Talk:Israeli settlement/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Peace now credibility

Links to Peace Now site were tagged with . Shall we consider them reliable source, reliable source only in certain cases, or remove completely? Please advise. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 09:26, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

The source is an advocacy group, which is generally not accepted as WP:RS, the cited information itself seems factually correct, I think we should substitute peace now with other sources which are considered reliable. I wasn't sure whether to remove the citations before other sources are substituted, what do you recommend? Marokwitz (talk) 10:14, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I guess they are reliable for their opinions but these are factual statements. Many advocacy groups are treated as reliable with attribution but source substitution would make the issue go away. Either that or take them to WP:RSN. It looks like that hasn't been done before so it might help in other articles too...checking how extensively they are used as a source....not much. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:21, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Certainly, it is better to quote an RS and remove non-RS sources. Since PN is a partisan group, we need to attribute information to them and when they claimed it and not state in first person WP. I'm not as deletionist as others so I think that quoting their population figures does not seem so controversial until a better source can be found like the Israeli census bureau. Maybe I should be worried about accuracy for WP's sake, but I cannot see myself arguing over Beitar Illit having 30 000 or 32 000, or Hermesh having 400 or 600 people. FWIW from both POV sides, there are advantages and disadvantages for understating or exaggerating actual numbers. Other issues need to be checked on a case by case basis, certainly their claims about size of/and land ownership and their political views. --Shuki (talk) 17:40, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

the leading para

I don't have a strong preference for a particular wording, but it is quite out of the question to not say in the leading paragraph that most of the world considers the settlements to be illegal. This is the single most notable fact about them. Zero^talk 23:34, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

The lede used to provide cites that established the majority viewpoint in line with the guidance contained in WP:YESPOV. That content was spun-out to a separate article. There is an example of the old bloated version below. I see there is a revert war over the factual basis that it is the majority view. Do we really need to add all of this back into the lede? harlan (talk) 18:37, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

The overwhelming majority of international intergovernmental organizations, such as the Conference of the High Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention, every major organ of the United Nations, and the European Union have declared that the settlements are a violation of international law. Non-governmental organizations including Amnesty International, and Human Rights Watch have also characterized the settlements as a violation of international law. In 1978, the Legal Adviser of the Department of State to the United States Congress concluded that "the establishment of the civilian settlements in those territories is inconsistent with international law." Israel, the Anti-Defamation League and some prominent legal scholars disagree. Under Israeli law, West Bank settlements must meet specific criteria to be legal; Approximately 100 unauthorized small communities which do not meet these criteria exist and are called illegal outposts.

Add the United States and a majority of member states of the UN. http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/47089.pdf

A minority of Israelis believe that the occupied territories, the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, and the Golan Heights, are part of historical Israel and should be annexed to Israel. Most Israelis believe that Israel should withdraw from most of the occupied territories, retaining only those areas with particular strategic military or historical significance. A few Israelis believe that Israel should withdraw from all of the occupied territories.

Hcobb (talk) 19:13, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Are you soapboxing the view of Peace Now now? What you are claiming is not true. The majority of Israelis oppose withdrawing from more land, especially after the reduced security they received fomr leaving Gush Katif. They were hoping that the other countries would support them as well but Israelis have seen that in fact, other countries do not. The Goldstone Report was successful in vilifying Israel, but actually persuaded more Israelis that they cannot defend on anyone to support them -> understanding that these same countries will just stand by and complain when Israel defends itself from similar attacks coming from the West Bank. --Shuki (talk) 20:46, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I was hopefully clearly indenting a comment from the United States Federal government. Use the link Luke! Hcobb (talk) 23:29, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Clark for clearing up the formatting issues. FWIW, the historically Arabist US State Department should stop trying to spread fallacies. It's cute that they care what the Israeli public thinks. --Shuki (talk) 23:40, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Like I said. State.gov did not write this. The GOP Congress of 2005 (I can get a more recent version with a few mouse clicks) wrote this. Hillary is simply hosting it on her website. Now personally I'm in favor of a 51st State Solution so that all of our mosque protesters will leave New York and move to Jerusalem. Hcobb (talk) 23:51, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

UNSC and GA

UNSC and GA see Israeli settlements in the Golan Heights as ilegal. They represent the international community. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:15, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

That is OR. Instead, explicitly say 'the UNSC and GA' or leave it out and refrain from generalizing. --Shuki (talk) 00:31, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/47089.pdf : "All Arab countries and a majority of the international community, as reflected in numerous U.N. votes, oppose settlements."

Is the wording of the article written under Tom DeLay NPOVish enough for you? Hcobb (talk) 00:37, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

That is definitely not the same as blanketly saying 'the international community'. --Shuki (talk) 01:24, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Touche. Although it pretty much is the international community I concede you have a point. I'll dig up a good secondary refering to it as such. Sol Goldstone (talk) 01:46, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually 169 states voted to adopt a resolution which reaffirmed that "the international community", through the United Nations, has a legitimate interest in the question of the City of Jerusalem and expressing its grave concern in particular about the continuation by Israel, the occupying Power, of illegal settlement activities. Only 6 states voted against the measure. Per WP:YESPOV I'd describe that as overwhelming majority of the international community of nations.[2] harlan (talk) 06:56, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I would too, but it's easy enough to find a source who agrees. Does this work? Sol Goldstone (talk) 13:17, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

MFA International Criminal Court Background Paper

The MFA claims that the implication that the transfer of civilian population to occupied territories can be classified as a crime equal in gravity to attacks on civilian population centres or mass murder is preposterous and has no basis in international law.

That viewpoint is contested by both genocide and legal scholars. NPOV requires the inclusion of all significant published viewpoints and WP:ARBPIA requires that the views of all the parties to the conflict be included and fairly represented. Lemkin's definition of genocide came about as a result of a critique of colonization. The material on Lemkin that I added to the article was discussed previously on these talk pages. The thread is in the talk page archives under the heading Trivializing War crimes. harlan (talk) 13:16, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

My main concern is about style and readability. The "Legal status" section was lacking clarity and consistency before your addition; with your addition it's a classic tl;dr. We'd better keep it short and informative rather then convert to historico-philosophical scientific review. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 14:08, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm talking about this change. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 14:12, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:TL;DR is neither a Wikipedia policy nor a guideline. From the day that the Zionist Organization proposed the establishment of a Jewish homeland in Palestine "secured by public law" the legal status and scope of that undertaking has lacked clarity. It has been questioned and subjected to constant outside scientific and legal review by hordes of commissions and scholars.

The international community outlawed the practice of colonialism decades ago. The MFA background paper is complaining about "yet another" international agreement on the subject that has already been ratified by the majority of other states. The various legal arguments were spun-out into a separate article, but the topic of this article is a crime in the minds of a majority of editors. WP:NPOV and WP:ARBPIA stress the non-negotiable nature of the requirement to include sourced opposing viewpoints on controversial topics. The MFA claims the settlements are not comparable to other war crimes, but entire books and volumes of scholarly journals have been devoted to the debate over the creeping expropriation of land by the settlers and the practice of ethnic cleansing in Palestine. harlan (talk) 20:23, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

These include "Don't misrepresent the relative prominence of opposing views." This can be done by showing what some in Israel and a few supporters outside believe and what the vast majority of the rest of the world believes. There is also the de facto basis of what Israel can get away with as long as it maintains a veto in the UNSC. Hcobb (talk) 00:03, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't oppose the inclusion of this or any other source or view point. But I call to do it in readable and brief style. Otherwise we just miss the point. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 00:43, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

ElComandanteChe, you have removed the opposing viewpoint several times, while leaving the MFA statement that trivializes population transfer as serious war crime. The reason the international community criminalized population transfer and colonialism is because it always led to brutal oppression, violent uprisings, and retaliation. I have no trouble locating dozens of studies which say upwards of one and a half million people are being kept on the brink of abject poverty and starvation in Gaza because their means of production and sustenance have been destroyed and they are being confined in an open air prison. They are totally dependent on outside aid shipments that Israel routinely and deliberately interferes with. In the 2004 Wall Case a half dozen states described the Bantustanization and Lebanon wrote:

"The construction of the wall and the resulting situation correspond to a number of the constituent acts of the crime of apartheid, as enumerated in Article 2 of the International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid, adopted by the General Assembly on 30 November 1973: that is to say, the denial of the liberty and dignity of a group, the deliberate imposition on a group of living conditions calculated to cause its physical destruction in whole or in part, measures calculated to deprive a group of the right to work, the right to education and the right to freedom of movement and residence, the creation of ghettos, the expropriation of property, etc. Such actions constitute measures of collective punishment." See Written Statement of Lebanon [3]

WP:YESPOV allows those viewpoints to be included and WP:ARBPIA requires that the views of all the interested parties to the conflict be included. harlan (talk) 08:28, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Ned Cuthoys editorial equating Israeli settlements to genocide

I removed the editorial by Ned Cuthoys. Equating Israeli settlements to genocide is an extreme fringe view, based on non-reliable opinion article. There is no evidence that this extreme opinion is notable or held by anyone but the author. This is just a personal opinion, and not even nearly a widespread viewpoint that should be included in an encyclopedia article. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". Marokwitz (talk) 09:48, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Markowitz, if you have sources which say that Docker and Curthoys depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view please cite them.

Raphael Lemkin's definition of genocide includes cases of destruction of national groups as social units without their physical destruction. That still is the basis of the legal definition of genocide used by many states today in their own national statutes. The European Court of Human Rights in Jorgic v. Germany said:

The court also found that the applicant had acted with intent to commit genocide within the meaning of Article 220a of the Criminal Code. Referring to the views expressed by several legal writers, it stated that the "destruction of a group" within the meaning of Article 220a of the Criminal Code meant destruction of the group as a social unit in its distinctiveness and particularity and its feeling of belonging together; a biological-physical destruction was not necessary. [4]

In the Iron Wall Jabotinsky said that an iron wall of bayonets was needed to carry-out any program of Zionist colonization. He called the Palestinians a living nation and a people and said Palestine was their birthplace.[5] For decades the Jewish Agency for Palestine denied the existence of Palestinians as a group. Representatives said that Palestinians should pursue their self-determination in one of the many other Arab countries, e.g. [6] Mahatma Gandi harshly criticized the imposition of a Jewish home with bombs and bayonets. He said the Zionist movement was despoiling a people who have done no wrong to them. See Shamir Hasan, The Evolution of India's Palestine Policy: A Fall from the Heights? Social Scientist Vol. 36, No. 1/2 (Jan. - Feb., 2008), pp. 79-93 [7]

The techniques of genocide that Lemkin cataloged were occupation, colonization, persecution, ethnic cleansing, and exile. The article about the Gaza massacre contains views shared by many scholars and historians. Here is an article by Oxford University professor Avi Shlaim who says that Gaza is a classic case of colonial exploitation. He writes that Israel's real aim is not peace but domination and that it is a rogue state that constantly violates international law and practices terrorism - the use of violence against civilians for political purposes. [8] The UN Fact Finding Mission came to similar conclusions. It reported that Israel had deliberately targeted the civilian population of Gaza and that it was intentionally depriving them of adequate means of sustenance, food, water and shelter as a form of collective punishment. The report said that a court could reasonably conclude that constituted the crime of persecution and a crime against humanity. Those conclusions were subsequently endorsed by a majority of the member states in the General Assembly and in the European Union. They are NOT an extreme fringe view and the published evidence is already the basis of other Wikipedia articles.

The League of Arab States commissioned its own International Independent Fact Finding Mission which reported to the ICC Prosecutor that Israel’s actions met the requirements for the actus reus of the crime of genocide contained in the Genocide Convention and requested further investigation of the motives of the planners. It also cited credible public reports of incitement to commit genocide and stated that Israel should be held responsible if individual members of the armed forces committed acts of genocide while they were acting under the direct control of the Government and it had failed to prevent such acts or incitement to commit genocide.[9]

The Australian Broadcasting Corporation is a mainstream media outlet. The article that you mention was co-authored by Ned Curthoys and John Docker. They are PhDs, university professors, research fellows, historians, and genocide scholars. Both men have been reliably published. John Docker has submitted research papers that have been published by the Center for Advanced Holocaust Studies of the US Holocaust Museum. You deleted a quote from one of them. Ned Curthoys is a historian. He has co-authored a biography, "Edward Said: the legacy of a public intellectual" and chapters about the history of decolonization in Hannah Arendt and the uses of history: imperialism, nation, race, and genocide, edited by Richard H. King and Dan Stone [10] and Hannah Arendt's philosophy of history in Power, judgment and political evil: in conversation with Hannah Arendt edited by Andrew Schaap, Danielle Celermajer, and Vrasidas Karalis.[11] harlan (talk) 16:09, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Can you please explain briefly what of the above is directly dealing with the Israeli settlements? --ElComandanteChe (talk) 18:37, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Prof. Shlaim's article, the UN Fact Finding Mission report, and the Arab League report deal directly with the links between Israeli settlements, Palestinian displacement, dispossession, acts of persecution, and violence. Markowitz complaint did not directly deal with settlements. It dealt with Wikipedia content policy guidelines regarding fringe theories.

He claimed that Curthoys and Docker equated Israeli settlements with genocide and that they held an extreme fringe view. In fact, Lemkin’s published concept of genocide linked occupation, settler-colonies, and genocide in a constitutive and inherent relationship. The Advanced Center for Holocaust Studies and mainstream journals have called for papers and conducted regular symposiums on the subject of Colonial genocide. e.g. [12] Yale University has a permanent project on Colonial Genocide. [13] The relevant Wikipedia policy says that subjects which have been discussed in mainstream sources by the mainstream are not fringe theories. Much of the remaining material above was provided to demonstrate Curthoys and Docker's credintials and to illustrate that they have been reliably published in mainstream sources.

I provided an explanation that destruction of groups as social units without their physical destruction legally constitutes the crime of genocide in many countries. It is not an extraordinary claim that Israel is pursuing a policy of creeping expropriation for settlements, expulsion of the indigenous inhabitants, deportation to Gaza and elsewhere, and the creation of ever-smaller isolated Palestinian enclaves which are deprived of self-determination, the means of sustenance, water, shelter, freedom of movement, the right to work, to medical care, and an education. The World Court already said that is exactly what is happening in the occupied Palestinian territories. See paragraph 132-134.[14]

Yeah seriously. You really expect us to read all of that Harlan? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. To include an extreme POV that equates Israel's settlements with genocide could not be justified according to policy. Maybe in Ned Cuthoys own article, maybe. Wikifan12345 (talk) 20:53, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikifan if you demand extraordinary evidence, then I expect you to read it. The material doesn't violate any Wikipedia content guidelines. harlan (talk) 00:41, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Harlan, it can't stay in the article in it's current form. It's just too long, it makes the article unreadable. We can't go into each published opinion in such details. I understand that you like long paragraphs, but use common sense. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 00:53, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

The MFA POV is that population transfer into occupied territory is not comparable to serious crimes like genocide. The opposing point of view is that population transfer is a serious crime and that settler-colonialism is inherently genocidal. The text is about 175 words and it is not unreadable. Population transfer is obviously of central importance and relevant to the topic of the article. What are you suggesting? harlan (talk) 01:26, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I guess this is one of the slowest genocides in history considering the Palestinians in the West Bank have one of the highest growth rates and life expectancy in the Arab world. The issue of genocide is obviously bogus and inflammatory. A few radical scholars mean absolutely nothing. This is garbage: They say it is a genocidal settler colonial society that since its founding in 1948 has continually sought to destroy the foundations of life of the indigenous Palestinians. Some say the settlements constitute a war crime, but no UN resolution or serious scholar has ever inferred genocide. We all know how you see Israel Harlan. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:45, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

It depends on who decides what the term means. Driving 90% of the Palestinians into permanent exile and giving their property and homes to incoming Jewish immigrants, while persecuting the remaining Palestinian population with martial law, curfews, barriers, lack of sustenance, and periodic military assaults certainly fulfills Lemkin's criteria of destroying the home society. The MFA says all of that isn't comparable to serious war crimes. In the case above, Germany and the ECHR found Jorgic guilty of genocide because he targeted and killed eight people. harlan (talk) 00:29, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Does that qualify as genocide? Driving 90% of Arabs 5 kilometers next door = genocide? I mean many more Jews were cleaned from Arab states in a far more ruthless and calculating manner, along with their property which was gifted to Arab settlers. Was that a genocide? No. War crimes is totally different than genocide. The ECHR link is clearly not relevant in this case and is just you trying to promote a clearly radical POV with no facts to support. No one intelligent has cited Lemkin's broad criteria for genocide in this conflict. And you me and both know it is bogus. There is nothing unique about this conflict. If the Palestinians are being subject to a genocide than every other war in the middle east is a Holocaust times infinity. Wikifan12345 (talk) 09:10, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Problems / Ned Cuthoys editorial equating Israeli settlements to genocide

Okay, I actually read Harlan's very NPOV edits, and here is what I surmise. The real problem with the legal section is the nice, big 3rd paragraph (excluding legal quote) that sticks out like a sore thumb:

In his landmark work "Axis Rule in Occupied Europe", Raphael Lemkin wrote about the problem of colonists who assisted an occupying power. Andrew Fitzmaurice said Lemkin's concept of genocide actually grew out of a critique of colonization. Lemkin coined the term genocide to describe a foreign occupation that destroyed or permanently crippled a subject population as a social group. According to John Docker, Lemkin studied both early and modern instances of colonialism and came to the conclusion that the practice is inherently genocidal. He also observed that the use of propaganda to rationalize the crime, appeal to popular beliefs and intolerance, and to misrepresent or deceive others about what was happening was an integral part of the process. Ned Curthoys and John Docker say that recent genocide scholarship has highlighted how much the original definition of genocide outlined by Lemkin is applicable to the case of Israel. They say it is a genocidal settler colonial society that since its founding in 1948 has continually sought to destroy the foundations of life of the indigenous Palestinians.

The first 3 sentences are irrelevant and have no place in the article. The PDF document cited doesn't load, perhaps Harlan can link to the original copy. I don't see any mention of Israel on page 88 or 89. It's pretty obvious that book isn't about Israel. The only real source that matters is an editorial published by ABC where he says:

Recent genocide scholarship has highlighted how much the original definition of genocide (by Raphael Lemkin in chapter nine of his 1944 book Axis Rule in Occupied Europe) linked genocide and colonization as a two stage process of destruction of the home society (not necessarily by physical annihilation qua Nazism) and replacement by the incoming colonizers.

See the difference? The way Harlan crafted the paragraph makes it seem as if there is a legitimate case for settlements=genocide. John Docker bio. I'm not familiar with Net Curthoys, but he seems pretty radical as well: Docker and Curthoys founded The Committee for the Dismantling of Zionism in response to Israel's attack on Gaza.. Wow, dismantling Zionism? That isn't genocidal at all. The inclusions of Raphael Lemkin are dubious. Docker merely exploits and twists the scholarship of Lemkin to suit his own narrative, in an editorial. The sources compiled to support the inclusion are not very persuasive. The material should be removed for now until a compromise is made. Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:09, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikifan I cited the case of a man above who was given a life sentence for genocide because he targeted and killed eight members of a group, not their whole society. Israel carries out targeted killings on a routine basis that kill that many innocent bystanders. The Anat Kamm-Uri Blau affair leaked documents which indicate the Israeli authorities ignore their own legal guidelines.

Nobody is twisting Lemkin's definition. Curthoys and Docker specifically cited and analyzed Lemkin's Axis Rule in Occupied Europe and they employed Lemkin's definition of the term genocide. So, that material is hardly irrelevant. Docker's paper, Raphael Lemkin’s History of Genocide and Colonialism, (text [15]) and (pdf [16]) was delivered at the Center for Advanced Holocaust Studies, in Washington DC. They say Docker is one of Australia’s leading public intellectuals. His article specifically advanced the thesis that there is a constitutive and inherent relationship between colonialism and genocide. So, I didn't craft the sentence to make it appear like there is a relationship between settlements and genocide. That is what Docker said. I provided links which illustrate that Colonial genocide is not a fringe theory, e.g.[17] and [18]

There are plenty of Jewish intellectuals who say that Zionism served its purpose long ago with the establishment of the State of Israel and that the on-going illegal colonial enterprise needs to be dismantled. See for example Tony Judt, "Israel: The Alternative"[19] or "A time to speak out: Independent Jewish Voices on Israel, Zionism and Jewish identity" [20]

In any event, you are still left with material that mentions Israeli settlements:

• The Docker/Curthoys material
• the Avi Shlaim article
• The findings of the ICJ
• UN Goldstone report pages 294-302 (Settler violence in the West Bank & the role of impunity)
• Arab League Fact Finding Mission report to the ICC Prosecutor.

I didn't bother to mention the 1984 Israeli Government Karp Commission report on the failure of the Israeli authorities to investigate cases of settler violence against Palestinians before closing them. The Goldstone report and B'Tselem say that nothing has changed since it was written. harlan (talk) 00:07, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Harlan, this has nothing to do with your edit. The book you linked said nothing about Israel. The PDF links you cite only mention Israel once, and say nothing about genocide.

Colonial genocide is not a fringe theory, but claiming Israeli settlements = genocide is a fringe theory and not taken very seriously even in the most radical circles. The links you provided above again, say absolutely nothing about Israel or settlements. "There are plenty of Jewish intellectuals who say that Zionism served its purpose long ago with the establishment of the State of Israel and that the on-going illegal colonial enterprise needs to be dismantled." Yes, maybe - but so what? This has nothing to do with genocide and everything to do with your own distorted view of the conflict. So please, keep the POV out. Now, can you please explain your edit again? I still don't see a connection between Israel=genocide. Docker only mentions it in passing in the ABC editorial. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:13, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikifan the scholars say that all settler colonial societies are inherently genocidal. You can wikilawyer whether they really mean all when the say all over at WP:FTN. The policy guidance from Arbcom on fringe theory claims puts the burden of proof on you. The Docker and Curthoys article is in a mainstream media outlet. It cites the Lemkin book in the text of the article itself and discusses both the contents of the book and Israel's behavior as a genocidal settler colonial society. The two scholars even compare Israel to other cases. Their article contains very similar descriptions and conclusions to those published in the 300 page HSRC study "Occupation, Colonialism, and Apartheid"; the ICJ Wall case; the Goldstone report; and the Arab League's International Independent Fact Finding Commission report. All of those cited grave breaches of international humanitarian laws, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. I didn't write or publish any of them. So, stop whining about me and stick to content.

Docker and Curthoys cite Israeli historian Ilan Pappé's The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine (2006) and the accounts of the Zionist forces that violently drove out over 700,000 Palestinians by deploying 'admonitory massacres' and the use of periodic massacres since then to 'Judaize' ethnically-cleansed Palestinian lands. Nowadays you can read about that in Encyclopedia Britannica.

They say in "1967 the Israeli state conquered the West Bank and Gaza and has aggressively continued a genocidal pattern of replacement and destruction, creating and expanding Jewish settlements, stealing Palestinian land and ghettoizing remaining Palestinian communities, attempting, through a brutal military occupation, to make life humiliating and unbearable for the Palestinians.

"What we are now witnessing is a form of settler colonization reminiscent of nineteenth century Australia, in which a settler colonial 'logic of elimination' (to quote historian of settler colonialism, Patrick Wolfe) combines massacre and population sequestration (reserves) to incapacitate the sovereign self determination of an indigenous people."

They cite Lemkin's corresponding definition from Chapter IX of Axis Rule:

"Generally speaking, genocide does not necessarily mean the immediate destruction of a nation, except when accomplished by mass killings of all members of a nation. It is intended rather to signify a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves. The objectives of such a plan would be disintegration of the political and social institutions, of culture, language, national feelings, religion, and the economic existence of national groups, and the destruction of the personal security, liberty, health, dignity, and even the lives of the individuals belonging to such groups. Genocide is directed against the national group as an entity, and the actions involved are directed against individuals, not in their individual capacity, but as members of the national group.

"The following illustration will suffice. The confiscation of property of nationals of an occupied area on the ground that they have left the country may be considered simply as a deprivation of their individual property rights. However, if the confiscations are ordered against individuals solely because they are Poles, Jews, or Czechs, then the same confiscations tend in effect to weaken the national entities of which those persons are members.

"Genocide has two phases: one, destruction of the national pattern of the oppressed group; the other, the imposition of the national pattern of the oppressor. This imposition, in turn, may be made upon the oppressed population which is allowed to remain or upon the territory alone, after removal of the population and the colonization by the oppressor's own nationals."[21]

Docker's other article says that all settler-colonies are genocidal. He says that Lemkin’s concept of genocide links settler-colonies and genocide in a constitutive and inherent relationship. He concluded "We can only mourn that Lemkin’s manuscript writings were not published as he hoped, for in them the inherent and constitutive relationship between genocide and settler-colonialism is strongly argued, given subtle intricate methodological form, and brought descriptively to life." He doesn't make any exceptions. Those views are not mine, they are Docker's. They are very reliably published by the Center for Advanced Holocaust Studies and properly attributed to him in the text of the article. harlan (talk) 07:50, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Clarification: this revert was done by mistake, I missed the continuation of this topic here. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 08:13, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

To the matter: IMHO the more common definition of genocide is per Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, i.e. "physical-biological destruction". Also, the European Court of Human Rights says that the wider view of genocide, is a minority opinion. If we keep in mind this common definition, referencing genocide as something else is a POV --ElComandanteChe (talk) 08:23, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

You are citing non-binding dicta from a different case in 2001. The European Court of Human Rights upheld the decision in Jorgic v. Germany once again in 2007. [22] Trying to say that the wider definition isn't legally genocide is also POV. P.S. I replied in the MFA background paper subsection above with a link to Lebanon's written statement in the Wall case. The Palestine written statement contained much more of the same. harlan (talk) 08:43, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

The definition of genocide is clearly being distorted. No genocide of Arabs in the West Bank has taken place. The general definition of genocide is:systematic killing of a racial or cultural group. I don't know Harlan, how many genocides involve the victim's obtaining a higher quality of life than their decedents? I mean, really - how many Palestinians have died fighting Zionists? Maybe, 25,000, 1/3 killed by other Palestinians? This over 100 year period.

Anyways, I still don't see any support for Israeli settlements = genocide based on the sources Harlan provided in his original edit. In fact, the only players I see claiming settlements=genocide is Docker, in an ABC editorial. And even then he isn't half as explicit as Harlan. And since when does the ECHR have jurisdiction over the middle east? The ECHR also ruled decedents of refugees have no right to return to the lands their decedents were displaced. Woops, guess no right of return for Palestinians then? Oh, I forgot - it's a European court that has no relevance here. We need to go back to what the article is about. It is about Israeli settlements. What does this have to do with genocide? Wikifan12345 (talk) 09:04, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Harlan, are you saying that the Palestinians committed genocide when they succeeded in pushing the Jews out of Gush Katif? --Shuki (talk) 09:15, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Shuki, you must be suffering from amnesia. In 2005 it was the state of Israel that decided to dismantle all Israeli settlements in the Gaza Strip and four in the northern West Bank. Gershom Gorenberg notes, the government's decision was challenged in the Supreme Court by settlers, and the government won the case by noting the settlements were in territory whose legal status was that of 'belligerent territory'. The government argued that the settlers should have known the settlements were only temporary. See Gershom Gorenberg, The Accidental Empire: Israel and the Birth of the Settlements, 1967–1977, Macmillan, 2007, ISBN 0805082417, page 363. harlan (talk) 23:55, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

The end result was the same, the Palestinians effectively pushed the Jews out, the absurdity is that they got the Israeli government to do the dirty work for them - ethnic cleansing - no Jew left in Gaza. FWIW, the Supreme Court's handling of the case the 'settlers' brought before them was the essence of corruption by the court in the name of justice. A single family unit getting an eviction notice in Tel Aviv for defaulting on a mortgage has more legal rights than what the settlers received. Gush Katif had over a thousand families. The court lumped all separate claims against government plan into one suit, and then gave them only two hours to present their case. The normally highly lauded Israeli Supreme Court protector of human rights trampled them to support the government, who also blatantly lied about compensation and resettlement. --Shuki (talk) 00:06, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Shuki, you must understand. The integrity of the Israeli Supreme Court is only evident when cases swing in favor of pro-Palestinian movements. However, legality goes the other way it is Zionism fascism trampling over international law. Selective morality...Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:36, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

This is a total conspiracy theory-type view and completely distorts the meaning of genocide. Try Darfur, Rwanda, Cambodia, Sudan, Uganda, and the Holocaust. That there are Jews living in what some Arabs believe to be their territory does not equate to Jewish genocide of Palestinians! What nonsense. It is hard to believe that anyone would actively campaign to prove just that in a so-called neutral publication like this one. Opportunidaddy (talk) 04:53, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I think what genocide means should be gleaned from sources, not editors' preconceptions, and Harlan appears to be using sources. --Dailycare (talk) 09:16, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Meanwhile we've seen at least two interpretations of the term genocide. The interpretation proposed by Harlan seems to be less common, and as such shouldn't be used, or shouldn't be used without additional explanations. Please see Genocide definitions. Additional question is how this is connected to the settlement legality issue? --ElComandanteChe (talk) 11:38, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

That an interpretation is less common than another one doesn't mean it shouldn't be on wikipedia. On the contrary, WP:NPOV says that "all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources" should be represented. A minority viewpoint of course shouldn't get undue weight, so perhaps a more concise wording would be the solution here? If the interpretation really belongs on wikipedia, then the task of pointing out reliable sources that discuss it should be easy. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 16:06, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the notion that the meaning of genocide is being distorted. Lemkin actually coined the term. His definition is explained in the text of the article. That definition is still in current usage and is an indictable offense in international criminal courts. The current UN High Commissioner for Human Rights sat as a Judge on the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR). She also served on the first panel of Judges of the International Criminal Court where she was assigned to the Appeals Division. Her tenure on the ICTR is best remembered for her role in a landmark case which established that rape and sexual assault could constitute acts of genocide that destroyed the social bonds of groups (ala Lemkin). No one complained that the meaning of genocide was being distorted and that fact is mentioned in the Wikipedia article about her. See Navanethem Pillay harlan (talk) 22:59, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Harlan has not determined that this is even a remotely legitimate POV. A minority viewpoint does not automatically make it significant. I can't honestly tell you how many interpretations of Israel's existence are available because the sheer amount of research is endless. It exists in the Arab world a strong believe that Israel is a product of global European conspiracy designed to persecute and victimize the Arab people.. However, in Israel article the widely-understood POV in the Arab world gets no voice because it is not a legitimate perspective. Claims that Israeli settlements constitute genocide could go into an Arab/Muslim thought article (Views on the Arab-Israeli conflict) but even inferring the Israeli settlements constitute a form of genocide without a strong, mainstream backing from reliable sources would be highly erroneous. Wikifan12345 (talk) 08:03, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Now I'm not sure that I agree with you. If Docker and Curthoys are respectable scholars in the field, then their text is citable as a source even if it was an opinion piece, per WP:SPS. In the ABC piece they do connect the Israeli settlements to genocide so frankly I don't see the problem. Now of course this point shouldn't be given undue weight or represented as the majority view. How about simply "Some genocide scholarship has seen Israeli settlements as part of an overall genocidal pattern perpetrated by Israel against the Palestinians"? --Dailycare (talk) 19:22, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Brief internet search shows, that regarding I-P affair, Docker and Curthoys (btw, father and son) are more known for political activism rather then for scholarship achievements. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 20:53, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

It worries me that I live in a time when people are not embarrassed about short term memories or revionism of history from only a few years ago. Before it was the watering down of the definition of apartheid (well it happened over ten years ago, who can remember exactly), now it is the struggle by some fringe elements and some editors here to dilute the word genocide (still happening today) and disregard the hundreds of millions who were systematically and literally raped, cut down, burnt alive, dismembered by equating it with Jews coexisting with Arabs on the asme land. --Shuki (talk) 23:02, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Docker is not a scholar on genocidal or colonialism. In the ABC editorial, he doesn't explicitly state the settlements constitute genocide (or a form of colonial genocide peddled by Harlan). Ned Cuthoys is basically Docker's activist partner and both run the radical committee for dismantling Zionism. Some could infer that such a campaign qualifies as genocidal. In my example above I showed most of the paragraph Harlan wrote is irrelevant or has nothing to do with the claims Israel settlements = genocide. Most of the sources didn't even mention Israel, let alone genocide. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:32, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) Regarding the notion that the meaning of genocide is being distorted. Lemkin coined the term and his definition is explained in the text of the article. I've already shown that is one of the definitions in current usage by international tribunals. The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights sat as Judge on the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR). She also served on the first panel of Judges of the International Criminal Court where she was assigned to the Appeals Division. Her tenure on the ICTR is best remembered for her role in a landmark case which established that rape and sexual assault could constitute acts of genocide that destroyed the social bonds of groups (ala Lemkin's definition). No one complained that the meaning of genocide was being distorted. See Navanethem Pillay

Both Docker and Curthoys are PhDs, work as professors at a national university, and have been reliably published on the topics of genocide, colonialism, and decolonization. Dockers has published (with Ann Curthoys): “Defining Genocide”, for Dan Stone (ed.), The Historiography of Genocide (Palgrave Macmillan, London, 2008) and "Are Settler-Colonies Inherently Genocidal? Re-Reading Lemkin", in A. Dirk Moses (ed.), Empire, Colony, Genocide: Conquest, Occupation, and Subaltern Resistance in World History (Berghahn Books, New York, 2008).[23]

Dockers also delivered a paper on the subject for The Center for Advanced Holocaust Studies of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. They are citing one of the legal definitions in current use for the crime of genocide and the work of another PhD, Ilan Pappe.

Harlan, I'm assessing your edits on the example I provided above. The gist is there isn't a whole lot of research on settlements=genocide. The ABC editorial made a passing paralell between the settlements and genocide (about 2 sentences) which is hardly enough to justify inclusion. The information before the Docker cite had nothing to do with Israel or the settlements. So we aren't debating the definition of genocide, rather - asking for an explicit, reliable source that explicitly draws explicit parallels between Israeli settlements and actual genocide. Of course, the reality is there isn't even vocal minority to support such an absurd theory. If the settlements constituted a form of genocide I'm sure editors would have found way to put it into the article years ago. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:00, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

More Published Sources on Settlements and Genocide/Apartheid

Paul J. I . M. DE Waart, Israel’s Settlement-Policy Stumbling-Block in the Middle East Peace Process, Leiden Journal of International Law, 20 (2007), pp. 825–839 contains an analysis of John Dugard's report on the violations of human rights in the Palestinian territories.

DeWaart said "Israel’s government should be aware that it has less room to manoeuvre in order to distance itself from international law as the proper framework for a just and lasting peace because of the ICJ judgment of 26 February 2007 in the Genocide case between Bosnia and Herzegovina and Serbia and Montenegro. He also outlines John Dugard's recommendation regarding obtaining another ICJ opinion regarding colonialism and apartheid.

The Court ruled that Serbia ‘has violated the obligation to prevent genocide, under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, in respect of the genocide that occurred in Srebrenica in July 1995’. ...Whether or not the Israeli government(s) maybe accused of having committed or incited the crime of genocide in the OPT, it should face the possibility of being accused of not having prevented or punished the crime of genocide. In that case any state party to the Convention may submit such a violation to the ICJ, because Israel has not made a reservation in respect of the jurisdiction of the ICJ.

However undreamed of it might have been at the time of the adoption of the Genocide Convention, such a complaint regarding Israel’s performance as occupying power has become increasingly thinkable after the 1967 occupation of Palestinian territory, however nasty a taste the very idea might cause. Even within Israel charges are now being made that Israel is employing genocidal policies in the Gaza Strip." See pages 836-7

DeWaart and Dugard were both members of the Arab League Independent Fact Finding Committee on Gaza. See paragraph 8 of the ICC Prosecutor's report. [24] The Committee found Israel’s actions met the requirements for the actus reus of the crime of genocide contained in the Genocide Convention and said the League of Arab States should recommend to its members that they consider instituting legal proceedings against Israel in accordance with Article 9 of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. see page 9, and 138-140 of No Safe Place [25] harlan (talk) 01:07, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

English Harlan. Arab League Independent Fact Finding Committee on Gaza, what is this? Since when is the Arab League an empirical source? "Even within Israel charges are being made that Israel is employing genocidal policies in the Gaza Strip." Okay, so what? Who is making these charges? How does this relate to current legal definitions of genocide? And what does this have to do with the settlements? Last I checked there are no settlements in Gaza. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:03, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikifan the English language quote above specifically mentioned instituting legal proceedings against Israel "in accordance with Article 9 of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide." If you have to ask how that relates to the current legal definitions of genocide, get a lawyer there on your end to explain it for you.

The Prosecutor's letter says the report was forwarded by the Arab League Secretariat. Palestine is a member state of the Arab League, and Jordan has ratified the Rome Statute. The Palestinian declaration recognized the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court for all crimes subject to the Rome Statute that have been committed in Palestine since 1 July 2002. There were settlers and settlements in Gaza after 1 July 2002. The topic of the DeWaart article in the Leiden Journal of International Law was Israeli settlement policy. John Dugard, Paul DeWaart, and the Leiden Journal are WP:RS sources on international law and the crime of genocide. I had already pointed out above that both the Goldstone report and the Arab League report incorporated the findings, including those from the 2004 ICJ Wall case regarding the West Bank regime and settlements. harlan (talk) 05:55, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Cool. What does this have to do with colonial genocide and your original edit? Every source you have given has not shown a demonstrated link between the legal definition of genocide and israeli settlements = genocide. Even the Docker PDF said nothing about Israeli settlements. Your entire proposal has failed to link clear, 3rd party sources that confirm Israel's settlement policy is akin to colonial genocide or whatever. The article is about Israeli settlements, not the West Bank Barrier or Goldstone Report.

And the Goldstone report is not legally-binding. It has no credibility in the international courts. Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:18, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikifan stop trying to game the system with your unpublished amateur legal analysis. The Goldstone Commission had a legal mandate to report on violations of international law. It addressed the fact that the IDF provided security for illegal settlements and that settlers committed acts of violence against the Palestinians with impunity. The report noted that the Israeli authorities condoned that behavior, but not Palestinian attacks on settlers. The General Assembly and EU have endorsed the Commissions conclusions that the Israeli sanctions constitute illegal collective punishment under the terms of the Geneva Conventions. harlan (talk) 20:37, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Gaming the system? Choose your words wisely. I'm simply assessing the sources you have provided and misrepresented. The Goldstone report has no binding in international law, and its findings were boycotted by numerous Western and European nations. And again, the General Assembly - a political apparatus of the UN that is incapable of pushing legally-binding resolutions since the process is merely a popularity contest. But again, I say - what in god's name does this have to do with settlements = colonial genocide? Eh? Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:10, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Straw Poll

• Oppose - On the following grounds: An editorial is not a reliable source. The current paragraph is a strange synthesis of reliable source which does not mention Israeli settlements, with a WP:FRINGE opinion article. Equating Israeli settlements to genocide is an extreme fringe view, based on non-reliable opinion article. There is no evidence that this extreme opinion is notable or held by anyone but the author. This is just a personal opinion, and not even nearly a widespread viewpoint that should be included in an encyclopedia article. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". The policy WP:DUE clearly states, "generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all". Unacceptable. Marokwitz (talk) 11:05, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - Doesn't belong to Legality section, stating otherwise is WP:SYNTHESIS. Violates WP:NPOV by using the less common and unintuitive definition of the therm genocide. Violates WP:GEVAL for being too long and detailed, in comparison with other POVs in the section. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 11:24, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - I agree with both Markowitz and Che.--Towerdefence (talk) 11:59, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support This article presents a one-sided viewpoint from the Israeli MFA that grossly trivializes a serious war crime of concern to the international community. Settler-colonialism, and population transfer were outlawed and military occupations legally regulated because those practices have invariably led to dispossession, brutal oppression, violent uprisings, and reprisals. The article is written by recognized scholars working in the fields of history and genocide studies using one of the legal definitions of the crime of genocide in current use. Beginning with the Israeli Karp Commission report in the 1980s there have been a series of reliable reports of settlers committing acts of violence against Palestinians with almost total impunity. The UN and human rights groups routinely report home demolitions, land confiscations, long term imprisonment without charge, targeted killings and assassinations, and the use of Palestinians by the IDF as human shields or bargaining chips. In 2004 several parties, including Palestine, said that Israel was deliberately imposing living conditions on them that were calculated to cause a crisis of widespread malnutrition and the risk of physical destruction of the group in whole or in part. The ICJ findings of fact stated that, with the exception of Israeli citizens, Israel was systematically violating the fundamental human rights of the inhabitants of the Occupied Territories. The Court cited illegal interference by the government of Israel with the Palestinian's national right to self-determination, land confiscations, house demolitions, the creation of enclaves, and restrictions on movement and access to adequate supplies of water and food. The Court noted that Palestinians right to health care, to an education, to work, and to enjoy an adequate standard of living were being violated. The Court also said that Palestinians had been displaced in violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention. The UN Fact Finding Mission and several UN Rapporteurs subsequently noted an on-going pattern of settler and IDF violence against Palestinians. They concluded that in the movement and access policy there has been a violation of the right not to be discriminated against on the basis of race or national origin. They reported that Israel had deliberately targeted the civilian population of Gaza and that it was intentionally depriving them of adequate means of sustenance, food, water and shelter as a form of collective punishment that had resulted in widespread malnutrition. The reports said that a court could reasonably conclude that constituted the crime of persecution and a crime against humanity. There were credible reports of incitement to genocide and of soldiers killing groups of unarmed Palestinian civilians which resulted in demands for independent international criminal investigations. Those conclusions were subsequently endorsed by a majority of the member states in the UN General Assembly and the European Union. WP:NPOV is non-negotiable and WP:ARBPIA requires that the views of all of the parties to the conflict be included and fairly represented. harlan (talk) 16:26, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose Where is the Ned Cuthoys page? Don't post editorials without giving the reader the chance to check into the person writing it. Hcobb (talk) 17:39, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

It is a bit odd that you other editors have focused on Ned Curthoys. The article is credited to both John Docker and Ned Curthoys. I've provided links which demonstrate that Docker is recognized as a leading scholar by the US Holocaust Museums Center for Advanced Studies. Here is his page at the Australian National University Research Center which mentions his work on genocide [26] Dr. Ned Curthoys is a Research Fellow on the Academic staff of the same institution who is a writer. He specializes in World History and Biographies. I provided links to his works on Algerian decolonization; the philosophy of Hannah Arendt, and the biography of Edward Said above. harlan (talk) 18:13, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

And the other author is also unlisted, but there are interesting scattered refs to him in Wikistan. As for the subject itself, this is Lebensraum and not the Final Solution, so doesn't count as genocide. Hcobb (talk) 23:19, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Hcobb, It appears that you are unfamiliar with Raphael Lemkin's work. He coined the term genocide to describe Hitler's Lebensraum policy [27] and the resulting genocide legislation [28] harlan (talk) 01:30, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose WP:FRINGE from a not reliable reference. LibiBamizrach (talk) 18:00, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

• Comment WP:ARBPIA requirement does not apply, because Docker and Cuthoys are not parties to the conflict. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 18:38, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
• Comment Docker and Cuthoys are reporting about an analysis performed by an Israeli historian and political scientist, Ilan Pappe. He reviewed declassified public records held in Israeli State Archives concerning massacres and explusions. You are simply going to end up with that view and the very same conclusions from other sources like the Karp Commission, and the Occupation, Colonialism, Apartheid study. The HSRC participants included the the Hebrew University Minerva Center, Adallah, Al-Haq, and Michael Sfard of Yesh Din. They do not view Israeli colonialism as favorably as the MFA. harlan (talk) 20:16, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose for reasons listed in previous edits If Harlan can provide sources that show there is a strong movement of scholars that explicitly say Israel settlements constitute colonial genocide, I might be open to further discussion. Wikifan12345 (talk) 21:53, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Giving any weight to this fringe of fringe idea is ridiculous and certainly far from the truth since Israel has in fact done much to protect Palestinian freedom of religion and culture as is evident in the Oslo Accords and subsequent agreements. To include this very strong term which has mainly connotations of mass murder) one would have to prove that this is a systematic objective of Israel or anyone else. --Shuki (talk) 19:05, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Death tables

I am confused as to what exactly the table in the Deaths section is meant to show. The title is "Casualty figures for Israeli civilians and Palestinians killed in the settlements from B'tselem between 1987 to 2010". The sources cited are B'tselem which appear to show that the comparison is between what B'tselem classifies as "Israeli civilians killed by Palestinians in the Occupied Territories" and "Palestinians killed by Israeli civilians" in the "Palestinians killed in the Occupied Territories (including East Jerusalem)" section. The sources don't say what the article does. Our article says that the table is of "Israeli civilians and Palestinians killed in the settlements" when that is simply not what the table actually is of. For all of the years prior to the beginning of the second intifida B'tselem gives no details on the deaths, so we have no idea where the Israelis were killed other than they were in what B'tselem says is the "Occupied Territories (including East Jerusalem)". We also have no idea where the Palestinians were killed, and we do not know how many of the Palestinians were killed in the settlements by Israeli security forces, for whom we do not list any of the 7,000+ Palestinians killed by Israeli security forces in the same area and time period that we include Israeli deaths. Can somebody please explain the reasons why these specific numbers were chosen and how this table accurately reflects the sources cited? nableezy - 02:23, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

What? The table is explicit: Palestinians and Israelis killed within the settlements. This table represents Palestinians killed by Israeli civilians or settlers inside the West Bank/Gaza. This chart enumerates Palestinians killed by Israeli settlers in the occupied territories. The article is about Israeli settlements and the section is about deaths within those settlements, or Palestinian deaths attributed to settler violence and vice-versa. The table does not count Palestinians killed by Israeli security forces in the WB. Please read the B'tselem sources, they are imperfect but categorize deaths by locale, civilian/settler status, etc. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:33, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

B'tselem does not classify anything on settler status or on specific location within the occupied territories prior to the beginning of the second intifida. It only says that they were killed in the "Occupied Territories (including East Jerusalem)" for both Palestinians and Israelis. nableezy - 03:34, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

What? Yes, it does. B'tselem hosts independent tables comparing Palestinian deaths by Israeli settlers within the occupied territories, and Israeli settlers living in the West Bank/Gaza killed by Palestinians. Except for the 1st intifada table, the other data includes a brief bio for each casualty, mostly name, age, location, etc. All the sources are included in the section. Data is straight from B'tselem. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:00, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I know they have details on deaths since the start of the second intifida, read my comments more carefully. For the years prior to 2000 they have no details and only say the people were killed in the occupied territories. And there are names in the details for Israeli deaths that say a person was killed outside of the settlements but that is not subtracted from our table. And I doubt you went through the 7000+ Palestinian names and circumstances listed of those killed by the IDF in the occupied territories to see if any were killed in settlements. nableezy - 04:10, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Nableezy, what source from the table frustrates you? The table is about fighting between Israeli settlers and Palestinians. Not Israeli soldiers and Palestinians in the West Bank/Gaza/Jerusalem. The only deaths included are Israeli settlers/civilians living in the West Bank/Gaza/Jerusalem. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:18, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

The table says "Palestinians killed in the settlements" while only listing the deaths from civilians. The wording implies all Palestinian deaths. The source also doesn't specify that the deaths were in settlements, just the Occupied Territories.Sol (talk) 04:31, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

No, the table says:

Casualty figures for Israeli civilians and Palestinians killed in the settlements from :::::::::B'tselem between 1987 to 2010. What source are you talking about sol? The table is supported by more than 5 B'tselem refs. Which one do you dispute? The table isn't that complicated. I don't understand the opposition. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:43, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Are you serious? You really do not understand what I have written? B'tselem does not classify those killed in the settlements. For all the fatalities listed prior to 2000 they only provide numbers for Palestinians killed by Israeli civilians in the Occupied Territories, Palestinians killed by Israeli security forces in the Occupied Territories, Israeli civilians killed by Palestinians in the Occupied Territories and Israeli security forces killed by Palestinians in the Occupied Territories. It is OR to take those categories and claim in the article that we are listing the total number of Israeli civilians killed in the settlements and the total number of Palestinians killed in the settlements. The tables at B'tselem do not say what you say in the article. This really is not so complicated that you can not understand the clear point I am making. nableezy - 06:19, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Sigh. This table enumerates Palestinians killed by Israeli settlers in the occupied territories and Israeli settlers killed by Palestinians in the occupied territories between 1987 and 2000. Those stats have been plugged into the graph shown here. This data table shows Israeli settlers killed by Palestinians in the second intifada. Each death includes a brief intro explaining the victim, settler status, specific location, etc. This data table includes Palestinians killed by Israeli settlers in the second intifada. So what is original research? Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:31, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

The tables dont say what you claim they say, and sighing doesnt change that. The table gives numbers for Israeli civilians killed by Palestinians in the "Occupied Territories" not in the settlements. The same is true for Palestinians killed by Israelis. nableezy - 14:11, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Nableezy, do you think the table do not belong here at all, or just the title is wrong? --ElComandanteChe (talk) 20:24, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Both. It is an arbitrary comparison that distorts the whole picture. Why not include the Palestinians killed by Israeli security forces enforcing the "closed military zones" that surround these colonies? But if the table is going to be included it needs to accurately represent its sources. nableezy - 20:34, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Obviously I agree with you regarding the title. I also agree that the drawn picture feels wrong, but from other side the section is about civilian violence, and the people killed by the security forces do not belong here. If we can find any statistics on people killed by security forces in circumstances connected to settlements, it should be included. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 22:55, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

"The tables dont say what you claim they say, and sighing doesnt change that. The table gives numbers for Israeli civilians killed by Palestinians in the "Occupied Territories" not in the settlements." Wrong Nableezy. The data is about Israeli civilians in the WB/Gaza (settlers) killed by Palestinians. Your dispute is semantics. The graph represents violence among Israeli settlers and Palestinians. The vast majority of Israeli civilians killed by Palestinians in the WB/Gaza are settlers. This is proven by the nice bio B'tselem provides for each death. Have you read the article Nableezy? Do you know what the section is about? It is about violence between settler civilians and Palestinians. Not Israeli security forces and Palestinians. The table is imperfect but far from original research, and your complaints are being exaggerated. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:24, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I think nableezy has a point here. Scrolling through the descriptions of the incidents, a portion of the Israeli's killed are listed as residents from other parts of the country. June 2004 has a businessman from Ashdod killed and he's included in the article's current numbers. Was he a settler? Doesn't sound like it. I guess you'd have to pick through the reports to see who was actually living in a settlement to make the numbers work. Sol (talk) 01:59, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, thats right, and that was my original argument. Not all the deaths are settlers or happened on settlements. And because to "pick out" which are would be original research, we cannot do that either. It is better not to use this particular data at all, because to draw our own conclusions from it is a clear example of original research and synthesis. I suggest we find other data which specifically deals with settlers. The current data is simply unsuitable, and to try to draw conclusions from it based on a POV (of wikifan for example) is unacceptable. ValenShephard (talk) 02:48, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Does a Palestinian suicide bomber ask an Israeli shopping in a West Bank supermarket if he is a settler or resident of Tel Aviv? No. The graph demonstrates settler/civilian-Palestinian violence. Like I said before, imperfect, but B'tselem is very careful to differentiate between security forces and Israeli civilians. The data table does not explicitly refer to Israeli civilians as "settlers" simply because they happen to be driving through or visiting a West Bank/Gaza settlement, so they classify casualties as "civilians in the occupied territories" but most of the bios listed show the overwhelmingly majority of civilian casualties in the occupied lands as settler. I've linked the refs over and over again, perhaps Nableezy can cite which one he disagrees with? Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:52, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I think you've hit the nail on the head: B'tselem doesn't differentiate between settlers and other civilians so we can't really say this table represents settlers killed. It's an informative chart but I don't think it really belongs here. Per ValenShepard's suggestion, a similar table with information based on just settlers should work. Sol (talk) 03:13, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

The graph represents violence within the settlements. All civilians killed in the West Bank/Gaza are in the perimeter of the settlements. During the 2nd intifada it was illegal for Israeli settlers to enter Palestinian areas. So now we're focusing on the actually residency of an Israeli versus location, and location is what really matters. The graph doesn't compare Israeli settlers and Palestinian deaths, if it did then I could understand the complaints. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:21, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

It is hard to assume good faith on your part when you are defending a table which is against basically all 5 pillars of wikipedia. We cannot make assumptions from data, we cannot use data for our own purposes and we cannot interpret or make conclusions from data. The date either refers exactly to deaths of settlers at the hands of Palestinians or it is not included at all. This is not an article dealing with all violence by Palestinians against any Israeli target, and trying to make it that is an abberation. The table needs to go, because it is an insult to the policies of wikipedia and better sources exist. ValenShephard (talk) 03:59, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Valen you need to be more explicit and stop the name-calling. The graph is pretty self-explanatory, does not resemble OR, and accurately illustrates violence among Palestinians and Israeli civilians in the West Bank/Gaza. I've asked editors to please link the source they disagree with, and yet no one has. Violence among Israel settlers and Palestinians is one of the most talked about issues in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and so a graph is necessary to demonstrate the reality of the violence. Far more informative than blanket condemnations and hyperbole from political activists and pundits who say Israeli settlers are genocidal. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:17, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

re:"I've asked editors to please link the source they disagree with, and yet no one has." nableezy specifically addressed the tables you linked to above in your comment starting "Sigh". Sean.hoyland - talk 04:29, 22 September 2010 (UTC

Yes, users here have referred to exactly the sources in question. I think I was very non-personal in my reply but nevermind. Why are we looking at a graph of Palestinian violence from the West Bank or Gaza? The article we are editing is to do with Israeli settlements, not the whole Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I think you are way off the mark. We need to be very specfic here. Data dealing with any violence outside of settlers is basically void, it has no right or argument to be here. ValenShephard (talk) 04:34, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Being killed near a settlement (if they were in fact killed near a settlement) doesn't make you a settler anymore than being killed near a farm makes you a farmer. Neither does that address the pre-2nd intifada numbers. There are specific mentions in the sources of people coming in towards the settlements and being killed. The source data talks about civilians. That's all. Sol (talk) 04:36, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

You are missing the point Sol. The graph demonstrates violence between Israeli civilians in the West Bank/Gaza and Palestinians. Notice the headline of the graph does not refer to Israeli casualties as explicitly settler (though most are), but rather civilians in the WB/Gaza. Get it??? The graph is about violence among Israeli civilians in the WB/Gaza and Palestinians. Israeli civilians in the WB/Gaza are based on settlements. Israeli civilians don't go and infiltrate distant Arab cities and blow up Palestinian markets. The chart represents a real struggle between Israeli civilians living in the WB/Gaza and Palestinians. Being a settler in the WB/Gaza does not negate your civilian status according to B'tselem and the UN. Again, please link which B'tselem source you are not understanding. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:43, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

This is an article on settlements, and the subsection is about violence against settlers. Not near settlements, or passing through settlements (as Sol says) but specifically targeted against settlers and their settlements. We are not here to show all violence against Israelis anywhere in Israel, Gaza and the West Bank. It appears your POV is affecting your editing, you feel the need to represent the "struggle" of the Israeli settlers. This is not conductive to good editing, have a look at the requirements for NPOV. Do users have any suggestions? I suggest we scrap this inappropriate and diffuse data, and find something specific. ValenShephard (talk) 04:47, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

"It appears your POV is affecting your editing." that's nice Valen. Care to reply to my edit instead of repeating yourself? I don't think the graph needs further explanation. You haven't provided explicit reasoning as to why the graph doesn't belong other than my editing is POV and a weak understanding of what the section is about. If we're going to start assuming bad faith, you began a campaign of removing my contributions under dubious claims of "POV" which was restored by other editors and myself. Now you want to gut the graph that illustrates violence among Israeli civilians in the WB and Palestinians? Hmmm. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:37, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Read my reply again and concentrate on the substance this time, then we will talk again. I've made my policy related argument on a few occasions and you are refusing to acknowledge it it seems. ValenShephard (talk) 05:42, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I guess we all agree that the given data describes, at least, the civilian violence in the occupied territories. The ultimate situation is to show the numbers of settler attacks/attacks on settlers. The shown data includes these numbers. From here we can search for more precise statistics and 1) omit this data completely 2) keep it. I'd like to keep it, because 1) it's pretty close to what we really need, 2) imperfect numbers are better than buzzwords. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 09:07, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

No graph is perfect. There are far more problems in the article than a largely verifiable basic death chart. Wikifan12345 (talk) 09:27, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we are playing fast and loose with rules by saying that information needs to be factual. This table does not show deaths in the settlements, it shows deaths in the occupied territory. These are not the same things. This is not what this article is about. I'd prefer a graph showing settler deaths but we don't have one. Sol (talk) 04:51, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Virtually all of Israeli civilian deaths in the West Bank and Gaza are settlers, and all the deaths have been in or near settlements according to the description provided by B'tselem. This is as accurate as it is going to get. The label of the graph doesn't say "Israeli settler casualties." Remember, while only a fraction of the WB are actual settlements, the IDF has appropriated a huge chunk of the West Bank to protect the settlements. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:35, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

It says "in the Settlements" when the data does not. Just scanning through the source material I picked out 26 people who were residents of Israeli cities (and I know like 4 of those so who knows how many are there) and not settlers. This isn't a question of if the data is wrong it's just a matter of how wrong. The source is talking about Israeli civilian casualties in the occupied territories. That is not this article. Sol (talk) 18:25, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

This article is about settlements, and also about violence among settlers and native Palestinians. Palestinians don't ask Israelis visiting settlements if they are residents of Tel Aviv or Gush Etzion. We also have violence between leftists and settlers...but wait, leftists are settlers? Your logic is unreasonable. The data table is accurate and doesn't pretend to be exclusively settler-palestinian violence, though if you want you could enumerate actual settler deaths and exclude others. It won't be much less though. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:47, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Briefly counted myself and got a close number. My initial feeling was that the settler casualties are about 90%, seems they are more. I've searched for better stats but found none. I perfectly understand the data doesn't fit 100%. I afraid, however, that without dry numbers we will get this section filled with opinions and empty slogans. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 20:43, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Leaving aside the issue of if the table is really on topic, can we at least agree to change it's description to match the source? Sol (talk) 15:17, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 10:32, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Merge

• Oppose. I dont think 2010 Peace talks: Israeli settlement freeze controversy (September 26) should me merged to this article atleast not until the situation is over so to speak. This will be a milestone in the Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiation, and could have consequenses for years to come. It definitly deserves its own article.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:06, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

And it has already been suggested that this article is to big already so to merge the article about the current event into this one would not do any good making this settlement article even bigger. I suggest we wait for atleast a month to see what the negotiation goes.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:14, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to split all major events out of this article and if not into a History of article then into subarticles for each. Hcobb (talk) 16:46, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose per BabbaQ and Hcobb. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 16:49, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support There have been many freezes and restrictions in the past 40 years and none of them have been worth remembering. I suppose that there is no surprise that article exists, but I assume that it will be meaningless in the near term. I would agree to a mere sentence added to the main article but the recentism in this article is already too much. I AGF, but that 2010 Peace talks: Israeli settlement freeze controversy (September 26) article is a mess. I would support an Afd. --Shuki (talk) 18:56, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
  • You talk about assuming. Well how can you be sure. And I also disagreeing with you on the notion that this freeze situation is just one of many, this one has been declared a special situation both by palestinian leaders and media overall. It coulod have a huge effect for the peace-efforst for decades. So to delete or merge this article is not acceptable in my opinion.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:04, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
    • We have short term memories, frankly we only remember the events that happened since we have been interested in them. There have been many. FWIW, many of the buildings in these areas need more maintenance because they were put up half-fast to avoid the recurring shutdowns/slowdowns. In fact, many were surprised by the current freeze since it only included housing starts and not buildings that were already in process, that in the past were part of the freezes as well. There are many buildings in various places that were never completed when the various contractors went out of business for not being able to survive the extended freezes. The media is not exempt to short-sightedness, journalists come out of university all the time and don't bother doing minimal investigation. Don't get insulted, maybe you can fix of the article to either be about the 'peace talks' or about the freeze. You've seemed to have named it as part of a series. --Shuki (talk) 19:40, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Just google 'settlement freeze rabin' or other combinations. --Shuki (talk) 19:43, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose merge. Topic deserves its own article. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 01:05, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

• Comment I would like to see the content merged into Israeli settlements per Shuki's reasoning, but there simply is not enough room. The issue of settlement freeze is historic, so it would be a lot better to move 2010 settlement freeze to a general Israeli settlement freeze that enumerates and describes the rate of settlement construction and relationship with the peace process. I know throughout the 1980s and 90s various Israeli leaders adjusted settlement construction according to the peace process, it has never been constant or "frozen" literally. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:09, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose: I don't know who propsed that these settlements are basically controversial, when the people who settled them are criminals. They're clear breaches of international law, and Palestinians already live there!--Zucchinidreams (talk) 14:15, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Attacks on olive harvesters

Yesterday I added the following:

The 45-day olive harvest in the West Bank is a time of heightened violence, as dozens of settlers attack olive trees, cut the roots and attempt to intimidate Palestinians. Settlers have shot dead, beaten and stoned Palestinian olive harvesters and torched their automobiles, as well as their destroyed their trees.

This was removed (with a sanitized version of the first sentence kept in the article). The ABC footnote and the text it supports were removed entirely! The note was that the material is "anecdotal." I am not sure what that means because I can't relate it to any WP rule. Please state objection, if any; otherwise it should be restored.--NYCJosh (talk) 16:14, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikifan's edit and comment are tendentious. He didn't cite a published source which says the editors made up the story. So, I'd recommend that you go ahead and restore the material.

The weekly report from the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs in the occupied Palestinian territory said:

On the eve of the olive harvest season, and similar to previous years, an increase in acts of vandalism against olive groves was recorded throughout the week: in three separate incidents in the Nablus and Ramallah areas, more than 115 olive and 30 almond trees were set ablaze, allegedly by Israeli settlers. Israeli settlers from Ariel herding sheep next to Jamma’in (Nablus) and Yasuf (Salfit) were reported damaging Palestinian olive trees. Israeli settlers were reported stealing olive harvesting equipment in the village of Ras Karkar (Ramallah), while settlers from ‘Adei ‘Ad settlement outpost were spotted harvesting olive trees belonging to farmers from Al Mighayyer and Turmus’ayya villages (Ramallah). [29]

Reports from previous years include a multitude of incidents related to settlers cutting down olive trees, stealing harvests, and attacking the Palestinians e.g. [30] harlan (talk) 23:44, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

The ABC link was from 2002 and predicated on an interview. It was not a survey and comprehensive study. The current edit is consistent with neutrality standards. No mention of intimidation is anywhere in the links you or other editors provided. Harlan's UN cite confirms general settler violence directed at Palestinian farmers and workers. This article is not about Israeli settler violence, wikipedia hosts a dedicated article for that. The section is bloated enough as it is and the last thing we need is more hyperbole, pathos, and buzzwords. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:14, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikifan your response indicates that you did not have a published source which says the editors at ABC made-up the story. You seem to have a bizarre definition of intimidation. One of the UN sources above mentioned physical attacks on olive harvesters. All of the published sources mention that harassment and vandalism committed by settlers against Palestinian olive harvesters is a perennial problem. The fact that settlers have killed harvesters is relevant.

The reports say Palestinians have been threatened by armed settlers, hit with stones, had their harvests and equipment stolen, their groves burnt or destroyed, and in several cases they have even been killed. Mentioning published reports from multiple sources is not hyperbole. You cannot spin-out content about the settlers into separate articles without linking to them here and adequately summarizing the content.

The American University in Washington DC did a case study on the harvest situation for their "Inventory of Conflict & Environment" (ICE) database.[31]. It included a summary of a fatal shooting in 2002 and another killing in which settlers crushed a harvester's skull with large rocks:

Sunday October 6, 2002 near the village of Aqraba in the West Bank. A Jewish settler shot two Palestinians while they were harvesting their olives. The 22 year old Palestinian man died and the other was wounded.(Palestine Monitor, BBC)

Olive farmers complain that the harassment by the settlers ranges from “theft of the harvests, burning and chopping down of trees, to violent physical attacks, including shooting.” (Palestine Monitor)

Ghaleb Jibril, a 70 year old farmer from Kufr Qalil, north of Nablus “went with his sons and brothers to check on his land after hearing that settlers had been harvesting his olives. Before he could reach his property, the family members were attacked by settlers wielding sticks, stones and guns. Jibril was severely injured, with bruises all over his body. The settler escaped to the Barkha with three large bags of olives.”

Another 70 year old farmer Mohammad Zalumud was killed while he was picking olives on his farm. Reportedly the settlers crushed his skull with large rocks, before escaping back to their settlements. The suspected killers were set free after only 1 week in detention because police claimed there was insufficient evidence from Palestinian witnesses. (Palestine Monitor (Olive harvesting season brings new risks for Pales. Farmers) ...

One of the UN links above mentioned these incidents:

• "11 October: A woman (aged 20) and two men (aged 24 and 47) from Burin were injured by stones thrown by settlers from Yitzhar settlement while they were picking olives on their land. The settlers cut down 18 olive trees before they attacked the farmers."
• • 19 October: A 45-year-old Palestinian man from ‘Arraba in the Jenin governorate was physically assaulted when settlers from Mevo Dotan settlement attacked Palestinian farmers picking olives in their fields. Settlers stole the farmer’s harvest and prevented them from harvesting any more olives. harlan (talk) 10:05, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay that's nice but the article is not about settler violence. Any specific data should go here. The original edit was improperly paraphrased and the ABC link is over 6 years old. We're looking at systematic trends of abuse and it seems it is only a minority of settlers committing acts of violence. The crime rate between Israelis and Palestinians is much less than say Palestinian on Palestinian violence. No editor is disputing settlers have committed violence acts against native Palestinians, but we need to represent the violence proportionally. The settler violence against Palestinian section is much larger even though Palestinians have killed far more Israeli settlers than vice-versa. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:02, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikifan, 1 . Just because the material also fits another article doesn't preclude inclusion here.

2. The settler attacks on olive growers is important because it shows the attitude of some settlers toward Palestinians who are not involved in any political or militant activity. Thus this material supports the claim that some settlers wish to de-Palestinianize the West Bank as part of their right-wing Zionist ideology. Therefore the material is quite relevant to this article and not tangential.

3. Since this article is not a "news" article but is supposed to be encyclopedic, a six year old article is great because it shows a long-term phenomenon that continues to this day.

4. Re "minority" of settlers, are you joking? Do you mean that if most Hamas supporters are peaceful but "only a minority" shoots rockets at Israel WP should not include it in an article about Hamas?

Harlan, nice work but please add material and sources to the article, not just this Talk page.--NYCJosh (talk) 01:29, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

• 1, yes it does because this article is not about Israeli settler violence. We already have an article for that. The violent section here is just an overall summary, not a memorial of injured Palestinians.

• 2, the settler attack on olive growers is a settler attack on olive growers. I see no source saying there is some sort of systematic campaign that settlers want to de-Palestinianize the West Bank. That is you talking. RS tells us there is a very small minority of settlers that torch Palestinian olive trees. There are millions of olive trees in the West Bank. The Palestinian population of the West Bank has grown exponentially since 1967 and Palestinians have one of the highest birthrates in the World. And last I checked it is the Palestinians that want to remove Jews from the West Bank to create a Jew-free Arab nation, not the other way around.

• 3, A Q/A article citing witnesses is simply a news article. There is no phenomenon of settlers crushing the skulls of Palestinians. The majority of the rock throwing comes on the Palestinian end.

• 4, I don't understand the analogy. Are you seriously comparing Islamists to Israelis living in the West Bank? What? Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:54, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikifan the criteria for inclusion is verifiability. It appears that you might be gaming the system a little bit to exclude third-party verifiable material from several reliable sources. After all, you have made no attempt whatever to address the validity of your original claim that the ABC editors simply made up the story. The Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial cautions against splitting articles by putting everything you don't like in a new article to obfuscate the whereabouts of the content. That is why Template:Sync can always be applied to add articles to Category:Articles to harmonize. You will not be able to exclude reliable reports of criminal assault and murder by engaging in semantics about the term intimidation or a forensic debate on the talk page. I recommend that we restore the material that you deleted and add the citations above. harlan (talk) 04:46, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Harlan I well aware of policy but it seems editors are bent on expanding an already bloated section into some memorial. Settler violence is fairly represented in the article and inserting highly emotional and charged hyperbole to the current palestinian-settler conflict section does not help balance the article. This article is not about Israeli settler violence. The criteria for inclusion is verifiability but in this case you and NYC want to include even more information that is far too specific, explicit, and off-topic for the general Israeli settlement article. Israeli settler violence was created for a reason. Accusing other editors of gaming the system is a gross violation of WP:AGF. Policy shopping won't help you here Harlan. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:56, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikifan, Josh noted he could not relate your explanation "to any WP rule." Now you are telling me that applying Wikipedia policy won't help in this instance.

There is obviously no consensus to support a claim that violence is off-topic in this article. It has an entire subsection devoted to the topic. The section about settler attacks against Palestinian agriculture does not mention the forms the violence has taken. It implies that it consists of attacks on trees that are intended to provoke the Palestinians. There is no mention of beatings, stone throwing, farmers being shot at, or killed by settlers, e.g. [32]

WP:BRD only requires that we explain why we are adding one more sentence which summarizes the assaults and killings reported by the American University, ABC, BBC, and the UN. Those are high quality citations from reliable secondary sources which will not unreasonably expand the section. FYI, the last three sentences in the section contain an unnecessary repetition of the same Foreign Ministry argument referenced to the same BBC article. I recommend that we delete some of that redundant narrative. harlan (talk) 07:42, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Harlan, what specifically do you want to add to the article? My reasoning was pretty clear: the ABC link is anecdotal and refers to only one incident. no mention of intimidation or other words, made up by editors.

The original section failed to accurately what Haaretz actually said, and then links an article from 2002 that has nothing to do with the first sentence. This a worthless sentence: "Settlers have shot dead, beaten and stoned Palestinian olive harvesters and torched their automobiles, as well as their destroyed their trees." Okay, so what? Can we expand this beyond buzzwords? We don't say Palestinians have blown up, gutted, stoned, stabbed, murdered, Israeli settlers even though we can easily find sources to support the claims. Settlers have shot dead, beaten, and stoned Palestinians - this is a fact, but so what? Is this qualifying sentence necessary? Clearly the inclusion was designed to elicit an emotional reaction. The reality is the violence is largely overstated and according to RS the majority of Palestinian deaths are not random Palestinians but in fact killed by Israelis defending their property or themselves. The section already emphasizes a small minority of settlers engage in habitual violence against Palestinians enumerates quite clearly violence exists. Wikifan12345 (talk) 08:22, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I think the qualifying sentence is necessary. The MFA comment suggests Palestinians are leading "normal lives". That is obviously NOT the case with the dead Palestinian farmers mentioned in the BBC/ABC/American University reports. It does not agree with the published views of President Abbas on this particular subject. [33] harlan (talk) 11:31, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

No, the Palestinian Authority has said Palestinians are living a normal lives. There are millions of Arabs living in the West Bank, the crime rate between Jews and Arabs is rather low compared to say...Brixton. The statement is undue because it unfairly characterizes the on-going conflict between Israelis and Palestinians. Certainly some Palestinians have been stoned, beaten, whatever - but we're talking a minority of Israeli settlers. More than 40,000 Palestinians work in the settlements.

Anyways, if the statement is to remain, which I don't think it should - let it needs to reflect what the Israeli leadership and Palestinians say as well. Perhaps citing decreasing tends between Israelis and Palestinians, after all 2002 was at the highest of the second intifada, while emphasizing the fact that only a minority of extremists settlers are responsible for the violence, etc. Wikifan12345 (talk) 21:12, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Harlan, we should ignore further objections from Wikifan unless they are presented as sentences clearly referencing a WP rule. These long irrelevant comments are distractions. For example, if Wikifan wishes to introduce a reliable source about a trend in the frequency/magnitude of settler attacks against Palestinian oilve harvesters, s/he is free to propose it. Let's build the article. We don't make up our own WP rules here.

An RS like ABC reporting that Palestinian olive growers have been shot by settlers is not "anecdotal." It is important info from an RS. It is not a "memorial"--the text I added doesn't even mention his name. There, I am falling for it again, arguing with non-objections (ojections not based on WP rules). I will ignore such non-objections in the future as irrelevant persiflage better suited for converation over coffee than work on WP. At this point, there is no WP-rule based objection to my text or the sources that support it.--NYCJosh (talk) 22:00, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

NYC, if you want to participate in the discussion feel free to but I've been very explicit and fair in my reasoning. Proposing to ignore another editor is another gross violation of WP:AGF. Perhaps you should read up on general wikipedia policy before attacking other editors. Please respond to my above proposal, if you are capable of doing so. Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:27, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

You deleted material. You didn't have a proposal for adding the material. You are wasting our time.--NYCJosh (talk) 22:37, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Sigh. I removed one sentence and revised 3 others that failed to properly represent the sources. You want to insert a sentence full of buzzwords that do not properly describe the overall conflict in a neutral, objective way. Now, either you can look at my edits and respond or remain rejectionist. We won't find a compromise unless you want to. Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:52, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I added only two sentences (see the beginning of this section). It's difficult to have a dialogue with someone who cites no WP rules as a basis for objections and makes up stuff (removed three sentences from a two sentence contribution). Then, after deleting my contribution (twice) I am called the deletionist!

Characterizing words like "dead" and "beaten" as "buzzwords" is interesting. I would ask for clarification but it's completely irrelevant to WP rules. We can't have an article where EVERY sentence "describes the conflict" in a neutral way. Some facts will fall one way, some another, some in the middle, etc. --NYCJosh (talk) 01:06, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I wrote a nice response but my computer shut down before I could save it. Anyways, if you want policy I suggest you look up WP:UNDUE and WP:AGF. Dead, beaten, poisoned, organ-harvesting - all buzzwords. The section needs to fairly reflect the reality of the settler conflict and injecting sweeping generalizations does not help the article. Settler violence is overly-represented in the article to begin with. I suggested alternatives to Harlan's comments. At least he's participating in the discussion. Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:08, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikifan I provided a link to the UN weekly report [34]; an annual report [35]; and a YNet article which expressed the view of President Abbas. He said that the trend is on the increase and called for international intervention. [36] Here is the link to the 2002 BBC article [37] cited in the American University "Inventory of Conflict & Environment" (ICE) database. [38] It mentioned that farmers were being shot at by Jewish settlers and said that "a Jewish settler shot dead a Palestinian and wounded another while they were harvesting olives near the village of Aqraba."

I mentioned that the NPOV tutorial cautions against putting everything you don't like in a new article to obfuscate the whereabouts of the content. Here is an orphan article that mentions one of the killings: Hani Bani Maniya. Here is an article from the Palestine Report in 2004 which says "Settler attacks on the local farmers seem to intensify around the olive harvest season. In October of last year, settlers killed farmer Adnan Idrees from Bourin, and a youth from Aqraba, south of Nablus, in separate incidents. During the harvest two years ago, settlers killed three farmers." [39] Josh is simply repeating what reliable published sources have said. You deleted his edit because you said it didn't mention intimidation, but these sources do say settlers shot dead or killed a number of farmers who were harvesting olives. None of the information from these sources is overly represented or mentioned in the article in any way. Repeating what reliable published sources have said is not hyperbole, since the farmers actually were harassed, beaten, stoned, or killed. harlan (talk) 07:32, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Harlan, you amaze me with how many sources you cite in response to ojections with no merit (not WP-rule based). "Killing" or "beating" are observable events, not buzzwords.

I hope you add some of your valuable info (the trend, calls for int'l intervention, etc.) with the RS into the article, not just leave them on the talk page.--NYCJosh (talk) 15:16, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

What do you want to add to the article Harlan? You keep inferring my objective to very bland and hyperbolic statement is because I don't like it. You don't know me Harlan and if you did you'd know I have zero sympathy for the settlers in the West Bank. But as far as I can tell the section is more than fair to both sides:

While the Palestinian economy in the West Bank has shown signs of growth, the International Committee of the Red Cross released a report stating restrictions linked to the Israeli settlements have negatively impacted and disrupted the lives of Palestinian farmers and agriculture workers. Olive farming particularly is a major industry and employer in the West Bank and olive trees are a common target of settler violence. According to the ICRC, 10,000 olive trees were cut down or burned by settlers between 2007 and 2010.[103][104]

The 45-day Palestinian olive harvest is traditionally a time of heightened violence, as a minority of extremist settlers attempt to provoke Palestinians.[105]

The Israeli foreign ministry have disputed some ICRC claims, saying ICRC officials ignored statements made by Palestinian leaders who have said West Bank residents live a normal life.[104]

Yigal Palmor, the Israeli foreign ministry spokesman, argued the ICRC report ignored official Palestinian Authority figures that showed the economic situation for Palestinians had improved substantially. He referred to a comment made by Mahmoud Abbas to the Washington Post in May 2009, where he said "in the West Bank, we have a good reality, the people are living a normal life".[104]

So we include issues about the increase in violence during the harvest, we include a cite about olive trees, statements by PNA reports released by the INRC. This is an unreliable source. The UN cite is excellent, here is information the could be merged in Israeli settler violence or bits here:

• The total number of OCHA-recorded settler incidents affecting Palestinians has steadily increased each year since 2006. Likewise, the total number of incidents in the first 10 months of 2008 surpassed the total number of incidents recorded by OCHA in 2006 and 2007.A total of 182 incidents were recorded in 2006. This increased to 243 in 2007 and 290 in the first ten months of 2008.

• Since 2006,the majority of settler-related incidents (77%) recorded by OCHA resulted either in Palestinian deaths and injuries (26%);caused damage to Palestinian property (28%); or denied Palestinians access to a particular place, road or area (23%). These three categories also constituted the majority of events recorded each yea

• Of the 290 settler-related incidents affecting Palestinian civilians recorded by OCHA in the first ten months of 2008, 24% resulted in Palestinian casualties: three Palestinian males, including one child, were killed and 128 injured (including 28 women and 21 children).These surpassed the total number of settler-related Palestinian casualties in 2006 (92 – 1 death, 91 injuries) and 2007 (74, all injuries). Approximately half of all Palestinian injuries from settler violence each year since 2006 have been inflicted on children, women, and men 70 years and older.18

The majority of incidents that resulted in Palestinian casualties occurred in the Hebron governorate, 39 incidents. Of these, 30 incidents occurred in the H2 area of Hebron City.This represents 42% of all incidents resulting in casualties. Seven of the remaining nine incidents occurred in the south Hebron area. Other incidents resulting in casualties occurred in the Ramallah governorate (4%) and the Nablus governorate, where six of the eight total incidents involved settlers from Yitzhar and Bracha.

The majority of Palestinian injuries caused by Israeli settlers each year since 2006 have been the result of unarmed physical assaults. In the first 10 months of 2008, these injuries represented 65% of all injuries caused by Israeli settlers.The number of such injuries, 83, surpassed the parallel figure for 2006 and 2007, when 61 and 53 injuries were caused by physical assault, respectively.

Most of the other info the UN cite is either redundant or too specific to be here.

Again, another unreliable source. So Harlan, instead of flooding the talk with tangents, can you please be more concise? I'm not the only one who has complained about your unnecessarily long replies. What specifically do you want to add to the article? I've already explained why I'm opposed to the sentence NYC is advocating for and you haven't responded to my reasoning. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:31, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikifan I won't bore you with a long response. The Palestine Report archives are a WP:RS. The Palestinian news weekly was published by professional journalists under the oversight of the Jerusalem Media and Communications Centre (JMCC) board of governors. The JMCC is a research center registered in accordance with the Palestinian Publications Law of 1995. [[40]] By now you know perfectly well what Josh and I intend to add to the article and we've supplied you with plenty of reliable sources to back it up. IMHO your "reasoning" is nothing more than meritless wikilawyering and Josh is correct. It isn't even rule-based in this particular case. harlan (talk) 02:17, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Your sources have nothing to do with the sentence you want to add which is blatantly undue and adds nothing to the article. And since when is Palestine Report an RS? This is not an RS. Outside of the dated ABC Q/A article, there is nothing to support the worthless sentence you lobby for. My reasoning is more than consistent with wikipedia policy. I took the liberty of copying and pasting the current section. It is more than fair and properly represents the all perspectives. Poisoning the section with propagandic buzzwords is hardly NPOV. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:38, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

There isn't the slightest chance that I'm going to leave out a description of the settler violence and let the MFA have the final say with your favorite buzzword "normal lives". All of the sources specifically mention types of settler violence committed against Palestinian olive harvesters. The ICE database cases are compiled from published reports obtained from reliable sources. It merely cited a BBC report which said a farmer had been killed by armed settlers, i.e. "shot dead".

In many cases the settlers are acting with absolute impunity. Here is a Yesh Din account of the 2007 olive harvest which was cited in Amnesty International's report to one of the responsible UN treaty bodies, the Committee Against Torture:

“In practice, the response to the harassment incidents that occurred during the harvest was inappropriate, especially as far as violent incidents. IDF soldiers were present in four cases of assault documented by the Yesh Din situation room. In all of the cases they refrained from responding to attacks on Palestinian harvesters by Israeli civilians. In at least one case the violence of Israeli civilians against the Palestinians began after a military force arrived in the area and in plain view of the soldiers. In at least three cases direct involvement of soldiers in assaulting harvesters was reported. In two cases soldiers ordered harvesters to leave the area because of a threat by Israeli civilians, instead of providing protection to the harvesters. As far as Yesh Din knows, in no case in which soldiers were present while harvesters were attacked was even one Israeli civilian arrested, in contrast with the army's orders.” [41]

At this point you appear to be throwing-up little more than smoke screens. Unless you intend to take the articles from the BBC and the Palestine Report to WP:RSN there is nothing left for us to discuss. I, for one, intend to Be Bold! and add sourced material to the article based upon this more than thorough discussion we have had. harlan (talk) 05:01, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

This article isn't where we enumerate specific incidents of violence. Thousands of incidents have been recorded by the UN, which ones do we use? The section is designed to summarize violence and it does so very well. So again, what specifically does this have to do with the copypasta from ABC? So be bold but don't expect me to get overwhelmed by your arsenal of unrelated sources that have nothing to do with the current discussion. As I said before, Palestine Report is not an RS. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:51, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

NYCJosh, if that information is so verifiable and not anecdotal, than there should be many other RS to support it. Disregarding Wikifan's participation in the discussion is unAGF, especially stating so in the edit comment to hurt his credibility. --Shuki (talk) 00:52, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Shuki the occurrence of incidents involving shootings, beatings, stonings, arson, theft, and destruction of trees were verified by the additional cites provided above, which included the UN, BBC, and YNet reports. Wikifans's claim that "this article isn't where we enumerate specific incidents of violence" is patently false. The Violence section here has a "Palestinian violence against settlers" subsection with both summary lists of so-called "buzzwords" and specific named incidents that are wiki-linked to separate main articles. It has two subsections on settler violence against Palestinians (but one of those includes material about settler violence against the IDF). There is no logical reason why editors can't treat those two subsections exactly like the other one about "Palestinian violence against settlers". FYI, AGF is a guideline that does not require editors to continue to assume good faith in the presence of contrary evidence of bias like that. Wikifan has been making-up flimsy excuses as he goes along. So far, none of them are have been based upon Wikipedia rules or reality. harlan (talk) 15:47, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

What would you like to add to the article Harlan? This isn't a political forum and if you want to argue Israel/Palestine please join one. Wikifan12345 (talk) 21:44, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikifan, Harlan said what is to be added: "the occurrence of incidents involving shootings, beatings, stonings, arson, theft, and destruction of trees" as reported by the UN, BBC, and YNet reports. Arson and destruction of trees have been added (is someone going to remove that text again?). I don't get what the WP-rule based objection is. We've gone back and forth for weeks and no WP-rule founded objection remains.--NYCJosh (talk) 03:09, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Those claims have not been reported in sequence by the UN, BBC, and Ynet reports. I've already listed a NPOV that fairly represents the sources, something some editors refuse to consider and yet claim their highly POV edits are somehow sanctioned under wikipedia policy. The sentence is regurgitation and borderline SYNTH without qualification. We enumerate serious incidents of violence and summary and reasonings behind it. But you and Harlan don't want to do that, instead pushing for a single sentence that obviously doesn't promote balance or neutrality. This isn't a newspaper. Sensationalism is not part of wikipedia. Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:56, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Some of the most serious settler violence stated by the sources mentioned, including killings, shootings, beatings, stonings, arson, theft, are not mentioned in the article. Thus we can justifiable be accused of whitewashing settler violence. I am not wedded to a "single sentence"--we can add three sentences that convey this info, but I would like a concise statement not a blow by blow account. If I proposed the latter you would probably turn around and accuse me of undue weight, erecting a "memorial" (as you already did the last time) etc. I can't but feel that these are delaying tactics.

We should also include that some Israeli newspapers have labeled such settler violence as terrorism and called on the IDF to do more to protect Palestinian farmers. See http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/one-law-for-palestinian-and-jewish-terrorists-alike-1.321189 --NYCJosh (talk) 21:54, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Wikifan has remained silent about the extremely doubtful addition regarding Palestinian violence against settler agriculture. AFP previously reported that the settlers in question are inhabitants of a wildcat outpost who claim they are entitled to live in the West Bank by divine right and that the Arabs should find somewhere else to live. [42] In this particular instance, AFP says the settlers set the fire and prevented firefighters from entering the area.[43] The Jewish Telegraphic Agency/Jewish Standard relate that the inhabitants of Havat Gilad are Jewish religious extremists living in an illegal outpost that was evacuated by the government and rebuilt as "an act of revenge". JS reports that the settlers have set fire to nearby fields before and blamed the Arabs. [44] [45] The YNet article also used a headline which said the settlers had set the fire. [46]

Arutz Sheva is a frequent topic at WP:RSN, e.g. [47] I believe the consensus is that it is a questionable source that requires attribution. It carried a separate article about this incident which complained "Foreign Media Turns Jewish Victims into Attackers" [48] In any event, the Arutz Sheva report cited in the article [49] does not mention that Israeli and foreign reports attributed the fire to the settlers and it does not support the claim made by the Wikipedia editor that settler agriculture is a frequent target of attacks. It mainly discusses an alleged attack against settlers from another community while they were working on a non-agricultural undertaking - an Eruv. Unlike the ABC report, I've supplied published reports from other reliable sources that say the settlers of Havat Gilad set the fire in question. There have also been previous third-party verifiable reports, like the one in the Jewish Standard, which report that these settlers have endangered their own makeshift dwellings by setting fire to the Palestinian crops below their hilltop location. harlan (talk) 23:05, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Arutz Sheva is a frequest visitor at RS becasue some are interested at eliminating this media source that brings another side to the story that few report. NO consensus has been made to single out this accredited member of the Israeli media as non-RS. --Shuki (talk) 05:54, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

There is likewise no consensus that this mouthpiece of settler propaganda is a reliable source. nableezy - 13:23, 31 October 2010 (UTC)