Line 194: | Line 194: | ||
::Discourse about the Israeli occupation is covered in the first section, which is an extreme synthesis of the main page linked in that section. To state that the Israeli occupation of the West Bank is one thing, and that discussion itself of it abroad arouses significant controversy another thing, ''unrelated'' to the former, is, frankly, an untenable position. One of the outstanding features of the occupation is the immense effort put on suppressing recognition of it asa an occupation. I've adjusted the text again. As below. I can see no warrant for challenging something whose relevance has been recognized ands stable on this for 1 year and 9 months. |
::Discourse about the Israeli occupation is covered in the first section, which is an extreme synthesis of the main page linked in that section. To state that the Israeli occupation of the West Bank is one thing, and that discussion itself of it abroad arouses significant controversy another thing, ''unrelated'' to the former, is, frankly, an untenable position. One of the outstanding features of the occupation is the immense effort put on suppressing recognition of it asa an occupation. I've adjusted the text again. As below. I can see no warrant for challenging something whose relevance has been recognized ands stable on this for 1 year and 9 months. |
||
::{{tq| Public discussion of the occupation is also contested in certain venues, with some organizations saying that pro-Israeli Jewish students are subject to vilification and harassment on university campuses,[16] while others note that proposed talks on campus concerning Palestinian issues can be rescinded for fears that audiences might not be able to objectively evaluate the material. Attempts have been made to silence several high-profile critics of Israeli policies in the territories,[17] giving rise to anxieties that the topic itself is at risk, and that the political pressures circumscribing research and discussion undermine academic freedom.}}[[User:Nishidani|Nishidani]] ([[User talk:Nishidani|talk]]) 11:29, 11 August 2019 (UTC) |
::{{tq| Public discussion of the occupation is also contested in certain venues, with some organizations saying that pro-Israeli Jewish students are subject to vilification and harassment on university campuses,[16] while others note that proposed talks on campus concerning Palestinian issues can be rescinded for fears that audiences might not be able to objectively evaluate the material. Attempts have been made to silence several high-profile critics of Israeli policies in the territories,[17] giving rise to anxieties that the topic itself is at risk, and that the political pressures circumscribing research and discussion undermine academic freedom.}}[[User:Nishidani|Nishidani]] ([[User talk:Nishidani|talk]]) 11:29, 11 August 2019 (UTC) |
||
::: Saw this on my watchlist, and I agree with Nishidani (how often does that happen? Including the edit summary in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Israeli_occupation_of_the_West_Bank&curid=59076253&diff=910340278&oldid=910333848 diff] - which reminds me of edits Volunteer Marek has been making elsewhere) - full fledged academic books have been written about this - e.g. [https://books.google.co.il/books?id=OIdYDwAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=campus+palestine+antisemitism&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwirwOn4wP3jAhXyBBAIHTauCTgQ6AEILzAB#v=onepage&q=campus%20palestine%20antisemitism&f=false Anti-Zionism on Campus: The University, Free Speech, and BDS] (Indiana University Press) and this deserves a short mention in the lead. They may be merit in condensing the two long sentences to one medium length sentence - but it shouldn't be removed outright. [[User:Icewhiz|Icewhiz]] ([[User talk:Icewhiz|talk]]) 14:12, 12 August 2019 (UTC) |
Revision as of 14:12, 12 August 2019
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Subsection "Settler Violence"
It is no doubt that, throughout the modern history of this land, there has been a surge of violence -- some of which perpetrated against Arabs by Israelis, and some of which perpetrated against Israelis by Arabs. The section entitled "Settler violence," fails to mention the incidents of violence perpetrated against Israelis. For this reason we have added a tag of "Unbalanced". Are there any suggestions on how we can alleviate the problem, and make this section more balanced?Davidbena (talk) 01:42, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
- The references establish that "Settler violence" is a known phenomenon. Is that disputed? Is any information in the section disputed? Is the suggestion that there should be a justification of the violence or an explanation of its origins? Obviously references would be needed, but isn't it obvious that if one group occupies territory claimed by another that the newcomers will have to use more violence than those who formerly occupied the territory? I'm not sure how that can be "balanced". Johnuniq (talk) 02:19, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
- No. No one disputes that there has been violence, but what is missing here is that there is often a catalyst for violence, such as the burning and death of an Arab youth near Jerusalem immediately after the murder of three Jewish Yeshiva students in the so-called West Bank. You see, while violence is never justified, we cannot deny that there is almost always a cause - albeit unjustified. The current section makes it seem like violence against Arabs is only one-sided, with no incidents of violence precipitating Israeli attacks on Arabs. We also have many examples of stone-throwing and Israeli deaths resulting thereby. In short, we need more balance in this section that speaks on violence in the territories.Davidbena (talk) 03:09, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
- Have you thought about what balance really means? Sure, the reason incident A occurred is that B happened a week earlier, but the encyclopedic topic concerns the occupation of a territory. Naturally the displaced people will react angrily and violence will result. That can't be balanced. You might like to add a section to another article which justifies the violence but there cannot be balance in a section about the reliably sourced fact of settler violence—they have to use overwhelming violence to prevent eviction. What text in the section is incorrect or unbalanced? I don't see any claims that a particular incidence of violence occurred where the explanation of an earlier incident is omitted. Johnuniq (talk) 03:22, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
- We all know what "occupation" means, but even so, if you really get down to the "history of occupation," there are those who dispute that there is, in Israel's case, an occupation at all --- such as the idea articulated so well by Avinoam Sharon in his article entitled Why is Israels Presence in the Territories Still Called "Occupation"?. One reason is that there was never a sovereign state to begin with for there to be a true occupation; secondly, those who are accused of being the "occupiers" in 1967 (i.e. Israelis) were themselves called "Palestinians" (Palestinian Jews) prior to 1948, and they had lived in the same territories. So, will you say that Palestinians have occupied Palestinians? Of course not. This history has been obfuscated over the years because of the country's modern, yet old, name: i.e. Israel. References to this name go back centuries and to several millennia. Still, even if you should say that there is an occupation, does it justify violence against innocent and unsuspecting Israelis who choose to live in their ancestral homeland? Of course not. No violence is justified. Balance does not mean having to mention all of the separate incidents of violence, but only to make note of the fact that violence is, or has been, common to both sides. This, my friend, is lacking and without which the message conveyed by the section is lopsided.Davidbena (talk) 03:46, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
- So the balance would be to report that the people living in the territory fifty years ago were not true occupiers, and that the new occupiers are really Palestinians, and that certain events occurred centuries ago? The trick would be to find reliable sources explaining that in a WP:DUE manner. Johnuniq (talk) 04:11, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
- We all know what "occupation" means, but even so, if you really get down to the "history of occupation," there are those who dispute that there is, in Israel's case, an occupation at all --- such as the idea articulated so well by Avinoam Sharon in his article entitled Why is Israels Presence in the Territories Still Called "Occupation"?. One reason is that there was never a sovereign state to begin with for there to be a true occupation; secondly, those who are accused of being the "occupiers" in 1967 (i.e. Israelis) were themselves called "Palestinians" (Palestinian Jews) prior to 1948, and they had lived in the same territories. So, will you say that Palestinians have occupied Palestinians? Of course not. This history has been obfuscated over the years because of the country's modern, yet old, name: i.e. Israel. References to this name go back centuries and to several millennia. Still, even if you should say that there is an occupation, does it justify violence against innocent and unsuspecting Israelis who choose to live in their ancestral homeland? Of course not. No violence is justified. Balance does not mean having to mention all of the separate incidents of violence, but only to make note of the fact that violence is, or has been, common to both sides. This, my friend, is lacking and without which the message conveyed by the section is lopsided.Davidbena (talk) 03:46, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
- Have you thought about what balance really means? Sure, the reason incident A occurred is that B happened a week earlier, but the encyclopedic topic concerns the occupation of a territory. Naturally the displaced people will react angrily and violence will result. That can't be balanced. You might like to add a section to another article which justifies the violence but there cannot be balance in a section about the reliably sourced fact of settler violence—they have to use overwhelming violence to prevent eviction. What text in the section is incorrect or unbalanced? I don't see any claims that a particular incidence of violence occurred where the explanation of an earlier incident is omitted. Johnuniq (talk) 03:22, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
- No. No one disputes that there has been violence, but what is missing here is that there is often a catalyst for violence, such as the burning and death of an Arab youth near Jerusalem immediately after the murder of three Jewish Yeshiva students in the so-called West Bank. You see, while violence is never justified, we cannot deny that there is almost always a cause - albeit unjustified. The current section makes it seem like violence against Arabs is only one-sided, with no incidents of violence precipitating Israeli attacks on Arabs. We also have many examples of stone-throwing and Israeli deaths resulting thereby. In short, we need more balance in this section that speaks on violence in the territories.Davidbena (talk) 03:09, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
David, this article is about the Israeli occupation of the West Bank. Your personal feelings on who the occupiers really are is simply not relevant here. Please focus on what reliable source report about the occupation. Palestinian violence against Israeli settlers may merit some space in here, but it needs to be supported by reliable sources within the context of covering the occupation. nableezy - 04:51, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
- "No personal feelings expressed" should be our guideline, but, as it is, you seem to be against portraying balance here. "Occupation of the West Bank", as shown by the cited JSTOR article, is still a matter of intellectual dispute, and it, too, is based on reliable sources. The first question to be asked here is where some people might feel that there is an "illegitimate occupation," does it justify violence? The second question to be asked here is whether or not settler violence was sparked by Palestinian Arab violence? I will leave others to answer these questions, and to provide reliable sources for the same. Would you agree to submitting a RfC on this one sub-section?Davidbena (talk) 06:32, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
- "Settler violence" is clearly over-weighted in the article in relation to much more widely reported Palestinian terrorism (which is reported in the context of of the occupation). Icewhiz (talk) 13:13, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
- Your personal feelings do not matter. What balance are you asking for?
