Misplaced Pages

Talk:Israeli settlement

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.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MiszaBot I (talk | contribs) at 08:29, 18 June 2011 (Archiving 2 thread(s) (older than 90d) to Talk:Israeli settlement/Archive 12.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 08:29, 18 June 2011 by MiszaBot I (talk | contribs) (Archiving 2 thread(s) (older than 90d) to Talk:Israeli settlement/Archive 12.)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
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


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)

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)

Land ownership, and "Peace Now"'s report

I added the following argument about their report:

This report is disputed by the government, who argue it cannot have been privately owned, as it was "not under the legitimate sovereignty of any state". On the specific issue of Ma'ale Adumim, Peace Now faced criticism for downgrading their estimate of the proportion built on privately owned Palestinian land from 86%, to 0.5%. The group's revision was based on government information which had newly been released to them. Similarly, an initial figure of 71% of the land on which Revava being private Palestinian land was revised to 22% following the release of additional information, and 'The Fund for Redeeming the Land' sued the group for libel. Peace Now was convicted, ordered to pay the Fund 20,000 NIS, and to make a public apology in the newspapers Haaretz and Maariv.

A few minutes later the paragraph was erased stating that the sources are "Partisan", and that some of the points are about single settlements. I do not understand this reasoning - the sources are Ha'aretz, Camera and nrg, and one of the sources is the governmental site, bringing Israel's official's answer. I can't see what is bad with the sources, and even if for any reason one of the sources isn't considered reliable, that is not a reason to erase the whole paragraph. And the fact that part of the points discuss single settlements also is not a reason to erase the data, since in these cases it was proven that the "Peace Now" report was far from accurate. Editorprop (talk) 19:16, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

That is a fairly partisan way of framing things. The original Peace Now report on Ma'ale Adumim was based on leaked Israeli government documents. The Israeli government declined to release official documents and was sued by Peace Now. Peace Now won that lawsuit and the government released the requested documents. As a result of this, Peace Now corrected its numbers. This is the problem with depending on CAMERA and other similar sources. They may get certain things right, like Peace Now issued a correction for a prior estimate, but they slant it in such a way that the story is almost unrecognizable. And in the end, this isnt an article about Peace Now or their settlement reports. Peace Now has released up to date material based on official government records, including the Sasson report. That entire section needs to be rewritten so that it discusses the actual issue at hand, land ownership, not this pretend issue that is in any event not relevant to this article, that being the actual report. Also, though going in the wrong direction, the first sentence in your edit conflates unrelated ideas, one being whether or not the property was privately owned and the other being whether or not the property is on occupied territory. Under international law, a state may not transfer its own population into or the native population out of territory it holds under military occupation. This is the reason why nearly the entire world considers all Israeli settlements to be illegal under international law. That is not affected by whether or not the actual area that a settlement is built on is privately or publicly owned. Israel argues, most of the time, that Jordan was not a legal occupant of the West Bank and as such the West Bank is not occupied territory. That is why Israel "disputes" that the settlements themselves are illegal under international law. A separate topic is whether or not the actual land that a settlement was built on was illegally expropriated from a private owner. That is what the Peace Now reports deal with, property that was privately owned by Palestinians that was expropriated, in violation of Israeli, not international, law. nableezy - 19:46, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
  1. Israeli Settlements and International Law Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs, May 20, 2001.
  2. Alex Safian: Peace Now’s Blunder: Erred on Ma'ale Adumim Land by 15,900 Percent CAMERA March 16, 2007.
  3. Shragai, Nadav (2007-03-14). "Peace Now: 32% of land held for settlements is private Palestinian property". Haaretz. Retrieved 2009-07-06. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  4. "שלום עכשיו יפצו מתנחלים ב-20 אלף ש'" (in Hebrew). nrg Maariv. 2008-12-14. Retrieved 2009-07-06. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |trans_title= ignored (|trans-title= suggested) (help)
Categories: