![]() | 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 5 | ← | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | → | Archive 13 |
MM. I don't think this is much chop. For one it is ugly, clumsy, and it is probably too much of an editorial synthesis, thirdly, where's G-Dett, our master or mistress stylist, on occasions like this? It seems clear to me from the evidence that pro-Israeli commentators around the world do often use 'Samaria', though they do their readers the courtesy of glossing it with(in)'the West Bank'. We need some collaborative suggestions, evidently, on how to phrase this. I would prefer, off-hand, 'referred to as Samaria in Israeli usage and foreign works that reflect that usage.' Or something along those lines. Nishidani ( talk) 17:35, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Note on Judea and Samaria added in Terminology section, per Nickhh. [1] MeteorMaker ( talk) 09:39, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm restoring the cited information using the terminology "Samaria", per WP:NPOV, and per Elonka's comment. I remind editors here that even if it were the case that "Samaria" was less common terminology, NPOV does not allow it to be expurgated; on the contrary, it insists that multiple points-of-view be presented. Jayjg (talk) 20:24, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
For some strange reason the citation to the article by Tamir in The Australian was changed to a personal translation of a Spanish version of the article on some website. I understand that User:Meteormaker was at one point making some sort of claim that since the link to the original article in The Australian was dead, he could therefore remove the reference. [2] In addition, he was insisting that he couldn't verify what the source said, despite the exact quote being provided, and therefore it was not valid. I would simply point out that
In the future please don't remove valid links to quoted newspaper sources, even if the link dies, and please don't substitute your translations of foreign language version of the original source. Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 20:24, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
I know in Hebrew that 'Judea and Samaria' are the official terms used by the Israeli government in Hebrew. This may seem a small point, but I would like some indications that it is the term also used in official Israeli publications and negotiations in English. Efraim Karsh notes examples of the two being out of synch (Arabs in Hebrew official texts, Palestinians in those texts published for foreigners). Nishidani ( talk) 21:39, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
For some reason I cannot fathom User:Meteormaker has replaced specific citations with the unsourced original research claim " referred to as Samaria predominantly in Israel". Can he produce reliable sources which back up this claim? I do, however, appreciate his concern that the current wording was too long, so as a compromise I replaced the list with wording that did not violate the WP:NOR policy. Jayjg (talk) 23:41, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
The 1948 Palestinian exodus (Arabic: الهجرة الفلسطينية, al-Hijra al-Filasteeniya), referred to by Palestinians as al Nakba or al Naqba (Arabic: النكبة), meaning the "disaster", "catastrophe", or "cataclysm," refers to the creation of the Palestinian refugee problem during and after the 1948 Palestine war.
The 1948 Palestinian exodus (Arabic: الهجرة الفلسطينية, al-Hijra al-Filasteeniya), referred to by the New York Times, [5] Sussex Academic Press, [6] [7] , Lexington Books, [8], Columbia University Press, [9] and others, as al Nakba or al Naqba (Arabic: النكبة), meaning the "disaster", "catastrophe", or "cataclysm," refers to the creation of the Palestinian refugee problem during and after the 1948 Palestine war.
OK. Who gave that ok to move the article? -- Shuki ( talk) 18:56, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
The following passage is the 5th paragraph. It should perhaps be in the first or second since it appears to represent the majority of the world.
Has moved back down, somehow - will move it back up. 93.96.148.42 ( talk) 08:58, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
MeteorMaker ( talk · contribs) has been banned from making Samaria-related reverts, or removing reliable citations, for 90 days. [10] He is still welcome to make other non-revert changes to the article, and to bring up concerns at the talkpage, to build consensus for desired changes. -- El on ka 17:16, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
This reference should be removed or a new one found. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.243.137.56 ( talk) 12:41, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
I wonder, what objections is Jayjg referring to when he made this change, with the edit summary "change wording, per MeteorMaker's objections"? I have certainly not objected that the article should say "or northern Samaria" instead of "also referred to as Samaria". If I have made an objection, it's that it should be made clear that "Samaria" is Israel-specific terminology. There is no consensus for that highly misleading edit and it should be reverted. MeteorMaker ( talk) 10:50, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
This bogus edit summary seems to hit a new low for editorial dishonesty, finger-in-the-eye arrogance, and deliberate disruption.
There is currently a case before Arbcom about this entire hoax. I'd suggest not wasting further energy here, or on any article talk page.-- G-Dett ( talk) 00:43, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
I tried looking for this issue in the archives but could not find something directly relevant. I've changed the wording from illegal outposts to unauthourized outposts since this term is disputed / misleading. The Sasson Report deals with the outposts and adds criteria it uses that might make an outpost illegal, but the Sasson Report itself is not binding or the legal policy of the Israeli government. The Israeli government itself does not have specific criteria for what an illegal or legal settlement, except for those locations that the courts have managed to deal with. For instance, Amona is an outpost, but only the houses that were destroyed were deemed illegally built. -- Shuki ( talk) 20:05, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
There are many WP:RS that call these settlements illegal settlements, including the WP:RS that you removed from the article.
If you want to rename them in this article, then find a WP:RS that supports this terminology. You are not a WP:RS. Factsontheground ( talk) 23:56, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
They are often referred as "illegal" precisely because they are "unauthorized," in Israel, not because any international court or court of public opinion has passed judgment. Most of the RS will in fact use both terms. "Unauthorized," however, is the clearer and more accurate term as user:Shuki points out. Tundrabuggy ( talk) 04:01, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- "in particular, that Article 8, which provides that the "transfer, directly or indirectly, by the Occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies, or the deportation or transfer of all or parts of the population of the occupied territory within or outside this territory" amounts to a war crime. This is obviously applicable to Israeli settlement activities in the Occupied Arab Territories."
When we signed, we added a political declaration. I know that it's been reported in the press that Israel signed with a reservation with respect to various elements in the statute which are problematic. The statute doesn't permit reservations, because we're talking about the statute of an international court, so clearly it has to be a document that stands on its own, without anything that could derogate from its legal effect. International Criminal Court - Press Briefing by Israel Foreign Ministry Legal Advisor Alan Baker
"This property right is limited in scope . . . most Israelis do not have ownership of the land on which they built their houses and businesses in the territory to be evacuated. They acquired their rights from the military commander, or from persons acting on his behalf. Neither the military commander nor those acting on his behalf are owners of the property, and they cannot transfer rights better than those they have. To the extent that the Israelis built their homes and assets on land which is not private ('state land'), that land is not owned by the military commander. His authority is defined in regulation 55 of The Hague Regulations. . . . The State of Israel acts . . . as the administrator of the state property and as usufructuary of it . . . " (Id., paragraph 127 of the opinion of the Court).
... ...
B. The Normative Outline in the Supreme Court's Caselaw
1. Belligerent Occupation
14. The Judea and Samaria areas are held by the State of Israel in belligerent occupation. The long arm of the state in the area is the military commander. He is not the sovereign in the territory held in belligerent occupation (see The Beit Sourik Case, at p. 832). His power is granted him by public international law regarding belligerent occupation. The legal meaning of this view is twofold: first, Israeli law does not apply in these areas. They have not been "annexed" to Israel. Second, the legal regime which applies in these areas is determined by public international law regarding belligerent occupation (see HCJ 1661/05 The Gaza Coast Regional Council v. The Knesset et al. (yet unpublished, paragraph 3 of the opinion of the Court; hereinafter – The Gaza Coast Regional Council Case). In the center of this public international law stand the Regulations Concerning the Laws and Customs of War on Land, The Hague, 18 October 1907 (hereinafter – The Hague Regulations). These regulations are a reflection of customary international law. The law of belligerent occupation is also laid out in IV Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War 1949 (hereinafter – the Fourth Geneva Convention). see HCJ 7957/04 Mara’abe v. The Prime Minister of Israel harlan ( talk) 17:21, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
As a matter of general public policy, section 504 of the IRS code discourages tax exempt organizations (like the Wikimedia Foundation) from carrying on political propaganda campaigns. In that connection, the EU Council has decided to prohibit dissemination or distribution of material condoning, denying or grossly trivializing crimes as defined in the Statute of the International Criminal Court (Articles 6, 7 and 8) directed against a group of persons or a member of such a group defined by reference to race, colour, religion, descent or national or ethnic origin, and crimes defined by the Tribunal of Nüremberg (Article 6 of the Charter of the International Military Tribunal, London Agreement of 1945) directed against a group of persons or a member of such a group defined by reference to race, colour, religion, descent or national or ethnic origin. Member States will ensure that these conducts are punishable by criminal penalties of a maximum of at least between 1 and 3 years of imprisonment. see Framework decision on Racism and Xenophobia.
Many editors do not seem to be aware of the EU Council decision. For example, Wikipedia has a multitude of Israel-Palestine related articles that contain examples of those sort of statements. Although there have been a number of requests for Arbitration on Israel-Palestine related issues, there doesn't seem to be a published guideline, going-forward, that spells out the policy and procedure to follow when an editor trivializes an action directed at Israelis, or Palestinians, that falls within the Rome Statute or Nüremberg Charter prohibitions. That could result in Wikipedia being blocked over controversial content.
For example, Israel's courts and civil administrations have ruled or reported that government officials have helped construct settlements on illegally expropriated privately-owned Palestinian land. Up to a third of the settlements have been built in this way. That violates the Rome Statute for the International Criminal Court articles: 8(2)(a)(iv), and 8(2)(b)(viii). Israel's participation in the ICC treaty is not a factor, since other states have the right to vest universal jurisdiction in their own national courts over war crimes. see the ICRC List of Customary Rules of International Humanitarian Law, Rule 157. Many supporters of the settlements ignore the court decisions and insist that they are not illegal.
The Nuremberg Tribunals established beyond question that individuals can be brought to trial in international criminal proceedings for violations of the rules of customary international law. see United Nations and International Criminal Law, Johan Van Der Vyver
In 1993 the UN Security Council "acting under Chapter VII of the Charter on the United Nations" approved a report made by the Secretary General which concluded beyond doubt that the law applicable in armed conflict as embodied in the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 and the Hague Convention (IV) of 18 October 1907 had become part of international customary law. Breaches of the principles contained in the conventions were subsequently placed within the competence of an international criminal tribunal charged with prosecuting the responsible individuals. see Security Council Resolution 827, 25 May 1993, the commentary with regard to customary law in the UN article on The Statute For the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, and War crimes law comes of age, By Theodor Meron, page 212.
When a possible conflict arose with the national law of the Federal Republic of Germany, the Tribunal drew attention to the obligations of states under the Security Council resolutions and repeated the self-evident principle of international law that states cannot invoke their own municipal laws as a basis for avoiding their international obligations. see International Law Reports, By E. Lauterpacht, et. al. page 8
In 1995 the United Nations Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries met to debate, crystallize, and codify international criminal law in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. see Sources of International Law – The Place of Treaties. The Statute mentions the Geneva Conventions in Article 8. "War crimes". Those provisions are declaratory of custom which is binding on all parties in an armed conflict. States that do not ratify the Rome Statute can only opt-out to the extent that the various provisions therein do not form a part of international customary law. See the briefing on the Harvard Program on Humanitarian Policy and Conflict Research, International Humanitarian Law Initiative: The Legal status of Israeli settlements under International Humanitarian Law.
In 2000, the editors of the Geneva Academy of International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights' Palestine Yearbook of International Law 1998-99 observed that the United Nations Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries had adopted the Rome Statute. They noted:
"in particular, that Article 8, which provides that the "transfer, directly or indirectly, by the Occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies, or the deportation or transfer of all or parts of the population of the occupied territory within or outside this territory" amounts to a war crime. This is obviously applicable to Israeli settlement activities in the Occupied Arab Territories."
Also see ICRC List of Customary Rules of International Humanitarian Law, Rule 130: States may not deport or transfer parts of their own civilian population into a territory they occupy.
The International Court of Justice and the Israeli High Court of Justice have repeatedly ruled that the Palestinian territories are under belligerent occupation, and that Israel's acts in the territories are subject to the limitations placed on the acts of a belligerent occupant by customary international law. In the 1979 Elon Moreh Case, the Israeli High Court ruled that privately-owned Palestinian land had been expropriated for the purpose of establishing Israeli civilian settlements in breach of the articles annexed to the Hague Convention of 1907. The court ruled that a military government is not permitted to create facts that are designed to persist after its temporary rule in the area has ended. The Occupation of Justice, by David Kretzmer, page 39
Ha'aretz recently reported on a Defense Ministry database which showed that many settlements mentioned in the Sasson Report had been built illegally on private Palestinian land. The gentleman who compiled the datatbase, Baruch Spiegel, said that government legal experts had been employed in the creation of the database. Spiegel mentioned that the settlements were "illegal" (not merely unauthorized). The article mentions portions of the Ofra outpost, which the High Court of Justice ordered to be razed. see "Secret Israeli database reveals full extent of illegal settlement" The Jerusalem Post also reported on the Ofra structures, and quoted a spokesman for Defense Minister Barak and the state's representative, attorney Avi Licht as saying the construction of the houses and their occupation were illegal. See Barak: I won't demolish Ofra houses now. see also A third of settlements on land taken for 'security purposes'.
Despite lengthy discussion of these facts on the Israeli Occupied Territories and Israeli Settlements page, many editors continue to demand that the articles should say the territories are "disputed" and not under military occupation. They also have reverted edits and insist that the illegal outposts are merely "unauthorized". WP:NOTADVOCATE states that content hosted in Wikipedia is not: Propaganda, advocacy, or recruitment of any kind, commercial, political, religious, or otherwise. harlan ( talk) 08:22, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Since those editors who repeat the stuff in wikipedia you find everyday in major newspapers, from the New York Times, to Haaretz, from the Washington Post to the Jerusalem Post, do so by clipping stuff from precisely these sources, it extremely doubtful whether, unless you can show precedent, why the anonymous POV-pushers of an encyclopedia which no one controls could be held, in the front line, to standards most of the world's press, and many of its lamentably distinguished 'statesmen' (read thugs) endorse through ignorance or out of considerations of power. (2) Your point refers to content, and Arbcom never rules, in principle, on content, and therefore is not responsible either. I hate to defend an encyclopedia's capacity to retain trash, one that in the I/P area is often nothing more than a dumping ground for ideology or sub-neanderthal historiography (nothing against homo floriensis in that however), but this, concretely, is what I think is problematical in the point you raise. Nishidani ( talk) 15:55, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Interpretation — customary international law
(4) For greater certainty, crimes described in Articles 6 and 7 and paragraph 2 of Article 8 of the Rome Statute are, as of July 17, 1998, crimes according to customary international law. This does not limit or prejudice in any way the application of existing or developing rules of international law.
PARAGRAPH 2 OF ARTICLE 8
War crimes
2. For the purpose of this Statute, "war crimes" means:
(a) grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949...
Customary international law is something very specific in international law. Usually, customary international law excepts for crimes of genocide or piracy, has a prerequisite that all sides agree to it especially sides that are involved in the dispute. In fact, except for these jus cogens issues of genocide and piracy, agreement of all parties is the fundamental basis for international law. This is why the ICC is only applicable to countries that have ratified its agreement. This is why the ICJ taking on the advisory opinion of the West Bank Barrier was so fundamentally wrong and opposed by legal scholars and by many nations in the U.N itself. This is why the UN doesn't make international law by a voting in the GA, nor even in the SC except in very specific instances of using military force, unless all parties have agreed to such law. Personal property law in the U.S and the status of the settlements is something completely different. Israel can assert, and legal scholars do so, that the entire region is Israel's according to international law going back to the Balfour Declaration, the San Remo conference and the terms of the mandate, and by many other techniques. International law is a flexible concept open to interpretation. Sadly, Israel instea d of asserting its rights under international law tried to compromise over the years out of naivety that it might work. The Arab countries and anti Zionist people (mostly Jews ironically) kept pushing the fringe concepts in international law in the hope of demonizing Israel. This has to a large extent worked, but has made a travesty out of many U.N instiutions to the the point that international law has become a joke, a tool by Israel's enemies to attack it. The last conference on Racism is a good example of such travesty. It is today acknowledged that international "law" as defined by block voting of countries the U.N is not lawful nor moral nor of interest. Again, the purest form of international law is consent. If Israel disputes anything, as long as it doesn't do something truly horrific like genocide, and this was supposed to be a very rare and limited exception following the Holocaust (before WW2 the only customary binding law was probably piracy), then it doesn't violate international law. I think the articles cite many eminent legal scholars who believe Israel is being lawful in all territories. Scholars like Julius Stone. If it doesn't, it should. 216.165.95.70 ( talk) 18:41, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Usage of the terms "Judea" and "Samaria" in article space appears to contravene 3 key Wikipedia policies: Naming Conventions, Undue weight and Neutral Point of View. [19] [20] A large body of evidence [21] [22] has been collected during extensive discussions (see list below) that unequivocally shows that these terms, alone and in combination, are almost entirely peculiar to Israel. As of today, no sources, reliable or otherwise, have been put forward that contradict this finding.
Discussion links (most closed, included for reference only):
MeteorMaker ( talk) 16:35, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
How about changing the lead as below to eliminate the contentious parts and associated refs ? Seems simpler, more neutral and possibly more stable.
Israeli settlements are communities inhabited by
Israelis in territory that was captured during the 1967
Six-Day War. Such settlements currently exist in the
West Bank , which is partially under Israeli military administration and partially under the control of the
Palestinian National Authority, and in the
Golan Heights, which are under Israeli civilian administration.
Sean.hoyland - talk 17:45, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
International bodies, including the United Nations Security Council, the International Court of Justice, the European Union, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch and some legal scholars have characterized the settlements as a violation of international law. Israel, the Anti-Defamation League, and other legal scholars disagree with this assessment. (See Legal background)
Shouldn't there be a section on this wiki page concerning the funds Israel receives and uses from the United States to pursue its settlement activities? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.80.104.39 ( talk) 02:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
It seems to me that there should be no problem with using these terms in this article. These terms are ethically neutral and they do not indicate anything about the nature of the places that they describe IMO. But the talk page commentary from several weeks before brought this up and I do not believe that it has been resolved. The Squicks ( talk) 06:26, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
User talk:Halfacanyon has been accusing me of "POV-pushing" and "lying" at my talk page. He claims I am removing sourced information here, here, and here.
I done no such thing. I explained to Halfacanyon that he was using duplicate sources, linking the same link twice in one section. I told him all he had to do was put the source at the end of the section. He accused me of lying for this. : )
all my edits accurately reflect what the source is saying, I was very explicit in my summaries and Halkacanyon's responses are hardly accurate. I am not sure if I went above 3 reverts, but I know Half did. He suggested I explain my edits more thoroughly here, so...here I am. I would like to restore my edits but I fear Half will simply remove them again. His editing approach is very hostile. Wikifan12345 ( talk) 08:01, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
For comparison, here is my version of the sources for Palestinian labor: here. Here is his. Wikifan12345 ( talk) 08:09, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Comparison for Pollution: Mine His.
He states in the summary that I am removing cited material. I am NOT doing that, at all. As we all know editors need to realize that their contributions will be edited, improved, sometimes repeatedly. He is taking this very personal. When I first started editing there was a rule about this. Can we please resolve this soon, the current version do not meet neutrality standards aren't paraphrased appropriately. Wikifan12345 ( talk) 08:15, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
In Israel the Jewish towns in the golan don't called settlements and not everybody is accepting that they will called so, so I ask the agreement to put down the part that says so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eliroud ( talk • contribs) 11:18, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Since nothing the UN has ever said on the "illegality" of the "settlements" was in a binding resolution, why does the opening section make it sound as if the UN has made an official pronouncement on the subject? If the section is not meant to sound as tho' it did, the it is worded too strongly. If it is meant to sound as tho' the UN did, then it is in error. Please advise. FlaviaR ( talk) 04:16, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Does anyone else think that the "Legal background" section is too big and should be spun off into a separate article? Halfacanyon ( talk) 06:42, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
"The State of Israel has declared that it practices the humanitarian parts of this convention. In light of that declaration on the part of the government of Israel, we see no need to reexamine the government's position. We are aware that the Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice determined that The Fourth Geneva Convention applies in the Judea and Samaria area, and that its application is not conditional upon the willingness of the State of Israel to uphold its provisions. As mentioned, seeing as the government of Israel accepts that the humanitarian aspects of The Fourth Geneva Convention apply in the area, we are not of the opinion that we must take a stand on that issue in the petition before us."
I moved this material here for further discussion:
In contrast, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu compared the call to remove all settlements as an attempt at creating a new Judenrein. <ref>{{cite web | url = http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/132335 | title = Netanyahu: Judea and Samaria Cannot be 'Judenrein' | year = 2009 | publisher = Israel National News | date = 10 Jul 2009 | accessdate = 3 Aug 2009 | quote = Most Israelis support the pullout, but some feel the government has given in to Palestinian militant groups, and worry that further withdrawals will follow. Palestinian critics point out that Gaza will remain under Israeli control, and that they are being denied a political say in the disengagement process. }}</ref>
Israel National News, also known as Arutz Sheva, is a notoriously unreliable settler mouthpiece that does not meet Wikipedia standards. Without a proper source, this stuff is unacceptable anyway. I'll also note that "judenrein" is an adjective not a noun, so "a new Judenrein" is grammatical nonsense. Zero talk 01:16, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
What sort of refs should we dig up and what sort of issues should be covered? Personally I'd like to see current snapshot, historical events, legal frameworks and political stances. Anything else needed? Hcobb ( talk) 21:26, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
The press has been all over the place on this one, but I think the PC tone can be found here:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aJDC03GzkAw8 Netanyahu, who quit as finance minister a week before the Gaza withdrawal began in August 2005, said today that future agreements that involve ceding territory will require “genuine recognition of Israel” and security arrangements that can be enforced.
So it's not that he will never withdraw, but that he requires stronger capitulations to peace in order to do so. Hcobb ( talk) 14:49, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Please rename the subsection "Illegal Outposts" as it raises the concept that some of the settlements might actually be non-illegal, in strong contrast to settled international law. Hcobb ( talk) 23:59, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
"Illegal Outposts" does not violate NPOV, since the significant published views from the Israeli High Court, the UN organs, and the Reconvened Conference of the Contracting Parties to the Geneva Convention all agree that the outposts are illegal. NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints (POVs) that have been published by a verifiable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each.
The Interior Minister's suggestion that the Knesset should exercise its legislative supremacy to overrule the court and legalize them (under Israeli law) was rejected by the Prime Ministers office today. The announcement said the government would "enforce law in those places where it had been broken."
If you want to see an article that violates NPOV, take a look at the articles on the illegal outposts, like Amona. I think it violates WP:NPOV/ WP:FRINGE, WP:Civil, and WP:NOTADVOCATE guidelines for article content and discussion (but who's counting?). The article says the outpost "has never been fully approved by the Israeli government, even though several separate government ministries have contributed to its growth." Please recall that the 2005 Sasson Report, concluded that state bodies secretly diverted funds to build the illegal West Bank outposts. The four ministers who toured the outposts yesterday illustrate the fact that key Government ministers can take a proactive role in challenging the rule of law.
The Amona talk page says "This is not the place for POV." and "Let's not demonize one side at the expense of the other." It says the POV tag has been removed along with "biased comments". The only published reference is Arutz Sheva, which explains why this article is linked to Category:Communal cities, towns and villages in Israel. harlan ( talk) 07:15, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
The problem Shuki is that in the eyes of the media International law (which is a very recent phenomenon as far as attention is concerned) tends to supersede the laws of nation-states. The problem with international law is that it is purely bureaucratic. Many courts consider United Nations resolutions to be legally binding or influential in ruling disputes. Unfortunately, Israel has been subject to almost 500-UN resolutions in both the UNSC and UNGA since 1948 - more than any nation on Earth. The second problem with international law is its inability to remove the soviet-styled Cold-War legal applications, which prevents nations from actively preventing attacks before they happen - effectively banning pre-preemptive wars and counter-terrorist operations (which some scholars have deemed to be state-terrorism per international law). The third problem is the justices - many of them aren't even lawyers and a significant chunk belong to the highly partisan Israel/Palestine arena.
As one example, the West Bank Security Barrier has been determined to be illegal under international law and was the subject of several UN resolutions. However, the India/Pakistan Line of Control, Indo-Bangladeshi barrier which cedes into both Bangladeshi and India territory, and the Wall (Western Sahara) which includes mines, electronic fences, and armed guards have received no recognition by the International courts.
If we are aiming to explain why international law plays such a crucial role in the Israeli settlements and apartheid analogies, we should explain how it operates and why the legal aspect is dwarfed by political motivations. Wikifan12345 ( talk) 22:07, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) Wikifan12345, for decades now every organ of the United Nations has advised Israel that the settlements are illegal. Israel cannot acquire sovereign rights via military occupation. The United Nations Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries adopted the Rome Statute and the government of Israel concluded that the war crimes article was applicable to Israeli settlement activities in the Occupied Arab Territories. Israel complains that the UN is a political body, but so is the Israeli Knesset. The lawmakers in most places are politicians. The courts don't usually accept that fact as a defense in a criminal case.
The ICJ noted that "A binding determination made by a competent organ of the United Nations to the effect that a situation is illegal cannot remain without consequence." While the ICJ can't interfere, its advice said that every contracting state party had an erga omnes responsibility and that it was self-evident that an illegal situation is not to be recognized or assisted by third parties. There is no statute of limitations for war crimes or crimes against humanity. Israeli-Americans can be prosecuted in the US Courts today under the 1996 War Crimes Act for violating article 23 of the Hague IV Convention in the occupied territories (destroying or seizing property). [37]
The US State Department already warns against purchasing property in Jerusalem or the occupied territories, because claims might arise from displaced Palestinians. It also cautions that the possible establishment of a Palestinian state may have legal consequences for property owners in Israeli settlements in the West Bank and in East Jerusalem. [38]
Israel can be referred to the International Criminal Court by the Security Council whether it is a contracting party to the statute or not. Israel's breaches of its international obligations were already addressed in an earlier case by the ICJ. It found that Israel had severely impeded the exercise by the Palestinian people of its right to self-determination, and the applicable provisions of international humanitarian law and human rights instruments by destruction and requisition of property, restrictions on freedom of movement, and the impediment to the exercise by those concerned of the right to work, to health, to education and to an adequate standard of living. The court found that those breaches could not be legally justified by military exigencies or by the requirements of national security or public order.
Since then a High-level Plenary Meeting of the General Assembly in September 2005 adopted the Responsibility to Protect international law norm. [39] One of the draft UN reports on Gaza has already been released and it recommends "All allegations of violations of international humanitarian law and human rights violations during the Gaza military operations must be investigated by credible, independent and transparent accountability mechanisms, taking fully into account international standards on due process of law."
Many countries have determined that the Rome Statute simply declares existing customary international law. They have given their national courts universal jurisdiction to prosecute violations of the statute. Those courts don't care if Israel or Palestine are state parties to the convention. For example, the Canadian Courts are considering motions in a war crime case right now against a pair of local companies that built settlements in Biilin vs. Green Park Intl Inc. Regardless of the merits of that case, it illustrates the problem the Foreign Ministry legal advisors are concerned about. harlan ( talk) 03:39, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
The reason why the legal section is so long (and I've contributed heavily to it under another nickname) is because POV pushers who support Israel have been insistent in claiming that these settlements are legal, thus including fringe legal views which in turn bloats the section (disgraced former editors such as Jayjg and Zeq springs to mind). This article even uses CAMERA as a source, an advocacy organization who conspired with Wikipedia editors to push their own fringe views based entirely on politics and ideology. Other sources used to argue for the legality of the settlements are web sites with the title 'Guides for activists', ie talking points for propagandists, or other talking points from noted advocacy organizations such as ADL, or JCPA. Compare this to ICJ, UNGA, UNSC, ICRC, legal advisors to the US, legal advisors to the Israeli government and so on, who are among the numerous sources used to back the illegality claim. The consensus among all neutral observers is that these settlements are a blatant violation of international law. I've yet to see any legal analysis from anyone who are not open supporters of Israel to conclude otherwise. Furthermore, it is not only the UN that has 'advised' Israel, nor is the legal basis for the illegality claim rooted in any UN document. You seek to give undue weight to fringe extremist views, and to include irrelevant accusations of double-standards The simply truth is that any fair reading of the legal views and who holds them will have to conclude that all those supporting the Israeli legal position seem to be highly sympathic to the Israeli cause and occupation, and heavily influenced by politics. It is impossible to make a similar claim for the numerous sources who have argued for the illegality of these settlements (including a former legal advisor to the Israeli government and Judge Buergenthal of the ICJ, holocaust survivor of Jewish descent), yet you want this article to reflect that the illegality accusations are based on politics and not law. It is the opposite: all those who argue otherwise seem to be motivated by politics and ideology. Anyanghaseyo ( talk) 10:54, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Outposts has a military connotation that settlements lacks. It implies that that the Illegal Outposters are gun waving yahoos. Hcobb ( talk) 18:25, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Its really hard to take an encyclopedia seriously when it suggests it's okay to violate criminal laws and fail to protect a few million people from the consequences. Quite a few Wikipedia articles contain what appear to be "true threats" against Palestinians or Israelis, i.e. a reasonable person would conclude that the editor means to cause the consequence or is aware that it will occur in the ordinary course of events. Wikipedia shouldn't be used in that way because it would be illegal. It's as simple as that. harlan ( talk) 21:25, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
The fact that Israel holds the West Bank in a state of belligerent occupation means it has a corner on the market for labor, services, and real estate. That's why international law limits its rights to usufruct only. It isn't surprising that Hamas builds settlements, or that Israeli settlers can find great deals on real estate. The IDF is holding the indigenous population at gunpoint while the local economy goes to pot. The HSRC report gives an overview of the situation with information from the World Bank on that subject. The Bank concluded that the local economy is run for the benefit of the settlers. harlan ( talk) 22:40, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
NOTE:
Zero is right mates,
Try to avoid using Wikipedia as a
forum for generic political debates. Esp. as this is an article page and political debate leads away from constructive edits to the article.
Warm regards,
Jaakobou
Chalk Talk
10:40, 21 August 2009 (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 5 | ← | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | → | Archive 13 |
MM. I don't think this is much chop. For one it is ugly, clumsy, and it is probably too much of an editorial synthesis, thirdly, where's G-Dett, our master or mistress stylist, on occasions like this? It seems clear to me from the evidence that pro-Israeli commentators around the world do often use 'Samaria', though they do their readers the courtesy of glossing it with(in)'the West Bank'. We need some collaborative suggestions, evidently, on how to phrase this. I would prefer, off-hand, 'referred to as Samaria in Israeli usage and foreign works that reflect that usage.' Or something along those lines. Nishidani ( talk) 17:35, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Note on Judea and Samaria added in Terminology section, per Nickhh. [1] MeteorMaker ( talk) 09:39, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm restoring the cited information using the terminology "Samaria", per WP:NPOV, and per Elonka's comment. I remind editors here that even if it were the case that "Samaria" was less common terminology, NPOV does not allow it to be expurgated; on the contrary, it insists that multiple points-of-view be presented. Jayjg (talk) 20:24, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
For some strange reason the citation to the article by Tamir in The Australian was changed to a personal translation of a Spanish version of the article on some website. I understand that User:Meteormaker was at one point making some sort of claim that since the link to the original article in The Australian was dead, he could therefore remove the reference. [2] In addition, he was insisting that he couldn't verify what the source said, despite the exact quote being provided, and therefore it was not valid. I would simply point out that
In the future please don't remove valid links to quoted newspaper sources, even if the link dies, and please don't substitute your translations of foreign language version of the original source. Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 20:24, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
I know in Hebrew that 'Judea and Samaria' are the official terms used by the Israeli government in Hebrew. This may seem a small point, but I would like some indications that it is the term also used in official Israeli publications and negotiations in English. Efraim Karsh notes examples of the two being out of synch (Arabs in Hebrew official texts, Palestinians in those texts published for foreigners). Nishidani ( talk) 21:39, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
For some reason I cannot fathom User:Meteormaker has replaced specific citations with the unsourced original research claim " referred to as Samaria predominantly in Israel". Can he produce reliable sources which back up this claim? I do, however, appreciate his concern that the current wording was too long, so as a compromise I replaced the list with wording that did not violate the WP:NOR policy. Jayjg (talk) 23:41, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
The 1948 Palestinian exodus (Arabic: الهجرة الفلسطينية, al-Hijra al-Filasteeniya), referred to by Palestinians as al Nakba or al Naqba (Arabic: النكبة), meaning the "disaster", "catastrophe", or "cataclysm," refers to the creation of the Palestinian refugee problem during and after the 1948 Palestine war.
The 1948 Palestinian exodus (Arabic: الهجرة الفلسطينية, al-Hijra al-Filasteeniya), referred to by the New York Times, [5] Sussex Academic Press, [6] [7] , Lexington Books, [8], Columbia University Press, [9] and others, as al Nakba or al Naqba (Arabic: النكبة), meaning the "disaster", "catastrophe", or "cataclysm," refers to the creation of the Palestinian refugee problem during and after the 1948 Palestine war.
OK. Who gave that ok to move the article? -- Shuki ( talk) 18:56, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
The following passage is the 5th paragraph. It should perhaps be in the first or second since it appears to represent the majority of the world.
Has moved back down, somehow - will move it back up. 93.96.148.42 ( talk) 08:58, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
MeteorMaker ( talk · contribs) has been banned from making Samaria-related reverts, or removing reliable citations, for 90 days. [10] He is still welcome to make other non-revert changes to the article, and to bring up concerns at the talkpage, to build consensus for desired changes. -- El on ka 17:16, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
This reference should be removed or a new one found. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.243.137.56 ( talk) 12:41, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
I wonder, what objections is Jayjg referring to when he made this change, with the edit summary "change wording, per MeteorMaker's objections"? I have certainly not objected that the article should say "or northern Samaria" instead of "also referred to as Samaria". If I have made an objection, it's that it should be made clear that "Samaria" is Israel-specific terminology. There is no consensus for that highly misleading edit and it should be reverted. MeteorMaker ( talk) 10:50, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
This bogus edit summary seems to hit a new low for editorial dishonesty, finger-in-the-eye arrogance, and deliberate disruption.
There is currently a case before Arbcom about this entire hoax. I'd suggest not wasting further energy here, or on any article talk page.-- G-Dett ( talk) 00:43, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
I tried looking for this issue in the archives but could not find something directly relevant. I've changed the wording from illegal outposts to unauthourized outposts since this term is disputed / misleading. The Sasson Report deals with the outposts and adds criteria it uses that might make an outpost illegal, but the Sasson Report itself is not binding or the legal policy of the Israeli government. The Israeli government itself does not have specific criteria for what an illegal or legal settlement, except for those locations that the courts have managed to deal with. For instance, Amona is an outpost, but only the houses that were destroyed were deemed illegally built. -- Shuki ( talk) 20:05, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
There are many WP:RS that call these settlements illegal settlements, including the WP:RS that you removed from the article.
If you want to rename them in this article, then find a WP:RS that supports this terminology. You are not a WP:RS. Factsontheground ( talk) 23:56, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
They are often referred as "illegal" precisely because they are "unauthorized," in Israel, not because any international court or court of public opinion has passed judgment. Most of the RS will in fact use both terms. "Unauthorized," however, is the clearer and more accurate term as user:Shuki points out. Tundrabuggy ( talk) 04:01, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- "in particular, that Article 8, which provides that the "transfer, directly or indirectly, by the Occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies, or the deportation or transfer of all or parts of the population of the occupied territory within or outside this territory" amounts to a war crime. This is obviously applicable to Israeli settlement activities in the Occupied Arab Territories."
When we signed, we added a political declaration. I know that it's been reported in the press that Israel signed with a reservation with respect to various elements in the statute which are problematic. The statute doesn't permit reservations, because we're talking about the statute of an international court, so clearly it has to be a document that stands on its own, without anything that could derogate from its legal effect. International Criminal Court - Press Briefing by Israel Foreign Ministry Legal Advisor Alan Baker
"This property right is limited in scope . . . most Israelis do not have ownership of the land on which they built their houses and businesses in the territory to be evacuated. They acquired their rights from the military commander, or from persons acting on his behalf. Neither the military commander nor those acting on his behalf are owners of the property, and they cannot transfer rights better than those they have. To the extent that the Israelis built their homes and assets on land which is not private ('state land'), that land is not owned by the military commander. His authority is defined in regulation 55 of The Hague Regulations. . . . The State of Israel acts . . . as the administrator of the state property and as usufructuary of it . . . " (Id., paragraph 127 of the opinion of the Court).
... ...
B. The Normative Outline in the Supreme Court's Caselaw
1. Belligerent Occupation
14. The Judea and Samaria areas are held by the State of Israel in belligerent occupation. The long arm of the state in the area is the military commander. He is not the sovereign in the territory held in belligerent occupation (see The Beit Sourik Case, at p. 832). His power is granted him by public international law regarding belligerent occupation. The legal meaning of this view is twofold: first, Israeli law does not apply in these areas. They have not been "annexed" to Israel. Second, the legal regime which applies in these areas is determined by public international law regarding belligerent occupation (see HCJ 1661/05 The Gaza Coast Regional Council v. The Knesset et al. (yet unpublished, paragraph 3 of the opinion of the Court; hereinafter – The Gaza Coast Regional Council Case). In the center of this public international law stand the Regulations Concerning the Laws and Customs of War on Land, The Hague, 18 October 1907 (hereinafter – The Hague Regulations). These regulations are a reflection of customary international law. The law of belligerent occupation is also laid out in IV Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War 1949 (hereinafter – the Fourth Geneva Convention). see HCJ 7957/04 Mara’abe v. The Prime Minister of Israel harlan ( talk) 17:21, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
As a matter of general public policy, section 504 of the IRS code discourages tax exempt organizations (like the Wikimedia Foundation) from carrying on political propaganda campaigns. In that connection, the EU Council has decided to prohibit dissemination or distribution of material condoning, denying or grossly trivializing crimes as defined in the Statute of the International Criminal Court (Articles 6, 7 and 8) directed against a group of persons or a member of such a group defined by reference to race, colour, religion, descent or national or ethnic origin, and crimes defined by the Tribunal of Nüremberg (Article 6 of the Charter of the International Military Tribunal, London Agreement of 1945) directed against a group of persons or a member of such a group defined by reference to race, colour, religion, descent or national or ethnic origin. Member States will ensure that these conducts are punishable by criminal penalties of a maximum of at least between 1 and 3 years of imprisonment. see Framework decision on Racism and Xenophobia.
Many editors do not seem to be aware of the EU Council decision. For example, Wikipedia has a multitude of Israel-Palestine related articles that contain examples of those sort of statements. Although there have been a number of requests for Arbitration on Israel-Palestine related issues, there doesn't seem to be a published guideline, going-forward, that spells out the policy and procedure to follow when an editor trivializes an action directed at Israelis, or Palestinians, that falls within the Rome Statute or Nüremberg Charter prohibitions. That could result in Wikipedia being blocked over controversial content.
For example, Israel's courts and civil administrations have ruled or reported that government officials have helped construct settlements on illegally expropriated privately-owned Palestinian land. Up to a third of the settlements have been built in this way. That violates the Rome Statute for the International Criminal Court articles: 8(2)(a)(iv), and 8(2)(b)(viii). Israel's participation in the ICC treaty is not a factor, since other states have the right to vest universal jurisdiction in their own national courts over war crimes. see the ICRC List of Customary Rules of International Humanitarian Law, Rule 157. Many supporters of the settlements ignore the court decisions and insist that they are not illegal.
The Nuremberg Tribunals established beyond question that individuals can be brought to trial in international criminal proceedings for violations of the rules of customary international law. see United Nations and International Criminal Law, Johan Van Der Vyver
In 1993 the UN Security Council "acting under Chapter VII of the Charter on the United Nations" approved a report made by the Secretary General which concluded beyond doubt that the law applicable in armed conflict as embodied in the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 and the Hague Convention (IV) of 18 October 1907 had become part of international customary law. Breaches of the principles contained in the conventions were subsequently placed within the competence of an international criminal tribunal charged with prosecuting the responsible individuals. see Security Council Resolution 827, 25 May 1993, the commentary with regard to customary law in the UN article on The Statute For the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, and War crimes law comes of age, By Theodor Meron, page 212.
When a possible conflict arose with the national law of the Federal Republic of Germany, the Tribunal drew attention to the obligations of states under the Security Council resolutions and repeated the self-evident principle of international law that states cannot invoke their own municipal laws as a basis for avoiding their international obligations. see International Law Reports, By E. Lauterpacht, et. al. page 8
In 1995 the United Nations Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries met to debate, crystallize, and codify international criminal law in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. see Sources of International Law – The Place of Treaties. The Statute mentions the Geneva Conventions in Article 8. "War crimes". Those provisions are declaratory of custom which is binding on all parties in an armed conflict. States that do not ratify the Rome Statute can only opt-out to the extent that the various provisions therein do not form a part of international customary law. See the briefing on the Harvard Program on Humanitarian Policy and Conflict Research, International Humanitarian Law Initiative: The Legal status of Israeli settlements under International Humanitarian Law.
In 2000, the editors of the Geneva Academy of International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights' Palestine Yearbook of International Law 1998-99 observed that the United Nations Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries had adopted the Rome Statute. They noted:
"in particular, that Article 8, which provides that the "transfer, directly or indirectly, by the Occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies, or the deportation or transfer of all or parts of the population of the occupied territory within or outside this territory" amounts to a war crime. This is obviously applicable to Israeli settlement activities in the Occupied Arab Territories."
Also see ICRC List of Customary Rules of International Humanitarian Law, Rule 130: States may not deport or transfer parts of their own civilian population into a territory they occupy.
The International Court of Justice and the Israeli High Court of Justice have repeatedly ruled that the Palestinian territories are under belligerent occupation, and that Israel's acts in the territories are subject to the limitations placed on the acts of a belligerent occupant by customary international law. In the 1979 Elon Moreh Case, the Israeli High Court ruled that privately-owned Palestinian land had been expropriated for the purpose of establishing Israeli civilian settlements in breach of the articles annexed to the Hague Convention of 1907. The court ruled that a military government is not permitted to create facts that are designed to persist after its temporary rule in the area has ended. The Occupation of Justice, by David Kretzmer, page 39
Ha'aretz recently reported on a Defense Ministry database which showed that many settlements mentioned in the Sasson Report had been built illegally on private Palestinian land. The gentleman who compiled the datatbase, Baruch Spiegel, said that government legal experts had been employed in the creation of the database. Spiegel mentioned that the settlements were "illegal" (not merely unauthorized). The article mentions portions of the Ofra outpost, which the High Court of Justice ordered to be razed. see "Secret Israeli database reveals full extent of illegal settlement" The Jerusalem Post also reported on the Ofra structures, and quoted a spokesman for Defense Minister Barak and the state's representative, attorney Avi Licht as saying the construction of the houses and their occupation were illegal. See Barak: I won't demolish Ofra houses now. see also A third of settlements on land taken for 'security purposes'.
Despite lengthy discussion of these facts on the Israeli Occupied Territories and Israeli Settlements page, many editors continue to demand that the articles should say the territories are "disputed" and not under military occupation. They also have reverted edits and insist that the illegal outposts are merely "unauthorized". WP:NOTADVOCATE states that content hosted in Wikipedia is not: Propaganda, advocacy, or recruitment of any kind, commercial, political, religious, or otherwise. harlan ( talk) 08:22, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Since those editors who repeat the stuff in wikipedia you find everyday in major newspapers, from the New York Times, to Haaretz, from the Washington Post to the Jerusalem Post, do so by clipping stuff from precisely these sources, it extremely doubtful whether, unless you can show precedent, why the anonymous POV-pushers of an encyclopedia which no one controls could be held, in the front line, to standards most of the world's press, and many of its lamentably distinguished 'statesmen' (read thugs) endorse through ignorance or out of considerations of power. (2) Your point refers to content, and Arbcom never rules, in principle, on content, and therefore is not responsible either. I hate to defend an encyclopedia's capacity to retain trash, one that in the I/P area is often nothing more than a dumping ground for ideology or sub-neanderthal historiography (nothing against homo floriensis in that however), but this, concretely, is what I think is problematical in the point you raise. Nishidani ( talk) 15:55, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Interpretation — customary international law
(4) For greater certainty, crimes described in Articles 6 and 7 and paragraph 2 of Article 8 of the Rome Statute are, as of July 17, 1998, crimes according to customary international law. This does not limit or prejudice in any way the application of existing or developing rules of international law.
PARAGRAPH 2 OF ARTICLE 8
War crimes
2. For the purpose of this Statute, "war crimes" means:
(a) grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949...
Customary international law is something very specific in international law. Usually, customary international law excepts for crimes of genocide or piracy, has a prerequisite that all sides agree to it especially sides that are involved in the dispute. In fact, except for these jus cogens issues of genocide and piracy, agreement of all parties is the fundamental basis for international law. This is why the ICC is only applicable to countries that have ratified its agreement. This is why the ICJ taking on the advisory opinion of the West Bank Barrier was so fundamentally wrong and opposed by legal scholars and by many nations in the U.N itself. This is why the UN doesn't make international law by a voting in the GA, nor even in the SC except in very specific instances of using military force, unless all parties have agreed to such law. Personal property law in the U.S and the status of the settlements is something completely different. Israel can assert, and legal scholars do so, that the entire region is Israel's according to international law going back to the Balfour Declaration, the San Remo conference and the terms of the mandate, and by many other techniques. International law is a flexible concept open to interpretation. Sadly, Israel instea d of asserting its rights under international law tried to compromise over the years out of naivety that it might work. The Arab countries and anti Zionist people (mostly Jews ironically) kept pushing the fringe concepts in international law in the hope of demonizing Israel. This has to a large extent worked, but has made a travesty out of many U.N instiutions to the the point that international law has become a joke, a tool by Israel's enemies to attack it. The last conference on Racism is a good example of such travesty. It is today acknowledged that international "law" as defined by block voting of countries the U.N is not lawful nor moral nor of interest. Again, the purest form of international law is consent. If Israel disputes anything, as long as it doesn't do something truly horrific like genocide, and this was supposed to be a very rare and limited exception following the Holocaust (before WW2 the only customary binding law was probably piracy), then it doesn't violate international law. I think the articles cite many eminent legal scholars who believe Israel is being lawful in all territories. Scholars like Julius Stone. If it doesn't, it should. 216.165.95.70 ( talk) 18:41, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Usage of the terms "Judea" and "Samaria" in article space appears to contravene 3 key Wikipedia policies: Naming Conventions, Undue weight and Neutral Point of View. [19] [20] A large body of evidence [21] [22] has been collected during extensive discussions (see list below) that unequivocally shows that these terms, alone and in combination, are almost entirely peculiar to Israel. As of today, no sources, reliable or otherwise, have been put forward that contradict this finding.
Discussion links (most closed, included for reference only):
MeteorMaker ( talk) 16:35, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
How about changing the lead as below to eliminate the contentious parts and associated refs ? Seems simpler, more neutral and possibly more stable.
Israeli settlements are communities inhabited by
Israelis in territory that was captured during the 1967
Six-Day War. Such settlements currently exist in the
West Bank , which is partially under Israeli military administration and partially under the control of the
Palestinian National Authority, and in the
Golan Heights, which are under Israeli civilian administration.
Sean.hoyland - talk 17:45, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
International bodies, including the United Nations Security Council, the International Court of Justice, the European Union, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch and some legal scholars have characterized the settlements as a violation of international law. Israel, the Anti-Defamation League, and other legal scholars disagree with this assessment. (See Legal background)
Shouldn't there be a section on this wiki page concerning the funds Israel receives and uses from the United States to pursue its settlement activities? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.80.104.39 ( talk) 02:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
It seems to me that there should be no problem with using these terms in this article. These terms are ethically neutral and they do not indicate anything about the nature of the places that they describe IMO. But the talk page commentary from several weeks before brought this up and I do not believe that it has been resolved. The Squicks ( talk) 06:26, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
User talk:Halfacanyon has been accusing me of "POV-pushing" and "lying" at my talk page. He claims I am removing sourced information here, here, and here.
I done no such thing. I explained to Halfacanyon that he was using duplicate sources, linking the same link twice in one section. I told him all he had to do was put the source at the end of the section. He accused me of lying for this. : )
all my edits accurately reflect what the source is saying, I was very explicit in my summaries and Halkacanyon's responses are hardly accurate. I am not sure if I went above 3 reverts, but I know Half did. He suggested I explain my edits more thoroughly here, so...here I am. I would like to restore my edits but I fear Half will simply remove them again. His editing approach is very hostile. Wikifan12345 ( talk) 08:01, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
For comparison, here is my version of the sources for Palestinian labor: here. Here is his. Wikifan12345 ( talk) 08:09, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Comparison for Pollution: Mine His.
He states in the summary that I am removing cited material. I am NOT doing that, at all. As we all know editors need to realize that their contributions will be edited, improved, sometimes repeatedly. He is taking this very personal. When I first started editing there was a rule about this. Can we please resolve this soon, the current version do not meet neutrality standards aren't paraphrased appropriately. Wikifan12345 ( talk) 08:15, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
In Israel the Jewish towns in the golan don't called settlements and not everybody is accepting that they will called so, so I ask the agreement to put down the part that says so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eliroud ( talk • contribs) 11:18, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Since nothing the UN has ever said on the "illegality" of the "settlements" was in a binding resolution, why does the opening section make it sound as if the UN has made an official pronouncement on the subject? If the section is not meant to sound as tho' it did, the it is worded too strongly. If it is meant to sound as tho' the UN did, then it is in error. Please advise. FlaviaR ( talk) 04:16, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Does anyone else think that the "Legal background" section is too big and should be spun off into a separate article? Halfacanyon ( talk) 06:42, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
"The State of Israel has declared that it practices the humanitarian parts of this convention. In light of that declaration on the part of the government of Israel, we see no need to reexamine the government's position. We are aware that the Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice determined that The Fourth Geneva Convention applies in the Judea and Samaria area, and that its application is not conditional upon the willingness of the State of Israel to uphold its provisions. As mentioned, seeing as the government of Israel accepts that the humanitarian aspects of The Fourth Geneva Convention apply in the area, we are not of the opinion that we must take a stand on that issue in the petition before us."
I moved this material here for further discussion:
In contrast, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu compared the call to remove all settlements as an attempt at creating a new Judenrein. <ref>{{cite web | url = http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/132335 | title = Netanyahu: Judea and Samaria Cannot be 'Judenrein' | year = 2009 | publisher = Israel National News | date = 10 Jul 2009 | accessdate = 3 Aug 2009 | quote = Most Israelis support the pullout, but some feel the government has given in to Palestinian militant groups, and worry that further withdrawals will follow. Palestinian critics point out that Gaza will remain under Israeli control, and that they are being denied a political say in the disengagement process. }}</ref>
Israel National News, also known as Arutz Sheva, is a notoriously unreliable settler mouthpiece that does not meet Wikipedia standards. Without a proper source, this stuff is unacceptable anyway. I'll also note that "judenrein" is an adjective not a noun, so "a new Judenrein" is grammatical nonsense. Zero talk 01:16, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
What sort of refs should we dig up and what sort of issues should be covered? Personally I'd like to see current snapshot, historical events, legal frameworks and political stances. Anything else needed? Hcobb ( talk) 21:26, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
The press has been all over the place on this one, but I think the PC tone can be found here:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aJDC03GzkAw8 Netanyahu, who quit as finance minister a week before the Gaza withdrawal began in August 2005, said today that future agreements that involve ceding territory will require “genuine recognition of Israel” and security arrangements that can be enforced.
So it's not that he will never withdraw, but that he requires stronger capitulations to peace in order to do so. Hcobb ( talk) 14:49, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Please rename the subsection "Illegal Outposts" as it raises the concept that some of the settlements might actually be non-illegal, in strong contrast to settled international law. Hcobb ( talk) 23:59, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
"Illegal Outposts" does not violate NPOV, since the significant published views from the Israeli High Court, the UN organs, and the Reconvened Conference of the Contracting Parties to the Geneva Convention all agree that the outposts are illegal. NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints (POVs) that have been published by a verifiable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each.
The Interior Minister's suggestion that the Knesset should exercise its legislative supremacy to overrule the court and legalize them (under Israeli law) was rejected by the Prime Ministers office today. The announcement said the government would "enforce law in those places where it had been broken."
If you want to see an article that violates NPOV, take a look at the articles on the illegal outposts, like Amona. I think it violates WP:NPOV/ WP:FRINGE, WP:Civil, and WP:NOTADVOCATE guidelines for article content and discussion (but who's counting?). The article says the outpost "has never been fully approved by the Israeli government, even though several separate government ministries have contributed to its growth." Please recall that the 2005 Sasson Report, concluded that state bodies secretly diverted funds to build the illegal West Bank outposts. The four ministers who toured the outposts yesterday illustrate the fact that key Government ministers can take a proactive role in challenging the rule of law.
The Amona talk page says "This is not the place for POV." and "Let's not demonize one side at the expense of the other." It says the POV tag has been removed along with "biased comments". The only published reference is Arutz Sheva, which explains why this article is linked to Category:Communal cities, towns and villages in Israel. harlan ( talk) 07:15, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
The problem Shuki is that in the eyes of the media International law (which is a very recent phenomenon as far as attention is concerned) tends to supersede the laws of nation-states. The problem with international law is that it is purely bureaucratic. Many courts consider United Nations resolutions to be legally binding or influential in ruling disputes. Unfortunately, Israel has been subject to almost 500-UN resolutions in both the UNSC and UNGA since 1948 - more than any nation on Earth. The second problem with international law is its inability to remove the soviet-styled Cold-War legal applications, which prevents nations from actively preventing attacks before they happen - effectively banning pre-preemptive wars and counter-terrorist operations (which some scholars have deemed to be state-terrorism per international law). The third problem is the justices - many of them aren't even lawyers and a significant chunk belong to the highly partisan Israel/Palestine arena.
As one example, the West Bank Security Barrier has been determined to be illegal under international law and was the subject of several UN resolutions. However, the India/Pakistan Line of Control, Indo-Bangladeshi barrier which cedes into both Bangladeshi and India territory, and the Wall (Western Sahara) which includes mines, electronic fences, and armed guards have received no recognition by the International courts.
If we are aiming to explain why international law plays such a crucial role in the Israeli settlements and apartheid analogies, we should explain how it operates and why the legal aspect is dwarfed by political motivations. Wikifan12345 ( talk) 22:07, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) Wikifan12345, for decades now every organ of the United Nations has advised Israel that the settlements are illegal. Israel cannot acquire sovereign rights via military occupation. The United Nations Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries adopted the Rome Statute and the government of Israel concluded that the war crimes article was applicable to Israeli settlement activities in the Occupied Arab Territories. Israel complains that the UN is a political body, but so is the Israeli Knesset. The lawmakers in most places are politicians. The courts don't usually accept that fact as a defense in a criminal case.
The ICJ noted that "A binding determination made by a competent organ of the United Nations to the effect that a situation is illegal cannot remain without consequence." While the ICJ can't interfere, its advice said that every contracting state party had an erga omnes responsibility and that it was self-evident that an illegal situation is not to be recognized or assisted by third parties. There is no statute of limitations for war crimes or crimes against humanity. Israeli-Americans can be prosecuted in the US Courts today under the 1996 War Crimes Act for violating article 23 of the Hague IV Convention in the occupied territories (destroying or seizing property). [37]
The US State Department already warns against purchasing property in Jerusalem or the occupied territories, because claims might arise from displaced Palestinians. It also cautions that the possible establishment of a Palestinian state may have legal consequences for property owners in Israeli settlements in the West Bank and in East Jerusalem. [38]
Israel can be referred to the International Criminal Court by the Security Council whether it is a contracting party to the statute or not. Israel's breaches of its international obligations were already addressed in an earlier case by the ICJ. It found that Israel had severely impeded the exercise by the Palestinian people of its right to self-determination, and the applicable provisions of international humanitarian law and human rights instruments by destruction and requisition of property, restrictions on freedom of movement, and the impediment to the exercise by those concerned of the right to work, to health, to education and to an adequate standard of living. The court found that those breaches could not be legally justified by military exigencies or by the requirements of national security or public order.
Since then a High-level Plenary Meeting of the General Assembly in September 2005 adopted the Responsibility to Protect international law norm. [39] One of the draft UN reports on Gaza has already been released and it recommends "All allegations of violations of international humanitarian law and human rights violations during the Gaza military operations must be investigated by credible, independent and transparent accountability mechanisms, taking fully into account international standards on due process of law."
Many countries have determined that the Rome Statute simply declares existing customary international law. They have given their national courts universal jurisdiction to prosecute violations of the statute. Those courts don't care if Israel or Palestine are state parties to the convention. For example, the Canadian Courts are considering motions in a war crime case right now against a pair of local companies that built settlements in Biilin vs. Green Park Intl Inc. Regardless of the merits of that case, it illustrates the problem the Foreign Ministry legal advisors are concerned about. harlan ( talk) 03:39, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
The reason why the legal section is so long (and I've contributed heavily to it under another nickname) is because POV pushers who support Israel have been insistent in claiming that these settlements are legal, thus including fringe legal views which in turn bloats the section (disgraced former editors such as Jayjg and Zeq springs to mind). This article even uses CAMERA as a source, an advocacy organization who conspired with Wikipedia editors to push their own fringe views based entirely on politics and ideology. Other sources used to argue for the legality of the settlements are web sites with the title 'Guides for activists', ie talking points for propagandists, or other talking points from noted advocacy organizations such as ADL, or JCPA. Compare this to ICJ, UNGA, UNSC, ICRC, legal advisors to the US, legal advisors to the Israeli government and so on, who are among the numerous sources used to back the illegality claim. The consensus among all neutral observers is that these settlements are a blatant violation of international law. I've yet to see any legal analysis from anyone who are not open supporters of Israel to conclude otherwise. Furthermore, it is not only the UN that has 'advised' Israel, nor is the legal basis for the illegality claim rooted in any UN document. You seek to give undue weight to fringe extremist views, and to include irrelevant accusations of double-standards The simply truth is that any fair reading of the legal views and who holds them will have to conclude that all those supporting the Israeli legal position seem to be highly sympathic to the Israeli cause and occupation, and heavily influenced by politics. It is impossible to make a similar claim for the numerous sources who have argued for the illegality of these settlements (including a former legal advisor to the Israeli government and Judge Buergenthal of the ICJ, holocaust survivor of Jewish descent), yet you want this article to reflect that the illegality accusations are based on politics and not law. It is the opposite: all those who argue otherwise seem to be motivated by politics and ideology. Anyanghaseyo ( talk) 10:54, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Outposts has a military connotation that settlements lacks. It implies that that the Illegal Outposters are gun waving yahoos. Hcobb ( talk) 18:25, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Its really hard to take an encyclopedia seriously when it suggests it's okay to violate criminal laws and fail to protect a few million people from the consequences. Quite a few Wikipedia articles contain what appear to be "true threats" against Palestinians or Israelis, i.e. a reasonable person would conclude that the editor means to cause the consequence or is aware that it will occur in the ordinary course of events. Wikipedia shouldn't be used in that way because it would be illegal. It's as simple as that. harlan ( talk) 21:25, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
The fact that Israel holds the West Bank in a state of belligerent occupation means it has a corner on the market for labor, services, and real estate. That's why international law limits its rights to usufruct only. It isn't surprising that Hamas builds settlements, or that Israeli settlers can find great deals on real estate. The IDF is holding the indigenous population at gunpoint while the local economy goes to pot. The HSRC report gives an overview of the situation with information from the World Bank on that subject. The Bank concluded that the local economy is run for the benefit of the settlers. harlan ( talk) 22:40, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
NOTE:
Zero is right mates,
Try to avoid using Wikipedia as a
forum for generic political debates. Esp. as this is an article page and political debate leads away from constructive edits to the article.
Warm regards,
Jaakobou
Chalk Talk
10:40, 21 August 2009 (UTC)