Misplaced Pages

Talk:Israeli settlement: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 22:35, 4 October 2004 editLeifern (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users12,161 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}}
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.
{{Talk header|search=yes}}
<!-- 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%;">—&nbsp;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">—&nbsp;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. ]
----
: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.


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)
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.


: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)
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... -- ]
::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).
:::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 ==
: 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.


{{Edit extended-protected|Israeli settlement|answered=yes}}
: 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.
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: ] ==
arguing that Israeli settlements constitute de facto military bases.


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

] (]) 02:55, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
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.

== "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.

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.
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:
  1. 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.
  2. 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:
WikiProject iconIsrael Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Project Israel To Do:

 Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
WikiProject iconPalestine High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Note icon
This article has been marked as needing immediate attention.
WikiProject iconSyria Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconEgypt Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconIsrael Palestine Collaboration
WikiProject iconThis 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
WikiProject iconCities
WikiProject iconThis 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

  1. unofficial
  2. official

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

Categories: