Lembit Staan (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 194: | Line 194: | ||
:I think that reliable sources usually mean the settlements in occupied territory when they say "Israeli settlement". [[WP:TITLE]] guides that in that case the title of the article should be the term used in the sources. --[[User:Dailycare|Dailycare]] ([[User talk:Dailycare|talk]]) 10:09, 23 September 2012 (UTC) |
:I think that reliable sources usually mean the settlements in occupied territory when they say "Israeli settlement". [[WP:TITLE]] guides that in that case the title of the article should be the term used in the sources. --[[User:Dailycare|Dailycare]] ([[User talk:Dailycare|talk]]) 10:09, 23 September 2012 (UTC) |
||
::American reliebale sources write "president" and mean "Obama", but we don't put article "president" under title "Obama". The correct neutral title trumps all other conventions IMO. [[User:Staszek Lem|Staszek Lem]] ([[User talk:Staszek Lem|talk]]) 16:17, 24 September 2012 (UTC) |
::American reliebale sources write "president" and mean "Obama", but we don't put article "president" under title "Obama". The correct neutral title trumps all other conventions IMO. [[User:Staszek Lem|Staszek Lem]] ([[User talk:Staszek Lem|talk]]) 16:17, 24 September 2012 (UTC) |
||
::: Many English-language sources are published outside of the US. We're also entitled to use our common sense. --[[User:Dailycare|Dailycare]] ([[User talk:Dailycare|talk]]) 19:47, 24 September 2012 (UTC) |
Revision as of 19:47, 24 September 2012
![]() | This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Lead
Hello. I'm not in the mood to read through all the discussions above, but I think that the stance of the international community, which is clear enough, needs shortening and the stance of Israel, which is less clear, needs expanding in the lead. As far as the (il)legality of settlements is concerned, it is, to my knowledge, ‘only’ a question of the 4th Geneva Convention (transfer of population). In addition to that, the settlements which are illegal or unauthorized even by Israeli standards, the so called “outposts”, have to be treated more adequately. And frankly, I don't think that the “The Clinton Parameters” should be mentioned in the lead at all. And last but not least, the display of pictures of settlements (e.g. “Ariel, home to the Ariel University Center of Samaria”) even ahead of the map is imo most unsatisfactory. Im going to start working on changing it. And by the way, I also think that the first sentence raises the What-is-Jewish and Who-is-a-Jew Question where it is not needed or wanted. Cheers, Ajnem (talk) 12:13, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
- Hi, when you do get into the mood, I recommend you familiarize yourself with at least the "Jewish civilian communities" thread, above. Concerning expanding and shortening the various viewpoints, the weight given to viewpoints should be in rough relation to the prevalence of the viewpoints. For example in 2009 the UNGA passed a resolution (Res. 64/93) denouncing the settlements as illegal (vote: for 166, against 6, 3 abstentions). That gives a rough handle on the relative weight of these two viewpoints. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 19:51, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
- You mistaken please read WP:WEIGHT--Shrike (talk) 20:03, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
- Nope, DC is correct, the policy is clear: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint.
- Neutrality in Wikipedia terms does not mean giving equal weight to extreme minority and overwhelming majority opinions, it means representing each according to the prominence of each viewpoint as DC has said. Dlv999 (talk) 20:33, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
- Hello. Always glad to initiate a sensible discussion. Incidently, I agree with all said above in this section. As far as my mood is concerned, it did take me through the “‘Jewish civilian communities’ thread”. And those who mention the fact that every Jewish Israeli living in one of the Israeli settlements is not considered a Jew by (all) Jewish denominations imo have a point. “Jew” as defined by the law of return and “Jew” defined by Orthodox, Conservative and even Reform Judaism are two different things. And are there persons who do not hold Israeli citizenship and/or are not Jewish living in the settlements, including in those called “neighborhoods” in East Jerusalem? Chances are that there are, at least in the latter. And I don't mean foreign nationals working in the West Bank. In addition to it, there is always the question of what makes what Jewish. Is a house or a store or a bank owned by Jews a Jewish house, store or bank? In my part of the world, only those who are not exactly best friends of the Jewish tribe think so. And what is a “community”? So many questions and more raised in the single word “Jewish” in connection with community/settlement. Not a good start for an article. I'll try to think of something. The same goes for the adequate distribution of weight of the opinion of Israel's some 6 million Jews plus a few millions of Diaspora Jews, not to mention evangelical Christians who are the most fervent Greater Israel fans these days, probably outnumbering their Jewish friends by quite a few millions – in short Dlv999's “extreme minority” – and the rest of the world, taking into account that it is the 6-million-minority that holds not only all the aces but the whole deck of cards. And by the way, I take Dlv999 revert of my first round of cleaning up as a joke – not a good joke, but a joke all the same. Cheers, Ajnem (talk) 11:04, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
- There is a natural tendency I think to give more weight (in terms of real estate in the lead) to the Israeli side because it is more complicated but it doesn't seem to be the approach used by reliable sources when they are trying to summarize. Some examples are available at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Israel_Palestine_Collaboration/Current_Article_Issues/Archive._Legality_of_Israeli_settlements#Compilation_of_sources. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:16, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
- Perhaps you could explain why you think that a map of the West Bank is more appropriate than a photographic representation of the Settlements (which is the topic of the article) at the head of the article (bearing in mind that the first sentences of the lead make it clear that the settlements are not found only in the West Bank). Dlv999 (talk) 11:21, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
- First @Sean.hoyland: Wait and see. I'll do the editing and then you can comment, or make changes. As it is now, listing heaven knows how many international bodies who consider the settlements illegal makes their position weaker, not stronger. “The international community considers the settlements in occupied territory to be illegal” is as strong as one can make it, there is no higher or more numerous body than the international community. Now there are two paragraphs pro illegality vs one hidden sentence in the “The Clinton Parameters” paragraph mentioning the Israeli stance, so I don't understand what you mean by “give more weight (in terms of real estate in the lead) to the Israeli side”. Second @Dlv999: the pictures of the settlements in the version before my changes you reverted back to are pure propaganda, put there any odd way including before the map for POV reasons. 5 out of the 11 settlement pictures, not including the pictures I added which you didn't remove, don't show existing settlements but evacuated settlements, including violent scenes of evacuation, with legends like “Gush Katif was a block of 16 Israeli settlements in the southern Gaza Strip. Its 8,000 residents were forced to leave and had their homes demolished in August 2005 as part of Israel's unilateral disengagement plan” or “Resident of Neve Dekalim forcibly removed from his home” (my emphasis). The very first picture has the legend “A neighbourhood in Ariel, home to the Ariel University Center of Samaria” (my emphasis) which is right out of the Yesha Council brochure. I thought your revert was a prank, I may have been mistaken. Ajnem (talk) 13:13, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
- You haven't addressed the point I raised. Why do you feel that it is appropriate to put a map of the West Bank at the head of the article, rather than photographic depictions of settlements, which is the topic of the article. Especially given that the first sentences in the lead make clear that settlements are not only found in the West Bank. Regarding your proposed changes to the lead of giving more weight minority position wrt legality, my reading of the discussion is that consensus is largely against your proposal as it would be contrary to wikipedia neutrality policies. In light of this, perhaps you would be better off posting your proposed edit to the talk page for discussion before amending the article. Dlv999 (talk) 13:34, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
- First @Sean.hoyland: Wait and see. I'll do the editing and then you can comment, or make changes. As it is now, listing heaven knows how many international bodies who consider the settlements illegal makes their position weaker, not stronger. “The international community considers the settlements in occupied territory to be illegal” is as strong as one can make it, there is no higher or more numerous body than the international community. Now there are two paragraphs pro illegality vs one hidden sentence in the “The Clinton Parameters” paragraph mentioning the Israeli stance, so I don't understand what you mean by “give more weight (in terms of real estate in the lead) to the Israeli side”. Second @Dlv999: the pictures of the settlements in the version before my changes you reverted back to are pure propaganda, put there any odd way including before the map for POV reasons. 5 out of the 11 settlement pictures, not including the pictures I added which you didn't remove, don't show existing settlements but evacuated settlements, including violent scenes of evacuation, with legends like “Gush Katif was a block of 16 Israeli settlements in the southern Gaza Strip. Its 8,000 residents were forced to leave and had their homes demolished in August 2005 as part of Israel's unilateral disengagement plan” or “Resident of Neve Dekalim forcibly removed from his home” (my emphasis). The very first picture has the legend “A neighbourhood in Ariel, home to the Ariel University Center of Samaria” (my emphasis) which is right out of the Yesha Council brochure. I thought your revert was a prank, I may have been mistaken. Ajnem (talk) 13:13, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
- Hello. Always glad to initiate a sensible discussion. Incidently, I agree with all said above in this section. As far as my mood is concerned, it did take me through the “‘Jewish civilian communities’ thread”. And those who mention the fact that every Jewish Israeli living in one of the Israeli settlements is not considered a Jew by (all) Jewish denominations imo have a point. “Jew” as defined by the law of return and “Jew” defined by Orthodox, Conservative and even Reform Judaism are two different things. And are there persons who do not hold Israeli citizenship and/or are not Jewish living in the settlements, including in those called “neighborhoods” in East Jerusalem? Chances are that there are, at least in the latter. And I don't mean foreign nationals working in the West Bank. In addition to it, there is always the question of what makes what Jewish. Is a house or a store or a bank owned by Jews a Jewish house, store or bank? In my part of the world, only those who are not exactly best friends of the Jewish tribe think so. And what is a “community”? So many questions and more raised in the single word “Jewish” in connection with community/settlement. Not a good start for an article. I'll try to think of something. The same goes for the adequate distribution of weight of the opinion of Israel's some 6 million Jews plus a few millions of Diaspora Jews, not to mention evangelical Christians who are the most fervent Greater Israel fans these days, probably outnumbering their Jewish friends by quite a few millions – in short Dlv999's “extreme minority” – and the rest of the world, taking into account that it is the 6-million-minority that holds not only all the aces but the whole deck of cards. And by the way, I take Dlv999 revert of my first round of cleaning up as a joke – not a good joke, but a joke all the same. Cheers, Ajnem (talk) 11:04, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
- You mistaken please read WP:WEIGHT--Shrike (talk) 20:03, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
The legal underpinning is one sided. The major official Israeli position should be included. Particularly grating, without an extended explanation, which would be out of place here, is the language that implies Jordan, Syria, or Egypt had sovereignty over the parts of Palestine they had occupied during their invasion in 1948. Inclusion of The Clinton Parameters does not belong; just an historical footnote at this point. I see no problem with illustrations of dismantled settlements so long as the article is appropriately illustrated. Where is a good source for the Israeli position on legality of settlements either on the West Bank or in areas they have "annexed"? User:Fred Bauder Talk 16:16, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what you would consider a good source but search for "School of Oriental and African Studies" in the Compilation_of_sources link above. That source and the one below are useful for Israel's position in 1967. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:36, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for returning to a sensible discussion. There are plenty of pictures and plenty of room for more, if so desired. There exist plenty of sources for legal status, but in this case stress has to be on 4th Geneva Convention. I hope my first round of clean ups meets with your approval, Ajnem (talk) 17:21, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
- "The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies." plainly applies. And absent negation of some element would seem to settle the matter. User:Fred Bauder Talk 19:03, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for returning to a sensible discussion. There are plenty of pictures and plenty of room for more, if so desired. There exist plenty of sources for legal status, but in this case stress has to be on 4th Geneva Convention. I hope my first round of clean ups meets with your approval, Ajnem (talk) 17:21, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
WP:OR violation
This is pretty obvious.
- The article is about 'Israeli settlement'.
- In regard to their legality, we have a section dealing, not with defences of the legality of Israeli settlements, but with the legality of Israeli's occupation of the West Bank.
- Four of the jurists' opinions cited were written before Israel started settling the West Bank. (Yehuda Blum in 1968, Elihu Lauterpacht in 1968, Julius Stone in 1969, Stephen M. Schwebel in 1970) and dealt with the definition of the West Bank, not with settlements.
- You can only use this material if it comes from an RS article or book which deals both with the legality of the West Bank occupation and the legality of settlements. Either this should be done, or the section removed, since as it stands it is WP:OR.Nishidani (talk) 15:09, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think there is any serious question, in international law, regarding the legality of occupation of the West Bank, Jerusalem, or the Golan Heights, or any other territory Israel has occupied during the Arab-Israeli conflict; there is no peace, and no prospect of peace; there IS a state of war. The material in http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/legal-expert-if-israel-isn-t-occupying-west-bank-it-must-give-up-land-held-by-idf-1.449909 certainly is "a wonderland governed by the laws of absurdity". I'm not at all sure how we should handle that information; opinion, I guess. Do we have an article on the Levy committee? User:Fred Bauder Talk 15:49, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- Nup, not yet. In any case, I'm fine with people introducing material specifically from sources that talk about the legality of settlements, as per the Levy Committee. But I can't see how the material concerning the legality of the West Bank occupation, material that apparently does not deal with settlement policy, can stay on an article dealing with settlements.Nishidani (talk) 16:42, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- The questions are conflated in popular discourse, thus we need to cover them and make the distinction as best we can. User:Fred Bauder Talk 17:20, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- Fred. I've had that policy thrown at me by admins several times, and, having accepted their reading of it, I'm raising it here. Articles are based on RS related to the subject of the article. The subject is Israeli settlement, not the legality of Israel in the West bank. You need RS on settlements that relate the two. That is how we write texts here. And that is why this section, as it stands, violates WP:OR. Popular opinion is irrelevant.Nishidani (talk) 20:43, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what policy you speak of, but there are doubtless good sources which discuss conflation of the two issues which we can use as sources. User:Fred Bauder Talk 21:03, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- WP:NOR (This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented.) WP:SYNTH. That's what is patently violated. I'm in no hurry, but I think a tag to that effect should be put on the section. I'm sure someone can come up with the relevant texts, but it should be done rapidly.Nishidani (talk) 21:29, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- I don't understand your issue, but I'm sure I will once you start changing the article. User:Fred Bauder Talk 22:05, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- WP:NOR (This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented.) WP:SYNTH. That's what is patently violated. I'm in no hurry, but I think a tag to that effect should be put on the section. I'm sure someone can come up with the relevant texts, but it should be done rapidly.Nishidani (talk) 21:29, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what policy you speak of, but there are doubtless good sources which discuss conflation of the two issues which we can use as sources. User:Fred Bauder Talk 21:03, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- Fred. I've had that policy thrown at me by admins several times, and, having accepted their reading of it, I'm raising it here. Articles are based on RS related to the subject of the article. The subject is Israeli settlement, not the legality of Israel in the West bank. You need RS on settlements that relate the two. That is how we write texts here. And that is why this section, as it stands, violates WP:OR. Popular opinion is irrelevant.Nishidani (talk) 20:43, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- The questions are conflated in popular discourse, thus we need to cover them and make the distinction as best we can. User:Fred Bauder Talk 17:20, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- Perhaps this will help. My issue is precisely the issue of WP:NOR policy as stated by User:Jayjg here. It's not my brief to rewrite the section, which I wasn't responsible for. The policy infringement is clear, and therefore either it is rewritten per policy by someone who wishes to retain its general outline, by using secondary sources that cite these legal opinions on the West Bank while discussing Israeli settlements and their legality, or else it will be removed as an infringement of WP:NOR. Nishidani (talk) 22:13, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- The issue is what can be legally done, or permitted, by the occupying power. User:Fred Bauder Talk 01:57, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- No, the issue is wiki policy which concerns what can be added, and in what way, to pages, through the use of RS. One cannot engage in writing up material for a page from primary sources that are not relevant directly or otherwise to the topic of the page.Nishidani (talk) 12:12, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- I have removed the paragraph; the information in it does not conform to the cited source. By the way, during a state of war military occupation is legal. I can't access http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/netanyahu-appointed-panel-israel-isn-t-an-occupying-force-in-west-bank.premium-1.449895 It is behind a paywall for me. I can imagine a theory which would repudiate occupation but I can't see what they came up with. User:Fred Bauder Talk 02:36, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- Did you read the source. See my page for a comparison between the source and my paraphrase. I've reverted you, and modified the language to make the imbrication of source and paraphrase even tighter. Your second point is irrelevant. I am not saying Sasson is correct. I am citing her remark, which is exactly relevant to the theme of the section heading. To object to it as incorrect is to engage in WP:OR and ignore WP:V. Nishidani (talk) 11:50, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- I can read this: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/10/world/middleeast/israeli-panel-says-west-bank-presence-is-not-occupation-and-recommends-approval-of-jewish-settlements.html User:Fred Bauder Talk 02:45, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- Again that has nothing to do with the merit of the edit. You are confusing, among other things, what the Supreme Court rules about settlements established under Israeli law, the internal law of an occupying power, and what the Supreme Court rules concerning Israel's obligations under international law regarding its duties as an occupying power as those are stipulated in things like the Geneva conventions. They are distinct and should not be confused.Nishidani (talk) 11:50, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- Could you explain why Sason personal view is notable at all?Does she expert on the topic of International law?--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 11:59, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- Oh come on! She was directly chosen by the Israeli government to head a commission into the settlements, and for that reason alone is a competent source (unlike the guys cited in the 'legality section' who are not cited for what the article deals in, Israeli settlements). Didn't you read the link to her name? I'll repeat it here: Sasson Report.Nishidani (talk) 12:05, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- For 25 years, Ms. Sasson worked in Israel’s state attorney’s office, during which she represented the state before the High Court of Justice and the Supreme Court, and headed the Special Tasks Division for eight years. Ms. Sasson served as an adjunct professor in Tel Aviv University’s faculty of law for five years. She was chosen by the Israeli government to investigate issues of the legality of settlements and outposts, and her report was accepted by that government.Nishidani (talk) 12:12, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- Could you explain why Sason personal view is notable at all?Does she expert on the topic of International law?--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 11:59, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- Again that has nothing to do with the merit of the edit. You are confusing, among other things, what the Supreme Court rules about settlements established under Israeli law, the internal law of an occupying power, and what the Supreme Court rules concerning Israel's obligations under international law regarding its duties as an occupying power as those are stipulated in things like the Geneva conventions. They are distinct and should not be confused.Nishidani (talk) 11:50, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- The issue is what can be legally done, or permitted, by the occupying power. User:Fred Bauder Talk 01:57, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- Nup, not yet. In any case, I'm fine with people introducing material specifically from sources that talk about the legality of settlements, as per the Levy Committee. But I can't see how the material concerning the legality of the West Bank occupation, material that apparently does not deal with settlement policy, can stay on an article dealing with settlements.Nishidani (talk) 16:42, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Levy Report. Can we add it here?
It seems too early to deal with the Levy Report otherwise than mentioning it and its stance. But it imo should be mentioned. Haaretz has another article in which it says: “The main message coming from the top [Netanyahu] is that the report will “inspire” certain changes, but will not be adopted in its entirety” [2]. For those who cannot read the Haaretz articles: Haaretz's new policy is that you have to register to have access to all the articles. If you do register, you get 10 articles for free per month, same as with the New York Times. Ynet's article is of course less critical, but it also concludes “Still, the committee's recommendations are not mandating. Netanyahu is likely to ask the Ministerial Committee on Settlements to review the report” [3] and reports “The American Administration vehemently disagrees with the findings of the Levy Report” [4], which is pretty strong language, coming from a diplomat, and The Jerusalem Post has a pretty good summary of the report [5] and gives reactions, quoting among others “MK Uri Ariel saying it is one of the ‘most worthy and just reports written.’ MK Arieh Eldad said the report ‘smashes into pieces the mantra of ‘occupation’ as far as international law is concerned’ and called for an end to the ‘Muslim occupation of the Land of Israel that began 1300 years ago’” [6]. I think I'm going to start an article on the report under Levy Report, as this seems to be what it's called by most sources, but I cannot find it on the internet, although some sources say it was published. But if it's in Hebrew only, it is of no use to me anyway. Ajnem (talk) 07:48, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- OK, Jewish Daily Forward coverage: http://forward.com/articles/159262/report-seeks-to-erase-occupation/ Should be useful. User:Fred Bauder Talk 03:11, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
- Certainly the 'Legality' section as it stands will have to be largely removed (Julius Stone's work 1981 may refer to settlements as legal, and needs checking etc.,) so I suggest to replace the inappropriate material there now, someone write up the Levy Report's assertion (not Israel's official position by the way) that settlement conforms to international law. For the record, (since I can see as per Migron, Mateh Binyamin today,) how POV warriors might pounce on this to paste it everywhere, Levy's conclusion is fringe, and as such must be written up in an article like this with an eye to WP:Undue.Nishidani (talk) 15:56, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
- I'm very sorry, but I have to disagree. Unfortunatly the report or its conclusion is not “fringe” but a report commissioned and published by the Israeli government, which was praised by no small number of members of the Israeli cabinet, including the prime minister (see Levy Report). Chances are that the report will either not be approved by the Ministerial Committee on Settlements which has to deal with it, or later not be approved by Netanyahu, who knows that he cannot annex the West Bank for the time being. The far right and the settlers will not forget that it exists though. My suggestion is to wait and see what will become of the report before putting it into the article here, for the reason Nishidani mentioned. By the way, has anybody found the report online? And could those who know Hebrew please check the Hebrew title and my translation in the English article.
- And I'm not sure about the Forward's explanation of the legal background [7]. Does the Levy report claim to base its finding on the San Remo resolution or is that the Forward's own explanation? Ajnem (talk) 08:03, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
- It's in the report, see http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_opinion.php?id=2224 User:Fred Bauder Talk 13:18, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
- There should be no dispute though that the Levy Report (thanks for the page, Ajnem)'s stated opinion on the legality of settlements in international law is an example of a WP:fringe opinion. Even all of the theorists cited on the general point so far are 'old hat', for the simple reason that bodies of international law in the meantime have laid down their interpretation regarding the status of the Occupation and settlements. It is also not law in Israel, and contradicts rulings by the Israeli Supreme Court. I have, as said, no problem with a brief synthesis of the opinion in the Illegality section. I think you have a perfect policy-based right to add it here. It is relevant, even if it is not Israeli policy, unlike the Sasson report.Nishidani (talk) 13:24, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
- Your welcome. The opinion piece in Israel Hayom doesn't explicitly say that the Levy report bases its conclusion on the San Remo resolution. Wasn't the San Remo resolution before the Brits partitioned what was meant to be their Palestine mandate into Transjordan and Palestine? Are we to expect that Levy et al. will now begin to (re)settle the East Bank? O boy, and not that small a number of people, including the founders of the state of Israel (“BY VIRTUE OF OUR NATURAL AND HISTORIC RIGHT AND ON THE STRENGTH OF THE RESOLUTION OF THE UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY”) think that it was the UN partition plan... But anyway, I will not delete it if somebody puts the Levy report into the article, but it is too early to determine whether it is “fringe” or “Israeli policy”, although I'm willing to bet that Netanyahu will find a way of both adopting it for the sake of the settlers and not adopt it for his own sake. But as the Forward suggests, Netanyahu may end up “pretending he’s Houdini” once too often. The Levy report is to be found under http://www.pmo.gov.il/NR/rdonlyres/E155A1D6-96A7-4143-8233-F126AC9288BF/0/doch090712.pdf for those who read Hebrew. Cheers, Ajnem (talk) 11:43, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
- Correct me if I'm wrong, but at the time of the San Remo Conference in 1920, Transjordan was under independent Arab rule, becoming briefly part of the short-lived Arab Kingdom of Syria that year. Transjordan wasn't included under the remit of the Mandate for Palestine until after the Cairo Conference in 1921, following talks between Churchill and King Abdullah. It was included on the understanding that it would be exempted from terms relating to the creation of a Jewish national home. That understanding was incorporated in the final version of the Mandate document submitted by the British to the League of Nations, which, besides being accepted by the League, was accepted by the Jewish representatives, who included Chaim Weizmann and, if memory serves me right, David Ben-Gurion. If you think that the Israel Hayom opinion piece that you linked to represents a true representation of facts, I think that you need to discover other narratives of events than the Revisionist Zionist ones. If you want a recommendation for a good source, I'd suggest reading the following if you can get access to a copy: Gideon Biger, Boundaries of Modern Palestine, 1840-1947 (2004, Routledge Curzon Studies in Middle Eastern History). ← ZScarpia 00:15, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
- What kind of edit are we discussing here, exactly? Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 20:07, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
- Rather than simply characterizing Israeli settlements as violations of international law, there should be information showing there is at least a far-fetched legal argument for them as shown by the Levy Report. User:Fred Bauder Talk 20:22, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry, I think I misunderstood the purport of Ajnem's comment. Please ignore my reply. Though, I don't think that Israel Hayom piece should be being used as a secondary source for anything factual. ← ZScarpia 00:54, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
- The "Legality arguments" section does describe these arguments. The Levy report is discussed here and here, where it's put in context, too. How about adding to that section e.g. "In 2012 a commission of jurists appointed by the Israeli government concluded that the settlements are legal. The findings of the commission were rejected by the Association for Civil Rights in Israel and Fatah." --Dailycare (talk) 20:12, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
- Israel has been arguing that the 4th Geneva Convention does not apply to the territories it captured in 1967, and that the settlements do not violate international law for quite some time now – long before the Levy Report appeared. The Levy Report basically deals with outposts and recommends legalizing them, i.e. to do away with the Israeli distinction between legal and illegal/unauthorized settlements. For the rest of the world this distinction doesn't exist anyway. Ajnem (talk) 16:33, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
- The "Legality arguments" section does describe these arguments. The Levy report is discussed here and here, where it's put in context, too. How about adding to that section e.g. "In 2012 a commission of jurists appointed by the Israeli government concluded that the settlements are legal. The findings of the commission were rejected by the Association for Civil Rights in Israel and Fatah." --Dailycare (talk) 20:12, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
- What kind of edit are we discussing here, exactly? Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 20:07, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
- Correct me if I'm wrong, but at the time of the San Remo Conference in 1920, Transjordan was under independent Arab rule, becoming briefly part of the short-lived Arab Kingdom of Syria that year. Transjordan wasn't included under the remit of the Mandate for Palestine until after the Cairo Conference in 1921, following talks between Churchill and King Abdullah. It was included on the understanding that it would be exempted from terms relating to the creation of a Jewish national home. That understanding was incorporated in the final version of the Mandate document submitted by the British to the League of Nations, which, besides being accepted by the League, was accepted by the Jewish representatives, who included Chaim Weizmann and, if memory serves me right, David Ben-Gurion. If you think that the Israel Hayom opinion piece that you linked to represents a true representation of facts, I think that you need to discover other narratives of events than the Revisionist Zionist ones. If you want a recommendation for a good source, I'd suggest reading the following if you can get access to a copy: Gideon Biger, Boundaries of Modern Palestine, 1840-1947 (2004, Routledge Curzon Studies in Middle Eastern History). ← ZScarpia 00:15, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
- Your welcome. The opinion piece in Israel Hayom doesn't explicitly say that the Levy report bases its conclusion on the San Remo resolution. Wasn't the San Remo resolution before the Brits partitioned what was meant to be their Palestine mandate into Transjordan and Palestine? Are we to expect that Levy et al. will now begin to (re)settle the East Bank? O boy, and not that small a number of people, including the founders of the state of Israel (“BY VIRTUE OF OUR NATURAL AND HISTORIC RIGHT AND ON THE STRENGTH OF THE RESOLUTION OF THE UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY”) think that it was the UN partition plan... But anyway, I will not delete it if somebody puts the Levy report into the article, but it is too early to determine whether it is “fringe” or “Israeli policy”, although I'm willing to bet that Netanyahu will find a way of both adopting it for the sake of the settlers and not adopt it for his own sake. But as the Forward suggests, Netanyahu may end up “pretending he’s Houdini” once too often. The Levy report is to be found under http://www.pmo.gov.il/NR/rdonlyres/E155A1D6-96A7-4143-8233-F126AC9288BF/0/doch090712.pdf for those who read Hebrew. Cheers, Ajnem (talk) 11:43, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
- I'm very sorry, but I have to disagree. Unfortunatly the report or its conclusion is not “fringe” but a report commissioned and published by the Israeli government, which was praised by no small number of members of the Israeli cabinet, including the prime minister (see Levy Report). Chances are that the report will either not be approved by the Ministerial Committee on Settlements which has to deal with it, or later not be approved by Netanyahu, who knows that he cannot annex the West Bank for the time being. The far right and the settlers will not forget that it exists though. My suggestion is to wait and see what will become of the report before putting it into the article here, for the reason Nishidani mentioned. By the way, has anybody found the report online? And could those who know Hebrew please check the Hebrew title and my translation in the English article.
- Certainly the 'Legality' section as it stands will have to be largely removed (Julius Stone's work 1981 may refer to settlements as legal, and needs checking etc.,) so I suggest to replace the inappropriate material there now, someone write up the Levy Report's assertion (not Israel's official position by the way) that settlement conforms to international law. For the record, (since I can see as per Migron, Mateh Binyamin today,) how POV warriors might pounce on this to paste it everywhere, Levy's conclusion is fringe, and as such must be written up in an article like this with an eye to WP:Undue.Nishidani (talk) 15:56, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
News items, editorials and opinion pieces:
1. Haaretz - Chaim Levinsonn, Tomer Zarchin - Netanyahu-appointed panel: Israel isn't an occupying force in West Bank, 9 July 2012:
- The committee was set up in January following pressure by settlement leaders to produce a legal report in response to the report submitted by Talia Sasson in 2005 on illegal outposts that had been commissioned by then Prime Minister Ariel Sharon.
- The convening of the Levy Committee came following a lengthy dispute between Netanyahu and Attorney General Yehuda Weinstein, who saw the convening of the committee as undermining his authority. In the end, the committee was convened as an advisory committee. It was also decided that all its recommendations would be accepted subject to Weinstein’s review and approval.
- A considerable portion of the Levy Report deals with refuting the conclusions of the Sasson Report, which dealt with construction from the 1990s and onward of neighborhoods and outposts on government land, with the encouragement of certain government elements but without building permits or official government approval.
- ...
- With regard to Israel’s legal status in the West Bank, the Levy Committee declared that Israel is not an occupying power. The panel arrived at that conclusion after considering two conflicting legal approaches on the question
- The first approach, presented by elements generally identified with the left, holds that Judea and Samaria are “occupied territories” under international law, ever since they were captured from the Jordanian kingdom in 1967.
- According to this approach, as a military occupier, Israel is subject to international restrictions governing occupation, first and foremost the Hague Regulations with regard to the laws and customs of ground warfare, and the Fourth Geneva Convention with regard to protecting civilian populations in times of war
- Under these covenants, an occupier must manage the area and maintain order while taking care of its security needs and the needs of the civilian population until the occupation ends. There is a prohibition against damaging private property, and the occupier is also banned from moving any of its own population to settle in the occupied area.
2. [Blog] Haaretz - Barak Ravid - Netanyahu knew report on legalizing West Bank outposts would be a diplomatic bombshell, 9 July 2012:
- Netanyahu and his advisers knew very well why they were keeping a low profile on the report. In retrospect, it isn’t certain that Netanyahu would even have appointed the committee, which was convened under pressure from the Likud ministers who wanted something to offer the more right-wing camp of Moshe Feiglin, which represents a significant proportion of the party’s central committee.
3. [Opinion] Haaretz - David Kretzmer - Bombshell for the settlement enterprise in Levy report, 10 July 2012:
- The report adopts the old, tired and universally rejected arguments that the West Bank is not occupied territory. In reaching this conclusion the report totally ignores both the position that the governments of Israel have taken before the Supreme Court for 45 years and the hundreds of judgments of the Court on this very question.
- The first military orders promulgated when the IDF entered the territories taken in the 1967 Six Day War expressly mentioned the Fourth Geneva Convention, which deals with the powers and duties of an occupying power. Not long after the war ended some arguments were raised questioning whether the territories were indeed occupied, and especially whether the Fourth Geneva Convention applied. None of these arguments gained much support. They were rejected by all states, including the US; the UN Security Council, the International Court of Justice and the vast majority of international lawyers, Israeli and foreign alike.
- ...
- If the territory were not Israeli territory, it would have to accept the only other known regime for territory conquered in war, namely a regime of belligerent occupation. It chose the latter path.
- ...
- In their 2005 judgment ruling that the disengagement from Gaza was legal, ten justices of Israel’s Supreme Court summed up the attitude of the government and the Court itself in the following words: “According to the legal outlook of all Israel’s governments as presented to this court – an outlook that has always been accepted by the Supreme Court – these areas are held by Israel by way of belligerent occupation….The legal regime that applies there is determined by the rules of public international law and especially the rules relating to belligerent occupation.” Possibly since Justice Levy was the sole dissenting judge in that case, the Levy report ignores this statement and many other similar rulings of the Court. Instead of advising the government on the legal situation, it looks as if Levy simply rehashed the opinion that was rejected by all his colleagues.
4. [Opinion] Haaretz - Bury the report , 10 July 2012:
- Attorney General Yehuda Weinstein, who opposed the creation of Levy's committee, has a responsibility to explain to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu the profound international law implications of adopting the report's recommendations.
5. [Opinion] Haaretz - Michael Sfard - Occupation no more, 10 July 2012:
- The government of Israel hand-picked the members of the Levy Committee. Each member of the committee was selected because he or she was believed to deny the accepted legal basis for the status of the territories Israel occupied in the Six-Day War. That basis, according to which the territories are occupied and subject to the international laws of occupation, is accepted throughout the entire legal and diplomatic world (without exception) and has even been accepted in Israel for at least three decades.
- ...
- And sure enough, the Levy committee delivered the goods. The West Bank is not occupied, it announced, but rather "a territory designated as the national home of the Jewish people… which the governments of Israel… chose not to annex but to approach pragmatically to allow peace negotiations." And why is that? Because the Balfour Declaration of 1917, the committee tells us, and the British Mandate, designated the territory for the Jewish state. There, in 1922, ended legal history, as far as the committee is concerned. It wants to be Galileo and prove everyone is wrong and it is right, but unlike the Italian astronomer it evades confronting the other opinion by ignoring it: It dismisses the Partition Resolution of 1947, that established the principle of founding two states between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean, with the strange statement that it was "a plan that did not gain purchase in international law.” The committee does not even bother to mention dozens of statements and declarations by almost all the countries in the world and the many international bodies that actually do recognize the right of the Palestinian people to establish an independent state in the West Bank and Gaza. Nor does it mention the advisory opinion of the International Court in Hague. The same goes for all of the experts on international law, who in a rare consensus, agree that this is a clear case of occupation. The report does not try to contend with the enormous existing discourse, it tries to silence it.
6. Haaretz - Chemi Shalev - Levy Committee member angrily rejects protest letter by American leaders, 19 July 2012.
7. Counterpunch - Jonathan Cook - Israel’s Annexation Plan, 18 July 2012:
- He hand-picked its three members, all diehard supporters of the settlements, and received the verdict he expected – that the settlements are legal. Certainly, Levy’s opinion should have come as no surprise. In 2005 he was the only Supreme Court judge to oppose the government’s decision to withdraw the settlers from Gaza.
8. [News item from 2003 which briefly mentions Alan Baker] Haaretz - Moshe Gorali - Legality is in the eye of the beholder, 25 September 2003:
- Israel is so confident of the unassailable legality of its settlements in the territories that Dr. Alan Baker, the Foreign Ministry's legal adviser, is himself a settler, residing in Har Adar.
← ZScarpia 01:33, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks ZScarpia for the last article. I have honoured Alan Baker with an article, which even the Hebrew Wikipedia doesn't seem necessary, and I have added it there. The interpretation of Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention Baker gave in 2003 according to Haaretz made it into the Levy Report, but I think not all of it. Or is “Israel has refrained from expropriating private land; the scale of the transfers is too small to affect the territory's character; and, what is most important, the transfers are not permanent” in the Levy Report, too? Ajnem (talk) 17:09, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
- Well done, I think you did a very good job with the new article. ← ZScarpia 22:08, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks. By the way, does anybody have any idea why the Israeli government did not publish an English translation of the (entire) Levy Report? Of course, if they do, they cannot argue that anybody who criticises it outside of Israel has not read it. Ajnem (talk) 17:22, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- Well done, I think you did a very good job with the new article. ← ZScarpia 22:08, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
History section
This article is in obvious need of a history section, since Israeli settlement building has been ongoing since 1967 and has an eventful history. My attempts to add such a section have been reverted due to the alleged controversial aspect of some of the content, so I've decided to go back to basics and get a consensus for what should be in such a history section. The Israeli settlement timeline article contains useful material and references. Here is what I think should be in a history section:
1: A summary when the first settlements were created and the historical context.
2: Any notable historical events involving settlements (e.g. the gaza withdrawal, international reactions)
3: The graph of settlement growth over time.
Hopefully we can agree that such basic historical information deserves to belong in this article. Eptified (talk) 03:24, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
If anyone looks at the Hebrew version and online there are currently 150,143 Jewish settelers n"y as of 2012.
Breaking the silence
This edit [8] didn't contain IDF response to allegation though in the source it does appear so per our NPOV policy we should include it.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 14:46, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
- By all means, Shrike. The problem was most of the sources spoke on conditions of anonymity, I suppose out of fear. The IDF did respond saying it wanted the names of the soldiers, and promised to investigate. But the key thought was, this could get awfully complex if I add what numerous sources say on this. I held off putting too much info in because it would only generate a long thread, and perhaps we need a whole section. I mean, I'd have to give Breaking the Silence's reply to the IDF comment, and the IDF's comeback, and that 60 of Israel's top psychologists and educationalists have written to the PM saying the investigations the IDF does undertake ignore the law, that the testimonies number 850 not 30, that so far 70 soldiers have gone public and the IDF hasn't acted on their information, that 8 or 7 years after a Supreme Court ruling Palestinian children are still used by UDF soldiers as 'shields' against hypothetical enemy gunfire. I.e. the sort of stuff other articles that refer to what Yedioth Ahronoth 's magazine recently reported in depth. I'm sure you're familiar with it, but in case you aren't, see John Lyons's brief synthesis 'Israeli soldiers break silence on abuse,' The Australian, August 25, 2012.
- You have the link. If I have time, I'll put it in, but you hardly need ask me, because that is your right and you certainly do not require permission to make such an edit. Sherwood writes:-
- 'A spokesman for the Israeli Defence Forces said that Breaking the Silence had declined to provide the IDF with testimonies ahead of publication so they could be verified and investigated. He said its true intention was "to generate negative publicity regarding the IDF and its soldiers. The IDF has in the past, and continues to, call upon the organisation to immediately convey complaints or suspicions of improper conduct to the relevant authorities. In line with the IDF's ethical commitments, any such incidents will be thoroughly investigated."
- Sorry I'm late in replying I had several windows open, three on wiki, and thought I'd pressed the 'print' button on this a half an hour ago. I only realized I hadn't when, on another page, when the watchlist came up, I saw Hertz's edit and thought he'd replied to me.Nishidani (talk) 15:39, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
POV tag
It's not much help to throw a POV template at the top without explaining what problems you see. How about explaining and then we'll discuss how to fix them.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 22:45, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
- Absolutely agree. You are supposed to explain on the talk-page....if editors do not do that, then the rest of us have to be mind-readers. Which I am not. If the editor in question do not explain why they put up a POV-template (and soon..), I will remove it, Cheers, Huldra (talk) 22:51, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
- I dropped the editor a note here. Not much help forthcoming so far.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 22:53, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks, I plan to log out in about an hour or so; if there is no sensible explanation before then, I´ll remove both this and the Esh Kodesh-POV-template. Cheers, Huldra (talk)
- Thanks!— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 23:10, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks, I plan to log out in about an hour or so; if there is no sensible explanation before then, I´ll remove both this and the Esh Kodesh-POV-template. Cheers, Huldra (talk)
- I dropped the editor a note here. Not much help forthcoming so far.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 22:53, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
There are three issues. 1. Replace general terminology with specific, plain English designations. The editor used village or hamlet. 2. Corrected proper designation of Israeli administrative district. The editor used the designation of the Israeli administrative district for Judea and Samaria. 3. Remove "East Jerusalem". "East Jerusalem" is apparently not a valid designation. Z554 (talk) 23:18, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
- I'm assuming that you mean that the reversions of those three edits introduced a non-neutral point of view? It is not so obvious why you think this. Please explain. Before you explain your number 2, you might have a look at WP:WESTBANK.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 23:28, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
- I identified the issues. Z554 (talk) 23:31, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
- Not clearly enough. How did the reversion of those edits introduce a non-neutral point of view?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 23:36, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
- If I understand correctly: Apparently Z554 wants both articles to link to villages instead of Israeli outpost and Israeli settlement...as if they are "just another village" (and not illegal under international law)? And use Judea and Samaria (only accepted among pro-settlement Israelis, etc, and certainly not by the International community)? And again: East Jerusalem is a valid designation in the International community. Sorry: This is not "Settlementopedia", you cannot force a minority view on the articles. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 23:42, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
- Not clearly enough. How did the reversion of those edits introduce a non-neutral point of view?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 23:36, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
- I identified the issues. Z554 (talk) 23:31, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Esh Kodesh is located in the Israeli administrative district of Judea and Samaria. Israel is a sovereign nation and has the authority to designate their civil administrative districts. None of your assertions provide a valid counter argument nor do they change the objective fact concerning the location of Esh Kodesh in Judea and Samaria. Z554 (talk) 00:12, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
- No, the sources support "West Bank". You're going against the sources here. The template is not designed to be used for the kind of problem you're talking about.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 00:20, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Article title
There are Israeli settlements in non-occupied territories as well. Unless you assign a special meaning to the word "settlement". Therefore I suggest to move the article to the title which actually matches the topic, namely, Israeli settlements in the occupied territories. Or did I miss something in the long and certainly controversial history of the article. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:47, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
- I think that reliable sources usually mean the settlements in occupied territory when they say "Israeli settlement". WP:TITLE guides that in that case the title of the article should be the term used in the sources. --Dailycare (talk) 10:09, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
- American reliebale sources write "president" and mean "Obama", but we don't put article "president" under title "Obama". The correct neutral title trumps all other conventions IMO. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:17, 24 September 2012 (UTC)