Talk:Israeli settlement/Archive 1

message: It is a common misconception that the settlements are mostly in Palestinian towns.  The pluarility of the settlers live in Ma'ale Adumim im what was and still is uninhabited desert east of Jerusalem.  Most of the settlers live near the borders of the West Bank in areas that would never have been given back to the Palestinians and serve as suburbs of Tel Aviv, Netanya, or Jerusalem.  It is a sad truth that the majority of settlers who are quoted are the 400 people who live in Kiryat Arbah in Hebron, who do not represent the majority of settlers; who are usually people who want to live close to Tel Aviv -  many vote for the labor party.  There are also agricultural settlements along  the Jordan along the border with the nation of Jordan.  Palestinians would never gain this land as the Jordanian government detests the PLO, ever since the attempted coup d'etat in 1970.
:I don't know who wrote the above paragraph but it's very clear that you've never been to the West Bank and seen the settlements. They are not 'near Tel Aviv' at all. They are deep inside the West Bank on the hilltops. There are plenty of militant settlers throughout the illegal West Bank settlements - not just around Hebron. Around Nablus, for example, there are many who routinely attack Palestinian families trying to harvest their crops.
::To set things straight: the whole area we're talking about is quite small, so it's hard to say "near" or "far". Only the bloc of Modi'in Illit (total population about 25,000), and a few other settlements (e.g., Oranit - 5,000 and Har-Adar - 1,420) can truly be considered adjacent to Israel. Other blocs (e.g., Etzion - 33,000, Ma'ale Adumim - 28,000) are close to the border, but in areas also populated with Palestinians. Most other settlements (e.g., Ariel - 16,000) are deep inside the Territories. The settler population in the Jordan Valley is very sparse, about 6,000, even less than the (relatively sparse) Palestinian population there. While some settlements are only a few kilometers from Tel-Aviv or Jerusalem, hardly any of them can be considered "suburbs", due to the Palestinian population concentration in the Tul-Karem, Qalqiliya, Salfit, East-Jerusalem and Beth-Lehem areas. --Doron 11:13, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's fair to say that Gilo is a suburb of Jerusalem. And I'm not sure how Palestinian populations would be relevant, could you elaborate? Jayjg  | (Talk) 17:56, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree on Gilo, but Gilo is part of the municipality of Jerusalem, and thus under Israeli law, which puts it in quite a different status than, say, Ma'ale Adumim (a distinguishment that is made in the article as well). Most East-Jerusalem settlements are widely accepted as suburbs of Jerusalem, even by the some Palestinians (e.g., Geneva Accord). Re: Palestinian populations - for example, it's hard to accept Alfei Menashe as a suburb of Tel-Aviv when Qalqiliya and Hable, which are closer, are definitely not considered as such. Regarding such areas as "suburbs" of Tel-Aviv suggests that there is a continuity of Israeli territory, which is absent in most cases as I have written above. The person that wrote the first paragraph (to whom I meant to reply) brought up the issue of "not giving back to the Palestinians" some of these areas, so I wanted to point out that this is relevant in only very few instances, since it is generally accepted (even in Israel) that areas populated with Palestinians are not to be annexed to Israel. --Doron 08:56, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Good points. Jayjg  | (Talk) 16:04, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Population in Settlements 

message: Israel has a very unique political system, in the sense that Israel is never "willing" to do anything, but certain parties/people are. Israel switches governments and PMs like socks, mostly because the people want's "something to be done differently", but they don't actually know what they want to do...
If the PMs wants to do something, there's no on to stop him, for about four years, meaning: what the Israeli government did isn't necessarily what the people wanted. For example(without going into the isuue wethere the action was right or wrong): David Ben Gurion signed the compensation agreement with Germany when there was a lot of criticism on that act from the public(The Knessest was even attacked), and it's not clear what the public wanted... (although today, most agree that looking back in time, it was a good decision)
So, the point is: Odd as it may sound, you can't conclude what Israel(people) wants from whatIsrael(government) did.
--AlexKarpman 09:25, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding to the Israeli "willingness" to evict from Sinai 

message: "General Assembly resolutions contain decisions and recommendations adopted by the member nations of the General Assembly. These resolutions are not intended to be legally binding on the General Assembly's independent member nations. Consequently, a nation's own government must accept a General Assembly resolution before it can become binding upon that nation. Although General Assembly resolutions are not sources of law, they may contribute to the development of international law if they are supported by the General Assembly's member nations."  Jayjg (talk) 05:58, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: They are relevant only insofar as they may reflect international law, as I've already said previously - this is not a new realization, I made the same comment 3 days ago.  They do not create international law, and deciding which G.A. resolutions actually reflect international law and which don't is a separate matter, and one which in any event is irrelevant to deciding what international law already is. Jayjg (talk) 17:06, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: G.A. resolutions and international law

message: Arab residents of those parts of Jerusalem annexed after 1967 did not have to "swear allegiance," or "demonstrate proficiency in Hebrew."  Such allegations are unfounded and slanderous.  They did have to relinquish their Jordanian citizenship, and if they chose not to, they can still vote in municipal elections.  --Leifern 13:29, 2005 Mar 22 (UTC)
:I didn't make them up. See B'tselem article and Israel's Nationality Law (English summary at the bottom).--Doron 13:45, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citizenship for residents of eastern Jerusalem 

message: The settlement map in this article contains many non-existing settlements (such as Lucifer, Eli-Shama, Ginat, Yad Hashisha, Doron Shurshan), many typos (such as Ofarin, Tzuit, Nekodim, Ganin, Beitan), Palestinian villages appearing as settlements (such as Qaddum, Yabad, Anata), many places that are not settlements (such as Gilboa, Har Malkishua, Netiv Haasara, Har Dov), many settlements appear several times (such as Nahal Katif 'A' thru 'D'), thus inflating the number of settlements, and most localities are mislocated (such as Neve Dekalim, which is in Gush Katif, not in northern Gaza Strip, and West Bank settlements which are randomly scattered in the map). In short, this map is sloppy and of poor quality. Does anyone know of a better map?--Doron 11:39, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map 

message: I was asked to provide refs for the claim that citizenship was imposed on Golani Arabs.  I'll start by admitting that this is a topic on which my knowledge is weak and I'm a bit fuzzy on the relationship between Israeli identity and Israeli citizenship.  I'll start by quoting two UNGA resolutions: A/RES/37/123: "Strongly condemns the imposition by Israel of its laws, jurisdiction and administration on the occupied Syrian Golan Heights, ... and the imposition of Israeli citizenship on Syrian nationals, ...".  A/RES/37/88: "Strongly condemns Israel for its attempts and measures to impose forcibly Israeli citizenship and Israeli identity cards on the Syrian citizens in the occupied Syrian Arab Golan Heights and calls upon it to desist from its repressive measures against the population of the Syrian Arab Golan Heights."  Next from an academic paper (T. Mara'i and U. R. Halabi, Journal of Palestine Studies, Vol. 22, No. 1. (Autumn, 1992), pp. 78-93): Israeli tried to convince Golani Arabs to accept Israeli identity papers even before the annexation, but after the annexation they imposed them.  There was massive opposition, general strikes, riots, tens of people killed, etc.. (Now quoting:) "On 1 April [1982], Israel officially declared the Golan a closed area, imposed a round-the-clock curfew, and sent in about 14,000 Israeli soldiers-more than the entire Arab population of the Golan Heights-who went from door to door confiscating the old military IDs and distributing the new IDs that had been prepared for each individual denoting Israeli citizenship." (There is a footnote: "Israeli military IDs had been distributed at the beginning of occupation [1967].") However, after further protests, Israel gave in: "the IDs and travel documents ultimately distributed carried no mention of Israeli citizenship. There was further agreement that Golanis would not serve in the armed forces, that visits to Syria would be permitted, and that land would not be confiscated. These last two commitments were not honored. This is the situation as it stands today; Israel identifies the Syrians of the Golan as 'residents of Israel,' but not citizens."  So the story is more complex than I realised.  I guess a summary of this belongs on Golan Heights.  --Zero 14:12, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting, thanks. As far as I know, ID's are given to residents as well, not just to citizens. I just found it strange that a country can impose its citizenship on foreign nationals.--Doron 17:17, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: But I think all of this shows that what I originally wrote here was correct - it is consistent with sourced changes I earlier made in Golan Heights.  Israel's changes in the status of the Golan Heights were similar to the 1967 ones in Jerusalem (which was also drafted in part by Begin), except that there was more protest against the new IDs (which I am not sure actually denoted Israeli citizenship, rather than just permanent residency like in East Jerusalem.) So I will change it back to my version if there is no objection. Of course a description of the Golani Arab response should be put in the GH article.--John Z 21:59, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Your wording is not quite right because ID cards were not "offered".  They are compulsory.  It is only citizenship that was finally made optional.  If you change the wording to reflect that, I won't object. --Zero 03:32, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  If there were appreciable protests, I agree with Zero's comment that this should be qualified. El_C 03:38, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citizenship for Golan residents 

message: An Israeli settlement refers to new housing development in areas within the control of the Jewish state of Israel to be settled exclusively by Israeli Jews. The issue is controversial because the areas of land in question in the West Bank and Gaza, had been settled in violation of previously agreed-to boundaries, and after the forcible removal of Palestinian refugees. The Arab-Muslim Palesinians are considered non-citizens in Israel, despite their non-state status and residence within Israeli boundaries.
This is incorrect for any number of reasons.  They have not been settled "in violation of previously agreed-to boundaries", nor "after the forcible removal of Palestinian refugees", the Palestinians are not all Arabs or Muslims, over a million Palestinians are citizens of Israel, and they dispute whether they live within Israeli boundaries.  The amount of POV and factual incorrectness in this insertion was breathtaking. Jayjg (talk) 03:20, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Even the article says its a conflict over "interpretation of international law" - so while it may be improper to use the term "violation," theres still some deal of disingenuousness in your correction. "Forcible removal" is not an exclusively military term and must naturally include any enforced moving and re-settlement including by slow attrition and land grab. Arab Israelis are not Palestinians in the sense of refering to Palestinian refugees. Granted, theres some ambiguity that needs explanation. Dont assume prerequisite knowledge, and state upfront wtf an israeli settlement is. Your offhand comment about "random characters" being an improvement is one I will take note of. -St|eve 03:34, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stevertigo's introduction 

message: Re: the part about embassies not being in Jerusalem -- firstly, embassies are not located in Jerusalem because the status of the whole of Jerusalem is in dispute, not just East Jerusalem, and this predates 1967. Is west Jerusalem also considered, for the purpose of this article, an Israeli settlement? Secondly, there are two embassies in Jerusalem and another two in the suburb of Mevaseret Zion, four in total. The rest are in the Tel-Aviv metropolitan area, not just in Tel-Aviv itself.--Doron 10:17, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jerusalem embassies 

message: The previous revision was
An Israeli settlement refers to housing development for Israeli Jews in areas within the control of Israel (as a result of the 1967 Six Day War), but contested by Palestinians residing in those areas. 
I found this too fuzzy.  I don't think it was intentional, but it makes it sound like whether something counts as a "settlement" is a matter of degree, depending on how strongly it is "contested".  I changed the wording to make it clear that any housing for Israeli civilians outside the Green Line is a settlement.
:I've edited your changes for accuracy and NPOV. Jayjg (talk) 04:31, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't edited the introductory paragraph yet, but it is rancid with inaccurate POV.  The "borders" are not internationally recognized, but armistice lines - and this is indeed reflected in SC 242.  "Broadly considered" is too vague.  This needs work to be remotely acceptable.  --Leifern 13:11, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introductory paragraph 

message: "Except for areas that were annexed in Jerusalem and the Golan, Israeli citizens and others can only move to areas captured in 1967 with the authorization of the Israeli government."  --- This is only true for Area A.  --Zero 15:10, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Israeli citizens 

message: Can someone please change the statistics to indicate that there are now 0 settlers in the Gaza strip? 67.103.26.20 02:37, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gaza Withdrawal 

message: ::The name of this article is incorrect. It has nothing to do with politics, only with concepts taught at elementary school. gidonb 04:05, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Because of the wrong name, the defintions are incorrect and much of the information provided is incorrect. For example, the population of the Israeli settlements is underestimated by some 7 million people. Hence the accuracy warning. gidonb 04:25, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Accuracy dispute

message: An anon made some POV edits to the intro on the 22nd-23rd; I've restored the original opening paragraph. Jayjg (talk) 06:41, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, Jayjg. Nevertheless, the general problem of this article prevails. gidonb 06:48, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I must have opened and saved a historical version of the article by error. Weird. gidonb 06:58, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Versions

message: Can someone explain how the 1949 Armistice Agreements, which specifically stated that they were not creating legal borders, can be considered to have created "internationally recognized borders"?  Is there some sort of agreement I have missed? Jayjg (talk) 17:21, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really an agreement, but a consensus.  Would "territory" in place of "borders" be more acceptable to you?  Marsden 17:36, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

text: 1949, I would guess.  Among the nations that recognize Israel at all, the armistice lines limit what they regard as Israel's territory.  I object to stating that simple fact because it doesn't go directly to the matter at hand, namely that (other than in gidonb's private language) that the significant aspect of the settlements is that they are outside of what is recognized as belonging to Israel.  The term "armistice lines" does not directly make this clear.  Jay, could you restore this article to its correct name, by the way?  Marsden 20:33, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "internationally recognized borders" vs. [[1949 Armistice Agreements]] 

message: The phrase "broadly regarded as illegal" seems to contain of weasel words to me; can someone justify its inclusion? Jayjg (talk) 17:23, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Every nation in the world other than Israel -- including Israel's foremost ally, the US -- regard the settlements as illegal.  That seems to to me to fit the definition of "broad."  Marsden 17:39, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "Every nation in the world other than Israel -- including Israel's foremost ally, the US -- regard the settlements as illegal." - could you source that claim, please? Jayjg (talk) 20:17, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I can cite for the US, certainly.  Marsden 20:28, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Broadly regarded as illegal indeed refers to a much used POV. While the major POVs on settlements need to be mentioned, it is important first to define what an Israeli settlement or what Israeli settlements are, before getting into different opinion on these. I have given it a try, which may be somehwat different than either of you had in mind. Lets stick to encyclopedia editing. gidonb 17:42, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Gidonb, do you think that the interpretation of "Israeli settlement" that you have imposed on the article is what anyone means when they think of the term?  Marsden 17:58, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I am certain that many people think of an Israeli settlement when you talk of an Israeli settlement and not about a very small section of the settlements for which the term is sometimes used as a shorthand. Please see my explenations above. gidonb 18:05, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: And do you think that such a definition warrants an encyclopedia entry?  Should we also have articles on "Hungarian settlement" and "Canadian settlement?" What definition of "Israeli settlement" do you think warrants an encyclopedia entry?  I assert that the definition you propose does not, not any more than every other nationality should have a "settlement" article, which they should not. Marsden 18:25, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well many of the settlement forms and definitions change from coutry to country. Israel, since you asked, has several unique types of settlements. Further, each one of these countries has different definitions for categories of settlements and different settlement policies, different size distributions and spatial distributions of settlements, special setllement histories, and much more. All this is intriguing. gidonb 18:32, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It might be more appropriate for you to start an article on Zionist settlements, which I think would more clearly incorporate the sorts of things that you want to include, particularly the communities that became part of Israel proper.  "Israeli settlement" today means something more particular than this. Marsden 18:59, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Also keep in mind there are already articles on Kibbutz, Moshav, Zionism, etc... Ramallite (talk) 19:10, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Sorry Marsden, but this is totally disputed POV. I believe everyone is taught in elemantary school what settlements are. If you do not like to politicize regular communities, you really need to be more sepcific. As things stand now you are virtually moving 6.5 million people out of Israel and commiting a virtual transfer. I assume you do not mean to do any of these. gidonb 19:13, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Gidonb, your move of this article now has the title "Israeli settlements in the West Bank" for an article that refers to settlements in the Gaza Strip, Golan Heights, and Sinai Peninsula.  You are seriously out of order.  Nothing about using the term "Israeli settlements" to mean only settlements outside of Israel proper is moving anyone, virtually or otherwise.  I'm going to request that you be banned if you can't refrain from insisting that everyone else accept your interpretation of widely used terms. Marsden 19:36, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Go ahead. The meaning of settlements is a proper dictionary and social science definition. The Wikipedia definition is clear POV. As you can see below, I was willing to return everything to the previous situation so that we could discuss things, however my edits were improperly reverted and my text were actually deleted from the article while calling my edits to resolve an obvious accuracy problem "vandalism". Thus I had no choice but to restore the correct text. Of course this does not solve the problems other problems of this article, so I suggest that we also adress these. gidonb 19:52, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "broadly regarded as illegal" - [[weasel words]]? 

message: I hope whoever moved this article plans to fix the dozens of incoming links for Israeli settlements, almost all of which refer to these rather than what is now described under that title. —Charles P. (Mirv) 17:27, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently not, or so it appears to me from Talk:Israeli settlements. Palmiro | Talk 05:31, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  title change 

message: Vizcarra is now using the rationale that because "(Julius Stone) is a descendant of Jewish refugees", one can therefore designate him as "sympathetic to Israel".  While his reason for reverting is actually only animus towards SlimVirgin and me, it is worth examining this rather bizarre claim.  By this rationale one could also state that Norman Finkelstein is "sympathetic to Israel", yet he is one of Israel's fiercest critics. Jayjg (talk) 05:55, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the fact that Julius Stone is of Jewish heritage does not preclude him from being an objective scholar on the legality of the territories. Were anyone to suggest that he is an objective scholar on this matter, his other writings would have to be examined. Marsden 06:01, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly (to your first sentence).  I do think, however, that the onus is on whoever wants to claim Stone is not objective to demonstrate it. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 06:20, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. However, he has not yet been presented as an objective scholar. I don't happen to think that he is objective, but I'm not going to go around proving that one scholar after another is biased when they haven't even been promoted as being unbiased. Marsden 06:25, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well we know Stone was a respected legal expert according to sources: "Within his particular specialty of public international law, it could also be accepted that he was a respected and orthodox scholar."  As far as his bias, we only have our wikipedian opinions (which don't belong in the artice)...unless there is a quote by someone (not a wikipedian) who reports his legal opinion as biased or unbiased, we don't need to (nor does Wikipedia policy allow us to) qualify his legal opinion one way or the other. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 07:08, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: On Julius Stone:  "He had a life-long commitment to Israel, argued through such works as Stand Up and Be Counted (1944)."  Marsden 07:53, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "(Julius Stone) is a descendant of Jewish refugees" 

message: Does anyone dispute that the position that the settlements are not illegal correlates very strongly with being pro-Israel, even (and perhaps particularly) among legal scholars?
Does anyone dispute that the phrase, "... some legal scholars have disputed that designation (that the settlements are illegal)" gives the impression that there is no particular correlation between being pro-Israel and believing that the settlements are not illegal?
Does anyone dispute that giving the impression that there is no particular correlation between being pro-Israel and believing that the settlements are not illegal when in fact there is a very strong correlation makes this article misleading in a material way?
Does anyone dispute that Wikipedia should try to avoid having articles that are misleading in a material way?
Does anyone dispute that a logical consequence of all this is that the wording of the phrase quoted above should be changed in order to prevent this article from misleading in a material way?
Does anyone dispute that anyone who reverts the article back to having the phrase quoted above ought to dispute at least one of the items I've named here?
So can those of you who have done exactly this explain yourselves?
Marsden 06:36, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not up to Wikipedians to make correlations and conclusions...that's OR.  It's fine to cite sources who do though.  Do you have any that make these claims? --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 07:14, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, yes it is up to Wikipedians to make correlations and conclusions in some respects. Consider for example the matter of undue weight in Wikipedia's NPOV policy, which includes:  "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not." If the position that the settlements are not illegal is ABSOLUTELY ONLY held by pro-Isaelis among legal scholars (I'm not asserting at this point that this is the case), then it would be strongly arguable that such a position should not be included in Wikipedia at all because the viewpoint is only held by a "vastly limited" minority, or at least that it should not be included in Wikipedia as a legitimate and objective legal opinion. I wouldn't go this far, but it is clearly wrong to present a legal opinion promoted almost exclusively by people on one side of a conflict as though it was something over which there was very much objective disagreement. We went over similar stuff at Israeli-occupied territories -- that the Israeli government and many of Israel's supporters dispute that the territories are really "occupied" does not mean that Wikipedia should steer clear of using that term to describe them because it is POV: it is only POV in about the way that a court verdict is POV because the party that was ruled against considers it wrong. Marsden 07:37, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

text: ??? I may be mistaken in this (perhaps Ramallite will weigh in ...), but my understanding is that the term "settlement" is more objected to by Palestinians than by Israelis -- after all, "settling" implies that the area in question was previously unsettled, which would probably come as news to the people who had been farming and living there for hundreds of years. "Colony" would actually probably be more accurate, but I believe certain parties have strongly objected to that term ... And I don't think anyone argues that the conflict was caused by the Israeli colonies (did that sound better to you?), but only that they exacerbate the existing conflict and stand as an illegal impediment to its ultimate resolution. Marsden 15:36, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Palestinians more often use the Arabic word for "settlements" in referring to the structures, and less often use "colonies" (which is used more often in English-language Palestinian publications). Since it is not disputed that these places are commonly built on confiscated and expropriated property and are for Jews only (hence addressing Humus' point that they are unique in that only Jews can live there, which is why they are singled out as such), the word "settlement" has established a unique definition for itself in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as a politically laden phrase. The word "settlement" thus has a pretty negative connotation among Palestinians, making it unnecessary and redundant to harp on "colony" or "illegal outpost" or whatever. Ramallite (talk) 04:27, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I dont think Schwebel has stated the settlements are legal. What he did write was something along the lines that that the state occuping territory in self-defence from a state which did not hold the legitimate title to the territory had a stronger claim to it (i.e., he meant Israels claim was stronger than that of Jordan and Egypt, although he did not state they actually had a legitimate claim to the entire territory). I assume this is the article cited in Stone, it is available through jstor.org . I dont think Schwebel is jewish, as a trivia I know the current American judge is a holocaust survivor of Jewish Slovakian origin (although my knowledge of his personal beliefs ends there), Buergenthals position is that the settlements are illegal. The fact that his article is published in AIJAC and not in e.g. AJIL or other scholarly journals (as Schwebels article was) is better evidence of what might be a bias in Stones position than his ethnicity, it should be obvious that not all legal expertise of jewish origin holds the same view as Israel. Cybbe 19:19, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I think you overstate Schwebel's position, MPerel. The pdf says that Stone bases some of his arguments on Schwebel, and it quotes Schwebel as saying that Israel after 1967 had a "better title" to the territory than Jordan did after 1948. But he also held that Jordan had absolutely no legal claim whatever to the territory! To have "better title" to a territory than a party that has absolutely no right to be there at all is not the same as having the right to establish permanent settlements there. Marsden 19:30, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does anyone dispute ... ? 

message: I thought I'd point out that there is an article with an almost identical name (Israeli settlements) which is dedicated to a very peculiar interpretation of the term. The article claims that all Israeli communities (including cities in Israel proper) are "settlements." This is an argument that I think most people from both sides of the dispute would strongly disagree with. I have no problem with debating this usage, but the page seems to be designed to deceive people, since most of the pages that connect to the stub were actually intended as links to this page. I think it should be deleted, or, at the very least, edited and merged with this page. 
--161.184.52.227 17:50, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Anon, you are statement is false and is totally against the Wikipedia rules. While there is place for improvement, the article Israeli settlements is precisely about what is in the title, that is Israeli settlements. This article has Israeli settlement as its title, Israeli settlements in bold and discusses only a small minority among the Israeli settlements. Only those which are outside Israel's souvereign territories. As such, it is misleading and POV. gidonb 16:59, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I have not redirected one single article anywhere. As a rule I stay out of political controversies, but rather try to enhance the neutral character of our encyclopedia. It is very convenient to make false accusations from a hidden identity and to admittedly break the rules of our community, but then again, convenience is not everything in life. gidonb 19:17, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Israeli settlements]] 

message: Jewish neighborhoods that coexist with Arab neighborhoods in the same city (e.g. Hebron and Shechem/Nablus) -- is there a Jewish settlement in Nablus? As far as I know, no Israeli settlers reside in Nablus.--Doron 15:04, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, the word coexist means "to exist in mutual tolerance despite different ideologies or interests". Can anyone honestly apply this definition to Hebron? Ramallite (talk) 16:31, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: So why do the settleres keep saying they get along just fine with their Arab neighbors? I wonder.--Doron 00:07, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  You mean, those Arab neighbours who they are intent on driving out? --Zero 01:44, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That was said tongue-in-cheek, of course. This is a claim settlers often make, which I personally find hard to believe...--Doron 05:57, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Jewish neighborhoods that coexist ... (e.g. Hebron and Shechem/Nablus)" 

message: It has been indicated time and again through documents from leading research and educational institutions and by several contributors that the name of this article uses an extremely narrow and biased definition of the concept "settlement". Further, after recent name changes its name is only one "s" apart from the article Israeli settlements. To overcome the ambiguity on the article's contents, I would like to open a discussion on name change. Proposals anyone? gidonb 06:47, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Oppose. This is the most common usage of the term. The material in the other article belongs in Geography of Israel, or, if such an article must exist, it ought to be renamed.--Doron 07:44, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

text: And I have stated my opposition to the very idea.--Doron 07:56, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Thanks for your understanding.--Doron 08:06, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I'm sorry, but this is entirely at odds with Wikipedia conventions regarding the use of common names. Anyone who follows any English-language media sources about Palestine will have a clear idea as to what an Israeli settlement is, and it's what's dealt with in this article, not at the unfortunate Israeli settlements. Of course in French and other languages, the matter is easier as the settlements covered here are referred to as "colonies", and I suppose if you like you could propose that as an alternative title for this page. I suspect, however, that you might encounter some resistance. Palmiro | Talk 13:26, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Well, I was being somewhat sarcastic with the reference to "colonies", I must admit. I prefer this location, as it corresponds to general use and general understanding. Equally, I would have no objection to "Israeli settlements in the Occupied Territories", but you must be aware that "occupied territories" is itself a term that quite a few people object to (on fairly poor grounds, in my view, but the result in any case is an added difficulty to adopting that potential name). I wouldn't lke us to end up with something unwieldy like "israeli settlements in the West Bank, Gaza Strip and Golan". If the article does move, I would still strongly argue that in deference to common use and the principle of least surprise, both "Israeli settlement" and "Israeli settlements" should redirect to it; a redirect pointer at the top such as the one you have just added would in my view be sufficient for the benefit of those really looking for information on settlements (in the broader, human geography sense) in Israel. Palmiro | Talk 13:49, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Name change

message: A proposal for moving Israeli settlements so the name may redirect to this article has been made.  The proposal has implications for the disambiguation debate above.  Please refer to Talk:Israeli settlements  --Bb3cxv 16:59, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This proposal has succeeded, and that article now stands at Settlements in Israel. Palmiro | Talk 02:48, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Formal attempt to resolve naming issues