Talk:Israeli settlement/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions about Israeli settlement. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Dubious link

Since I have not been active on this page, I leave this to someone else to make the call, but "Moving Up: An Aliyah Journal, story of modern Aliyah to Gush Etzion" is a link inserted by a user who seems have done nothing but add this link to articles, and it links to a page that is basically an ad for a book. I consider this linkspam. I removed it from aliyah. - Jmabel | Talk 06:11, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Facts Vs Claims

My link has sources."Terence Prittie, Whose Jerusalem?".And so what if he Israeli.He is expert in the field for example like Morris.Camera just reported what the spokesman said so I dont see anything wrong with that.Shrike 20:02, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

For goodness' sake, I am not deleting the info. I am merely pointing out that is it an Israeli claim, which is common fair practice that permeates most of the Arab-Israeli conflict articles. You cannot take that highly polemic and unashamedly biased article and pretend that it proves the claim as a FACT. It is an Israeli CLAIM.--AladdinSE 01:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Wrong ASE, it is a well documented fact. See [1]. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 11:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

That edit in History of Jerusalem was actually much more acceptable for that article, HS. I adjusted the Steinburg material to match (ie "according to"). As far as the contested material in this article, no, you cannot use that Israeli professor's highly biased and clearly polemic article as an unqualified fact. It is a claim. I am not saying he is utterly discredited, if I thought that, I would have deleted the material. I am simply qualifying it. Now, if you want to add the David Guinn material in a similar way to this article, I would have no objection. Also, in your reverting, please stop to consider the grammatically inferior version you are espousing. "According to spokesman for Israel’s Civil Administration this report was based on "based only on Palestinian claims" map.Also "Peace now" never contacted..." My version is: "According to a spokesman for Israel’s Civil Administration this report was "based only on Palestinian claims". The spokesman further claimed that "Peace now" never cantacted the Civil Administration about the issue." I noted that this spokesman made a claim. The other version states it as fact that the civil administration was not consulted. If you wish to revert back while disagreement persists, please take a moment to clean up the material. P.S. I also changed the section title to something more descriptive. I hope no one minds.--AladdinSE 09:40, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

The destruction of the Jewish quarter and the Mount of Olives cemetery is not something that it's disputed. It's simply there. You can see how tombs were used for donkeys and toilets in the cemetery, you can see how whole synagogues disappeared, remnants of the houses, and of course you have the Jordanians themselves claiming to have destroyed all the synagogues and jewish homes in 1948 fully documented. Anyway, it's not disputed since it's a case of the present not the past, the burned synagogues are there to see. Now Israel is fixing some of them like the Hurva again. Amoruso 10:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Fine. Now, can you produce a neutral reliable source that backs this up? Just read that article you are championing. Its reads so blatantly biased. An Israeli professor writes a highly polemical, emotionally charged article, and you object to the qualifier "Israeli claim"?? Also, you say that "you have the Jordanians themselves claiming to have destroyed all the synagogues and jewish homes". Please cite where they claim this. --AladdinSE 08:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

West Bank is west of the Jordan River (dispute tag)

Moved this here: ", a term to which [ 'West Bank' of course] many Israelis object, as it implies (falsely) that this region was at some point in time controlled by a Palestinian state" There is a logical conclusion here that is pure speculation, unsourced by the way, and factually false. West Bank refers to the West of the Jordan River, in contrast with the East Bank. This is where the name Transjordan comes from, which is East of the Jordan River, while "Cisjordan" ("Cisjordanie" in French, which has remained the name of the West Bank in this language) refers to the West Bank. You see, no need to refer to any Palestinian state for that... It's simple geography. Tazmaniacs 02:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can see, the text you moved does not refer to the term 'West Bank' but to the term 'Palestine' or 'Palestinian territories'. This would be clear if you quoted also the preceding words:

but is commonly known as 'Palestine' or part of the Palestinian territories, a term to which many Israelis object,

So there is no reason for this discussion at all. --Trigamma 13:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Jaygz' last edit, with the alleged motive of "NPOV", is not only childish, but testify to complete ignorance and disregard for facts, which amounts to historical revisionism. Or do you claim that "West Bank" is not West of the Jordan River? Tazmaniacs 04:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Please recall that WP:CIVIL is policy. Do you have specific reasons for your proposed changes to this longstanding text? Please also recall that the section in question is about the dispute over terminology, not the location of the West Bank. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:04, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Do not recall me Wikipedia guidelines which you never follow, and remember that you do not own articles here. I respect your right to believe in whatever you want, but even the most die-hard fanatic (which you are not, I presume) has to admit that West Bank is, at its origins, a geographical term that means west of the Jordan River. Hence Transjordan and Cisjordan, I really don't understand why you try to contest such basic geographical terms. Just for the sake of it? Tazmaniacs 05:28, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Please try again, avoiding violations of WP:CIVIL and straw man arguments. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

The problem, dear Jayjg, is not between me and you (I really hope we won't have to discuss this around a drink), but only about this article, and the uncontestable fact that West Bank is originally a geographical expression. Adress that, instead of focusing on me (am I so interesting? I would never have thought so!) Tazmaniacs 03:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

No. The phrase that you deleted didn't refer to the term "West Bank" at all, but to the terms "Palestine" and "Palestinian territories". Please read the paragraph again. --Trigamma 17:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

The section is discussing the controversy over terminology, not the origins of the terms. The "West Bank" terminology is very new, so the question arises "why was the older terminology changed, if the geography didn't?" I've already explained that. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Tax incentives removed in 2003?

Is it true that all tax incentives for settlements where removed in 2003? The article says so (I cut the sentence): "Israelis living in rural, periphery areas, but these were revoked entirely in 2003..." Tazmaniacs 03:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Terminology: Judea and Samaria

I have deleted this sentence, regarding the West Bank:

However, prior to Jordan's occupation of the region, the U.N. called it Judea and Samaria.

This is simply not true, as can easily be seen by searching the UN archives. The editor who wrote this sentence probably had in mind the General Assembly partition resolution, which does use the terms Judea and Samaria, but this is not typical. The most common term used in UN documents referring to the region, during the period in question (1948-1950), is Arab Palestine. Some examples:

Future of Arab Palestine and the Question of Partition

In rejecting the idea, the Political Committee of the League of Arab States completely opposed the idea of considering Arab Palestine
as a possible future member of a union with Transjordan.

The United States delegation, while calling for a number of other changes in the United Kingdom original draft resolution, was in favour
 of this paragraph concerning the future of Arab Palestine.

The Soviet delegate added that the paragraph had political aims tending to enlarge the State of Transjordan at the expense
of both the Arab population of Arab Palestine and the Jews of Palestine.

Here, in a report of an Economic Survery of the area, is an unmistakable reference to what is now called the West Bank:

The Mission's engineering, agricultural and other experts have conducted a field investigation in Jordan, Arab Palestine and the Gaza area.

On the other hand I can't find any UN document that uses Judea and Samaria to refer to the West Bank as a unit. There are occasional uses of the term Samaria to refer to a region within "Arab Palestine". An example is this very important report:

The Committee would like to point out that, according to the IRCC, along the armistice lines in Arab Palestine--mainly in Samaria and Ramallah--there
live a fairly large number of Arab farmers whose houses are located on the Arab side and whose fields are under Israel control. If these farmers
are not allowed free access to their lands, they may become destitute and in need of relief and eventual resettlement.

What's particularly interesting is that it seems even the Israeli government didn't start using the term "Judea and Samaria" until they captured the area in 1967. Sanguinalis 03:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Occupied vs. disputed territories

The current version states that this is "much disputed", giving the idea of an substantial debate. Wp:npov#undue weight "NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a verifiable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." However, the "much disputed" phrase suggests that the opposing view points represent equally prominent/popular/widely accepted positions. When in fact, only the state of Israel officially argues "occupied". It is not much disputed, there is a concensus and a dissenter. Individual objectors like Bard (for ex) render opinions; opinions which object to the accepted term.

It's like claiming Hezbollah is not a terrorist organization. Well, you can quote scholars, or argue that they ought not to be considered a terrorist organization. But, in fact, according to the international organizations, states and so forth, they are. It's factual because all the terrorists lists in the world that actually matter (US, UN, ICJ...) they are. Well, in fact, according to any and all organizations and states, the territories are 'occupied'.

"Much disputed" is fallacious. 74.106.234.236 05:10, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't claim Hezbollah is a terrorist organization. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:14, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Missed my point Jayjg. The point is, while some people may wish to argue that they ought not to be considered occupied, in fact, they are. And the people who use the term 'disputed' are a very marginal minority. And yet, their position is given vastly disproportionate weight. A student of history 23:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I hardly missed your point; rather, I neatly overturned it. Wikipedia doesn't assert truth; rather, it cites all relevant points of views. Please review WP:NPOV and WP:ATT. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Right. And the pov that they are 'disputed', or even that it is 'much debated' is simply not true. This is an extreme minority position, and it hardly deserves the credit some people wish to give it here. Some editors want to represent the 'disputed' term as having equal credibility or acceptance, or they want to pretend there is significant debate, but there is not. The territories are occupied: fact. Some individuals dispute this, true. But there is hardly any significant debate.A student of history 14:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Some pretty hefty legal minds have weighed in that they are not, in fact, occupied. Some of them are listed here. And please stop inserting POV original research into the article (e.g. "according to some Israeli sources"). Jews weren't allowed into the Jordanian parts of Jerusalem from 1948-1967. Now that's a real fact, not just your opinion. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

This issue has remarkable resilience, doesn't it? It is settled again and again, and Israel apologists continue to try to delete all mention of the term occupied. The Hezbollah analogy does not nearly apply here. No where near the same weight of unanimity exists as to its "terrorist" classification as does the "occupation" classification applied to the Arab Territories occupied by Israel. The only nation in the world that disputes the term is the occupier. Even Israel's closest allies use the term. The State Department [2] itself as well as the CIA [3], as a matter of policy clearly distinguish the classification. The United Nations, international human rights bodies, the ICJ, all of human civilization, save Israel, deem the territories to be occupied. Sources can be cited up the wazoo. When will this absurd "debate" end?--AladdinSE 23:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I think a NPOV phrasing would be something like while all international bodies and countries (save Israel) consider the territories in question as "occupied", Israel's official position is that the term does not apply and instead refers to them as "disputed" [ref]. Even within Israel, some political movements and politicians have used the term "occupied" [ref..., ref to Ariel Sharon quote...]. [Some more about legal experts and commentators with refs...].--Doron 09:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

That would be original research; we would have to have reliable citations that "all international bodies and countries etc." And it's more than just Israel that disputes that they are/were "occupied"; Eugene Rostow and Julius Stone were not "Israel". Neither was Ronald Reagan, for that matter. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

It wouldn't be original research if we provide good references, I was merely suggesting a framework, and this framework leaves plenty of room to discuss opinions among scholars. As for international view, there are dozens of UN General Assembly resolutions that refer to "occupied Palestinian territories" and "occupied Syrian territories" most of them are adopted nearly unanimously. Even the United States, which usually votes against these resolutions, regularly refers to the territories as "occupied" in official publications. At the very least, we could write "The United Nations, United States, European Union, Arab League, People's Republic of China, Japan, ... regularly refer to the territories in question as 'occupied'..." (leaving open the position of Malawi on the subject), all with appropriate references to their respective announcements on the subject, which are abundant on the web.--Doron 00:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

There are numerous reliable sources which refer to the west bank, east Jerusalem and the Golan Heights as being "occupied." The question is whether there is any reliable source for an alternative status, as biased sources are not considered reliable. Fred Bauder 00:22, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

See Military occupation Fred Bauder 00:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Fred, please review Doron's point below, which captures the essence of the issue. Also, you are incorrect, the relationship between "bias" and "reliability" is not what you make it to be. Most sources have bias of one sort or another, but that doesn't make them unreliable or un-citeable. Julius Stone and Eugene Rostow were experts in international law, and reliable sources regarding it. Also, we don't use Wikipedia articles as sources. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:55, 1 April 2007 (UTCy

The question here is not whether they are "occupied" or "disputed", but whether saying that "all countries consider them occupied" is original research or not. My point is that at the very least, we can say that the countries mentioned above regularly refer to the territories as "occupied" in official publications and declarations.--Doron 21:07, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't it seem a bit pointish to have a lengthy list of groups that have used the term "occupied"? And to what end? Jayjg ^(talk) 03:53, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the position of the international community is an important issue. This is not only a matter of debate between scholars, it's an issue in international relations. The "point" I'm trying to make, which I think is a relevant one, is that virtually all countries regard and refer to the territories as "occupied". I would rather have a more concise phrasing that says something like this, but I don't have a source right now that says exactly that which I can quote. At the very least, I think it's worth pointing out that the major powers in the international communities share this view. If the such phrasing is too clumsy, it can be neatly tucked away in a footnote. I don't think I was disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point, I was merely suggesting a compromise in an edit war between other editors here.--Doron 07:26, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if my edits seemed snippy. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

A quantitive source of such a report would be General Assembly resolutions. If I remember correctly there were some referring to the territories as occupied which were passed almost unanimously. There was also some resolution passed at a ICRC conference where there was (essentially?) unanimous agreement that the territories are occupied and the Geneva Conventions applies there. Those would together cover a large fraction of all nations on earth. No major nation is excluded (including the US which has repeatedly voted for SC resolutions that call the territories occupied). There is also the fact that the Israeli government agrees the territories are occupied every time it faces it's own High Court (which has treated them as occupied consistently since 1967 and says so explicitly time and again). As far as I know, it is only in public-relations contexts that the "disputed not occupied" claim is made. (So much work, so little time.) --Zero^talk 14:28, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

How does the Israeli Supreme Court treat the annexations of East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights? Fred Bauder 16:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

That's a very good question but I'm not confident about the answer. In the case of the Golan Heights I know of a published argument between two Israeli law professors as to whether the High Court considers them occupied or not. I think the situation is clearer on EJ (the High Court regards it as annexed) but my memory on this is weak. I'll look at my books and report back. --Zero^talk 11:08, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

G.A. resolutions regarding Israel are pretty much rote affairs, and they have no relevance to international law. The article already mentions the resolution passed at the 1999 conference of the High Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention, as well as UNSC Resolution 446, which is more relevant than G.A. resolutions. Regardless, I don't think Wikipedia should be presenting the CIA's view of things as "objective truth", as the most recent editor of the article seems wont to do (well, even then he made more of the sources than they actually say). Jayjg ^(talk) 20:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

GA resolutions are certainly not irrelevant to international law. They are not immediately binding like SC resolutions are, but they are one of the major sources of international customary law. You can see that by reading rulings of the ICJ. Very often the ICJ cites GA resolutions as evidence of the opinion of the "community of civilised nations" in determing what is part of customary law and what isn't. So GA resolutions can have the eventual indirect effect of creating international law. --Zero^talk 11:08, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Things only become part of customary international law if they are accepted as such by the parties in question; they cannot be imposed based on G.A. resolutions. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

You are right about the last part, but I didn't say otherwise. As for the first part, no there is no requirement for the "parties in question" to agree to anything. Customary law applies equally to everyone whether they like it or not. --Zero^talk 07:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I think we can agree that most countries refer to the territories as "occupied", including the major powers and international bodies. If there are no objections, I will add a sentence about how the international community views the issue.--Doron 23:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

The problem here, and face it, is that some people don't want to admit that the entire world considers them 'occupied' with only Israel and a few individuals detracting from this consensus. And yes, it is a consensus. This page does not reflect this because there are a few people here who insist on distorting the reality of this situation. They are occupied, every country and body in the world accepts this, save Israel and a few legal scholars... But you'd think that there was a real debate by reading this farce of a page. This page, and others, really makes it appear as though there is a heated debate on the subject, or that it's up in the air... well it's not. This is an issue which is not even, ever discussed in the mainstream. A few bad apples spoil are refusing to allow this page to reflect reality... A student of history 13:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

You keep mistaking your own POV for "truth". Jayjg ^(talk) 17:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

A student of history, we can state the facts and let the readers decide, we shouldn't draw the conclusion for them. We know that there are some scholars that dispute the term "occupied", so how can we determine whether they constitute a negligible fringe or a significant school?--Doron 20:30, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

To both Jayjg and Doron: I have never spoken of any "truth", because it would be fallacious to do so, I know this. My point is simply this. When it comes to the spectrum and balance of opinions on the 'occupied' versus 'disputed' question, there is a concensus, whether you regard this as original research or not. The entire international community, every country in the world (save Israel) and every relevent international organization considers them 'occupied'. Israel and several of her individual supporters disagree. Thus the balance of opinions is heavily in favour of 'occupied'. Those who argue they are 'disputed' are few and far between. There are no countries or relevent international bodies or legal entities which agree with the 'disputed' pov. My problem is that this wiki article does not reflect this adequately. It appears that almost equal balance has been given to the 'disputed' pov, when it is absolutely clearly the marginal minority of opinions on this subject, and that is a fact. When the entire world says one thing, and one country and a few lawyers say something else, we don't give virtually equal credit and space to that one country and those few lawyers. This page reflects the agenda of the wiki community, not the reality of the situation. This isn't about "truth" Jayjg, it's about stating the relevent facts, and it's a fact that only a very small minority of commentators dispute the term 'occupied'. A student of history 22:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

There are 1.3 billion Muslims and only 13 million Jews in the worldm, and even among Jews you can find a full spectrum of opinions. Why don't we simply accept Muslim POV (aka "consensus") against "a very small minority"? ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 22:59, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

A student of history, I already suggested a description of where the international community stands on the subject, which I will introduce into the article shortly, as there doesn't seem to be any objection. I am now considering the view of scholars and legal experts on the subject, which is a different matter. Now how should we represent the spectrum of opinions in this area? Is there consensus? Is there a heated debate?--Doron 09:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that the Wikipedia Way is to quote a good source as stating what the opinion of the international community is. Here is a start from an academic journal:

"by now, in the view of virtually all international lawyers and every state but Israel, the Geneva Conventions have become customary international law, meaning that every state is bound by them, whether it has formally become a Party to the treaties or not." -- M. Galchinsky, "The Jewish Settlements in the West Bank: International Law and Israeli Jurisprudence, Israel Studies, Vol. 9, No. 3, pp115-136.

Galchinsky is here discussing the GC's ban on settlement of occupied territories. --Zero^talk 07:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Balance on the Question of Legality

This article certainly has quite a bit of information in it, but I don't think the proper balance has been achieved. The simple fact that no nation on Earth outside of the United States and Israel recognizes Israeli settlements as legal has been obscured, with a passing reference to the UN Security Council resolutions followed by 6,000 paragraphs describing the Israeli government's case.

When essentially every recognized independent state on the planet[4] (outside of the US and Israel) votes in a General Assembly resolution 151-2 (with four or so abstentions) that Israeli settlement activity is illegal and calling on Israel to repect the civil rights of Palestinians etc etc you might think the assembled opinion of the planet would obscure the arguments of the stubborn few. But no. Instead we have to read through pages of what I can only describe as apologetics and obfuscations wrangling over the details of wording in this or that resolution or legal opinion with anyone criticizing this tumorous growth of the Israeli government's numerous and extraordinarily detailed objections as opposing the addition of information to the effort.

We could have an edit war on those terms, with the Israeli critics pounding in information on the other side until the article is 2,000 pages long and entirely unreadable. I don't think that would be productive.

The lead of the articles and section in wikipedia are usually good. They usually accurately and without reservation summarize the opinion of the world and international observers accurately. Look at Robert Mugabe, for example. There is no beating around the bush there: "his government has attracted international criticism for corruption, violent suppression of political opposition," etc etc, right there in the opening paragraph, with a laundry list of his government's abuses. But when it comes to Israel, oh no. We can't deal with Israel in such a summary fashion. We have to give Israel's side of the story, even if it takes 10 pages. Can you imagine the article on Mugabe if there was no summary of world opinion leading the article and next to every "allegation" there were five paragraphs of the Mugabe government's counter examples and legal arguments?

151-2. That was the last vote I cited. Think about that when deciding how much space the Israeli government's arguments deserve in this article. MarkB2 23:11, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

General Assembly resolutions are political affairs, beauty contests. They are irrelevant to international law. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

"Beauty contests" indeed. By that measure Israel must be the ugliest nation on Earth.

I think the assembled opinion of 151 nations as to what is legal or not is indeed "relevant" to the subject of whether or not they are illegal.

I couldn't help but notice that you simply reverted my edit.As Jimmy Wales has said, a revert of additions to wikipedia (unless they are vandalism) is a "slap in the face." But I'm sure you already know this. I'm not interested in getting into a revert war with you, but neither am I interested in being bullied.

You also don't seem to understand my other point, which was the policy of undue weight. MarkB2 00:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

It turns out that in this particular beauty contest the participants are rated by the size of their ~~breasts~~ oil reserves. As for the rest of your comments, I already explained the removal of the irrelevant material; the section is about legal views of settlements. U.N.G.A. resolutions have nothing to do with legal views; only U.N.S.C. resolutions can create international law, and even then, only under certain circumstances. Regarding undue weight, see my comment below. Jayjg ^(talk)

This article from the point of view of WP:NPOV#Undue_weight is seriously troubled. We have, on the one hand, literally the entire world (by that I mean all countries and all international bodies), and on the other side, merely the state of Israel and a few individual scholars. And yet, their arguments are given equal space here. Where is the balance? Why do apologists for Israel get to misrepresent the issue? As mentioned above, it seems only to happen on issues relating to Israel. The point here is that the views of one side are being significantly over-represented. As said above, would anyone consider giving Mugabe the same space for defense of his actions or views when the entire world is opposing him? No, it would be absurd. So my question is, why is it that the Likudniks here think it's appropriate to give nearly equal space to an argument which is accepted by only one country (the occupying one at that) and a handful of its apologists? It's patently absurd is what it is.

A quote: "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not." Keep this in mind when we edit the legality of the settlements and territories. The view that they are "disputed" is an extreme minority... right or wrong, itis a fact that only an extreme minority of people argue this, and it should be represented as the marginal opinion it is. A student of history 01:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:NPOV is not a measure of what some theoretical poll of all 6 billion people living on earth would produce, but is a measure of what experts in the field have to say about a topic. Regarding the legality of the settlements, the weight of opinion is not nearly as heavily slanted as in the weight of public opinion, as the sources indicate. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:04, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:NPOV says absolutely nothing about being "a measure of what experts in the field" have to say about anything. The word "experts" simply never appears in the description.

The weight of opinion on the issue of the legality of the settlements is definitely not on the side of Israel, but you wouldn't know that from reading this article. When the BBC reports on the issue they quite simply say "the settlements are illegal."[5] The Arab world sees them as illegal. The European Union sees them as illegal[6]. You can cite 3,000 pages of pro-Israeli opinion written by 30 pro-Israeli "experts" but it won't change the balance of world opinion.

If you keep flatly deleting my additions to the article this is going to go to arbitration. MarkB2 03:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

You forget that WP:NPOV does not work by itself, but in concert with WP:V, and in particular with the WP:RS provisions therein: "The reliability of a source depends on context; what is reliable in one topic may not be in another. A world-renowned mathematician may not be a reliable source on topics of biology. In general, a topic should use the most reliable sources available to its editors." The best possible sources for understanding international law are, of course, experts in the field, not political pronouncements. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

There is a difference between world opinion and a legal judgment. The reason we have international (public) law rather than international mob rule (or at least try to) is to allow governments to apply reasonable, objective criteria to their actions. The UN General Assembly and the European Union can pass all the resolutions they want, but simply a majority - even an overwhelming majority - on an issue does not make it law. So while it would be accurate to say that as a matter of political opinion, a great many of the world's governments characterize the settlements as illegal; this does not make them illegal. --Leifern 13:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

What makes them illegal is that ALL international legal bodies consider them illegal. Find one ruling from any international body which claims they are legal. You can't and won't. In fact, the ONLY body/country in the entire world which considers them 'legal' is Israel, the country building them. So the point is, the 'balance of opinions' is the entire world (every country and every organization) versus Israel and a few individual supporters. But that is not reflected here at all. It is made to appear here that the balance of views is somewhat equal, which is a blatant fallacy. That is the problem. That is what needs to be corrected.A student of history 14:46, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

No, the problem is that you're not distinguishing between a political opinion and a legal argument. Culpability of a crime is not determined by opinion, nor would we want it to. It is cheap to accuse another country of a crime (and it's done all the time) for political reasons; it is far tougher to prove that a crime has been committed. The article very carefully lays out the arguments on all sides of this issue. --Leifern 16:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Exactly so. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Legal "experts" include those working for the European Union and other bodies that nearly uniformly consider the settlements to be illegal. Many seem to think that for some reason legal experts are divided on the issue while the ambassadors of their nations to the UN consistently state that the position of their nation is that the settlements are illegal: in short, that there is a vast, worldwide conspiracy of governments that ignore the legal advice of their experts in order to punish poor, hapless Israel. I am not convinced.

I could dig up a thousand references of legal experts who consider the settlements to be illegal to prove my point, but I thought adducing the information of the GA votes would serve as a useful and credible barometer of the legal question. Instead, some on this page dismiss the statements of 151 nations as being mere "political opinion" that obscures the raging legal debate among the "experts" in those nations, "experts" who have been tragically ignored, apparently. Thus, the easily observable data concerning the opinions of major nations and organizations has been tossed out as "biased" in favor of a scattershot sampling of legal opinions, the balance of which is far more difficult to ascertain.

I might reverse these arguments, and say that even though legal opinion is evenly divided it is clearly biased, as the representatives of these nations and political organizations essentially uniformly say the same thing. Thus, we should balance the legal opinions cited in the article against Israel's advocates accordingly. Even that is presupposing that the legal arguments are evenly balanced. That argument holds as much weight as the opposite argument, though the opposite argument is clearly the one determining the balance of opinion in this article.

There seems to be an opinion among many contributors that legal scholars and former government officials are the really relevant and important unbiased opinions, while the opinions of government representatives, advised by their governments with their own legal experts, is "political" and less relevant to the legal question. Certainly governments are far more relevant to the determination of what is legal or not: governments make laws and vote on international questions of legality, while legal experts have no vote. But then we get into the question of whether governments accurately judge and enforce their own laws. That is debatable, but so is the judgement of legal experts. In any case, it seems clear that, though any source might be biased with regards to legal questions, when it comes to international law the judgments of nations are far more relevant than the judgments of legal experts, as nations and their representatives make and enforce that law, while experts can merely opine.

I am simply not convinced that, outside of America and Israel, there is a raging legal debate concerning this issue. Shall we do a search of international legal opinions on this issue? A massive, meta Lexis Nexis search?

I find it laughable that Eugene Rostow is cited so extensively, the "expert" who said in a New Republic article that SCR 242 stated that Israel was authorized to "administer" its conquered territories "until a just and lasting peace" is achieved [7]. Of course, this is a flat-out lie. Anyone who has read the very brief resolution knows that it neither says nor implies any such thing. In fact, as we all know, it calls on Israel to withdraw from territories occupied in the conflict. Period. Is this the quality of the legal experts cited?

Indeed, it is. The legal "experts" cited in this article are a joke. Moshe Dann is a former professor of history and currently a writer based in Jerusalem. A former professor of history is a legal expert now? Ricki Hollander is a "senior research analyst" for an Israeli advocacay group, CAMERA. Talia Einhorn is an Adjunct Professor of Law...in Tel Aviv. An Israeli opining on her nation's illegality...and an adjunct professor at that. And she cites Biblical scripture as proof of Israel's right to settlement land, because of the "promise made by God to their Patriarchs." Quite the legal scholar there. Next down we have...the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs.Then we have Jeffrey Helmreich...who is...a journalist. The next source is Palestine Facts...a website with an unattributed article. Gerard Adler...whew. One person who actually has an advanced law degree. Dore Gold is an Israeli diplomat.

I see a mountain of citations of Israeli religious zealots, Israeli diplomats, journalists, and "research advocates" for Israeli think tanks. I see three people who might qualify as legal scholars: Rostow, Adler, and Stone.

Is this the balance? Three legal scholars balance the weight of the International Court of Justice, legal experts like Anthony D'Amato, [8], John J Mearsheimer, Stephen M Walt, and every UN Security Council ruling? The balance of the world's estimation?

CBC news (Canada's primary media organization) gives a balanced assessment of the question of their legality, spending several paragraphs detailing the widespread legal opinion that the settlements are illegal with a single paragraph reserved for the dissenters [9]. Whenever the BBC reports on the issue they flatly state that the settlements are illegal [10]. One of your sources even bitterly noted the fact that AP, Reuters, and other news agencies also support such assertions.

When I see the BBC [11] simply reporting that the settlements are illegal, that this is "widely accepted," I wonder: is the BBC misreporting the issue, or do the brilliant architects of this demented wikipedia article have some kind of incredible scholarship that supports their case that there really is a raging debate?

There is no debate.

This is one, giant aside, in any case, to my primary and most specific point of contention. I tried to simply add the judgment of the General Assembly and the European Union to the same section that had the opinion of human rights groups and the Israeli Foreign Ministry. Jayjg repeatedly slapped down my additions as being "irrelevant material," a curious assertion seeing as, apparently, Israel's view was relevant, as were the views of human rights groups and the Anti-Defamation League, but the not views of the European Union or the General Assembly of the United Nations. Not surprisingly, the Third Opinion concurred with my view that the information should be included with the caveat that these views are not legally binding. My question is this: if I adduce the material again will it be deleted again? I would like to know so I don't waste my time in an edit war. MarkB2 10:45, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

You state: I find it laughable that Eugene Rostow is cited so extensively, the "expert" who said in a New Republic article that SCR 242 stated that Israel was authorized to "administer" its conquered territories "until a just and lasting peace" is achieved [12]. Of course, this is a flat-out lie. Anyone who has read the very brief resolution knows that it neither says nor implies any such thing. In fact, as we all know, it calls on Israel to withdraw from territories occupied in the conflict. Period. Is this the quality of the legal experts cited? Eugene Rostow was one of America's most brilliant legal minds, and was Dean of Yale Law School for 10 years. Not only that, he was one of the authors of UNSCR 242; yet you understand UNSCR 242 better than he does, and insist his statements are a "flat out lie"! That pretty much summarizes the debate on this page. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:07, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

First of all let me apologize for writing such a long response above: it's just that the level of debate on this page is such that it seemed to be necessary.

I actually anticipated that you would contest my assertion about Rostow. I am not alone in my disagreement with Rostow, and I cited a few legal experts who agree with me, legal experts like Anthony D'Amato, the Leighton Professor of Law at Northwestern University. I also mentioned that, despite my personal disagreement with Rostow's opinion, he certainly is one of the three legal experts cited in support of Israeli claims who would qualify as an "expert."

I've noticed a specious debating tactic frequently deployed in the course of public discourse on a subject where one side contests a single point in the argument of an opponent and then claims vindication over the entire argument, despite the fact that the point disputed wasn't a necessary point of the argument and regardless of the other points that remain, points that are sufficient in themselves to prove the argument in question.

I'm well aware of who Rostow is. In fact, who he is is a small proof of my earlier assertions: nations voting in the venue of the UN have all sorts of legal experts consulting with them, as America had Rostow's expertise at their disposal in 1967. I would also like to note that the other authors of SCR 242, unlike Rostow, have since considered Israel to be in violation of said resolution, have since considered Israel's settlements to be illegal largely based on SCR 242 and other resolutions supporting it.

But, again, all of this is an aside to my most specific point of contention, a point of contention that remains unaddressed. So to repeat my earlier question, if I add the information about the views of the legality of the settlements of the UN General Assembly and the European Union (and maybe the Arab League) to the section on the legality of the settlements, maybe put them right behind the view of the ICJ and right before the views of the human rights groups, will they be reverted or not? MarkB2 08:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

To what end? Adding the UNGA and Arab League stuff would only give the false impression that their political statements have some relevance to international law. The Arab League suggestion in particular is bizarre; the vast majority of their members consider the existence of Israel itself to be a "violation of international law", so their opinion on the settlements is redundant. Jayjg ^(talk) 13:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The point is that the opinion of the European Union and the General Assembly on the legality of the settlements is at least as relevant as the opinion of human rights groups, the Anti-Defamation League, and some of the others cited, as I and the Third Opinion noted. We can leave out the opinion of the Arab League, if you so desire. MarkB2 21:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Third opinion

While the edits in question could use a little improvement, I don't at all see that they're so poor as to call for reversion. The GA can certainly issue opinions on international law and what is or is not within the bounds of it, and that's certainly a notable enough opinion to merit some mention. The same for the EU. While it should be noted that those statements are advisory rather than binding, they certainly regard legal status.

Now, on to the problematic parts of the edits. "...with the votes typically excluding only Israel and the United States" is pretty weaselish, unless there's a secondary source that actually made the "typically" observation. I'm not really sure that requires noting at all. However, the GA's position and opinion as a whole on the matter certainly should be.

In another edit, "The European Union has consistently maintained for years that it considers all "settlement activity" to be illegal." is added. What's that mean? I don't see anything in the cited source stating how consistently or for how many years, it simply says the EU "continues to oppose...as being illegal under international law." Though the position of the EU certainly merits mention, we must be careful not to extrapolate from sources-"continues" could mean "since yesterday" or "for the past five hundred years." Additional sourcing would be necessary to make the statement in this manner, but a short statement that the EU has offered the opinion that the settlements are illegal is fine-the EU is a very notable body. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 11:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I concur on every point. The information deserves citation, with the caveat that the GA and European Union have "advisory" rather than "binding" observations.

The "typically" part can be left out until I or someone else can source more votes on the matter, but I agree that the "GA's opinion as a whole" on the matter should be noted.

The single source cited does indeed not state for how long the EU has held this opinion, so short of further sourcing and information a "short statement that the EU has offered the opinion that the settlements are illegal" is what is called for. The EU indeed qualifies as "notable." MarkB2 11:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Is it even the opinion of the EU? It appears to be the opinion of "EU-Settlements watch". Jayjg ^(talk) 13:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the EU has repeatedly stated it considers the settlements to be illegal. [13], [14], [15]. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MarkB2 (talk • contribs) 22:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC).

hitnahlut vs. yishuv: "all official Israeli references"

A few examples that it is not all official Israeli references:

שיש זכות לעם היהודי להתנחל בחבלי ארץ מולדתו". (הודעת בא כוח המדינה בשם ראש הממשלה בבג"ץ 390/79, פ"ד לד(1), 16).
Israel's Response to the Road Map
Sharon's Government policy

I'm changing to "most". If a source is given, "almost all" would also be acceptable.--Doron 12:44, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I concur. El_C 12:49, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Hansell Letter

GHCool, this letter certainly did express the longheld official opinion of the US government --as it says it is the " Opinion of the Office of the Legal Advisor, Department of State." PalestineRemembered could have worded it better, but the reference[16] provided later in the article has the complete opinion and makes its official status indisputable:

"Secretary Vance has asked me to reply to your request for a statement of legal considerations underlying the United States view that the establishment of the Israeli civilian settlements in the territories occupied by Israel is inconsistent with international law. Accordingly, I am approving the following in response to that request:" (Letter follows)

I do not know what is meant by "notable source". What Wikipedia policy are you referring to? The source given, FMEP, is certainly well-known and reliable, widely regarded as objective and honest, and is worth having in the article too, because one need not dig through a long report to find the opinion, and it gives a bit extra background.

The same opinion was earlier expressed e.g. by Amb Charles Yost (1968), and in mid-70s, UN reps William Scranton and George Bush Sr, (as well as President Carter and the later US vote on UNSC 465) Concerning Scranton's earlier statements of the illegality of the settlements, Israel registered a formal objection. I don't recall about the Hansell letter, but it probably did too,. So the State of Israel, as well as every other known source, agreed about the clear US position at that time. Giving legal opinions for the US with legal reasoning on matters of international law is the State Department Legal Advisor's job, and this letter is the most complete source on official US opinion at the time or later on the legality of Israeli settlements.

In addition, I think attempts at good and balanced editing should be encouraged, especially from an editor who has sometimes strayed from optimal practice and been admonished for it. He put in two things, decently sourced and worded, more or less representing both sides of a controversy. So I think one should think twice about removing half of an edit that showed a good faith attempt at balance.John Z 07:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

New historical research: secret Israeli memos about legality of post Six Day War occupations

APF: Secret memo said to prove Israel knew occupation was illegal. This isn't my area of specialty, its just a news story I came across today. It seems to be about the Israeli government at the time being advised that the settlements would have contravened the Geneva Conventions, but the Labor government at the time ignored the advice for whatever reason. --Abnn 05:56, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

The memo is already referred to in the article, its existence was publicized by Gershom Gorenberg's quoted book last year. From your reference and the Independent article [17] what is appears to be new is that Meron still holds this opinion, that Abba Eban apparently agreed, and that Meron believes "the settlements made peacemaking much more difficult". It would be nice if the Independent would make the memo public. (their title for the story is not appropriate BTW.) John Z 07:14, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Gorenberg quotes quite a bit of it (p99-102). It isn't actually all that surprising, since it is the obvious reading of the GC. More interesting is that an opinion was needed at all; that is, the Israeli government was considering how settlements could be established almost before the guns cooled down. --Zero^talk 07:34, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you can drop Gorenberg's quotation of the legal opinion into WikiSource if that is allowed. I've never used WikiSource myself but it sounds like the right solution for a historical document like this. --Abnn 07:37, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Golan Heights settlements

The article mentions the Golan Heights, but does not mention that there are 34 settlements there. The second sentence of the article should read "Such settlements currently exist in the West Bank, which is partially under Israeli military administration and partially under the control of the Palestinian National Authority, and in the Golan Heights, which is under Israeli civilian administration" (emphasis added). Furthermore, all articles about individual Golan Heights settlements should state they are such (with a wikilink to this article). Since I know this is a controversial issue, I wanted to discuss it here before making changes. My rationale is that (a) they fall under the definition given in the first sentence and, indeed, the description of the issue throughout article, and (b) they are referred to as such in many sources, including UN resolutions, American and European official documents, and academic publications. The only reason that I can think of why this would be controversial is the lack of reference to these communities as "settlements" in most (but not all) Israeli sources. I don't know of any explicit objection to this usage, or at least any significant objection. Your comments please.--Doron 07:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The other objection is of course, that the Golan is not merely "under Israeli civilian administration" (like Area C in the West bank), but rather part of Isreal, where Israeli law has been in effect, making the area currently a de-facto and de jure part of Israel proper (regardless of the various sematic mechanizations used by Israeli sources to avoid using the "aneexation" word). Former user 2 00:10, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

There's no difference here -- all Israeli settlements in the West Bank and Golan Heights are under Israeli law, administration and jurisdiction.--Doron 00:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

No, that's false. Israeli settlements in the WB are not under Israeli law. Their Israeli citizens may be, but the territory is not. The residents of the Golan are Israeli citizens (whether they choose to carry an Israeli passport or not) , whereas the residents of the WB are not. Former user 2 00:24, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

You're wrong. Read Chapter Four in [18]. Israeli settlements in the West Bank are, for almost all purposes, administrated the same as any Israeli municipality, local council and regional council, and are under the same law and jurisdiction.--Doron 00:44, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

What this polemic pamphlet alleges is that the situation is "de facto" annexation, not that the Israeli settlements in the West Bank are under Israeli law, administration and jurisdiction. It explicitly says exactly what I wrote above - that the Israeli citizens are subject to Israeli law, not that the territory is:

"The result was the creation of two types of enclaves of Israeli civilian law in the Occupied Territories − personal and territorial. The significance of the personal enclaves is that any Israeli citizen, and indeed any Jew (see below), in the Occupied Territories are subject, wherever they may be, to the authority of Israeli civilian law for almost all purposes, and not to the authority of the military law applying in these territories."

ANd note that even this says "for almost all purposes'. It is simply false that the status of the Golan, under Israeli law , is the same as the status of WB settlements. Former user 2 01:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I suppose you missed section B in that chapter.--Doron 05:19, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Doron, we are trying to make WP the best and most credible source, but the truth is that not all of it is entirely factual. Specifically, the point you brought up. Israeli law is entirely pervasive in the Golan. In contrast, in Yesha, the 'governour' is the Israeli defence minister, the official goverment is the Israel Defence Forces, and the Civil Authority is the overhead authority. In fact, Jordanian law is still applied. --Shuki 16:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand how does this make the Golan Heights settlements not settlements. Effectively, the WB settlements are run by the Ministry of the Interior. The settlements are not what they are because of the particular legal framework that governs them, they are what they are because their establishment in disputed territory makes them disputed, and they would still be "settlements" even if the legal framework was modified. Again -- the Golan Heights settlements fall under the definition given in the lead and in the rest of the article, and they are referred to as such in various sources. Please explain your rationale for excluding them and give sources for this rationale.--Doron 17:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

'effectively" is not the same as de jure - this is the key difference you are glossing over, and the basis for the polemic, fringe view brought forth in the B'Tselem pamphlet. From a legal persepetive, the status of the communites in the Golan is NOT the same as that of the WB settlements. The current Israeli settlement rightly perserves that distinction, whereas your attempts to conflate the issues seem to be just POV pushing. The rationale for keeping the distinction, and the POV categorization, was given to you more than once. Former user 2 17:54, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Let me get it straight -- you are saying that the differences in the legal framework between WB and GH Israeli communities is what makes the former "settlements" but not the latter? Can you give a source to back this distinction? Or is it just your own invention?--Doron 18:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Among other things, yes. It is not my invention - international opinion considers the Golan to have been annexed to Israel. They may consider this annexation illegal, they may declare it null and void, but they consider it to have been annexed (regardless of the semantic mechnaisms Israel used to avoid using the 'A' word). Internatioanl opinion does not treat the WB the same way. Internally, Israel does not treat the Golan the same way it treats the WB. What purpose does glossing over this distinction serve? Former user 2

I don't agree, but it is irrelevant. You didn't answer my question -- on what basis, other than your personal opinion, do you draw the distinction between West Bank communities (which should be considered "settlements") and Golan Heights communities (which, shouldn't)? Give a source that makes this distinction. I can give you plenty of sources that do not make this distinction.--Doron 18:30, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I thought you did not diapute the fact that they are not called "settlements" in Israel, but if you really need a sourc e- [19] Former user 2 18:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Are you trying to prove that there are no black swans by showing me a white swan? LOL, I can show you lots of articles about WB communities that don't refer to them as "settlements" -- which, I suppose, would mean that we can delete this article! What I'm asking is very simple, and you seem to be unable to do -- there are plenty of sources that refer to GH communities as "settlements". Do you have a source that disputes this designation?--Doron 19:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a source that disputes that Kiryat gat, for example, is a settlement? Former user 2 21:44, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Duh. Is Kiryat Gat a "community inhabited by Israeli Jews in territory that came under Israel's control as a result of the 1967 Six-Day War"?--Doron 22:23, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

This is circular logic. I don't accpet your definition, and from the POV of international law, Kiryat Gat has the same standing as the Golan communities. Now, do you have a source that disputes that Kiryat gat, for example, is a settlement, or is this a distinciton of your own invention? Former user 2 22:27, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

It isn't my definition, it's the definition at the top of this article, which I suggest you read when you have the time. If you have reliable sources that call Kiryat Gat an "Israeli settlement" (in the sense of this article, of course) then you can add Kiryat Gat as well, but I'm pretty sure the only ones that use this language regarding towns in Israel are the same ones that don't recognize Israel in the first place (and would probably use "Zionist settlement"). In contrast, West Bank and Golan Heights communities are frequently referred to (by respectable sources) as "settlements" in exactly the same sense, which is within the context of this article. You are yet to produce any reference to substantiate the distinction you are making between GH and WB settlements.--Doron 23:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd appreciate it if you toned down the patronizing and incivility in your edits. I assure you I can respond in kind if you persist. You concede above that I could easily find sources that have a POV that KG is as much a settlement as Keshet in the Golan, which is my point - these are POV desginations, not supported by anything in international law or in reality. The definition in the article is the work of editors like you and me - and not more authoritive on the subject than what you and I write here. More to the point, I am fine with the article as is - because it clearly makes a distinction between WB settlements, and the Golan - about which the article says 'The term sometimes includes communities in territory that was captured in 1967, but has since been under Israeli civil law , administration and jurisdiction' . I ask that this disputed application be kept out of artilces about the Golan communites, per WP policy, and per the rationale I've given you. You have yet to answer why it is important to glos over the distinction in status between these two types of communites. Former user 2 23:35, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I apologize if my tone was offensive. We just don't seem to be making any progress (yet again). The whole Kiryat Gat issue is irrelevant, since it doesn't even conform to the description in the first sentence of the article, so you can stop mentioning it. All sorts of people may refer to all sorts of things as "Israeli settlements", but they are not the subject of this article. You claim that the application to GH communities is disputed, but you provide no source to substantiate this claim. As you probably know, some people even dispute the application to some WB communities, or indeed to all WB communities. So why should we take this dispute about GH communities seriously, just because you say so? Let us evaluate this dispute, provide references, something that we can work with.--Doron 23:51, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

It is not my say so - it is generally accepted (apparently with the exception of the fringe position the B'tselem is advocating) that the Golan has been de jure annexed to Israel, while the WB has not. (and from an international law perspective as well as an internal Israeli law one, it means that the Golan communities have the same status as Kiryat Gat). It follows that the status of the Golan communities is not the same as the WB ones. This is reflected in the terminology applied to them, both in Israel, and in many cases, outside of Israel. The WB communities are referred to as "settlements" (Hitnachluyot) both in Israel and out of Israel, whereas the Golan communities are referred to as "communities" (Yesuvim) in Israel, and in many cases outside of it. This differnce in status is reflected in this article as well, and for good reason - you have not yet advanced any good reason why we should gloss over the differnce. Former user 2 02:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Still no references. I don't see how this is all relevant, since "settlement" is not a legal term, not in Israel and not anywhere else, and the word "communities" is sometimes used for both GH and WB communities, in Israel and abroad as well. "Israeli settlement" means Israeli communities established in the territories captured in 1967 whose legal status is therefore disputed. Nothing of what you've said contradicts this, or its application to GH communities. This polemic is nothing but your personal opinion and isn't backed by references. I have plenty of references to GH communities as "settlements" and you are yet to provide a citable rationale of why this use may be disputed.--Doron 05:31, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

What references are you looking for? I 've provided references that refert to the Golan communites as such, rather thanm as "settlement". I've provided references that say the Giolan was annexed to Israel. That's more than enough to show that they can't be labeled with a controversial label. How about answering my question now, seeing as I've asked it 3 times already without an answer. Former user 2 18:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

As I said before, I want a reference that indicates that the use is controversial. That, of course, would not be enough, because the use is controversial even for West Bank settlements, but it would be a start. You seem to be unable to prove even this simple thing -- that somebody other than you disputes the application to Golan Heights settlements. As for glossing over the difference, a precious little minority sees this difference, so I see no reason to emphasize it (though it may warrant a mention in the article, with a citation of course).--Doron 08:34, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

You are asking for something which is unreasonable - and that was the purpose of the Kiryat Gat example. Since you missed that, let me explain: Suppose some editor decided to label Kiryat Gat as an "Isreali settlement" (based on the fact that it is built on land beyond the area alloted to the Jewish state in the 1947, based on the fact that it is partially on the lands of Al-Faluja whose inhabitants were intimidated into leaving, etc...). As you have conceded, there would not be a problem to find sources that describe KG as a "settlement", or a "zionist settlement", or even "illegal settlement" (see this as one quick example). Now, according to your standard, in order to avoid this nonsense, we'd have to find a source that explictly says 'Kiryat Gat is not an illegal settlement" - good luck with that. This is simply not the way teh WP works. We do not have to find sources that explicitly refute every nonsensical claim or controversial label - when controversy exists (such as the case of the Golan communities) - we note the controversy (as this article does, with its distinction between WB and Golan communities), and we avoid assigning a POV label when such a controversy exists. Contrary to your claim that only a 'precious little minority sees this difference" (can you provide as source that supports this claim, btw?) - the distinction is, at a minimum, the official position of Israel - a sizable nation which is a party to the conflict. Former user 2 21:04, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

There is no such thing as "settlement" in the official Israeli position, whether in the West Bank or the Golan Heights, and if it Israel's official position was that the former are settlements but not the latter, I'm sure you would have been able to give a reference.

The Kiryat Gat business is indeed nonsense, I do understand your point very well and I wish you'd drop it because it proves nothing. If you could find a UN resolution, an American or European official document, a serious history book, a BBC, CNN or New York Times piece -- anything that is citable on Wikipedia really -- that calls Kiryat Gat a "settlement" in the context of this article, that would be a different matter. Since, I assume, you can't, we can indeed safely dismiss this application of the term as nonsense. As for Golan Heights communities, we have loads of such citable references to them as "settlements" (exactly in the context of this article), so you can't dismiss this as nonsense. Since it is not nonsense, there's no reason not to include it here. It fits the definition and description in the article, and it is massively citable.

Since such references are so abundant, it is only reasonable to assume that if the term was controversial to the point that we couldn't use it, someone notable would have written about this controversy, explain why the difference between Golan Heights communities and West Bank communities excludes the former from the term "settlements". With so many references and nobody to counter them, there's no reason to assume there is any controversy at all. By "precious little minority" I was generous, because so far it seems that this minority consists of only one Wikipedia editor.--Doron 22:07, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

again, what you are stating as fact - "There is no such thing as "settlement" in the official Israeli position" - is imply false, and easily demonstrable as such. The Israeli offical position is most certainly that there are settlements - in the WB. See this as an example of the official Isreali position. Former user 2 01:57, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Who wrote it? Who voted on it? What makes it "official position"? Actually, this anonymous essay links to the guidelines of the first Sharon government, which are official policy. These guidelines talk about "settlement throughout the country", and "settlement in the Galilee and the Negev". The Ministry of Foreign Affairs website also hosts several essays speaking specifically about Golan Heights settlements. For example, [20] and [21] are translations of old Haaretz articles. They could have chosen the word "communities", but apparently they didn't find anything wrong about the word "settlement".--Doron 05:33, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

You are clutching at straws. This is sourced to and refers to 'Government of Israel, Policy Guidelines, March 2001'. Please stop this POV pushing, which is getting ridiculous. Former user 2 14:20, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm clutching at straws? You don't get it, do you? The text you refer to as "Government of Israel, Policy Guidelines, March 2001" is the one you get when you click the hyperlink [22]. These guidelines are indeed official policy, and they talk about "settlement throughout the country" and "settlement in the Galilee and the Negev", but nothing about the West Bank. The only thing about the West Bank talks about "Jewish residents of Judea and Samaria" (and not "settlers")!--Doron 14:50, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Would you label the Jewish Quarter an Israeli settlement? What about Kfar Etzion? Correct me if I'm wrong, but there is no "official" designation of what precisely defines an "Israeli settlement". As such, I just don't see a better alternative to using the outlines of the Israeli government's application of its sovereignty for any type of consistent and meaningful use of this label. Tewfik^Talk 09:10, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but yes -- they are both settlements, though this application may be disputed. If you can find evidence that this application is disputed, then I suppose we cannot apply the term to the Jewish Quarter or Kfar Etzion without care. I'm still waiting to read anything that would indicate that there is a dispute regarding the Golan Heights settlements.

"Israeli settlement" is not a legal term -- it is a political and historical term. The problem is that the term is not related to an Israeli official position ("דין נצרים כדין תל-אביב"), it is a political and historical term that is used not just in Israel, but in the international arena and media as well. Usage of the term varies, and we cannot find a definition that suites everyone, since there are some that don't even agree that there is a difference between Havat Ma'on and Tel Aviv. Some people, like Isarig, distinguish between Golan Heights settlements and West Bank settlements, some distinguish between isolated settlements and large blocs, some distinguish between settlements that are adjacent to the Green Line, such as Alfe Menashe and Har Adar and those that are deep inside the territories, some distinguish between established settlements and outposts, some distinguish between the Jordan Valley kibbutz's and the Gush Emunim "ideological" settlements, any such distinction represents a small group within the international community, which largely applies the term to all Israeli communities in territories that are not recognized as sovereign Israeli territory, starting from the very first UN resolutions right after the Six Day War. Golan Heights settlements were called so before the Golan Heights Law, and the international community did not recognize any change in their status as a result of the law. If Israel applies the same legal framework to West Bank settlements, they would still be viewed as "settlements" by the international community.

Again, Wikipedia is about verification. There's very little we can do without someone presenting reliable sources that shed light on this issue.--Doron 09:59, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Right, but my point was as follows: Clearly, Kfar Etzion is a settlement because of the way that the Israeli government treats it, but if we are now dealing with ambiguous definitions such as 'Israeli construction', then someplace like the Jewish Quarter would not be. Such a place would only be considered a settlement if the term was really "Jewish settlement", i.e., settlement only applies to "Jewish" (whatever that means) populations over the 1949 lines. While an international media that is often times only loosely aware of the complicated realities might use such terminology, such a definition is inherently discriminatory, and of course extremely imprecise. Thus lacking any other clear and precise definition, it seems to me that the application of sovereignty by Israel is the only logical solution (with the obvious extreme prejudice necessary on a self-applied definition, though regarding distinctions of "illegal outposts" and such they have been relatively good) to representing the actual reality, which as you say is the goal of WP. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 19:25, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

First, the question of sovereignty is complicated even with respect to East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights (see respective articles), not to mention that it is unrecognized. Second, I don't see why you think the Jewish Quarter should be treated differently from other settlements. I really don't see why there's any discriminatory nature to this term -- it is a simple term that describes Jewish communities established on disputed territory and the implications of such status, without necessarily carrying any negative or positive connotations. A balanced and neutral article about this subject would give a historical background and explain these complications you speak of, and this is what this article should be. This description applies the Jewish Quarter, Kiryat Arba, Havat Ma'on and Katzrin, all of which are on disputed territory, all of which with their particular loaded historical background, all with their particular legal status with respect to Israeli and international law, all with their political implications. I don't understand where's the discrimination here and I don't understand the fierce opposition to including the Golan Heights settlements. I'm guessing that it is either because some people here feel that the term "settlement" carries some negative connotation which they wouldn't like to apply to certain settlements, or because they pretend there are no complications and nothing to discuss in this context regarding the Golan Heights settlements. I'm sorry, Katzrin is not the same as Kiryat Gat -- unlike Katzrin, Kiryat Gat is located in what is internationally-recognized as Israeli sovereign territory, and it is not a candidate for dismantlement or transfer to foreign control. In all these respects, Golan Heights settlements have everything in common with West Bank, Gaza Strip and Sinai settlements, even if they differ in some particular aspects.

