Talk:Israeli settlement

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Israel Portal
Israeli settlement is part of WikiProject Israel, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Israel on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. This template adds articles to Category:WikiProject Israel articles.
Project Israel To Do (Drop-Down Menu):
B This article has been rated as b-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
Israeli settlement is part of WikiProject Palestine - a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative, balanced articles related to Palestine on Wikipedia. Join us by visiting the project page where you can add your name to the list of members and contribute to the discussion. This template adds articles to Category:WikiProject Palestine articles.
NB: Assessment ratings and other indicators given below are used by the Project in prioritizing and managing its workload.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the Project's importance scale.
This article has been marked as needing attention.
After rating the article, please provide a short summary on the article's ratings summary page to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses.

Contents

[edit] 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. 65.244.131.148 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)

[edit] "(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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Curfews

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)

[edit] Fact/opinion

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)

[edit] Cleanup?

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] "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. 64.93.131.108 18:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)Steve

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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” (some “Israeli settlements” are also Jewish towns/villages). Shilonite 11:42, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] 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 220.253.41.54 (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. 71.203.209.0 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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. 85.164.54.193 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. 85.164.54.193 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. 85.164.38.8 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. 85.164.38.8 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). 85.164.38.8 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. 85.164.38.8 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. 85.164.38.8 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)

[edit] Dubious link

Since I have not been active on this page, I leave this to someone else to make the call, but "Moving Up: An Aliyah Journal, story of modern Aliyah to Gush Etzion" is a link inserted by a user who seems have done nothing but add this link to articles, and it links to a page that is basically an ad for a book. I consider this linkspam. I removed it from aliyah. - Jmabel | Talk 06:11, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Facts Vs Claims

My link has sources."Terence Prittie, Whose Jerusalem?".And so what if he Israeli.He is expert in the field for example like Morris.Camera just reported what the spokesman said so I dont see anything wrong with that.Shrike 20:02, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

For goodness' sake, I am not deleting the info. I am merely pointing out that is it an Israeli claim, which is common fair practice that permeates most of the Arab-Israeli conflict articles. You cannot take that highly polemic and unashamedly biased article and pretend that it proves the claim as a FACT. It is an Israeli CLAIM.--AladdinSE 01:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Wrong ASE, it is a well documented fact. See [10]. ←Humus sapiens ну? 11:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

That edit in History of Jerusalem was actually much more acceptable for that article, HS. I adjusted the Steinburg material to match (ie "according to"). As far as the contested material in this article, no, you cannot use that Israeli professor's highly biased and clearly polemic article as an unqualified fact. It is a claim. I am not saying he is utterly discredited, if I thought that, I would have deleted the material. I am simply qualifying it. Now, if you want to add the David Guinn material in a similar way to this article, I would have no objection. Also, in your reverting, please stop to consider the grammatically inferior version you are espousing. "According to spokesman for Israel’s Civil Administration this report was based on "based only on Palestinian claims" map.Also "Peace now" never contacted..." My version is: "According to a spokesman for Israel’s Civil Administration this report was "based only on Palestinian claims". The spokesman further claimed that "Peace now" never cantacted the Civil Administration about the issue." I noted that this spokesman made a claim. The other version states it as fact that the civil administration was not consulted. If you wish to revert back while disagreement persists, please take a moment to clean up the material. P.S. I also changed the section title to something more descriptive. I hope no one minds.--AladdinSE 09:40, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

The destruction of the Jewish quarter and the Mount of Olives cemetery is not something that it's disputed. It's simply there. You can see how tombs were used for donkeys and toilets in the cemetery, you can see how whole synagogues disappeared, remnants of the houses, and of course you have the Jordanians themselves claiming to have destroyed all the synagogues and jewish homes in 1948 fully documented. Anyway, it's not disputed since it's a case of the present not the past, the burned synagogues are there to see. Now Israel is fixing some of them like the Hurva again. Amoruso 10:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Fine. Now, can you produce a neutral reliable source that backs this up? Just read that article you are championing. Its reads so blatantly biased. An Israeli professor writes a highly polemical, emotionally charged article, and you object to the qualifier "Israeli claim"?? Also, you say that "you have the Jordanians themselves claiming to have destroyed all the synagogues and jewish homes". Please cite where they claim this. --AladdinSE 08:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] West Bank is west of the Jordan River (dispute tag)

Moved this here: ", a term to which [ 'West Bank' of course] many Israelis object, as it implies (falsely) that this region was at some point in time controlled by a Palestinian state" There is a logical conclusion here that is pure speculation, unsourced by the way, and factually false. West Bank refers to the West of the Jordan River, in contrast with the East Bank. This is where the name Transjordan comes from, which is East of the Jordan River, while "Cisjordan" ("Cisjordanie" in French, which has remained the name of the West Bank in this language) refers to the West Bank. You see, no need to refer to any Palestinian state for that... It's simple geography. Tazmaniacs 02:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can see, the text you moved does not refer to the term 'West Bank' but to the term 'Palestine' or 'Palestinian territories'. This would be clear if you quoted also the preceding words:
but is commonly known as 'Palestine' or part of the Palestinian territories, a term to which many Israelis object,
So there is no reason for this discussion at all. --Trigamma 13:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Jaygz' last edit, with the alleged motive of "NPOV", is not only childish, but testify to complete ignorance and disregard for facts, which amounts to historical revisionism. Or do you claim that "West Bank" is not West of the Jordan River? Tazmaniacs 04:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Please recall that WP:CIVIL is policy. Do you have specific reasons for your proposed changes to this longstanding text? Please also recall that the section in question is about the dispute over terminology, not the location of the West Bank. Jayjg (talk) 05:04, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Do not recall me Wikipedia guidelines which you never follow, and remember that you do not own articles here. I respect your right to believe in whatever you want, but even the most die-hard fanatic (which you are not, I presume) has to admit that West Bank is, at its origins, a geographical term that means west of the Jordan River. Hence Transjordan and Cisjordan, I really don't understand why you try to contest such basic geographical terms. Just for the sake of it? Tazmaniacs 05:28, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Please try again, avoiding violations of WP:CIVIL and straw man arguments. Jayjg (talk) 05:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

The problem, dear Jayjg, is not between me and you (I really hope we won't have to discuss this around a drink), but only about this article, and the uncontestable fact that West Bank is originally a geographical expression. Adress that, instead of focusing on me (am I so interesting? I would never have thought so!) Tazmaniacs 03:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
No. The phrase that you deleted didn't refer to the term "West Bank" at all, but to the terms "Palestine" and "Palestinian territories". Please read the paragraph again. --Trigamma 17:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

The section is discussing the controversy over terminology, not the origins of the terms. The "West Bank" terminology is very new, so the question arises "why was the older terminology changed, if the geography didn't?" I've already explained that. Jayjg (talk) 03:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tax incentives removed in 2003?

Is it true that all tax incentives for settlements where removed in 2003? The article says so (I cut the sentence): "Israelis living in rural, periphery areas, but these were revoked entirely in 2003..." Tazmaniacs 03:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Terminology: Judea and Samaria

I have deleted this sentence, regarding the West Bank:

However, prior to Jordan's occupation of the region, the U.N. called it Judea and Samaria.

This is simply not true, as can easily be seen by searching the UN archives. The editor who wrote this sentence probably had in mind the General Assembly partition resolution, which does use the terms Judea and Samaria, but this is not typical. The most common term used in UN documents referring to the region, during the period in question (1948-1950), is Arab Palestine. Some examples:

Future of Arab Palestine and the Question of Partition

In rejecting the idea, the Political Committee of the League of Arab States completely opposed the idea of considering Arab Palestine
as a possible future member of a union with Transjordan.

The United States delegation, while calling for a number of other changes in the United Kingdom original draft resolution, was in favour
 of this paragraph concerning the future of Arab Palestine.

The Soviet delegate added that the paragraph had political aims tending to enlarge the State of Transjordan at the expense
of both the Arab population of Arab Palestine and the Jews of Palestine.

Here, in a report of an Economic Survery of the area, is an unmistakable reference to what is now called the West Bank:

The Mission's engineering, agricultural and other experts have conducted a field investigation in Jordan, Arab Palestine and the Gaza area.

On the other hand I can't find any UN document that uses Judea and Samaria to refer to the West Bank as a unit. There are occasional uses of the term Samaria to refer to a region within "Arab Palestine". An example is this very important report:

The Committee would like to point out that, according to the IRCC, along the armistice lines in Arab Palestine--mainly in Samaria and Ramallah--there
live a fairly large number of Arab farmers whose houses are located on the Arab side and whose fields are under Israel control. If these farmers
are not allowed free access to their lands, they may become destitute and in need of relief and eventual resettlement.

What's particularly interesting is that it seems even the Israeli government didn't start using the term "Judea and Samaria" until they captured the area in 1967. Sanguinalis 03:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Occupied vs. disputed territories

The current version states that this is "much disputed", giving the idea of an substantial debate. Wp:npov#undue weight "NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a verifiable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." However, the "much disputed" phrase suggests that the opposing view points represent equally prominent/popular/widely accepted positions. When in fact, only the state of Israel officially argues "occupied". It is not much disputed, there is a concensus and a dissenter. Individual objectors like Bard (for ex) render opinions; opinions which object to the accepted term.

It's like claiming Hezbollah is not a terrorist organization. Well, you can quote scholars, or argue that they ought not to be considered a terrorist organization. But, in fact, according to the international organizations, states and so forth, they are. It's factual because all the terrorists lists in the world that actually matter (US, UN, ICJ...) they are. Well, in fact, according to any and all organizations and states, the territories are 'occupied'.

"Much disputed" is fallacious. 74.106.234.236 05:10, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't claim Hezbollah is a terrorist organization. Jayjg (talk) 05:14, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Missed my point Jayjg. The point is, while some people may wish to argue that they ought not to be considered occupied, in fact, they are. And the people who use the term 'disputed' are a very marginal minority. And yet, their position is given vastly disproportionate weight. A student of history 23:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I hardly missed your point; rather, I neatly overturned it. Wikipedia doesn't assert truth; rather, it cites all relevant points of views. Please review WP:NPOV and WP:ATT. Jayjg (talk) 02:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Right. And the pov that they are 'disputed', or even that it is 'much debated' is simply not true. This is an extreme minority position, and it hardly deserves the credit some people wish to give it here. Some editors want to represent the 'disputed' term as having equal credibility or acceptance, or they want to pretend there is significant debate, but there is not. The territories are occupied: fact. Some individuals dispute this, true. But there is hardly any significant debate.A student of history 14:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Some pretty hefty legal minds have weighed in that they are not, in fact, occupied. Some of them are listed here. And please stop inserting POV original research into the article (e.g. "according to some Israeli sources"). Jews weren't allowed into the Jordanian parts of Jerusalem from 1948-1967. Now that's a real fact, not just your opinion. Jayjg (talk) 20:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

This issue has remarkable resilience, doesn't it? It is settled again and again, and Israel apologists continue to try to delete all mention of the term occupied. The Hezbollah analogy does not nearly apply here. No where near the same weight of unanimity exists as to its "terrorist" classification as does the "occupation" classification applied to the Arab Territories occupied by Israel. The only nation in the world that disputes the term is the occupier. Even Israel's closest allies use the term. The State Department [11] itself as well as the CIA [12], as a matter of policy clearly distinguish the classification. The United Nations, international human rights bodies, the ICJ, all of human civilization, save Israel, deem the territories to be occupied. Sources can be cited up the wazoo. When will this absurd "debate" end?--AladdinSE 23:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I think a NPOV phrasing would be something like while all international bodies and countries (save Israel) consider the territories in question as "occupied", Israel's official position is that the term does not apply and instead refers to them as "disputed" [ref]. Even within Israel, some political movements and politicians have used the term "occupied" [ref..., ref to Ariel Sharon quote...]. [Some more about legal experts and commentators with refs...].--Doron 09:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
That would be original research; we would have to have reliable citations that "all international bodies and countries etc." And it's more than just Israel that disputes that they are/were "occupied"; Eugene Rostow and Julius Stone were not "Israel". Neither was Ronald Reagan, for that matter. Jayjg (talk) 20:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
It wouldn't be original research if we provide good references, I was merely suggesting a framework, and this framework leaves plenty of room to discuss opinions among scholars. As for international view, there are dozens of UN General Assembly resolutions that refer to "occupied Palestinian territories" and "occupied Syrian territories" most of them are adopted nearly unanimously. Even the United States, which usually votes against these resolutions, regularly refers to the territories as "occupied" in official publications. At the very least, we could write "The United Nations, United States, European Union, Arab League, People's Republic of China, Japan, ... regularly refer to the territories in question as 'occupied'..." (leaving open the position of Malawi on the subject), all with appropriate references to their respective announcements on the subject, which are abundant on the web.--Doron 00:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
There are numerous reliable sources which refer to the west bank, east Jerusalem and the Golan Heights as being "occupied." The question is whether there is any reliable source for an alternative status, as biased sources are not considered reliable. Fred Bauder 00:22, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
See Military occupation Fred Bauder 00:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Fred, please review Doron's point below, which captures the essence of the issue. Also, you are incorrect, the relationship between "bias" and "reliability" is not what you make it to be. Most sources have bias of one sort or another, but that doesn't make them unreliable or un-citeable. Julius Stone and Eugene Rostow were experts in international law, and reliable sources regarding it. Also, we don't use Wikipedia articles as sources. Jayjg (talk) 03:55, 1 April 2007 (UTCy
The question here is not whether they are "occupied" or "disputed", but whether saying that "all countries consider them occupied" is original research or not. My point is that at the very least, we can say that the countries mentioned above regularly refer to the territories as "occupied" in official publications and declarations.--Doron 21:07, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Wouldn't it seem a bit pointish to have a lengthy list of groups that have used the term "occupied"? And to what end? Jayjg (talk) 03:53, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
I think the position of the international community is an important issue. This is not only a matter of debate between scholars, it's an issue in international relations. The "point" I'm trying to make, which I think is a relevant one, is that virtually all countries regard and refer to the territories as "occupied". I would rather have a more concise phrasing that says something like this, but I don't have a source right now that says exactly that which I can quote. At the very least, I think it's worth pointing out that the major powers in the international communities share this view. If the such phrasing is too clumsy, it can be neatly tucked away in a footnote. I don't think I was disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point, I was merely suggesting a compromise in an edit war between other editors here.--Doron 07:26, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Sorry if my edits seemed snippy. Jayjg (talk) 20:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
A quantitive source of such a report would be General Assembly resolutions. If I remember correctly there were some referring to the territories as occupied which were passed almost unanimously. There was also some resolution passed at a ICRC conference where there was (essentially?) unanimous agreement that the territories are occupied and the Geneva Conventions applies there. Those would together cover a large fraction of all nations on earth. No major nation is excluded (including the US which has repeatedly voted for SC resolutions that call the territories occupied). There is also the fact that the Israeli government agrees the territories are occupied every time it faces it's own High Court (which has treated them as occupied consistently since 1967 and says so explicitly time and again). As far as I know, it is only in public-relations contexts that the "disputed not occupied" claim is made. (So much work, so little time.) --Zerotalk 14:28, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
How does the Israeli Supreme Court treat the annexations of East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights? Fred Bauder 16:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
That's a very good question but I'm not confident about the answer. In the case of the Golan Heights I know of a published argument between two Israeli law professors as to whether the High Court considers them occupied or not. I think the situation is clearer on EJ (the High Court regards it as annexed) but my memory on this is weak. I'll look at my books and report back. --Zerotalk 11:08, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
G.A. resolutions regarding Israel are pretty much rote affairs, and they have no relevance to international law. The article already mentions the resolution passed at the 1999 conference of the High Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention, as well as UNSC Resolution 446, which is more relevant than G.A. resolutions. Regardless, I don't think Wikipedia should be presenting the CIA's view of things as "objective truth", as the most recent editor of the article seems wont to do (well, even then he made more of the sources than they actually say). Jayjg (talk) 20:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
GA resolutions are certainly not irrelevant to international law. They are not immediately binding like SC resolutions are, but they are one of the major sources of international customary law. You can see that by reading rulings of the ICJ. Very often the ICJ cites GA resolutions as evidence of the opinion of the "community of civilised nations" in determing what is part of customary law and what isn't. So GA resolutions can have the eventual indirect effect of creating international law. --Zerotalk 11:08, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Things only become part of customary international law if they are accepted as such by the parties in question; they cannot be imposed based on G.A. resolutions. Jayjg (talk) 17:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
You are right about the last part, but I didn't say otherwise. As for the first part, no there is no requirement for the "parties in question" to agree to anything. Customary law applies equally to everyone whether they like it or not. --Zerotalk 07:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I think we can agree that most countries refer to the territories as "occupied", including the major powers and international bodies. If there are no objections, I will add a sentence about how the international community views the issue.--Doron 23:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

The problem here, and face it, is that some people don't want to admit that the entire world considers them 'occupied' with only Israel and a few individuals detracting from this consensus. And yes, it is a consensus. This page does not reflect this because there are a few people here who insist on distorting the reality of this situation. They are occupied, every country and body in the world accepts this, save Israel and a few legal scholars... But you'd think that there was a real debate by reading this farce of a page. This page, and others, really makes it appear as though there is a heated debate on the subject, or that it's up in the air... well it's not. This is an issue which is not even, ever discussed in the mainstream. A few bad apples spoil are refusing to allow this page to reflect reality... A student of history 13:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
You keep mistaking your own POV for "truth". Jayjg (talk) 17:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
A student of history, we can state the facts and let the readers decide, we shouldn't draw the conclusion for them. We know that there are some scholars that dispute the term "occupied", so how can we determine whether they constitute a negligible fringe or a significant school?--Doron 20:30, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
To both Jayjg and Doron: I have never spoken of any "truth", because it would be fallacious to do so, I know this. My point is simply this. When it comes to the spectrum and balance of opinions on the 'occupied' versus 'disputed' question, there is a concensus, whether you regard this as original research or not. The entire international community, every country in the world (save Israel) and every relevent international organization considers them 'occupied'. Israel and several of her individual supporters disagree. Thus the balance of opinions is heavily in favour of 'occupied'. Those who argue they are 'disputed' are few and far between. There are no countries or relevent international bodies or legal entities which agree with the 'disputed' pov. My problem is that this wiki article does not reflect this adequately. It appears that almost equal balance has been given to the 'disputed' pov, when it is absolutely clearly the marginal minority of opinions on this subject, and that is a fact. When the entire world says one thing, and one country and a few lawyers say something else, we don't give virtually equal credit and space to that one country and those few lawyers. This page reflects the agenda of the wiki community, not the reality of the situation. This isn't about "truth" Jayjg, it's about stating the relevent facts, and it's a fact that only a very small minority of commentators dispute the term 'occupied'. A student of history 22:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
There are 1.3 billion Muslims and only 13 million Jews in the worldm, and even among Jews you can find a full spectrum of opinions. Why don't we simply accept Muslim POV (aka "consensus") against "a very small minority"? ←Humus sapiens ну? 22:59, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
A student of history, I already suggested a description of where the international community stands on the subject, which I will introduce into the article shortly, as there doesn't seem to be any objection. I am now considering the view of scholars and legal experts on the subject, which is a different matter. Now how should we represent the spectrum of opinions in this area? Is there consensus? Is there a heated debate?--Doron 09:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that the Wikipedia Way is to quote a good source as stating what the opinion of the international community is. Here is a start from an academic journal:

"by now, in the view of virtually all international lawyers and every state but Israel, the Geneva Conventions have become customary international law, meaning that every state is bound by them, whether it has formally become a Party to the treaties or not." -- M. Galchinsky, "The Jewish Settlements in the West Bank: International Law and Israeli Jurisprudence, Israel Studies, Vol. 9, No. 3, pp115-136.

Galchinsky is here discussing the GC's ban on settlement of occupied territories. --Zerotalk 07:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Balance on the Question of Legality

This article certainly has quite a bit of information in it, but I don't think the proper balance has been achieved. The simple fact that no nation on Earth outside of the United States and Israel recognizes Israeli settlements as legal has been obscured, with a passing reference to the UN Security Council resolutions followed by 6,000 paragraphs describing the Israeli government's case.

When essentially every recognized independent state on the planet[13] (outside of the US and Israel) votes in a General Assembly resolution 151-2 (with four or so abstentions) that Israeli settlement activity is illegal and calling on Israel to repect the civil rights of Palestinians etc etc you might think the assembled opinion of the planet would obscure the arguments of the stubborn few. But no. Instead we have to read through pages of what I can only describe as apologetics and obfuscations wrangling over the details of wording in this or that resolution or legal opinion with anyone criticizing this tumorous growth of the Israeli government's numerous and extraordinarily detailed objections as opposing the addition of information to the effort.

We could have an edit war on those terms, with the Israeli critics pounding in information on the other side until the article is 2,000 pages long and entirely unreadable. I don't think that would be productive.

The lead of the articles and section in wikipedia are usually good. They usually accurately and without reservation summarize the opinion of the world and international observers accurately. Look at Robert Mugabe, for example. There is no beating around the bush there: "his government has attracted international criticism for corruption, violent suppression of political opposition," etc etc, right there in the opening paragraph, with a laundry list of his government's abuses. But when it comes to Israel, oh no. We can't deal with Israel in such a summary fashion. We have to give Israel's side of the story, even if it takes 10 pages. Can you imagine the article on Mugabe if there was no summary of world opinion leading the article and next to every "allegation" there were five paragraphs of the Mugabe government's counter examples and legal arguments?

151-2. That was the last vote I cited. Think about that when deciding how much space the Israeli government's arguments deserve in this article. MarkB2 23:11, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

General Assembly resolutions are political affairs, beauty contests. They are irrelevant to international law. Jayjg (talk) 01:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
"Beauty contests" indeed. By that measure Israel must be the ugliest nation on Earth.
I think the assembled opinion of 151 nations as to what is legal or not is indeed "relevant" to the subject of whether or not they are illegal.
I couldn't help but notice that you simply reverted my edit.As Jimmy Wales has said, a revert of additions to wikipedia (unless they are vandalism) is a "slap in the face." But I'm sure you already know this. I'm not interested in getting into a revert war with you, but neither am I interested in being bullied.
You also don't seem to understand my other point, which was the policy of undue weight. MarkB2 00:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
It turns out that in this particular beauty contest the participants are rated by the size of their breasts oil reserves. As for the rest of your comments, I already explained the removal of the irrelevant material; the section is about legal views of settlements. U.N.G.A. resolutions have nothing to do with legal views; only U.N.S.C. resolutions can create international law, and even then, only under certain circumstances. Regarding undue weight, see my comment below. Jayjg (talk)

This article from the point of view of WP:NPOV#Undue_weight is seriously troubled. We have, on the one hand, literally the entire world (by that I mean all countries and all international bodies), and on the other side, merely the state of Israel and a few individual scholars. And yet, their arguments are given equal space here. Where is the balance? Why do apologists for Israel get to misrepresent the issue? As mentioned above, it seems only to happen on issues relating to Israel. The point here is that the views of one side are being significantly over-represented. As said above, would anyone consider giving Mugabe the same space for defense of his actions or views when the entire world is opposing him? No, it would be absurd. So my question is, why is it that the Likudniks here think it's appropriate to give nearly equal space to an argument which is accepted by only one country (the occupying one at that) and a handful of its apologists? It's patently absurd is what it is.

A quote: "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not." Keep this in mind when we edit the legality of the settlements and territories. The view that they are "disputed" is an extreme minority... right or wrong, itis a fact that only an extreme minority of people argue this, and it should be represented as the marginal opinion it is. A student of history 01:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:NPOV is not a measure of what some theoretical poll of all 6 billion people living on earth would produce, but is a measure of what experts in the field have to say about a topic. Regarding the legality of the settlements, the weight of opinion is not nearly as heavily slanted as in the weight of public opinion, as the sources indicate. Jayjg (talk) 02:04, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
WP:NPOV says absolutely nothing about being "a measure of what experts in the field" have to say about anything. The word "experts" simply never appears in the description.
The weight of opinion on the issue of the legality of the settlements is definitely not on the side of Israel, but you wouldn't know that from reading this article. When the BBC reports on the issue they quite simply say "the settlements are illegal."[14] The Arab world sees them as illegal. The European Union sees them as illegal[15]. You can cite 3,000 pages of pro-Israeli opinion written by 30 pro-Israeli "experts" but it won't change the balance of world opinion.
If you keep flatly deleting my additions to the article this is going to go to arbitration. MarkB2 03:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
You forget that WP:NPOV does not work by itself, but in concert with WP:V, and in particular with the WP:RS provisions therein: "The reliability of a source depends on context; what is reliable in one topic may not be in another. A world-renowned mathematician may not be a reliable source on topics of biology. In general, a topic should use the most reliable sources available to its editors." The best possible sources for understanding international law are, of course, experts in the field, not political pronouncements. Jayjg (talk) 23:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
There is a difference between world opinion and a legal judgment. The reason we have international (public) law rather than international mob rule (or at least try to) is to allow governments to apply reasonable, objective criteria to their actions. The UN General Assembly and the European Union can pass all the resolutions they want, but simply a majority - even an overwhelming majority - on an issue does not make it law. So while it would be accurate to say that as a matter of political opinion, a great many of the world's governments characterize the settlements as illegal; this does not make them illegal. --Leifern 13:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
What makes them illegal is that ALL international legal bodies consider them illegal. Find one ruling from any international body which claims they are legal. You can't and won't. In fact, the ONLY body/country in the entire world which considers them 'legal' is Israel, the country building them. So the point is, the 'balance of opinions' is the entire world (every country and every organization) versus Israel and a few individual supporters. But that is not reflected here at all. It is made to appear here that the balance of views is somewhat equal, which is a blatant fallacy. That is the problem. That is what needs to be corrected.A student of history 14:46, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
No, the problem is that you're not distinguishing between a political opinion and a legal argument. Culpability of a crime is not determined by opinion, nor would we want it to. It is cheap to accuse another country of a crime (and it's done all the time) for political reasons; it is far tougher to prove that a crime has been committed. The article very carefully lays out the arguments on all sides of this issue. --Leifern 16:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Exactly so. Jayjg (talk) 23:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Legal "experts" include those working for the European Union and other bodies that nearly uniformly consider the settlements to be illegal. Many seem to think that for some reason legal experts are divided on the issue while the ambassadors of their nations to the UN consistently state that the position of their nation is that the settlements are illegal: in short, that there is a vast, worldwide conspiracy of governments that ignore the legal advice of their experts in order to punish poor, hapless Israel. I am not convinced.

I could dig up a thousand references of legal experts who consider the settlements to be illegal to prove my point, but I thought adducing the information of the GA votes would serve as a useful and credible barometer of the legal question. Instead, some on this page dismiss the statements of 151 nations as being mere "political opinion" that obscures the raging legal debate among the "experts" in those nations, "experts" who have been tragically ignored, apparently. Thus, the easily observable data concerning the opinions of major nations and organizations has been tossed out as "biased" in favor of a scattershot sampling of legal opinions, the balance of which is far more difficult to ascertain.

I might reverse these arguments, and say that even though legal opinion is evenly divided it is clearly biased, as the representatives of these nations and political organizations essentially uniformly say the same thing. Thus, we should balance the legal opinions cited in the article against Israel's advocates accordingly. Even that is presupposing that the legal arguments are evenly balanced. That argument holds as much weight as the opposite argument, though the opposite argument is clearly the one determining the balance of opinion in this article.

There seems to be an opinion among many contributors that legal scholars and former government officials are the really relevant and important unbiased opinions, while the opinions of government representatives, advised by their governments with their own legal experts, is "political" and less relevant to the legal question. Certainly governments are far more relevant to the determination of what is legal or not: governments make laws and vote on international questions of legality, while legal experts have no vote. But then we get into the question of whether governments accurately judge and enforce their own laws. That is debatable, but so is the judgement of legal experts. In any case, it seems clear that, though any source might be biased with regards to legal questions, when it comes to international law the judgments of nations are far more relevant than the judgments of legal experts, as nations and their representatives make and enforce that law, while experts can merely opine.

I am simply not convinced that, outside of America and Israel, there is a raging legal debate concerning this issue. Shall we do a search of international legal opinions on this issue? A massive, meta Lexis Nexis search?

I find it laughable that Eugene Rostow is cited so extensively, the "expert" who said in a New Republic article that SCR 242 stated that Israel was authorized to "administer" its conquered territories "until a just and lasting peace" is achieved [16]. Of course, this is a flat-out lie. Anyone who has read the very brief resolution knows that it neither says nor implies any such thing. In fact, as we all know, it calls on Israel to withdraw from territories occupied in the conflict. Period. Is this the quality of the legal experts cited?

Indeed, it is. The legal "experts" cited in this article are a joke. Moshe Dann is a former professor of history and currently a writer based in Jerusalem. A former professor of history is a legal expert now? Ricki Hollander is a "senior research analyst" for an Israeli advocacay group, CAMERA. Talia Einhorn is an Adjunct Professor of Law...in Tel Aviv. An Israeli opining on her nation's illegality...and an adjunct professor at that. And she cites Biblical scripture as proof of Israel's right to settlement land, because of the "promise made by God to their Patriarchs." Quite the legal scholar there. Next down we have...the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs.Then we have Jeffrey Helmreich...who is...a journalist. The next source is Palestine Facts...a website with an unattributed article. Gerard Adler...whew. One person who actually has an advanced law degree. Dore Gold is an Israeli diplomat.

I see a mountain of citations of Israeli religious zealots, Israeli diplomats, journalists, and "research advocates" for Israeli think tanks. I see three people who might qualify as legal scholars: Rostow, Adler, and Stone.

Is this the balance? Three legal scholars balance the weight of the International Court of Justice, legal experts like Anthony D'Amato, [17], John J Mearsheimer, Stephen M Walt, and every UN Security Council ruling? The balance of the world's estimation?

CBC news (Canada's primary media organization) gives a balanced assessment of the question of their legality, spending several paragraphs detailing the widespread legal opinion that the settlements are illegal with a single paragraph reserved for the dissenters [18]. Whenever the BBC reports on the issue they flatly state that the settlements are illegal [19]. One of your sources even bitterly noted the fact that AP, Reuters, and other news agencies also support such assertions.

When I see the BBC [20] simply reporting that the settlements are illegal, that this is "widely accepted," I wonder: is the BBC misreporting the issue, or do the brilliant architects of this demented wikipedia article have some kind of incredible scholarship that supports their case that there really is a raging debate?

There is no debate.

This is one, giant aside, in any case, to my primary and most specific point of contention. I tried to simply add the judgment of the General Assembly and the European Union to the same section that had the opinion of human rights groups and the Israeli Foreign Ministry. Jayjg repeatedly slapped down my additions as being "irrelevant material," a curious assertion seeing as, apparently, Israel's view was relevant, as were the views of human rights groups and the Anti-Defamation League, but the not views of the European Union or the General Assembly of the United Nations. Not surprisingly, the Third Opinion concurred with my view that the information should be included with the caveat that these views are not legally binding. My question is this: if I adduce the material again will it be deleted again? I would like to know so I don't waste my time in an edit war. MarkB2 10:45, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

You state: I find it laughable that Eugene Rostow is cited so extensively, the "expert" who said in a New Republic article that SCR 242 stated that Israel was authorized to "administer" its conquered territories "until a just and lasting peace" is achieved [21]. Of course, this is a flat-out lie. Anyone who has read the very brief resolution knows that it neither says nor implies any such thing. In fact, as we all know, it calls on Israel to withdraw from territories occupied in the conflict. Period. Is this the quality of the legal experts cited? Eugene Rostow was one of America's most brilliant legal minds, and was Dean of Yale Law School for 10 years. Not only that, he was one of the authors of UNSCR 242; yet you understand UNSCR 242 better than he does, and insist his statements are a "flat out lie"! That pretty much summarizes the debate on this page. Jayjg (talk) 00:07, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
First of all let me apologize for writing such a long response above: it's just that the level of debate on this page is such that it seemed to be necessary.
I actually anticipated that you would contest my assertion about Rostow. I am not alone in my disagreement with Rostow, and I cited a few legal experts who agree with me, legal experts like Anthony D'Amato, the Leighton Professor of Law at Northwestern University. I also mentioned that, despite my personal disagreement with Rostow's opinion, he certainly is one of the three legal experts cited in support of Israeli claims who would qualify as an "expert."
I've noticed a specious debating tactic frequently deployed in the course of public discourse on a subject where one side contests a single point in the argument of an opponent and then claims vindication over the entire argument, despite the fact that the point disputed wasn't a necessary point of the argument and regardless of the other points that remain, points that are sufficient in themselves to prove the argument in question.
I'm well aware of who Rostow is. In fact, who he is is a small proof of my earlier assertions: nations voting in the venue of the UN have all sorts of legal experts consulting with them, as America had Rostow's expertise at their disposal in 1967. I would also like to note that the other authors of SCR 242, unlike Rostow, have since considered Israel to be in violation of said resolution, have since considered Israel's settlements to be illegal largely based on SCR 242 and other resolutions supporting it.
But, again, all of this is an aside to my most specific point of contention, a point of contention that remains unaddressed. So to repeat my earlier question, if I add the information about the views of the legality of the settlements of the UN General Assembly and the European Union (and maybe the Arab League) to the section on the legality of the settlements, maybe put them right behind the view of the ICJ and right before the views of the human rights groups, will they be reverted or not? MarkB2 08:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
To what end? Adding the UNGA and Arab League stuff would only give the false impression that their political statements have some relevance to international law. The Arab League suggestion in particular is bizarre; the vast majority of their members consider the existence of Israel itself to be a "violation of international law", so their opinion on the settlements is redundant. Jayjg (talk) 13:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
The point is that the opinion of the European Union and the General Assembly on the legality of the settlements is at least as relevant as the opinion of human rights groups, the Anti-Defamation League, and some of the others cited, as I and the Third Opinion noted. We can leave out the opinion of the Arab League, if you so desire. MarkB2 21:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Third opinion

While the edits in question could use a little improvement, I don't at all see that they're so poor as to call for reversion. The GA can certainly issue opinions on international law and what is or is not within the bounds of it, and that's certainly a notable enough opinion to merit some mention. The same for the EU. While it should be noted that those statements are advisory rather than binding, they certainly regard legal status.

Now, on to the problematic parts of the edits. "...with the votes typically excluding only Israel and the United States" is pretty weaselish, unless there's a secondary source that actually made the "typically" observation. I'm not really sure that requires noting at all. However, the GA's position and opinion as a whole on the matter certainly should be.

In another edit, "The European Union has consistently maintained for years that it considers all "settlement activity" to be illegal." is added. What's that mean? I don't see anything in the cited source stating how consistently or for how many years, it simply says the EU "continues to oppose...as being illegal under international law." Though the position of the EU certainly merits mention, we must be careful not to extrapolate from sources-"continues" could mean "since yesterday" or "for the past five hundred years." Additional sourcing would be necessary to make the statement in this manner, but a short statement that the EU has offered the opinion that the settlements are illegal is fine-the EU is a very notable body. Seraphimblade Talk to me 11:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I concur on every point. The information deserves citation, with the caveat that the GA and European Union have "advisory" rather than "binding" observations.
The "typically" part can be left out until I or someone else can source more votes on the matter, but I agree that the "GA's opinion as a whole" on the matter should be noted.
The single source cited does indeed not state for how long the EU has held this opinion, so short of further sourcing and information a "short statement that the EU has offered the opinion that the settlements are illegal" is what is called for. The EU indeed qualifies as "notable." MarkB2 11:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Is it even the opinion of the EU? It appears to be the opinion of "EU-Settlements watch". Jayjg (talk) 13:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, the EU has repeatedly stated it considers the settlements to be illegal. [22], [23], [24]. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MarkB2 (talk • contribs) 22:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC).

[edit] hitnahlut vs. yishuv: "all official Israeli references"

A few examples that it is not all official Israeli references:

I'm changing to "most". If a source is given, "almost all" would also be acceptable.--Doron 12:44, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I concur. El_C 12:49, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hansell Letter

GHCool, this letter certainly did express the longheld official opinion of the US government --as it says it is the " Opinion of the Office of the Legal Advisor, Department of State." PalestineRemembered could have worded it better, but the reference[25] provided later in the article has the complete opinion and makes its official status indisputable:

"Secretary Vance has asked me to reply to your request for a statement of legal considerations underlying the United States view that the establishment of the Israeli civilian settlements in the territories occupied by Israel is inconsistent with international law. Accordingly, I am approving the following in response to that request:" (Letter follows)

I do not know what is meant by "notable source". What Wikipedia policy are you referring to? The source given, FMEP, is certainly well-known and reliable, widely regarded as objective and honest, and is worth having in the article too, because one need not dig through a long report to find the opinion, and it gives a bit extra background.

The same opinion was earlier expressed e.g. by Amb Charles Yost (1968), and in mid-70s, UN reps William Scranton and George Bush Sr, (as well as President Carter and the later US vote on UNSC 465) Concerning Scranton's earlier statements of the illegality of the settlements, Israel registered a formal objection. I don't recall about the Hansell letter, but it probably did too,. So the State of Israel, as well as every other known source, agreed about the clear US position at that time. Giving legal opinions for the US with legal reasoning on matters of international law is the State Department Legal Advisor's job, and this letter is the most complete source on official US opinion at the time or later on the legality of Israeli settlements.

In addition, I think attempts at good and balanced editing should be encouraged, especially from an editor who has sometimes strayed from optimal practice and been admonished for it. He put in two things, decently sourced and worded, more or less representing both sides of a controversy. So I think one should think twice about removing half of an edit that showed a good faith attempt at balance.John Z 07:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New historical research: secret Israeli memos about legality of post Six Day War occupations

APF: Secret memo said to prove Israel knew occupation was illegal. This isn't my area of specialty, its just a news story I came across today. It seems to be about the Israeli government at the time being advised that the settlements would have contravened the Geneva Conventions, but the Labor government at the time ignored the advice for whatever reason. --Abnn 05:56, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

The memo is already referred to in the article, its existence was publicized by Gershom Gorenberg's quoted book last year. From your reference and the Independent article [26] what is appears to be new is that Meron still holds this opinion, that Abba Eban apparently agreed, and that Meron believes "the settlements made peacemaking much more difficult". It would be nice if the Independent would make the memo public. (their title for the story is not appropriate BTW.) John Z 07:14, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Gorenberg quotes quite a bit of it (p99-102). It isn't actually all that surprising, since it is the obvious reading of the GC. More interesting is that an opinion was needed at all; that is, the Israeli government was considering how settlements could be established almost before the guns cooled down. --Zerotalk 07:34, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Maybe you can drop Gorenberg's quotation of the legal opinion into WikiSource if that is allowed. I've never used WikiSource myself but it sounds like the right solution for a historical document like this. --Abnn 07:37, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Golan Heights settlements

The article mentions the Golan Heights, but does not mention that there are 34 settlements there. The second sentence of the article should read "Such settlements currently exist in the West Bank, which is partially under Israeli military administration and partially under the control of the Palestinian National Authority, and in the Golan Heights, which is under Israeli civilian administration" (emphasis added). Furthermore, all articles about individual Golan Heights settlements should state they are such (with a wikilink to this article). Since I know this is a controversial issue, I wanted to discuss it here before making changes. My rationale is that (a) they fall under the definition given in the first sentence and, indeed, the description of the issue throughout article, and (b) they are referred to as such in many sources, including UN resolutions, American and European official documents, and academic publications. The only reason that I can think of why this would be controversial is the lack of reference to these communities as "settlements" in most (but not all) Israeli sources. I don't know of any explicit objection to this usage, or at least any significant objection. Your comments please.--Doron 07:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The other objection is of course, that the Golan is not merely "under Israeli civilian administration" (like Area C in the West bank), but rather part of Isreal, where Israeli law has been in effect, making the area currently a de-facto and de jure part of Israel proper (regardless of the various sematic mechanizations used by Israeli sources to avoid using the "aneexation" word). Former user 2 00:10, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
There's no difference here -- all Israeli settlements in the West Bank and Golan Heights are under Israeli law, administration and jurisdiction.--Doron 00:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
No, that's false. Israeli settlements in the WB are not under Israeli law. Their Israeli citizens may be, but the territory is not. The residents of the Golan are Israeli citizens (whether they choose to carry an Israeli passport or not) , whereas the residents of the WB are not. Former user 2 00:24, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
You're wrong. Read Chapter Four in [27]. Israeli settlements in the West Bank are, for almost all purposes, administrated the same as any Israeli municipality, local council and regional council, and are under the same law and jurisdiction.--Doron 00:44, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
What this polemic pamphlet alleges is that the situation is "de facto" annexation, not that the Israeli settlements in the West Bank are under Israeli law, administration and jurisdiction. It explicitly says exactly what I wrote above - that the Israeli citizens are subject to Israeli law, not that the territory is:

"The result was the creation of two types of enclaves of Israeli civilian law in the Occupied Territories − personal and territorial. The significance of the personal enclaves is that any Israeli citizen, and indeed any Jew (see below), in the Occupied Territories are subject, wherever they may be, to the authority of Israeli civilian law for almost all purposes, and not to the authority of the military law applying in these territories."

ANd note that even this says "for almost all purposes'. It is simply false that the status of the Golan, under Israeli law , is the same as the status of WB settlements. Former user 2 01:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
I suppose you missed section B in that chapter.--Doron 05:19, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Doron, we are trying to make WP the best and most credible source, but the truth is that not all of it is entirely factual. Specifically, the point you brought up. Israeli law is entirely pervasive in the Golan. In contrast, in Yesha, the 'governour' is the Israeli defence minister, the official goverment is the Israel Defence Forces, and the Civil Authority is the overhead authority. In fact, Jordanian law is still applied. --Shuki 16:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't understand how does this make the Golan Heights settlements not settlements. Effectively, the WB settlements are run by the Ministry of the Interior. The settlements are not what they are because of the particular legal framework that governs them, they are what they are because their establishment in disputed territory makes them disputed, and they would still be "settlements" even if the legal framework was modified. Again -- the Golan Heights settlements fall under the definition given in the lead and in the rest of the article, and they are referred to as such in various sources. Please explain your rationale for excluding them and give sources for this rationale.--Doron 17:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
'effectively" is not the same as de jure - this is the key difference you are glossing over, and the basis for the polemic, fringe view brought forth in the B'Tselem pamphlet. From a legal persepetive, the status of the communites in the Golan is NOT the same as that of the WB settlements. The current Israeli settlement rightly perserves that distinction, whereas your attempts to conflate the issues seem to be just POV pushing. The rationale for keeping the distinction, and the POV categorization, was given to you more than once. Former user 2 17:54, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Let me get it straight -- you are saying that the differences in the legal framework between WB and GH Israeli communities is what makes the former "settlements" but not the latter? Can you give a source to back this distinction? Or is it just your own invention?--Doron 18:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Among other things, yes. It is not my invention - international opinion considers the Golan to have been annexed to Israel. They may consider this annexation illegal, they may declare it null and void, but they consider it to have been annexed (regardless of the semantic mechnaisms Israel used to avoid using the 'A' word). Internatioanl opinion does not treat the WB the same way. Internally, Israel does not treat the Golan the same way it treats the WB. What purpose does glossing over this distinction serve? Former user 2
I don't agree, but it is irrelevant. You didn't answer my question -- on what basis, other than your personal opinion, do you draw the distinction between West Bank communities (which should be considered "settlements") and Golan Heights communities (which, shouldn't)? Give a source that makes this distinction. I can give you plenty of sources that do not make this distinction.--Doron 18:30, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
I thought you did not diapute the fact that they are not called "settlements" in Israel, but if you really need a sourc e- [28] Former user 2 18:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Are you trying to prove that there are no black swans by showing me a white swan? LOL, I can show you lots of articles about WB communities that don't refer to them as "settlements" -- which, I suppose, would mean that we can delete this article! What I'm asking is very simple, and you seem to be unable to do -- there are plenty of sources that refer to GH communities as "settlements". Do you have a source that disputes this designation?--Doron 19:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Do you have a source that disputes that Kiryat gat, for example, is a settlement? Former user 2 21:44, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Duh. Is Kiryat Gat a "community inhabited by Israeli Jews in territory that came under Israel's control as a result of the 1967 Six-Day War"?--Doron 22:23, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
This is circular logic. I don't accpet your definition, and from the POV of international law, Kiryat Gat has the same standing as the Golan communities. Now, do you have a source that disputes that Kiryat gat, for example, is a settlement, or is this a distinciton of your own invention? Former user 2 22:27, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
It isn't my definition, it's the definition at the top of this article, which I suggest you read when you have the time. If you have reliable sources that call Kiryat Gat an "Israeli settlement" (in the sense of this article, of course) then you can add Kiryat Gat as well, but I'm pretty sure the only ones that use this language regarding towns in Israel are the same ones that don't recognize Israel in the first place (and would probably use "Zionist settlement"). In contrast, West Bank and Golan Heights communities are frequently referred to (by respectable sources) as "settlements" in exactly the same sense, which is within the context of this article. You are yet to produce any reference to substantiate the distinction you are making between GH and WB settlements.--Doron 23:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
I'd appreciate it if you toned down the patronizing and incivility in your edits. I assure you I can respond in kind if you persist. You concede above that I could easily find sources that have a POV that KG is as much a settlement as Keshet in the Golan, which is my point - these are POV desginations, not supported by anything in international law or in reality. The definition in the article is the work of editors like you and me - and not more authoritive on the subject than what you and I write here. More to the point, I am fine with the article as is - because it clearly makes a distinction between WB settlements, and the Golan - about which the article says 'The term sometimes includes communities in territory that was captured in 1967, but has since been under Israeli civil law , administration and jurisdiction' . I ask that this disputed application be kept out of artilces about the Golan communites, per WP policy, and per the rationale I've given you. You have yet to answer why it is important to glos over the distinction in status between these two types of communites. Former user 2 23:35, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
I apologize if my tone was offensive. We just don't seem to be making any progress (yet again). The whole Kiryat Gat issue is irrelevant, since it doesn't even conform to the description in the first sentence of the article, so you can stop mentioning it. All sorts of people may refer to all sorts of things as "Israeli settlements", but they are not the subject of this article. You claim that the application to GH communities is disputed, but you provide no source to substantiate this claim. As you probably know, some people even dispute the application to some WB communities, or indeed to all WB communities. So why should we take this dispute about GH communities seriously, just because you say so? Let us evaluate this dispute, provide references, something that we can work with.--Doron 23:51, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
It is not my say so - it is generally accepted (apparently with the exception of the fringe position the B'tselem is advocating) that the Golan has been de jure annexed to Israel, while the WB has not. (and from an international law perspective as well as an internal Israeli law one, it means that the Golan communities have the same status as Kiryat Gat). It follows that the status of the Golan communities is not the same as the WB ones. This is reflected in the terminology applied to them, both in Israel, and in many cases, outside of Israel. The WB communities are referred to as "settlements" (Hitnachluyot) both in Israel and out of Israel, whereas the Golan communities are referred to as "communities" (Yesuvim) in Israel, and in many cases outside of it. This differnce in status is reflected in this article as well, and for good reason - you have not yet advanced any good reason why we should gloss over the differnce. Former user 2 02:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Still no references. I don't see how this is all relevant, since "settlement" is not a legal term, not in Israel and not anywhere else, and the word "communities" is sometimes used for both GH and WB communities, in Israel and abroad as well. "Israeli settlement" means Israeli communities established in the territories captured in 1967 whose legal status is therefore disputed. Nothing of what you've said contradicts this, or its application to GH communities. This polemic is nothing but your personal opinion and isn't backed by references. I have plenty of references to GH communities as "settlements" and you are yet to provide a citable rationale of why this use may be disputed.--Doron 05:31, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
What references are you looking for? I 've provided references that refert to the Golan communites as such, rather thanm as "settlement". I've provided references that say the Giolan was annexed to Israel. That's more than enough to show that they can't be labeled with a controversial label. How about answering my question now, seeing as I've asked it 3 times already without an answer. Former user 2 18:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
As I said before, I want a reference that indicates that the use is controversial. That, of course, would not be enough, because the use is controversial even for West Bank settlements, but it would be a start. You seem to be unable to prove even this simple thing -- that somebody other than you disputes the application to Golan Heights settlements. As for glossing over the difference, a precious little minority sees this difference, so I see no reason to emphasize it (though it may warrant a mention in the article, with a citation of course).--Doron 08:34, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
You are asking for something which is unreasonable - and that was the purpose of the Kiryat Gat example. Since you missed that, let me explain: Suppose some editor decided to label Kiryat Gat as an "Isreali settlement" (based on the fact that it is built on land beyond the area alloted to the Jewish state in the 1947, based on the fact that it is partially on the lands of Al-Faluja whose inhabitants were intimidated into leaving, etc...). As you have conceded, there would not be a problem to find sources that describe KG as a "settlement", or a "zionist settlement", or even "illegal settlement" (see this as one quick example). Now, according to your standard, in order to avoid this nonsense, we'd have to find a source that explictly says 'Kiryat Gat is not an illegal settlement" - good luck with that. This is simply not the way teh WP works. We do not have to find sources that explicitly refute every nonsensical claim or controversial label - when controversy exists (such as the case of the Golan communities) - we note the controversy (as this article does, with its distinction between WB and Golan communities), and we avoid assigning a POV label when such a controversy exists. Contrary to your claim that only a 'precious little minority sees this difference" (can you provide as source that supports this claim, btw?) - the distinction is, at a minimum, the official position of Israel - a sizable nation which is a party to the conflict. Former user 2 21:04, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
There is no such thing as "settlement" in the official Israeli position, whether in the West Bank or the Golan Heights, and if it Israel's official position was that the former are settlements but not the latter, I'm sure you would have been able to give a reference.
The Kiryat Gat business is indeed nonsense, I do understand your point very well and I wish you'd drop it because it proves nothing. If you could find a UN resolution, an American or European official document, a serious history book, a BBC, CNN or New York Times piece -- anything that is citable on Wikipedia really -- that calls Kiryat Gat a "settlement" in the context of this article, that would be a different matter. Since, I assume, you can't, we can indeed safely dismiss this application of the term as nonsense. As for Golan Heights communities, we have loads of such citable references to them as "settlements" (exactly in the context of this article), so you can't dismiss this as nonsense. Since it is not nonsense, there's no reason not to include it here. It fits the definition and description in the article, and it is massively citable.
Since such references are so abundant, it is only reasonable to assume that if the term was controversial to the point that we couldn't use it, someone notable would have written about this controversy, explain why the difference between Golan Heights communities and West Bank communities excludes the former from the term "settlements". With so many references and nobody to counter them, there's no reason to assume there is any controversy at all. By "precious little minority" I was generous, because so far it seems that this minority consists of only one Wikipedia editor.--Doron 22:07, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
again, what you are stating as fact - "There is no such thing as "settlement" in the official Israeli position" - is imply false, and easily demonstrable as such. The Israeli offical position is most certainly that there are settlements - in the WB. See this as an example of the official Isreali position. Former user 2 01:57, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Who wrote it? Who voted on it? What makes it "official position"? Actually, this anonymous essay links to the guidelines of the first Sharon government, which are official policy. These guidelines talk about "settlement throughout the country", and "settlement in the Galilee and the Negev". The Ministry of Foreign Affairs website also hosts several essays speaking specifically about Golan Heights settlements. For example, [29] and [30] are translations of old Haaretz articles. They could have chosen the word "communities", but apparently they didn't find anything wrong about the word "settlement".--Doron 05:33, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
You are clutching at straws. This is sourced to and refers to 'Government of Israel, Policy Guidelines, March 2001'. Please stop this POV pushing, which is getting ridiculous. Former user 2 14:20, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm clutching at straws? You don't get it, do you? The text you refer to as "Government of Israel, Policy Guidelines, March 2001" is the one you get when you click the hyperlink [31]. These guidelines are indeed official policy, and they talk about "settlement throughout the country" and "settlement in the Galilee and the Negev", but nothing about the West Bank. The only thing about the West Bank talks about "Jewish residents of Judea and Samaria" (and not "settlers")!--Doron 14:50, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Would you label the Jewish Quarter an Israeli settlement? What about Kfar Etzion? Correct me if I'm wrong, but there is no "official" designation of what precisely defines an "Israeli settlement". As such, I just don't see a better alternative to using the outlines of the Israeli government's application of its sovereignty for any type of consistent and meaningful use of this label. TewfikTalk 09:10, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but yes -- they are both settlements, though this application may be disputed. If you can find evidence that this application is disputed, then I suppose we cannot apply the term to the Jewish Quarter or Kfar Etzion without care. I'm still waiting to read anything that would indicate that there is a dispute regarding the Golan Heights settlements.
"Israeli settlement" is not a legal term -- it is a political and historical term. The problem is that the term is not related to an Israeli official position ("דין נצרים כדין תל-אביב"), it is a political and historical term that is used not just in Israel, but in the international arena and media as well. Usage of the term varies, and we cannot find a definition that suites everyone, since there are some that don't even agree that there is a difference between Havat Ma'on and Tel Aviv. Some people, like Isarig, distinguish between Golan Heights settlements and West Bank settlements, some distinguish between isolated settlements and large blocs, some distinguish between settlements that are adjacent to the Green Line, such as Alfe Menashe and Har Adar and those that are deep inside the territories, some distinguish between established settlements and outposts, some distinguish between the Jordan Valley kibbutz's and the Gush Emunim "ideological" settlements, any such distinction represents a small group within the international community, which largely applies the term to all Israeli communities in territories that are not recognized as sovereign Israeli territory, starting from the very first UN resolutions right after the Six Day War. Golan Heights settlements were called so before the Golan Heights Law, and the international community did not recognize any change in their status as a result of the law. If Israel applies the same legal framework to West Bank settlements, they would still be viewed as "settlements" by the international community.
Again, Wikipedia is about verification. There's very little we can do without someone presenting reliable sources that shed light on this issue.--Doron 09:59, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Right, but my point was as follows: Clearly, Kfar Etzion is a settlement because of the way that the Israeli government treats it, but if we are now dealing with ambiguous definitions such as 'Israeli construction', then someplace like the Jewish Quarter would not be. Such a place would only be considered a settlement if the term was really "Jewish settlement", i.e., settlement only applies to "Jewish" (whatever that means) populations over the 1949 lines. While an international media that is often times only loosely aware of the complicated realities might use such terminology, such a definition is inherently discriminatory, and of course extremely imprecise. Thus lacking any other clear and precise definition, it seems to me that the application of sovereignty by Israel is the only logical solution (with the obvious extreme prejudice necessary on a self-applied definition, though regarding distinctions of "illegal outposts" and such they have been relatively good) to representing the actual reality, which as you say is the goal of WP. Cheers, TewfikTalk 19:25, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

First, the question of sovereignty is complicated even with respect to East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights (see respective articles), not to mention that it is unrecognized. Second, I don't see why you think the Jewish Quarter should be treated differently from other settlements. I really don't see why there's any discriminatory nature to this term -- it is a simple term that describes Jewish communities established on disputed territory and the implications of such status, without necessarily carrying any negative or positive connotations. A balanced and neutral article about this subject would give a historical background and explain these complications you speak of, and this is what this article should be. This description applies the Jewish Quarter, Kiryat Arba, Havat Ma'on and Katzrin, all of which are on disputed territory, all of which with their particular loaded historical background, all with their particular legal status with respect to Israeli and international law, all with their political implications. I don't understand where's the discrimination here and I don't understand the fierce opposition to including the Golan Heights settlements. I'm guessing that it is either because some people here feel that the term "settlement" carries some negative connotation which they wouldn't like to apply to certain settlements, or because they pretend there are no complications and nothing to discuss in this context regarding the Golan Heights settlements. I'm sorry, Katzrin is not the same as Kiryat Gat -- unlike Katzrin, Kiryat Gat is located in what is internationally-recognized as Israeli sovereign territory, and it is not a candidate for dismantlement or transfer to foreign control. In all these respects, Golan Heights settlements have everything in common with West Bank, Gaza Strip and Sinai settlements, even if they differ in some particular aspects.
And again, I'm sorry I have to stress this, there are lots of reliable sources that make these references, enough so that you can't dismiss them as being ignorant. Not without a substantial source that counters this supposed-ignorance. The fact that we haven't seen a single source to counter all these references speaks volumes.--Doron 20:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
But who said Israeli settlement = Jewish community? When did this become a religious issue, and who defines to whom that applies? Surely no international body declared that it is the residence of "Jews" in the West Bank that is illegitimate. You yourself used the term "Israeli construction" just a few lines ago. What my point is, and what I think has become clear, is that the dejure application of Israeli sovereignty, as disputed as it may be, is the only standard that exists. Every reliable source will have chosen to focus on a specific issue, but none of them present a consistent and rationalised designation. TewfikTalk 07:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Moi? It was you who said "construction", I'm pretty sure. I didn't want to get into the question of legitimacy or lack thereof, the article covers this. My point is that there is such an issue, both with West Bank and Golan Heights settlements. I don't agree that Israeli sovereignty is the only standard, because (a) there's another standard -- the one that guides all sources on the subject of Israeli settlements, expcept for, perhaps, (most) Israeli sources -- and that is the one that is given in the first sentence of the article -- "Israeli settlements are communities inhabited by Israeli Jews in territory that came under Israel's control as a result of the 1967 Six-Day War"; (b) Israel's de jure sovereignty over any of these territories is not recognized internationally, thus this standard incorporates an Israeli POV. Why should we prefer the standard you suggest (which is, by the way, not backed by a single reference so far), and give undue weight to a minority position, rather than the widely-acceptable well-referenced standard?--Doron 10:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I meant to reference your use of "Israeli communities", versus your later use of "Jewish community". I highly doubt that any UN resolution specifies as illegitimate residency by certain people in the West Bank based on either their religion or ethnicity, which would be both racist and impossible to consistently apply (Who is a Jew?). I don't think even the official position of the PLO is one that discriminates against a group (only "Zionists"). Again, the terms loosely thrown around and varying by group cannot trump the only consistent standard - the application of Israeli sovereignty. It is fully applied to the Golan, and not so to the West Bank. Of course if a specific entity is subject to controversy it can be mentioned (ala Pisgat Ze'ev), but we cannot start definitively labelling entries on the basis of their exposure in the press or some other less than stellar reason, especially when compared to a static and official government policy. TewfikTalk 19:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
where is this international recognition of Kiryat Gat being part of Israeli sovereign territory? Former user 2 20:13, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Fine, if you think Kiryat Gat is a settlement and you have proper references, go ahead and add it to this article. Obviously nothing of what you've said throughout this long argument can be backed by even a single reference that would stand in the way of referring to Golan Heights settlements as such. Now given the references I have to Golan Heights settlements, I intend to add this subject to this article. Am I going to face an edit war? If so, I'll start by a RfC.--Doron 21:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
This is not about me, despite your repeated attempts to focus it on me. You made a statement - I'm asking you to back it up with some reference. If you add something to the article which, as this discussion shows, has no consensus, expect to have it reverted. Former user 2 22:35, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
You're the one that started the whole Kiryat Gat thing in the first place. Wikipedia is about verification, not about polemics. If there's no serious source that refers to Kiryat Gat as a settlement, then there's nothing to discuss. Now, again, is there any source you can bring forward that would shed new light on the issue of Golan Heights settlements, anything that should be considered before I include the Golan Heights settlements, with proper citations? --Doron 04:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Three different editors vehemently disagree with you here on this issue. If you go ahead and include the Golan Heights settlements despite this clear lack of consensus, expect not only to be reverted, but to be reported for disruptive editing. You need to get consensus for controversial edits - that is how WP works. Former user 2 14:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RfC: Inclusion of Golan Heights settlements

I would like to change the second sentence of the article to the following (my addition emphasized):

Such settlements currently exist in the West Bank, which is partially under Israeli military administration and partially under the control of the Palestinian National Authority, and in the Golan Heights, which are under Israeli civilian administration.

This change means that Israeli communities in the Golan Heights are regarded as settlements within the context of this article. This inclusion is backed by numerous reference from various sources. A few examples:

  • Academic: G. Aronson, ed., Settlement Monitor. Journal of Palestine Studies XXVII:4 (Summer 1998), 136–144. • S. Waterman. Variations on a Theme of Settlement: A Review Article. Bulletin (British Society for Middle Eastern Studies), 12:2 (1985), 199-206. • Y. Ben-Aharon. Negotiating with Syria: A First-Hand Account. Middle East Review of International Affairs, 4:2 (June 2000) [32].
  • Official documents by the UN ([33], [34]), including resolutions ([35], [36], [37], [38], [39]), United States ([40], [41], [42], ), European Union ([43], [44]).
  • The media: BBC ([45], [46]), CNN ([47]), The New York Times ([48], [49], [50]), YNet ([51], [52]), Haaretz ([53], [54]).
  • Other sources: Jewish Virtual Library ([55]), Columbia Encyclopedia ([56])

Furthermore, the Golan Heights settlements are within the scope of this article, as it is presented:

  • They are in disputed territory which Israel has captured in 1967.
  • Their dismantlement has been considered as part of a military withdrawal (similar to West Bank settlements, and as was the fate of Sinai and Gaza Strip settlements).
  • They were established by both left- and right-wing-affiliated movements.
  • They have similar justifications -- both historical and security -- as presented in the article.
  • Their status is an issue of international law and diplomacy, as presented in the article.

Since Golan Heights settlements are referred to as such in the literature on numerous occasions, and since the presentation given in the article applies to them, there's no reason not to include them in the article.

The way the article presents this issue at the moment, it appears that the Golan Heights settlements ceased to be "settlements" once Israeli law was applied to them in 1981. It is worth mentioning that:

  • In most aspects, Israeli law and administration applies to West Bank settlements as well.
  • Such Israeli measures are not recognized internationally as sufficient to change their status.
  • The article does not give a rationale for this distinction -- even after 1981, they are still located in disputed territory and their disputed status remains -- why should their somewhat different legal framework determine that they are no longer settlements? How can this be inferred from the definition of "Israeli settlement"? If Israel applies her law and administration fully (rather than almost fully) to West Bank settlements, would they also be excluded?
  • Most importantly -- the article cites no source for this standard. Why should Wikipedia adopt an unexplained standard for what qualifies as "settlements", with no sources to back it, in face of overwhelming usage of another standard?

[edit] Discuss

  • Oppose But go right ahead, and take this "reasoning" to its logical conclusion, and call all of the modern state a settlement, because it is all disputed. Bet you can find many sources for THAT, so it MUST be legit., right? And indeed, why should wikipedia recognise the fact that the state itself doesn't consider it so, if so many hostile nations don't?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yehoishophot Oliver (talk • contribs) 15:36, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
If you could find substantial evidence that all of Israel is widely considered "settlements" in the context of this article, then I would tell you to go right ahead and add this subject. However, since the West Bank, Golan Heights (and former Gaza Strip and Sinai) settlements are widely considered "settlements" in a certain context, while those in Israel are not, your remark is irrelevant. Wikipedia should not reflect a minority view, whether Israeli or anti-Israeli.--Doron 09:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Israeli sovereignty over the Golan is recognised by no-one, and therefore there is little difference between the status of the settlements there and those in other occupied territories except in the eyes of the Israeli government. Number 57 08:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Support per Number 57. --Marvin Diode 14:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose per the rational I stated above. Otherwise we allow for arbitrary application of the term to any area that happens to have received press coverage, while ignoring the various legal and pragmatic distinctions between them. TewfikTalk 06:57, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Support, and this is not an arbitrary application. "Israeli Settlements" should be regarded as all those colonies established in areas captured in 1967 and not recognised internationally as part of Israeli territory, that strikes me as very straightforward.Nwe 13:58, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Support per Number 57 and Nwe. Assuming their information presented is correct, and I'm fairly sure it is. PalestineRemembered 20:31, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Support - My understanding is that the significance of "legal and pragmatic distinctions" between Golan Heights and WB settlements in the context of this article is completely unsupported by reliable sources at the moment. Phonemonkey 12:19, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Support - Agree with Number 57, Nwe, etc. -- Rei 17:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Terminology edit

Apologies, since I'm sure someone or some people put quite a lot of effort into writing most of the stuff I removed, but as my edit summary says it was simply a long and rambling essay, full of assertion, debate and comment that went a long way off target from simply explaining what terminology is used in respect of settlements. What references there were, were not formatted properly; it was full of odd phrases like "although articles in Wikipedia .."; it stated personal viewpoints as fact ie "there is a disconnect from accepted usage" etc etc. It just jumped out of the page as being more of a blog entry than part of an encyclopedia article. This section does probably need a brief reference to the marginal "settlements vs communities" and "occupied vs disputed" debates, but these need to be sourced and written properly, and without undue weight being given to the issue. And in my view, make clear that the usually accepted terminology in English, by the vast majority of official sources, is the former in each case. --Nickhh 13:08, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Legality of the settlements

For reasons I can't entirely fathom, Bocaccio70s seems quite determined to POV the section on the legality of the settlements. In general, we have quite a few sources, including neutral and uninvolved scholarly legal views, stating quite clearly that Chapter VI resolutions are non-binding. For example (these are only some of the sources that were already there):

  • "Additionally it may be noted that the Security Council cannot adopt binding decisions under Chapter VI of the Charter." De Hoogh, Andre. Obligations Erga Omnes and International Crimes, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Jan 1, 1996, p. 371.
  • "Council recommendations under Chapter VI are generally accepted as not being legally binding." Magliveras, Konstantinos D. Exclusion from Participation in International Organisations, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Jan 1, 1999, p. 113.
  • "Within the framework of Chapter VI the SC has at its disposal an 'escalation ladder' composed of several 'rungs' of wielding influence on the conflicting parties in order to move them toward a pacific solution... however, the pressure exerted by the Council in the context of this Chapter is restricted to non-binding recommendations." Neuhold, Hanspeter. "The United Nations System for the Peaceful Settlement of International Disputes", in Cede, Franz & Sucharipa-Behrmann, Lilly. The United Nations, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Jan 1, 2001, p. 66.
  • "The responsibility of the Council with regard to international peace and security is specified in Chapters VI and VII. Chapter VI, entitled 'Pacific Settlements of Disputes', provides for action by the Council in case of international disputes or situations which do not (yet) post a threat to international peace and security. Herein its powers generally confined to making recommendations, the Council can generally not issue binding decisions under Chapter VI." Schweigman, David. The Authority of the Security Council Under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Jan 1, 2001, p. 33.
  • "Under Chapter VI, the Security Council may only make recommendations but not binding decisions on United Nations members". (Wallace-Bruce, Nii Lante. The Settlement of International Disputes, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Jan 1, 1998, pp. 47-4).

To these I have added the following:

  • "First, it may issue non-binding resolutions under Chapter VI of the Charter expressing its opinion on the abuses and their resolution." Mertus, Julie. The United Nations And Human Rights: A Guide For A New Era, Routledge, 2005, ISBN 0415343380, p. 120.
  • "Under Chapter VI the Security Council can only make non-binding recommendations. However, if the Security Council determines that the continuance of the dispute constitutes a threat to the peace, or that the situation involves a breach of the peace or act of aggression it can take action under Chapter VII of the Charter. Chapter VII gives the Security Council the power to make decisions which are binding on member states, once it has determined the existence of a threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression." Hillier, Timothy, Taylor & Francis Group. Sourcebook on Public International Law, Cavendish Publishing, ISBN 1843143801, 1998, p. 568.
  • "Nor is the disenchanting performance due to the fact that under Chapter VI the SC may only address non-binding resolutions to the conflicting parties." Cede, Franz, and Sucharipa-Behrmann, Lilly. The United Nations: Law and Practice, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2001, ISBN 9041115633, p. 70.
  • "This clause does not apply to decisions under Chapter VII (including the use of armed force), which are binding on all member states (unlike those adopted under Chapter VI which are of a non-binding nature)." Köchler, Hans. The Concept of Humanitarian Intervention in the Context of Modern Power, International Progress Organization, 2001, ISBN 3900704201, p. 21.
  • "The impact of these flaws inherent to Resolution 731 (1992) was softened by the fact that it was a non-binding resolution in terms of Chapter VI of the Charter. Consquently Libya was not bound to give effect to it. However, the situation was different with respect to Resolution 748 of 31 March 1992, as it was adopted under Chapter VII of the Charter." De Wet, Erika, "The Security Council as a Law Maker: The Adopion of (Quasi)-Judicial Decisions", in Wolfrum, Rüdiger and Röben, Volker. Developments of International Law in Treaty Making, Springer, 2005, ISBN 3540252991, p. 203.

There are many other sources saying the exact same thing.
In addition, Erika De Wet has written an entire book on Chapter VII powers of the Security Council (titled, appropriately, The Chapter VII Powers of the United Nations Security Council), which spends the greater part of a chapter demolishing the claim that Chapter VI resolutions are binding, and dealing specifically with the Namibia decision, which, for all its bluster, was enforced via a Chapter VII resolution. These sources are unequivocal, and significantly post-date the 1971 Namibia decision Court of Justice, about which they are all certainly well aware (and indeed, as pointed out, in some cases specifically address it). It is therefore baffling that Bocaccio70s would insist on moving this multiply sourced material down, and instead insert the 1971 opinion of the International Court of Justice in front as the leading opinion? In addition, why are people giving the singular view of Pieter H.F. Bekker such prominence, and falsely describing his opinion as "some have argued"? Bekker is one person, not "some". Finally, the organization of the section is that arguments based on specific sections of the Fourth Geneva convention are each given in their own section. Why, then is Bocaccio70s copying material from the section Israeli_settlement#Article_49 section and inserting it in the lead? I find this most troubling; please respond here. Jayjg (talk) 03:44, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Only one question: the personal views of university professors have more value as a legal judgement of a court of justice? --Bocaccio70s (talk) 03:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
These are legal scholars writing for legal presses, and there are literally dozens of such "opinions". The ICJ's opinion is just that, an advisory opinion, and as has been pointed out, in the case of the Namibia decision the actual enforcement was under Chapter VII anyway, not Chapter VI. Indeed, regarding the Libya case, the exact same thing occurred; a new resolution under Chapter VII was required before any binding enforcement could be considered. You have seriously abused WP:NPOV here, and this is very disturbing. Jayjg (talk) 03:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
The ICJ is the principal judicial organ of the United Nations, and why his views are particularly important. It is not a mere opinion: one thing is the views of many legal scholars and another thing the views of a court of justice (advisory opinion or not). And yes, you have seriously abused WP:NPOV here, and this is very disturbing (really you are administrator??) --Bocaccio70s (talk) 04:19, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
The ICJ is indeed a judicial organ of the United Nations; however, its opinions are merely advisory - that is why they call them advisory decisions. The legal scholars who have written these textbooks on international law are well aware of the ICJ's opinions on these matters. Despite this, they give them the weight they deserve; that is, one opinion, and an opinion that is seriously at odds with the consensus of legal opinion on the matter, and, in fact, with what customary international law and the U.N. Charter itself say. We give the ICJ's minority opinion its due weight in this article, but that doesn't mean their opinion trumps what the vast majority of legal scholars say on the subject. Please review WP:NPOV. Jayjg (talk) 04:25, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Vast majority of legal scholars? What do they say? Because from every journal on International Law I have picked up, I have really got the impression those whom support Israel are a minority. Colourinthemeaning (talk) 04:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Did you read the comments above? The issue has nothing to do with whether or not the scholars "support Israel", but rather, whether or not decisions taken by the Security Council under Chapter VI are binding. On that subject, the vast majority of legal scholars are in consensus that they are not binding. Jayjg (talk) 04:40, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
OK, I think we already understand. Legal scholars vs court of justice. Winner? Legal scholars, of course (in english WP, at least...). In the courts of justice of America (or another country) is the same? And really is "the vast majority of legal scholars"? Not "many" or "some"? Are you really sure? References, please.--Bocaccio70s (talk) 05:01, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
In addition to a number of other statements to that effect by various commentators of all sorts, there are already 10 separate and distinct references there from legal scholars, in separate legal textbooks stating exactly that. They don't equivocate or waffle about this, they simply state it as fact. We have an entire legal textbook devoted to the solely to the subject Chapter VII, written by an expert in exactly this subject, which says the same, and demolishes the arguments made by the ICJ in reference to that. What do you have to counter that? Jayjg (talk) 05:07, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
"10 separate and distinct references" not signifies "the vast majority of legal scholars". Better references, please. In fact, it is not a question of quantity (legal scholars): it is a matter of quality (ICJ).--Bocaccio70s (talk) 05:18, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
While you've been asserting your opinions, I've been adding sources. I've added eight more legal scholars stating the same thing, and there are plenty more where they came from. Your assertion that the "quality" of these legal scholars does not match your one source is meaningless - in particular because one of the members of the ICJ that made the Namibia decision, Sir Gerald Fitzmaurice, specifically dissented from the ICJ's claim that Chapter VI recommendations were binding, and gave rather cogent reasoning as to why. You'll find his reasoning in the article now too (in a footnote). Jayjg (talk) 05:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Eight legal scholars is a number, ill grant you that. I don't think the argument is whether these resolutions are binding or not, but whether they still have significance and meaning if they are not. Colourinthemeaning (talk) 07:17, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
It's actually over 20 legal scholars in total so far, including members of the International Court of Justice itself. Jayjg (talk) 07:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Jayjg compares things that are not comparable: one thing are the views of many legal scholars and another thing are the opinions of a court of justice (advisory opinion or not). The views of a court always have more legal value, and this is the case in all countries and in all legal systems, in international law or in national law. We must distinguish between legal academic writings (personal views of university professors) and official pronouncements of a court of justice, which never have the same legal value. Saying that both are comparable is lying. Quality, not quantity. Moreover, has disappeared the reference to the article 8(2)(b)(viii) of the Rome Statute (not ratified by Israel, of course), that defines "[t]he transfer, directly or indirectly, by the Occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies" as a war crime [57]. The State of Israel encourages migration to the settlements [58] into the West Bank, an Israeli occupied territory (see [59], paragraph 78).--Bocaccio70s (talk) 04:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Please provide sources for your claims. Oh, and while you're at it, please provide a reference to 8(2)(b)(viii) of the Rome Statute in relation to Israel's actions. Jayjg (talk) 02:24, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Bocaccios70s, it is quite inappropriate for you to significantly change your comments after I had already responded to them. And I'm still waiting for citations for your claims; in particular, which reliable source directly ties 8(2)(b)(viii) of the Rome Statute to Israeli settlements? Jayjg (talk) 02:08, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Bocaccio70s, you have again inserted the [[WP:NOR|original research about 8(2)(b)(viii) of the Rome Statute.[60] Which reliable source directly ties 8(2)(b)(viii) of the Rome Statute to Israeli settlements? Also, please don't insert unhelpful qualifiers (the sources themselves do not use such qualifiers), and please do not re-arrange material in ways that destroys the logical flow. Jayjg (talk) 22:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] POV sentence moved to Talk:

Colourinthemeaning, now that you have taken a brief break from interminably edit-warring the term "Israeli settlement" into the lede of all sorts of articles,[61], [62], [63], etc. you have inserted this paragraph into the lede again:

These settlements are considered to be illegal under international law by the International Community and many international bodies including the General Assembly and Security Council of the United Nations, the International Court of Justice and the European Union as well as by many International Human Rights organizations including Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. While some legal scholars disagree with this assessment, the issue remains one of the most debated in International Law (See Legal background).

To begin with, it uses the nebulous term "the International Community", which is entirely unsourced. Rest assured, both Israel and the United States are part of the international community, and they both dissent from the view that the settlements are illegal - the current official U.S. position is that they are an "obstacle to peace", but it studiously avoids the term "illegal". Second, the General Assembly has nothing whatsoever to do with international law; it's a political voting body, and the votes in question in any event were not unanimous. Third, you again inserted the unsourced phrase "as well as by many International Human Rights organizations", when, in fact, the only ones who appear to have opined on the matter are Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. Finally, you have again inserted the claim that "the issue remains one of the most debated in International Law" - who, besides Colouringthemeaning, makes this claim? Please recall that edits must comply with WP:V and WP:NOR. I'll re-word again so that the sentence complies with both policy and good writing. Jayjg (talk) 04:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand the purpose of the General Assembly, political voting body or not, it has voted that the majority of its members view these as Settlements and illegal, which is where the term International Community comes from - Granted, perhaps a better way of wording it would have been 'the majority of the International community'. I fail to see how it can't be the view of "many international human rights organizations" yet with a few sources it can be "a number of international legal scholars who disagree with this assessment". It is hardly just AI and HRW who see it as a settlement, but these are simply the most well known. In fact, i can't think of one Human Rights organization who disagrees with the assessment that the settlements are illegal. If you pick up any international legal journal you will see that this is one of the most debated issues in international law - there is no source listed for these settlements being one of the most contentious issues in the Israel-Palestine conflict, there are some things that are just obvious to anyone and everyone! Colourinthemeaning (talk) 07:13, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
The term "International Community" does not come from General Assembly resolutions; it's pretty much a meaningless phrase thrown around to give more weight to unsubstantiated claims. A vote in the General Assembly is just that, a vote in the General Assembly. Most of the ones regarding Israel are just ritualistic exercises in partisan politics, signifying absolutely nothing. The Security Council can affect or even create international law, not the General Assembly. Regarding various unnamed international Human Rights organizations and "one of the most debated issues in international law", your opinions are all well and good, but WP:V requires sources for claims. Please provide sources for these claims before attempting to re-insert them. Jayjg (talk) 07:41, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
So given the WP:V policy you would have no problem if i edited out the sentence about settlements being one of the most contentious issues in the Israel-Palestine conflict? I don't want to edit that out at all, because I think we can all agree it is true - but there is no verifiability provided for that. A vote in the General Assembly is more than just a vote, it is indicative of the views of the worlds governments, and in fact, the General Assembly is more than equipped to create, modify and extend international law, especially where the SC fails - resolutions enacted by the GA are said by legal scholars to be the view of the 'international community' time and time again, so while this GA resolution may not label it as such, any decision passed by the GA is said by legal and political professionals to be the view of the international community. Colourinthemeaning (talk) 08:04, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
The statement about the settlements being one of the most contentious issues in the conflict is likely easily verifiable, but I would have no problem with you taking it out. As for your claims about the General Assembly, do you have any sources for them? Jayjg (talk) 08:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Jayjg, thanks for your edit - i agree your changes to that sentence now reflect a more NPOV stance - i only had a problem with there being no mention of the 'legal scholars' on the 'other side,' so to speak. I don't have any sources off the top of my head, and it is not from internet sources I have picked this up but rather legal/political journals and textbooks - so I will attempt to hunt these sources down for you and will reply here when I have found some for you. Colourinthemeaning (talk) 08:47, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  • First of all, we need to take into account WP:UNDUE. Pretty much every nation except Israel considers the settlements illegal. Thus, it's entirely appropriate that the fringe view of settlement legality should be given short shrift. I'd like to see some justification for the claim that the U.S. believes the settlements are not illegal; I am not aware of any U.S. administration saying any such thing, and consistent U.S. policy for quite some time has been that the settlements will probably have to be removed as part of a comprehensive peace plan. *** Crotalus *** 20:26, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
It's unclear exactly what you are responding to. However, it's well known that during the Reagan era the official policy of the U.S. Administration changed from saying the settlements were "inconsistent with international law":

"In a dramatic shift in official American policy on the settlements, on 2 February 1981 Reagan declared during an interview with a group of reporters in the Oval office that 'I disagreed when the previous administration referred to the settlements as illegal. They are not illegal.'" Laham, Nicholas. Crossing the Rubicon: Ronald Reagan and US Policy in the Middle East, Ashgate Publishing, 2004 p. 61.

::Jayjg (talk) 20:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough; I was not aware the Reagan administration made a specific statement on this matter. That, then, means that the U.S. and Israel disagree with most of the rest of the world about the settlements. (The magnitude of this disagreement should not be overstated; various U.S. — and Israeli — administrations have considered the settlements to be something that would be gotten rid of as part of a comprehensive peace deal.) *** Crotalus *** 20:43, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Also, it's unclear why you've removed the material about Chapter VI resolutions; it's entirely relevant to whether or not the resolutions are binding on Israel, and why it has not chosen to follow them. I'm fine with you removing it from the various Security Council resolution articles; I was only correcting Boccacio70s rather brutal misrepresentation of both the sources and the legal consensus on this matter - indeed, it would have been better had you removed his material two months ago, when he spammed it into a half dozen articles. However, it is obviously relevant here: please return it. Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 20:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree it's more relevant here than in the articles on individual security council resolutions. I do think the length was a bit too long and possibly in violation of WP:UNDUE. If you put in a shorter version of it, that would be acceptable. I'm going to eat dinner soon and afterward I'll try to work on something that can be agreed on. I don't think Boccacio70's material belongs in those other articles either. *** Crotalus *** 20:43, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Looks like I was already reverted. I'm going to look over this later and see if it's possible to slim down the section a bit, since the primary subject of the article is Israeli settlements, not the binding force or lack thereof of UN resolutions. Jayjg, do you have an official Israeli source that cites the non-binding nature of these resolutions as a justification for maintaining the settlements? That would definitely be relevant here. *** Crotalus *** 20:47, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Look, all the section really needs is a statement saying "The Security Council resolutions regarding Israel were carried out under Chapter VI of the Charter; as such, they have no enforcement mechanisms, and are generally not considered binding, and Israel has chosen not to heed them." with one good source. The problem is, that's what the article used to have, but then someone came along and removed it, insisting one source wasn't enough, so then another 6 sources were brought, but then it was removed because the sources were all newspapers, magazines, statements by politicians. So then another half dozen sources from legal textbooks were brought, which calmed things down for a while. Then Bocaccio70s came along, didn't like what he saw, so he inserted the ICJ's Namibia decision up front as "international law", and relegated everything else to Many politicians and legal scholars, whose opinions have no legal value, have argued that resolutions are legally binding if they are made under Chapter VII of the Charter only. I'm not kidding, that's the exact sentence he stuck into almost ten articles. So then I had to go and find two dozen more views of legal scholars, including experts who have written whole books on this exact topic, and who have specifically refuted the Namibia claims of the ICJ and pointed out that the UNSC had to carry out the Namibia decision under Chapter VII despite the ICJ's obfuscation regarding this. I even brought the opinion of a member of the very ICJ that made the Namibia decision, pointing out in no uncertain terms that it was incorrect. And then you come along and delete the whole thing as spam. I find this time and again with articles related to the Israel-Palestinian conflict; an impossible level of verification is demanded for the most obvious facts - then, when provided, people object to huge footnotes. As you can imagine, it is quite frustrating. Jayjg (talk) 20:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
I understand your concern here. On controversial articles, we obviously need to take special care to meet WP:V and other content policies, but, at the same time, we need to remember that the readers probably don't want to see 5 footnotes every sentence (they make things very hard to scan quickly). Obviously, it was inappropriate for Bocaccio70 to insert a POV statement like the one you mention above. What we need to do is to sequester the debate about the scope of UN resolutions onto appropriate pages — which it looks like you already started to do. For this particular article, I don't have a problem with briefly stating that the resolutions are generally considered non-binding. But I do have some issues with the way it is currently structured; for instance, I think the lengthy block quote from Erika De Wet, who, as you can see does not even have a Wikipedia article, may constitute undue weight. *** Crotalus *** 01:20, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm all for a short sentence, outlining the fact that those who argue the settlements are legal (e.g. [64]) point to the fact that the UNSC Resolutions regarding them were carried out under Chapter VI, and thus are generally considered to be non-binding. The only other footnote required would be this one:

"The International Court of Justice took the position in the Namibia Advisory Opinion that Art. 25 of the Charter, according to which decisions of the Security Council have to be carried out, does not only apply in relation to chapter VII. Rather, the court is of the opinion that the language of a resolution should be carefully analyzed before a conclusion can be drawn as to its binding effect. The Court even seems to assume that Art. 25 may have given special powers to the Security Council. The Court speaks of "the powers under Art. 25". It is very doubtful, however, whether this position can be upheld. As Sir Gerald Fitzmaurice has pointed out in his dissenting opinion: "If, under the relevant chapter or article of the Charter, the decision is not binding, Article [69/70] 25 cannot make it so. If the effect of that Article were automatically to make al decisions of the Security Council binding, then the words 'in accordance with the present Charter' would be quite superfluous". In practice the Security Council does not act on the understanding that its decisions outside chapter VII are binding on the States concerned. Indeed, as the wording of chapter VI clearly shows, non-binding recommendations are the general rule here." Frowein, Jochen Abr. Völkerrecht - Menschenrechte - Verfassungsfragen Deutschlands und Europas, Springer, 2004, ISBN 3540230238, p. 58.

It deals with all of the ICJ arguments about the Namibia decision as well, and in fact, lays out what UNSC practice actually is. But what happens when someone comes along and starts inserting additional arguments about the ICJ etc., or tries to delete the material as a "minority opinion" because it has only one source? Jayjg (talk) 03:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Then those individuals should be pointed to the United Nations resolution page and told to discuss it there. This article is on Israeli settlements, and it's not a good idea to stray from that subject with lengthy digressions on a tangentially related issue. *** Crotalus *** 18:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

According to Building a Successful Palestinian State, a peer-reviewed 2005 study put out by the Rand Corporation,

The construction of large numbers of Israeli settlements in the occupied territories has made the construction of a contiguous and viable new independent state vastly more difficult. The US government and the larger international community view these settlements as "illegal" under international law. Certainly the expansion of settlements helped undermine the Oslo peace process and made the already distant prospect of good governance in Palestine even more remote.

In a footnote, the study's authors describe how the United States' "political language has softened over time" without "official policy" being changed at all:

Official US policy holds that these settlements violate the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 and are "inconsistent with international law." Excerpts from the State Department's legal finding may be found at http://www.fmep.org/documents/opinion_OLA_DOS4-21-78.html. While political language has softened over time (eg, settlements as "an obstacle to peace"), the United States has never repudiated its formal opinion that such settlements are illegal and, indeed, has reconfirmed it on a number of occasions at the United Nations. President Bush's April 2004 letter to Prime Minister Sharon indicated that a final negotiated peace would likely leave in place some Israeli settlements in the West Bank, but did not renounce the official legal opinion set out above.

The State Department's legal finding is titled, "Opinion of the Office of the Legal Advisor, Department of State, Declaring that Israeli Settlements are Inconsistent with International Law, April 21, 1978."

References to the "international community" are ordinary, indeed ubiquitous, in reliable sources across the spectrum from popular to scholarly. Of course it doesn't refer to any specific official body (such as the UN General Assembly or the Security Council). But it's an accepted term when discussing matters of broad international consensus. The fact that the international community regards Israeli settlements as illegal can, in any case, be cited to dozens of excellent sources.--G-Dett (talk) 21:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Really? Did those sources take a survey of all seven billion (or whatever) people living on the Earth? Oh, maybe your definition of "international community" is something different... but since the U.S. government apparently does not regard the "settlements" as being illegal, maybe your definition of "international community" excludes the United States. (As for your source on the U.S. position, from 1978, based on the sources mentioned above, the U.S. position has changed, so that source is out of date.) 6SJ7 (talk) 04:55, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Actually - Regan's position is no longer indicitive of the US position on the settlements either/.. While the term 'International Community' can be used in circumstances where the US does not agree - for instance, when it is the International Community Vs The U.S., this is not one of those circumstances. The sources would not take a survey of the worlds populations: first and foremost, the 'opposition' to these settlements being illegal is not based on any survey of the worlds population but on the position of One Government, a handful of organizations and a few (in the sense that they are not a majority of) legal scholars, many of which, and whom, have close ties to that government. Secondly, many of these nations who voted in the Security Council (and some of those in the General Assembly) are democratic nations, which means their policies could be said to be a natural reflection of the views of the majority of their nation. If you really asked all 6 billion or so people in the world what their view was, what do you really think the answer would be? Given that most of them would get their views from what the mainstream media tells them, and also that anti-semitism is so prevelent - I highly doubt the majority of people would see them as legal. Colourinthemeaning (talk) 09:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
just to add to that - check out United Nations Security Resolution 1322, from 2000[1] - which I think you will find more indicative of the United States Governments position, given that it could not have been adopted if the US had vetoed it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Colourinthemeaning (talk • contribs) 09:50, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

6SJ7, you don't appear to have read my post; the official U.S. position is that the settlements are illegal, and that position has remained unchanged since 1978. Reagan's opinion as expressed in a press gaggle is interesting, as is the drift in the U.S.'s diplomatic language; both are well-sourced, as is the fact that the official U.S. position is still that the settlements are illegal.

As far as I know, references to the consensus opinion of the "international community" are not based on polls of planet Earth's seven billion people, but reflect rather the official positions of individual governments as well as collective bodies such as the United Nations, the European Union, the Arab League, and so on.

Colourinthemeaning, we don't need to infer the U.S. position from a UN resolution the U.S. didn't veto. We have the official position of the United States, as well as excellent secondary sources confirming that it's still in effect.--G-Dett (talk) 11:08, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, we don't have "the official position of the United States", and there are other "excellent secondary sources" that disagree with your claim. The document on FMEP (which is already referenced in the article is indeed titled, "Opinion of the Office of the Legal Advisor, Department of State, Declaring that Israeli Settlements are Inconsistent with International Law, April 21, 1978." - but of course, that's the FMEP's title on its webpage, we don't know what the actual title of the document was. In addition, it was an opinion of the legal advisor of the State Department given to Congress, it was not an official proclamation of the U.S. position. And, of course, that was in 1978, and the U.S. position subsequently changed:
  • "In a dramatic shift in official American policy on the settlements, on 2 February 1981 Reagan declared during an interview with a group of reporters in the Oval office that 'I disagreed when the previous administration referred to the settlements as illegal. They are not illegal.'" Laham, Nicholas. Crossing the Rubicon: Ronald Reagan and US Policy in the Middle East, Ashgate Publishing, 2004 p. 61.
  • "All American administrations since 1967 have held that the settlements in these areas were obstacles to peace. Initially they were considered contrary to international law under the terms of the Fourth Geneva Convention (1949), which prohibits an occupying power from transferring its own population into occupied territories. That position changed under Reagan, and since the early 1980s no American president has said that the settlements are illegal." William B. Quandt, Peace process: American diplomacy and the Arab-Israeli conflict since 1967, University of California Press, 2001, p. 409.
Now, the Rand Corporation is all well and good, but its pronouncements aren't holy writ, and WP:NPOV really doesn't permit us treating them as such. Jayjg (talk) 02:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

In light of your observation that "the General Assembly has nothing whatsoever to do with international law; it's a political voting body," I gather you understand the distinction between an official political statement or diplomatic policy on the one hand and a legal position on the other; and I presume you're not prepared to maintain that UN resolutions have no legal implications but presidential remarks to reporters somehow do. More on that distinction in a moment, but to keep this discussion on point: with regards to NPOV, what we're presently debating is not how to represent U.S. diplomatic policy and/or legal positions on the settlements. What we're discussing, remember, is what you're calling the "POV sentence moved to Talk," a sentence in which the United States doesn't even figure:

These settlements are considered to be illegal under international law by the International Community and many international bodies including the General Assembly and Security Council of the United Nations, the International Court of Justice and the European Union as well as by many International Human Rights organizations including Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. While some legal scholars disagree with this assessment, the issue remains one of the most debated in International Law (See Legal background).

Your three objections to this sentence are as follows: (1) "international community" is vague and unsourced, but Israel and the US are surely part of it, and they don't agree, so the claim is dubious; (2) the UN General Assembly is a political body and does not create international law, and their votes were not unanimous; and (3) Amnesty and Human Rights Watch are only two of the world's human rights organizations, and they don't constitute "many."

One at a time.

(1) That the "international community" regards the settlements as illegal can be cited to any number of excellent sources, using exactly that language. Do you have any sources arguing otherwise? It's not enough to say that you find the term "international community" vague or impressionistic, or to point to dissenting views on the legality of the settlements as evidence that in your view the "international community" is divided; that is, as you know, original research. What you'd need are good sources saying the "international community" is divided.

(2) This is a red herring. The sentence in question is citing opinions of the international community and various international bodies regarding the legality of the settlements. The sentence does not imply that the GA is a body of international jurisprudence. UN resolutions don't require unanimity to be passed.

(3) More research is needed. What is B'Tselem's position on the legality of the settlements, for example? Amnesty and HRW are the major international human-rights groups. Nevertheless, if it's true that only they have weighed in on the illegality of the settlements and/or there is significant dissent from groups of comparable stature, the sentence should be rewritten to reflect that.

Now, regarding the distinction between an official political statement/diplomatic policy and a legal position. Your sources do not contradict the Rand Corporation's study. Your sources describe a shift in the political language and diplomatic stance of American administrations since Reagan's. The Rand study observes this very shift, and notes that it has not been backed by any revised formal legal finding and so not does not alter that of 1978: "the United States has never repudiated its formal opinion that such settlements are illegal." (emphasis added).

It may help to take a closer look at your two sources. The Nicholas Laham book cites its information about the "dramatic shift in official American policy" signaled by Reagan's comments to Madiha Rashid Al Madfai's Jordan, the United States and the Middle East Peace Process, 1974-1991 and Noam Chomsky's The Fateful Triangle. The cited passage in Al Madfai describes a shift in the American "attitude" towards the settlements and notes that "if something is initially condemned as illegal, it cannot later be considered legal unless the law itself has changed." The phrasing of the cited passage in Chomsky – "This reversal of US government policy (at least at the rhetorical level) set in motion a huge "land grab" operation on the West Bank under a deceitful guise of legality" – is careful about the distinction between a legal position and a political statement, the very distinction underscored by the Rand study. (emph. added)

Elsewhere in Crossing the Rubicon, your source is even clearer about the distinction between Reagan's views (with their consequences in diplomatic policy) on the one hand and a legal finding on the other:

Though Reagan pledged to continue official American policy, which maintained that the settlements were an 'obstacle to peace,' he expressed his view that they were not 'illegal,' despite the fact that they were under any reasonable interpretation of Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention. (147)

And in your second source, Peace Process: American Diplomacy, the author points out that while Reagan told a journalist the settlements weren't illegal in a press gaggle, he had written elsewhere that the settlements were "in continued violation of UN Security Council Resolution 242." Your source attributes Reagan's idiosyncratic and contradictory opinions on the matter to "his lack of care with details in discussing the Middle East."

I'm willing to discuss this further, both because it's interesting and because it might certainly have a place in the body of the article. But the question of America's tangled legal and diplomatic positions on the settlements is separate from the question of whether we can state, in the lead, that the settlements are regarded as illegal by the "international community." That statement is very well-sourced, and you haven't provided any source that challenges it.--G-Dett (talk) 17:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

G-Dett, I don't understand why you keep using original research to try to counter what reliable sources explicitly say. They both explicitly state that the American government changed it's policy regarding the settlements; one specifically says it was a dramatic shift in official American policy. Here's another source:
  • "However, the Reagan administration quickly reversed this long standing position with regard to settlements in the West Bank". Juliana S. Peck, The Reagan Administration and the Palestinian Question: The First Thousand Days, Institute for Palestine Studies, 1984, p. 32.
Regarding the "international community", which sources were you referring to? Jayjg (talk) 02:15, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Jay, you've shown your familiarity with the WP:NOR policy in the past; I take it you do understand that it applies to material in the article itself, not to general discussion on the talk page? I was discussing with you the issue of America's legal position vs. its diplomatic position on the settlements because you seemed interested, but it has no bearing whatsoever on whether the lead can point out the extremely well-sourced fact that the "international community" regards the settlements as illegal. I am all for discussing all these things on talk pages, because (in an ideal world) wide-ranging and intelligent discussions lead to more intelligent editing of articles. But let's be very clear, any original research involved in debating the American position(s) on the settlements is entirely yours: you introduced the matter as an attempt to argue with the sources when they generalize about the position of the "international community."--G-Dett (talk) 16:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Regarding NOR on the Talk: page, please see WP:TALK: The policies that apply to articles also apply (if not to the same extent) to talk pages, including Wikipedia's verification, neutral point of view and no original research policies. Now, where were the sources behind the "well-sourced fact that the "international community" regards the settlements as illegal."? Jayjg (talk) 02:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
It is quite usual to evaluate and scrutinize sources and statements on talk pages in ways that would constitute original research if carried out in article space; I assume you know this because you do it all the time, including on this page and in this very section. In my view, this is usually a good thing, and is absolutely consistent with what you've cited from WP:TALK. If you think it's a bad thing and violates policy, then you should take care to stop doing it. Now, regarding sources for the international communities view that the settlements are illegal, how many would you like?--G-Dett (talk) 17:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
G-Dett, it's best not to speculate about other editors - in fact, it's best to restrict Talk: page comments to discussions of article content. Now, regarding the "international community", what, do you feel, would the insertion of this vague phrase add to the already explicit list at the beginning of this article? Jayjg (talk) 02:59, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
It might be worth taking a step back and look at the reality of the situation. As a political matter, a large majority of the world's governments and several NGOs that follow the matter view the establishment of these settlements are hugely problematic. From time to time, resolutions will pass in various fora that characterize them as being in violation of international law due to provisions in the Geneva Conventions, etc. Just where the distinction is between making a political argument with legal terms, or making a legal argument with legal concepts goes, is hard to ascertain. I think it is entirely accurate that to say that there is widespread opposition to the settlements among the world's governments, and objections are raised based on legal criteria; but it is not necessarily true that the objections first and foremost are legalistic, and secondarily political. It is not for us to draw that distinction, but it is clear to me that the world's governments in all earnestness have put themselves in the role of judge and jury to convict Israel. It just doesn't work that way, to begin with. And another matter is that virtually every country in the world has some kind of territorial dispute, some kind of practice, that is debatable in international law. Even Norway does. --Leifern (talk) 20:07, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
"Just where the distinction is between making a political argument with legal terms, or making a legal argument with legal concepts goes, is hard to ascertain." — Quite simply, it's not our job to ascertain this. That would be a clear violation of WP:NOR. Our job is to relay, in the most neutral manner possible, what is said about the issue in reliable sources. I think the sources are fairly clear that most nations consider the settlements to be in violation of international law. If the preponderance of the sources attribute this view to the "international community," then that is what should be in the article. The U.S. position is somewhat more ambiguous, but I'm not really convinced that an off-the-cuff statement by Reagan at a press conference constitutes official U.S. policy. Again, we need to find the most reliable sources, preferably academic in nature, and describe what they say. Speculation from either side should be right out. *** Crotalus *** 03:56, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
But we have provided academic sources that interpret Reagan's statement as an official change in policy; and, from Reagan on, not one American administration has ever described the settlements as "illegal" - deliberately so. As for the rest, it's not enough that a source says that the settlements are "illegal" or not; the source itself has to be a relevant one. Finally, regarding the "proponderance of sources attribut[ing] this view to the "international community"," I'm still waiting to see them. Jayjg (talk) 02:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Except we can probably find an equal number of academic sources that will interpret Regans move entirely differently. I think, in this case, it is important to note that the United States has, also deliberately, refrained from saying the settlements aren't illegal. A simple google search for "Israeli Settlements+International Community" will yield plenty of results that you are after Jayjg, if you are willing to search for them. [65] and [66] and [67] and [68] and also [69] - and this is only from my first page of search results. Admittedly not 'academic sources,' most of them at least - globalsecurity.org however is often given as a source to Politics students and is a respected source, as is The BBC, The Age and SBS. 04:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Colourinthemeaning (talk • contribs)

I've tried to source contentious material to multiple academic sources. By the way, aside from its other issues, the Globalsecurity article is merely a collection of quotes from op-ed pieces in newspapers. Jayjg (talk) 02:59, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] David Shulman quote

User:Nishidani has added this quotation to the lead of the section on "Settlements, Palestinians, and human rights":

David Shulman, an Israeli peace activist, has described settlement in the Palestinian territories, in the following way:-

'Israel, like any other society, has violent, sociopathic elements. What is unusual about the last four decades in Israel is that many destructive individuals have found a haven, complete with ideological legitimation, within the settlement enterprise. Here, in places like Chavat Maon, Itamar, Tapuach, and Hebron, they have, in effect, unfettered freedom to terrorize the local Palestinian population: to attack, shoot, injure, sometimes kill - all in the name of the alleged sanctity of the land and of the Jews' exclusive right to it.[2]

.

Why would we want to quote David Shulman? Why this particular quote from the tens of thousands of pages that have been written on the topic? And what does it have to do "Settlements, Palestinians, and human rights"? Jayjg (talk) 02:59, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The page is full of material not bearing on the reality of the settlements but legal issues. From my printout over half (14 pages of 27, same font size) deal with legal aspects. Large chunks of this material have been lifted holus bolus from the Wiki United Nations Resolution page and plunked, undigested in here. I.e. on this crucial issue, there exists a template in someone's office which is thumped into articles at convenience. We read of the amiable Kim Beasley (qualified as a philosopher at Oxford, not an expert on International Law) from the Opposition Benches of the Australian Parliament, querying ex-PM Mr Howard's position on Iraq: we have learned disquisitions on Namibia duly footnoted from a German text, (Frowein) translated no one knows by whom (?), lifted like much else from another Wiki page. We have everything, but very little on life on the ground in the Occupied territories, unless right down the page, where the average browser never gets after his eyes suffer the extenuating exhaustion of reading intricate legal briefs for an hour.
So I put David Shulman's conclusion in, and it is questioned. Who is he, User:Jayjg asks why of the tens of thousands of screeds written about this aspect, do we have to have him, a mere Peace Activist, here? (Tens of thousands of pages have been written on the legal aspect, and the literature is given an extraordinary importance, violating WP:Undue Weight, if not WP:Boredom, compared to the reality on the ground, as that is lived by settlers and the dispossessed).
Well, is he a reliable source? Is he relevant? David Shulman is professor of Sanskrit and Indian Studies at Hebrew University, so he can't be relevant. He just happens to be a world-ranking scholar of Tamil, Telugu and Dravidian linguistics, so really, irrelevant. Except for the fact that, in his Indian field work, he became interested in Tamil Islam, (the Tamils have terrorist groups, and in India he learnt about the interactions of Tamil Islam with Gandhi's pacifist tradition. He then began to reapply his knowledge of this aspect (Islam/pacificism) to his own country, and, fluent in Hebrew and Arabic, and the Palestinian dialect, moved for four years throughout the Occupied Palestinian Territories, concentrating in particular in the South Hebrons hill area, as pacifist, first aid medico(learnt during his years in the IDF), and then wrote a book about it. He is therefore deeply relevant, as an American-Israeli, with splendid academic credentials, who has devoted years to the issues of Israeli settlement, knows both key languages as very few activists do, has comparative experience of Islam/terrorism and pacifism. He is relevant because Avishai Margalit, a distinguished professorial fellow widely published in eminent newspapers and journals, considers Shulman's memoir a 'powerful and memorable book'. He is relevant because books by peaceniks on this issue rarely get a University imprint, but one of the top-ranking academic presses in the United States, the University of Chicago Press, had the book vetted in peer review, and the decision of anonymous experts was that the book qualified in every sense as worthy of the University's imprint. He is relevant because the New York Review of Books at = Avishai Margalit,'A Moral Witness to the 'Intricate Machine' gave it a four page spread. It is relevant because, unlike many people cited in this Wikipage, Shulman has a rare, intimate knowledge and experience of the on-the-ground issues the page must refer to.Nishidani (talk) 12:42, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
this is crazy. If Shulman has some significant findings, then quote those. don't just quote his own individual opinions. I removed it as a statement of dissent with this one-sided edit. Please feel free to add material which has encyclopedic significance. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 00:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Okay. Since this looks like a long haul I'd better document what is going on, for convenience.We once more have a problem with bad faith editing.
(a)The quote from Shulman's book (via the New York Review of Books) was excised by User:Jayjg as 'original research'. He made the same charge several months ago to edit out disagreeable information from a book by Ian Lustik. It's getting to be a bad habit of his.
02:59, 15 February 2008 Jayjg (Talk | contribs) (95,715 bytes) (remove inserted original research, move quotation to Talk: for discussion, add
WP:OR does not apply, naturally, to citing verbatim a passage in the New York Times, quoted by Avishai Margalit, from a book on settlements in the West Bank written by a distinguished academic with deep experience of the area concerned and published by the University of Chicago Press. Once more User:Jayjg confounds verbatim citation of a WP:RS as a violation of WP:OR.
(b)My remarks above prove that the text I inserted fits all wiki criteria. I then reedit it in. Immediately User:6SJ7 erased it. This time the pretext is WP:Undue Weight
16:25, 15 February 2008 6SJ7 (Talk | contribs) (96,266 bytes) (→Settlements, Palestinians, and human rights: Remove paragraph based on discussion on talk page; seems like undue weight)
There has been no discussion on the Talk Page. A query was made by User:Jayjg. It was fully answered. Silence ensued, and User:6SJ7 makes several errors. He changes, while confirming Jayjg's judgement, the ostensible grounds for removing the passage. It is clearly not, as User:Jayjg suggested, 'Original research': original research here seems to mean reading the New York Review of Books and citing from it. So we get 'undue weight' thrown up. For User:6SJ7 it only 'seems' to violate 'Undue Weight', for he adduces no proof. Secondly, 'removed paragraph based on discussion on talk page' is inadequate even as a pretext, given its ambiguity. The sentence either means:'removed as per the discussion', as if a conclusion had been arrived at. Or, 'removed a paragraph which is based on a discussion on the talk page': again, this would be inadequate. The paragraph, were this intended, was not 'based on a discussion'. It was, on specious grounds, removed for discussion. Nishidani (talk) 17:11, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Am I not entitled to my own opinion, and my own interpretation of Wikipedia policies? I read Jay's comment, which although phrased as a question contained an implied comment, and I thought the issue was more of an undue weight issue than an OR issue. I don't think you help your argument by throwing around accusations of "bad faith", "pretext", etc. 6SJ7 (talk) 17:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Everybody has an opinion. If they want it to be heard, they do well to reason it out, otherwise it remains just that, an opinion. Jayjg says it is OR, which it is not. You have an opinion about 'Undue Weight'. Give the reason for your opinion. I would note in the meantime that no one worried about undue weight has looked at the huge swathe of material injected into here from United Nations Resolution. I don't mind you having an opinion, but you owe me the courtesy to explain it, with reasoned arguments. Merely citing a Wiki rule, without grounding it contextually, is meaningless and, I repeat, in bad faith.Nishidani (talk) 17:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
That paragraph clearly belongs. It is clearly being quoted from a RS, it is clearly relevant, it is clearly not undue weight. The arguments being made for its removal are absurd. It meets every test for a WP edit, and it improves the article. It should be re-added immediately with one change: the comma after "Palestinian territories" should not be there. Thank you, Jgui (talk) 13:05, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
While I was looking at it, I fixed some of the refs, and added a quote to the same section from an existing Amnesty International reference. The section was VERY poorly written to imply that the only downside for Palestinians is that they have to sit at road blocks - that is of course only the tip of the iceberg, and I think the paragraph I added and the one that Nishidani will add back certainly improve this. Thank you, Jgui (talk) 14:38, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Nishidani, to begin with, other material I removed in that edit was WP:NOR (specifically, the recently inserted phrase "Jewish Israelis"), and that is what I was referring to. Second, as is obvious, a professor of Tamil studies is not any sort of expert on the settlements, and in particular is not any sort of expert on the psychology of the settlers, about which he appears to be commenting, even going so far as to making a diagnosis about their psychological conditions. His extraordinary claim that the settlers have an unusually high number of sociopaths would require some extraordinary sourcing - certainly not the opinion of a professor of Tamil studies. This lengthy, pejorative quote from a non-expert is about as blatant a violation of WP:V and WP:UNDUE as I've seen in a long time. Third, the material itself has nothing to do with the section it was in anyway (even if it belonged in the article, which it does not). Fourth, the material about the legality of the settlements was actually here first, and "lifted holus bolus" from this page and "plunked" in the United Nations Resolution page. Fifth, my "lack of response" was because I was away from Wikipedia for a couple of days; rest assured, I was not specifically ignoring your responses. Finally, I'm astonished that you admit that you have been engaging in "bad faith editing",[70] but I commend you for this admission, and, based on your new self-awareness, request that you desist from doing so in the future. Jayjg (talk) 02:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

1.You write:'a professor of Tamil studies is not any sort of expert on the settlements'
You didn't appear to know who Shulman was. You originally wrote:

'Why would we want to quote David Shulman? Why this particular quote from the tens of thousands of pages that have been written on the topic?

This highlights Shulman's lack of status as someone not having a Wiki page dedicated to him. I simply noted, en passant, that he is considered one of the most brilliant scholars in his specialized field, as opposed to general interests. My quote comes from one of Israel's best and brightest, a somebody whom you qualified as simply one of many 'peace activists'.
An Israeli professor whose Tamil/Islam studies led him to research Islam/Palestinian studies, master Arabic, do four years of fieldwork among Palestinians and settlers, is more of an expert than most sources on this page (Rabbi Jon-Jay Tilsen on Ottoman law; Gershom Gorenberg, with a background in religious studies and education, no expert; Ray Hanania, a Palestinian-American comic and writer for Chicago newspapers; Moshe Dann, a journalist; Kim Beazley, Australian ex-parliamentarian with a philosopher's degree from Oxford; Nicholas Kristof, with a degree in political science, and some expertise in oriental languages, now a NYT columnist; Bill Emmott, who, when I last heard of him, was editor at the Economist, and something of an expert on the Tokyo Stock Exchange, (wrote a good book on Japan of course); Dore Gold, well he knows Arabic, has a Phd, and was Sharon's advisor, but he is not an expert on settlements;Tovah Lazaroff, a Jerusalem Post columnist, no expert on Palestinians and settlers). Against all of these people, duly cited, without objection throughout the article on issues that they have no technical or formally qualified expertise upon, people with, what's more, a stronger POV, than Shulman, Shulman has mastery of Arabic and Hebrew, field experience in the area, and ethnographic competence. You take exception to him alone, presumably because of the content of his remarks.
You cite, as a possible future gambit, Exceptional claims. The Wiki page on this remarks that 'Exceptional claims in Wikipedia require high-quality reliable sources'. David Shulman fits this, as per above. His work on the settlements is published by Chicago University Press, which has quite severe tests for quality. It has been proposed by a senior editor at Slate magazine, Emily Bazelon, as one of the best books of 2007. Secondly there is nothing exceptional about his claim. Had you read Margalitìs review, you would have noted that Avishai Margalit, a highly authoritative Israeli professor, underwrites that remark, and substantiates by cross-reference to his student Assaf Sharon's experience and work in the area Shulamn studied. It is Avishai Margalit who writes:

'In my own experience, I have found among the second generation a lethal combination of attitudes: a conviction that they have the right to dominate Palestinians and a sense that they are themselves victims. They share the historic megalomania of their parents, seeing themselves, with no small degree of self-righteousness, as a misunderstood avant-garde of a messianic vision. But they have not benefited from the civilizing effect of rabbinic learning as some of their parents did. . .It is a generation saturated with intense hostility toward the Arabs, and ferociously tribalistic'

Further, Assaf Sharon, now of Stanford, was a peace activist on Shulman's team, and was, nota bene, raised on a yeshiva near Hebron, as the son of settlers. I.e. Shulman's sidekick happens to be a settler's son, raised in the area, the South Hebron Hills, where Shulman did his research, Avishai Margalit and Assaf Sharon both confirm the authenticity of Shulman's reportage.
You write: 'This lengthy, pejorative quote from a non-expert is about as blatant a violation of WP:V and WP:UNDUE as I've seen in a long time.'
Incomprehensible. It is not lengthy (compare the huge amount of material on the legality of the settlements crammed into this page. I note you have no objections so far to the huge length (WP:Undue Weight) there. Secondly, wiki is not concerned with editing out 'pejorative' judgements. It is concerned with reliable verifiably sources by qualified experts. Please refrain from calling Shulman a 'non-expert'. A top-ranking Israeli linguist with mastery of Arabic, who has applied his academic gifts in the ethnography of Islam, and peace movements, to a particular area of the Occupied Territories, and has on his team a local settler's son, raised there, as assistant and friend, over four years, is as 'expert' as you get. That he makes a judgement is neither here nor there. Most authorities on this area make strong judgements.
You write: 'Third, the material itself has nothing to do with the section it was in anyway (even if it belonged in the article, which it does not).'
You're perfectly entitled to that view. It's to do with settlements and human rights, precisely the subject of Shulman's book.
'Fourth, the material about the legality of the settlements was actually here first, and "lifted holus bolus" from this page and "plunked" in the United Nations Resolution page.'
Here I have learnt something from you. So, it should not be on the United Nations Resolution page, where it 'Zionizes' an article that ought to deal with a topic of far greater generality than Israel's claims to Palestine. Secondly, if you are so keen on the rules, what is the mess of material, looking either like Original Research, or a copy from some external source's template, doing in here?
As to your ironic reference to my remarks on your 'bad faith editing', as reflectiìng my own style, take it as you will. I judge your style on these questions from your unscrupulous behaviour in an earlier clash, where you erased impeccably sourced material from Ian Lustik on spurious grounds, because you disliked it. It fitted every criteria required by Wiki, but you erased it because it was not, according to you 'truthful'. Since when has Wiki, or many of its editors, been worried about 'truth'? Nishidani (talk) 14:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I have to agree with Nishidani and Jgui here. Shulman is a reliable, expert source and the material is directly attributed to his voice. Per WP:NPOV, his point of view should be included, and not arbitrarily disqualified by invoking WP:UNDUE (which does not apply given the brevity and direct relevance of the quote to the subject under the discussion) and WP:V (???? not at all applicable - his work on the subject is published, peer-reviewed, properly attributed, and can be accessed by anyone wanting to verify the accuracy of the quote). This seems to be a rather straightforward case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Tiamuttalk 14:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I was wrong. sorry, jayjg. Sorry, I agree with Timaut and Nishidani here. Some clearly-written material from valid sources, which is from clearly good-faith editors, should simply be included. the way to address this is by adding balancing material of one's own. I don't feel it is beneficial in the long run to find fault with other editors' sources, if those sources meet all normal standards. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
why are such virulent, unencylopedic viewws being quoted here. We should only quote material which has some encyclopedic significance, not one person's opinionated tirades. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 00:03, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
You misuse the word 'unencyclopedic', in a way that makes it mean 'not politically corrrect' or 'unlaundered'. It is not a tirade: the book is noted for its pacific tenor in an ambiance marked by high hostility. Academic descriptions of areas of extreme tension, in colonial situations, or where degradation occurs, often resort to strong language. When Oscar Lewis writes of the 'high tolerance for psychological pathology of all sorts' in his classic study of a Mexican family in lurid terms (see The Children of Sanchez 1961), no one takes him to task with being 'unencyclopedic'. When Octave Mannoni wrote vividly in his classic Prospero and Caliban: The Psychology of Colonization in 1950 of the weird dynamics by which, in a famous phrasing, Le Nègre, c'est la peur que le Blanc a de lui-même, he was vigorously criticized, by all sides, but no one, for that, thought he was being 'virulently' 'unencyclopedic'. If Weston La Barre, in summing up a lifetime of scholarly pondering on the shamanic roots of civilisation (The Ghost Dance 1970), writes inter alia that Ezekiel is schizophrenic, Isaiah psychotic, 'The Priestly Code is one of the earliest of pious "modernist" ethnography-fakings, completely obtuse to the reality of culture and history', and giving us a picture of a 'people driven hither and thither by the same inner and outer compulsions, with everything that happens depending on the seesaw of Jehovah's favor and wrath as interpreted by the priests, in a crazy alternation of absolute peace and utter affliction', no one thinks this strong interpretative language unworthy of an academic. It follows from the theory he subscribed to, one once in vogue, and descending from Freud. If Abraham Isaac Kook, the first chief Ashkenazi rabbi of Palestine, whose teachings, and those of his son, inspire and inflame the colonists of the West Bank once wrote that, 'The difference between a Jewish soul and the souls of non-Jews ...is greater and deeper than the difference between a human soul and the souls of cattle,' is it to be kept off Wiki's encyclopedia simply because its implications are 'virulent', in that Palestinians, by this rabbinical judgement, turn out to be less than human, and therefore not protected by the severe sanctions of law and religious piety elsewhere acclaimed and preached in Jewish tradition? I could give another 100 instances, but, the point is obvious. High quality academic writing on tense social realities does not exclude strong judgements, of which Shulman's is one. Shulman is not alone: there is a considerable literature on this, and the sobriety of his work is endorsed by academics not known for 'anti-Zionist' leanings. All we do is register these views, when they come from authoritative sources, as this one does. Not to do this is to blind the reader, and make Wiki far less comprehensive than what an encyclopedia is supposed to be. For this and many other reasons, I have restored the quote Nishidani (talk) 11:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
If those are the general findings, then describe the general findings. Don't just quote one vehenment, virulent staement of opinion from one source. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:19, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Does your writing 'Don't just quote one vehement, virulent statement of opinion from one source' mean that you, personally, will endorse my editing in several other descriptions from reliable sources on settler violence? This is what you are asking me to do, and I will be happy to oblige, but only on condition that I have your express support for the material you request, and that in any further challenges, you will back my multiple material.
It is a sign, in my book, of bad faith editing, that one does not fully engage with other editors. I wrote a long justification, and have yet to see any substantial reply from you, other than the repetition of your judgement 'virulent, vehement'. On this last point, you are mischaracterising the style of the statement. It is no such thing, and I will parse the statement, before asking you to desist from cheap caricature of the passage.

'Israel, like any other society, has violent, sociopathic elements. What is unusual about the last four decades in Israel is that many destructive individuals have found a haven, complete with ideological legitimation, within the settlement enterprise. Here, in places like Chavat Maon, Itamar, Tapuach, and Hebron, they have, in effect, unfettered freedom to terrorize the local Palestinian population: to attack, shoot, injure, sometimes kill - all in the name of the alleged sanctity of the land and of the Jews' exclusive right to it.

(a)Israel is normal in having a problem with a sociopathic minority.
(b)What is distinctive in Israel's variation on a universal theme is that, over the Occupation, such destructive people, which all societies harbour, have found a haven in settlements on Palestinian territory.
(c)This enmity finds an ideological justification (in messianic religion, which gives them a charter for expropriation the land because it was sacred to Jews 2000 years ago)
(d)The behaviour one observes in several places is one of freedom to terrorize, attack, shoot, injure and kill, all justified on Biblical rights of exclusive possession.
Nothing virulent in this. It is, rather, objective. Settlers who harass, terrorize shoot at, injure and kill Arabs have often gotten off with the lightest of sentences, if ever charged. (All of this is irrelevant of course, since Shulman is a reliable source)
To anticipate a mass of material Ian Lustick, who holds the Professor, Bess W. Heyman Chair at Pennsylvania University,writing of fundamentalist terrorism on the West Bank, can write:'Taken out of context, both these murderous acts would appear as the deeds of madmen. Indeed in his first reaction to the Hebron mosque massacre, Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin accompanied his expressions of shock and shame, and of condolences to relatives of the victims, by echoing Yitzhak Shamir's characterization of the perpetrator as a "deranged person." But perhaps the most shocking and least well understood aspect of these massacres is that they were not the acts of deranged persons, but of psychologically normal individuals-individuals acting, however; in the context of a fundamentalist belief system so radically different from the liberal-humanitarian ethos shared by most Israelis and Americans that it can transform even the slaughter of defenseless people into a virtuous act. ' He happens to be writing of settlers in the very area Shulman studied. But before I paste in this as well(I myself would prefer just one of many quotes of this kind from academic monographs, but you appear to require more of the same), I would appreciate your replying at length, with valid reasonings on purely Wiki criteria, on the Shulman quote. So far you have simply followed WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Nishidani (talk) 15:29, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Shulman quote 2

I aprpeciate your reply. To try to answer your question, I object to any material being presented as a definitive, comprehensive critique of a highly sensitive issue, when that material is just a single quote from a single person's opinion. Obviously, some criticism of settlers might belong here, if it is presented as representative of one school of thought, not as constituting some mythical academic or societal consensus.--Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
By the way, a noticeable amount of such overall criticism is already in the article. i don't object to that; all i object to is highly opinionated quotes which don't add much to the article, and simply constuitue a single opinion. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
From the tenor of your remarks, I gather you have no knowledge of the academic literature on the settlements. Ian Lustick's work, For the land and the Lord : Jewish fundamentalism in Israel. New York, N.Y. : Council on Foreign Relations, 1988, is available on line. If you are near a library Peter Bouckaert's Centre of the Storm: A Case Study of Human Rights Abuses in Hebron District 2001 Human Rights Watch, New York London, is also indispensable. It is unwise to contribute to articles one lacks background knowledge of. 'Encyclopedias are supposed to be written by the well-informed for those less au courant. It is otiose to edit while failing to inform oneself about the subject, and certainly the encyclopedia quality you appeal to is not honoured if you refuse to read background material while insisting on editing. Everything Shulman recounts can be found amply documented in those two volumes for a start. This is a minimum requirement for editing here, and familiarity will allow an intelligible conversation, hopefully informed by an equal fluency in Wiki criteria, rather than, what you have given till now, a number of personal objections based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT.Nishidani (talk) 16:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
the Shulman quote is biased, and not representative of any objective academic view, and you know it. it protrays settlers as outright criminals. Whether they are is not the issue; the point is an encylcopeida should not provide quote which appear to settle a controversial issue in favor of one side or the other. I could equally well find quotes which depict palestinians as having an unfettered right to "kill and attack," but I would not do that either. Your statements are growing patronizing. i think it's reasonable for me to ask you not to instruct me as to the "requirements for editing here", and to not cast aspersions on my "fluency in Wiki criteria." Please try to address people's concerns, and not issue these condescending statements. Wikipedia is full of amateurs. Sorry you find this so taxing. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 17:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Not taxing: boring, since it is evident all this chitchat posing as feedback is a formality and word has gone out to block the quote, and you have assumed that praetorian function. Still I will persist, because I believe in the integrity of rules, despite all evidence to the contrary. Shulman's book portrays some settlers as criminals, as indeed a good few of them are. Moshe Levinger is a powerful foundational settler, and he is a criminal.[71] To note the criminal aspect is to comply with Wiki requirements for thoroughness of coverage. To elide it, as you and Jayjg consistently have, is to edit, to censor, out what is unpalatable in the record because it looks 'bad' for the settlers. Israelis are generally well-informed of this: I fail to see why the wider world should be denied the same knowledge. To repeat, read up on the subject before editing. Ignorance is not a useful point of departure for writing articles. Secondly please base your remarks on wiki editing procedures, which do not exclude quotations reflecting POV ('bias') but merely insist on superb quality and verifiability. Since you do are clearly not familiar with the academic literature, please don't make silly remarks about 'objective academic views', as if that were all that one could edit. Karl Popper's book on The Open Society and its Enemies (Plato and Hegel) (1944), or Ernest Gellner's on Wittgenstein (1959), or Marshall Sahlins's on How 'Natives' Think, are classics of their kind and are highly motivated by a polemical, but scrupulously analytical intent. No one, within academia, finds this odd. People unfamiliar with academic life have this curious belief that academics are all about 'objectivity'. In persisting to edit this article while labouring under this and other amateurish illusions about what constitutes 'academic' writing (and for wiki the rule is quality of source, and Shulman fits all these requirements), you are damaging the article. My statements are patronizing because I find it offensive to be confronted by editors who refuse to do a minimal amount of serious homework. Which means reading serious books, and not limiting oneself to trawling the internet for newspaper articles, and official government handout sheets, as if that were adequate for composing an article for an encyclopedia. As for amateurs, wiki is full of them, and a good many are embued with a profound knowledge of the subject which honours them, and this encyclopedia. They work their arses off to provide the global readership with penetrating and comprehensive articles of a standard an academic specialist himself can commend. I have jumped in to help several, in fields I know well, and have found their 'amateur' knowledge and equanimity before often difficult material, which may counter their own leanings, consoling. This area of Wiki shows scant trace of quality, and it shames the rest of the encyclopedia, precisely because people are editing according to politics and national interests, and not according to the thick mass of informed academic material available out there, which, when it is harvested, is usually wrapped up and stifled with the usual cunctatorial arts of infinite wikilawyering. Nishidani (talk) 17:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

(Outdenting). Shulman is a professor of Tamil studies. He is not an expert in Israeli settlers, nor in psychology, and certainly not in the psychological makeup of Israeli settlers. Quoting from WP:V - exceptional claims require exceptional sources. The claim that Israeli settlers are sociopaths is an exceptional claim; a professor of Tamil studies will not cut it as an exceptional source. And, by the way, the entirely predictable lining up of Jgui and Tiamut on your side in this does not indicate a "majority of editors" - if nothing else, SM8900 and 6SJ7 have objected. Jayjg (talk) 02:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Objections should be policy-based, and not rooted in whether or not editor finds the material in question to be offensive. 6SJ7 and Steve haven't made any convincing policy-based arguments. Your own, as I pointed out above, while invoking WP:V, ignore that Shluman's life experience and the fact that his work on this subject was peer-reviewed make him a reliable, expert source on the subject. While we should strive to gain consensus, stubborn insistence on an eccentric position, with refusal to consider other viewpoints in good faith, is not justified under Wikipedia's consensus practice. I would submit that your continued refusal to acknowledge Shulman's expert credentials (diligently researched and provided by Nishidani), constitutes just such a refusal. Further, your implication that I and Jgui would predictably support this material's inclusion is unwarranted, and a violation of WP:AGF. I have stuck to discussing the material with regard to policy and guidelines, please do the same. Tiamuttalk 11:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Can you point out where WP:V discusses a person's "life experience", and how "life experience" makes someone an expert in Israeli settler psychology? I fully acknowledge Shulman's expert credentials in the area in which he is an expert, Dravidian languages. However, while we should strive to gain consensus, stubborn insistence on an eccentric position, with refusal to consider other viewpoints in good faith, is not justified under Wikipedia's consensus practice. I would submit that your continued refusal to acknowledge that Shulman has no expert credentials when it comes to the psychology of Israeli settlers, constitutes just such a refusal. Jayjg (talk) 03:34, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi. From what I can tell, you all are beginning to repeat your (counter-)arguments and not making much progress. You might try to see if you all can agree on the criteria for inclusion/exclusion, or you might try to see if there's some middle ground (e.g., to mention Shulman in a qualified manner, or to find a mutually acceptable source who addresses the same question, etc). Alternatively, have you tried submitting this to the sources' noticeboard? Or for an RfC? Thanks. HG | Talk 04:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

G'day HG. I will repeat myself because the thread is long, the objections incomprehensible, and the implications of User:Jayjg's interpretation so manifestly parlous for the encyclopedia that I think the issue requires close examination. To mediate on what looks like an extremely idiosyncratic and rather unheralded interpretation of a well known Wiki rule strikes me as neglectful of common sense. My reasons are as follows:-
User:Jayjg has raised several distinct complaints about the Shulman quote. The other two editors have varied their reasons, Steve, Sm8900 disapproved, approved, and disapproved with metamorphic volatility in the space of one day. His/her objections have not been grounded in Wiki references to guidelines but reflect distaste for the comment. 6SJ7 only thinks WP:Undue has been infringed; Jayjg is trying to adduce several different reasons. It is premature (as was the edit block, since there was no edit-warring I am aware of) to refer to arbitration. I suggest the proper proecedure is to go through the several claims and test them against Wiki guidelines, one by one. User:Jayjg's most serious claim is, first and foremost, WP:RS. Since this is not a difficult issue to resolve, a vast archive of discussion and precedents exist that allows experienced editors and administrators to make a quick and rational call on a simple dispute like WP:RS, I suggest we deal with this, and, once resolved move on to other objections.
The gravamen of User:Jayjg's challenge on RS is that Shulman, as primarily an expert in Dravidian linguistics, cannot be cited on Israeli settlers in the West Bank or their psychology.
Nota bene:The assumption here, if generalized, is as follows. Wikipedia guidelines on Reliable Sources disallow content which has not been written by an academically qualified expert in the specific area it deals with.
In the present instance, Shulman, an expert in Dravidian linguistics, an outstanding Israeli academic, who has a professional interest in Islamic culture, studied comparatively in Indian (Tamils) and Palestine, who has mastered the two relevant languages, Arabic and Hebrew, and spent 4 years of fieldwork, as scholar and peace activist in the Occupied Territories, assisted by a doctoral fellow at Stanford who happens to have, as a settler's son, the benefit of a fundamentalist upbringing in a Hebron yeshiva, and an intimate knowledge of the people in the area Shulman studied, wrote a book on Settler and Palestinian conflict which, submitted to one of the highest quality University Presses in the world, the Chicago University Press, was vetted by peer review by specialists in the area, passed for publication, then reviewed in the New York Review of Books, one of the most prestigious review mags in the world by Avishai Margalit, an internationally reknowned Israeli academic with a long record of study in Israeli-Palestinian issues, who judged it an important and memorable book, and interleaved his glosses with his own material on settler psychology and generational conflict. Shulman's book was nominated subsequently by a senior editor at Slate magazine as one of the best books of 2007. Jayjg says this is immaterial, because in the quoted remark, Shulman, as a Dravidian language expert, has no qualifications that allow him to have an opinion on the 'psychology', not of settlers, but of that small group of militant fundamentalist settlers whose activities he describes in his book. In Jayjg's view, Wiki cannot allow anyone to be cited on this unless they have a qualification in psychology, and Israeli settler sociology.
Now, if this extraordinary claim about the implications of WP:RS made by User:Jayjg is true, then we shall all have to roll up our sleeves and blank virtually every article in the encyclopedia. Starting, I suggest, with the quotation from Mark Twain, often adduced in this area in Wiki, which uses an American humourist as an expert on the demographics and economics of Palestine under Ottoman administration in the 19th century.

'Palestine sits in sackcloth and ashes. Over it broods the spell of a curse that has withered its fields and fettered its energies. Palestine is desolate and unlovely -- Palestine is no more of this workday world. It is sacred to poetry and tradition, it is dreamland."(Chapter 56)[147] "There was hardly a tree or a shrub anywhere. Even the olive and the cactus, those fast friends of a worthless soil, had almost deserted the country". (Chapter 52)[148] "A desolation is here that not even imagination can grace with the pomp of life and action. We reached Tabor safely. We never saw a human being on the whole route". (Chapter 49)[149] "There is not a solitary village throughout its whole extent – not for thirty miles in either direction. ...One may ride ten miles (16 km) hereabouts and not see ten human beings." ...these unpeopled deserts, these rusty mounds of barrenness..."(Chapter 46)[150]'

We shall have to blank all references to Alan Dershowitz external to his biographical page, since he is widely quoted on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but is not technically or professionally qualified on these issues, but in criminal appellate law. We shall have to blanket out Albert Einstein's remarks about the Herut party's similarities with Nazi and Fascist movements, because he was a physicist, and not a specialist in the history of Israeli political parties. We will have to elide virtually all journalistic comment and sources in Wiki unless, article by article, we can prove that the various journalists and source adduced have a specific technical qualification in the academic fields their commentaries on everything from demographics to politics to sociological causes, historical grounds and psychological elements,presume. As I have noted, Jayjg's exceptional attitude to Shulman's material is not accompanied by a rigorous application of the same implicit criterion to many other people cited as Reliable Sources in the article, i.e.(Rabbi Jon-Jay Tilsen, Gershom Gorenberg, Ray Hanania, Moshe Dann Kim Beazley, Nicholas Kristof, Bill Emmott Dore Gold, Tovah Lazaroff.
This is, indeed, a relatively easy call, and should not engender a futile request for vast arbitration mechanisms. It is simply a matter of what constitutes a RS on Wiki, and whether Jayjg's use of that argument is valid or not. If valid, Wikipedia will collapse. I await your input, and that of any other interested editor or administrator. Regards Nishidani (talk) 11:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
The Twain quote is a first-hand eyewitness account of historical conditions. The Shulman quote is just somebody's opinion.
Ok. If we do include the Shulman quote, do I have your permission to add the following (hypothetical, so far) quote about Palestinians? I'm sure I could find some real-life quote which would be quite similar from an israeli.
David S______, an Israeli right-winger, has described Palestinian terrorism in the Israeli cities , in the following way: Palestinians, like any other society, have violent, sociopathic elements. What is unusual about the last four decades among Palestinians is that many destructive individuals have found a haven, complete with ideological legitimation, within the extremnist enterprise. Here, in places like Jerusalem, Tel-Aviv, they have, in effect, unfettered freedom to terrorize the Israeli population: to attack, shoot, injure, sometimes kill - all in the name of the alleged sanctity of the land and of the Palestinians' exclusive right to it.'ref:Avishai Margalit, 'A Moral Witness to the "Intricate Machine",' New York Review of Books
I would not include such a quote. so why are you including this one on an issue of great sensitivity, controversy, and importance to both sides? --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:22, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Dear Steve, I don't think your analogy is a correct one. Shulman is an Israeli, and he is describing members of his own society. If you can find a quote from a Palestinian who has expertise in the field (i.e. wrote a work on Palestinian "terrorism" that was peer-reviewed and met with praise by other experts in the field, and who had members of his family who were Palestinian "terrorists") and you feel it is relevant to an article on Palestinian "terrorism", by all means, make your case for inclusion and I will be happy to back you up. In any case, this is tangential to the discussion here. But I thought I would point out where your analogy fails to be exact. Thanks. Tiamuttalk 14:31, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I don'rt think it is tangential, but I do understand your point, and i appreciate your reply. let's try to keep our comments simple, brief, direct, and to the point, shall we? Just a suggestion (for all of us). thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Steve, Sm8900. I'm asking for a simple technical call. Let's do this in order. Is Shulman a reliable source in Wiki terms, according to you? If not, dissent duly registered, but I hope it will examine policy, and not just express a personal impression. If so, then let us examine other objections, in logical order. Nishidani (talk) 15:11, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
At this point, yes, I think he is basically a valid source. I don't see that as an issue right now. ("reliability" is a separate issue which does not affect one's validity in Wikipedia.)--Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:15, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. I am in no hurry over this. It is an issue right now, because before one can proceed, one must determine if the contentious material fits Wiki criteria for reliable sources. If Shulman is not an RS, then all discussion on other grounds is pointless. Unless we establish this, which Jayjg denies, we cannot even discuss whether it is appropriate to use the statement, undue weight, exceptional claim etc etc., or not. Nishidani (talk) 15:31, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it's very important to distinguish between Jay's objection and Steve's. Jay's amounts to saying that despite the prominence of Shulman's book, its publication by an eminent peer-review university press, and its glowing critical reception (including by one of the most prestigious review publications in the world), the book is not an appropriate source because Shulman had, in Jay's view, inadequate formal scholarly preparation for the subject he chose to write about. This lack-of-formal-educational-credentials-specific-to-the-topic-at-hand line of RS-objection is one Jay regularly invokes with sources he's ideologically opposed to (Noam Chomsky, Israel Shahak, et al), and discards with sources he's ideologically aligned with (Chip Berlet, Bernard Lewis, et al). I'm fairly certain that no one here takes it seriously; the academic stature and pertinence of a particular work is obviously a function of its academic reception and influence, not its author's educational resumé as evaluated by Wikipedians.

Steve's argument is entirely different, and in my view quite compelling. He's saying, as I understand him, that this particular passage adds more heat than light, at least in the context of an encyclopedia article, and constitutes an unnecessary infusion of well-poisoning rhetoric. Steve has a point. To concede this is not to take a shot at Shulman. Swelling moral rhetoric may have a proper place in certain kinds of work – even scholarly work like Shulman's, and prestigious critical reviews like Margalit's – that it doesn't have in an encyclopedia article. Surely we can find a more detailed and substantive passage from Shulman's book to use for this article. Such a passage wouldn't need to be "neutral," of course; it could certainly be about the violence, vandalism, and vigilantism many settlements have come to be known for in their relationships with local Palestinians. But why not look for a passage richer in data than rhetoric?

Incidentally, Steve, though I'm with you in your main point, you are on weak ground when you write that "The Twain quote is a first-hand eyewitness account of historical conditions. The Shulman quote is just somebody's opinion." Both accounts are first-hand and eye-witness. The former is a popular travelogue by a great American humorist on package holiday in the holy land; the latter is a "diary of four years of political activity in Israel and the Palestinian territories" by an Israeli scholar.--G-Dett (talk) 17:31, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

G-Dett, stop violating WP:CIVIL - see also Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles/Evidence#User:G-Dett. Stop following me to Talk: pages in which I am involved in a dispute in order to slag me. Focus on edits, not editors. Jayjg (talk) 03:34, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Focus on edits, not editors. Indeed.--G-Dett (talk) 03:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, focus on edits, not editors. Jayjg (talk) 03:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks indeed,G-Dett. That is commendably lucid, fair and a forceful restatement of some objections raised. I gather then that the WP:RS objection is, in your view as well, wholly unfounded. I hope others chip in on this, for it is a radical, indeed pretextual, misreading of the guideline that I too associate with far too many of User:Jayjg's edits. As for the rest, I will suspend my replies because I think dealing with these objections one by one is the sensible way to proceed. I would however in the meantime appreciate a ref to the appropriate Wiki guidelines for the gist of your objection about 'Swelling moral rhetoric'. Dinner beckons, but thanks and regards Nishidani (talk) 18:49, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Nishidani, you too; focus on edits, not editors. As for Shulman, he's not an "eyewitness" regarding the psychological makeup of settlers; that kind of diagnosis requires clinical study by actual experts in the subject. Jayjg (talk) 03:34, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
The relevant guideline would be, obviously, WP:NPOV. i think that's rather clear, from the text of G-Dett's comment.
By the way, what do you have for dinner? The bones of poorly-worded WP proposals? --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 19:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, if I had to pick a policy, NPOV. But mainly I just think better-selected material from Shulman will both improve the article and satisfy Steve's valid objections. I don't think the paragraph you picked is absolutely and self-evidently inappropriate per any particular policy. I just think there's a good case to be made against it, and that Steve has offered one.--G-Dett (talk) 19:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Just a note before I retire. On NPOV. If I were to clip from my files a remark like: ‘The closures, blockades, and curfews have had a devastating impact on all aspects of Palestinian life. Some 12,000 Palestinian students living in the H2 area of Hebron have been effectively prevented from continuing their education as their schools have been forced to closeunder curfew.’ (Peter Bouckaert, Centre of the Storm: A Case Study of Human Rights Abuses in Hebron District, Human Rights Watch, New York London 2001 p.7) would it be required in Wiki to find a counter perspective from the settlers of the kind:- 'Thousands of settler have been prevented from attending yeshiva because of Palestinian terrorism'? Tongue in cheek of course, but the allusion is to the covert supposition in several posts above that in a Hegelian Herr/Knecht situation, of which colonization is one of the classical modern instances, any Wiki article describing occupier and occupied must parry what is said against the former, by finding ammo of equal quality to aim against the latter. This is a very peculiar construction of neutral point of view. Just a reflection. Regards and Goodnight Nishidani (talk) 21:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure of my overall answer to that yet, but the example which you cited is much more factual-based than the Shulman quote. So that's one thing to think about. have a very good night. Hope Wikipedia thoughts don't disturb your sleep. :-) thanks. see you. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 21:32, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
DearSteve, Sm8900. Well, we can deal with that eventually in our exchanges. I will point out that the facts elicited and presented selectively contitute a theory, a subjective take, and that it is a standard war-cry of one particular party to these disputes that the facts, duly marshalled in sites andfact sheets, correct 'propatganda' and 'lies' from the other side. I am unaware of academic work of quality that is constituted by facts. Facts are like tesserae or bits of a puzzle. On their own they make no sense, and the artisan who makes mosaics, or the maker of puzzles, is someone who constructs a particular pattern out of them. In themselves the painted pieces, or elements of a puzzle can be recombined to make a variety of pictures. Thanks for the augury: I sleep like the blessed, even if I think like the cursed!. All historical and academic work is interpretative. Cheers Nishidani (talk) 08:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't believe this. you really need to stop characterizing the Israeli side in any way. you're saying the Israelis are the ones who ignore facts? Amazing. Fatah claimed there was never a jewish Temple in Jerusalem. Fatah agencies took $1 billion from their own people. Are you not aware of these things? There are numerous other examples. I suggest we not try to find ways to characterize or indict the Israeli side. let's just focus on writing an encyclopedia which is fair and balanced. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:53, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Look I am well aware that all sources, Arab, Western and Israeli whatever need close scrutiny. I am fasmiliar with several governments which invest heavily in monitoring foreign comment and mustering responses via semi-official hand out fact sheets. I have actually done a lengthy study of this in Japan. That Fatah has in its propaganda made absurd claims is obvious. I am not saying, I repeat, that Israelis are exceptional. Israel, via its various mministries, hands out an organizes, like many governments, fact sheets (I recognize the stuff when I see it here) that volunteers and journalists and interviewees customarily quote from. Is there any scandal in saying that? Nations have interests and spin their takes on everything to defend those interests, and Wiki worki on these areas is one of those areas where volunteers get the Israeli perspective over, or militate against counter-claims. As for Israel, I've worked there, enjoyed the place. I am, in this area of Wiki, interested exclusively in seeing that Palestinian realities, and the people in a non-state who don't hang round Wiki editing much, have their views and perspectives adequately heard on a level of parity with the views and perspectives of the power occupying their territory. Fatah took $1 bil from their people? That is 'fact sheet' material, Fine. What has that to do with the price of fish? Need I cite Finkelstein's book on what happens to money paid, ostensibly to the victims of the Holocaust, but ending up in other hands? Come now, balance is what I am all for, and I see very little of it here. One identifiably Palestinian editor, Tiamut, and several dozen Israeli/Jewish editors. If in redressing that balance in numbers, I am seen by you as 'anti-Israeli', prego. And finally, in talking so much about 'encyclopedias' please read up the relevant literature on settlers. Ehud Sprinzak's work is pertinent to this page as well. Factsheets are just that, slective quotes for a POV, not informed by a comprehensive neutral assaying of all that we know on whatever Nishidani (talk) 15:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Much of your post seems very reasonable and helpful. thanks. I understand, based on what you said, that you are not trying at all to paint one side as the "bad" one. I can accept that. re my allegations about Fatah, I believe the $1 billion one is true; however, i am not trying to outmatch allegations here. i was simply trying to point out there is blame on both sides, when it seemed like you might not be accepting that; if you do accept that, fine, and I do appreciate your comments. I don't feel the need to scrutinize every one of your views. However, re the Holocaust survivors, not sure that I agree; I will hear your point, but I won't try to make this another issue, and perhaps it is too sensitive to go into here too much. however, I don't think the two things are analogous, given that one relates to use of public funds by a government agency, while the other relates to disposition of funds meant for private hands. Anyway, there's no reason to argue over this. i think much of your post is very helpful and constructive, and responds directly to the concerns which I was trying to raise, and does so in a fairly constructive way. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Shulman 3

I am sure we can find quotes and writings from all kinds of academics on all kinds of subjects, but we have to be able to differentiate what they say as a matter of political opinion, and what they say as a matter of professional findings. Shulman does not pretend that he has objectively studied the prevalence of a particular psychosis among people in the places he mentions; nor does he define what he means by "unfettered freedom to terrorize the local Palestinian population," and he is in any event clearly overstating the point. I suppose it is interesting that a personality like Shulman's might have such a strong point of view, but this is quickly going to become a quote farm if all sides started competing on what Israeli professors have to say on the matter of settlers. I know of one who would go on record as saying that these people serve an essential defensive function. The issue to me isn't whether Shulman's view is notable - it's that so many people's opinions are notable by the proposed standard, and we simply won't get anywhere if we're going to stick with it. --Leifern (talk) 23:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Then why don't you take exception to the many 'unnotable' judgements mustered in note 36/37 which, comprehensively violate undue weight and create such a conceptual fog of conflicting data, much of it dated, that no average reader can have the foggiest idea of what the argument is about, and that, by its nature, should properly be forked into a separate article on International Law Governing Occupied Territories? Shulman's right to comment on a thing he has studied deeply is denied on grounds that, if applied to the rest of the text, would mean a considerable amount of editing out for the same reasons. This is not consistency of editorial practice. No one will touch the other part because it looks, in its waffly vagaries, 'neutral' (though the intended drift hints that the settlement of occupied land, being legally unclear, means the question is subjective, and no judgement on abusive practices below holds weight in terms of law.)
If the issue is: 'that so many people's opinions are notable by the proposed standard', Shulman's book cannot be dismissed as one of 'so many people's opinions', since he is one of the few academics who has done fieldwork on the issue. There are not many books like it, and his opinions have more weight than those of 'so many people' who haven't worked closely for years with settlers and Palestinians. That argument doesn't hold water.
You write:'we have to be able to differentiate what they say as a matter of political opinion, and what they say as a matter of professional findings.'
This confuses synthetic judgement (as political opinion), with professional findings (presumably the notorious 'facts' Smith speaks of). The academic imagination does not work within a Gradgrindian framework. What Shulman wrote was his conclusion, his summary 'professional finding' which gives his synthetic interpretation of the evidence for settler behaviour in conflict with Palestinians in areas like the South Hebron hills. That he uses the word 'sociopath' does not mean he is making a 'political' judgement. That he lists killing, shooting and harassment as 'unfettered' practices is his finding. Perhaps to clarify, I should clip in a raw report, given in the most neutral language observers can muster, dealing with observed facts, recounting a relatively quiet few days in the area Shulman studies:-
AT-TUWANI UPDATE: January, 2008 SUMMARY: During this month, Israeli settlers in cooperation with the Israeli military often prevented Palestinian shepherds from grazing their flocks, particularly in a valley called Mshaha, located south of the illegal settlement outpost, Havat Maon (Hill 833).(Shulman's Chavat Maon) Israeli settlers consistently harassed the shepherds and called the army to chase the shepherds off the land. The Palestinian shepherds persisted in attempting to graze here because it is one of the few places with sufficient food for the flocks, due to the relative lack of rain this season.
The team continued its regular monitoring of the military escort of children to school in At-Tuwani. The team also observed additional construction in the illegal settlement outpost Havat Maon (Hill 833). VIDEO LINKS: CPT has posted video footage of one incident in which settlers fired on Palestinian shepherds (as Shulman notes), and another when Israeli soldiers 'mooned' shepherds and internationals.
Thursday, 3 January, 2008 After a short school day due to exams, the children were ready to go home about 11:00am, but the soldier escort had not yet arrived. A group of settlers with horses were gathered at the top of the hill where the children and escort must pass. The Palestinian children and the settlers yelled at each other. A few teenage settlers threw stones at the children. An adult settler stopped the teenagers and called them away.
Friday, 11 January 2008 While O’Neill and Gish accompanied a Palestinian shepherd in Mshaha valley, they observed a settler car on the hilltop, watching them and making phone calls. Shortly thereafter, the settlement security guard and an four Israeli soldiers arrived. O’Neill had a short discussion with them about whose land it was and whether the shepherd was allowed to be there. As they were leaving, the soldiers stopped on the ridge above and ‘mooned’ CPTers and the shepherd. (video link and Release: Israeli Soldiers Bare All South Hebron Hills, 19 January, 2008)

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6505926642890909661&hl=en

Saturday 12 January 2008 A CPT delegation arrived in Tuwani. Gish and Ellison gave them a tour. The group ate a wonderful lunch prepared by the director of the local women’s cooperative. An afternoon talk from one of the key nonviolent organizers in the area was delayed because he was detained at a checkpoint for over three hours. He was able to speak with the group in the evening.
CPTers O’Neill and Heinrichs received a call from a Dove saying five settlers were near the Palestinian village of Mfakra. The CPTers followed them toward Mshaha where there were several Palestinian shepherds were grazing their flocks, accompanied by four Doves.
The settlers then went just out of sight, behind some trees at Havat Maon (Hill 833), and fired a series of six shots toward the shepherds. A Dove called the police, who arrived briefly but never got out of their jeep and left immediately. When the police were called a second time, they replied that they “had better things to do.” (video link and Release: Settlers Fire on Palestinian Shepherds in South Hebron Hills, 13 January, 2008)

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5369538579313697940&hl=en

Sunday 13 January 2008 In the afternoon, Ellison, O’Neill, and Heinrichs observed settler men building at a house in the illegal outpost, Havat Maon (Hill 833). Five of these settlers carrying sticks or other objects came out toward where Palestinian shepherds were grazing, but then returned to the house.
Monday 14 January 2008 A Palestinian shepherd told the team that several olive trees nearby had been broken the night before. (Release: Olive trees destroyed in the night 14 January 2008)
Around 10:00 am, Doves accompanied Palestinian shepherds from Tuba grazing their flocks in Mshaha. The security guard from the settlement drove nearby with a video camera. About 11:30am, the Israeli army arrived and told the shepherds they couldn’t graze there. The shepherds moved down the valley, away from the illegal settlement outpost.
About 1:00pm, the army arrived again. Most of the shepherds fled down the valley, and returned home. One remained with his flock a short distance away. Hanson and two Doves joined him for tea on the hillside before he returned home.
Tuesday 15 January, 2008 While accompanying shepherds, Ellison and a Dove observed the settlement security guard looking out from the trees in the illegal outpost Havat Maon (Hill 833). Shortly thereafter, three soldiers arrived and walked down the hill and yelled at the shepherds. The shepherds took their flocks a short distance away, but remained in the area.
Ellison and the Dove spoke with the soldiers. The soldiers said that this was Israeli land and that Palestinians had to leave. Ellison and the Dove showed them a document from the Association for Civil Rights in Israel (ACRI), which outlines court rulings governing Palestinian’s access to agricultural lands, and the Israeli military’s obligation to uphold these rights in the Occupied PalestinianTerritories. The soldiers claimed it was an old document and did not apply. They threatened to arrest the shepherds if they came back. The soldiers claimed that the shepherds had never been to Mshaha before, but only came over the last three days because they felt “brave” because of the presence of internationals. Ellison assured them that Palestinians came to this area every year to graze their flocks.
Wednesday, January 16, 2008 Ellison and a Dove responded to a call from a family who had been threatened by a settler while repairing their contaminated cistern (Release: Cistern contaminated in Humra Valley, 15 January 2008). They reported that earlier a settler vehicle coming from the direction of the nearby illegal settlement outpost Avigail passed by and told the family that he had called the police, who would be coming out to arrest them for working without a permit.
Thursday, January 17, 2008 O’Neill and Heinrichs accompanied Palestinian shepherds from about noon to 3:30pm. The shepherds were grazing near the site of a previously evacuated illegal settlement outpost. From there, the CPTers observed on-going construction at one of the houses in the current site of an illegal settlement outpost, Havat Maon (Hill 833).
Friday, January 18, 2008 In the morning, CPTers, Hanson and Heinrichs accompanied shepherds grazing in Mshaha Valley, near the illegal settlement outpost Havat Maon (Hill 833). They saw the settlement guard on the hilltop, watching the shepherds from his truck. A few minutes later, an army jeep arrived and shepherds fled. Three of the soldiers got out of the jeep and chased the shepherds on foot, but never caught up to them. The shepherds returned home with their flocks.
About 2:30pm, CPTers Hanson and Heinrichs went to accompany a family plowing in Tuwani. Shortly after, an Israeli army jeep arrived and told the family to stop plowing. The settlement guard also arrived, and spoke with the commander.
The Palestinian landowner spoke with the soldiers in Hebrew. Later, he conveyed some of the conversation to CPTers. The commander admitted that he was new to the area. When the landowner mentioned that often new commanders in this area take their orders from the settler security and asked if this commander had done that, the commander emphatically said, “No”. The commander then said that this is ‘his’ land – not the settlers, not the Palestinian’s, but ‘HIS!’ The Palestinian landowner corrected him, saying, in fact this was his land, and he wanted to appeal to the law to decide the matter. Eventually, the commander agreed to call the District Coordinating Officer (DCO) of the Israeli Civil Administration, who decides such matters in the area. Ultimately, the DCO ruled that the family could continue plowing.
Sunday, 20 January 2008 While CPTers O’Neill and Heinrichs accompanied Palestinian shepherds in Mshaha valley, the Israeli army came and asked for identification from O’Neill and one of the Palestinian shepherds. After checking the IDs, the soldiers said that the shepherds could remain where they were so long as they did not go close to the trees (the site of the illegal settlement outpost Havat Maon, Hill 833).
Later, a group of settlers walked up the road to a hilltop nearby and looked down on the shepherds. One of the group was carrying an automatic weapon. The soldiers went to speak with the settlers, who then made their way back to the illegal outpost. The soldiers then positioned their jeep between the outpost and the shepherds in the valley.
Around 1:00pm, the soldiers approached a second time and reversed their original decision, saying that the shepherds had to leave the area. CPTer O’Neill asked them to check again with the District Coordinating Officer (DCO), since earlier they had said shepherds could remain in that area. The soldiers came back and reverted to the original decision, saying that the shepherds were fine where they were. At this point the soldiers left, and the shepherds grazed freely in Mshaha valley.
About 2:00pm, soldiers returned a third time and reversed their decision again, saying the shepherds had to take their sheep and go home. This time they told both the shepherds and CPTers that they were not allowed to ever come back to that area.'
This raw data, collected over several years, when summarized in a 'professional' academic report by a single scholar, aiming at an interpretative analysis of settler-indigenous conflict, will lead to conclusions of the kind 'settlers have unfettered freedom' to harass, shoot, menace, local folk to drive them off land to which they have title, in order to occupy it. They do so because they are raised to believe they have a divine right to take land from the children of Amalek, whose descendents according to Maimonides halakha (598. Wipe out the descendants of Amalek Deut. 25:19) are to be killed as a pious duty in this variety of messianic ideology. They are unfettered because the army assists them frequently, while punishing local folk who protest. It is the sign of a sociopath that one can expropriate land from families who have legal title to it, brandish weapons at them, spit on them, if they resist, and fire shots at them (sometimes ending in deaths which are rarely investigated or brought before the courts), etc. That is not a 'political' judgement, it is one scholarly observer's synthetic judgement, based on his fieldwork in an area where these events occur on a daily basis. Nishidani (talk) 11:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Secondly, 'objectively studied psychosis' is not Shulman's brief ('psychosis' is technically quite distinct from 'sociopathy'). The literature on conflict of this kind (Mannoni's classic study of 1950 onwards, re settler-indigenous conflict and its psychology) is brimful with words like 'sociopath'. Israeli settlement has sociopathic elements, as does the resistance it engenders. It is part of the jargon in the academic literature on the sociology of ghettoized sub-cultures. We have one quote using the word 'unfettered', and you take exception to it on the ground that Shulamn doesn't define it? Have you read the book. Does every synthetic generralisation cited from academic works in Wiki require that each judgemental term within it be glossed?
Shulman is one academic who has studied the artea intensively, and drawn the 'sociopath' interpretation for a certain group (the aggressive minority in the Hebron hills). This is quite in keeping with one school in the sociological of violent movements. If you read Lustick's book, you will find that he would agree thoroughly with Shulman's overall approach, but disagrees on the 'diagnosis'. Lustick says what puzzles him is how these particular settlers can at times engage in the most terroristic of activities while remaining to all appearances 'normal people'. For him, a comparativist on settler movements, the problem is the way 'ideology' can twist otherwise normal people to see their exceptionally violent mode of life as a moral one. Idem with the pieds noirs and the Boers. Margalit analyses the phenomenon in terms of the sociology of generational conflict. Etc etc.Nishidani (talk) 08:29, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Facts, facts, facts. Re your last post in the previous sub-section, there are many facts here. there are two interpretations of each of those facts. Our job here as an enclyopedia is to show that there is more than one interpretation of those facts.
I note that you are very good at repeating the word 'facts' but, whereas I have provided several sources of a few dozen, by citation or reference to authors who may readily be consulted on settler society, your only reply is to talk about your job on the encyclopedia. Could you begin to provide me with other interpretations than those of Shulman, as you insist (rightly) exist. I know of a good many, and have offered indications as to where to find them. How do you reply. More chat about facts and encyclopedias. Encyclopedias, dear Smith, are composed by reading up on sources and gathering relevant data, then writing that material up, not by musing in an armchair about facts and what a wonderful thing it is to participate in writing an encyclopedia. Please do not invite me again to be rude. But your remarks are becoming a refrain void of substance. I know you mean well, if I may condescend, but you have offered absolutely nothing over the past days of substance in rergard to 'other facts' 'other interpretations'. If you have them, provide them, as I will provide mine.Nishidani (talk) 16:29, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I have no further facts to add, nor I will try to seek any. I am seeking only to keep out any slanted material. You are free to add any factual material. please do not add quotes which are overtly slanted towards one side or the other.
If you want a fact, here's one: each side thihnks it is right, and cite provcations by the other side which justify its own conduct. therefore, WP:NPOV remains relevant here.
Indeed it does and it reads:

'As the name suggests, the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints. The neutral point of view policy is often misunderstood. The acronym NPOV does not mean "no points of view". The elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy by simply labeling it "POV". The neutral point of view is a point of view that is neutral, that is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject: it neither endorses nor discourages viewpoints. Debates within topics are described, represented and characterized, writing sympathetically about each side; but they are not engaged in. Background is provided on who believes what and why, and which view is more popular.

You are confusing, as is User:Leifern, by the incantatory use of the appeal to facts, what WP:NPOV requires, that debates, and particularly academic analyses, with specific viewpoints, be an integral part of the article. I can give you several such viewpoints. You dislike them, because as yet you have no counter viewpoints. This is your problem, not mine. Shulman's viewpoint is as stated for one part of the settler phenomenon. As a matter of curiosity before I proceed, I presume you have read Margalit's review. Margalit provides his own 'slant' on second-generation settlers. Is anything in this 'slant' acceptable to you, or must Margalit be excluded because he too, like all writers of academic books, has a 'slant'?
By the way, I am not seeking to mount any defense here of my approach to Wikipedia. I never claimed to be the paragon of all virtues needed. If my approach jhas some flaws as you say, other editors will see your points here and raise their own points as well. that is how Wikipedia functions. Thus within that context, I am free to raise my concerns in various forms. This is being done openly, and anyone is free to raise their own concerns also about the manner of discussion here. As you well know, that's kind of the whole idea here. :-) thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 16:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
YOu approach is flawed by the fact that you show no interest in the topics you edit. As any author knows, when his publisher has his draft edited by someone who, and it is frequent, has no particular knowledge of the subject, all hell breaks loose on the galleys. And, permit me, your presumption to edit material you have no knowledge of, simply on the grounds that, presumably, you have a nose for 'slants', is well, remarkable for its nescient hauteur. We are all free to say what we like, but no one listens if you don't go to the trouble to think about the subject at hand, preferably by familiarizing yourself with it.
Re your posts above, I am not trying to argue for or against the settlers. I am trying to keep this article encyclopedic and balanced. All your posts are well-written, but they cannot address the whole issues themselves. this is a collaborative encyclopedia. Voluminous posts from any one editor, though helpful, are not as decisive as a valid consensus fairly arrived at among several editors. I do appreciate your thoughts and input. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:15, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm all for collaboration, but good faith editing implies respect for hard work in others, a respect that should be paid in kind by making an effort to read up on the subject. No encyclopedia in the history of literature I am familiar with has been composed by people who are not familiar with the substance of the articles they have delegated themselves to compose.
I am not trying to argue for or agains the settlers, either. There are historically three groups, and one the haredi, do not fit the pattern which Shulman discerns in the South Hebron Hills. Shulman, Lustick, Sprinzak, Margalit etc.etc. are not listed here, not noted, so far, and they have all written on settler communities. This page is on settlements, and I am simply asking that if this aspires to be of encyclopedic quality, the sociological, historical, religious, political history of settlements, which has a very substantial literature on it, be covered, and not just hinted at with a few thumbnail gestures towards Amnesty reports. These articles are remarkable for what they exclude. There is almost nothing of academic substance in them, and that is why they fail the encyclopedia test. Nishidani (talk) 16:29, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
These incidents you cite are perfectly acceptable here, provided they come from a reliable source. I'm not defending the things that are alleged here, but I would not characterize them as "most terroristic of activities," and anyone who would use such terms has a very loose grasp on morality. That is reserved for blowing up schoolbuses with kids and sending rockets against civilian targets. It's fine that Shulman is outraged - I might feel the same way in his place - but his outrage is not the stuff that facts are made of. --Leifern (talk) 15:36, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Shulman 4

I gave that material not for quoting (and it is RS) but to clarify the actual realworld 'factual' flow and reality that Shulman studied, which none of the objectors seem to be even vaguely aware of.
I'm still waiting for someone to show why a general statement which conforms to known facts (those available in Peter Bouckaert's book: incidents of purposeful harassment, killing, terrorizing are listed in detail there) and defines those of the settlers who do this as 'sociopaths' is not acceptable because it is not factual, not factual because the word 'sociopath' is not a fact, but an expression of 'outrage' instead of being a standard sociological term for 'deviant' behaviour, and why one word in a synthetic judgement by a field researcher is adduced as proof we are not dealing with 'facts.' To repeat, most wiki article in this area are not factual, they deal with reports from a variety of POV sources, academic or otherwise, giving angles, with some 'factual'evidence which, totalled, are supposed to produce an NPOV article. The 'fact' of the matter is that, so far, I personally discern a reluctance to accept a normal piece of evidence because it doesn't make some settlers look good, just as the wiki article on Arafat's pocketing $1 billion of funds doesn't make the PLO look good. So what, if it is well-sourced, one puts it in.Nishidani (talk) 16:29, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
One convention that has come into play when it comes to this topic - for better or worse, and probably mostly for better - is that historical events are best reflected in ways that focus on very specific aspects of them. For example, who did what, when, and to whom, and under what circumstances; followed by reactions and characterizations - again, by whom and under what circumstances. FWLIW, I am not inclined to make any apologies for people who harrass their neighbors, or threaten them, or heaven forbid kill them. Those who do those things should be investigated, charged, put on trial, and if guilty punished according to the relevant laws. But the information is that much more credible if it is stated as facts and sourced appropriately. --Leifern (talk) 16:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Well I'm all for a NPOV article. What worries me is that, ready with a mass of material, I find the first tidbit blocked, squashed, quashed and contested out of what strikes me as 'fear' for images and implications. It is not for us to apologize, feel sorry for, or protest at what occurs in the world (though those sentiments are natural and necessary in private life). But equally, we should not be squeamish in writing down what occurs, where and when. There are literrally thousands of articles on this aspect of the settler-Palestinian dyad, and now we have a good resourceful book on it written by a superbly accomplished scholar who has dedicated 4 years of his time to working out there in the field. He is opposed to Palestinian terrorism, as he is opposed to Jewish terrorism. What is the reaction? Shulman called a specific group of settlers 'sociopaths'. Another Israeli scholar agreed. Stop it! That is 'slanted' against settlers! No, the proposed edit simply gives us the fact' that a competent authority regards some settler behaviour as sociopathic. Lustick, whom I would also introduce, says it is normal, and caused by ideological indoctrination of a fundamentalist colour; Ehud Sprinzak says of Arabs who fight, kill or riot against settlers this: '‘The West Bank Arabs, who are the targeted community of the fundamentalist violence of Gush Emunim and Kach, have never bothered to understand the settlers’ point of view, their motivation, or the difference between the two movements (haredi settlements vs extremist settlements pd). The main issue for them was, and remains, the occupation.' i.e. Haredi and many other populous groups of settlers are quite different from those with roots in the far-west fundamentalism of Shulman's target group. Arabs in the territories treat all settlers, irrespective of their pietistic quietism, as though they were like the other, more violent kinds, and that this is a mistake. Margalit, drawing on a point standard in the earlier literature, i.e. that Gush Emunim originally had a much broader attitude to Palestinians, and did not think of antagonizing them. It turned 'bad' after them mid-70s, and became highly conflictual, yet still had pious elders who reined in extremists of the Kach/Kahane type. Many in the second generation however has lost all trace of this religious piety, and act more like cowboys, 'barbaric' and 'cynical' than settlers of the Puritan foundations. I could go on, but if Shulman can't get a word in, because of one judgemental word, I imagine that the extensive sociology of variegated movements in settler societies won't be tolerated either. That is why no one in the know reads Wiki. It seems preoccupied with shunting mutually exclusive newspaper article POVs across the tightrope of political correctness. Impressive, but not very factual, and hardly encyclopedic.Nishidani (talk) 19:06, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Assigning clinical terms to people based on non-clinical motives is not NPOV. Citing factual events is. the article about the $1 billion does not assign labels to those involved, or express any sense of moral outrage; it simply reports the factual events. that is what i am seeking. the settlers do not see themselves as sociaopaths; they would say they are responding to provocations from Palestinians,as would any party to any conflict. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 17:14, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Could I prevail on you, please, to at least read a few lines in a dictionary. 'Sociopathic' has many uses, one clinical, and one in the technical literature on minority ghettoized groups. Shulman's viewpoint, again does not have to be NPOV: it is a viewpoint, among others in an article which must be NPOV. This is child's talk wikiwise. I note you are now presuming to know what 'settlers' (ad they are often at loggerheads and not a unified group) would think. I don't.Nishidani (talk) 19:06, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. ok, it is NOT the clinical term which i object to. It is simply the fact that we should not be making value judgments of ANY sort here. We should not call them sociopaths, we should not call them idiots, we should not call them heroes. that is quite simply my entire position on this.
Also, to reply to your note above, I am not questioning any of your facts on this. My position is simply, again, that i see no place for any value judgments here. that is what I feel is meant by WP:NPOV. thanks.
To answer your other point, I agree with you. Wikipedia should certainly include a range of viewpoints on any political issue. the only place I disagree is that I feel there is no reason to quote value judgments of any side. what we should quote is their concerns, their facts, and their beliefs. and we certainly should not quote one side's opinion with no factual content when the object is to describe a specific situation.
By the way, Shulman's quote uses the word "sociopathic" as an epithet, not as a term. So the specific passage does not seem like a learned academic opinion worth quoting here. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 19:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Okay I am still sober, but the effects of that claret are starting to show (my keyboard orthography improves, sure sign of tipsiness). Of course we should not be be making value-judgements. We are here to edit in material that contains 'value judgements' without taking sides either way. Indeed my whole argument here is that technical your rejections are based on 'value-judgements' as editors, which take Shulman, or any other academic authority I might name, to task because in a passage he exercises his right to make a critical judgement, which however remains an analytical judgement whose use or 'veracity' it is for other scholars in the field (Margalit apoproves) to improve reject or correct. You do not appear to understand this simple distinction, confusing my POV, your own, with the right of a competent reliable source to have a POV. All interpretative work, in what the French call the human sciences, has a 'slant', 'interpretation', 'authorial perspective' or POV. Had it not, we would read the yearbook on statistical data fr every country to be informed according to NPOV criteria as you understand them. To write in any language is, by the choice of terms, to display a point of view. We are not calling anyone 'sociopaths', 'diots' or 'terrorists'. We are simply registering what the quality literature calls individuals, groups, or even societies. That I have to explain this to you is distressing. Wiki article-building is chock full of referenced material. I challenge you to indicate to me an article on Israeli-Palestinian affairs which is composed of 'value-neutral articles. So if 'i see no place for any value judgments here', is the emphasis here. Why is this particular article to be, uniquely, shorn of value judgements? I note that all 'facts' are not given as facts but 'according to', which means they are not facts, but points of view, as is Shulman's. Hiccup, g'nightNishidani (talk) 21:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, your posts are tending towards being counter-productive and unhelpful. Saying we should not include value judgments is an extremely simple and truthful statement. you say "we are simply registering what the quality literature calls individuals, groups, or even societies." No, we do not. Nishidani, you are wrong. I do not seek to prolong this discussion with you. please stop addressing me directly. talk to the crowd. stop making comments on me, my sensibilities, my habits, or anything else.
to answer your opoint, there are numerous israeli commentators who call the Palestinian Authority a despotic dictatorship. there are numerous Palestinian commentators who simply call Israel a law-breaking tyrant. there are many commentators who call America tyrannical and corrupt. do we simply put those opinions as they are into articles? no, of course not. thank you. those are my views. I would appreciate it if your next post(s) made absolutely no reference to me individually, whether my knowledgability, my compliance with Wikipedia standards or anything else. I do find your posts rather articulate, and therefore I hope you will hear my requests as to the outlines of future discussion. I think I am being reasonable here. (perhaps that is the claret talking, not you. :-) )thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 21:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
'do we simply put those opinions as they are into articles? no, of course not. thank you.'
Well then hurry over to Abu Nidal, there's a good chap, and edit out this comment:-

'By all accounts, the ANO reflected Abu Nidal's paranoid and possibly psychopathic personality, more of a mercenary group willing to act on behalf of diverse interests, than one guided by political principle.' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Nidal#The_ANO

Just one of may instances. I have a long list.Nishidani (talk) 09:03, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, no imput, but I still remain unconvinced of this particular reading of the NPOV rule as what is the norm in Wikipedia.
You write:'I feel there is no reason to quote value judgments of any side. what we should quote is their concerns, their facts, and their beliefs. and we certainly should not quote one side's opinion with no factual content when the object is to describe a specific situation.'
I recall:
'In 1995 Werner Cohn wrote of Shahak:

Without question, he is the world's most conspicuous Jewish antisemite... Like the Nazis before him, Shahak specialized in defaming the Talmud. In fact, he has made it his life's work to popularize the anti-Talmud ruminations of the 18th century German antisemite, Johann Eisenmenger."[35] Israel Shahak [72]

I.e. Werner Cohn, an academic (sociologist), makes a personal judgement on another person, one which happens to be a 'value judgement'. This is quoted in Wikipedia's article on an Israeli scholar. It happens to be false, but represents a scholar's opinion, his belief if you like, but 'beliefs' contain value-judgements by their very nature.
David Shulman, an academic made a value judgement about a group he has done fieldwork on for 4 years. He is a critic, but also researcher, of Jewish fundamentalist groups in the Southern Hebron Hills. To cite Cohn, a sociologist,'s value-judgement on Shahak and his several books on fundamentalism is valid. To cite Shulhan on a settler group, though he has done 4 years fieldwork on them, is invalid, because he expresses a 'value-judgement'. Jayjg supports the Cohn quote, and erases the Shulman quote. I see this as smearing or erasing the remarks of anyone who comments critically on Jewish religious fundamentalists in the West Bank. What is your take on this Steve, Sm8900 ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nishidani (talk • contribs) 19:46, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Yes, the Shahak article is as good a place as any to take the measure of Jay's seriousness about the interpretation of WP:RS he's putting forth here. Just the other day he added a quote to that article from FrontPageMagazine about how Shahak "was a disturbed mind who made a career out of recycling Nazi propaganda about Jews and Judaism."

According to Jay, you need a PhD in psychology in order to say something general about society's "violent, sociopathic elements," or something specific about "destructive individuals" in the Israeli settlement enterprise – even if the source is a highly acclaimed book put out by University of Chicago Press. But to diagnose a celebrated writer and critic of Israel as having a "disturbed mind," all you need to be is some gasbag interviewed by David Horowitz's online tabloid. "The material seems well and reliably enough sourced," Jay assures us, reaching for another cheese doodle.

And for the claim that Shahak is guilty of "fabricating incidents, 'blaming the victim,' distorting the normative meaning of Jewish texts, and misrepresenting Jewish belief and law," Jay offers us this self-published online essay by someone called "Andrew E. Mathis," who apparently has a PhD, which we know because he calls himself "Andrew E. Mathis, PhD" everywhere he appears on the internet – which is to say mostly in usenet threads [73], letters sections of local newspapers and blogs, and once on Urban Dictionary, where he defined "k0nsl" as "an immense douchebag," adding a helpful example: "I was trying to drive to work, and some k0nsl cut me off." Extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources, as Jay is fond of telling us, and this Mathis k0nsl sure seems to be one.

And bear in mind, this only represents crap from the last week or so.--G-Dett (talk) 21:41, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for your replies, Nishidani, and also G-Dett. Nishidani especially, I appreciate all of your helpful remarks, as well as your thoughts and insight. I would like to take some time to think about the last two comments you wrote, before I offer a reply. You raise some good points. Until i think up a useful reply, I will be willing to step aside to allow others to comment. thanks for all your helpful input. see you. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 22:19, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
G-Dett. Well this order of contradiction is widespread: I have quite a collection. To correct it all and create an intertextual uniformity of neutrality would takie a lifetime given the hghly motivated obstructionism driving some (not Steve, Sm8900) here. I read the Mattis article over a year ago, and it raised, if I recall correctly, two points on Shahak's interpretation of Rabbinical texts, picking on a few hermeneutic cruces out of several hundred pages of Shahak's work, in order then to judge that Shahak was unreliable generally. I do not know of any scholar, except perhaps A.E. Housman, whosed scholarly integrity might survive this kind of trick. The general operative rule seems to be.Pilpul on anything regarding Israel's image to keep it absolutely neat, Raffety's rules when it comes to critics or Palestinian viewpoints. Regards Nishidani (talk) 11:10, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Steve, Sm8900 No hurry at all. Nishidani (talk) 11:10, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
In the meantime, while waiting,Steve, Sm8900. Do you find this example [74] by a sinologist, Simon Leys, with no qualifications in psychiatry, making a psychological judgement on the founder of the Ming Dynasty (Zhu Yuanzhang )odd? Of course, I put it there myself but would be much surprised if other China hands take exception to it.Nishidani (talk) 18:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

It has been pretty conclusively shown that material published by University presses is not uniformly "peer-reviewed". University presses tend to be high-quality publishers, but that does not imply "peer-review". The book itself is described in the New York Times book review as a "diary"; it contains Shulman's impressions, feelings, and thoughts over a period of time. It is not an actual academic study of the settlers, and Shulman's psychological analysis of them is his view as an activist, not as an expert. Jayjg (talk) 22:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Jay, no matter how much OR-spin you keep putting on the passage, it still offers no "psychological analysis" of the settlers. Nor did the material you deleted present Shulman's book as an "academic study," so let's clear away that strawman while we're at it. It was however published by a very prestigious university press, and has received rave reviews. Please see WP:Gaming the system, example 7.--G-Dett (talk) 02:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm sure his personal feelings were expressed well. As for OR, strawmen, and WP:Gaming the system, yes, please stop. And add [WP:TALK]] to that list; use article Talk: pages to discuss article content, not other editors. Jayjg (talk) 05:36, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Jay, don't dodge. The passage offers no "psychological analysis" of the settlers; that was your invention (OR). The material you deleted did not present Shulman's book as an "academic study"; that was your invention (strawman). The book was published by a very prestigious university press, and has received rave reviews; don't raise the bar artificially (GAME). Example 7 of WP:Gaming the system covers your "Attempt[s] to force an untoward interpretation of policy, or impose one's own novel view of "standards to apply" rather than those of the community," and reads:

Example related to WP:RS: "Source X is not sufficiently credible for this article on music - the author doesn't have any peer reviewed papers in a music journal!" More generally, this example shows removal or marginalizing of notable viewpoints (breach of WP:NPOV) on the grounds that the cited sources do not meet the editor's named standard [even though they do meet the communal standard]. Wikipedia:Reliable sources anticipates that reliable sources with differing levels of reliability and provenance may coexist, and that reliable verifiable sources of reference material will often be available from different types of source, not just one or two preferred by a particular editor. Not every notable view on music is documented in a music journal; not every notable view on scientific topics is documented in science journals. Reliability is determined neutrally, using WP:RS and evidence of the community's view. The primary purpose of WP:RS is to clarify and guide communal views on the reliability of different sources, not to support unilateral demands for an unreasonably narrow personal definition of "reliable" as a means to exclude appropriate sources that document notable opposing views.

--G-Dett (talk) 05:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Quoting irrelevant guidelines isn't helpful, please stop. Here's relevant policy: Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require exceptional sources. Jayjg (talk) 06:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
WP:Gaming the system #7 is absolutely relevant, as you know; you're trying to define as "unreliable" a widely hailed book on the settlements published by University of Chicago Press on the grounds that you find the author's resume insufficient; you're engaging, that is, in "removal or marginalizing of notable viewpoints (breach of WP:NPOV) on the grounds that the cited sources do not meet the editor's named standard [even though they do meet the communal standard]." That there are "destructive individuals" in the Israeli settlement enterprise is not an "extraordinary claim," but rather a commonplace. (That Israel Shahak had a "disturbed mind" is an extraordinary claim, as well as a "psychological analysis"; we've seen your sourcing standards for that.)--G-Dett (talk) 06:19, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
WP:Gaming the system is only relevant to your edits, as is abuse of WP:V; you're trying to pass off a diary written by a professor of Dravidian languages as a reliable source for the claim that "violent, sociopathic elements... have found a haven, complete with ideological legitimation, within the settlement enterprise" where they have "unfettered freedom to terrorize the local Palestinian population: to attack, shoot, injure, sometimes kill". exceptional claims require exceptional sources. Jayjg (talk) 06:30, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Jay, you're hand-waving. Shulman's expertise in Dravidian languages is absolutely irrelevant, which is why I've never mentioned it and why you have mentioned it eight or nine times. To try to remove or marginalize "notable viewpoints (breach of WP:NPOV) on the grounds that the cited sources do not meet the editor's named standard [even though they do meet the communal standard]," as you are doing with a major, highly acclaimed university-press publication on the settlements, is a violation of WP:Gaming the system, specifically example #7, as anyone with eyes can see. And anyone with eyes can also see how you've just doctored the quote from Shulman; shame.--G-Dett (talk) 06:52, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Shulman's expertise in Dravidian languages is absolutely relevant because that is where his expertise actually lies, not in Israeli settlers. His diary of his experiences may be well written and interesting, but it is not a reliable source in this context, and continually claiming is it is a violation of WP:V, as anyone with eyes can see. And the fact that I included ellipses in the shortened quotation makes it clear that I was shortening, not "doctoring"; shame. Jayjg (talk) 04:12, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
You took the subject of one sentence ("sociopathic elements") and substituted it for the subject of another sentence ("violent individuals") in order to misrepresent the sentence and trick readers of this page. According to excellent sources – including the University of Chicago Press, the New York Review of Books, and Slate Magazine – Shulman does indeed have relevant expertise in the settlements. You're arguing with those sources by putting forth your own critique of his resumé, complete with the bogus premise that expertise in one area precludes expertise in another; hence the deliberate and ongoing misdirection in your banging on about "Dravidian languages." And as has been demonstrated several times, you're violating WP:GAME (ex.7) by artificially and idiosyncratically raising the bar of reliability in this one instance, in order to rule out the use of a source with whom you have ideological disagreements. We know that Shulman doesn't offer a "psychological analysis," which was your OR invention and another attempt to trick editors; and even if he had, we know that you don't actually believe WP:RS or WP:V requires a source's expertise in psychology to make such judgments, because you edit-warred on Israel Shahak to include a FrontPageMagazine hack's views that Shahak has an "unbalanced mind." So when you invoke that criteria here as if you actually believed in it, we know you're lying. Stop trolling here, Jay, and you'll stand a better chance of being taken seriously. Oh, and though I understand the impulse to emulate better writers than yourself, I'd appreciate it if you stopped lifting from me; if you have a meaningful response, write it in your own words.--G-Dett (talk) 21:47, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
P.S. Where was it "conclusively shown" that material by university presses is not necessarily peer-reviewed?--G-Dett (talk) 02:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Books of poetry are not peer-reviewed. Jayjg (talk) 05:36, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
If this is intended as a general assertion, I promise you it's nonsense. If you have specific knowledge of how the University of Chicago Press functions, do share. But why, may I ask, are you talking about poetry? The New Yorker and the New York Review of Books publish fiction and poetry; does this put into question the reliability of their non-fiction contents?--G-Dett (talk) 06:01, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Books of poetry are peer-reviewed? How about detective novels? University of Chicago Press publishes both. Anyway, if you insist that Shulman's book was peer-reviewed, please share your source; otherwise we'll consign that claim to the dustbin of uncited assertions, and move on. Jayjg (talk) 06:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, fiction and poetry are very often "peer-reviewed" (a fact which incidentally occasions a lot of cynicism about cliques, clubs, and coteries); you're out of your depth here.--G-Dett (talk) 06:23, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Amusing assertion. Now if you insist that Shulman's book was peer-reviewed, please share your source; otherwise we'll also consign that claim to the dustbin of uncited assertions, and move on. Jayjg (talk) 06:30, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Jay, stay within your circle of expertise, and you won't find yourself in embarrassments like this.--G-Dett (talk) 06:52, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
G-Dett, if you insist that Shulman's book was peer-reviewed, please share your source; otherwise we'll also consign that claim to the dustbin of uncited assertions, and move on. Jayjg (talk) 04:12, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
More 'amusing assertions' .
'Dark Hope is a merciless eye-and-heart witness report on the corruption of the Zionist idea in the occupied West Bank. David Shulman, one of Israel’s most prominent scholars, documents passionately his and a small group of his activist friends’ resistance against overwhelming forces of fanaticism and indifference. This is an invaluable testimony to the still-living conscience which brings light to our darkness.' Yaron Ezrahi, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem,Gersten Family Professor of Political Science.Department of Political Science Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
One of the most fascinating and moving accounts of Israeli-Palestinian attempts to help, indeed to save, human beings suffering under the burden of occupation and terror. Anyone who is pained and troubled by what is happening in the Holy Land should read this human document, which indeed offers a certain dark hope.” A. B. Yehoshua
User:Jayjg is simply 'troubled and pained' that the writer in question can be cited to disturb his equanimity, which he confuses with the NPOV guidelines of Wikipedia.Nishidani (talk) 10:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't currently have a response. i'll step aside, to allow others to weigh in here. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 16:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I forgot you were here, Steve, and feel bad whenever I participate in a shitstorm like this in the presence of one of the best-faith Wikipedians I know. I wish Jay would argue his points like a colleague, rather than some crypto-gnomic Cretan oracle. I wish he'd say, "hold on! This quote's pretty inflammatory. Let's keep in mind, while well-received and put out by a prestigious press, this book is written by a non-specialist. Let's find a passage that imparts more light than heat, and then we let's talk about how to balance it." Instead, he selects a phrase ("sociopathic elements"), isolates it from its context (a general statement about how every society has its "violent, sociopathic elements"), substitutes it for a different phrase ("destructive individuals") in a different context (a specific sentence about the ideological legitimation of said destructive individuals in parts of the settler enterprise), elevates it into a "psychological analysis," then tells us this psychological analysis, which is a figment of his OR-magination, requires specialist training, which he then finds lacking when scrutinizing Shulman's resumé, and then makes a personal judgment about this lack, which he claims overrides every objective indication of RS-ness (prestigious press, rave reviews from esteemed sources) – all so that he can say not only does he not accept the passage, but decrees the source by definition illegitimate (Dravidian languages, blah blah blah). He cites WP:V for this triple-somersault of sophistry, but WP:GAME, ex.7 is the apparent Muse and relevant guideline. This is overreaching, this is patronizing, and – to be very frank – this is bullshit. All it succeeds in doing is getting everyone's back up, including mine. Let's collaborate as colleagues, instead of sending another damn article to the mediation queue.--G-Dett (talk) 22:23, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
If you want to collaborate as colleagues, then stop using every talk page comment to discuss editors, rather than edits. Your reasons for not including the quote are as good as any. Jayjg (talk) 04:12, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
well thanks, for your kind comments about me. in truth, I wasn;'t really here too consistently, as i was just a bit busy anyway with other things, and some errands in real life. anyway, i haven't actually read this whole thing too much, so I'll try to take a look. I'm glad if you're found my work here and there to be useful. thanks very much. I'll look around a bit; if I can add anything useful here, I'll try to do so. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 22:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
By the way, I do0 have to say, it does sound like Shulman is a valid source, based on the peer reviews noted right above. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 22:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] questionable phrase "destroyed within hours"

Judging by the citation given, the phrase "but these were destroyed within hours by Palestinians" describing the greenhouses mentioned in the "Dismantlement of settlements" section does not seem to be warranted. The cited article only says that a number of greenhouses were damaged (not structurally) and had important items stolen from them. I would suggest the alternate wording "but some of these were damaged by Palestinian looters". Or perhaps, "many" were "seriously" damaged by looters, but certainly not "destroyed". Somebody please fix this. 75.67.156.76 (talk) 15:54, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] ICJ advisory opinion

I'm a little puzzled as to why this sentence –

The International Court of Justice (ICJ), however, has asserted that all UN Security Council resolutions are legally binding

– has been changed to the following:

In 1971, however, a majority of the then International Court of Justice (ICJ) members asserted in the non-binding Namibia advisory opinion that all UN Security Council resolutions are legally binding.

The summary indicated that the edit "added accuracy," which I suppose it does by specifying in what case this was decided and in what year. But it also adds a redundancy, since an advisory opinion is by definition non-binding. The tautological addition of "non-binding" strikes me as a well-poisoning little smirk, directed at the Court's finding that SC resolutions are binding (a non-binding opinion about what is binding? Hah!). The edit also adds weasel language. "A majority of ICJ members asserted"? What, in a sort of straw poll? How does it work, do each of the ICJ judges (since when are they called "members"?) just sort of stand up and assert, and someone records and tallies their assertions? Come on, guys, this is a 50-page advisory opinion speaking officially for the International Court of Justice. "The ICJ asserted" was fine. "The ICJ found" would be even better, since idiomatically courts usually 'find' rather than 'assert'.--G-Dett (talk) 03:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I changed this sentence:

The International Court of Justice (ICJ), however, has asserted that all UN Security Council resolutions are legally binding in its 1971 Namibia non-binding advisory opinion.

to this one:

In 1971, however, a majority of the then International Court of Justice (ICJ) members asserted in the non-binding Namibia advisory opinion that all UN Security Council resolutions are legally binding.

The justices of the court at the time were not unanimous in their decisions, and the records reflect that. Sir Gerald Fitzmaurice pointed out in his dissenting opinion: "If, under the relevant chapter or article of the Charter, the decision is not binding, Article [69/70] 25 cannot make it so. If the effect of that Article were automatically to make al decisions of the Security Council binding, then the words 'in accordance with the present Charter' would be quite superfluous". The wording reflects the fact that there were dissenting views, even among the then ICJ justices. Jayjg (talk) 05:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I have a problem with this. Focusing on the dissenting opinion, and giving that opinion preeminence over that of the majority, is a classic example of undue weight. Was the dissent even commented on in any third-party reliable sources? *** Crotalus *** 16:33, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Except that we don't "focus on the dissenting opinion", nor do we give "that opinion preeminence over that of the majority". And of course the dissent was commented on in third-party reliable sources - see, for example, footnote 40 in the article. Jayjg (talk) 04:11, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Other

A number of international bodies, including the United Nations Security Council, the International Court of Justice, the European Union, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch and many legal scholars have characterized the settlements as a violation of international law, but Israel, the Anti-Defamation League, and other legal scholars disagree with this assessment.

‘Other' here is ambiguous, and that is why I challenged it. Grammatically, it can refer either to ‘many legal scholars’ or it can refer to the preceding two entities immediately before- Israel and the Anti-Defamation League - as if they too constituted the first two in a series of ‘legal scholars'. Clearly written texts of encyclopedic quality should avoid any such ambiguity. Nishidani (talk) 13:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The parallel wording of the clauses makes it unambiguous, but I'll fix the alleged ambiguity nonetheless. Jayjg (talk) 00:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
That's better, but it's still questionable. Thanks Nishidani (talk) 07:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Further Reading

Just taking a quick look at the Further Reading, the majority of it seems to be incredibly pro-israel, in contrast to a few sources from the BBC and the like. Perhaps if people have some other, more neutral sources we could list them here to add and perhaps organise the further reading section better. I'm going to start looking - cheers. Colourinthemeaning (talk) 10:05, 9 June 2008 (UTC)