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 editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 08:06, 18 April 2011 editMiszaBot I (talk | contribs)234,552 editsm Archiving 2 thread(s) (older than 90d) to Talk:Israeli settlement/Archive 12.← Previous edit Revision as of 08:19, 26 April 2011 edit undoMiszaBot I (talk | contribs)234,552 editsm Archiving 2 thread(s) (older than 90d) to Talk:Israeli settlement/Archive 12.Next edit →
Line 48: Line 48:


:I've removed the section. It's strange to include attacks by groups armed by the Israeli army but not the army itself. Or conversely, to include attacks by Palestinian militants but not the major Israeli militant group, the Israeli army. All casualty figures should be included, possibly broken down by instigator, but certainly not this arbitrary subset of casualties. ] (]) 17:31, 21 March 2011 (UTC) :I've removed the section. It's strange to include attacks by groups armed by the Israeli army but not the army itself. Or conversely, to include attacks by Palestinian militants but not the major Israeli militant group, the Israeli army. All casualty figures should be included, possibly broken down by instigator, but certainly not this arbitrary subset of casualties. ] (]) 17:31, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

== Jewish settlement ? ==

Some people disagree with the use of these words in the lead to remind it is another expression that is used to refer to 'Israeli settlement'<br/>
An argument is that it is/would be a bias to use them :
* Here is a reference from who widely uses these words
* Here is a reference from that widely uses these words.
If there was a 'bias' at least one of them would refrain from using these words. That alledged 'bias' does not exist in the wp:rs sources but only in the mind of people. Anyway, that would be required to have an explanation of the reason why it is/would be a bias (and if possible to source this).<br/>
Another claim is that these words would be less used :
* for 'Jewish settlements' or with 'Israel' as an additonal keyword ; there are only for 'Israeli settlements'
The only critic that fits what can be sourced is that 'Jewish settlements' also refers to settlements of Jews in the whole Middle-East, even before the birth of Israel and not only to those in the occupied territories. I answer that what is asked here is *not* to replace 'Israeli settlement' by 'Jewish settlement', not to state that all 'Israeli settlements' are 'Jewish settlements' but to remind in the lead that 'Israeli settlements' are also named 'Jewish settlements'.<br/> (Don't answer that google book is not wp:rs - it is used to answer to arguments that are not sourced at all and to prove they are wrong.)
I add that ] redirects to ] ( ! ), that several sources in this article (]) use the words 'Jewish settlements' and even more that the words 'Jewish settlements' are currenlty used in the article.<br/>
For an equivalent exemple, I would refer to ] (title) in the lead of which references are made in bold to Ramadan War, October War, 1973 War, 1973 Arab-Israeli War etc because all these are equivalent titles. This fits exactly our case.<br/>
] (]) 18:28, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

:In that link Finklestine mostly doesn't use it as a term for Israeli settlements in the OT. Mfa also calls the West bank "Judea and Samaria" and the occupied territories "disputed territories". Its a fringe term not commonly or widely used for the OT, and therefor it doesn't belong in the lead. The reason why your Google books search gets more hits for "Jewish settlement" is because "Jewish settlement" refers to Jewish settlements in the mandate and Ottoman times, not only that, but it also refers to Jewish settlements in other parts of the world: "Jewish settlements in the french colonies in the Caribbean" , "Jewish settlements in south America" "Jewish settlements in Africa" "Jewish settlements in Greece" "Jewish settlements in Anatolia" "Jewish settlements in Spain" "Jewish settlements in Europe" "Jewish settlements in china" , you can continue with hundreds of these different search combination's and find many more. This shows clearly that "Jewish Settlement" is a term used for Jews settling on land in the entire world, anywhere, while this article is exclusively about the Israeli settlements in the occupied territories Israel has occupied since 1967.--] (]) 20:18, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
::* You are right that in the reference I gave Finkelstein refers to settlements before '48. This is his PhD thesis where he attacks Joan Peter. But , he refers too to 'Jewish settlement'. It seems you claim 'Jewish settlement' is a pro-Israeli bias, could you explain why or in what ?
::* That is not true that I have many links with 'Jewish settlements' due to the pre'48 or pre'67 period. In the second research, I added the keyword Israel and most of the links refers to 'Jewish settlements' as 'Israeli settlement'. Did you just read the results ?
::* As I said above, it is true that 'Jewish settlements' refers also to many other settlement BUT it is also true that 'Israeli settlements' are also called 'Jewish settlements' and as a proof, ] redirects to this article, the words are use in this article and in many sources.
::-> to put in practice what you want, we need to transform the redirect in an article and explaining that 'Jewish settlements' refer to different settlements of Jews all around the world and also to 'Israeli settlements'. That could be done. ] (]) 20:43, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
'''Comment''' - There is no doubt that Jewish settlement is frequently used as a synonym for Israeli settllement. Here is a . There are many other contemporary examples out there of course. While a redirect in Misplaced Pages proves nothing, we should do something to this article to make it clear that it is an alternative name (as mentioned ]). The redirect could become a disambiguation page if there are articles around about other kinds of Jewish settlement e.g. in the ] etc. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - ''']'''</small> 10:18, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
:Ok. Sometimes, written comminucation is not clear.
:Do you mean that whereas "there is no doubt that Jewish settlement is frequently used as a synonym for Israeli settllement", writing in this artile "(also named "Jewish settlement")" is not appropriate and that we should transform the article "Jewisht sentlement" in a disambigation page ? I can hear you but I cannot understand. Could you explain what difference you see with the case of the Yom kippur war and also what is pov-ed in the wordings "Jewish settlements" ? ] (]) 15:56, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay, to clarify
* There is evidence in contemporary reliable sources that the term "Jewish Settlement" is used to refer to "Israeli settlement".
* There is evidence that "Jewish Settlement" is an alternative term with the same meaning as "Israeli settlement"
* However, we should try to find a source that explicitly says that Israeli settlements are also sometimes referred to as Jewish settlements. It's pretty obvious that it is an alternative name but policy-wise we should really cite a source that says it is an alternative name rather than draw conclusions ourselves.
* We should add a brief statement that Israeli settlements are also sometimes referred to as Jewish settlements to the body of this article and cite the source.
* We should also add the term '''Jewish settlement''' in bold to the lead as an alternative name.
* Since the term "Jewish settlement" may also refer to things that are not Israeli settlements I am suggesting that a redirect Jewish settlement -> Israeli settlement may not be ideal. It may be better to change the Jewish settlement page to be a DAB page that lists the various types of Jewish settlement including Israeli settlement.
<small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - ''']'''</small> 05:49, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

:These are Israeli settlements, as Israeli law is in effect there. Some of the settlers may identify as inhabitants of Jewish settlements, especially those that have come into conflict with the Israeli state over the existence or establishment of the settlements. The term "Jewish settlement" obscures the fact that these settlement are being established in violation of Article 49 of the ], and may thus be preferred by some authors and sources (others may use the term out of ignorance of these implications). The only exception may be settlements that are illegal under Israeli law, but if Israel refused to take effective actions against the establishment or maintainance of these settlements, these effectively become Israeli settlements as far as international law is concerned.&nbsp;<span style="border:1px solid;color:#000085">&nbsp;]&nbsp;]&nbsp;</span> 07:10, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
::The issue is about the terminology used by reliable sources and complying with the manual of style, nothing more. No one is suggesting replacing the standard term Israeli settlement with Jewish settlement or renaming the article or saying that they aren't Israeli settlements etc. It's simply about noting that the term Jewish settlement is also used by reliable sources () to mean an Israeli settlement in the Israeli occupied territories. It is demonstrably the case using reliable sources that both terms are contemporary synonyms for eachother (to describe what is actually a colony in occupied territory) but we should really have a source that says that they are synonyms before the article is changed. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - ''']'''</small> 07:22, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
::..and it's not just a synonym used in the Western press as a Google search "jewish settlement" site:chinadaily.com.cn . <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - ''']'''</small> 07:37, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

:::I don't object to using both terms in the lead, as in fact both are being used by reliable sources. It would be best, however, to have sources that explain both the fact that the terms are being used as if they were synonyms, and that explain the differences between both terms as well.&nbsp;<span style="border:1px solid;color:#000085">&nbsp;]&nbsp;]&nbsp;</span> 07:42, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
::::@Sean.hoyland - many thanks for your clarification ! I agree with everything your write.
::::I think we all agree in fact.
::::The only issue I see is that we don't have the source that explains that 'Israeli settlements' is also sometimes/often (?) named 'Jewish settlements'. I didn't find any in google books. In the books I have, I read the index to see if there was not some redirect such as : ''Jewish settlement : see Israeli settlement'' but I didn't find any...
::::In such a case, what is the best to do ?
::::] (]) 20:28, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

== Hebrew name ==

Why is the Hebrew traduction in the title ? There is nothing encyclopaedic to have this translation and even more nearly nobody can understand this. Why not in Arab then per wp:npov ? If somebody wants to get this in Hebrew (French, Polish, Arab, German, ...) he can simply use the interwiki linds (on the bottom of the column of the left...). ] (]) 18:28, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
:So, can I remove this reference to the name in Hebrew ? ] (]) 20:49, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
::Unless somebody requires that I do not proceed, I will remove the Hebrew translation within 15 days. ] (]) 20:23, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


== Choice of Photos == == Choice of Photos ==

Revision as of 08:19, 26 April 2011

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: 3 months 
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: 3 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 and its editors are subject to Misplaced Pages general sanctions. See discretionary sanctions for details.
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
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:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
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 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
Links from this article which need disambiguation (check | fix): ], ], ], ]

For help fixing these links, see Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Disambiguation/Fixing a page.

Added by WildBot | Tags to be removed | FAQ | Report a problem


What is the significance of numbers that do not include Palestinians killed by the Israeli military?

The section should either be fixed, or the table should be dropped from the article. I fail to see how including a table that does not include Palestinians killed by the Israeli military contributes to the understanding of the topic.  Cs32en Talk to me  20:52, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree.VR talk 03:59, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Casualty figures

The section Israeli_settlement#Casualty_figures seems to have an obscure definition.

It includes "Palestinians killed by Israeli civilians" on one hand, and "Israeli civilians killed by Palestinians" on the other.

In other words the Israeli casualties include those murdered by militant groups, as well as those killed by civilians, but the Palestinian casualties only include those killed by Israeli civilians, but not by Israeli security forces. Why?

The obscure definition seems to hide the true number of Palestinian casualties.VR talk 00:57, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

That looks very deceiving to me - a balanced comparison would be Palestinians killed in Palestinian areas compared with Israelis killed in Israel - the former being perhaps 20 or 50 times more than the latter. Templar98 (talk) 20:47, 10 January 2011 (UTC) - Banned user

==Julius Stone on legality of settlements== The discussion above "False claims" concerned whether Julius Stone "dispute the illegality of authorized settlements" and it's been claimed that Cohen's book Human rights in the Israeli-occupied territories, 1967-1982 By Esther Rosalind Cohen is evidence of this.

In fact, Cohen says "Julius Stone445 held that Nahal settlements are legal measures necessary to maintain military hold of the territories and establish strong defensive positions along the cease-fire lines in the Jordan Valley". Cohen then adds 6 conditions, only the first of which (voluntary movement) is likely to be fulfilled by the settlers. In particular "3) be placed at strategic positions born of military necessity" and "4) be temporary for the duration of the occupation." The Google Book doesn't show the end of that section, but the whole tenor of what Cohen is saying would not lead us to believe that Stone said that settlements are legal.

It may well be that Stone's arguments are subtle and nuanced and contribute usefully in other directions, but he cannot be said to have argued, either based on Cohen, nor based on "Israel and Palestine: Assault on the Law of Nations" where he wrote that ”Israel's presence in all these areas pending negotiation of new borders is entirely lawful, since Israel entered them lawfully in self-defence”, to have claimed the settlements are legal. Templar98 (talk) 14:33, 6 January 2011 (UTC) - Banned user

I've removed the section. It's strange to include attacks by groups armed by the Israeli army but not the army itself. Or conversely, to include attacks by Palestinian militants but not the major Israeli militant group, the Israeli army. All casualty figures should be included, possibly broken down by instigator, but certainly not this arbitrary subset of casualties. Areinit (talk) 17:31, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Choice of Photos

The photos of settlements at the top of the article appear to have been chosen to present a particular POV about the settlements (cute, well kept, harmless, etc.). The first page of results for a Google Images search on "israeli settlement" includes many pictures of a quite different appearance (intrusive, stark, looming, barbed wire, etc.), no doubt reflecting the POV of the sites that host them. 204.128.230.1 (talk) 17:39, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I think they are probably chosen on the basis that they are free or we have permission to use them. There are some more pics in Commons category 'Israeli settlements in the West Bank' and its subcategories. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:50, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

they're like that for the same reason wikipedia doesn't show the violent/poor areas of other cities like london or paris... or photos of homeless people for example —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.139.188.245 (talk) 19:11, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

More Mainstream Scholars have weighed-in on Israeli Colonialism and Genocide

There was an earlier discussion here regarding the subject: http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Israeli_settlement/Archive_11#Ned_Cuthoys_editorial_equating_Israeli_settlements_to_genocide

Now the Journal of Genocide Research and "Top Genocide Scholars Battle Over How To Characterize Israel’s Actions" Read more: here harlan (talk) 21:03, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Harlan, it's quite interesting, but both the name of this section and the provided link are off topic of this page discussion. WP:NOT#FORUM --ElComandanteChe (talk) 22:13, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you El, but the Cuthoys article and the Journal of Genocide Research article are about the inherently genocidal nature of settler colonial societies. That is not off-topic and I think you know that. harlan (talk) 02:24, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

