Talk:United Nations Security Council Resolution 2334

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 December 2016

On the second line of text, replace "Israel′s" with "Israel's" VulpesVulpes42 (talk) 16:25, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Done.[1]Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:50, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 December 2016

• Current Version: "The American pro-Israeli organization J Street said (...)"

• Problem: The claim that J street is "pro Israel" is POV and hotly debated, see: J Street#Relationship with Israeli Government, J Street#Reception, J Street#Controversy

• Editing Request: Change to "The American self-claimed "pro Israel" organization J Street said (…)" Yabti (talk) 16:47, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

I support, but "self-described pro-Israel" or "Jewish", instead of "self-claimed pro Israel".Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:51, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

I support as well. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 23:26, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Declined, that sounds like a POV term. They are a pro-Israeli organization, that's how they describe themselves, and there is absolutely no serious reason to cast suspicion on their sincerity in their support for Israel. Overall, they seem pretty mainstream, their positions are essentially based on the western consensus shared by just about everyone who is not an extremist (whether on the hard right or the hard left) in western countries (including millions of Jews who live in western countries), their President used to work as a policy adviser for Bill Clinton and so on, and their position on the Israeli–Palestinian conflict is based on the international consensus view (two-state solution etc.) as well. --Tataral (talk) 01:37, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

You can't decline it, you can oppose it. We're having a discussion. And it is POV to call them pro-Israel when mainstream US Jews are not in favor of them, as evidence by the sections highlighted above. And you proved the point. They describe themselves as pro-Israel but that is irrelevant. I can describe myself as whatever I want but that doesn't make it true. It is POV to describe them as pro-Israel when there is much controversy to that statement. That is why self-claimed or self-described is neutral. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 03:01, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

No, it's not POV to describe an organization as pro-Israel, when the organization itself primarily describes itself as being pro-Israel and publicly states that it supports Israel. In addition to being a POV weasely wording, "self-claimed" is completely unnecessary, and this article is not the correct place to have a debate over whether it "really" is pro-Israel from the perspective of the far right. --Tataral (talk) 03:26, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Done As per the evidence from the J street page and the consensus below, I changed the statement to "self described pro-Israel." This is neutral and not undue. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 03:06, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Not done. There is no consensus for such a change, and the proposed wording is clearly POV. --Tataral (talk) 03:19, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

It is POV to describe them as pro-Israel. If you used to work for the European Commission, then focus on Europe, you shouldn't be editing US sections of articles if you don't have competency in that area. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 03:48, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Also, this article has nothing to do with the US; Palestine is in fact much closer to Europe than to the US. (I do in fact mostly focus on Europe). --Tataral (talk) 04:16, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Self-described pro-Israel is pov.

But there is no need to qualify J Street at all. Reader can just click on the link to see who they are. Pluto2012 (talk) 12:31, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree so I made the change.--Shrike (talk) 14:12, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Since there was a claim about a lack of consensus, I can say for sure that J Street is looked upon by the pro-Israel community as a largely anti-Israel group. Feel free to google "J Street anti-Israel" or anything similar. To have it written that J Street is pro-Israel would be POV. In any case, it looks like this is settled for now with the updated wording. Accipio Mitis Frux (talk) 15:48, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Domestic reaction in the US

I question whether we need to quote reactions from three US domestic politicians opposed to the resolution who do not represent the country internationally, in addition to the official position of the United States as a country quoted above. We should at the very least remove the third guy, an obscure parliamentarian. We don't include the views of any US politicians (who are not acting on behalf of their country in an official government capacity) supporting the resolution. We also don't have discussion of domestic views on the resolution in any other individual countries. It's a bad thing that articles on international issues tend to get flooded with discussion of US domestic affairs of little importance in an international context. --Tataral (talk) 03:42, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

If you think Schumer is an obscure guy then perhaps you shouldn't be editing the US section. As I mentioned on your talk page it is extremely appropriate to add Schumer since he is from Obama's party to signify that US opposition is not just from the GOP. Furthermore, if you can't see why this article will have comments by US politicians then perhaps you shouldn't be editing this article. This article is here mostly because of the US so of course it will focus on those in the US against this resolution. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 03:47, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Schumer is an obscure guy in an international context, and in an article where we otherwise mainly quote official responses by countries and not domestic politicians who disagree with their own government. Yet here we have no less than 3 domestic politicians from one country with the same opinion (and no domestic politicians with the opposite opinion), in addition to the official position of their country quoted above. If we include political party of US politicians, then there would be no reason to remove political party of, say, the Norwegian foreign minister (a conservative). --Tataral (talk) 04:03, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

This article received the prominence it had because of the US abstention. Otherwise it'd be an obscure article nobody reads. Therefore it of course makes sense to have US response since internally the abstention was not the policy of the Congress. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 04:06, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Um, no, that's wrong. This is not an article about the US, and your claim that it exists because of the US is blatantly wrong, it exists just as much because of Russia, China, the UK, France and other countries. And no, we are not going to focus "on those in the US against this resolution", a resolution that was adopted with 14 in favour and 0 against, and that was not opposed by the US either, a resolution which according to the US government represents the international consensus view on the subject. "Those in the US against this resolution" on the other hand represent an extremist fringe POV with practically no international support, as evidenced by how the Security Council voted on this resolution. --Tataral (talk) 04:10, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Right back at you, you're wrong. Had the US vetoed this resolution then we wouldn't be here. The fact that the US abstained is the news and US reaction will of course play prominence. Calling the US politicians "fringe" is ludicrous. While the UN may vote a certain way, that is not the way of 99% of the US Congress and so it's bizarre to call it fringe. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 04:14, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

No, the news is the resolution itself. It was supported by 14 Security Council members (including 4 who have the exact same status as the US) and opposed by 0. Israel now needs to focus on how to comply with it. --Tataral (talk) 04:18, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, agreed it's kind of weird to see so many quotes from US politicians. I already removed some quotes (Senator from Oregon or someone like that). To show these guys' opposition, could we instead just say that Paul Ryan and Chuck Schumer (along with their titles) opposed the resolution? This will be less verbose but still convey the idea that various high-ranking politiciasn opposed the resolution or the abstention. HaEr48 (talk) 05:08, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that would be a clear improvement. --Tataral (talk) 08:14, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Tatarai is basically correct. There is even a source bias in reportage of what actually occurred. Intense focus is given to the U.S. internal kerfuffle (totally predictable, in terms of internal politics), but the outstanding facts are that the resolution was seconded by all the major powers, and aside from the initial bruited snub to Teresa May, quickly backtracked on, there is little if anything regarding the fact that Britain and France positively voted for the motion, representing wider EU opinion, not to speak of Russia and China.The Palestinian question raised is not about what the U.S. and Israel agree on or disagree over. It is substantially about the international, virtually unanimous consensus on settlements violating objectively the conventions regarding the rights and duties of an occupying power. Politicians in both these countries can splutter, rage, spout nonsense ad libitum, but that does not alter the concrete legal facts. Politics can override laws, and finesse clear cut understandings for internal or geopolitical reasons and interests, but we all know this is playing to electoral constituencies and power interests, and has no lien on either the realities on the ground or the general quasi unanimous reading of what the Geneva Convention obliges the actors to observe in this case. Nishidani (talk) 16:04, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Diplomatic maneuvering in the plan for ratification (proposed new section)

• The resolution appeared after months of intensely secret deliberation in the US administration, and unannounced meetings between Kerry and Obama [2]

• Ukrainian vote for the resolution came only after a conversation between US Vice President Biden and the Ukrainian president Peroshenko [3]

According to Israeli officials, the Ukranian support came only after US pressure [4].

• New Zealand initially circulated a similar proposal earlier this year, but it was not taken seriously. The Egyptian proposal was then endorsed by them. [5] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.252.83.121 (talk) 05:21, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Consider for inclusion

Peter Beaumont 'Israel threatens to give Trump 'evidence' that Obama orchestrated UN resolution,' The Guardian 26 December 2016

What it reports is quite exceptional, extraordinary, if true. Nishidani (talk) 21:21, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

I'd like to underline that the information is not that Obama would have orchestrated everything but rather that Israel accuses him of having done so. There is a huge gap between given the context is political in a very contentious context. What Israel claims is at this stage not reliable. Pluto2012 (talk) 12:14, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

We can only document claims, and counter-claims as they emerge. Facts in these situations are something established months, if not years, after the event, but historians and assorted scholars. The distinction you make is of course proper.Nishidani (talk) 19:54, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Diplomacy section citation

Israel retaliated against nations which sponsored or supported the resolution with diplomatic actions.

• "Jerusalem orders to cancel all aid programs to resolution co-sponsor Senegal". The Jerusalem Post | JPost.com. Retrieved 27 December 2016.
• Beaumont, Peter (25 December 2016). "Israel summons ambassadors for dressing down over UN resolution". The Guardian. Retrieved 27 December 2016.
• "Israel has retaliated to the UN vote on settlements by withdrawing its ambassadors". The Independent. 24 December 2016. Retrieved 27 December 2016.

Sokuya (talk) 10:39, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

US President's alleged involvement

Obama's alleged involvement is dealt with by multiple RSs. Besides, I think we'd better have it under the "passage" section, because it's most related to that area, although it contains reaction by Israel. --Mhhossein ^talk 07:52, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello. That is not the Obama's involvement that is dealt with multiple sources. That's the accusations by Israel that he would have been involved. These sources are not reliable for the alleged fact. They are just 'relevant to underline that Israel MFA made this accusation.

Unless we have several 2nd sources that confirm this allegation, this should be moved to the section of the Israeli reactions because until now it is nothing more. Pluto2012 (talk) 09:15, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, this odd conspiracy theory should be moved to the Israeli reactions section. --Tataral (talk) 11:31, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Pluto2012: We're not talking about a fact, we know that's only an accusation. --Mhhossein ^talk 17:46, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

We also have documents released by Egypt that show the US involvement. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 17:48, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Mhhossein: if it is just an accusation then it should be in the Israeli reaction's section. Why should we report accusations in the factual section explaining the process by which the resolution was adopted ? Pluto2012 (talk) 17:50, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Do the RS's mostly talk about this theory as "this is how the resolution passed", or as "this is what Israel said about the resolution" (or Egypt or someone else)? If the former, then I think it should go to passage section, if the latter, then reactions section. HaEr48 (talk) 17:54, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

It's not a reaction, it belongs in the passage section where it is right now. There are multiple RS that have since it was originally announced has more information. The Egyptian documents show that it is not just a reaction by Israel. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 17:58, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Which "Egyptian documents" ? These are primary sources that will be given to Trump administration after his mandate starts. Pluto2012 (talk) 18:00, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

No, it was released already; [6] , [7] 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 18:10, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Sir Joseph: Thanks for the sources. Do you think they warrant opening a subsection? --Mhhossein ^talk 18:28, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Sir Josephs's JPost source reads in part:

'Erekat said that some people who have close relationships with "War Minister" Avigdor Liberman and the Austrian, Zionist financier Martin Schlaff fabricated the document to back up remarks by the Israeli government that indicate that the UNSC resolution was a conspiracy between the Obama administration and the Palestinian side.'

It is therefore clear from several sources already that (a) the Netanyahu government transformed a multilateral, multiple-great power discussion into a conspiracy exclusively organized by the Obama administration (b)helped leak documents to embarrass the Obama administration (c) offered to provide intelligence information on negotiations over the resolution to the incoming Trump administration in order to attack the former Democratic party (d) and Palestinian sources suggest that the documents were forged (looks odd, but it's in the record).

As the story is unfolding, it is clear that the standard format adopted is not adequate to representing the chronological unfolding of events.

One needs a precise time line for insinuations, measures, threats leading up to the resolution, and the same applies to events following the passage of the resolution. Endless subsections will get us nowhere. Nishidani (talk) 19:48, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

We can also read:

It is not possible to gauge the authenticity of the report published on the site Al-Youm Al-Sabaa. However, if it is authentic, it reinforces some of the claims that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s bureau has voiced against the White House over the past few days.

And what about the source in next section that states conspiracy didn't come from the US but from the UK...

We cannot report rumors and in any case, we have to comply with WP:DUE WEIGHT. There is no more information than they are accusations of "conspiracy". Pluto2012 (talk) 19:54, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

We can report statements authoritatively cited from otherwise 'unnamed' officials in any government administration concerned. In any case, as always, if we aim for an encyclopedic article, we should not rush to add every snippet that comes to hand, but bide out time, read widely, and wait until everything can be multi-sourced by respectable newspapers and journalists of standing (I guess that means even the New York Times, even though it is in thorough disrepute! on anything regarding the Middle East).Nishidani (talk) 20:11, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Uk's role

This source says that Uk's role brokering the UN resolution has been confirmed. I think we may discuss it in the article. --Mhhossein ^talk 18:32, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

The source states "it has been confirmed" several times but it never says by whom !!

I add that this excerpt contredicts our discussion here above:

“This is not a text that was formulated by the Palestinians or Egypt, but by a western power.” It was not clear if this was a reference to the US or the UK.

So what ? That's not serious. Pluto2012 (talk) 19:47, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

The source I cited re Britain said that it had played a major role in moderating the language so that the text would enable the U.S. administration to abstain, rather than veto it.Nishidani (talk) 19:52, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

The reference to UK legal and diplomatic authors of the draft, working with Palestinians, isn't relable as it has only one sources and not a mainstream one at that. It should be rewritten. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.184.56.220 (talk) 22:16, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Pluto2012: You're interestingly rejecting a reliable source backed by [8] and [9]. There must be something! --Mhhossein ^talk 10:22, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Mhhossein, Straw man argument consists in modifying the speech of someone in order to refute this but not on his arguments. I don't say there are no such accusations. I say that the facts behind are not proven. You stated "that UK brokering the resolution was confirmed". I have asked by whom. What is your answer ? Pluto2012 (talk) 10:37, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

We're not going to engage WP:OR, specially in the case of such a source. Nothing prohibits us to write: "according to the Guardian, ..." The rest of the burden is on the reader to recognize how the role is confirmed. Note that I did not state that UK brokering the resolution was confirmed", rather I attributed the news to the source. Read my comment one again. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:35, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Donald Trump new reaction

I have added this:

We cannot continue to let Israel be treated with such total disdain and disrespect. They used to have a great friend in the U.S., but not anymore. The beginning of the end was the horrible Iran deal, and now this (U.N.)! Stay strong Israel, January 20 is fast approaching! (sourced by L'Obs)

Pluto2012 (talk) 20:06, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Many sources will tell you that what is going on is unprecedented in contemporary political history. I.e. that a foreign government is coordinating with a not-yet sworn in President-elect in order to subvert or embarrass the still valid official government of the United States. This violates a long standing convention, and is historically quite fascinating. It's like Reagan's rumoured interference with Carter's Iran diplomacy before Reagan won the presidency and assumed control, only much more in your face.Nishidani (talk) 20:17, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

This article is getting too large

Not everything has to be included. This article should be about the Resolution, the background and aftermath. We don't need to include everything published. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 21:04, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

The article is less thann 50% of the recommended upper limit length for such difficult articles (many run, in this area, to 350,000-450,000 kbs, with no objection if it is crammed with details about terrorism)You just reverted a relevant piece of information, since all articles have impact, aftermath sections. The bit you just reverted is an Israeli measure taken a few hours before Kerry was due to clarify why the US abstained, and the sources all say this speech is linked to the Resolution (see Nir Hasson, 'In About-face Ahead of Kerry Speech, Jerusalem Okays New Housing for Jews in Palestinian Neighborhood,' Haaretz 28 December 2016) It is standard Israeli practice, see any decent book, to make a preemptive facts on the grounds move to embarrass U.S. political moves in this regard) Reuters reported that the Silwan decision, which directly challenges the Security Council Resolution and therefore is in defiance of it, was supposedly asked to be delayed at Netanyahu's request in order not to give Kerry further ammo. The Jerusalem municipality then denied this was true: they stated that Benjamin Netanyahu had not moved to stop their deliberation to defy the UNSC resolution. So your edit summary is mistaken, and it's connected.Nishidani (talk) 21:18, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

As your article points out, they delayed the vote and just approved one three-story building, hardly something worth including. You can see the JPOST article as well, [10] Furthermore, the building is for an organization who buys land/buildings before Jews move in. Unless of course the problem is that Jews can't live in territories, similar to Saudi Arabia?? 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 21:26, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

The building permit concerns disputed land, not Jewish land. get your facts straight. Yes, it's like Saudi Arabia, which does not permit Christians or Jews to build there. In Area C, Israel gives 1 building permit to Palestinians for every 18 Palestinian structures it bulldozes, meaning incrementally over time, that the Palestinian housing stock will vanish.

The article says under pressure from Netanyahu before Kerry's speech, Israel held off passing a resolution to build 600 units, but did plunk one 3-story permit on an piece of land in Arab Silwan without Netanyahu asking them to stop doing that. One or 600 hundred, in either case, the principle is identical. It's politics. Make a concession for a few hours (no n600 units) but assert the principle you can build settlements simultaneously by approving just one. That is how political signals operate here. In any case, you said a vote cancelled the measure, confusing the 600 units with the Silwan case, so your edit justification was erratically wrong. Nishidani (talk) 21:35, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

It was Jerusalem, not Israel. And the one building they approved was purchased. The other buildings never came to a vote and indeed, it's not worthy of inclusion that one building went up. As for your claim that permits aren't given, one very important reason is that in many cases residents in East Jerusalem don't apply for permits, they just build without a permit (that is also why you read about home demolitions.) 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 21:39, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Fa Chrissake, it was not 'Jerusalem' but Silwan in East Jerusalem, which is under (UN and the International Court of Justice) 'belligerent occupation' by Israel. In other words, the Israeli governed municipality of Jerusalem gave the go ahead to build a settler property on a site beyond Israel's legitimate recognized borders, and asserted Netanyahu had not interfered with this move,-which violates the UNSC resolution - a few hours before Kerry's speech. The land was 'purchased', as often, in shady and suspect circumstances still under legal challenge. As to the nonsense about not applying for permits.

Only seven percent of the building permits issued in Jerusalem over the past few years have gone to Palestinian neighborhoods where 40 percent of the city’s population lives, according to statistics obtained by Haaretz. A careful examination of the data shows that the situation is even more dire. Of the 158 building permits issued to East Jerusalem neighborhoods this past year, more than two-thirds have been for the neighborhood of Beit Hanina, while only 51 permits were issued for all the rest of Jerusalem’s Arab neighborhoods. Last year, of the 3,238 building permits issued in Jerusalem, 188 were issued in Arab neighborhoods. Over the past five years, there have been 11,603 building permits issued, only 878 of which were for Palestinian neighborhoods.

In East Jerusalem, however, there are no government construction initiatives; all the construction is private and generally involves a small number of housing units built on family-owned land. In addition, in most cases, East Jerusalem residents cannot get mortgages because of problems with registering their properties in the Land Registry. Even if they can build their homes legally, they must pay very large sums in levies and taxes, sums that in Jewish Jerusalem are shared by the state, the contractor and the home buyer, who can also get a mortgage.“Many people apply for building permits but can’t get them because when it comes to the levy stage it’s millions,” says attorney Sami Arshid, an expert in planning and construction in East Jerusalem. “In the Jewish sector the levies are paid by the state or the contractors, who then roll them over to many buyers, while the Arabs are building for themselves. Just last week I had a family from Jabal Mukkaber near East Talpiot who built seven housing units and were charged a betterment levy of 960,000 shekels ($249,000) and another 300,000 shekels ($78,000) as a road levy. People just give up,” he said. This is another reason that few people in East Jerusalem can get a building permit and end up threatened with criminal proceedings because they build illegally.

So sir Joseph drop the bullshit, and hew to the facts.Nishidani (talk) 14:46, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

This article is not very large at all. I hardly see the size as an issue. Dustin (talk) 21:23, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

It’s been many years since such a resolution passed. I believe the last one, United Nations Security Council Resolution 465, was 36 years ago. A lot has happened since then, namely the drastic increase in settlements, public awareness and interest, and no less, the founding of Wikipedia itself. It seems reasonable that the article is long providing that all edits pertain directly to matters of the resolution. Let’s not judge it on length at this time, but rather on quality. Veritycheck (talk) 23:59, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

This article is clearly not too long based on recommended lengths in Wikipedia:Article size. It's actually a fairly short article and should be expanded. For example there is heavy emphasis on the views of Netanyahu (and what the US Secretary of State just called the "extreme elements" in his government) and on the US far-right (Trump), and we should strive to make the article more globally representative by including views of more countries than the current handful which are currently included. (Perhaps we need a separate article on Debate in the United States about United Nations Security Council Resolution 2334 to avoid this article being too US-centric and to cover the internal US debate to the extent preferred by US editors?) --Tataral (talk) 07:19, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

It may come but I agree it should not focus on the controversies around the US alleged involvment. That's also a reason why I added the Palestine's representatives reaction in the lead... Pluto2012 (talk) 09:25, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 December 2016

It rambles on further in the 'Passage' section, change "...suddenly asked for the vote to be postponed..." to "...requested that the vote to be postponed..." as there is no source for the 'suddenly' part and no reason to over-dramatize the situation. Ramires451 (talk) 21:55, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Done. Pluto2012 (talk) 09:27, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. Ramires451 (talk) 02:28, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

John Kerry speach

Explanation why US let it go youtube.com There are obvius art issues this speach could clear. 2601:248:4301:5A70:4A5D:60FF:FE32:8309 (talk) 04:27, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Australia opposes Resolution

Can someone please add the fact that Australia opposed the resolution? li=AAavLaF&ocid=spartanntp — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fiftyfires (talk • contribs) 12:26, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

References

It didn't. Australia is not a member of the Security Council. It was supported by 14 member states, opposed by 0, with 1 abstention. (Incidentally, one could say Australia supported the resolution because Elizabeth II is the head of state of Australia, and she supported it through "Her Britannic Majesty's Permanent Representative" on the council). --Tataral (talk) 14:00, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

No I'm talking about the other states responses, and Elizabeth II doesn't determine Australian government policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fiftyfires (talk • contribs) 14:07, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

She is their monarch/head of state for Christ's sake. I find it difficult to see how one head of state can have two opposite opinions at the same time. In any event, she was only represented by one Permanent Representative on the council, personally appointed by the Queen, as also indicated by his title, and he supported it on the Queen's and country's behalf. --Tataral (talk) 14:10, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

please try to remember

I can accept that the north American fulfull for the English 'fulfil' can be justified in a polyphonic Anglophone community of editors, but insist that normative usage still requires that verbs like 'demand' take the subjunctive voice in English, and that changing the correct:

It demands that Israel stop such activity and fulfill its obligation

to the illiterate

It demands that Israel stops such activity and fulfills its obligation

is a serious threat to my post-prandial ease of digestion.Nishidani (talk) 14:29, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

I made this [mis-]correction. Feel free to correct me of course.

Sorry. Pluto2012 (talk) 17:01, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

My apologies Pluto, in turn. After all, if André Gide can screw up the subjunctive with the indicative, as he does writing in his own language as a recognized master of style :'Et pourtant, si tant est qu'elle a voulu cesser de vivre, est-ce précisément pour avoir su?' (La Symphonie pastorale, Gallimard (1925), 1965 p.146) not even a fuckwitted precisian like myself would think it strange that you might slip up writing in your third language. ;)Nishidani (talk) 20:25, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

No need to apologize ! I made the mistake. That's normal that you tell this to me.

So subjonctive in English has the same "form" as infinitive ?

Je demande qu'il soit renvoyé" s'écrit "I demand that he be sent back" ?

Pluto2012 (talk) 16:32, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Put it this way. The subjunctive save for the verb 'to be' has the same form as the indicative, except for the third person singular, which was the case above. The third person singular of 'stop' and 'fulfill(l)' in the subjunctive mood is the same as the infinitive, but differs from the indicative (he stops → that he stop; he fulfils → that he fulfill. Bref: in the English subjunctive just drop the 's' in the indicative 3rd person singular form. Je t'adresse tous mes voeux pour la nouvelle année. Nishidani (talk) 17:35, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Copyedit in the lead gets removed, need "consensus" to restore

Welcome to ARBCOM DS madness.

There is a sentence in the lead that reads as follows:

Palestine's representatives stated this was an opportunity to "end[] the occupation and establish[] a Palestinian state to live side by side with the state of Israel on the 1967 line".

I removed the brackets that were misplaced but was then reverted. I ask for consensus to remove the misplaced brackets. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 16:54, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Why do you say the brackets are misplaced ? In the original sentence, it is written "ending". Pluto2012 (talk) 16:59, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Firstly, now that I think about it, the quotes should be removed, but in any event, [sic] should be used, right now it looks like a wikilink. However, if we are using quotes, then we need a ref tag, which is why I think we should just eliminate the quote and the brackets and solve everything. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 17:03, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

I modified the lead, removing the quotes since it's a summary of what was said. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 17:06, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

I have added the missing citation. 17:43, 29 December 2016 (UTC)Veritycheck (talk)

ARBPIA ds

A courtesy notice on my page tells me I have violated ARBPIA DS. Of course, I automatically self-revert if any Wikipedia rule is violated, so I reverted. However

(a) Lord G'day removed the adjective 'Jewish' stating in his edit summary, 'the fact the Ukrainian Prime Minister is Jewish has nothing to do with the fact the visit was cancelled'.

This was a totally erratic edit summary because no none said his being Jewish was related to the cancellation of his visit. The fact being registered is one that all mainstream Israeli newspapers mention.

(1)Ukraine, which is a normally friendly state towards Israel, voted in favor of the resolution. In protest, Netanyahu decided to 'cancel a scheduled state visit to Israel by Ukraine's Jewish Prime Minister Volodymyr Groysman. (Itamar Eichner and Tova Tzimuki 'Israel retaliates for UNSC resolution with series of countermoves,' Ynet 15 December 2016 )

• See also (2) Ralph Ahrens PM cancels visit of Ukrainian PM after Kiev supports anti-settlements resolution The Times of Israel 24 December 2016 (3) Barak Ravid, 'Netanyahu Cancels Ukrainian PM's Visit to Israel Over Security Council Vote,' Haaretz 24 December 2016)

So, why shouldn't we follow Israeli descriptive practice here? Nishidani (talk) 20:37, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

I think that an encyclopedia in the long run is different than a newspaper. It's a little sensational to call the PM Jewish, so it works for a newspaper article, but for an encyclopedia entry it's irrelevant and doesn't do anything. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 20:44, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

I want an objective policy-based argument, not an opinion. We go by sources, and if Israeli and Jewish reportage notes that he is Jewish, we need a reason to explain why this fact should be suppressed. The above is not a reason, and the edit summary given justifying its erasure was fatuous. Nishidani (talk) 20:53, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

For starters, not everything that is reported has to be included. As editors we can be judicious with what we include. Adding the religion of the PM is not necessarily encyclopedic. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 20:59, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

I have made my view, you yours. So let's shut up, and listen to what other editors think.Nishidani (talk) 21:15, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

What if Volodymyr Groysman had been Ukraine's first Catholic prime minister? Would the article say "A planned visit of the Catholic Ukrainian prime minister was also cancelled by Israel"? That Israel cancels a visit by a Jewish prime minister makes the religion more relevant—or does it? Who says so? Sources point out the "interesting" fact, but do any suggest the religion had an impact on the decision to cancel, or on the ensuing fallout? One problem with writing for Wikipedia is that sometimes the text must be banal and stripped of facts that "let the reader decide". This issue is too trivial to warrant a WP:SYNTH label, and such a label could be rejected by pointing out that sources use Jewish. However, if sources are not explaining how that descriptor is relevant, perhaps including it would be synthesis? Johnuniq (talk) 23:46, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree we needn’t include Jewish here. The fact the the Prime Minister is Jewish had nothing to do with the cancellation of his visit. Adding his religion would be sensational and not noteworthy. Veritycheck (talk) 00:36, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

The newspapers are made for internal consumption. The fact his visit was cancelled had nothing to do with the fact he was Jewish -- if we're going to point out the religion of one head of state we ought to do it for others and see whether it makes sense. Christian President of the United States Barack Obama criticising Israel doesn't seem necessary, why should Ukrainian Prime Minister's cancelled visit need to include a reference to religion? LordHello1 (talk) 05:51, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Okay. We have consensus for non-inclusion. My principle is, however, to stick to the dominant terms in several sources: if a term is repeatedly used, I put it into the text. I personally am opposed to any mention of ethnicity/religion, as my votes show on the bad habit of some editors trying to insert 'Jewish' as an ethnic/religious index for articles on US politicians. But I can't help but remark that it is a standard, if I think, lamentable, practice in most Jewish/Israeli newspapers to do this whenever anybody in some news item happens to be Jewish or of Jewish descent (most recently, Debbie Reynold's daughter, Carrie Fisher). Nishidani (talk) 17:56, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

The flagicon section

lacks the comments from Angola, Uruguay, Egypt and Japan.Nishidani (talk) 20:42, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Revert concerning Palestine vs Palestinian Authority

I have reverted as per International recognition of the State of Palestine which states, 'As of 14 September 2015, 136 (70.5%) of the 193 member states of the United Nations and two non-member states have recognised the State of Palestine.' That is clearly a consensus. Veritycheck (talk) 13:33, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Of course. Palestine has the status of a State. Pluto2012 (talk) 16:28, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Palestinian Territories vs Palestinian Occupied Territories

The second paragraph of the LEAD shows Palestinian Territories. Would it not be better to use Palestinian Occupied Territories, or even perhaps simply Palestine? What are your thoughts? In the meantime, I have corrected the text to reflect the link but I don't feel that it may be the best solution. Veritycheck (talk) 13:53, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

The most important is that the text be clear.

Here, I think "Palestinian occupied territories" is the best option.

Pluto2012 (talk) 16:29, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

'Palestinian Occupied Territories' cannot be used because in English it suggests that (disputed) territories are occupied by Palestinians, not Israeli settlers and military forces. If people are dissatisfied with Palestinian Territories then the other option is 'Occupied Palestinian Territories'Nishidani (talk) 19:47, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Personally, I would go for occupied Palestinian territories. I found it strange that Wikipedia has a redirect 'Palestinian Occupied Territories' which was first used in the lead. As Nishidani rightly says, it implies the opposite in English. When there is a consensus, it can be changed.Veritycheck (talk) 22:01, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Palestinian territories that are occupied so Occupied Palestinian Territories. ok. Pluto2012 (talk) 22:28, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Background

There are certainly violation of WP:OR and WP:UNDUE here the sources doesn't even mention the resolution.The sources that discuss the resolution should decide what we include in the background.Shrike (talk) 08:11, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Well the background about Israeli settlements and its legality is talked about in connection to the resolution for example here [11] (which is one of the cited references), and also they are needed to explain context. I mean, how can the reader understand a resolution condemning Israeli settlement if they don't know what they are, or how/why the international community see them as illegal? So your action of removing entire paragraph isn't appropriate in my opinion. But yeah, the citations are a bit excessive and many aren't connected with the resolution, maybe they were added to preemptively avoid challenge? How about removing just the problematic citations, not the paragraph? HaEr48 (talk) 08:36, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

If the sources that discuss the resolution state certain facts then we should include them if they don't its WP:UNDUE to include them because to present certain facts and others don't its WP:OR only WP:RS should decide for us.I didn't delete everything but specifically sources that doesn't discuss the resolution.People can follow relevant wikilinks and read more about the subject themselves.Shrike (talk) 09:49, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

There is no WP:UNDUE or WP:OR. That section is the background and therefore this has to be explained.

WP:UNDUE and WP:OR are properly used to argue when there is a problem of WP:NPOV to solve.

But they are badly used when it is just to prevent insertion of information.

What is the problem of WP:NPOV that you see and want to solve ? All points of view are given in that background.

Pluto2012 (talk) 10:51, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Shrike. Neither you nor Sir Joe registered any objection to the background section as either Undue or OR, when it cited Israeli official positions on the Palestinian territories being in Israel's view, disputed, using documentation from 2003. The objection suddenly arose when it was added that Israel's unique argument was rebutted by the highest tribunal of international law, the International Court of Justice, in the following year, 2004. Adding that was perfectly in line with the use of the 2003 Israeli official statements. You can't have it both ways: sitting around quietly accepting a 2003 official government declaration as okay, not WP:OR or WP:Undue, and then challenging it and everything else as WP:OR/WP:Undue when a 2004 source directly bearing on the 2003 government argument is added which shows that that government opinion has no weight in international law.

News items never cover adequately a background, but encyclopedic articles must do so, and it would be rather silly to insist that the known background cannot be alluded to unless it is covered in contemporary news reports, which have a different brief. I can't see any background article in Wikipedia on historical events which adheres to your thesis: why are you making an exception of this article? And reverting a whole paragraph is not an entitlement when a dozen editors have tweaked it consensually over several days, with no one registering any complaint as to whether it is due or not. That is an abusive reading of the point in the ARBPIA3 decision regarding reverts. Technically any editor, out of a whim or to defend a political interest, could wipe out an entire section, and then hold other editors hostage to the decision by waiting for a 'consensus' to emerge. Consensus is shown in the editing record for a section: if no one shows from the outset any objection to the background outline constructed by a dozen hands, it should not be removed by a preemptive strike, or Shrike, because it is one editor using an ARBPIA technicality re consensus to challenge a consensus that is already there in the editing record.Nishidani (talk) 11:09, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Also Shrike, if we have it the way you're describing (only using sources that mention the resolution), the section will end up explaining the international community view on how the settlements are illegal, but not Israel's defence (which were currently only sourced to non-contemporary statements from Israel). Wouldn't that be non-neutral? HaEr48 (talk) 17:12, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Why do you think I care about that?I only care that relevant sources will be in the article and will not turn to big WP:COATRACK.Shrike (talk) 18:23, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm not saying you care about that or not, but shouldn't we try to be neutral? HaEr48 (talk) 18:28, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes and there are plenty of sources that discuss both views [12] there is no need to turn these article to WP:COATRACK. Shrike (talk) 18:31, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm fine if we were to replace the current Israeli rebuttal (cited from Israeli Foreign Ministry in 2003) with the rebuttal described in the bloomberg article you linked. This also solves the problem of using primary source (Israeli government). What do others think? HaEr48 (talk) 19:20, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Since when is a predictable piece of sloppy hackwork in Bloomberg, putting Israel's legal case in the context of a series of sentences suggesting international law is a 'contention', and that countries voting in favour of it are ganging up against Israel, better than the numerous books and government documents that actually lay out the background legal lay of the land?Nishidani (talk) 21:12, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Shrike. Please stop waving the standard policy flags, so far WP:Undue, WP:OR, and now WP:COATRACK (which is not a wiki policy, by the way), while not addressing the points raised by other editors, a case of endlessly shifting the goalposts per WP:IDONTLIKEIT.Nishidani (talk) 21:04, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Concerning: Changed visibility of 22 revisions on the page with content hidden (RD1: Copyright violations) 22:32, 31 December 2016

I looked into this and discovered that it involved an editor named Annestorm. I sent Diannaa, the ADMIN responsible for the change to the article history the following note. Accordingly, be aware of any further edits from Annestorm.
Happy New Year! Veritycheck (talk) 01:23, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Background - "Jewish-only[10][11]"

I suggest to remove this precision from the background section. This section is there mainly to explain why settlements are illegal (or not). According to 4th Geneva Convetion, they are illegal because a belligerant (Israel) cannot settle civilians (it can settle soldiers of course) in conquered territories. Whether Jews, Arabs, Beduins or even why not Philippans is not an issue. It would not change anything to the legacy (or not) of the action of establishing civilian settlements.

NB: I am not naive and I understand what this precision brings but in this article (about a UN resolution, not about Neo-Zionism or about the settlements!) I don't think it is pertinent. It even blurs the main point to a reader who would not know the problematic but discovers this.

So I suggest to remove "Jewish-only[10][11]" in this article. Pluto2012 (talk) 12:22, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

On the other hand, Israelis who are Palestinians are not settled in those villages per policy. So Israel is settling not 'its citizens' (Jews, Palestinians, Christians whoever) in the West Bank, but only those citizens who are Jewish. This is not apparent if one just says they are Israeli settlements. If Israelis in government rhetoric have a right to settle the West Bank, then 'Israelis' means strictly Jewish.Nishidani (talk) 16:11, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Except Arabs do live in settlements, granted it's not a large number, but Arabs live in Ariel, and of course in East Jerusalem. They are also not barred by law from moving if they choose to do so. It is not exclusively Jewish, basically. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:24, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

The resolution condemns "all measures aimed at altering the demographic composition, character and status of the Palestinian Territory occupied since 1967." This is plainly relevant information about how settlements alter the demographic composition of the territories.--Carwil (talk) 17:06, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

What is your point? The claim is that settlements are Jewish only, and that is incorrect. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:17, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

I said Israeli Palestinians, not Arabs . If you can give me one example of Israeli Palestinians transferring as a group to establish an 'Israeli settlement' in the West Bank, you might have an argument. They can't even marry Palestinians there.Nishidani (talk) 17:20, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

By the way, there is a fine analysis of many aspects which are not in the usual rushed newspaper responses, in Philip Weiss, with Norman Finkelstein ‘breathtaking’ UN vote, Obama changed his policy on Israeli settlements, making them a war crime Mondoweiss 4 January 2017

Among other things, and he is a technician of I/P language, Finkelstein cites several arguments as to why the idea that it was a US drafted document is improbable: it consistently contradicts the very policies Obama and Kerry have been pursuing. There is no problem with Finkelstein as a source, apparently he has now managed to secure a contract with the University of California for his forthcoming book,Gaza: An inquest into its martyrdom, after years of being boycotted.Nishidani (talk) 17:20, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Why are you differentiating Arabs and Palestinian, the claim was to remove "Jewish only" and that makes sense. There are non-Jews who live in settlements. Here is about non-Jewish students living in Ariel. [13], and if you think Mondoweiss or Finklestien is reliable then you really need to get out of your bubble. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:31, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

The thuggery and violence against Palestinians in the everyday smash and bash approach to colonial rule is more often than not delegated to Druze. Israel uses them for its nastiest work. That's why I make distinctions. You googled some 'dope' that Israeli Arabs and Druze are present on the Ariel campus, but I didn't deny that: Arab labour is required throughout the settlement project, not only because they are handy Shabbos goyim. Settlements are not established by or for Israeli Palestinians, they are established on ethnoreligious grounds that automatically exclude Israeli Arabs. As to bubbles and Finkelstein, well. You know it is obligatory to reply to every one courteously, but I have to make a real effort in your regard. You've obviously never read a paragraph of anything he's written, not only because it would require more concentration that you seem capable of.Nishidani (talk) 10:18, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a forum. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:15, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Nor is it a place for the foggybrained. One can insist as does the Israeli government that Palestinioans recognize Israel as a 'Jewish' state. But if you define per sourcing settlements as Jewish, which they are, then the ethnonationalist editor will get nervous about giving the correct impression that the settlement enterprise is based on ethnicity.E But you are correct. This is not a forum which it always tends to be when I have to clarify to people yourself that when you write 'Arabs live in Ariel, and of course in East Jerusalem,' you think East Jerusalem is an Israeli settlement.Nishidani (talk) 20:36, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Your personal attack aside, the fact is that settlements are not exclusively Jewish, so you can't say that Settlements are exclusively Jewish. I am not sure why everything with you results in pontificating and condescension. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:46, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

I was going to comment on this topic when it began, but then had second thoughts. I figured it would end up in a stalemate like this with only bruises to show for it. It's the nature of the topic and is to be expected. One way forward, I believe, would be to accept the fact that opposing views here won’t be swayed, so let's not bother to try. Why not just leave ‘Jewish’ out in this occurrence? After all, at the beginning of this section, readers can learn Further information: Israeli settlement where things have already been spelled out quite nicely, and even sourced. It’s been hammered out there, so why not take advantage of it here without having to rehash the whole mess again. Is this an acceptable solution? Veritycheck✔️ (talk) 21:20, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Accorind to ICBS, most settlements have non-Jews. Ariel for example has 18.8% 'others'. Israel is settling people they don't recognize as Jews in the West Bank. But that's just me being a smartass, knwoing the Nish will say these are half-Jews. Anyway, the "Jewish-only" rhetoric is acceptable, but not in Wikipedia. This is a rhetoric that plays on your emotions, and there is a reason why this rhetoric is used almost exclusively in Arab or pro-Palestinian sources and rarely in mainstream or neutral media. I have nothing to hide here, by opposing the inclusion of the phrase "Jewish-only", but I have a problem since it is a rhetoric used by Palestinian propaganda, and since we rarely call bus blowers "terrorists", I believe we can also remove pro-Palestinian rhetoric.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 01:51, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Stav, you know better than I how rubbery this 'others' definition is, including lots of East Slavs from the old Soviet bloc who got in on vague descent papers that, in Israeli law, don't translate to being a Jew unless you convert etc. I'm not making a rhetorical point. I think most talking at cross purposes comes from failure to make correct definitions and distinctions. An 'Israeli' can be an Arab, Christian, Jew etc. An 'Israeli settlement' is one established to disseminate Jewish ethnic communities in the West Bank. It's not a rhetorical point at all to note that 'Jewish-only' (exclusively Jewish settlements) is required here because otherwise the text can be easily misconstrued to suggest any non-Jewish Israeli community can set up house in the West bank. (=47,000 gits.)Nishidani (talk) 20:36, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

I'd rather agree even if I would not call this 'rhetoric'.

(Note that writing that Israel settles Jews in West Bank should be discussed. In fact Israel doesn't prevent them to settle there, which is a little bit different, particularly assuming Israel may be sued in future at IPT.) Pluto2012 (talk) 05:38, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

@Nishidani: it is clear that settlers are predominantly religeous Jews (even if there are exceptions) and as Arab Israelis don't have to perform military service I can assume they are not "invited" to settle in the occupied territories, not to say prevented. But my point is that nobody blames Israel for that (let's say "alleged" for the principle) internal discrimination. Israel is condemned because despite the 4th Geneva convention, civilians are settled there. That would only be Arabs that it would not change the problem. Pluto2012 (talk) 05:29, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

An alternative approach would be for Wikipedia to reflect the language of mainstream media around the world and use the terms Israeli settlements and Jewish settlements as synonyms. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:35, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Like I previously said only sources that discuss the resolution should stay in the article to eliminate an WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE issues.--Shrike (talk) 12:58, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

I disagree, but the point remains the same. There are numerous easily found mainstream sources from around the world that use Israeli settlements and Jewish settlements as synonyms in articles that discuss the resolution. And so, this article (and others) could do that too. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:56, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

settlements are not exclusively Jewish. How can we then say they are? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 21:19, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

'when faced with serious problems or serious arguments, they don’t get to grips with the matter itself, but select some minor detail and belabor it endlessly.' Uri Avnery Counterpunch 4 May 2012

There is a very strong textual basis for saying settlements (99%) are exclusively Israeli Jewish. Exceptions exist to every strong generalization but prove the rule. You are belabouring a negligible statistical issue in order to bury an historical fact and policy that drove post war urban development and design within Israel itself.Nishidani (talk) 11:53, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

There you go pontificating. The fact is that non-Jews live in settlements, therefore you can't say settlements are Jewish only. I understand it rattles your bias, but Wikipedia is supposed to be as bias-free as possible. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:31, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Policy means that using a mixture of terminology to refer to Israeli settlements, including the term 'Jewish settlements', is not only acceptable, it's the right thing to do. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:08, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

How is outright fabrication of the truth the right thing to do? How can you say "Jewish only" when it's not Jewish only? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:20, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Okay- I'll dumb this conversation down even further to help you grasp the point.Wiki determines usage by source analysis- I showed that 'exclusively Jewish settlements' gets 47,000 gits. You get saying a few folks who are not Jews live in a few of the hundred etc settlements. You are fabricating an argument, scrabbling for some straw to throw into the works to distract attention from what the majority of sources acknowledge: the project of Israeli settlement is a project of Judaization, excluding Arabs, began like that, even in Israel, and continues to function that way, even though a few Arabs exist in those places. We establish usage by source analysis, not by fine-tuning the cavilling fork to ferret out some 'argument'.Nishidani (talk) 18:18, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

18% of Ariel is not Jewish. If you count East Jerusalem, than a good chunk of that is not Jewish. To say that settlements are exclusively Jewish is false. You can continue to hurl personal attacks all you want, but settlements are not exclusively Jewish. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:33, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

East Jerusalem is not a settlement. There are settlements in East Jerusalem. And this entire section is a pretty blatant example of WP:OR and a failure to internalize WP:TRUTH. Seans comment above is spot on. Reliable sources treat the terms as synonyms, with an added Jewish colonies or Israeli colonies thrown in every once in a while. Here is NPR doing so. This effort to remove a pretty basic fact about the settlements is baseless. nableezy - 19:13, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

The issue is are settlements exclusively Jewish. The answer is no. When an Israeli Jew moves to Ariel, he's a settler, but when an Israeli Arab does so, he's not? That seems rather discriminatory to me. We already have an article on the settlements and we went through consensus there. Regardless of all that, this article is not talking about the demographics, per se. It just mentions settlements and there is no reason whatsoever to mention "Jewish." Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:28, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

No, the issue is what do reliable sources say on this topic. And uh, the Israeli settlement article says almost exclusively of Jewish ethnicity, which understates the cited sources for some reason Ill have to look into later. I dont actually care, at all, what you think is discriminatory. The only thing that matters here is what do the sources say about the topic. And on this they say they are Jewish settlements. No matter how much you would like to try avoid that fact, that remains the only point that counts here. nableezy - 20:12, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Am I in circle land or something? You can't say ONLY when it's not ONLY. That is all that is needed. The rest just shows bias of editors. We are supposed to be neutral. You can say mostly Jewish, almost all Jewish, etc. but you can't say ONLY Jewish. And

Pluto2012's point still stands. This is not the article to define settlements, just to link it or call it out. Let the article talk about what it needs to talk about without bringing religion into it. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:20, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

It isnt about religion, its more about the demographics of the occupied territories and attempts to alter them by the occupying power (aka a war crime). Reliable sources routinely call settlements Jewish enclaves or communities or whatever. And the article doesnt say only. We follow what reliable sources say and here they say what the article does. And once more, I do not care, even a little bit, what you think about the bias of editors. Kindly stick to the purpose of talk pages, which is discussion of article content, not other editors. nableezy - 20:39, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Again, settlements are Israeli settlements, it's irrelevant what the religion is. The UN didn't mention religion, they mentioned settlements. To say, especially in this article, that settlements are exclusively Jewish, or Jewish only, is wrong and undue. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:43, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Who said Jewish was a reference to a religion? nableezy - 22:39, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Sir Joseph, can you explictly state that you are opposed to the use of the term 'Jewish settlements' despite its use by numerous mainstream media sources around the world in articles about the resolution e.g. BBC, Reuters, LA Times, The Wall Street Journal and many more? That would, in my view, confirm that your position is inconsistent with policy and therefore irrelevant. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:59, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Firstly, saying Jewish Settlement is a lot different than saying Jewish Only Settlement. That being said, regardless of your making up of policy, this is not the Israeli Settlement article, where demographic makeup would be acceptable to describe. This is the article on the UN Security Council Resolution, where it is not needed to describe anything that can be explained in another article. All we need to do is wikilink Israeli Settlement. The UNSCR doesn't mention Jews anywhere and we shouldn't either, all we need to do is mention Israeli Settlement. To do anything else is non neutral and extremely undue. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:24, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Straw man. The article does not say Jewish Only. Those reliable sources Sean linked to are specifically talking about the topic of this article. This specific resolution. Which renders your other supposed argument equally moot. The article is based off reliable sources that discuss the topic. And those sources back up the statement in the article. Contrary to your belief on what is "extremely undue", WP:DUE actually is opposed to your view that we censor out material you dislike that reliable sources discuss in the context of this topic. nableezy - 17:48, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Firstly, this article said Jewish only. Secondly, again, this article merely has to state Israeli Settlement, it does not need to get into demographics. In all articles on Wikipedia we just link to an article, we don't explain things when there is another article that is the main article. So to single out Jewish only (or even Jewish Settlement) when it's not the topic of this page is not neutral. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:05, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

It does, present tense, not say Jewish only. So, again, straw man. Your position on neutrality is directly rebutted by oh the actual NPOV policy, which says weight is determined by sources, and this material is in a number of sources directly discussing the topic of this article. Argument by assertion will not do here, sorry. You not liking something is not relevant to whether or not it is included in the article. nableezy - 23:48, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't know if you notice what your syntax is saying but 'this article merely has to state Israeli Settlement, it does not need to get into demographics' etc. , consists of imposing conditions or dictating what you desire as if it were what policy demands. As has been repeatedly shown, the sources commenting on 2334 refer to the Israeli settlements as 'Jewish', and this is sufficient warrant to retain the text we have. The 'only' has been excised, a compromise made. Nishidani (talk) 18:14, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Again, as pointed out earlier by Pluto, they are Israeli civilian settlements. It is irrelevant that they are inhabited mostly by Jews. As to the point about including that on this page, in general when you are linking to another article and there is even a "see also" above, you include as little as possible. This is even more so here, where definitions mean more. The supposition is that should Israeli Arabs open a settlement it would be legal because they're not Jewish. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:21, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't like 'Israeli civilian settlements' because I recall that dozens of these settlements were not begun by civilians, but started as military outposts by serving soldiers and structurally, settlements often had or still have (Hebron) considerable contiguous army bases, battalions nearby or are defined by declaring neighbouring Palestinian territory 'closed military areas'. But I don't whinge or niggle this to death to change the language I think deceptive. Here 'Israeli' is clearly deceptive since Israelis are also Arabs, but settlements are not allowed to be established by Israeli arabs. So get used to it. Israeli Jewish is precise and does not mislead, as your stripping the adjective proposal does.Nishidani (talk) 18:28, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Where does it say that Israeli Arabs are not allowed to establish settlements? It seems to me that you are making up a law merely based on your assumptions of reality. I would imagine Israeli Arabs don't establish settlements because it's not a nice political move on their part. That, and the fact that Arabs live in settlements preclude you from saying that Settlements are Jewish. They are illegal under international law because they are Israeli Settlements, not because they are Jewish. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:35, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

You have been answered comprehensively on all points relevant to policies regarding editing. A compromise was made. You are repeating yourself. Finis.Nishidani (talk) 19:46, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Im sorry you dislike what reliable sources discuss in the context of the topic of this article. However Wikipedia does not require that you like what the sources say. The material is reliably sourced and the sources directly relate that material to the topic of this article. That is sufficient to include. nableezy - 23:45, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

again, it's NOT the topic of this article. That's exactly the point. For example, in an article about the US when it mentions cities, it doesn't go into the demographics itlinks to the other article. And again, putting Jewish in this article, which is a legal article and not demographical will lead the reader to assume that being Jewish is a determining factor in the legality of settlements.Sir Joseph ^(talk) 00:54, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

You arent responding to what I wrote. What I wrote was that reliable sources discuss "Jewish settlements" within the specific context of the topic of this article. Example, Wall Street Journal:

The Obama administration broke from a longstanding tradition of U.S. defense of Israel at the U.N. and allowed the passage of a resolution harshly criticizing the country’s expansion of Jewish settlements in the Palestinian territories.

Get it? That the reliable sources are talking about the topic of this article specifically, meaning UNSC Resolution 2334, and discuss these places as Israel's "Jewish settlements". Whatever other argument you want to make is trumped by this simple fact. Reliable sources that directly discuss the topic of this article talk about quote unquote Jewish settlements. As such, so does our article. nableezy - 01:42, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

We will not get a consensus here.

But I still argue that these settlements are not illegal because they are Jewish (would be if you want) but because they are civilian. So, reminding here they are Jewish is wp:undue. Pluto2012 (talk) 10:01, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

No one is arguing they are illegal because Jewish. Sour4ces say they are Jewish-Israeli (not just 'Israeli' which is a broader category), ands the motivation for breaking the Fourth Geneva Convention is based on a praeternatural right to possess and settle non-Israeli lands because they are putatively owned collectively by the Jewish people as a divine entitlement.Nishidani (talk) 10:30, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree that "[n]o one is arguing they are illegal because Jewish".

But the topic is about a UN resolution stating they are illegal.

That's why I say that -true nor not- the fact they are Jewish is wp:undue.

Regarding the motivations of Israel, that is the State that is condemned, I disagree they would only be religeous. Istrael settled these areas because she wanted to conquer them and widden her security zone, reminding how well settlements had behaved in the '48 war. They did the same in Golan and expected the same in South Lebanon or in the whole Sinai before they left it. Pluto2012 (talk) 19:35, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

I think it's the other way around. For WP:DUE to be relevant we need to treat the terms "Israeli settlements" and "Jewish settlements" (and other prominent terms) as if they are views since DUE is about views. If we do that, then the obligation is to represent those viewpoints "in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources". If we don't do that I don't think we are following policy, we are giving undue weight to the personal preferences of editors, preferences that shouldn't be relevant to decision making. Treating editors as if they are RS, sampling their personal preferences in discussions and representing their views in articles as if it is a policy/RS based consensus seems to be exactly the wrong way of doing things. There's no obligation to use a single term to describe Israel settlements because there is no project-wide standard in this case, but there is an obligation to reflect the variety of language used by RS. This seems to be a situation where simply following policy produces a solution. It's like the issue of settlements in Jerusalem. It's a simple fact that RS refer to them as both Israeli settlements and neighborhoods so we do the same. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:51, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Netanyahu's response -- explanation of my recent insertion

I summarized Netanyahu's criticism of the U.N.'s priorities in the region as it was mentioned twice in the J Post article [14], once coming from Netanyahu himself and a 2nd time coming from his ambassador. It was also seen as significant part of Netanyahu's position as it was reported in the BBC [15]. This isn't implying that his criticism has merit, only that it is the "card" that he is playing. Jason from nyc (talk) 15:26, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

A possible consequence of the US abstention

The Woodmont Country Club is reportedly mulling rejecting Obama's application to join its golf club because of his decision to abstain from the resolution.Marcy Oster, [http://forward.com/fast-forward/359671/jewish-golf-club-may-reject-obama-membership-over-israel-policies/?attribution=home-hero-item-text-2 ‘Jewish’ Golf Club May Reject Obama Membership Over Israel Poli²&é" impossible to prove by the way.

And it is certainly untrue. People are not that stupid. Pluto2012 (talk) 09:58, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, I didn't believe they would go through with it. But the Forward said their sources suggested opposition to him being a member of the club. The club vote apparently comes up this week or so. It's something to keep one's eye on, because it would be significant in the unlikely event that his application was rejected.Nishidani (talk) 10:33, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

I can't believe that it could happen.

A man cannot be refused the access of a Gulf club for his political opinions (unless they are illegal). Pluto2012 (talk) 19:30, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 May 2017

In order to clarify that Isaac Herzog, despite criticizing Netanyahu, also condemned the UN resolution, I suggest adding the following to the sentence in this section:

Israeli opposition leader Isaac Herzog responded that Netanyahu had 'declared war this evening on the world, on the United States, on Europe, and is trying to calm us with conceit, although he condemned the UN resolution.

Done. Uglemat (talk) 12:21, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

References

UN Security Council SC/9567 8 JANUARY 2009

Concerning this statement in the lede: 'It was the first UNSC resolution to pass regarding Israel and the Palestine territories since 2009' would it be helpful to clarify this statement by providing a link to https://www.un.org/press/en/2009/sc9567.doc.htm titled, 'SECURITY COUNCIL CALLS FOR IMMEDIATE, DURABLE, FULLY RESPECTED CEASEFIRE IN GAZA LEADING TO FULL WITHDRAWAL OF ISRAELI FORCES' January 8th 2009. TonyMorris68 (talk) 15:04, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Made a wikilink to Resolution 1860 Uglemat (talk) 15:31, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 April 2020

The sentence "The text was welcomed by much of the international community in the following days" certainly needs a citation of "By Whom?". It is not cited and speaks in general terms about the whole world. IDeagle94 (talk) 03:09, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

 Done Aasim 04:27, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Strictly speaking this does not need a cite since a) It was passed 14-0 by the UNSC and b) All the individual country reactions are spelled out and sourced in the article body. Still, I will see if I can find a source somewhere that summarizes all of that.Selfstudier (talk) 10:26, 29 April 2020 (UTC)