Talk:Israeli settlement
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
|
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Israeli settlement article. |
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|||
| Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 | ||||
| This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|||||||||||||||||||
 |
This article and its editors are subject to Wikipedia general sanctions. Discretionary sanctions: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles#Discretionary_sanctions |
 |
Discussions on this page may escalate into heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here. See also: Wikipedia:Etiquette. |
 |
Please be neutral when editing this highly sensitive article. It discusses a topic about which people have diverse opinions. |
Contents |
[edit] Lead
How about changing the lead as below to eliminate the contentious parts and associated refs ? Seems simpler, more neutral and possibly more stable.
Israeli settlements are communities inhabited by Israelis in territory that was captured during the 1967 Six-Day War. Such settlements currently exist in the West Bank , which is partially under Israeli military administration and partially under the control of the Palestinian National Authority, and in the Golan Heights, which are under Israeli civilian administration.
Sean.hoyland - talk 17:45, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
- I don't think that is the contentious part. The so-called arguments in the Legal background section are based upon political propaganda written in the years between 1968 and 1979. This statement is contentious:
International bodies, including the United Nations Security Council, the International Court of Justice, the European Union, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch and some legal scholars have characterized the settlements as a violation of international law. Israel, the Anti-Defamation League, and other legal scholars disagree with this assessment. (See Legal background)
- I can't remember the last time the Anti-Defamation League determined the subject matter jurisdiction of an international criminal tribunal, or if they've ever adopted a resolution that mandated the formal assembly of an international criminal tribunal. The UN Security Council has accomplished those tasks, on several occasions. The problem of adherence of some but not all States to the Geneva Conventions does not arise in practice, since a determination was made that beyond any doubt they are declarative of customary international law.
- The UN never accepted Israel's highly formalistic legal interpretation of article 49(6) of the Fourth Geneva Convention for the protection of Civilians. The UN abolished the practice of colonialism. See Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples. Alien subjugation, domination and exploitation constituted a denial of fundamental human rights. The action of transferring settlers into occupied territory inherently resulted in armed action or repressive measures against the indigenous population in other cases like Namibia, Rhodesia, Cypress, Yugoslavia, and East Timor. The principal UN organs affirmed that the Geneva Conventions apply to the Golan Heights, East Jerusalem, the West Bank, and Gaza. They also affirmed that Israel's settlements are a flagrant violation of international law.
- Despite all of Israel's entreaties that the settlements did not constitute a serious violation of the laws and customs applicable in international armed conflict, the United Nations Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries disagreed. By a vote of 120 to 7, the ICC was given subject matter jurisdiction over occupying powers that transfer, directly or indirectly, parts of their own civilian population into the territory they occupy. Israel clearly understood that going forward that practice constitutes a serious crime of concern to the international community as a whole. see the Statement by Judge Eli Nathan Head of the Delegation of Israel to the Rome Conference. Currently the Rome Statute of the ICC has 139 Signatories and 108 Ratifications. Many of those States have vested universal jurisdiction in their own national courts for the crimes defined in the Statute. The Legal arguments section of this article needs to be updated to reflect that fact. harlan (talk) 11:29, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
[edit] US funds to Israel
Shouldn't there be a section on this wiki page concerning the funds Israel receives and uses from the United States to pursue its settlement activities? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.80.104.39 (talk) 02:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
- There is an section that deals with this, see the United States military and economic aid section of Israel – United States relations. The funding issue might be mentioned with an internal link to this military and economic aid section. Mike 172.129.99.213 (talk) 23:03, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
[edit] "Communities" and "cities" and "towns"
It seems to me that there should be no problem with using these terms in this article. These terms are ethically neutral and they do not indicate anything about the nature of the places that they describe IMO. But the talk page commentary from several weeks before brought this up and I do not believe that it has been resolved. The Squicks (talk) 06:26, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
- I agree, but some editors wish to only describe these locations only as 'settlements' and forbid interchanging that word with the neutral 'size' terms. That insistence on using only the word 'settlements' might not be POV, but quite detrimental to quality. I think that 'settlement' is an additional description of these locations, not the exclusive one at all. --Shuki (talk) 08:19, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
[edit] "Legal background" section is too big
Does anyone else think that the "Legal background" section is too big and should be spun off into a separate article? Halfacanyon (talk) 06:42, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
I definitely think the legal section is too large, with excessive space devoted to legal theories pushed by marginal players. I modified the start of the legal section to outline more clearly what the international consensus is, I'll leave it to a braver editor to remove some of the legal argumentation that doesn't serve much of an encyclopedic value. --Dailycare (talk) 17:15, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Content dispute at Pollution and Settlements and Palestinian labour
User talk:Halfacanyon has been accusing me of "POV-pushing" and "lying" at my talk page. He claims I am removing sourced information here, here, and here.
I done no such thing. I explained to Halfacanyon that he was using duplicate sources, linking the same link twice in one section. I told him all he had to do was put the source at the end of the section. He accused me of lying for this. : )
all my edits accurately reflect what the source is saying, I was very explicit in my summaries and Halkacanyon's responses are hardly accurate. I am not sure if I went above 3 reverts, but I know Half did. He suggested I explain my edits more thoroughly here, so...here I am. I would like to restore my edits but I fear Half will simply remove them again. His editing approach is very hostile. Wikifan12345 (talk) 08:01, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
For comparison, here is my version of the sources for Palestinian labor: here. Here is his. Wikifan12345 (talk) 08:09, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Comparison for Pollution: Mine His.
He states in the summary that I am removing cited material. I am NOT doing that, at all. As we all know editors need to realize that their contributions will be edited, improved, sometimes repeatedly. He is taking this very personal. When I first started editing there was a rule about this. Can we please resolve this soon, the current version do not meet neutrality standards aren't paraphrased appropriately. Wikifan12345 (talk) 08:15, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
- Wikifan12345 is an extremely tendentious editor and seems to cause disruption on every article he edits, whether it's Mohamed El-Baradei, or 1948 Palestinian exodus.
- I made some small but well sourced additions to this article, and not only did Wikifan12345 remove the sourced material he removed a perfectly legitimate reference to Haaretz as well ([1], [2]).
- He then refused to admit he had done so until I pressed him about it repeatedly.
- He has also removed the following section from the article with no reason given: However, very little action occurred after that ruling and only a minority of Palestinian workers have achieved the same rights as Israeli workers. The Israeli authorities that enforce labour law (the Civil Administration and the Ministry of Industry, Trade & Labor) have undertaken little action at the settlements to enforce a minimum wage and other benefits. According to Kav LaOved, the bodies have released a statement "according to which they have no plans of enforcing the High Court of Justice ruling whatsoever". Also, employers of Palestinians fake pay slips, report false hours and work days to make it seem that the employee is being paid the minimum wage.
- He also has misrepresented facts about the Palestinian legal status in the West Bank as the opinions of Kav LaOved Halfacanyon (talk) 08:53, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
- He has also (falsely) accused me of plagiarism on his talk page, however he refuses to give evidence for his claim. Halfacanyon (talk) 09:00, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
- Please calm down. I did not accuse you of plagiarism, I said we need to rely more on paraphrasing because your interpretation of the source was far to heavy on the source material. Both the references are human rights activist groups, with the non-B'teselm to be far less notable and reliable than the B'tselem which is simply affirms there is an on-going problem. I also proved you did in fact duplicate sources in the pollution section when you claimed you did not. In the meantime, I encourage you to again look through my version and yours. All I did was simply rewrite the sections according to policy, gave due weight to all POVs and made sure to not over-state the sources. The paragraphs are far too bloated and unbalanced compared to the references uses. To prevent edit-warring, perhaps we should be take a break for a day or so. I also request that you do not follow me to articles you have not been working on. Thank you. Wikifan12345 (talk) 16:31, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
[edit] settlement in the golan
In Israel the Jewish towns in the golan don't called settlements and not everybody is accepting that they will called so, so I ask the agreement to put down the part that says so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eliroud (talk • contribs) 11:18, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
- No, this has been the subject of a discussion a while ago and the consensus was that Golan Heights settlements should be included.--Doron (talk) 13:10, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
[edit] UN?
Since nothing the UN has ever said on the "illegality" of the "settlements" was in a binding resolution, why does the opening section make it sound as if the UN has made an official pronouncement on the subject? If the section is not meant to sound as tho' it did, the it is worded too strongly. If it is meant to sound as tho' the UN did, then it is in error. Please advise. FlaviaR (talk) 04:16, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
- What are you saying? That the UN doesn't consider the settlements in violation of international law? Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:27, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
- There is a difference in opinion on what a binding resolution is, whether or not it needs to explicitly invoke chapter VII. But regardless of that debate, the UN has bodies outside of the UNSC that do make these determinations as to the legality of settlements or the current status of territories and they all have been explicit in saying these settlements are violations of international law. Nableezy (talk) 07:13, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
- There's your answer Flav. Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:44, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