If Israel commitited genocide in '48, why were there 700K refugees? And how come the West Bank/Gaza population has been growing rapidly since '67? The Arabs made no secret of their genocidal intent, thank goodness Israel got the upper hand. The Arabs had where to flee, the Jews did not. Chesdovi (talk) 23:25, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Here is a link to the discussion that the article mentions, where Shaw's definition of genocide is described. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 21:01, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Funny how this is not described by Harlan as a "discredited fringe" view. You can't have it both ways Harlan. Chesdovi (talk) 12:17, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Do you have reasons to assume it would be discredited or fringe? --Dailycare (talk) 21:34, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Chedovi, can you show me an international court or UN organ that agrees with Stone, Rostow, Blum, et al? Both of these scholars agree that Israel committed a serious crime against humanity, "ethnic cleansing". They only disagree over whether that constitutes the crime of genocide when it destroys a society in whole or in part. A report on international criminal law and the defense of the rights of indigenous peoples has just been issued by the Special Rapporteur appointed by the United Nations Permanent Forum which discusses "cultural genocide" consisting of non-violent acts that are still included in the definition of the crime of genocide in the international convention. So, "In international law, genocide,.. ..has a meaning under the Convention which is far broader than physical destruction." He also says:

The recent tendency to define as “ethnic cleansing” policies that could prove to be genocidal under the definition of “genocide” established in international law has been a way of escaping responsibility, and even of fostering impunity. “Ethnic cleansing” may the ideal term for journalistic and even scientific purposes because of its emotional content, but its ineffectiveness makes it a poor choice in the field of law. The same may be said of “ethnocide” and “cultural genocide” as fully separate terms distinct from “genocide” as defined in criminal law. Use of one or both of these expressions is frequently a way of circumventing the legal effects of use of the word “genocide” even in the face of the evidence.

So, I didn't describe it as a "discredited fringe view" because its not. Lemkin himself coined the term genocide to describe both the destruction of societies as groups or the physical destruction of part or all of the members of a society and the convention still includes non-violent acts that are part of the legal definition. In the earlier thread I noted that the European Court of Human Rights upheld criminal convictions for the crime of genocide in the case of Jorgic v. Germany based upon those grounds:

The court also found that the applicant had acted with intent to commit genocide within the meaning of Article 220a of the Criminal Code. Referring to the views expressed by several legal writers, it stated that the "destruction of a group" within the meaning of Article 220a of the Criminal Code meant destruction of the group as a social unit in its distinctiveness and particularity and its feeling of belonging together; a biological-physical destruction was not necessary. It concluded that the applicant had therefore acted with intent to destroy the group of Muslims in the North of Bosnia, or at least in the Doboj region.

FYI, Jordan's written statement to the ICJ in 2004 contained "Annex 1 Origins And Early Phases Of Israel's Policy Of Expulsion And Displacement Of Palestinians" which said that Israel has pursued a continuous policy of ethnic cleansing against the Palestinians ever since it came into existence. That falls under the prohibition against population transfer in customary international law. The ICJ cited Israel for violating Article 49(6) of the Geneva Convention in displacing Palestinians and facilitating the transfer of portions of its own population into the territory to alter its demographic character. That is a "grave breach" and a war crime according to the Rome Statute and the Additional Protocol to the Geneva Conventions. The preamble of the apartheid convention explains that the crime includes acts that also can be defined as genocide. Lebanon's written statement to the Court said that the situation in the territories corresponds to a number of the constituent acts of the crime of apartheid, including "the deliberate imposition on a group of living conditions calculated to cause its physical destruction in whole or in part". See page 9
This information is all third party verifiable and comes from reliable mainstream sources. The ethnic cleansing/genocide issue has not only been discussed by mainstream scholars in the mainstream press it has been enforced in international courts like the ECHR. That is something that cannot be said for the personal opinions of Stone, Rostow, Blum, Shamgar, et al. harlan (talk) 11:15, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Does Jorgic v. Germany discuss Israeli settlements or the Palestinians, or is this SYNTH? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:45, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
NMMNG, of course it is not Synth, because I'm not proposing to put Jorgic v. Germany in the article. I am going to put the material that mentions Israeli settler colonialism and its connection to ethnic cleansing and genocide in the article. I mentioned the Jorgic v. Germany case and the UN report to demonstrate that the crime of genocide does not require physical destruction of the group. Two of the constituent acts of the crime of genocide don't require that anyone be killed, i.e. preventing births in the group & taking children from the group and giving them to another group. Dr Martin Kramer recommended ending pro-natal subsidies to Gaza and set-off a firestorm of criticism, i.e. harlan (talk) 22:14, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

See this news article: "Israel's expansion of settlements in East Jerusalem and eviction of Palestinians from their homes there is a form of ethnic cleansing, a United Nations investigator said on Monday." --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:08, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Demographics – Any details?

For instance, do statistics of the settlers' religions exist? Are any other such characteristics available? -- 91.11.211.92 (talk) 19:37, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

If they are available anywhere I would have thought a good place try would be the Israel Central Bureau of Statistics. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:42, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Categories: