Talk:Israeli occupation of the West Bank/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

WP:FORK

It is quite obvious that the page is a WP:FORK of existing articles West Bank, Israeli-occupied territories, Status of territories occupied by Israel in 1967, Area C (West Bank), Palestinian territories, Judea and Samaria area, Israeli Military Governorate, Israeli Civil Administration, West Bank Areas in the Oslo II Accord. Can any one enlighten us about the need to create another page on exactly the same topic?GreyShark (dibra) 16:26, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

No, this is a top-level article that covers a topic that is itself treated as its own topic in reliable sources. You cant have a fork from multiple pages anyway, that makes no sense. This article specifically covers Israel's occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem, much like Jordanian annexation of the West Bank and Egyptian occupation of the Gaza Strip cover those occupations. Regardless, this is very much not a fork from any page, and it very much is not exactly the same topic as any of those pages. nableezy - 16:47, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Next you shall write Terrible Israeli occupation of the West Bank.GreyShark (dibra) 16:50, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Do you have a problem with an encyclopedia having well researched articles on topics that have thousands of sources? Or you more interested in making sure that Israel is only shown to be the beacon of hope for all humanity that we all know it is? nableezy - 16:54, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Next you shall write Long Israeli occupation of the West Bank? The topic of occupation itself is covered in the Israeli Military Governorate, Israeli Civil Administration and Area C (West Bank) articles. West Bank is the overview top level article, with notable sections in Palestinian territories, Israeli-occupied territories, Status of territories occupied by Israel in 1967. The articles which is parallel to Jordanian annexation of the West Bank and Egyptian occupation of the Gaza Strip is Israeli Military Governorate (West Bank had separate status only under Jordanian occupation, not during Israeli military rule).GreyShark (dibra) 16:55, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

No, the Israeli Military Governorate article is an article on the governmental system established as part of the occupation. It is a child article of this. You seem to believe that having a single topic split out among a number of distinct articles means we should not have an article on that topic. While that may be to the advantage of those that want to make it impossible to document the Israeli occupation and the practices of that occupation in this encyclopedia, it thankfully has a basis only in your imagination and not Wikipedia policy. You seem to be upset that Wikipedia contains a well-researched and thoroughly documented article. Sorry for participating in such a travesty. nableezy - 16:58, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Military occupation is a military governance system.GreyShark (dibra) 17:07, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

There is Israeli-occupied territories and West Bank overview articles; West Bank has had no distinct status during the Israeli occupation period (unlike during Jordanian occupation period).GreyShark (dibra) 17:09, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

No, military occupation is a status under international law for when a state exercises effective military control over a territory outside its borders. The Israeli-occupied territories article covers the territories, and more than the West Bank. This covers the actual occupation of the West Bank, including EJ. From 1967 until now. The Military Governorate ended in 1981, and so obviously does not cover the entire occupation, and during the time it was active is only a piece of this topic. The West Bank article, again, covers the territory. This article covers a topic that is related to that, but not the same, and even a ten second look at the two articles would disabuse any editor acting in good faith of the notion that the two cover the same material. This article is a parent article to a host of other articles, with more articles to come I might add, it is not a "split" or "fork" from any of them. nableezy - 17:14, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

In the parallel case Moroccan occupation of Western Sahara redirects to Southern Provinces, while Western Sahara covers both the Southern Provinces and the Free Zone (region) controlled by the partially-recognized Sahrawi Republic; if we look at the parallel - this page should be a redirect to the Area C (West Bank), while West Bank should cover altogether East Jerusalem, Area C (West Bank) and areas A+B (also known as the bulk of Palestinian territories), which are now controlled by the State of Palestine. So, you should certainly create Moroccan occupation of Western Sahara (split from Southern Provinces) if you follow such logic.GreyShark (dibra) 17:29, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

I dont see how any of that is even a little bit relevant. This article covers a topic that is treated as its own topic by reliable sources. But sure, if there are sources that support a stand-alone article Moroccan occupation of Western Sahara then that should be created. The idea that I should create an article on a topic I have limited knowledge of or interest in is peculiar, but not all that important. This article however is none of the things that you claim it is. Again, you may want to make it so that Wikipedia does not cover this topic, however Wikipedia's policies dont support that position. Unless you are arguing that the Israeli occupation of the West Bank is not a notable topic, and it would be hard to do so considering the over 300 sources in this article, then I dont see what youre trying to do here. If you think this merits deletion then WP:AFD is that way. nableezy - 18:15, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

This is way too big of a topic to put into any one article. It deserves its own article, and it's distinct from all the other articles mentioned. In each case, this article appears to me to be a proper sub-article, not a competing fork article.

• Judea and Samaria area is an article about a place, of which the West Bank is a part. "Palestinian territories" is a logical sub-article of "Judea and Samaria area." "Israeli occupation of the West Bank," an article about events at one of the places within Judea and Samaria, is several orders removed from an article called "Judea and Samaria area."
• Palestinian territories is an article about multiple places, of which the West Bank is one. "West Bank" and "Israeli occupation of the West Bank" are logical sub-articles of "Palestinian territories."
• Israeli-occupied territories is an article about multiple places, of which the West Bank is one. "West Bank" and "Israeli occupation of the West Bank" are logical sub-articles of "Israeli-occupied territories."
• West Bank is an article about a place, not about events that happened at that place. "Israeli occupation of the West Bank" is a logical sub-article to "West Bank."
• Area C (West Bank) is an article about a place that is part of the West Bank. "Area C (West Bank)" is a logical sub-article of "West Bank" and "Israeli occupation of the West Bank."
• Status of territories occupied by Israel in 1967 is an article about the current status of multiple places, of which the West Bank is one. It's not an article about the history of those places. "Israeli occupation of the West Bank" is a logical sub-article of "Status of territories occupied by Israeli in 1967." (In fact, I believe this "Status of territories..." article should be converted into a list or merged completely into the sub-articles for each separate occupied territory.)
• Israeli Military Governorate and Israeli Civil Administration are articles about government organizations; not about the place those organizations govern; and not about events at that place. "Israeli Military Governorate" and "Israeli Civil Administration" are logical sub-articles of "Status of territories occupied by Israeli in 1967," "Israeli-occupied territories," and "Israeli occupation of the West Bank."
• West Bank Areas in the Oslo II Accord is a logical sub-article of "Israeli occupation of the West Bank"

Also:

1. Jordanian annexation of the West Bank
2. Egyptian occupation of the Gaza Strip
3. Israeli Military Governorate

One of these three things is obviously not like the others. The third item on that list should be, "Israeli occupation of the West Bank," not "Israeli Military Governorate."

"West Bank has had no distinct status during the Israeli occupation period..." – Is there a reliable source for this statement? It seems the West Bank has been treated distinctly by scholars and governments for some time. I don't understand what "distinct status" means, and according to whom?

Moroccan occupation of Western Sahara/Southern Provinces is a start-class article with multiple issues tags. Is that really the model we should be following?

This seems like a proper WP:SPLIT, not a WP:FORK. Levivich (talk) 17:44, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

There is no such a thing as distinction between a "place" and "events in a place" in wikipedia. The best fit would be History of the West Bank for the matter.GreyShark (dibra) 18:20, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Greyshark09 so all events should not be covered because there is already an article on the place it transpired in? Do you realize how nonsensical that sounds? Clearly, you simply do not like the article, but you have not offered a single policy-based reason to call this a content fork; it is a well-sourced subject in its own right. Instead of going back and forth over it, start an AfD and let the community decide if you are correct.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:29, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

The topic of the article is WP:FORK of West Bank and is wrongly differentiating West Bank from the topic of Israeli Military Governorate, Israeli Civil Administration, Palestinian territories, Area C (West Bank) and Israeli-occupied territories. There was no separate status for the West Bank during Israeli occupation of WB, GS, GH and Sinai (1967-81), civil administration over WB and GS (1981-1994) and since the 1994 establishment of Palestinian Autonomy in 1994 in WB and GS. West Bank article already deals with territorial issues, but Israel never occupied the West Bank specifically in its current geographical definition. It is the same mistake as adding articles on Israeli occupation of Hebron, Israeli occupation of Nablus, etc. It is a misleading mistake - there is no specific occupation of WB and has never been.GreyShark (dibra) 13:40, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

This article is far too large to place in History of the West Bank, which by the way is a section in West Bank. This is a part of that history, and due to its size and it being treated as its own topic by reliable sources needs to have its own article here. nableezy - 18:36, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

@Greyshark09: There is no such a thing as distinction between a "place" and "events in a place" in wikipedia, except:

West Bank and Jordanian annexation of the West Bank

Gaza Strip and Egyptian occupation of the Gaza Strip

Alamo Mission and Battle of the Alamo

Stalingrad and Battle of Stalingrad

Earth and History of Earth

...etc. Levivich (talk) 18:50, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

This article is quite obviously a WP:POVFORK as presently construed.Icewhiz (talk) 18:54, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

It quite obviously is not as nobody can identify an article this duplicates. nableezy - 21:28, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

It is obviously a spin-off (and to a large extent a duplication) of West Bank, Israeli-occupied territories, Palestinian territories. WP:POVFORK does not only apply to duplicates, but also to spinoffs - Any daughter article that deals with opinions about the subject of parent article must include suitably-weighted positive and negative opinions, and/or rebuttals, if available, and the original article should contain a neutral summary of the split article. There is currently no consensus whether a "Criticism of..." article is always a POV fork, but many criticism articles nevertheless suffer from POV problems. If possible, refrain from using "criticism" and instead use neutral terms such as "perception" or "reception"; if the word "criticism" must be used, make sure that such criticism considers both the merits and faults, and is not entirely negative (consider what would happen if a "Praise of..." article was created instead).. Icewhiz (talk) 21:43, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

It cannot be a POVFORK if it is supposedly "forked" from multiple articles. This is not a "criticism of" or "praise of" article. This article does not "deal with opinions of [a] parent article". I see literally no relevance to this article in anything you just quoted. Creating a Criticism of the Israeli occupation of the West Bank, that would be a POV fork. Again, yall disliking what the article covers does not make is a POVFORK, and if it were a POVFORK you would be able to identify an, singular, article it is forked from. This is a child article of West Bank and a parent article to a large number of other articles (again with more to come). Yall not wanting an article on the Israeli occupation is kinda cute but not based on any policy. You want to argue this is not a notable topic, well if you want to give me a reason to heartily laugh then feel free to make that argument. You both know that this is a topic that is treated as a topic in a literal shitton of reliable sources. That makes it a topic that merits an article on Wikipedia. You want to argue that one of the most meticulously referenced articles in all of Wikipedia is not notable, then go right ahead. As far as the incredibly dishonest claim that this is to a large extent a duplication of those articles, if you can find one sentence that is lifted from any of those then please present it. Making false statements is not an endearing tactic in a debate. nableezy - 21:51, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

"Occupation of X" is obviously a spin-off of X. I should've been more precise - a duplication in topics - not in content - which in this article has a pronounced POV slant that is different from the parent article. Icewhiz (talk) 22:04, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, this is a child article of West Bank. It is too large a topic to cover fully in West Bank, and so, per WP:SPLIT, it is split off and should be summarized there. nableezy - 22:14, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

This is a WP:FORK of West Bank with synthesis added info from Palestinian territories and Israeli-occupied territories. The West Bank article deals with the whole of West Bank from background of Jordanian occupation, including period of Israeli occupation, civil administration and from 1994 ceding control of areas A+B to Palestinian autonomy (which unilaterally proclaimed independence in 2012 as the State of Palestine). You can also create Israeli occupation of Nablus, Israeli occupation of Hebron and many more, but those would also be forks. Useless forks.GreyShark (dibra) 13:31, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Please read the links you post. This is too large to include entirely in West Bank, and so, per WP:SIZE it is split off. And besides that, most of what you wrote is just wrong (State of Palestine declared independence in 1988, not on just Areas A and B, but on all of the Palestinian territory, with Jerusalem as its capital ...). If you mean it is a WP:POVFORK, and not a WP:FORK (theres that carelessness again Greyshark, tsk tsk), then no, it very obviously is not as there is no single article you can name that this duplicates. If your position is that other articles cover bits and pieces of this one, well then, thats cool. I dont know how that matters, but cool nonetheless. This is a parent article to some of those, and a child article to West Bank. It very obviously is too large to be fully covered in West Bank. But thats the point you really want to make, but you know it isnt a point that you can win here. What you want is for this material not to be fully covered on Wikipedia at all. Thats the issue you, and Icewhiz, have with this. It is that it covers what you wish were ignored. Sorry, but that is not how Wikipedia works. Though I will say, if a section on Israel's practices in Hebron were added here and got too big, then yes, per WP:SIZE, an article on Israeli occupation of Hebron would be a fine child article to this. Thanks for the idea, pal. nableezy - 17:55, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

You are welcome isr, it is located at the Israeli–Palestinian conflict in Hebron.GreyShark (dibra) 09:56, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

'Mirrors and forks of Wikipedia are publications that mirror (copy exactly) or fork (copy, but change parts of the material of) Wikipedia.'

This article was written without ever glancing at other wiki I/P articles. It was written directly from a combination of my master files and some research on academic sources they had not covered. I did exactly as I did with the Khazars article, which was a dreadful mess I rewrote from scratch from sources and one which, again, you proposed splitting. Nishidani (talk) 15:11, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

4 excisions

• (1) Off topic in section, and POV problems regardless given lack of context

Why is it off-topic, and where is the POV problem?

• (2) Hypothetical study from 1978 - stick to the facts

Then you are not familiar with the book, which has massive statistical data. The World Bank sourcesd used elsewhere do the same thing, state the facts, and draw conclusions. It is is normal, and you cannot cancel a source because it also contains conclusions

• (3) misrepresentation of source - doesn't say Israel closed these

Israel closed down the British and Arab commercial banks operating in the territories, without setting up a successful alternative Israeli credit system to replace them.

Clarify precisely where the source is misrepresented by citing the relevant passage.

• (4) SYNTH.

Why is this passage an example of WP.SYNTH? Nishidani (talk) 12:02, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Blanket reversions are not collaborative, and particularly are egregious when they re-introduce serious misrepresentations. Specifically -

(1) Off topic in section, and POV problems regardless given lack of context - Events in 1987-1993 and in 2000-2005 - are clearly off-topic in a section on 1967. Furthermore, specifying Israel shot at schools without context (e.g. said schools being used for militant activity during an armed military conflict - the Second Intifada) - is a NPOV issue.

So one has but one option, move it to an appropriate section. I see that like several other sections missing, I left out on specifically on the effect of Israeli policies on Palestinian schooling. All you needed to do was to create that section and put the information there. You didn't, preferring to make the relevant data disappear down the memory hole. Dealt with here, which is what a responsible editor respecting strong data should have done. I will have to write up that section, however, since there is a vast amount of material on the occupation's impact on schooling (such as frequent use of tear gas fired into them during study hours.etc.etc.Nishidani (talk) 13:54, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

When one sees off-topic information - one removes it. Furthermore, presenting " In the first two years of the Al-Aqsa Intifada, 100 schools were fired on by the IDF, some were bombed and others occupied as military outposts." under "Impact on education" is a NPOV issue. The armed military conflict in Intifada2 - in which said schools were used by Palestinian authority militants - is omitted. If one is to include shots fired at schools - then one must include shots fired from within said schools at civilians and soldiers. Icewhiz (talk) 14:04, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

'When one sees. The grammar here suggests objectivity and secondly, one removes it implies,a standard routine duty, as much as a description of what one does. For a long time I have noted numerous edit summaries cancelling well-sourced material with an obscure flagwaving pretext, such as WP:SYNTH]], WP:OR,'off-topic' etc.etc. where the call is purely subjective, or wikilawyering from dislike. As to the second point, I follow sources. It is an endless source of grief to me, and I presume many others, that sources as often as not do not give as much material as one personally knows about. I don't try to invent things to balance things out. I stick to what the source says, as we are obliged to. Are you saying Israel never fires on schools, ambulances, hospitals and the like unless enemy fire is detected first from that area? A thousands sources will tell you that is patently untrue.Nishidani (talk) 16:36, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

I never claimed every school was a militant/rocket base or every ambulance was an explosive and/or militant taxi ([1][2][3]). However, it is quite obvious that these incidents were documented and covered. When one chooses to mention solely fire towards schools - one should also mention the background behind this. Frankly - I would omit this all together, as these episodes are related to specific armed conflicts (e.g. Intifada2) and not to the occupation as a period. Icewhiz (talk) 17:03, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Come off it. You really want to put it over that the Intifadas lit. 'shaking off the occupationj' are not related to the occupation? Nishidani (talk) 17:29, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

(2)Hypothetical study from 1978 - stick to the facts -The use of this dated and highly POV source (an 1978 essay on how to construct an independent and viable Palestine economically) is problematic in general. However, what was removed was not the data point from the book - but rather a hypothetical assertion on the 1967 rate of growth being important for self-reliance circa 1978.

My bet is that you haven't read the book (for it is not an essay). How do you know it is a POV source (and what does that mean? All sources have a POV, reliability is established by the quality of the authors, the imprint and reception) It was a collaborative study between an Israeli and a Palestinian economic situation of the Palestinian territories, widely cited in the academic literature. The text you removed runs:

This rate of growth was indispensable if the post-war West Bank were to achieve economic self-reliance. However, the loss of East Jerusalem cut off potential gains from tourism

That is not an hypothesis. It is a statement of (a) a condition sine qua non you'll find in any economic textbook together with (b) a statement of fact, the loss of East Jerusalem did cut off an important source of income for the West Bank economy, as documented elsewhere in the article.Nishidani (talk) 14:10, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

It is a hypothesis in relation to a non-existent independent West Bank economy - which was part of the British mandate, then annexed to Jordan (along side of Jerusalem), and finally occupied by Israel. An independent West bank economy did not exist prior (or after) 1967. The premise of the book is to study the viability of an independent Palestine - which is great (and the 1978 book is groundbreaking in being a very early bi-national effort to study such a proposal) - but hypothetical (as well as being very dated). Icewhiz (talk) 14:48, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Nope. Stating a precondition - unless you are born you cannot cry or breathe- is not an hypothesis. This is elementary logic.Nishidani (talk) 16:27, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

(3)misrepresentation of source - doesn't say Israel closed these - sorry fellow - I don't have to clarify your misuse of the source. I read the source. Pages 112-113 do not say that Israel closed said banks (or that Israel attempted to setup a "successful alternative Israeli credit system"). This is a serious misrepresentation of the source - and you should self-revert. You can use the source to say that Arab and British banks were closed - not that Israel closed them. I will note that the source itself is also possibly incorrect (or perhaps just unclear - as it doesn't say all) in that (if my recollection is correct) some of these actually remained open in the West Bank (while many did close) - but that's besides the point (for that - I would have to present a source).

That is a palmary example of bad-faith editing, using a verbal pretext to remove a passage which, if tweaked minutely, would have retained the content. rather than 'disappearing' it.

Source

The financial linkages are more difficult to observe. British and Arab commerical banks operating in the territories before 1967 were closed just after Israeli rule was established, and they were never successfully replaced by Israeli banks. Despite the degree of interconnection between the West Bank and the Gaza Strip and the Israeli economy through the labor market and through trade, the territories have retained a substantial degree of financial autonomy.

I paraphrased

Israel closed down the British and Arab commercial banks operating in the territories, without setting up a successful alternative Israeli credit system to replace them.

I.e. what you objected to is the use of the active voice for the verb ‘close down’ instead of the source’s reliance on the passive voice. In this case, you don’t remove the passage, you alter the verb from transitive to intransitive. Nope!! Erase the passage, even if Van Arkadie’s syntax suggests an active voice, i.e. just after Israeli rule was established. You could have, if this struck you as problematical, asked me, or better still, googled around, and found ample quality books on the topic confirming my reading of the source. Nah.

• With regard to banking, one has to note that until 1967 foreign banks were operating in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. When these areas came under Israeli Defense Forces control, their branches were closed down, and the cash forfeited. Their premises-usually leased property- are managed by Israel as absentee property.' Reuven Merhav, Rotem M Giladi, 'Role of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan,' in Marshall J. Berger, Ora Ahimeir (eds.) Jerusalem: A City and Its Future, Syracuse University Press, 2002 978-0-815-62912-2 pp.175-220 p.187.

That unambiguously suggests Israel closed them down, even in the passive voice

• Israeli restrictions during this period included a closure of all banks operating in the WBGS on the eve of the 1967 Israeli occupation and a ban on non-Israeli banks that lasted until 1986, when the Bank of Palestine won an Israeli court case to reopen on of its branches in the Gaza Striop. Soon after that a Jordanian Bank (Cairo Amman Bank) was allowed to reopen one of its branches in the West Bank Osama Hamed, 'The Role of the Financial Sector,' in David Cobham, Nu'man Kanafani, eds. The Economics of Palestine: Economic Policy and Institutional Reform for a Viable Palestine State, Routledge, 2004 978-1-134-33709-5 pp.93-106 p.105 n.1

That unambiguously suggests Israel closed them down, even in the passive voice

• (3) 'The closure of the banks by Israel after the 1967 war prompted Jordan to complain to the Security Council.' Yehuda Lukacs, Israel, Jordan, and the Peace Process, Syracuse University Press, 1999 978-0-815-62855-2 pp.73-74.

That unambiguously states that Israel Israel closed them down.

The story is more complex, of course, and reminds me that if anything expansion of remarks on banking are required here. What is patently clear is that for the 7th time, you have reverted and removed material I wrote on sight, without examining the sources, or what I did, or checking to see if other sources support what is not an unusual statement, or even addressing the talk page to request 'collaborative' (your word) clarification beforehand. The option will almost always find prompt responses and solutions here. It's called loose-cannon removalist editing and hasd plague proportions in the I/P editing area.Nishidani (talk) 15:54, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

• (4)'The closure of all the banks and financial institutions that existed prior to occupation, as well as Israeli banks' discriminatory oolicies on loans and deposits, virtually deprived the territories' economy of its prime source of finance.' 'The Palestinian Financial Sector under Israel occupation,' UNCTAD 1989 p.7

I actually read the cited source (Van Arkadie) quite carefully prior to removing - and it quite clearly did not support the assertion that Israel closed the banks. Some of your other sources above - do. Had you cited one of them - I wouldn't have removed them. Information that doesn't pass verification vs. the cited source should be removed. I will further note that that "without setting up a successful alternative Israeli credit system to replace them" is imprecise, and is not supported by Van Arkadie - who notes that Israeli banks were unable to fully supplant the prior system (with the Dinar remaining in circulation) - but does not quite say what's in the article. Icewhiz (talk) 16:05, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

All you needed to do was change 'Israel closed' to 'were closed', and perhaps tweak the a word or two. You refused to exercise that collaborative option. As to sourcing, Christ or Yahweh, fro m the outset I have tried to keep sourcing to a minimum. This whole article is skimpy in my view. If you really want me to go into the details of what Israeli did, via Leumi Bank, there, then give me the go-ahead and I'll give thorough coverage. Numerous sources state that the Israeli moves in the banking sector created great difficulties for credit post 1967. In other words, the substance is not in contention, but how to tweak it. And note bene, good practice in cases iike this is to google round to see other explanations of the same issue,, and add them, while modifying the text. Elision on carping grounds of solidly sourceable material stating what ios well known is lazy, when not pretextual.Nishidani (talk) 16:54, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

(4) SYNTH - clearly SYNTH. Not related to the "conquest". Not related to the occupation. The first sentence is cherry-picked from the middle of a rather dated source (and one might argue on the facts vs. other territories - with other sources). The rest is basically from an essay on Ben-Gurion's positions slanted towards a certain direction.

Icewhiz (talk) 12:22, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Palestine remains the only Arab land which has been denied Arab rule and independent statehood.

In 1956, the Zionist leader David Ben-Gurion, who also recognized that year that for Arabs what Zionism undertook to do was seen as theft, stated that: "Jordan has no right to exist.. The territory to the West of the Jordan should be made an autonomous region of Israel". That Zionism thought of partition agreements as temporary and aspired from the outset to incorporate all of Palestine into a Jewish state went back at least to declarations of intent made by Ben-Gurion in 1937-1938

Galtung's classic paper was one of the first major works grappling with the occupation and its consequences. It directly covers the topic, and is perfectly consonant with background.

Ben-Gurion's statement in 1956 that Israel had a right to the West Bank, and his statement that, from an Arab point of view, Zionist land takeovers were theft, and that Ben-Gurion and numerous Zionist leaders that their intent, prior to 1967, was to 'redeem the country in its entirety', 'throughout all of Palestine' self-evidently, as numerous sources note, bears on what happened after 1967 in the West Bank. This is so patently obvious and well-documented that it is hard to understand why you think a series of quotations underlining the facts should, ipso facto, constitute synthesis, rather than a simple arraying of the evidence in the record.Nishidani (talk) 16:04, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Galtung deals with perceptions - and you cherrypicked a sentence in the middle (which, I'll note, is probably possibly to refute - definitely post 1971 (when this was authored)). As for Ben-Gurion - it is SYNTH as the quotation is not in relation to the occupation. I certainly support a balanced presentation of the background of the conflict, however, placing this as the prefix to the conquest section (and one must note that Ben-Gurion was on the outs in 1967 - with no actual political power - so his prior views are far from relevant) - is far from a neutral presentation. Icewhiz (talk) 16:09, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

No. Read Galtung at least. It is not a study of perceptions. Every quotation from a source can be lambasted as 'cherrypicking'. Galtung by the way would be an excellent source to work up an historical background section, since he covers all of the arguments, rhetorical, or otherwise, used by the parties for their respective claims. Unfortunately for POV pushing, he does this in a balanced way. As for Ben-Gurion, we've just had a notable effort to demand a 'historical background' of the Zionist perspective. Well, Ben-Gurion's example was just what Bellezzasolo asked for, an historical precedent in Zionist thought for the idea that the West Bank is properly Israel's, before the fact occurred. So it is using a double standard to support an historical background section, and, on the other hand, reject what is already here by way of a Zionist background consideration concerning the West Bank from the most authoritative source imaginable. As to Ben Gurionb being on the 'outs' in 1967, many sources say his authority lay behind the decision to demolish the Moroccan Quarter, in 1967.Nishidani (talk) 16:46, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

For convenience, discussion on Talk:West Bank

Comment While there's certainly enough material to make a new article, the current state of Israeli occupation of the West Bank is dire. history graphs Israeli occupation of the West Bank February 2018 Israel–Syria incident I think it's factual to say that the main contributor to the article, Nishidani, is fairly Pro-Palestinian. The result is, desired or not, the article in its current state is almost a textbook POVFORK. For example, we have statements like: Ariel Sharon viewed the primary function of settling the West Bank as one of precluding the possibility of the formation of a Palestinian state, and his aim in promoting the 1982 invasion of Lebanon was to secure perpetual control of the former. Both sources for this are from the New Historians, so doesn't present all viewpoints on Ariel Sharon's motives with due weight. If you look at Israeli disengagement from Gaza, there's a lot more nuance about Ariel Sharon's motivations. The practice of demolishing Palestinian houses began within two days of the conquest of the area in the Old City of Jerusalem known as the Moroccan Quarter, adjacent to the Western Wall. On the night of 10 June, 100 families, dismissed by Teddy Kollek as Arab squatters in slum hovels, were given 3 hours notice to get out of their homes, whereupon army bulldozers razed the whole area, covering roughly an acre. Looking at Moroccan Quarter, this is clearly POV. This article talks about "had brought documents from the East Jerusalem municipality testifying to the poor sanitary conditions in the neighborhood and Jordanian plans to eventually evacuate it", and "A group of former residents wrote to Kollek to thank him for his assistance in resettling them in better housing conditions." Again, this section of the article lacks nuance, which is so important in our coverage of the conflict. There are plenty of other issues, like unqualified use of terms like "catastrophe of 1948", and "Judaization". These are loaded, POV terms. This article is already very large, and balancing some of these aspects will make it larger. There are plenty of issues with this article, these were the most easy to spot and demonstrate. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 23:25, 3 January 2019 (UTC) Baffled and more baffled. Do you really think/believe they razed the whole neighborhood a few days after capture because of bad sanitary conditions? Are there any history books out there that told you so?--TMCk (talk) 01:18, 4 January 2019 (UTC) You are welcome to use sources to edit that article. The idea however that the Israeli occupation of the West Bank is not a stand-alone topic or that the current article is either POV or a POV-fork of this article is laughable. nableezy - 00:03, 4 January 2019 (UTC) @TracyMcClark: Obviously, there were other reasons, like the massive numbers of Jewish worshippers expected after they were finally able to pray at the Western Wall for the first time in 19 years. However, it isn't like the Israelis demolished an affluent neighbourhood and failed to rehouse the residents, or rehoused them in a slum. They demolished a slum and rehoused the residents in better conditions. The whole point here is that the article lacks the nuance that arises from development by multiple editors on different sides of the conflict. @Nableezy: I never argued that it is not a stand-alone topic. My argument is that the current state of the article is problematic with respect to NPOV. There's clearly been an attempt to be neutral, but I don't think the end result is. I don't claim to be neutral on this topic (but then again, neither are you, I think it's fair to say). POVEDITOR is a good essay on this. The best quality articles on this topic arise from multiple editors with different POVs. What we have here is 350 KBs by one editor, with some tweaking. Which also makes it a very intimidating article to edit, not least as it reads somewhat more like an academic paper than the typical Wikipedia article. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 11:14, 4 January 2019 (UTC) Nobody is stopping anybody from making edits to that page. That it reads like an academic paper and not the typical Wikipedia article is something I am quite proud of, Nishidani created an article using the best possible sources available, and not, as is typical in Wikipedia, random news reports about that contain some codeword that an editor insists on including because it supports his or her personal viewpoint. By all means, edit that article, provided you have the sources for your edits obviously. But since you agree it is a stand-alone topic, and this is a merge request, I take it you are saying "no" to the merge proposal? nableezy - 17:21, 4 January 2019 (UTC) The best quality articles on this topic arise from multiple editors with different POVs. It's news to me, after 13 years, that there are best quality articles in the I/P area. I can think of a couple, but they were all written by single editors like Onceinawhile. If you can direct me to those you're thinking off here, I'd appreciate it.Nishidani (talk) 22:40, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 21:44, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

"Historical background"

To be related to the Israeli occupation of the West Bank on Wikipedia, reliable sources must make an explicit connection between topics. Something is not "historical background" just because a Wikipedia editor says so. Absolutely nothing in the section as created by User:Bellezzasolo is even a little bit related to the topic of this article. Do you know how many times this source even mentions the Israeli occupation? Zero. How many times it even mentions anything post 1948, much less 1967? Zero. This mentions the West Bank how many times? Zero. The Israeli occupation? Zero. You cant just put something in as background because you think it is relevant. The sources have to make it relevant. Otherwise it is WP:OR by WP:SYNTH. nableezy - 19:39, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Finding RSes making tue connection between earlier Zionist history and post-1967 Zionist rule, or occupation, is clearly fairly easy.Icewhiz (talk) 19:46, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Nableezy: It would be difficult for a source talking about the Old Yishuv to talk about occupation, given that came later. It relates to Jewish communities, including in Hebron. The second source talks about Jerusalem, yes. Guess what? The lead sentence states The Israeli occupation of the West Bank began on 7 June 1967 when Israel occupied the West Bank, including East Jerusalem. These sources relate to Jewish historical connection to the West Bank, which is an aspect of the current conflict. If it really is out of scope to have some background of Jewish history in the area, then that's not producing a well-rounded article. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 19:59, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

This article is written according to what scholarship says, not what ragsheets crunched out by the usual monkey organ grinders (campus.org, ija, Arutz Sheva, none of which have any status as RS. If that is where you get your facts, then it is pointless even tweaking this page.Nishidani (talk) 22:50, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Another source ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 20:35, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

References

How many Jews lived in the area before 1967 (and before 1948) is obviously relevant information (was it a majority? a minority? even split?). It also is relevant to establish a baseline for the population changes in Israeli settlements in the West Bank over the last century (growth? decline? how fast?). Zionism is obviously relevant to Jewish settlements in the West Bank; I don't even need to explain that, much less to people as knowledgable as the editors on this page. "Just because a truth is inconvenient doesn't mean we can delete it..." as the saying goes. Also, "no rush", editors should be given time to work the article. I'm not spinning off to give editors time to precis; why not give Bellezzasolo some time to finish the section, and when it's done, just copyedit the prose if it needs work or rephrasing. Rather than just deleting it altogether. Or, alternatively, we can all use up our 1RR and then we'll be back here discussing anyway. Happy New Year everyone! :-) Levivich (talk) 20:40, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

AFAIK, the answer the the first question is easy: virtually no Jews lived in the West Bank between 1948 and 1967 (not counting the Samaritans in Nablus.) Before 1948 there were some Jews living in Hebron (never more than a few hundred), and in East Jerusalem. I don't know of any other places on the West Bank that there were Jews on living on the West Bank in modern, historical time. (I have checked the 1596 tax records, the 1870 data, the 1922 and 1931 census, the 1945 and 1961 data.) Also: the deleted section was written in the true spirit of "navel gazing" ...everything from the Jewish perspective. (What about the Christian perspective? There are villages on the West Bank which have had Christian community dating back to the Byzantine era.) But all of this belongs to the general history of the place: we really don't need it in an article which is already bordering on being too long (IMO), Huldra (talk) 21:40, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

@Huldra: re "Navel Gazing" TGS edit conflicted with this version which started adding significance to other faiths. It's tagged with {{under construction}} for a reason. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 21:50, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Now, starting a User:Bellezzasolo/sandbox is obviously much better that trying to insert that lump of text directly into the article. Alas, if we are trying to get a reasonable article about which faiths have lived on the West Bank for the last 2000 years, I am afraid we will double the size of this article. IOW: that is for a separate article. (Also, User:Bellezzasolo: what on earth do the 1838 Druze attack on Safed have to do with the West Bank??? The Druze are virtually totally absent from the history of the West Bank, AFAIK), Huldra (talk) 22:10, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

@TheGracefulSlick: I think it's been well sourced here that the edits are discussing the topic. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 21:36, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

First, Levivich. You made strong exceptions to the length of the page. I started to thin it, and, hello, you added 4,000 bytes, contradicting the principle you set forth. Bellezzasolo cut and pasted a 4,000 byte blob of irrelevances made of books that do not, unlike all sources so far, focus on the occupation,hence WP:SYNTH and WP:OR violations, and you immediately applaud the additions. You are therefore using double standards. Material about Palestinians must be cut back radically to reduce page length. But, it's okay for the page length to remain as long as the size you objected to, as long as we bulk it out with Zionist stories. You've contradicted your principle twice, and therefore you've declared your hand. Your objection is not at the length, but to the content.Nishidani (talk) 21:41, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Nableezy is correct. All the matter here is sourced to books and articles addressing the occupation. Unless you can come up with RS that thematize the occupation of the West Bank and introduce the usual ideological panoply of justifications, then this is patently original research.Nishidani (talk) 21:41, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

One thing I admire about Nishidani is how they never make an ad hominem attack, always discussing strictly the content of edits, never speculating as to the motivations of editors. @Huldra: don't you think that information is relevant to include in this article? You know, "there were no Jews before 1967, now there are this many Jews". That is not relevant to the occupation? @TheGracefulSlick: Zionism is not relevant to the occupation of the West Bank by Israel? I imagine this can't be what you mean by your edit summary. Can you explain–or can anyone explain–why it is not relevant to talk about how Jews got to the West Bank, in an article about the Israeli occupation of the West Bank? Am I the only person who sees a connection between Zionism, Israel, and the occupation of the West Bank? Levivich (talk) 21:49, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Your remarks here have no credibility unless you can give a logical ground for asserting, the article is too long, but that you approve of blobs of extra material, 8,000 bytes counting what you and Bellezzasolo added, adding to what you think is excess length. Answer the question.Nishidani (talk) 22:36, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Nishi my friend, you say "answer the question," but I re-read your comments in this thread, and not one sentence you wrote ends in a question mark. What is the question? Levivich (talk) 23:16, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

@Nishidani: If Israeli ties to the West Bank are out of scope of this article, that's highly symptomatic of a POVFUNNEL. There's a lot of history to this conflict, an article this long can afford a section on History. It's far more helpful to the reader than cutting out a similar amount of material. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 22:02, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

You are citing books you are unfamiliar with. You cite Laqueur. If you introduce that book, then there is a mass of documentation in it destroying your comically jejune attempt at writing a history of Zionism. I could easuily tweak anything you cite from that by adding his hostility to the settlement project, his contempt for the centrality of Jerusalem, his highlighting the rift between Ashkenazi migrants and Sephardic locals between whom no love was lost,, his belief that post 1967 led Israel down to an extremely dangerous path, etc.etc.etc. That goes for a few other books in that otherwise useless list cited for a snippet without any understanding of the severe criticisms those few books make of post 1967 expansionist Zionism. You don't appear to have an inkling of what you are digging yourself into, and certainly should not make these puerile sketches of what little you know in a carefully written article. Go to your sandbox, please. Here, this is just soporific sandman sprinklings of the usual cartoonishj bulldust. Nishidani (talk) 22:45, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

@Nishidani: I'm citing an author who talks about the Balfour declaration being integrated into the legal framework of the mandate and mentions the Hebron Massacre. For the section I'm writing, his thoughts on the post-1967 situation have less significance than a chocolate teapot. I haven't delved into the events following the Six Day War. "What you are digging yourself into"? Seriously? This article already makes an abundance of citations to various New Historians detailing their various criticisms of the occupation. ANd you think I'm digging a hole by citing a couple of them for purely factual matters? Please, give your incessant condescension a rest. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 22:58, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

And when the author goes on to decry the occupation, you don't cite that as well? Use Laqueur, and you'll open up a can of worms, because it provides a warrant for everything hostile he says about the occupation of the West Bank. It's not hard to understand that is it? I suppose I should write up a section about Arthur Ruppin, the architect of Zionist settlement who elaborated on his ideas after personally meeting the key Nazi theorist re Jews in 1936. Want that in too? You have absolutely no idea of how much negative information re Zionism I have resolutely left out of this page, because it is irrelevant to the topic- what the Israeli occupation policies are, and do post 1967 in the West Bank. I could jam in a big section (already written) on religion, citing all the nasty details re restrictions on Christians and Muslims in the West Bank. Want that as well? keep making silly expansions, and you invite that kind of thing. Drop it.Nishidani (talk) 23:12, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

a big section (already written) on religion, citing all the nasty details re restrictions on Christians and Muslims in the West Bank seems relevant, so yes please. nableezy - 01:23, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

• If there indeed is a connection between Zionism and the West Bank—and I would argue there is—its relevance would be in how it justifies illegally occupying the territory. However, the “historical background” I reverted failed to connect to the subject at hand and hence only served to bloat the article. Editors earlier argued that the article is too bulky; how did hastily adding content that did not enhance the readers’ knowledge of this specific topic help address that issue?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:19, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

As I wrote in my reversion edit summary, I believe when an editor uses {in use} and {under construction}, we should respect that, and give the editor an opportunity to finish working before making further changes to their work. Rather than reverting, we could have simply waited, allowed the editor to finish, and then made whatever edits we felt necessary to connect to the subject at hand. As for "bulky," it's not helpful to try and turn my concerns about the 150k+ of prose in this article into some sort of rule that we can only delete and never add. Indeed, the entire reason this article needs to be reduced is because it is missing so much that still needs to be added, such as a background section. Also, my feelings about length in no way justifies reverting Bellezzasolo's or any other editor's additions (including my own). I have respected the request that was made of me a month or so ago to not attempt to spin out parts of the article until other editors have had a chance to reduce its prose size through copyediting. I continue to respect that request; indeed, there is no rush. I don't see why others can't extend the same patience to Bellezzasolo today. Levivich (talk) 23:16, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Levivich, the material as sourced is SYNTH. Regardless of whether or not an in-use tag is used, the material added is a violation of our content policies. This article isnt about Jerusalem, it is about the occupation of a portion of that city, along with the occupation of the rest of the West Bank. Just saying oh this talks about Jerusalem so anything that discusses Jerusalem is relevant is patently silly. An encyclopedia article is not the place for somebody to introduce their own theories, something is relevant if and only if the sources make them relevant. And what was added emphatically was not relevant because the sources cited said nothing about the topic of this article. nableezy - 01:18, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Bellazzasolo, are you seriously suggesting an op-ed in Arutz Sheva arguing that the West Bank should be annexed makes a history of Zionism relevant to this article? Well then, I think you proved my point. These sources relate to Jewish historical connection to the West Bank, which is an aspect of the current conflict. Well then, thank you for making clear the political point in that POV push. That has literally nothing to do with the occupation of the West Bank besides being a settler talking point for why the West Bank should be annexed. But as it relates to the actual occupation, nada, zilch, zero. You want to argue that Israel should posses the West Bank because of some Jewish connection? Thats cool I guess, but this article is emphatically not the place for that effort. nableezy - 01:23, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

@Nableezy: I'm making no such argument (that Israel should posess the West Bank). There's a reason I didn't throw in Arutz Sheva sources to the content of my edits (although you conveniently skirt around the book by Michael Feige, hardly a pro-settler author). POV sources are fine for demonstrating that, to one side of the conflict, this issue is relevant - ATTRIBUTEPOV. It explains why national-religious settlers are so adamant about living where they do - this isn't just some other land that's been won in a conflict and a merely territorial gain. Why doesn't Sinai matter in the same way? FYI, Nishidani, the whole reason for making live edits rather than quietly writing Kilobytes and Kilobytes in a sandbox was because there's another side with history in this land. A history that I don't know much about, but you probably do. I was anticipating that, rather than just blindly reverting anything you don't like, you can add another point of view. My problems with this article in its current state are precisely because it was developed quietly in a sandbox. PS. I could jam in a big section (already written)... Want that as well? keep making silly expansions, and you invite that kind of thing. Drop it. smacks of a BATTLEGROUND attitude. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 19:08, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Also, You and Zero0000 really need to stop going on about a POV push. I've been telling you since days after this article appeared that it was highly POV, and several other editors have raised the same concern. SOFIXIT was the reply. Now I have access to numerous books on the matter, I started doing so. Constructively, rather than the carte blanche removal that seems to be the norm. Sure, my edits my look POV in isolation. This is a massive POV article. I prefer to neutralise my acids with alkalis, rather than trying to dilute it into oblivion. I fully expect diffusion (copyediting) to then sort out the imbalance. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 19:58, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

I dont believe that was the response. Your position that the article is "highly POV" is based on nothing. The only point you have raised, here or at Talk:West Bank, was the use of the word "catastrophe" when it was clearly being an attributed view of the Palestinians and a translation to nakba. I remedied that by placing quotes around it, making explicit what was obviously implicit. But the rest of your points I have not seen any actual substance to. And you essentially admit that the background section you wrote is "highly POV" by saying you you neutralise acids with alkalis. The article isnt POV just because you say it is. And none of that allows for WP:OR by WP:SYNTH. nableezy - 00:40, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

(Michael Feige's book) 'explains why national-religious settlers are so adamant about living where they do - this isn't just some other land that's been won in a conflict and a merely territorial gain.'

If you want Zionist ideological motivations, write an article on it. There are many Israeli-diaspora analyses of the phenomenon, and were one to start writing about Zionism and the West Bank, you'd have to delicately balance the account showing that among very high profile Zionist scholars, the religious-nationalist settlements, and the whole post-1967 colonial adventure is deplored. There is not just as you tried to get over,one Zionist perspective or historical account. Here's a few bits from the very book by Walter Laqueur which you quoted a snippet of:

The Arab Jewish conflict was inevitable, given the fact that Zionist wanted to build more than a cultural centre in Palestine. Nor is it certain that a cultural centre would not have encountered resistance. Zionism, the transplantation of hundreds of thousands of Jews, was bound to effect a radical change in Palestine, as a result of which the Palestinian Arabs were bound to suffer. It was not the Arab fault that the Jews were persecuted in Europe, that they had awakened to the fact that they wanted agains to be a nation and therfore needed a state in a country in which they had lived two thousand years before. pp.595-6

I.e. in a Zionist background sketch you would have to add something like.'Zionism's intention to shift hundreds of thousands of Jews into Palestine made it inevitable that Palestinians would suffer.'(sfnLaqueur2003pp=595-596) (dozens of RS with details of the full awareness that the dispossession was part of early Zionists' awareness are available).

Over the past thirty years a belief has grained ground among the right-wing that the entire historical Palestine is “ ours by divine right.” This has resulted, among other things, in the mushrooming of settlements in areas of the West Bank and Gaza that have been occupied by Israel since the Six-Day War in 1967. Most of them do not make sense either economically or militarily, and defending and guarding them ties down a considerable part of Israel’s army. They are also a major obstacle on the road to some form of poeaceful coexistence with the Palestinians. The pseudo-religious mysticism that rationalizes their existence would have been wholly alien to early generations of Zionist thinkers who, while giving all due deference to traditional religious practices, were profoundly secular in outlook and would have regarded with abvhorrence the intrusion of religion into politics. If the lack of governmental planning in advance of the “ingathering of the exiles” in the 1950s was a serious mistake, the failure of the State of Israel in those years to adopt a written constitution for a division between religion and state was another.

This new manifestation of right-wing nationalism is not, as Herzl’s Zionism had been, a product of the Enlightenment; it is not connected with the struggle for political liberty and a free society. It fears alien influences, is antagonistic to strangers, and does not count individual freedom among its primary concerns. As one of the ideologies of this new creed put it, “This Zionism does not seek to solve the problem of the Jews by setting up a Jewish state, but is an instrument in the hands of ther Almighty which prepared the people of Israel for their Redemption.” Pre-state Zionism had not been based on religious zealotry and chauvinism. And even the religious Zionism of that era had stressed the international, universal message of Torah and redemption, rather than national egotism.To the Revisionist Zionist leader Vladimir Jabotinsky, a nationalist in the liberal hineteenth-century mold, the anti-Western, isolationist character of today’s right wing Zionism would have been incomprehensible and repugnant. What caused such changes to the character of post-independent Zionism? Probably it was the annus mirabilis of 1967, which culminated in a nationwide abandonment of a sense of reality regarding the newly acquired land. The rise of worldwide fundamentalism might also have played a part, as well as a decline in the quality of national leadership. Pre-state Zionism had attracted formidable intellects and visionary leaders. In recent decades there has been a notable decline in the quality of national leadership.'pp.xvii-xviii

As I said, there's a motherlode of Zionist criticism hostile to the settlement project. What you did was to give the official settler line. Feige does not expound Zionist reasons for settlement, but the way settlers radically reinterpreted Zionism to fit their own religious ideas, creating a completely different thing or inversion of foundational Zionism, and therefore whose Zionism are you describing? In any case, even Feige wouldn't help prettify the picture, use him and editors would elicit a citation like this from the same source:

The interaction between the youth of the hills and the Palestinians is radically different from that of their parents, and, accordingly their attitudes towards their hostile neighbours differ. Unlike their parents, who arrived not knowing what to expect, the young settlers were born into a situation of conflict and hold neither hope nor interest in good relations with the Arabs. For them, the Palestinians are those who murdered their friends and would annihilate them, given the chance. . . .The young hikers displayed hostility whenever they encounter signs of an Arab presence, even though the Arabs present were Israeli citizens. They took a large flag everywhere to show their symbolic appropriation of the place, displaying that, for them, the entire land was a contested frontier and a bat5tle-ground . .Arabs are not allowed near the new outposts, . . . Their militant posture is a constant threat to the local Palestinians, and therefore the proliferation of the outposts marks vast areas into which Palestinian residential areas cannot expand.

It strikes me as evident that you do not realize the implications of trying to write a small section on an extremely complex topic like Zionism. It can't be done, unless, as you appear to do, you follow the comic book version of the 30 seconds read: Zionism arose out of two millennia of relentless persecution of Jews who were expelled by Titus from their homeland in 70 CE and their lineal descendants went back home, found blow-in Arabs (fresh from Saudi Arabia a mere 1,300 years ago who constituted 90% of the population and owned 94% of the land and housing) to be as murderous and anti-Semitic as Westerners. They fought to found their state against a hostile horde of millions of Arabs (who connived with Hitler) and now live in a modern technological superstate subject to terrorist threats, a bastion of democracy and a forward defense line against Islamic barbarity. Is that it, i.e. more or less what hundreds of editors have tried to put over in a thousand articles, citing Arutz Sheva and official sources?Nishidani (talk) 21:33, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

You confuse trying to write a small section with having written a small section {{under construction}}. I was envisaging a somewhat more sizable, yet concise, section covering historical background. I wasn't touching on post-1967 since that would duplicate content elsewhere in the article. I was envisaging essentially: ancient Jewish homeland, small remnant of that community remains. Arabs at some point settle in the region (I'm not sure of the date, so was going to do some research, but quite possibly 1300 years). The Jewish community of Hebron and East Jerusalem are made refugees by pogroms and conflict respectively. Jerusalem holy to all three faiths, holy sites also in the West Bank. That sort of thing. Historical information that sets the stage for the conflict and explains where people are coming from. Opinions on the current situation don't fit in such a section. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 21:51, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

This article is not West Bank. It is not Jerusalem. It is not East Jerusalem. Background of the occupation itself is relevant. How it came to be, how the legal positions have evolved over time, sure that is all relevant background. ancient Jewish homeland, small remnant of that community remains. Arabs at some point settle in the region (I'm not sure of the date, so was going to do some research, but quite possibly 1300 years). The Jewish community of Hebron and East Jerusalem are made refugees by pogroms and conflict respectively. Jerusalem holy to all three faiths, holy sites also in the West Bank. None of that is relevant background, even if one were to suppose your background section was even remotely neutral. nableezy - 00:40, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Let me take that apart by rewriting it.

Jews have been in diaspora, outside Palestine, since at least the Babylonian exile suffered by the Judean elite. The major concentration grew in Palestine, large parts of which were defined in their sacred scriptures as land given over for their exclusive use by God. Here they had a majority concentrated in Judea for some centuries, but an Arab presence is attested as early as the Achaemenid Empire (6 century CE). The majority of Jews already lived outside Palestine throughout the Mediterranean and Middle East by the time of the Jewish wars with the Roman Empire. The area of Samaria was dominated by Samaritans, whose definition as descendants of the Israelitic population is subject to dispute in rabbinical sources. A certain continuity in Jewish residence persisted despite Roman, Christian and Arab dominance, so that by the time of Benjamin Tudela at least two families are attested in Jerusalem. Suleimon the Magnificent opened the doors to Jewish immigration after they were expelled, together with Muslims, from Spain, and were concentrated in Hebron, Tiberias and Jerusalem. With the rise of European geopolitical interests in the area, projects to repopulate the small Jewish population were advanced. With the rise in frequency of pogroms in the Russian Empire a wave of aliyah immigration arose which, together with the adoption of Theodor Herzl’s outline of a Zionist community, in response to European antisemitism, augmented the Jewish proportion of the population so that, by late Ottoman times Jews came to constitute 3% of the population, with Christians at 9% Christian and Muslims at 86-87%

Under the British Mandate, following the Balfour Declaration, greater impetus took place for Jewish immigration. This sparked off strong discontent among the Arabic-speaking Muslim and Christian majority, with outbreaks of violence as the two struggled over their rights to a homeland. Tensions also arose in the yishuv between the new European Ashkenazi communities and the more traditional Sephardic groups, who were culturally at home in an Arabic-spealing milieu In 1929, several pogroms took place ion Hebron and Safed, leading to the temporally closure of those towns to Jews. In 1848, Jerusalem saw the eviction of 30,.000 Arabs from its western suburbs, and East Jerusalem 1,500 Jews from the Old City.

Etc.Nishidani (talk) 10:08, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

This article, as pointed out by numerous editors, has a massive POV problem. Bellezzasolo's efforts to introduce balance is a positive development - one that possibly will bring this article out of the anti-occupation WP:ESSAY turf it is in now, into a Wikipedia article adhering to NPOV. The Arab/Israeli conflict - and in particular the conflict around the West Bank - most definitely can be summarized into a few paragraphs. Icewhiz (talk) 10:16, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Numerous editors likewise can't see the 'massive POV problem', perhaps because they note that it is essentially a thematic list, very succinct, of how an occupation, this one by Israel, functions. You and a few others appear to read it in terms of image damage. History is not politics: it is getting the factual record straight. Zionism is a classic form of ideology of the nationalist variety, and rewrites the 'facts' selectively and evocatively, in order to fit a narrative of self-justification and ethnic vindication. To get editors to prioritize their understanding by consulting the superb scholarly documentation, most of it Israeli and diasporic, of how the administrative machine works, is difficult because many are wholly unfamiliar with the facts, or, rather, they are familiar with the ideological fictions, and not the hard facts, sociological, historical and cultural, which are systematically elided from the Zionist narrative as incompatible with the story of righteousness. Note that no opposing editor is contesting the factual record: they are all complaining just that the record is not the happy one you get in nursery tales. Twice Bellezzasolo showed they had no inkling of basic facts, but some inkling of the ideological position (see above on Israel's putative offer to return the West Bank; his unfamiliarity with the history of an Arab presence in Palestine; his citation of a laughable skewed ragsheet called Arutz Sheva, which even a minimum competence would have suggested cannot be used for a serious historical overview. It doesn't augur well when one appears to jump into an argument without a grasp of fundamentals all should know. A bit like doing textual criticism of Finnegans Wake without mastering the ABC.)Nishidani (talk) 10:50, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

I can illustrate the point better by taking Bellezzasolo's desire to represent the settlers' outlook. We don't only have Feige, now that Tamara Neuman's Settling Hebron: Jewish Fundamentalism in a Palestinian City, University of Pennsylvania Press, 2018 isbn 978-0-812-24995-8 is out, a study in the 'ethnography of political violence.'

Neuman opens her account recalling the remarks being made by a Jewish Hebronite informant as they wandered around the occupied sector of settlement.

As we talked before the monumental structure, she explained that this was the burial site of Judaism's most important matriarchs and patriarchs, and that few nations exist today know exactly where their ancestors lie. It was in this sense, she continued, that the Jewish people were distinct. Approaching the massive outer walls of this seventh-century site, I took in the vast military panorama encircling the area-observations towers, camouflage netting, barbed wire, steel fencing, metal detectors, and checkpoints. Two towering square minarets, rising up from the diagonal corners of the site's rectangular outer wall, stood as staunch witnesses to the site's Islamic character. As I further observed the scene, Rivka recounted the suggestion by medieval Jewish philosophers that the area stood at the entrance to the Garden of Eden. The dissonance of seeing this heavily militarized zone while hearing her claim that were standing before Eden remains etched in my mind to this day. Her projection of a biblical utopia upon an elaborate latticework of militarism was telling. Realities, to be sure, can be parsed in myriad ways, but it seemed impossible not to notice the deadening effects of the many soldiers deployed throughout a Palestinian urban area. . . It might seem easy to dismiss Rivka's assertions as an illusion. . . Yet in remaking and residing in sacred places such as these, Jewish settlers establish a putative sense of the real, which arises from the very materiality of the scene. Being able to see in this particular way, to look beyond the presence of actual Palestinian lives and be invested in Jewish origins alone, comes from the ability to bound off discordant elements of an ideological vision as " alien " or as falling outside the arena of concern. Yet Rivka was confronted by an array of conditions that might in other circumstances have disrupted her religious vision. there was no mistaking, for instance, the crumbling state of many uninhabited Palestinian buildings that had fallen into disrepair or the tension palpable in this volatile and conflict-ridden zone. Rivka's principal focus, however, was on reclaimed Jewish spaces and origins. Her vision was enmeshed in a biblical sense of place and shaped by a mystically rooted experience of self quite unknown in other times and contexts of Jewish observance.' pp.1-2.

What too many I/P editors have been doing for more than a decade is precisely this, arguing that, against the best scholarship, we too should take on the ability of

Being able to see in this particular way, to look beyond the presence of actual Palestinian lives and be invested in Jewish origins alone, comes from the ability to bound off discordant elements of an ideological vision as " alien "! or as falling outside the arena of concern.

Such an advocacy of prioritizing what is a partisan ideological mode of evaluating the objective reality of an historical situation, by systematic elisions of the Palestinian landscape, runs against the core principles of Wikipedia, and against what any student learns at university level in Israel. That goes for the proposed historical background, which has been proposed clearly to vindicate a peculiar rhetorical misty-eyed religious account of Zionism, by eliding both the factual complexities and the other possible narratives of that same background.Nishidani (talk) 11:34, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

A significant fraction (depends of course how you count - demographic numbers and boundaries being rather fluid for Jews and Palestinians - but from 15% to 25%) of the population living under the Israeli occupation are Jewish - so certainly the affects of the occupation on the Jewish population are relevant as well. As you know, scholarship espousing different viewpoints on the West Bank is readily available - we shouldn't restrict ourselves to one POV slant.Icewhiz (talk) 11:48, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Some of that is covered. The effect of the occupation on the IDF, the effect of cheaper housing on Jewish influxes into the West Bank. The effect of subsidies on the growth of Jewish settlements, etc.etc. Since in international law, all settlement activity is illegal/ criminal, what you are saying is that if someone usurps illegally another people's land and settles it with relatives and like-minded people, to achieve NPOV balance, we should hear a lot about how upset the thief is when some of his group suffer retaliatory attacks from the dispossessed original owners, and that it is unfair just to document the nature of the theft, and its victims. 'What chutzpah,' he said. 'I stole the dumb bastard's wallet, and he hit back at me'.Nishidani (talk) 20:33, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Please note that settlers are BLPs, and BLP policy applies. Furthermore - the vast majority of them were born in the West Bank, and are not responsible in any way for their parents or grandparents decisions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:09, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Please consult WP:BLP and inform the page where, rather than, as it does, outline policy regarding individual persons and their right to privacy, it mentions whole groups - the middle class, an elite, settlers, a bureaucracy, football fans of one team or another. Unless you can demonstrate that the policy extends to the generic naming of any social group or class, your remark is erratic.Nishidani (talk) 11:43, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

It is completely absurd to apply BLP to a group of hundreds of thousands of people. See WP:BLPGROUP. Zero^talk 11:59, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Proposed RfC re: background section

I propose starting an RfC with this question: Should Israeli occupation of the West Bank have a "Background" section summarizing events in the West Bank before 1967? I'm not sure if the wording is the best. Thoughts? Thank you in advance. Levivich (talk) 22:13, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

This will be a waste of time, unless you have a ready made "Background" section to point to. Obviously, User:Bellezzasolo/sandbox needs a lot of work (I am being very diplomatic here), Huldra (talk) 22:21, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Above comment is the opposite of "diplomatic", which is defined as ...exercising tact or courtesy; using discussion to avoid hard feelings, fights or arguments (bold added) Levivich (talk) 22:31, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

What would be a waste of time is for an editor to draft something in a sandbox for inclusion, if other editors feel that no such section should exist at all and will revert its addition. If everyone is in agreement that a background section is due, then I agree there is no need for this RfC, and we could workshop a sandbox instead. My understanding is that not everyone is in agreement that a background section is appropriate, per the months-long discussions above. Levivich (talk) 22:40, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

My 2 cents: If we are going to have a RfC, we need to know what it is about. And as long as there is no existing "Background" section ready, then we don't. Huldra (talk) 22:43, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Of course background is relevant to every article on a historical topic, but this proposed RfC looks too much like an attempt to justify Bellezzasolo's version of background. I reverted Bellezzasolo's first instalment because it was a phoney "history" in which the vast majority of the population played no part other than attacking Jews. This is 1000% unacceptable and will remain so. If someone wants to write something about the ideological motivations of the occupation, based on proper sources and not crap like settler news outlets, that would be worth considering. Zero^talk 00:23, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Whether or not there should be a background section is very much not the same question as if what Bellazzasolo inserted as background. nableezy - 00:40, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Too soon without a concrete suggestion. The question is if @Bellazzasolo: thinks his version is past the "under construction" phase and fit for a rfC suggestion? Icewhiz (talk) 10:17, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Sidebars

I put the Geography and Timeline sections into sidebars. I think it's far better than it was before. The content could use editing, as could the layout; I'm not very good with colors and such. Please have at it. PS: If anyone doesn't like how I've described or grouped events in the timeline, please just edit it rather than telling me about it here. Thank you. Levivich (talk) 01:02, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I moved it up below the first image. We could probably use an infobox tbh. nableezy - 01:11, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, with maps, collapsible sections with little background info blurbs (geography, demographics, parties), and the timeline. Levivich (talk) 01:50, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Thoughts on what kind of infobox, and what sections it should have? My thoughts:

Jordanian annexation of the West Bank uses template:infobox former country; there are some parts I like, but it doesn't seem like an exact match

Template:infobox military conflict, similarly, has some parts I like, but other parts that are inapplicable

Template:infobox 2011–2012 Saudi Arabian protests also has some parts I like, other parts that are inapplicable

I'm not finding anything exactly on point; perhaps we need something entirely new, a template:military occupation? Levivich (talk) 15:59, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

To revive this conversation from last month: what do people think about adding Template:infobox civil conflict and making the existing timeline and geography sidebars into collapsable parts of that infobox? Levivich (talk) 20:44, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Second call to see if anyone objects to my adding Template:infobox civil conflict to this article. (I don't want to spend the time if the addition will be reverted.) Thanks. Levivich? ! 22:53, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

This is not a civil conflict, but a military one (albeit one sided). The description of that infobox specifically says to not use it for military conflicts. If you think it can be made to fit, you could make a mock-up of it here so that we can see what you intend. Zero^talk 23:45, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Template:infobox military conflict is better? ^Leviv_ich? ! 00:08, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Neither really fits - the military one is even a worse fit. Some sort of government/administration infobox might be appropriate - but if there isn't an appropriate infobox for an occupation - we shouldn't force one that doesn't fit into the article. Icewhiz (talk) 09:09, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Dore Gold

An Israeli diplomat writing in his own advocacy magazine, JCPA, is not RS. This citation needs to be removed. Onceinawhile (talk) 15:04, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

JCPA is a perfectly fine source, however regardless of that - Dore Gold, Director-General of the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs (as well as a few other tings, is an outstanding source for Israeli government terminology (which is what this is being used to source) - frankly you could get a much better source - right from the horse's mouth in this case.Icewhiz (talk) 15:48, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Incorrect. The wording in our article (“the Israeli government uses the term”) implies this is official policy. That is WP:OR without an RS source stating it explicitly.

The Israeli Supreme Court (a branch of government), and other branches, use the term occupied.

An RS source is needed which deals with the terminology question properly. Onceinawhile (talk) 16:02, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

He is WP:RS for Israeli government position --Shrike (talk) 16:10, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

The supreme court's terminology (often misrepresented or grossly simplified in non-Hebrew sources) is much more complex than that (and I'll note - the court is not part of the executive branch). Gold is a RS for the terminology of the Israeli government (and specifically the MFA's) position. Icewhiz (talk) 16:13, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Gold’s article was written in 2002. He was not a member of the government then. In the article he concludes “It would be far more accurate...” He is making a case, not stating a fact about who uses what terminology.

As to the MFA, that department contains Israel’s foreign PR operations. Its statements do not hold weight other than for PR purposes.

Onceinawhile (talk) 17:12, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

A scholarly perspective at [4]:

...attempts from scholars, politi-cians and pundits who try to draw into question and delegitimize the very nature of Palestine’s marginalized status by claiming that the Palestinianterritories are not legally occupied, but rather in a state of dispute (Klein2006; Gold2002; Lutsick 1995, p. 396; Rostow 1993, p. 12)

Onceinawhile (talk) 17:55, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

The question is, Shrike, what is Israel's position. Dore Gold predictably cited a meme, but there is a vast literature on the question of the legal implications of Israel's occupation with respect to Jordan's position, and the PLO's position, including also Israel's High Court decisions, changes in Israeli points of view from 1967 onwards (they have not been static),etc.etc. This page strives to get the best quality commentary available, it is not about what official POVs of one day or age assert, be they Palestinian or Israeli. I've had to edit in a minimal notation on the point being made, and have replaced a political spokesmen's viewpoint with two experts on international law and occupation, Quigley and the TAU emeritus professor Yoram Dinstein.Nishidani (talk) 20:46, 22 January 2019 (UTC)