![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 |
The article keeps reffering to Judea and Samaria as occupied territories, without substeniating this claim. From whome were these areas occupied? The previous owner of the area was the Kingdom of Jordan, which was an illeagal occupier of the area after their conquest of the area in 1948. Prior to that, the area was part of the League of Nations British mandate of Palestine, as the area promissed as the National Home for the Jews in the 1920 San Remo conference. The area was to be assigned to the Arabs in the Partition plans of the United Nations (29.11.1947) which the Arabs rejected. So, the only lowful owners of the areas in Judea and Samaria are the Jews, namely - Israel. So, at most, these areas may be called disputed: there's no basis to calling them occupied. Ronbarak ( talk) 16:21, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Report of committee headed by former Israel high court justice Edmond Levy disagrees with the legal conclusions present here. The Levy report is mentioned in a footnote but not discussed in the article. why?( talk) 07:21, 7 June 2015 (UTC)AFarber
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Israeli settlement's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "Sharon":
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:25, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
"Yigal Allon became Levi Eshkol's successor as Prime Minister in 1969" - not true. The successor was Golda Meir. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.149.139.101 ( talk) 05:18, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Israeli settlement. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 10:29, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
I reverted inclusion of a Google book source, which is not authoritative. All the sources, UN, EU, etc, just say a settlement is a settlement built on land captured by Israel, etc. http://thecepr.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=115:illegal-israeli-settlements&catid=6:memos&Itemid=34 "A settlement is any residential area built across the Green Line, the 1949 cease-fire line between the newly established state of Israel and its Palestinian/Arab neighbors." It would be racist and anti-semitic to say that only Jewish settlements are illegal and we wouldn't want to do that on Wikipedia. Sir Joseph (talk) 16:05, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
We write articles based on reliable sources, not your imagination. Reliable sources say Israeli settlements are Jewish only enclaves in the occupied territories. nableezy - 18:02, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
I added the POV template for the blatant anti-Semitic addition. Nowhere in the official documentation are settlements defined as solely Jewish. Settlements are Israeli Settlements built on land taken over by Israel on 1967..... anything else is blatant POV. Using Google Books to bring a book to back up your claim is ludicrous, as I am sure you're aware. I can bring half a dozen books to back up any claim.
A settlement is any residential area built across the Green Line, the 1949 cease-fire line between the newly established state of Israel and its Palestinian/Arab neighbors.
One of the major barriers to the creation of two contiguous, sovereign states for Palestinians and Israelis is the existence – and continuing growth – of illegal Israeli colonies (widely called "settlements") on land long recognized by the United Nations as part of Palestine . . . A settlement is any residential area built across the Green Line, the 1949 cease-fire line between the newly established state of Israel and its Palestinian/Arab neighbors.( Council for European Palestinian Relations ).
_
After the 1967 war . the term “settlement” came to apply to Jewish groups establishing communities beyond the 1967 boundaries within East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights, both considered by Israel as legally annexed, and the West Bank, where they now control 40% of the land. Malcolm Russell The Middle East and South Asia 2015-2016, Rowman & Littlefield, 2015 p.103
East Jerusalem,note:
The housing market in East Jerusalem settlements has allowed some Palestinians with Israeli residency permits to purchase housing in a number of Jewish neighbourhoods. [1]
(UTC)
Actually a lot of the people living in WB settlements are not Israelis. That's why the regulations giving them favored treatment over the local Palestinians usually refer to "persons eligible to become citizens of Israel under the Law of Return". The fact that the WB settlements are established for Jews—and not just Israeli Jews—to live in is such a fundamental fact about them that omitting it would be a severe distortion. Zero talk 00:33, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
References
"Since Israeli civil law does not apply to the West Bank, Israeli settlers in the area are theoretically subject to martial law. citation needed In practice, they are generally judged in civil courts in Israel within the Green Line and Palestinians are subject to a separate legal system."
These were the two sentences I removed. The link sourced says nothing about Israeli settlers being tried in civilian courts within the green line. Also, the "theoretically" part is unnecessary since there is no substantive evidence that this isn't true. Jewnited ( talk) 18:38, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
That is false. I personally know of three Jews who were arrested under the military authority and not the civilian courts. Granted they didn't make international headlines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.26.147.148 ( talk) 04:18, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Israeli settlement has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The line, "The scholar and jurist Eugene Rostow[109] has disputed the illegality of authorized settlements." is not easy to understand and could create confusion. Since the settlements have not been proven as illegal, Rostow would therefore be unable to argue against there illegality if they were indeed legal. A better phrasing of this sentence would be something like this: "The scholar and jurist Eugene Rostow however,[109] has argued that settlements are not illegal under international law." Again, the statement is accurate, but the information is not presented in a way that is easily understood. ISR 48 ( talk) 21:50, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Israeli settlement has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
adding claims about palestinians staging cutting of olive trees in the violence section-There are at least two cases where palestinians were documented cutting down their own trees: one in 2010, and another one in 2012. please add it to the article (under violence)-unfortunately, I can't edit it. You can see more claims (like the burned sheeps) in the "israeli settler violence" article.
BTW-it's interesting there's not much to say about palestinian violence as much as israeli settlers violence. I would have tried to balance it, but the free encyclopedia is locked for me... Hummingbird ( talk) 02:10, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Israeli settlement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 07:38, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Israeli settlement has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
At the section about the murder of a Palestine teen by three Israelis, it should be changed from "and even the IDF" to just "the IDF". When you say "Even the IDF", it implies that the IDF would usually support this. Regardless of the IDFs stand, it should be neutral, according to the rules of Wikipedia.
Jcat9 ( talk) 14:19, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Israeli settlement has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Under #Legality arguments, it reads: "A UN conference held in Rome in 1998, where Israel was one of seven countries to vote against the Rome Statute to establish the International Criminal Court." I believe this should read: "A UN conference was held in Rome in 1998, where Israel was one of seven countries to vote against the Rome Statute to establish the International Criminal Court." Woodcutterty ( talk) 23:26, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on Israeli settlement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:45, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 8 external links on Israeli settlement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:55, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
I just would like to fix a broken link: Egypt–Israel peace agreement => Egypt–Israel Peace Treaty in the introduction .
![]() | This
edit request to
Israeli settlement has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Jop2~enwiki ( talk) 14:34, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Done. Thank you for your contribution to Wikipedia!
ProgrammingGeek
talktome
15:16, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Israeli settlement has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
- change all references to ww1.cbs.org.il to www.cbs.org.il as the CBS no longer uses ww1.cbs.org.il subdomain Davidbgeek ( talk) 05:14, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
The article offers this: 'The international community considers the settlements in occupied territory to be illegal..'
Now, of course, the U.S. recently allowed a U.N. resolution condemning Israeli "settlements" in the West Bank to pass. On December 23, the United Nations Security Council passed resolution 2334, re-affirming the illegality of Israeli settlements. And I'm not saying that there is no such thing as international law. But is it a case of 'look just at what U.N. resolutions say'? I note that apparently, the international community can afford to ignore Israel's settlement frenzy. Past experience has shown that these statements are ineffective and have never deterred Israel, right? I think if one were to count the list of arguments for legality, it would not be zero, or one, or two, or three, or four. I guess there is certainly a notion, that the ‘1967 borders’ have any legal or historical significance. Sure. Then I merely offer a quibble, just a quibble, that I'm not sure what is the incontrovertible backing to Palestinian claims to ownership of the West Bank and east Jerusalem. According to wiki, 'The international community is a phrase used in geopolitics and international relations to refer to a broad group of people and governments of the world.' And Wiki offers this: 'The term is commonly used to imply legitimacy and consensus for a point of view on a disputed issue..'
I won't insist on the last word.
DanLanglois ( talk) 12:22, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Israeli settlement has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change: The international community considers the settlements in occupied territory to be illegal,[11] and the United Nations has repeatedly upheld the view that Israel's construction of settlements constitutes a violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention.[12][13]
To: The international community considers the settlements in occupied territory to be illegal,[11] and the United Nations has repeatedly upheld the view that Israel's construction of settlements constitutes a violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention.[12][13] However, the Israeli Government experts on International Law view the settlements as totally legal entities. [13.5][13.6][13.7][13.8]
Add: Note 13.5 [or whatever it would be numbered under a renumbering scheme]: http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/why-israeli-settlements-are-not-a-violation-of-international-law/ Note 13.6: http://www.timesofisrael.com/west-bank-settlements-are-legal-foreign-ministry-asserts/ Note 13.7: https://www.quora.com/How-do-Israel-justify-their-settlement-plan Note 13.8: https://www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/the-illegal-settlements-myth/
[THE ABOVE IS ONLY A SMALL SAMPLE OF ARTICLES SUPPORTING THE LEGALITY OF ISRAELI SETTLEMENTS IN THE DISPUTED TERRITORIES. Wikipedia should include this alteration, and bring more sources which I was not able to find quickly when I noticed the lack of presentation of the other side of the legal dispute, to present fairly the two sides of the discussion about these DISPUTED territories, which are not even considered "occupied" according to many legal opinons] Catriellev ( talk) 09:06, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
--It is, I think, not disputed, that these resolutions make a bold and stark statement about the legality of the 'settlements'. Also, it is not disputed that Israel's practice and policy have long represented the view that the occupied Palestinian territory is neither occupied nor Palestinian. The question here is about objective legal analysis of the subject by .. I dunno, by world experts on international law, or such? Off the cuff, if it's relevant, I remember the remarks of Julie Bishop, foreign minister of Australia, made on January 21, 2014. She asserted that the international community should refrain from calling Israeli settlements illegal under international law while their status is not yet determined. I'm not insisting that this is wise advice, maybe not, but Australia’s vote on several recurring UN resolutions on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict changed following the Coalition’s election in September 2013, with the Abbott Government shifting its vote on two key resolutions from ‘in favour’ to ‘abstain’. In November 2013, Foreign Minister Julie Bishop said the change ‘reflected the government’s concern that Middle East resolutions should be balanced … The government will not support resolutions which are one-sided and which pre-judge the outcome of final status negotiations between the two sides’. This link is to the Parliment of Australia:
Also, I note that the argument here is that the PA is under Israeli occupation. Well, the PA has joined the ICC, the International Criminal Court (ICC), which currently has a preliminary examination underway that is looking into Israeli actions, including settlements, in the occupied territories since Jun 13, 2014. The examination, which is meant to determine whether there is enough evidence to begin an official investigation, was launched on January 16, 2015. Of course, Israel is not a member, and also, investigating this issue is liable to endanger the court’s own legitimacy, both vis-à-vis signatories and non-signatories to the Rome Statute. Anyways, *if* a decision is made to start an investigation subsequent to the preliminary examination, then I guess we can expect to see Israel make tremendous effort, including legal effort, to handle the difficulties posed by institutions such as the court. There are legal tools available to block the court’s intervention. Now, I think it may be, that a balanced view of the events under investigation by the honorable international bodies will emerge. If Wiki is not the place to present the Israeli stance then okay. That's sarcasm. This link is to the ICC:
https://www.icc-cpi.int/palestine
I also want to give the policy of the U.S. government. A letter that President George W. Bush issued in 2004 stated that Israel could expect to keep large settlement blocks in any peace deal:
https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2004/04/20040414-3.html
Now, don't get me wrong. I talk about 'quibbling', and that's where I am coming from, here. I want to respect Wiki's policies about objectivity here. I might condemn Israel's presence in Judea and Samaria (commonly termed the West Bank), and I might even agree that, so to speak, more or less, the international community hasn’t missed an opportunity to condemn it. My question is what makes it illegal? Another question I have, is whether the Trump Administration has taken a position on Israeli settlements. According to White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer, “the American desire for peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians has remained unchanged for 50 years,” and “We don’t believe the existence of settlements is an impediment to peace,” Spicer stated definitively. I infer that if it's not a barrier to peace, then it's not viewed or deemed to be illegal, which could have been most succinctly encapsulated if that had been the position. He could have said something like that the illegality of Israeli settlements is an open-and-shut case under international law. Here is a link to the White House:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/02/02/statement-press-secretary
Looking at that, I'd say that it is not 'laying down the law'. Even if it is taking issue with the construction of new settlements, it's using the conditional 'may not be helpful'. So okay, expansion of settlements (which are not an obstacle to peace) might not be a good idea. I don't think I can see this as a formal demand to cease that activity. Maybe a mild suggestion. There may yet be some differences on settlements..I mean, he could have mentioned the clear denouncements leveled by international human rights organistaions, for whatever that is worth, but he didn't. I think it's pretty clear just from this, and also it is anyways pretty clear, that the United States does not expect Israel to evacuate all the settlements in the West Bank.
What about the European Union? Well, Federica Mogherini, the bloc's foreign policy chief, released a strongly worded statement decrying continued settlement expansion, which she noted is "illegal under international law". So okay, all Israeli settlements are illegal under international law. Here is a link to the EU:
So okay, there is what the EU diplomats say. Yet, one previously strongly pro-Palestinian EU member, Greece, is said to have shifted its position, seeking better economic and diplomatic relations with Israel. Recall that Greece’s rapprochement with Yasser Arafat and the Palestinian Authority reached its zenith in the 1980s. It was only the right-wing government of Konstantinos Mitsotakis that eventually came forward and established full diplomatic relations with Israel, in 1990. Netanyahu became the first sitting Israeli prime minister to visit Greece, more than 60 years after the creation of the state of Israel. His high-profile 2-day visit was protested in Greece by the far-left parties.
/info/en/?search=Antisemitism_in_Greece
I talk about 'far-left' and 'right-wing', and these labels are somewhat political, and not legal. I think many statements about these issues strike me as well, as being political and not legal..Now, I have allowed that my own interest is in quibbling, and I want to emphasize that the outcome of this debate isn't going to be up to me, but we are debating whether the Jewish state can be labeled as an international outlaw. I wouldn't want this to be based on illegitimate and specious arguments -- the dispute is not about policy. And I think everybody agrees, at least, that at no point in history has Jerusalem or the West Bank been under Palestinian Arab sovereignty in any sense of the term. We can say that there are settlement opponents, and that they cite the Fourth Geneva Convention, and charge that the settlements violate Article 49(6), which states: “The occupying power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into territories it occupies.” But I think that the application of this sentence is not beyond dispute, is it? Nor is its meaning transparent.
Here is a link to the American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise. The AICE Executive Director is foreign policy analyst Mitchell G. Bard, a former editor of the Near East Report, a newsletter published by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, and the author of many books. I quote Wiki, that 'AICE has been cited by major news networks, including CNN, Yahoo news, Haaretz, and others.'
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/israeli-settlements-under-international-law
This is about Mitchell G. Bard at Wiki: /info/en/?search=Mitchell_Bard
Now, here is a quote from the article: 'The consensus view[103] in the international community is that the existence of Israeli settlements in the West Bank including East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights is in violation of international law.'
And, that link [103] is to a 'Guardian' article about what the UN Security Council says, concerning Israel potentially facing a case at the international criminal court. Well, okay, but what does 'consensus' mean? I note that the US has boycotted a United Nations Human Rights Council session focusing on Israel’s human rights violations against the Palestinians due to the inter-governmental body’s "bias" against Israel. US State Department spokesman Mark Toner said in a statement: "As an expression of our deeply held conviction that this bias must be addressed in order for the council to realize its legitimate purpose, the United States decided not to attend the council's Item Seven General Debate session."
Here is a link to the U.S. Department of State about it: http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2017/03/268525.htm
Of course, on the other hand, there was that resolution, United Nations Security Council Resolution 2334 was adopted on 23 December 2016. And of course, the resolution states that Israel's settlement activity constitutes a "flagrant violation" of international law and has "no legal validity". And maybe we welcome the text. And maybe we are part of the international community. Yet, the resolution did not include any sanction or coercive measure and was adopted under the non-binding Chapter VI of the United Nations Charter. Chapter VI of the United Nations Charter deals with peaceful settlement of disputes. Furthermore, the United States House of Representatives voted 342-80 to condemn the UN Resolution on January 5, 2017. Here is a link to the US Congress about it:
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-resolution/11/text
DanLanglois ( talk) 07:56, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Stick your neck out, why don't you, to argue that the world is in fact round. This perhaps, for you, is a matter of 'the balance of opinion in the best reliable sources', but that's pathetic. Can't you see for yourself whether the world is round?
If the request is for references, then okay, I've given references, to the Department of State, to the White House, to the United States House of Representatives, and etc., and you want to say that these are not reliable sources. I'm willing to stipulate that, as being your attitude. I'm willing to settle for clarifying here, what is your attitude. Therefore, I think I will range farther afield. Here is a wiki link:
/info/en/?search=Wars_of_national_liberation
I quote: 'International law generally holds that a people with a legal right to self-determination are entitled to wage wars of national liberation.'
Okay, what does 'entitled' even mean, here? Noting, if it is relevant, that from a different point of view, these wars are called insurgencies, rebellions, or wars of independence, and that these were primarily in the third world against Western powers and their economic influence and were a major aspect of the Cold War. I say that maybe the term 'wars of national liberation' is biased or pejorative. This is the kind of point I'm here to make. I'm not arguing that the world is flat, I'm a perfectly reasonable guy, is what I am, arguing that a bunch of tendentious and informally spitballed abstract blather is exactly that. I think the point rather obvious..
I note that in January 1961 Soviet premier Nikita Khrushchev pledged support for "wars of national liberation" throughout the world. That's fine, if you are a communist. I guess I have a notion that wikipedia is striving for 'centrist' politics, but perhaps it is only me who is striving for such. Let's see if we can agree, then, that the Communist concept of "imperialism" that was used to underline Soviet and Chinese involvement in these struggles and its relations to colonies had been theorized in Vladimir Lenin's 1916 book, Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism. I have no problem with that, but I would have a problem with attributing it to what 'International law generally holds'. I'm ranging farther afield. I think this isn't supposed to turn into a big debate and scintillating discussion, and I'm serious about 'serving the cause of wiki', here, so okay, hooray for your round world, though I wonder which one you are on. I suppose it's just like me to notice that actually, you didn't say. And if we are hoping to be representing different political stances in relation to one another, then loose terms come with pitfalls. I'll give this wiki link which I think is quite edifying and relevant:
/info/en/?search=Loaded_language
DanLanglois ( talk) 10:36, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 8 external links on Israeli settlement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.fmep.org/analysis/reference/SpiegelDatabaseEng.pdf{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://fr.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1261364500139&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFullWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:20, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Israeli settlement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.palestine-studies.org/files/Special%20Focus/Israeli%20Settlers/Israeli%20Settlements%20in%20Occupied%20Arab%20Lands%20Conquest%20to%20Colony.pdf{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.coxwashington.com/hp/content/reporters/stories/2008/07/8/17/2008/08/25/ISRAEL_SETTLERCRIME17_COX.htmlWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:34, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
The section is entitled "Proposal of dual nationality" and the first paragraph was about granting Palestinian citizenship/residency permits to settlers. The second paragraph quote I replaced was less relevant to the subject as it talked of the Israeli minister's concerns of whether Jews would remain in Palestine at all. I found a quote from the same cited article where he insisted that Israeli nationals should be able to retain Israeli citizenship while remaining in Palestinian territories. This seems to more fully express his concrete intentions and desires as an official within the Israeli government. And it also more directly concerns proposals of dual nationalities, as the quote that יניב הורון reverted it to was more of a general and pointed charge against Palestinians, accusing them of "ethnic cleansing". What are other people's thoughts on this matter and how WP guidelines apply? Blueaster ( talk) 20:33, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
The Wikipedia article "Israeli Settlement" is biased and should be redrafted. It uses some sources which are neither reliable nor impartial.
For instance the UN Human Rights Council quoted in the article includes states which want to direct public attention away from their own brutal behaviour. Saudi Arabia is currently bombing and starving Yemeni civilians, as well as murdering a journalist in its Turkish embassy. The Council has been criticised by two Secretaries-General of the UN. (see Wikipedia article on the UNHRC).
The article states that Ariel University is not a recognised University. In fact it is. This is fully documented in the Wikipedia article about the University (Quote: The Ariel University Center is a member of the International Association of Universities).
So how reliable are the other sources? Clearly the article should be removed until their impartiality can be verified. This is not to say that all the claims are wrong, but if they are from unreliable sources they blemish the reputation of Wikipedia, and lead to the propagation of misinformation.
Furthermore the article contains some biased phrases (e.g. "one of the techniques used by Israel to expropriate Palestinian land") which should be removed.
Bias spotter ( talk) 12:32, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
Icewhiz, could you explain to the class what the difference between predominantly and most of them is as that appears to be the only justification for your blanket revert as I see no instance of changing Syrians to Palestinians or you reversing that in your revert. nableezy - 10:36, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
Such settlements within the Palestinian territories currently exist in the West Bank, including in East Jerusalem, and within Syrian territory in the Golan Heights.- which can read as if the Golan is Palestinian. The sentence also duplicates the previous one - something that was rectified in the edit you rushed to revert. Icewhiz ( talk) 12:10, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
I rewrote the lead, hope you find it acceptable. I moved some things that were too specific for the overview in to the body as well. nableezy - 22:30, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
@ Selfstudier: - please do point out the discussion related to your revert. It seems to be entirely absent from the talk page. This is a recent bill, in a small country, that has not come into force nor has it been covered much. If you are unable to point out a discussion - please revert per WP:BRD this newish material. Icewhiz ( talk) 19:26, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
Selfstudier ( talk) 21:52, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
Selfstudier ( talk) 18:29, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
Copying material from dispute resolution to here for ease of referral:
COPIED
Banana Republic ( talk) 19:34, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
ENDCOPY
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should the following paragraph be included in the article: In Ireland, the Control of Economic Activity (Occupied Territories) Bill cleared the Upper house on 5 December 2018 and has progressed to Third Stage Committee in the Lower house following a Second Stage vote of 78 to 45 on 24 January 2019. Ref Ref. Although debate has focused on the Palestinian territories the bill prohibits the purchase of goods and services from any occupied territory. Ref
(References are shown as links, the suggested section is where the current version of this material is presently located).
Enter Yes or No with one-sentence explanations in the Survey. Back-and-forth discussion may be in Threaded Discussion. Robert McClenon ( talk) 15:30, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Israeli settlement has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
it is not a change rather an addition of a significant quote. In 1969, former Israeli defense minister, Moshe Dayan, openly confirmed that Israel displaces Arabs by stating that "Jewish villages were built in the place of Arab villages. You do not even know the names of these Arab villages, and I do not blame you, because these geography books no longer exist; not only do the books not exist, the Arab villages are not there either … There is no one place built in this country that did not have a former Arab population." Smobarak ( talk) 19:28, 7 March 2020 (UTC) - Moshe Dayan's address to the students at Technion University in Haifa, Israel (March 19, 1969). Smobarak ( talk) 19:28, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
here. Nishidani ( talk) 23:04, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
I a fact, which is not in dispute. It was elided, one of several SJ reverts of my contributions to Wikipedia over the last few weeks. The fact added was:
The transfer by an occupying power of its civilian population into the territory it occupies is a war crime
This is the precise wording of a fact of international law, which is the basis for all of the positions assumed by international bodies mentioned in the lead. Without the fact given, the positions taken seem to be opinions. They may be, but the fact is not opinionable.
His edit summary states
Since the reasons given are utterly irrelevant or spurious or unexplained, I have restored the text. Nishidani ( talk) 23:12, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
'Theodor Meron's note and attached legal opinion, preserved in Levi Eshkol's office files, testify to two things. The first: As of mid-September 1967, Eshkol knew that settling civilians in occupied land, including the West Bank, violated international law. The second: By early September, after nearly three months of weighing the West Bank's future, Eshkol was actively exploring settlement in the region.' Gershom Gorenberg, Accidental Empire, Henry Holt & Co, 2006 pp.99-100.
Shouldn't the "See also" section include a link to the article, List of Israeli settlements? NASAPeepo ( talk) 15:40, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
It's not that the Israeli "Settlements" are not in violation of international law, it's that Israel has not proclaimed that they will omit them. That is territory that is explicitly under control of the Oslo Accords. Batsquatch ( talk) 23:50, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
The section on the West Bank claims and provides references to the fact the Israeli buildings only use 1% of the land in the West Bank. Whilst this may be true it has the effect is suggesting the land usage is relatively small and thus less problematic than people may claim.
However, it is comparable to similar building land usages in other countries. For example, in the UK all buildings use 1.4% of total area.
It would be better if this statistic was a percentage of the total building area i.e. Israeli Buildings' area as a percentage of the combined Israeli + Palestinian buildings' area.
It is of particular importance as this is the section that Google search quotes when you search for "Israeli Settlements West Bank" 2A00:23C6:2000:E201:34D0:BEF5:4458:B717 ( talk) 16:20, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
Come on. By any normal, every day definition a war crime means killing civilians during war. Like the Rwanda or Bosnia or the holocaust. Stealing property may be illegal, but not a "war crime" by any normal definition. The trouble with abusing language like this is that it weakens the words when there really are serious war crimes. A similar situation when "rape" is used for any sexual misdemeanor.
On the Israel situation there will be countless references for any point of view. But this one is nonsense, and it weakens the otherwise strong points made by the article. It makes the article seam like just another POV piece. Tuntable ( talk) 22:56, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
A war crime is an act that constitutes a serious violation of the laws of war that gives rise to individual criminal responsibility.This includes
Settlement of occupied territoryand
Deportation of inhabitants of occupied territory. See also: War crime § International Criminal Court 2002. TucanHolmes ( talk) 11:28, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
Did they just steal existing farms? Take over empty or under utilized land? Or buy it from Palestinians? Probably all three in different times and places. That is a critical distinction that is missing. Given the tone of the rest of the article, and the fact that is not mentioned, I presume the second and third were more common. Tuntable ( talk) 23:05, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Israeli settlement has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
he transfer by an occupying power of its civilian population into the territory it occupies is a war crime,[16][17][18]This is not correct. It is an alleged war crime as stated in the following sentences. 207.216.95.239 ( talk) 14:54, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
It is a war crime. Alleged only enters into it if a charge is made and has then to be proven. Selfstudier ( talk) 15:32, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
This is not challenged...? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaylahackman ( talk • contribs) 21:58, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
Calling Israeli settlements a colony is completely ridiculous. One source says that, and the idea that is some universally agreed thing is crazy. If you put that, at least say its debated.
Change:
"Israeli settlements are civilian communities inhabited by Israeli citizens, built on lands occupied by Israel in the 1967 Six-Day War. Israeli settlements currently exist in the Palestinian-claimed territory of the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and in the Syrian-claimed territory of the Golan Heights."
https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/israel-middle-east/articles/israels-rights-in-the-west-bank-under-international-law Their is debate to whether it defies international law.
There are a ton of sources attesting to colony being a commonly used name. A Wikipedia editor's personal dislike is of course not relevant. And the very basic misstatement as to what NPOV requires above shows the issue. It is claimed it is a NPOV violation to include views of "Pro-Palestinian writers", but NPOV requires the inclusion of all significant viewpoints. The view that these places are colonies is indeed significant and well sourced. And efforts to suppress that well sourced material are tendentious and violate the discretionary sanctions in place on this article. nableezy - 02:25, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
These facts are clearly irreversible. Israeli colonies have turned into urban sprawls, and the autonomous Palestinian enclaves have shrunk into inviable and unsustainable municipalities.
Israeli colonies in the West Bank are central to the fragmentation of Palestinian lands.
In the same vein, the U.S. move has deferred the prospect of an agreement on Jerusalem indefinitely since it appears to preempt any recognition of Palestinian counter-claims to the city, in addition to postponing negotiations over other important issues, including the evacuation of Israeli colonies or settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories (oPts), security cooperation, and Israeli recognition of the state of Palestine. Without progress on the Jerusalem question, there can be no agreement on these other issues.
I agree with Tombah the usage of colonies though sometime used is not prevalent and certainly shouldn't be appear as alternative name per WP:UNDUE also the removal of the tag was unwarranted. There are clearly WP:DUE and WP:NPOV issue -- Shrike ( talk) 09:56, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
References
In this chapter, I interpret the settler colonial situation as primarily premised on the irruption into a specific locale of a sovereign collective of settlers.
The term "Israeli colonies" is mostly limited to certain circles, and neither used by Israel nor the international community. I agree with Tombah, Shrike and Eladkarmel; this is a WP:NPOV issue that must be resolved. Benbaruch ( talk) 12:32, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
I would suggest a search of the archives since this has been discussed previously as far back as 2012 (Shrike saying exactly the same thing as they are saying now) so it seems there is no real justification for overturning a long standing consensus. There are also plenty of sources that are not Palestinian. Selfstudier ( talk) 13:02, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
Just claiming something is a NPOV violation does not make it so. It is properly sourced that "Israeli colonies" is used as another term for Israeli settlements. The claim that it is restricted to Palestinians is made without any sourcing and as such is specious. And even if it were true, it would still merit inclusion. Significant alternate names is the criteria. nableezy - 13:46, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
Although not germane due to the ready availability of other sources, a claim was made in another place that the UN did not use the word colonies. UNCTAD's 199th plenary meeting of 2 July 1983, 146 (VI) "Gravely concerned at the ever-increasing number of Israeli colonies in the occupied Palestinian territories of the West Bank and the Gaza strip," or 1998 https://www.un.org/unispal/document/auto-insert-179562/ (Habitat) ("1. Decides to use the term 'Israeli colonies in occupied territories' instead of 'Israeli settlements' in all United Nations documentation;") are a straightforward refutation of this claim. Selfstudier ( talk) 18:21, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
Though most are Jewish, Arabs live in some settlements as well, according to Reuters. The line asserting the contrary should be changed. Peaux ( talk) 05:20, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
Thanks! Peaux ( talk) 16:33, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
The way the short description is written now, it can also describe Tel Aviv, or any other city, town, etc in Israel. How is a "settlement" different? DaringDonna ( talk) 06:44, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
"Israeli colonies" is used in countless sources to describe the, well, colonies Israel has established outside its sovereign territory. And it is simply untrue that it is only used by Palestinian sources (eg here), and when exactly did we disregard sources by ethnicity? Are Jewish Israeli sources banned here or did I miss a memo? nableezy - 20:38, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
The ongoing occupation has been heavily shaped by the issues of land confiscation and the building of Israeli Jewish settlements (or what Palestinians often refer to less euphemistically as "colonies").
That it is often referred to as colonies by one of the involved parties is sufficient for inclusion as a significant alternative title. nableezy - 22:46, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
See our French Wikipedia article Colonies israéliennes. That is the common name in French. Onceinawhile ( talk) 18:58, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
All names in other Wikipedia is pretty much irrelevant we english wikipedia. The term colony in English language is rarely used toward Israeli settlements as we don't use Israeli POV like "communities in Judea and Samaria" the usage of such term is clear violation of NPOV -- Shrike ( talk) 13:38, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
The article for the West Bank says Israel administers it as "the Judea and Samaria area". It does not say "The West Bank, or Judea and Samaria", as here settlements and colonies are put forward as equivalent names. The analogous description would be to note that the settlements are considered by persons/organizations XYZ to be colonies.
Regarding how rarely it is used, this has an objective answer. See the relevant Google Ngram search. Use of "settlement" is ~73x more common than "colony" -- i.e. if one of the two is used, there's a ~99% chance it's "settlement".
For contrast, "West Bank" is only used ~12x more than "Judea and Samaria", and if one of the two is used, the probability that it will be "West Bank" is only 93%. By your logic then, it would be reasonable to rewrite the article for the West Bank to read, "The West Bank, or Judea and Samaria". Peaux ( talk) 05:18, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
Yes, colony may be used without "Israeli" when context is clear, but the same is true for "settlement". I see no reason to suggest that the ratio of unqualified "colony" to unqualified "settlement" in context is any different from the ratio of "Israeli colony" to "Israeli settlement". I've provided evidence that "settlement" is by far the more common term; you "would think" that it is not, based on no additional evidence.
In Zionism as settler colonialism, it is clear that it is one paradigm of multiple/many, not some sort of general truth. Use of "Israeli colony" as equivalent to "Israeli settlement" in this article unduly elevates the status of this one paradigm. And insofar as this paradigm is primarily associated with a particular partisan/activist camp, it seems a violation of NPOV to be taking it as given. Similarly, in Settler colonialism, it is clear that Israel being settler-colonial is the viewpoint of some academics and activists; it does not claim to be objective truth.
Whether the words are synonyms is irrelevant. (I disagree that they are, but even if they were.) Presumably you wouldn't use that argument to change Ash Wednesday to read "Ash Wednesday, or Ash Hump Day", even though the words are synonymous. The name of the holiday is "Ash Wednesday", so that's how it's referred to on Wikipedia. For a better-in-some-ways-worse-in-others example, Itô's lemma is not referred to as Itô's theorem, even though a lemma is a type of theorem. That's just not what it's called. Or the guy's name -- it would be just as accurate, if not moreso, to call him Itō, using the standard Japanese romanization scheme of today, but we use Itô instead, because that's what he used and what the literature uses.
I'm not sure what you're referring to when you say "two of the 4 cities given in the lead".
Finally, the naming conventions for West Bank seem to support my point, not yours. Usage of unqualified "Judea and Samaria" is rightfully considered a violation of NPOV, as it's only used to refer to the West Bank by partisans. Similarly, the settlements are referred to as colonies only by partisans on the other side. Therefore the end result should be the same, that articles should not be using "Israeli colonies" without qualification to refer to the settlements, as this article does. Peaux ( talk) 17:05, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
Selfstudier, I'm not sure what you mean by "cites". If you're asking for citations, I've given Ngrams, which is a more relevant data point than any number of examples of one usage or another -- data not being the plural of anecdote, as the saying goes.
Iskandar, thank you for the comment. Here is a more complete Ngram. In 2019, 6.0% of all references to any of the six bigrams in question used "colony" in, while the other 94% used "settlement". Notably, "Israeli colony" makes up only 0.3% of the total, the least common bigram of all six.
That said, I think it's a mistake to include "Jewish", since it's impossible to differentiate in the data between Jewish settlements/colonies in Palestine and those elsewhere; e.g. Jewish agricultural colonies in New Jersey or Jewish agricultural colonies in the Russian Empire (while neither of those include the particular bigram in question, it's reasonable to think it might turn up in those discussions). As far as I can tell, there seem to be fewer references to Jewish settlements that aren't in reference to Israel (even though I can imagine they might come up in work on history), but to be conservative, I'll exclude those too. Then, the new Ngram. Here, "Israeli settlements" is by far the most common, making up 95.9% of the total. Both "colony" bigrams make up 1.6%, and just "Israeli colony", which in this thread has been put forward as a commonly-used NPOV synonym for "Israeli settlements", makes up only 0.6% of the total.
Even restricting ourselves to "Zionist", which is much more common in partisan usage relative to NPOV speakers, "settlement" is used a large majority of the time, 72% to 28%.
Any way you slice this data, it is much more common to refer to them as settlements than colonies, and the phrase "Israeli colonies" specifically is one of the least common ways to refer to the settlements.
Even the UNRWA, viewed by many to be a party biased towards the Palestinian narrative of the conflict, doesn't refer to the settlements as colonies except, apparently, in a single document, once. HRW also uses "settlements" and not "colonies". The AP, Reuters, BBC, &c. use "settlements", not "colonies". Happy to provide citations for any of those.
Even the UN as a whole, which many allege to be systemically biased against Israel, seems to use "settlements" much more often than "colonies" (in English). I can't share the search link, but using their Official Document System, I get 500(+?) hits for "Israeli settlements" (full-text search, English, "find this phrase") and only 33 for "Israeli colonies" (in the same box with the same settings). That's, at most, 6.2%. For a similar heuristic, see International law and Israeli settlements, where there are no usages of colony/colonial/colonize/&c. outside of quotes/references, and no uses of "colony" or "colonies" at all. Contrast the 204 uses of "settlement(s)" in the same article.
So, all in all, I find no evidence in favor of the claim that "Israeli colonies" is a commonly-used synonym for "Israeli settlements". Even if I accept the argument that it's non-partisan when it is used (which I don't, but it's very difficult to quantify that, at least on mobile and/or in my free time), I see no justification for it to be used as a synonym in the article. With all that plus the NPOV concerns, I maintain it should be struck. Peaux ( talk) 00:24, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
Sorry, just reread, I see what you meant by "cites". Peaux ( talk) 00:33, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
Not from what is perceived to be a NPOV in the English language, as I have shown. Peaux ( talk) 02:34, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
Also, re Selfstudier's point above about reference to the settlement project as a colonial one (their "two of the 4 cites given in the lead"), sure, but we're specifically talking about what the name of these things is -- it doesn't matter what they actually are or what they are considered to be, only what they're called. Maybe "Israeli colonies" is more accurate, but if they aren't referred to by that name, then the article shouldn't claim the contrary. Peaux ( talk) 02:44, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
Another data point: 18,300 hits versus 471 on Google Scholar (2.5%). Peaux ( talk) 02:58, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
about reference to the settlement project as a colonial one (their "two of the 4 cites given in the lead")that's not what I said, I said that 2 of the 4 cites use "colony" alone although it is clear from the context that they are referring to Israeli settlements. One says "Jewish settlements (colonies)" and the other that they are known (less euphemistically) to Palestinians as colonies. Settler colonialism in an Israeli/Palestinian context is a separate but related point "Many scholars have also conducted monograph length research that expands the spaces studied under the moniker "settler colony" to include Israeli settlements in the West bank". Taken together, I think this results in Israeli colonies (or just colonies) constituting a valid alternative name and I do not support that being removed from the intro. Selfstudier ( talk) 07:03, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
"If a name is widely used in reliable sources (particularly those written in English) and is therefore likely to be well recognized by readers, it may be used even though some may regard it as biased."You said it yourself. The text you are quoting points out that just because a term may be 'biased', or in your opinion POV, does not rule against it. NPOV requires that we reflect all reliable sources. Iskandar323 ( talk) 08:22, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
What is the done thing here, if no new editors step into the discussion?As I said, given that this is a well watched page (378 page watchers), it is reasonable to assume they are not that interested or at any rate, not interested enough to want to participate.
![]() | This
edit request to
Israeli settlement has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
place Template:lead too long at top. Mach61 ( talk) 00:41, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
under the 37th governments of Israel there has been a dramatic increase in settlements and legalization of outposts https://peacenow.org.il/en/%D9%8Dsettlements-map-2023 Monochromemelo1 ( talk) 15:41, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Israeli settlement has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
An article was recently published with significant new arguments relevant to this topic. I suggest changing the following sentence: "The scholar and jurist Eugene Rostow[135] has disputed the illegality of authorized settlements." to read "The scholar and jurist Eugene Rostow[135] and others[136] have disputed the illegality of authorized settlements." The reference that I have labeled [136] is to the following article: https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/israel-middle-east/articles/israeli-settlements-are-not-illegal Israelgale ( talk) 15:08, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
{{
Edit extended-protected}}
template.
M.Bitton (
talk)
20:25, 19 September 2023 (UTC)![]() | This
edit request to
Israeli settlement has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change (update) the 2020 OCHA West Bank settlements map (the first image visible on the page) to the 2023 version.
It is available here: https://www.ochaopt.org/content/west-bank-access-restrictions-may-2023 Jefeljefe ( talk) 20:23, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
After reviewing some recent protection requests, I noticed that every settlement article in Wikipedia appears to use the same boilerplate paragraph in the lede with regards to the international community's views on settlements and Israel's stance. Certainly this topic should be covered in this article, but it seems a bit heavy handed to stamp it on every individual settlement article. OhNoitsJamie Talk 19:28, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Israeli settlement has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Include navigable link to /info/en/?search=International_community on uses of "International Community." It currently reads as an arbitrary and poorly defined designation. Tattva07 ( talk) 11:50, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
Done. Selfstudier ( talk) 12:15, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Israeli settlement has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Ben Gvir is a resident of a community located in Judea and Samaria. OnlyHumanBean ( talk) 15:34, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 |
The article keeps reffering to Judea and Samaria as occupied territories, without substeniating this claim. From whome were these areas occupied? The previous owner of the area was the Kingdom of Jordan, which was an illeagal occupier of the area after their conquest of the area in 1948. Prior to that, the area was part of the League of Nations British mandate of Palestine, as the area promissed as the National Home for the Jews in the 1920 San Remo conference. The area was to be assigned to the Arabs in the Partition plans of the United Nations (29.11.1947) which the Arabs rejected. So, the only lowful owners of the areas in Judea and Samaria are the Jews, namely - Israel. So, at most, these areas may be called disputed: there's no basis to calling them occupied. Ronbarak ( talk) 16:21, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Report of committee headed by former Israel high court justice Edmond Levy disagrees with the legal conclusions present here. The Levy report is mentioned in a footnote but not discussed in the article. why?( talk) 07:21, 7 June 2015 (UTC)AFarber
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Israeli settlement's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "Sharon":
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:25, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
"Yigal Allon became Levi Eshkol's successor as Prime Minister in 1969" - not true. The successor was Golda Meir. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.149.139.101 ( talk) 05:18, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Israeli settlement. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 10:29, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
I reverted inclusion of a Google book source, which is not authoritative. All the sources, UN, EU, etc, just say a settlement is a settlement built on land captured by Israel, etc. http://thecepr.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=115:illegal-israeli-settlements&catid=6:memos&Itemid=34 "A settlement is any residential area built across the Green Line, the 1949 cease-fire line between the newly established state of Israel and its Palestinian/Arab neighbors." It would be racist and anti-semitic to say that only Jewish settlements are illegal and we wouldn't want to do that on Wikipedia. Sir Joseph (talk) 16:05, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
We write articles based on reliable sources, not your imagination. Reliable sources say Israeli settlements are Jewish only enclaves in the occupied territories. nableezy - 18:02, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
I added the POV template for the blatant anti-Semitic addition. Nowhere in the official documentation are settlements defined as solely Jewish. Settlements are Israeli Settlements built on land taken over by Israel on 1967..... anything else is blatant POV. Using Google Books to bring a book to back up your claim is ludicrous, as I am sure you're aware. I can bring half a dozen books to back up any claim.
A settlement is any residential area built across the Green Line, the 1949 cease-fire line between the newly established state of Israel and its Palestinian/Arab neighbors.
One of the major barriers to the creation of two contiguous, sovereign states for Palestinians and Israelis is the existence – and continuing growth – of illegal Israeli colonies (widely called "settlements") on land long recognized by the United Nations as part of Palestine . . . A settlement is any residential area built across the Green Line, the 1949 cease-fire line between the newly established state of Israel and its Palestinian/Arab neighbors.( Council for European Palestinian Relations ).
_
After the 1967 war . the term “settlement” came to apply to Jewish groups establishing communities beyond the 1967 boundaries within East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights, both considered by Israel as legally annexed, and the West Bank, where they now control 40% of the land. Malcolm Russell The Middle East and South Asia 2015-2016, Rowman & Littlefield, 2015 p.103
East Jerusalem,note:
The housing market in East Jerusalem settlements has allowed some Palestinians with Israeli residency permits to purchase housing in a number of Jewish neighbourhoods. [1]
(UTC)
Actually a lot of the people living in WB settlements are not Israelis. That's why the regulations giving them favored treatment over the local Palestinians usually refer to "persons eligible to become citizens of Israel under the Law of Return". The fact that the WB settlements are established for Jews—and not just Israeli Jews—to live in is such a fundamental fact about them that omitting it would be a severe distortion. Zero talk 00:33, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
References
"Since Israeli civil law does not apply to the West Bank, Israeli settlers in the area are theoretically subject to martial law. citation needed In practice, they are generally judged in civil courts in Israel within the Green Line and Palestinians are subject to a separate legal system."
These were the two sentences I removed. The link sourced says nothing about Israeli settlers being tried in civilian courts within the green line. Also, the "theoretically" part is unnecessary since there is no substantive evidence that this isn't true. Jewnited ( talk) 18:38, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
That is false. I personally know of three Jews who were arrested under the military authority and not the civilian courts. Granted they didn't make international headlines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.26.147.148 ( talk) 04:18, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Israeli settlement has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The line, "The scholar and jurist Eugene Rostow[109] has disputed the illegality of authorized settlements." is not easy to understand and could create confusion. Since the settlements have not been proven as illegal, Rostow would therefore be unable to argue against there illegality if they were indeed legal. A better phrasing of this sentence would be something like this: "The scholar and jurist Eugene Rostow however,[109] has argued that settlements are not illegal under international law." Again, the statement is accurate, but the information is not presented in a way that is easily understood. ISR 48 ( talk) 21:50, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Israeli settlement has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
adding claims about palestinians staging cutting of olive trees in the violence section-There are at least two cases where palestinians were documented cutting down their own trees: one in 2010, and another one in 2012. please add it to the article (under violence)-unfortunately, I can't edit it. You can see more claims (like the burned sheeps) in the "israeli settler violence" article.
BTW-it's interesting there's not much to say about palestinian violence as much as israeli settlers violence. I would have tried to balance it, but the free encyclopedia is locked for me... Hummingbird ( talk) 02:10, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Israeli settlement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 07:38, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Israeli settlement has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
At the section about the murder of a Palestine teen by three Israelis, it should be changed from "and even the IDF" to just "the IDF". When you say "Even the IDF", it implies that the IDF would usually support this. Regardless of the IDFs stand, it should be neutral, according to the rules of Wikipedia.
Jcat9 ( talk) 14:19, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Israeli settlement has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Under #Legality arguments, it reads: "A UN conference held in Rome in 1998, where Israel was one of seven countries to vote against the Rome Statute to establish the International Criminal Court." I believe this should read: "A UN conference was held in Rome in 1998, where Israel was one of seven countries to vote against the Rome Statute to establish the International Criminal Court." Woodcutterty ( talk) 23:26, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on Israeli settlement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:45, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 8 external links on Israeli settlement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:55, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
I just would like to fix a broken link: Egypt–Israel peace agreement => Egypt–Israel Peace Treaty in the introduction .
![]() | This
edit request to
Israeli settlement has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Jop2~enwiki ( talk) 14:34, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Done. Thank you for your contribution to Wikipedia!
ProgrammingGeek
talktome
15:16, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Israeli settlement has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
- change all references to ww1.cbs.org.il to www.cbs.org.il as the CBS no longer uses ww1.cbs.org.il subdomain Davidbgeek ( talk) 05:14, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
The article offers this: 'The international community considers the settlements in occupied territory to be illegal..'
Now, of course, the U.S. recently allowed a U.N. resolution condemning Israeli "settlements" in the West Bank to pass. On December 23, the United Nations Security Council passed resolution 2334, re-affirming the illegality of Israeli settlements. And I'm not saying that there is no such thing as international law. But is it a case of 'look just at what U.N. resolutions say'? I note that apparently, the international community can afford to ignore Israel's settlement frenzy. Past experience has shown that these statements are ineffective and have never deterred Israel, right? I think if one were to count the list of arguments for legality, it would not be zero, or one, or two, or three, or four. I guess there is certainly a notion, that the ‘1967 borders’ have any legal or historical significance. Sure. Then I merely offer a quibble, just a quibble, that I'm not sure what is the incontrovertible backing to Palestinian claims to ownership of the West Bank and east Jerusalem. According to wiki, 'The international community is a phrase used in geopolitics and international relations to refer to a broad group of people and governments of the world.' And Wiki offers this: 'The term is commonly used to imply legitimacy and consensus for a point of view on a disputed issue..'
I won't insist on the last word.
DanLanglois ( talk) 12:22, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Israeli settlement has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change: The international community considers the settlements in occupied territory to be illegal,[11] and the United Nations has repeatedly upheld the view that Israel's construction of settlements constitutes a violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention.[12][13]
To: The international community considers the settlements in occupied territory to be illegal,[11] and the United Nations has repeatedly upheld the view that Israel's construction of settlements constitutes a violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention.[12][13] However, the Israeli Government experts on International Law view the settlements as totally legal entities. [13.5][13.6][13.7][13.8]
Add: Note 13.5 [or whatever it would be numbered under a renumbering scheme]: http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/why-israeli-settlements-are-not-a-violation-of-international-law/ Note 13.6: http://www.timesofisrael.com/west-bank-settlements-are-legal-foreign-ministry-asserts/ Note 13.7: https://www.quora.com/How-do-Israel-justify-their-settlement-plan Note 13.8: https://www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/the-illegal-settlements-myth/
[THE ABOVE IS ONLY A SMALL SAMPLE OF ARTICLES SUPPORTING THE LEGALITY OF ISRAELI SETTLEMENTS IN THE DISPUTED TERRITORIES. Wikipedia should include this alteration, and bring more sources which I was not able to find quickly when I noticed the lack of presentation of the other side of the legal dispute, to present fairly the two sides of the discussion about these DISPUTED territories, which are not even considered "occupied" according to many legal opinons] Catriellev ( talk) 09:06, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
--It is, I think, not disputed, that these resolutions make a bold and stark statement about the legality of the 'settlements'. Also, it is not disputed that Israel's practice and policy have long represented the view that the occupied Palestinian territory is neither occupied nor Palestinian. The question here is about objective legal analysis of the subject by .. I dunno, by world experts on international law, or such? Off the cuff, if it's relevant, I remember the remarks of Julie Bishop, foreign minister of Australia, made on January 21, 2014. She asserted that the international community should refrain from calling Israeli settlements illegal under international law while their status is not yet determined. I'm not insisting that this is wise advice, maybe not, but Australia’s vote on several recurring UN resolutions on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict changed following the Coalition’s election in September 2013, with the Abbott Government shifting its vote on two key resolutions from ‘in favour’ to ‘abstain’. In November 2013, Foreign Minister Julie Bishop said the change ‘reflected the government’s concern that Middle East resolutions should be balanced … The government will not support resolutions which are one-sided and which pre-judge the outcome of final status negotiations between the two sides’. This link is to the Parliment of Australia:
Also, I note that the argument here is that the PA is under Israeli occupation. Well, the PA has joined the ICC, the International Criminal Court (ICC), which currently has a preliminary examination underway that is looking into Israeli actions, including settlements, in the occupied territories since Jun 13, 2014. The examination, which is meant to determine whether there is enough evidence to begin an official investigation, was launched on January 16, 2015. Of course, Israel is not a member, and also, investigating this issue is liable to endanger the court’s own legitimacy, both vis-à-vis signatories and non-signatories to the Rome Statute. Anyways, *if* a decision is made to start an investigation subsequent to the preliminary examination, then I guess we can expect to see Israel make tremendous effort, including legal effort, to handle the difficulties posed by institutions such as the court. There are legal tools available to block the court’s intervention. Now, I think it may be, that a balanced view of the events under investigation by the honorable international bodies will emerge. If Wiki is not the place to present the Israeli stance then okay. That's sarcasm. This link is to the ICC:
https://www.icc-cpi.int/palestine
I also want to give the policy of the U.S. government. A letter that President George W. Bush issued in 2004 stated that Israel could expect to keep large settlement blocks in any peace deal:
https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2004/04/20040414-3.html
Now, don't get me wrong. I talk about 'quibbling', and that's where I am coming from, here. I want to respect Wiki's policies about objectivity here. I might condemn Israel's presence in Judea and Samaria (commonly termed the West Bank), and I might even agree that, so to speak, more or less, the international community hasn’t missed an opportunity to condemn it. My question is what makes it illegal? Another question I have, is whether the Trump Administration has taken a position on Israeli settlements. According to White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer, “the American desire for peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians has remained unchanged for 50 years,” and “We don’t believe the existence of settlements is an impediment to peace,” Spicer stated definitively. I infer that if it's not a barrier to peace, then it's not viewed or deemed to be illegal, which could have been most succinctly encapsulated if that had been the position. He could have said something like that the illegality of Israeli settlements is an open-and-shut case under international law. Here is a link to the White House:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/02/02/statement-press-secretary
Looking at that, I'd say that it is not 'laying down the law'. Even if it is taking issue with the construction of new settlements, it's using the conditional 'may not be helpful'. So okay, expansion of settlements (which are not an obstacle to peace) might not be a good idea. I don't think I can see this as a formal demand to cease that activity. Maybe a mild suggestion. There may yet be some differences on settlements..I mean, he could have mentioned the clear denouncements leveled by international human rights organistaions, for whatever that is worth, but he didn't. I think it's pretty clear just from this, and also it is anyways pretty clear, that the United States does not expect Israel to evacuate all the settlements in the West Bank.
What about the European Union? Well, Federica Mogherini, the bloc's foreign policy chief, released a strongly worded statement decrying continued settlement expansion, which she noted is "illegal under international law". So okay, all Israeli settlements are illegal under international law. Here is a link to the EU:
So okay, there is what the EU diplomats say. Yet, one previously strongly pro-Palestinian EU member, Greece, is said to have shifted its position, seeking better economic and diplomatic relations with Israel. Recall that Greece’s rapprochement with Yasser Arafat and the Palestinian Authority reached its zenith in the 1980s. It was only the right-wing government of Konstantinos Mitsotakis that eventually came forward and established full diplomatic relations with Israel, in 1990. Netanyahu became the first sitting Israeli prime minister to visit Greece, more than 60 years after the creation of the state of Israel. His high-profile 2-day visit was protested in Greece by the far-left parties.
/info/en/?search=Antisemitism_in_Greece
I talk about 'far-left' and 'right-wing', and these labels are somewhat political, and not legal. I think many statements about these issues strike me as well, as being political and not legal..Now, I have allowed that my own interest is in quibbling, and I want to emphasize that the outcome of this debate isn't going to be up to me, but we are debating whether the Jewish state can be labeled as an international outlaw. I wouldn't want this to be based on illegitimate and specious arguments -- the dispute is not about policy. And I think everybody agrees, at least, that at no point in history has Jerusalem or the West Bank been under Palestinian Arab sovereignty in any sense of the term. We can say that there are settlement opponents, and that they cite the Fourth Geneva Convention, and charge that the settlements violate Article 49(6), which states: “The occupying power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into territories it occupies.” But I think that the application of this sentence is not beyond dispute, is it? Nor is its meaning transparent.
Here is a link to the American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise. The AICE Executive Director is foreign policy analyst Mitchell G. Bard, a former editor of the Near East Report, a newsletter published by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, and the author of many books. I quote Wiki, that 'AICE has been cited by major news networks, including CNN, Yahoo news, Haaretz, and others.'
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/israeli-settlements-under-international-law
This is about Mitchell G. Bard at Wiki: /info/en/?search=Mitchell_Bard
Now, here is a quote from the article: 'The consensus view[103] in the international community is that the existence of Israeli settlements in the West Bank including East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights is in violation of international law.'
And, that link [103] is to a 'Guardian' article about what the UN Security Council says, concerning Israel potentially facing a case at the international criminal court. Well, okay, but what does 'consensus' mean? I note that the US has boycotted a United Nations Human Rights Council session focusing on Israel’s human rights violations against the Palestinians due to the inter-governmental body’s "bias" against Israel. US State Department spokesman Mark Toner said in a statement: "As an expression of our deeply held conviction that this bias must be addressed in order for the council to realize its legitimate purpose, the United States decided not to attend the council's Item Seven General Debate session."
Here is a link to the U.S. Department of State about it: http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2017/03/268525.htm
Of course, on the other hand, there was that resolution, United Nations Security Council Resolution 2334 was adopted on 23 December 2016. And of course, the resolution states that Israel's settlement activity constitutes a "flagrant violation" of international law and has "no legal validity". And maybe we welcome the text. And maybe we are part of the international community. Yet, the resolution did not include any sanction or coercive measure and was adopted under the non-binding Chapter VI of the United Nations Charter. Chapter VI of the United Nations Charter deals with peaceful settlement of disputes. Furthermore, the United States House of Representatives voted 342-80 to condemn the UN Resolution on January 5, 2017. Here is a link to the US Congress about it:
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-resolution/11/text
DanLanglois ( talk) 07:56, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Stick your neck out, why don't you, to argue that the world is in fact round. This perhaps, for you, is a matter of 'the balance of opinion in the best reliable sources', but that's pathetic. Can't you see for yourself whether the world is round?
If the request is for references, then okay, I've given references, to the Department of State, to the White House, to the United States House of Representatives, and etc., and you want to say that these are not reliable sources. I'm willing to stipulate that, as being your attitude. I'm willing to settle for clarifying here, what is your attitude. Therefore, I think I will range farther afield. Here is a wiki link:
/info/en/?search=Wars_of_national_liberation
I quote: 'International law generally holds that a people with a legal right to self-determination are entitled to wage wars of national liberation.'
Okay, what does 'entitled' even mean, here? Noting, if it is relevant, that from a different point of view, these wars are called insurgencies, rebellions, or wars of independence, and that these were primarily in the third world against Western powers and their economic influence and were a major aspect of the Cold War. I say that maybe the term 'wars of national liberation' is biased or pejorative. This is the kind of point I'm here to make. I'm not arguing that the world is flat, I'm a perfectly reasonable guy, is what I am, arguing that a bunch of tendentious and informally spitballed abstract blather is exactly that. I think the point rather obvious..
I note that in January 1961 Soviet premier Nikita Khrushchev pledged support for "wars of national liberation" throughout the world. That's fine, if you are a communist. I guess I have a notion that wikipedia is striving for 'centrist' politics, but perhaps it is only me who is striving for such. Let's see if we can agree, then, that the Communist concept of "imperialism" that was used to underline Soviet and Chinese involvement in these struggles and its relations to colonies had been theorized in Vladimir Lenin's 1916 book, Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism. I have no problem with that, but I would have a problem with attributing it to what 'International law generally holds'. I'm ranging farther afield. I think this isn't supposed to turn into a big debate and scintillating discussion, and I'm serious about 'serving the cause of wiki', here, so okay, hooray for your round world, though I wonder which one you are on. I suppose it's just like me to notice that actually, you didn't say. And if we are hoping to be representing different political stances in relation to one another, then loose terms come with pitfalls. I'll give this wiki link which I think is quite edifying and relevant:
/info/en/?search=Loaded_language
DanLanglois ( talk) 10:36, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 8 external links on Israeli settlement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.fmep.org/analysis/reference/SpiegelDatabaseEng.pdf{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://fr.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1261364500139&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFullWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:20, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Israeli settlement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.palestine-studies.org/files/Special%20Focus/Israeli%20Settlers/Israeli%20Settlements%20in%20Occupied%20Arab%20Lands%20Conquest%20to%20Colony.pdf{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.coxwashington.com/hp/content/reporters/stories/2008/07/8/17/2008/08/25/ISRAEL_SETTLERCRIME17_COX.htmlWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:34, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
The section is entitled "Proposal of dual nationality" and the first paragraph was about granting Palestinian citizenship/residency permits to settlers. The second paragraph quote I replaced was less relevant to the subject as it talked of the Israeli minister's concerns of whether Jews would remain in Palestine at all. I found a quote from the same cited article where he insisted that Israeli nationals should be able to retain Israeli citizenship while remaining in Palestinian territories. This seems to more fully express his concrete intentions and desires as an official within the Israeli government. And it also more directly concerns proposals of dual nationalities, as the quote that יניב הורון reverted it to was more of a general and pointed charge against Palestinians, accusing them of "ethnic cleansing". What are other people's thoughts on this matter and how WP guidelines apply? Blueaster ( talk) 20:33, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
The Wikipedia article "Israeli Settlement" is biased and should be redrafted. It uses some sources which are neither reliable nor impartial.
For instance the UN Human Rights Council quoted in the article includes states which want to direct public attention away from their own brutal behaviour. Saudi Arabia is currently bombing and starving Yemeni civilians, as well as murdering a journalist in its Turkish embassy. The Council has been criticised by two Secretaries-General of the UN. (see Wikipedia article on the UNHRC).
The article states that Ariel University is not a recognised University. In fact it is. This is fully documented in the Wikipedia article about the University (Quote: The Ariel University Center is a member of the International Association of Universities).
So how reliable are the other sources? Clearly the article should be removed until their impartiality can be verified. This is not to say that all the claims are wrong, but if they are from unreliable sources they blemish the reputation of Wikipedia, and lead to the propagation of misinformation.
Furthermore the article contains some biased phrases (e.g. "one of the techniques used by Israel to expropriate Palestinian land") which should be removed.
Bias spotter ( talk) 12:32, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
Icewhiz, could you explain to the class what the difference between predominantly and most of them is as that appears to be the only justification for your blanket revert as I see no instance of changing Syrians to Palestinians or you reversing that in your revert. nableezy - 10:36, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
Such settlements within the Palestinian territories currently exist in the West Bank, including in East Jerusalem, and within Syrian territory in the Golan Heights.- which can read as if the Golan is Palestinian. The sentence also duplicates the previous one - something that was rectified in the edit you rushed to revert. Icewhiz ( talk) 12:10, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
I rewrote the lead, hope you find it acceptable. I moved some things that were too specific for the overview in to the body as well. nableezy - 22:30, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
@ Selfstudier: - please do point out the discussion related to your revert. It seems to be entirely absent from the talk page. This is a recent bill, in a small country, that has not come into force nor has it been covered much. If you are unable to point out a discussion - please revert per WP:BRD this newish material. Icewhiz ( talk) 19:26, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
Selfstudier ( talk) 21:52, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
Selfstudier ( talk) 18:29, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
Copying material from dispute resolution to here for ease of referral:
COPIED
Banana Republic ( talk) 19:34, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
ENDCOPY
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should the following paragraph be included in the article: In Ireland, the Control of Economic Activity (Occupied Territories) Bill cleared the Upper house on 5 December 2018 and has progressed to Third Stage Committee in the Lower house following a Second Stage vote of 78 to 45 on 24 January 2019. Ref Ref. Although debate has focused on the Palestinian territories the bill prohibits the purchase of goods and services from any occupied territory. Ref
(References are shown as links, the suggested section is where the current version of this material is presently located).
Enter Yes or No with one-sentence explanations in the Survey. Back-and-forth discussion may be in Threaded Discussion. Robert McClenon ( talk) 15:30, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Israeli settlement has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
it is not a change rather an addition of a significant quote. In 1969, former Israeli defense minister, Moshe Dayan, openly confirmed that Israel displaces Arabs by stating that "Jewish villages were built in the place of Arab villages. You do not even know the names of these Arab villages, and I do not blame you, because these geography books no longer exist; not only do the books not exist, the Arab villages are not there either … There is no one place built in this country that did not have a former Arab population." Smobarak ( talk) 19:28, 7 March 2020 (UTC) - Moshe Dayan's address to the students at Technion University in Haifa, Israel (March 19, 1969). Smobarak ( talk) 19:28, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
here. Nishidani ( talk) 23:04, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
I a fact, which is not in dispute. It was elided, one of several SJ reverts of my contributions to Wikipedia over the last few weeks. The fact added was:
The transfer by an occupying power of its civilian population into the territory it occupies is a war crime
This is the precise wording of a fact of international law, which is the basis for all of the positions assumed by international bodies mentioned in the lead. Without the fact given, the positions taken seem to be opinions. They may be, but the fact is not opinionable.
His edit summary states
Since the reasons given are utterly irrelevant or spurious or unexplained, I have restored the text. Nishidani ( talk) 23:12, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
'Theodor Meron's note and attached legal opinion, preserved in Levi Eshkol's office files, testify to two things. The first: As of mid-September 1967, Eshkol knew that settling civilians in occupied land, including the West Bank, violated international law. The second: By early September, after nearly three months of weighing the West Bank's future, Eshkol was actively exploring settlement in the region.' Gershom Gorenberg, Accidental Empire, Henry Holt & Co, 2006 pp.99-100.
Shouldn't the "See also" section include a link to the article, List of Israeli settlements? NASAPeepo ( talk) 15:40, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
It's not that the Israeli "Settlements" are not in violation of international law, it's that Israel has not proclaimed that they will omit them. That is territory that is explicitly under control of the Oslo Accords. Batsquatch ( talk) 23:50, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
The section on the West Bank claims and provides references to the fact the Israeli buildings only use 1% of the land in the West Bank. Whilst this may be true it has the effect is suggesting the land usage is relatively small and thus less problematic than people may claim.
However, it is comparable to similar building land usages in other countries. For example, in the UK all buildings use 1.4% of total area.
It would be better if this statistic was a percentage of the total building area i.e. Israeli Buildings' area as a percentage of the combined Israeli + Palestinian buildings' area.
It is of particular importance as this is the section that Google search quotes when you search for "Israeli Settlements West Bank" 2A00:23C6:2000:E201:34D0:BEF5:4458:B717 ( talk) 16:20, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
Come on. By any normal, every day definition a war crime means killing civilians during war. Like the Rwanda or Bosnia or the holocaust. Stealing property may be illegal, but not a "war crime" by any normal definition. The trouble with abusing language like this is that it weakens the words when there really are serious war crimes. A similar situation when "rape" is used for any sexual misdemeanor.
On the Israel situation there will be countless references for any point of view. But this one is nonsense, and it weakens the otherwise strong points made by the article. It makes the article seam like just another POV piece. Tuntable ( talk) 22:56, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
A war crime is an act that constitutes a serious violation of the laws of war that gives rise to individual criminal responsibility.This includes
Settlement of occupied territoryand
Deportation of inhabitants of occupied territory. See also: War crime § International Criminal Court 2002. TucanHolmes ( talk) 11:28, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
Did they just steal existing farms? Take over empty or under utilized land? Or buy it from Palestinians? Probably all three in different times and places. That is a critical distinction that is missing. Given the tone of the rest of the article, and the fact that is not mentioned, I presume the second and third were more common. Tuntable ( talk) 23:05, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Israeli settlement has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
he transfer by an occupying power of its civilian population into the territory it occupies is a war crime,[16][17][18]This is not correct. It is an alleged war crime as stated in the following sentences. 207.216.95.239 ( talk) 14:54, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
It is a war crime. Alleged only enters into it if a charge is made and has then to be proven. Selfstudier ( talk) 15:32, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
This is not challenged...? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaylahackman ( talk • contribs) 21:58, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
Calling Israeli settlements a colony is completely ridiculous. One source says that, and the idea that is some universally agreed thing is crazy. If you put that, at least say its debated.
Change:
"Israeli settlements are civilian communities inhabited by Israeli citizens, built on lands occupied by Israel in the 1967 Six-Day War. Israeli settlements currently exist in the Palestinian-claimed territory of the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and in the Syrian-claimed territory of the Golan Heights."
https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/israel-middle-east/articles/israels-rights-in-the-west-bank-under-international-law Their is debate to whether it defies international law.
There are a ton of sources attesting to colony being a commonly used name. A Wikipedia editor's personal dislike is of course not relevant. And the very basic misstatement as to what NPOV requires above shows the issue. It is claimed it is a NPOV violation to include views of "Pro-Palestinian writers", but NPOV requires the inclusion of all significant viewpoints. The view that these places are colonies is indeed significant and well sourced. And efforts to suppress that well sourced material are tendentious and violate the discretionary sanctions in place on this article. nableezy - 02:25, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
These facts are clearly irreversible. Israeli colonies have turned into urban sprawls, and the autonomous Palestinian enclaves have shrunk into inviable and unsustainable municipalities.
Israeli colonies in the West Bank are central to the fragmentation of Palestinian lands.
In the same vein, the U.S. move has deferred the prospect of an agreement on Jerusalem indefinitely since it appears to preempt any recognition of Palestinian counter-claims to the city, in addition to postponing negotiations over other important issues, including the evacuation of Israeli colonies or settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories (oPts), security cooperation, and Israeli recognition of the state of Palestine. Without progress on the Jerusalem question, there can be no agreement on these other issues.
I agree with Tombah the usage of colonies though sometime used is not prevalent and certainly shouldn't be appear as alternative name per WP:UNDUE also the removal of the tag was unwarranted. There are clearly WP:DUE and WP:NPOV issue -- Shrike ( talk) 09:56, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
References
In this chapter, I interpret the settler colonial situation as primarily premised on the irruption into a specific locale of a sovereign collective of settlers.
The term "Israeli colonies" is mostly limited to certain circles, and neither used by Israel nor the international community. I agree with Tombah, Shrike and Eladkarmel; this is a WP:NPOV issue that must be resolved. Benbaruch ( talk) 12:32, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
I would suggest a search of the archives since this has been discussed previously as far back as 2012 (Shrike saying exactly the same thing as they are saying now) so it seems there is no real justification for overturning a long standing consensus. There are also plenty of sources that are not Palestinian. Selfstudier ( talk) 13:02, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
Just claiming something is a NPOV violation does not make it so. It is properly sourced that "Israeli colonies" is used as another term for Israeli settlements. The claim that it is restricted to Palestinians is made without any sourcing and as such is specious. And even if it were true, it would still merit inclusion. Significant alternate names is the criteria. nableezy - 13:46, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
Although not germane due to the ready availability of other sources, a claim was made in another place that the UN did not use the word colonies. UNCTAD's 199th plenary meeting of 2 July 1983, 146 (VI) "Gravely concerned at the ever-increasing number of Israeli colonies in the occupied Palestinian territories of the West Bank and the Gaza strip," or 1998 https://www.un.org/unispal/document/auto-insert-179562/ (Habitat) ("1. Decides to use the term 'Israeli colonies in occupied territories' instead of 'Israeli settlements' in all United Nations documentation;") are a straightforward refutation of this claim. Selfstudier ( talk) 18:21, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
Though most are Jewish, Arabs live in some settlements as well, according to Reuters. The line asserting the contrary should be changed. Peaux ( talk) 05:20, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
Thanks! Peaux ( talk) 16:33, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
The way the short description is written now, it can also describe Tel Aviv, or any other city, town, etc in Israel. How is a "settlement" different? DaringDonna ( talk) 06:44, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
"Israeli colonies" is used in countless sources to describe the, well, colonies Israel has established outside its sovereign territory. And it is simply untrue that it is only used by Palestinian sources (eg here), and when exactly did we disregard sources by ethnicity? Are Jewish Israeli sources banned here or did I miss a memo? nableezy - 20:38, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
The ongoing occupation has been heavily shaped by the issues of land confiscation and the building of Israeli Jewish settlements (or what Palestinians often refer to less euphemistically as "colonies").
That it is often referred to as colonies by one of the involved parties is sufficient for inclusion as a significant alternative title. nableezy - 22:46, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
See our French Wikipedia article Colonies israéliennes. That is the common name in French. Onceinawhile ( talk) 18:58, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
All names in other Wikipedia is pretty much irrelevant we english wikipedia. The term colony in English language is rarely used toward Israeli settlements as we don't use Israeli POV like "communities in Judea and Samaria" the usage of such term is clear violation of NPOV -- Shrike ( talk) 13:38, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
The article for the West Bank says Israel administers it as "the Judea and Samaria area". It does not say "The West Bank, or Judea and Samaria", as here settlements and colonies are put forward as equivalent names. The analogous description would be to note that the settlements are considered by persons/organizations XYZ to be colonies.
Regarding how rarely it is used, this has an objective answer. See the relevant Google Ngram search. Use of "settlement" is ~73x more common than "colony" -- i.e. if one of the two is used, there's a ~99% chance it's "settlement".
For contrast, "West Bank" is only used ~12x more than "Judea and Samaria", and if one of the two is used, the probability that it will be "West Bank" is only 93%. By your logic then, it would be reasonable to rewrite the article for the West Bank to read, "The West Bank, or Judea and Samaria". Peaux ( talk) 05:18, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
Yes, colony may be used without "Israeli" when context is clear, but the same is true for "settlement". I see no reason to suggest that the ratio of unqualified "colony" to unqualified "settlement" in context is any different from the ratio of "Israeli colony" to "Israeli settlement". I've provided evidence that "settlement" is by far the more common term; you "would think" that it is not, based on no additional evidence.
In Zionism as settler colonialism, it is clear that it is one paradigm of multiple/many, not some sort of general truth. Use of "Israeli colony" as equivalent to "Israeli settlement" in this article unduly elevates the status of this one paradigm. And insofar as this paradigm is primarily associated with a particular partisan/activist camp, it seems a violation of NPOV to be taking it as given. Similarly, in Settler colonialism, it is clear that Israel being settler-colonial is the viewpoint of some academics and activists; it does not claim to be objective truth.
Whether the words are synonyms is irrelevant. (I disagree that they are, but even if they were.) Presumably you wouldn't use that argument to change Ash Wednesday to read "Ash Wednesday, or Ash Hump Day", even though the words are synonymous. The name of the holiday is "Ash Wednesday", so that's how it's referred to on Wikipedia. For a better-in-some-ways-worse-in-others example, Itô's lemma is not referred to as Itô's theorem, even though a lemma is a type of theorem. That's just not what it's called. Or the guy's name -- it would be just as accurate, if not moreso, to call him Itō, using the standard Japanese romanization scheme of today, but we use Itô instead, because that's what he used and what the literature uses.
I'm not sure what you're referring to when you say "two of the 4 cities given in the lead".
Finally, the naming conventions for West Bank seem to support my point, not yours. Usage of unqualified "Judea and Samaria" is rightfully considered a violation of NPOV, as it's only used to refer to the West Bank by partisans. Similarly, the settlements are referred to as colonies only by partisans on the other side. Therefore the end result should be the same, that articles should not be using "Israeli colonies" without qualification to refer to the settlements, as this article does. Peaux ( talk) 17:05, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
Selfstudier, I'm not sure what you mean by "cites". If you're asking for citations, I've given Ngrams, which is a more relevant data point than any number of examples of one usage or another -- data not being the plural of anecdote, as the saying goes.
Iskandar, thank you for the comment. Here is a more complete Ngram. In 2019, 6.0% of all references to any of the six bigrams in question used "colony" in, while the other 94% used "settlement". Notably, "Israeli colony" makes up only 0.3% of the total, the least common bigram of all six.
That said, I think it's a mistake to include "Jewish", since it's impossible to differentiate in the data between Jewish settlements/colonies in Palestine and those elsewhere; e.g. Jewish agricultural colonies in New Jersey or Jewish agricultural colonies in the Russian Empire (while neither of those include the particular bigram in question, it's reasonable to think it might turn up in those discussions). As far as I can tell, there seem to be fewer references to Jewish settlements that aren't in reference to Israel (even though I can imagine they might come up in work on history), but to be conservative, I'll exclude those too. Then, the new Ngram. Here, "Israeli settlements" is by far the most common, making up 95.9% of the total. Both "colony" bigrams make up 1.6%, and just "Israeli colony", which in this thread has been put forward as a commonly-used NPOV synonym for "Israeli settlements", makes up only 0.6% of the total.
Even restricting ourselves to "Zionist", which is much more common in partisan usage relative to NPOV speakers, "settlement" is used a large majority of the time, 72% to 28%.
Any way you slice this data, it is much more common to refer to them as settlements than colonies, and the phrase "Israeli colonies" specifically is one of the least common ways to refer to the settlements.
Even the UNRWA, viewed by many to be a party biased towards the Palestinian narrative of the conflict, doesn't refer to the settlements as colonies except, apparently, in a single document, once. HRW also uses "settlements" and not "colonies". The AP, Reuters, BBC, &c. use "settlements", not "colonies". Happy to provide citations for any of those.
Even the UN as a whole, which many allege to be systemically biased against Israel, seems to use "settlements" much more often than "colonies" (in English). I can't share the search link, but using their Official Document System, I get 500(+?) hits for "Israeli settlements" (full-text search, English, "find this phrase") and only 33 for "Israeli colonies" (in the same box with the same settings). That's, at most, 6.2%. For a similar heuristic, see International law and Israeli settlements, where there are no usages of colony/colonial/colonize/&c. outside of quotes/references, and no uses of "colony" or "colonies" at all. Contrast the 204 uses of "settlement(s)" in the same article.
So, all in all, I find no evidence in favor of the claim that "Israeli colonies" is a commonly-used synonym for "Israeli settlements". Even if I accept the argument that it's non-partisan when it is used (which I don't, but it's very difficult to quantify that, at least on mobile and/or in my free time), I see no justification for it to be used as a synonym in the article. With all that plus the NPOV concerns, I maintain it should be struck. Peaux ( talk) 00:24, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
Sorry, just reread, I see what you meant by "cites". Peaux ( talk) 00:33, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
Not from what is perceived to be a NPOV in the English language, as I have shown. Peaux ( talk) 02:34, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
Also, re Selfstudier's point above about reference to the settlement project as a colonial one (their "two of the 4 cites given in the lead"), sure, but we're specifically talking about what the name of these things is -- it doesn't matter what they actually are or what they are considered to be, only what they're called. Maybe "Israeli colonies" is more accurate, but if they aren't referred to by that name, then the article shouldn't claim the contrary. Peaux ( talk) 02:44, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
Another data point: 18,300 hits versus 471 on Google Scholar (2.5%). Peaux ( talk) 02:58, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
about reference to the settlement project as a colonial one (their "two of the 4 cites given in the lead")that's not what I said, I said that 2 of the 4 cites use "colony" alone although it is clear from the context that they are referring to Israeli settlements. One says "Jewish settlements (colonies)" and the other that they are known (less euphemistically) to Palestinians as colonies. Settler colonialism in an Israeli/Palestinian context is a separate but related point "Many scholars have also conducted monograph length research that expands the spaces studied under the moniker "settler colony" to include Israeli settlements in the West bank". Taken together, I think this results in Israeli colonies (or just colonies) constituting a valid alternative name and I do not support that being removed from the intro. Selfstudier ( talk) 07:03, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
"If a name is widely used in reliable sources (particularly those written in English) and is therefore likely to be well recognized by readers, it may be used even though some may regard it as biased."You said it yourself. The text you are quoting points out that just because a term may be 'biased', or in your opinion POV, does not rule against it. NPOV requires that we reflect all reliable sources. Iskandar323 ( talk) 08:22, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
What is the done thing here, if no new editors step into the discussion?As I said, given that this is a well watched page (378 page watchers), it is reasonable to assume they are not that interested or at any rate, not interested enough to want to participate.
![]() | This
edit request to
Israeli settlement has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
place Template:lead too long at top. Mach61 ( talk) 00:41, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
under the 37th governments of Israel there has been a dramatic increase in settlements and legalization of outposts https://peacenow.org.il/en/%D9%8Dsettlements-map-2023 Monochromemelo1 ( talk) 15:41, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Israeli settlement has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
An article was recently published with significant new arguments relevant to this topic. I suggest changing the following sentence: "The scholar and jurist Eugene Rostow[135] has disputed the illegality of authorized settlements." to read "The scholar and jurist Eugene Rostow[135] and others[136] have disputed the illegality of authorized settlements." The reference that I have labeled [136] is to the following article: https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/israel-middle-east/articles/israeli-settlements-are-not-illegal Israelgale ( talk) 15:08, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
{{
Edit extended-protected}}
template.
M.Bitton (
talk)
20:25, 19 September 2023 (UTC)![]() | This
edit request to
Israeli settlement has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change (update) the 2020 OCHA West Bank settlements map (the first image visible on the page) to the 2023 version.
It is available here: https://www.ochaopt.org/content/west-bank-access-restrictions-may-2023 Jefeljefe ( talk) 20:23, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
After reviewing some recent protection requests, I noticed that every settlement article in Wikipedia appears to use the same boilerplate paragraph in the lede with regards to the international community's views on settlements and Israel's stance. Certainly this topic should be covered in this article, but it seems a bit heavy handed to stamp it on every individual settlement article. OhNoitsJamie Talk 19:28, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Israeli settlement has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Include navigable link to /info/en/?search=International_community on uses of "International Community." It currently reads as an arbitrary and poorly defined designation. Tattva07 ( talk) 11:50, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
Done. Selfstudier ( talk) 12:15, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Israeli settlement has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Ben Gvir is a resident of a community located in Judea and Samaria. OnlyHumanBean ( talk) 15:34, 3 November 2023 (UTC)