Talk:Israeli settlement/Archive 9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 ← Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 → Archive 13

Samaria by Israeli sources and Israel-friendly individuals in America

MM. I don't think this is much chop. For one it is ugly, clumsy, and it is probably too much of an editorial synthesis, thirdly, where's G-Dett, our master or mistress stylist, on occasions like this? It seems clear to me from the evidence that pro-Israeli commentators around the world do often use 'Samaria', though they do their readers the courtesy of glossing it with(in)'the West Bank'. We need some collaborative suggestions, evidently, on how to phrase this. I would prefer, off-hand, 'referred to as Samaria in Israeli usage and foreign works that reflect that usage.' Or something along those lines.Nishidani (talk) 17:35, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I obvioulsy didn't expect it to stay up for long, but such kludges are what we get if we try to compromise and be literal and be factually correct about who exactly uses the term at the same time. Per the discussion above, the best solution is still to stick to neutral and mainstream terminology, and simply call the area the West Bank. MeteorMaker (talk) 19:01, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
actually, the best solution is to refer to it as the reliable sources cited have done, without any original research synthesis of the kind you are attempting. Canadian Monkey (talk) 19:03, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Agree that the phrasing could be a little less clunky. This option however is way worse, suggesting as it does that occasional use in each of these publications/outlets is enough to imply the more regular "referred to as Samaria by ..". Plus as noted above the BBC source cited doesn't in fact use the word, and of course reference to the term is not the same thing as endorsement in any event. How about - as I've suggested at least once before, maybe on a different page - something more along the lines of "sometimes referred to, predominantly in Israel, as Samaria"? And how about moving this material into the Terminology section, where it more obviously belongs, and where the debate can be dealt with in a bit more detail? --Nickhh (talk) 19:06, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
How about simply saying what the referenced RS's say in this context - that 4 settlements in Samaria were removed? what's the problem with that? We've compromised by moving it out from the lead, and we're quoting the RSs. Canadian Monkey (talk) 21:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
There are many sources that refer to the incident as the 'withdrawal of four settlements from the northern West Bank'. Technically, one should, therefore be equally entitled to parallel those sources Jayjg uses in the body of the text and notes, with an equal number of sources describing this same event, not as a withdrawal from Samaria, but as a 'withdrawal from the northern West Bank'.
In brief, unless we agree on the NPOV vox propria for the lead and text, which is, as far as I can see, 'northern West Bank', there is no point in trying to fix a compromise in which the lead has that, and the body of the text has 'northern Samaria'. I am for putting 'northern West Bank' in the text as NPOV, with an extensive note, listing the Samaria variant, which is well attested in 'pro-Israeli' sources. We must not create cognitive dissonance, however much pressure there is for a wikistyle compromise. The evidence is overwhelmingly for the view that 'Samaria' whoever uses it, is not the conventioned neutral term of most sources with no horse in this race.Nishidani (talk) 22:06, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Note on Judea and Samaria added in Terminology section, per Nickhh. [1] MeteorMaker (talk) 09:39, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Sourced restored, per NPOV etc.

I'm restoring the cited information using the terminology "Samaria", per WP:NPOV, and per Elonka's comment. I remind editors here that even if it were the case that "Samaria" was less common terminology, NPOV does not allow it to be expurgated; on the contrary, it insists that multiple points-of-view be presented. Jayjg (talk) 20:24, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

That's an unorthodox reading of WP:UNDUE, WP:NCGN and WP:NPOV. Read more here. MeteorMaker (talk) 20:34, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Your personal views do not become fact by mere dint of repetition or continued linking. Jayjg (talk) 00:08, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
He's not voicing a personal view. Your argument that NPOV's provision for "multiple points of view" extends to terminology used in Wikipedia's neutral voice is indeed unorthodox. He was, if anything, being euphemistic.--G-Dett (talk) 03:14, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
The four texts cited could be paralleled by a dozen using the term 'northern West Bank'. So are we to have an extensive page-long footnote with quotes just on this issue? is this an invitation to stack that footnote with all available sources referring to the same incident as a withdrawal from the 'northern West Bank'?Nishidani (talk) 21:43, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
It says "northern West Bank" first in the detail, and only "northern West Bank" in the lede, so I don't see your issue. Jayjg (talk) 00:08, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
We could easily add "Palestine" as well, is that OK with you, Jayjg? MeteorMaker (talk) 07:44, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Jayjg . To quote your own words above:'Your personal views do not become fact by mere dint of repetition'. MM's arguments are not 'personal'. They are those of the majority of sources, and of editors in here.It is improper to single MM out for restating facts that are accepted by most of us, on the basis of the documentation examined.Nishidani (talk) 14:19, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Citing to a personal translation of a Spanish version?

For some strange reason the citation to the article by Tamir in The Australian was changed to a personal translation of a Spanish version of the article on some website. I understand that User:Meteormaker was at one point making some sort of claim that since the link to the original article in The Australian was dead, he could therefore remove the reference.[2] In addition, he was insisting that he couldn't verify what the source said, despite the exact quote being provided, and therefore it was not valid. I would simply point out that

  • articles published in a newspaper are valid sources, regardless of whether Meteormaker has actually read them. If he wants to, he can go do a library and look them up, and
  • the exact quote is still available in the google cache.

In the future please don't remove valid links to quoted newspaper sources, even if the link dies, and please don't substitute your translations of foreign language version of the original source. Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 20:24, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

It was removed partly because the link was dead, partly because we had a consensus that an Israeli government official might not be the most NPOV source, and we all know it's called "Samaria" in Israel anyway, so no big surprise if an Israeli calls it that. The case for WP to take up Israel-specific terminology is still extraordinarily weak, as you haven't provided one single source that says it's used outside Israel, and that is kind of corroborated by the fact that six of your eight cites are from Israeli sources. Your Google cache links lead to one 404 and one wholly other article btw. CM (or NoCal) supplied the Spanish-language substitute, which predictably contains the disclaimer "Samaria: Israeli name for the West Bank". It was in all likelihood in the Australian original as well. MeteorMaker (talk) 20:47, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Actually, the google cache leads to the original source, in English, which says nothing of the sort. I've quoted it exactly and completely, leaving not one word out - therefore it was not "in all likelihood in the Australian original as well". The second link leads to a cache of the article at The Australian, and says "Four settlements will be evacuated in the northern Samaria region of the West Bank. It could be argued that this stage of the pull-out presents an even ..." Those are the exact words, as I've said time and again. Now, either you accept the truth, or, if you still doubt it, go look it up in a library. Those are your only options. Continuing to pretend that it doesn't say what it says is not an option. Jayjg (talk) 23:35, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Sources do not have to be online to be valid, they just need to be verifiable by a reasonably diligent editor with access to a decent-sized library. I've checked my own library database, and confirmed that Jayjg is talking about a real article. The sentence that Jayjg is talking about, is the first line in the second paragraph, and the word "Samaria" appears three times in the article. --Elonka 00:00, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
If you have access to the full article, Elonka, can you confirm that it contains the same disclaimer (ie "Samaria: Israeli name for a portion of the West Bank") as the Spanish translation? MeteorMaker (talk) 18:03, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm happy to paste in the entire article here, if it's not a copyvio to do so. It's an op-ed by the Israeli ambassador (not an interview, as I erroneously identified it below). The Israeli ambassador uses the word "Samaria" three times in his op-ed. There is no footnote on the term; that appears to have been added for a Spanish audience unfamiliar with an increasingly obscure biblical term favored by Israeli spokespersons for propaganda purposes. What on earth this op-ed is doing as a source for this article I have no idea. The Israeli ambassador is making this statement before the actual event we're supposedly sourcing. We should be using scholarly sources and mainstream news coverage covering the actual historical event, not obscure op-eds announcing the imminence of said event. This appears to be here as part of Jay's massive original-research document dump intended to demonstrate that the Israeli POV word "Samaria" is mainstream usage and not an Israeli POV word. Using an obscure op-ed by an official Israeli spokesperson is an awfully peculiar way to go about demonstrating this, as MM has tirelessly pointed out.--G-Dett (talk) 19:05, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Please note, however, that this discussion of authenticity is yet another total red herring. The "article" in question is an interview with op-ed by an Israeli official who, unsurprisingly, uses the POV term "Samaria" in describing part of the West Bank. Palestinian officials are wont to call the West Bank "Palestine" in their op-eds. Big deal. Wikipedia doesn't use these terms in its neutral voice, for reasons which are obvious to all but which have nevertheless been explained at great length.
Substantively speaking, using this interview op-ed as a source here makes no sense. In order to source the fact that Israel withdrew from four settlements in the West Bank, we provide a statement from before it actually happened, announcing that as a future intention? This is a really, really weird approach to sourcing historical facts; I don't think you'll find it anywhere else in Wikipedia. The only reason it's being done here is because the POV word "Samaria" is used there by an Israeli official. MeteorMaker was right to remove it. It's a stupid, inappropriate choice of source for our legitimate purposes, coy and clever as it may be for illegitimate ones.--G-Dett (talk) 03:00, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Official term

I know in Hebrew that 'Judea and Samaria' are the official terms used by the Israeli government in Hebrew. This may seem a small point, but I would like some indications that it is the term also used in official Israeli publications and negotiations in English. Efraim Karsh notes examples of the two being out of synch (Arabs in Hebrew official texts, Palestinians in those texts published for foreigners).Nishidani (talk) 21:39, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Continued insertion of original research

For some reason I cannot fathom User:Meteormaker has replaced specific citations with the unsourced original research claim "referred to as Samaria predominantly in Israel". Can he produce reliable sources which back up this claim? I do, however, appreciate his concern that the current wording was too long, so as a compromise I replaced the list with wording that did not violate the WP:NOR policy. Jayjg (talk) 23:41, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, you may have seen these 58 sources that all say, explicitly, that it's Israel-specific terminology. Now let's see yours, that say it isn't. MeteorMaker (talk) 07:41, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Jay, please do not cite the "concerns" of other editors as justification for restoring an unqualified "also known as .." wording, which both those editors have argued against at length, including only a few days ago. As pointed out ad nauseam, that wording suggests a false equivalence. The previous wording you were trying to push, naming sources where the word Samaria seems to have been found, possibly only once, is equally misleading, as surely you know. You are playing games here, both in your edit summaries and with the sources. Can you please also explain exactly how a phrasing that says the words "Samaria", "Judea" and/or "Judea and Samaria" are sometimes used, predominantly in Israel, does not constitute a fair and broad overview of the many sources cited here over the past months? We have relative Google hit counts from media organisations and official websites, as well as serious published books looking at the issue which explicitly refer to them as minority-use, politically loaded terms of biblical origin which were revived and pushed within Israel from the Begin years onwards. Concisely summarising the obvious is not a breach of WP:OR or WP:SYNTH. Feel free to work out some variation on that wording, but let's not pretend that we can have serious content here that gives equal weight to this minority terminology; or that says nonsense like "referred to as Samaria by CNN" or whatever, based on a single example.--Nickhh (talk) 12:50, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
That prank edit ("referred to as Samaria by the International Herald Tribune, the Journal of Church and State, Sussex Academic Press, Lexington Books, Hoover Press and others" [3] [4]) will go into a hall of fame one day, when someone writes the history of nationalist gaming of Wikipedia.
Meanwhile, here's how 1948 Palestinian exodus begins (emphasis added):

The 1948 Palestinian exodus (Arabic: الهجرة الفلسطينية‎, al-Hijra al-Filasteeniya), referred to by Palestinians as al Nakba or al Naqba (Arabic: النكبة‎), meaning the "disaster", "catastrophe", or "cataclysm," refers to the creation of the Palestinian refugee problem during and after the 1948 Palestine war.

To my knowledge, no pro-Palestinian editor or admin has tried to change that to read –

The 1948 Palestinian exodus (Arabic: الهجرة الفلسطينية‎, al-Hijra al-Filasteeniya), referred to by the New York Times,[5] Sussex Academic Press,[6] [7] , Lexington Books,[8], Columbia University Press,[9] and others, as al Nakba or al Naqba (Arabic: النكبة‎), meaning the "disaster", "catastrophe", or "cataclysm," refers to the creation of the Palestinian refugee problem during and after the 1948 Palestine war.

If someone does try that, will Canadian Monkey and Jayjg back him or her up? In other words, do they actually believe the arguments about sourcing, NPOV, and minority terminology that they've been making on this page? To ask the question is to answer it.--G-Dett (talk) 21:12, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
G-Dett, please review WP:CIVIL, for you have emended your remarks several times without apologizing for the offensive lapsus calami of the original oversights. True, the corrections may not involve your own edits, but even there you have been unconscionably slow in correcting them. Come to think of it, there may be grounds here for an AN/I report on possible violations of WP:SYNTH, WP:OR, and, uh,. . I'll come up with some other complaints tomorrow. Nishidani (talk) 21:59, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Name change

OK. Who gave that ok to move the article? --Shuki (talk) 18:56, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

It was done unilaterally, with no prior discussion or consensus. Time to move it back. Hertz1888 (talk) 19:34, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Balance in the Lead

The following passage is the 5th paragraph. It should perhaps be in the first or second since it appears to represent the majority of the world.

  • A number of international bodies, including the United Nations Security Council, the International Court of Justice, the European Union, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch and many legal scholars have characterized the settlements as a violation of international law, but other legal scholars, Israel, and the Anti-Defamation League disagree with this assessment.93.96.148.42 (talk) 06:03, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
It's probably the most significant aspect of the settlements, so OK to that. MeteorMaker (talk) 08:56, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Have moved it to second place.93.96.148.42 (talk) 00:55, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Has moved back down, somehow - will move it back up.93.96.148.42 (talk) 08:58, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom restrictions

MeteorMaker (talk · contribs) has been banned from making Samaria-related reverts, or removing reliable citations, for 90 days.[10] He is still welcome to make other non-revert changes to the article, and to bring up concerns at the talkpage, to build consensus for desired changes. --Elonka 17:16, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

This appears to be based on a misconception: I did not remove Jayjg's (cherry-picked) cites, I just moved them to the proper place in the article, the part that actually discusses the usage of the name "Samaria". [11] I humbly request that you lift that ban. MeteorMaker (talk) 17:36, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Actually, you removed the statement that the term "Samaria" is sometimes used, which is exactly what those sources supported. The fact that you didn't actually remove the sources, but merely hid them in an irrelevant citation, is not a defense of your edit. Jayjg (talk) 16:31, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
None of those sources say that the term "Samaria" is sometimes used. That appears to be your own conclusion. If you want that statement there (IMO an irrelevant place, as we have a section on the toponyms and their usage already), it shouldn't be misleading — since dozens of sources confirm that the term is used in Israel and the rest of the world calls it the West Bank [12], that is what the article should say. MeteorMaker (talk) 19:01, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Samaria is not the same as the West Bank. You are reminded that you are banned from making Samaria related reverts. Go find something else to do. Canadian Monkey (talk) 00:15, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Your original research is still unproven; and, in fact, conclusively disproven. Nevertheless, I have modified the wording to account for your objection to the phrase "sometimes used". Jayjg (talk) 01:48, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Canadian Monkey: That ban was based on what has been confirmed by the admin to be a misunderstanding. She promised to lift it, but forgot to do so before she went on vacation.
Jayjg: Scroll down a little and see that even your painstakingly scraped-together anecdotal evidence for the position that "Samaria" is a modern toponym doesn't hold up to scrutiny. You have still not presented one source that corroborates your claim without large doses of WP:SYNTH, and you need lots to match the colossal amount of sources that expressly say you're wrong. MeteorMaker (talk) 08:46, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
The ban has not been lifted, and was still in place after what you claim is a "misunderstanding" was discussed on your Talk page, ending with no changes at all to the ban. Elonka did not promise to lift it, she said she is open to reviewing it - and has not done so. You may think it is because she 'forgot to do so before she went on vacation.' but there is no indication that is the case, and it is more likely that based on your repeated attempts to wikilawyer around the restriction she has placed, that she decided to keep it, as is. Canadian Monkey (talk) 21:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Some kind of corroboration would make that accusation of wikilawyering look less like a violation of WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. MeteorMaker (talk) 22:02, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
When someone is banned from removing citations, and claims it is ok to remove the material the citations are used as reference for, so long as he keeps the citations themselves in the article, he is wikilawyering. When someone is banned from reverting the term "Samaria" and changing it into "West bank", following a spate of such edits, and claims it is ok to do it if there isn't a previous version that had the term "west bank' in it, he is wikilawyering. When someone says "Elonka promised to lift the ban", when in fact all she did was agree to review it, he is not wikilawyering, just blatantly misleading. Canadian Monkey (talk) 22:19, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, but all that has been confirmed to be a load of bunk [13]. Now kindly shift your focus to trying to find sources for your clam that "Samaria" is a modern toponym instead. MeteorMaker (talk) 22:27, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes, your claim that the ban was lifted has been "confirmed to be a load of bunk", despite your wikilawyering. Jayjg (talk) 03:31, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
The claim that I've made such a claim is easy to confirm as the same. MeteorMaker (talk) 07:13, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
But now it's safe to make. [14] MeteorMaker (talk) 11:55, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Reference [22] not anymore available

This reference should be removed or a new one found. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.243.137.56 (talk) 12:41, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


"change wording, per MeteorMaker's objections"?

I wonder, what objections is Jayjg referring to when he made this change, with the edit summary "change wording, per MeteorMaker's objections"? I have certainly not objected that the article should say "or northern Samaria" instead of "also referred to as Samaria". If I have made an objection, it's that it should be made clear that "Samaria" is Israel-specific terminology. There is no consensus for that highly misleading edit and it should be reverted. MeteorMaker (talk) 10:50, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

You alleged that None of those sources say that the term "Samaria" is sometimes used. That appears to be your own conclusion. Based on your complaint, I removed the phrase you were complaining about, and any pretext for claiming OR. Speaking of OR, your claim that "Samaria" is Israel-specific terminology has been conclusively disproved. Jayjg (talk) 03:39, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Scroll down a little for the demolition of that claim. Instead of resorting to proof by assertion, try and find one source that actually says what you are trying to prove, that "Samaria" is used outside Israel. I remind you that there are scores of reliable sources that prove you wrong here, and thousands more may be added. Also, kindly refrain from blatant misrepresenting of other editors' positions and from making misleading edit summaries in the future. MeteorMaker (talk) 07:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
In this unrelated edit in the same article, I admit I was wrong about the existence of a consensus (though the edit in itself was fine). Now, you might have thought your edit summary correct too, the first time. However, I informed you that your wording was not "per MeteorMaker's objections" and still you didn't correct it. It was reverted two times, and both times you reinserted the false claim, with even more outlandish edit summaries [15][16], totally contrary to WP:AGF. Also, there was never a consensus for your edit, so it would be appropriate if you reverted it yourself. MeteorMaker (talk) 18:08, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

This bogus edit summary seems to hit a new low for editorial dishonesty, finger-in-the-eye arrogance, and deliberate disruption.

There is currently a case before Arbcom about this entire hoax. I'd suggest not wasting further energy here, or on any article talk page.--G-Dett (talk) 00:43, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

illegal / unauthourized outposts

I tried looking for this issue in the archives but could not find something directly relevant. I've changed the wording from illegal outposts to unauthourized outposts since this term is disputed / misleading. The Sasson Report deals with the outposts and adds criteria it uses that might make an outpost illegal, but the Sasson Report itself is not binding or the legal policy of the Israeli government. The Israeli government itself does not have specific criteria for what an illegal or legal settlement, except for those locations that the courts have managed to deal with. For instance, Amona is an outpost, but only the houses that were destroyed were deemed illegally built. --Shuki (talk) 20:05, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

There are many WP:RS that call these settlements illegal settlements, including the WP:RS that you removed from the article.

If you want to rename them in this article, then find a WP:RS that supports this terminology. You are not a WP:RS. Factsontheground (talk) 23:56, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Did you even read the Sasson Report? The cover page itself states that it is an interim report about unauthorized outposts. There is also absolutely no use of the term illegal in the entire 343 page report. Please stop introducing fictitious terms into wikipedia articles to push your POV on the subject. This seems to be your alternative way to call settlements illegal - POV that has not succeeded otherwise. --Shuki (talk) 22:36, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes I have read the report but no, it is not the only WP:RS that deals with illegal settlement outposts.
You will find that the majority of WP:RS, in particular news agencies, use the "illegal settlement" terminology. Factsontheground (talk) 22:53, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

They are often referred as "illegal" precisely because they are "unauthorized," in Israel, not because any international court or court of public opinion has passed judgment. Most of the RS will in fact use both terms. "Unauthorized," however, is the clearer and more accurate term as user:Shuki points out. Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:01, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Not sure if this is a reliable source, and not meaning to complicate things, but this says Lieberman "... is committed to expanding illegal Israeli settlements in the West Bank." [17] The Indypendent. Israel’s Killer Election. April 17, 2009. By Jaisal Noor and Arun Gupta
And here's a source stating that settlements are considered illegal under international law. "International law considers Israeli settlements on the occupied West Bank and occupied east Jerusalem illegal." [18] International Middle East Media Center. This Week in Palestine -Week 17 2009. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 21:56, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
The fact that the outposts are illegal is not disputed. The Sasson report found "A continuing, bold, institutionalized law violation" in the growth of the unauthorized outposts. The report was "interim" in nature because the investigation of several agencies could not be finalized in the time allocated. Page 19-20 of the Hebrew version (linked above) contains four mandatory criteria for authorizing any settlement in Judea, Samaria, and Gaza. Number two on that list required that there be a proper state title to the land. Sasson cited the High Court's ruling in the Elon Moreh case. It was based on customary international law (Hague IV Convention) restrictions on the military administration. The report states: "I must emphasize: an unauthorized outpost is not a "semi-legal" outpost. Unauthorized is illegal." The report goes on to say that building outposts on private Palestinian property is absolutely prohibited and in some cases constitutes a felony. The report also explains that the Israeli High Court of Justice had ruled that the Commander of the area must protect the fundamental rights of the Palestinians in Judea, Samaria and Gaza and that an establishment of outposts on Palestinian private property causes an intolerable prejudice to the right of possession recognized in the Basic Law: Human Dignity and Freedom. Here are some links to the English summary at UNISPAL, the Prime Minister of Israel's Communications Office, and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs harlan (talk) 14:51, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court

In 1998, the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs noted that the draft Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court included a provision that classified the transfer of civilian populations to occupied territories as a war crime. see The International Criminal Court - Background Paper. The prohibition did not depend upon the provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention, since the statute cited both the laws and "customs of international law".
That same year, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs reported that a number of its own eminent legal authorities had determined that the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights did not apply to the situation in the "occupied territories". The covenant applies to all individuals within Israel's territory that are subject to its jurisdiction. Israel questioned whether individuals resident in the "occupied territories" were indeed subject to Israel's national jurisdiction, and stated that the Covenant had been developed in the context of a normal relationship between a state and its "internal population". see Summary record of the 1675th meeting : Israel, 21/07/98, CCPR/C/SR.1675
In 2000, the editors of the Geneva Academy of International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights' Palestine Yearbook of International Law 1998-99 observed that the United Nations Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries had adopted the Rome Statute. They noted:
"in particular, that Article 8, which provides that the "transfer, directly or indirectly, by the Occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies, or the deportation or transfer of all or parts of the population of the occupied territory within or outside this territory" amounts to a war crime. This is obviously applicable to Israeli settlement activities in the Occupied Arab Territories."
See the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, 1998, Done at Rome on 17 July 1998. Entered into force on 1 July 2002, United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 2187, p. 3-7
In 2004, the ICJ advised the General Assembly that any measures taken by an occupying Power in order to organize or encourage transfers of parts of its own population into the occupied territory were prohibited. The court characterized the measures adopted by Israel with regard to Jerusalem and the settlements as "illegal". see paragraphs 120 and 122 of "Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory".
In 2004, the Israeli Supreme Court, sitting as the High Court of Justice, stipulated that Israel has been holding the areas of Judea and Samaria in belligerent occupation, since 1967. The court held that the International Law of Occupation contained in Hague IV, of 1907, is applicable. see Beit Sourik Village Council v. The Government of Israel, HCJ 2056/04
In 2005, the Sasson Report underscored the fact that Israeli state officials had always facilitated the establishment of settlements in the occupied territories by providing funding, water carrier and utility connections, and etc. harlan (talk) 09:36, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Harlan, can you explain what point it is that you are trying to make? Jayjg (talk) 04:12, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
The legal arguments regarding the Sasson report, or the applicability of the Geneva Conventions, do not apply to the decision of the United Nations Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries. It's one thing to characterize the settlements as illegal, it's another thing to adopt a new international statute that makes them illegal. The Plenipotentiaries adopted the recommendations of the International Law Commission for the Rome Statute, and it has subsequently been ratified by a sufficient number of states. The Geneva Academy of International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights is a WP:RS source who have noted that the Statute "is obviously applicable to Israeli settlement activities in the Occupied Arab Territories."
The Statute contains a provision, in Article 8, that lists the transfer, either directly or indirectly, of population from the occupier's territory into occupied territory as a war crime. When Israel signed the agreement, the MFA legal adviser stated that:

When we signed, we added a political declaration. I know that it's been reported in the press that Israel signed with a reservation with respect to various elements in the statute which are problematic. The statute doesn't permit reservations, because we're talking about the statute of an international court, so clearly it has to be a document that stands on its own, without anything that could derogate from its legal effect. International Criminal Court - Press Briefing by Israel Foreign Ministry Legal Advisor Alan Baker

The other citations illustrate occasions when the government of Israel has claimed the territories are occupied. harlan (talk) 06:35, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
According to which reliable source is it the case that "The legal arguments regarding the Sasson report, or the applicability of the Geneva Conventions, do not apply to the decision of the United Nations Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries."? Please bring sources discussing the Sasson report, Geneva Conventions, and the United Nations Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries, and making that same argument. Jayjg (talk) 02:33, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
In my earlier post, I was writing about the "personal observations" offered by users Shuki and Tundrabuggy with regard to the Sasson Report. The Supreme Court of Israel has ruled that customary international law is part of Israel's common law, and that the Hague regulations are domestically enforceable. For a complete discussion of the domestic application of conventional (contractual) international law vs. customary international law see Chapter 2 of The Occupation of Justice, by David Kretzmer and Israel Yearbook on Human Rights 1979, By Yoram Dinstein, starting at page 347, and Human Rights in the Israeli-occupied Territories, 1967-1982, By Esther Rosalind Cohen., pages 86 and 156.
Those sources say that in 1979 the High Court ruled that privately-owned Palestinian land could only be requisitioned on a temporary basis by the military commander of the region under occupation, and that the authority for such orders is derived from applicable international law. The court ruled that unless a settlement was the direct result of military planning and necessity, it was illegal on the ground that it would otherwise violate the Hague regulations. The court also ruled that the military could not create facts that would outlive the duration of its occupation regime. The government issued an administrative regulation that same year proscribing the expropriation of privately-owned land for settlements. The Sasson report revealed that settlements had subsequently been built, or expanded, on privately-owned Palestinian land without the required military planning and approval. Those settlements are illegal because they violate the terms of customary international law.
Ha'aretz recently reported on a Defense Ministry database that showed many settlements from the Sasson report had been built illegally on private Palestinian land. The gentleman who compiled the datatbase, Baruch Spiegel, said that government legal experts had been employed in the creation of the database. Spiegel mentioned that the settlements were "illegal", not merely unauthorized. The article mentions portions of the Ofra outpost, which the High Court of Justice ordered to be razed. see "Secret Israeli database reveals full extent of illegal settlement" The Jerusalem Post also reported on the Ofra structures, and quoted a spokesman for Defense Minister Barak and the state's representative, attorney Avi Licht as saying the construction of the houses and their occupation were illegal. See Barak: I won't demolish Ofra houses now. see also A third of settlements on land taken for 'security purposes'. harlan (talk) 09:57, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
If you read the Hebrew, then you now understand why Sasson differentiates between unauthorized and illegal. What hurts the credibility of her report is that A) it's in first person and B) alleged claims of prejudice were proven when only a few years later in the 2009 Israeli elections, Sasson ran on the anti-settlement left-wing New Movement-Meretz party slate. --Shuki (talk) 15:04, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
You said that the term illegal wasn't used anywhere in the 340 page report, but of course the report actually said that: (1) "Unauthorized is illegal" (no distinctions whatever); (2) that there was widespread lawlessness, and (3) that in some cases the unauthorized conduct was a felony.
The local law of Israel is based upon public international law. The Hague regulations state that private property will not be confiscated, and admits no exceptions whatever. Public lands can only be requisitioned under conditions of absolute military necessity. The Sasson report explains that the four steps which are necessary for the military commander's approval are accumulative.
While discussing the property rights of Israelis living in Samaria or Judea, and those evacuated from the Gaza Strip, the Court explained all of that:

"This property right is limited in scope . . . most Israelis do not have ownership of the land on which they built their houses and businesses in the territory to be evacuated. They acquired their rights from the military commander, or from persons acting on his behalf. Neither the military commander nor those acting on his behalf are owners of the property, and they cannot transfer rights better than those they have. To the extent that the Israelis built their homes and assets on land which is not private ('state land'), that land is not owned by the military commander. His authority is defined in regulation 55 of The Hague Regulations. . . . The State of Israel acts . . . as the administrator of the state property and as usufructuary of it . . . " (Id., paragraph 127 of the opinion of the Court).
... ...
B. The Normative Outline in the Supreme Court's Caselaw
1. Belligerent Occupation
14. The Judea and Samaria areas are held by the State of Israel in belligerent occupation. The long arm of the state in the area is the military commander. He is not the sovereign in the territory held in belligerent occupation (see The Beit Sourik Case, at p. 832). His power is granted him by public international law regarding belligerent occupation. The legal meaning of this view is twofold: first, Israeli law does not apply in these areas. They have not been "annexed" to Israel. Second, the legal regime which applies in these areas is determined by public international law regarding belligerent occupation (see HCJ 1661/05 The Gaza Coast Regional Council v. The Knesset et al. (yet unpublished, paragraph 3 of the opinion of the Court; hereinafter – The Gaza Coast Regional Council Case). In the center of this public international law stand the Regulations Concerning the Laws and Customs of War on Land, The Hague, 18 October 1907 (hereinafter – The Hague Regulations). These regulations are a reflection of customary international law. The law of belligerent occupation is also laid out in IV Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War 1949 (hereinafter – the Fourth Geneva Convention). see HCJ 7957/04 Mara’abe v. The Prime Minister of Israel harlan (talk) 17:21, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Possible Arbcom Request

As a matter of general public policy, section 504 of the IRS code discourages tax exempt organizations (like the Wikimedia Foundation) from carrying on political propaganda campaigns. In that connection, the EU Council has decided to prohibit dissemination or distribution of material condoning, denying or grossly trivializing crimes as defined in the Statute of the International Criminal Court (Articles 6, 7 and 8) directed against a group of persons or a member of such a group defined by reference to race, colour, religion, descent or national or ethnic origin, and crimes defined by the Tribunal of Nüremberg (Article 6 of the Charter of the International Military Tribunal, London Agreement of 1945) directed against a group of persons or a member of such a group defined by reference to race, colour, religion, descent or national or ethnic origin. Member States will ensure that these conducts are punishable by criminal penalties of a maximum of at least between 1 and 3 years of imprisonment. see Framework decision on Racism and Xenophobia.

Many editors do not seem to be aware of the EU Council decision. For example, Wikipedia has a multitude of Israel-Palestine related articles that contain examples of those sort of statements. Although there have been a number of requests for Arbitration on Israel-Palestine related issues, there doesn't seem to be a published guideline, going-forward, that spells out the policy and procedure to follow when an editor trivializes an action directed at Israelis, or Palestinians, that falls within the Rome Statute or Nüremberg Charter prohibitions. That could result in Wikipedia being blocked over controversial content.

For example, Israel's courts and civil administrations have ruled or reported that government officials have helped construct settlements on illegally expropriated privately-owned Palestinian land. Up to a third of the settlements have been built in this way. That violates the Rome Statute for the International Criminal Court articles: 8(2)(a)(iv), and 8(2)(b)(viii). Israel's participation in the ICC treaty is not a factor, since other states have the right to vest universal jurisdiction in their own national courts over war crimes. see the ICRC List of Customary Rules of International Humanitarian Law, Rule 157. Many supporters of the settlements ignore the court decisions and insist that they are not illegal.

The Nuremberg Tribunals established beyond question that individuals can be brought to trial in international criminal proceedings for violations of the rules of customary international law. see United Nations and International Criminal Law, Johan Van Der Vyver

In 1993 the UN Security Council "acting under Chapter VII of the Charter on the United Nations" approved a report made by the Secretary General which concluded beyond doubt that the law applicable in armed conflict as embodied in the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 and the Hague Convention (IV) of 18 October 1907 had become part of international customary law. Breaches of the principles contained in the conventions were subsequently placed within the competence of an international criminal tribunal charged with prosecuting the responsible individuals. see Security Council Resolution 827, 25 May 1993, the commentary with regard to customary law in the UN article on The Statute For the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, and War crimes law comes of age, By Theodor Meron, page 212.

When a possible conflict arose with the national law of the Federal Republic of Germany, the Tribunal drew attention to the obligations of states under the Security Council resolutions and repeated the self-evident principle of international law that states cannot invoke their own municipal laws as a basis for avoiding their international obligations. see International Law Reports, By E. Lauterpacht, et. al. page 8

In 1995 the United Nations Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries met to debate, crystallize, and codify international criminal law in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. see Sources of International Law – The Place of Treaties. The Statute mentions the Geneva Conventions in Article 8. "War crimes". Those provisions are declaratory of custom which is binding on all parties in an armed conflict. States that do not ratify the Rome Statute can only opt-out to the extent that the various provisions therein do not form a part of international customary law. See the briefing on the Harvard Program on Humanitarian Policy and Conflict Research, International Humanitarian Law Initiative: The Legal status of Israeli settlements under International Humanitarian Law.

In 2000, the editors of the Geneva Academy of International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights' Palestine Yearbook of International Law 1998-99 observed that the United Nations Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries had adopted the Rome Statute. They noted:

"in particular, that Article 8, which provides that the "transfer, directly or indirectly, by the Occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies, or the deportation or transfer of all or parts of the population of the occupied territory within or outside this territory" amounts to a war crime. This is obviously applicable to Israeli settlement activities in the Occupied Arab Territories."

Also see ICRC List of Customary Rules of International Humanitarian Law, Rule 130: States may not deport or transfer parts of their own civilian population into a territory they occupy.

The International Court of Justice and the Israeli High Court of Justice have repeatedly ruled that the Palestinian territories are under belligerent occupation, and that Israel's acts in the territories are subject to the limitations placed on the acts of a belligerent occupant by customary international law. In the 1979 Elon Moreh Case, the Israeli High Court ruled that privately-owned Palestinian land had been expropriated for the purpose of establishing Israeli civilian settlements in breach of the articles annexed to the Hague Convention of 1907. The court ruled that a military government is not permitted to create facts that are designed to persist after its temporary rule in the area has ended. The Occupation of Justice, by David Kretzmer, page 39

Ha'aretz recently reported on a Defense Ministry database which showed that many settlements mentioned in the Sasson Report had been built illegally on private Palestinian land. The gentleman who compiled the datatbase, Baruch Spiegel, said that government legal experts had been employed in the creation of the database. Spiegel mentioned that the settlements were "illegal" (not merely unauthorized). The article mentions portions of the Ofra outpost, which the High Court of Justice ordered to be razed. see "Secret Israeli database reveals full extent of illegal settlement" The Jerusalem Post also reported on the Ofra structures, and quoted a spokesman for Defense Minister Barak and the state's representative, attorney Avi Licht as saying the construction of the houses and their occupation were illegal. See Barak: I won't demolish Ofra houses now. see also A third of settlements on land taken for 'security purposes'.

