Talk:House demolition (military)/Archive 1

this article feels like it should either be a subsection in the israeli-palestinian conflict or that it should be made far more generalized.

i also think the title is pretty absured considering "house demolishion" means preparing the area for new construction and it's not a direct meanning of counter terror response as this article suggests. Jaakobou 08:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

i suggest that this article's name be changed as house demolishion by definition is not a military tactic. i also object to the POV removal of material. i even somewhat suggest that this article be removed as the body as nothing to do with the title and in my opinion, is an agenda piece. eternalsleeper

Yaacov Lozowick

In what way is Yaacov Lozowick notable enought to be given so much space in the article? // Liftarn

Liftarn, if you have a particular concern, let's see it. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 20:14, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I think I just stated it. In what way is Yaacov Lozowick notable in this context? // Liftarn

He's a historian and a writer, and this quote is about the subject of the article. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 07:25, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, he's not any more qualified to speak on the subject than... say a dentist. Ah, I see he has a degree in philosophy. Then it's OK. // Liftarn

However I disagree with the tone of the phrase "presents the ethical rationale" as it gives a biased impression. Something like "says that" or "writes that" would be more neutral. // Liftarn

Hi Liftarn, I put in that wording. Every time I read "says that," "writes that," or – worst of all – "states," a part of me dies. In this case I like "presents"; after all we're including Lozowick not because of his credentials, marvelous as they are, but because he crisply articulates a moral justification for demolitions that enjoys wide currency. The word "rationale" has negative connotations, positive connotations, and neutral connotations, yet it isn't colorless and ghastly like "states"; all-in-all it seems a good solid NPOV word.--G-Dett 16:00, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't like "states" either as it makes it sound like the person just states an uncontroversial fact. If Yaacov Lozowick didn't have any credentials, why include him at all? We can't just add quotes from random nobodies just because a particular editor likes them. He is included because of his credentials as a philosopher (so it should say "philosopher" instead of "historian" as he is quoted as a philosopher, not a historian). "ethical rationale" makes it sound like house demolitions are both ethical and rational, while they are neither. // Liftarn

Lozowick is a historian. For the record, Liftarn attempted to portray a legitimate response to criticism as "promotion" ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 11:08, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Cool it, Humus.--G-Dett 12:49, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Find another place to cheerlead for such behavior. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 01:43, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Please try to keep yourself from calling everybody who disagrees with you a racist and from the quite it was clear thet he endored it as what he thought was the lesser of two evils. // Liftarn

Humus, you accused Liftarn of a "typical antisemitic libel against those wicked bloodthirsty Jews." [1] His edit was innocuous. Your edit was a ridiculous and hysterical smear. I told you to cool it. Now you alter your comment and thereby misrepresent mine, so that you can then accuse me of "cheerleading." Behave, or get off this page.--G-Dett 14:09, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't boss me around. I restored my comment and I stand by it. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 22:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Good for you for restoring your comment. I stand by my position that it was an intellectually vapid and ethically irresponsible smear.--G-Dett 22:11, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

House demolition is a key example of Zionism in action. Fortunately Zionists on Wikipedia can not demolish our homes, so they have to content themselves with reverting our edits and making vitriolic comments on talk-pages. I have never understood the rational for this behavior. But they seem to think that the more abusive they are, the more people will support their cause. ابو علي (Abu Ali) 06:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Humus sapiens if you are not interested in improving the article I suggest you go elsewhere. // Liftarn

Coming changes

Some things that will be changing in this article:

1. The lead will dispense with the coy nonsense and state that this is about a controversial tactic within the Israel-Palestine conflict. The current lead’s cake-and-eat-it POV-trick – pretending on the one hand that the subject is general to military history, while on the other hand sneaking in ethical rationalizations and justifications transparently tailored to the I-P conflict (“particularly an insurgency which employs suicide attacks," etc.) – is cute, perhaps, but cheap, unencyclopedic and unacceptable.
2. The article will be modified and expanded to make clear that while the stated justification for demolitions of Palestinian homes is often security, at other times it's a lack of building permits or other legal/technical infractions.
3. It will be made clear that the practice is hotly controversial in world opinion and especially in the eyes of major human rights organizations, including B'Tselem, Human Rights Watch, and Amnesty International. That it is frequently condemned as collective punishment, and seen by many as a tactic for making life untenable for Palestinians as well as facilitating the expansion and consolidation of Israeli settlements in Palestinian territory.
4. The Lozowick material will be trimmed down and balanced by the views of someone (Jeff Halper seems an obvious choice) with actual expertise about house demolitions, both in policy and practice.

This is just a heads-up. I welcome feedback, suggestions, and above all cooperation, but these are fairly obvious and preliminary changes, so with any luck there won’t be any unnecessary unpleasantness.--G-Dett 22:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I think I basically agree with these directions for expansion, but I am reserving judgment until I see the actual changes. nadav (talk) 22:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for discussing these planned changes here first, before making large-scale potentially non-consensus edits to the article itself

1. Please don't intorduce the false claim that this tactic is unique to the I-P conflict. See this as just one exmaple showing its use elswhere. I could come up with many more if needed, but I trust one such counter example should be sufficient.
2. Please don't conflate demolitions carried out for buildings without permit, which is a civil procedure that has nothing to do with fighting terrorism, with the military tactic. Isarig 22:38, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestions Isarig. Regarding the first, I don't intend to claim that "this tactic is unique to the I-P conflict." I intend to make clear that this article is about the I-P conflict, since that is overwhelmingly clear from the current version, lead on down. If you want to expand the article so that it's about something broader than the I-P conflict, I am of course amenable to that, within the constraints of WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV (the overwhelming preponderance of source materials, popular and scholarly, on house demolitions pertains to Israel-Palestine). What will absolutely not be acceptable is the rhetorical double-game I outlined in item #1 above, whereby the article surreptitiously sneaks in advocacy tailored for the Israelis while pretending that its topic is more general. Your second point has its shoe on the wrong foot. Mistaken conflations aren't the issue here; specious distinctions are. A great many prominent reliable sources, including scholars and human-rights organizations, treat what you distinguish as the "military tactic" and "demolitions carried out for buildings without permit" as together constituting a single phenomenon.--G-Dett 23:04, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

No, this article is not about the I-P conflict, it is about a military tactic to counter insurgency. There is much to be said about the media's fascination with Israel the and double-standards which results in a preponderance of RS documenting and commenting on the use of this tactic in Israel, vs. the virtual non-existence of such coverage when the tactic is used elsewhere, but that is really another matter. Not every article in WP needs to be made into another I-P battleground. Feel free to suggest removal of anything that makes it specific to the I-P conflict, and I assure you I will not object. with regards to point 2, see nadav's comment below, with which I agree. Isarig 01:40, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

It is a matter of empirical fact that this article in its current form is about the I-P conflict. This is clear from the very first sentence on down. We may wish that it weren't, and we may edit it so that it isn't, but at the present moment it is without a doubt an article about Israel-Palestine. It just isn't honest or direct about this indisputable fact. I rewrote what was coy and insinuating ("a tactic for combating an insurgency, particularly an insurgency which employs suicide attacks") so that it was direct and NPOV ("a tactic for combating an insurgency...a controversial component of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict") , but 6SJ7 reverted me. He has yet to explain why.--G-Dett 17:31, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

The article should remain focused on house demolition as a counter-insurgency tool of collective punishment. If we open it up to other types of demolition, then we are opening a floodgate. We will have to start merging into the article info about demolishing slums in Africa and who knows what else. nadav (talk) 23:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Demolitions are executed suddenly, in an atmosphere of a major military operation with an accompaniment sometimes of several hundred armed soldiers. Bulldozers are most commonly used to carry out demolitions. House demolition often results in serious damage to neighboring houses. Once the house is demolished, families are not provided with alternate accommodation. Not surprisingly, rather than being rendered homeless or living in a tent, many of the evicted families return to the original site of their homes to rebuild and, as a result,risk being forcibly evicted again. Building or renovating a house without an Israeli government-issued permit is the primary reason Palestinian houses are demolished in East Jerusalem. These building permits (required for dwellers living on the southern outskirts of Ramallah to the northern edge of Bethlehem) are impossible for Palestinians to obtain. Giving Meaning to Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights, University of Pennsylvania Press, p.162

Are slum demolitions in Africa carried out by several hundred armed soldiers, in an atmosphere of a major military operation?--G-Dett 23:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Put info on that in East Jerusalem, where it will be much more relevant. nadav (talk) 23:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Since you ask, the answer is a clear "Yes":

"She was already at work when the then Prime Minister and the Minister of Urban Planning arrived with a demolition team at 8.30am. They were accompanied by soldiers, who slapped and shoved anyone who complained or resisted the demolitions."

"Some 600 families in the Angolan capital, Luanda, were forcibly evicted in March when state forces swept into their neighbourhoods and destroyed their homes. Police and private security guards reportedly shot at, beat and kicked residents, including a pregnant woman and a woman carrying a baby on her back. A youth was beaten by seven police officers and a private security guard. A boy of about six was shot in the knee"

"without notice, heavily armed members of the Angolan National Police demolished an estimated 148 houses in Cambamba I and 192 houses in Banga Wé."

all quotes from Amnesty, I'm sure you can find many more yourself. Isarig 01:49, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the quotes, Isarig. I guess my question was rather naïvely phrased. Do you know anything about the situation in Angola or Cambamba? Are these military demolitions part of a war over territory between two peoples? Have they been treated by Amnesty and other reliable sources side-by-side with "counter-insurgency" demolitions as constituting a single phenomenon? These aren't rhetorical questions; I know next to nothing about Angola and Cambamba.--G-Dett 13:19, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I think your question was posed correctly, it just failed to achieve the rhetorical effect you were aiming for. I don't know much about the the situation in Angola or Cambamba, but unless you assume this is some random act of violence, I am pretty sure there is some government agenda behind it. You've failed to differentiate between Israeli demolitions and African ones on the basis of the use of military force, or the suddeness, or the atmosphere, and so you are now digging deeper to try to find some justification for the POV that the Israeli situation is unique. I'm sure if you dig deep enough, you will eventually come up with some dimension along which the situations are not very similar, but I'm sure you realize this would be hair splitting for the purpose of pushing a certain POV.

Please note the POV embodied in your loaded question - you are already assuming the veracity of the POV that in the I-P conflict, civilian demolitions carried out under the protection of military forces, is part of a war over territory between two peoples.

And as a side note, you might wish to reflect on why it is that you "know next to nothing about Angola and Cambamba", and why I'm in a similar position, when the AI report makes it clear that the demolitions there are of similar scale to those in Israel, and often involve the shooting and killing of protesters, and how that relates to my previous comment regarding media double standards. Isarig 16:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

You and I have had our fun in the past, Isarig, and I hope you won't take it the wrong way if I don't respond to the invitation for another round. I'll only suggest that you might reply to graciousness in kind. Your reasons for knowing nothing about Africa are doubtless different from mine, but we can't much get into that without bringing in our biographical selves, which I for one will demur from doing. You are certainly right that in general, the world pays disproportionate attention to the goings-on in Israel-Palestine. If you'd to speculate about why that is, or hear my counter-speculations, I invite you to my talk page. With regards to the subject of this article, most reliable sources treat as a single phenomenon what you wish to separate into two. The Amnesty International report that our article depends so heavily upon (it's currently our only general background source on house demolitions) begins as follows:

For decades Israel has pursued a policy of forced eviction(1) and demolition of homes of Palestinians living under occupation in the West Bank and Gaza Strip and the homes of Israeli Arabs in Israel. In the past three and a half years the scale of the destruction carried out by the Israeli army in the Occupied Territories has reached an unprecedented level. The victims are often amongst the poorest and most disadvantaged in both Israeli and Palestinian society. Most of the houses demolished by the Israeli army in the Occupied Territories were the homes of refugee families, who were expelled by Israeli forces or who fled in the war that followed the creation of Israel in 1948.

More than 3,000 homes, hundreds of public buildings and private commercial properties, and vast areas of agricultural land have been destroyed by the Israeli army and security forces in Israel and the Occupied Territories in the past three and a half years. Tens of thousands of men, women and children have been forcibly evicted from their homes and made homeless or have lost their source of livelihood. Thousands of other houses and properties have been damaged, many beyond repair. In addition, tens of thousands of other homes are under threat of demolition, their occupants living in fear of forced eviction and homelessness.

Forced evictions and house demolitions are usually carried out without warning, often at night, and the occupants are given little or no time to leave their homes. Sometimes they are allowed a few minutes or half an hour, too little to salvage their belongings. Often the only warning is the rumbling of the Israeli army’s bulldozers and tanks and the inhabitants barely have time to flee as the bulldozers begin to tear down the walls of their homes. Thousands of families have had their homes and possessions destroyed under the blades of the Israeli army’s US-made Caterpillar bulldozers. In the wake of the demolitions men, women and children return to the ruins of their homes searching for whatever can be salvaged from under the rubble: passports or other documents, children’s schoolbooks, clothes, kitchenware or furniture which were not destroyed.

In most cases the justification given by the Israeli authorities for the destruction of homes, agricultural land and other properties is "military/security needs", while in other cases the justification is lack of building permits. The result is the same: families are left homeless and destitute. They must rely on relatives, friends and charity organizations for shelter and subsistence. (emphasis added)

That your POV is endorsed by the Israeli government does not make it NPOV.--G-Dett 16:55, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Addendum: Isarig, please note that both of the sources you've just added treat demolitions-citing-lack-of-permit and demolitions-citing-security together as constituting a single phenomenon. Here's what the B'Tselem report says:

Over the last four years, Israel has demolished 4,100 Palestinian homes in the Occupied Territories. About sixty percent were carried out in the framework of what Israel calls "clearing operations." Twenty-five percent were destroyed because Israel claims they were built without permit. The remaining fifteen percent were demolished as a means to punish the families and neighbors of Palestinians suspected of involvement in carrying out attacks against Israelis.

--G-Dett 17:13, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Rename article to narrow scope?

I think the article should be renamed (WP:Move) "House demolition in Israel" or "House demolition in the arab-israeli conflict". Personally I think other conflicts could be in a separate article (or articles, depending on how much interest there is) --George100 13:42, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it makes sense to limit the page only to Israel when there is relevant similar information on other countries (here's an example of US use in Iraq: [2]). We write the general article first, and then if it becomes too large we can branch it off per WP:SUMMARY. nadav (talk) 14:28, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I think your suggestion is sensible, Nadav. But we need to make the general general, and the specific specific. What we can't do is keep setting up a pea-and-shell trick, where we pretend our topic is broad and general while sneaking in POV-advocacy hand-tailored for Israel. 6SJ7's latest edit restores this rhetorical three-card Monte to the lead. I hope he'll reconsider.--G-Dett 15:09, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

"Hose demlitions in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict" or "Israeli house demolitions" could work if we want a narrower scope. "...in Israel" doesn't work since demolitions are done outside the Israeli borders and "...in the arab-israeli conflict" is too inprecise. // Liftarn

Is this an article about Israel-Palestine or not?

6SJ7, can you provide a detailed rationale for your revert of the lead? Thanks.--G-Dett 14:58, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Original research

The claim that this tactic is used on a "small scale" elsewhere, and is controversial only in the I-P context seems to be OR. Until a reference can be shown that explicitly says that the use elsewhere is "small scale", I will remove this OR. It is also quit eevitent that the controversy extends beyond th eI-P conflict, see for example this Isarig 16:53, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

The numbers speak for themselves. Israel has destroyed over 3000 homes, and Amnesty claims the US has destroyed 15. One is small scale, the other is not. Raul654 17:13, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Please see below. WP:UNDUE, not WP:NOR is the relevant policy issue here.--G-Dett 17:19, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

RfC on article lead

There is a tense debate about whether the lead of this article should indicate that house demolitions are a "controversial component of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict." According to WP:LEAD,

The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, summarizing the most important points, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describing its notable controversies, if there are any. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic according to reliable, published sources.

In this case, seven of the eight reliable sources for this article focus exclusively on the practice of house demolitions as a component of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Only one sentence in our article is cited to a source that treats the topic more generally; this source is given as Samuel Katz's The Hunt for the Engineer. That citation is a little misleading, however, as it's been truncated. Here's the full title: The Hunt for the Engineer: How Israeli Agents Tracked the Hamas Master Bomber. So to recap and revise: all of our sources focus on house demolitions in the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. That focus is indeed exclusive, with the exception of a digression one writer makes from that subject, a digression which then appears as general historical background in our article. The truncated title contributes to this misleading appearance (that is not to say the editor who added it had any such intentions).

A search on Google Books [3] for all books containing the phrase "house demolitions" yielded 299 results. I went through the first 50 by hand, so to speak. 48 of these 50 sources focused on Israel-Palestine. Of the two exceptions, one was a passage in Pragmatic Women and Body Politics which mentioned house demolition as one of various punitive measures the goverment of China has used against families who don't comply with the one-child policy; the other was a passage in a book on urban planning (Planning and the Heritage: policy and procedures) which lamented the loss of "stately country homes" in the aftermath of World War II. In other words, 48 of 50 sources checked dealt with house demolition by this article's definition, as a counter-insurgency tactic, and all 48 focused exclusively on the tactic as a component of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I fully expected that most RS material on the tactic of house demolitions would focus on Israel-Palestine, but I was surprised to discover that the phrase itself seems to be almost exclusively associated with that conflict.

I also did two Lexis-Nexis searches, one for "house demolitions" + terrorism, and one for "house demolitions" + insurgency. The latter produced 49 citations, 47 of which focused exclusively on Israel-Palestine. The former produced 248 citations; again I hand-checked the first 50. Of these 50, only two discussed anything other than Israel-Palestine. Because the pattern was so overwhelmingly clear, I did not see the need to hand-check the remainder, or to try other search permutations. I realize however that not everyone has access to Lexis-Nexis, and I'll gladly perform other relevant searches at the request of other editors.

It should be emphasized that all of the book sources, and almost all of the newspaper sources, addressed house demolitions as a highly controversial practice.

Lastly, I want to point out that notwithstanding the edit-warring over the lead, editors on all sides seem at least tacitly to concede that this article is about Israel-Palestine. The "Criticism and Response" section consists entirely of polemics about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict; until yesterday commentary consisted solely of a lengthy block-quote from Right to Exist: A Moral Defense of Israel's Wars (until I trimmed it, was reverted and trimmed it again, the passage covered everything from Israeli checkpoints and movement restrictions to civilian casualties resulting from Jenin-style urban warfare, and only touched glancingly on house demolitions). From the article's very inception, its lead has consisted of a thinly veiled (and POV-pushing) reference to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict: "House demolition (also known as house razing) is a tactic for combating an insurgency, particularly an insurgency which employs suicide attacks." Not one editor here has ever challenged that wording, until I did yesterday and today. In both cases my edit substitutes forthright and NPOV wording ("a controversial component of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict") for veiled POV wording ("...particularly an insurgency which employs suicide attacks"). In both cases I was instantly reverted.--G-Dett 17:01, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

No, the editors on all sides do not "concede that this article is about Israel-Palestine", either tacitly or otherwise. I have explicitly stated a position that is the opposite of this claim, and have provided several references which make it clear the article is and should be about the general tactic - as it was used by the British in the early 20th century, by the Russians in Chechnya, by the US is Iraq , and elsewhere - including but not limited to the use by Israel. Isarig 17:37, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

There are WP:UNDUE issues you need to address, given the above.--G-Dett 17:49, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with G-Dett that this is topic is primarily related to the P-I conflit, and his searches make quite evident. I'm adding a "In other conflicts" section to address these issues. Raul654 17:51, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

PS - I'm having difficulty finding a source that backs up the Russians-in-Chechyna claim that Isarig has made. I remember seeing it a few days ago. What's the URL? Raul654 17:53, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Here it is Raul.--G-Dett 17:59, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I've reorganized the article into three big categories - house demolitions as part of clearing operations (e.g, for security buffer zones), house demolitions as punitive operations, and house demolitions in other conflicts. What do you guys think? Raul654 18:14, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

As long as we stick to the military use, I'm OK. It's when you get into civil use, such as clearing unrecognized settlements, that the floodgate opens. Then we have to talk about the hundreds of thousands of homes that have been razed in Nigeria in the past four years, say. Not that I'm opposed to having a more general article, but it would completely change the focus of this one, since that kind of demolition occurs in a multitude of third-world countries. nadav (talk) 20:58, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the sentence 'house demolitions have been used in small-scale in a number of conflicts, house demolition has become a controversial component of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict' is OR, as well as POV. Unless you have a source that explicitly says such use has been "small scale" in other conflicts, all we have to go by is your assertion that this is the case. I have also provided several references which show the use has been controversial (i.e: criticized by AI and HRW) in other conflicts, so the sentence that implies that it is only controversial in the I-P conflict is POV. I further find it troubling that you have violated 3RR to get to your desired version, and are now editing the article even after it has been protected (by the same admin who chose to ignore your clear violation of 3RR). This stinks. Isarig 23:14, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Unless you have a source ... all we have to go by is your assertion that this is the case. - We have sources that gives the actual number of houses destroyed. Israel has destroyed 4,100 homes (give or take), the US has allegedly destroyed 15. One is *very* clearly smaller than the other. Raul654 00:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Raul, I think your division has potential. What I'd really prefer to see when the article opens up, however, is the following: a slightly expanded lead, with a sentence devoted to the history of the practice, a sentence devoted to the international-law/Geneva-conventions-related controversies surrounding its use, a sentence devoted to its prominent and controversial role within the I-P conlict, and finally a sentence noting its role in other conflicts (Chechnya, Iraq, Pakistan, etc.). Then I think the article should be divide into corresponding subsections. The history section will need more research and should have better and hopefully more general sources than The Hunt for the Engineer: How Israeli Agents Tracked the Hamas Master Bomber. The I-P section should follow the lead of the voluminous RS-material on the matter, and treat collectively all three kinds of demolition of Palestinian homes ("clearance," lack of permits, deterrence/punishment). Nadav's objection that this would open the floodgates to third-world slum demolitions is a serious and good-faith one, but I don't find it compelling. The organic wholes and natural divisions of Wikipedia subject matter are decided by the existing foundation of RS-materials, not by what seems abstractly logical or fair to Wikipedians. If a critical mass of expert reliable sources on slum demolitions treat them as part and parcel of counterinsurgency campaigns, constituting a single phenomenon with military "deterrence" demolitions (as the critical mass of literature on Israeli demolitions does), then we should be open to including the literature on slum demolitions. If it doesn't, we shouldn't. There needn't be any hand-wringing about this.

There is no shortage of RS-material for the section on international-law-related controversies. The section on other conflicts will need a little more research, especially regarding Chechnya; sources on Iraq shouldn't be too difficult.--G-Dett 00:14, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

We have a problem then. I fundamentally disagree with the idea of describing only demolitions of houses built without Israeli permits without also describing the same phenomenon in other places. Either we keep this as an article on a very specific technique used in particular battle situations, or we open it to all massive government house demolition projects. The Nigerian government has left hundreds of thousands of people homeless since 2003, the Mugabe government campaign has affected millions (see Operation Murambatsvina), etc. etc. I also don't understand why you arbitrarily decided that demolitions of Palestinian homes in East Jerusalem is a counter-insurgency tactic. You will find that there are enough similarities in this use of demolition to uses in other countries that there is no reason not to include material on them. nadav (talk) 02:00, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I do see your point, Nadav. But I also think this sort of problem gets artificially magnified when discussing content that has yet to be written. I would be happy to clearly subordinate discussion of permit-demolitions to deterrence- and 'clearance'-demolitions, and provide links to other articles where the former could be more fully discussed. But it would be difficult and artificial to try to maintain a firewall between them, because our sources don't. The obstacles we've already encountered in balancing the Lozowick quote provide a case in point. Isarig has edit-warred out the quote from the Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions because it doesn't make the distinction you want to uphold for this article:

"The thinking is that a national threat calls for a national response, invariably aggressive. Accordingly, a Jewish house without a permit is an urban problem; but a Palestinian home without a permit is a strategic threat. A Jew building without a permit is ‘cocking a snook at the law’; a Palestinian doing the same is defying Jewish sovereignty over Jerusalem."

But the fact is, this quote is representative. Most sources don't observe that distinction, as can be seen from the B'Tselem and Amnesty International quotes above. I would also add that by describing permitless Palestinian construction as a "national threat" "defying Jewish sovereignty over Jerusalem" that "calls for a national response, invariably aggressive," the ICAHD quote is not only not observing the distinction but pretty explicitly challenging it, defining this kind of demolition as counter-insurgency. And unless I'm mistaken, there are other reliable sources who maintain that Palestinian terror attacks are often followed by a wave of "administrative" demolitions that appear to be punitive.

The section on Israel-Palestine could focus on the demolitions carried out for deterrence and clearance, and then touch on the mass demolitions carried out for lack of permits, citing reliable sources who treat these practices as a single phenomenon of collective punishment, deterrence, and so on. And if there are countering sources who insist upon a hard-and-fast distinction between these practices, as I'm sure there are, then they too could be quoted for balance. So that what you and others understandably consider to be an unacceptable or unwarranted assumption can be sourced, presented as a point of dispute rather than a point of departure. In any event, I think we should move forward and collaborate on a draft, and deal with necessary distinctions as they arise. As I said at the beginning of this post, trying to charter the zones of the unwritten is unnecessarily difficult and contentious; in the process of writing, compromise and common-sense solutions will suggest themselves.--G-Dett 03:09, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Using the synthesis provided by a partisan organisation whose raison d'etre stems from that synthesis as a model of how we should build this entry presents a circular logic that is wrong in so many ways...Tewfik^Talk 03:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

If this organization's "synthesis" were unique or unusual, your reasoning would be unassailable. From what I can tell, however, it's the norm. It seems that it's the separation that's confined to the Israeli government and a few partisan sources.--G-Dett 14:04, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Numerous sources, including ones very critical of the Israeli policy make the distinction very clearly. One of the sources I added, "THE LEGALITY OF HOUSE DEMOLITIONS

UNDER INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN LAW", by the Harvard Program on Humanitarian Policy and Conflict Research, explicitly states that "the above three types of demolitions are distinct in nature" (though difficult to distinguish in practice since all of them are conducted by Israeli authorities and end up with the same result.), and for that reason , the policy briefing discusses only the latter two types, and not the administrative demolition conducted for lack of permits. There is simply no need to conflate these issues (unless we want to push a certain POV) Isarig 04:42, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, if it is a matter of dispute whether the two types of house demolitions can be separated, then yes, the dispute should be covered. But we should accept the consequences and add coverage of house demolitions in other countries too. There is no reason not to, really. The article will be longer and will take more time to get written, but that's not a reason to shy away from it. We can of course start with just the info on Israel, since I assume that's what we're more familiar with. This approach will also allow us to cover the large scale demolition of unrecognized Bedouin towns in the Negev, about which similar allegations have been made as in the East Jerusalem case. nadav (talk) 05:07, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

There's no dispute on whether the two types of house demolitions can be separated, of course they can, and numerous obvious distinctions exist. the question is whether or not the two should be distinguished. There's a POV that says "no" - predictably sourced to pro-Palestinian sources, and a POV that says yes, equally predictably sourced to pro-Israeli sources. I'd like to suggest the opposite of what you propose: Let's start with adding the info on Africa, the info on China that G-Dett has unearthed, etc.. As you have posted before, the scale of those demolitions dwarfs anything Israel is accused of, and is really not hard to source. I suspect the various POV-pushers will quickly lose interest in THAT project, but I'd be happy to be proven wrong. Isarig 05:15, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Regarding China, I found only the one passing mention in a discussion of the one-child policy. Maybe you have other sources? I would be very interested indeed in a general and wide-ranging article about mass demolitions as a human-rights issue, if that's what you're suggesting. I had thought you were set on describing it as a tactic for fighting an insurgency; perhaps I'm wrong. Either rubric is OK with me. There are a great many reliable sources describing Israel's "administrative" (no permit) demolitions as such. I don't think anyone describes the aforementioned Chinese practice as such. They might well do with regards to Africa, and if so let's include it (According to Operation Murambatsvina "the United Nations has described the campaign as an effort to drive out and make homeless large sections of the urban and rural poor, who comprise much of the internal opposition to the Mugabe administration"; the last clause suggests it could qualify). While I don't think it makes sense to get really deep in the weeds about what will and won't qualify in as-yet-unwritten content, we do need to decide the basic purview of the article. There are three possibilities: house demolition as a human-rights issue, house demolition as a counter-insurgency tactic, and house demolitions in the I-P conflict. You've made clear the third is unacceptable to you; what is your preference between the first two?--G-Dett 15:58, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

My position was (and still is) that this article should focus exclusively on the use of home demolitions as a counter-insurgency tactic. However, it seems I am in a minority here, and that a consensus has emerged to include civilian home demolitions as well. In that case, we should describe that use in Africa, India, China and elsewhere- describing the government agenda (both official position and allegations about other motives) in every case. Isarig 17:11, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this article should focus exclusively on home demolition as a counter-insurgency tactic. Raul654 17:18, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

That's my preference as well, but I'm open to other approaches. In his last post Isarig suggested an approach that would mean treating the subject as a general human-rights issue, and concluded by saying he didn't expect the "various POV-pushers" to go along with the plan. I assumed from that post that what he preferred was the general human-rights-issue approach, so I was expressing openness to that.--G-Dett 17:30, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Well House demolitions are certainly a contrvertial practice and a problematic one for the Zionists. Destroying homes of Palestinian children and elderly as punishment for alleged resistence by their relatives does not make Israel look good. It illustrates too clearly the way Zionism treats the indiginous population.

The demolition of homes lacking planning permission is another Israeli weapon wich is aslo used against Israeli Arabs. The vast majority of Arab homes are built without planning permission, because the Israeli authorties refuse to give the permission but even Arabs need to live somewhere. This means that most arab homes are under constant threat of demolition and the authorities can and do make use of this blackmail in order to recruit collaborators and in order to disuade Arabs from political activism.

Pro Zionist wikipideans can not get the article deleted as it is clearly notable. So they tried to use the actions of suicide bombers to justify Israel's actions. Because they can argue house demolitions may not be so nice, but not nearly as bad as blowing people up on busses, and possibly justified or at least understandable if it prevented such terrorism by Palestinians. But unfortunately for them this arguement does not hold water, as Israel has been demolishing Palestinian homes for decades preceeding the start of Hamas Suicide bombings (1994s), an insignificant minority of the thousands of homes Israel destroys actually belong to suicide bombers and because the Israeli Army's own investigation concluded that House demolitions were counterproductive (i.e. they exposed the nature of Zionism so clearly that far more people rose up against it).

So the new tactic is to broaden the article to cover house demolitions across the whole world. Then the attention of our reader can be diverted to other countries actions, and the mention is Israel's crimes can be whittled down to a few lines on the grounds of unde weight. Again the problem for our Zionist friends is that even the most oppressive and bloodthirsty regimes are generally not so stupid as to use such blatently outrageous forms of punishment. ابو علي (Abu Ali) 06:27, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Abu Ali, I am offended by what you write here. First, your generalizations about "Zionist editors" are not constructive towards improving and expanding this article. Secondly, you assign ulterior motives to my desire to expand treatment to other countries. You should instead assume good faith. I genuinely believe that it is only right and fair to also include info about massive government house razing campaigns in other places. Third, your prophecy about undue weight will not materialize, since there are extensive sources on every side of the spectrum about Israel house demolitions. Lastly, you should not be so quick to throw in the word "Zionist", since it means different things to different people. nadav (talk) 07:19, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Nadav on all points.--G-Dett 15:38, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

In terms of notability, it seems to me that the Israeli-Palestinian case is the one that has attracted the attention of the world's media, in part because of the Rachel Corrie case. People who are consulting Wikipedia on the topic of house demolition are likely to be seeking information about this issue. Therefore I think it is legitimate to recognize in the intro that there is a particular controversy about Israel/Palestine. Other cases may be of interest and can be included in the body of the article. --Marvin Diode 06:36, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Good point. I tried to link Rachel Corrie to this article, but have been reverted 4 times on various (in my opinion spurious) grounds. Am I being unreasonable. ابو علي (Abu Ali) 09:13, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

You were reverted there on the grounds that you were stating as fact something which is disputed. This was explained to you several times, yet you repeated this 4 times. So yes, you are being unreasonable. Isarig 10:04, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I saw this from a post on Talk:Operation Murambatsvina. You must provide a worldly outlook. You cannot focus on one country's experience with the phenomenon of house demolition. Abu Ali, very little of your above comments actually deal with the Wikipedia article itself. If you wish to discuss the merits of Zionism do so on a blog, not Wikipedia. Perspicacite 07:17, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the article title should be changed to reflect the fact that it deals almost exclusively with demolition of Palestinian houses by Israel (the exceptions being a reference to demolition during the British Mandate period, which can be viewed as historical background of the Israeli practice, and very short references to Russian and American practices). The lead merely reflects what is written in the rest of the article, and in this sense it is reasonable. The title is the problem, surely "house demolition" has other meanings that are not related to military tactics against civilian population.--Doron 19:15, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

The proper process for writing an encyclopedic article is to decide what the article should be about, and then write it accordingly, not to look at what is currently in the article (which may be POV or unencyclopedic), and rename the article to fit the flawed content. If the article is about military tactics against civilian population, focusing it exclusively (or nearly so) on the Israeli use of the tactic would be a POV violation. Isarig 19:22, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

The title is fine. Your assertion, that the British mandate statement is the only one from other conflicts, is false, as the "House demolitions in other conflicts" section makes clear. Raul654 20:03, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Come on, the "other conflics" section is little more than a "see also" section. I mean the very choice of words for the title of the section says it all -- most of the article is about the "x conflict", and at the end you also mention "conflicts other than x". Are you denying that the article is almost exclusively about the Israeli tactics? When I first saw the RfC, I was sure the article was chiefly about civil house demolition, and was expecting this conflict to be yet another case of Middle-East-related POV-pushing. As it turns out, the article was about a specific context (Israel-Palestine) within a specific area (military), which is perfectly fine, except that it is not what the title says.

Anyway, my main point was that the lead is consistent with the rest of the article. The article is primarily about military house demolition in the Israeli-Palestinian context, and failing to mention this in the intro would mislead the readers to expect an article about the practice in a global context.--Doron 20:25, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the article should be focused mostly on the Israel-Palestine conflict - it's clear just from googling for "house demolition" that that is the predominant meaning in English. On the other hand, it should mention other conflicts, assuming reliable sources can be found. As I said above, I also believe it should not talk about house demolition in the civil context - that's what the demolition article is for; it should focus exclusively on the counter-insurgency tactic. The title is not ambiguous with any other 'house demolition' concept, so according to the manual of style, we don't needlessly disambiguate. Raul654 20:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree that this is the predominant meaning in English. "House demolition" is not some technical phrase or terminology. If you think it is a special phrase that predominantly refers only to Israel-Palestine, then there needs to be a source about the phrase itself that backs this up (like a report in a technical journal that says "House demolition is a counter-insurgeny tactic primarily used by the Israeli government"). Otherwise, we can only understand it from the dictionary definitions of the words, which refer to all house demolitions. Obviously, a "house demolitions" article will cover only the important house demolitions that are written about in sources, namely the ones that have been mentioned above. I have already found a few sources on government demolition campaigns in China, Africa, and South America, and I see no reason not to include these in that kind of article. So either we change the title to something much more specific such as "Military uses of house demolition" or "House demolition as counter-terrorism technique" (which means not covering demolitions in East Jerusalem and the Negev), or we keep it the way it is and add more info on Palestinian homes and other countries. nadav (talk) 21:19, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I see, you say that there is a distinction between "demolition", which is in general usage, and "house demolition", which is used primarily in this specific context. Well, I still think that the uninitiated reader who stumbles across this article might not get what he or she was looking for, but whatever.--Doron 21:01, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

That's why it says, at the top of the article, This article is about a tactic for combating an insurgency. For civilian demolition of houses, see demolition. And if they are still under the wrong impression after reading that, they need more help than we can provide. Raul654 01:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

In response to the RFC . . . I'm not totally clear on what the current points of contention are. But it seems to me that if the vast majority of sources in this article -- and the vast majority of sources available on this topic -- are about the Israel/Palestine conflict, then it's reasonable to mention the Israel/Palestine conflict in the header. In specific response to the RFC, I think the language "controversial component of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict" is reasonable to include. Maybe I'd use the word "notable" instead of "controversial", since the term "controversial" sometimes seems to itself provoke controversy on WP. (I personally wouldn't object to the word "controversial" here though, since it is controversial.) Organ123 02:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

To make a further point ... if I understand others' correctly, I am in agreement that this article should not be about home demolitions in general, but about military demolitions. And I agree that if other countries besides Israel are using military demolitions, they should be mentioned (but in accordance with WP:UNDUE). However, I'm not sure I like the definition "House demolition (also known as house razing) is a tactic for combating an insurgency," since it may also be a "punitive measure against" a "population", as B'Tselem notes; "population" being different from "insurgency" (at least by military definitions, I assume). Organ123 02:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Organ123's points are well taken. Israel/Palestine should be mentioned in the lead, other cases of home demolition policies should be discussed in the article to an extent commensurate with their notability, and it should be noted that the policy may be "punitive" as well as "counter-insurgent." Also, the line "particularly a population that employs suicide attacks" is a bit ridiculous -- how do house demolitions prevent suicide attacks? It looks like a POV apology for the practice. --Marvin Diode 14:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

"how do house demolitions prevent suicide attacks?" - as the quote from Sam Katz says, "Destroying the house of a terrorist ... was cruel and after the fact, but it was meant to convince fathers to convince their sons that carrying out a terrorist attack, no matter how justified in the grander struggle, meant enormous hardship for the family." That's how it prevents suicide attacks. Raul654 14:49, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

To be precise, the quote above describes an argument used to support carrying out the demolitions. That argument itself does not demonstrate if demolitions actually prevent suicide attacks, or, if they do, the mechanism by which it happens. I mention this just to be clear, but I don't want to detract from my main opinion (above), which is in response to the RFC, generally supporting the language presented in the RFC. Organ123 15:04, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Raul, that's an argument that can be presented in the article as coming from proponents of House demolitions, but no-one should be left under any illusion that it prevents suicide bombings, or indeed any other violence, and Wikipedia should certainly not be seen as condoning the practice (tho' one can understand why it happens). Violence (and house demolitions are certainly violence) always leads to further violence, and so the whole Israel-Palestine conflict tends to worsen. House demolitions lead to Jewish deaths, not prevent them.

--NSH001 15:30, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

"no-one should be left under any illusion that it prevents suicide bombings, or indeed any other violence" - the efficacy of punitive house demolitions as a deterrent measure is disputed. Amnesty et al claim they are not effective, claims that were supported by a 2005 Israeli government panel. However, any claims along those lines should be balanced and supported by reliable sources.

As a security measure (e.g, demolishing houses used by snipers, or as part of the security perimeter the west bank wall) house demolitions are almost certainly effective. Raul654 15:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Whether Wikipedians agree with the RS's who say it's an effective deterrence or with the RS's who say it isn't is really beside the point. "Particularly a population that employs suicide attacks" is unacceptable phrasing because a) it smuggles in special pleading for Israel under the guise of a general presentation of general subject matter (none of the RS-material covering non-Israeli uses of house demolitions talk about suicide bombings); and b) it slyly presents the justification for the practice but not the criticism of it. An acceptable substitute would be something like this: "It is a controversial component of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Human-rights organizations criticize the practice as collective punishment and a violation of the Geneva Conventions; Israel maintains that it constitutes legitimate and effective deterrence against suicide bombings."--G-Dett 16:19, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

In Lebanon, "Lebanese commandos have blown up the house of the commander of Fatah al-Islam group fighting in a besieged Palestinian refugee camp." [[4]] In Gaza, the home of Fatah's security chief "was destroyed and burned, and his guards executed. Hamas sources said that the attack was in response to the killing of Ibrahim Maniya, commander of Hamas' military wing in a Gaza neighborhood." [[5]] Are these part of the Arab/Israeli conflict? Doright 19:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Since neither of those involve Israelis, classifying them as part of the Arab/Israeli conflict requires some very contorted logic. They both properly belong in the "House demolitions in other conflicts" section of this article (The Hamas-Fatah conflict being Muslim-on-muslim house demoltion, and the Lebanon one you mention probably is as well.) Raul654 20:06, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I think they don't belong at all since they obviously are just two isoleted events rather than a part of an ongoing house demolition campaign. Every house ever destroyed in a conflict is not an example of house demolition in this sense. // Liftarn

Unfortunately, there's no agreement here on whether there is even a standard definition of house demolition in any sense beyond the literal meaning of the words. I'm also still waiting for a source (perhaps a military handbook of some sort) that asserts "house demolition" is a precisely defined battle tactic in the sense Raul says it is. nadav (talk) 13:03, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Punitive house demoltion is clearly not a battle tactic (or at least, not in the sense that I would define it). Katz's book makes it clear that it is standard Israeli Army doctrine to blow up the house of an urban fighter (or fighters) if there's nobody else occupying it (typically by putting a tank-fired anti-tank round or two into it).

Carlos Marighela's Minimanual Of The Urban Guerrilla describes collective punishment in general, although I'm not sure if it covers house demolition in particular. Raul654 14:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Per my comment above, perhaps a survey of sources would be best instead of this hypothetical discussion. Then we might be able to judge who says what on what basis. Tewfik^Talk 18:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

This page should be deleted as it is a political agenda.

eternalsleeper

Also, if house demolition is part of "Palestine Project," I will make sure that I add suicide bomber to their project as well. We must keep this site neutral.

eternalsleeper

Liftarn is all over me putting suicide attacks under project palestine but she/he loves the idea of house demolition under project palestine. Please let me know how House demolition is project palestine but suicide bombing is not worthy of being project Palestine?

eternalsleeper

OR, again

I have by now added a source which explicitly says that the use of house demolition in at least one other conflict was large scale, "Part of a large pattern". To continue and claim, based on original research, that uses outside the I-P conflict have been 'small scale" is not only false, but disruptive editing. Please don;t do it again. Isarig 04:06, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not false - it's clearly obvious from the listed sources, which show that the US is accused of having desteroyed roughly a dozen houses, the Russians have destroyed a simliar amount, and the Israelis have destroyed 4,000. Raul654 04:12, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

the source regarding the Turkey-PKK conflict explicitly says it was a large scale use. Please read it. What you are doing is explicitly prohibited under WP:SYNTH - you are taking statements made by different sources, in different contexts, and applying your personal analysis that X is reported to have done something on a larger scale than Y is reported (elsewhere) to have done, than "x is the only case of large scale" Isarig 04:15, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

POV issues in Purposes and Means section

My problem with this section is that as I see it, the purposes are all stated from the perspective of the house demolisher. Other perspectives exist. If it's going to remain as it is, there should be some language indicating that these are purposes as declared by those demolishing homes. For example, I haven't seen any scientific studies showing that house demolition is actually a "deterrent" for suicide bombings or whatever-have-you, and I haven't seen third parties revealing internal government memos stating that "deterrence" is actually why house demolitions are occurring. Amnesty International describes the "justification given by the Israeli authorities" as "'military/security needs'", which is essentially "deterrence". Currently we are taking a reason given by the Israeli army as fact, rather than going by stronger evidence of motive. The other reasons are similarly taken straight from the mouths of the demolishers. (See citations 2 and 3). Amnesty says that the demolitions are "inextricably linked with Israel’s long-standing policy of appropriating as much as possible of the land it occupies" -- but I don't see "land appropriation" listed as a purpose. Other analysts have other ideas for purposes as well, such as the destruction of the political force of a group. So I think we should be clear about what we're stating. Organ123 16:42, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

A purpose not mentioned is (in the case of Israel) that the authories wants to have an at least 70% Jewish majority so many houses of people of the "wrong" ethnicity are demolished as a deterrent and a way to make them move elsewhere. // Liftarn

The topic of this article is house demolition as a counter-terrorism tactic; please don't insert material that is relevant to other articles in this one. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:50, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

No it's not. You may think so, but that doesn't change the facts. // Liftarn

The term "counter-insurgency" has been used extensively above. It has not been established that this is about "counter-terrorism". Effectively this article is about military house demolitions, as I understand it. How we present the "purpose" of these demolitions is what I discuss above. Moreover, editors/administrators should not remove the {pov-section} tag when there is an active and ongoing dispute. Organ123 06:02, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Israel has stopped demolishing the terrorists homes. Israel has never demolished a home because they want a "70% Jewish majority." This is not true at all. eternalsleeper

That's not what the sources say. // Liftarn

Unjustified reversions

An editor has removed criticisms of house demolitions on the grounds that "artcile is only about counter-terrorism (e.g. destorying houses of bombers)"

On what basis shall we establish this standard? So far as I can see, this editor is saying that only those house demolitions that don't embarrass Israel shall be included -- in other words, that the article should embrace a POV.

Clearly, the vast majority of Israel's house demolitions are not "destroying houses of bombers" -- there have been thousands of demolitions and only dozens of bombers.

I cannot interpret this argument as being made seriously; you might as well have put "rv information I don't personally like" in the summary. I revert to my last (and expect the WikiZionists to stamp it out in hours).

Eleland 05:09, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Granted some of these were my edits being reverted, but I of course agree that if we're talking about military house demolitions, it's arbitrary to suggest that only demolitions taking place during the latest intifada are worthy of mention. The earlier demolitions were done for the same stated reasons as the current ones -- counter-insurgency, counter-terrorism, etc. (Also, please see above section where I discuss how stated reasons may be different from actual reasons and should be labeled appropriately.) Organ123 06:13, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

(e/c) Have you read the discussion earlier on this page? Your assumption about my motive is exactly the opposite of my true intent. In fact I greatly desire the article to be expanded, but there is no consensus to do so at the moment. I am not even sure there even exists a formalized notion of house demolition as a military tactic with the uses given in the "purposes and means" section. However, I object to changes aimed at surreptitiously including other material about Israeli demolitions without expressly expanding the scope of the article to include all demolitions and without proper discussion first on this talk page. nadav (talk) 06:19, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

The article called "House Demolitions", not "house demolitions of terrorists". (Of course those on the right wing of the Zionist movement may argue that all Arabs are terrorists.) Supporters of house demolitions try to focus on the actions of suicide bombers with the ustated argument that whataver is done to these people, they deserve. But as Organ123 says the vast majority of demolitions are not of suicide bombers houses, and the practice predates suicide bombings, (which started after the Goldstein massacre in 1994). ابو علي (Abu Ali) 06:58, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

There is a lengthy discussion, above, on the scope of the article, with a majority supporting limiting the scope to military demolitions as a counter-insurgency tactic, which is what the lead of the article says this article is about. Your repeated commnets about Zionists and their motivations are unhelpful. 89.97.62.132 15:31, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed that editors will be more effective without personal attacks on other editors' ideologies; however, other editors should not let their POVs trump a fair attempt at neutral editing. The reversion of the "12,000 demolitions since 1967" quote on the grounds that they were not military demolitions is outright false. The demolitions were not occurring because Palestinians were hiring Israeli bulldozers to help them remodel their homes. Israelis were not bulldozing the homes at the request of Palestinian landowners. It was a military exercise. Organ123 16:08, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I think you are missing an important distinction. while it is true that the Israelis were not bulldozing the homes at the request of Palestinian landowners, it does not follow that it was a military exercise. Many of these demolitions were carried out by civil authorities becuase they were built without permits. Teens! 19:18, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

It's true that I do not acknowledge that distinction in this case, because the facts belie the notion that a distinction really exists. B'Tselem says that "Israel has employed in the West Bank a policy of planning, development, and building that severely restricts construction by Palestinians, while allocating broad expanses of land to establish and expand Jewish settlements. In this way, Israel has created a situation in which thousands of Palestinians are unable to obtain permits to build on their land, and are compelled to build without a permit because they have no other way to provide shelter for their families." An article that includes punitive house demolitions would surely include these demolitions. Also, notably, not all of the demolitions even have this pretense of pertaining to permits. The 12,000 figure should be included. Organ123 22:10, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

This is a certain point of view - that the demolitions for lack of permit are one and the same as military ones. We might briefly mention this POV, clearly describing it as POV allegation. But we can't state as fact that 12,000 homes have been destroyed as part of a military plan, when the source does not say this, and when it is clearly a disputed POV. 121.24.47.179 23:25, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I would add that there are no such thing as "civil authorities" in military occupied land. The West Bank is under a military occupation, this status is universally recognized under international law by everyone except the occupiers. The Israelis can call it whatever they want, but that doesn't change anything. Eleland 22:19, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there are. Your lack of familiarity with the facts does not change them. 121.24.47.179 23:25, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I apologize for impugning your motives, it's just the only way I could coherently parse that argument was as advocacy for Israel. You're saying that using military bulldozers to demolish civilian houses only counts if it's during the Second Intifadah -- what is the basis for this standard? Especially when the post-intifada demolitions are clearly a continuation of the longstanding practice (which actually goes back before 1967, as far as 1948).

I fully understand and support the argument that this page currently gives too much weight to the Palestinian demolitions when the practice occurs around the world, but I don't understand why we should exclude highly relevant and notable information about the Palestinian demolitions. The solution is to expand the other sections, not to arbitrarily exclude information, especially when that has the effect of pushing a POV.

Eleland 19:45, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me to be POV to try to "build in" to the article a rationale for the demolitions, such as that they are "counter-terrorism," which I think is debatable, or that they are standard response for lack of a building permit -- is that the standard response of goverments in other countries? It is clear that there is a punitive aspect to the policy. The article should be worded in such a way as to avoid making excuses for this stuff. We can report the IDF statements for why they do it, without giving them the editorial seal of approval. --Marvin Diode 14:21, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Due process

The section on due process appears to contradict itself - quoting AI as saying there is no way to appeal the demolition decisions, but then saying that several demolitions were prevented after an appeal to the supreme court. 89.97.62.132 15:31, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

There's no contradiction. Some demolitions are carried out by military order with no notice, whereas other people live for years under the threat - this is Amnesty[6] in Oct 1999, during the "Peace Process" "well over one third of the Palestinian population of East Jerusalem live under threat of having their house demolished. ........ Threatened houses exist in almost every street and it is probable that the great majority of Palestinians live in or next to a house due for demolition." PalestineRemembered 18:35, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

there is a contradiction between the claim that "without any trial or opportunity for the accused to ... mount a defense", and the statement that a "number of Palestinians have managed to prevent demolitions by appealing to the Israeli Supreme court.". if they can appeal to the court and succeed in preventing the demolition, it seems that the claim that there isn't any opportunity to mount a defense is false. Teens! 19:15, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

How is this hard to understand? Some of the demolitions are scheduled long beforehand, some of them happen in the dead of night with no warning. And it's difficult to get access to a court in a country where you don't speak the language, don't have formal legal rights, and there's military checkpoints manned by humiliating sadists every few miles on the road to get there. The fact that a few Palestinians (actually, I would presume it's Israelis filing on their behalf) have managed to access the courts doesn't change the fact that the vast majority have no such opportunity. Eleland 19:54, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I do not intend to get into a usenet-style debate with you over the nature of checkpoints or the people manning them. This is a simple case of a contradiction: either people have no way to appeal a demolition, in which case the second claim is false, or they do, in which case the first claim is false. Feel free to remove one or the other, or re-word the first so that the contradiction is gone, but as it stands, the section contradicts itself. Teens!

The sentance of house demolition is decided by a military officer, (i.e. not trail, presentation of evidence, cross examination of witnesses etc.). But the execution of the demolition itself can be like all Israeli government actions, be challenged in the Israeli high court, provided the residents have time to lodge an appeal. Hope this clears things up. ابو علي (Abu Ali) 05:13, 17 June 2007 (UTC)