And again, I'm sorry I have to stress this, there are lots of reliable sources that make these references, enough so that you can't dismiss them as being ignorant. Not without a substantial source that counters this supposed-ignorance. The fact that we haven't seen a single source to counter all these references speaks volumes.--Doron 20:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

But who said Israeli settlement = Jewish community? When did this become a religious issue, and who defines to whom that applies? Surely no international body declared that it is the residence of "Jews" in the West Bank that is illegitimate. You yourself used the term "Israeli construction" just a few lines ago. What my point is, and what I think has become clear, is that the dejure application of Israeli sovereignty, as disputed as it may be, is the only standard that exists. Every reliable source will have chosen to focus on a specific issue, but none of them present a consistent and rationalised designation. Tewfik^Talk 07:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Moi? It was you who said "construction", I'm pretty sure. I didn't want to get into the question of legitimacy or lack thereof, the article covers this. My point is that there is such an issue, both with West Bank and Golan Heights settlements. I don't agree that Israeli sovereignty is the only standard, because (a) there's another standard -- the one that guides all sources on the subject of Israeli settlements, expcept for, perhaps, (most) Israeli sources -- and that is the one that is given in the first sentence of the article -- "Israeli settlements are communities inhabited by Israeli Jews in territory that came under Israel's control as a result of the 1967 Six-Day War"; (b) Israel's de jure sovereignty over any of these territories is not recognized internationally, thus this standard incorporates an Israeli POV. Why should we prefer the standard you suggest (which is, by the way, not backed by a single reference so far), and give undue weight to a minority position, rather than the widely-acceptable well-referenced standard?--Doron 10:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant to reference your use of "Israeli communities", versus your later use of "Jewish community". I highly doubt that any UN resolution specifies as illegitimate residency by certain people in the West Bank based on either their religion or ethnicity, which would be both racist and impossible to consistently apply (Who is a Jew?). I don't think even the official position of the PLO is one that discriminates against a group (only "Zionists"). Again, the terms loosely thrown around and varying by group cannot trump the only consistent standard - the application of Israeli sovereignty. It is fully applied to the Golan, and not so to the West Bank. Of course if a specific entity is subject to controversy it can be mentioned (ala Pisgat Ze'ev), but we cannot start definitively labelling entries on the basis of their exposure in the press or some other less than stellar reason, especially when compared to a static and official government policy. Tewfik^Talk 19:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

where is this international recognition of Kiryat Gat being part of Israeli sovereign territory? Former user 2 20:13, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Fine, if you think Kiryat Gat is a settlement and you have proper references, go ahead and add it to this article. Obviously nothing of what you've said throughout this long argument can be backed by even a single reference that would stand in the way of referring to Golan Heights settlements as such. Now given the references I have to Golan Heights settlements, I intend to add this subject to this article. Am I going to face an edit war? If so, I'll start by a RfC.--Doron 21:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

This is not about me, despite your repeated attempts to focus it on me. You made a statement - I'm asking you to back it up with some reference. If you add something to the article which, as this discussion shows, has no consensus, expect to have it reverted. Former user 2 22:35, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

You're the one that started the whole Kiryat Gat thing in the first place. Wikipedia is about verification, not about polemics. If there's no serious source that refers to Kiryat Gat as a settlement, then there's nothing to discuss. Now, again, is there any source you can bring forward that would shed new light on the issue of Golan Heights settlements, anything that should be considered before I include the Golan Heights settlements, with proper citations? --Doron 04:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Three different editors vehemently disagree with you here on this issue. If you go ahead and include the Golan Heights settlements despite this clear lack of consensus, expect not only to be reverted, but to be reported for disruptive editing. You need to get consensus for controversial edits - that is how WP works. Former user 2 14:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

RfC: Inclusion of Golan Heights settlements

I would like to change the second sentence of the article to the following (my addition emphasized):

Such settlements currently exist in the West Bank, which is partially under Israeli military administration and partially under the control of the Palestinian National Authority, and in the Golan Heights, which are under Israeli civilian administration.

This change means that Israeli communities in the Golan Heights are regarded as settlements within the context of this article. This inclusion is backed by numerous reference from various sources. A few examples:

Academic: G. Aronson, ed., Settlement Monitor. Journal of Palestine Studies XXVII:4 (Summer 1998), 136–144. • S. Waterman. Variations on a Theme of Settlement: A Review Article. Bulletin (British Society for Middle Eastern Studies), 12:2 (1985), 199-206. • Y. Ben-Aharon. Negotiating with Syria: A First-Hand Account. Middle East Review of International Affairs, 4:2 (June 2000) [23].
Official documents by the UN ([24], [25]), including resolutions ([26], [27], [28], [29], [30]), United States ([31], [32], [33], ), European Union ([34], [35]).
The media: BBC ([36], [37]), CNN ([38]), The New York Times ([39], [40], [41]), YNet ([42], [43]), Haaretz ([44], [45]).
Other sources: Jewish Virtual Library ([46]), Columbia Encyclopedia ([47])

Furthermore, the Golan Heights settlements are within the scope of this article, as it is presented:

They are in disputed territory which Israel has captured in 1967.
Their dismantlement has been considered as part of a military withdrawal (similar to West Bank settlements, and as was the fate of Sinai and Gaza Strip settlements).
They were established by both left- and right-wing-affiliated movements.
They have similar justifications -- both historical and security -- as presented in the article.
Their status is an issue of international law and diplomacy, as presented in the article.

Since Golan Heights settlements are referred to as such in the literature on numerous occasions, and since the presentation given in the article applies to them, there's no reason not to include them in the article.

The way the article presents this issue at the moment, it appears that the Golan Heights settlements ceased to be "settlements" once Israeli law was applied to them in 1981. It is worth mentioning that:

In most aspects, Israeli law and administration applies to West Bank settlements as well.
Such Israeli measures are not recognized internationally as sufficient to change their status.
The article does not give a rationale for this distinction -- even after 1981, they are still located in disputed territory and their disputed status remains -- why should their somewhat different legal framework determine that they are no longer settlements? How can this be inferred from the definition of "Israeli settlement"? If Israel applies her law and administration fully (rather than almost fully) to West Bank settlements, would they also be excluded?
Most importantly -- the article cites no source for this standard. Why should Wikipedia adopt an unexplained standard for what qualifies as "settlements", with no sources to back it, in face of overwhelming usage of another standard?

Discuss

Oppose But go right ahead, and take this "reasoning" to its logical conclusion, and call all of the modern state a settlement, because it is all disputed. Bet you can find many sources for THAT, so it MUST be legit., right? And indeed, why should wikipedia recognise the fact that the state itself doesn't consider it so, if so many hostile nations don't?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yehoishophot Oliver (talk • contribs) 15:36, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

If you could find substantial evidence that all of Israel is widely considered "settlements" in the context of this article, then I would tell you to go right ahead and add this subject. However, since the West Bank, Golan Heights (and former Gaza Strip and Sinai) settlements are widely considered "settlements" in a certain context, while those in Israel are not, your remark is irrelevant. Wikipedia should not reflect a minority view, whether Israeli or anti-Israeli.--Doron 09:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Support Israeli sovereignty over the Golan is recognised by no-one, and therefore there is little difference between the status of the settlements there and those in other occupied territories except in the eyes of the Israeli government. Number 5 7 08:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Support per Number 57. --Marvin Diode 14:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Oppose per the rational I stated above. Otherwise we allow for arbitrary application of the term to any area that happens to have received press coverage, while ignoring the various legal and pragmatic distinctions between them. Tewfik^Talk 06:57, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Support, and this is not an arbitrary application. "Israeli Settlements" should be regarded as all those colonies established in areas captured in 1967 and not recognised internationally as part of Israeli territory, that strikes me as very straightforward.Nwe 13:58, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Support per Number 57 and Nwe. Assuming their information presented is correct, and I'm fairly sure it is. PalestineRemembered 20:31, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Support - My understanding is that the significance of "legal and pragmatic distinctions" between Golan Heights and WB settlements in the context of this article is completely unsupported by reliable sources at the moment. Phonemonkey 12:19, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Support - Agree with Number 57, Nwe, etc. -- Rei 17:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Terminology edit

Apologies, since I'm sure someone or some people put quite a lot of effort into writing most of the stuff I removed, but as my edit summary says it was simply a long and rambling essay, full of assertion, debate and comment that went a long way off target from simply explaining what terminology is used in respect of settlements. What references there were, were not formatted properly; it was full of odd phrases like "although articles in Wikipedia .."; it stated personal viewpoints as fact ie "there is a disconnect from accepted usage" etc etc. It just jumped out of the page as being more of a blog entry than part of an encyclopedia article. This section does probably need a brief reference to the marginal "settlements vs communities" and "occupied vs disputed" debates, but these need to be sourced and written properly, and without undue weight being given to the issue. And in my view, make clear that the usually accepted terminology in English, by the vast majority of official sources, is the former in each case. --Nickhh 13:08, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Legality of the settlements

For reasons I can't entirely fathom, Bocaccio70s seems quite determined to POV the section on the legality of the settlements. In general, we have quite a few sources, including neutral and uninvolved scholarly legal views, stating quite clearly that Chapter VI resolutions are non-binding. For example (these are only some of the sources that were already there):

"Additionally it may be noted that the Security Council cannot adopt binding decisions under Chapter VI of the Charter." De Hoogh, Andre. Obligations Erga Omnes and International Crimes, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Jan 1, 1996, p. 371.
"Council recommendations under Chapter VI are generally accepted as not being legally binding." Magliveras, Konstantinos D. Exclusion from Participation in International Organisations, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Jan 1, 1999, p. 113.
"Within the framework of Chapter VI the SC has at its disposal an 'escalation ladder' composed of several 'rungs' of wielding influence on the conflicting parties in order to move them toward a pacific solution... however, the pressure exerted by the Council in the context of this Chapter is restricted to non-binding recommendations." Neuhold, Hanspeter. "The United Nations System for the Peaceful Settlement of International Disputes", in Cede, Franz & Sucharipa-Behrmann, Lilly. The United Nations, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Jan 1, 2001, p. 66.
"The responsibility of the Council with regard to international peace and security is specified in Chapters VI and VII. Chapter VI, entitled 'Pacific Settlements of Disputes', provides for action by the Council in case of international disputes or situations which do not (yet) post a threat to international peace and security. Herein its powers generally confined to making recommendations, the Council can generally not issue binding decisions under Chapter VI." Schweigman, David. The Authority of the Security Council Under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Jan 1, 2001, p. 33.
"Under Chapter VI, the Security Council may only make recommendations but not binding decisions on United Nations members". (Wallace-Bruce, Nii Lante. The Settlement of International Disputes, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Jan 1, 1998, pp. 47-4).

To these I have added the following:

"First, it may issue non-binding resolutions under Chapter VI of the Charter expressing its opinion on the abuses and their resolution." Mertus, Julie. The United Nations And Human Rights: A Guide For A New Era, Routledge, 2005, ISBN 0415343380, p. 120.
"Under Chapter VI the Security Council can only make non-binding recommendations. However, if the Security Council determines that the continuance of the dispute constitutes a threat to the peace, or that the situation involves a breach of the peace or act of aggression it can take action under Chapter VII of the Charter. Chapter VII gives the Security Council the power to make decisions which are binding on member states, once it has determined the existence of a threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression." Hillier, Timothy, Taylor & Francis Group. Sourcebook on Public International Law, Cavendish Publishing, ISBN 1843143801, 1998, p. 568.
"Nor is the disenchanting performance due to the fact that under Chapter VI the SC may only address non-binding resolutions to the conflicting parties." Cede, Franz, and Sucharipa-Behrmann, Lilly. The United Nations: Law and Practice, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2001, ISBN 9041115633, p. 70.
"This clause does not apply to decisions under Chapter VII (including the use of armed force), which are binding on all member states (unlike those adopted under Chapter VI which are of a non-binding nature)." Köchler, Hans. The Concept of Humanitarian Intervention in the Context of Modern Power, International Progress Organization, 2001, ISBN 3900704201, p. 21.
"The impact of these flaws inherent to Resolution 731 (1992) was softened by the fact that it was a non-binding resolution in terms of Chapter VI of the Charter. Consquently Libya was not bound to give effect to it. However, the situation was different with respect to Resolution 748 of 31 March 1992, as it was adopted under Chapter VII of the Charter." De Wet, Erika, "The Security Council as a Law Maker: The Adopion of (Quasi)-Judicial Decisions", in Wolfrum, Rüdiger and Röben, Volker. Developments of International Law in Treaty Making, Springer, 2005, ISBN 3540252991, p. 203.

There are many other sources saying the exact same thing.
In addition, Erika De Wet has written an entire book on Chapter VII powers of the Security Council (titled, appropriately, The Chapter VII Powers of the United Nations Security Council), which spends the greater part of a chapter demolishing the claim that Chapter VI resolutions are binding, and dealing specifically with the Namibia decision, which, for all its bluster, was enforced via a Chapter VII resolution. These sources are unequivocal, and significantly post-date the 1971 Namibia decision Court of Justice, about which they are all certainly well aware (and indeed, as pointed out, in some cases specifically address it). It is therefore baffling that Bocaccio70s would insist on moving this multiply sourced material down, and instead insert the 1971 opinion of the International Court of Justice in front as the leading opinion? In addition, why are people giving the singular view of Pieter H.F. Bekker such prominence, and falsely describing his opinion as "some have argued"? Bekker is one person, not "some". Finally, the organization of the section is that arguments based on specific sections of the Fourth Geneva convention are each given in their own section. Why, then is Bocaccio70s copying material from the section Israeli_settlement#Article_49 section and inserting it in the lead? I find this most troubling; please respond here. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:44, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Only one question: the personal views of university professors have more value as a legal judgement of a court of justice? --Bocaccio70s (talk) 03:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

These are legal scholars writing for legal presses, and there are literally dozens of such "opinions". The ICJ's opinion is just that, an advisory opinion, and as has been pointed out, in the case of the Namibia decision the actual enforcement was under Chapter VII anyway, not Chapter VI. Indeed, regarding the Libya case, the exact same thing occurred; a new resolution under Chapter VII was required before any binding enforcement could be considered. You have seriously abused WP:NPOV here, and this is very disturbing. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

The ICJ is the principal judicial organ of the United Nations, and why his views are particularly important. It is not a mere opinion: one thing is the views of many legal scholars and another thing the views of a court of justice (advisory opinion or not). And yes, you have seriously abused WP:NPOV here, and this is very disturbing (really you are administrator??) --Bocaccio70s (talk) 04:19, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

The ICJ is indeed a judicial organ of the United Nations; however, its opinions are merely advisory - that is why they call them advisory decisions. The legal scholars who have written these textbooks on international law are well aware of the ICJ's opinions on these matters. Despite this, they give them the weight they deserve; that is, one opinion, and an opinion that is seriously at odds with the consensus of legal opinion on the matter, and, in fact, with what customary international law and the U.N. Charter itself say. We give the ICJ's minority opinion its due weight in this article, but that doesn't mean their opinion trumps what the vast majority of legal scholars say on the subject. Please review WP:NPOV. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:25, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Vast majority of legal scholars? What do they say? Because from every journal on International Law I have picked up, I have really got the impression those whom support Israel are a minority. Colourinthemeaning (talk) 04:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Did you read the comments above? The issue has nothing to do with whether or not the scholars "support Israel", but rather, whether or not decisions taken by the Security Council under Chapter VI are binding. On that subject, the vast majority of legal scholars are in consensus that they are not binding. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:40, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, I think we already understand. Legal scholars vs court of justice. Winner? Legal scholars, of course (in english WP, at least...). In the courts of justice of America (or another country) is the same? And really is "the vast majority of legal scholars"? Not "many" or "some"? Are you really sure? References, please.--Bocaccio70s (talk) 05:01, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

In addition to a number of other statements to that effect by various commentators of all sorts, there are already 10 separate and distinct references there from legal scholars, in separate legal textbooks stating exactly that. They don't equivocate or waffle about this, they simply state it as fact. We have an entire legal textbook devoted to the solely to the subject Chapter VII, written by an expert in exactly this subject, which says the same, and demolishes the arguments made by the ICJ in reference to that. What do you have to counter that? Jayjg ^(talk) 05:07, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

"10 separate and distinct references" not signifies "the vast majority of legal scholars". Better references, please. In fact, it is not a question of quantity (legal scholars): it is a matter of quality (ICJ).--Bocaccio70s (talk) 05:18, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

While you've been asserting your opinions, I've been adding sources. I've added eight more legal scholars stating the same thing, and there are plenty more where they came from. Your assertion that the "quality" of these legal scholars does not match your one source is meaningless - in particular because one of the members of the ICJ that made the Namibia decision, Sir Gerald Fitzmaurice, specifically dissented from the ICJ's claim that Chapter VI recommendations were binding, and gave rather cogent reasoning as to why. You'll find his reasoning in the article now too (in a footnote). Jayjg ^(talk) 05:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Eight legal scholars is a number, ill grant you that. I don't think the argument is whether these resolutions are binding or not, but whether they still have significance and meaning if they are not. Colourinthemeaning (talk) 07:17, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

It's actually over 20 legal scholars in total so far, including members of the International Court of Justice itself. Jayjg ^(talk) 07:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Jayjg compares things that are not comparable: one thing are the views of many legal scholars and another thing are the opinions of a court of justice (advisory opinion or not). The views of a court always have more legal value, and this is the case in all countries and in all legal systems, in international law or in national law. We must distinguish between legal academic writings (personal views of university professors) and official pronouncements of a court of justice, which never have the same legal value. Saying that both are comparable is lying. Quality, not quantity. Moreover, has disappeared the reference to the article 8(2)(b)(viii) of the Rome Statute (not ratified by Israel, of course), that defines "[t]he transfer, directly or indirectly, by the Occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies" as a war crime [48]. The State of Israel encourages migration to the settlements [49] into the West Bank, an Israeli occupied territory (see [50], paragraph 78).--Bocaccio70s (talk) 04:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Please provide sources for your claims. Oh, and while you're at it, please provide a reference to 8(2)(b)(viii) of the Rome Statute in relation to Israel's actions. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:24, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Bocaccios70s, it is quite inappropriate for you to significantly change your comments after I had already responded to them. And I'm still waiting for citations for your claims; in particular, which reliable source directly ties 8(2)(b)(viii) of the Rome Statute to Israeli settlements? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:08, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Bocaccio70s, you have again inserted the [[WP:NOR|original research about 8(2)(b)(viii) of the Rome Statute.[51] Which reliable source directly ties 8(2)(b)(viii) of the Rome Statute to Israeli settlements? Also, please don't insert unhelpful qualifiers (the sources themselves do not use such qualifiers), and please do not re-arrange material in ways that destroys the logical flow. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC)