Talk:Israeli apartheid/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Contents 1 POV tag 2 Expansion Needed 3 Preposterous 4 This article is less valid than Iranian genocidal intentions 5 Reliable sources 6 Disputed content 6.1 Analogy

POV tag

Would it be possible to make this more POV? I don't think so. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 02:57, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Ironically, you posted your pov notice while I was writing a "criticism" section. Homey 03:01, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Expansion Needed

To avoid POV you may wish to focus more centrally on the history of the idea of Israeli apartheid and make sure that you distinguish Zionism and Israel because I think that the term is more often meant to be Zionist Israeli Apartheid rather than Israeli Apartheid. It is, however, a legit term but I think it needs to be presented is a different fashion. --Strothra 03:45, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Preposterous

Even with the "criticism" section, this article is completely preposterous. So now every time someone calls something a name, there has to be an article about it? Between this, "Wall of Shame," "Apartheid Wall" and other "articles," Wikipedia is quickly becoming an Encyclopedia of Name-Calling. If I knew how to request the deletion of an article (yes, I know I should), I would do it with this one. It's ridiculous. 6SJ7 04:30, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

um. The concept of Israeli apartheid is not new. I've heard it since the early nineties. It is, however, controversial but the article does not claim to take a stance on it. The article seems to be improving and making itself to be more about the controversy surrounding the term. I still believe that it needs to do more research into the history of the term itself though because it would also be quite interesting. --Strothra 04:35, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

6SJ7, you would have a point if there were only a handful of instances where the term has been used. However, if you google "Israeli apartheid" you will get approximately 240,000 hits[1]. I would agree that "every time someone calls something a name" there needn't be an article about it but when 240,000 people use a phrase it's notable. Homey 04:37, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Well there you have it. But please keep up your work in doing research into this article and improving it. The article should not stand on Google alone. Make the article one that stands on solid research. --Strothra 04:39, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

6SJ7, you must be more specific. What, exactly, in the article is inaccurate? What, exactly, is NPOV? Please give specific examples. Homey 04:43, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

And what, specifically, in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not is being violated?Homey 04:44, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm reinserting the unencyclopedic tag, just because the name has a couple hundred thousand hits does not automatically mean there should be an article about it. It clearly represents a strong pov, just because it doesn't take an explicit stance on the subject doesn't mean it isn't doing it implicitly.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 04:53, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree that an article can take an implicit stance, however, I feel that an article which is taking a controversial but established term, such as this one, and presents both sides of the controversy is not violating POV. The point is, this article will have to present both sides clearly and equally and establish the history of the term in a well-cited well-researched manner that includes verifiable and reliable sources. --Strothra 04:57, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

The qualification "established" should apply to academic community, rather than hateblog. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 05:00, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

By virtue of the fact that the article is called Israeli apartheid it is taking a stance on the subject. The term itself represents a pov, if it should be mentioned on wikipedia at all it should be on another article.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 05:03, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

1) Moshe, can you give me a specific citation of what in Wikipeida:What Wikipedia is not is being violated? If you can't do this then the tag can't stay on. Homey 05:05, 29 May 2006 (UTC) 2)"By virtue of the fact that the article is called Israeli apartheid it is taking a stance on the subject." That's absolutely preposterous. The term is widely used and merits definition and exposition. Just because you don't like a phrase doesn't mean you can ban it from wikipedia if it is in broad use. This looks like an attempt to censor a concept for POV reasons. The term is in wide use, your comments on NPOV should be directed at the article, not its title. Homey 05:05, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that anything has been established and if articles were required, in practice, to generally meet that requirement on Wikipedia then most articles here would be speedily deleted and I feel that the community is growing impatient with my AfD's. I don't think that this article even approaches hateblog right now. All this is why I requested a peer review so that the article will get the attention it needs. --Strothra 05:07, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Because of the title it's taking a stance?? I could see that if the title was Israel practices apartheid but it's not. It's presenting the term, which is a term which exists and is established. --Strothra 05:09, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I have now been edit-conflicted out of commenting four times, so some of this may seem out of place. My original explanations for my tags didn't make it to the page when I thought it did, and now the explanation is already moot and the tags have been changed back and forth several times. Humus and Moshe have expressed what I would have said, and I feel the tags are ok as they are now -- but only as a preliminary to eliminating or merging this article out of existence, or at least re-titling it. After all, Wikipedia is the place where you can't have an article called "Palestinian terrorism" (something that undoubtedly exists and has existed for many years) without it being turned into "Palestinian political violence," and I and others have had to fight just to keep the word "terrorism" somewhere in the first paragraph -- and yet there can be an article "Israeli apartheid"? Ridiculous. 6SJ7 05:13, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

You should be warned that it's going to be really really really difficult to WP:AGF with your edits when you've admitted to wishing to edit this article in order to destroy it. --Strothra 05:16, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

And where exactly did I do that? Please notice that I have not touched one word of the text of the article, and I do not intend to. So how is that I have admitted wishing to edit it in order to destroy it? I am not editing it. There are procedures on Wikipedia for deleting, merging and re-naming articles, and if I do not get around to following one of those procedures, I hope someone else does. This article cannot become a proper encyclopedia article, and that is why I have put back the unencyclopedic tag. By the way, that tag is justified by Wikipedia is not a soapbox, and Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. 6SJ7 05:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

When you wrote " I feel the tags are ok as they are now -- but only as a preliminary to eliminating or merging this article out of existence, or at least re-titling it." You stated your intention to edit the article in order to prepare it for deletion. This would be deconstructive. Although tags may not be deconstructive, there seems to be much discussion of this when I add tags to articles and people wish to lambast me for them, but such line of thinking could lead to very un wiki like behavior. --Strothra 21:36, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

There's also an article called Evil empire. Homey 05:15, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I hope the "Evil Empire" is in quotes. If not, it should be. I would say that a phrase that was a centerpiece of a major speech (probably more than one) by a president of the United States becomes encyclopedic all by itself. 6SJ7 05:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

What about a phrase used by a Nobel Prize Winner like Desmond Tutu?Homey 05:26, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Or another deranged politician and Nobel Prize Winner Arafat? ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 05:27, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

So you think fighting against apartheid in South Africa is deranged? Homey 06:08, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

You seem to have a talent for hypebole and loaded questions. People with good international reputations take crazy positions all of the time. Tutu's support alone does not make it a neutral and mainstream term.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 06:15, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

So Tutu is only "deranged" when it comes to Israel? Is that your NPOV assessment? Is he only deranged because he comes to a political conclusion you disagree with?

I never said the term was neutral or mainstream. My concern is that the article is NPOV. The term is used in political discourse on the Middle East, that is not contestable. That you are trying to ban an article on a term you dislike is POV. The NPOV position is to recognise that the term is used with increasing frequency and attempt to write an article explaining the term in an NPOV way. Are you willing or able to do this? Trying to ban a term you don't like is not NPOV. Homey 06:17, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

It is not a "term". As I said elsewhere (you seem to crosspost a lot), maybe we should disambiguate ritual murder and say that it "is a term used by some critics" to describe Jewish customs? ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 06:40, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

If there were an article called Jewish ritual murder than that article would need to be disambiguated. As it is the ritual murder article is largely about the Jewish blood libel so diambiguation is not necessary.Homey 06:44, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

You miss the point, and you are 31 year behind. The accusation of apartheid (along with other similar crap) was a part of 1975 "Zionism is racism" Cold War effort. Even the UN revoked it, so stop your propaganda. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 06:59, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the 2001 World conference against racism adopted resolution labelling Israel as such. Also nearly 30,000 to 50,000 people turned up to protest Israel's alleged apartheid.[2]. This term is a 21st century one.Bless sins 10:05, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I am not condoning the phrase, I simply recognize that it's in use and merits a wikipedia article. Please set your POV aside. Homey 07:02, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

We obviously have articles about notable fringe organizations, Your basically arguing that the term "Israeli Apartheid" is notable enough in of itself, however the term is not some organization, it is a pov term that other fringe organizations use. For example, it would be fine if we wanted to write articles about those same groups themselves, just not about every single claim or charge they make. Would we write an article about some of the horrible things that the KKK believe in?- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 09:04, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I think we should call it a night with this article. It's getting heated and needs new voices and opinions. I feel that we're headed to polarized arguments here. --Strothra 05:30, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the article should be moved to Israel and aparthied, like Zionism and Racism adn Islam and anti-Semitism.Bless sins 10:15, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

That would suggest an article about the relationship between Israel and South Africa's apartheid regime.

As for the new title of "Israeli apartheid (phrase)" that would make sense if we were trying to disambiguate from other "Israeli apartheids" as we aren't its a meaningless change. Homey 18:23, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

This article is less valid than Iranian genocidal intentions

http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&safe=off&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=Iranian+genocidal+intentions&spell=1

http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&safe=off&q=Iranian+OR+iran+%22genocidal+intentions%22&btnG=Search

People should really review WP:not Zeq 14:23, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

What? How do Iranian genocidal intentions factor into this discussion? What are you talking about? What part of WP:NOT are you claiming that this article does not meet? Please provide constructive comments so that the article may be updated accordingly. --Strothra 14:28, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought Wikipedia is not a place to publish your own thoughts and analyses. Please do not use Wikipedia for any of the following:

Primary (original) research such as proposing theories and solutions, original ideas, defining terms, coining new words, etc. See Wikipedia:No original research. If you have done primary research on a topic, publish your results in other venues such as peer-reviewed journals, other printed forms, or respected online sites. Wikipedia will report about your work once it becomes part of accepted knowledge. Not all information added to Wikipedia has to be from peer-reviewed journals, but please strive to make sure that information is reliable and verifiable. For example, citing book, print, or reliable web resources demonstrates that the material is verifiable and is not merely the editor's opinion. Original inventions. If you invent the word frindle or a new type of dance move, it is not article material until a secondary source reports on it. Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day! Critical reviews. Biographies and articles about art works are supposed to be encyclopedic. Of course, critical analysis of art is welcome, if grounded in direct observations of outside parties. See No. 5 below. See also Writing guide: check your fiction. Personal essays or Blogs that state your particular opinions about a topic. Wikipedia is supposed to compile human knowledge. It is not a vehicle to make personal opinions become part of human knowledge. See Wikipedia:No original research. In the unusual situation where the opinions of a single individual are important enough to discuss, it is preferable to let other people write about them. Personal essays on topics relating to Wikipedia are welcome at Meta. There is a Wikipedia fork at Wikinfo that encourages personal opinions in articles. Opinions on current affairs is a particular case of the previous item. Although current affairs may stir passions and tempt people to "climb soapboxes" (i.e. passionately advocate their pet point of view), Wikipedia is not the medium for this. Articles must be balanced so as to put entries for current affairs in a reasonable perspective. Furthermore, Wikipedia authors should strive to write articles that will not quickly become obsolete. Discussion forums. Please try to stay on the task of creating an encyclopedia. You can chat with folks on their user talk pages, and should resolve problems with articles on the relevant talk pages, but please do not take discussion into articles. There are a number of early-stage projects that attempt to use a wiki for discussion and debate. For a wiki-like site that will publish your original thoughts, see Everything2.

[edit] Wikipedia is not a soapbox Wikipedia is not a soapbox or a vehicle for propaganda and advertising. Therefore, Wikipedia articles are not:

Propaganda or advocacy of any kind. Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to approach a neutral point of view. You might wish to go to Usenet or start a blog if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views. You can also use Wikinfo which promotes a "sympathetic point of view" for every article. Wikipedia was not made for opinion, it was made for fact. Self-promotion. You are free to write about yourself or projects you have a strong personal involvement in. However, do remember that the standards for encyclopedic articles apply to such pages just like any other, including the requirement to maintain a neutral point of view, which is difficult when writing about yourself. Creating overly abundant links and references to autobiographical articles is unacceptable. See Wikipedia:Autobiography, Wikipedia:Vanity, and Wikipedia:Notability. Advertising. Articles about companies and products are acceptable if they are written in an objective and unbiased style. Furthermore, all article topics must be third-party verifiable, so articles about very small "garage" or local companies are not likely to be acceptable. External links to commercial organizations are acceptable if they can serve to identify major corporations associated with a topic (see finishing school for an example). Please note Wikipedia does not endorse any businesses and it does not set up affiliate programs. See also WP:CORP for a proposal on corporate notability. [edit] Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files Wikipedia is neither a mirror nor a repository of links, images, or media files. All content added to Wikipedia may have to be edited mercilessly to be included in the encyclopedia. By submitting any content, you agree to release it for free use under the GNU FDL. 1 Wikipedia articles are not:

Mere collections of external links or Internet directories. There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia. On articles about topics with many fansites, including a link to one major fansite is appropriate, marking the link as such. See Wikipedia:External links and m:When should I link externally for some guidelines. Mere collections of internal links, except for disambiguation pages when an article title is ambiguous, and for structured lists to assist with the organisation of articles. Mere collections of public domain or other source material such as entire books or source code, original historical documents, letters, laws, proclamations, and other source material that are only useful when presented with their original, un-modified wording. Complete copies of primary sources (including mathematical tables, astronomical tables, or source code) should go into Wikisource. There's nothing wrong with using public domain resources such as 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica to add content to an article. See also Wikipedia:Don't include copies of primary sources. Collections of photographs or media files with no text to go with the articles. If you are interested in presenting a picture, please provide an encyclopedic context, or consider adding it to Wikimedia Commons. If a picture comes from a public domain source on a website, then consider adding it to Wikipedia:Images with missing articles or Wikipedia:Public domain image resources. [edit] Wikipedia is not a free host, blog, webspace provider or social networking site

Zeq 14:40, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Please do not copy the entirety of a WP policy into the talk page. Please see WP:POINT. Also see WP:DICK. You were asked to point out the specific areas of the WP:NOT policy which you feel this article does not comply with. Please see WP:CIVIL as your actions may be construed as hostile. --Strothra 15:59, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

There is not one iota of original research in the article. Homey 18:10, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Reliable sources

Two comments below have been copied from user talk pages:

1. 13:09, 29 May 2006 (hist) (diff) Israeli apartheid (→Usage - neither is informationclearinghouse.info)
2. 13:08, 29 May 2006 (hist) (diff) Israeli apartheid (→Analogy - globalexchange.org is not a reliable source)

They may or may not be reliable sources for facts about Israel. They are, however, reliable sources for what proponents of the term "Israeli apartheid" are arguing. Homey 13:20, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

No, unsigned articles or articles by a random writer from random websites cannot possibly be reliable sources on any matter. Pecher ^Talk 13:57, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

InformationClearingHouse.info, as I understand it, does not publish original material, but rather republished material from other sites. Also, as I understand it, InformationClearingHoust.info, is one big copyright violation. Thus if you find material on ICH.info, I would recommend trying to find the original source and use that. (I've never heard of GlobalExchange.org) --Ben Houston 16:40, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Economist and BBC articles are unsigned as well as a rule. Please don't make up non-existent wikipedia rules. GlobalExchange is a reliable source for what proponents of the term "Israeli apartheid" are saying.Homey 17:21, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

The website does not give any indication that these proponents are somehow notable so that their opinions are worthy of being included into Wikipedia. Pecher ^Talk 17:43, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

GlobalExchange is a reliable source only as far as one article: Global Exchange. See WP:RS Zeq 17:40, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

That's a rather tortured argument. The phrase renders over 200,000 hits so it meets our standards of notability. Global Exchange is a widely recognized pro-Palestinian site so their publications are recognizable as representative of pro-Palestinian views. Moreover, their pages are amply footnoted. If the Jewish Virtual Library, which also has unsigned articles, is a credible representative of the pro-Zionist view then Global Exchange is a credible representative of the opposite. I don't see you objecting to the use of JVL as a source in this article. Why would that be?Homey 17:59, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

That is nice but does not meet WP:RS. Zeq 18:05, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

How doesn't it? Zeq, by your argument Jewish Virtual Library doesn't meet WPRS either. Shall we now remove all factoids from wikipedia that are credited to JVL?Homey 18:07, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, yes. material from JVL was in the past removed in some cases. Zeq 18:19, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

And Zeq, one more revert and I'm going to prepare to take you to the ArbComm for POV vandalism. Given you editing history I'd strongly caution you to cease or desist lest you face a longterm ban. Homey 18:08, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

So far you are the only one violating policy here. read WP:RS . Zeq 18:15, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Disputed content

I dispute this paragrpah (it is not NPOV):

Israeli apartheid is a controversial phrase used by some anti-Zionists and Palestinian rights activists to draw an analogy between the policies of the Israeli government towards Palestinians to those of the apartheid-era South African government towards its Black and mixed-race populations. The analogy has been used as early as 1987 by Uri Davis, an Israeli-born academic and Jewish member of the Palestine Liberation Organization, in his book Israel: An Apartheid State (ISBN 0862323177) which provided a detailed comparison of Israel and South Africa. The highly controversial World Conference against Racism in Durban, South Africa adopted resolutions describing Israel as an "apartheid state"[3]. Nobel Peace Prize winner and South African anti-apartheid activist Desmond Tutu wrote in some articles that the situation in Israel reminded him about Apartheid[4].

and this was is based on a source which does not meet WP:RS:

Analogy

- Proponents of this term argue that while Israel grants some rights to Arabs living in Israel within its pre-1967 borders, it routinely discriminates against Arabs living in the Occupied Territories. Proponenets present a number of reasons for this.[5] - *Palestinians (as opposed to Israeli Arabs) do not have voting rights as do citizens of Israel, but they are under Israeli occupation and subject to the laws and policies of the Israeli government and its military. (Ibid) - *Israel has constructed settlements in the West Bank, where Israeli settlers enjoy high standards of living with respect to the local Palestinian population. These colonies also expend large amounts of resources (especially water), at the expense of the local inhabitants, who are forced to make ends meet. (Ibid) - *Israel has created roads and checkpoints that isolate Palestinian communities and have effectively formed an Israeli version of the South African Bantustans. (Ibid) - *Israeli road plans in the West Banks have been condemned as "apartheid" as some roads would be reserved for Palestinians while others would be reserved for Israelis[6]. - Proponents of this term often claim discrimination against Israeli Arabs. [7] - *Jews can easily enter Israel, under the Law of Return, yet Palestinians who fled or were driven out, may not have the Right of return.(Ibid) - *Arab municipalities receive less than one fifth the funding that is given to their Jewish counterparts. (Ibid) - *The Government of Israel often refuses to grant permits to build or repair homes, and fails to provide electricity, water, health services, education, roads, or any other infrastructure. One of the consequences is that 70% of Negev Desert Bedouin (Arab) infants are not fully immunized and one third are hospitalized within their first year of life. (Ibid)

Please keep in mind what wikipedia is not and don't turn this article into a political attenpt to delegitimize Israel. The place to argue about the rights and wrongs (there are mnay) of Israel policies is not in this encyclopedia. Zeq 17:39, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

There a few claims which seem factually incorrect, yet to change them would undermine the reasoning behind making them to begin with:

• With exception to the "Law of Return," Arab citizens of Israel don't have some rights, but equal rights (legally, at the minimum).
• Palestinians have voting rights in the Palestinian Authority controlled areas
• Both settler and Palestinian standards of living fluctuate, and don't necessarily correlate to political status (There are poor settlers and rich Palestinians - rich settlers aren't rich because they make Palestinians poor). While some resources (like land) are expended by the settlements, I believe that the vast majority of water is piped in from Israel's own grid.
• I'm not overly familiar with the Bantustan concept, but the isolation is not dejure, and isn't part of a strategy of labour capitalisation (in the past, at least, when checkpoints and travel-restrictions were minimal or nonexistent).
• To the best of my knowledge, the Israeli built road system (bypass roads) are the main arteries for Palestinian travel, while their use is sometimes restricted to mass-transit, and curtailed altogether at times. The Guardian article refers to a proposed plan.

Again, I don't take issue with the claims per-se, but rather I'm unclear as to what the best method of remaining faithful to facts without compromising the pro-"apartheid" POV may be. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 18:33, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• The roads issue is covered here by B'Tselem [8] and I quote:

"This system enables Israel to designate use of some of the roads in the West Bank for the primary or exclusive use of Israelis, mainly settlers living in the West Bank. [...] Prolonged checks and searches carried out by soldiers at the staffed checkpoints and the accompanying degradation and long lines deter Palestinians from using even some roads that are open to them. Consequently, there is light Palestinian travel on some of the main West Bank roads, and these roads are essentially used only by settlers."

Roads which dead-end at a settlement there is very little Palestinian-license plate travel. Other roads are sometime limited to cars with Israeli license plate plus any cargo or public transport (no private cars). In any case it is not racial at all as Palestinians who travle in Israeli license cars (such as Palestinian residents pf e. jerusalem or Palestinians with israeli ID (there are over 1.5 million of them) can get an israeli license plate and travel on every road. No aparthide. Zeq 19:44, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• With regards to water, here is a page from B'Tselem [9]. A quote:

"Israel's water policy in the Occupied Territories benefited Israel in two primary ways: (1) Preservation of the unequal division of the shared groundwater in the West Bank's Western Aquifer and Northern Aquifer. This division was created prior to the occupation, a result of the gap between economic and technological development in Israel as opposed to the West Bank. However, the gap would have likely diminished had Israel not prevented it. (2) Utilization of new water sources, to which Israel had no access prior to 1967, such as the Eastern Aquifer (in the West Bank) and the Gaza Aquifer, primarily to benefit Israeli settlements established in those areas."

--Ben Houston 19:38, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

At the very least, the first point's description of unequal division is a general benefit to Israel as a whole, and isn't specific to settlements (and states that the division preceded the Israeli occupation). As for the second point, to the best of my [limited] knowledge, there are no major Israeli drilling sites in the West Bank, but rather dozens of pumping stations that transport water from the Israeli grid up into the hills. B'Tselem didn't provide numbers relating to Israel's utilisation of "new water sources" - joined with the preceding, this leads me to believe that the utilisation is domestic in nature and negligible in overall quantity. I found the following about the Gaza area settlement:

The reason [that there is water in Gush Katif]? He pulls over to show me.(...) Fat white pipes protrude from the sandy soil bound for the concrete storage tanks on the hill above us. This water comes from Israel's National Water Company, pumped from aquifers beneath Israel and the West Bank and diverted from the Jordan River about 100 miles away. The rest of the settlers' water comes from underground, pumped from a sweet pocket of the Gaza aquifer. Together with the water in these pipes, it means no one's thirsty in Gush Katif.[10]

While this report documents utilisation of "new water sources," it seems to regard it as being of secondary importance. Anyhow, if you come up with something else (particularly numbers documenting the "new" utilisation - that would change much) let me know. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 05:54, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

In light of the course this page has taken, I've made edits largely based on my comments above, specifically:

• Equal rights
• Arabs with Israeli citizenship living/working in the West Bank have the same rights as any other Israeli citizen.
• The level of water use by settlements is not recorded on the B'Tselem source. See above. Additionally, aside from the use of other resources (land the settlements are built on, closed military areas), the relationship between settler and Palestinian socio-economic status is irrelevant, and not based on fact.
• A plan which was discussed two years ago, and which hasn't been implemented, is irrelevant.

Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 18:50, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I reverted user:Bless sins's reversion of my edits. The reasoning I expressed above wasn't challenged or addressed. I acknowledge that Bless sins stated reasoning was that we aren't here to judge the claims, but I thought we were crossing the line between presenting a POV and presenting non-factual information. Let me know if you believe me to be in error. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 03:08, 31 May 2006 (UTC)