Despite lengthy discussion of these facts on the Israeli Occupied Territories and Israeli Settlements page, many editors continue to demand that the articles should say the territories are "disputed" and not under military occupation. They also have reverted edits and insist that the illegal outposts are merely "unauthorized". WP:NOTADVOCATE states that content hosted in Wikipedia is not: Propaganda, advocacy, or recruitment of any kind, commercial, political, religious, or otherwise. harlan (talk) 08:22, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Well said. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:32, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Commendable analysis, as one invariably expects from you Harlan. While the legal situation is clear, as you underline, the precise way in which editors pushing their nationalist POV, as many do, in violation of WP:NOTADVOCATE, are in the wrong technically in wikipedia's self-referential framework of rules, is not so clear. They could say in their own defence that they only follow WP:RS that endorse their POV (i.e. the minority international and Israeli official dissent from many of these judgements). They might say further that to prove your point before Arbcom you cannot produce evidence in violation of WP:NOR. Virtually everything done by Israel in the West Bank and Gaza is in violation of international law. But there is no tribunal of enforcement, possession is 9/10s of the law in practical terms, and, for Wikipedia, following so many sources that would ignore, as do many amicable states, these elements of international law, the situation may be described according to sources, nothing more. One of the ironies of the PA/Hamas fracture is this, the PNA is prepared to overrule the strict application of international law, by a treaty between the two parties which would override the prevailing legal situation as you describe it. Hamas, whatever its other designs, is not. Very convenient. In the breech, settlements continue.Nishidani (talk) 13:04, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Nothing in this section violates WP:NOR guidelines. There are published secondary sources that support everything I've said here, and compiling facts is WP:NOTOR.
The underlying issue is really very non-technical. Materials condoning, denying or grossly trivializing crimes as defined in the Statute of the International Criminal Court (Articles 6, 7 and 8) are ipso facto illegal in many EU jurisdictions. By definition, they should not be cited as WP:RS sources.
States and individuals cannot claim sovereign immunity for acts that violate customary international law. The sanctity of private property - in accordance with the law of nations - has been recognized as common law in US Courts ever since the United States vs Percheman case in 1832. Plaintiffs can pursue claims for damages here in the Federal District Courts under the Alien Tort Claims Statute. Here are some examples of lawsuits which have cited violations of customary international law: In Re South African Apartheid Litigation and the 8 billion dollar Swiss Banks Settlement: In re Holocaust Victim Assets Litigation. There have been criminal investigations of both Palestinians and Israelis in several EU countries. The last investigation that I heard about was this report in the Jerusalem Post: Norwegian lawyers: Extradite Olmert, Livni, Barak harlan (talk) 14:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

The Requested Policy Clarification

Since those editors who repeat the stuff in wikipedia you find everyday in major newspapers, from the New York Times, to Haaretz, from the Washington Post to the Jerusalem Post, do so by clipping stuff from precisely these sources, it extremely doubtful whether, unless you can show precedent, why the anonymous POV-pushers of an encyclopedia which no one controls could be held, in the front line, to standards most of the world's press, and many of its lamentably distinguished 'statesmen' (read thugs) endorse through ignorance or out of considerations of power. (2) Your point refers to content, and Arbcom never rules, in principle, on content, and therefore is not responsible either. I hate to defend an encyclopedia's capacity to retain trash, one that in the I/P area is often nothing more than a dumping ground for ideology or sub-neanderthal historiography (nothing against homo floriensis in that however), but this, concretely, is what I think is problematical in the point you raise. Nishidani (talk) 15:55, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I must sadly voice my disillusioned opinion and agree with Nishidani. The likely outcome of taking this to the ArbCom is that you'll get indef-blocked too. Excellent work on the sourcing as always, but Wikipedia will only hate you for it. MeteorMaker (talk) 21:00, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm not trying to stop POV-pushing. Most I/P article issues have nothing whatever to do with either the Rome Statute or the EU framework on racism. I'm not suggesting that Wikipedia should start a new process to self-censoring itself either. Wikipedia already has existing policy guidelines that address article content and talk page discussions - and a WikiProject dedicated to Israel Palestine article Collaboration. The Nuremberg Charter and Rome Statutes contain a very specific list of major crimes. Content or materials which trivialize genocide, crimes against humanity, or war crimes is highly offensive (so much so that it is against the law in many parts of the world to post on public websites). Even if editors attempt to disguise those sort of ideas as encyclopedic material, they are well outside the implied WP:NPOV, WP:Civil, and WP:NOTADVOCATE guidelines for article content and discussion. I don't think it would be harmful to mention the EU framework on racism, add a link to it in the references section of the applicable Wikipedia guidelines, and ask that those policies be clarified in order to settle this particular recurring dispute.
Nishidani, each of the newspapers that you mentioned have published stories about the illegal outposts or their court-ordered removal. I'm not sure which type of precedent you have in mind. The ADL welcomed the EU legislation criminalizing incitement to racism. The Jones v. Toben case is an earlier example of the application of hate speech law to the Internet in pursuance with an Australian statute. There have been war crimes complaints, hate speech arrests and lawsuits, as well as court-ordered Internet filtering and take down orders in several EU states and in English-speaking countries - including the UK, Canada, New Zealand, and Australia. All of those countries have similar hate speech and war crimes laws. The EU Framework page specifically mentions their member state's obligations under the the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, Protocols I and II of 12 December 1977, and the two Chapter VII Resolutions of the United Nations Security Council. Those resolutions established the International Criminal Tribunals (827/93 Yugoslavia and 955/94 Rwanda) and the status in customary law of the Geneva Conventions. see 3 Content at Joint action to combat racism and xenophobia.
Here is an example of the way this issue relates to the Israeli settlements. Plundering private or public property was one of the crimes mentioned in Article 6 of the Charter of the International Military Tribunal appended to the London Agreement of 8 April 1945. The Hague IV Convention prohibits the confiscation of private property. The Rome statute defines "extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly" as a war crime. The EU Framework criminalizes public denial or trivialization of the crimes defined in Article 6 of the Charter and the Geneva Conventions. Several years ago Ha'aretz published an article explaining that in the Jewish settlement of Matityahu East (adjacent to Bil’in) private entrepreneurs were constructing entire buildings without permits on misappropriated Palestinian land. The State Prosecutor’s Office had been notified, but nothing was ever done about the situation. The article also mentioned that nothing had been done about the recommendations contained in the Sasson report. see There's a system for turning Palestinian property into Israel's state land. Section 4.1 of The Canadian Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act, S.C. 2000, c. 24 stipulates that crimes defined by the Rome Statute are violations of customary international law and are indictable offenses within Canada:

Interpretation — customary international law
(4) For greater certainty, crimes described in Articles 6 and 7 and paragraph 2 of Article 8 of the Rome Statute are, as of July 17, 1998, crimes according to customary international law. This does not limit or prejudice in any way the application of existing or developing rules of international law.

The same Canadian statute also stipulates that crimes against humanity has been a recognized offense under customary law since the London Agreement came into force, and that the customary law contained in the Rome Statute, paragraph 2, Article 8 includes the Geneva Conventions:


PARAGRAPH 2 OF ARTICLE 8
War crimes
2. For the purpose of this Statute, "war crimes" means:
(a) grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949...

Under section 320.1 of the Canadian Criminal Code, a judge has the authority to order the removal of hate propaganda from a computer system that is available to the public. see Online Hate and the Law. A complaint has been filed in the Superior Court of Montreal against two Canadian businesses accusing them of indictable offenses under the Canadian war crimes statute. The complaint asks for 2 million dollars in damages and restoration of the property. The complaint alleges that the firms conspired with Israeli state officials and acted as their agent in the construction of settlements for Israeli citizens on Palestinian land near the village of Bil'in. see Montreal firms used as fronts for Israeli settlements, activists say and the Complaint. harlan (talk) 01:02, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Trivializing War Crimes

Customary international law is something very specific in international law. Usually, customary international law excepts for crimes of genocide or piracy, has a prerequisite that all sides agree to it especially sides that are involved in the dispute. In fact, except for these jus cogens issues of genocide and piracy, agreement of all parties is the fundamental basis for international law. This is why the ICC is only applicable to countries that have ratified its agreement. This is why the ICJ taking on the advisory opinion of the West Bank Barrier was so fundamentally wrong and opposed by legal scholars and by many nations in the U.N itself. This is why the UN doesn't make international law by a voting in the GA, nor even in the SC except in very specific instances of using military force, unless all parties have agreed to such law. Personal property law in the U.S and the status of the settlements is something completely different. Israel can assert, and legal scholars do so, that the entire region is Israel's according to international law going back to the Balfour Declaration, the San Remo conference and the terms of the mandate, and by many other techniques. International law is a flexible concept open to interpretation. Sadly, Israel instea d of asserting its rights under international law tried to compromise over the years out of naivety that it might work. The Arab countries and anti Zionist people (mostly Jews ironically) kept pushing the fringe concepts in international law in the hope of demonizing Israel. This has to a large extent worked, but has made a travesty out of many U.N instiutions to the the point that international law has become a joke, a tool by Israel's enemies to attack it. The last conference on Racism is a good example of such travesty. It is today acknowledged that international "law" as defined by block voting of countries the U.N is not lawful nor moral nor of interest. Again, the purest form of international law is consent. If Israel disputes anything, as long as it doesn't do something truly horrific like genocide, and this was supposed to be a very rare and limited exception following the Holocaust (before WW2 the only customary binding law was probably piracy), then it doesn't violate international law. I think the articles cite many eminent legal scholars who believe Israel is being lawful in all territories. Scholars like Julius Stone. If it doesn't, it should. 216.165.95.70 (talk) 18:41, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

In 1944, Raphael Lemkin coined the term genocide to describe a foreign occupation that destroyed or permanently crippled a subject population. The use of colonists by an occupying power to dispossess the indigenous inhabitants was part and parcel of Lemkin's definition of the crime of genocide. see Empire, Colony, Genocide, By A. Dirk Moses and Key Writings of Raphael Lemkin on Genocide. He studied both early and modern instances of colonialism and came to the conclusion that the practice is inherently genocidal. see Raphael Lemkin’s History of Genocide and Colonialism, United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, Center for Advanced Holocaust Studies.
He also observed that the use of propaganda to rationalize the crime; appeal to popular beliefs and intolerance; sow discord (divide and rule); and to misrepresent or deceive others about what was really happening was an integral part of the process of genocide. see Item #5 on the list under Lemkin's Methodology starting on page 88. I believe your post is a good example of propaganda. It implies that only persons of low intelligence, or persons with questionable motives believe that Israeli government officials and private citizens have engaged in criminal conspiracies in order to expropriate Palestinian property and resources in breach of international laws. In fact, the issue is no longer in any doubt, since the Courts in Israel, the Sasson Report, the Israeli Defense Ministry database, and the ICJ have all reached the conclusion that many of the settlements and outposts are in fact illegal for that very reason.
Lemkin wrote a book about the laws of Occupation and spoke out about "The Problem of the Colonists". He said the problem was specific because many thousands of them had settled on properties of dispossessed persons. He noted that even if they had not voluntarily assisted the enemy in acts of dispossession, that fact still would not provide them any valid title to the property on which they were settled. He wrote that in cases where colonists had been settled on state property, the legal problem remained the same. The occupant has the right only to the usufruct of real property belonging to the occupied territory. He has no right to dispose of such property or to convey title to other persons. see Axis Rule in Occupied Europe: Laws of Occupation, Analysis of Government, Proposals for Redress, By Raphael Lemkin, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Division of International Law, 1944, page 45
Julius Stone died in 1985. His writings do not address the legality of the outposts outlined in the Sasson report or the Defense Ministry database. Most of his legal theories no longer reflect the law or the facts on the ground. He felt that the question of the legality of the Jewish settlements on the West Bank reflected the tensions of the parties to the peace process, more than the actual magnitude of any demographic movement. Today there are several hundred thousand more settlers living in the Palestinian territories. Stone readily admitted that insofar as Israel's position in the West Bank is merely that of an occupying power, Article 49 would forbid deportation or transfer of its own population onto the West Bank whenever that action had the consequence of serving as a means of impairment of the economic situation of the native population of the occupied territory. see page 15 of INTERNATIONAL LAW AND THE ARAB-ISRAEL CONFLICT The UN law experts assigned to investigate the issue of implantation of settlers agreed. They concluded that the practice violated several human rights norms (jus cogens). see the Final Report on Human rights and population transfer.
There have been a number of attempts to end or prohibit the practice of colonialism, including the adoption of article 49(6) of the Fourth Geneva "Civilians" Convention; the obligations accepted by member states under The Declaration Regarding Non-Self-Governing Territories Chapter XI, Article 73, of the UN Charter, the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples - resolution 1514 (XV), and the Rome Statute of the ICC.
The UN Security Council wasn't making international law. It was simply acknowledging the existing state of customary international law, and affirming that it was binding on the member states in international criminal tribunals. Opting-out of the ICC has no effect on the enforcement of customary international law. All states possess the right to vest universal jurisdiction in their own national courts for war crimes. See Rule 157 of the ICRC List of Customary Rules of International Humanitarian Law. The creation of the ICC did not alter that fact. Most states have their own complimentary war crimes statutes which establish the crimes contained in paragraphs 6, 7, and 8 of the Rome Statute as domestically indictable offenses. See Database of National Implementing Legislation.
Plundering private and public property was a violation of international law before the Hague Convention of 1907 codified the proscription against the practice. Paragraph 6(c) of The Charter of the Nuremberg Tribunal merely recognized that fact and declared the practice to be a war crime. The Charter also stipulated that persecuting a population while committing one of the war crimes was a crime against humanity. War crimes and crimes against humanity are universally recognized as violations of peremptory norms, or jus cogens. Extensive destruction and appropriation of property is also listed among the grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions that were included in the list of war crimes in the Rome Statute. harlan (talk) 16:23, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

A note on the terms "Judea" and "Samaria"

Usage of the terms "Judea" and "Samaria" in article space appears to contravene 3 key Wikipedia policies: Naming Conventions, Undue weight and Neutral Point of View. [19][20] A large body of evidence [21][22] has been collected during extensive discussions (see list below) that unequivocally shows that these terms, alone and in combination, are almost entirely peculiar to Israel. As of today, no sources, reliable or otherwise, have been put forward that contradict this finding.

Discussion links (most closed, included for reference only):

MeteorMaker (talk) 16:35, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Lead

How about changing the lead as below to eliminate the contentious parts and associated refs ? Seems simpler, more neutral and possibly more stable.

Israeli settlements are communities inhabited by Israelis in territory that was captured during the 1967 Six-Day War. Such settlements currently exist in the West Bank , which is partially under Israeli military administration and partially under the control of the Palestinian National Authority, and in the Golan Heights, which are under Israeli civilian administration.

Sean.hoyland - talk 17:45, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that is the contentious part. The so-called arguments in the Legal background section are based upon political propaganda written in the years between 1968 and 1979. This statement is contentious:

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

I can't remember the last time the Anti-Defamation League determined the subject matter jurisdiction of an international criminal tribunal, or if they've ever adopted a resolution that mandated the formal assembly of an international criminal tribunal. The UN Security Council has accomplished those tasks, on several occasions. The problem of adherence of some but not all States to the Geneva Conventions does not arise in practice, since a determination was made that beyond any doubt they are declarative of customary international law.
The UN never accepted Israel's highly formalistic legal interpretation of article 49(6) of the Fourth Geneva Convention for the protection of Civilians. The UN abolished the practice of colonialism. See Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples. Alien subjugation, domination and exploitation constituted a denial of fundamental human rights. The action of transferring settlers into occupied territory inherently resulted in armed action or repressive measures against the indigenous population in other cases like Namibia, Rhodesia, Cypress, Yugoslavia, and East Timor. The principal UN organs affirmed that the Geneva Conventions apply to the Golan Heights, East Jerusalem, the West Bank, and Gaza. They also affirmed that Israel's settlements are a flagrant violation of international law.
Despite all of Israel's entreaties that the settlements did not constitute a serious violation of the laws and customs applicable in international armed conflict, the United Nations Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries disagreed. By a vote of 120 to 7, the ICC was given subject matter jurisdiction over occupying powers that transfer, directly or indirectly, parts of their own civilian population into the territory they occupy. Israel clearly understood that going forward that practice constitutes a serious crime of concern to the international community as a whole. see the Statement by Judge Eli Nathan Head of the Delegation of Israel to the Rome Conference. Currently the Rome Statute of the ICC has 139 Signatories and 108 Ratifications. Many of those States have vested universal jurisdiction in their own national courts for the crimes defined in the Statute. The Legal arguments section of this article needs to be updated to reflect that fact. harlan (talk) 11:29, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

US funds to Israel

Shouldn't there be a section on this wiki page concerning the funds Israel receives and uses from the United States to pursue its settlement activities? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.80.104.39 (talk) 02:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

There is an section that deals with this, see the United States military and economic aid section of Israel – United States relations. The funding issue might be mentioned with an internal link to this military and economic aid section. Mike 172.129.99.213 (talk) 23:03, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

"Communities" and "cities" and "towns"

It seems to me that there should be no problem with using these terms in this article. These terms are ethically neutral and they do not indicate anything about the nature of the places that they describe IMO. But the talk page commentary from several weeks before brought this up and I do not believe that it has been resolved. The Squicks (talk) 06:26, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree, but some editors wish to only describe these locations only as 'settlements' and forbid interchanging that word with the neutral 'size' terms. That insistence on using only the word 'settlements' might not be POV, but quite detrimental to quality. I think that 'settlement' is an additional description of these locations, not the exclusive one at all. --Shuki (talk) 08:19, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Content dispute at Pollution and Settlements and Palestinian labour

User talk:Halfacanyon has been accusing me of "POV-pushing" and "lying" at my talk page. He claims I am removing sourced information here, here, and here.

I done no such thing. I explained to Halfacanyon that he was using duplicate sources, linking the same link twice in one section. I told him all he had to do was put the source at the end of the section. He accused me of lying for this. : )

all my edits accurately reflect what the source is saying, I was very explicit in my summaries and Halkacanyon's responses are hardly accurate. I am not sure if I went above 3 reverts, but I know Half did. He suggested I explain my edits more thoroughly here, so...here I am. I would like to restore my edits but I fear Half will simply remove them again. His editing approach is very hostile. Wikifan12345 (talk) 08:01, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

For comparison, here is my version of the sources for Palestinian labor: here. Here is his. Wikifan12345 (talk) 08:09, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Comparison for Pollution: Mine His.

He states in the summary that I am removing cited material. I am NOT doing that, at all. As we all know editors need to realize that their contributions will be edited, improved, sometimes repeatedly. He is taking this very personal. When I first started editing there was a rule about this. Can we please resolve this soon, the current version do not meet neutrality standards aren't paraphrased appropriately. Wikifan12345 (talk) 08:15, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikifan12345 is an extremely tendentious editor and seems to cause disruption on every article he edits, whether it's Mohamed El-Baradei, or 1948 Palestinian exodus.
I made some small but well sourced additions to this article, and not only did Wikifan12345 remove the sourced material he removed a perfectly legitimate reference to Haaretz as well ([29], [30]).
He then refused to admit he had done so until I pressed him about it repeatedly.
He has also removed the following section from the article with no reason given: However, very little action occurred after that ruling and only a minority of Palestinian workers have achieved the same rights as Israeli workers. The Israeli authorities that enforce labour law (the Civil Administration and the Ministry of Industry, Trade & Labor) have undertaken little action at the settlements to enforce a minimum wage and other benefits. According to Kav LaOved, the bodies have released a statement "according to which they have no plans of enforcing the High Court of Justice ruling whatsoever". Also, employers of Palestinians fake pay slips, report false hours and work days to make it seem that the employee is being paid the minimum wage.
He also has misrepresented facts about the Palestinian legal status in the West Bank as the opinions of Kav LaOved Halfacanyon (talk) 08:53, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
He has also (falsely) accused me of plagiarism on his talk page, however he refuses to give evidence for his claim. Halfacanyon (talk) 09:00, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Please calm down. I did not accuse you of plagiarism, I said we need to rely more on paraphrasing because your interpretation of the source was far to heavy on the source material. Both the references are human rights activist groups, with the non-B'teselm to be far less notable and reliable than the B'tselem which is simply affirms there is an on-going problem. I also proved you did in fact duplicate sources in the pollution section when you claimed you did not. In the meantime, I encourage you to again look through my version and yours. All I did was simply rewrite the sections according to policy, gave due weight to all POVs and made sure to not over-state the sources. The paragraphs are far too bloated and unbalanced compared to the references uses. To prevent edit-warring, perhaps we should be take a break for a day or so. I also request that you do not follow me to articles you have not been working on. Thank you. Wikifan12345 (talk) 16:31, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

settlement in the golan

In Israel the Jewish towns in the golan don't called settlements and not everybody is accepting that they will called so, so I ask the agreement to put down the part that says so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eliroud (talk • contribs) 11:18, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

No, this has been the subject of a discussion a while ago and the consensus was that Golan Heights settlements should be included.--Doron (talk) 13:10, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

UN?

Since nothing the UN has ever said on the "illegality" of the "settlements" was in a binding resolution, why does the opening section make it sound as if the UN has made an official pronouncement on the subject? If the section is not meant to sound as tho' it did, the it is worded too strongly. If it is meant to sound as tho' the UN did, then it is in error. Please advise. FlaviaR (talk) 04:16, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

What are you saying? That the UN doesn't consider the settlements in violation of international law? Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:27, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
There is a difference in opinion on what a binding resolution is, whether or not it needs to explicitly invoke chapter VII. But regardless of that debate, the UN has bodies outside of the UNSC that do make these determinations as to the legality of settlements or the current status of territories and they all have been explicit in saying these settlements are violations of international law. Nableezy (talk) 07:13, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
There's your answer Flav. Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:44, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

"Legal background" section is too big

Does anyone else think that the "Legal background" section is too big and should be spun off into a separate article? Halfacanyon (talk) 06:42, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I definitely think the legal section is too large, with excessive space devoted to legal theories pushed by marginal players. I modified the start of the legal section to outline more clearly what the international consensus is, I'll leave it to a braver editor to remove some of the legal argumentation that doesn't serve much of an encyclopedic value. --Dailycare (talk) 17:15, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
There is nothing particularly "legal" about much of the material in the section. The views are widely published and they pertain to the topic of the article, but they should be labeled as "fringe theories" that have never been widely accepted. International law is comprised of the rules that govern relations between states. At one time or another every nation on Earth (except Israel) has affirmed the fact that Israel's civilian settlements in the occupied territories are illegal. In "The Jewish Settlements in the West Bank: International Law and Israeli Jurisprudence", Michael Galchinsky lamented that: "Many who care about Israel have learned to stop caring about international law."
Israeli historian and journalist, Gershom Gorenberg, noted in an article On Settlement Legality at the "South Jerusalem" blog that: "Outside of the pro-settlement echo chamber, these positions are considered quirky. While the Israeli government has used them for PR purposes abroad, it takes entirely different positions when arguing real legal cases before the Israeli Supreme Court. I’m sorry. The government has treated you, and others who quote its PR arguments, as useful idiots." The same article said: The Israeli government knew at the outset that it was violating the Geneva Convention by creating civilian settlements. In a secret memo dated October 15, 1968, proposing massive settlement, Defense Minister Moshe Dayan wrote, “Settling Israelis in administered territory, as is known, contravenes international conventions, but there is nothing essential new about that.” Arguments that settlement was legal came after the fact in an unsuccessful effort to blunt international criticism. South Jerusalem maintains an archive of "Settlement and Occupation – Historical Documents" which includes "Theodor Meron's 1967 Legal Opinion on Civilian Settlement in the Occupied Territories."
I've never seen a favorable review of Julius Stone's legal theory regarding Palestine in any peer reviewed law journal. Here is an example of published criticism: 'Stone's reconstruction is a castle of sand in the Sahara. The Balfour Declaration did not "allocate" Palestine to the Jews, as Stone had claimed.' and 'Stone is betraying a life of scholarship to peddle a political position'. see ISRAEL AND PALESTINE: ASSAULT ON THE LAW OF NATIONS? by Anthony D'Amato, 91 Yale Law Journal 1725 (1982) [31]
Yehuda Blum's "Missing Reversioner" theory was considered "dubious" from the outset by Israeli legal scholars like Yoram Dinstein, David Kretzmer, and etc. In any event, the Geneva Conventions have long since been universally ratified and affirmed to be declarative of customary international law. That means they are considered binding on both sides of any armed conflict without regard to the political status of the parties. They are applicable to government forces, rebel/insurgent groups, and non-signatories of the Geneva and similar treaties. harlan (talk) 12:30, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
In the interest of shortening this section, I removed the large and irrelevant debate, paragraphs that don't even mention settlements, about the legal status of SC resolutions, - that is what wikilinks are for. A minor point, Harlan, while of course it has ratified them, Israel doesn't accept the Geneva Conventions (as opposed to the Hague Regulations) as customary law, otherwise the GCs would be considered self-executing in Israeli law - this was in the Elon Moreh decision IIRC.John Z (talk) 16:06, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
The High Court has actually been hedging its position in that regard for several years, by saying the question of GC applicability "is not before us now". For example, in paragraph 23 of HCJ 2056/04 Beit Sourik Village Council v. The Government of Israel, the court said that the military commander's authority is anchored in the Fourth Geneva Convention "since the parties agree that the humanitarian rules of the Fourth Geneva Convention apply". There is certainly no enabling legislation from the Knesset to underpin any such agreement. Formal declarations regarding 'de facto' application of the GC rules and principles (by implication) are evidence of a 'customary' Israeli state practice. That decision was issued on 30 June 2004.
After the 9 July 2004 ICJ advisory opinion, the High Court ordered Attorney General Mazuz to submit an analysis. His report cited 'errors' in the ICJ's analysis, but the court has never reached any such conclusion. In its 2005 ruling on the Alfei Menashe case [32] the court said:

"The State of Israel has declared that it practices the humanitarian parts of this convention. In light of that declaration on the part of the government of Israel, we see no need to reexamine the government's position. We are aware that the Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice determined that The Fourth Geneva Convention applies in the Judea and Samaria area, and that its application is not conditional upon the willingness of the State of Israel to uphold its provisions. As mentioned, seeing as the government of Israel accepts that the humanitarian aspects of The Fourth Geneva Convention apply in the area, we are not of the opinion that we must take a stand on that issue in the petition before us."

Once again, that is a subtle reference to a declaration of existing state practice regarding the rules of the convention that flows from customary, not statutory, observance. harlan (talk) 00:12, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Netanyahu Judenrein remarks

I moved this material here for further discussion:

In contrast, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu compared the call to remove all settlements as an attempt at creating a new Judenrein. <ref>{{cite web | url = http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/132335 | title = Netanyahu: Judea and Samaria Cannot be 'Judenrein' | year = 2009 | publisher = Israel National News | date = 10 Jul 2009 | accessdate = 3 Aug 2009 | quote = Most Israelis support the pullout, but some feel the government has given in to Palestinian militant groups, and worry that further withdrawals will follow. Palestinian critics point out that Gaza will remain under Israeli control, and that they are being denied a political say in the disengagement process. }}</ref>

  • I don't see the contrast. President Abbas was talking about displacement caused by demolition orders and evictions of Arabs in order to make room for settlements. The story itself says Palestinian officials have said that Jews are welcome to stay, and that they can be equal citizens in the state of Palestine. Here is a more in depth story about those remarks: [33]
  • There was a single Reuters report which quoted an anonymous "confidant of Netanyahu". That person claimed that "Netanyahu had encouraged cabinet colleagues to deploy the term Judenrein in their defense of the settlements and of Israel's insistence that Palestinians recognize it as a Jewish state." [34]
  • The Israeli High Court has explained that the military commander and the settlers in Judea and Samaria do not hold the title to the property in the settlements. For example, the state itself said that all of the settlements constructed between 1967 and 1979 were a temporary necessity, and that their status would be subject to the terms of any final settlement agreement. That might only mean that the settlers will be required to obtain new leases. [35] Previous Israeli withdrawals have involved the removal of the settlements in the Sinai and Gaza.
  • The settlements were built on expropriated or requisitioned private land, land that was declared state land under Jordanian law, and (in some cases) misappropriated land. It should all revert to Palestinian state or private use. If Israel wants to retain the land or settlements, it should offer territorial compensation. harlan (talk) 07:22, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
I reinserted that material so that there can be a proper discussion. The issue is "ethnic cleansing". Arabs and supporters claim that evicting a family from an apartment is ethnic cleansing while pro-Israel/settlement supporters claim that the world consensus that Jews must leave the 'West Bank' is ethnic cleansing (despite some minority view of anonymous 'Palestinian officials'. Ethnic cleansing is not trademarked. --Shuki (talk) 17:17, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
The world consensus is not that "Jews must leave the 'West Bank'" (whats with the quotes around West Bank?) it is that colonial establishments such as these settlements are in violation of international law and must be dismantled. nableezy - 17:22, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
I find it all quite illuminating. Both sides see the unity of the land and the only issue to be exclusive use. If we try to cover this up in our editing then we are simply hiding from the truth. Hcobb (talk) 17:38, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
The article that Shuki cites repeats a rumor from an unnamed source to claim that Netanyahu is conducting a propaganda campaign. So far, no one but Rueters has ever heard about it. The unnamed source says Netanyahu is actually defending the settlements, not the Jewish settlers. The article also says the settlers can stay, but Shuki decided not to quote that part. Those revelations make Netanyahu look like an idiot, and destroy the effectiveness of the purported campaign. In any event Wikipedia is not a soapbox for hypothetical ethnic cleansing that may never happen. The settlement situation is hardly unique to Palestine. Most settler communities don't return to their mother countries when the occupation ends. see for example STATUS OF SETTLERS IMPLANTED BY ILLEGAL REGIMES UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW, by Dr. Yaël Ronen, Minerva Center for Human Rights, Hebrew University in Jerusalem.
The applicable 1907 Hague IV rules have always provided that expropriated buildings and land revert to the former private or State owners whenever the military occupation ends. The Palestinians didn't invent that rule. The Oslo Accords leave the details of the final settlement open to negotiation. The history of the drafting of UN Security Council resolution 242 was declassified and published in 2004. [36] It also made the final settlement open to adjustments. The government of Israel was told from the outset that if it wants to retain territory it acquired by force or expropriation, it has to offer territorial compensation. That is not ethnic cleansing, it is the way all similar claims are settled. harlan (talk) 21:11, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
nableezy sums it up quite nicely. The removal of illegal settlements is just that; they are ipso facto in contravention of international law, and the position of international community is that they must be removed. Few if any have raised the position that no jews should be allowed in Palestine, in fact, I'm pretty sure I've read statements from Palestine sources that Jews are welcome to live in Palestine as equal citizens, ie not as colonizers. Moreover, the "in contrast" comment creates a false dichotomy, and is not a NPOV formulation. It is fairly well documented that Israel is concerned about ethnic balance in Israel in general and Jerusalem in particular. There's also plenty of criticism against its attempts to change that ethnic balance. The actions of Israel are thus quite different from those calling for a removal of illegal settlements. Anyanghaseyo (talk) 12:31, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Uh, huh, Tear down the settlements but let the Jews stay. So where are the settlers supposed to go live? Buy apartments in Ramallah? And 'I'm pretty sure' is called OR, as opposed to bringing a report from a RS. As for the dichotomy, The continuing explusion of Palestinians from their homes to make room for settlements has been called ethnic cleansing. Calling the eviction of squatters ethnic cleansing. --Shuki (talk) 19:49, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Good point. What's our best refs on the apartheid systems to cancel out Arab land rights in the occupied territories? Hcobb (talk) 20:06, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Oh boy, so this is where the discussion gets stupid. The Israeli Supreme Court, the same one that has redesigned the separation barrier in order to reduce (and in some areas eliminate) the appropriation of Arab land, handed out a decision stating that the family evicted was squatting a Jewish owned home. The court did not decide to 'cleanse' an area, but merely return a specific property to its owners. There are a few others waiting in line, and believe it or not, Jews lose these decisions as well. Doesn't th e country you live in have fair property law? Apparently, Israel is no different. --Shuki (talk) 20:43, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Israel National News, also known as Arutz Sheva, is a notoriously unreliable settler mouthpiece that does not meet Wikipedia standards. Without a proper source, this stuff is unacceptable anyway. I'll also note that "judenrein" is an adjective not a noun, so "a new Judenrein" is grammatical nonsense. Zerotalk 01:16, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

They are definitely RS and accredited media outlet, unless you have proof that they fabricated this information. Your opinion of it should not be reflected in your mainspace edits. --Shuki (talk) 07:09, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
If you want to argue that the main PLO newspaper and the main Hamas newspaper are also reliable sources, then you can be taken seriously. Everyone knows that INN is just a propaganda arm of the settler movement. The strangest thing is that you actually want this stuff in the article. Imagine, the Prime Minister of Israel uses a Nazi word to preach to the German foreign minister!! If I was Israeli, I'd be cringing with embarrassment. By the way, you did notice that I fixed the English too? Lesson: it is "compare to", not "compare as". Zerotalk 09:08, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, whatever you say. LOL. If only the settler movement was really as organized as you think. I know that opponents of Israel like to assume that, but Arutz7 is based in Petach Tikva and the vast majority of its readership are not settlers. I would not trust the sources you suggested for some things, and I think that Arutz7 balances Haaretz nicely, but in any case, you were proven wrong wrong so accept that like a man. INN picked up the story from Reuters a day later. Frankly, I don't see what is wrong with calling the kettle black. Settlement opponents (perhaps like you?) really do want all Jews off 'Palestinian land', and no one is seriously talking about allowing 300 000 Jews into Palestinian cities as compensation. Even the settlements like Revava, whose land was bought in a 100% legal transaction is 'illegal', right? Call it what you want, Judenrein is quite accurate. --Shuki (talk) 13:20, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for making clear that it is your point of view you seek included in the article. It's quite extreme to argue that those opposing illegal settlements are motivated by a desire to make these territories "Judenrein", rather than upholding the law. Anyanghaseyo (talk) 17:35, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
It's not my POV at all but fact about my impression from the vast majority if not all anti-settlement folks. When a Jew refuses to move into an urban or rural settlement (deemed 'illegal) and instead buys land or an apartment from an Arab in the 'West Bank', his home automatically becomes a settlement. No one has yet shown one reference from RS that anyone in the anti-settlement movement is actually supporting the Jewish right to buy land or live integrated with Arabs in the west or east banks of the Jordan River. Judenrein is the best term to use to describe the wish to ethincally cleanse the areas of Jews. --Shuki (talk) 20:02, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Netanyahu's use of "judenrein" is perhaps not something wikipedia should quote, since the term was coined to apply to areas purged of Jews in Europe, where the purging effectively amounted to ethnic cleansing and thus "judenrein" was something that was created by war crimes. In the present context the settlements are the war crime and referring to their dismantlement as "judenrein" confuses the reader (which probably was Netanyahu's intention). Dismantling the settlements, by the way, doesn't mean that there would be no Jews in the area. In a two-state solution Jews could move to the Palestinian state, and in a one-state solution Jews and Palestinians could live freely in all of Palestine. Dismantling the settlements just refers to correcting war crimes. --Dailycare (talk) 09:47, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, whatever. Get serious already DC. The Prime Minister of Israel making accusations of Jewish ethnic cleansing is certainly worth mentioning as documented by a Reuters reporter, if Abbas is making some ridiculous comparison to ethnic cleansing as a result of a simple and unique property law decision. Dismantling of the settlements means getting rid of the Jews. Don't you know that it is illegal for PA Arabs to sell land to Jews. If the Arabs and their supporters like you really wanted to solve the settlements issues, then you would be supporting the legalization of Jewish land ownership in the West Bank. But no one does. Dismantling the settlements is just another way of saying get rid of the Jews. --Shuki (talk) 19:53, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
First Israel establishes illegal settlements (having received legal advice they'd be illegal) and then complains it's unfair when they're asked to dismantle them. Likud should grow up. --Dailycare (talk) 20:39, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
DC, this is not a chat room. This page is to discuss improving the article mainspace. If you have something to add to the article, then please do so. --Shuki (talk) 20:52, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

What sort of refs should we dig up and what sort of issues should be covered? Personally I'd like to see current snapshot, historical events, legal frameworks and political stances. Anything else needed? Hcobb (talk) 21:26, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Netanyahu Gaza mistake

The press has been all over the place on this one, but I think the PC tone can be found here:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aJDC03GzkAw8 Netanyahu, who quit as finance minister a week before the Gaza withdrawal began in August 2005, said today that future agreements that involve ceding territory will require “genuine recognition of Israel” and security arrangements that can be enforced.

So it's not that he will never withdraw, but that he requires stronger capitulations to peace in order to do so. Hcobb (talk) 14:49, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Very true. Is it not somewhere in the article? Wikifan12345 (talk) 21:19, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Netanyahu has elsewhere defined "genuine recognition" and it cant exactly be called "capitulations to peace". nableezy - 21:45, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
The real question is, how does the Palestinian leadership in the WB define recognition? Lately it's been kind of washy-washy. Hamas believes the simple presence of Jews in the ME is an occupation while Fatah is not as definitive. In the latest assembly there seems to be a lack of official consensus. The fighting between Abu and Net seems to be about the Jewishness of Israel. Abu recently said he does not recognize Israel as a Jewish state, and that is what irked the Israeli administration. Simply putting "Israel" in the dictionary isn't recognition, right? Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:03, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Isn't it about time to give up on ethnically pure Lebensraum? Can't Israel exist as state not defined by the religion of the citizens residing there? Hcobb (talk) 03:32, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Israel's sole existence is rooted in the safety of world Jewry. That's the basic motivation of modern political Zionism. Certainly isn't comparable to Arab/islamic world - where countries serve the interests of the superior ethnic group, at the expense of everyone else. Anyways, this isn't for the article - we're talking about the Palestinians POV and how they defines occupation. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:04, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

6.4 Illegal Outposts violates NPOV

Please rename the subsection "Illegal Outposts" as it raises the concept that some of the settlements might actually be non-illegal, in strong contrast to settled international law. Hcobb (talk) 23:59, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

There's no question about the international law, but Israel considers the established settlements fully legal - comparing to the Outposts that are illegal even according to the Israeli law. This is the best termination that can be used.--Mikej007 (talk) 01:16, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Israeli law can only be the judge of this inside Israel. If the borders of the country include these areas then all humans born within those borders are automatically citizens of that country. So the term outposts doesn't apply. Hcobb (talk) 05:03, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

"Illegal Outposts" does not violate NPOV, since the significant published views from the Israeli High Court, the UN organs, and the Reconvened Conference of the Contracting Parties to the Geneva Convention all agree that the outposts are illegal. NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints (POVs) that have been published by a verifiable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each.

The Interior Minister's suggestion that the Knesset should exercise its legislative supremacy to overrule the court and legalize them (under Israeli law) was rejected by the Prime Ministers office today. The announcement said the government would "enforce law in those places where it had been broken."

If you want to see an article that violates NPOV, take a look at the articles on the illegal outposts, like Amona. I think it violates WP:NPOV/WP:FRINGE, WP:Civil, and WP:NOTADVOCATE guidelines for article content and discussion (but who's counting?). The article says the outpost "has never been fully approved by the Israeli government, even though several separate government ministries have contributed to its growth." Please recall that the 2005 Sasson Report, concluded that state bodies secretly diverted funds to build the illegal West Bank outposts. The four ministers who toured the outposts yesterday illustrate the fact that key Government ministers can take a proactive role in challenging the rule of law.

The Amona talk page says "This is not the place for POV." and "Let's not demonize one side at the expense of the other." It says the POV tag has been removed along with "biased comments". The only published reference is Arutz Sheva, which explains why this article is linked to Category:Communal cities, towns and villages in Israel. harlan (talk) 07:15, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

The term "illegal outposts" is pretty established by now and using another term may be confusing. I don't see how calling the outposts illegal would confuse readers about the settlements, but maybe that's just me. --Dailycare (talk) 18:44, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
First of all, in any vibrant democracy, ministers make the law, usually based on the voters who elected them.
Next, the adjective 'illegal' is a false translation of the term 'unauthorized' that Talia Sasson used extensively in her report. The report (please read it, I doubt any of you actually have) does not talk about illegal outposts or illegal settlements, but rather unauthourized ones according to Israeli law, not Jordanian or international law. Whether we like it or not is not relevant, and nothing is 'secret' in the fact that Israeli government ministries funded settlements and outposts (what is the difference?) in their mandate, so using the blanket term 'illegal' is not confusing at all but rather simply misleading and false. In the vast majority of outposts, no law was broken at all and proper Israeli building procedures followed. Israeli soldiers and police guarded said outposts. If it was illegal, they would not protect them. And frankly, Illegal in what sense? What specific law was broken? I think WP deserves a bit more truth than simply throwing around labels. --Shuki (talk) 21:35, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
So does anybody have a problem with a rename to "Unauthorized Settlements"? That way we don't judge the legality of the ethnic cleansing and the term shows half a million Google hits. Hcobb (talk) 21:56, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Seeing no objection so far (and given that the current term has been challenged in the media http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1108228.html ), I'll make the change in name in 24 hours unless somebody objects. Hcobb (talk) 03:02, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Since nobody is touching on this I'll do a quick listing of the reasons to make the change. Outposts has military and temporal implications that settlements lacks while authorization has more restricted sphere of control implications while legality touches on universal rights and such. Hcobb (talk) 13:27, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

The problem Shuki is that in the eyes of the media International law (which is a very recent phenomenon as far as attention is concerned) tends to supersede the laws of nation-states. The problem with international law is that it is purely bureaucratic. Many courts consider United Nations resolutions to be legally binding or influential in ruling disputes. Unfortunately, Israel has been subject to almost 500-UN resolutions in both the UNSC and UNGA since 1948 - more than any nation on Earth. The second problem with international law is its inability to remove the soviet-styled Cold-War legal applications, which prevents nations from actively preventing attacks before they happen - effectively banning pre-preemptive wars and counter-terrorist operations (which some scholars have deemed to be state-terrorism per international law). The third problem is the justices - many of them aren't even lawyers and a significant chunk belong to the highly partisan Israel/Palestine arena.

As one example, the West Bank Security Barrier has been determined to be illegal under international law and was the subject of several UN resolutions. However, the India/Pakistan Line of Control, Indo-Bangladeshi barrier which cedes into both Bangladeshi and India territory, and the Wall (Western Sahara) which includes mines, electronic fences, and armed guards have received no recognition by the International courts.

If we are aiming to explain why international law plays such a crucial role in the Israeli settlements and apartheid analogies, we should explain how it operates and why the legal aspect is dwarfed by political motivations. Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:07, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

The Court and the Defense Ministry found the outposts to be illegal for the reasons that are already stated in the article. Among other things, that means they violate the articles annexed to the Hague IV Convention. In several cases the settlers couldn't produce titles when they were given the opportunity and the state said the land was registered to private Palestinian owners. The hearings in the Amona case were concluded under "HCJ 851/06 Amona Farmer’s Co-operative for communal settlements Ltd. v. Minister of Defense, (not yet published, 29 January, 2006). Arbcom has said that Wikipedia is not supposed to be used for propaganda, so I'd recommend the subsection title remain as it is.
As for international law, the legal experts in the Foreign Ministry told the special ministerial committee last week that hundreds of foreign lawsuits and the two upcoming UN reports could lead to legal proceedings against Israel or individual Israeli public figures in the International Court of Justice or the International Criminal Court in The Hague. The government sources said "The road to international courts is very short from the point we are at right now." It will get even shorter if the ICC preliminary analysis concludes that war crimes and crimes against humanity dating back to 2002 should be investigated on behalf of the Palestinian Authority. harlan (talk) 07:49, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Does international law take precedent over Israeli law? Like the US, Israel isn't a member of these public courts. I don't really think your last two sentences were all that important or revealing. Wikifan12345 (talk) 08:50, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Could you please point my in direction of any sources for your assertion that Israel is not a 'member' (fuzzy choice of words) of the International Court of Justice? To my knowledge, Israel hasn't withdrawn from the UN, and remains bound by the UN Charter, of which the statutes of the ICJ are an integral part. Anyanghaseyo (talk) 17:12, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Today's international courts were not "integral" to the United Nations in 1948. There is nothing in the UN Charter that enables public courts from superseding the sovereignty of nations without probable cause. For example, when representatives from Canada and America attempted to apply the "UN Charter" rules to the nations of Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Pakistan - those 3 nations responded with the UN stipulation that prevents the organization from intervening in the internal affairs of countries outside the act of genocide or humanitarian cause. Wikifan12345 (talk) 19:25, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Harlan, if you are going to quote speculation, please insert a link. Splitting up the outposts section in to unauth. and il. would be more accurate since not all outposts are illegal, yet it seems that all are being lumped into this categorization. Your example of Amona is also not entirely accurate though, the nine buildings were found to have been built on private land, but the ruling was not against the rest of the Amona settlement. --Shuki (talk) 17:45, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. Wikifan12345 (talk) 19:25, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Wikifan, stop presenting false information. Second line of the UN Charter reads: "The Statute of the International Court of Justice is an integral part of the Charter". Insofar as the ICJ has members, Israel is one of them. Also, I have no clue what you mean by 'public courts', it's not a term in international law but I assume you refer to ICJ and ICC. These courts are not even remotely the same. Furthermore, there are plenty of rules in international law that infringes on national sovereignty beyond genocide and 'humanitarian cause' (whatever you mean by that). I would suggest you read up on the basics of international law if you intend on editing this article in a way that pushes your POV (that "the legal aspect is dwarfed by political motivations"). Anyanghaseyo (talk) 00:25, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
The UN Charter explicitly forbids the organization from intervening in the domestic jurisdiction of disputes. Only the UNSC can authorize and implement acts of intervention. The UNHRC is the principal gate-keeper in providing "world issues" which are then forwarded to the IJC and public courts. Israel's POV is that these settlements, however offensive they might be, are well within the realm of their sovereign rights. It contends that the failure for the IJC to implement rulings against the wholesale destruction of 1,000+ Christian/Black muslim villages in Darfur while instead deferring time to the mild settlement controversy is not only suspect, but begs the question if these courts are objective and neutral as their charter affirms. I prefer we not SOAP but there are always two sides to a story and seems this fact has been largely forgotten. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:50, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Wikifan12345, for decades now every organ of the United Nations has advised Israel that the settlements are illegal. Israel cannot acquire sovereign rights via military occupation. The United Nations Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries adopted the Rome Statute and the government of Israel concluded that the war crimes article was applicable to Israeli settlement activities in the Occupied Arab Territories. Israel complains that the UN is a political body, but so is the Israeli Knesset. The lawmakers in most places are politicians. The courts don't usually accept that fact as a defense in a criminal case.

The ICJ noted that "A binding determination made by a competent organ of the United Nations to the effect that a situation is illegal cannot remain without consequence." While the ICJ can't interfere, its advice said that every contracting state party had an erga omnes responsibility and that it was self-evident that an illegal situation is not to be recognized or assisted by third parties. There is no statute of limitations for war crimes or crimes against humanity. Israeli-Americans can be prosecuted in the US Courts today under the 1996 War Crimes Act for violating article 23 of the Hague IV Convention in the occupied territories (destroying or seizing property). [37]

The US State Department already warns against purchasing property in Jerusalem or the occupied territories, because claims might arise from displaced Palestinians. It also cautions that the possible establishment of a Palestinian state may have legal consequences for property owners in Israeli settlements in the West Bank and in East Jerusalem. [38]

Israel can be referred to the International Criminal Court by the Security Council whether it is a contracting party to the statute or not. Israel's breaches of its international obligations were already addressed in an earlier case by the ICJ. It found that Israel had severely impeded the exercise by the Palestinian people of its right to self-determination, and the applicable provisions of international humanitarian law and human rights instruments by destruction and requisition of property, restrictions on freedom of movement, and the impediment to the exercise by those concerned of the right to work, to health, to education and to an adequate standard of living. The court found that those breaches could not be legally justified by military exigencies or by the requirements of national security or public order.

Since then a High-level Plenary Meeting of the General Assembly in September 2005 adopted the Responsibility to Protect international law norm. [39] One of the draft UN reports on Gaza has already been released and it recommends "All allegations of violations of international humanitarian law and human rights violations during the Gaza military operations must be investigated by credible, independent and transparent accountability mechanisms, taking fully into account international standards on due process of law."

Many countries have determined that the Rome Statute simply declares existing customary international law. They have given their national courts universal jurisdiction to prosecute violations of the statute. Those courts don't care if Israel or Palestine are state parties to the convention. For example, the Canadian Courts are considering motions in a war crime case right now against a pair of local companies that built settlements in Biilin vs. Green Park Intl Inc. Regardless of the merits of that case, it illustrates the problem the Foreign Ministry legal advisors are concerned about. harlan (talk) 03:39, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

No one is disputing that the United Nations has "advised" Israel. There is no precedent in the history of international law where so much effort has been devoted to declaring the building of homes illegal. Israel acquired the West Bank, Gaza Strip, and the Golan Heights during the Six Day War. Previously, Jordan occupied the West Bank and formally annexed the territory. The UN failed to condemn Jordan for these annexation, and UN-Security Council member Britain recognized the annexation as legal. Unlike Israel, The Jordanians and the Egyptians were not expected to push for a Palestinian state. Any attempt within the territories for Palestinian sovereignty were immediately crushed by the Arab occupiers, at the UN's and the International Courts silence. When Israel captured the territories in 1967, the Palestinians were afforded an unprecedented level of freedom - where thousands now had access to Jerusalem when Jordan refused them entry. And we all know about the sky-rocketing economy, society, and then re-surging resistance movements..etc...
I'm just explaining why Israel does not take the international court seriously. Israel has maintained an agenda of indifference to most of these legal-challenges because it sees a major double standard in how laws are applied. During the Hama massacre (40x the amount of people killed in the Gaza war - in 24hours), the UN or international courts did not say a word. During Black September, again silence. Israel has been subject to almost 500 UN resolutions, while the Arab states and Palestinian movements have not been condemned once.
So while we all understand how the international "legal" system works, especially in regards to Israel and Africa, we all should understand why Israel has few incentives to care. We can't shape the article to look like a never-ending series of international crimes against mankind. We're talking about settlements, not nuclear bombs - so lets absorb the Israel POV and make the legalism more concise so as not to confuse the reader. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:50, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

The reason why the legal section is so long (and I've contributed heavily to it under another nickname) is because POV pushers who support Israel have been insistent in claiming that these settlements are legal, thus including fringe legal views which in turn bloats the section (disgraced former editors such as Jayjg and Zeq springs to mind). This article even uses CAMERA as a source, an advocacy organization who conspired with Wikipedia editors to push their own fringe views based entirely on politics and ideology. Other sources used to argue for the legality of the settlements are web sites with the title 'Guides for activists', ie talking points for propagandists, or other talking points from noted advocacy organizations such as ADL, or JCPA. Compare this to ICJ, UNGA, UNSC, ICRC, legal advisors to the US, legal advisors to the Israeli government and so on, who are among the numerous sources used to back the illegality claim. The consensus among all neutral observers is that these settlements are a blatant violation of international law. I've yet to see any legal analysis from anyone who are not open supporters of Israel to conclude otherwise. Furthermore, it is not only the UN that has 'advised' Israel, nor is the legal basis for the illegality claim rooted in any UN document. You seek to give undue weight to fringe extremist views, and to include irrelevant accusations of double-standards The simply truth is that any fair reading of the legal views and who holds them will have to conclude that all those supporting the Israeli legal position seem to be highly sympathic to the Israeli cause and occupation, and heavily influenced by politics. It is impossible to make a similar claim for the numerous sources who have argued for the illegality of these settlements (including a former legal advisor to the Israeli government and Judge Buergenthal of the ICJ, holocaust survivor of Jewish descent), yet you want this article to reflect that the illegality accusations are based on politics and not law. It is the opposite: all those who argue otherwise seem to be motivated by politics and ideology. Anyanghaseyo (talk) 10:54, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

War crimes aren't neutral

I think it ought to be self-evident why a tax-exempt US charitable organization shouldn't be used to carry-on a sustained political propaganda campaign that promotes or condones the commission of war crimes against the members of another national or ethnic group. It just isn't a very WP:Civil thing to do with one of the most popular educational sites on the Internet. The guidance I've seen from Arbcom says Wikipedia isn't supposed to be used for propaganda.
Not as a WP:FORUM either. If you wrote about 1/4 as much and restricted yourself to the content of articles, you would be taken more seriously. The relevance of almost all of this comment to the article is exceedingly marginal. Zerotalk 13:39, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
I used to write just as much as I commented. The articles just got reverted by folks who demand that everything be discussed on the talk page first. The authors of the HSRC Occupation, Colonialism, Apartheid report certainly think this material is legally relevant to the issue of Israeli settlements. I'd like to suggest that we add their observations to the article and stop avoiding the subject. harlan (talk) 18:55, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Colonialism has been a never-ending series of international crimes against mankind no matter when or where it was practiced. That's why it was outlawed. The use of the Jewish militias and the IDF to "acquire" territory was an inherent part of the colonial enterprise. Jabotinsky wrote "Zionist colonization, even the most restricted, must either be terminated or carried out in defiance of the will of the native population. This colonization can, therefore, continue and develop only under the protection of a force independent of the local population – an iron wall which the native population cannot break through. This is, in toto, our policy towards the Arabs. To formulate it any other way would only be hypocrisy. ... ...All of us, without exception, are constantly demanding that this power strictly fulfill its obligations. In this sense, there are no meaningful differences between our “militarists” and our “vegetarians.” One prefers an iron wall of Jewish bayonets, the other proposes an iron wall of British bayonets, the third proposes an agreement with Baghdad, and appears to be satisfied with Baghdad’s bayonets – a strange and somewhat risky taste’ but we all applaud, day and night, the iron wall."
Raphael Lemkin coined the term genocide to describe a foreign occupation that destroyed or permanently crippled the remaining members of a subjugated population. Lemkin studied both early and modern instances of colonialism and came to the conclusion that the practice is inherently genocidal. see Raphael Lemkin’s History of Genocide and Colonialism, United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, Center for Advanced Holocaust Studies. Under Lemkin's definition, genocide was the coordinated and planned annihilation of a national, religious, or racial group by a variety of actions aimed at undermining the foundations essential to the survival of the group as a group. Even non-lethal acts that undermined the liberty, dignity, and personal security of members of a group constituted genocide if they contributed to weakening the viability of the group. Under Lemkin's definition, acts of ethnocide a term coined by the French after the war to cover the destruction of a culture without the killing of its bearers also qualified for genocide.
Lemkin wrote about the laws of occupation and spoke out about "The Problem of the Colonists". He said the problem was specific because many thousands of them had settled on properties of dispossessed persons. He noted that even if they had not voluntarily assisted the enemy in acts of dispossession, that fact still would not provide them any valid title to the property on which they were settled. He wrote that in cases where colonists had been settled on state property, the legal problem remained the same. The occupant has the right only to the usufruct of real property belonging to the occupied territory. He has no right to dispose of such property or to convey title to other persons. see Axis Rule in Occupied Europe: Laws of Occupation, Analysis of Government, Proposals for Redress, By Raphael Lemkin, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Division of International Law, 1944, page 45 and Empire, Colony, Genocide, By A. Dirk Moses and Key Writings of Raphael Lemkin on Genocide.
Apartheid was a closely related practice that was used to facilitate colonialism. In 1985 the UN established an ad hoc Working Group of Experts to investigate violations of human rights in South Africa. In its report, the working group said that apartheid was a special instance of genocide. However the delegates to the Rome Convention decided that the elements of the offense of the Crime of Apartheid could be satisfied without a finding of any special intent to destroy any group, in whole or in part, as required by the statutory definition of genocide.
Lemkin also observed that the use of propaganda to rationalize the crime; appeal to popular beliefs and intolerance; sow discord (divide and rule); and to misrepresent or deceive others about what was really happening was an integral part of the process of genocide. see Item #5 on the list under Lemkin's Methodology starting on page 88. harlan (talk) 13:26, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Outposts has a military connotation that settlements lacks. It implies that that the Illegal Outposters are gun waving yahoos. Hcobb (talk) 18:25, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

It's really hard to keep up with this dispute with Harlan's lengthy SOAPY rants. Wikifan12345 (talk) 19:35, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Its really hard to take an encyclopedia seriously when it suggests it's okay to violate criminal laws and fail to protect a few million people from the consequences. Quite a few Wikipedia articles contain what appear to be "true threats" against Palestinians or Israelis, i.e. a reasonable person would conclude that the editor means to cause the consequence or is aware that it will occur in the ordinary course of events. Wikipedia shouldn't be used in that way because it would be illegal. It's as simple as that. harlan (talk) 21:25, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Illegal according to International Courts that Israel (or Sudan, the UNGA, or most despotic countries) does not take seriously. The connotations applied to these settlements, most of which are built by Palestinians themselves, cannot be overrun by hostile and militarized rhetoric. Wikifan12345 (talk) 21:33, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

The fact that Israel holds the West Bank in a state of belligerent occupation means it has a corner on the market for labor, services, and real estate. That's why international law limits its rights to usufruct only. It isn't surprising that Hamas builds settlements, or that Israeli settlers can find great deals on real estate. The IDF is holding the indigenous population at gunpoint while the local economy goes to pot. The HSRC report gives an overview of the situation with information from the World Bank on that subject. The Bank concluded that the local economy is run for the benefit of the settlers. harlan (talk) 22:40, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Harlan, the undeniable fact is that the Arab population under Israeli 'gunpoint' is one of the most advanced in the world, and has progressed in the last 42 years more than other neighbouring countries have since their colonial creations last century. An undeniable fact is that since the PLO/Hamas took over, this continued but at a much slower rate, and their corruption had/has much to do with that. Oh, are you now taking us into conspiracy theory? That the Arabs are subservient of the settlers? --Shuki (talk) 08:20, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

NOTE:
Zero is right mates,
Try to avoid using Wikipedia as a forum for generic political debates. Esp. as this is an article page and political debate leads away from constructive edits to the article.
Warm regards, JaakobouChalk Talk 10:40, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Israeli_settlement/Archive_9&oldid=1136828816"