User talk:Harlan wilkerson

Welcome!

Hello Harlan wilkerson, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!  Dolphin51 (talk) 00:54, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Harlan wilkerson/3. Shortcomings
User talk:Harlan wilkerson/Jordan Recognition
User talk:Harlan wilkerson/Transjordan joint mandate 1947
User talk:Harlan wilkerson/Book Collection
User talk:Harlan wilkerson/WWI treaties and newly created states

Mediation: Israel and the Apartheid analogy

Just an FYI, we are running a straw poll on title choices on the mediation page - see Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2010-04-14/Israel_and_the_apartheid_analogy#Straw_poll_on_titles. If you pitch in a vote or three, we can move this along. --Ludwigs2 06:02, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Churchill reference in Six-Day War article

Hi Harlan,

Given your apparent familiarity with the source material, have you looked at Randolph Churchill & Winston Churchill, The Six Day War, Houghton Mifflin Company, 1967, which is used to buttress some interesting claims in the lead? Apparently, it says, among other things, that there was an order issued by the Egypt Commander-in-Chief to his troops in Sinai which referenced the importance of the "reconquest of the plundered soil of Palestine". I don't have the book myself and I've been unable to find a virtual copy. Since the lead, as it was previously written, had a distinct pro-Israeli slant, and since Churchill was known to not be particularly fond of Arabs, I was curious to see what primary sources he references in the book to support this assertion. I'm not saying it has to be wrong (the statement in itself doesn't necessarily imply anything in regards to the preemption issue, as was mentioned here by Phersu), but I'm interested what a non-biased reading of the source would infer. Shoplifter (talk) 08:10, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I own a copy, but most of my older books are packed away. I'll have to dig it out and get back to you, but if I recall correctly, the Churchill book was discussing a speech delivered by President Nasser near the end of May in which he said that if war came the UAR should be prepared for a Holy War to restore the rights of the Arabs which had been stolen, to reconquer the plundered soil ... & etc. At the time, the UAR was asking for Israel to withdraw its military from the DMZ's and allow the Arab cultivators to return and work their farmlands in accordance with the status quo ante conditions that had existed under the Armistice Agreements. Nasser had provided categorical assurances to the UN Secretary-General, the governments of the US, UK, & etc. that there wasn't going to be any Egyptian first strike.

Multiple sources, including the FRUS, UN Yearbook, & etc. say that the UAR states had complained to their Mixed Armistice Commissions and the Security Council that Israel had:

• Declared the armistice agreements null and void;
• Declared its sovereignty over the DMZs and had subsequently occupied them with its military;
• Closed the DMZs to the indigenous Arab cultivators after declaring them a security threat;
• Dispatched Jewish cultivators into the no-man's lands. harlan (talk) 11:03, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I see. I'm not surprised. This certainly deserves a neutral re-write, being the introductory passage to the article, but I'm sure it will be contested like everything else. If I had the source, I would bring it up in the talk page, but I wouldn't hold it against you if you are tired of engaging in these constant battles over biased referencing by other editors. Thanks for clarifiying it to me though. You are undoubtedly one of the most erudite editors on the Arab-Israeli conflict at Wikipedia. Shoplifter (talk) 11:50, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

By the way, regarding my comment about Churchill's view of Arabs in general, and Palestinians in particular, here's a few remarkable quotes:

“The Arabs are a backwards people who eat nothing but Camel dung”

"So far from being persecuted, the Arabs have crowded into the country and multiplied till their population has increased more than even all world Jewry could lift up the Jewish population."

As for the ‘invasion’, it was the Arabs who had come in after the Jews, he maintained, and they had allowed the Jewish hill terraces to decay. “Where the Arab goes”, he generalised, “it is often desert”.

In language later appropriated by the Israelis, Winston Churchill had this to say about the Palestinians in 1937: "I do not agree that the dog in a manger has the final right to the manger even though he may have lain there for a very long time. I do not admit that right. I do not admit for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place."

Of course, these views are not surprising, given the racist-colonialist context. The question is how any editor anno 2010 would think that a work relating the conflict between Israel and the Arab states, written by a person who expressed such sentiments, could be trusted as a reliable and unbiased source. This is especially pressing considering the prominence of this particular source in the references for the article. I do think that all published writings should be cross-checked for accuracy without regard to the personal views of the author. But considering all the flak that Finkelstein (whose political opinions hardly can be equalled with Churchill's unabashed racism and negationism) has received, without his work even being used in the article, it's certainly unjust that Churchill gets a free pass. Shoplifter (talk) 12:15, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Israel, Palestine, and the United Nations

Harlan, I disagree that your additions were whiten in neutral stile or pertinent.My edit was made in attempt to improve the article and not to distract. I think you using your sources selectively to promote an opinion, and I see others in discussions believe so also. Frome what I understand this constitutes WP:SOAP, as you as addition must balanced to put entries, in a reasonable perspective, and represent a neutral point of view. RegardsIgorb2008 (talk) 00:14, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Igorb2008, if you continue to delete sourced material I'll request that you be blocked. Regards. harlan (talk) 00:18, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Harlan, I presented the reason for deletion on article talk page, as well as here, so if you still believe that I violated policy,you welcome to submit your request.Regards, Igorb2008 (talk) 00:47, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I will follow the normal dispute resolution process. The views of James Crawford, Mallison, and etc. are not minority views. They are the views of the Rapportuer of the UN International Law Commission and a legal consultant for the UN Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People.[1] The Wikipedia:ARBPIA general sanctions require that the published views of all the interested parties are fairly represented. Your selective deletions of UN and Palestinian views violates the general editing sanctions. harlan (talk) 01:03, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I only made one deletion, of the new addition to the article because, in my opinion, as well as some others on talk page, that addition itself was selective,made contrary to Wikipedia guidelines, and did not fairly represent all views published, even by sources provided,presenting some of the opinions as facts. By rules of wikipedia it must be made NPOV, and present counter arguments, to each of these points presented by you

1)Li-ann Thio opinion, whether right of a nations for independence is conditional. 2)James Crawford and William Thomas Mallison opinions, whether Israel provide constitutional protection for minorities, whether,Israel was created pursuant either to an authoritative disposition of the territory, or to a valid and subsisting authorization. 3)Opinions if Resolution 181 is such disposition or authorization. 4)If previous sovereign accepted disposition or authorization. And I do not believe that this article is a right place to discuss all those points, because such discussion will be bigger then the full article now. I am sorry I cant seem to open UN link provided by you, but Israeli independence is accepted by UN,Palestine, as well as UK, and disposition of the Mandate of Palestine, as well as creation and independence of free states in its place, was accepted by UK also. I also think that this discussion should continue on article talk page, to allow everyone to contribute. Igorb2008 (talk) 06:00, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Igorb you are filibustering. The opinions were directly attributed to the individuals in the text of the article. I've already discussed sources on the article talk page which explain that those are official policies of the UN and the League of Nations based upon well-documented practices of customary international law. I'll be adding those to the article. The discussion has moved to the [2] harlan (talk) 06:11, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

hello

• I want to thank you for your comments re 6 Day. I am reaching the point where I'm getting a little tired of the friction, which makes me slightly less attentive. I may have overlooked some of your suggestions. I promise, I hope to return to any omitted points etc. later. Tks. • Ling.Nut 06:13, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Hang in there. I figured out a long time ago that Wikipedia isn't going to be written in a day, and that stable articles are never completely "finished". harlan (talk) 06:43, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Apparently you put the NPOV tag on the article in Feb 2009, but it had only been removed a couple weeks earlier... and the previous tag had been in place since Nov 2008. Any hope of removing it in the foreseeable future? • Ling.Nut 13:00, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

The tag I applied was removed despite on-going discussion and I applied another one. The lede is no longer a major source of grief in my view. I think the POV tag can be applied to the problem sections instead of the whole article, but there are a lot of discussions involving other editors who may not agree. I'm interested in adding a subsection that gives an overview, or brief survey, of the views on first strike/interception/pre-emption/preventative war. There are a number of views that need to be added (or restored) regarding the withdrawal of UNEF and closure/strategic blockade of the Strait of Tiran. I'll put together a list so you can get some idea what that would entail. harlan (talk) 03:12, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

• I've changed my mind; the POV tag should stay. • Ling.Nut 02:37, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
• I want to move off the lead and onto another section, either the "causes of the war" or the "Samu" section, since those seem to be the two that are most contested... If you make some sort of a summary of points, post it to article talk, and leave a message on my talk saying you posted it there. Then expect six weeks or more of wailing and gnashing of teeth and tearing of clothing and tossing of dust in the air regarding every little detail of every point you suggested. Thanks. • Ling.Nut 06:13, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Discussion on closure of Israel and Aparthied mediation

Current consensus seems to be to move the article to Israel and Apartheid with an appropriate disambiguation line to prevent any misinterpretations. Please weigh in over the next few days. --Ludwigs2 17:11, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Caroline test

I'm thinking of creating an article on the Caroline test, which I saw you mention in your latest post. This would be a good addition to the list of legal tests. I'm currently looking into the writings on the subject, including Law from Above: Unmanned Aerial Systems, Use of Force, and the Law of Armed Conflict by Chris Jenks, The Caroline Case : Anticipatory Self-Defence in Contemporary International Law by Louis Phillippe Rouillard, Striking First: Preemption and Prevention in International Conflict by Michael Doyle, etc. If you're interested in pitching in, you're more than welcome to. I will set up a sandbox to work on it. Shoplifter (talk) 04:33, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I've completed a first draft: User:Shoplifter/Sandbox I'm not happy with the intro, but I haven't been able to find a good one sentence description. Shoplifter (talk) 12:01, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I thought the Caroline test just might be the best single sentence description. So, I went ahead and added it to the lede. I included info on the Lotus case, and Article 51 of the UN Charter to the "Significance" subsection. I cited an ASIL article that discusses the connection between those subjects and the Caroline test. Some readers may have difficulty sorting through the theoretical postulations about the war on terror contained in that article. So, I'll keep looking for another source with a shorter summary of the key points on the Caroline test, Lotus case, Nuremberg Tribunal, and the UN Charter. harlan (talk) 19:08, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Good additions, go ahead and add the source if you find it. I will see if there's anything else important to add, then link it up and set it afloat. Shoplifter (talk) 01:46, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

You might run it through the Article Wizard just in case, before you put it in article space. It may add some boilerplate templates or standard formatting we've overlooked. harlan (talk) 01:55, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

That's neat, I didn't know about that. I will submit the sandbox version for review. Shoplifter (talk) 02:01, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

It's under review: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Caroline_test Shoplifter (talk) 02:23, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, two reviewers are in favor of going ahead and creating it, but one wants it nominated for Wikipedia:Did you know That editor preferred American English spelling. So far, no one has recommended any major changes. harlan (talk) 07:54, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

This is the first time I saw that they changed the spelling from British English. I chose the latter because I wanted it to comport with Webster's spelling and some sources. Not a big deal, though. I spoke to the guy on IRC who wanted for it to be a DYK nominee; that would be a nice treat. In fact, two guys in the channel said the article was among the best they had seen submitted to AFC. By the way, this is a brilliant edit of yours: [3] Sorting out the issues and enlightening people, including myself, on the essence of WP policy. Shoplifter (talk) 08:08, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

It is a habit of mine. There is an article here by Prof. Schabas that alludes to the Lotus case and a discussion in connection with the raid on the Gaza aid flotilla [4] There is a follow-up article and discussion (where I chimed-in) on that subject. It touches on the Lotus case. You mind find it of interest.[5] Article 12(2) of the Rome Statute allows the Court to exercise its jurisdiction if the "State on the territory of which the conduct in question occurred or, if the crime was committed on board a vessel or aircraft, [of] the State of registration of that vessel or aircraft" - and that State makes a Declaration in accordance with Article 12(3) accepting the Court's jurisdiction. harlan (talk) 08:48, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't doubt for a moment that the flotilla raid was in breach of a litany of prohibitions on the use of force. The reference to the Lotus case makes a point about the longstanding (indeed foundational) legal grounds that are involved. But it seems quite clear by now that the Israeli government is not interested in abiding even to the most basic tenets of international law. I'm reminded by the debate between Norman Finkelstein and Shlomo Ben-Ami, where Ben-Ami made the following remark:

Ben-Ami: What Dr. Finkelstein said here about international law, I want to make it clear, it is important, it is vital for a civilized community of nations to have an axis of principles based on international law, around which to run the affairs of our chaotic world. It is very important. It is vital, etc. But at the same time, when you go into political issues, and you need to settle differences, historical differences, differences that have to do with political rights, security concerns, historical memories, etc., it is almost impossible to do things on the basis of international law, but rather, on something that is as close as possible to the requirements of international law. The very fact that, as Dr. Finkelstein rightly says, the Palestinians were ready to make this or that concession is the reflection of them understanding that there is no viability, there is no possibility really to reach an agreement that says let us apply automatically and rigidly the requirements of international law.

Later on, Finkelstein makes this observation: But, Dr. Ben-Ami, you know, as well as I do, international law does not apply to some countries and not to others and some continents and not to others. Either it applies to everybody, or it applies to nobody. So to use the excuse, “Well, in our neighborhood we don’t have to recognize international law,” is simply a repudiation of international law.

The whole thing is very interesting, you can see it here: [6]

Considering that Ben-Ami is a Meretz supporter, member of J Street, and a person who Finkelstein thinks is "reasonable", it's not a long shot to imagine that the consensus on these issues within the current Israeli leadership is fairly radical. Shoplifter (talk) 09:31, 18 August 2010 (UTC)~

The Caroline test article is now created, and is nominated for DYK [7]. Shoplifter (talk) 17:12, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Counter proposal to merging "State" with "Sovereign state"

As someone who has previously contributed to the discussion on merging Sovereign state and State (polity), I was wondering if you would like to comment on my counter proposal. — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 13:01, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

sovereign states sorting criteria

Sorry to bother here, but as you are a contributor to certain discussions at the List of sovereign states I would like to show you the recently compiled list of all proposals for sorting criteria so that you can express your opinion here. Thanks! Alinor (talk) 13:30, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

hypocrisy

In other words, your idea of "civil" discussion is that you're free to engage in religious-based hatred when you insinuate that Jews are inbred or clannish or always politically scheming and conniving, but I'm "uncivil" when I point out that you're indulging in religious-based hatred. Considering all the times in the past that you attempted to slander me with the "R" word as a pure smear and slur which had no relationship to what I was saying, I would say that this shows some degreee of hypocrisy on your part... AnonMoos (talk) 01:22, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Eleland specifically pointed out at the time that your remarks about editors consciously employing dishonest Arab propaganda here [8] were inappropriate.[9] I pointed out on numerous occasions that the other Arab States did not legally represent the Palestinians and that your unsourced and culturally offensive use of stereotypes to make sweeping generalizations about the behavior of "the Arabs" in 1948 or in the Mashreq countries [10] has nothing whatever to do with either the continuing relevance of resolution 181(II) or the inalienable legal right of the Palestinian people to self-determination. I provided a number of reliable published sources - including the UN itself - speaking about that very subject which demonstrated the resolution is still relevant and that the Palestinians still have the right to self-determination and a state of their own, e.g. [11]

You responded by inventing a claim, out of thin air, that it was "a rather extraordinary claim that the Arabs enjoy a quite unprecedented legal privilege of that of "double-dipping", or "two bites at the apple", or "having their cake and eating it too" based upon an 'Encyclopaedia Britannica article that did not mention any of those things. [12] [13]. I would suggest that you follow Eleland's suggestion and "quote solid academic sources which trace out the legal relationships between the Lausanne treaty of 1921, UNGR 181, the Rhodes agreements and UNGR 194, & etc." harlan (talk) 17:20, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

AN/I

Thank you for your message. I'll monitor the discussion. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:49, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Request for comment

Harlan, you are the most knowledgeable editor I've encountered with regard to the Arab-Israeli conflict. I'm having a conflict with No More Mister Nice Guy and WGFinley, both of whom claim I'm violating WP:SYNTH in my proposed edit here:[14]. I would appreciate it if you would review my proposal, their objections, and my responses, and state your own view as to whether or not the statements they've objected to constitute "synth", or whether they are verifiable statements of fact from the sources given. Thank you. JRHammond (talk) 01:13, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I've posted a comment. I think Lynk and others support what you are saying, but I wouldn't call it conditional acceptance. I'll be on the road driving for the next two days. I'll check-in when I can. harlan (talk) 22:20, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

San Remo Manual

See San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea.

This short, relatively recent, article looks to me as if it could benefit from your legal knowledge and expertise. Perhaps you could take a look at it?

Many thanks,

--NSH001 (talk) 12:49, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Friendly request

Dear Harlan! I've noted your devotion to long replies on talk pages. While I can only praise your style and your accuracy, I'd like to advise, if I may, to stick to a briefer style when possible, for the sake of the reader's precious time. Once again, it's a great pleasure to cooperate with an editor like you. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 17:55, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

"Arab League Declaration"

Hi Harlan, Do you know anything about the genuineness of this: [15]. It appears in suspiciously few places. Zero^talk 09:37, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I'm on vacation and on the road. It appears to be an extract from the text of Secretary-General Azzam's cablegram of May 15 to UN Secretary-General Lie. The UN Document Symbol is S/745, dated 16 May 1948.[16] It was originally published in the Journal of the Security Council, 3rd year, Supplement for May 1948, p. 83. harlan (talk) 16:50, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Res 242

Hi, You wrote an interesting comment on the Six-Day War talkpage concerning the interpretetion of this resolution where you mentioned that this information would have been repeatedly excised from the Res 242 article. Could you provide a diff of one of these reverts, as it sounds to me like very pertinent information that should be in the article? Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 19:52, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

The selective use of Brown and Caradon quotes by Israel was discussed way-back in the 1970s by Glenn Perry. He noted that vague or inconclusive remarks were irrelevant, especially in those instances when they contradicted the remarks made on the record by the two men during the discussions in the General Assembly Emergency Session and in the Security Council. See Glenn Perry, Security Council Resolution 242: The Withdrawal Clause, Middle East Journal, Vol. 31, No. 4 (Autumn, 1977), pp. 413-433 [17]

The IP that was edit warring with JRHammond reverted once claiming that (in his opinion) it was contradicted by a quote from Brown's autobiography that is included in the article [18]

A single purpose account belonging to "Accredited" that has only edited one other article has reverted on multiple occasions. Accredited was blocked for a while for suspicion of using multiple accounts, including Authoritative [19] (who was also editing Six Day War to include POV material from History Central in the part about Jordan's occupation of Government House. Here are his reverts [20] [21]

No More Mister Nice Guy has tagged teamed several articles, including Resolution 242 with socks of topic banned users NoCal100 and Drork. He reverted next [22] Unomi restored the quote [23] and NMMNG reverted again [24] I restored it and NMMNG deleted it again. [25]

The IP and Accredited skipped the ensuing talk page discussion. NMMNG refactored his arguments and ended up saying the contents could be summarized, but that the quote could not be used because the article is too long and has too many quotes. Several secondary sources confirm Brown's account about the stage-managed exchanges between the Indian representative and Lord Caradon regarding the UK's earlier policy statements requiring full Israeli withdrawal. They say that was done so that Caradon could say we stand by our declarations and our votes. That was a pre-condition that secured the Indian vote and prevented a Soviet Veto. Since there is a subsection full of quotes regarding "interpretations", I plan on adding a section regarding the details of that negotiation from Brown, Perry, Arthur Lall, and Sydney Bailey. harlan (talk) 21:33, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Request for review

Hey mate! An recent edit was made here which substantially changed the wording of the Israel-Palestine section. Could you please take a look at it if you get a chance? Just to make sure it's all good? I don't know enough about the legality of the situation, but it makes some pretty bold statements and I just wanted to make sure... Cheers! Nightw 02:30, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

The new version has caused an edit conflict, and I don't really have confidence in either parties' knowledge on the subject. The discussion is faily short. Could you perhaps take a look? Nightw 14:26, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Most of these articles are WP:OR legal fictions that really don't interest me enough to stay on my watchlist. I'll take a look and post something tommorrow. harlan (talk) 07:44, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I know your views on diplomatic "recognition", but the actual segment in question is simply a claim about actual control in Palestine. Currently reads as:

Israel holds the ultimate control over all of the territories claimed [by Palestinians] and considers them disputed territory. Israel allows the PNA to execute some functions in the Palestinian territories, depending on special area classification with minimal interference (retaining control of borders: air, sea beyond internal waters, land) in the Gaza strip and maximum in "Area C".

I'm not sure how accurate that is... ? Nightw 15:36, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Scope of Racism in the Palestinian territories

Hi. I've attempted to systematize the discussion on the scope of Racism in the Palestinian territories with regard to racism by Israeli settlers and soldiers at Talk:Racism in the Palestinian territories#Proposed resolutions. This debate does not concern whether such racism exists, merely whether it is an appropriate part of the article. Issues of WP:POLICY are currently being discussed. You've previously addressed the issue. Please contribute your opinion.--Carwil (talk) 23:17, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Please

Please make your latest post a separate discussion as it doesn't help the main debate. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:32, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I think the main debate is about including unnecessary propaganda as boilerplate in a lot of articles. Israel does not really dispute the content of international law or use these quirky PR claims in its actual courtroom cases. harlan (talk) 21:06, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Harlan, do you have any good sources that say that the international community sees Israeli settlements in Golan as illegal? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:42, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes of course. I added some info to the Golan Heights article regarding resolution 242.

In general it is a matter of customary international law. Eyal Benvenisti, "The Origins of the Concept of Belligerent Occupation", Law and History Review 26.3 (2008) [26] explains the development of the prohibition against unilateral annexation of territory in the public international law of Europe during the 19th Century. The American states, including the US, have incorporated prohibitions against territorial conquest and colonial occupation in their public international law since the First International Conference of American States in 1890, [27]. Some other examples are found in President Wilson's "Fourteen Points", the Montevideo Convention of 1933, and the Charter of the Organization of American States. The pact of Paris or Kellogg–Briand Pact was backed-up by the Stimson Doctrine and the report of the League of Nations Lytton Commission.

After the U.S. blocked the adoption of sanctions against Israel, the other members of the Security Council adopted resolution 500 which said the Council had been prevented from performing its "primary responsibility". The resolution called for an Emergency Special Session of the General Assembly to consider the matter of the Golan Heights. In the "Certain Expenses" case the ICJ explained that: "Article 24 of the Charter provides "In order to ensure prompt and effective action by the United Nations, its Members confer on the Secunty Council primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security ..." The responsibility conferred is "primary", not exclusive." See Page 28 [28]

The General Assembly adopted UN GA resolution ES-9/1 (1982) [29] which declared that Israel's actions were an illegal act of aggression under the terms of Article 39 of the UN Charter "that shall not be recognized". The General Assembly followed-up in regular session with Resolution 37/123 [30] which decided that Israel's occupation of the Golan was "illegal and invalid" and called for the members not to recognize it. UN rules and regimes of non-recognition (including resolution 37/123) are based upon customary international law reflected in the prohibition against threats or use of force contained in the UN Charter. The rules of non-recognition and the regime implemented by resolution 37/123 and SC resolution 242 were discussed by John Dugard in "Recognition and the United Nations", Grotius Publications Cambridge (1987), pages 111-15.

Stefan Talmon explains that the duty not to recognize as lawful a situation created by a serious breach of an obligation arising under a customary norm is now laid down in article 41(2) of the International Law Commission’s Articles on Responsibility of States of Internationally Wrongful Acts (2001). A duty of non-recognition may also arise under a treaty (like the UN Charter) or a binding resolution of the United Nations Security Council. Non-binding resolutions of the Security Council which in their preamble merely reaffirm “the sovereignty and territorial integrity” of a State and the “inadmissibility of the use of force for the acquisition of territory” may contribute to the establishment of a customary international law duty of non-recognition of an entity created by force.[31] Judge Higgins explained in the Wall case that an illegal situation is not to be recognized or assisted by third parties owing to a self-evident principle of international law. The Restatement (Third) of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States sections 201, 202, and 203 stipulate that a state has an obligation not to recognize another state, government, or sovereignty over territory in cases where the necessary qualifications were obtained in violation of the UN Charter. harlan (talk) 05:54, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

You recent "apartheid analogy" post

I'm not sure what I said that prompted your response to me. I was arguing that Buttu is not delegitimizing Israel. Did I misrepresent something?--Carwil (talk) 17:32, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I was simply repeating the fact that the published views of the PLO Negotiations Support Unit regarding government policies and the 'Peace & Security' chapter of the 1999 Likud Party platform are that denial of nationality and statehood are constituent acts of apartheid. Tempered started the discussion of his unpublished thesis back in August. At that time I pointed out that Buttu had based her expert legal advice to the PLO leadership on "the facts on the ground", not Edward Said's article. In the subsequent ICJ Wall case, the participating members of Buttu's Negotiations Support Unit were Koury, Chopra, Shehadeh, et al (listed as counsel by the Court on page 4 [32]. They and the UN Secretary General based their dossiers upon reliable published reports which said that Israel was pursuing a policy of "Bantustanization" and of apartheid. I advised Tempered at the time that WP:ARBPIA required that the views of all the interested parties to the conflict be fairly represented, i.e. that Israel's administrative regime in the occupied territories is illegal and has no legitimacy in the first place. harlan (talk) 01:05, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Could you take a look at this

Could you please take a look at this: {{Palestine foreign relations}}, and possibly give it a quick fact check? I've done a quick once over myself, but I'm confused with some of the sentences. ...If you have time? Thanks in advance, Nightw 10:20, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Israels border

Hey, I have a question about Israels border with Syria.

Looking at this map [33], the DMZs have the same color as Syria except for half the DMZ at the bottom, does this mean that all the white parts of the DMZ is recognized as part of Syria, except for the yellow part at the bottom that is recognized as part of Israel? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:51, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Israel and Syria inherited an established international border from the LoN and the mandatory powers. So, Syria is the "reversionary sovereign" of the DMZs on the Syrian side. That means the territory is considered part of Syria and can only be annexed by another power with Syria's consent.

I believe that you are referring to a DMZ established in an area of Palestine that was once designated for the creation of the proposed Jewish state (under the terms of the UN partition plan). A determination about sovereignty over that DMZ begs an open legal question regarding its "final" political status. Neither Syria nor Israel have an exclusive claim to the Palestinian territory covered by their armistice agreement. Any revision of the armistice lines would logically give rise to offsetting claims or its possible use to satisfy requirements for the "agreed upon swaps" that are envisioned as part of the final settlement with the Palestinians. The proposition that the borders can only be settled through negotiations is doubtful. In the majority of cases since the 1800s, border disputes like this have usually been settled by international arbitration and international boundary commissions. harlan (talk) 06:58, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Almost all maps of Israel at Wikipedia includes the DMZs as part of its territory, are you saying that this is wrong? I know the triangle and land around the Sea of Galilee is part of Palestine's 1923 international border, but is that small part in the top that includes Snir/Senir also part of Palestine's 1923 international border? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:28, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Re:"does this mean that all the white parts of the DMZ is recognized as part of Syria, except for the yellow part at the bottom that is recognized as part of Israel?". No, "recognition" of the competing territorial claims is piecemeal at best and is in abeyance pending an agreed-upon final settlement. The DMZs were part of the Palestine Mandate, but not a part of Israel. Kibbutz Snir is one of the Israeli settlements established after the Six Day War.[34] Leaving aside the UNDOF zone, all of the 1949-zones on the map were territories that had been occupied by the Syrian armed forces during the 1948 conflict.

Syria agreed to withdraw from the DMZs under the terms of the 1949 Armistice agreement without prejudice to their final political status. So, the western boundaries of the DMZs follow the 1949 cease fire lines. They are labeled as the 1949 Armistice line on the map. The eastern boundaries (labeled "DMZ limits") are formed by the international boundary of the Palestine mandate. The armistice agreements and the permanent lines of demarcation were adopted under the auspices of binding Chapter VII UN Security Council resolutions that are still in force today. Israel expelled the Arab cultivators and initiated a process of creeping expropriation. It unilaterally declared the armistice agreements "null and void" and claimed sovereignty over the DMZs. As a consequence, there is a third, unofficial, "4 June 1967 line" mentioned by some sources. It follows the deployment of IDF forces within the DMZs just prior to the Six Day War.

The prevailing view (outlined by James Crawford, D.P. O'Connell, & etc.) is that Israel was formed by a violent act of secession, not an orderly transfer of power. It publicly renounced responsibility for the public debts and treaty obligations of the former Mandatory administration that were outlined in the UN plan for the future government of Palestine and ignored the territorial allocations. It declared that it was in "no sense" a legal successor of the Palestinian entity. Under those circumstances, Israel can only claim the territory it occupied at the end of the civil war. It does not automatically inherit additional mandated territory by default. Syria and the other Arab states entered Palestine for the express purpose of assisting in the eventual establishment of a local Palestinian government, e.g.[35]. Each of the Arab states negotiated separate armistice agreements - at the request of Israel and the UN Mediator - after Israel had refused to enter into direct negotiations with the Palestinians. Syria, Israel, and the other Arab states have subsequently recognized the PLO. harlan (talk) 12:15, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Chat Re " Israel can only claim the territory it occupied at the end of the civil war" Perhaps, but surely only had they not declared independent sovereignty. UNGA Res 181 is still enshrined in the Declaration for the Establishment of the State of Israel.

Israel made no claims to any territory until after it was accepted into the UN, which was after the armistice agreements had been signed. BTW unlike the other armistice agreements, the Jordanian agreement used the words without prejudice to .... future claims. In chronological order. I'm not suggesting using these links in wikI/Pedia articles;

On May 15th 1948 the extent of Israel’s Sovereign territories were clearly stated in the Israeli Government’s official announcement of the Declaration for the Establishment of the State of Israel “within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947,”

On May 22, 1948 in correspondence to the UNSC statement by Israeli Government “within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947,” .

By the time Israel was accepted into the UN as a UN Member State 11 May 1949 it had already been recognized by the majority of the International Community of Nations.

On June 15, 1949 the Israeli Government again confirmed it’s declared frontiers in correspondence to the UNSC

On the 31st Aug 1949 Israel made it’s first official claim to territories beyond the extent of it’s sovereign frontiers. After all the above. talknic (talk) 09:41, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

It is pretty common knowledge that Israel lied in order to get the mandate terminated, and then lied about its lies. Today Israel argues that its legal position on boundaries is safeguarded by a clause in the 1949 armistice agreements. Those agreements are supposed to be observed until such time as a final agreement is concluded. In the West Bank each side extended the provisions of its own municipal laws to all of the territory it occupied. That was done without any objections from the UN, except for the Corpus Separatum (in which only the de facto nature of each regime was recognized).

Prof. James Crawford, Prof. William Thomas Mallison, and other legal scholars, say that Israel did not comply with its original obligation to constitutionally protect minority rights. Mallison explained that it may not be entitled to exercise sovereignty over any territory until it does. See for example Mallison's testimony during the Senate hearings on "The Colonization Of The West Bank Territories By Israel", page 50 (extracted below) [36]; Page 7 of the "Report Of The Committee On The Exercise Of The Inalienable Rights Of The Palestinian People" [37]; Guy S. Goodwin-Gill, and Stefan Talmon, eds., The Reality of International Law: Essays in Honour of Ian Brownlie (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1999) page 108; D.P. O'Connell author "The Law of State Succession", Volume V of the Cambridge Studies in International and Comparative Law, 1956, Hersh Lauterpacht editor, pages 10–11, and 178; Yvonne Schmidt, "Foundations of Civil and Political Rights in Israel and the Occupied Territories", GRIN Verlag, 2008, ISBN 3638944506, page 98.

Mallison testified that

"Israel's main claim to title, apart from supposed religious arguments used for political purposes, is the U.N. General Assembly Palestine Partition Resolution, No. 181 (II) of November 29,1947. The Declaration of Establishment of the State of Israel states that this partition resolution is the ground for the legality of the State of Israel. Under the terms of this resolution, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip are far beyond the boundaries allocated to the State of Israel. They were expressly allocated to the Palestine Arab State, which certainly gives such a state, if one exists in the future, a significant claim to title. A further examination of the Palestine partition resolution indicates that the territory allocated to Israel, much less than the present claims or the cease-fire lines which existed prior to June 5,1967, was only allocated on condition that certain duties imposed upon each state to be established in Palestine were carried out. Among these legal obligations, section 10(d) of part IB is particularly important and provides that each of the states to be set up in Palestine shall have a constitution which includes provisions: Guaranteeing to all persons equal and nondiscriminatory rights in civil, political, economic, and religious matters and the enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms, including freedom of religion, language, speech and publication, education, assembly, and association.

In most civilized legal systems it is recognized that legal rights may only be exercised conditioned upon compliance with legal duties. The refusal of the State of Israel to comply with the nondiscriminatory requirements of the Palestine partition resolution, its main claim to

title, puts in serious jeopardy its claim to legal title to the limited territory allocated to it by the resolution."

The UN Partition plan contained the customary minority protection plan that accompanied any large accessions of territory under international law. It included a requirement for each state to supply a declaration acknowledging fundamental rights. There was an additional requirement for both states to incorporate the rights contained in the declaration in its constitution. The concept of granting title to a territory on the basis of minority rights treaties started in the 1870s with Serbia, Montenegro, and Romania. See Defending the Rights of Others, Carole Fink, page 37.[38] That practice was continued at the Versailles Peace Conference and its "Committee on New States and for The Protection of Minorities". See page 342 of "The Jews And Minority Rights", (1898-1919), Oscar I. Janowsky, Columbia University Press, 1933. The 1919 peace agreements with Eastern European and Balkan States included specific provisions relating to the protection of minorities that were placed under the guarantee of the LoN. The first treaty to establish this protective regime was the treaty between the Allied Powers and Poland, signed at Versailles in June 1919. It served as a model for a number of other treaties. The regime comprised also "declarations" made on admission to the League of Nations by other countries of Eastern Europe. See page 1 of [39] "Minority Rights in Albania", by the Albanian Helsinki Committee, September 1999

In 1931 the Council of the League of Nations adopted a resolution which required a minority rights declaration from the governments of the mandates as a condition for terminating a mandate regime. See "The General Principles Governing the Termination of a Mandate", Luther Harris Evans, The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 26, No. 4 (Oct., 1932), pp. 735-758 Stable URL: [40]

French Prime Minister Clemenceau explained in an aide-memoire attached to the Polish treaty that the minority protections were consistent with diplomatic precedent:

This treaty does not constitute any fresh departure. It has for long been the established procedure of the public law of Europe that when a State is created, or when large accessions of territory are made to an established State, the joint and formal recognition of the Great Powers should be accompanied by the requirement that such States should, in the form of a binding International convention undertake to comply with certain principles of Government. In this regard I must recall for your consideration the fact that it is to the endeavors and sacrifices of the Powers in whose name I am addressing you that the Polish nation owes the recovery of its independence. It is by their decision that Polish sovereignty is being restored over the territories in question, and that the inhabitants of these territories are being incorporated into the Polish nation.... ...There rests, therefore, upon these Powers an obligation, which they cannot evade, to secure in the most permanent and solemn form guarantees for certain essential rights which will afford to the inhabitants the necessary protection, whatever changes may take place in the internal constitution of the Polish State. --Sovereignty, Stephen D. Krasner, Princeton University Press, 1999, ISBN 069100711X, page 92-93

During the 48th session of the Ad Hoc Political Committee that was considering Israel's application for membership in the United Nations, the representative of Cuba asked if Israel had supplied the required declaration? He noted that the rights were under United Nations guarantee. See pages 2-3 of the .pdf [41] Mr. Abba Eban said he could answer in the affirmative and cited a declaration made by the Foreign Minister to the Secretary General on 15 May 1948. It in-turn cited a signed document, The Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel.

At the 51st session Mr Eban again answered affirmatively that the rights stipulated in section C. Declaration, chapters 1 and 2 of UN resolution 181(II) had been constitutionally embodied as the fundamental law of the state of Israel as required by the resolution. See The Palestine Question, Henry Cattan, page 86-87 and the verbatim UN record, [42] The instrument that Mr Eban cited during that hearing was the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel (which had been signed and published in the official gazette). General Assembly Resolution 273 (III) Admission of Israel to membership in the United Nations, 11 May 1949 contains a footnote (5) regarding "the declarations and explanations made by the representative of the Government of Israel". The footnote cites the minutes of the 45th-48th, 50th, and 51st meetings of the Ad Hoc Political Committee contained in documents A/AC.24/SR.45-48, 50 and 51.[43]

O'Connell described Israel's about face during a 1949 conference on succession to the mandatory administrations public debts and obligations in accordance with article 28 of the Mandate and the UN Partition plan. Israel denied both were applicable. "Legal opinion favourable to Israel has not denied the existence of rules of international law governing the consequences of State succession, but has refused to admit that the new State was a successor in the normal and traditional sense. The Mandate had been terminated by Great Britain, and with it the Government of Palestine, without any arrangement having been made for the disposal of the latter's assets and liabilities. There was not, it has been alleged, an organized substitution of one State for another to which rules of international law would apply. Israel came into existence by its own act and exercised sovereignty without having it transferred from any predecessor. There is no necessity to enter into a discussion of the merits of this argument. It is cited to indicate that States seek rather to expel rules of law from the solution of the problems in which they are interested than to deny their existence."

In 1950 Israel said that it had been admitted to the United Nations in accordance with General Assembly resolution 273 (III) of 11 May 1949, without the Declaration having been made. See Extract from the Yearbook of the International Law Commission: 1950 , vol. II, Law of Treaties, UN Document: A/CN.4/19, page 21, paragraphs 21–23, [44] Subsequently, in a series of decisions, the Supreme Court of Israel stated that the Declaration had no constitutional validity, and that it was not a supreme law which may be used to invalidate laws and regulations that contradict it. See "The Proclamation of Independence" [45] at the Israeli Knesset website.

In 1963 the Secretary-General reported on two landmark cases in Israel's national courts relating to Succession of States and Governments (A/CN.4/157 paras 211-215 on pdf pages 26 & 27)[46] which proceeded from the proposition that Israel is not the successor of the Government of Palestine and that when the mandate came to an end in 1948, so did the rights contained in it. harlan (talk) 09:02, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Operation Opera

I'm not sure if this is your field, but given your apparent general interest in the Arab-Israeli conflict, maybe it will be of interest to you. I've made som major revisions to the article (still not finished), and perhaps there is something you would like to add to it. Just thought I'd drop a note. Shoplifter (talk) 12:38, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I'll have a look and let you know. harlan (talk) 08:19, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Abitration Enforcement on Chesdovi

Hello Harlan - I hope you're not giving up on trying to bring balance and good information to the encyclopedia!

Over at Arbitration Enforcement here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Chesdovi I've posted my understanding of the situation in the West Bank pre-1967 - can you confirm or deny it?

I know of nothing to indicate that Jordan's annexation was illegal. Even this partisan source seems to grudgingly accept that it was uncontentious to acceptable to all parties (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Peace/legsess.html Sessions of the Arab League, Session 12-I, May 1950 "Iraq pressed a compromise position (later accepted) which viewed Jordan as the 'trustee' of the area" and Session 12-II, Resolution 321, 12 June 1950 "Acknowledges receipt of the information that East Palestine had been annexed by Jordan").

No resolutions at the UN declare the annexation illegal, the Arab League eventually defined it as trusteeship, and if Nasser or Kassim thought it was illegal they never formally said so in any of the 3 references [47][48][49] given at Occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem by Jordan. If they had said it was illegal it would be under Sharia, not under any Internationally acceptable interpretation. A POV narrative has become the encyclopaedia's neutral voice.

Can you confirm that this is either a correct interpretation of the case, or at least a well-respected counter-view which must be given due weight? MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 08:26, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Later - I see you have an entire working page on of Jordan's Annexation of the West Bank and one that doesn't appear to have ever been challenged - did Chesdovi know of it's existence, has he challenged any part of it? MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 13:39, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

In 1931 the Council of the League of Nations adopted a resolution which established the criteria for terminating a mandate regime. It called for all of the territory under mandate to be granted independence before a mandate could be terminated. See The General Principles Governing the Termination of a Mandate, LH Evans - American Journal of International Law, 1932 (via JSTOR or HeinOnline) When Transjordan applied for membership in the UN in 1946, the President of the Security Council cited a policy statement of the US Secretary of State, and noted that Transjordan had been part of a joint-mandate that had not yet been legally terminated. He said that the question of its status should be postponed until the UN had addressed the status of Palestine as a whole.[50] "Jordan" (not "Transjordan") was admitted as a member state in 1955.

Israel and the Arab states accepted the map from the 1947 UN Partition Plan as the basis of negotiations during the Lausanne Conference. Israel refused to deal with the Palestinians and insisted it would only deal with other "sovereign states". David Ben Gurion advised the US representative to the Palestine Conciliation Conference that the status of Palestine could be recognized in a final settlement as part of a federal union with Transjordan.[51]

Yehuda Blum observed that Israel signed an Armistice Agreement with the newly created combined legal entity "Jordan", not Transjordan. See footnote 24 of "The Missing Reversioner". The armistice agreements established permanent lines of demarcation and recognized the exclusive competence of the state parties to negotiate any future boundary changes. The agreements were mandated by a series of Chapter VII UN Security Council resolutions that are still binding upon all of the member states (including the Arab League). Abba Eban explained afterward that "Israel holds no territory wrongfully, since her occupation of the areas now held has been sanctioned by the armistice agreements, as has the occupation of the territory in Palestine now held by the Arab states." see "Effect on Armistice Agreements", FRUS Volume VI 1949, 1149 The Arab League objections to so-called Israeli or Jordanian "annexation" of areas under their domestic jurisdiction is largely irrelevant. In the absence of an international mandatory administration, the former communities of the Palestine Mandate (including Transjordan) had an "inherent right" to organize states and operate governments as they saw fit in the territories that they occupied after their civil war. harlan (talk) 15:35, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

On at least one occasion, I reverted an edit by Chesdovi regarding the illegality of the annexation of the West Bank and directed him to the discussions on the talk page.[52] P.S. I have relatives visiting from out-of-state and haven't had any time to check on Wikipedia lately. harlan (talk) 15:48, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Hey

As you're one of the few to post multiple comments in the discussion on renaming Palestine, I was just hoping you could take another look and post your thoughts on the compromise of Palestine linking to Palestine (disambiguation). I think Alinor and I are fine with this but the third man involved in discussions (NightW) refuses to allow any compromise, please give your thoughts on the talk page. thanks, Passionless (talk) 14:57, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

POV flag removed from Israel, Palestine and the United Nations

Hello Harlan, I removed the POV flag from this article since there is no recent unresolved issues in the talk page. Last time I did this on Oct 27, you reverted and mentioned the absence of Israel imposing martial law on its Arab citizens and several legal issues related to this; see Archive 4 of the talk page. The last comment at that time was me asking you to contribute to this article on this issue. You did not. What will you do this time? Emmanuelm (talk) 15:41, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm enjoying a holiday from Wikipedia. I'll look it over when I find the time and let you know. harlan (talk) 04:08, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

the change that you made

in Racism is not supported by the citation there. Could you update the citation to support your edit? PS. If you put something, anything on your user page then your name will appear in blue and not in red, making it easier to consider you an experienced editor. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 16:42, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I didn't make a change, I reverted your deletion. Your edit summary indicated that you removed "nationality" from the definition after checking many definitions. Experienced editors use the lead section to summarize the existing contents of the article. I explained in the edit summary and on the article discussion page that a citation is provided in the "Definitions" > "Legal" subsection of the article. The contents of the ICERD Convention are mentioned there with an appropriate citation. There is also another reference there to a British law which also cites nationality. That is in line with the EU Framework decision on combating racism and xenophobia.[53] It includes conduct such as violence or hatred directed against a group of persons or a member of such a group defined on the basis of race, colour, descent, religion or belief, or national or ethnic origin. So, the inclusion of discrimination based upon nationality is a non-controversial published majority view. I've added those references to the lead for you. harlan (talk) 20:20, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

This article is not titled racism and xenophobia and I believe that it is in the latter part of that phrase that "nationality" comes into play. I also believe that the ICERD Convention mentioned defined the term to include "national" because that was an issue that they wanted addressed at their convention not because nationality is a part of the definition of "racism.". However I am inclined to not argue about this. Carptrash (talk) 20:59, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

RM alert

There's a move request discussion going on at Talk:Foreign relations of the Palestinian National Authority#Requested move, with which you were previously involved. I'd be grateful if you could contribute to the new discussion. Nightw 18:30, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

RM alert

The move request at Talk:Foreign relations of the Palestinian National Authority was closed, so we're now taking suggestions for an alternative. As you were involved in the previous discussion, I'd be grateful if you could contribute to the new one. Please lodge your support for a proposal, or make one of your own. Night w2 (talk) 04:25, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

International law and the Arab-Israeli conflict

Hi! If you're here, could you please take a look at this: User_talk:ZScarpia#International_law_and_the_Arab-Israeli_conflict Thank you. Shoplifter (talk) 06:34, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Back?

Does this mean you're back?! :) Nightw 13:50, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I was just dropping by. I'll be bogged down teaching some classes for the next few months. harlan (talk) 04:15, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution survey

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello Harlan wilkerson. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click HERE to participate. Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 12:10, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Israel and the apartheid analogy

Hi, you wrote in this article talkpage that "The material in the article about Jewish-only settlements should be restored", however I think the article now does have the original wording. Which material were you referring to? BTW, great to see you still have the time to contribute to this project. --Dailycare (talk) 20:52, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:44, 23 November 2015 (UTC)