid (and extremely inconvenient) shifting between them. Cheers, TewfikTalk 04:30, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

We must be careful to go by what the sources provide and not interpret for ourselves which roads go where, and what kind of cars can go on which roads, and where the destinations are, and who the passengers of the cars are, and what kind of pets they are allowed to own... etc etc... Examples of such edits are "(mostly leading into Israel)", and the fact that the intro is now peppered with the "some roads" this and "some roads" that, whereas the point Btselem is trying to make is that the "modern" roads are generally for settler use and the older worn down roads are generally what remains for Palestinian use. 'Generally' being the key word here. Obviously my comments are not responding to Tewfik specifically but making general points about the latest edits. Zeq, can you provide a source for your latest additions and perhaps percentages instead of "some" ? Ramallite (talk) 13:04, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
The btselem map in the report shows it very clearly. Zeq 13:48, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

"Annexation" of the Golan Heights

I just came directly from the Golan Heights Wiki page, which states several times that Israel HAS NOT annexed that area. The UN officially recognizes it as Syrian territory under Israeli occupation, and only Israel considers it annexed territory. I think the first section of this article clearly goes against that. 18:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)Steve

Resolution 338

References were removed based on the claim that they were not relevant.

One reference from Uppsala University listed all Chapter VII resolutions. Resolutions 242 and 338 are not listed. This is clearly relevant to the claim that 242 and 338 are Chapter VII resolutions. I have not found any other list on the web that attempts to list all Chapter VII resolutions, so there is no better source on this subject.

Two other references are official UN documents on Article 25. They list resolutions passed under Article 25, but they do not mention resolutions 242 and 338. They also contain discussion on when Article 25 has been considered to apply. Since the claim that there resolutions are Chapter VII resolutions is entirely based on the claim that they were passed under Article 25, these official UN documents are critical.

Note that it is always hard to prove a negative. The above documents are about as definitive as you could expect to find that indicate that nobody contemporaneously considered these resolutions to be under Chapter VII.

See also the discussion under Resolution 338.

Really, the dispute over the legal basis of these resolutions does not belong here at all. I would be happy to see a change made to just refer to the articles on those resolutions. For now, I am putting back the removed references.

I am adding a reference to a UN document that mentions that resolution 338 might be read as indirectly referencing Article 40, which allows for preliminary recommendations to be made before invoking Chapter VII sanctions. This document has a little bit to satisfy both sides.

--RichardMathews 07:18, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

There's a more comprehensive discussion at the Article on Resolution 338, I'm not going to duplicate it here. --Cybbe 20:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

intro should be changed completely

In the article itself there are the valid arguments concerning the Geneva Concention etc. The General Assembly res. or Security Council res. not based on chapters VI or VII or accepted by sides, like res. 242 , are irrelevant. This is fairly obvious to anyone who studied International Law, so the phrasing as it is on the moment points to a very low version of this entry, which is false and amateur as it claims that it's illegal under international law (which is vastly disputed). Amoruso 21:22, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

chapter VI

This article is also wrong on the important issue of the U.N . Someone here certainly doesn't understand or familiar with the U.N charter or with the SC. Chapter VI and VII are both binding. the differnce is that chapter VI revolves around economic pressure and so on, and chapter VII allows for military action as well as tribunals establishment. Back in the Gulf War, there was first a resoultion under Chapter VI and later under chapter VII. There are no resolutions under CHAPTER VI NOR UNDER CHAPTER VII concerning Israel, and therefore aren't binding. There are indeed those that think that even without these chapters they could be binding, but that's a dispute. At any case, writing that there are "two types of resolutions" and that on Israel chapter VI is applied is simply wrong. There are "3" kinds of resoultions - Chapter VII, Chapter VI, and neither chapter ! Resolutions concerning Israel were taken on the type of "neither chapter" which is more declartive and less binding, some say not binding at all - that's the dispute. Someone should cleanup this seriously, because right now we're talking about a blatant mistake or even a lie, even if we assume it was made in good faith. Amoruso 21:32, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

When the S.C takes a decision under a specifc chapter it says :

Acting under Chapter VI of the Charter of the United Nations

This is very important distinction . S.C 242 is binding because the sides agreed to it. See example : [2] Amoruso 04:14, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Can you provide any reliable sources which confirm your claims? Jayjg (talk) 21:59, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I can, starting from the resolutions themselves. It lacks the language. But it is clearly academic and not important, since Chapter VI is not binding (according to most scholars) and it's not enforceable (according to everyone). The truth is that they're declaratory in nature only and therefore weren't even in the language of chapter VI. But generally most people view the UN resolutions as falling under only those 2 headers listed in the charter, though there's nothing to suggest they can't make simple recomenndations not under chapter VI even , and there's a reason why "acting under..." was dropped. But this is not so important. To make it simpler the sides do treat it as VI <-> VII, including Israel itself. So ok. Amoruso 22:42, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
If you use the sources themselves, that's original research. You need to find good secondary sources making these claims. Jayjg (talk) 00:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
I know, and there are, but it doesn't matter. Amoruso 01:09, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Jewish settlements?

"Israeli settlements are communities built by Israel ..." - There were many settlements built without official authorization or support. Wouldn't "Jewish settlements" be more accurate since Israel is not always involved and they are pure Jewish, no "Israeli Arabs". Fourtildas 23:43, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any settlements built by Jewish who are not Israeli citizens... I think Israeli settlement means settlement built by Israelis. It doesn't imply I think endorsement of government, though except a few of those settlements that are termed "illegal", they were all approved and endorsed by governments. Amoruso 09:07, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
I’m opposed to such change! The settlements Israel established in the territory Israel dubs "Judea and Samaria" are political statements of the political entity (= state) named Israel. If they wouldn't be political statements, they wouldn't be an issue worthy of an entry. The only other appropriate exonym would be “Zionist settlements”.
One of the largest of such settlements, Ariel, has more than 6000 registered Israeli non-Jewish residents- almost a third of its population. Its' state-funded college, an instrumental driving-force in the development of the settlement, has Israeli-Arabs making up more than 20% of its student-body, and so contributing to the vitality of this Israeli establishment.
I am very familiar with the Israeli settlements, and I know that not one was built without at least some Israeli "involvement" and “support”. Those that are “unauthorized” should be viewed like Israeli military instillations; those, although just as much a component of Israeli occupation, are (generally) not labeled “settlements”. Israel counts their population with that of one of its' 125 authorized settlements. The sizes of the population of such places do not empower them in Israeli politics.
Revava”, built in 1991, was, officially, the last settlement [to be established]. Despite commitments to the contrary, the Israeli Left built additional settlements (especially Betar Illit and Modi'in Illit with its suburbs) during the Rabin-Peres- Beilin administration. They did so for the purpose of altering the geo-demographics of the Israeli population in "Judea and Samaria", as part of the long-term plan to implement the Geneva Accord.
The perception of “the Israeli settlements” in Israeli-Jewish society today is a sad testimony to the fact that still, almost 40 years since the Six-day War, Jews cannot live in “Judea and Samaria", or for that matter anywhere in Palestine, without the benevolent patronage of Israel. The residence of Jews in Palestine should not be inherently as an Israeli political statement, certainly not as an act of aggression. If the Palestinian authority would sincerely yearn for a sovereign state in "Judea and Samaria" living peacefully beside Israel, they would take measures to allow for Jews to be able to reside there (although I doubt Israel would consent to lose its raison d'être as the irreplaceable prerequisite for Jewish residence in Palestine). Only then could the places they live in be known exclusively as “Jewish towns/villages/settlements” instead of “Israeli settlements” (someIsraeli settlements” are also Jewish towns/villages). Shilonite 11:42, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Could a settlement be considered a Gated Community?

Could Israeli settlements be considered to be a special kind of Gated Community? Considering that they have a fence, a gate, security personnel (in this case the army) and restrict access. Residents/Settlers often cite the "neighbourhood" character as well as the "safety"/"no crime inside the Gated Community" argument. Furthermore, there are settlements catering to different lifestyles, i.e. some are mostly populated by ultra orthodox, some by young urban professionals who mostly cite as their motivation to be able to afford a bigger house (especially the ones close to Tel Aviv), and so on. If yes, then I believe this should be mentioned in the article. --Soylentyellow 21:55, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Very nicely written and true, I think they can be considered that. In fact, they're in some ways "ghettos" since Jews can't live in the cities themselves like Nablus or Ramallah without being killed, so they have their own communities guarded by fences to prevent the neighbours of killing them. Amoruso 23:42, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
I would hardly call Israeli "settlements" ghettos, I would say the Palestinians live in large ghetto cities or cantons. The "settlement" communities are established over disputed land (Palestinian Territories) and thus warrant large military protection (special roads, armed personal carries and armed buses) people living in them also enjoy tax relief and low rate loans. A large number of settlers in the small/medium outpost are heavily armed (M16's and Uzi's). There may be settlements outside the green line that would classify as gated communities. Palestine48 02:04, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
M16's and Uzi's is "light armed" not heavily armed. And it's civil guard that tries to prevent terrorist attacks. The reason for them being not safe is not because they're on disputed land, but because of terrorists. The blame is not on the land. If there's a dispute, one should discuss it in civil matters. Amoruso 02:36, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
And why exactly do any of them require saftey and protection on land they have no legal right to be on? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 14:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC).
My intension was not to be uncivil; rather I was trying to shed some light into the nature of settlements. I still stand that “ghettos” is not a term appropriate for them nor gated communities is. I agree that settlers are lightly armed but the settlements themselves are under IDF protection (heavy arms). As for attacks on settlers, it is widely accepted that settlements within the Palestinian Territories are illegal and an obstacle to peace.

To clarify, I think there are two of points of view here (one backed more and accepted than the other):

  • Israel is building illegal settlements or colonies, is order to tighten its grip on the Palestinian Territories and shatter away any chance of a future Contiguous, Independent and Sovereign State of Palestine and to control the Palestinian population in the Occupied Territories and force new facts on the ground to weaken any future Palestine state.
  • Israeli is building perfectly legal settlement on land it owns in accordance with Israeli law, biblical instructions and in line with the Israeli right of Freedom of movement and dwelling. The settlements are there to encourage house ownership and to help the young and old alike to get a foot in the property ladder and support the economy.

I would like to see the two point of view equally explored in line with wikipedia’s NPOV policy. Palestine48 10:44, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I managed to persuade my insurance company that I live in a gated community and my car insurance was reduced slightly.
Palestine48, Israel is building legal settlements on land it owns according to Jordanian, not Israeli, Law. The whole idea of absentee ownership, 'state-lands' and whatever, is Jordanian Law that is still the law of the land in Judea and Samaria. On top of that, I know several people who have privately bought land from Arab owners fair and square. And how can they be 'Palestinian Territories' since they've never been Palestinian in the first place? --Shuki 18:04, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
The "absentee property" argument falls flat on its face when one realizes that the reason the owners are 'absentee' is that they were not allowed to reenter Palestine after 1967. Furthermore, I doubt that the number of settlements built on absentee property compares to the number built on confiscated land (to which owners held title deeds but were expelled because of imaginary 'security reasons' since 1967), although I don't have the numbers. Also, I know of several people who were either tricked or forced into signing ownership papers. And the reason they are Palestinian territories is because it's easier to say that than to say "territories of non-Jews who were not permitted to return to their lands because they are the wrong religion". Finally, the fact that it's Jordanian law makes it just as bad as Israeli law - both were occupying powers. In any case, mazel tov on your cheaper insurance! :) Ramallite (talk) 21:37, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Military conquest is not legal ownership, and it's explicitly forbidden for an occupying nation to colonize conquered lands. And regardless of "settlement" being the preferred euphemism, this is and has always very much a colonization program by Israel. 15:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Just to reiterate, not all settlements are necessarily fenced in, nor are all directly protected by the IDF (but rather private security firms). TewfikTalk 20:22, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

