| Revision as of 11:15, 13 March 2011 editHarlan wilkerson (talk | contribs)5,190 edits →More Mainstream Scholars have weighed-in on Israeli Colonialism and Genocide← Previous edit | Revision as of 11:21, 13 March 2011 edit undoHarlan wilkerson (talk | contribs)5,190 editsm →More Mainstream Scholars have weighed-in on Israeli Colonialism and GenocideNext edit → | ||
| Line 172: | Line 172: | ||
| ::::::FYI, Jordan's written statement to the ICJ in 2004 contained "Annex 1 Origins And Early Phases Of Israel's Policy Of Expulsion And Displacement Of Palestinians" which said that Israel has pursued a continuous policy of ethnic cleansing against the Palestinians ever since it came into existence. That falls under the prohibition against population transfer in customary international law. The ICJ cited Israel for violating Article 49(6) of the Geneva Convention in displacing Palestinians and facilitating the transfer of portions of its own population into the territory to alter its demographic character. That is a "grave breach" and a war crime according to the Rome Statute and the Additional Protocol to the Geneva Conventions. The preamble of the apartheid convention explains that the crime includes acts that also can be defined as genocide. Lebanon's written statement to the Court said that the situation in the territories corresponds to a number of the constituent acts of the crime of apartheid, including "the deliberate imposition on a group of living conditions calculated to cause its physical destruction in whole or in part". See page 9 | ::::::FYI, Jordan's written statement to the ICJ in 2004 contained "Annex 1 Origins And Early Phases Of Israel's Policy Of Expulsion And Displacement Of Palestinians" which said that Israel has pursued a continuous policy of ethnic cleansing against the Palestinians ever since it came into existence. That falls under the prohibition against population transfer in customary international law. The ICJ cited Israel for violating Article 49(6) of the Geneva Convention in displacing Palestinians and facilitating the transfer of portions of its own population into the territory to alter its demographic character. That is a "grave breach" and a war crime according to the Rome Statute and the Additional Protocol to the Geneva Conventions. The preamble of the apartheid convention explains that the crime includes acts that also can be defined as genocide. Lebanon's written statement to the Court said that the situation in the territories corresponds to a number of the constituent acts of the crime of apartheid, including "the deliberate imposition on a group of living conditions calculated to cause its physical destruction in whole or in part". See page 9 | ||
| ::::::This information is all third party verifiable and comes from reliable mainstream sources. The ethnic cleansing/genocide issue has not only been discussed by mainstream scholars in the mainstream press it has been enforced in international courts like the ECHR. That is something that cannot be said for the personal opinions of Stone, Rostow, Blum, |
::::::This information is all third party verifiable and comes from reliable mainstream sources. The ethnic cleansing/genocide issue has not only been discussed by mainstream scholars in the mainstream press it has been enforced in international courts like the ECHR. That is something that cannot be said for the personal opinions of Stone, Rostow, Blum, Shamgar, et al. ] (]) 11:15, 13 March 2011 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 11:21, 13 March 2011
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Israeli settlement article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13Auto-archiving period: 3 months  |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Israeli settlement article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13Auto-archiving period: 3 months |
 | Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.
|
 | This article and its editors are subject to Misplaced Pages general sanctions. See discretionary sanctions for details. |
 | This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| |||||||||||||||||||||
 | Links from this article which need disambiguation (check | fix): ], ], ], ]
For help fixing these links, see Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Disambiguation/Fixing a page. Added by WildBot | Tags to be removed | FAQ | Report a problem |  |
What is the significance of numbers that do not include Palestinians killed by the Israeli military?
The section should either be fixed, or the table should be dropped from the article. I fail to see how including a table that does not include Palestinians killed by the Israeli military contributes to the understanding of the topic. Cs32en Talk to me 20:52, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
- I agree.VR talk 03:59, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
False claims
The article claims Julius Stone dispute the illegality of Israeli settlements. Looking at the sourced quote it says: ”Israel's presence in all these areas pending negotiation of new borders is entirely lawful, since Israel entered them lawfully in self-defence.” this means that he believes that Israels occupation is valid. Not that the settlements aren't illegal. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:30, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
- I agree. A "presence" is not the same as a "settlement", nor does the former imply the latter. Cs32en Talk to me 00:02, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
I also would like to request the quotation from both the Stephen Myron Schwebel and Rostow, Eugene sources, I'm looking at "Justice in international law", I cant see all the pages but in those I can see I don't see Schwebel saying they are legal.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:36, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not a legal expert so take this with grain of salt, my understanding is that Julius Stone disputes "occupied" vs "disputed" which is used by Israel as excuse itself from GC as far as settlements go as far as I understand. Anyway more productive discussion would result on Main article talk page or at WP:IPCOLL where more eyeballs are available. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 01:15, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
- SD has a point. The quote doesn't support the material although I think the book itself may but, if I recall his argument correctly, the occupation was only justified pending a formal treaty between the warring parties (which sounds correct). Stone died before the 94 peace treaty with Jordan so who knows what he'd say now but the original reason is gone. As a slightly amusing side track, Stone was a well-respected scholar but his reasoning in matters regarding Israel was a wee bit unbalanced, to the point that his old employer, U of S, issues papers like this, which seems just a little bit mean. Sol (talk) 03:44, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
- Acting as a legal expert for the United Nations Committee on the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People, Ben Saul is entitled to his views on Stones interpretations of the law. Its unfortunate that Stone cannot defend himself against his claims. Anyhow, according to Cohen, Stone held that the settlements were legal. Chesdovi (talk) 20:41, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
- Indeed, it is unfortunate, Ben Saul resorting to adhoms after Julius Stone is dead. Stone also said: "No other state having a legal claim even equal to that of Israel under the unconditional cease-fire agreement of 1967 and the rule of uti possidetis, this relative superiority of title would seem to assimilate Israel's possession under international law to an absolute title, valid erga omnes..." If Israel has a superior title, it follows that settlements would not be illegal. Otherwise it would be like saying, "Yeah, it's your property, but only someone else can build on it." So no, not false claims. There were other major scholars and thinkers that took that position as well, such as Stephen Schwebel. Of course, perhaps he too is too sympathetic with Jewish interests in the middle east. Yehuda Blum from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem Law Faculty certainly can't be considered to have a valid opinion, being Israeli and Jewish as well. Eugene V. Rostow is the son of poor Jewish-American immigrants. I use the concerns of Ben Saul as my point of departure. We cannot exclude the notable opinions of people because we personally feel that they lean too far one way or the other. These are highly respected jurists and thinkers. 172.129.65.65 (talk) 03:45, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
- Acting as a legal expert for the United Nations Committee on the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People, Ben Saul is entitled to his views on Stones interpretations of the law. Its unfortunate that Stone cannot defend himself against his claims. Anyhow, according to Cohen, Stone held that the settlements were legal. Chesdovi (talk) 20:41, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
- SD has a point. The quote doesn't support the material although I think the book itself may but, if I recall his argument correctly, the occupation was only justified pending a formal treaty between the warring parties (which sounds correct). Stone died before the 94 peace treaty with Jordan so who knows what he'd say now but the original reason is gone. As a slightly amusing side track, Stone was a well-respected scholar but his reasoning in matters regarding Israel was a wee bit unbalanced, to the point that his old employer, U of S, issues papers like this, which seems just a little bit mean. Sol (talk) 03:44, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
- How hilariously drool to hint at antisemitism as the motivating factor for dismissing bad arguments. The quote does not support the material. So we find a new quote or remove the material. Sol (talk) 07:04, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
- What do you mean remove it. Its sourced to Cohen. Chesdovi (talk) 12:10, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
- Stone in the intro to Y. Blum's book Secure Boundaries and Middle East Peace.:
"Ambiguities such as those here in question , deliberately preserved in Resolution 242 in order to sercure unanimity, illustrate the oft-sanctified role of ambiguity in diplomatic documents. The intial purpose served by such ambiguity may be to cover over, by a framework of apparent agreement, continuing deep measures of disagreement. That initial purpose, moreover, as we project it into the future relations of the disputants, gives forth of its own fertility. On the one hand, it leaves it open for both sides, as circumstances or positions change, to replace the textual ambiguities by agreed meanings. It also, on the other hand, allows each side to turn the ambiguity into a weapon of political warfare against the other. In the former projections, ambiguity is resolved into agreement and friendship; in the latter it is exacerbated and fuly exposed as a focus of irreconcilable conflict. Love and hate lie together in such an initial ambiguity, each ready to be summoned forth in its own good time." Sixty two years later we can see the direction so far. In the long scheme of history, not so long. In the long scheme of history, not so deadly nor so cruel as many other conflicts around the globe. 172.129.65.65 (talk) 03:59, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
EU action on the settlements (December 2010)
Background: BBC - Former EU leaders urge sanctions for Israel settlements, 10 December 2010.
Link to full text of letter (dated 2 December 2010) from European Former Leaders Group (EFLG) to Herman van Rompuy, President of the European Council, and Lady Catherine Ashton, High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy/First Vice-President of the European Commission.
From the BBC article:
- The letter sent to European governments and EU institutions, asks EU foreign ministers to reiterate that they "will not recognise any changes to the June 1967 boundaries and clarify that a Palestinian state should be in sovereign control over territory equivalent to 100% of the territory occupied in 1967, including its capital in East Jerusalem". It also asks ministers to set the Israeli government an ultimatum that, if it has not fallen into line by April 2011, the EU will seek an end to the US-brokered peace process in favour of a UN solution, according to the EUobserver website.
- ...
- In a letter of response to the former leaders, sent on Tuesday and seen by EUobserver, Baroness Ashton said the EU's approach to Jewish settlement expansion would remain unchanged for the time being. She said the demand for a peace treaty based on pre-June 1967 borders was "commonly accepted" and that she supported the US-brokered negotiations. "The European Union will continue to be at the forefront of efforts to advance the peace process and engage with both the Palestinians and the Israelis to find a way to resolve the conflict," her letter reportedly said. In a statement following the US announcement, she said: "The EU position on settlements is clear: they are illegal under international law and an obstacle to peace. Recent settlement related developments, including in East Jerusalem, contradict the efforts by the international community for successful negotiations."
← ZScarpia 23:45, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Casualty figures
The section Israeli_settlement#Casualty_figures seems to have an obscure definition.
It includes "Palestinians killed by Israeli civilians" on one hand, and "Israeli civilians killed by Palestinians" on the other.
In other words the Israeli casualties include those murdered by militant groups, as well as those killed by civilians, but the Palestinian casualties only include those killed by Israeli civilians, but not by Israeli security forces. Why?
The obscure definition seems to hide the true number of Palestinian casualties.VR talk 00:57, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
That looks very deceiving to me - a balanced comparison would be Palestinians killed in Palestinian areas compared with Israelis killed in Israel - the former being perhaps 20 or 50 times more than the latter. Templar98 (talk) 20:47, 10 January 2011 (UTC)- Banned user
==Julius Stone on legality of settlements==
The discussion above "False claims" concerned whether Julius Stone "dispute the illegality of authorized settlements" and it's been claimed that Cohen's book Human rights in the Israeli-occupied territories, 1967-1982 By Esther Rosalind Cohen is evidence of this.
In fact, Cohen says "Julius Stone445 held that Nahal settlements are legal measures necessary to maintain military hold of the territories and establish strong defensive positions along the cease-fire lines in the Jordan Valley". Cohen then adds 6 conditions, only the first of which (voluntary movement) is likely to be fulfilled by the settlers. In particular "3) be placed at strategic positions born of military necessity" and "4) be temporary for the duration of the occupation." The Google Book doesn't show the end of that section, but the whole tenor of what Cohen is saying would not lead us to believe that Stone said that settlements are legal.
It may well be that Stone's arguments are subtle and nuanced and contribute usefully in other directions, but he cannot be said to have argued, either based on Cohen, nor based on "Israel and Palestine: Assault on the Law of Nations" where he wrote that ”Israel's presence in all these areas pending negotiation of new borders is entirely lawful, since Israel entered them lawfully in self-defence”, to have claimed the settlements are legal. Templar98 (talk) 14:33, 6 January 2011 (UTC) - Banned user
"much of"
GHcool re added "much of" claiming "much of is correct.", how is it correct? "Much" is a weasel word and could mean 60% of the IC, in this case we are talking about the entire IC.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:21, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
:As best I know, the entire world refers to the West Bank as "occupied" and it's also overwhelmingly called "Occupied" (as in "Occupied Palestinian Territories", OPT). I can see no justification whatsoever for claiming "much of" is an NPOV description. Templar98 (talk) 20:35, 10 January 2011 (UTC) - Banned user
- Your question is answered here. --GHcool (talk) 23:08, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
- That confirms that the IC say its occupied, while only Israel disputes it.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:14, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
- Is Israel not a part of the IC? --GHcool (talk) 23:27, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
- I don't believe Israel says WB is not occupied. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:24, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
- Israel agrees it's occupied. Sol (talk) 05:20, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- Is Israel not a part of the IC? No, not if by, being part of, you mean that the Israeli Government's opinion forms part of ICJ verdicts. ← ZScarpia 14:11, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- Is Israel not a part of the IC? --GHcool (talk) 23:27, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
- That confirms that the IC say its occupied, while only Israel disputes it.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:14, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Israeli_settlement#Religious_significance
This looks important to me, though the section needs to be improved to provide the point of view of the supportes of the idea, in addition to the critical one. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 08:58, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, it is important. The point of view of the supporters of complete annexation is well provided by rabbi Dr Chaim Simons of Kiryat Arba , last updated 2004.- Amongst a lot of other interesting things, he reproduces an open letter he sent to President Carter all the way back in 1978. It reads in part: "As a former Sunday school teacher, whose knowledge of the Bible is the envy of us all, you are fully aware that the Almighty gave the Land of Israel in its entirety to the Jewish people for all time to come. Even a cursory glance at a map will show you that Judea and Samaria (West Bank) are the heart of this Divinely given Land of Israel."
It is possible that rabbi Chaim Simons is misled (eg he says "You surely know that your own country in company with the entire world (except Britain and Pakistan) never recognised Jordan's unilateral annexation of the West Bank. Your international legal advisers can tell you that Israel has a better legal title to this area than any other country in the world.") but he's an excellent source for the point of view of the settlers - I'm surprised you've not added to the article instead of slapping a drive-by "neutrality" tag on it. Templar98 (talk) 10:08, 17 January 2011 (UTC)struck comments of banned user.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:31, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Jewish settlement ?
Some people disagree with the use of these words in the lead to remind it is another expression that is used to refer to 'Israeli settlement'
An argument is that it is/would be a bias to use them :
- Here is a reference from Norman Finkelstein who widely uses these words
- Here is a reference from Israeli MFA that widely uses these words.
If there was a 'bias' at least one of them would refrain from using these words. That alledged 'bias' does not exist in the wp:rs sources but only in the mind of people. Anyway, that would be required to have an explanation of the reason why it is/would be a bias (and if possible to source this).
Another claim is that these words would be less used :
- google book gives 80,000+ hits for 'Jewish settlements' or 48000 thousands with 'Israel' as an additonal keyword ; there are only +40,000 for 'Israeli settlements'
The only critic that fits what can be sourced is that 'Jewish settlements' also refers to settlements of Jews in the whole Middle-East, even before the birth of Israel and not only to those in the occupied territories. I answer that what is asked here is *not* to replace 'Israeli settlement' by 'Jewish settlement', not to state that all 'Israeli settlements' are 'Jewish settlements' but to remind in the lead that 'Israeli settlements' are also named 'Jewish settlements'.
(Don't answer that google book is not wp:rs - it is used to answer to arguments that are not sourced at all and to prove they are wrong.)
I add that Jewish settlement redirects to Israeli settlement ( ! ), that several sources in this article (Israeli settlement) use the words 'Jewish settlements' and even more that the words 'Jewish settlements' are currenlty used in the article.
For an equivalent exemple, I would refer to Yom Kippur War (title) in the lead of which references are made in bold to Ramadan War, October War, 1973 War, 1973 Arab-Israeli War etc because all these are equivalent titles. This fits exactly our case.
Noisetier (talk) 18:28, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
- In that link Finklestine mostly doesn't use it as a term for Israeli settlements in the OT. Mfa also calls the West bank "Judea and Samaria" and the occupied territories "disputed territories". Its a fringe term not commonly or widely used for the OT, and therefor it doesn't belong in the lead. The reason why your Google books search gets more hits for "Jewish settlement" is because "Jewish settlement" refers to Jewish settlements in the mandate and Ottoman times, not only that, but it also refers to Jewish settlements in other parts of the world: "Jewish settlements in the french colonies in the Caribbean" , "Jewish settlements in south America" "Jewish settlements in Africa" "Jewish settlements in Greece" "Jewish settlements in Anatolia" "Jewish settlements in Spain" "Jewish settlements in Europe" "Jewish settlements in china" , you can continue with hundreds of these different search combination's and find many more. This shows clearly that "Jewish Settlement" is a term used for Jews settling on land in the entire world, anywhere, while this article is exclusively about the Israeli settlements in the occupied territories Israel has occupied since 1967.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:18, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
- You are right that in the reference I gave Finkelstein refers to settlements before '48. This is his PhD thesis where he attacks Joan Peter. But here in Beyond Shupnatz, he refers too to 'Jewish settlement'. It seems you claim 'Jewish settlement' is a pro-Israeli bias, could you explain why or in what ?
- That is not true that I have many links with 'Jewish settlements' due to the pre'48 or pre'67 period. In the second research, I added the keyword Israel and most of the links refers to 'Jewish settlements' as 'Israeli settlement'. Did you just read the results ?
- As I said above, it is true that 'Jewish settlements' refers also to many other settlement BUT it is also true that 'Israeli settlements' are also called 'Jewish settlements' and as a proof, Jewish settlements redirects to this article, the words are use in this article and in many sources.
- -> to put in practice what you want, we need to transform the redirect in an article and explaining that 'Jewish settlements' refer to different settlements of Jews all around the world and also to 'Israeli settlements'. That could be done. Noisetier (talk) 20:43, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Comment - There is no doubt that Jewish settlement is frequently used as a synonym for Israeli settllement. Here is a list of example BBC articles. There are many other contemporary examples out there of course. While a redirect in Misplaced Pages proves nothing, we should do something to this article to make it clear that it is an alternative name (as mentioned here). The redirect could become a disambiguation page if there are articles around about other kinds of Jewish settlement e.g. in the Jewish Autonomous Oblast etc. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:18, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- Ok. Sometimes, written comminucation is not clear.
- Do you mean that whereas "there is no doubt that Jewish settlement is frequently used as a synonym for Israeli settllement", writing in this artile "(also named "Jewish settlement")" is not appropriate and that we should transform the article "Jewisht sentlement" in a disambigation page ? I can hear you but I cannot understand. Could you explain what difference you see with the case of the Yom kippur war and also what is pov-ed in the wordings "Jewish settlements" ? Noisetier (talk) 15:56, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Okay, to clarify
- There is evidence in contemporary reliable sources that the term "Jewish Settlement" is used to refer to "Israeli settlement".
- There is evidence that "Jewish Settlement" is an alternative term with the same meaning as "Israeli settlement"
- However, we should try to find a source that explicitly says that Israeli settlements are also sometimes referred to as Jewish settlements. It's pretty obvious that it is an alternative name but policy-wise we should really cite a source that says it is an alternative name rather than draw conclusions ourselves.
- We should add a brief statement that Israeli settlements are also sometimes referred to as Jewish settlements to the body of this article and cite the source.
- We should also add the term Jewish settlement in bold to the lead as an alternative name.
- Since the term "Jewish settlement" may also refer to things that are not Israeli settlements I am suggesting that a redirect Jewish settlement -> Israeli settlement may not be ideal. It may be better to change the Jewish settlement page to be a DAB page that lists the various types of Jewish settlement including Israeli settlement.
Sean.hoyland - talk 05:49, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
- These are Israeli settlements, as Israeli law is in effect there. Some of the settlers may identify as inhabitants of Jewish settlements, especially those that have come into conflict with the Israeli state over the existence or establishment of the settlements. The term "Jewish settlement" obscures the fact that these settlement are being established in violation of Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, and may thus be preferred by some authors and sources (others may use the term out of ignorance of these implications). The only exception may be settlements that are illegal under Israeli law, but if Israel refused to take effective actions against the establishment or maintainance of these settlements, these effectively become Israeli settlements as far as international law is concerned. Cs32en Talk to me 07:10, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
- The issue is about the terminology used by reliable sources and complying with the manual of style, nothing more. No one is suggesting replacing the standard term Israeli settlement with Jewish settlement or renaming the article or saying that they aren't Israeli settlements etc. It's simply about noting that the term Jewish settlement is also used by reliable sources (such as the BBC) to mean an Israeli settlement in the Israeli occupied territories. It is demonstrably the case using reliable sources that both terms are contemporary synonyms for eachother (to describe what is actually a colony in occupied territory) but we should really have a source that says that they are synonyms before the article is changed. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:22, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
- ..and it's not just a synonym used in the Western press as a Google search "jewish settlement" site:chinadaily.com.cn demonstrates. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:37, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
- I don't object to using both terms in the lead, as in fact both are being used by reliable sources. It would be best, however, to have sources that explain both the fact that the terms are being used as if they were synonyms, and that explain the differences between both terms as well. Cs32en Talk to me 07:42, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
- @Sean.hoyland - many thanks for your clarification ! I agree with everything your write.
- I think we all agree in fact.
- The only issue I see is that we don't have the source that explains that 'Israeli settlements' is also sometimes/often (?) named 'Jewish settlements'. I didn't find any in google books. In the books I have, I read the index to see if there was not some redirect such as : Jewish settlement : see Israeli settlement but I didn't find any...
- In such a case, what is the best to do ?
- Noisetier (talk) 20:28, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
- I don't object to using both terms in the lead, as in fact both are being used by reliable sources. It would be best, however, to have sources that explain both the fact that the terms are being used as if they were synonyms, and that explain the differences between both terms as well. Cs32en Talk to me 07:42, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Hebrew name
Why is the Hebrew traduction in the title ? There is nothing encyclopaedic to have this translation and even more nearly nobody can understand this. Why not in Arab then per wp:npov ? If somebody wants to get this in Hebrew (French, Polish, Arab, German, ...) he can simply use the interwiki linds (on the bottom of the column of the left...). Noisetier (talk) 18:28, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
- So, can I remove this reference to the name in Hebrew ? Noisetier (talk) 20:49, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
- Unless somebody requires that I do not proceed, I will remove the Hebrew translation within 15 days. Noisetier (talk) 20:23, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Choice of Photos
The photos of settlements at the top of the article appear to have been chosen to present a particular POV about the settlements (cute, well kept, harmless, etc.). The first page of results for a Google Images search on "israeli settlement" includes many pictures of a quite different appearance (intrusive, stark, looming, barbed wire, etc.), no doubt reflecting the POV of the sites that host them. 204.128.230.1 (talk) 17:39, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- I think they are probably chosen on the basis that they are free or we have permission to use them. There are some more pics in Commons category 'Israeli settlements in the West Bank' and its subcategories. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:50, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
More Mainstream Scholars have weighed-in on Israeli Colonialism and Genocide
There was an earlier discussion here regarding the subject: http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Israeli_settlement/Archive_11#Ned_Cuthoys_editorial_equating_Israeli_settlements_to_genocide
Now the Journal of Genocide Research and "Top Genocide Scholars Battle Over How To Characterize Israel’s Actions" Read more: here harlan (talk) 21:03, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you, Harlan, it's quite interesting, but both the name of this section and the provided link are off topic of this page discussion. WP:NOT#FORUM --ElComandanteChe (talk) 22:13, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Thank you El, but the Cuthoys article and the Journal of Genocide Research article are about the inherently genocidal nature of settler colonial societies. That is not off-topic and I think you know that. harlan (talk) 02:24, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
- If Israel commitited genocide in '48, why were there 700K refugees? And how come the West Bank/Gaza population has been growing rapidly since '67? The Arabs made no secret of their genocidal intent, thank goodness Israel got the upper hand. The Arabs had where to flee, the Jews did not. Chesdovi (talk) 23:25, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- Here is a link to the discussion that the article mentions, where Shaw's definition of genocide is described. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 21:01, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
- Funny how this is not described by Harlan as a "discredited fringe" view. You can't have it both ways Harlan. Chesdovi (talk) 12:17, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
- Do you have reasons to assume it would be discredited or fringe? --Dailycare (talk) 21:34, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
- Chedovi, can you show me an international court or UN organ that agrees with Stone, Rostow, Blum, et al? Both of these scholars agree that Israel committed a serious crime against humanity, "ethnic cleansing". They only disagree over whether that constitutes the crime of genocide when it destroys a society in whole or in part. A report on international criminal law and the defense of the rights of indigenous peoples has just been issued by the Special Rapporteur appointed by the United Nations Permanent Forum which discusses "cultural genocide" consisting of non-violent acts that are still included in the definition of the crime of genocide in the international convention. So, "In international law, genocide,.. ..has a meaning under the Convention which is far broader than physical destruction." He also says:
The recent tendency to define as “ethnic cleansing” policies that could prove to be genocidal under the definition of “genocide” established in international law has been a way of escaping responsibility, and even of fostering impunity. “Ethnic cleansing” may the ideal term for journalistic and even scientific purposes because of its emotional content, but its ineffectiveness makes it a poor choice in the field of law. The same may be said of “ethnocide” and “cultural genocide” as fully separate terms distinct from “genocide” as defined in criminal law. Use of one or both of these expressions is frequently a way of circumventing the legal effects of use of the word “genocide” even in the face of the evidence.