No, no, and no. That is neither the first or the second question to be asked here. You are again misusing an encyclopedia article to put forward your own political positions. What cited JSTOR article? Icewhiz, your personal feelings likewise do not matter. What content and based on what sources are you wishing to add? Or is this just one more in a long line of totally bogus assertions made with the expectation that nobody will see it for what it actually is? That being nonsense based on nothing? nableezy - 15:10, 21 April 2019 (UTC)The first question to be asked here is where some people might feel that there is an "illegitimate occupation," does it justify violence? The second question to be asked here is whether or not settler violence was sparked by Palestinian Arab violence?
- Your personal feelings do not matter. What balance are you asking for?
David, what sources show any type of undue weight in the settler violence section? Please provide those sources or remove the tag. Those are the two options here, rambling about your rather out there views on what is or is not an occupation and when violence is or is not justified is not one of the available options. At least not without me asking the recently rescinded topic ban be restored. nableezy - 15:13, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
- We're not talking about the sources as they stand, but rather the sources that are missing: namely, Arab violence towards Israelis which may have sparked counter-violence (not that any vigilante-style violence is justified, per se). I am referring to cases such as:
• Death of Yehuda Shoham • Murders of Koby Mandell and Yosef Ishran • Itamar attack • Murder of Shalhevet Pass • Murder of Helena Rapp • 2014 kidnapping and murder of Israeli teenagers • Murder of Eliyahu Asheri • Murder of Hatuel family • Murder of Ofir Rahum • Uri Ansbacher • List of Palestinian suicide attacks • 2017 Halamish stabbing attack • Ari Fuld More
- And the list can go on and on. Usually, violence begets violence, but the section does not say that, nor does it hint on it. It paints Israeli settlers as the sole culprits, which is wrong. Would you like to submit a RfC about the section?Davidbena (talk) 00:24, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
- David, I see no sources in there that connects any of this to either settler violence or the occupation. Do you have any such sources? Your personal feelings on what causes settlers to attack Palestinians is interesting, but not relevant here. nableezy - 00:54, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
- I have seen reports to the effect that revenge was the motivating factor for violence perpetrated against Arabs. See INSS. But let's say that we do not fully know all the reasons for this senseless violence, why does the article only mention settler violence against Arabs, but does not mention Arab violence against Jews who reside in the so-called West Bank? The section is completely unbalanced and points the finger only at one side.Davidbena (talk) 01:15, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
- David, first, thank you for bringing that source. I dont see much in it that is useful for this article however. I dont see what in it attributes any cause of settler violence. There are a couple of sentences on Palestinian motivations for violence being frustration with the Palestinian leadership in ending the occupation, that could be used here. I dont oppose including Palestinian violence that can be attributed to the occupation in this article, but it needs sources that explicitly connect that violence to the occupation. As far as your question as to why we dont include attacks on settlers, well mostly because there havent been any sources brought that connect that topic to this one. Settler violence however is explicitly connected to the occupation by sources. The idea that we need to "balance" settler violence with Palestinian violence is a non-starter, that is not what NPOV means. What we need to do is use what sources discuss in the context of the topic of this article. There are a whole host of articles on Palestinian violence. The article Palestinian political violence does not once discuss violence by Israeli settlers when it discusses violence against Israeli settlers. It does not do that because it does not have sources relating one to the other. We are not here to make settlers, or Palestinians, look good or look bad. We are here to present what the sources say about these topics. This article is specifically about the Israeli occupation of the West Bank. It needs sources specifically relating to that topic for something to be included. nableezy - 01:54, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
- I strongly disagree. The link that I gave to you lends balance, and it shows that sometimes there is violence perpetrated by Arabs against Israelis (such as stabbings and car-ramming attacks) and that when this happens, it leads in most cases to "the killing of the perpetrator ('neutralizing'). This in turn intensifies feelings of despair and desire for revenge among Palestinians." This is very important if we are to accept the fact that violence is almost always a two-way street, where often the innocent and non-involved individuals are the victims.Davidbena (talk) 02:30, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
- David, first, thank you for bringing that source. I dont see much in it that is useful for this article however. I dont see what in it attributes any cause of settler violence. There are a couple of sentences on Palestinian motivations for violence being frustration with the Palestinian leadership in ending the occupation, that could be used here. I dont oppose including Palestinian violence that can be attributed to the occupation in this article, but it needs sources that explicitly connect that violence to the occupation. As far as your question as to why we dont include attacks on settlers, well mostly because there havent been any sources brought that connect that topic to this one. Settler violence however is explicitly connected to the occupation by sources. The idea that we need to "balance" settler violence with Palestinian violence is a non-starter, that is not what NPOV means. What we need to do is use what sources discuss in the context of the topic of this article. There are a whole host of articles on Palestinian violence. The article Palestinian political violence does not once discuss violence by Israeli settlers when it discusses violence against Israeli settlers. It does not do that because it does not have sources relating one to the other. We are not here to make settlers, or Palestinians, look good or look bad. We are here to present what the sources say about these topics. This article is specifically about the Israeli occupation of the West Bank. It needs sources specifically relating to that topic for something to be included. nableezy - 01:54, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
- I have seen reports to the effect that revenge was the motivating factor for violence perpetrated against Arabs. See INSS. But let's say that we do not fully know all the reasons for this senseless violence, why does the article only mention settler violence against Arabs, but does not mention Arab violence against Jews who reside in the so-called West Bank? The section is completely unbalanced and points the finger only at one side.Davidbena (talk) 01:15, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
- The INSS report is extremely thin, a one page policy suggestion by a single author which has
- no mention of settler violence, and therefore that is original research
- It is far too generic to be of use, and is riddled with contradictions or sloppy thinking
the wave of terrorism has also been cyclical: attacks by individuals lead to an Israeli response – in most cases the killing of the perpetrator ("neutralizing").
- ‘Cyclical’ means when there are two ‘actors’ the behaviour of each feeds into the reactions of the other. In context however the report asserts that Palestinian individuals initiate violence which generates an Israeli response, a very exhausted political meme, which asserts not ‘cyclicity’ but a P→I, P→I P→Ia P→I linear pattern. It then adds not a ‘cycle’ but a spiral resulting from the above. The premise is Palestinians initiate violence, Israel responds, and Israel’s response exacerbates the Palestinians who react, causing a spiral. There is a lot of counterfactual evidence historically against this
From 2009 such settler violence escalated rapidly, an uptick that coincided with a dramatic fall in Palestinian terror attacks (Byman and Sachs)
- Not to speak of Nathan Thrall’s more detailed analysis of pattern of violence since the 1920s, which is that Palestinians in the four great periods of opposition to land-grabbing, have first reacted with civic protests, and only resorted to violence when those demonstrations have been suppressed violently.
- In short, we are looking for the best detailed studies on the various phenomena connected to the occupation, and this simply does not come anywhere near to a close empirical analysis of the issue. It's useless.Nishidani (talk) 09:49, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
- David, I see no sources in there that connects any of this to either settler violence or the occupation. Do you have any such sources? Your personal feelings on what causes settlers to attack Palestinians is interesting, but not relevant here. nableezy - 00:54, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
Request for Comment
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
- There is no consensus for inclusion of this material, but many of the objections are focused on 1) the inclusion of the material in the specific section on "Settler violence" (since it is about violence perpetrated by non-settlers) and 2) on the overall vagueness of the proposal, which mentions no specific text or sources. A new proposal that addresses these objections might get a different reaction. --RL0919 (talk) 22:58, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
A question came to the fore whether or not the section "Settler violence" needs to be expanded with a short inclusion mentioning violence perpetrated by Palestinians against Israelis, so as to lend more balance to the section? Davidbena (talk) 21:04, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
- Support inclusion.Davidbena (talk) 21:04, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose - The article is lacking in Palestinian responses to the occupation. Not much on either intifada, not much on post wall. That should be added. But that isnt the suggestion here. The suggestion here is that we must "balance" Israeli settler violence with speculation that the base motivation for it is Palestinian violence that precedes it. That is both factually wrong (price tag attacks for example are taken in response to Israeli actions, not Palestinian ones) and based on a complete misunderstanding of NPOV. We cover the topic, in that section violence by settlers, in a neutral way, meaning encompassing all the significant views found in reliable sources. We dont make some false balance by adding unrelated topics. We do need a section on Palestinian responses, including violent ones. But we do not need to make things up in the settler violence section to serve some false balance that the sources do not support. nableezy - 21:20, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
Oppose inclusion on the grounds that Israeli settlers are separate from Israel and Palestine's macro-scale conflict. Furthermore, as I cannot find any relatively unbiased sources documenting violence against Israeli settlers in general, the inclusion of this section would be a needless violation of WP:UNDUE. Joel.Miles925 (talk) 18:07, 28 April 2019 (UTC)Support per discussion below. Joel.Miles925 (talk) 21:03, 28 April 2019 (UTC)- It is actually quite easy to find sources on terror attacks, molotov cocktails, and stone throwing against settlers. Sources generally use "terror", not "violence".Icewhiz (talk) 18:21, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
- The only results pulled by a search on databases, certain newspapers listed at WP:FENS, and just standard google that I can find for "terror against israeli settlers" is about people in palestine being attacked by settlers. What are you using to get those sources? Joel.Miles925 (talk) 18:29, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
- gScholar terrorism settlements "West Bank" "West+Bank"&btnG=. "stone throwing" "West Bank" settlers "stone+throwing"++"West+Bank"+settlers&btnG=. Icewhiz (talk) 18:43, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
- I don't see anything here that indicates the bulk of the violence is not from the israeli side. My point still stands, as far as these particular links go. Joel.Miles925 (talk) 19:02, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
- gScholar terrorism settlements "West Bank" "West+Bank"&btnG=. "stone throwing" "West Bank" settlers "stone+throwing"++"West+Bank"+settlers&btnG=. Icewhiz (talk) 18:43, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
- The only results pulled by a search on databases, certain newspapers listed at WP:FENS, and just standard google that I can find for "terror against israeli settlers" is about people in palestine being attacked by settlers. What are you using to get those sources? Joel.Miles925 (talk) 18:29, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
- It is actually quite easy to find sources on terror attacks, molotov cocktails, and stone throwing against settlers. Sources generally use "terror", not "violence".Icewhiz (talk) 18:21, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
- This is not about fatalities (Israeli settlers bear machine guns, are protected by omnipresent army units to which is delegated most of the killing, wounding and intimidation), against an unarmed population, over a decade down to 2014, settler violence against West Bankers averaged about 260 incidents per annum, an order of magnitude larger than P on S violence, restricting the word 'violence' to actual physical injury. Most scholarship treats adjunctive things, part of the daily order, like land theft, olive harvest theft etc, also as violent. It is hard to categorize sociologically because the statistics vary greatly according to how the sociologist defines violence here. Nishidani (talk) 19:42, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
- Inclusion of information about Palestinian terror, unless it is against Israeli settlers, is just muddying the water. This section isn't about that, it's about violence by or against the Israeli settlers. As it stands, this section, from my point of view, represents what is happening regarding said settlers. Furthermore, per this UN article, said violence is on the rise. Hence, the section can be considered neutral as-is.
- If you have statistics that give a good reason for inclusion of this section, then by all means send them. I'm willing to change my view here, I just haven't seen anything that gives me reason to yet. Joel.Miles925 (talk) 19:24, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Joel.Miles925: - on the rise, yeah (and getting some RECENTish attention as a result), but rising from close to zero to a bit more than that. I'll throw OCHAOPT (a highly biased source) right back at you. The title has "rise in Israeli fatalities". The body lists 3 Palestinian fatalities - 2 of which were carrying out stabbing attacks when they were killed. The body lists 7 fatalities under "Palestinian attacks on Israeli settlers and other Israeli civilians" (this statistic including all Israeli civilians killed inside the West Bank) stating
"Despite the decline in the number of incidents, fatalities among Israeli settlers and other civilians increased in 2018: seven people were killed in the first ten months of 2018 compared with three in all of 2017. The latest fatal attack took place on 7 October, when a Palestinian man employed in the industrial area of Barkan settlement shot and killed an Israeli man and woman, also injuring another woman."
. Further it suggests a cause and effect relationship:Some of the peaks in settler violence against Palestinians recorded this year occurred within two or three days immediately after the killing of Israeli settlers by Palestinians and were presumably in retaliation."
- so the source you brought yourself - [1] - both shows that Palestinian violence against settlers is greater in magnitude that settler violence against Palestinians and that settler violence follows deadly attacks carried out by Palestinians against settlers.Icewhiz (talk) 19:54, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Joel.Miles925: - on the rise, yeah (and getting some RECENTish attention as a result), but rising from close to zero to a bit more than that. I'll throw OCHAOPT (a highly biased source) right back at you. The title has "rise in Israeli fatalities". The body lists 3 Palestinian fatalities - 2 of which were carrying out stabbing attacks when they were killed. The body lists 7 fatalities under "Palestinian attacks on Israeli settlers and other Israeli civilians" (this statistic including all Israeli civilians killed inside the West Bank) stating
- @Icewhiz: - you do have a point there, however, the graph directly below the quote you pulled lists a total of 403 injuries due to Israeli settlers on the Palestinian side. Furthermore, the article also says that Palestinian attacks are on decline, with 33% fewer in 2018 than 2017. So perhaps a slight mention may be warranted here, but not in the section on settler violence. That is not what this section is about. It would also be nice if you could find another source (whatever you don't consider biased) that supports your POV. I'm starting to understand where you're coming from. Joel.Miles925 (talk) 20:05, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
- OCHAOPT's mission is to assist Palestinian civilians - as such it generally does not cover Israeli civilians by definition (mainly doing so when relevant to reports on Palestinian civilians). The graph beneath is injuries - mainly minor, including tear gas inhalation. That something is "on the rise" is not reason for inclusion (see WP:RECENTISM) - we include per weight and absolute magnitude - as such OCHAOPT clearly shows that the fatality level today is higher for Israeli civilians (from Palestinian attacks) in the West Bank - and that it was much higher in the past in relation to Palestinian fatalities from settler atttacks. Furthermore it asserts that settler attacks are in retaliation to killings of settlers by Palestinians.Icewhiz (talk) 20:20, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
- I cede my stance on this issue. There is too much coverage of the Palestinian violence to not have this section included. The first sources I found simply happened to not cover it, which is why I carried on with that discussion for as long as I did. Joel.Miles925 (talk) 21:02, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
- OCHAOPT's mission is to assist Palestinian civilians - as such it generally does not cover Israeli civilians by definition (mainly doing so when relevant to reports on Palestinian civilians). The graph beneath is injuries - mainly minor, including tear gas inhalation. That something is "on the rise" is not reason for inclusion (see WP:RECENTISM) - we include per weight and absolute magnitude - as such OCHAOPT clearly shows that the fatality level today is higher for Israeli civilians (from Palestinian attacks) in the West Bank - and that it was much higher in the past in relation to Palestinian fatalities from settler atttacks. Furthermore it asserts that settler attacks are in retaliation to killings of settlers by Palestinians.Icewhiz (talk) 20:20, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
- If you have statistics that give a good reason for inclusion of this section, then by all means send them. I'm willing to change my view here, I just haven't seen anything that gives me reason to yet. Joel.Miles925 (talk) 19:24, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
- Then you are not familiar with the OCHA documentation. Secondly you are manaipulating raw figures. The category "Palestinian vs settler violence" is generic. You cite data restricting 'violence' to incidents of physical harm, and then generalize that as covering all violence. That is statistical manipulation. The facts for the last three years are per OCHA
- 2017 105 incidents of settlers' violence against Palestinian property:52 P casualties
- 2018 207 incidents of settlers' violence against Palestinian property:73 P casualties
- 2019 81 incidents of settlers' violence against Palestinian property:34 P casualties.
- Where's the order of magnitude? On the same page you can get their analysis of Israeli civilians. Check the numbers for casualties from IDF actions in the same period. Really, with that amount of high-intensity violence, it is rather remarkable that settlers need to do as much damsge as they do. Nishidani (talk) 20:30, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
- Then you are not familiar with the OCHA documentation. Secondly you are manaipulating raw figures. The category "Palestinian vs settler violence" is generic. You cite data restricting 'violence' to incidents of physical harm, and then generalize that as covering all violence. That is statistical manipulation. The facts for the last three years are per OCHA
- Generally yes, but proposal not specific - malformed RfC. Palestinian terror from the occupied West Bank (at settlers, IDF, and outside of the West Bank) is well covered in sources covering the occupation. However, this RfC is premature in that no concrete text and sources have been put forward.Icewhiz (talk) 18:48, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
- I generally agree we need to cover Palestinian responses to the occupation, including violent ones. I think that however is its own section, not a part of settler violence. nableezy - 21:59, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
- We have a full paragraph on that already, Nab.Nishidani (talk) 12:06, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
- Not really imo. We barely cover either intifada, and it goes beyond armaments or the asymmetry in the warfare. I think a full section on Palestinian responses, non-violent and violent, would be fine to include as its own top level section. There is a bit in there about suicide attacks, but I think we should cover in a chronological manner the different phases that Palestinian resistance or whatever wording somebody wants to use has gone through. nableezy - 18:11, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
- Well, remember a huge effort was made to gut this page on the pretext that it violated wiki length. Now that it's been radically pared down, some of the editors pushing for the crew-cut are suggesting expansion, with robust new sections. I suppose in the I/P area you can have things both ways unilaterally, since the reality is that what's good for the goose isn't good for the gander. One tries to lead a logically coherent life, or editing life. but that approach holds little water, or doesn't wash.Nishidani (talk) 20:07, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
- Some of those who have argued for a reduction in size, have said all along that additional sections/materials should be added for aspects not covered at all by the present article and which are well covered in RSes. Icewhiz (talk) 20:07, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
- Yes of course, some of those who have argued for a reduction in size have meant that for only material that their personal POV makes objectionable. For material that pushes their POV of course they feel otherwise. nableezy - 22:20, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
- Some of those who have argued for a reduction in size, have said all along that additional sections/materials should be added for aspects not covered at all by the present article and which are well covered in RSes. Icewhiz (talk) 20:07, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
- Well, remember a huge effort was made to gut this page on the pretext that it violated wiki length. Now that it's been radically pared down, some of the editors pushing for the crew-cut are suggesting expansion, with robust new sections. I suppose in the I/P area you can have things both ways unilaterally, since the reality is that what's good for the goose isn't good for the gander. One tries to lead a logically coherent life, or editing life. but that approach holds little water, or doesn't wash.Nishidani (talk) 20:07, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
- Not really imo. We barely cover either intifada, and it goes beyond armaments or the asymmetry in the warfare. I think a full section on Palestinian responses, non-violent and violent, would be fine to include as its own top level section. There is a bit in there about suicide attacks, but I think we should cover in a chronological manner the different phases that Palestinian resistance or whatever wording somebody wants to use has gone through. nableezy - 18:11, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose, unless one can get solid non-governmental scholarly sources that provide an overview and preferably statistics specific to violent Palestinian incidents against settlers, and vice versa. That indeed would be important.Nishidani (talk) 19:42, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose, I agree, completely. Activist (talk) 08:04, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
- Support with WP:RSOURCING.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:25, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose the section especially says "Settler violence" if there are sources that state violence against settlers it should not be in that section since Palestinians are not the settlers. It can be in another section and that's to avoid the POV and the SYNTH whispered conclusion which gives legitimacy to settlers violence. I think it would fix the balance issue if there is another section.--SharabSalam (talk) 08:35, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
- Support per the Joel Miles/Icewhiz discussion above and sources therein. Although, this is a general support for inclusion; the devil will be in the details of actual language. Leviv ich 19:54, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose, resisting occupation is legitimate, Huldra (talk) 22:31, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
- This vote should be disregarded per WP:NOTFORUM. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:16, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
- The legal rules for opposing occupation of the West Bank vs occupying the West Bank are different, and should be acknowledged. Besides that, we would of course need proper sourcing, as has been pointed out. (And no, an Israeli Ministry is not a proper source in this case), Huldra (talk) 21:28, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
- This vote should be disregarded per WP:NOTFORUM. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:16, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
- (Summoned by bot) Oppose, in the absence of convincing evidence from the OP or anyone supporting the proposal. That Palestinian responses to settlers should be covered is obvious; but there's nothing here to suggest it be covered additionally in the settler violence section. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:55, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
- Support To the extent that it stays on-topic within the section, i.e. if the sources describe Palestinian violence as a direct response. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:16, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
- weak Support - Generally, we need to show both sides if based on proper WP:RS. But I agree with Icewhiz that this RfC is too vague. It would be helpful, if we had some sources in hand and knew what exactly would be added to create balance so we are not commenting on this WP:POV and WP:DUE issue in a vacuum.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 18:13, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
More NPOV Concerns
Though previous complaints have been shut down due to a lack of evidence, I firmly believe that this article is well-outside the bounds of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, for several reasons.
Firstly, the application of the term "occupation" to the situation is itself controversial. I am not opposed to the article describing it as such, as this is the official, internationally accepted designation, controversial as it may be, however, my issue is that the article gives little acknowledgement to the controversy. While Wikipedia has no obligation to pay heed to obscure or uncommon viewpoints, this viewpoint is more than common enough to justify a section in the article, having been expressed in the mainstream through media such as the Jerusalem Post, international law experts, the Wall Street Journal, the Times of Israel, delegations of global political officials, and and even an Arab talk show. Furthermore, the inclusion of the entire West Bank and Gaza Strip on official, state-sanctioned Israeli maps implies that the Israeli government has not fully accepted the "occupation" title, though this opinion is certainly held by various sects of the government. The ICJ has never officially rejected this argument, and given the amount of support it has seen, it makes little sense to fail to afford it a section on this page.
Furthermore, biased, emotionally-loaded language is used throughout the article. To provide a few examples:
- In the "language" section, while lip service is paid to the fact that there is no clear consensus as to whether the media is mostly in favor of Israeli policy throughout the situation, or mostly against Israeli policy throughout the situation, justification is offered only for the former option. From the first paragraph:
This evidence clearly supports the viewpoint that the media has a pro-Israel slant. Moving on, pro-Israel journalistic organizations are listed, and an argument is referenced claiming that Israeli "as actors within the Zionist movement, not as critical outsiders". While this in itself does not invalidate the evidence, it is unfair for the article to introduce a controversy yet explain only one side on an issue for which there is no consensus; as this paper explains, each side has a valid case."International usage speaks of the West Bank, whereas Israeli usage prefers Judea and Samaria; the IDF "says" or "confirms" while Palestinians "claim"; Israelis are "kidnapped" whereas Palestinians are "arrested"; for Israel, violence refers to occasional events, for Palestinians it is an everyday feature of the occupation; what Palestinians regard as assassinations are "pinpoint preventive operations" for Israel; what some call "colonies" are called "settlements" or "neighbourhoods" by others; what some call "displacement" is for Palestinians "dispossession"; Israel military actions are self-defensive "retaliations" for Palestinian attacks, while the context before the latter is often omitted, lending credence to the idea Israel never initiates violence."
- The section on population transfer claims that Israel's "centre of life" policy is "a revocation constituting a forced population transfer". The source presented is Human Rights Watch, an organization widely believed to hold an anti-Israel bias in its operations, and which is by no means the authority on what does and does not constitute a forced population transfer. While claiming that "Human Rights Watch views the policy as a forced population transfer", or even replacing "Human Rights Watch" with "several organizations" would be appropriate, taking an opinion that clearly favors one side of a conflict from one human rights organization and treating it as factual is far from neutrality. This language would be appropriate if, and only if, some authority (such as the UN) had described the policy as such and there was no legitimate voice against it. This is not the case here at all.
- The night raids section contains completely unsubstantiated information. Specifically, the following quotation heavily relies on information taken out of context, cited in a biased source and not substantiated by any other source, or not even referenced in the given source
The only evidence for laptops and such going missing is a Palestinian NGO (which holds an obvious bias in this conflict, just as an Israeli NGO could not be relied on for anything more than providing the Israeli perspective on some of these issues), which claims that people have testified that valuables have gone missing in Israeli search raids. Samy Cohen, an Egyptian author writing in a book literally titled "Israel's Asymmetric Wars", makes the general claim of vandalism, offering no evidence of it beyond the text in his book, a book written with an apparent agenda. The most ridiculous part is in the claim that "Many personal effects – photos of children or families, watches, medals, football trophies, books, Qur'ans, jewelry – are taken and stored away, and, according to one informant, intelligence officer trainees were allowed to take items of such Palestinian "memorabilia", called "booty," from storerooms." This is heavily misleading; the cited article suggests that this was a one-time occurence and that the material was not actually under anyone's ownership, but had been collected from either arrested or killed Fatah/Hamas members (both of which are recognized as terrorist organizations by most Western governments) and stored in a storehouse. They were not, as the article implies, stolen familial property. This is therefore seemingly original research, combining information from multiple sources and taking much of it out of context, in violation of WP:SYNTH. In any case, considering the sparse reporting on this matter, barring any further substantiation, it does not seem notable enough to be in an article."Laptops and cellphones are often seized, and, if returned, not infrequently damaged. Vandalism is commonplace, with looted objects given to needy soldiers or those on low pay, as in Operation Defensive Shield.[298] Reports of stashes of money that go missing after a search are frequent.[299] Many personal effects – photos of children or families, watches, medals, football trophies, books, Qur'ans, jewelry – are taken and stored away, and, according to one informant, intelligence officer trainees were allowed to take items of such Palestinian "memorabilia", called "booty," from storerooms."
- The section on torture employs an emotionally loaded title. The substance it cites, that "Israeli border police have been witnessed forcing Arabs to sing the Israeli national anthem, slap each other's faces and crawl and bark like dogs", is not actually a form of torture. While forcing people to bark like dogs is an absurd punishment, and that does seem unnecessarily cruel, it is hardly on the level of physical abuse and waterboarding, the implication from a title like "torture". Furthermore, I could not locate this information in the source, nor any other source, casting serious doubt upon its veracity, frequency, and relevancy.
Earlier, this article was nominated for deletion, a bid which was rejected not because the piece was unbiased, but because bias is a fixable issue. However, it is evident that a heavy anti-Israel slant exists in this article, despite the fact that the "Israeli side" of this issue is of unarguable significance. This article fails to sufficiently address that, and, in both tone and content, reads as a criticism of Israeli policy, rather than a neutral description of Israel. In accordance with Wikipedia policy, I will assume that the intent of this article was the latter, not the former. Thus, there are many important issues with the tone, missing information, and unsubstantiated information within this article that must be fixed to reach Wikipedia's high standards.
In the meantime, I propose that this article either be draftified, or that an NPOV header be reinstated, until this article reaches the appropriate standards for neutrality, a core aspect of all Wikipedia articles.
Wikier1010 (talk) 23:52, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
- Well, just to deal with the start of this, you write that the application of the term "occupation" to the situation is itself controversial. And you cite an opinion piece by a US congressman, an Israeli ambassador to Canada, a blog, and Arutz Sheva writing about Twenty-six parliamentarians from around the world on Monday. None of those are reliable for disputing whether or not the West Bank is occupied territory, and we include that Israel does not consider it occupied. However, the vast majority of reliable sources do say that the West Bank is occupied by Israel. That is what counts here. And yes, the International Court of Justice has explicitly rejected Israel's position on the West Bank not being occupied territory. See the Wall case where it goes in to some depth into the legal status of the West Bank and says flat out the Israeli position has no basis in international law (example quotes: The territories situated between the Green Line (see paragraph 72 above) and the former eastern boundary of Palestine under the Mandate were occupied by Israel in 1967 during the armed conflict between Israel and Jordan. Under customary international law, these were therefore occupied territories in which Israel had the status of occupying Power. Subsequent events in these territories, as described in paragraphs 75 to 77 above, have done nothing to alter this situation. All these territories (including East Jerusalem) remain occupied territories and Israel has continued to have the status of occupying Power. And later, In view of the foregoing, the Court considers that the Fourth Geneva Convention is applicable in any occupied territory in the event of an armed conflict arising between two or more High Contracting Parties. Israel and Jordan were parties to that Convention when the 1967 armed conflict broke out. The Court accordingly finds that that Convention is applicable in the Palestinian territories which before the conflict lay to the east of the Green Line and which, during that conflict, were occupied by Israel, there being no need for any enquiry into the precise prior status of those territories.) The argument that HRW is "widely believed to hold an anti-Israel bias in its operations" is likewise based on nothing at all. The material on night raids appears to be reliably sourced. You not liking what a source says does not actually mean anything here. The Egyptian author you seem to have a problem with is actually a French citizen who is a research director one of the most prestigious schools in Europe. The book is published by Springer Publishing. It is a reliable source, despite the author having been born in Cairo. We accept what reliable sources report absent any other reliable source disputing it, and we do not mark a source down because some random person on the internet dislikes his personal background or nationality. And Fatah is "recognized as [a] terrorist organization"? Wow, Im learning new things every day. And notability has literally nothing to do with article content, the argument that something is not notable to be included is based on a misreading of what WP:N is about. Notability is about whether or not a given topic should have an article. It does not, as the policy explicitly says, determine the content of articles, but only whether the topic should have its own article. The material on torture is also likewise reliably sourced. That you dislike that the source calls it torture is not relevant to whether or not we should. The article is not being "draftified" lol, there is literally zero chance of that happening. nableezy - 00:38, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
- Wikier, your grievance is totally unfocused, indicative of a complete unfamiliarity with the topic and with sourcing protocols, and not worth taking seriously. People who actually edit content in here can't spend hours doing tutorials on the obvious for those unfamiliar with the topic and the area's history. If you wish to edit constructively, do some extensive research before making wild claims. As an exception to a rule not to get sucked into silly argufying, I'll just make the following observations.
- There is no controversy about the status of the territories in international law.(a)The article makes clear Israel disagrees. (b) All the popular blah-blah consists in repeating the position of one state, Israel (c) which is covered in several wiki articles. (d) it is a fringe position, internationally and legally, and expansion would violate WP:Due
- As Nableezy noted, your sources for the non-existence of an occupation are hopelessly inadequate (a) an op.ed by Alan D. Clemmons is a real estate lawyer, Mormon missionary and Republican congressman (b) A youtube link to Israeli talking heads, spouting the official POV (c) A Wall Street Journal op.ed by the same Clemmons repeating the same guff in (d) A blog by a certain Josh Socket, an Educational Intern with Hasbara Fellowships Canada, i.e. someone paid to espouse the standard gov.line; (e) 26 unnamed unidentified parliamentarians hosted by Arutz Sheva culled from some of 196 nations all over the world signing a document declaring Israel has sovereignty; (f) A certain Kuwaiti Abdullah al Hadlaq cited by Aish HaTorah.
- Meaning. You haven’t the foggiest notion of what constitutes good sourcing for wikipedia.
- On language, the first para you cite documents a conflict in descriptive terms numerous sources cover. They are a list of facts of dissonant usage, like it or not.
- It’s not Human Rights Watch. HaMoked - B’tselem p.15 (This policy, the ministry contends, is based on the High Court's opinion in 'Awad, which holds that residency in Israel no longer exists where a person has moved his or her “center of life” to a place outside of Israel. p.18)
- Night Raids. Obviously you are totally unfamiliar with the topic It has a high frequency of reportage in Israeli newspapers and the practice was observed as far back as 1948,([2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], it became routine, [8], Confiscations ofPalestinians’ property by Israeli Forces in the West Bank Euro-Med HRM July 2014 etc) I could have added much more (WiFi routers, toasters, televisions, microwave ovens, protective coverings for olive trees, watches, gold chains, earrings, tablet devices etc.( Gideon Levy, Alex Levac,In Some of the Israeli Army's Raids, Leaving Empty-handed Is Not an Option Haaretz 27 August, 2016. I note too that you dropped conveniently the interview in the Guardian (‘Any Palestinian is exposed to monitoring by the Israeli Big Brother’ The Guardian 12 Sep 2014) which mentions storehouses full of pillaged materials from raided homes as ‘booty’.) AT the same time you falsified it by asserting ‘the cited article suggests that this was a one-time occurrence’. It does no such thing.) Since you didn’t google, you focus on the one source cited and conclude ‘In any case, considering the sparse reporting on this matter, barring any further substantiation, it does not seem notable enough to be in an article.’ I.e. you made a contrafactual declaration.
- What torture is is defined by sources, not by what editors think.
- So before complaining, do some elementary background reading on the topic I n reliable sources so that your presentation has the appearance of deserving an answer.Nishidani (talk) 12:55, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
- I completely fail to understand the basis for these criticisms of my sources that support the idea that it is a common viewpoint that there is no occupation. The fact that several high-profile people - pro-Israel as they may be - have written that Israel is not an occupying power implies that this is a position which exists beyond some extremist fringes; it has been espoused by multiple mainstream politicians. The Wall Case you cited, while providing some degree of clarification on the ICJ position, does not specifically dispute the given reasoning, which has legitimate backing based on the relevant international treaties regarding occupation. It in fact concludes that, given that the territory was put under an occupation, the laws of an occupation apply. Israel is disputing the assumptions behind the ruling, not the ruling itself. There has been no ruling to substantiate those assumptions. Because, as you said, the majority consensus does view the situation as an occupation, it is perfectly fair to describe it as such in this article. However, it is not perfectly fair to pretend that the Israeli position does not exist. The Israeli government position on a matter which directly relates to Israeli politics is not an irrelevant or a fringe position, and in the interest of neutrality, simply cannot reasonably be left out of an article like this one.
- As for the Human Rights Watch accusations, they are, indeed, a frequent perception, regardless of how you feel about it. However, while that bias subtracts even more from your usage of them as a source, even without that bias, HRW is still not the authority on what constitutes a forced population transfer. If a body such as the ICJ were to make that ruling and faced no relevant mainstream opposition, then, and only then, can that kind of thing be stated as a fact. Until then, the only fact you can validly include in an article like this is that "Some organizations believe that the policy constitutes forced population transfer".
- I never stated that the Egyptian author was biased due to his place of birth. But the fact that the intent of his book was to criticize Israel by claiming that its military operations have been asymmetric is a legitimate cause for concern. The book does not mention where these details came from, either. I will concede that it does look like the information is stated in a rather direct manner in the book despite the absence of the source of its content. That does not, however, justify the WP:SYNTH in that section, nor the piece of information taken out of context to help further your point (that from The Guardian). Of your three sources that discuss Israeli theft during night raids, the third one is based purely on testimony. A handful of Palestinians saying that a laptop went missing after a raid is an allegation, not proof as in the way you cited it. And while notability itself is not a reason to remove article content, I would say notability combined with citation and original research concerns does, arguably, justify that. However, if you find this piece of information relevant to keep, it should at the very least be presented as an allegation, since it is, as a matter of fact, no more than an allegation. While the WP:SYNTH appears problematic, it would be far less problematic if it stated that "Israeli soldiers have been accused of seizing laptops and cellphones, which, if returned, are frequently damaged, based on various testimonies. According to Sami Cohen of Sciences Po, valuables have been used to assist needy Israeli soldiers". Written this way, it would be merely an expression of fact, rather than a synthesis of sources - many of which created with a specific agenda - that is not substantiated by a large number of sources (for example, using the testimonies of Palestinians as a source is a clear conflict of interest, since occupation-opposing Palestinians stand to benefit from negative coverage of the Israeli policies toward the West Bank). I have no issue with citing Egyptian sources on issues, but I take issue with citing from research from a source with a clear agenda, and in this case, the author was intent on proving that Israeli wartime practices are asymmetric, evidenced not by the Egyptian nationality of the author, but by the title of the book. Reliable sources are acceptable barring a dispute from another reliable source except in cases of conflicts of interest. All of your sources exhibit that.
- Your only current sources to establish that Israeli torturous behavior is ongoing (as your article implies) are two Haaretz journalists and the leader of PCATI (an organization founded to target torture, introducing yet another conflict of interest since they would obviously reject the argument tiat it does not exist) who took the actions of an Israeli officer and derided it as "torture, Israeli-style". Israel, in fact, disputes this, and one opinionated journalist is not an authority. If further sources can be found describing the same behavior as torture, then it can be stated that many sources "have accused Israel of torture, Israel, of course (according to one of your own sources), countering that their methods are not "torture" on the level of a facility like Guantanamo Bay and that it carefully ensures that it will not induce permanent damage on the prisoners. As long as Israel makes this counterclaim, regardless of what some Haaretz journalists think, it's not up to some random person on the internet to decide who is correct.
- Laughing off opinions - especially when the same opinion was expressed multiple times when this article was nominated for deletion - is not exactly showing proper ownership of your article. I'm not the first person to cite NPOV concerns with this article. As your profile makes clear, you are opposed to Israeli policy in the West Bank and support the Palestinian resistance. This itself does not disqualify you from writing an article like this, and I will assume that your intention with this article was to provide a neutral explanation of the Israeli occupation of the West Bank, not to express your opposition to it on Wikipedia. However, given your personal bias, it's hardly unreasonable to think this bias may show up in an article written with neutrality as the intent - and it does. While the consensus of the deletion discussion was to keep this page because relevant pages with NPOV concerns should be fixed, not deleted, there was absolutely not a consensus that Wikipedia's NPOV guideline was met. Draftifying would be an extreme measure, for which I would advocate only if the NPOV concerns are not being addressed. The best thing, however, would be to modify the article in a way that does not silence the Israeli side of this as if it were an irrelevant, extremist, fringe position, considering it is the position of many Wikipedia readers, nor morphs opinion as fact (for example, it is the opinion of a couple of journalists that Israel uses torture, and it is a fact that Israel has been accused of using torture, but it is not an established fact that Israel uses torture). I'm not really sure why these concerns are being ignored, but it is abundantly clear that this article is worthy of serious attention, as well as an NPOV header in the meantime.
- As it appears another user responded while I was writing this response, I will address his points as well. The sources that I cited to claim that the term "occupation" is controversial in its application do prove what I said precisely because they are expressions of the opinions of the Israeli side. Perhaps they are biased towards the Israeli side, but they are therefore good evidence that this opinion is in the mainstream on the Israeli side, and therefore are worthy of a mention on this article. The fact that these have come from parts of the Israeli government itself is even further evidence that this is a relevant position on the matter. The Guardian interview regarding night raids, as I said, does not prove the point you're using it to make. It clearly states that the "booty" was from a storehouse storing items no longer under ownership of any Palestinians (not because they were stolen in search raids, but because they were stored there after their original owner died, meaning there is no evidence that there was really any true owner anymore), and is therefore not confiscation of property, but represents extraneous information meant to further a point by misleading readers. I highly doubt that this is in accordance with Wikipedia's standards. I appreciate your effort to find alternative sources on this matter, which did not appear when I searched the matter on Google (despite your accusation that I made no effort to actually do so). Considering the sources that clearly exist, I am, however, questioning why there were not more citations from media that more definitely established the point. As for the remainder of your response, HRW is the organization that described the policy as forced population transfer. That latter point is what I take issue with, since HRW has no authority to call it such. The policy does exist and that is well-established, and that's not the subject of my dispute. Lastly, torture is not defined by what editors think, but it's also not determined by what random journalists happen to think. Has the UN or some other legitimate international organization accused Israel of torture and not received a dispute from Israel? If not, then the accusation of torture is just that: an accusation. Both users involved in this discussion make clear expressions of a pro-Palestinian slant on their profile pages, and while I am not suggesting that to in any way disqualify you from creating or contributing to pages like these, it does mean that it is quite possible for there to be an unintentional NPOV conflict in articles on a subject like this. That same viewpoint has been expressed before on this talk page, as well as the deletion submission, and, from what I can see, no effort has been put into addressing these. That alone should justify the inclusion of an NPOV header until the issue is addressed.
- Wikier1010 (talk) 14:37, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
- See WP:NOTFORUM. Before making more uninformed assertions about this page, read the main page links on most sections. This is a synthesis of what they contain. E.g. If you state 'torture..is .. not determined by what random journalists happen to think,' it means you haven't read Israel and torture in the occupied territories's 17 sources. Nishidani (talk) 15:00, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
- The article was nominated for deletion because some editors do not want the Israeli occupation covered. The article was kept because Wikipedia is not run on peoples personal feelings, if the sources support an article then guess what we have an article. And yes, the ICJ explicitly rejected the Israeli position that because the West Bank was not a sovereign state when captured by Israel that it is not occupied. They explicitly did so, and said, repeatedly, that the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, remains occupied territory. I quoted where they did. You can continue to say otherwise, but you are simply making a false statement, one that has been proven false. An op-ed by a US Congressman is not a reliable source. As far as "authority", the authority that HRW has is the same as other reliable sources. They report things and absent other equally or more reliable disputing them we accept it as fact. And on Wikipedia, torture is defined by reliable sources. You disliking what they report is not relevant here. As far as SYNTH, you complained that we used one source. Definitionally that is not SYNTH, SYNTH requires merging multiple sources to support a claim that no one of them supports. If the material appears in one single source it is by definition not SYNTH. And no, it is not clear that this article is in need of "serious attention" or a NPOV dispute header. You need actual reliable sources that dispute what is in the article to make a NPOV claim. Your personal opinions simply do not matter. There is not a single reliable source in any of the 20 or so kB that you have written here, and as such your complaints are of little value. Finally, regarding the line but I take issue with citing from research from a source with a clear agenda, and in this case, the author was intent on proving that Israeli wartime practices are asymmetric, evidenced not by the Egyptian nationality of the author, but by the title of the book. Well I suppose that is nice for you, however for Wikipedia your issues are irrelevant. Samy Cohen writing in a book published by Springer is a reliable source, full stop. You thinking that the source has a clear agenda is totally and completely irrelevant here. Our policy on reliable sources and NPOV are what count here, your personal opinions do not. Absent any reliable sources disputing what Cohen wrote then we on Wikipedia are obliged to accept that as fact. You may not dispute a reliable source just because you feel a certain way. If you have any reliable sources that dispute Cohen then bring them. Another 10kB talk page post without a single source however will be just as pointless as the first two. nableezy - 16:55, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
- WP:NPA - that was not the rationale of the nomination. Wikier1010 - while you raise many good points, I suggest you cut down on the WP:WALLOFTEXT and introduce reliable sources. For instance, the Israeli position (or to be accurate - the possible Israeli position as Israel has been quite ambiguous here over the years) of terra nullius is discussed in reliable sources - e.g. Hauswaldt, Christian. "Problems under the EC–Israel Association Agreement: The Export of Goods Produced in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip under the EC–Israel Association Agreement." European Journal of International Law 14.3 (2003): 591-611., book by Schölch, Sabel, Robbie. "The International Court of Justice decision on the separation barrier and the green line." Israel Law Review 38.1-2 (2005): 316-330., and a whole bunch of other sources. While this is definitely a minority view, it merits some mention as well as a discussion on the particularities of what the occupied entity is (while terra nullius is generally not accepted, the termination of the British mandate with the territory in Jordanian hands (subsequently annexed, subsequently annexation revoked in 1988, coupled with a PLO/PA claim along the way) - agreement of "what entity was occupied", particularly prior to 1988, is complex and less well decided).Icewhiz (talk) 17:16, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
- And where pray tell is the personal attack? Regardless, the AFD ended with a Keep if I am not mistaken. Not a "no consensus", but a flat out keep, and obviously so. We already include that Israel disputes that the territory is occupied. You are saying something that we already mention merits mention. Ok? We already mention it. nableezy - 17:20, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
- That was not the deletion rationale. AFAICT - at present we do not mention terra nullius in the article. Nor do we mention the Jordanian renunciation of claims to the territory in 1988. Nor do we discuss the legal particularities (which are debated in the literature) of "what is/was the occupied entity". So no - this is not quite present in the article.Icewhiz (talk) 17:26, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
- It was not the stated rationale. The stated rationale was so absurd that the participants largely rejected it. As far as what we do not mention, add it if you feel it important. But make sure when adding it that you include that it has been rejected by the overwhelming majority of sources and by the ICJ and the ICRC and the UNSC and the UNGA. nableezy - 17:50, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
while terra nullius is generally not accepted, the termination of the British mandate with the territory in Jordanian hands (subsequently annexed, subsequently annexation revoked in 1988, coupled with a PLO/PA claim along the way) - agreement of "what entity was occupied", particularly prior to 1988, is complex and less well decided
- For 'generally not accepted' read the remark in the ICJ opinion that 'no one can seriously argue that those territories were terra nullius, for that is a discredited concept that does not have relevance in the contemporary world.' Israel's High Court of Justice has applied the principles that follow from international law that Israel is a belligerent occupant, since the 1970s. The Jordanian 'renunciation of claims' consisted in 'surrendering those claims to the P.L.O (not as you 'astutely' rephrase it 'coupled with' as if there were no formal transfer). The Israeli government line is not that of the Israeli High Court. These issues have extensive coverage in numerous Wikipedia articles e.g. Israeli-occupied territories,Status of territories occupied by Israel in 1967. So wikier, in citing those inept sources, only showed that he was utterly unfamiliar with the fact that the Supreme Court of Israel has established consistently the contrary, that Gaza and the West Bank are subject to the law governing belligerent occupation.(Yoram Dinstein,The International Law of Belligerent Occupation, p.27. n.75). Finally, large volumes of important information have been, at your request, removed from this article. Including WP:Undue trivial equivocations about their status contradicts the very principle you insisted on.Nishidani (talk) 19:06, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
- It was not the stated rationale. The stated rationale was so absurd that the participants largely rejected it. As far as what we do not mention, add it if you feel it important. But make sure when adding it that you include that it has been rejected by the overwhelming majority of sources and by the ICJ and the ICRC and the UNSC and the UNGA. nableezy - 17:50, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
- That was not the deletion rationale. AFAICT - at present we do not mention terra nullius in the article. Nor do we mention the Jordanian renunciation of claims to the territory in 1988. Nor do we discuss the legal particularities (which are debated in the literature) of "what is/was the occupied entity". So no - this is not quite present in the article.Icewhiz (talk) 17:26, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
- And where pray tell is the personal attack? Regardless, the AFD ended with a Keep if I am not mistaken. Not a "no consensus", but a flat out keep, and obviously so. We already include that Israel disputes that the territory is occupied. You are saying something that we already mention merits mention. Ok? We already mention it. nableezy - 17:20, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
- WP:NPA - that was not the rationale of the nomination. Wikier1010 - while you raise many good points, I suggest you cut down on the WP:WALLOFTEXT and introduce reliable sources. For instance, the Israeli position (or to be accurate - the possible Israeli position as Israel has been quite ambiguous here over the years) of terra nullius is discussed in reliable sources - e.g. Hauswaldt, Christian. "Problems under the EC–Israel Association Agreement: The Export of Goods Produced in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip under the EC–Israel Association Agreement." European Journal of International Law 14.3 (2003): 591-611., book by Schölch, Sabel, Robbie. "The International Court of Justice decision on the separation barrier and the green line." Israel Law Review 38.1-2 (2005): 316-330., and a whole bunch of other sources. While this is definitely a minority view, it merits some mention as well as a discussion on the particularities of what the occupied entity is (while terra nullius is generally not accepted, the termination of the British mandate with the territory in Jordanian hands (subsequently annexed, subsequently annexation revoked in 1988, coupled with a PLO/PA claim along the way) - agreement of "what entity was occupied", particularly prior to 1988, is complex and less well decided).Icewhiz (talk) 17:16, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
- In any case, I've put in a link to refer the reader to a page where info on the status is readily available.Nishidani (talk) 19:19, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
- Wikier, your grievance is totally unfocused, indicative of a complete unfamiliarity with the topic and with sourcing protocols, and not worth taking seriously. People who actually edit content in here can't spend hours doing tutorials on the obvious for those unfamiliar with the topic and the area's history. If you wish to edit constructively, do some extensive research before making wild claims. As an exception to a rule not to get sucked into silly argufying, I'll just make the following observations.
For the record, I am totally fine with having a full section on the status of the West Bank and who says what. It would of course reflect the overwhelming consensus of reliable sources and states and supranational organizations that the West Bank is occupied territory and that Israel's arguments have been rejected wholesale by nearly all competent parties. But Im fine including that if thats what yall really want. Nishidani is right though, we cant both continue adding things while also demanding that the size be reduced. nableezy - 02:39, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
- Certainly one has to keep size in mind. I would trim/replace the "language of the conflict" section.Icewhiz (talk) 02:46, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
- No, definitely not. Bargaining to gut sections that have already seen significant compromise and replace them with tedious matter that is amply covered is out of the question.Nishidani (talk) 07:55, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
- Agree with Nishidani, I see no cause to replace that section at all, and it has already been trimmed. nableezy - 16:16, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Factual Error on International Court of Justice
The following sentence is factually inaccurate: "The International Court of Justice, established by the Rome Statute of 1998 which classified resettlement as a war crime,[192] seconding the reiterated views of other international bodies such as the United Nations Security Council, determined in 2004 that Israeli settlements in the West Bank were established in breach of international law."
Beyond being a terribly constructed sentence -- written perhaps by someone whose first language something other than English, it is incorrect: The author has clearly confused the International Court of Justice with the International Criminal Court. The latter was established by the Rome Statute of 1998, the former is much older, successor to a court first established almost a hundred years ago. The case in question was also "advisory" and did not really "determine" anything if one means by that term that it had substantive legal effect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sychonic (talk • contribs) 22:47, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
- Youre correct on the founding of the ICJ, Ill fix that. The rest of the comment is a bit off. The court did "determine" that the settlement program violates international law and advised the UN General Assembly of that. nableezy - 07:39, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Under Impact on Education the following needs to be entered
Yumna Patel, Palestinian universities fight back against Israel forcing international academics out of the country Mondoweiss 11 July 2019
"Campus"
This discussion is copied from my user talk:
'on campus' means in any university campus, as per standard usage. As to what part of the text it summarized, it summarized the main article at the top of the first section [9], which perhaps needs to be tweaked to mention, what was originally in the text until shifted to the main art5icle, that talking about Palestinian issues on campus is controversial. I'd appreciate it if you considered reverting.- Thanks Nishidani (talk) 16:37, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Nishidani: "campus" can actually mean any number of things. A company's headquarters or production site can be referred to as a "campus". Grounds of religious institutions are sometimes described as a "campus". At the very least this is very bad writing. If it's a university campus then WHICH university is being referred to? Some American university? Some Israeli university? Palestinian? British? Fijian? And if it's, say, American university, again, WHICH one? University of Alabama? Harvard? Appalachian West-Central Community College? The sentence is just confusing in there.
- And it doesn't actually summarize that section. There isn't anything in that section about education or campuses.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:42, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- Contextually there was no ambiguity. The text was written based on English usage, not North American usage. In English usage campus overwhelmingly refers to ‘The grounds and buildings of a university or college,’ a sense widely shared and clarified by context in NAmerica. See Campus Watch, and Campus.
- Your second point was correct. Could I suggest that in a page subject to edit-warring where gutting the article is a priority for some, any concerns be set forth on the talk page. It took just a minute to readjust the section to include that missing matter, that had been transferred to the main sister article in scaling back the length of the page, so that the lead phrasing you removed reflected material further down the page. Thanks Nishidani (talk) 06:56, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
The original text was badly written and just kind of didn't make any sense. I'm not so sure the present text is any better. Currently it says:
The domain of public discussion is also subject to debate, with some organizations saying that pro-Israeli Jewish students are subject to vilification and harassment on university campuses,[16] while others note that proposed talks on campus concerning Palestinian issues can be rescinded for fears that audiences might not be able to objectively evaluate the material. Attempts have been made to silence several high-profile critics of Israeli policies in the territories,[17] giving rise to anxieties that the topic itself is at risk, and that the political pressures circumscribing research and discussion undermine academic freedom.[
Here is the thing. The above paragraph is actually NOT abut "Israeli occupation of the West Bank". It's about the discourse about the Israeli occupation of the West Bank. Now, obviously, the conversation about topic X, is relevant to topic X. But this is being given way WP:UNDUE prominence in the lede, especially since until recently this was hardly covered in the main body of the article. Even now it's a very minor part of it. This seems more like trying to include an airing of grievances way up top where every reader will see it, rather than actually writing an encyclopedia article on the topic.
Removing it again.Volunteer Marek (talk) 10:13, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
- Discourse about the Israeli occupation is covered in the first section, which is an extreme synthesis of the main page linked in that section. To state that the Israeli occupation of the West Bank is one thing, and that discussion itself of it abroad arouses significant controversy another thing, unrelated to the former, is, frankly, an untenable position. One of the outstanding features of the occupation is the immense effort put on suppressing recognition of it asa an occupation. I've adjusted the text again. As below. I can see no warrant for challenging something whose relevance has been recognized ands stable on this for 1 year and 9 months.
Public discussion of the occupation is also contested in certain venues, with some organizations saying that pro-Israeli Jewish students are subject to vilification and harassment on university campuses,[16] while others note that proposed talks on campus concerning Palestinian issues can be rescinded for fears that audiences might not be able to objectively evaluate the material. Attempts have been made to silence several high-profile critics of Israeli policies in the territories,[17] giving rise to anxieties that the topic itself is at risk, and that the political pressures circumscribing research and discussion undermine academic freedom.
Nishidani (talk) 11:29, 11 August 2019 (UTC)- Saw this on my watchlist, and I agree with Nishidani (how often does that happen? Including the edit summary in diff - which reminds me of edits Volunteer Marek has been making elsewhere) - full fledged academic books have been written about this - e.g. Anti-Zionism on Campus: The University, Free Speech, and BDS (Indiana University Press) and this deserves a short mention in the lead. They may be merit in condensing the two long sentences to one medium length sentence - but it shouldn't be removed outright. Icewhiz (talk) 14:12, 12 August 2019 (UTC)