All Israeli settlements ARE government approved and protected by IDF, just that some are not directly, and that is just because they can protect themselves. If they would came under heavy attack, IDF will rush to defend them, even those that are officially considered illegal. The settlement tactic is the same tactic used to colonise American West: (armed) civilians moved into other people (in that case Indian) territory under the pretext that there is no 'official' proprety for that land, and prevent the former inhabitants to came back. They could fight alone against small number, and when under strong attack, they called cavalry to help.MihaiC 19:11, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Illegality of the settlements

What is relevant is which authorities consider the settlements illegal under international law and who don't. The various arguments about whether these settlements *should* be considered illegal or not under international law are lawyerly and the average reader is not equipped to evaluate them and I imagine is not particularly interested in them either. Now if some editors think it's important to expound these legal arguments in pro or in contra I think it's ok - but please don't use too much space in the main article or, should you need more space, please create specialized articles.

I think it's also important not to lead the reader into unjustified conclusions. For example whether UN Security Council resolutions are binding or not is irrelevant to the fact that the Security Council does consider them illegal. Dianelos 01:07, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

So you think the International Red Cross and World Council of Churches are "authorities" in International Law? What you've done is compile a laundry list of opinions, the relevant ones of which already appear in the body of the article, and shoved them into a lead paragraph with highly POV editorializing. And now you come to this page and preach to us that "it's important not to lead the reader into unjustified conclustions." Bravo. Dasondas 01:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
I think that the International Red Cross is an authority in areas of belligerent conflict and that their opinion in this matter is therefore relevant and carries weight. I also think the opinion of the World Council of Churches which represents the bulk of Protestant churches is relevant in a matter where often arguments of Jewish rights to this land according to the Old Testament is used. In any case my objective in this paragraph is to document the fact that virtually the entire international community considers the settlements illegal. It's a POV alright, namely the POV of about everybody - and this is a fundamental piece of information about the settlements. And POVs should be stated in Wikipedia; see WP:POV. Nevertheless it's fair to also document that this is not the only POV. Feel free to expand on the item about Israel and some international law scholars disagreeing.
Incidentally my laundry list is by no means complete - it should obviously include the opinion of the Palestinians and of the Arab League of Nations - in this encyclopedia the POV of the Arab world should not be absent in matters pertaining to the Israeli-Arab conflict.
Finally I take it you agree that to stress that the various UNSC resolutions that mention the settlements are not binding is misleading. Dianelos 07:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
it's not misleading at all. The international law is intricate - true. But it being intricate does not mean readers can't undersand it. Don't assume low intelligence on the part of the readers :) Anyway, adding another one sided international law in the intro is wrong and WP:POV. Balancing it will create redundant 2 sections. btw, expansions of settlements have been very limited in the past years. There were withdrawls from northern samaria and from amona, hilltop26 and others. The only expansion in existence is maale adumim. As for Road map for peace, you this was obviously not being observed by the Paletinian side (understatement) so there's no reasoning in it, especially not in the intro. Amoruso 08:11, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

In the future, Dianelos, I won't mind at all if you refrain from discourteously putting words into my mouth, especially since you have enough of your own to spew forth. Not only do I agree wholeheartedly with Amoruso that speaking to the non-binding nature of the UN resolutions is not-misleading, I think it is misleading to omit that fact. Furthermore, the UN Security Council resolutions do not use the word "illegal" in reference to Israeli activities; the term used is "not legally valid", and this is the term that should be used by anybody referencing those resolutions in this article. Your contention that "virtually the entire international community considers the settlements illegal" is boilerplate politicized POV crap, as it is my contention that "almost everybody on earth doesn't care one way or the other what happens in the West Bank". But back to the main point: the fact is that after all of these years there is not one binding opinion by any competent international authority anywhere saying that the settlements are in any way illegal. How do you feel about putting that statement in the lead of this article? What "virtually the entire international community" believes is that this is fundamentally a political issue not a legal one, and doing what you have done to the lead of this article is one of the more egregious cases of poisoning the well that I have seen on Wikipedia recently.
If the International Red Cross and World Council of Churches are maintained in this article, we will also be discussing the abundance of opinion that says that these organizations have historically behaved in agressively anti-Israel and, according to many, anti-Semitic fashion. And we will also be discussing the overwhelming Evangelical Protestant opinion that the entirety of Historic Israel rightfully belongs to the Jews. And before you fly off the handle on this point, let me say that I am strongly, strongly, strongly, against discussing any of this in the article. The bottom line is that neither the IRC nor the World Council of Churches is a recognized authority on International Law, and their opinions would not have been included by anybody remotely interested in presenting an honest article to the public. I don't think any of your recent changes have improved this article, and your discussion above has not convinced me otherwise. Dasondas 11:47, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Unsurprisingly, considering I made the original edit, I agree with both Amoruso and Dasondas. Cherry-picking one side of a debate to put it in an introduction is a bad enough violation of WP:NPOV to begin with. Inserting a half-hearted sop to "the other side", but sticking {{fact}} templates on it compounds the issue; Dianelos was willing to properly cite his own POV, but unwilling to cite the opposing POV, even though there are dozens of such citations in the article itself. And the icing on the cake is his using absurd sources like the World Council of Churches. Jayjg (talk) 15:46, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I don’t think we must exclude from the article facts about what major international organizations have stated about the actions of the Israel government, just because they have been accused to be anti-Semitic. I mean that’s not reasonable; surely we agree that criticizing some actions of the Israeli government does not make one anti-Semitic – after all most Israeli citizens criticize their government too. (Similarly, to criticize some actions of the American government doesn’t make one anti-American.) I also find such attitude to be unseemly: Israel is a proud and great nation and it does not befit it to be played as the eternal victim. In any case if an editor wishes to add the information about which of these organizations are according to many anti-Semitic it’s ok with me. Also, if an editor knows of other organizations that consider the settlements legal or not an obstacle to peace then by all means include that info too. (BTW I don't accept the characterization of the World Council of Churches as an "absurd source".)

What international organizations and major governments state about the settlements (basically that they are illegal and an obstacle to peace) is clearly one of the main points in the article and therefore belongs to the lead according to WP:Lead. If the consensus is that in the lead we should only include a short mention of this fact, and that we should put more detail and the list of the actual organizations and governments with the respective references and so on in the relevant sections, it’s ok with me too. In fact the list I proposed is by no means complete; for example the EU too considers the settlements illegal, and all US administrations since Jimmy Carter have explicitly and publicly asked Israel not to expand the settlements.

I did not include references in the opposing positions (Israel's and some international law scholars') because this info was not contributed by me. Also I saw that other editors had expounded Israel’s position to some detail in the article and would be more competent than I to include the most relevant references. But I thought these references were missing and that’s why I included the relevant tags.

I am not assuming low intelligence on the part of the readers; but I do assume that the average reader has, well, average intelligence and average education. I myself do not understand the difference between “illegal” and “not legally valid”, nor am I sure about the difference between “binding UN Security Council resolution” and “non-binding UNSC resolution”. In any case this article should not include any lengthy discussion of the legal arguments. I am sure we agree that 99% of the readers are not equipped to evaluate the arguments of the judges of International Court of Justice who unanimously ruled the settlements illegal nor the arguments of those expertes who claim that the settlements are legal. I have found a study The Legal Status of Israeli Settlements under International Humanitarian Law which strikes me as very clear and very neutral; it was prepared by the International Humanitarian Law Research Initiative of Harvard University. (The site is free but requires a simple registration.) I find the conclusions of the article telling, but let's include this reference and let the interested leader decide for themselves. BTW here is a quote from that article: “The international community at large … hold that Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories do violate IHL” – so this would be one good reference that substantiates my claim that the international community considers the settlements illegal. Here is another quote from the Haaretz: “Since 1967, Israel's governments and law courts have sanctioned the settlements through legal acrobatics that have failed to satisfy the international community.” Israeli press is genuinely free and provides excellent references; Israeli reporters certainly don’t mince words, see this article about the issue of the settlements’ and the fence’s legality. Rather surprisingly even government ministers can be very straightforward, for example Isaac Herzog, Israel’s Housing and Construction Minister (and son of Israel’s former President) said in this interview: “My ministry failed to prevent illegal outposts because it took part in creating them.” Here is how a very knowledgeable (he’s written a book about the matter) Israeli professor of law explains the issue of the legality of the settlements – it’s certainly not a simple explanation, but maybe this should be added as a reference in the article for those readers who are interested in the legal background.

Certainly some notable Jewish organizations think that the settlements are illegal too, for example this one. It would be really interesting to find a poll about what the Israeli public itself thinks about the legality of the settlements. Anyway I have found this reference that I think should be included in the article: “57 percent of the public is prepared to remove most or all of the settlements in exchange for a peace treaty”. The opinion of the Arab League of Nations, and of the Arab people should be in this article too.

As for the expansion of the settlements there are many references that document that not only have they expanded continuously since 1967 but also that lately (under Sharon) their expansion has accelerated. (The recent evacuation of the Gaza settlements did hardly affect the overall increase). Maybe we should include in the article some timeline about this. It’s certainly an important piece of information.

Finally, as for the difference between binding and non-binding UN Security Council resolutions, I am not sure what the difference is. My understanding is that binding resolutions allow for the imposition of the resolutions by military force if the affected government does not implement them. If an editor has a more authoritative explanation I would be glad to hear it – it should also be explained in the article as I am sure most readers will not know what “binding” means in this context. However it seems to me that whether binding or non-binding the meaning of what a resolution actually says does not change. So “illegal” (or “not legally valid”) still means “illegal” (or “not legally valid”). So, the way the article stresses that the resolutions are non-binding (BTW is this a fact?) at the very beginning of the section about the legal status of the settlements is misleading.

In this context, the UN Security Council resolution 452 states “Considering that the policy of Israel in establishing settlements in the occupied Arab territories has no legal validity and constitutes a violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention” and resolution 465 states “all measures taken by Israel to change the physical character, demographic composition, institutional structure or status of the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, or any part thereof, have no legal validity and that Israel's policy and practices of settling parts of its population and new immigrants in those territories constitute a flagrant violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention”]. Frankly I don’t understand how this language differs from “illegal”. Still I don’t mind using in the WP article exactly the same wording of the resolutions. Dianelos 23:30, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

IMO, if there's something you feel that needs to be added, it should be added to the legal section, although I think that issues you brought up have respectfully been addressed in the past if you look at the discussions of the past and the history of the article. The arguments are more intricate and wikipedia can't say which argument is more correct but simply list them all. As for the lead, I think the legal matters belong in an article called "international law and the Israeli palestinian conflict" which actually exists or "israeli settlement and international law" etc. It doesn't belong in an article generally discussing israeli settlements and not only the international law, because it will be too long to accurately remain NPOV. Amoruso 10:22, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
According to WP:Lead section the basic points of the article should be mentioned on the lead too. So the fact that the international community at large considers the settlements illegal and an obstacle to peace should be there, as well Israel's position about them. However I will agree that the detailed references should be placed in the relevant sections of the article. Also I think that a section about the settlements being considered an obstacle to peace should be there. (Incidentally is there an official position of the Israeli government about the settlements not being in contravention of international law and not being an obstacle to peace? I did not find any such references in the article.) Dianelos 16:48, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
An obstacle to Peace ? Maybe an obstacle to genocide on the Jewish people you mean. The lead is balanced and accordign to wikipedia's conventions right now. Any changes will be putting undue weight and lead the reader into one sided view of the conflict. Amoruso 11:52, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Intro Settlement Locations

Is it necessary to note "East Jerusalem" seperately from the West Bank, as East Jerusalem is generally considered to be a part of the West Bank? --יהושועEric 19:08, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's in its entirety (ramot,neve yaakov etc) considered to be a part. Amoruso 12:59, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Resolutions as Chapter VI

The version Jayjg is reverting to asserts that the UNSC resolutions mentioned in this article were passed under Chapter VI as a matter of fact, yet without any source that make the claim that resolution 446, 452, 465 and 471 were indeed passed under Chapter VI. There is no reference to Chapter VI in the four resolutions, while the Council routinely include such a reference (see this example [3] for one that does). This unsourced assertion has to go, and if any source make the claim, it has to be attributed to it, as I think the WP:NPOV policy would pretty much preclude us from saying anything about whats correct.

If such a claim could be found, we would need a source that make the explicit connection between these resolutions and the asserted non-binding nature of Chapter VI resolutions, as a synthesis of our own would violate WP:NOR. That none out of the 11 sources mention the four resolutions in question make them inappropiate for this article (in addition to the looming question of WP:POINT of using 11 sources with cited passages in footnote). And, of course, the claims need to be attributed accordingly, if you're citing the arguement someone makes, just cite them, and attribute it to them.

If someone make the explicit claim that resolution 446, 452, 465 and 471 were passed under Chapter VI, include it in the article and attribute the claim. If someone make the claim that resolution 446, 452, 465 and 471 are non-binding because they were (allegedly) passed under Chapter VI, include it in the article and attribute the claim. We cannot include a passage that: 1) makes an unsourced claim (portrayed as a fact) that the four resolutions were passed under Chapter VI; and 2) engage in original research to demonstrate the (again allegedly) non-binding nature of the resolutions.

For these reasons I'm reverting to a version that simply states that Israel regard the resolutions as non-binding Chapter VI recommendations and not one that includes unsources and unverified POV and OR. 19:55, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Please look at the references again, particularly 4, 11, 12 and 13. I had to add another reference just for you; you see why so many are needed? Jayjg (talk) 23:29, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
If you're citing the arguement someone makes, just cite them, and attribute it to them. Do not portray their opinions as facts. In addition to the problem of portraying pro-Israeli opinions (claims and assertions) as facts, none of these arguments or statements where made with regard to either the legality of Israeli settlements or the nature of these specific resolutions. The synthesis constructed is original research and the claims made are not attributed. I'm (still) reverting to a version that does not violate policy. 19:23, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Some analysts have pointed out that Security Council resolutions condemning or criticizing Israel have been passed under Chapter VI of the U.N. Charter, which are different from the Chapter VII resolutions against Iraq. That's what Mohammad Ayoob says. None of the resolutions relating to the Israeli-Arab conflict comes under Chapter Seven. That's what The Economist says. "...there is a difference between the Security Council resolutions that Israel breaches (nonbinding recommendations under Chapter 6) and those Iraq broke (enforcement actions under Chapter 7)." That's what the New York Times says. Etc. No synthesis required, and none of those are "pro-Israel" sources. All the sources agree on this. If you have a source that disagrees, please feel free to bring it forward. Until then, please desist from vandalizing the page. Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 20:39, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
The version you're reverting to asserts: "These resolutions were made under Chapter VI, not Chapter VII, of the United Nations Charter". This is a claim, not a fact, and should be attributed as such. You yourself write: "Some analysts have.... What Mohammad Ayoob says.... The Economist says...". These are claims made by somebody, not conclusive facts, and should be attributed to them. Please obey policy, specifically NPOV. You're also taking these claims made in a general context and applying them at specific resolutions: please abstain from orginal research, per NOR. 16:00, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
There aren't any NPOV issues I'm aware of, since every source I've found that discusses this states that they were made under Chapter 6, so it seems to be an undisputed fact. Do you have any sources which claim they were made under Chapter 7? As for NOR, all the sources state quite clearly that all SC resolutions regarding Israel are made under Chapter 6, so there are no issues with NOR either. Again, please stop vandalizing this page by blanking sections. Jayjg (talk) 16:06, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

There's no WP policy that requires us to present unopposed claims as facts (although the claim that these four resolutions are non-binding certainly isn't unopposed). You have not established beyond doubt and dispute that these four resolutions were passed under Chapter VI, yet you continue to present these claims as facts. Please obey policy, even for pro-Israeli arguments.