- Chedovi, can you show me an international court or UN organ that agrees with Stone, Rostow, Blum, et al? Both of these scholars agree that Israel committed a serious crime against humanity, "ethnic cleansing". They only disagree over whether that constitutes the crime of genocide when it destroys a society in whole or in part. A report on international criminal law and the defense of the rights of indigenous peoples has just been issued by the Special Rapporteur appointed by the United Nations Permanent Forum which discusses "cultural genocide" consisting of non-violent acts that are still included in the definition of the crime of genocide in the international convention. So, "In international law, genocide,.. ..has a meaning under the Convention which is far broader than physical destruction." He also says:
- Do you have reasons to assume it would be discredited or fringe? --Dailycare (talk) 21:34, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
- Funny how this is not described by Harlan as a "discredited fringe" view. You can't have it both ways Harlan. Chesdovi (talk) 12:17, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
- Here is a link to the discussion that the article mentions, where Shaw's definition of genocide is described. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 21:01, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
- If Israel commitited genocide in '48, why were there 700K refugees? And how come the West Bank/Gaza population has been growing rapidly since '67? The Arabs made no secret of their genocidal intent, thank goodness Israel got the upper hand. The Arabs had where to flee, the Jews did not. Chesdovi (talk) 23:25, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- So, I didn't describe it as a "discredited fringe view" because its not. Lemkin himself coined the term genocide to describe both the destruction of societies as groups or the physical destruction of part or all of the members of a society and the convention still includes non-violent acts that are part of the legal definition. In the earlier thread I noted that the European Court of Human Rights upheld criminal convictions for the crime of genocide in the case of Jorgic v. Germany based upon those grounds:
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. It concluded that the applicant had therefore acted with intent to destroy the group of Muslims in the North of Bosnia, or at least in the Doboj region.
- So, I didn't describe it as a "discredited fringe view" because its not. Lemkin himself coined the term genocide to describe both the destruction of societies as groups or the physical destruction of part or all of the members of a society and the convention still includes non-violent acts that are part of the legal definition. In the earlier thread I noted that the European Court of Human Rights upheld criminal convictions for the crime of genocide in the case of Jorgic v. Germany based upon those grounds:
- FYI, Jordan's written statement to the ICJ in 2004 contained "Annex 1 Origins And Early Phases Of Israel's Policy Of Expulsion And Displacement Of Palestinians" which said that Israel has pursued a continuous policy of ethnic cleansing against the Palestinians ever since it came into existence. That falls under the prohibition against population transfer in customary international law. The ICJ cited Israel for violating Article 49(6) of the Geneva Convention in displacing Palestinians and facilitating the transfer of portions of its own population into the territory to alter its demographic character. That is a "grave breach" and a war crime according to the Rome Statute and the Additional Protocol to the Geneva Conventions. The preamble of the apartheid convention explains that the crime includes acts that also can be defined as genocide. Lebanon's written statement to the Court said that the situation in the territories corresponds to a number of the constituent acts of the crime of apartheid, including "the deliberate imposition on a group of living conditions calculated to cause its physical destruction in whole or in part". See page 9
- This information is all third party verifiable and comes from reliable mainstream sources. The ethnic cleansing/genocide issue has not only been discussed by mainstream scholars in the mainstream press it has been enforced in international courts like the ECHR. That is something that cannot be said for the personal opinions of Stone, Rostow, Blum, Shamgar, et al. harlan (talk) 11:15, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages articles under general sanctions
- All unassessed articles
- C-Class Israel-related articles
- Mid-importance Israel-related articles
- WikiProject Israel articles
- B-Class Palestine-related articles
- High-importance Palestine-related articles
- Palestine-related articles needing attention
- WikiProject Palestine articles
- WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration articles