Talk:Israeli settlement: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 16:08, 26 January 2005 editJayjg (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators134,922 edits →"Massive"← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 12:20, 29 December 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk \| contribs)Bots, Template editors2,302,381 editsm Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Talk:Israeli settlement/Archive 13) (bot
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{pp-move-indef\|small=yes}}
	==Initial discussions==
			{{Talk header\|search=yes}}
	I must protest at the heading 'Reestablished Communities'. This seems to come straight from the lexicon of the settlers themselves. This heading is extremely biased at MUST be removed if this page is to be neutral.
			<!-- Do not remove the sanction template -->
			{{ARBPIA}}
			{{WikiProject banner shell\|class=B\|1=
			{{WikiProject Israel\|importance=Mid}}
			{{WikiProject Palestine\|importance=high\|attention=yes}}
			{{WikiProject Syria\|importance=mid}}
			{{WikiProject Egypt\|importance=low}}
			{{WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration}}
			{{WikiProject Cities}}
			}}
			{{User:MiszaBot/config
			\|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}}
			\|maxarchivesize = 250K
			\|counter = 13
			\|minthreadsleft = 4
			\|algo = old(180d)
			\|archive = Talk:Israeli settlement/Archive %(counter)d
			}}
			{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
			\|target=Talk:Israeli settlement/Archive index
			\|mask=Talk:Israeli settlement/Archive <#>
			\|leading_zeros=0
			\|indexhere=yes}}
			{{Broken anchors\|links=
			* <nowiki>]</nowiki> The anchor (#Ulpana lawsuits) is no longer available because it was ] before. <!-- {"title":"Ulpana lawsuits","appear":{"revid":554432036,"parentid":554430719,"timestamp":"2013-05-10T11:49:45Z","replaced_anchors":{"Ulpana lawsuit":"Ulpana lawsuits"},"removed_section_titles":,"added_section_titles":},"disappear":{"revid":725072007,"parentid":725062973,"timestamp":"2016-06-13T11:20:49Z","removed_section_titles":,"added_section_titles":}} -->
			}}


			== Haaretz article: "Secret 1970 document confirms first West Bank settlements built on a lie." ==
	I removed:

			Haaretz - Yotam Berger - , 28 July 2016. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><span class="autosigned" style="font-size:85%;">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </span>
	:''As a means to legalise their position, the israelis have taken invading refugee camps ] and vilages in an attempt to scare off Palestinians and claim the land as theirs.''

			== Security isn't a "pretext" ==
	The massacre in Sabra and Shatilla was not committed by Israel. Israel's responsibility, and for that matter Sharon's, was in not stopping their Christian Phalangist allies in Lebanon from committing the massacre. Nor was the massacre committed to legalize settlements. It took place in Lebanon, not the West Bank or Gaza. No Israeli government has ever made territorial claims on Lebanon, nor have any settlements been created there. Of course, a statement like this also merits an Israeli explanation of the actions if it is to be considered NPOV. According to Israel, refugee camps in the West Bank have Gaza have been invaded to stop thm serving as terrorist bases. It is not a question of agreeing with this or not. Personally, I do not, however, claiming that it is a policy intended to scare off the Palestinians requires some factual backing. I'd like to see that. Finally, it is Sabra and Shatilla (S and 2 l's).]

			Under '''4.2 Settlement Policy''', the article reads "The government abrogated the prohibition from purchasing occupied land by Israelis; the "Drobles Plan", a plan for large-scale settlement in the West Bank meant to prevent a Palestinian state under the pretext of security became the framework for its policy."
	Let's improve the article by describing
	#advocacy which opposes the settlemnts
	#advocacy which supports the settlements

			The dictionary definition of pretext is ''something that is put forward to conceal a true purpose or object; an ostensible reason; excuse''.
	I presume Arabs are mostly against the settlements, because they regard the West Bank as properly belonging to a Palestinian state (de facto, de jure, or proposed) -- so the Israelis are trespassing, to say the least.

			The provided citation doesn't support the copy in the wiki article. The document doesn't say that security was a pretext. The document says security is one of several reasons to develop the settlements. The cited article reads, "The following are the principles which guided the plan: 1. Settlement throughout the entire Land of Israel is for security and by right, A strip of settlements at strategic sites enhances both internal and external security alike, as well as making concrete and realizing our right to Eretz Israel..."
	I presume the Israeli military wants radar installations that can see across the Jordan River, to get an extra 10 minutes' warning of enemy jets or missiles.

			So the article isn't even denying that it assumes that the Israelis have some sort of biblical or historical right to Israel, BUT it also argues that the settlements would improve security.
	No doubt there are other issues as well. Please, someone who knows the area and the issues, write about this. Thank you. ]

			There is also the matter that the same section of this article implies that these cited documents were written by representatives of the Israeli government; they were not, they were written by departments of the World Zionist Organization which is an NGO and not directed by the Israeli government. It was essentially written by a think tank advocating a certain perspective but the article casts it as from the central government planning office. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) </small>
	:Ed, you are confusing several issues here. military installations are not settlements. Many people in Israel, perhaps the majority, support removing most of the settlement but keeping military installations in vital places. And it is actually 3 minutes, not 10. ]

			== ICJ ==
	:Thanks for clarifying that, Danny. ]

			The findings of the ICJ should be treated factually and not on a POV and attribution basis. I.e. I am in favor of the settlements being simply called illegal in the opening sentence, as described by every major RS. ] (]) 09:34, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
	:Dear Ed, what you wrote is just, well, how should I put it?, not true! The majority in Israel is AGAINST removing settelments such as Gilo(a neighborhood in Jerusalem, but on the east side of the 1967 lunch-brake line) or Gush-Etzion... The military isuue isn't just about warning time...Today's radars are capable of seeing Jordan just fine even if Israel moves them a couple of miles to the west(see the Karin-A capture). The bigger problem is the height advantage the West Bank gives, the problem of making Israel VERY narrow at some places, and the isuue of provking more terror by showing that terror DOES work at achieving the Palestinian national movment goals(and thus being only the first step in "liberating allmof palestine from the Zionist enemy"...) Dear Ed, before you tell others about public opinion, you should know SOMETHING about it... --] 18:54, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

			:Given that now have an authoritative statement of the law on this matter, it should be straightforward to find RS reporting of same without caveats, it really doesn't matter any more whether "Israel disputes this" other than as historical background, imo this boilerplate should be removed from articles. There was a consensus about it somewhere but I forget where, perhaps it needs revisiting now. ] (]) 09:40, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
	::Alex, you're responding to a debate that appears to be at least a year old. ] \| ] 16:02, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
			::Agreed; it should be Israel's arguments were refuted, rather than the classical and boring "Israel disputes this", which to me always sounded like writing on ]: "The earth is round, but flat earthers dispute this." ] (]) 09:56, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
	----
			:::OK, existing consensus ] (thanks to {{Re\|Sean.hoyland}} for the link).
	:These settlements have been declared to be illegal by the UN Security Council (Resolution 446), and Israel has been asked by that resolution to cease further settlement activity. Since resolution 446 was not made under Chapter VI or VII of the ] , Israel argues that it is purely an advisory request, and chose not to fulfill it. The issue of the legal status of resolutions of the UN Security Council not made under Chapters VI or VII of the Charter is controversial in international law -- some accept Israel's argument, others reject it, and consider the resolution to be legally binding on Israel.
			:::It would seem that the situation has changed, even before the ICJ opinion, the US accepts (once again, post Trump) that the settlements are illegal so together with the opinion, that seems sufficient to reopen the question with a view to removing the "Israel disputes this" part and possibly rewording the rest. ] (]) 11:08, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

			== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 July 2024 ==
	What are these chapters ?
	------
	I may have got the chapter numbers wrong, but as I remember, Chapter VI is compulsory measures of a non-military nature taken to protect international peace and security (e.g. peackeeping missions, sanctions, weapons inspections, embargos); Chapter VII is compulsory measures of a military nature (i.e. the United Nations authorizes a war). All members of the United Nations are legally obligated to obey resolutions of the Security Council made under these two chapters (such resolutions always contain the recital "Acting under Chapter whatever of the Charter of the United Nations", or words to similar effect) -- everyone is more or less in agreement on this. Whether or not they are legally obligated to obey and implement resolutions not containing that language is controversial. Resolution 446 did not contain such language.

			{{Edit extended-protected\|Israeli settlement\|answered=yes}}
	Also controversial is are there any legal limits to the powers of the Security Council (can it legally command whatever it likes?), and whether the legality of Security Council resolutions is open to challenge before the International Court of Justice... -- ]
			I suggest that the latest 2023 west bank access restrictions map from OCHA be added. Link provided below:
			https://www.ochaopt.org/content/west-bank-access-restrictions-may-2023 ] (]) 18:59, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
			:] '''Not done:'''<!-- Template:EEp --> It's a good map, but unfortunately it's . <span style="white-space:nowrap"><span style="font-family:monospace">'''<nowiki>''']<nowiki>]]'''</nowiki>'''</span> (] • ])</span> 01:07, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
			::{{re\|CanonNi}} https://commons.wikimedia.org/Template:PD-UN-map ] (]) 10:36, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

			== create page: ] ==
	: Palestinians argue that the settlements are a unilateral act, not a bilaterally agreed act;
	I think this sentence is irrelevant in discussing the reasons for the Jordanian giving up of their claims to the West Bank. Jordan simply said: "I don't care anymore about these territories, I sign my peace with Israel and I trust that Israel and the Palestinians will reach an agreement some day, but which exactly I don't care". They did not make their giving up somehow conditional on the question of Israeli settlements. That's why I think this phrase is irrelevant. ]
	------------
	At the time of writing, no hard evidence has been produced by Israel to support these claims.

			# unofficial
	: Removing plants or buildings after an attack is a standard procedure. Just several months ago, there was a family that protested its house being demolished in the Israeli Supreme Court (the house was used for an ambush). Israel's decision-making in this field follows a known procedure and is well documented.
			# official

			] (]) 02:55, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
	arguing that Israeli settlements constitute de facto military bases.

	: Fragment. Under international law, settlements do not constitute bases, troops being deployed solely for protection. Moreover, settlers are still non-combatant civilians.

	pointing to the fact that Israel has continued transferring her own civilian population to settlements

	: Israel does not 'transfer' population to settlements: they may come and go according to free will

	which have come from Israel and the USA

	: Each side brings its issues. That's called negotiation.

	The security of a future Palestinian state from attack by Israel has occasionally been mentioned in this connection.

	: So Israel would be signing a peace agreement with the Palestinians to attack them? The Palestinians' main proposed source of attack is Israel, while Israel's is not the Palestinians. So while the Palestinians are covered by a peace agreement by definition, Israel is not. --]

	-----------
	List of changes:
	# Al-Quds (ash-Shareef) is Jerusalem, plain and simple. Jerusalem is the accpeted English name; using it solely for East Jerusalem is incorrect and biased.

	:Agreed. --] 18:35 Oct 7, 2002 (UTC)

	# I wonder why it must hurt to mention that settlers are entitled to life. In spite of the fact that this has been reiterated numerous times by the U.N., various NGOs and who else, it's far from being common knowledge.

	:Please go around wikipedia and add this to all events in history where people got killed. Mentioning it only here gives a particular moralic stance which doesn't conform with NPOV, so I cut it (even if I agree with you that every human being is entitled to life ;-)) --] 18:35 Oct 7, 2002 (UTC)

	# 6200 sq. km. are ''not'' under the control of settlers! Jacob, did you notice the 4% figure? That's the land under settler control; the rest are ''closed territories''. This addition was biased, unhelpful, and the worst part is that you could have avoided it by looking up stuff. Why didn't you do that? --]

	my changes:
	<i>Some of the settlements were established on the spots of Jewish communities destroyed by Arabs in 1929 and 1947, while most are new.</i> removed. What does this sentence signify? While this may be true, it should either be balanced with fatcs about settlements/highways etc erected on confiscated palestinian ground or left out. --] 18:35 Oct 7, 2002 (UTC)


	Um, was it is Ok for Arabs to mass-murder Jews and take over their towns (like in Hebron)? Is Ok by you that this essential part of the conflict be hidden? Do you hold that Jews finally move back into areas where they always used to live, this is "incitement"? How is your view any different than Palestinian anti-Semitic propaganda that Jews hadn't been living there all along? No thanks. The material you deleted must be restored. You can't just delete historical facts that you find uncomfortable. That is a violation of all the ethical and scholarly standards by which the Misplaced Pages community works. If you think that some info should be added, then add this material. But don't just wipe out critical facts because you are too lazy to write new material. ]

	:First, thanks for removing the sentence about my agenda being biased and anti-Jewish (I have a text in preparation that explains my personal views on the conflict, but it's not finished yet, but there's one thing I can say: I am not anti-Jewish). Second: I invite you to have a look at ] and read over the discussion in the mailinglist and add your general view there. Next: By removing this sentence I didn't intend to deny that Jews were living in the holy land for a long long time (I don't really understand how you came to this conclusion by the above statement). But in regard to the fact, that many settlements (while some were erected on the ground of old Jewish settlements) were erected on confiscated Arab ground (where also mass-murder may have occurred - see Deir Yassin, which is a Israeli village now) the above sentence brings bias in the article. And until it's de-biased I'd prefer to have it here on the talk page. Last, regarding laziness: I am no native english-speaker and it's very hard for me to write in English (and takes much time, too). I will write new material, but it may take some time. --]

	The number of Palestinians within the West Bank and Gaza has also undergone a large increase <b>as human species tends to reproduce.</b>

	:Yes, but aren't Israelis humans as well? I am sure that you are not implying that Palestinians have a right to expand their towns and have children because they are human, but that right is somehow questionable for Israelis. Yet that is how it comes off. I say this because much Islamic literature popular among Palestinians teaches explicitly that Israelies are "the sons of dogs and pigs", and that they really do not have a right to live in any part of the land, West Bank or Israel proper. Most Islamic teachers among Palestinians really do deny Jews any form of human rights whatsoever. ]

	Yes, Israelis are humans as well. But I think there is a major and fundamental difference between a systematic policy of building settlements and increasing population by settling people there and the "normal" way a population increases (which is happening in the Israeli settlements as well) The question is a political one: Do the Israelis have the right to install settlements on an occupied territory which is not an official part of their state and by doing this creating a situation which makes the planned creation of a Palestinian state extremely difficult (and violating the terms of the Oslo accords)? and just a remark: I don't think that we should refer to extremists' views in discussion. And articles shouldn't be written in an attitude to implicitly argue against these ridiculous views. Further I want to add that there is also a part of Palestinians who are Christians, have nothing to do with "Islamist literature", don't deny the right of Israelis to live in Israel but however strongly call for a stop of settlement building as a mean of making a functional Palestinian state in Westbank and Gaza impossible. Do you deny that the Palestinians have a right to an own state and a right of political self-determination, a right to vote, a right to express their opinion freely, i.e. everything which constitutes the freedom most Americans do so strongly support? BTW, I left a message on your Userpage. I'd appreciate hearing your opinions about the project. --]

	: This land is not simply "occupied" or "liberated", it is disputed. Also it should not be forgotten that Palestine comprises land on '''both''' sides of the Jordan river. Therefore there are already "2 states for 2 people". One Arab Palestinian state: ], one Jewish Palestinian state: ]. A third one would be injustice against the Jewish people because they have only this one state (whereas the Arabs have 22). <br>
	I think the discussion should move from national questions to human rights questions: How can this conflict be ended in a way which is fast and helps the entire population? When all the stateless Palestinians get Jordanian citizenship then they have their nation state and they can stay in Israel as normal foreign citizens. This proposal could really work: http://www.therightroadtopeace.com/eng/defaulteng.html

	:This is ]'s "solve the problem by expelling the palestians" solution?

	:: No, "expelling the palestinians" is not part of the plan, see ] ] 06:56, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)

	:: The pro-transfer policy of Elon is well-known to every Israeli. He's careful not to specify the exact mechanism by which the "completion of the exchange of populations that began in 1948" (his words) will be achieved, but nobody is fooled. His proposal is barely different from Kahane's was. --] 13:37, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)

	::: There is a huge difference between forced ] and persuasion (by development aid). What you are writing is just plain backbiting. ] 06:35, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)

	::: You must be the only person in the universe who is fooled. Elon has made his intentions completely clear in speeches and interviews and there is hardly a single Israeli who doesn't understand them. Elon is not a fool and he knows full well that few Palstinians will leave just because they have financial assistance. They will refuse to cooperate, their refusal will be considered a "declaration of war" then "Should the Arab population of Judea, Samaria & Gaza declare war on us, they will be expelled to their state, on the other side of the Jordan River." . I suspect you really know this already. --] 09:53, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)

	----
	I made a few changes today, but it will take a lot more work to balance the "they are illegal claim" of Palestinian Arabs with pro-Israeli POV. I wish someone who knew more about law than I do, would research this. --] 14:49, 14 Aug 2003 (UTC)

	Dunno about law, but I know something about the English language - viz, that when you march into a place and hold it at gunpoint it is and ''must be'' called '''occupation''' - attempting to pretend a military occupation is anything else but a military occupation is simply absurd. I'm not even going to read the rest of the article - with a start like that, it ain't worth it. ]

	Might I point out that the previous state in control of the land was also an "occupier"? Jordan, who marched into the area, expelled Jews in the area (might I also point out that some of the settlements can be justified as the return of Jewish Refugees to their homes where they were expelled in 1948 by the Jordanians? Considering the promotion of the palestinian "right of return", one can hardly argue with allowing Jews the same rights, especially when, unlike the possibility of palestinians entering Israel, it does not pose any threat to the demographic stability of the area.) and annexed it illegally? Yet I don't see you condemning their occupation, of which was of a much more brutal nature and involved the annexation of land, which Israel has not done. Also, to Ed Poor, I will start doing some research to represent further the other point of view, in the interests of balance. Thankyou for pointing that out.-Leumi

	The maps are damn fine but they show East Jerusalem as within the Green Mile border which is totally wrong. It must be fixed. ] 12:14, Apr 17, 2004 (UTC)

	What does the header "Reestablished Communities" mean? -]]

	== Population in Settlements ==

	It is a common misconception that the settlements are mostly in Palestinian towns. The pluarility of the settlers live in Ma'ale Adumim im what was and still is uninhabited desert east of Jerusalem. Most of the settlers live near the borders of the West Bank in areas that would never have been given back to the Palestinians and serve as suburbs of Tel Aviv, Netanya, or Jerusalem. It is a sad truth that the majority of settlers who are quoted are the 400 people who live in Kiryat Arbah in Hebron, who do not represent the majority of settlers; who are usually people who want to live close to Tel Aviv - many vote for the labor party. There are also agricultural settlements along the Jordan along the border with the nation of Jordan. Palestinians would never gain this land as the Jordanian government detests the PLO, ever since the attempted coup d'etat in 1970.

	:I don't know who wrote the above paragraph but it's very clear that you've never been to the West Bank and seen the settlements. They are not 'near Tel Aviv' at all. They are deep inside the West Bank on the hilltops. There are plenty of militant settlers throughout the illegal West Bank settlements - not just around Hebron. Around Nablus, for example, there are many who routinely attack Palestinian families trying to harvest their crops.

	::To set things straight: the whole area we're talking about is quite small, so it's hard to say "near" or "far". Only the bloc of Modi'in Illit (total population about 25,000), and a few other settlements (e.g., Oranit - 5,000 and Har-Adar - 1,420) can truly be considered adjacent to Israel. Other blocs (e.g., Etzion - 33,000, Ma'ale Adumim - 28,000) are close to the border, but in areas also populated with Palestinians. Most other settlements (e.g., Ariel - 16,000) are deep inside the Territories. The settler population in the Jordan Valley is very sparse, about 6,000, even less than the (relatively sparse) Palestinian population there. While some settlements are only a few kilometers from Tel-Aviv or Jerusalem, hardly any of them can be considered "suburbs", due to the Palestinian population concentration in the Tul-Karem, Qalqiliya, Salfit, East-Jerusalem and Beth-Lehem areas. --] 11:13, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

	:::I think it's fair to say that Gilo is a suburb of Jerusalem. And I'm not sure how Palestinian populations would be relevant, could you elaborate? ] \| ] 17:56, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

	::::I agree on Gilo, but Gilo is part of the municipality of Jerusalem, and thus under Israeli law, which puts it in quite a different status than, say, Ma'ale Adumim (a distinguishment that is made in the article as well). Most East-Jerusalem settlements are widely accepted as suburbs of Jerusalem, even by the some Palestinians (e.g., ]). Re: Palestinian populations - for example, it's hard to accept Alfei Menashe as a suburb of Tel-Aviv when Qalqiliya and Hable, which are closer, are definitely not considered as such. Regarding such areas as "suburbs" of Tel-Aviv suggests that there is a continuity of Israeli territory, which is absent in most cases as I have written above. The person that wrote the first paragraph (to whom I meant to reply) brought up the issue of "not giving back to the Palestinians" some of these areas, so I wanted to point out that this is relevant in only very few instances, since it is generally accepted (even in Israel) that areas populated with Palestinians are not to be annexed to Israel. --] 08:56, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

	:::::Good points. ] \| ] 16:04, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

	== "Massive" ==

	I removed the term "massive" from the reference to financial incentives. I was tempted to remove the term "incentive" and replace it with "support" as well. Whether the incentives are "massive" or not is a matter of interpretation.

	==Essay by new editor==
	I'm new to this "talk", but I'm mesmerised by the amount of words used to justify these illeagal and immoral land thieves.

	Millions of indigenous people to this land are either crammed into 12% of what was their land or languishing in refugee camps; meanwhile people from all over the world are free to come take even more of their land because thy belong to an exclusive club, the Jewish religion. Many of these squaterrs are from North America or Russia...they have no ties to this land. As I type they are demolishing the Palestinains olive and orange groves to build more Jews-only roads and towns...with the occupying military's help.

	Israel continues to steal even more of the little that is left ofr the indigenous people; it is very clear that they are hoping to completly ethnic cleanse this land of the Palestinians by driving them out or keeping them cut off from the outside world in little enclaves controlled by Israel...remind you of South Africa?

	== Legal status ==

	I added a section on different legal status of the territories in question. I suspect it may get more complicated, since the Arab position long was that the very existence of Israel - on even a square inch - was unacceptable to them. The Jordanian and Egyptian peace treaties stipulate what areas fall under Jordanian and Egyptian sovereignty, but make no particular statement about where Israel's final borders should go within these borders.

	--] 22:01, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

	== Motivations for settlements ==

	I added a section on the motivations for settlement, making an effort to describe both the accusations and the professions.

	:Isn't the stated motivation of the settlers to make the occupied territories part of Israel (commonly referred to as "creating facts on the ground") as in this map on the Arutz Sheva website? Why is this not mentioned? What are Israel's territorial claims exactly - I have never seen them stated explicitly.

	== Regarding to the Israeli "willingness" to evict from Sinai ==

	Israel has a very unique political system, in the sense that Israel is never "willing" to do anything, but certain parties/people are. Israel switches governments and PMs like socks, mostly because the people want's "something to be done differently", but they don't actually know what they want to do...

	If the PMs wants to do something, there's no on to stop him, for about four years, meaning: what the Israeli government did isn't necessarily what the people wanted. For example(without going into the isuue wethere the action was right or wrong): David Ben Gurion signed the compensation agreement with Germany when there was a lot of criticism on that act from the public(The Knessest was even attacked), and it's not clear what the public wanted... (although today, most agree that looking back in time, it was a good decision)

	So, the point is: Odd as it may sound, you can't conclude what Israel(people) wants from whatIsrael(government) did.
	--] 09:25, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 12:20, 29 December 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Israeli settlement article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13Auto-archiving period: 6 months

Warning: active arbitration remedies

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:

You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive)
You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any edits related to this topic

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Further information

The exceptions to the extended confirmed restriction are:

Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive.
Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required.

With respect to the WP:1RR restriction:

Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Also, reverts made solely to enforce the extended confirmed restriction are not considered edit warring.
Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence.

After being warned, contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topic sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions.
Editors may report violations of these restrictions to the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard.

If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. When in doubt, don't revert!

This article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Israel Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Project Israel To Do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Assess : Rate the Unassessed Israel-related articles and Unknown-importance Israel-related articles.
Cleanup : Cleanup listing for this project is available. See also the list by category and the tool's wiki page.
Collaborate : Participate in WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration.
Copyedit : Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict in 2005
Deletion sorting : Participate in discussions at WikiProject Deletion sorting/Israel.
Expand : Ayala Procaccia, Diamond industry in Israel, Edna Arbel, Levin Kipnis, Rami Kleinstein, Sephardic Haredim, Zman Tel Aviv, Nachum Heiman, Public Defence (Israel), Prisoner of Zion, Trial of Benjamin Netanyahu, Day to Mark the Departure and Expulsion of Jews from the Arab Countries and Iran, Pre-Modern Aliyah
See also Articles needing translation from Hebrew Misplaced Pages.
Geographical coordinates : Add geographic coordinates to Israel articles missing geocoordinate data.
Infobox : Add infoboxes to Israel articles needing infoboxes.
Maintain : See Israel articles needing attention.
Map : See discussion at Module:Location map/data/Israel. Add maps to articles in Misplaced Pages requested maps in Israel.
NPOV : Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries
Photo : Add pictures to articles in Misplaced Pages requested photographs in Israel.
Stubs : See Israel stubs.
Update : Basic Law proposal: Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People
Other :
- Translate to Hebrew : David Bar-Hayim, Guy Bavli, and Guy Oseary.

Palestine High‑importance

	Palestine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Misplaced Pages. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been marked as needing immediate attention.

Syria Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Syria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Syria on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SyriaWikipedia:WikiProject SyriaTemplate:WikiProject SyriaSyria
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Egypt Low‑importance

	Egypt portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Egypt, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Egypt on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EgyptWikipedia:WikiProject EgyptTemplate:WikiProject EgyptEgypt
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Israel Palestine Collaboration

This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration, a collaborative, bipartisan effort to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. For guidelines and a participants list see the project page. See also {{Palestine-Israel enforcement}}, the ArbCom-authorized discretionary sanctions, the log of blocks and bans, and Working group on ethnic and cultural edit wars. You can discuss the project at its talk page.Israel Palestine CollaborationWikipedia:WikiProject Israel Palestine CollaborationTemplate:WikiProject Israel Palestine CollaborationIsrael Palestine Collaboration

Cities

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

] The anchor (#Ulpana lawsuits) is no longer available because it was deleted by a user before.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Haaretz article: "Secret 1970 document confirms first West Bank settlements built on a lie."

Haaretz - Yotam Berger - Secret 1970 document confirms first West Bank settlements built on a lie, 28 July 2016. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZScarpia (talk • contribs)

Security isn't a "pretext"

Under 4.2 Settlement Policy, the article reads "The government abrogated the prohibition from purchasing occupied land by Israelis; the "Drobles Plan", a plan for large-scale settlement in the West Bank meant to prevent a Palestinian state under the pretext of security became the framework for its policy."

The dictionary definition of pretext is something that is put forward to conceal a true purpose or object; an ostensible reason; excuse.

The provided citation doesn't support the copy in the wiki article. The document doesn't say that security was a pretext. The document says security is one of several reasons to develop the settlements. The cited article reads, "The following are the principles which guided the plan: 1. Settlement throughout the entire Land of Israel is for security and by right, A strip of settlements at strategic sites enhances both internal and external security alike, as well as making concrete and realizing our right to Eretz Israel..."

So the article isn't even denying that it assumes that the Israelis have some sort of biblical or historical right to Israel, BUT it also argues that the settlements would improve security.

There is also the matter that the same section of this article implies that these cited documents were written by representatives of the Israeli government; they were not, they were written by departments of the World Zionist Organization which is an NGO and not directed by the Israeli government. It was essentially written by a think tank advocating a certain perspective but the article casts it as from the central government planning office. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.54.105.157 (talk)

ICJ

The findings of the ICJ should be treated factually and not on a POV and attribution basis. I.e. I am in favor of the settlements being simply called illegal in the opening sentence, as described by every major RS. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:34, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Given that now have an authoritative statement of the law on this matter, it should be straightforward to find RS reporting of same without caveats, it really doesn't matter any more whether "Israel disputes this" other than as historical background, imo this boilerplate should be removed from articles. There was a consensus about it somewhere but I forget where, perhaps it needs revisiting now. Selfstudier (talk) 09:40, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Agreed; it should be Israel's arguments were refuted, rather than the classical and boring "Israel disputes this", which to me always sounded like writing on Earth: "The earth is round, but flat earthers dispute this." Makeandtoss (talk) 09:56, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

OK, existing consensus Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration/Current Article Issues/Archive. Legality of Israeli settlements (thanks to @Sean.hoyland: for the link).

It would seem that the situation has changed, even before the ICJ opinion, the US accepts (once again, post Trump) that the settlements are illegal so together with the opinion, that seems sufficient to reopen the question with a view to removing the "Israel disputes this" part and possibly rewording the rest. Selfstudier (talk) 11:08, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 July 2024

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I suggest that the latest 2023 west bank access restrictions map from OCHA be added. Link provided below: https://www.ochaopt.org/content/west-bank-access-restrictions-may-2023 TheTrackRecord (talk) 18:59, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Not done: It's a good map, but unfortunately it's copyrighted. ''']''' (talk • contribs) 01:07, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

@CanonNi: https://commons.wikimedia.org/Template:PD-UN-map Selfstudier (talk) 10:36, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

create page: Israelification of land

unofficial
official

2A02:2149:8B02:4F00:51D1:3E49:2755:6F87 (talk) 02:55, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Categories: