This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Harlan wilkerson (talk | contribs) at 16:41, 9 March 2011 (→Stone and "Individual stances"). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 16:41, 9 March 2011 by Harlan wilkerson (talk | contribs) (→Stone and "Individual stances")(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) | 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 is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Legality of Israeli settlements 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: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 45 days  |
 | 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.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| |||||||||||||||||||||
 | Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute. |
 | Error: Target page was not specified with to. |
Section dealing with Israeli law
Land ownership
- In November 2006 Peace Now acquired a report (which it claims was leaked from the Israeli Government's Civil Administration) that indicates that as much as 40 percent of the settlement land that Israel plans to retain in the West Bank is privately owned by Palestinians. Peace Now further claims that this is a violation of Israeli law. The Washington Post reported that "The 38-page report offers what appears to be a comprehensive argument against the Israeli government's contention that it avoids building on private land, drawing on the state's own data to make the case". Peace Now published statistics and aerial maps for each individual settlement. According to the spokesman of Israel's Civil Administration, this report was based on a leaked map that indicated Palestinian claims rather than rights, and that Peace Now never contacted the Civil Administration to confirm the report. A recent report by Peace Now, allegedly based on official data provided by the Civil Administration following a court struggle cites a lower figure of 32%, a figure rejected by the Civil Administration.
- In February 2008, The Civil Administration admitted that more than a third of West Bank settlements were built on private Palestinian land, originally seized by the IDF for 'security purposes'. The unauthorized seizure of private Palestinian land has been defined by the Civil Administration itself in a recent case as 'theft'.
- The Spiegel report, commissioned by the Israeli Defense Ministry, also details a large amount of land theft by Israeli settlements in the West Bank. The report reveals that some settlements deemed legal by Israel are in part, and sometimes in large part, effectively illegal outposts, and that large portions of veteran Israeli settlements, including Ofra, Elon Moreh and Beit El were built on private Palestinian land.
- According to the Israeli government, the majority of the land currently occupied by the new settlements was vacant or belonged to the state (from which it was leased) or bought fairly from the Palestinians. Former United States State Department Legal Advisor Stephen Schwebel, who later headed the International Court of Justice, wrote in 1970 regarding Israel's case:
Where the prior holder of territory had seized that territory unlawfully, the state which subsequently takes that territory in the lawful exercise of self-defense has, against that prior holder, better title.
- The recent use of the Absentee Property Law to "transfer, sell or lease any real estate property" in East Jerusalem owned by Palestinians who live elsewhere (usually in the West Bank) without compensation has been criticized both inside and outside of Israel.
- Opponents of the settlements claim that "vacant" land had either belonged to Arabs who had fled or belonged collectively to an entire village, a practise that had developed under Ottoman rule. B'Tselem claims that the Israeli government used the absence of modern legal documents for the communal land as a legal basis for expropriating it.
- I'm inclined to move it back. As Chesdovi rightly edited into the article recently, Israel did incorporate international law (the relevant bit here is the Hague Convention) into its domestic law and the section details the possible violations of that Convention. Lustick's "Israel and the West Bank after Elon Moreh: The Mechanics of De Facto Annexation" goes into greater depth on how the extremely high standard of proof imposed in Israeli courts allowed this to occur, if anyone is curious about the issue. Sol (talk) 04:13, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
- But every country's law should shtim with IL. This deals soley with IL and its stance on IS which is disputed by Israel in the international arena. There would not be a page if there was no dispute. This section is abt an internal matter, hence the reoccurance of the term "Government's Civil Administration". Chesdovi (talk) 11:10, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
- I can't speak to every country. This is international law as applied through domestic/military administrative courts; it's not an internal matter as the West Bank isn't Israel. This isn't how land possession cases work in Israel, just the way they are done by Israel in the OPT. Sol (talk) 17:07, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
- It seems to be all about Israeli law. "Peace Now further claims that this is a violation of Israeli law." Might belong at IS itself, with mention here. Chesdovi (talk) 17:13, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
- It's the Israeli obligations under the Hague Convention. You won't find it written in any Knesset bill or legal code. It is illegal under Israeli law because it's illegal under a bit of international law the Israeli courts recognize. If you look at the article you'll notice the reference to the 1979 High Court decision ruling that settlements aren't allowed on private property. That ruling was on the Hague Conventions. This allegation (if true) would violate both international law and the international law the Israeli legal system has the ability to implement (not GC, for various reasons). This fits in the purview of the article. Sol (talk) 04:48, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
- I see. Thank you. Chesdovi (talk) 15:58, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
- It's the Israeli obligations under the Hague Convention. You won't find it written in any Knesset bill or legal code. It is illegal under Israeli law because it's illegal under a bit of international law the Israeli courts recognize. If you look at the article you'll notice the reference to the 1979 High Court decision ruling that settlements aren't allowed on private property. That ruling was on the Hague Conventions. This allegation (if true) would violate both international law and the international law the Israeli legal system has the ability to implement (not GC, for various reasons). This fits in the purview of the article. Sol (talk) 04:48, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
- It seems to be all about Israeli law. "Peace Now further claims that this is a violation of Israeli law." Might belong at IS itself, with mention here. Chesdovi (talk) 17:13, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
- I can't speak to every country. This is international law as applied through domestic/military administrative courts; it's not an internal matter as the West Bank isn't Israel. This isn't how land possession cases work in Israel, just the way they are done by Israel in the OPT. Sol (talk) 17:07, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Currently, this article is a break out of Israeli settlement#Legal status, which is organized as debate between legality and illegality. Turning this page into Legality of Israeli settlements is one option, putting this material into an Israeli law subsection is another. I could go either way. Preferences?--Carwil (talk) 15:43, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
- This article and the material in it are about settlements established in the territory Israel occupied in 1967. That situation is governed by the terms of international law, not Israeli municipal law. So, putting it into an Israeli law subsection is a non-starter. This is a modern encyclopedia. Old legal essays from the 1970's should not be given undue weight. Since the era in which they were originally authored, the Geneva Conventions were declared to be part of the body of customary international law that is binding on all parties that engage in armed conflicts.
- FYI, there is no Basic law or statute which says that customary international law is part of the municipal law of Israel. The Courts simply followed the precedent of the English dualist system that they inherited. The Israeli Supreme Court has finally ruled that the Fourth Geneva Convention and portions of the 1st Additional Protocol reflect customary international law. So, there is no difference between the status of the Geneva and Hague Conventions on that account. David Kretzmer explains that the English approach rests on three principles: 1. Parliament is supreme in the field of legislation. Hence, any law enacted by parliament is valid, even if it is incompatible with the state's international law obligations. 2. Customary international law is part and parcel of the common law of the land, and will be enforced by the domestic courts unless it is incompatible with parliamentary legislation. 3. International treaties that were duly ratified by the state and bind it in international law will not be enforced by the domestic courts unless their provisions have been incorporated in domestic law through parliamentary legislation. It goes without saying that Article 49(6) of GC IV conflicts with the explicit provisions of municipal laws like the "Basic Law Jerusalem", the "Golan Heights Law", & etc. See Kretzmer's "International law in domestic courts: Israel", page 4
- There exists in international law a universally recognized principle that a gap or deficiency in a state's municipal law or lack of national legislation does not relieve a state of its international obligations. Any attempt to excuse non-fulfilment of an international obligation on the basis of municipal law actually constitutes a breach of those obligations. See for example André Klip, Göran Sluiter, Annotated leading cases of International Criminal Tribunals: The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia 1997-1999, Intersentia nv, 2001, ISBN 9050951414, page 134 The supremacy of international law is a rule in dualist systems and in monist legal systems. Judge Sir Hersch Lauterpacht described the determination of the International Court of Justice to discourage the evasion of international obligations through its repeated affirmation of "the self-evident principle of international law that a State cannot invoke its municipal law as the reason for the non-fulfillment of its international obligations." See The Development of International Law by the International Court, Hersch Lauterpacht (ed), Cambridge University Press, 1982, ISBN 0521463327, page 262
- So, the Israeli's can argue that the settlements are legal, but not that they do not violate international law. Israelis are still criminally and civilly liable for violations of their international obligations. harlan (talk) 23:08, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
- I have to take exception to this in your post above: "Since the era in which they were originally authored, the Geneva Conventions were declared to be part of the body of customary international law that is binding on all parties that engage in armed conflicts." They are binding only upon the signatory states. Israel is one. They are not binding on military groups such as Hamas or Hezbollah, or non-state entities such as the Palestinian Authority; as well as some other states. Hamas and other militant groups regularly engage Israel in armed conflict, but are not sworn to uphold, nor do they follow, the Geneva Convention regulations. An important distinction, I think. Snakeswithfeet (talk) 05:58, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
- One of the main problems with Misplaced Pages articles is that editors are citing many outdated legal arguments that the Government of Israel abandoned years ago.
- As the old saying goes, you are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts. Palestine is a signatory of the Geneva Conventions and over one hundred other signatory states recognize Palestine as a State. The ICJ noted in 2004 that Switzerland, as depositary State, considered the Palestinian undertaking to apply the Geneva Conventions to be valid. The Geneva Conventions are the primary source of International Humanitarian Law (IHL). The General Assembly is holding the Palestinians responsible for conducting credible investigations in conformity with international standards into the serious violations of international humanitarian and international human rights law reported by the Gaza Fact-Finding Mission, towards ensuring accountability and justice.
- FYI, the argument that non-signatory parties could not be prosecuted for violations of customary international law reflected in the Hague Convention of 1907 and the Geneva Convention of 1929 was dismissed in the Nuremburg Judgement on "The Law Relating to War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity" The argument that the Conventions no longer applied to territories after they had been subdued and annexed by one of the belligerents was also dismissed.
- In 1993 the UN Security Council "acting under Chapter VII of the Charter on the United Nations" approved a report made by the Secretary General which concluded beyond doubt that the law applicable in armed conflict as embodied in the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 and the Hague Convention (IV) of 18 October 1907 had become part of international customary law. Breaches of the principles contained in the conventions were subsequently placed within the competence of various international criminal tribunals charged with prosecuting the responsible individuals. That has included prosecution of the members of armed opposition groups. See Security Council Resolution 827, 25 May 1993, and the commentary with regard to customary law in the UN article on The Statute For the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia.
- Under the terms of Article 25, that decision is binding on all UN member states, who are required to lend the tribunals every necessary assistance. When a possible conflict arose between the Statute of the Court and the national laws of the Federal Republic of Germany, the Tribunal drew attention to the obligations of states under the Security Council resolutions and repeated the self-evident principle of international law that states cannot invoke their own municipal laws as a basis for avoiding their international obligations. see International Law Reports, By E. Lauterpacht, et. al. page 8
- In 2005 the ICRC conducted a study of the rules of customary international law. The first purpose of the study was to determine which rules of international humanitarian law are part of customary international law and therefore applicable to all parties to a conflict, regardless of whether or not they have ratified the treaties containing the same or similar rules (page 5). The study found that the principles and rules contained in treaty law have received widespread acceptance in practice and are now part of customary international law. As such, they are binding on all States regardless of ratification of treaties and also on armed opposition groups in case of rules applicable to all parties to a non-international armed conflict (page 25).
- The Israeli Supreme Court has ruled "that between Israel and the various terrorist organizations active in Judea, Samaria, and the Gaza Strip (hereinafter "the area") a continuous situation of armed conflict has existed since the first intifada." See the subsection of the ruling under the heading "The General Normative Framework, A. International Armed Conflict". The Court has also ruled that Judea and Samaria are not part of Israel and that they are being held in a state of belligerent occupation. See HCJ 7957/04 Mara’abe v. The Prime Minister of Israel The Foreign Ministry of Israel said that Israel could not be held responsible for observing human rights covenants in Gaza or the West Bank because those areas are not part of Israel's sovereign territory and jurisdiction. It also claimed that events in the West Bank or Gaza are not subject to the mandates of human rights monitoring bodies "inasmuch as they are part and parcel of the context of armed conflict" (to which only IHL apply). See CCPR/C/ISR/2001/2, para 8 or E/1990/6/Add.32, para 6-7
- The Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs website discussion of the laws of war says that "Others have gained acceptance by the practice of the international community and become part of customary international law. The Israeli High Court has ruled that these customary international law rules bind Israel under both international law and Israeli law.(8) In particular, Israel’s High Court of Justice has confirmed that in the ongoing armed conflict with Palestinian terrorist organisations, including Hamas, Israel must adhere to the rules and principles in (a) the Fourth Geneva Convention,(9) (b) the Regulations annexed to the Fourth Hague Convention (which reflect customary international law), and (c) the customary international law principles reflected in certain provisions of Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions on 1949 harlan (talk) 01:31, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with that old saying, which actually originated with Daniel Moynihan, a strong supporter of Israel, and that is the point, as a matter of fact. It is often not the facts that are at issue, but how to interpret those facts in a broader context. My understanding of WP:primary (defined as Primary sources are very close to an event, often accounts written by people who are directly involved, offering an insider's view of an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on) is that primary sources are not acceptable for any interpretation since:
- " Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Misplaced Pages to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source."
- I am not a specialist, and I was not able to take away from the sources you provided, all of the facts that you said were there. For example, in the first paragraph of your article, you claim that Palestine is a signatory of the Geneva Conventions and that it is a state, because 100 nations have agreed upon it. I could find nothing in your sourced material that supported those statements. I think that none of us here are international law scholars, so it behooves us not to use international law opinions and UN documents, but rather to use a "reliable secondary source" (per Misplaced Pages policy) for interpretation. I think it not terribly fair to accuse editors here of "citing outdated legal arguments" and/or fabricating facts, without first supplying a RSS that speaks directly to an editor's specific argument. Otherwise it may appear you are engaging in ad hominem attacks on other editors for expressing alternate views or arguments. Snakeswithfeet (talk) 20:58, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
- You made an unsourced claim that the customary laws reflected in the Geneva Conventions are only binding on signatory states. You haven't cited a single published source (reliable or otherwise) which says that.
- Judge Theodor Meron discussed the establishment of the ICTY by the Security Council and noted that although the Geneva conventions were recognized as binding conventional law, in 1993 the Commission of Experts and Secretary General determined that in practice the treaty provisions were also declaratory of customary international law binding on non-signatories. See Theodor Meron "War crimes law comes of age: essays", Clarendon Press, 1998, ISBN 0198268564, page 212.
- Meron also wrote an essay that is available at the Crimes of War Project which explains that the Rome Statute codified many provisions of international humanitarian law (IHL) as customary criminal law. He explains that "Together with treaties, customary law is one of the principal sources or components of IHL. It results from a general and consistent practice of States that is followed by them from a sense of legal obligation. The most obvious significance of a norm — a principle or rule — of a customary character is that it binds States that are not parties to the treaty in which the norm is restated." Members of insurgent militias, like the Kosovo Liberation Army, certainly were prosecuted for war crimes by the Tribunal on the basis of the customary criminal law contained in the Statute adopted by the Security Council.
- The basis of the legal requirement for UN member states to cooperate with the Tribunal was linked to Lauterpacht's Law Report, which is a reliable secondary source. In any case, I'm not interpreting the MFA or Israeli Supreme Court documents which say that the Geneva Conventions are applicable or that there has been an international armed conflict with Hamas and other groups. I provided links and quotes. The WP:PSTS policy relates to interpretations by a Wikipedian... not interpretations by those outside of Misplaced Pages in the UN, Israeli MFA, and Israeli Supreme Court. e.g. . WP:PSTS policy allows the use of reliably published primary sources, including the information and analysis contained in those sources. As of 2009 the MFA and Supreme Court plainly state that the Conventions apply to the conflict in the West Bank and Gaza. Editors can obviously challenge and fact tag decades-old claims which claim that "Israel sez" the Conventions are completely "irrelevant" or "inapplicable". harlan (talk) 01:57, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
- Harlan, I felt that the links you gave did not support your assertion that Palestine is a signatory of the Geneva Conventions, nor the implication that recognition by 100 states makes Palestine legally a state.
- The basis of the legal requirement for UN member states to cooperate with the Tribunal was linked to Lauterpacht's Law Report, which is a reliable secondary source. In any case, I'm not interpreting the MFA or Israeli Supreme Court documents which say that the Geneva Conventions are applicable or that there has been an international armed conflict with Hamas and other groups. I provided links and quotes. The WP:PSTS policy relates to interpretations by a Wikipedian... not interpretations by those outside of Misplaced Pages in the UN, Israeli MFA, and Israeli Supreme Court. e.g. . WP:PSTS policy allows the use of reliably published primary sources, including the information and analysis contained in those sources. As of 2009 the MFA and Supreme Court plainly state that the Conventions apply to the conflict in the West Bank and Gaza. Editors can obviously challenge and fact tag decades-old claims which claim that "Israel sez" the Conventions are completely "irrelevant" or "inapplicable". harlan (talk) 01:57, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
- In International Criminal Law: sources, subjects, and contents-- by M Cherif Bassiouni, pg 480-- he lists various treaties and instruments of law which involve some of the prohibitions contained in crimes against humanity from 1946 UN Assembly Res, affirming the Nuremberg Trial rules to the 1987 European Torture Convention. Of these the author says, "Of these eight instruments, one is a GA resolution, one an ILC report, and three are ILC drafts; none of which have per se legally binding effect. Two are regional conventions (Genocide, Apartheid and Torture) binding on their respective signatories, and which are also be binding on nonsignatory states as part of jus cogens."
- It is clear that much is interpretive and that at least in certain cases none are legally binding, and only certain ones are considered binding on non signatory states -- note he says "states" and not militias, entities or observers. You do not make these distinctions with the sources that you put up. Of the four Geneva Conventions of 1949 and the two 1977 Protocols, Bassiouni goes on to say that they "incorporate certain aspects of 'Crimes Against Humanity' by including them among activities prohibited to belligerents in conflicts of an international character. Common Articles 50,51,130 and 147 of the four 1949 Geneva Conventions provide: 'Grave breaches...shall be those involving any of the following acts, if committed against persons or property protected by the Convention: willful killing, torture or inhuman treatment, including biological experiments, willfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health, and extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly.
- "Willful" killing, "inhuman" treatment, "military necessity" -- all words that require interpretation, which is not really our job here.
- He goes on: However, these and other provisions of the four Conventions and Protocol I apply to certain contexts and to certain protected persons. They only extend in part to civilian populations in conflicts of a non-international character..."
- "Certain contexts and certain protected persons" -- not all of the Geneva conventions and certainly not all the various treaties are considered binding on all parties involved in any and all hostilities. To say so is to generalize from the primary sources and interpret the material. But until and unless we have reliable secondary sources to tell us, specifically what law(s) or regulation(s) Israel is guilty of violating, your interpretation (or mine) is neither sufficient nor proper. In the meantime, their are always two significant views. The prosecution and the defense. There are many many well-known and not so well known jurists and scholars who are of the opinion of the "defense."
- An opinion in the Jurist says "Even those who believe the ICTY represents the rule of law often question its functionality." This insinuates that there are plenty that do not even accept that the ICTY represents the rule of law! International law is not a finished product by a long shot. It is not meant to be a stick with which to beat certain states or entities, but an attempt to humanize relationships internationally, to avoid genocides, and other horrors that have killed so many millions in the past century and continue to this day. Snakeswithfeet (talk) 05:24, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Albright on Today Show
I've removed this text from the article:
- In a 1997 interview on NBC-TV's Today Show, U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright stated that the building of settlements in the West Bank was legal.
because of this information from the "Settlement Monitor" column of the Journal of Palestine Studies (Vol. 27, No. 2 (Winter, 1998), pp. 126-136), a transcript of the State Department spokesperson's follow-up on Albright's comments:
- Question. However, in her 'Today Show" interview this morning, the secretary was asked if the settlements are legal. And she said, quote, "they are legal," unquote. Was she talking about legal within the context of Israeli law? Or was she talking about international law, specifically the Fourth Geneva Convention?
- Spokesman: No, she was not talking about international law. Our overall position on the question of the legality of settlements remains the same. We are, of course, not taking a legal position on that overall issue.... The fact of the matter is that there is nothing in the interim agreement, as such, and under Oslo that prohibits settlement activity. We do not support the settlement activity. We think it is unhelpful and counterproductive. But as a technical answer, though, the statement was technically correct.
--Carwil (talk) 19:01, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
- What does the spokesman mean by saying the quote "they are legal" is technically correct? What he said seems to be a contradiction to me. What comes out of Albrights mouth has more weight than a "spokesman". Quote should be re-added with qualifiation if necessary. Chesdovi (talk) 23:36, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
- This is a pretty textbook case of a government agency "walking back" the statement of its leader. It is in fact as authoritative as Albright. And the confusion no doubt comes from the standard practice of "re-interpreting" rather than retracting people's statements.
- The "technically correct" position is clearly about not violating Oslo. The US's position expressed here is that Oslo (and subsequent agreements) do not prohibit settlement activity. Russia, for example, has the exact opposite position.--Carwil (talk) 19:53, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- You mean legal under Oslo, not IL. Is that what the Today show interviewer had in mind? I doubt it. This is a clear case of saving face after an official gave the official stance, which was "retracted", as not doing so would compromise the country's impartial position with regards to the peace process, etc. It is not for us to interpret subsequent comments made regarding Albright's quote. We have two valid statements. Albright did not retract herself. She said they are legal and the spokesman said that technically they are legal but the US does not take sides on the matter. Maybe the spokesman meant they are not legal under IL, but aording to US law or opinion? Both quotes can be meared into a nice paragraph. It would be a shame not to include a rare remark, as clear as this one about the settlements legality Chesdovi (talk) 23:34, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- Re: Albright did not retract herself. This is just not how DC works; if George Bush or Barack Obama deviates from policy in their statements, the White House Press Secretary will step in to correct. Likewise in the Departments.
- Re: Is that what the Today show interviewer had in mind? Totally unclear. Likewise Albright's "They are legal" in return. Unless you're saying Albright is a mind-reader, it's her intent that counts.--Carwil (talk) 21:56, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- You mean legal under Oslo, not IL. Is that what the Today show interviewer had in mind? I doubt it. This is a clear case of saving face after an official gave the official stance, which was "retracted", as not doing so would compromise the country's impartial position with regards to the peace process, etc. It is not for us to interpret subsequent comments made regarding Albright's quote. We have two valid statements. Albright did not retract herself. She said they are legal and the spokesman said that technically they are legal but the US does not take sides on the matter. Maybe the spokesman meant they are not legal under IL, but aording to US law or opinion? Both quotes can be meared into a nice paragraph. It would be a shame not to include a rare remark, as clear as this one about the settlements legality Chesdovi (talk) 23:34, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- What does the spokesman mean by saying the quote "they are legal" is technically correct? What he said seems to be a contradiction to me. What comes out of Albrights mouth has more weight than a "spokesman". Quote should be re-added with qualifiation if necessary. Chesdovi (talk) 23:36, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Individuals
Is it worth adding the few individuals who endorse the settlements, e.g. Mike Huckabee, ? Sarah Palin Sarah Palin: Expansion Of Israeli Settlements Should Be Allowed? Chesdovi (talk) 23:47, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
- Given the topic here, one prerequisite for inclusion, is a specific opinion on the legality of settlements under international law. IMHO, opinions of non-institutions are probably irrelevant unless they represent some kind of organized attempt to assess legality (like the legal scholars).
- In any case, it's probably best to build descriptions of such opinions from the top down (i.e., political parties, their nominees for president, then random figures). Also, if we can keep them within the individuals section, that would help.--Carwil (talk) 19:47, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- Sarah Palin and Mike Huckabee don't use international law to justify their support for illegal settlements. They use their religion, in which they believe Jews appropriating Palestinian land will lead to an apocalyptic damning of Jews and all other "non"-believers to a fiery eternal hell. It would be perhaps appropriate for an article titled Christian antisemitism and Israeli Settlements, but not this one. -asad (talk) 18:08, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- Actually each person or country "against" a particular issue are so not b/c of the rulings of IL, but rather they have there own opinions about a matter and if it fits with IL, all well and good, they will cite IL. This is quite clear, as when it comes to a countries own violation of IL, they wil defend themselves, paying scant attention to IL. e.g. Why does Turkey condemn IS while it sustains its own in Cyprus? Why are all the IL judges who favour IS Jewish? IL means nothing. Law can be interpreted to favour the defendant or the plaintif. It usually boils down to the personal bias of the jury or judge, e.g. EDO Decomissioners Case. Iran will cheer on the Egyptian protestors but quash any dissent in its own country. These two prominent US politicaisn are well aware of IL. Yet they still hold their own views about it. They are at odds with the general stance and interpretation taken on the issue, that is why it is important to mention here. I mean, how can they so publically encourage violation of IL? Chesdovi (talk) 18:48, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- For whatever reason they chose to be against or for it, the two individuals you listed do not use international law to justify it or condemn it. Therefore, they are irrelevant to a article which focus is about International law. That's pretty obvious. -asad (talk) 12:00, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- Actually each person or country "against" a particular issue are so not b/c of the rulings of IL, but rather they have there own opinions about a matter and if it fits with IL, all well and good, they will cite IL. This is quite clear, as when it comes to a countries own violation of IL, they wil defend themselves, paying scant attention to IL. e.g. Why does Turkey condemn IS while it sustains its own in Cyprus? Why are all the IL judges who favour IS Jewish? IL means nothing. Law can be interpreted to favour the defendant or the plaintif. It usually boils down to the personal bias of the jury or judge, e.g. EDO Decomissioners Case. Iran will cheer on the Egyptian protestors but quash any dissent in its own country. These two prominent US politicaisn are well aware of IL. Yet they still hold their own views about it. They are at odds with the general stance and interpretation taken on the issue, that is why it is important to mention here. I mean, how can they so publically encourage violation of IL? Chesdovi (talk) 18:48, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- Sarah Palin and Mike Huckabee don't use international law to justify their support for illegal settlements. They use their religion, in which they believe Jews appropriating Palestinian land will lead to an apocalyptic damning of Jews and all other "non"-believers to a fiery eternal hell. It would be perhaps appropriate for an article titled Christian antisemitism and Israeli Settlements, but not this one. -asad (talk) 18:08, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Carter's previous stance is worth mentioning too
- "On Apr. 1 (1977) Jimmy Carter, formerly Governor of Georgia and Democratic candidate for President, declared that he supported Israeli settlement in the administered territories and that he was in favor of the sale of transport planes.... Carter repeated his earlier statements that Israel need not withdraw from the Golan Heights or from E. Jerusalem" . Chesdovi (talk) 23:58, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
- What I said above, about the need for an organized attempt to evaluate legality under international law, applies here too. Administrations and presidents (much less their political statements as candidates) are not equivalent sources on this issue.--Carwil (talk) 19:48, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Christenen voor Israel
Do Christians for Israel belong in the NGO section? Chesdovi (talk) 00:11, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- IMO in principle they could be mentioned, but they can't have equal weight to the ADL or Amnesty as that would be undue. And since ADL and Amnesty are just mentioned very briefly, I guess fitting this one in without undue weight doesn't look possible. --Dailycare (talk) 19:13, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Land ownership
I put this content (possibly back?) in the main Israeli settlement article here for now after Chesdovi removed it from this article. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:13, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Stone and "Individual stances"
Regarding this edit and this revert. The section is about "Individual stances". I can understand the role of the first edit in the sense that it provides some balance to Stone's individual stance from another individual but I don't understand the reason for the revert. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:50, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
- I agree, it certainly belongs there as it is part of the subject and shows Stones views from another notable perspective. I don't see any reason provided for the revert. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:22, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
- I have removed Saul's critics from Stone's opinion paragraph for the following reasons:
- I don't really understand the need to provide the antithesis here, in the place consigned to describe Stone's opinion only, no matter how unbalanced or even false it may be.
- Reductio ad Hitlerum argument: Adolf Hitler's political views satisfies with the description of the matter, without providing critics and counterarguments.
- If Saul's opinion is notable, it deserves it's own paragraph; it could be included within Stone's section only if that is how the latter is presented by the sources, otherwise providing balance turns into synthesis.
- --ElComandanteChe (talk) 19:21, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
- I have removed Saul's critics from Stone's opinion paragraph for the following reasons:
- 1. the place is not to "describe Stone's opinion only", its a place for individual stances. 2. Your second point is built on that this section or article is dedicated to Stone, as that article is dedicated to Hitler, which is inaccurate. 3. Stone doesn't have a section, its a section for individual people. And Sauls opinion is notable as he is an Associate Professor and expert in international law. I dont see any syntheses, Saul is speaking of Stones views of international law, and that is also what Stone is speaking of.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:34, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
- The synthesis is in the presentation of Stone's views through Saul's opinion. No sources except Saul's publication are doing it. Also, I guess you have a reason to revert in the middle of BRD cycle? --ElComandanteChe (talk) 19:46, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
- I don't see how Saul speaking of Stones views of international law is synthesis. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:50, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
- The source directly addresses Stone's arguments about the settlements in detail on page 11 so I think synthesis is avoidable perhaps with some rewording. Saul thinks Stone's view was invalid and he says so in a reliable source. I don't see a problem with including that information. Ironically, a Reductio ad Hitlerum-like argument is what Stone uses to claim that the settlements aren't illegal i.e. he argued that the Fourth Geneva Convention article related to things like the Nazis "forcibly transporting populations of which it wished to rid itself, into or out of occupied territories for the purpose of liquidating them with minimum disturbance of its metropolitan territory, or to provide slave labour or for other inhumane purposes". Sean.hoyland - talk 19:59, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
- What sentence do you suggest? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:12, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
- Still, I'd like to see secondary source(s), i.e. analysis of Saul's view of Stone's position, or at least sources stating that Stone's position is widely criticized. Otherwise it's yet another low-standard, ripped of the context, random piece of text of questionable encyclopedic value. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 20:16, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
- The synthesis is in the presentation of Stone's views through Saul's opinion. No sources except Saul's publication are doing it. Also, I guess you have a reason to revert in the middle of BRD cycle? --ElComandanteChe (talk) 19:46, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
- 1. the place is not to "describe Stone's opinion only", its a place for individual stances. 2. Your second point is built on that this section or article is dedicated to Stone, as that article is dedicated to Hitler, which is inaccurate. 3. Stone doesn't have a section, its a section for individual people. And Sauls opinion is notable as he is an Associate Professor and expert in international law. I dont see any syntheses, Saul is speaking of Stones views of international law, and that is also what Stone is speaking of.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:34, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
- Hitler's views are the subject of a separate article. There is no reason to afford Stone's Zionist propaganda undue weight in an article on international law. The State of Israel did not bother to mention Stone in its 230+ page written submission to the ICJ. All 15 of the jurists disagreed with his propositions that the Geneva Conventions do not apply. The 14 jurists that contributed to the majority opinion found that the Jewish settlements had been established in violation of international law. His views always did represent an extreme fringe theory. For example, "Stone is betraying a life of scholarship to peddle a political position." Israel And Palestine: Assault On The Law Of Nations? by Anthony D'Amato, 91 Yale Law Journal 1725 (1982) P.S. D'Amato provides a brief analysis of the shortcomings of Stone's historical and legal scholarship on the topic. harlan (talk) 20:38, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
- Of course we shall not give undue weight to Stone's opinion. However, I see no policy-based reason to mix his critic views into his opinion description. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 21:30, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
- Why don't we just move the discussions about this individual's Zionist propaganda to the Fringe Theory Noticeboard? His views were roundly rejected and condemned by the mainstream long ago and are simply not relevant. The Conference of the High Contracting parties to the Geneva Conventions decided the question regarding the applicability of the Conventions and the illegality of the Settlements. It was Stone who was "attacking the law of nations". Judge Higgins also pointed out that "It follows from a finding of an unlawful situation by the Security Council, in accordance with Articles 24 and 25 of the Charter entails "decisions are consequently binding on all States Members of the United Nations, which are thus under obligation to accept and carry them out." So, all of Israel's attempts to annex territory and alter the demographic balance of the territories through the settlements are illegal. It really is as simple as that. That is why In “The Jewish Settlements in the West Bank: International Law and Israeli Jurisprudence”, Michael Galchinsky began by lamenting that: “Many who care about Israel have learned to stop caring about international law.” and finished his introductory pitch by claiming “For good reasons, many who love Israel have honed their contempt for international law.” Let's include that explanation and clearly explain that these individual and fringe views are NOT a relevant source or evidence of the applicable rules of law. harlan (talk) 16:36, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- Of course we shall not give undue weight to Stone's opinion. However, I see no policy-based reason to mix his critic views into his opinion description. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 21:30, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
- Harlan, how many legal scholars say the settlements are illegal? Currently it feels like the "Individual stances" section is not representing reality correctly. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:44, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
- If Misplaced Pages included the individual stances of the most highly qualified publicists of the various nations who say the settlements are illegal the article would become excessively long. After Rostow left the government he was employed by the Israel lobby and wrote a bunch of hogwash for AEI that was never published in any peer-reviewed law journals. International law is the law of the international community of states. If the conferences or councils of high contracting parties to the applicable conventions say that the settlements are illegal, then they are illegal. It's as simple as that. Legal publicists sometimes write about "state practice" and those writings can sometimes be considered sources for the rules of law. Neither Rostow nor Stone fit into that category in this case.
- Hitler's views are the subject of a separate article. There is no reason to afford Stone's Zionist propaganda undue weight in an article on international law. The State of Israel did not bother to mention Stone in its 230+ page written submission to the ICJ. All 15 of the jurists disagreed with his propositions that the Geneva Conventions do not apply. The 14 jurists that contributed to the majority opinion found that the Jewish settlements had been established in violation of international law. His views always did represent an extreme fringe theory. For example, "Stone is betraying a life of scholarship to peddle a political position." Israel And Palestine: Assault On The Law Of Nations? by Anthony D'Amato, 91 Yale Law Journal 1725 (1982) P.S. D'Amato provides a brief analysis of the shortcomings of Stone's historical and legal scholarship on the topic. harlan (talk) 20:38, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
- The members of the panel of judges in the Wall case included some of the most qualified publicists, e.g. Rosalyn Higgins, and they considered the applicable rules of law, including the published and oral arguments of publicists, like James R Crawford, & etc. Neither Rostow nor Stone are considered reliable sources on Israeli settlement. For example, the Canadian UN legal counsel, Sidney A. Freifeld, criticized Rostow's historical and factual errors in a Commentary Magazine article David Korn, former State Department office director for Israel and Arab-Israeli affairs, also lambasted Rostow's claims that he had a hand in authoring resolution 242. In April of 1968, Secretary of State Rusk wrote a memo on the subject of the illegality of Israeli settlements to the Embassy in Jerusalem directing the Ambassador to restate in strongest terms the US position on the question to the Government of Israel. . BTW, that is evidence of US state practice. harlan (talk) 21:36, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
<-ElComandanteChe, shouldn't the inclusion/exclusion criteria, requirements for secondary sources etc be the same whether it's Stone or Saul ? Stone is already there presumably because there is an assumption, not supported by any evidence from secondary sources in the article, that it's notable, not widely criticized and isn't nonsense. I don't really see a need for an analysis of Saul's view to justify its presence when we have nothing to indicate that its validity and weight are any different from Stone's view which, bear in mind, may also be "another low-standard, ripped of the context, random piece of text of questionable encyclopedic value". Hard to tell from the article at the moment because there is no secondary source analysis of Stone's view. :) As to what to actually say, no idea, it's past my bedtime. Sean.hoyland - talk 21:03, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
- Well, huh, Stone's view is sourced to Cohen's book. Saul's to Saul's paper. Have a good night, and please call me Che: I'll be grateful, you'll save some typing, and WP will save some bytes --ElComandanteChe (talk) 21:30, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, in the second sentence in the Individual stances section. Stone's view is sourced to Cohen's book and Stone's view can be sourced to Saul's paper. What's the difference ? Why do we need a meta source for Saul but we don't for Cohen ? Sean.hoyland - talk 06:50, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- Morning. That's my reading, may be erroneous or naive, of WP:PSTS: Cohen is secondary source on Stone, Saul is primary source on Saul, if Saul's opinion is given per se. Rewording can solve this problem, however we will stay with the question if critics on individual stances worth inclusion. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 08:52, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, in the second sentence in the Individual stances section. Stone's view is sourced to Cohen's book and Stone's view can be sourced to Saul's paper. What's the difference ? Why do we need a meta source for Saul but we don't for Cohen ? Sean.hoyland - talk 06:50, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- Harlan, "Rostow nor Stone aren't considered reliable sources on Israeli settlements." By whom? Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. And everyones opinion is open to criticism. Rostow and Stone had their own valid views on the matter. They are just as "reliable" as anyone elses. Whether their views form the majority opinion is another matter. (FYI, Rostow was able to rebut Freifled ramblings in a subsequent letter. Even I can detect problems with Freifeld's summerisation. He states: "The Partition Resolution provided for a Jewish state and an Arab state in what is now the West Bank and Gaza Strip." Yes, the GS and WB formed part of the envisioned Arab stated, but it was supposed to be much larger and include territory that Israel held pre-67. Why has he awarded this extra territroy to Israel? Why indeed does 242 only mention the '49 lines, and not those of partition? And if he is going along with the Partition Plan, surely he would endorse the International status for Jerusalem, yet this is never mentioned in many UN resolutions.) Chesdovi (talk) 00:03, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- Chesdovi, Freifeld didn't award any territory to Israel. The Jews and Arabs signed bilateral armistice agreements which legally recognized the right of each of the parties to legally occupy and govern the territories on their respective side of the permanent line of demarcation until Hell freezes over. Israeli Ambassador Abba Eban explained that "Israel holds no territory wrongfully, since her occupation of the areas now held has been sanctioned by the armistice agreements, as has the occupation of the territory in Palestine now held by the Arab states." see "Effect on Armistice Agreements", FRUS Volume VI 1949, page 1149 See also Prime Minister David Ben Gurion's remarks to the same effect in the minutes of the 62 Sitting of the 1st Knesset, on 1 August 1949. in Netanel Lorch (editor), "Major Knesset Debates, 1948-1981, Vol 2, JCPA- University Press of America, 1993, page 542.
- The armistice agreements were adopted under the auspices of a binding Chapter VII UN Security Council resolution (SC res. 62, November 16, 1948). FYI the Israeli-Jordanian peace treaty contains a safeguarding clause in article 3(2) which stipulated that the establishment of the international boundary does not prejudice the status of any territory that came under Israeli military control in 1967.
- I didn't say that Rostow and Stone are not entitled to their personal opinions, only that they represent a discredited fringe theory that doesn't deserve undue weight in an encyclopedia article. harlan (talk) 01:06, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Are the views of ambassadors and Prime Ministers valid? Surly only those of "publicists" count? We do have Reagan saying the settlements are "not illegal" remember, and Albright unretracted statement. And who cares what the Israeli Ambassador says about the territory gained in 48-49? They are the fringe view surely. I am sure there are Arabs who would beg to differ about the status of the areas of the Arab partition area that became Israel. No UN resolution recognises Israel borders, except the peace agreements with Egypt and Jordan. Chesdovi (talk) 11:10, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- Officials often say one thing publicly, yet do another privately when they make State policy. For example, Eugene Rostow pledged to preserve Jordanian territorial integrity in any settlement. The US government assumed (and Israeli Ambassador Harman confirmed) that despite public statements to the contrary, the Government of Israel position on Jerusalem was that which Eban, Harman, and Evron had given several times, that Jerusalem was negotiable. The Israeli position was that Jerusalem should be an open city under unified administration but that the Jordanian interest in Jerusalem could be met through arrangements including “sovereignty”. See Foreign Relations of the United States, 1964–1968 Volume XIX, Arab-Israeli Crisis and War, 1967, Document 505 The views of government officials contained in official records of a State's foreign relations and diplomatic practices are considered evidence of State practice. See for example "State practice" I cited the FRUS and Secretary of State Rusk's policy statement about the illegality of the settlements in the thread above. In 1967 Under Secretary of State Lucius Battle explained the US government's position of not airing our disagreement with Israeli settlement policies in public. See paragraph 4
- Eugene Rostow's Op-Eds in the New Republic Magazine and the American Enterprise Institute don't mention those classified official documents. They are definitely NOT evidence of state practice. Misplaced Pages already has articles with references which explain the sources of customary international law and the forms of evidence. See for example and the "Customary international law" & Forms of evidence subsections" of .
- Security Council resolutions routinely recognized the de facto sovereignty over territory inside the armistice boundaries. For example, the Council condemned the November 1966 Israel raid in the Hebron area as a large-scale and carefully planned military action on the territory of Jordan by the Israeli military in UN SC Resolution 228. UN Security Council Resolution 73 cited Article 40 (Chapter 7) of the UN Charter and recalled three earlier Chapter 7 resolutions 50, 54, and 62. It stated that the armistice lines had replaced the temporary cease fire lines and accepted the armistice agreements on the behalf of the UN organization. That resolution requires the continued application, observance, and execution of those agreements pending any final negotiated settlement. Those bilateral agreements and that resolution are still binding upon all of the UN member states, including the Arabs. Neither the Israeli-Jordanian peace treaty nor the Israeli-Egyptian peace treaty effected the legal status of the Occupied Palestinian territory according to the analysis of the World Court in its 2004 advisory opinion. Israeli Prime Minister Ben Gurion advised the US Representative of the PCC that Arab Palestine could be recognized through the device of a federal union with Transjordan. Footnote 24 of Yehuda Blum's "Missing Reversioner" says that the Armistice Agreement with Israel was signed on April 3 1949 by Jordan rather than by Transjordan, and that the reason for this change was that the country now included a large part of Arab Palestine. harlan (talk) 16:04, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
CAMERA & Rikki Hollander are unreliable sources
I would like to recommend that we delete the CAMERA editorial. It is false, misleading, and misquotes the terms of the UN Charter.
The League of Nations Mandates took the form of resolutions of the Council. In the "Interpretation of Article 3, paragraph 2, Treaty of Lausanne Case" (Series B no 12), the Permanent Court of International Justice said that resolutions of the Council of the League of Nations were merely recommendations subject to acceptance by the parties involved. The Palestine government adopted the English dualist principle in their legal system. The Courts held that the LoN Mandate was not legally enforceable. Conflicts between the Mandate and the Palestine Order in Council of 1922, statutes, and other ordinances of Palestine were resolved in favor of the latter. See Marjorie M. Whiteman, Digest of International Law, vol. 1 (Washington, DC: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1963) page 655.
The ICJ confirmed that the powers and functions of the General Assembly under Chapter IV include the power to adopt decisions that terminate a mandate. In 1947, the General Assembly acted upon the combined requests of the British government, the Jewish Agency, the Arab Higher Committee, and the UNSCOP recommendation that the mandate be terminated. So, Resolution 181(II) was legally effective to terminate the mandate for Palestine. See James Crawford, The Creation of States in International Law, 2nd Edition, Oxford University Press, 2006, page 580. The International Court of Justice confirmed that when it said "Since 1947, the year when General Assembly resolution 181 (II) was adopted and the Mandate for Palestine was terminated, there has been a succession of armed conflicts, acts of indiscriminate violence and repressive measures on the former mandated territory. See paragraph 162 on pdf page 133 of 139
After the Yalta Conference recommended that the mandates be abolished or established under new rules as UN trusteeships, the Jewish Agency wrote a memo to the San Francisco Conference on UN Organization. It requested a safeguarding clause which would say that no trusteeship agreement could alter the Jewish right to nationhood secured by the Balfour Declaration and the Palestine Mandate. However, the UN conference rejected that proposal and stipulated in article 80 of the Charter that a trusteeship agreement COULD in fact alter the Mandate. See Jacob Robinson, Palestine and the United Nations: Prelude to a Solution, Greenwood Press, 1971 (Reprint of 1947 edition), page 2-3.
In addition, the scope of Article 80 was " strictly limited to Chapter 12 of the Charter, i.e. "nothing in this Chapter shall be construed in or of itself to alter in any manner the rights...& etc". " The General Assembly noted that the terms of Chapter 11 of the Charter regarding non-self governing territories were a treaty obligation with immediate force and effect that were applicable to all of the member states and did not require the conclusion of any trusteeship agreements (see UN GA resolution 9/1). That chapter was incompatible with Jewish minority rule.
In any event Article 80 did not preserve the Jewish right of settlement. It was adopted as a "status quo" agreement at the request of the Arab League with respect to the Palestine mandate, the 1939 British White Paper policies, and the 1940 Land Transfer Ordinance - which legally limited the right of Jewish settlement in much of Palestine. See for example the discussion on this page and the following page under "Palestine" in "The United Nations conference on international organization, San Francisco, California, April 25-June 26, 1945", Foreign relations of the United States : diplomatic papers, 1945.
So, Rikki Hollander is misquoting and misinterpreting Chapter 12 of the UN Charter when she says: "Article 80 of the U.N. Charter preserved this Jewish right to settlement by specifying that: "nothing in the Charter shall be construed ... to alter in any manner the rights whatsoever of any states or peoples or the terms of existing international instruments." The actual text of article 80 reads "nothing in this Chapter", NOT "nothing in this Charter". harlan (talk) 23:48, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
- Erlanger, Steven (2006-11-21). "Israeli Map Says West Bank Posts Sit on Arab Land". The New York Times. Retrieved 2010-05-05.
- "Settlements 'violate Israeli law'". BBC News. 2006-11-21. Retrieved 2010-05-05.
- Wilson, Scott. "West Bank Settlements Often Use Private Palestinian Land, Study Says". The Washington Post. Retrieved 2010-05-05.
- http://www.peacenow.org.il/data/SIP_STORAGE/files/9/2569.pdf
- Peace Now : Settlements > Reports
- Camera: update: Peace Now Map Based on only Palestinian Claims
- דו"ח: 32% מההתנחלויות - על שטח פלשתיני פרטי - חדשות -הארץ
- Meron Rapoport, 'A third of settlements on land taken for 'security purposes' Ha'aretz,7/02/2008
- Meron Rapoport Court case reveals how settlers illegally grab West Bank lands Haaretz 17/03/2008
- February 1, 2009, Haaretz, "Stop the Deceit and Whitewashing", http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1060150.html
- From "Occupied Territories" to "Disputed Territories," by Dore Gold
- "Jerusalem land seizures 'illegal'". BBC News. 2005-02-01. Retrieved 2010-05-05.
- Transcript: Albright On NBC'S "Today Show" October 1, 1997
- Misplaced Pages articles under general sanctions
- All unassessed articles
- C-Class Israel-related articles
- Unknown-importance Israel-related articles
- WikiProject Israel articles
- C-Class Palestine-related articles
- Top-importance Palestine-related articles
- WikiProject Palestine articles
- C-Class Syria articles
- Low-importance Syria articles
- WikiProject Syria articles