Also, the broad statements about all UN resolutions and Israel can be proven to be false: for instance, in Resolution 54 the Security Council wrote: "Determines that the situation in Palestine constitutes a threat to the peace within the meaning of Article 39 of the Charter of the United Nations".[4] It issued an "Order" under Article 40 (Chapter VII ranges from 39-51). Thus, that no UNSC resolution concerning Israel has been passed under Chapter VII is false and can be proven to be so (enforcement action is another matter) (the same goes for the claim that some, not all, of your sources make i.e. that all UNSC resolutions concerning Israel has been passed under Chapter VI). None of your sources specify a time frame, nor which resolutions they are referring to. The point of course is to illustrate the dangers involved in engaging in original resarch and constructing a synthesis by taking claims out of their general context (which in any case is false, strictly speaking) and applying them to four specific resolutions. The claim (too broad to be true) needs to be attributed, as it certainly doesn't have the status of fact.

Let's examine your claim that the four resolutions binding nature and whether they were passed under Chapter VI indeed isn't disputed. My initial search was directed at UN documents only. Still, they will show that your claim certainly is disputed, and that there truly exists NPOV issues.

Specifically asserting the resolutions concerning Israeli settlements are binding:

Palestine:"There is an undeniable correlation of the route of the Wall to Israeli settlements and access roads. Such settlements have been declared illegal by UN resolutions which are binding on Israel."[5]

The International Court of Justice has found that Israel has "contravened" a number of Security Council resolutions (includes 3 out of the 4 cited in the article). Only obligations, of course, can be contravened (which is a point made by Marko Divac Öberg in a paper discussing SC resolutions in general, this is not OR).[6]

Statements claiming there indeed exists binding resolutions against Israel:

Kuwait:"Successive Israeli Governments have not only ignored the international legally binding resolutions, disregarding them completely, but have challenged the resolutions and adopted provocative policies aimed at perpetuating their occupation of the Arab territories in general and of the city of Jerusalem in particular, in an attempt to erase its identity and change its demographic nature and status as a Holy City for the monotheistic religions.[7]

Judge Al-Khasawneh of the International Court of Justice: In support of this, one may cite the very large number of resolutions adopted by the Security Council and the General Assembly often unanimously or by overwhelming majorities, including binding decisions of the Council and other resolutions which, while not binding, nevertheless produce legal effects and indicate a constant record of the international community’s opinio juris."[8]

Vera Gowlland-Debbas arguing why (some of the) resolutions concerning Israel are "very different from Chapter VI resolutions under which the Council can only recommend procedures or terms of settlement which are notbinding". [9]]

I will again urge you to not make an assertion that these resolutions were passed under Chapter VI without attributing that claim. I hope you will desist from original research and attaching an excess of completely unrelated (NOR violating) sources to establish these resolutions allegedly non-binding nature. That is in blatant disregard of WP policy. 18:48, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

It's rather strange that you accuse me of OR when I cite clearly stated sources which state exactly what I'm saying, then use your own synthesis regarding a statement by Marko Divac Öberg but claim it is not OR. Political statements by Arab governments are, of course, irrelevant; the article obviously doesn't quote the opinions of Israeli politicals on the subject either. Vera Gowlland-Debbas has been mentioned here before, and appears to be a lone voice in this matter, whose putative expertise is obvious, but whose notability is not. Finally, the ICJ is an advisory panel without jurisdiction in this matter. Nevertheless, I'm certainly willing to entertain a different wording of the section, based on reliable sources of course, but only if you propose it here first, rather than vandalizing the article itself. Jayjg (talk) 15:52, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
(It's not vandalism to correct what I believe to beNPOV issues, and the text I've changed is minor.) Statements by goverments, especially from a part to the conflict, are not irrelevant, however, if presented it should be clearly attributed. The opinion of Israel is not irrelevant, of which I am sure you would agree, but to present it as something else would be wrong. Nor is the opinion of a respected professor of international law irrelevant, the quoted passage from ICJ in your version clearly shows that she's not a lone wolf to argue that resolutions outside of Chapter VII can be considered binding. Nor are arguments made by the United Nations judicial organ, and research conducted by legal scholars irrelevant (i cited Öbergs argument made in the European Journal of International Law Vol. 16 no.5, clearly not orginal research: he specifically referred to the resolutions concerning Israel and ICJ as an example of resolutions outside of Chapter VII that had been found to be binding). The article must take into accout the different opinions regarding these four resolutions, the version you've reverted to was solely based on an assertion that all resolutions regarding Israel were passed under Chapter VI (which can be proven to be false, as I've demonstrated), supported by an excess of sources concerning Chapter VI resolutions in general. Not a single source, I repeat, not a single source, made the specific argument that resolution 452, 465 etc. were passed under Chapter VI, not a single source made the argument that these specific resolutions were non-binding. I truly believe that the best solution is to state the facts briefly: that Israel regards these resolutions as recommendations passed under Chapter VI, without a multitude of assertions either way. After all, whether these four resolutions are binding or not is a minor point in this article. If you insist, however, I will make some of the sources I have cited a part of this article, I just dont believe the article would gain much from making this section any larger (the version I've reverted to does not present any argument as to why these resolutions should be considered binding either, although I could). 19:15, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
To begin with, it's not just Israel's opinion that the resolutions are non-binding, but rather the assertion as fact of the multiple sources listed. Second, the political opinions of an Arab government regarding the legality or illegality of Israel's actions are as predictable as they are irrelevant to any discussion of international law. Third, when a source says that all Security Council resolutions regarding Israel are under Chapter VI, it's not original research to think that that actually applies to, well, all Security Council resolutions regarding Israel. Finally, if you want to make any changes at all to the article, at this point I strongly recommend you propose them first on the Talk: page. Given that you've vandalized the article at least seven times so far, by removing relevant cited content from reliable sources, I don't think anything else will be acceptable. Again, please propose it here first. Jayjg (talk) 21:38, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
It's true, you do have two (2) sources that claim all resolutions concerning Israel have been passed under Chapter VII (you decided not to comment on the proven falsity of these claims i.e. S/RES/54). However, you did forget to cite what they claimed, instead you used this information to make the argument that res. 446, 452 etc were passed under Chapter VI, and presented this as a fact. This infringes on both NPOV-policy and NOR; you chose to present the assertions as a fact and in a specific form. You also chose to add a vast number of sources discussing Chapter VI resolutions in general (albeit not mentioning Israel or the settlements at all, and not adding a single piece of information to the article; the point that resolutions passed under Chapter VI were considered to be non-binding recommendations was never a disputed point), giving the argument a false impression of academic weight. I've made a few changes to the article, removing all the irrelevant sources (The Economist did not make the claim that all resolutions were passed under Chapter VI), and added contrasting opinions. Please stop pushing your POV, I don't think anything else will be acceptable. 20:30, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
I believe I was quite clear above; discuss proposed changes here first. You know why. Edits will be achieved through consensus, not vandalism. Jayjg (talk) 19:40, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
It's not vandalism to correct POV issues. Please dont remove opinions that dont correspond with your political view and discuss why you are so eager to present opinions as facts. I must remind you, WP policy apply to pro-Israeli content too. With regard to vandalism, your removal of sourced content and reinclusion of a POV statement camouflaged as a fact, together with 10 or so irrelevant sources, fall closer to the definition than my edits. And you must be aware that most edits made in WP are not discussed at length in talk before being done. Please respect policy. 16:35, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
You have yet to propose a specific text change here in Talk: Removing encyclopedic and relevant sources is vandalism. While many edits are made without discussion, this is a contentious topic, and your edits till now have mostly consisted of vandalism. Discuss here first. Jayjg (talk) 01:21, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
You have constantly refused to discuss any of the points I've made; I have discussed the rationale behind my edits from day one. I would recommend that you re-read the policy page on vandalism (you might want to freshen up on NPOV and NOR too), especially the part 'What vandalism is not'. You hide behind a false claim of vandalism, yet you have refused too bring any rationale as to why the (proven) claim should be presented as a fact. You have not shown why 10 (irrelevant, not discussing Israel or the settlements) sources should be included in the article, even though the claim they make, that Chapter VI resolutions are non-binding, hasn't been contested. You have not discussed why other (scholarly) opinions should be refused inclusion in this article. The ball is most certainly in your court, encouraging me to discuss my edits when I've done so constantly sounds rather peculiar. My specific text change is in the article, yet you refuse to discuss this article and this topic on any substantial level. Please obey policy, and discuss the specific point's I've raised. If you have issues with the version I'm reverting too, I suggest you raise them or propose changes directly. My issues with your version has been made utterly clear, your defence of it is lacking completely. Skepti 14:44, 30 October 2006 (UTC) (and yes, I have registered an account).
The links are indeed relevant, discussing either Israel, or that fact that Chapter VI resolutions are non-binding. Suggest a wording change here. Then it can be discussed. I've been very clear. Jayjg (talk) 17:37, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
You only partially comment what I write. Why do you choose not to comment why this article states as a fact what I've demonstrated to be a highly contested claim? Why do you support a version that not only tells only one side of the story (the pro-Israeli POV) but even manages to present it as a fact? And why dont you comment why you use 10 (way in excess) completely unreleted sources (discussing Chapter VI resolutions in general, even though their nature per se is not disputed and the other sources mention it)? And why dont you comment on what you find wrong in my version (all highly reputable sources), when I've gone at lengths to demonstrate what is wrong with yours? I have a feeling I know why, and unless you start debating this issue in any meaningful manner, we need to bring someone less partisan to the discussion, as you make up technicalities to avoid the real issue: the current version is a highly biased one that violate WP policy. You neither defend your own version, nor point out errors in mine (although I do not claim it is perfect). Skepti 23:07, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Speaking for myself only, it may be the case that the version I and others keep reverting too could be edited down while still making the same points. However, Skepti, your attempts to date have gone way too far to the other side and as such have little chance of leading to a stable resolution. Please try to find a solution that introduces the material you want to introduce without completely gutting the well-sourced arguments that you either don't like or feel are somehow misrepresented here. I am confident that we can all find a happy solution to this now-tedious debate, but please recognize that it is you who came to change what already existed so it is natural that other editors will be looking more in your direction to forge an acceptable compromise. Dasondas 23:35, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Please suggest your proposed changes here, so that we can discuss them and achieve some consensus. I hardly think that's unreasonable; why do you find the concept so difficult? Jayjg (talk) 15:43, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

My suggestion for change is quite apparent from my edits, and it would be rather easy for both of you to discuss either the version you favor, the one I revert to, or the points I've raised here in talk. You've almost consistently chosen not to. However, to avoid the circumvention of discussing the topic, I can copy my proposal to change here.

Some analysts have asserted that all resolutions criticizing Israel have been passed under Chapter VI, and are therefore non-binding recommendations.[4][5]

I've explained this change in extenso above, and provided the rationale for changing, not removing or blanking, the prior verison to this. The "blanking" is a removal of 10 unrelated sources which all document the nature of Chapter VI resolutions, completely in excess for a non-disputed point (in addition to the fact that their nature is described in the two sources I use). None of the sources I have removed discussed Israel or the resolutions mentioned in this section either. I assume the real point of including them is to give the viewpoint that the resolutions are non-binding a false academic weight, although none of the these sources actually make that claim.

I then presented the other viewpoint, that the resolutions are indeed binding:

Others have asserted this is not correct, citing Security Council Resolution 54 where the Security Council determined that the situation in Palestine constituted a threat to the peace under Article 39 and where the Council acted under article 40 (both contained in Chapter VII).[6] It's been argued that the resolutions concerning Israeli settlements are binding even though were not passed under Chapter VII, citing the reasoning of the International Court of Justice in the Namibia-case.[7] Here, the Court asserted that "[i]t is not possible to find in the Charter any support for" the view that only enforcement measures adopted under Chapter VII of the Charter are binding.[8]. The Internationally Court of Justice has found that Israeli actions did "contravene", inter alia, resolution 446, 452 and 465, a point legal scholars has taken as indication of their binding nature as, they argue, "[o]nly obligations, of course, can be contravened".[9]

First showing that the claim that all resolutions concerning Israel are binding is a contested one. Second, that legal scholars specifically have argued that the resolutions concerning settlements are binding, together with their rationale. Third, that the ICJ has found Israel to be in contravention of 3 these resolutions, and the legal ramifacations for this as discussed in the legal litterature.

Before any of you revert, It would be nice for a change to see any reason for why the version you are reverting to should stand. You don't edit it at all, it's all blind reverts, which completely ignore the highly relevant points I've raised. No real defence for the highly POV version you revert to have been provided. --Skepti 15:01, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

To facilitate discussion, let's look at the version you are deleting:
The establishment and expansion of Israeli settlements in the West Bank and Gaza Strip have been described as violations of the fourth Geneva Convention and as "having no legal validity" by the UN Security Council in resolutions 446, 452, 465 and 471. These resolutions were made under Chapter VI, not Chapter VII, of the United Nations Charter; Chapter VI resolutions relate to "Pacific Settlement of Disputes" between parties, have no enforcement mechanisms, and are generally considered to have no binding force under international law, [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] and Israel has chosen not to heed them. The International Court of Justice has asserted in an Advisory Opinion that "[i]t is not possible to find in the Charter any support for" the view that only enforcement measures adopted under Chapter VII of the Charter are binding.[16]
and the version you are trying to include:
The establishment and expansion of Israeli settlements in the West Bank and Gaza Strip have been described as violations of the fourth Geneva Convention and as "having no legal validity" by the UN Security Council in resolutions 446, 452, 465 and 471. Some analysts have asserted that all resolutions criticizing Israel have been passed under Chapter VI, and are therefore non-binding recommendations.[4][5] Others have asserted this is not correct, citing Security Council Resolution 54 where the Security Council determined that the situation in Palestine constituted a threat to the peace under Article 39 and where the Council acted under article 40 (both contained in Chapter VII).[6] It's been argued that the resolutions concerning Israeli settlements are binding even though were not passed under Chapter VII, citing the reasoning of the International Court of Justice in the Namibia-case.[7] Here, the Court asserted that "[i]t is not possible to find in the Charter any support for" the view that only enforcement measures adopted under Chapter VII of the Charter are binding.[8]. The Internationally Court of Justice has found that Israeli actions did "contravene", inter alia, resolution 446, 452 and 465, a point legal scholars has taken as indication of their binding nature as, they argue, "[o]nly obligations, of course, can be contravened".[9]
You state, First showing that the claim that all resolutions concerning Israel are binding is a contested one. Who has shown that claim is you as a straw man argument to introduce other material that would otherwise be excluded by WP:NOR. Second, you state legal scholars specifically have argued that the resolutions concerning settlements are binding, together with their rationale. What you have given us is not "legal scholars" but one source whose relevance may or may not qualify it for inclusion in the article, yet in any event would best be discussed here first before inclusion. If you do choose to include this source without discussion, as your heretofore non-collaborative editing style suggests you will be wont to do, please do not make your edit in such a way as to suggest that there is more than one person making this claim. And if the source is found wanting as to relevance, don't be shocked if someone tries to remove it. Your final point is, the ICJ has found Israel to be in contravention of 3 these resolutions, and the legal ramifacations for this as discussed in the legal litterature. The ICJ position is discussed satisfactorily in the original version that you deleted. Hence, having considered all three of your proferred reasons for your radical edit and found them deficient, along with your continual habit of introducing your edits in a way that removes relevant cited material in violation of WP:NPOV, and perhaps WP:VAND and WP:AGF as well, I have reverted you once again. Dasondas 17:53, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Please look at the first source again: it specifically argues against the position that all resolutions passed concering Israel are non-binding Chapter VI recommendations, which is what the source in the version you are revertin to claims. Secondly, if you want to change "legal scholars" and attribute the claim, I suggest you edit (and do the same to the two sources that claim all resolutions passed against Israel were passed under Chapter VI). And what is there to argue about whether a legal scholars specific viewpoint on these resolutions is relevant (no-one has tried to argue for the relevance of ten unrelated sources earlier, so please stop the double-standards)? With regards to ICJ, their specific position on these resolution, not the settlements per se, was not included in the article prior to my edit, they found them illegal on a number of grounds, the main reason was not the UNSC resolution.

Again, please edit if you find the wording "legel scholars" too broad, but if you do, I hope you do the same to the two sources that make the claim concerning UN-resolutions and Israel. And please note: my version actually states their claim as is, not what you make of it (they dont discuss settlements at all). Skepti 18:23, 15 November 2006 (UTC)