Talk:Israeli disengagement from Gaza/Archive 1

Update article

This article looks like it has been abandoned in the last 11 months, and reads liake any other article elucidating a current events. However, after that period of time, the article should have less information on poll/public reaction, details, etc. And have more information and links to background, aftermath, etc. This article barely mentions the relationship to diengagement and operation Summer Rains. --Arithmomaniac38 19:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: Photo

As far as I know, there is no settlement called Adumim in the Gaza Strip. Ma'ale Adumim, Kfar Adumim and the Mishor Adumim Industrial Complex all lie east of Jerusalem, in the West Bank.

- Correct. This photo is not related to the article. Removed.

"International Community"

since when does 'international community' get capital letters? "International Community"?

Why the page move?

Stevertigo, why did you move this page? Jayjg ^(talk) 21:46, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Likud Party Decisions

There is absolutely no justification for catagarizing loyalist Likud party MKs as "rebel." This was a pejorative used by the media in an attempt to descredit their actions. Those who follow the events closely know that the designation is pure baloney. The Likud Party Central Committee, as the executive arm of the Likud, has overwhelmingly rejected first the creation of a Palestinian state and then the expulsion plan. What polls showed are irrelevent to the topic. As an example, 2004 polls showed Bush losing, polls showed Bush winning, he won. The polls are irrelevent now. Are you going to question Bush's legitimacy as president based on polls saying he'd lose? I dont think so.

Those MKs who have voted with their party platform and against Sharon are by definition loyalist MKs. MKs who are nothing more than political hacks, who are beholden to Sharon for their political advancement, like MK Aflalo and others are rebel MKs, who have by all purposes shifted away from Likud ideology and adopted Labor policy for personal political gain. So again, you have no legs to stand on this issue. Parrot the media somewhere else.

Guy Montag 14:48, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've removed the designation, and other generally irrelevant, POV, or out of date stuff. Jayjg ^(talk) 07:16, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The poll cited by Jayjg was not a popularity poll, but, as far as I could ascertain, specifically related to voting trends. In any case, I am OK with Jayjg's last edit. --AladdinSE 04:39, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

Opposition to the plan

User: Jayjg has removed links citing that they are "stop spamming your anti-pullout links into these article" But these are links that directly show and illustrate and expend on the text which describes the Israel right wing opposition to the plan

Don't link to your own work; Wikipedia is not a vehicle for self-promotion. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:22, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Please address the content of the link from it's encyclopidic value. These are not photos which show a sepcific person or product and as such are not promotion. If you object the CONTENT of the photos address this issue. Don't hide behind a "removing self promotion" You first removed links to photos on this page because they did not fit your POV so don't try a new "winning argument"

It is against Wikipedia policy to self-promote; if you don't follow Wikipedia policy you will face sanctions. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:47, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

You do not understand what self promotion is. These photos are part of covergae of this subject When you first removed them on May 16 you provided THIS argument: "please stop spamming your anti-pullout links into these article"

So the issue is not "self promotion" but your promotion of your POV. Threats will get you no where. Please filloow guidelines for dispute resolution and provide an environment free of intimidations.

user Jayjg has revereted 3 times in the last 24 hours. In violation of the 3RR rule.

You still don't understand the 3RR, do you? Even after I explained it to you many times. It's more than 3 times in 24 hours. Get it? More than 3 times in 24 hours. Not 3 times in 24 hours. And you lecture me about Wikipedia policy. And why do you refuse to get yourself a Wikipedia login or sign your comments? Jayjg ^(talk)

Re: Speculation about the future

Removed specualtions about what israel do or will not do. Nither Bush, nor Sharon know what israel will do and how the control over gaza will look like. An Encyclopedia is NOT the place for such specualtion

Well Sharon for sure doesn't... not the way he is now.. Mtoussieh 07:57, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

This article is about the "disengagement plan." The info you blanked was about that plan, and it need not be pertinent to what will actually happen. In general, you should try to find consensus on the talk page before making major changes to an article. P.S. You can sign your user name/IP address by typing 4 tildes (~~~~). That way, people don't have to look into the page history to find out who you are. Thanks, HKT ^talk 17:19, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Headline text

Consequences of Hitnatkut

I am favorous of the article portraying the consequences the hitnatkut brought us deeper. you know... the war in Lebanon, the rupture of society, the Hamas going up in power, even violence in Amona... it should be done in an objective way as fitting the encyclopedia but with no freight! AM HANETSAJ LO MEFAJED! Mtoussieh 07:54, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Hebrew Name

See [1] Cinemeth 01:50, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, honest mistake...--Doron 07:10, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

yeah, yeah carry on, carry on!

These statements by User:68.38.199.57 were removed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Israel_unilateral_disengagement_plan_of_2004&diff=20485639&oldid=20480171 :

'The poll results show that it is manifestly a Jewish opposition, not a US opposition. This information is biased or the poll sampling is made upon a particular group. Since this is one of the web's unbiased sourcebook, this should be kindly revised.'

'Another thing is, The Jewish should have known better how it feels like living without a citizen identity. Thus, objecting to one's desire to set up his own state would not be a decent attitute.'

Don't think they belong to en encyclopedic article. -- 199.71.174.100 19:42, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

American opposition

I have deleted the whole paragraph “American opposition” about the “poll”. The poll was commissioned by the Zionist Organization of America, an organization that opposes the Gaza pullout and the poll results are extensively used by it for propaganda purposes (http://www.zoa.org/special/2005NationalPoll.pdf). The questions of the poll are also a good example on how to reach desired answers by asking manipulative questions, like: "Are you in favour or opposed to Israel’s unilateral withdrawal from a section of Gaza and Northern Samaria and forcing 10,000 Israeli Jews from their homes and businesses?" Such questions, the following results and the whole thing being commissioned by a group with an “agenda” disqualifies it for use in an encyclopaedia. noclador

Polls are always biased based on the questions. The poll itself is still of note, and of interest. I've restored it. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:41, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Why is a biased US poll of a Israel event of interest to encyclopaedia users? And why should this poll be the only one represented, when there are dozens out there that show huge support for the pullout in Israel and the US? Since you agree that this poll is biased and a cornerstone of Wikipedia is obviously neutrality, why should this poll be on this page? And to whom is it of interest to have this exactly this poll here on display? in my opinion this paragraph is way to biased and violates the Wikipedia neutrality and the Wikipedia goal of not advocating one view or the other!

So find some other polls on the subject to provide balance. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:04, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

I have added now a poll by the Anti-Defamation League and I also have stricken those passages from the paragraph that claim the American people oppose the pullout. also I have taken out those lines from the ZOA paragraph that do not concern the proposed pullout, but instead refer to a possible Palestinian State- something, that should be discussed on the appropriate page. noclador

If Netanyahu is an "internationally known speciallist in terrorism" I'm the sexiest man in the world!! --horzer 20:21, August 8, 2005 (UTC) And btw, everybody knows that he cares about the disengagement as he cares about poor people: nothing!!! His move is directed to the expected elections after the disengagement. His line or most of it must be deleted from the entry (in "chronology"). The terrorist act against the Druze in Shfaram must be included, because is directly related to the disengagement program (the act was terrorism because was a violent act directed toward civilians with the intention to disrupt a political process).

(1.) To assert in the article that Netanyahu was lying and that he cares nothing about the disengagement would be in violation of WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. The article can only present his claims, without judging them. (2.) There is no way to know if the Shfaram attack is related to the disengagement. More likely, the shooter went berzerk. There's also talk among some of a GSS setup job, etc. HKT ^talk 20:44, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Is Netanyahu indeed an "internationally recognized expert on Arab terrorism"?! In Israel he's just another politician with an agenda. I know he wrote a couple of books, but by whom is he recognized as an expert? Where did he acquire his expertise? His article says nothing about this expertise.--Doron 07:51, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

"Smith, a senior member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said he invited Netanyahu because he is a "world-renowned expert on terrorism whose vast knowledge will be very helpful to the people of New Hampshire, as we engage in this long campaign against terrorism."" [2] There are other sources.Cinemeth 23:03, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

An American politician complimenting an Israeli politician by calling him "a world-renowned expert on terrorism" doesn't make him a world-renowned expert on terrorism. He was probably invited to speak as a former Prime Minister of Israel, not as an expert. He's not even renowned as an expert on terrorism in Israel, he's just a politician that has the war on terror high on his agenda, not a scholar, as the article phrasing may suggest. Calling him an expert is POV, unless you can refer us to an authoritative soure calling him an expert. Otherwise he's as much an expert as Goerge "War on Terror" Bush is.--Doron 07:15, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Shortly after September 11, 2001, Benjamin Netanyahu appeared before the House Committee on Government Reform in order to discuss the issue of terrorism. I hope these links sufficiently clarify that Netanyahu is "a world-renowned expert on terrorism." [3] links to Netanyahu's speech before the House Committee, [4] links to another hearing in front of the House Committee where Netanyahu spoke. Also, [5] links to Netanyahu's books, a few of which are written specifically about terrorism. Enjoy.Cinemeth 23:48, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

No, these are political speaches, and the fact he wrote books doesn't make him an expert (the Amazon link doesn't work, by the way). You are yet to provide an authoritative source (like a research body, not his own promotion website) referring to him as an expert, let alone a world-renowned one. Even his article says nothing of the sort. Therefore, I will remove this POV description unless you can prove me wrong.--Doron 00:04, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Is true that I can't put words or intentions in Netanyahu's mouth. But to treat the Shfaram terrorist attack as a "berzerk guy" or lone wolf is like saying that the murder of Rabin was not politically motivated. GSS setup job? What's GSS? Which kind of sick person could think of a conspiracy theory in this case? (if you know settlers, and specially settlers from Tapuach, you know what they're capable of: these people openly say in the media that "a good arab is a dead arab"). All Israeli media (at least,all important media) and the Prime Minister have called this act a "terrorist attack", and the perpetrator "a terrorist". The act is directly linked to the disengagement process, trying to disrupt it. This person shoot Druze arabs knowing that they serve in the IDF (the Army).--horzer 21:52, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

And btw, I'm removing "Arab" terror at least from the phrase. What Arab terror is? Is like "Asian" terror? Or "Hispanic" terror? Clearly NPOV.--horzer 21:54, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

I have the strange impression that a settler is writing the entire article... the POV of the article is at the right of mainstream israeli thinking.--horzer 22:10, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Calling the attack terrorism is not the same thing as calling it a protest against the disengagement plan. There's zero evidence for the latter. I'm quite puzzled by your slander of settlers; I do know some and they don't think like that. Very few do, and to say that many do is only to regurgitate horrendous propaganda. And I don't understand why it is POV to call terrorism by Arabs "Arab terrorism"; if it would be carried out by South-East-Asians, it would be "South-East-Asian terrorism." Actually, "Islamic fundamentalist terrorism" is probably better, given that there are plenty of East-Asian Muslims who also carry out terrorist attacks (e.g. Bali), and the "Islamic fundamntalist terrorism" term would be more inclusive. P.S. I don't understand why someone would have to be "sick" in order to suspect a conspiracy; please look up the word "sick" in the dictionary. HKT ^talk 22:23, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Terror in Israel and Occupied territories comes in many flavours. I would call it "Palestinian Nationalist terror" (because this is the objective of those groups doing it), or simply "Palestinian Terrorism"; the problem with that is related to those Palestinians that don't share the terrorists views. The political views of extreme right-wing settlers like those of the Kach (illegal) party are widely known and they don't try to hide those ideas. I was wrong in saying "settlers" generally. I'm sorry about that.--horzer 22:44, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

I'm glad that you cleared things up about the settlers. As far as Kach, I don't think that their offical line is "a good arab..."; there are few who hold this view. Kach officially calls for expulsion of Arabs from Isaeli territory, not for killing non-militant Arabs. I understand your point regarding the term "Palestinian terrorism", but I don't think that it implicates non-terrorists by association. "French cuisine" doesn't imply that all French are good cooks. HKT ^talk 00:24, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

You're right. But Hitler also talked of "transfer" at the beggining. He forgot to tell the world that they wanted to transfer people to an oven.--horzer 23:37, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

The U.S. said that they wanted to transfer the Japanese to internment camps during WWII, and they never ended up "transferring people to an oven." It's interesting, though, that you would prefer to link Kach to Hitler for precedent. Perhaps you can read minds? P.S. Even Hitler was trying to transfer the Jews to other countries; no one was willing to take the Jews in as refugees or immigrants, so he changed the plan. Is Kach even worse than Hitler? Please give me a direct answer. HKT ^talk 23:45, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Kach worse than Hitler? How should I know? If they blow up the Temple Mount maybe they can provoque a little funny local nuclear war. But, who knows? Is not a secret that Kach platform is openly racist, in a way that even the Nuremberg Laws weren't (those of 1935). The case of the Japanese-American is regretable, but the U.S. goverment never intended to throw its citizens at the other side of the border. Anyway, worse or marginally better than Hitler, those ideas are not the ones I want even close to me or close to the country where I live.--horzer 03:54, August 12, 2005 (UTC) BTW, if you want proof: those people were at the funeral of that terrorist, the boy from Rishon LeTzion that decided to empty his weapon on a bus in Shfaram --horzer 03:54, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

Israeli opinion polls

Article states "Recent polls on support for the plan have varied widely, though consistently showing support for the plan in the 50-60% range, and opposition in the 30-40% range." What are the actual figures, are they wide apart or consistent? DM Andy 19:18, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Widely publicized

I am reverting the discription of the pro-disengagement caravan to "widely publicized" based on the following links: [6] [7] [8] Just because someone lives in Israel and may have not heard of the ads promoting the caravan dubbed "Leaving Gaza - Returning to Zionism" does not mean that it was not widely publicized.Cinemeth 00:43, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Re. Polls

From what I have seen (in polls), the majority of people in Israel do not support it, but a majority does not 'oppose' it either. In other words, when questioned 'do you support the Gaza plan according to PM Ariel Sharon?', the majority said no. But when asked 'do you oppose the disengagement plan?' the majority said that they did not.

I dont know how this could be interpreted, but at first glance it would imply that most people in Israel are not happy about the plan and would not *back* it, but many arent strongly opined enough on the matter to declare their true *opposition* to it. Probably because many feel that after all, we truly just want to have peace and live without controlling a foreign population. Sort of a leap of faith in an impossible situation. Only it happens to be a leap in the wrong direction. Just as when one is faced with a dead-end, one can have faith and jump off a cliff, or one can also have faith and step back. The case here is not one of stepping back, but rather a case of jumping off a cliff. Stepping back would be to declare 'we're in a very tight spot and it isnt pleasant- but this is the reality. We will stay in Gaza and continue fighting terrorism with a strong hand. How long this will be? we dont know. But this is what has to be done.' This was the type of message that outgoing IDF commander Yaalon explained. He said it was a disconnection from reality to believe that this plan would bring any type of gain. He said that we have to face the fact that we will have to have an active IDF in every way, for the foreseeable future. This isnt to put down people's hopes, but it is the reality nonetheless. Similar- though to a very different extreme- to explaining to someone that for the next 50 years you will have to go each and every day to a workplace and simply do endless work. You'll need to do this every day in order to live. It isnt a choice, but part of life (for many people.)

Incredible, the anti-disengagement mass rally at Rabin Square was five hours ago and here in Wikipedia there are photographs already!! Oh, technology... Ah, I was also there (I went to see, even when I don't share the political position of the right).--horzer 23:45, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Yasser Arafat?

All the way through this article, reference is made to Israeli PM Yasser Arafat. Ariel Sharon, perhaps?

Number affected

How many people are being moved in the current closure? I didn't notice that mentioned anywhere. Rmhermen 15:46, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Exact figures differ, but around 9000 people. For example, see:

• http://www.theisraelproject.org/site/apps/nl/content2.asp?c=hsJPK0PIJpH&b=883993&ct=1166095
• http://p246.news.mud.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050811/ap_on_re_mi_ea/gaza_pullout_q_a
• http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4775357

--noösfractal 08:01, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Here is the breakdown:

In the Gaza Strip (all 21 settlements):

Settlement	Establishment Date	Pre-Dis. Population according to CNN	Pre-Dis. Population according to MideastWeb
Elei Sinai	1982	407	350
Nissanit	1982	1064	1050
Dugit	1990	79	80
Morag	1972	221	220
Kfar Darom	1970	491	365
Netzarim	1972	496	390
Neve Dekalim	1980	2671	2500
Atzmona	1978	646	650
Kerem Atzmona	2001	24	70
Tel Katifa	1992	60	75
Bedolah	1986	219	220
Shirat Hayam	2000	40	50
Ganei Tal	1979	400	400
Katif	1978	404	405
Gadid	1982	351	310
Netzer Hazani	1973	461	410
Kfar Yam	1983	10	20
Slav	1980	50	50
Rafi'ah Yam	1984	143	150
Pe'at Sadeh	1993	104	105
Gan Or	1983	351	350
Total:		8692	8220

In the West Bank (4 settlements):

Settlement	Establishment Date	Pre-Dis. Population according to CNN	Pre-Dis. Population according to MideastWeb
Kadim	1983	142	170
Ganim	1983	147	175
Chomesh	1980	181	220
Sanur	1982	112	110
Total:		582	675

Anyone have any objections on moving these data tables to the main article (instead of the simple list of settlement names it currently shows)?

--altmany 13:05, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Here is a third set of figures, often differing from the above even in the date of establishment: [9] (Shockwave map: mouseover gives details for each locality.) A difference in the establishment date can be due to the fact that some places were military installations before becoming settlements. An example of a big difference: '"Slav" is called "Shaliv", established 1987. This is source (Haaretz) is closer to the action than either of the above. --Zero 21:52, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Image copyright disagreement

ThomasK is persisting in deleting the phased withdrawal illustration which I added to the Chronology section. First the user said "removed image copyright violation" and after I returned it, stating "This is fair use, not copyright violation" ThomasK deleted again this time saying "probably copyright violation, otherwise give evidence on talk page" (italics mine). The Fair use tag used for the image specifically says, quote: "This work is copyrighted. The individual who uploaded this work and first used it in an article, and subsequent persons who place it into articles assert that this qualifies as fair use of the material under United States copyright law." This image was used in an online news article by the BBC and the source and copyright information is clearly stated in the image upload notes. Now, if you believe there is still some violation, then surely it falls to you to provide evidence and start the Talk discussion explaining why this image should be disallowed. Nevertheless, here is the Talk section you requested. Kindly stop deleting without pointing out the specific violation. --AladdinSE 08:10, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Previously on Wikipedia, images like this from the BBC were deleted. No reason to lose your temper. --ThomasK 08:54, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

I'm right. Another user, User:Zoney removed the image,too. --ThomasK 13:13, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

I have not lost my temper in the least. You have yet to state the violation. Use of images from on line news articles falls under the fair use category. Once again, please state why you think this image does not qualify for fair use, and cite the appropriate WP policy page that backs you up. Thank you. --AladdinSE 17:45, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

It is wrong that all "images from online news articles falls under the fair use category". The BBC made this map, their copyright. It refers just to some Israeli government sources.--ThomasK 20:28, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Who made it is irrelevant. The BBC's copyright is noted in the upload notes, and the sources cited on the illustration are pluses not minuses. You have yet to cite any Wikipedia policy page that specifically disallows the fair use category in this instance. --AladdinSE 07:55, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

Read it for yourself: Fair use ; Wikipedia:Fair use. Why didn't you make a map , instead you "ripped off" a map from the BBC? Everybody can check the BBC news website of their own.--ThomasK 08:25, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

I have read it several times, it supports the categorization of the image as Fair Use. I didn't make a map myself for the simple reason that I am not a cartographer. The fair use tag is clear. The image was used in a previous article, it's utilization in a non-commercial manner is fair use. Copyright and source have always been duly noted. Wikipedia is a non-profit organization and the BBC allows downloading and use of its materials for non-commercial purposes, according to its copyright policy. Also, consider your logic. If all details that could simply be checked out by readers on their own at the BBC or anywhere else should not be included then why have an encyclopedia at all? We would just have a collection of links pointing to news sights. The ideal solution that would render academic all debate about the use of the image is for the BBC to inform WP directly if they have any objection. Since this article is a hot-button current issue I hope they do so expeditiously. --AladdinSE 11:43, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

Finally, a public domain map is in the article. --ThomasK 04:23, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

It is a bare-bones map of Gaza that does not show a single Israeli settlement. Considering this is an article about dismantling those settlements, I'd say we need a lot more. Furthermore, you seem too reliant on the public domain, Wikipedia is full of copyrighted images either with specific licenses or permissions, or used under the Fair Use doctrine. Public domain images constitute a minority. --AladdinSE 08:20, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

I'm not too reliant on the public domain. However it is far better than to ripp off a BBC map.--ThomasK 10:41, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

"Ripp off" implies theft and a false or hidden provenance. The source and BBC copyright were clearly noted from the very first upload with a clear Fair Use tag. Thousands of images like these are used in Wikipedia. --AladdinSE 09:44, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

Many fair use image are used in Wikipedia, but not from the BBC. Once again, there is already a weblink to a disengagement plan map in the external link section. For my side, this discussion is closed. --ThomasK 03:55, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

Map

This article could really use a map. Anyone have one? --Doradus 16:47, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Mess

This article isn't actually that helpful. It has far too many opinion polls and not enough factual information. We need a map, but most of all we need an actual description of what is happening - we don't even have a list of the settlements being abandoned. Yes this article should cover the controversy and the politics but not at the expense of describing the event! Secretlondon 23:55, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Also no reference to the fact that families who leave voluntarily are getting a huge amount of benefits, including $250,000 in cash. And that most are headed for other settlements in the Palestinian West Bank!

Then just add it in and source it. As simple as that.

I added just such a map as you are talking about, but it keeps getting deleted because of a mistaken belief that it violates copyright, when in fact it falls under fair use. I have just returned the illustration. --AladdinSE 07:52, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

and the image has been removed again, per official wikipedia policy. The image[10] is currently taged as a likely copyright violation. Until that issue is resolved, the image should not be added back again. Eclipsed 09:37, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, as far as awaiting resolution before reposting. By the way, it was tagged as a possible copyright violation, not likely copyright violation. --AladdinSE 12:26, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

Some nice status reports from Haaretz:

• http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArtDisengagement.jhtml?itemNo=613842&contrassID=23&subContrassID=0&sbSubContrassID=1
• http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArtDisengagement.jhtml?itemNo=613838&contrassID=23&subContrassID=0&sbSubContrassID=1

--noösfractal 18:05, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Finally, it is better with a public domain map in the article. --ThomasK 04:24, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Better? Hardly. The map does not show a single Israeli settlement. Public Domain is great, but very rare. Most images in Wikipedia are copyrighted and used with permission/licence or under Fair Use. --AladdinSE 08:27, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

There is already a weblink to a disengagement plan map in the external link section. --ThomasK 10:52, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Time to rename this article?

Proposal for appropriate name for this article. Why not replace plan with process or use: Israel Gaza disengagement (or withdrawal, evacuation, pullout)--Ezeu 00:34, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. I suggest "Gaza: Israeli settlement removal". Joffan 05:03, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

I disagree with the names -- the disengagement isn't limited to Gaza. brozen 08:35, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

Well, brozen, you ought to make a suggestion then. Ezeu's point was (I think) that it's no longer just a plan, it's actually happening. How about "Israeli settlement removal 2005"? Joffan 22:02, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

I support that title. --Benna 06:21, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Israel removes settlements every so often, so the title wouldn't encompass the whole subject if Israel removed any other settlements this year (and that's not speaking about anything it's done up until now...) -- and that's not the purpose anyhow. Any way you look at it, though, this is a unilateral disengagement and that's how it will be known throughout history. The name has to include that and mention the West Bank. brozen 20:54, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

I propose "Israeli 2005 disengagement". "Disengagement" is what it is called by everyone, for better or for worse, so this name uniquely identifies the subject. The word "unilateral" is a POV coloration of the name and should not be present. --Zero 03:04, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

The Israeli government calls it a unilateral disengagement, which makes it the name of it, regardless of whether it is POV or not (don't forget, the word disengagement is also the word the Israeli government uses -- and thus was adopted by everyone else). I suggest that we wait until it is over and see how it's called afterwards. After all, it is still a plan until it's over. brozen 05:57, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

You are mistaken. The offficial name, as the article correctly states at the beginning, is תוכנית ההתנתקות which just means "disengagement plan". The "unilateral" in the title of our article was put there by the article creator to make a point. That is not acceptable use of article titles. --Zero 06:09, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

The plan, as described by the Israeli PMO, is referred to as a plan of unilateral disengagement. Look at section 1, second paragraph. Therefore, this is not POV -- but rather the official Israeli government position as to what the disengagement actually is. brozen 15:44, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

You are just proving my point. It is Israeli government POV about the plan, not a neutral name of of the plan. We should use a neutral title. --Zero 15:54, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't agree with your claim, which is essentially that those who create something have no right to name it. FWIW, it is also an American government POV about the plan [11]. brozen 18:24, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

Regardless of the official name, the word "unilateral" doesn't really add much information that is so important it should belong in the title as opposed to just in the article text. See 7 July 2005 London bombings for example - no mention in the title of the fact the bombings were in the public transport or the fact they were carried out by suicide bombers - this info is interesting but belongs in the text, not title. The title should only be short enough to enable a unique identification. Zero's "Israeli 2005 disengagement" fits the bill IMHO. --altmany 23:34, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

also known as samaria

I'm not trying to be confrontational, but why is this "needed"? --Uncle Bungle 02:42, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Because its a small word used to make a big statement. If one wants it there or not depends entirely on ones point of view. You can use POV arguments both ways. It's a Catch-22. - Ezeu 02:57, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Hi Uncle Bungle and Ezeu, the reason I added the "also known as" is that there was a bit of back and forth over the issue between other editors, [12] [13] [14] so as a compromise I added "also known as Samaria," [15] which is accurate without prioritizing that name over northern West Bank. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:14, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Is the area referred to as Samaria in Israel? I've never heard of it before, to be honest. Would "historically known as Samaria" be more acceptable? It's just a thought. --Uncle Bungle 21:48, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Apparently that is the case. [16][17] (of course "in Israel" depends on your point of view)--Ezeu 22:20, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Hi Uncle Bungle, the terms Judea and Samaria are still used instead of West Bank (which only refers to the west bank of the Jordan river). Ezeu, I didn't get your last point about "in Israel" depending on your point of view, sorry. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:01, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

What i mean is that some people may asseverate (what one can do with rogets) the area you call Samaria as not belonging to Isreal. --Ezeu 02:51, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Whatever happens regarding Isreali land concessions, the region is nevertheless known as Samaria. That's its historical name. P.S. Aside from the assertion in the Samaria article (inserted long ago by a POV crusader), is there an encyclopedic source that "Samaria" is a Zionist term (mirrors don't count)? HKT ^talk 03:13, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Samaria does not seem to be a Zionist term. It seems we at Wikipedia may have created schism around this word. Anyone with knowledge on this ussue, please clarify. - Ezeu 03:45, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

User:SlimVirgin can we add aka Issacar or Zabulon? I kid. In all honesty, while it may be factually accurate, one must admit it has a bit of a POV slant to it. I picked a few articles which link to West Bank at random, and none of them mention Samaria. I still don't see why it is needed as was stressed in the edit comments by User:Jayjg. Since Gods promise is covered in Israeli Opinions would it not be more apropriate to use the term there? Besides, it looks ugly hanging off the end of the introduction paragraph like that. --Uncle Bungle 05:21, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

B-101

I think we should get some photos from CNN and other networks of the pull-out.- B-101 16:15, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Anti-Semitic use of Stars of David

Jayjg the abusive admin deleted these edits and protected the page to prevent further editing because he doesn't want to face the anti-semitic behavior of Jewish settlers despite evidence provided in the link provided by Uncle Bungle and any Google news search will show. For instance: [18] [19] [20] --4.154.11.251 03:08, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I deleted that edit, but I concede, given the references above. Jayjg was probably trying to calm things down given the edit battle that was going on. Abusive? what about your choice of words in the edit summary?. - Ezeu 04:13, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I was in the process of deleting too, even though I was quite aware of the truth of the report. The use of Holocaust symbolism started long ago, soon after the disengagement was announced. Certain groups of Gaza settlers started to wear yellow stars. The phenomenon died down after a massively negative response from the Israeli public. Now during the actual evacuations, there have been lots of cases of Nazi epithets, graffiti, yellow stars, etc etc. This could be mentioned in the article, but just a single incident doesn't pass the threshold. As for the pop-analysis about whether it is anti-semitic or not -- save us!! --Zero 09:34, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Either equating Jews with Nazis is anti-Semitic or it isn't. New anti-Semitism says it does, but apparently an incident of comparing the modern state of Israel with Nazi Germany doesn't belong there. Since it has to do with the pullout, I put it here, and again it is chased away. The fact is this event happened, and you can not simply chase it down the memory hole. If I have to I'll start the article equating Jews with Nazis qualify it as anti-Semitic and list the incident there, but it will be on wikipedia. --Uncle Bungle 11:33, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Whenever there is a serious issue in Israel that inflames the passions, someone will call someone else a Nazi. I don't see why this is surprising; it's just that someone who wants to hurl the worst insult possible can choose "Nazi" with a minimum of imagination. About the least interesting thing about it is of which canned labels apply to it. --Zero 12:18, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

A major distinction is to be made between comparing the State of Israel inherently to Nazis and comparing certain elements of the current government and police force to Nazis. The latter is targeted specifically, and can in no way be called anti-Semitism (not to say that it can't be called other things). HKT ^talk 02:04, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

So if you use the accusation as a blanket insult, its anti-Semitism. If you say the IDF is behaving like a bunch of storm troopers because... and qualify it, you're being ignorant and rude but its not hate speech? Jon Stewart actually spoke very eloquently on the subject, I don't have the complete quote any more, but it was to the effect of: "Don't compare poeple to Hitler. You're insulting me, you're insulting yourself, and frankly you're insulting Hitler. That guy worked hard to be that evil". Stewart said it was ok to compare (American) politicians to Nazis, but not specificially Hitler. The segment was called "A slightly closer look" I can't remember the airdate. --Uncle Bungle 05:33, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

• Everyone knows that neither the State of Israel nor those irritated settlers are Nazis. It nothing but an attempt to hoodwink history for equivocal purposes. Have we seen that before? --Ezeu 05:59, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Article on this topic: [21] --Zero 10:47, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

US position on disengagement

I have once again removed HKT's analysis of the US position on the final boundaries between Israel and Palestinia, selecting instead from his links the portions of GWB's speechs that actually relate to the disengagement. HKT, please don't revert to your off-topic and original-work version. Joffan 13:54, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Joffan, thanks for getting more specific quotes. Earlier, I had reverted edits that only presented text indicating that Israel should have "secure" borders, without mention of what those borders entail. The analysis that you mention was not added by myself (though I edited it a little); I simply reverted its deletion. It's certainly not original research to say that a Palestinian demand for all land demarcated by the 1949 Armistice lines would accordingly become the Bush administrations policy, given that this is undeniably implicit in current administration statements. In any event, while your quotes are more specific and merit primary focus in this article, the necessity remains to clarify that the Bush administration is not satisfied with the disengagement plan alone. Bush and Rice frequently underscore that Israel must concede all land in the West Bank and Gaza (as well as East Jerusalem) according to 1949 Armistice lines. Additionally, the Bush administration continues to demand "meaningful linkages" between the West Bank and Gaza. Earlier statements about major population centers no longer appear relevant, as West Bank cities such as Ariel (2002 pop. ~25,000, including college students) fall outside of Israel's domain according to the 1949 lines. Basically, the administration's position is that the disengagement plan is only sufficient in the context of the Bush administration's current version of the Road Map (an article which itself requires updating). HKT ^talk 21:39, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Good work! --Zero 15:33, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

OK, I'm glad we resolved that. further comment on your talk page, HKT. Joffan 23:23, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

[Further comments by Joffan copied from User talk:HKT]:

I disagree with your logic, HKT, on the conjunction of [*the US support for agreed final borders*] with [*the Palestinian negotiating position of the 1949 ceasefire lines*] to infer that [*the US policy endorses those lines as borders*]. What is stated now by Abbas & co may not be what is finally agreed. I'd be interested to see any quote where Bush or Rice directly say (never mind underscore) that "Israel must concede all land in the West Bank and Gaza (as well as East Jerusalem) according to 1949 Armistice lines". However there is no denying that the Bush admin, along with everyone bar a few extremists, "is not satisfied with the disengagement plan alone".

"What is stated now by Abbas & co may not be what is finally agreed."

• This is true. However, if Abbas demands 1949 lines as borders, that will ostensibly be supported by the Bush administration. Demands for "right of return" would not necessarily be supported by the administration.

"I'd be interested to see any quote where Bush or Rice directly say (never mind underscore) that "Israel must concede all land in the West Bank and Gaza (as well as East Jerusalem) according to 1949 Armistice lines"."

• For one, here's a quote that was in the article for the past month:

...[C]hanges to the 1949 Armistice lines must be mutually agreed to. A viable two-state solution must ensure contiguity of the West Bank, and a state of scattered territories will not work. There must also be meaningful linkages between the West Bank and Gaza. This is the position of the United States today, it will be the position of the United States at the time of final status negotiations.

• The Bush administration considers the 1949 lines as the appropriate frame of reference for negotiations. The only way the Bush administration would accept less Israeli concessions is if Abbas would do so as well. Therefore, as the article previously stated, a Palestinian demand for concessions to the '49 lines would be accepted by the Bush administration. The administration never "directly" said that Israel must concede all land to the '49 lines; maybe Abbas will spontaneously accept less. ;) The article previously stated as much.

"...[T]here is no denying that the Bush admin... "is not satisfied with the disengagement plan alone"."

• Very well. This should consequently be addressed in the article. P.S. Interesting how you consider millions of people around the world as merely "a few extremists." ;) HKT ^talk 00:30, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

By the way, what's resolved? HKT ^talk 00:31, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

[added text from User talk:HKT] It sounds like you're happy with your logical inference to extend the Bush Admin's position on this - all I can tell you is that I don't think you have quite a firm enough rock to convince the majority of posters that it's fact rather than speculation. As you say, Abbas may accept less in the process of other bargaining considerations. Since I can't see the Israelis conceding East Jerusalem, the assumption that initial demands will never change means that the problem will not be resolved. Ever. A pretty gloomy point of view.

I think the fact that Bush described this as something that could restart the "road map" shows that they are looking for more to happen from here. PS: who are the "millions around the world" who are satisfied with the disengagement plan alone?

Cheers, Joffan 14:15, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

• I made no inferences. The following if/then statement is undeniable: If Abbas demands borders at the '49 lines, then Bush will support those borders (if he follows his current policy statements). I did not assume that Abbas would make that demand (though I think it is quite likely, based on precedent, that he will. However, that is irrelevant).
• We seem to be in agreement that Bush wants more, so I'll assume that we're in agreement that the article should indicate as much.
• I never said that millions are satisfied with the disengagement alone. However, if you consider any such people extremists, a fortiori that you consider those who don't support any land concessions extremists. There are many millions of the latter (I dare say hundreds of millions). HKT ^talk 18:32, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

I guess, HKT, you're reading as much as possible into the remark made by Bush with Abbas. Under this reading, "changes to the 1949 Armistice lines must be mutually agreed to" implies that no agreement means the Armistice lines are the borders. However in context this is clearly not what is meant, and it could even be taken the other way: "Guys, you must change those boundaries" (though I don't think he meant that either).

I think a further reference to the potential to get on with the "road map" is sufficient indication of further expected progress and changes after this disengagement. I will add this.

Hmm... as for "a few extremists"... I guess I would consider those who don't support any land concessions to the Palestinians as extremists, because they would basically be denying autonomy for the Palestinians. I would have thought they were concentrated in Israel though, numbering maybe a million tops. Relatively few :).

Cheers, Joffan 20:41, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

• The deleted paragraph (following the deleted quotes) does not suggest, as you assert it does, "that that no agreement means the Armistice lines are the borders." (Speaking of "reading as much as possible into" remarks!) It explains that the US will not accept (according to current policy) any process deficient in mutual agreement regarding borders. For example, if Israel unilaterally concedes %97 of the West Bank, Bush will not be satisfied. If there is no agreement, the US will probably continue to push for one. As you seem to appreciate, it's absurd to suggest that, if negotiations fail, then the '49 lines will magically become the borders of a default Palestinian state. However, Bush will not be satisfied with less than '49 borders if Abbas demands as much, and Israel will continue to face US pressure unless Israel complies with such a demand.
• As far as taking Bush's remarks as "Guys, you must change those boundaries," you are right that it is an untenable reading. Border negotiations have not been referenced according to the '49 lines, and mentioning those lines makes them such a reference. I don't know what other interpretation you have in mind, though I assume that Bush expects to be understood when he presents a well-prepared address.
• It is better to "reference to the potential to get on with the 'road map'," but it is not sufficient. People must understand what the "road map" entails. I suppose that if the road map article is updated, and this article links to it, that would be sufficient.
• A large percentage of the US populace is against any land concessions (a population number already in the nine digits). Lower percentages exist in other countries, but they still constitute a nine-digit number composite outside the US. In Israel alone (a country with around six million citizens, including Israeli Arabs), the most left-wing polls count way over 1,000,000 opponents to land concession (actually they count nearly 2,000,000) and many polls count such people at around 3,000,000. (Don't worry: I am well aware that support for Israeli concessions numbers in the ten digits internationally; even support for the dissolution of the Israeli state numbers in the ten digits!) I don't know what media outlets you get your information from. In any event, I'm not interested in getting into a discussion about Palestinian autonomy and your opinions on extremism, as that is entirely irrelevant to this article. HKT ^talk 05:14, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Just to focus on the relevant point: you say "Bush will not be satisfied with less than '49 borders if Abbas demands as much". I continue to disagree, and reiterate that a "demand" is the starting point of negotiation, not the conclusion. My intermediate reading of Bush's remarks, without undue emphasis, is that the US holds that the borders of the Palestinian State should be negotiated not imposed.

I trust my re-wording of the US position was tolerable? Cheers, Joffan 15:10, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the re-wording seems tolerable. Thanks, HKT ^talk 18:31, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Egypt to control coast & airspace?

I transferred an item from the caption of the Gaza/WB settlements picture into Chronology as follows:

On 31 August 2005, the Knesset voted to transfer control of Gaza's coastline and airspace to Egypt, revising the previously-stated intent to maintain Israeli control of Gaza's borders, coastline, and airspace.

However I can't find a source for this - can anyone help? Joffan 16:59, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

POV

I suggest to remove the תובבא addition after the name of the former settelments, since this is clearly a POV - it stands in hevrew for "may it will be rebuilt in our days, amen".

Last Section

Would someone be able to help fix up the last section please? ("Escalation in the West Bank post Disengagement plan") It looks like it's been written by someone with a less-than-perfect grasp of English. I've been through it quickly and fixed the most glaring errors (spelling, punctuation etc.), although i realise that i've missed a few. But the entire section to me feels incomplete. I would be grateful for more able hands than mine to tidy things up a bit. Kelmaon 09:21, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually that entire section, in my opinion, does not belong here. The title does not suit the content, which describes two incidents that happened on a single day, and the whole thing reads like a CNN news article, and does not belong in an encyclopedia. If there really is an "escalation", it would not be in one day. Lastly, the title, by implying that the events are an "escalation" and that they occurred "post disengagement" as if they are tied to the "disengagement", are the editor's original research. That may also be why the section feels "incomplete". Ramallite ^(talk) 13:37, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Evacuated settlements

Are there any changes in the list of evacuated settlements? An anon edited Kochav HaShachar to declare it removed. Please verify. mikka (t) 00:16, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Egypt border

Israel does not have control over the Gaza/Egypt border, though it does regulate the borders between Gaza and Israel. Thus, I've edited the caption on the map which claimed that "Israel maintains control of Gaza's borders"

Regarding the alleged prevention of protesters from protesting

AlexKarpman, I am again reverting your edit because the sources you provided are not in English, and therefore English-speaking editors and readers of the English-language Wikipedia are not able to verify them. The information is presented with what I perceive to be a POV slant. If you can provide the source in English, I and other editors can review the material and look into correcting the grammar and possible POV material, instead of deleting it. As it stands snow, there is simply now way to read the original source material to make a fair evaluation.--AladdinSE 04:32, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

What about these sources in German?...
We're talking about something that happend in Israel, and therefore is covered by the Israeli media. I'm sure that there are lots of Hebrew-speaking writers here(and that you even know some!), that'd be simply thrilled to translate the links I gave(or maybe you don't believe them too?...). If I had source in English, I'd be glas to use them, but I don't. When the choice is between sepcifying vital info citing a foreign source, or not giving that info at all, imho there is no choice.
Also, I don't see how a CITATION could be POV. I didn't state any facts. I've noted what OTHER people said.
Finally, I still don't see what is "dodgy" about the grammar(and as I've said, if you're talking about BAD grammar, I take the full blame on me, but anyone, including you, can correct and improve it, instead of deleting it), or what is POV in what I've written. Tell me what's POV, and I'll change it. Should I write "asked politely for the buses to stop" instead of "halted the buses"? I HONESTLY don't understand what's the problem. conio.h • talk 11:33, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

First, read Wikipedia:Citing sources for very useful policy guidelines about what we are discussing here. As for that article you linked, you'll notice that no one is contesting the information backed up by those German sources. If someone did, they would be justified in deleting the information and demanding an English source. There are many many English-language media sources in Israel. It is not purely in Hebrew or Arabic (the two official languages). Also, a citation could easily be POV if the source used is partisan. There are many different kind of sources. From reputable scholarly and journalistic ones to blogs and personal and organizational websites. Even some journalism and scholarly references are known to be extremely partisan, and thus need to be identified and read in English to allow a proper debate about their veracity. Partisan sources may be used, but they should be identified as such when it comes to a contentious edit, and editors must be able to read them to make a proper evaluation. Finally, about the nature of the contentious material, as I see it. The information, as you presented it, makes it sound like public opinion and democratic freedoms were repressed by Israeli police, implying that the true nature of the opposition to the pull-out was deliberately and illegally undermined. That is highly controversial. It talks about decisions of the Supreme Court relating to those controversies. Because the information is in Hebrew, there is no way for an editor or reader to verify 1. The information was correctly transcribed form the source and 2. The source itself is a reputable one, not a partisan blog, for example. --AladdinSE 01:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

First - Been there, done that.
Second, as I've said to you on your talk-page - lack of knowledge is no reason for claiming false to be true. This goes for two main arguments you made:

• Regarding the "partisan" issue - everyone can read the article about it, here in wikipedia(Yedioth Ahronoth), and decide for themselves whether it is a "partisan source" or not. They can even edit THIS article and add that "this information could not be completely trusted, since Yedioth Ahronoth is a known partisan source", If they think so and can give strong arguments in favor. (Actually, I've seen an edit you made refering to ynetnews.com, so the making the assumption of innocence towards you is kind of difficult)
• Regarding the claim that there are many English sources in Israel: Well, simply untrue. The Jerusalem Post's and Haaretz's online archives are not free(and therefore useless as sources for wikipedia), www.nrg.co.il(Maariv) doesn't have an English version, and ynet.co.il's English version(www.ynetnews.com) doesn't even come close to be a complete translated version of the Hebrew one. You claim there are good English sources in Israel? Pick one, and I will find there "evidence" for the info I've added.

Also, a citation is always POV, but when presented as a citation(rather than a fact in the article), with explanation about who made it and under what circumstances, it stands to the wikipedis NPOV policy.

Regarding the alleged POV, all I can say is that your accusations seem very exaggerated to me. If I'd be telling throughout the whole article about "the evil police who repressed innocent protestors" I'd understand how this

makes it sound like public opinion and democratic freedoms were repressed by Israeli police, implying that the true nature of the opposition to the pull-out was deliberately and illegally undermined

But I only told about buses stopped(fact), driver's licences taken(fact), and a petition to the court(fact). I haven't said that it happened throughout the whole country all of the time(actually, I wrote the complete opposite - that it was a local phenomena, and stated a location and time). The credit for this strange interpretation ought to come to you only. Nonetheless, I'd be happy to hear suggestions for alternative formulation of this info. Also, this is the place to mention there was a serious mistake in the edit I made: There was no court ruling. The mistake only happened because I took ynet's word for it... :)

Finally, there are two simple solutions for the two issues you brought up:

1. For an editor: There are other Hebrew speakers here. They can give a scarce but useful "peer review" of my translation work.
   For a reader: As usual, he may choose whether he trusts wikipedia and it's open nature or not. The same thing he must to regarding Latin and Greek in wikipedia. How do I know if translations of quotes from the Septuagint and the Vulgate are true or not?...
2. As I said above. He has wikipedia...

And again I want to say that I use the Hebrew sources not because I think they look better in the English Wikipedia, but because they're the only ones out there. It's not even a close first, but it certainly is a second best. conio.h • talk 02:26, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

"Lack of knowledge" is not the same as requesting a verifiable source. Do you realize how silly it is to go to an editor of the English language Wikipedia and tell them that because they cannot read a foreign source, they are ignorant? No wikipedia editor is omniscient. When contested edits are involved, verifiable sources will be required, you will just have to get used to it.

Actual English access to a source, or a translation thereof, is required so that the original text can be examined relative to the information it purports to support. I've shown you where Wikipedia tells us this. Yedioth Ahronoth and any other source is not exempted. Also, I am not a subscriber to the Jerusalem Post or Haaretz, and yet I have consistently been able to read their citations by other editors in innumerable edits on Wikipedia. Furthermore, it is for the editor introducing the contested edit to provide English sources, not for the editors who are contesting or requiring verification. You cannot shift the burden onto others.

You have admitted that you incorrectly stated that there was a court ruling, and that you took a source's word for it, which was wrong. There MUST be a source we can all read independently to minimize these inaccuracies.

It is very diverting that first you say that "I don't see how a CITATION could be POV" and then you turn around and claim the complete opposite, saying "a citation is always POV." Now, present a citation by all means, and we can call it a partisan citation if it is one, but IN ENGLISH, so I and others can read it and make an independent evaluation. Therefore I am perfectly willing to accede to all those "facts" that you proudly listed, as well as give an "alternative formulation," as long as I can read the original in order to be able to do it :) --AladdinSE 06:24, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Positions of foreign governments

The section "Positions of foreign governments" has been reproduced almost directly from this Al Jazeera article. The article "Israeli unilateral disengagement plan" is copyrighted by Al Jazeera Publishing 1999-2006. Agreed that it is copyright infringement? Also see Wikipedia:Copyrights. — † Webdinger ^{BLAH | SZ} 03:49, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

At the bottom in subdued grey script is a reference to WP. It seems that they plagirized from wp, word for word. --Shuki 20:28, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification, Shuki — I didn't see the gray text, but it seems that Al Jazeera's reference is not sufficient enough to allow them to copy an entire section from a Wikipedia article. — † Webdinger ^{BLAH | SZ} 02:40, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Please do not again make a redirect from disengagement to this article. See Wikipedia:Redirects_for_deletion/Redirect_Archives/May_2006#disengagement_.E2.86.92_Israel.27s_unilateral_disengagement_plan. I also have my doubts about a disambiguation page though this may be a reasonable solution, Andries 18:55, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

POV tag on 'Israeli opinion' section

Someone (not me) put text in this section saying "This section is problematic from a neutrality perspective; it chooses not to document the large-scale pro-disengagement rallies throughout Israel on other occasions."

I've removed this text, and put in a POV tag instead. --Apeloverage 09:09, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Change of name

This disengagement is alrady completed. I propose it be changed to: Israel's 2005 unilateral disengagement or Israel's unilateral disengagement of 2005. --Shamir1 20:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

pre-disengagement murders

There were two instances, I believe, in which anti-disengagement Israeli protesters murdered some Palestinianians hoping it would stop Sharon from going through with it. I was trying to find news stories about the murders, but it's tough. I'm still looking, but if anyone could find them, I think they belong on this page. A student of history 02:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Tali Hatuel and her daughters were murdered and some Israelis protested against the disengagement because of it. That is what you might be confusing it with. I dont see how the scenario described above makes sense.. Israelis killed Palestinians as well. I think it was a protest against his plan, an exteme, ugly, and digusting form of protest. I dont know how it was done in hope it would stop Sharon, but it was a protest. --Shamir1 02:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I found the two incidents I was referring to. I will add them here later. A student of history 19:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I dont think you listened to my point. It was not done in hope that it would stop Sharon, it was done as a form of protest. --Shamir1 20:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, it was done as a form of protest, I will insert that. You are right. A student of history 17:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

"Current status"

I removed the "Current status" section, since it seems to refer to the Realignment plan. It contained the following:

After the Israel Lebanon conflict of 2006, Olmert announced to his cabinet that disengagement from the West Bank was no longer a high priority [22].

This info already appears in the Realignment Plan article, and the reference link is broken. 88.155.130.178 19:59, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Subsequent status of diplomacy

I'm not keen about having news updates posted in articles. On the other hand, there should be a way to concisely have follow-up information included as well. The recent posts seem too much though. --Shuki 19:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Not neutral

This article is too pro-disengagement. Its not neutral.AniChai 18:18, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Merge

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Operation Yad La'ahim content has been merged here from Operation Yad La'ahim. The history of that content, for GFDL attribution purposes can be found here. DES ^(talk) 03:56, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

interesting ref

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=407447&contrassID=1&subContrassID=5&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y

-- Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Source problem

The quote for source #10 is to this site - www.palestine-info.co.uk - which is the english language website of Hamas. Hardly a legitimate source on the matter... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.193.131.167 (talk) 05:48, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

it was not "unilateral"

It was not unilateral in the sense of giving land because near the same time Israel Government overtook water land in some other location... I am not sure where... but my reference is what chomsky said onthe matter. IE, unilateral disengagement is a misnomer term. Sp0 (talk) 01:14, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are talking about or if you understand the use of the term. If you have something to contribute, please do so. This page is not a forum.

The plan was unilateral because the Israeli government made a ridiculously one-sided move without negotiating or talking with the Arabs in the Gaza strip or handing over the land. Israel evicted the Jews, Israel destroyed the homes, the Israeli army retreated - unilaterally. --Shuki (talk) 20:57, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

merge discussion of Evacuation (Israeli politics)

• merge POV fork, but otherwise 'evacuation' was/is either a poor translation of 'lefanot לפנות' or an attempt to beautify the real, laconic and accurate legal term for removing people from their domiciles: eviction. In itself, 'evacuation' is widely used in describing rescuing people from emergency or medical danger. In that sense, using the term evacuation, is POV as in the Israeli government 'rescued' the Jews from Gush Katif when in essence, a political decision was made, the people were evicted from their homes, the land appropriated, and then abandoned. The people were not evacuated to safety. (In fact, they were made homeless). I do not ignore that the misleading POV term became widely used, but it certainly does not justify a separate article. --Shuki (talk) 19:32, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

• Merge - content fork. Rami R 19:43, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

• I've boldly redirected that page to this one, as it was a blatant WP:POVFORK with no pretense of neutrality. It didn't contain any useful information that isn't in this one already. Robofish (talk) 13:09, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Source 27 Link Does Not Work

The link for source 27 does not go to the article. I do not know how to correct this. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.243.56.243 (talk) 19:47, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're talking about since the article is intertwined with proper references and URL hard-links. --Shuki (talk) 21:07, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Irit

I found this map and on it a small town called irit, which lies about halfway between Jenin and Nabulus and just west of Tubas, and I found that it no longer exists. I looked on google maps and I am sure something used to be at its location because there is a road and a clear area of forest at the end of the road the exact location of the supposed town. Was it evacuated maybe along with the disengagement plan? It lies in the area where the disengagement in the northern west bank was happening. Bezuidenhout (talk) 13:44, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Reason

I think article (at the intro) omits a vital little detail: Why? It doesn't mention the reason for this whole thing. Just a sentence would do. 75.4.148.177 (talk) 09:41, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Title should be "Israel's disengagement from Gaza"

"Israel's unilateral disengagement" from where? And "Israel's disengagement" implies there was some sort of 'plan', so you don't need that word. Or, should we change the following titles: "Occupation of Japan Plan," "Invasion of Poland Plan" and a whole bunch of others?Haberstr (talk) 22:05, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Well it was also in the northern West-Bank, so why not "Israel's unilateral disengagement from the Gaza strip and the northern West Bank occupied territories", bit long, but oh well. :) Bezuidenhout (talk) 22:28, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I understand your concern, but 'disengagement' is not as universal a term as the specific occupation and invasion terms your compared it too. The two examples you brought up were actually more important than the invasion plans themselves, but in our case, after five years, it is still too soon to say that the 'disengagement' has superseded the controversial plan itself. Another reason is that there was never any disengagement planned (from the outset, the plan was merely to expel the Jews but keep ties with the Arabs there including improving its economy and infrastructure) and certainly never carried out since many in the world still claim that Israel occupies the Gaza area, as well as many pro-Israel supporters wishing it retake the area and return the expelled to their land. As for the northern Samaria area, Israelis have unofficially, and against the Israeli Army's wishes, returned to at least one of the sites (Homesh) and the army still essentially has control over this area, at least much more than Gaza. The outcome of the plan still has not been finalized. --Shuki (talk) 23:52, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm inclined to reluctantly oppose. Israel disengaged from the Northern West Bank as well, and we can't fit "Israel's unilateral disengagement from the Gaza Strip and Northern West Bank" into an intro. For now, leave as is, but consider future names, as Israel may decide to one day unilaterally disengage from large parts of the West Bank.--RM (Be my friend) 02:00, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Three new articles needed

There are three full-fledged towns for Gaza evacuees in Israel now: someone needs to create new articles about them and incorporate them into the pages on the districts in which they are located. The towns are:

• Netzer Hazani: Built for evacuees from the original Netzer Hazani. Someone also should change the original page to Netzer Hazani (settlement) or (village). Established on land owned originally by Yesodot. Read more here.

• Bnei Dekalim: Built for Neve Dekalim evacuees, the name in Hebrew means "Sons of Dekalim". The community started with a synagogue, and is expanding to become a community of approximately 500 families, numerous educational institutions, and a commercial area. Read more here.

• Ganei Tal: Built for evacuees from the original Ganei Tal. Established on land owned originally by Hafetz Haim. Read more here.

Any user who can pinpoint their precise location for an infobox, gather additional information, or get images, please do.--RM (Be my friend) 02:19, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Use of the term "Eviction"

The term eviction presupposes that the people were legally living there or legally owned property on that land. As much of the I/P conflict is with regards to the legality of the settlements, I feel like we should use a more neutral word to describe it. CartoonDiablo (talk) 00:14, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

-According to Merriam-Webster and the Oxford University Press it is quite the opposite of what you are saying. For accuracy purposes, next time I would advise maybe using a dictionary before spouting off a definition. Coffeegirlyme (talk)· 20:02, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

"Eviction" is the propagandistic euphemism used by the Israeli government to justify their actions. The more appropriate and neutral term would be "ethnic cleansing." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.139.236.31 (talk) 21:03, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move to Israeli disengagement from Gaza: there is solid consensus for a move and this title had the strongest support. Cúchullain ^t/c 15:38, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

---

Israel's unilateral disengagement plan → Israel's unilateral disengagement from Gaza – Executed plan is no longer a plan. Should the minor part of the four WB settlements be included, it may be Israel's unilateral disengagement, or more accurately Israel's 2005 unilateral disengagement. Wickey-nl (talk) 12:14, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

After re-thinking about, I (still) think the term disengagement can only be relatated to Gaza. There were dismantled four small West Bank settlements, but the area remained Area C. Israel only withdrew from Gaza. So, only the proposed title will be the right one of the three mentioned above. --Wickey-nl (talk) 13:19, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

• Support. Agree on both counts. I would drop the word "unilateral" though, it is unnecessary and is made clear in the lead. I also think it should be "Israeli" vs. "Israel's", but feel less strongly. Oncenawhile (talk) 10:33, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

The disengagement, or withdrawal, was per definition unilateral, as it was an occupation with only one army. Unilateral is a non-neutral term which is used to suggest that it was a generous gift from a peace-loving country. It should definitely be mentioned in the intro, but from a view of neutrality, it is better to drop it, indeed.

As for "Israel's", I don't know why it is choosen in the current title. For a title it is uncommon, so Israeli disengagement from Gaza would be fine. --Wickey-nl (talk) 11:13, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

• Support Israeli disengagement from Gaza. Dekimasuよ! 21:32, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

• Support Israeli disengagement from Gaza. This title is accurate, precise, and neutral, making it the fairest choice for a controversial topic. Xoloz (talk) 03:51, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

By accident, today I found in a Jerusalem Post article the disengagement referred to as: "In addition, like in the 2005 Gaza disengagement, ..." --Wickey-nl (talk) 15:51, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

American opinions section seems strange

It's already a bit strange that there is a section devoted to American opinions on the pullout, but more concerning is that it discusses two polls with clearly loaded wording, commissioned by organisations which have strong points of view on the matter. I don't think that the section in its current form adds to the article, but I don't know enough about the topic to be bold enough to just remove it, and I don't really have any further information to improve it. --Slashme (talk) 09:45, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

"American opinions" section completely wrong

The two opinion polls listed in this article meant to represent American opinion are from pro-Israel or Jewish agencies, and their clearly loaded wording implies as a precondition for participation that each participant take a decidedly pro-Israel stance. Not only is this a skewed sample from sources that don't represent Americans in general, but in the ADL poll does not even ask the question, "Do you support Israel's unilateral disengagement plan from Gaza"; and the ZOA poll uses deliberately weighted language to coerce the participant into answering "no (I do not approve)."

The inclusion of this section itself is warranted, but both of these sources need to be scrapped and replaced with something more serious and credible.68.112.148.213 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 05:54, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Problems with the greenhouse section

There are 2 problems with the greenhouse section, one that I fixed and one that I didn't.

First, regarding the minor edit I made. I added "by Palestinians" in the first sentence of the second paragraph. "The remaining settlements' greenhouses were looted for 2 days by Palestinians for irrigation pipes, water pumps, plastic sheeting and glass, but the greenhouses themselves remained structurally intact, until order was restored"

Without that clarification, the sentence can easily be misunderstood to be referring to Israelis looting the irrigation pipes, water pumps, etc of the remaining greenhouses (after the initial dismantling of some by Israel), which is incorrect (according to the sources cited, specifically the mondoweiss source). On my first read-through, I personally misunderstood it as such due to the context and point of the greenhouse section (which is about Israel dismantling some of the greenhouses), and only realized that this particular instance of looting was not by Israel, but by Palestinian looters. when reading up on the sources. Please feel free to reword in a different way than I have done if needed. Perhaps "Palestinian looters" instead of "Palestinians" would be more accurate (I didn't do it this way because the verb "looted" was already in the sentence, seemed redundant). As long as there is clarification in that sentence as to the identity of the looters, just as it is made abundantly clear in previous sentences that Israelis dismantled some greenhouses.

The second problem I did not fix, as I'm not sure of the best way to do so. The end of the first paragraph in the Greenhouse section reads, "An agreement was reached with Israel under international law to destroy the settlers' houses and shift the rubble to Egypt. The disposal of asbestos presented a particular problem: some 60,000 truckloads of rubble required passage to Egypt.[46]" The problem is that the "houses" here are not actually greenhouses, but the domestic homes of settlers, which conveys an entirely different point from that of this section. Since this sentence is in the greenhouse section, and the sentences previous to it are all about greenhouses, this sentence can easily be misunderstood to be referring to Israel destroying greenhouses and shipping the rubble to Egypt. This sentence about Israeli settler homes doesn't belong in the greenhouse section - it only serves to cause confusion. I suggest placing these sentences in a more relevant section, or adding sufficient clarification, or removing them entirely.

Ezmode (talk) 21:23, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Read the previous paragraph, which makes it clear who did the looting.The Israelis 'dismantled' and Palestinians 'looted'. (b) 'destroy houses and shift the rubble to Egypt' is unambiguous. The rubble refers to houses. There is again no ambiguity. If you have ever worked in a greenhouse on a moshav or settlement, or anywhere in the world, you would know that they are not constructed in cement and stone, which makes 'rubble'.Nishidani (talk) 08:22, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Egypt

"Post-disengagement, Israel continued to exercise control over the external perimeter of Gaza, including seaports, air space, and the passage of people and goods"

Israel doesn't control Gaza border with Egypt.

שמילק (talk) 14:40, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Stated motives for the disengagement

I find it strange that the lede would miss vital information on the motives and circumstances for the disengagement.

@Milkawke91:, what do you mean by "controversial opinion"? are you saying that this particular POV, which is coming from Sharon's chief of staff Dov Weisglass, was disputed at the time by other members of the government? Al-Andalusi (talk) 15:35, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

@Galatz: how can you claim it is an WP:OR when a source is provided? The onus is on YOU to prove that the words of Dov Weisglass were not spoken in his official capacity as Sharon's chief of staff. Al-Andalusi (talk) 18:27, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Firstly that is not true, you stating that he is speaking on behalf of more than just himself is in fact WP:OR. The rules very specifically state Even with well-sourced material, if you use it out of context, or to reach or imply a conclusion not directly and explicitly supported by the source, you are engaging in original research. By drawing the conclusion that he is speaking on behalf of the government is a clear violation of OR. The onus is on YOU to find a RS that backs up the point you are making.

Secondly that was your second RR in 4 hours, a clear violation of WP:1RR which is in place on this page. I suggest you self revert or you can be reported for violations. - Galatz^Talk 18:55, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

The onus is on YOU to establish how the wording in the Wiki is contradicted and/or not supported by the attributed reference. Go ahead and show us that. Al-Andalusi (talk) 18:59, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

The article does you used as a source does not say he was speaking in an official capacity in his role. Therefore you have drawn the conclusion that he has, which is a violation. Therefore your RR to bring it back violated both rules. - Galatz^Talk 19:03, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Since when do new articles explicitly make it a point to state whether someone is speaking in his/her official capacity? quit making BS excuses and using alternate accounts (Milkawke91) to enforce the removal. Secondly, you made no effort to show how the wording in the Wiki is contradicted and/or not supported by the attributed reference. Al-Andalusi (talk) 19:36, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Nice try, but that is not a WP:SOCK account, at least not for me. I only use one account, if you don't believe me then I BEG YOU to open an investigation into it, please do. Your rationale for putting it in the lead was his stance speaking on behalf of the country. Unless he is speaking on behalf of the countries official stance, putting it in the lead is WP:UNDUE. - Galatz^Talk 19:47, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

So basically Dov Weisglass was speaking to the media in his position as an Israeli clown? Here we have a senior official from the Israeli side that is being quoted by a reliable source, in interview that leaves no doubt about the context of his statement...if that is not good enough for you, then this is clearly a case of WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. Besides, what is the "real" Israeli POV anyway, if that's not the official one? Al-Andalusi (talk) 20:00, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

If you read the article you are quoting you would realize how ridiculous what you are saying really is. It says in the article "Weisglass, who was one of the initiators of the disengagement plan, was speaking in an interview with Haaretz for the Friday Magazine." It clear states it is him who is speaking, but is he stating the government stance? Is he stating his personal views? There is no way to know. If he called a press conference and addressed the media as a whole about the topic, then he is in an official capacity. But sitting down with a magazine and doing an interview is something politicians do all the time in an unofficial capacity. Its also amazing how quickly you dropped the WP:SOCK comments, I guess when one excuse doesn't work you keep trying to find a new one, maybe if you keep trying one will stick, good luck! - Galatz^Talk 20:49, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Hmm no. Not convinced why Weisglass' views are irrelevant here. Like I said, it is an accurate statement of a notable person that is cited from a reliable reference. You've got to have a very strong reason to dismiss the use of this reference. Rather, it seems that you are wasting our time with your own theories, claiming that (1) he was "shooting the shit" therefore it doesn't really count and (2) only statements told in official capacity are allowed in the lede. I do NOT see support in the Wiki policies to any of your made up assertions. Finally, why are you running away from coming up with the "official" Israeli POV? Al-Andalusi (talk) 21:30, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

1) If he is not in an official capacity it is not irrelevant. You can find a spot somewhere in the body of the article to put it.

2) It is WP:UNDUE especially according to WP:LEAD. It clearly states "According to the policy on due weight, emphasis given to material should reflect its relative importance to the subject, according to published reliable sources." If he isnt speaking in an official capacity you are giving the comments undue weight.

3) What makes it so I need to come up with a different stance? Just because yours isnt doesnt mean I need to find an alternative. Many times countries dont publicly take an official stance on anything. Just because the article doesn't show one doesnt mean you need it force it, it means they might not have one. - Galatz^Talk 00:47, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree that rationale needs to be covered in the lede. It is an important section of the article as a whole, and perhaps the most discussed and most interesting part of the entire article. Onceinawhile (talk) 05:59, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Rationale in lede

The lede has nothing explaining why the disengagement took place. Now that this has been filled out in the body of the article, does anyone disagree that it would be helpful to summarize this topic in the lede? Onceinawhile (talk) 10:04, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

I have added this. Onceinawhile (talk) 12:23, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Questions for Icewhiz

@Icewhiz: please could you explain the following edits:

• [23] this clause in the disengagement plan is mentioned in the body of the article. What makes you think it is outdated? The Israel army have entered Gaza numerous times since 2005
• [24] This is a high quality WP:RS. Deleting it is unacceptable. Your rationale that it is not a detailed legal assessment is very odd per WP:JOHNNY. We need a clear sourcto help us explain in simple language in the lede what the disengagement did with respect to occupation, and this source does it very clearly. It is also entirely consistent with the other, more detailed, legal sources in the article.
• [25] The source you added confirms the prior position: “This seems to be confirmed by the fact that most would still argue that Gaza is occupied even though there are no longer any troops on the ground since the 2005 disengagement”. This, together with the numerous other sources on the page, shows that the argument that it is not is WP:FRINGE and should not be given equal weight with the clear majority opinion.

Onceinawhile (talk) 17:50, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

The source stated Israel reserved its right to do so at the time - 2005 - not in a continuing sense. As for your claims on subsequent war actions - Israel has treated these as acts of war. A ny book review essay by Tareq Baconi (from al-Shabaka - so BIAS quite clear) on the Gaza protests is not a RS for int. Law. As for claiming that the view Israel does not occupy the strip is fringe - the source I linked to clearly says opinions are sharply divided (and as someone who follows this - it was perhaps 80-20 in 2005, it is more like a 60-40 thing now) - far from a fringe view, though, as the source states (again, I replicated this) the majority view is that it is still an occupation. I will further note that those analyzing the claim from a int. law standpoint tend to stress this is not a clearcut issue either way.Icewhiz (talk) 18:11, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree its not fringe at all but rather pretty mainstream view--Shrike (talk) 18:50, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

@Icewhiz: your personal opinion is not relevant here. What is relevant is the sources. See two more here (already in the footnotes):

• “Israel claims it no longer occupies the Gaza Strip... However... It is this direct external control over Gaza and indirect control over life within Gaza that has led the United Nations, the UN General Assembly, the UN Fact Finding Mission to Gaza, International human rights organisations, US Government websites, the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office and a significant number of legal commentators, to reject the argument that Gaza is no longer occupied.”
• “Israel's claim that it no longer occupies Gaza has not been accepted by UN bodies, most States, nor the majority of academic commentators”

Our explanation should follow the sources, and be as emphatic as they are. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:03, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Nor is your opinion this is FRINGE. The academic view in the matter, as reflected in the 2018 source I presented, is merely that a majority of views still sees this as occupied - a position that some UN orgs, some NGOs, and some states presently hold. Per the US, it would seem that the West Bank (and gaza) is no longer occupied [26].Icewhiz (talk) 20:15, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Re the US, their reduced use of the word is politics not international law. They don’t even use it for the West Bank, where there isn’t even a fringe debate amongst scholars - there is no debate at all. Anyway, until the US take an explicit position, there’s nothing for us to do.

As to your 2018 source, if you had read it carefully you would see that it is a reprint of a PhD thesis (see the second page “Based on the author's thesis (doctoral)—Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, 2015”; or here for further details). An esteemed editor once wrote “This is a contentious topic area - PhD dissertations are not the best source.”[27]

Onceinawhile (talk) 20:31, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

It is a reprint of a phd thesis via a reputable publisher - per WP:SCHOLARSHIP Some theses are later published in the form of scholarly monographs or peer reviewed articles, and, if available, these are usually preferable to the original thesis as sources. - this is better than a thesis (aa I see it - similar to any other monograph by the publisher, in this case a reputable one) - and we are using the source for his literature review / intro - and not for its own research.... On a constructive note - a literature review on this, by non activists, and in an academic setting would be preferred to more primary stmts of ooinions (scholarly otherwise) - and this is themtype of source we sould be looking for (lit review).Icewhiz (talk) 21:14, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

There are an abundance of sources for Gaza being considered occupied, and the line specifies who exactly considers it occupied, and the nonsense line on it being "strongly divided" is a violation of NPOV. nableezy - 20:32, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Correct. Another authoritative example is the United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict: see articles 277-279 on page 74. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:39, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Stringly divided is sourced. There is no problem to find sources that assert either side - what we need are current (post 2014, say) sources wio do a literature review on the range of positions.Icewhiz (talk) 21:16, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

It is sourced to a PhD student who admits they are taking a minority / fringe position in the debate. We should use the language of the multiple better reknowned and mainstream position scholars. Which is what is currently in the article. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:26, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

No, it is source to a doctor who holds an academic position [28], republished with modifications as a book 3 years after he got his degree. He is not taking a position - but rather covering, at length, the pros and cons and the various sides to the position here - the claim that Israel is still occupying Gaza despite not being present is not a straightforward argeument - and requires rather complex reasoning - while this is the majority view, the minority view is significnat - and we shoud reflect it - as any and all serious academic sources (on international law) do.Icewhiz (talk) 03:20, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Your assessment of her is not credible when you keep referring to her as if she is a man.

Onceinawhile (talk) 06:04, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Pardon me for being gender blind. This was not obvious to me from the name, and gender seems irrelevant to the publication here and I did not check.Icewhiz (talk) 06:20, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Ill grant that the status of Gaza is more of a question of debate than the West Bank, and that might be worded better in the article, but the UN does continue to refer to Gaza as occupied, that isnt in dispute is it? And why is the 2010 source outdated? The disengagement was 2005. nableezy - 07:18, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Ive made what I think is an improvement over the previous text. Does that address the issue of one-sidedness adequately? But for the record, the source for "the debate is heated" doesnt really mean that the numbers are close, it in fact says "The majority however disagree with the position adopted by Israel." The "heat" it speaks of is regarding the intensity of the passion involved due to the consequences for what level of protection Israel is obliged to offer as a result. nableezy - 07:26, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

The question is the weight of the minority view - which I stress is a significant minority. As for 2010 being dated - views here have evolved in the past 8 years, and so has the strength of arguement (thing being different vs.a recent on the ground occupier and a long gone one (we are not there yet - but not recent either)). Some views, as time passes, place some responsibility on Egypt (which shares a border and also imposes restrictions on imports/exports as well). We need a recent source to say it is still occupied. If we want to reflect consensus circa 2006 - a recent source is perhaps less important, but the literature on this issue (which is a somewhat novel case in occupation law) has evolved in the years since (so the an old source would correctly reflect consensus at the time and positions at the time, but not current scholarly consensus on the legal topic).Icewhiz (talk) 10:07, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Im sorry, but I dont follow. The source you added very specifically says that the majority viewpoint is still that Gaza is occupied. The article includes the minority view as a minority view. You seem to want that view to be given more than the weight that a minority view warrants. And again, Im using your source for it being a minority view. nableezy - 00:03, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

A significant minority should be covered at length - but slightly less than the majority view (if it is 60/40 - then 60% to the majority view) - as you might see in the up to date source I provided.Icewhiz (talk) 04:49, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

I dont see anything about how significant that minority is in that source, it is one person arguing against what they say is the majority view. And the sentence covers more than just academic views, it also talks about the UN and human rights organizations saying Gaza is occupied. I think the parts on Israel controlling x y and z can be moved to the body, and this be slightly expanded there, but a. I dont think this needs to be covered in too much depth except for whether or not the disengagement changed the status of Gaza and not its current status (which again is still considered occupied as a majority view according to your source), and b. I think the weight given is already appropriate. nableezy - 05:59, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

If a more recent source for "occupied" is required, here's a report from April this year by the UNHRC, calls Gaza "occupied" and calls Israel the "occupying power". Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 12:38, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Missing Arguments

This is missing the most important reason the 2005 disengagement got passed: People believed it would bring peace. This was the reasoning behind Labour support of the pullout, and Sharon said in his address the security risks which would disappear there would get rid of conflict. The Klorg (talk) 05:02, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Reasoning

https://peacemaker.un.org/sites/peacemaker.un.org/files/IL%20PS_930913_DeclarationPrinciplesnterimSelf-Government%28Oslo%20Accords%29.pdf The Gaza pullout wasn't for Demographic reasons, it was mandated under the Oslo Accords. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:A1C0:6D40:1159:6372:9C50:FCB4 (talk) 02:10, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Interesting point. I don’t remember Israel claiming that they were pulling out under the terms of Oslo. If you have a source which explicitly makes that claim, we can add it in.

In the meantime see [29] which claims:

THE DISENGAGEMENT PLAN VIOLATES OSLO

The language of Oslo favors the development of a peace set- tlement through a process of mutual agreement and negotiation. Its preamble declares that “[t]he Government of the State of Israel and the P.L.O [will] . . . strive to achieve [a] . . . peace settlement and historic reconciliation through the agreed political process.” Nevertheless, Israel’s Disengagement Plan violates these key tenets, rejecting a negotiated settlement in favor of a predetermined Israeli resolution. Article V of Oslo specifically invokes negotiation as the method for resolving what the Disengagement Plan attempts to solve unilaterally. Article V covers permanent status, stating, “Negotiations shall cover . . . settlements, security arrangements, borders . . . and other issues of common interest” (emphasis added). Although a tentative agreement was reached concerning the status of Jewish settlements following withdrawal, the withdrawal itself was not negotiated. As the IDF was withdrawn, and with the Palestinian security forces still largely in disarray, security in the region has been jeopardized.17 The withdrawal has similarly impacted border security because Israel unilaterally determined what land would be given up and when.

Article XIV of Oslo calls on Israel to withdraw from Gaza, as laid out in Annex II of the agreement. The Disengagement Plan violates this provision, however, because Israel failed to negotiate an agreement with the Palestinians for the Gaza Strip military withdrawal. Oslo also proposes the “[e]stablishment of a joint Palestinian-Israeli Coordination and Cooperation Committee for mutual security purposes.” Because no agreement for such a com- mittee was reached prior to August 2005, Israel dictated the exclusive terms of the withdrawal. Not only did Israel’s actions contra vene Oslo’s terms, but they also neglected the spirit of cooperation and negotiation that permeates the document, which is crucial to relations between the two parties. Although the Oslo Accords allow for some level of unilateral action, the document also envi- sions cooperation and negotiation. Further, this unilateral action is restricted primarily to coordination with international partners. As such, Israel’s unilateral Disengagement Plan does not abide by Oslo’s stipulation for unilateral action, and certainly ignores and breaches the majority of the conditions set forth for the Gaza withdrawal.

Under Oslo any disputes over the agreement or its interpreta- tion should be resolved by a joint Israeli-Palestinian “Liaison Committee,”18 composed of members of the two parties, which will “reach decisions by agreement.”19 In fact, the Palestinians expected that “all outstanding issues relating to permanent status [would] be resolved through negotiations.”20 Thus, even if Israel could classify the Disengagement Plan as an interpretation of Oslo, there would still be disagreement as to its validity because the Plan was not assessed by the Liaison Committee prior to implementa- tion. By moving ahead without consultation with the Palestinians or the designated mediator, Israel violated the conditions established in Oslo.

Onceinawhile (talk) 07:37, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 April 2021

Change

The settlers received an average of more than US$200,000 in compensation.

to

The settlers received an average of more than US$200,000 in compensation per family.

The original sentence is ambiguous. Hb2007 (talk) 09:45, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

 Done bop34 • talk • contribs 13:50, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Unilateral

Unilateral it's a weird word to be used in this context. Recommended removing the word from the page. AK (talk) 19:19, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Interlanguage links for Aryeh Yitzhaki

The article contains two redlinks to Aryeh Yitzhaki. I suggest either replacing both with {{ill|Aryeh Yitzhaki|he|אריה יצחקי}}, or replacing the first link and removing the other.

Relatedly, at Shirat HaYam there's also a redlink that should be replaced. WallAdhesion (talk) 19:22, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

 Done SWinxy (talk) 21:56, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Greenhouse claims

The text "A widespread opinion has it that Israel left Gazans with a generous endowment consisting of a rich infrastructure of greenhouses to assist their economic regrowth, and that this was immediately destroyed by the Palestinians. " is very misleading as the consensus view is that it was the Israeli settlers that dismantled about 50% of the greenhouses and then minor looting occurred by the Palestinians. the text should be "A widespread but unsupported opinion has it that Israel left Gazans with a generous endowment consisting of a rich infrastructure of greenhouses to assist their economic regrowth, and that this was immediately destroyed by the Palestinians. 216.209.181.111 (talk) 18:26, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Today, it just reads rather ironically given the subsequent decades of systematic carpet bombing of infrastructure in the territory. In inspecting this, I noticed that two of the supporting sources were opinion pieces, and that more generally, the sourcing for this page is not in a good state weak to unreliable in places, entirely absent in others. Plenty to be done beyond the greenhouse blurb. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:19, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

I've chucked out all the opinion attached to that and gone back to the actual RS news reports. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:35, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Israeli disengagement - from reality!

Although the Israeli settlers then dismantled about 50% of the greenhouses, the Israeli 'Defence' Forces are now attempting to dismantal up to 50% of the houses. So might not the article highlight concerns that - whatever gains were made by the Disengagement Policy - have they not been totally undermined by the hard-hearted actions of this hard-right Government? Also, given all the human rights outrages by the IDF - does not the title need updating?

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 October 2023

change (in reference 15) "https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/ariel-sharons-dark-greatness'Ariel" (links to page not found) to "https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/ariel-sharons-dark-greatness" (links to article referenced). TheGalach (talk) 19:23, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

 Done Elli (talk | contribs) 00:22, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Conspiratorial

This entire article reads like a conspiratorial, left wing funded take on the rationale for the israeli pullout. Theres no doubt in my mind that there were undercurrents and talks of demography. But the stated rationale was that Israel was busy babysitting 8,000 Jewish settlers amongst a million Palestinians and it wasn't worthwhile absent a negotiated peace. 2601:147:C102:DDA0:A02D:F4A8:6365:6D87 (talk) 04:26, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 October 2023

change "Israel unilaterally disengaged from the Gaza Strip in 2005. The UN and a number of human rights organizations continue to consider Israel as the occupying power of the Gaza Strip due to its blockade of the territory;[12][13][14][15][16] Israel rejects this characterization.[17]"

to

"Although Israel claims to have disengaged from the Gaza strip, "it continues to maintain direct control over Gaza's air and maritime space, six of Gaza's seven land crossings, maintains a no-go buffer zone within the territory, controls the Palestinian population registry, and Gaza remains dependent on Israel for its water, electricity, telecommunications, and other utilities.[5][7]""

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_disengagement_from_Gaza#cite_note-occ-5

B'tselem, Israel's largest human rights organization, explained, in its comprehensive Jan 2021 report, that only one regime has control of Israel, Gaza and the West Bank and that is Israel. https://www.btselem.org/publications/fulltext/202101_this_is_apartheid

On October 8, 2023, Israel unilaterally turned off water and food supplies to the entire population of Gaza. Over the next week, a humanitarian crisis developed. Over one million Palestinian children were cut off from water, food, electricity and medical supplies in punishment for the crimes committed by a terrorist organization on October 7th.

https://www.who.int/news/item/13-10-2023-who-pleads-for-immediate-reversal-of-gaza-evacuation-order-to-protect-health-and-reduce-suffering Lrimawi (talk) 22:16, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. Brendan ❯❯❯ Talk 04:49, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 31 October 2023

Change spelling mistake “enivisaged” to “envisaged”. Eva1una77 (talk) 08:23, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

 Done Thank you. Liu1126 (talk) 11:13, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Unsourced and undated claim

"Israel and Egypt have concluded an agreement under which Egypt can increase the number of police on its side of the border, while the IDF evacuates the Gazan side. The text of the agreement is not yet public."

Can this be updated? It's not clear when this occurred, and there's no citation or source. 130.179.243.152 (talk) 20:07, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

The passage was added in September 2005, here. The Yahoo news item mentioned is archived here. I do my best to avoid editing pages on controversial subjects, so I'll leave it to other editors to decide how to proceed. Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 20:59, 3 November 2023 (UTC)